content
stringlengths 1
15.9M
|
|---|
\section{Introduction}
In the past decade, there has been a proliferation of machine learning techniques applied in various fields, from spam filtering \cite{Guzella2009} to self-driving cars \cite{Bojarski2016}, including the more recent physical applications in fluid dynamics \cite{Duraisamy2019,Brunton2020}. However, a major hurdle in applying machine learning to complex physical systems, such as those in fluid dynamics, is the high cost of generating data for training \cite{Duraisamy2019}. Nevertheless, this can be mitigated by leveraging prior knowledge (e.g. physical laws). Physical knowledge can compensate for the small amount of training data.
These approaches, called physics-informed machine learning, have been applied to various problems in fluid dynamics \cite{Duraisamy2019,Brunton2020}. For example, \cite{Pathak2018,Doan2019} improve the predictability horizon of echo state networks by leveraging physical knowledge, which is enforced as a {\it hard} constraint in~\cite{Doan2019}, without needing more data or neurons.
In this study, we use a hybrid echo state network (hESN) \cite{Pathak2018}, originally proposed to time-accurately forecast the evolution of chaotic dynamical systems, to predict the long-term time averaged quantities, i.e., the ergodic averages. This is motivated by recent research in optimization of chaotic multi-physics fluid dynamics problems with applications to thermoacoustic instabilities~\cite{Huhn2020}. The hESN is based on reservoir computing \cite{Lukosevicius2009}, in particular, conventional Echo State Networks (ESNs). ESNs have shown to predict nonlinear and chaotic dynamics more accurately and for a longer time horizon than other deep learning algorithms \cite{Lukosevicius2009}. However, we stress that the present study is not focused on the accurate prediction of the time evolution of the system, but rather of its ergodic averages, which are obtained by the time averaging of a long time series (we implicitly assume that the system is ergodic, thus, the infinite time average is equal to the ergodic average~\cite{Birkhoff1931}.).
Here, the physical system under study is a prototypical time-delayed thermoacoustic system, whose chaotic dynamics have been analyzed and optimized in \cite{Huhn2020}.
\section{Echo State Networks}
\label{sec:echo_state_networks}
The ESN approach presented in \cite{Lukosevicius2012} is used here. The ESN is given an input signal $\bm u(n) \in \mathbb{R}^{N_u}$, from which it produces a prediction signal $\hat{\bm y}(n) \in \mathbb{R}^{N_y}$ that should match the target signal $\bm y(n) \in \mathbb{R}^{N_y}$, where $n$ is the discrete time index. The ESN is composed of a reservoir, which can be represented as a directed weighted graph with $N_x$ nodes, called neurons, whose state at time $n$ is given by the vector $\bm x(n) \in \mathbb{R}^{N_x}$. The reservoir is coupled to the input via an input-to-reservoir matrix, $\bm W_\mathrm{in}$, such that its state evolves according to
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:reservoir}
\bm x(n) = \tanh(\bm W_\mathrm{in} \bm u(n) + \bm W \bm x(n-1)),
\end{equation}
where $\bm W \in \mathbb{R}^{N_x} \times \mathbb{R}^{N_x}$ is the weighted adjacency matrix of the reservoir, i.e. $W_{ij}$ is the weight of the edge from node $j$ to node $i$, and the hyperbolic tangent is the activation function. Finally, the prediction is produced by a linear combination of the states of the neurons
\begin{equation}
\hat{\bm y}(n) = \bm W_\mathrm{out} \bm x(n),
\end{equation}
where $\bm W_\mathrm{out} \in \mathbb{R}^{N_y} \times \mathbb{R}^{N_x}$. In this work, we are interested in dynamical system prediction. Thus, the target at time step $n$ is the input at time step $n+1$, i.e. $\bm y(n) = \bm u(n+1)$ \cite{Pathak2018}.
We wish to learn ergodic averages, given by
\begin{equation}
\langle \mathcal{J} \rangle = \lim_{T \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{T} \int_0^T \mathcal{J}(\bm u(t)) \, dt,
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{J}$ is a cost functional, of a dynamical system governed by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:FOM}
\dot{\bm u} = \bm F(\bm u),
\end{equation}
where $\bm u \in \mathbb{R}^{N_u}$ is the state vector and $\bm F$ is a nonlinear operator. The training data is obtained via numerical integration of \cref{eq:FOM}, resulting in the time series $\{\bm u(1), \dots, \bm u(N_t)\}$, where the different samples are taken at equally spaced time intervals $\Delta t$, and $N_t$ is the length of the training data set. In the conventional ESN approach, $\bm W_\mathrm{in}$ and $\bm W$ are generated once and fixed. Then, $\bm W$ is re-scaled to have the desired spectral radius, $\rho$, to ensure that the network satisfies the Echo State Property \cite{Jaeger2004}. Only $\bm W_\mathrm{out}$ is trained to minimize the mean-squared-error
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:MSE}
E_d = \frac{1}{N_y} \sum_{i=1}^{N_y} \frac{1}{N_t} \sum_{n=1}^{N_t} (\hat{y}_i(n) - y_i(n))^2.
\end{equation}
To avoid overfitting, we use ridge regularization, so the optimization problem is
\begin{equation}
\underset{\bm W_\mathrm{out}}{\text{min}} \; E_d + \gamma \vert\vert \bm W_\mathrm{out} \vert\vert^2,
\end{equation}
where $\gamma$ is the regularization factor. Because the prediction $\hat{\bm y}(n)$ is a linear combination of the reservoir state $\bm x(n)$, the optimal $\bm W_\mathrm{out}$ can be explicitly obtained with
\begin{equation}
\bm W_\mathrm{out} = \bm Y \bm X^T (\bm X \bm X^T + \gamma \bm I)^{-1},
\end{equation}
where $\bm I$ is the identity matrix and $\bm Y$ and $\bm X$ are the column-concatenation of the various time instants of the output data, $\bm y$, and corresponding reservoir states, $\bm x$, respectively.
After the optimal $\bm W_\mathrm{out}$ is found, the ESN can be used to predict the time evolution of the system. This is done by looping back its output to its input, i.e. $\bm u(n) = \hat{\bm y}(n-1) = \bm W_\mathrm{out} \bm x(n-1)$, which, on substitution into \cref{eq:reservoir}, results in
\begin{equation}
\bm x(n) = \tanh( \widetilde{\bm W} \bm x(n-1) ), \label{eq:esn_sym}
\end{equation}
with $\widetilde{\bm W}=\bm W + \bm W_\mathrm{in} \bm W_\mathrm{out}$.
Interestingly, \cref{eq:esn_sym} shows that if the reservoir follows an evolution of states $\bm x(1), \dots, \bm x(N_p)$, where $N_p$ is the number of prediction steps, then $-\bm x(1), \dots, -\bm x(N_p)$ is also possible, because flipping the sign of $\bm x$ in \cref{eq:esn_sym} results in the same equation. This implies that either the attractor of the ESN (if any) is symmetric, i.e. if some $\bm x$ is in the ESN's attractor, then so is $-\bm x$; or the ESN has a co-existing symmetric attractor. While this seemed not to have been an issue in short-term prediction, such as in \cite{Pathak2018,Doan2019}, it does pose a problem in the long-term prediction of statistical quantities. This is because the ESN, in its present form, \textit{can not} generate non-symmetric attractors. This symmetry needs to be broken to work with a general non-symmetric dynamical system. This can be done by including biases \cite{Lukosevicius2012}. However, the addition of a bias can make the reservoir prone to saturation (results not shown), i.e. $x_i \rightarrow \pm 1$, and thus care needs to be taken in the choice of hyperparameters.
In this paper, we break the symmetry by exploiting prior knowledge on the physics of the problem under investigation with a hybrid ESN.
\section{Physics-informed and hybrid Echo State Network}
The ESN's performance can be increased by incorporating physical knowledge during training \cite{Doan2019} or during trainng and prediction \cite{Pathak2018}. This physical knowledge is usually present in the form of a reduced-order model (ROM) that can generate (imperfect) predictions. The authors of \cite{Doan2019} introduced a physics-informed ESN (PI-ESN), which constrains the physics as a \textit{hard} constraint with a physics loss term.
The prediction is consistent with the physics, but the training requires nonlinear optimization.
The authors of \cite{Pathak2018} introduced a hybrid echo state network (hESN), which incorporates incomplete physical knowledge by feeding the prediction of the physical model into the reservoir and into the output. This requires ridge regression.
Here, we use a hESN (Figure~\ref{fig:hybrid}) because we are not interested in constraining the physics as a hard constraint for an accurate short-term prediction~\cite{Doan2019}. In the hESN, similarly to the conventional ESN, the input is fed to the reservoir via the input layer $\bm W_\mathrm{in}$, but also to a physical model, which is usually a set of ordinary differential equations that approximately describe the system that is to be predicted. In this work, that model is a reduced-order model (ROM) of the full system. The output of the ROM is then fed to the reservoir via the input layer and into the output of the network via the output layer.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{schem_2.pdf}
\caption{Schematic of the hybrid echo state network. In training mode, the input of the network is the training data (switch is horizontal). In prediction mode, the input of the network is its output from the previous time step (switch is vertical).}
\label{fig:hybrid}
\end{figure}
\section{Learning the ergodic average of an energy}
\label{sec:results}
We use a prototypical time-delayed thermoacoustic system composed of a longitudinal acoustic cavity and a heat source modelled with a nonlinear time-delayed model~\cite{Nair2015,Traverso2019,Huhn2020}, which has been used to optimize ergodic averages in \cite{Huhn2020} with a dynamical systems approach.
The non-dimensional governing equations are
\begin{equation}
\partial_t u + \partial_x p = 0, \quad \partial_t p + \partial_x u + \zeta p - \dot{q}\delta(x - x_f)= 0, \label{eq:rijke}
\end{equation}
where $u$, $p$, $\zeta$ and $\dot q$ are the non-dimensionalized acoustic velocity, pressure, damping and heat-release rate, respectively. $\delta$ is the Dirac delta.
These equations are discretized by using $N_g$ Galerkin modes
\begin{equation}
u(x,t) = \sum\nolimits_{j=1}^{N_g} \eta_j(t)\cos(j \pi x), \quad p(x,t) = -\sum\nolimits_{j=1}^{N_g} \mu_j(t) \sin(j \pi x), \label{eq:galerkin_decomp}
\end{equation}
which results in a system of $2N_g$ oscillators, which are nonlinearly coupled through the heat released by the heat source
\begin{equation}
\dot{\eta}_j - j \pi \mu_j = 0, \quad \dot{\mu}_j + j \pi \eta_j + \zeta_j \mu_j + 2 \dot{q} \sin(j \pi x_f) = 0 \label{eq:rijke_gal},
\end{equation}
where $x_f=0.2$ is the heat source location and $\zeta_j = 0.1 j + 0.06 j^{1/2}$ is the modal damping \cite{Huhn2020}. The heat release rate, $\dot q$, is given by the modified King's law \cite{Huhn2020}, $\dot{q}(t) = \beta [ \left(1+u(x_f, t-\tau)\right)^{1/2} - 1 ]$, where $\beta$ and $\tau$ are the heat release intensity parameter and the time delay, respectively.
With the nomenclature of \cref{sec:echo_state_networks}, $\bm y(n) = (\eta_1; \dots; \eta_{N_g}; \mu_1 ; \dots; \mu_{N_g})$.
Using 10 Galerkin modes ($N_g=10$), $\beta=7.0$ and $\tau=0.2$ results in a chaotic motion (\cref{fig:uf}), with the leading Lyapunov exponent being $\lambda_1 \approx 0.12$ \cite{Huhn2020}. (The leading Lyapunov exponent measures the rate of (exponential) separation of two close initial conditions, i.e. an initial separation $||\bm{\delta u}_0||$ grows asymptotically like $||\bm{\delta u}_0|| e^{\lambda_1 t}$.) However, for the same choice of parameter values, the solution with $N_g=1$ is a limit cycle (i.e. a periodic solution).
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{uf_2.pdf}
\caption{Acoustic velocity at the flame location.}
\label{fig:uf}
\end{figure}
The echo state network is trained on data generated with $N_g=10$, while the physical knowledge (ROM in \cref{fig:hybrid}) is generated with $N_g=1$ only.
We wish to predict the time average of the instantaneous acoustic energy,
\begin{equation}
E_{ac}(t)=\int_0^1 \frac{1}{2}(u^2 + p^2) \, dx,
\end{equation}
which is a relevant metric in the optimization of thermoacoustic systems \cite{Huhn2020}.
The reservoir is composed of 100 units, a modest size, half of which receive their input from $\bm u$, while the other half receives it from the output of the ROM, $ \hat{\bm y}_\text{ROM}$.
The entries of $\bm W_\mathrm{in}$ are randomly generated from the uniform distribution $\text{unif}(-\sigma_\mathrm{in}, \sigma_\mathrm{in})$, where $\sigma_\mathrm{in} = 0.2$. The matrix $\bm W$ is highly sparse, with only 3\% of non-zero entries from the uniform distribution $\text{unif}(-1, 1)$. Finally, $\bm W$ is scaled such that its spectral radius, $\rho$, is 0.1 and 0.3 for the ESN and the hESN, respectively. The time step is $\Delta t = 0.01$. The network is trained for $N_t = 5000$ units, which corresponds to 6 Lyapunov times, i.e. $6\lambda_1^{-1}$. The data is generated by integrating \cref{eq:rijke_gal} in time with $N_g=10$, resulting in $N_u = N_y = 20$. In the hESN, the ROM is obtained by integrating the same equations, but with $N_g=1$ (one Galerkin mode only) unless otherwise stated. Ridge regression is performed with $\gamma=10^{-7}$. The values of the hyperparameters are taken from the literature \cite{Pathak2018,Doan2019} and a grid search, which is, while not the most efficient, is well suited when there are few hyperparameters, such as this work's ESN architecture.
On the one hand, \cref{fig:inst_pred} shows the instantaneous error of the first modes of the acoustic velocity and pressure $(\eta_1; \mu_1)$ for the ESN, hESN and ROM. None of these can accurately predict the instantaneous state of the system. On the other hand, \cref{fig:stats_pred} shows the error of the prediction of the average acoustic energy. Once again, the ROM alone does a poor job at predicting the statistics of the system, with an error of 50\%. This should not come at a surprise since, as discussed previously, the ROM does not even produce a chaotic solution. The ESN, trained on data only, performs marginally better, with an error of 48\%. In contrast, the hESN predicts the time-averaged acoustic energy satisfactorily, with an error of about 7\%. This is remarkable, since both the ESN and the ROM do a poor job at predicting the average acoustic energy. However, when the ESN is combined with prior knowledge from the ROM, the prediction becomes significantly better. Moreover, while the hESN's error still decreases at the end of the prediction period, $t=250$, which is 5 times the training data time, the ESN and the ROM stabilize much earlier, at a time similar to that of the training data. This result shows that complementing the ESN with a cheap physical model (only 10\% the number of degrees of freedom of the full system) can greatly improve the accuracy of the predictions, with no need for more data or neurons.
\Cref{fig:ng_study} shows the relative error as a function of the number of Galerkin modes in the ROM, which is a proxy for the quality of the model. For each $N_g$, we take the median of $16$ reservoir realizations. As expected, as the quality of the model increases, so does the quality of the prediction. This effect is most noticeable from $N_g=1$ to 4, with the curve presenting diminishing returns. The downside of increasing $N_g$ is obviously the increase in computational cost. At $N_g=10$, the original system is recovered. However, the error does not tend exactly to 0 because $\bm W_\mathrm{out}$ can not combine the ROM's output only (i.e. 0 entries for reservoir nodes) due to: i) the regularization factor in ridge regression that penalizes large entries; ii) numerical error. This graph further strengthens the point previously made that cheap physical models can greatly improve the prediction of physical systems with data techniques.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\subfloat[Absolute error of $(\eta_1; \mu_1)$ prediction.]{
\label{fig:inst_pred}
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{state_error_2.pdf}
}
\subfloat[Relative error of $\langle E_{ac} \rangle$ prediction.]{
\label{fig:stats_pred}
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{eac_error_2.pdf}
}
\subfloat[Relative error vs number of Galerkin modes of the ROM.]{
\label{fig:ng_study}
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{error_vs_ng.pdf}
}
\caption{Errors on the prediction from ESN (blue), hESN (red) and ROM (green).}
\label{fig:preds}
\end{figure}
We stress that the optimal values of hyperparameters for a certain set of physical parameters, e.g. $(\beta_1, \tau_1)$, might not be optimal for a different set of physical parameters $(\beta_2, \tau_2)$. This should not be surprising, since different physical parameters will result in different attractors.
For example, \cref{fig:phase} shows that changing the physical parameters from $(\beta=7.0, \tau=0.2)$ to $(\beta=6.0, \tau=0.3)$ results in a change of type of attractor from chaotic to limit cycle. For the hESN to predict the limit cycle, the value of $\sigma_\mathrm{in}$ must change from $0.2$ to $0.03$
Thus, if the hESN (or any deep learning technique in general) is to be used to predict the dynamics of various physical configurations (e.g. the generation of a bifurcation diagram), then it should be coupled with a robust method for the automatic selection of optimal hyperparameters~\cite{Bengio2012}, with a promising candidate being Bayesian optimization~\cite{Yperman2016,Maat2019}.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\subfloat[($\beta=7.0$, $\tau=0.2$): $\sigma_\mathrm{in}=0.2$]{
\label{fig:phase_chaotic}
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{phase_chaotic.pdf}
}
\subfloat[($\beta=6.0$, $\tau=0.3$): $\sigma_\mathrm{in}=0.03$]{
\label{fig:phase_periodic}
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{phase_periodic.pdf}
}
\caption{Phase plot of system (black) and hESN (red) for two sets of $(\beta,\tau)$. (a) chaotic solution; (b) periodic solution.}
\label{fig:phase}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion and future directions}
\label{sec:conclusion}
We propose the use of echo state networks informed with incomplete prior physical knowledge for the prediction of time averaged cost functionals in chaotic dynamical systems. We apply this to chaotic acoustic oscillations, which is relevant to aeronautical propulsion. The inclusion of physical knowledge comes at a low cost and significantly improves the performance of conventional echo state networks from a 48\% error to 1\%, without requiring additional data or neurons. This improvement is obtained at the low extra cost of solving a small number of ordinary differential equations that contain physical information.
The ability of the proposed ESN can be exploited in the optimization of chaotic systems by accelerating computationally expensive shadowing methods \cite{Ni2017}.
For future work, (i) the performance of the hybrid echo state network should be compared against those of other physics-informed machine learning techniques; (ii) robust methods for hyperparameters' search should be coupled for a ``hands-off'' autonomous tool; and (iii) this technique is currently being applied to larger scale problems.
In summary, the proposed framework is able to learn the ergodic average of a fluid dynamics system, which opens up new possibilities for the optimization of highly unsteady problems.
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
The \emph{likelihood function} is one of the most important mathematical objects for modern statistical inference. Briefly, the likelihood function measures how well a model with a given set of parameters can explain an observed data set. For a data set of discrete observations, the likelihood has the intuitive interpretation of the probability that a random sample generated from the model matches the data, for a given setting of the model parameters.
In many scientific disciplines, such as computational neuroscience and cognitive science, computational models are used to give a precise quantitative form to scientific hypotheses and theories. Statistical inference then plays at least two fundamental roles for scientific discovery. First, our goal may be \emph{parameter estimation} for a model of interest. Parameter values may have a significance in themselves, for example we may be looking for differences in parameters between distinct experimental conditions in a clinical or behavioral study. Second, we may be considering a number of competing scientific hypotheses, instantiated by different models, and we want to evaluate which model `best' captures the data according to some criteria, such as \emph{explanation} (what evidence the data provide in favor of each model?) and \emph{prediction} (which model best predicts new observations?).
Crucially, the likelihood function is a key element for both parameter estimation and model evaluation.
A principled method to find best-fitting model parameters for a given data set is maximum-likelihood estimation (MLE), which entails optimizing the likelihood function over the parameter space \citep{myung2003tutorial}.
Other common parameter estimation methods, such as maximum-a-posteriori (MAP) estimation or full or approximate Bayesian inference of posterior distributions, still involve the likelihood function \citep{gelman2013bayesian}.
Moreover, almost all model comparison metrics commonly used for scientific model evaluation are based on likelihood computations, from predictive metrics such as Akaike's information criterion (AIC; \citealp{akaike1974new}), the deviance information criterion (DIC; \citealp{spiegelhalter2002bayesian}), the widely applicable information criterion (WAIC; \citealp{watanabe2010asymptotic}), leave-one-out cross-validation \citep{vehtari2017practical}; to evidence-based metrics such at the marginal likelihood \citep{mackay2003information} and (loose) approximations thereof, such as the Bayesian information criterion (BIC; \citealp{schwarz1978estimating}) or the Laplace approximation \citep{mackay2003information}.
However, many complex computational models, such as those developed in computational biology \citep{pritchard1999population,ratmann2007using,wilkinson2011stochastic}, neuroscience \citep{pospischil2008minimal,sterratt2011principles} and cognitive science \citep{van2016people}, take the form of a generative model or \emph{simulator}, that is an algorithm which given some context information and parameter settings returns one or more simulated observations (a synthetic data set).
In those cases, the likelihood is often impossible to calculate analytically, and even when the likelihood might be available in theory, the numerical calculations needed to obtain it might be overwhelmingly expensive and intractable in practice. In such situations, the only thing one can do is to run the model to simulate observations (`samples').
In the absence of a likelihood function, common approaches to `likelihood-free inference' generally try and match summary statistics of the data with summary statistics of simulated observations \citep{beaumont2002approximate,wood2010statistical}.
In this paper, we ask instead the question of whether we can use samples from a simulator model to \emph{directly} estimate the likelihood of the full data set, without recurring to summary statistics, in a `correct' and `efficient' manner, for some specific definition of these terms.
The answer is \emph{yes}, as long as we use the right \emph{sampling method}.
In brief, a sampling method consists of a `sampling policy' (a rule that determines how long to keep drawing samples for) and an `estimator' which converts the samples to a real-valued number. To estimate the likelihood of a single observation (e.g., the response of a participant on a single trial of a behavioral experiment), the most obvious sampling policy is to draw a fixed amount of samples from the simulator model, and the simplest estimator is the fraction of samples that match the observation (or is `close enough' to it, for continuous observations).
However, most basic applications, such as computing the likelihood of multiple observations, require one to estimate the logarithm of the likelihood, or log-likelihood (see Section~\ref{sec:reduction} for the underlying technical reasons). The `fixed sampling' method described above cannot provide unbiased estimates for the log-likelihood (see Section~\ref{sec:fixed_fail}). Such bias vanishes in the asymptotic limit of infinite samples, but drawing samples from the model can be computationally expensive, especially if the simulator model is complex. In practice, the bias introduced by any fixed sampling method can translate to considerable biases in estimates of model parameters, or even reverse the outcome of model comparison analyses. In other words, using poor sampling methods can cause researchers to draw conclusions about scientific hypotheses which are not supported by their data.
In this work, we introduce \emph{inverse binomial sampling} (IBS) as a powerful and simple technique for correctly and efficiently estimating log-likelihoods of simulator-based models. Crucially, IBS is a sampling method that provides uniformly unbiased estimates of the log-likelihood~\citep{haldane1945method,degroot1959unbiased} and calibrated estimates of their variance, which is also uniformly bounded.
We note that the problem of estimating functions $f(p)$ from observations of a Bernoulli distribution with parameter $p$ has been studied for mostly theoretical reasons in the mid-$20$th century, with major contributions from \citet{haldane1945labour,haldane1945method}, \citet{girshick1946unbiased}, \citet{dawson1953unbiased} and \citet{degroot1959unbiased}. These works have largely focused on deriving the set of functions $f(p)$ for which an unbiased estimate exists, and demonstrating that for those functions, the inverse sampling policy (see Section~\ref{sec:policies}) is in a precise sense `efficient'.
Our main contribution here is to demonstrate that inverse binomial sampling provides a practically and theoretically efficient solution for a common problem in computational modeling; namely likelihood-free inference of complex models. To back up our claims, we provide theoretical arguments for the efficiency of IBS and a practical demonstration of its value for log-likelihood estimation and fitting of simulation-based models, in particular those used in computational cognitive science. We note that \citet{duncan2004unbiased} had previously proposed inverse binomial sampling as a method for likelihood-free inference for certain econometric models, but did not present an empirical assessment of the quality of the estimation and to our knowledge has not led to further adoption of IBS.
The paper is structured as follows. After setting the stage with useful definitions and notation (Section \ref{sec:defs}), we describe more in detail the issues with the fixed sampling method and why they cannot be fixed (Section \ref{sec:fixed_fail}). We then present a series of arguments for why IBS solves these issues, and in particular why being unbiased here is of particular relevance (Section \ref{sec:ibs_better}).
Then, we present an empirical comparison of IBS and fixed sampling in the setting of maximum-likelihood estimation (Section \ref{sec:experiments}). As case studies, we take three model-fitting problems of increasing complexity from computational cognitive science: an `orientation discrimination' task, a `change localization' task, and a complex sequential decision making task.
In all problems, IBS generally produces lower error in the estimated parameters than fixed sampling with the same average number of samples. IBS also returns solutions that are very close in value to the true maximum log-likelihood. We conclude by discussing further applications and extensions of IBS (Section \ref{sec:discussion}).
Our theoretical analyses and empirical results demonstrate the potential of IBS as a practical, robust, and easy-to-implement method for log-likelihood evaluation when exact or numerical solutions are unavailable.
Implementations of IBS with tutorials and examples are available at the following link: \url{https://github.com/lacerbi/ibs}.
\section{Definitions and notation}
\label{sec:defs}
The two fundamental ingredients to run IBS are:
\begin{enumerate}
\item A data set $\mathcal{D}=\{(\bm{s}_i,\r_i)\}_{i=1}^N$ consisting of $N$ `trials' characterized by `stimuli' $\bm{s}_i$ and \emph{discrete} `responses' $\r_i$.
\item A generative model $g$ for the data (also known as a `simulator'): a stochastic function that takes as input a stimulus $\bm{s}$ and a parameter vector $\bm{\theta}$ (and possibly other information) and outputs a response $\r$.
\end{enumerate}
In this section we expand on and provide motivations for the above assumptions, and introduce related definitions and notation used in the rest of the paper.
Here and in the following, for ease of reference, we use the language of behavioral and cognitive modeling (e.g., `trial' for data points, `stimulus' for independent or contextual variables, `response' for observations or outcomes), but the statistical techniques that we discuss in the paper apply to any model and data set from any domain as long as they satisfy the fundamental assumption of IBS delineated above.
\subsection{The likelihood function}
\label{sec:likelihood}
We assume that we want to model a data set $\mathcal{D} =\{(\bm{s}_i,\r_i)\}_{i=1}^N$ consisting of $N$ `trials' (data points), where
\begin{itemize}
\item $\bm{s}_i$ is the \emph{stimulus} (i.e., the experimental context, or independent variable) presented on the $i$-th trial; typically, $\bm{s}_i$ is a scalar or vector of discrete or continuous variables (more generally, there are no restrictions on what $\bm{s}_i$ can be as long as the simulator can accept it as input);
\item $\r_i$ is the \emph{response} (i.e., the experimental observations, outcomes, or dependent variables) measured on the $i$-th trial; $\r_i$ can be a scalar or vector, but crucially we assume it takes \emph{discrete} values.
\end{itemize}
The requirement that $\r_i$ be discrete will be discussed below, in Section \ref{sec:model}.
Given a data set $\mathcal{D}$, and a model parametrized by parameter vector $\bm{\theta}$, we can write the \emph{likelihood function} for the responses given the stimuli and model parameters as
\begin{equation} \label{eq:likelihood_zero}
\begin{split}
\Pr\left(\{\r_i\}_{i=1}^N | \{\bm{s}_i\}_{i=1}^N, \bm{\theta}\right)
= & \prod_{i=1}^N \Pr \left(\r_i | \r_1, \ldots, \r_{i-1}, \bm{s}_1, \ldots, \bm{s}_N,\bm{\theta}\right) \\
= & \prod_{i=1}^N \Pr \left(\r_i | \r_1, \ldots, \r_{i-1}, \bm{s}_1, \ldots, \bm{s}_i,\bm{\theta}\right), \\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where the first line follows from the chain rule of probability, and holds in general, whereas in the second step we applied the reasonable `causal' (or `no-time-travel') assumption that the response at the $i$-th trial is not influenced by future stimuli.\footnote{We also used the causality assumption that current responses are not influenced by future responses to choose a specific order to apply the chain rule in the first line.}
Note that Equation \ref{eq:likelihood_zero} assumes that the researcher is not interested in statistically modeling the stimuli, which are taken to be given (i.e., on the right-hand side of the conditional probability). This choice is without loss of generality, as any variable of statistical interest can always be relabeled and become an element of the `response' vector. For compactness, from now on we will denote $\Pr\left(\{\r_i\}_{i=1}^N | \{\bm{s}_i\}_{i=1}^N, \bm{\theta}\right) \equiv \Pr\left(\mathcal{D} | \bm{\theta}\right)$, in a slight abuse of notation.
Equation~\ref{eq:likelihood_zero} describes the most general class of models, in which the response in the current trial might be influenced by the history of both previous stimuli and previous responses. Many models commonly make a stronger conditional independence assumption between trials, such that the response on the current trial only depends on the current stimulus. Under this stronger assumption, the likelihood takes a simpler form,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:likelihood_ind}
\begin{split}
\Pr\left(\mathcal{D} | \bm{\theta}\right) = & \prod_{i=1}^N \Pr \left(\r_i | \bm{s}_i,\bm{\theta}\right).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
While Equation~\ref{eq:likelihood_ind} is simpler, it still includes a wide variety of models. For example, note that time-dependence can be easily included in the model by incorporating time into the `stimulus' $\bm{s}$, and including time-dependent parameters explicitly in the model specification.
In the rest of this work, for simplicity we consider models that make conditional independence assumptions as in Equation~\ref{eq:likelihood_ind}, but our techniques apply in general also for likelihoods as per Equation~\ref{eq:likelihood_zero}.
Given that the likelihood of the $i$-th trial can be directly interpreted as the probability of observing response $\r_i$ in the $i$-th trial (conditioned on everything else), we denote such quantity with $p_i\in [0,1]$. The value $p_i$ is a function of $\bm{\theta}$, depends on the current stimulus and response, and may or may not depend on previous stimuli or responses.
With this notation, we can simply write the likelihood as
\begin{equation} \label{eq:likelihood_p}
\begin{split}
\Pr\left(\mathcal{D} | \bm{\theta}\right) = & \prod_{i=1}^N p_i.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Finally, we note that it is common practice to work with the logarithm of the likelihood, or log-likelihood, that is
\begin{equation} \label{eq:loglikelihood_p}
\begin{split}
\L(\bm{\theta}) \equiv \log \Pr\left(\mathcal{D} | \bm{\theta}\right) = & \log \prod_{i=1}^N p_i = \sum_{i=1}^N \log p_i.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The typical rationale for switching to the log-likelihood is that for large $N$ the likelihood tends to be a vanishingly small quantity, so the logarithm makes it easier to handle numerically (`numerical convenience'). However, we will see later (see Section \ref{sec:whynotlikelihood}) that there are statistically meaningful reasons to prefer the logarithmic representation (i.e., a sum of independent terms).
Crucially, we assume that the likelihood function is unavailable in a tractable form -- for example, because the model is too complex to derive an analytical expression for the likelihood. Instead, IBS provides a technique for estimating Equation~\ref{eq:loglikelihood_p} via simulation.
\subsection{The generative model or simulator}
\label{sec:model}
While we assume no availability of an \emph{explicit} representation of the likelihood function, we assume that the model of interest is represented \emph{implicitly} by a stochastic generative model (or `simulator').
In the most general case, the simulator is a stochastic function $g$ that takes as input the current stimulus $\bm{s}_i$, arrays of past stimuli and responses, and a parameter vector $\bm{\theta}$, and outputs a discrete response $\r_i$, \emph{conditional} on all past events,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:simulator}
\r_i \sim g(\bm{s}_1, \ldots, \bm{s}_i, \r_1, \ldots, \r_{i-1}; \bm{\theta}).
\end{equation}
As mentioned in the previous section, a common assumption for a model is that the response in the current trial only depends on the current stimulus and parameter vector, in which case
\begin{equation} \label{eq:simulator_ind}
\r \sim g(\bm{s}; \bm{\theta}).
\end{equation}
For example, the model $g(\cdot)$ could be simulating the responses of a human participant in a complex cognitive task; the (discrete) choices taken by a rodent in a perceptual decision-making experiment; or the spike count of a neuron in sensory cortex for a specific time bin after a stimulus presentation.
We list now the requirements that the simulator model needs to satisfy to be used in conjuction with IBS.
\subsubsection*{Discrete response space}
Lacking an expression for the likelihood function, the only way to estimate the likelihood or any function thereof is by drawing samples $\r\sim g\left(\bm{s}_i, \ldots; \bm{\theta} \right)$ on each trial, and matching them to the response $\r_i$.
This approach requires that there is a nonzero probability for a random sample $\r$ to match $\r_i$, hence the assumption that the space of responses is discrete. We will discuss in Section \ref{sec:ABC} a possible method to extend IBS to larger or continuous response spaces.
\subsubsection*{Conditional simulation}
An important requirement of the generative model, stated implicitly by Equations~\ref{eq:simulator} and \ref{eq:simulator_ind}, is that the simulator should afford \emph{conditional simulation}, in that we can simulate the response $\r_i$ for any trial $i$, given the current stimulus $\bm{s}_i$, and possibly previous stimuli and responses. Note that this class of models, while large, does not include \emph{all} possible simulators, in that some simulators might not afford conditional generation of responses. For example, models with latent dynamics might be able to generate a full sequence of responses given the stimuli, but it might not be easy or computationally tractable to generate the response in a given trial, conditional on a specific sequence of previous responses.
\subsubsection*{Computational cost}
Finally, for the purpose of some of our analyses we assume that drawing a sample from the generative model is at least moderately computationally expensive, which limits the approximate budget of samples one is willing to use for each likelihood evaluation (in our analyses, up to about a hundred, on average, per likelihood evaluation). Number of samples is a reasonable proxy for any realistic resource expenditure since most costs (e.g., time, energy, number of processors) would be approximately proportional to it. Therefore, we also require that every response value in the data has a non-negligible probability of being sampled from the model -- given the available budget of samples one can reasonably draw. In this paper, we will focus on the low-sample regime, since that is where IBS considerably outperforms other approaches. For our analyses of performance of the algorithm, we also assume that the computational cost is independent of the stimulus, response or model parameters, but this is not a requirement of the method.
\subsection{Reduction to Bernoulli sampling}
\label{sec:reduction}
Given the conditional independence structure codified by Equation~\ref{eq:likelihood_p}, to estimate the log-likelihood of the entire data set, we cannot do better than estimating $p_i$ on each trial independently, and combining the results.
However, combining estimates $\hat{p}_i$ into a well-behaved estimate of $\prod_{i=1}^N p_i$ is non-trivial (see Section \ref{sec:whynotlikelihood}).
Instead, it is easier to estimate $\L_i\equiv\log p_i$ for each trial and calculate the log-likelihood
\begin{equation}
\L\left(\bm{\theta}\right)=\log \Pr\left(\mathcal{D}|\bm{\theta}\right)=\sum_{i=1}^N\log p_i=\sum_{i=1}^N \L_i.
\end{equation}
We can estimate this log-likelihood by simply summing estimates $\hat{\L}_i$ across trials, in which case the central limit theorem guarantees that the distribution of $\hat{\L}\left(\bm{\theta}\right)$ is normally distributed for large values of $N$, which is true for typical values of $N$ of the order of a hundred or more (see also Section \ref{sec:highermoments}).
We can make one additional simplification, without loss of generality. The generative model specifies an implicit probability distribution
$\r_i \sim g(\bm{s}_i, \dots; \bm{\theta})$
for each trial. However, to estimate the log-likelihood, we do not need to know the full distribution, only the probability for a random sample $\r$ from the model to match the observed response $\r_i$. Therefore, we can convert each sample $\r$ to
\begin{equation}
x= \left\{ \begin{array}{cll} 1 &\text{if } \r=\r_i & \text{(`hit')} \\ 0 &\text{otherwise} & \text{(`miss')}, \end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
and lose no information relevant for estimating the log-likelihood. By construction, $x$ follows a Bernoulli distribution with probability $p_i$. Note that this holds regardless of the type of data, the structure of the generative model or the model parameters. The only difference between different models and data sets is the distribution of the likelihood $p_i$ across trials. Moreover, since $p_i$ is interpreted as the parameter of a Bernoulli distribution, we can apply standard frequentist or Bayesian statistical reasoning to it.
In conclusion, we can reduce the problem of estimating the log-likelihood of a given model by sampling to a smaller problem: given a method to draw samples $(x_1,x_2,\dots)$ from a Bernoulli distribution with unknown parameter $p$, estimate $\log p$ as precisely and accurately as possible using on average as few samples as possible.
\subsection{Sampling policies and estimators}
\label{sec:policies}
A \emph{sampling policy} is a function that, given a sequence of samples $\bm{x} \equiv \left(x_1,x_2,\dots, x_k\right)$, decides whether to draw an additional sample or not \citep{girshick1946unbiased}. In this work, we compare two sampling policies:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The commonly used \emph{fixed} policy: Draw a fixed number of samples $M$, then stop.
\item The \emph{inverse binomial sampling} policy: Keep drawing samples until $x_k=1$, then stop.
\end{enumerate}
In our case, an \emph{estimator} (of $\log p$) is a function $\hat{\L}(\bm{x})$ that takes as input a sequence of samples $\bm{x} = \left(x_1,x_2,\dots, x_k\right)$ and returns an estimate of $\log p$.
We recall that the \emph{bias} of an estimator $\hat{\L}$ of $\log p$, for a given true value of the Bernoulli parameter $p$, is defined as
\begin{equation}
\text{Bias}\left[ \hat{\L} | p \right] = \mathbb{E}\left[\hat{\L}\right]-\log p,
\end{equation}
where the expectation is taken over all possible sequences $\bm{x}$ generated by the chosen sampling policy under the Bernoulli probability $p$.
Such estimator is (uniformly) \emph{unbiased} if $\text{Bias}\left[ \hat{\L}| p \right] = 0$ for all $0 < p \le 1$ (that is, the estimator is centered around the true value).
\subsubsection*{Fixed sampling}
For the fixed sampling policy, since all samples are independent and identically distributed, a sufficient statistic for estimating $p$ from the samples $\left(x_1,x_2,\dots, x_M\right)$ is the number of `hits', $m(\bm{x}) \equiv \displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^Mx_k$. The most obvious estimator for an obtained sequence of samples $\bm{x}$ is then
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Lbad}
\hat{\L}_{\text{naive}}(\bm{x}) =\log\left(\frac{m(\bm{x})}{M}\right),
\end{equation}
but this estimator has infinite bias; since as long as $p\neq 1$, there is always a nonzero chance that $m(\bm{x})=0$, in which case $\hat{\L}_{\text{naive}}(\bm{x}) =-\infty$ (and thus $\mathbb{E}\left[ \hat{\L}_{\text{naive}} \right] = -\infty$). This divergence can be fixed in multiple ways; in the main text we use
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Lfixed}
\hat{\L}_{\text{fixed}}(\bm{x})=\log\left(\frac{m(\bm{x})+1}{M+1}\right).
\end{equation}
Note that \emph{any} estimator based on the fixed sampling policy will always produce biased estimates of $\log p$, as guaranteed by the reasoning in Section~\ref{sec:fixed_fail} below. As an empirical validation, we show in Appendix \ref{sec:ori_details} that our results do not depend on the specific choice of estimator for fixed sampling (Equation \ref{eq:Lfixed}).
\subsubsection*{Inverse binomial sampling}
For inverse binomial sampling we note that, since $x$ is a binary variable, the policy will always result in a sequence of samples of the form
\begin{equation}
\bm{x} = (\overbrace{0,0,0,0,0,\dots,0,1}^{K}),
\end{equation}
where the length of the sequence is a stochastic variable, which we label $K$ (a positive integer).
Moreover, since each sample is independent and a `hit' with probability $p$, the length $K$ follows a geometric distribution with parameter $1-p$,
\begin{equation}
\Pr\left(K=k\right)=p(1-p)^{k-1}.
\end{equation}
We convert a value of $K$ into an estimate for $\log p$ using the IBS estimator,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Libs}
\hat{\L}_{\text{IBS}}(\bm{x}) = \begin{cases} 0 & \text{ for } K = 1\\ -\sum_{k=1}^{K-1}\frac{1}{k} & \text{ for } K > 1. \end{cases}
\end{equation}
Crucially, Equation~\ref{eq:Libs} combined with the IBS policy provides a uniformly unbiased estimator of $\log p$ \citep{degroot1959unbiased}. Moreover, we can show that $\hat{\L}_{\text{IBS}}$ is the \emph{uniformly minimum-variance unbiased estimator} of $\log p$ under the IBS policy. For a full derivation of the properties of the IBS estimator, we refer to Appendix \ref{sec:ibsworks}. Equation~\ref{eq:Libs} can be written compactly as $\hat{\L}_{\text{IBS}}(K) = \psi(1) - \psi(K)$, where $\psi(z)$ is the \emph{digamma function} \citep{abramowitz1948handbook}.
We now provide an understanding of why fixed sampling is not a good policy, despite its intuitive appeal, and then show why IBS solves many of the problems with fixed sampling.
\section{Why fixed sampling fails}
\label{sec:fixed_fail}
We summarize in Figure~\ref{fig:bias_variance_time} the properties of the IBS estimator and of fixed sampling, for different number of samples $M$, as a function of the trial likelihood $p$. In particular, we plot the expected number of samples, the bias, and the standard deviation of the estimators.
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5.2in]{figure1.pdf}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\caption{\textbf{A.} Number of samples used by fixed (red curves) or inverse binomial sampling (blue; expected value) to estimate the log-likelihood $\log p$ on a single trial with probability $p$. IBS uses on average $\frac{1}{p}$ trials. \textbf{B.} Bias of the log-likelihood estimate. The bias of IBS is identically zero. \textbf{C.} Standard deviation of the log-likelihood estimate.}
\label{fig:bias_variance_time}
\end{figure}
The critical disadvantage of the fixed sampling policy with $M$ samples is that its estimates of the log-likelihood are inevitably biased (see Figure~\ref{fig:bias_variance_time}B).
Fixed sampling is `inevitably' biased because the bias decreases as one takes more samples, but for $p\rightarrow 0$, the estimator remains biased. More precisely, in a joint limit where $M\rightarrow\infty$, $p\rightarrow 0$ and $pM\rightarrow \lambda$ for some constant $\lambda$, the bias collapses onto a single `master curve' (see Figure~\ref{fig:bias_variance_master}; and Appendix \ref{sec:analysisbias} for the derivation). In particular, we observe that the bias is close to zero for $\lambda\gg 1$ and that it diverges when $\lambda\ll 1$, or equivalently, for $M\gg\frac{1}{p}$ and $M\ll\frac{1}{p}$, respectively.
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5.2in]{figure2.pdf}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\caption{\textbf{A.} Bias of fixed sampling estimators of the log-likelihood, plotted as a function of $pM$, where $p$ is the likelihood on a given trial, and $M$ the number of samples. As $M\rightarrow\infty$, the bias converges to a master curve (Equation~\ref{eq:bias_master}). \textbf{B.} Same, but for standard deviation of the estimate.}
\label{fig:bias_variance_master}
\end{figure}
To convey the intuition for why the bias diverges for small probabilities, we provide a gambling analogy. Imagine playing a slot machine and losing the first $100$ bets you make. You can now deduce that this slot machine likely has a win rate less than $1\%$, but there is no way of knowing whether it is $1\%$, $0.1\%$, $0.01\%$ or even $0\%$ apart from any prior beliefs you may have (for example, you expect that the house has stacked the odds in their favor but not overwhelmingly so).
In practice, this uncertainty is unlikely to affect your decision whether to continue playing the slot machine, since the expected value of the slot machine depends linearly on its win rate. However, if your goal is to estimate the \emph{logarithm} of the win rate, the difference between these percentages becomes infinitely large as the true win rate tends to 0.
We provide a more formal treatment of the bias of fixed sampling in Appendix \ref{sec:analysisbias}.
\subsection{Why fixed sampling cannot be fixed}
\label{sec:unfixable}
The asymptotic analyses above suggest an obvious solution to prevent fixed sampling estimators from becoming strongly biased: make sure to draw enough samples so that $M\gg\max_{i=1\dots N}\frac{1}{p_i}$. Although this solution will succeed in theory, it has practical issues. First of all, choosing $M$ requires knowledge of $p_i$ on each trial, which is equivalent to the problem we set out the solve in the first place. Moreover, even if one can derive or estimate an upper bound on $\frac{1}{p_i}$ (for example, in behavioral models that include a lapse rate, that is a nonzero probability of giving a uniformly random response), fixed sampling will be inefficient. As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:bias_variance_master}, the bias in $\hat{\L}_{\text{fixed}}$ is small when $\lambda\approx 1$ or $M\approx\frac{1}{p}$ and increasing $M$ even further has diminishing returns, at least for the purpose of reducing bias. If we choose $M$ inversely proportional to the probability $p_i$ on the trial where the model is least likely to match the observed response, we will draw many more samples than necessary for all other trials.
One might hope that in practice the likelihood $p_i$ is approximately the same across trials, but the opposite is true. As an example, take a typical `orientation discrimination' psychophysical task in which a participant has to detect whether a presented oriented grating is tilted clockwise or anti-clockwise from vertical, and consider a generative model for the observer's responses that includes sensory measurement noise and lapses (see Section~\ref{sec:ori} for details).
Moreover, imagine that the experiment contains $\approx 500$ trials, and the participant's true lapse rate is $1\%$. The model will always assign more probability to correct responses than errors, so, for all correct trials, $p_i$ will be at least $0.5$. However, there will likely be a handful of trials where the participant lapses and makes a grave error (responding incorrectly to a stimulus very far from the decision boundary), in which case $p_i$ will be $0.5$ times the lapse rate. This hypothetical scenario is not exceptional, in fact it is almost inevitable in any experiment where participants occasionally make unpredictable responses, and perform hundreds or more trials.
A more sophisticated solution would relax the assumption that $M$ needs to be constant for all trials, and instead choose $M$ as a function of $p_i$ on each trial. However, since $p_i$ is unknown, one would need to first estimate $p_i$ by sampling, choose $M_i$ for each trial, then re-estimate $\L_i$. Such an iterative procedure would create a non-fixed sampling scheme, in which $M_i$ adapts to $p_i$ on each trial. This approach is promising, and it is, in fact, how we originally arrived at the idea of using inverse binomial sampling for log-likelihood estimation, while working on the complex cognitive model described in Section \ref{sec:fourinarow}.
Finally, a heuristic solution would be to disregard any statistical concerns, pick $M$ based on some intuition or from similar studies in the literature, and hope that the bias turns out to be negligible. We do not intend to dissuade researchers from using such pragmatic approaches if they work in practice. Unfortunately, this one does not. As Figure~\ref{fig:bias_variance_master} shows, estimating log-likelihoods with fixed sampling can cause biases of $1$ or more points of model evidence if the data set contains even a single trial on which $p_i\leq\frac{1}{2M}$. Since differences in log-likelihoods larger than $5$ to $10$ points are often regarded as strong evidence for one model over another~\citep{kass1995bayes,jeffreys1998theory,anderson2002model}, it is well possible for such biases to reverse the outcome of a model comparison analysis.
This point bears repeating; if one uses fixed sampling to estimate log-likelihoods and the number of samples is too low, one risks of drawing conclusions about scientific hypotheses that are not supported by the experimental data one has collected.
\subsection{Why not an unbiased estimator of the likelihood?}
\label{sec:whynotlikelihood}
In this paper, we focus on finding an unbiased estimator of the log-likelihood, but one might wonder why we do not look instead for an unbiased estimator of the likelihood. In fact, we already have such an estimator. Fixed sampling provides an unbiased estimate of $p_i$ for each trial, and since all estimates are unbiased and statistically independent, $\prod_i p_i$ is also unbiased.
The critical issue is the shape of the distribution of these estimates. While a central limit theorem for products of random variables exists, it only holds if all the estimates are almost surely not zero. For estimates of $p_i$ obtained via fixed sampling, this is not the case, and we would not obtain a well-behaved (i.e., log-normal) distribution of $\prod_i p_i$. In fact, the distribution would be highly multimodal with the main peak being at $\prod_i p_i = 0$. This property makes this estimator unusable for all practical purposes (e.g., from maximum-likelihood estimation to Bayesian inference).
Instead, by switching to log-likelihood estimation, we can find an estimator (IBS) which is both unbiased and whose estimates are guaranteed to be well-behaved (in particular, normally distributed).
We stress that normality is not just a desirable addition, but a fundamental feature with substantial practical consequences for how estimators are used, as we will see more in detail in the following section.
\section{Is inverse binomial sampling really better?}
\label{sec:ibs_better}
While one could expect that the unbiasedness of the IBS estimator would come at a cost, such as more samples, a much higher variance, or perhaps a particularly complex implementation, we show here that IBS is not only unbiased, but it is sample-efficient, its estimates are low-variance, and can be implemented in a few lines of code.
\subsection{Implementation}
\label{sec:implementation}
We present in Algorithm \ref{alg:ibs_basic} a description in pseudo-code of the basic IBS procedure to estimate the log-likelihood of a given parameter vector $\bm{\theta}$ for a given data set and generative model.
The procedure is based on the inverse binomial sampling scheme introduced in Section~\ref{sec:policies}, generalized sequentially to multiple trials.
For each trial, we draw sampled responses from the generative model, given the stimulus $\bm{s}_i $ in that trial, using the subroutine \texttt{sample\_from\_model}, until one matches the observed response $\r_i$. This yields a value of $K_i$ on each trial $i$, which IBS converts to an estimate $\hat{\L}_i$ (where we use the convention that a sum with zero terms equals 0). We make our way sequentially across all trials, returning then the summed log-likelihood estimate $\hat{\L}_{\text{IBS}}$ for the entire data set.
\begin{algorithm}[ht]
\caption{Inverse Binomial Sampling (sequential implementation)}\label{alg:ibs_basic}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\INPUT Stimuli $\left\{\bm{s}_i\right\}_{i = 1}^N$,
responses $\left\{\r_i\right\}_{i=1}^N$,
generative model $\mathcal{M}$, parameters $\bm{\theta}$
\For{$i \leftarrow 1 \ldots N$} \Comment{Sequential loop over all trials}
\State $K_i \leftarrow 1$
\While{\texttt{sample\_from\_model}($\mathcal{M}$,$\bm{\theta}$,$\bm{s}_i$) $\neq \r_i$}
\State $K_i \leftarrow K_i + 1$
\EndWhile
\State $\hat{\L}_i \leftarrow - \displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^{K_i-1} \frac{1}{k}$ \Comment IBS estimator from Equation~\ref{eq:Libs}
\EndFor
\State \Return $\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^N \hat{\L}_i$ \Comment{Return total log-likelihood estimate}
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
In practice, depending on the programming language of choice, it might be useful to take advantage of numerical features such as vectorization to speed up computations. An alternative `parallel' implementation of IBS is described in Appendix \ref{sec:threshold}.
One might wonder how to choose the $\bm{\theta}$ to evaluate in Algorithm \ref{alg:ibs_basic} in the first place. IBS is agnostic of how candidate $\bm{\theta}$ are proposed. Most often, the function that implements Algorithm \ref{alg:ibs_basic} will be passed to a chosen optimization or inference algorithm, and the job of proposing $\bm{\theta}$ will be taken care of by the chosen method. For maximum-likelihood estimation, we recommend derivative-free optimization methods that deal effectively and robustly with noisy evaluations, such as Bayesian Adaptive Direct Search (BADS; \citealp{acerbi2017practical}) or noise-robust CMA-ES \citep{hansen2003reducing,hansen2008method}.
At the end of optimization, most methods will then return a candidate solution $\widehat{\bm{\theta}}_\text{MLE}$ and possibly an estimate of the value of the target function at $\widehat{\bm{\theta}}_\text{MLE}$. However, since the target function is noisy and the final estimate is biased (because, by definition, it is better than the other evaluated locations), we recommend to re-estimate $\hat{\L}_{\text{IBS}}(\widehat{\bm{\theta}}_\text{MLE})$ multiple times to obtain a higher-precision, unbiased estimate of the log-likelihood at $\widehat{\bm{\theta}}_\text{MLE}$ (see also Section \ref{sec:multifidelity}).
Implementations of IBS in different programming languages can be found at the following web page: \url{https://github.com/lacerbi/ibs}.
\subsection{Computational time}
\label{sec:time}
The number of samples that IBS takes on a trial with probability $p_i$ is geometrically distributed with mean $\frac{1}{p_i}$. We saw earlier that for fixed-sampling estimators to be approximately unbiased, one needs at least $\frac{1}{p_i}$ samples, and IBS does exactly that in expectation.
Moreover, since IBS adapts the number of samples it takes on different trials, it will be considerably more sample-efficient than fixed sampling with constant $M$ across trials. For example, in the aforementioned example of the orientation discrimination task, when most trials have a likelihood $p_i\geq 0.5$, IBS will often take just $1$ or $2$ samples on those trials. Therefore, it will allocate most of its samples and computational time on trials where $p_i$ is low and those samples are needed.
\subsection{Variance}
\label{sec:variance}
The variance of the IBS estimator can be derived as
\begin{equation} \label{eq:ibsvariance}
\text{Var}\left[\hat{\L}_{\text{IBS}}\right]=\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{k^2}(1-p)^k=\text{Li}_2(1-p),
\end{equation}
where we introduced the dilogarithm or Spence's function $\text{Li}_2(z)$ \citep{maximon2003dilogarithm}. The variance (plotted in Figure~\ref{fig:bias_variance_time}C as standard deviation) increases when $p\rightarrow 0$, but it does not diverge; instead, it converges to $\frac{\pi^2}{6}$.
Therefore, IBS is not only uniformly unbiased, but its variance is uniformly bounded. The full derivation of Equation \ref{eq:ibsvariance} is reported in Appendix \ref{sec:derivation_ibs_var}.
We already mentioned that $\hat{\L}_{\text{IBS}}$ is the minimum-variance unbiased estimator of $\log p$ given the inverse binomial sampling policy, but it also comes \emph{close} (less than $\sim30 \%$ distance) to saturating the \emph{information inequality}, which specifies the minimum variance that can be theoretically achieved by any estimator under a non-fixed sampling policy (an analogue of the Cramer-R\'ao bound; \citealp{degroot1959unbiased}). We note that fixed sampling eventually saturates the information inequality in the limit $M \rightarrow \infty$, but as mentioned in the previous section, the fixed-sampling approach can be highly wasteful or substantially biased (or both), not knowing a priori how large $M$ has to be across trials. See Appendix \ref{sec:infoinequality} for a full discussion of the information inequality and comparison between estimators.
Equation~\ref{eq:ibsvariance} has theoretical relevance, but requires us to know the true value of the likelihood $p$, which is unknown in practice. Instead, we define the estimator of the variance of a specific IBS estimate, having sampled for $K$ times until a `hit', as
\begin{equation} \label{eq:ibsvarest}
\text{Var}\left[\left.\hat{\L}_{\text{IBS}} \right| K \right] = \psi_1(1) - \psi_1(K),
\end{equation}
where $\psi_1(z)$ is the \emph{trigamma function}, the derivative of the digamma function \citep{abramowitz1948handbook}. We derived Equation~\ref{eq:ibsvarest} from a Bayesian interpretation of the IBS estimator, which can be found in Appendix \ref{sec:ibs_bayesian}.
Note that Equations \ref{eq:ibsvariance} and \ref{eq:ibsvarest} correspond to slightly different concepts, in that the former represents the variance of the estimator for a known $p$ (from a frequentist point of view), while the latter is the posterior variance of $\L$ for a known $K$ (for which there is no frequentist analogue). See also Section \ref{sec:highermoments} for further discussion.
\subsection{Iterative multi-fidelity}
\label{sec:multifidelity}
We define a \emph{multi-fidelity} estimator as an estimator with a tunable parameter that affords different degrees of precision at different computational costs (i.e., from a cheaper, inaccurate estimate to a very accurate but expensive one), borrowing the term from the literature on computer simulations and surrogate models \citep{kennedy2000predicting,forrester2007multi}. IBS provides a particularly convenient way to construct an \emph{iterative} multi-fidelity estimator in that we can perform $R$ independent `repeats' of the IBS estimate at $\bm{\theta}$, and combine them by averaging,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:repeats}
\begin{split}
\Libsrep{R}(\bm{\theta}) = & \frac{1}{R} \sum_{r = 1}^R \hat{\L}_{\text{IBS}}^{(r)}(\bm{\theta}) \\
\text{Var}\left[\Libsrep{R}(\bm{\theta})\right] = & \frac{1}{R^2} \sum_{r=1}^R \text{Var}\left[\hat{\L}_{\text{IBS}}^{(r)}(\bm{\theta})\right], \\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\L}_{\text{IBS}}^{(r)}$ denotes the $r$-th independent estimate obtained via IBS. For $R=1$, we recover the standard (`1-rep') IBS estimator. The variances in Equation~\ref{eq:repeats} are computed empirically using the estimator in Equation~\ref{eq:ibsvarest}.
Importantly, we do not need to perform all $R$ repeats at the same time, but we can iteratively refine our estimates whenever needed, and only need to store the current estimate, its variance and the number of repeats performed so far:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\Libsrep{R+1}(\bm{\theta}) = & \frac{1}{R+1} \left[ R \cdot \Libsrep{R}(\bm{\theta}) + \hat{\L}_{\text{IBS}}^{(r+1)}(\bm{\theta}) \right]\\
\text{Var}\left[\Libsrep{R+1}(\bm{\theta})\right] = & \frac{1}{(R+1)^2} \left\{ R^2 \cdot \text{Var}\left[\Libsrep{R}(\bm{\theta})\right] + \text{Var}\left[\hat{\L}_{\text{IBS}}^{(r+1)}(\bm{\theta})\right] \right\}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Crucially, while a similar procedure could be performed with any estimator (including fixed sampling), the fact that IBS is unbiased and its variance is bounded ensures that the combined iterative estimator is also unbiased and eventually converges to the true value for $R \rightarrow \infty$, with variance bounded above by $\frac{\pi^2}{6 R}$.
Finally, we note that the iterative multi-fidelity approach described in this section can be extended such that, instead of having the same number of repeats $R$ for all trials, one could adaptively allocate a different number of repeats $R_i$ to each trial so as to minimize the overall variance of the estimated log-likelihood (see Appendix \ref{sec:repeated_sampling}).
\subsection{Bias or variance?}
In the previous sections, we have seen that IBS is always unbiased, whereas fixed sampling can be highly biased when using too few samples. However, with the right choice of $M$, fixed sampling can have lower variance. We now list several practical and theoretical arguments for why bias can have a larger negative impact than variance, and being unbiased is a desirable property for an estimator of the log-likelihood.
\begin{enumerate}
\item To use IBS or fixed sampling to estimate the log-likelihood of a given data set, we sum estimates of $\L_i$ across trials. Being the sum of independent random variables, as $N\rightarrow\infty$, the standard deviation of $\hat{\L}\left(\bm{\theta}\right)$ will grow proportional to $\sqrt{N}$, whereas the bias grows linearly with $N$. For a concrete example, see Appendix \ref{sec:estimator_rmse}.
\item When using the log-likelihood (or a derived metric) for model selection, it is common to collect evidence for a model, possibly hierarchically, across multiple datasets (e.g., different participants in a behavioral experiment), which provides a second level of averaging that can reduce variance but not bias.
\item Besides model selection, the other key reason to estimate log-likelihoods is to infer parameters of a model, for example via maximum-likelihood estimation. For this purpose, one would use an optimization algorithm that calls the routine that estimates $\hat{\L}\left(\bm{\theta}\right)$ many times with different candidate values of $\bm{\theta}$, and uses this information to estimate the value that maximizes $\L\left(\bm{\theta}\right)$. Powerful, sample-efficient optimization algorithms, such as those based on Bayesian optimization, work by building a statistical approximation (a \emph{surrogate}) of the objective function \citep{jones1998efficient,snoek2012practical,shahriari2015taking,acerbi2017practical}, most commonly via Gaussian processes \citep{rasmussen2006gaussian}. These methods can operate successfully with noisy objectives by effectively averaging function values from nearby parameter vectors. By contrast, no optimization algorithm can handle bias.
This argument is not limited to maximum-likelihood estimation, as recent methods have been proposed to use Gaussian process surrogates to perform (approximate) Bayesian inference and infer posterior distributions \citep{kandasamy2015bayesian,acerbi2018variational,acerbi2020variational,jarvenpaa2019parallel}; also these techniques can handle variance in the estimates but not bias.
\item The ability to combine unbiased estimates of known variance iteratively (as described in Section \ref{sec:multifidelity}) is particularly useful with adaptive fitting methods based on Gaussian processes, whose algorithmic cost grows super-linearly in the number of \emph{distinct} training points \citep{rasmussen2006gaussian}. Thanks to iterative multi-fidelity estimation, these methods would have the opportunity to refine their estimates of the log-likelihood at a previously evaluated point, whenever deemed useful, without incurring an increased algorithmic cost.
\item On a conceptual level, bias is potentially more dangerous than variance. Bias can cause researchers to confidently draw false conclusions, variance, when properly accounted for, causes decreased statistical power and lack of confidence. Appropriate statistical tools can account for variance and explain seemingly conflicting findings resulting from underpowered studies \citep{maxwell2015psychology}, whereas bias is much harder to recognize or correct no matter what statistical techniques one uses.
\end{enumerate}
Finally, while for the sake of argument we structured this section as an opposition between bias and variance, it is not an exact dichotomy and both properties matter, together with other considerations (see Appendix \ref{sec:estimator_rmse}). For example, there are situations in which the researcher may knowingly decide to increase bias to reduce both variance and computational costs. Notably, while this trade-off is easy to achieve with the IBS estimator (see Appendix \ref{sec:threshold}), there is no similarly easy technique to de-bias a biased estimator.
\subsection{Higher-order moments}
\label{sec:highermoments}
So far, we have considered the mean (or bias) and variance of $\hat{\L}_{\text{fixed}}$ and $\hat{\L}_{\text{IBS}}$ in detail, but ignored any higher-order moments. This is justified since to estimate the log-likelihood of a model with a given parameter vector we will sum these estimates across many trials. Therefore, the central limit theorem guarantees that the distribution of $\L\left(\bm{\theta}\right)$ is Gaussian with mean and variance determined by the mean and variance of $\hat{\L}_{\text{fixed}}$ or $\hat{\L}_{\text{IBS}}$ on each trial, at least as long as the distribution of $p_i$ across trials satisfies a regularity condition.\footnote{Specifically, the \citet{lindeberg1922neue} or Lyapunov conditions \citep[Chapter 7.3]{ash2000probability}, both of which place restrictions on the degree to which the variance of any single trial can dominate the distribution of $\displaystyle\sum_i\hat{\L}_i$.} A sufficient but far from necessary condition is that there exists a lower bound on $p_i$, which is the case for example for a behavioral model with a lapse rate. Using the same argument, the total number of samples $K_\text{tot}$ that IBS uses to estimate $\L\left(\theta\right)$ is also approximately Gaussian.
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5.2in]{figure3.pdf}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\caption{\textbf{A.} $z$-score plot for the total number of samples used by IBS. \textbf{B.} $z$-score plot for the estimates returned by IBS, using the exact variance formula for known probability. \textbf{C.} Calibration plot for the estimates returned by IBS, using the variance estimate from Equation~\ref{eq:ibsvarest}. These figures show that the number of samples taken by IBS and the estimated log-likelihood are (approximately) Gaussian, and that the variance estimate from Equation~\ref{eq:ibsvarest} is calibrated.}
\label{fig:calibration}
\end{figure}
In the following, we demonstrate empirically that the distributions of the number of samples taken by IBS and of the estimates $\hat{\L}_{\text{IBS}}$ are Gaussian. Importantly, we also show that the estimate of the variance from Equation~\ref{eq:ibsvarest}, $\hat{V}_\text{IBS}$, is \emph{calibrated}. That is, we expect the fraction of estimates within the credible interval $\hat{\L}_{\text{IBS}} \pm \beta \sqrt{\hat{V}_\text{IBS}}$ to be (approximately) $\Phi(\beta) - \Phi(-\beta)$, where $\Phi(x)$ is the cumulative normal distribution function and $\beta > 0$.
As a realistic scenario, we consider the psychometric function model described in Section \ref{sec:ori}. For each simulated data set, we estimated the log-likelihood under the true data-generating parameters $\bm{\theta}_\text{true}$ (see Appendix \ref{sec:ori_details} for details). Specifically, for each data set we ran IBS and recorded the estimated log-likelihood $\hat{\L}_{\text{IBS}}$, the total number of samples $K_\text{tot}$ taken, and a Bayesian estimate for the variance of $\hat{\L}_{\text{IBS}}$ from Equation~\ref{eq:ibsvarest}. For the total number of samples $K_\text{tot}$ and the $\hat{\L}_{\text{IBS}}$ estimate, we can compute the theoretical mean and variance by knowing the trial likelihoods $p_i$, which we can evaluate exactly in this example.
For each obtained $K_\text{tot}$, we computed a $z$-score by subtracting the exact mean and dividing by the exact standard deviation, obtained by knowing the mean and variance of geometric random variables underlying the samples taken in each trial. If $K_\text{tot}$ is normally distributed, we expect that the variable $z$ across data sets should appear to be distributed as a standard normal, $z \sim \mathcal{N}\left(0,1\right)$. If $K_\text{tot}$ is not normally distributed, we should see deviations from normality in the distribution of $z$, especially in the tails. By comparing the histogram of $z$-scores with a standard normal in Figure \ref{fig:calibration}A, we see that the total number of samples is approximately normal, with some residual skew.
We did the same analysis for the estimate $\hat{\L}_{\text{IBS}}$, using the $z$-scored variable
\begin{equation}\label{eq:zscore}
z \equiv \frac{\hat{\L}_{\text{IBS}} - \L_\text{true}}{\sqrt{\text{Var}[\hat{\L}_{\text{IBS}}]}},
\end{equation}
where here $\text{Var}[\hat{\L}_{\text{IBS}}]$ is the exact variance of the estimator computed via Equation~\ref{eq:ibsvariance}. The histogram of $z$-scores in Figure~\ref{fig:calibration}B is again very close to a standard normal.
Finally, in practical scenarios we do not know the true likelihoods, so the key question is whether we can obtain valid estimates of the variance of $\hat{\L}_{\text{IBS}}$ via Equation~\ref{eq:ibsvarest}. If such an estimate is correctly calibrated, the distribution of $z$-scores should remain approximately Gaussian if we use Equation~\ref{eq:ibsvarest} for the denominator of Equation~\ref{eq:zscore}. Indeed, the calibration plot in Figure~\ref{fig:calibration}C shows an excellent match with a standard normal, confirming that our proposed estimator of the variance is well calibrated.
\section{Numerical experiments}
\label{sec:experiments}
In this section, we examine the performance of IBS and fixed sampling on several realistic model-fitting problems of increasing complexity.
The example problems we consider here model tasks drawn from psychophysics and cognitive science: an orientation discrimination experiment (Section \ref{sec:ori}); a change localization task (Section \ref{sec:change}); and playing a four-in-a-row game that involves complex sequential decision making (Section \ref{sec:fourinarow}). For the first problem, we can derive the exact analytical expression for the log-likelihood; for the second problem, we have an integral expression for the log-likelihood that we can approximate numerically; and finally, for the third problem, we are in the true scenario in which the log-likelihood is intractable.
The rationale for our numerical experiments is that so far we have analyzed fixed sampling and IBS in terms of the bias in their log-likelihood estimates for individual parameter vectors. However, these log-likelihood estimators are often used as elements of a more complex statistical procedure, such as maximum-likelihood estimation. It is plausible that biases in log-likelihood estimates will lead to biases in parameter estimates obtained by maximizing the log-likelihood, but the exact relationship between those biases, and the role of variance in optimization is not immediate. Similarly, it is unclear how bias and variance of individual log-likelihood estimates will affect the estimate of the \emph{maximum} log-likelihood, often used for model selection (e.g., unbiased estimates of the log-likelihood do not guarantee an error-free estimate of the maximum log-likelihood, which is affected by other factors; see Section \ref{sec:loglikeloss}).
Therefore, we conduct an empirical study showing that, in practice, IBS leads to more accurate parameter and maximum log-likelihood estimates than fixed sampling, given the same budget of computational resources.
First, we describe the procedure used to perform our numerical experiments. Code to run all our numerical experiments and analyses is available at the following link: \texttt{https://github.com/basvanopheusden/ibs-development}.
\subsection{Procedure}
\label{sec:procedure}
For each problem, we simulate data from the generative model given different known settings $\bm{\theta}_\text{true}$ of model parameters, and we compare the accuracy (and other statistics) of both IBS and fixed sampling in recovering the true data-generating parameters through maximum-likelihood estimation.
Since these methods provide noisy and possibly biased estimates of $\L\left(\bm{\theta}\right)$, and due to variability in the simulated datasets, the estimates $\widehat{\bm{\theta}}_\text{MLE}$ that result from optimizing the log-likelihood will also be noisy and possibly biased.
To explore performance in a variety of settings, and to account for variability in the data-generation process, for each problem we consider $40 \cdot D$ different parameter settings, where $D$ is the number of model parameters (that is, the dimension of $\bm{\theta}$), and for each parameter setting we generate $100$ distinct synthetic datasets.
For each dataset, we compare fixed sampling with different numbers of samples $M$ (from $M = 1$ to $M = 50$ or $M = 100$, depending on the problem), and IBS with different number of `repeats' $R$, as defined in Section \ref{sec:multifidelity} (from $R=1$ to up to $R = 50$, depending on the problem).
In each scenario, we directly compare the two methods in terms of number of samples by computing the \emph{average} number of samples used by IBS for a given number of repeats $R$.
To prevent IBS from `hanging' on particularly bad parameter vectors, we adopt the `early stopping threshold' technique described in Appendix \ref{sec:threshold}.
Finally, if available, we also test the performance of maximum-likelihood estimation using the `exact' log-likelihood function (calculated either analytically or via numerical integration).
For all methods, we maximize the log-likelihood with Bayesian Adaptive Direct Search (BADS, \citealp{acerbi2017practical}; \texttt{github.com/lacerbi/bads}), a hybrid Bayesian optimization algorithm based on the mesh-adaptive direct search framework \citep{audet2006mesh}, which affords a fast, robust exploration of the function landscape via Gaussian process surrogates. Briefly, BADS works by alternating between two stages: in the Poll stage, the algorithm evaluates points in a random mesh surrounding the current point, in a fairly model-free way; in the Search stage, following the principles of Bayesian optimization \citep{jones1998efficient}, the algorithm builds a local Gaussian process model of the target function, and chooses the next point by taking into account both mean and variance of the surrogate model, balancing exploration of unknown but promising regions and exploitation of regions known to be high-valued (for maximization).
By combining model-free and powerful model-based search, BADS has been shown to be much more effective than alternative optimization methods particularly when dealing with stochastic objective functions, and with a relatively limited budget of a few hundreds to a few thousands function evaluations \citep{acerbi2017practical}.
We refer the interested reader to \citet{acerbi2017practical} and to the extensive online documentation for further information about the algorithm.
\subsection{Orientation discrimination}
\label{sec:ori}
The first task we simulate is an orientation discrimination task, in which a participant observes an oriented patch on a screen, and indicates whether they believe it was rotated leftwards or rightwards with respect to a reference line (see Figure~\ref{fig:ori_task_model}A). Here, on each trial the stimulus $s$ is the orientation of the patch with respect to the reference (in degrees), and the response $r$ is `rightwards' or `leftwards'.
For each dataset, we simulated $N = 600$ trials, drawing on each trial the stimulus $s$ from a Gaussian distribution with mean $0^{\circ}$ (the reference) and standard deviation $3^{\circ}$.
The generative model assumes that the observer makes a noisy measurement $x$ of the stimulus, which is normally distributed with mean $s$ and standard deviation $\sigma$, as per standard signal detection theory \citep{green1966signal}. They then respond `rightwards' if $x$ is larger than $\mu$ (a parameter which captures response bias, or an incorrect memory of the reference line) and `leftward' otherwise. However, a fraction of the time, given by the lapse rate $\gamma \in (0, 1]$, the observer guesses randomly. We visually illustrate the model in Figure~\ref{fig:ori_task_model}B. For both theoretical reasons and numerical convenience, we parametrize the slope $\sigma$ as $\eta \equiv \log \sigma$. Thus, the model has parameter vector $\bm{\theta} = (\eta, \mu, \gamma)$.
We can derive the likelihood of each trial analytically:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:ori_equation}
\Pr(\text{`rightwards' response}\lvert s,\bm{\theta})=\frac{\gamma}{2}+(1-\gamma)\Phi\left(\frac{s-\mu}{\sigma}\right),
\end{equation}
where $\Phi(x)$ is the cumulative normal distribution function. Equation~\ref{eq:ori_equation} takes the form of a typical psychometric function ~\citep{wichmann2001psychometric}.
Note that in this section we use Gaussian distributions for circularly distributed variables, which is justified under the assumption that both the stimulus distribution and the measurement noise are small. For more details about the numerical experiments, see Appendix~\ref{sec:ori_details}.
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5.2in]{figure4.pdf}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\caption{\textbf{A.} Trial structure of the simulated orientation discrimination task. A oriented patch appears on a screen for $250$ ms, after which participants decide whether it is rotated rightwards or leftwards with respect to a vertical reference.
\textbf{B.} Graphical illustration of the behavioral model, which specifies the probability of choosing rightwards as a function of the true stimulus orientation. The three model parameters $\sigma$, $\mu$, and $\gamma$ correspond to the (inverse) slope, horizontal offset and (double) asymptote of the psychometric curve, as per Equation \ref{eq:ori_equation}. Note that we parametrize the model with $\eta \equiv \log\sigma$.}
\label{fig:ori_task_model}
\end{figure}
In Figure~\ref{fig:ori_results}, we show the parameter recovery using fixed sampling, IBS and the exact log-likelihood function from Equation~\ref{eq:ori_equation}. First, we show that IBS can estimate the sensory noise parameter $\eta$ and lapse rate $\gamma$ more accurately than fixed sampling while using on average the same or fewer samples (Figure~\ref{fig:ori_results}A,D). For visualization purposes, we show here a representative example with $R = 1$ or $R=3$ repeats of IBS and $M = 10$ or $M = 20$ fixed samples (see Figure \ref{fig:psycho_complete_results} in the Appendix for the plots with all tested values of $R$ and $M$). As baseline, we also plot the mean and standard deviation of exact maximum-likelihood estimation, which is imperfect due to the finite data size ($600$ trials), and stochasticity and heuristics used in the optimization algorithm. We omit results for estimates of the response bias $\mu$, since even fixed sampling can match the performance of exact MLE with only $1$ sample per trial.
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5.2in]{figure5.pdf}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\caption{
\textbf{A.} Estimated values of $\eta \equiv \log \sigma$ as a function of the true $\eta$ in simulated data using IBS with $R=1$ repeat (blue), fixed sampling with $M=10$ (red) or the exact likelihood function (green). The black line denotes equality. Error bars indicate standard deviation across $100$ simulated data sets. IBS uses on average $2.22$ samples per trial. \textbf{B.} Mean and standard error (shaded regions) of estimates of $\eta$ for $100$ simulated data sets with $\eta_{\text{true}}= \log 2^{\circ}$, using fixed sampling, IBS or the exact likelihood function. For fixed sampling and IBS, we plot mean and standard error as a function of the (average) number of samples used. \textbf{C.} Root mean squared error (RMSE) of estimates of $\eta$, averaged across the range of $\eta_{\text{true}}$ in \textbf{A}, as a function of the number of samples used by IBS or fixed sampling. Shaded regions denote $\pm 1$ standard deviation across the $100$ simulated data sets. We also plot the RMSE of exact maximum-likelihood estimation, which is nonzero since we simulated data sets with only $600$ trials. \textbf{D-F} Same, for $\gamma$ (with $R = 3$, $M = 20$ in panel \textbf{D}). These results demonstrate that IBS estimates parameters of the model for orientation discrimination more accurately than fixed sampling using equally many or even fewer samples.
}
\label{fig:ori_results}
\end{figure}
Next, we fix $\eta_\text{true} \equiv \log \sigma_\text{true} = \log 2^{\circ}, \mu_\text{true}=0.1^{\circ},\gamma_\text{true} =0.1$ and plot the mean and standard deviation of the estimated $\hat{\eta}$ and $\hat{\gamma}$ across $100$ simulated data sets as a function of the (average) number of samples per trial used by IBS or fixed sampling (Figure~\ref{fig:ori_results}B,E). We find that fixed sampling is highly sensitive to the number of samples, and with less than $20$ samples per trial, its estimate of $\eta$ is strongly biased. Estimating $\gamma$ accurately remains unattainable even with $100$ samples per trial. By contrast, IBS estimates $\eta$ and $\gamma$ reasonably accurately regardless of the number of samples per trial. IBS has a slight tendency to underestimate $\gamma$, which is a result of an interaction of the uncertainty handling in BADS with our choice of model parametrization and parameter bounds. In general, estimating lapse rates is notoriously prone to biases~\citep{prins2012psychometric}.
Finally, we measure the root mean squared error (RMSE) of IBS, fixed sampling and the exact solution, averaged across all simulated data sets, as a function of number of samples per trial (Figure~\ref{fig:ori_results}C,F). This analysis confirms the same pattern: fixed sampling makes large errors in estimating $\eta$ with fewer than $20$ samples, and for $\gamma$ it requires as many as $100$ samples per trial to become approximately unbiased. IBS outperforms fixed sampling for both parameters and any number of samples, and even with as few as 2 or 3 repeats comes close to matching the RMSE of exact maximum-likelihood inference.
\subsection{Change localization}
\label{sec:change}
The second problem we consider is a typical `change localization' task (see Figure~\ref{fig:change_task_model}A), in which participants observe a display of $6$ oriented patches, and after a short inter-stimulus interval, a second display of $6$ patches~\citep{van2012variability}. Of these patches, $5$ are identical between displays and one denoted by $c \in \{1, \ldots, 6 \}$ will have changed orientation. The participant responds by indicating which patch they believe changed orientation. Here, on each trial the stimulus $\bm{s}$ is a vector of 12 elements corresponding to a vector of orientations (in degrees) of the six patches in the first display, concatenated with the vector of orientation of the six patches in the second display. The response $r \in \{1, \dots, 6\}$ is the patch reported by the participant.
For each dataset, we simulated $N = 400$ trials. On each trial, the patches on the first display are all independently drawn from a uniform distribution $\text{Uniform[0,360]}$. For the second display, we randomly select one of the patches and change its orientation by an amount drawn from a von Mises distribution centered at $0^\circ$ with concentration parameter $\kappa_\text{s}=1$. A von Mises distribution is the equivalent of a Gaussian distribution in circular space, and the concentration parameter is monotonically related to the precision (inverse variance) of the distribution. Note that, for mathematical convenience (but without loss of generality) we assume that patch orientations are defined on the whole circle, whereas in fact they are defined on the half-circle $[0^\circ, 180^\circ)$.
The generative model assumes that participants independently measure the orientation of each patch in both displays. For each patch, the measurement distribution is a von Mises centered on the true orientation with concentration parameter $\kappa$, representing sensory precision.
The participant then selects the patch for which the absolute circular difference of the measurements between the first and second display is largest. This model too includes a lapse rate $\gamma \in (0,1]$, the probability with which the participant guesses uniformly randomly across responses.
Since thinking in terms of concentration parameter is not particularly intuitive, we reparametrize participants' sensory noise as $\eta \equiv \log \sigma \equiv -\frac{1}{2}\log\kappa$, since in the limit $\kappa\gg 1$, the von Mises distribution with concentration parameter $\kappa$ tends to a Gaussian distribution with standard deviation $\sigma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\kappa}}$. The model has then two parameters, $\bm{\theta} = (\eta, \gamma)$.
We can express the trial likelihood for the change localization model in an integral form that does not have a known analytical solution (see Appendix \ref{sec:change_details} for a derivation). We can, however, evaluate the integral numerically, which can take a few seconds for a high-precision likelihood evaluation across all trials in a dataset. The key quantity in the computation of the trial likelihood is $\Delta_s^{(c)}$, the difference in orientation between the changed stimulus at position $c$ between the first and second display. We plot the probability of a correct response, $P_{\text{correct}}\left(\Delta_s^{(c)}; \vtheta \right)$, as a function of $\Delta_s^{(c)}$ in Figure~\ref{fig:change_task_model}B. As expected, the probability of a correct response increases monotonically with the amount of change, with the slope being modulated by sensory noise and the asymptote by the lapse rate (but also by the sensory noise, for large noise, as we will discuss later).
For more details about the numerical experiments, see Appendix~\ref{sec:change_details}.
\begin{figure}[htp]
\includegraphics[width=5.2in]{figure6.pdf}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\caption{\textbf{A.} Trial structure of the simulated change localization task. While the participant fixates on a cross, $6$ oriented patches appear for $250$ ms, disappear and the re-appear after a delay. In the second display, one patch will have changed orientation, in this example the top left. The participant indicates with a mouse click which patch they believe changed.
\textbf{B.} The generative model is fully characterized by the proportion correct as function of model parameters and circular distance between the orientations of the changed patch in its first and second presentation (see text). Here we plot this curve for two values of $\eta \equiv \log \sigma$. In both curves, $\gamma=0.2$. We can read off $\eta$ from the slope and $\gamma$ from the asymptote.}
\label{fig:change_task_model}
\end{figure}
In Figure~\ref{fig:change_results}, we compare the performance of IBS, fixed sampling and the `exact' log-likelihood evaluated through numerical integration. As before, IBS estimates both $\eta$ and $\gamma$ more accurately with fewer samples than fixed sampling (Figure~\ref{fig:change_results}A,D). As an example, we show IBS with $R = 1$ repeats and fixed sampling with $M = 20$ or $M = 50$; the full results with all tested values of $R$ and $M$ are reported in Figure \ref{fig:vstm_complete_results} in the Appendix.
Interestingly, maximum-likelihood estimation via the `exact' method provides biased estimates of $\eta$ when the noise is high. This is because sensory noise and lapse become empirically non-identifiable for large $\eta$, as large noise produces a nearly-flat response distribution, which is indistinguishable from lapse.
For these particular settings of $\bm{\theta}_\text{true}$, due to the interaction between noisy log-likelihood evaluations and the optimization method, IBS and fixed sampling perform better at recovering $\eta$ than the ‘exact' method, but it does not necessarily hold true in general.
Issues of identifiability can be ameloriated by using Bayesian inference instead of maximum-likelihood estimation \citep{acerbi2014framework}.
In Figure~\ref{fig:change_results}B,E, we show the estimates of fixed sampling and IBS for simulated data with $\eta_\text{true} \equiv \log\sigma_\text{true}= \log 17.2^{\circ}$ and $\gamma_\text{true}=0.1$, and find that fixed sampling substantially underestimates $\eta$ when using less then $50$ samples, and underestimates $\gamma$ even with $100$ samples per trial. By contrast, IBS produces parameter estimates with relatively little bias and standard deviation close to that of exact maximum-likelihood estimation. Finally, in Figure~\ref{fig:change_results}C,F we show that IBS has lower RMSE than fixed sampling for both parameters when compared on equal terms of number of samples.
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5.2in]{figure7.pdf}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\caption{Same as Figure~\ref{fig:ori_results}, for the change localization experiment and estimates of $\eta \equiv \log \sigma$ and $\gamma$. In panel \textbf{A} we show results for $R = 1$ and $M = 20$; in panel \textbf{D}, $R = 2$ and $M = 50$.}
\label{fig:change_results}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Four-in-a-row game}
\label{sec:fourinarow}
The third problem we examine is a complex sequential decision-making task, a variant of tic-tac-toe in which two players compete to place $4$ pieces in a row, column or diagonal on a $4$-by-$9$ board (see Figure~\ref{fig:fourinarow_task_model}A). In previous work, \citet{van2016people} showed that people's decision-making process in this game can be modeled accurately as \emph{heuristic search}. A heuristic search algorithm makes a move in a given board state by searching through a decision tree of move sequences starting at that board state for a number of moves into the future. To decide which candidate future moves to include in the tree, the algorithm uses a \emph{value function} defined as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:valuefunction}
V(\text{board},\text{move}) = \sum_{i=1}^{n_\text{f}}w_if_i(\text{board},\text{move}) + \mathcal{N}(0,\sigma^2),
\end{equation}
in which $f_i$ denotes a set of $n_\text{f}$ features (i.e., configurations of pieces on the board, such as `three pieces on a row of the same color'; see Figure~\ref{fig:fourinarow_task_model}B), $w_i \in \mathbb{R}$ the corresponding feature weights, and $\sigma > 0$ is a model parameter which controls value noise. As before, we parameterize the model with $\eta \equiv \log\sigma$.
\begin{figure}[htp]
\includegraphics[width=5.2in]{figure8.pdf}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\caption{\textbf{A.} Example board configuration in the 4-in-a-row task, in which two players alternate placing pieces (white or black circles) on a $4$-by-$9$ board (gray grid), and the first player to get 4 pieces in a row wins. In this example, the black player can win by placing a piece on the square on the bottom row, third column.
\textbf{B.} Illustration of features used in the value function of the heuristic search model (Equation~\ref{eq:valuefunction}). For details on the model, see Appendix~\ref{sec:fourinarow_details} and \citet{van2016people}.}
\label{fig:fourinarow_task_model}
\end{figure}
The interpretation of this value function is that moves which lead to a high value $V(\text{board},\text{move})$ are given priority in the search algorithm, and the model is more likely to make those moves. As a heuristic to reduce the search space, any moves for which the value $V(\text{board},\text{move})$ is less than that of the highest-value move minus a \emph{threshold} parameter $\xi > 0$ are \emph{pruned} from the tree and never considered as viable options. Finally, when evaluating $V(\text{board},\text{move})$, the model stochastically omits features from the sum $\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{n_\text{f}}w_if_i$; the probability for any feature to be omitted (or \emph{dropped}) is independent with probability $\delta \in [0,1]$ (the \emph{drop rate}). \citet{van2016people} considered various heuristic search models with different feature sets, and estimated the value of feature weights $w_i$ as well as the size (number of nodes) of the decision tree based on human data. Here, we consider a reduced model in which the feature identity $f_i$, feature weights $w_i$ and tree size are fixed (see Appendix~\ref{sec:fourinarow_details} for their values). Thus, the current model has three parameters, $\bm{\theta} = (\eta,\xi,\delta)$.
Note that even though the 4-in-a-row task is a sequential game, the heuristic search model makes an independent choice on each move, with the `stimulus' $s$ on each trial being the current board state. Hence, the model satisfies the conditional independence assumptions of Equations \ref{eq:likelihood_ind} and \ref{eq:simulator_ind}. Note also that, even though the heuristic search algorithm can be specified as a generative `simulator' which we can query to make moves in any board position, we have no way of calculating the distribution over its moves, since this would require integrating over all possible trees it could build, features which may be dropped, and realizations of the value noise. Therefore, we are in the scenario in which log-likelihood estimation is only possible by simulation, and we cannot compare the performance of fixed sampling or IBS to any `exact' method.
To generate synthetic data sets for the 4-in-a-row task, we first compiled a set of $5482$ board positions which occurred in human-versus-human play \citep{van2016people}. For each data set, we then randomly sampled $N = 100$ board positions without replacement which we used as `stimuli' for each trial, and sampled a move from the heuristic search algorithm for each position to use as `responses'. For more details about the numerical experiments, see Appendix~\ref{sec:fourinarow_details}.
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5.2in]{figure9.pdf}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\caption{Same as Figures~\ref{fig:ori_results} and~\ref{fig:change_results}, for the 4-in-a-row experiment and estimates of the value noise $\eta \equiv \log\sigma$, pruning threshold $\xi$ and feature drop rate $\delta$. In panel \textbf{A} we show results for $R = 1$ and $M = 100$; in panel \textbf{D}, $R = 1$ and $M = 50$; in panel \textbf{G}, $R = 1$ and $M = 35$.}
\label{fig:fourinarow_results}
\end{figure}
In Figure~\ref{fig:fourinarow_results}, we perform the same tests as before, comparing fixed sampling and IBS, but lacking any `exact' estimation method. Due to the high computational complexity of the model, we only consider IBS with up to $R = 3$ repeats, corresponding to $\sim 80$ samples. The full results with all tested values of $R$ and $M$ are reported in Figure \ref{fig:fourinarow_complete_results} in the Appendix. As a specific example for Figure~\ref{fig:fourinarow_results}B,E,H we show the estimates of fixed sampling and IBS for simulated data with $\eta_\text{true} \equiv \log\sigma_\text{true}= \log 1$, pruning threshold $\xi_\text{true} = 5$ and $\delta_\text{true}=0.2$.
Fixed sampling underestimates the value noise $\eta$, even when using $M=100$ samples, whereas IBS estimates it accurately with $4$ times fewer samples (Figure~\ref{fig:fourinarow_results}A).
This bias of fixed sampling gets worse with fewer samples (Figure~\ref{fig:fourinarow_results}B), and overall, IBS outperforms fixed sampling when compared on equal terms (Figure~\ref{fig:fourinarow_results}C). The same holds true for the pruning threshold $\xi$. IBS estimates $\xi$ about equally well as fixed sampling, but with about half as many samples (Figure~\ref{fig:fourinarow_results}D), fixed sampling is severely biased when using too few samples (Figure~\ref{fig:fourinarow_results}E) and overall, IBS outperforms fixed sampling.
The results are slightly more complicated for the feature drop rate $\delta$. As before, fixed sampling produces strongly biased estimates of $\delta$ with up to $35$ samples (Figure~\ref{fig:fourinarow_results}G), and the bias increases when using fewer samples (Figure~\ref{fig:fourinarow_results}H). However, for this parameter IBS is also biased, but towards $0.25$ (Figure~\ref{fig:fourinarow_results}G \& H), which is the midpoint of the `plausible' upper and lower bounds used as reference by the optimization algorithm (see Appendix \ref{sec:fourinarow_details} for details). This bias can be interpreted as a form of regression towards the mean; likely a by-product of the optimization algorithm struggling with a low signal-to-noise ratio for this parameter and these settings (i.e., a nearly flat likelihood landscape for the amount of estimation noise on the log-likelihood). The negative bias of fixed sampling helps to reduce its variance in the low-$\delta$ regime, and therefore in terms of RMSE, fixed sampling performs similarly to IBS for this parameter (Figure~\ref{fig:fourinarow_results}I).
\subsection{Log-likelihood loss}
\label{sec:loglikeloss}
In the previous sections, we have analyzed the bias and error of different estimation methods when recovering the generating model parameters in various scenarios. Another important question, crucial for model selection, is how well different methods are able to recover the true maximum log-likelihood. The ability to recover the true parameters and the true maximum log-likelihood are related but distinct properties because, for example, a relatively flat likelihood landscape could yield parameter estimates very far from ground truth, but still afford recovery of a value of the log-likelihood close to the true maximum.
We recall that differences in log-likelihood much greater than one point are worrisome as they might significantly affect the outcomes of a model comparison \citep{kass1995bayes,jeffreys1998theory,anderson2002model}.
To compute the \emph{log-likelihood loss} of a method for a given data set, we estimate the difference between the `exact' log-likelihood evaluated at the `true' maximum-likelihood solution (as found after multiple optimization runs) and the `exact' log-likelihood of the solution returned by the multi-start optimization procedure for a given method, as described in Section \ref{sec:procedure}. In terms of methods, we consider IBS and fixed-sampling with different amounts of samples. We perform the analysis for the two scenarios, orientation discrimination (Section \ref{sec:ori}) and change localization (Section \ref{sec:change}), for which we have access to the exact likelihood, either analytically or numerically.
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5.2in]{figure21.pdf}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\caption{\textbf{A.} Log-likelihood loss with respect to ground truth, as a function of number of samples, for the orientation discrimination task. Lines are mean $\pm 1$ standard deviation (in log space) across $120$ generating parameter values, with $100$ simulated datasets each. \textbf{B.} Log-likelihood loss for the change localization task ($80$ generating parameter values).}
\label{fig:logloss}
\end{figure}
The results in Figure \ref{fig:logloss} show that IBS, even with only a few repeats, is able to return solutions which are very close to the true maximum-likelihood solution in terms of log-likelihood (within 1-2 points); whereas fixed sampling remains strongly biased (log-likelihood loss $\gg$ 1) even with large number of samples, being thus at risk of inducing wrong inferences in model selection.
Note that our analyses of the loss are based on the `exact' log-likelihood values evaluated at the solution returned by the optimization procedure. In practice, we would not have access to the `exact' log-likelihood at the solution; but its value can be estimated up to the desired precision with IBS, by taking multiple repeats at the returned solution (see Section \ref{sec:multifidelity}).
Finally, the results in Figure \ref{fig:logloss} also display clearly that, while IBS is unbiased in estimating the log-likelihood \emph{for a given parameter setting} $\bm{\theta}$, the maximum-likelihood procedure per se will have some error. Due to estimation noise and specific features of the data, model, and stochastic optimization method at hand, the returned solution will rarely be the true maximum-likelihood solution, and thus, by definition, the value of the log-likelihood at the solution will \emph{underestimate} the true value of the maximum log-likelihood. Still, Figure \ref{fig:logloss} shows that the underestimation error, at least in the IBS case, tends to be acceptable, as opposed to the large errors obtained with fixed sampling.
\subsection{Summary}
The results in this section demonstrate that in realistic scenarios, fixed sampling with too few samples causes substantial biases in parameter and maximum log-likelihood estimates, whereas inverse binomial sampling is much more accurate and robust to the number of samples used. Across all $3$ models and all parameters, IBS yields parameter estimates with little bias and RMSE, close to that of `exact' maximum-likelihood estimation, even when using only a handful of repeats ($R$ between 1 and 5). Conversely, fixed sampling yields substantially biased parameter estimates when using too few samples per trial, especially for parameters which control decision noise, such as measurement noise and lapse rates in the two perceptual decision-making tasks, and value noise in the 4-in-a-row task. Moreover, for the two models for which we have access to `exact' log-likelihood estimates, we found that IBS is able to recover maximum-likelihood solutions close to the true maximum log-likelihood, whereas fixed sampling remains severely biased even for many samples.
It is true that, given a \emph{large enough} number of samples, fixed sampling is eventually able to recover most parameters and maximum log-likelihood values with reasonable accuracy. However, we have seen empirically that the number of samples required for reliable estimation varies between tasks, models and parameters of interests. For tasks and models where an exact likelihood or a numerical approximation thereof is unavailable, such as the problem we examined in Section \ref{sec:fourinarow}, this limitation renders fixed sampling hardly usable in practice. By contrast, IBS automatically chooses the number of samples to allocate to the problem.
Finally, for complex models with a large response space, accurate parameter estimation with fixed sampling will require many more samples per trial than are feasible given the computational time needed to generate them. Therefore, in such scenarios accurate and efficient parameter estimation is only possible with IBS.
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:discussion}
In this work, we presented inverse binomial sampling (IBS), a method for estimating the log-likelihood of simulation-based models given an experimental data set. We demonstrated that estimates from IBS are uniformly unbiased, their variance is uniformly bounded, and we introduced a calibrated estimator of the variance. IBS is sample-efficient and, for the purpose of maximum-likelihood estimation, combines naturally with gradient-free optimization algorithms that handle stochastic objective functions, such as Bayesian Adaptive Direct Search (BADS; \citealp{acerbi2017practical}).
We compared IBS to fixed sampling and showed that the bias inherent in fixed sampling can cause researchers to draw false conclusions when performing model selection. Moreover, we showed in three realistic scenarios of increasing complexity that maximum-likelihood estimation of model parameters is more accurate with IBS than with fixed sampling with the same average number of samples.
In the rest of this section, we discuss additional applications of IBS, possible extensions, and give some practical usage recommendations.
\subsection{Additional applications}
\label{sec:applications}
We developed inverse binomial sampling for log-likelihood estimation of models with intractable likelihoods, for the purpose of model comparison or fitting model parameters with maximum-likelihood estimation, but IBS has other practical uses.
\subsubsection*{Checking analytical or numerical log-likelihood calculations}
We presented IBS as a solution for when the log-likelihood is intractable to compute analytically or numerically. However, even for models where the log-likelihood could be specified, deriving it can be quite involved and time-consuming, and mistakes in the calculation or implementation of the resulting equations are not uncommon. In this scenario, IBS can be useful for:
\begin{itemize}
\item quickly prototyping (testing) of new models, as writing the generative model and fitting it to the data is usually much quicker than deriving and implementing the exact log-likelihood;
\item checking for derivation or implementation mistakes, as one can compare the \emph{supposedly} `exact' log-likelihood against estimates from IBS (on real or simulated data);
\item assessing the quality of numerical approximations used to calculate the log-likelihood, for example when using methods such as adaptive quadrature for numerical integration~\citep{press1992numerical}.
\end{itemize}
\subsubsection*{Estimating entropy and other information-theoretic quantities}
We can also use inverse binomial sampling to estimate the entropy of an arbitrary discrete probability distribution $\Pr(x)$, with $x \in \Omega$, a discrete set (see, e.g., \citealp{cover2012elements}, for an introduction to information theory). To do this, we first draw a sample $x$ from the distribution, then use IBS to estimate $\log \Pr(x)$. The first sample and the samples in IBS are independent, and therefore we can calculate the expected value of the outcome of IBS,
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}\left[\hat{\L}_{\text{IBS}}\right]=\mathbb{E}_{x\sim \Pr(\cdot)}\left[\log \Pr(x)\right]=\sum_{x\in \Omega}\Pr(x)\log \Pr(x),
\end{equation}
which is the definition of the negative entropy of $\Pr(x)$.
We can use this technique to estimate the entropy of the predicted response distribution of a generative model with a given parameter vector on any trial. For example, such quantity could be used in a behavioral model to test for the generalized Hick-Hyman law, that states that reaction time is proportional to the entropy of the available choices~\citep{hyman1953stimulus}. Moreover, we can generalize the method to estimate the cross-entropy between two distributions (sample from one, estimate log-likelihood with the other), or the Kullback-Leibler divergence between distributions.
We note that all the estimates of these quantities are also uniformly unbiased.\footnote{The lack of bias in entropy estimates by IBS may be surprising in light of a theorem stating that uniformly unbiased estimators of the entropy given a finite set of samples cannot exist \citep{paninski2003estimation}. This theorem does not apply to IBS since its sample size is a stochastic variable. It does, however, prove that one cannot estimate entropy (or similar information-theoretic quantities) with fixed sampling.}
\subsection{Bayesian inference}
In this paper we focused on maximum-likelihood estimation, but another common approach to parameter estimation is Bayesian inference~\citep{gelman2013bayesian}. Bayesian inference has the goal of computing the \emph{posterior distribution} of the parameters given the observations, computed as
\begin{equation} \label{eq:bayes}
p(\bm{\theta} | \mathcal{D}) = \frac{\Pr(\mathcal{D} | \bm{\theta}) p(\bm{\theta})}{\mathcal{Z}} \qquad \text{ with } \mathcal{Z} \equiv \int d \Pr(\mathcal{D} | \bm{\theta}) p(\bm{\theta}) d\bm{\theta},
\end{equation}
where $\Pr(\mathcal{D} | \bm{\theta})$ is the likelihood, $p(\bm{\theta})$ the prior density of the parameters (typically assumed continuous), and $\mathcal{Z}$ the normalization constant, known as the \emph{evidence} or \emph{marginal likelihood}, a quantity used for Bayesian model selection due to a number of desirable properties~\citep{mackay2003information}.
Since $\mathcal{Z}$ is often hard to compute, many (approximate) Bayesian inference techniques are able to calculate the posterior distribution by having access only to the \emph{unnormalized} posterior, or joint distribution $\Pr(\mathcal{D} | \bm{\theta}) p(\bm{\theta})$; or equivalently to the log joint $\L(\bm{\theta}) + \log p(\bm{\theta})$. We see then that IBS could be used to perform Bayesian inference of likelihood-free models by providing a means to compute the log-likelihood in the log joint distribution (the prior is assumed to be a simple distribution which we can express in closed form).
In Appendix \ref{sec:bayesian}, we describe how several approaches to approximate Bayesian inference could be used in conjunction with the unbiased log-likelihood estimates provided by IBS: Markov Chain Monte Carlo \citep{hastings1970monte,brooks2011handbook}; variational inference \citep{jordan1999introduction,ranganath2014black}; and Gaussian process surrogate methods \citep{kandasamy2015bayesian,jarvenpaa2019parallel}, including Variational Bayesian Monte Carlo (VBMC; \citealt{acerbi2018variational,acerbi2019exploration}). In particular, \citet{acerbi2020variational} demonstrates the effectiveness of IBS, combined with VBMC, for robust and sample-efficient Bayesian inference, using a variety of models from computational and cognitive neuroscience.
Finally, note that the techniques in this paper can be easily applied to maximum-a-posteriori (MAP) estimation -- which is not quite Bayesian inference, but more like a regularized form of maximum-likelihood, that still yields a point estimate instead of a full posterior distribution. MAP estimation is attained by simply adding the log-prior to the log-likelihood in the optimization objective, where the log-prior acts as a regularization term.
\subsection{Approximate IBS for continuous responses}
\label{sec:ABC}
So far, we have assumed that the space of possible responses is discrete. This assumption is necessary since, for continuous responses, the probability that a sample from the generative model exactly matches an observed response is zero (technically, \emph{near}-zero since any computer implementation of a real number is finite). For this reason, IBS will never terminate, or at least not within a physically sensible time scale.
A simple approach to make continuous responses discrete is via binning the response space. Alternatively, we recommend an approach inspired by Approximate Bayesian Computation (ABC; \citealp{beaumont2002approximate}), which we call Approximate IBS (AIBS). Given a metric $D(\cdot, \cdot)$ to measure distance in response space, and a tolerance threshold $\varepsilon > 0$, we can use IBS to estimate
\begin{equation} \label{eq:abc}
\L_{\varepsilon}\left(\bm{\theta}\right)=\sum_{i=1}^N\log \frac{\Pr \left(D(\tilde{\r}_i,\r_i)\leq \varepsilon\lvert \bm{s}_i,\bm{\theta}\right)}{\left|B_\varepsilon(\r_i)\right|},
\end{equation}
where the $\tilde{\r}_i$ are responses drawn from the generative model, and $|B_\varepsilon(\r_i)|$ denotes the volume of the set of responses whose distance from $\r_i$ is no more than $\varepsilon$.
The $\varepsilon$-approximate log-likelihood in Equation~\ref{eq:abc} can then be used as normal for maximum-likelihood estimation or Bayesian inference.
As $\varepsilon\rightarrow 0$, the approximate likelihood tends to the true likelihood, under some regularity conditions which we leave to explore for future work (see \citealt{prangle2017adapting} for a similar proof for ABC). However, the expected number of samples used by IBS diverges in that limit, so in practice there is a lower bound for $\varepsilon$ that is feasible and one needs to extrapolate to the $\varepsilon=0$ limit, or be satisfied to perform inference with an $\varepsilon$-approximate likelihood.
The common idea between AIBS and ABC is that they both use a distance metric to judge similarity between simulated samples and data. However, ABC commonly bases the comparison on \emph{summary statistics} of the data (which may not be \emph{sufficient} statistics, and thus not capture all aspects of the data); whereas AIBS uses the full responses. Secondly, ABC in practice requires dedicated algorithms to perform parameter estimation and inference (basic techniques, such as rejection sampling, can be extremely inefficient); whereas AIBS simply provides a (noisy) log-likelihood, which can then be used in combination with a wider class of likelihood-based inference methods, as long as they support noisy estimates (see Appendix \ref{sec:bayesian} for some examples). We leave a further analysis of AIBS, and a comparison with other likelihood-free inference approaches, as a promising direction for future work.
\subsection{Usage recommendations}
We conclude with a number of recommendations for researchers who want to fit a model to a data set, having access only to a simulator or generative model.
\begin{itemize}
\item First, try to derive a closed-form analytic expression for the log-likelihood of the model. If this is tractable, validate that the log-likelihood is free of implementation mistakes by comparing its output against log-likelihood estimates obtained by IBS with well-chosen test trials and model parameters.
\item If exact analytics are intractable, find an analytical or numerical approximation, for example using variational inference or Riemannian integration, and once again validate the quality of the approximation using IBS.
\item If the model is too complex for analytical or numerical approximations, estimate the log-likelihood using inverse binomial sampling.
\item Finally, perform inference using the analytical, numerical, or IBS-based log-likelihood function with a sample-efficient inference algorithm, such as those based on Gaussian process surrogate modeling. For maximum-likelihood (or maximum-a-posteriori) estimation, hybrid Bayesian optimization methods have proved to be quite effective \citep{acerbi2017practical}.
\end{itemize}
\subsubsection*{Avoiding infinite loops}
One issue of IBS is that it can `hang', in the sense that the implementation of the estimator can run indefinitely, without returning an answer, if the simulator is unable to match a particularly unlikely observation. This is a natural behavior of IBS that stems from its efficiency in allocating samples, as we examined in Section \ref{sec:time}. We recommend two easy solutions to avoid infinite loops:
\begin{itemize}
\item Implement a `lapse rate' $\gamma \in (0, 1)$ in the simulator model, which represents the probability of a completely random response (typically uniform across all possible responses). The lapse rate could be fixed to a small, non-zero value (e.g., $\gamma = 0.01$), or let as a free model parameter; in which case, ensure that the \emph{minimum} lapse rate is a small, non-zero value (e.g., $\gamma_\text{min} = 0.005$).
\item Introduce an early-stopping threshold, such that IBS stops sampling when the estimated log-likelihood of the entire data set goes below a threshold $\L_\text{lower}$ (see Appendix \ref{sec:threshold}).
\end{itemize}
We implemented both of these solutions in our analyses in Section \ref{sec:experiments}.
\subsection*{Acknowledgments}
This work has utilized the NYU IT High Performance Computing resources and services. We thank Aspen Yoo for help with Figures~\ref{fig:ori_task_model}~and~\ref{fig:change_task_model} and useful comments on the manuscript, and Michael Landy for helpful discussion about the derivation of the variance of the IBS estimator.
Luigi Acerbi was partially supported by the Academy of Finland Flagship programme: Finnish Center for Artificial Intelligence (FCAI).
\bibliographystyle{APA}
|
\section{I. Introduction}
In the era of quantum technologies, understanding and controlling the effects of the environment in quantum mechanical systems has became a crucial task \cite{breuerbook,rivas2011a,devega2015c}. State of the art quantum computation, for instance, has been referred as \textit{noisy}-intermediate-scale quantum, to describe the fact that, currently, we can not prevent the environment from affecting the computation \cite{preskill2018}.
This problem is described with a Hamiltonian of the form $H=H_S+H_E+H_I$, which includes the system (for instance the qubit) and environment terms, $H_S$ and $H_E$ respectively, and the interaction $H_I=\sum_\alpha S_\alpha\otimes B_\alpha$, where $S_\alpha$ and $B_\alpha$ act on the system and the environment Hilbert space, respectively.
Despite environments can be of very different nature, Feynman and Vernon suggested in 1963 \cite{feynman1963a} that most of them can be described in terms of (real or virtual) harmonic oscillators, characterised by creation and annihilation operators $b_k^\dagger,b_k$. Hence, considering for simplicity a single component in $H_I$ we find
\begin{eqnarray}
H_E=\sum_k \omega_k b_k^\dagger b_k;\,\,\,\, H_I=S\otimes B,
\label{HE}
\end{eqnarray}
with $B=\sum_k {g}_k(b_k^\dagger+b_k)$, where $g_k$ is the coupling constant of the system with each of the $k$ oscillators having a frequency $\omega_k$. With this consideration, the effects of the environment in the open system dynamics can be encoded in second order fluctuations of these operators, $C_{B}(t)=\textmd{tr}_E\{{B}(t){B}(0)\rho_E\}$, or the related spectral density, $J(\omega)$, which depend only on $g_k$ and $\omega_k$.
Despite such a relatively simple description of the problem, obtaining the dynamics of the open quantum system (OQS) for all parameter regimes is still a challenging task.
Simply accessing the reduced density matrix to compute its quantum mean values is in general not trivial. This quantity is obtained by tracing out the environment degrees of freedom from the total density matrix, $\rho_S(t)=\textmd{Tr}_E\{\rho(t)\}$, either numerically or analytically, and can also be written as $\rho_S(t)=\phi_t[\rho_S(0)]$ in terms of the dynamical map $\phi_t$. Interestingly, the formal structure of both the master equation, that evolves $\rho_S(t)$ \cite{dario2010,hall2014}, and the dynamical map \cite{diosi2014,vacchini2016,smirne2015} is well known. Their specific form in terms of the Hamiltonian parameters is, however, only known in certain cases: when the dynamics is reduced to the one excitation sector \cite{Vacchini2010}, in pure dephasing ($[H_S,H_I]=0$) \cite{palma1996,yu2002,cianciaruso2017,haikka2013}, or when the full Hamiltonian is quadratic \cite{hu1992,ferialdi2016}.
Beyond these situations, the problem becomes more involved and approximations, numerical methods and special techniques are required. Among the most successful approximations is to consider a weak coupling between the system and the environment and a related perturbative expansion \cite{breuerbook,gasbarri2018}. A unitary transformation like the polaron, can allow for a similar peturbative expansion with respect to other Hamiltonian parameters \cite{mahan1981,mccutcheon2011}. Beyond such perturbative treatments, the number of approaches that have been developed during the past few years is extremely large \cite{devega2015c}. A non-comprehensive list include numerical methods like Monte-Carlo and path integrals \cite{wallsbook} as well as other stochastic methods like the stochastic Liouville-von-Neumann equation \cite{stockburger2002,stockburger2004}, that provides an accurate description of the open system in some parameter regimes. Other numerical methods include tensor networks \cite{strathearn2018,brenes2019,somoza2019} or chain mapping techniques combined with tensor networks \cite{scholl2011,prior2010} that can be optimized to efficiently deal with finite temperature environments \cite{verstraete2004,devega2015,devega2015b,tamascelli2019}. Alternatively, one may consider hierarchy expansions that are based on expressing the correlation function $C_{B}(t)$ as a combination of exponentials \cite{tanimura2006}, or formal derivations of the OQS dynamics based on thermodynamic principles \cite{rivas2019,alipour2019}, coherent-state representations \cite{strunz2001,suess2014,devega2014}, or on re-expressing the system-environment correlations in a specific form \cite{alipour2019b}, to mention just a few.
However, obtaining a non-perturbative and computable form of the dynamical map $\phi_t$ in terms of the Hamiltonian parameters is, to the best of our knowledge, still an open problem. In this work we derive such a map for one of the most paradigmatic examples of OQS, the spin boson model, although our method can be extended to discrete OQS with more internal levels. The derived map is based on decomposing the total evolution operator in interaction picture into segments of duration $\Delta t$, and then performing a Trotter decomposition for each of them. The Trotter error is zero in the pure dephasing limit, and beyond this limit it scales with $\Delta t^2$. For this reason, the map hereby obtained can be considered as a natural extension of the pure dephasing dynamical map, which has been of extreme importance to characterize quantum information processes and dephasing in open quantum systems (see for instance \cite{palma1996,yu2002,addis2015,sung2019,bramberger2019}).
\section{Statement of the problem}
\label{QDM}
We first introduce the formal derivation of an OQS dynamical map, which is the main object we want to access with our derivation. To this aim, we consider a decorrelated initial state, $\rho(0)=\rho_S(0) \otimes \rho_E$, where $\rho_S(0)$ is the system reduced density matrix at initial time and $\rho_E$ is an environment equilibrium state, such that $[H_E,\rho_E]=0$. For simplicity, we consider a thermal state $\rho_E=\sum_m P_m|\epsilon_m\rangle\langle\epsilon_m|$, where $|\epsilon_m\rangle$ are environment eigenstates (i.e. Fock states) and $P_m=e^{-\beta\epsilon_m}/Z_E$, with $\beta=1/K_B T$ the inverse temperature ($K_B$ the Boltzmann constant), $\epsilon_m$ the environment eigenvalues, and $Z_E=\sum_m e^{-\beta\epsilon_m}$. Thus, the reduced density matrix can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho_S(t)&=&\textmd{Tr}_E\{U_I(t)\rho_S(0)\otimes\rho_EU_I^{\dagger}(t)\}\cr
&=&
\sum_{nm} P_m \langle \epsilon_{n}|U_I(t)|\epsilon_m\rangle \rho_S(0) \langle \epsilon_m|U_I^{\dagger}(t)|\epsilon_{n}\rangle\cr
&=&
\sum_{nm} {\mathcal E}_{nm}(t)\rho_S(0){\mathcal E}_{nm}^\dagger(t)=\phi_t[\rho_S(0)],
\label{map1}
\end{eqnarray}
where $U_I(t)=U_I(0,t)$ is the total evolution operator in the interaction picture with respect to the environment, which can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
U_I(t)=Te^{-i\int_0^t ds H(s)},
\label{unitary}
\end{eqnarray}
where $T$ represents the time ordering operator, and $H(t)=H_S+H_I(t)$, with $H_I(t)=e^{iH_Et}H_Ie^{-iH_Et}$, represents the full Hamiltonian rotated with respect to $H_E$.
In addition, we have defined the Kraus operators ${\mathcal E}_{nm}=\sqrt{P_m}\langle \epsilon_{n} |U_I(t)|\epsilon_m\rangle$, which fulfil the property
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum_{n,m} {\mathcal E}_{nm}^\dagger {\mathcal E}_{nm}=1\!\!1_S,
\label{property}
\end{eqnarray}
where $1\!\!1_S$ is the unit operator in the system Hilbert space of dimension $d$. Very often, the Kraus decomposition (\ref{map1}) is written in terms of single label $l\equiv (n,m)$ to simplify, such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho_S(t)=\sum_{l} {\mathcal E}_{l}(t)\rho_S(0){\mathcal E}_{l}^\dagger(t)=\phi_t[\rho_S(0)].
\label{krausd}
\end{eqnarray}
Moreover, if the open system is a discrete-variable system (e.g. a spin), it can be described with a Gell-Mann complete basis of observables $\{G_u\,;\,u=1,\cdots,d^2-1\}$, where $d$ is the dimension of the open system (for $d=2$, they correspond to the Pauli matrices). In this case, we can write an alternative form for the map
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho_S(t)&=&\sum_{uv}\sum_l \textmd{Tr}_S\{{\mathcal E}_l(t)G_u\}\textmd{Tr}_S\{{\mathcal E}_{l}^\dagger(t)G_v\}G_u\rho_S(0)G_v\cr
&=&\sum_{uv}f_{uv}(t)G_u\rho_S(0)G_v,
\label{repres}
\end{eqnarray}
where we have defined
\begin{eqnarray}
f_{uv}(t)&=&\sum_l\textmd{Tr}_S\{{\mathcal E}_l(t)G_u\}\textmd{Tr}_S\{{\mathcal E}_{l}^\dagger(t)G_v\}.
\label{coeficients_2}
\end{eqnarray}
The map can be written in a matrix representation, where it acts over the reduced density matrix written as vector as
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho_s^v(t)=\Phi_t \rho_s^v(0),
\label{mapa0}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\rho_s^v=(\rho_{00},\rho_{01},\cdots,\rho_{dd})$, with $\rho_{ab}=\langle a|\rho_S(t)|b\rangle$ elements in a system basis which can be for instance $(|0\rangle,\cdots,|d\rangle)$. The main problem to derive the dynamical map $\Phi_t$ is that the unitary evolution operator (\ref{unitary}) is in general quite hard to deal with due to the time ordering factor, which implies that the trace over the environment degrees of freedom in Eq. (\ref{map1}) is also quite involved. However, in this paper we manage to do both by considering a Trotter decomposition of Eq. (\ref{unitary}), followed by a Magnus expansion. This allows us to derive a compact and numerically integrable form for the dynamical map $\Phi_{t_n}=\Phi_{n}$, with $t_n=n\Delta t$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\Phi_n=\sum_{uv}f_{uv}(t_n)G_u\otimes G_v.
\label{map}
\end{eqnarray}
In other words, our derivation allows to find a specific form for $f_{uv}$ in terms of functions that depend on the environment frequencies $\omega_k$, couplings $g_k$ and initial state coefficients $P_m$.
\section{Trotter decomposition of the unitary evolution operator}
To access the dynamical map of the open system, a first step is to break the total time evolution (\ref{unitary}) into short segments,
\begin{eqnarray}
U_I(0,t_n)&=&U_I(t_{n-1},t_n)U_I(t_{n-2},t_{n-1})\cdots \cr
&\times&U_I(t_1,t_2)U_I(0,t_1),
\label{segm}
\end{eqnarray}
where $t_n=n\Delta t$. The evolution operator at each segment can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
U_I(t_j,t_j+\Delta t)=Te^{-i\int^{t_j+\Delta t}_{t_j}ds(H_S+H_I(s))}.
\label{unitary0}
\end{eqnarray}
In the following, we consider the interesting result in \cite{huy1990,poulin2011}, which approximates the former operator as $U_I(t_j,t_j+\Delta t)\approx U_I(t_j,t_j+\Delta t)^{\textmd{TS}}$ where
\begin{eqnarray}
U^{\textmd{TS}}_I(t_j,t_j+\Delta t)&=& Te^{-i\int^{t_j+\Delta t}_{t_j}dsH_S}Te^{-i\int^{t_j+\Delta t}_{t_j}dsH_I(s)}\cr
&=&e^{-iH_S\Delta t}Te^{-i\int^{t_j+\Delta t}_{t_j}dsH_I(s)}.
\label{TSU}
\end{eqnarray}
This is a generalized Trotter-Suzuki expansion, which as shown in \cite{poulin2011} gives an error in terms of the operator norm that goes like
\begin{eqnarray}
||U_I(t_j,t_j+\Delta t)-U^{\textmd{TS}}_I(t_j,t_j+\Delta t)||\le c_{12}(\Delta t)^2,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
c_{12}=\frac{1}{(\Delta t)^2}\int_{t_j}^{t_j+\Delta t}dv\int_{t_j}^v du ||[H_S,H_I(u)]||.
\label{c12}
\end{eqnarray}
This reduces to the usual Trotter error for the time-independent case. Thus, the Trotter approximated expansion of Eq. (\ref{segm}) can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
U_I(0,t_n)&\approx&U^{\textmd{TS}}_I(t_{n-1},t_n)U^{\textmd{TS}}_I(t_{n-2},t_{n-1})\cdots \cr
&\times&U^{\textmd{TS}}_I(t_1,t_2)U^{\textmd{TS}}_I(0,t_1),
\label{segmT}
\end{eqnarray}
with each piece given by Eq. (\ref{TSU}). We notice that in the pure dephasing case, $c_{12}=0$ and the Trotter error vanishes. However, away from this situation, one should consider a $\Delta t$ small enough such that the error remains bounded, and the approximation (\ref{TSU}) accurate enough to describe the physics.
Moreover, despite Eq. (\ref{TSU}) is a more simplified version of the original unitary evolution operator, it still contains a time ordered exponential, which makes very hard to numerically evaluate the trace over the environment degrees of freedom as required in Eq. (\ref{map1}). For this reason, further manipulations are needed before this trace operation can be done. However, it is important to emphasize that none of these manipulations involve further errors.
\subsection{The system Hamiltonian}
To proceed further, we consider that our open quantum system is a spin with a general Hamiltonian $H_S=\tilde{\Delta}\sigma_x+\omega_S\sigma_z$, where $\tilde{\Delta}$ and $\omega_S$ are two system energies, $\sigma_x=|0\rangle\langle 1|+|1\rangle\langle 0|$ and $\sigma_z=|0\rangle\langle 0|-|1\rangle\langle 1|$, with $|0\rangle,||1\rangle$ the spin computational basis. This Hamiltonian can be diagonalized as
\begin{eqnarray}
H_S=\sum_{\alpha=+,-}E_\alpha|\alpha\rangle\langle\alpha|,
\label{HS}
\end{eqnarray}
where $|\alpha\rangle$ and $E_\alpha$ are the eigenvalues and eigenstates. Notice that the eigenstates can be written in terms of the computational basis of the spin $\{|a\rangle\}=\{|0\rangle,|1\rangle\}$ as a linear combination of the form $|\alpha\rangle=\sum_{a=0,1}c_{\alpha,a}|a\rangle$, with $c_{\alpha,a}=\langle a|\alpha\rangle$. In addition, we chose we chose the coupling operator $S=\sigma_z$. As it will be shown, the obtained map has a very appealing form, and reduces to the pure dephasing one when $\tilde{\Delta}=0$, as expected.
\subsection{Re-expressing the two terms in Eq. (\ref{TSU})}
The first term of the decomposition (\ref{TSU}) corresponds to the system evolution part with Hamiltonian (\ref{HS}) and can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
M=e^{-iH_S\Delta t}=\sum_{\alpha=\pm}|\alpha\rangle\langle \alpha|e^{-iE_\alpha\Delta t}.
\label{piece1}
\end{eqnarray}
The second term of Eq. (\ref{TSU}) can also be simplified, reminding that time-ordered exponentials can in general be written in terms of a Magnus expansion \cite{blanes2008,blanes2010,mahan1981}, $Te^{-i\int_{t_j}^{t_j+\Delta t}dsH_I(s)}=e^{\Omega(t_j,t_j+\Delta t)}$ with $\Omega(t_j,t_j+\Delta t)=\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\Omega_k(t_j,t_j+\Delta t)$, and
$\Omega(t_j,t_j)=0$. The first terms of the series have the form \cite{blanes2010}
\begin{eqnarray}
\Omega_1(t_j,t_j+\Delta t)&=&-i\int_{t_j}^{t_j+\Delta t} dt_1H_I(t_1),\\
\Omega_2(t_j,t_j+\Delta t)&=&-\frac{1}{2}\int_{t_j}^{t_j+\Delta t} dt_1\int_{t_j}^{t_1} dt_2[H_I(t_1),H_I(t_2)],\cr
\Omega_3(t_j,t_j+\Delta t)&=&\frac{i}{6}\int_{t_j}^{t_j+\Delta t} dt_1\int_{t_j}^{t_1} dt_2\int_{t_j}^{t_2} dt_3\cr
&\times&\bigg([H_I(t_1),[H_I(t_2),H_I(t_3)]\cr
&+&[H_I(t_3),[H_I(t_2),H_I(t_1)]\bigg).
\label{magn}
\end{eqnarray}
In our case,
\begin{eqnarray}
H_{I}(t)&=&e^{iH_Et}H_Ie^{-iH_Et}\cr
&=& \sigma_z \sum_k g_k \left(b_k^\dagger e^{i\omega_k t} + b_k e^{-i\omega_k t}\right) \cr
[H_{I}(t_1) , H_{I}(t_2)] &=&
2i\sum_k g_k^2 \sin(\omega_k (t_2-t_1)).
\end{eqnarray}
Since the commutator $[H_I(t_i),H_I(t_j)]$ is a c-number, the Magnus decomposition is truncated to the first two terms, i.e.
\begin{eqnarray}
Te^{-i\int^{t_j}_{t_j+\Delta t}dsH_I(s)}=e^{\Omega_1^{(j)}+\Omega_2^{(j)}},
\label{evolution}
\end{eqnarray}
where we have used the compact notation $\Omega_1^{(j)}=\Omega_1 (t_j,t_j+\Delta t)$ and $\Omega_2^{(j)}=\Omega_2 (t_j,t_j+\Delta t)$. Then, according to Eq. (\ref{magn}), the only non-zero terms in the Magnus expansion are
\begin{eqnarray}
\Omega^{(j)}_1 &=& -i \sigma_z \tilde{\Omega}^{(j)}_1\cr
\Omega^{(j)}_2 &=& - i \sum_k \frac{g_k^2}{\omega_k^2}(\sin(\omega_k \Delta t)-\omega_k \Delta t)=\Omega_2,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Omega^{(j)}_2=\Omega_2$, since it is independent from $j$, and we have defined $\tilde{\Omega}^{(j)}_1=\sum_k (\alpha^*_{kj} b_k^\dagger +\alpha_{kj} b_k )$, with
\begin{eqnarray}
\alpha_{kj}&=&g_k\int^{t_j+\Delta t}_{t_j}ds e^{-i\omega_k s}\cr
&=&g_ke^{-i\omega_k t_j}\frac{e^{-i\omega_k \Delta t}-1}{-i\omega_k},
\label{alpha}
\end{eqnarray}
The next step consists on rewriting $\Omega^{(j)}_1$ considering that $\sigma_z=|0\rangle\langle 0|-|1\rangle\langle 1|$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\Omega^{(j)}_1&=& -i\sigma_z\tilde{\Omega}^{(j)}_1=
\sum_{l_j=-i,i}l_j|l_j\rangle\langle l_j| \tilde{\Omega}^{(j)}_1,
\end{eqnarray}
where each $j$ has two possible values $l_j=-i,i$ and corresponding states of the computational basis, $|l_j=-i\rangle=|0\rangle$ and $|l_j=i\rangle=|1\rangle$.
As the exponential of a diagonal operator in the system basis, it can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
e^{\Omega^{(j)}_1}=\sum_{l_j}|l_j\rangle\langle l_j|e^{l_j\tilde{\Omega}^{(j)}_1}.
\label{piece2}
\end{eqnarray}
Considering Eqs. (\ref{piece1}) and (\ref{piece2}), the Trotter approximated evolution operator (\ref{TSU}) can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
U^{\textmd{TS}}_I(t_j,t_j+\Delta t)=e^{\Omega_2}M \sum_{l_j}|l_j\rangle\langle l_j|e^{l_j \tilde{\Omega}^{(j)}_1}.
\label{unitary0}
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{Reordering the string of evolution operators}
\label{reorder}
Having written each time segment in such a convenient form, we now analyze how to simplify the product of two segments, such that we place at its left an exponential over creation operators and at its right an exponential over annihilation operators. The reasons to do this will be clear later on, when making the trace over the environment degrees of freedom. Indeed, the product of two segments is simply,
\begin{eqnarray}
U^{\textmd{TS}}(t_1,t_2)U^{\textmd{TS}}(0,t_1)&=&e^{\Omega_2}e^{\Omega_2}\sum_{l_0,l_1}M |l_1\rangle\langle l_1|M |l_0\rangle\langle l_0|\cr
&\times&e^{l_1\tilde{\Omega}^{(1)}_1}e^{l_0\tilde{\Omega}^{(0)}_1},
\label{U12}
\end{eqnarray}
Through the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff (BCH) formula
\begin{eqnarray}
e^{A+B+\frac{1}{2}[A,B]}=e^Ae^B, \,\,\textmd{when} \,\,[A,B]=c,
\label{BCH}
\end{eqnarray}
we can consider $A=l_1\tilde{\Omega}_1^{(1)}$, $B=l_0\tilde{\Omega}_1^{(0)}$, such that $[A,B]=l_0l_1\sum_k(\alpha^*_{k0}\alpha_{k1}-\alpha^*_{k1}\alpha_{k0})$, so that Eq. (\ref{U12}) can be rewritten as
\begin{eqnarray}
&&U^{\textmd{TS}}(t_1,t_2)U^{\textmd{TS}}(0,t_1)=\big(e^{\Omega_2}\big)^2\sum_{l_0,l_1}M |l_1\rangle\langle l_1|M |l_0\rangle\langle l_0|\cr
&\times&e^{\sum_{j=0,1}l_j\tilde{\Omega}^{(j)}_1}e^{\frac{1}{2}l_0l_1\sum_k (\alpha^*_{k0}\alpha_{k1}-\alpha_{k0}\alpha^*_{k1})}.
\label{eq1}
\end{eqnarray}
We now use again the BCH formula, but now considering that $A=\sum_{jk}l_j\alpha_{kj}^*b_k^\dagger$ and $B=\sum_{jk}l_j\alpha_{kj}b_k$, such that $[A,B]=-\sum_{jp}l_jl_p\alpha^*_{kj}\alpha_{kp}$, such that
\begin{eqnarray}
e^{\sum_{j=0,1}l_j\tilde{\Omega}^{(j)}_1}&=&e^{\sum_{jk}l_j(\alpha^*_{kj}b_k^\dagger+\alpha_{kj}b_k)}\\
&=&e^{\sum_{jk}l_j\alpha^*_{kj}b_k^\dagger}e^{\sum_{jk}l_j\alpha_{kj}b_k}e^{\frac{1}{2}\sum_{jpk}l_jl_p\alpha^*_{kj}\alpha_{kp}},\nonumber
\label{eq30}
\end{eqnarray}
where $j,p=0,1$. Replacing this in Eq. (\ref{eq1}), we find
\begin{eqnarray}
&&U^{\textmd{TS}}(t_1,t_2)U^{\textmd{TS}}(0,t_1)=\big(e^{\Omega_2}\big)^2\sum_{l_0,l_1}M |l_1\rangle\langle l_1|M |l_0\rangle\langle l_0|\cr
&\times&e^{\sum_{kj}l_j\alpha^*_{kj}b_k^\dagger}e^{\frac{1}{2}\sum_{kj}l_j\alpha_{kj}b_k}F(l_0,l_1),
\label{eq2}
\end{eqnarray}
where we have defined
\begin{eqnarray}
F(l_0,l_1)=e^{l_0l_1\sum_k \alpha^*_{k0}\alpha_{k1}}e^{\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k,j=0,1}l^2_j|\alpha_{kj}|^2}.
\label{simpleF}
\end{eqnarray}
We now extend this computation to $n$ time steps. Following first a similar procedure as in Eq. (\ref{U12}), we find that the full evolution operator (\ref{segm}) with Trotter can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
U_I(0,t_n)&\approx &\big(e^{\Omega_2}\big)^n\sum_{l_0,\cdots l_{n-1}}M |l_{n-1}\rangle\langle l_{n-1}|\cdots M |l_0\rangle\langle l_0|\cr
&\times&e^{l_{n-1}\tilde{\Omega}^{(n)}_1}\cdots e^{l_1\tilde{\Omega}^{(1)}_1}.
\label{segm2}
\end{eqnarray}
Similarly as with the simpler case (\ref{eq1}), this expression can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
&&U_I(0,t_n)\approx\big(e^{\Omega_2}\big)^n\sum_{l_0,\cdots l_{n-1}}M |l_{n-1}\rangle\langle l_{n-1}|\cdots M |l_0\rangle\langle l_0|\cr
&\times&e^{\sum^{n-1}_{j=0}l_j\tilde{\Omega}^{(j)}_1}e^{\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j<p,k}l_pl_j(\alpha^*_{kj}\alpha_{kp}-\alpha_{kj}\alpha^*_{kp})}.
\label{segm3}
\end{eqnarray}
Through the BCH formula we decompose $e^{\sum_{j}l_j\tilde{\Omega}^{(j)}_1}$ exactly as Eq. (\ref{eq30}), but now with
the sums $j,p=0,\cdots,n-1$. Replacing this in Eq. (\ref{segm3}) we find the following expression
\begin{eqnarray}
U_I(0,t_n)&\approx& \big(e^{\Omega_2}\big)^n\sum_{l_0,\cdots l_{n-1}}e^{\sum_{j,k}l_j\alpha^*_{kj}b_k^\dagger}
e^{\sum_{j,k}l_j\alpha_{kj}b_k}\cr
&\times&F({\bf l})\Pi_{\bf l},
\label{segm4}
\end{eqnarray}
where we have defined the generalization of the function (\ref{simpleF}) as
\begin{eqnarray}
F({\bf l})&=&e^{\sum_{j<p,k}l_pl_j\alpha^*_{kj}\alpha_{kp}}e^{\frac{1}{2}\sum_{kj}l^2_j|\alpha_{kj}|^2},
\label{efe}
\end{eqnarray}
and the operator
\begin{eqnarray}
\Pi_{\bf l}&=&M|l_n\rangle\langle l_{n-1}|\cdots M|l_0\rangle\langle l_0|.
\label{pi}
\end{eqnarray}
Notice that for any $j$ we find that $l_j^2=-1$, such that $e^{\frac{1}{2}\sum_{kj}l^2_j|\alpha_{kj}|^2}=e^{-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{kj}|\alpha_{kj}|^2}$. In addition, we note that each ${\bf l}=(l_0,\cdots,l_{n-1})$ corresponds to a particular string of values of each $l_j$, and that the multiple sums $\sum_{l_0,\cdots l_{n-1}}=\sum_{\bf l}$ correspond to summing over all possible strings of the form $(-i,i,i,-i,\cdots,i)$, each corresponding to a different combination of values $(l_0,\cdots,l_{n-1})$ and corresponding string of projections $\Pi_{\bf l}$. Since for each $l_j$ we have two different values, the number of combinations is of the order of $2^n$.
\section{The reduced density matrix}
The reduced density matrix of the open quantum system can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho_S(t_n)=\textmd{Tr}_E\{U_I(0,t_n)\rho(0)U_I^{-1}(0,t_n)\}.
\end{eqnarray}
We may consider for simplicity that $\rho(0)=\rho_E\otimes\rho_S(0)$, and that $\rho_E$ is a thermal state.
Considering this, as well as the expression (\ref{segm4}) for the unitary evolution operator, the reduced density matrix can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho_S(t_n)&=&\sum_{\bf l,l'}G({\bf l},{\bf l}')
F({\bf l})F^*({\bf l}') \tilde{\rho}_S({\bf l},{\bf l'}),
\label{rdm}
\end{eqnarray}
where we have considered Eqs. (\ref{efe}) and further defined the operator
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{\rho}_S({\bf l},{\bf l'})&=&\Pi_{\bf l} \rho_S(0) \Pi^\dagger_{\bf l'},
\label{proj}
\end{eqnarray}
and the function
\begin{eqnarray}
G({\bf l},{\bf l}')&=&\textmd{Tr}_E\{e^{\sum_{j,k}l_j\alpha^*_{kj}b_k^\dagger}
e^{\sum_{j,k}l_j\alpha_{kj}b_k}\rho_E \cr
&\times&e^{\sum_{j,k}l'^*_j\alpha^*_{kj}b_k^\dagger}
e^{\sum_{j,k}l'^*_j\alpha_{kj}b_k}\}.
\label{gs}
\end{eqnarray}
We note that the dependency on the Hamiltonian parameters $\omega_k$ and $g_k$ is encoded in the constants $\alpha_{kj}$ defined in Eq. (\ref{alpha}). Furthermore, thanks to the re-orderings of the exponentials performed in Sec. \ref{reorder}, we can perform quite easily the trace over the environment degrees of freedom. This will be seen in the next section.
\subsection{Performing the environment trace}
The environment trace in Eq. (\ref{gs}) can now be performed in many different ways. One possibility is to express the environment degrees of freedom in terms of a Bargmann coherent state basis
$|z \rangle=|z_{1}\rangle |z_{2}\rangle\cdots | z_{k}\rangle...$, which represents a tensor product of the states of all the $k$ environmental oscillators \cite{strunz2001,devega2006}. The basis states for each oscillator are $| z_{k}\rangle=\exp(z_{k}a_{k}^{\dagger})|{\textmd{vac}}\rangle$, where $|{\textmd{vac}}\rangle$ is the vacuum state for this oscillator. In this basis, the environment initial thermal state can be written as \cite{quantumoptics}
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho_E=\int d\mu(z_0)P_T(z_0^*,z_0)|z_0\rangle\langle z_0|,
\end{eqnarray}
where we used the Gaussian measure,
\begin{eqnarray}
\int d\mu(z)=\int d^2z e^{-|z|^2}=\prod_{k} \int \frac {d^2 z_{k} }{\pi}e^{-|z_{k}|^2},
\label{Gaussianmeasure}
\end{eqnarray}
with the notation $e^{|z|^2}=e^{\sum_kz^*_{k}z_{k}}$, and considering the thermal $P$-function, $P(z^*_0,z_0)=\prod_\lambda P_T(z^*_{0k},z_{0k})$,
\begin{eqnarray}
P_T(z^*_{0k},z_{0k})=\frac{e^{-|z_{0k}|^2/N(\omega_k)}}{N(\omega_k)},
\end{eqnarray}
where $N(\omega_k)=\frac{1}{e^{\beta\omega_k}-1}$ is the Bose Einstein distribution for a bosonic bath with inverse temperature $\beta=1/K_BT$, with $K_B$ the Boltzmann constant.
Considering this basis, we can write the Eq. (\ref{gs}) as
\begin{eqnarray}
G({\bf l},{\bf l}')&=&\int d\mu(z_1)\int d\mu(z_0)P(z^*_0,z_0)\cr
&\times&
\langle z_1| e^{\sum_{j,k}l_j\alpha^*_{kj}b_k^\dagger}
e^{\sum_{j,k}l_j\alpha_{kj}b_k} |z_0\rangle\cr
&\times&\langle z_0|e^{\sum_{j,k}l'^*_j\alpha^*_{kj}b_k^\dagger} e^{\sum_{j,k}l'^*_j\alpha_{kj}b_k}
|z_1\rangle.
\label{GF}
\end{eqnarray}
We now consider the fact that for Bargmann states $\langle z_{1k}|z_{0k}\rangle=e^{z_{1k}^*z_{0k}}$, and $a_\lambda|z_{1k}\rangle=z_{1k}|z_{1k}\rangle$. Therefore, we can rewrite the function (\ref{GF}) as
\begin{eqnarray}
G({\bf l},{\bf l}')&=&\int d\mu(z_1)\int d\mu(z_0)P(z^*_0,z_0)\cr
&\times&e^{\sum_{j,k}l_j\alpha^*_{kj}z^*_{1k}}e^{\sum_{j,k}l_j\alpha_{kj}z_{0k}} \cr
&\times &e^{\sum_{j,k}l'^*_j\alpha^*_{kj}z^*_{0k}}e^{\sum_{j,k}l'^*_j\alpha_{kj}z_{1k}}
e^{z^*_1z_0}e^{z^*_0z_1},
\label{GF2}
\end{eqnarray}
where again we have used the notation $e^{|z_0|^2}=e^{\sum_k |z_{0k}|^2}$. Notice that such a simple expression is doable thanks to the arrangement of exponentials performed in Sec. \ref{reorder}.
The interesting thing about Eq. (\ref{GF2}) is that it corresponds to a product of Gaussian integrals, that are analytically solvable. Solving first the integral in $z_{1}$ we find (see App. \ref{Appendix1})
\begin{eqnarray}
G({\bf l},{\bf l}')&=&\int d z^2_0P(z^*_0,z_0)e^{\sum_{j,k}(l_j+l'^*_j)\alpha^*_{kj}z^*_{0k}}\cr
&\times&
e^{\sum_{j,k}(l_j+l'^*_j)\alpha_{kj}z_{0k}}e^{\sum_{jpk}l_jl'^*_p\alpha^*_{kj}\alpha_{kp}}.
\label{GF20}
\end{eqnarray}
Solving now the Gaussian integrals in $z_0$ we find
\begin{eqnarray}
G({\bf l},{\bf l}')&=&e^{\sum_{jpk}(l_j+l'^*_j)(l_p+l'^*_p)N(\omega_k)\alpha^*_{kj}\alpha_{kp}}\cr
&\times&e^{\sum_{jpk}l_jl'^*_p\alpha^*_{kj}\alpha_{kp}}.
\label{GF3}
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, the functions (\ref{efe}) and (\ref{GF3}) and the operator (\ref{proj}) give rise to a closed and well-defined form for the the reduced density matrix (\ref{rdm}), in terms of the Hamiltonian parameters $\omega_k$, $g_k$ and the initial state of the environment. We also note that the dependency over time is implicit in the sums in $j$ and $p$ over the quantities $\alpha_{kj},\alpha_{kp}$. This will be dealt with in the next section.
\subsection{Further simplification of the coefficients}
In the following we further simplify the products $\sum_k \alpha^*_{kj}\alpha_{kp}$ that appear the functions (\ref{efe}) and (\ref{GF3}) within the reduced density matrix (\ref{rdm}). These functions can now be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
F({\bf l})&=&e^{\sum_{j<p}l_pl_j\beta(t_p-t_j)}e^{-\frac{1}{2}\beta(0)},\cr
G({\bf l},{\bf l}')&=&e^{\sum_{jp}(l_j+l'^*_j)(l_p+l'^*_p)\beta_T(t_p-t_j)}\cr
&\times&e^{\sum_{jp}l_jl'^*_p\beta(t_p-t_j)},
\label{GF4}
\end{eqnarray}
where we have defined
\begin{eqnarray}
\beta(t_p-t_j)&=&\sum_k \alpha^*_{kj}\alpha_{kp}=\sum_k g_k^2 e^{-i\omega_k (t_p-t_j)}\cr
&\times&\bigg(\frac{e^{i\omega_k\Delta t}-1}{i\omega_k}\bigg)
\bigg(\frac{e^{-i\omega_k\Delta t}-1}{-i\omega_k}\bigg)\cr
&=&4\sum_k \sin^2\bigg(\frac{\omega_k\Delta t}{2}\bigg)\frac{g^2_k}{\omega_k^2}e^{-i\omega_k (t_p-t_j)},
\end{eqnarray}
where we have considered (\ref{alpha}) and used the fact that $\sin^2(x/2)=(1-\cos(x))/2$.
In a similar way, we find that
\begin{eqnarray}
\beta_T(t_p-t_j)&=&\sum_k N(\omega_k)\alpha^*_{kj}\alpha_{kp}=\sum_k g_k^2 N(\omega_k) e^{-i\omega_k (t_p-t_j)}\cr
&\times&\bigg(\frac{e^{i\omega_k\Delta t}-1}{i\omega_k}\bigg)
\bigg(\frac{e^{-i\omega_k\Delta t}-1}{-i\omega_k}\bigg)\cr
&=&4\sum_k N(\omega_k)\sin^2\bigg(\frac{\omega_k\Delta t}{2}\bigg)\frac{g^2_k}{\omega_k^2}e^{-i\omega_k (t_p-t_j)}.
\end{eqnarray}
We can therefore conclude that both $\beta(t)$ and $\beta_T(t)$ indeed depend only on the time difference, and their decay is related to the decay of the environment correlation function.
\subsection{Building the map}
Once we have the formal expression of the reduced density matrix (\ref{rdm}), i.e.
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho_S(t_n)&=&\sum_{\bf l,l'}G({\bf l},{\bf l}')
F({\bf l})F^*({\bf l}') \tilde{\rho}_S({\bf l},{\bf l'}),
\label{rdm22}
\end{eqnarray}
where we now consider Eqs. (\ref{GF4}) and further defined the operator like in Eq. (\ref{proj}), $
\tilde{\rho}_S({\bf l},{\bf l'})=\Pi_{\bf l} \rho_S(0) \Pi^\dagger_{\bf l'}$,
we can derive the corresponding dynamical map. This is made by considering that the spin can be described in terms of the compete base of observables conformed by Pauli matrices, $G_u\in\{1\!\!1/\sqrt{2},\sigma_x/\sqrt{2},\sigma_y/\sqrt{2},\sigma_z/\sqrt{2}\}$.
As discussed in Sec. \ref{QDM}, we can write the map as follows
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho_S(t_n)&=&\sum_{uv}\sum_{{\bf l},{\bf l'}}G({\bf l},{\bf l}')F({\bf l})F^*({\bf l}')
\textmd{Tr}_S\{\Pi_{\bf l}G_u\}
\cr
&\times& \textmd{Tr}_S\{\Pi^\dagger_{\bf l'}G_v\}G_u\rho_S(0)G_v,
\label{repres}
\end{eqnarray}
where the coefficients are given by Eq. (\ref{GF4}) and $\Pi_L({\bf l})$ is given by Eq. (\ref{pi}). We now write the map $\rho_S^v(t)=\Phi_n\rho_S^v(0)$ that propagates in time the vectorized form of the reduced density matrix, $\rho_S^v=(\rho_{00},\rho_{01},\rho_{10},\rho_{11})$, with $\rho_{ab}=\langle a|\rho_S|b\rangle$ and $|n\rangle\in\{ |0\rangle,|1\rangle\}$ as Eq. (\ref{mapa0}), $
\Phi_n=\sum_{uv}f_{uv}(t_n)G_u\otimes G_v$, where now we known the specific form of the coefficients
\begin{eqnarray}
f_{uv}(t_n)&=&\sum_{{\bf l},{\bf l'}}G({\bf l},{\bf l}')F({\bf l})F^*({\bf l}') \textmd{Tr}_S\{\Pi_{\bf l}G_u\}\cr
&\times&\textmd{Tr}_S\{\Pi^\dagger_{\bf l'}G_v\}.
\label{coeficients_2}
\end{eqnarray}
This expression, with the coefficients given once again by Eq. (\ref{GF4}) and $\Pi_L({\bf l})$ is by Eq. (\ref{pi}) is the main result of the paper.
\section{Considerations about the numerical integration}
We have obtained a closed form for the dynamical map (\ref{mapa0}) in terms of $F({\bf l})$, $G({\bf l},{\bf l}')$ and the operator string $\Pi_{\bf l}$. The complexity of the problem has been reduced to the task of computing such quantities for every combination of values for ${\bf l}$ and ${\bf l'}$. Despite the number of such combinations will grow as $2^n\times 2^n$, where $n$ is the number of time steps that we need to consider, such that $t_n=n\Delta t$, the whole process is computationally efficient, particularly in the following two limits:
\begin{itemize}
\item
The most obvious one is one one has to consider a small number of time steps $n$. This can be made when quantity $c_{12}$ in the Trotter error, given by Eq. (\ref{c12}), is very small. A good reference is to consider that this quantity is zero in the pure dephasing limit, when $[H_S,H_I(t)]=0$, which means that the decomposition (\ref{TSU}) is exact in this case, and one can simply chose $\Delta t=t$, where $t$ is the desired evolution time. For this reason, if our system Hamiltonian is composed of two terms $H_S=\omega_s\sigma_z+\tilde{\Delta} \sigma_x$, and $\tilde{\Delta}\ll 1$, the factor $c_{12}$ given by Eq. (\ref{c12}) will be proportional to $\tilde{\Delta}$, and thus the $\Delta t$ can be chosen to be very large. In a certain sense, the present derivation represents a natural extension of the pure dephasing limit.
\item We can also consider the proposal in \cite{cerrillo2014,buser2017} in which the set of dynamical maps of the form (\ref{mapa0}) that propagates the open system is transformed into a set of transfer tensors, $T$, such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho^v_S(t_n)=\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}T_{n,j}\rho^v_S(t_j),
\label{tensor}
\end{eqnarray}
where we define
\begin{eqnarray}
T_{n,0}=\Phi_n-\sum^{n-1}_{j=1}T_{n,j}\Phi_j.
\end{eqnarray}
In our case, the dynamical maps only depend on the time difference, and so does the transfer tensor $T_{n,j}=T_{n-j}$. Thus, the different transfer tensors are built as $T_1=\Phi_1$, $T_2=\Phi_2-\Phi_1\Phi_1=\Phi_2-T_1\Phi_1$, and $T_3=\Phi_3-T_1\Phi_2-T_2\Phi_1$, and so on. The construction (\ref{tensor}) shows that the reduced density matrix at a time $t_n$ depends on the reduced density matrix at previous times. In most of the problems the environment has a finite correlation or relaxation time $\tau_c$, which is approximately given by the decay of $\beta(t_1-t_2)$ and $\beta_T(t_1-t_2)$. In this cases, the dependency over the past is limited by a cutoff $K$, such that $T_{n-j}=T_p\rightarrow 0$ when $p=n-j>K$. This implies that it is enough to obtain the dynamical map with coefficients (\ref{coeficients_2}) up to a time $t_n=t_K=\tau_c$, and this is quite advantageous since very often $\tau_c$ is much smaller than the time we need to propagate the open system.
\end{itemize}
Away from these cases the problem can be computationally more intensive, and a careful optimization of the algorithm might be required, based for instance in storing the matrix arrays $\Pi_{\bf n}$ to advance further time steps.
\section{Simple limits}
\subsection{Pure dephasing limit}
The pure dephasing limit is that in which the system Hamiltonian (\ref{HS}) is diagonal in the same basis $\{|a\rangle\}=\{|0\rangle,|1\rangle\}$ in which also the interaction Hamiltonian is diagonal, i.e. $
H_S=\sum_{a=0,1}E_a|a\rangle\langle a|$. In this case, the reduced density matrix (\ref{rdm}) is simplified as
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho_S(t_n)&=&\sum_{l_0}\sum_{l'_0}M_D(l_0)\rho_s(0)M_D^{-1}(l'_0)\prod_{j>0}\delta_{l_j,l_0}\prod_{j>0}\delta_{l'_j,l'_0}
\cr
&\times&G({\bf l},{\bf l}')
F({\bf l})F^*({\bf l}'),
\label{rdm2}
\end{eqnarray}
where we have defined
\begin{eqnarray}
M_D(l_0)=(|0\rangle\langle 0|e^{-iE_0 t}\delta_{l_0,-i}+|1\rangle\langle 1|e^{-iE_1 t}\delta_{l_0,i}).
\end{eqnarray}
Eq. (\ref{rdm2}) can be further simplified as
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho_S(t_n)&=&\sum_{l_0}\sum_{l'_0}M_D(l_0)\rho_s(0)M_D^{-1}(l'_0)\prod_{j>0}\delta_{l_j,l_0}\prod_{j>0}\delta_{l'_j,l'_0}
\cr
&\times&e^{-\sum_{kj}|\alpha_{kj}|^2}e^{\sum_{kjp}l_jl'^*_p\alpha^*_{kj}\alpha_{kp}}\cr
&\times&e^{\sum_{kjp}(l_j+l'^*_j)(l_p+l'^*_p)\alpha^*_{kj}\alpha_{kp}N(\omega_k)}.
\label{rdm3}
\end{eqnarray}
Now we consider the following cases:
\subsubsection{Case $l_0=l_j=l'_j=l'_0=i$}
In this situation we find that
\begin{eqnarray}
F({\bf l})&=&e^{-\sum_{j<p,k}\alpha^*_{kj}\alpha_{kp}}e^{-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{jk}|\alpha_{kj}|^2}\cr
F^*({\bf l}')&=&e^{-\sum_{j<p,k}\alpha_{kj}\alpha^*_{kp}}e^{-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{jk}|\alpha_{kj}|^2}\cr
G({\bf l},{\bf l}')&=&e^{\sum_{jpk}\alpha^*_{kj}\alpha_{kp}},
\end{eqnarray}
but $e^{\sum_{kjp}\alpha^*_{kj}\alpha_{kp}}=e^{\sum_{j<p,k}(\alpha^*_{kj}\alpha_{kp}+\alpha_{kj}\alpha^*_{kp})}e^{\sum_{kj}l_j^2|\alpha_{kj}|^2}$, and therefore $F({\bf l})F^*({\bf l}')G({\bf l},{\bf l}')=1$, so that all the time dependency in Eq. (\ref{rdm3}) disappears for this case. A similar situation occurs for $l_0=l_j=l'_j=l'_0=-i$.
\subsubsection{Case $l_0=l_j=i$, and $l'_0=l'_j=-i$}
For this case, we find that
\begin{eqnarray}
F({\bf l})&=&e^{-\sum_{j<p,k}\alpha^*_{kj}\alpha_{kp}}e^{-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{jk}|\alpha_{kj}|^2}\cr
F^*({\bf l}')&=&e^{-\sum_{j<p,k}\alpha_{kj}\alpha^*_{kp}}e^{-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{jk}|\alpha_{kj}|^2}\cr
G({\bf l},{\bf l}')&=&e^{-\sum_{jpk}4N(\omega_k)\alpha^*_{kj}\alpha_{kp}}e^{-\sum_{jp}\alpha^*_{kj}\alpha_{kp}},
\end{eqnarray}
so that we find that
\begin{eqnarray}
F({\bf l})F^*({\bf l}')G({\bf l},{\bf l}')=e^{-2\sum_{jpk}(2N(\omega_k)+1)\alpha^*_{kj}\alpha_{kp}}.
\label{efes}
\end{eqnarray}
Now, in the continuum limit, we find that
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum^{n-1}_{j=0} \alpha_{kj}^*=g_k\int_0^{t_n} dse^{i\omega_ks}=g_k\frac{e^{i\omega_k t_n}-1}{i\omega_k}.
\end{eqnarray}
Considering this, we find that Eq. (\ref{efes}) can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
F({\bf l})F^*({\bf l}')G({\bf l},{\bf l}')=e^{-8\sum_{k}\frac{g_k^2}{\omega_k^2}(2N(\omega_k)+1)\sin^2\big(\frac{\omega_kt_n}{2}\big)},
\end{eqnarray}
where we have considered the fact that $(1-\cos(\omega_kt))/2=\sin^2(\omega_kt/2)$. The same result is obtained for $l_0=l_j=-i$ and $l'_0=l'_j=i$.
\subsubsection{Reduced density matrix}
Considering all these cases, we find that Eq. (\ref{rdm3}) can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho_S(t)&=& \ket{1}\bra{1}\rho_0\ket{1}\bra{1} \nonumber\\
&+&\ket{0}\bra{0}\rho_0\ket{0}\bra{0} \nonumber\\
&+&\ket{1}\bra{1}\rho_0\ket{0}\bra{0} e^{-i(E_1-E_0) t}e^{-\Gamma(t)} \nonumber\\
&+& \ket{0}\bra{0}\rho_0\ket{1}\bra{1} e^{-i (E_0-E_1) t}e^{-\Gamma(t)} \label{eq:5.2.2.final}
\end{eqnarray}
Where we defined the decay rate $\Gamma(t)$ as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma(t) &:=&8 \sum_k \frac{g_k^2}{\omega_k^2}\sin^2\left(\frac{\omega_k t}{2}\right)\coth\left(\frac{\beta \omega_k}{2}\right)\cr
&=&4\textmd{Re}\bigg\{\int_0^t ds\int_0^s du C_B(s-u)\bigg\},
\label{gammaharm}
\end{eqnarray}
where $C_B(t-s)=\textmd{Tr}_E\{{B}(t){B}(s)\rho_E\}$. This corresponds to the standard reduced density matrix undergoing pure dephasing.
\subsection{Simple Markov limit}
Notice that there is a very simple case where the required time step $\Delta t\gg \tau_c$, where $\tau_c$ is the decay time of the functions $\beta(t)$ and $\beta_T(t)$. In this very simple case, the map is memory-less, i.e.
\begin{eqnarray}
F({\bf l})&=&e^{-\frac{1}{2}\beta(0)},\cr
G({\bf l},{\bf l}')&=&e^{\sum_{j}(l_j+l'^*_j)(l_j+l'^*_j)\beta_T(0)}\cr
&\times&e^{\sum_{j}l_jl'^*_j\beta(0)},
\label{GF4_M}
\end{eqnarray}
and each piece of the map obeys the semi-group property, i.e. $\Phi_{2}=\Phi_1\Phi_1$, where $\Phi_1=\sum_{uv}f_{uv}(t_1)G_u\otimes G_v$ with
\begin{eqnarray}
f_{uv}(t_1)&=&e^{-\beta(0)}\sum_{l_0,l'_0}e^{(l_0+l'^*_0)(l_0+l'^*_0)\beta_T(0)}
e^{l_0l'^*_0\beta(0)}\cr&\times&
\textmd{Tr}_S\{M|l_0\rangle\langle l_0|G_u\}\textmd{Tr}_S\{|l'_0\rangle\langle l'_0|MG_v\},
\end{eqnarray}
where, as usual, the sums run over $l_0=-i,i$ and $l'_0=-i,i$.
\section{Different initial states, multiple-time correlation functions and quantum information protocols}
Once we have been able to express the evolution operator in interaction picture as in Eq. (\ref{segm4}) it is possible to access other dynamical quantities of the open quantum system. In detail, we can obtain the evolution of its reduced density matrix when starting from an initial state that is decorrelated between the system and the environment \cite{halimeh2017}, like for instance a statistical mixture of the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho(0)=\int d\mu(z_0) {\cal J}(z_0 , z^*_0) \tilde{\rho}_S (z^*_0 ,z_0)|z_0\rangle\langle z_0|,
\label{ch1stat1}
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\cal J}(z_0 , z^*_0)$ is the statistical probability for the member $\tilde{\rho}_S (z^*_0 ,z_0)$ of the statistical ensemble. Indeed, the reduced density matrix can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho_S(t_n)&=&\sum_{\bf l,l'}\tilde{\rho}^G_S({\bf l},{\bf l'})
F({\bf l})F^*({\bf l}') ,
\label{rdm2}
\end{eqnarray}
but now with $\tilde{\rho}^G_S({\bf l},{\bf l'})$ the following operator
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{\rho}^G_S({\bf l},{\bf l'})&=&\int d\mu(z_1)\int d\mu(z_0){\cal J}(z_0 , z^*_0)\Pi_{\bf l}\tilde{\rho}_S (z^*_0 ,z_0) \Pi^\dagger_{\bf l'}\cr
&\times&
\langle z_1| e^{\sum_{j,k}l_j\alpha^*_{kj}b_k^\dagger}
e^{\sum_{j,k}l_j\alpha_{kj}b_k} |z_0\rangle \cr
&\times&\langle z_0|e^{\sum_{j,k}l'^*_j\alpha^*_{kj}b_k^\dagger} e^{\sum_{j,k}l'^*_j\alpha_{kj}b_k}
|z_1\rangle .
\label{GF2_init_corr}
\end{eqnarray}
In a similar way, it is possible to access multiple time correlation functions, like for instance \cite{devega2006},
\begin{eqnarray}
&&C_{{\bf A}}({\bf t})=\textmd{Tr}\bigg\{\prod_{i=1}^N {{ U}}^{-1}_I(t_i,0)A_i{{ U}}_I(t_i,0)\rho(0)\bigg\}
\label{ch2gen2}
\end{eqnarray}
where $A_1,\cdots,A_N$ is any array of system operators, by directly replacing the expression (\ref{segm4}) for the unitary evolution operators. Measurement-like correlations like the ones considered in \cite{milz2019} can also be obtained. In the end, independently from the particular construction considered, we will have to compute the environment trace of exponentials of linear combinations of creation and annihilation operators. These can be arranged as before, i.e. using the BCH formula (\ref{BCH}), such that in the end one one is left with terms of the form $e^{\sum_k A_k b_k^\dagger}e^{\sum_k B_k b_k}$.
Finally, we notice that in between the unitary evolution operators that characterize the interaction with the environment, one may consider unitary operations $V$ acting over the open system only, as it happens during a quantum computation protocol \cite{milz2017,milz2019}. In this case, we would still be able to determine with our procedure the resulting evolution, conditioned to such operations,
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\rho^{\textmd{cond}}_S(t)=\textmd{Tr}_E\{\cdots V_2 U_I(t_1,t_2)V_1U_I(0,t_1)\cr
&\times&\rho_S(0)\otimes \rho_EU^{-1}_I(0,t_1)V_1U^{-1}_I({t}_1,{t}_2)V_2\cdots\}.
\label{eqprot}
\end{eqnarray}
We note that for quantum information protocols the most desirable property is the divisibility property, i.e. the property such that in the decomposition $\phi(0,t_2)=\phi(t_2,t_1)\phi(t_1,0)$, the intermediate piece $\phi(t_2,t_1)$ is also a well-defined (i.e. completely positive) dynamical map. We note that here we have changed the notation of the map to specify the time interval, such that $\phi_t\equiv \phi(t,0)$. Thanks to this property, we can always rewrite the above protocol (\ref{eqprot}) as
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\rho^{\textmd{cond}}_S(t)=\cdots V_2\phi(t_1,t_2)V_1\phi(0,t_1)\rho_S(0),
\end{eqnarray}
i.e. in terms of the subsequent application of different dynamical maps $\phi(t_{n},t_{n+1})$ in between qubit operations $V_n$. An even more desirable case is that in which besides being divisible, the dynamical map is a semigroup, such that all intermediate pieces are built in the same way, since $\phi(t_{n},t_{n+1})=\phi(t_{n+1}-t_n,0)$.
\section{Conclusions}
We have derived the dynamical map corresponding to the spin-boson model by considering, in a similar way as in a tensor network time-evolution, a Trotter decomposition of the unitary evolution operator with a time step $\Delta t$. The only particularity is that we perform such decomposition for the evolution operator in the interaction picture with respect to the environment. Further, we consider a Magnus expansion for the resulting terms and analytically solve the trace over the environment degrees of freedom. The resulting map depends on the Hamiltonian parameters $\omega_k$ and $g_k$, as well as on the environment initial state, and can be numerically computed in an efficient way. Moreover, the most convenient limits are the limit close to pure dephasing (so that the trotter error is small and $\Delta t$ can be chosen to be large) and when the environment correlations are relatively short (such that the transfer tensor method can be used efficiently).
Moreover, since the method is based on having re-expressed the unitary evolution operator, which is a basic building block of the evolution, it can be used to describe not only quantum mean values but also any other dynamical quantity, like multiple-time correlation functions \cite{devega2006,milz2019}. In addition, it can be easily extended to deal with arbitrary system-environment initial states, and situations where the environment evolution is interrupted by local operations over the open system, as it occurs during a quantum computation protocol \cite{milz2017,milz2019}.
We note that the resulting expression for the reduced density matrix is very similar to the one obtained in \cite{strathearn2017} based on a Trotter discretization of the Feynman path integral. The advantage of the method here proposed is that while the Feynman influence functional required in path integrals is best known for Gaussian, i.e. harmonic, environments, the present method can in principle be extended beyond this case, provided that the pure dephasing pieces of the evolution, $Te^{-i\int^{t_{j+1}}_{t_j}}ds H_I(s)$, are can be properly arranged to perform the trace \cite{bramberger2019}. Moreover, as it is shown, our method allows for a straightforward access not only to the reduced density matrix but to other system dynamical quantities.
\begin{acknowledgements}
The author acknowledge M.C. Ba\~nuls, M. Bramberger, K. Modi, C. Parra, and A. Smirne for interesting discussions. This research was financially supported by DFG-grant GZ: VE 993/1-1.
\end{acknowledgements}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Ground-based near-infrared (NIR) spectroscopy is severely hindered by extremely bright background emission from the earth's atmosphere. Between 1 and 1.8~$\mu$m, this background is dominated by a forest of emission lines resulting from the rovibrational de-excitation of OH molecules at $\approx 87$~km altitude (for a review of the NIR background see \citealt{ell08} and references therein). This background is notoriously difficult to subtract cleanly, since it is very bright ($\approx 14$~mag~arcsec$^{-2}$ in the H band) and highly variable, both temporally and spatially, leading to a large Poissonian noise, and large systematic errors (see e.g.\ \citealt{dav07}).
In 2004, Bland-Hawthorn et al.\ introduced the idea of using fibre Bragg gratings (FBGs) to filter these atmospheric emission lines from observations, and demonstrated the first devices in the laboratory (\citealt{bland04}). Unlike other OH suppression techniques such as high dispersion masking (e.g.\ \citealt{con94,iwa94,mai00b,iwa01,mot02,par04}), the OH lines are removed \emph{prior} to the light entering the spectrograph, and in a manner dependent solely on wavelength. Subsequent refinements resulted in FBGs capable of suppressing the emission of 150 lines (in most cases actually very closely spaced doublets), at a resolving power of 10,000, by a factor of up to 30~dB over a bandwidth of 400~nm, with both the wavelength and depth of the notches perfectly matched to the OH lines (\citealt{bland08}).
FBGs only work in the single mode regime, since the different modes of a multimode fibre will not remain in phase, and thus cannot simultaneously constructively interfere. However, in order to collect enough light at the telescope focus, one must use large core area fibres, which are necessarily multimoded. Photonic lanterns were developed to solve this problem (\citealt{leo05,noo09,leo10,noo10,noo12,bir15}), by efficiently converting a multimode fibre into a parallel array of single mode fibres, and vice versa, and thereby enabling FBGs to be incorporated into a spectrograph fibre feed.
The science case and expected performance of OH suppression with FBGs was modelled by \citet{ell08}, and the detailed technique and principles were comprehensively reviewed by \citet{bland11b}.
OH suppression with FBGs was first demonstrated in an on-sky test in which a multimode fibre was pointed directly at the sky, through a hole in the wall of the dome of the Anglo-Australian Telescope (AAT). This first test used FBGs suppressing 63 doublets at $R=10,000$. The output of the multimode fibre was relayed into the IRIS2 spectrograph (\citealt{tin04}), to obtain an $R=2400$ H band spectrum, demonstrating clean suppression of the night sky lines (\citealt{bland09}). However, the light was gathered with a 60~$\mu$m core fibre feeding a $1\times 7$ photonic lantern, resulting in a large loss due to the mismatch in the number of modes.
Following this, a prototype was developed to integrate FBGs into an instrument fed by a telescope. The resulting instrument, GNOSIS (\citealt{tri13a}), used an array of $7 \times 50$~$\mu$m core fibres, fed by a microlens array, each of which fed a $1 \times 19$ photonic lantern. Each SMF of the photonic lanterns was spliced to two FBGs in series, which together suppressed the 103 brightest doublets between $1.47$ and $1.7$~$\mu$m. The output multimode fibres were arranged into a pseudo-slit, the output of which was re-imaged onto a custom slit mask in the IRIS2 spectrograph.
The GNOSIS experiment demonstrated the background reduction made possible with photonic OH suppression (see \citealt{ell12a} for full details on the performance of GNOSIS). The OH lines were suppressed by factors of up to 40~dB for the brightest doublets, and the integrated background between 1.47 and 1.7~$\mu$m was reduced by a factor of 9. Nevertheless, despite this
achievement, GNOSIS did not show an improvement in signal-to-noise over conventional NIR spectrographs, nor any reduction in the interline continuum due to reduction of the contamination from scattered OH light. The lack of signal-to-noise improvement is understood to be the result of retro-fitting the OH suppression unit to an existing spectrograph. All the optics prior to IRIS2 were warm leading to an increased thermal background, and the overall throughput was low ($\approx 4$ per cent), increasing the relative strength of the detector noise. Together, these two effects counteracted the improvements made in the night sky background (\citealt{ell12a}). The lack of reduction in the interline continuum could be due to the presence of real emission of unknown origin (see e.g.\ \citealt{con96,sul12,oli15,ngu16}), which could be dependent on the observing site, but interpretation is confounded by the low signal-to-noise of the measurements.
In order to remedy these deficencies, and thereby fully assess and quantify the performance of OH suppression with FBGs, we have built a new spectrograph and fibre feed, PRAXIS (\citealt{hor12,con14,ell16,ell18}). PRAXIS is optimised for an OH suppressed fibre feed, and was designed to have low thermal emission and detector noise, whilst maintaining high throughput. It is fed via a small microlens array feeding 7 OH suppressed fibres (and an additional 12 non-suppressed fibres to assist in object acquisition) which is optimised for measuring the night sky background, whilst also allowing observations of single objects.
PRAXIS has been tested in three commissioning runs. PRAXIS has now demonstrated OH suppression in a high efficiency spectrograph for the first time. This is an important milestone for OH suppression, since it proves the viability of photonic OH suppression in a practicable instrument, i.e.\ FBGs and photonic lanterns can be efficiently incorporated into an astronomical instrument, and there are no inherent impediments in doing so.
In this paper we provide an interim report describing this significant result.
We describe the instrument in section~\ref{sec:praxis}, and report on the performance of the instrument in section~\ref{sec:perf}, including an analysis of the OH suppression and sky background. Thereafter we demonstrate the capability and potential of OH suppression through some early science verification observations of Seyfert nuclei
in section~\ref{sec:sv}. Finally we summarise our results in
section~\ref{sec:conc}.
\section{PRAXIS: instrument description}
\label{sec:praxis}
The PRAXIS instrument design has been described in full in several SPIE papers (\citealt{hor12,con14,ell16,ell18}) and the general scheme of OH suppression was given in the introduction; here we give a brief summary and overview. The overall scheme of PRAXIS is sketched in Figure~\ref{fig:praxis}.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{prx_schm2.pdf}
\caption{Schematic diagram of PRAXIS. Light enters from the telescope at the top left. The main components are the fore-optics (top), the fibre Bragg grating unit (middle) and the spectrograph (bottom). See the text for a full description.}
\label{fig:praxis}
\end{figure*}
PRAXIS has four main components: the fore-optics, the IFU and fibre cable, the fibre Bragg grating unit, and the spectrograph. We will now describe each of these, beginning with the fibre Bragg grating unit.
\subsection{Fibre Bragg grating unit}
The heart of PRAXIS is the fibre Bragg grating unit, which filters the OH lines from the incoming light, and which sets it apart from all other near-infrared spectrographs. The design of the rest of the instrument follows from the characteristics of the FBG unit, and so we describe it first.
The filtering is done by aperiodic fibre Bragg gratings, the design and principles of which are described by \citet{bland04,bland08,bland11b}. PRAXIS uses the same FBGs as GNOSIS (\citealt{tri13a}). Rather than a periodic variation in refractive index in the core of the fibre, which produces a strong reflection at a particular wavelength (and harmonics thereof), the core of the refractive index has an extremely complicated aperiodic variation giving rise to a series of strong reflections at the wavelengths of the OH lines. PRAXIS uses two aperiodic gratings spliced together to suppress the 103 brightest OH doublets between 1.47 and 1.7~$\mu$m. The depth of the filter notches is matched to the average strength of the OH lines. The notches are very square (well fitted by an 8th order Butterworth profile, \citealt{tri13a}), such that notches do not affect the interline regions. The transmission of the FBGs between the notches is $>90$ per cent, and the typical notch width is $200$~pm, which is approximately two thirds of a pixel. The measured transmission of the two FBGs in series is shown in Figures~\ref{fig:fbgplot} and \ref{fig:fbgplotlin}, overlaid with the model OH emission spectrum.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.78]{fbgplothr.pdf}
\caption{The logarithm of the measured transmission of the PRAXIS FBGs (black) compared to the logarithm of a model of the sky surface brightness (red). The FBG notches match the sky lines with excellent fidelity, in terms of wavelength, depth and width.}
\label{fig:fbgplot}
\end{figure*}%
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.85]{fbgplotlinhr.pdf}
\caption{As for Fig.~\ref{fig:fbgplot}, but with both the FBG transmission and model sky surface brightness shown on a linear scale for comparison.}
\label{fig:fbgplotlin}
\end{figure*}
As described in the introduction, each FBG is inscribed into a single mode fibre, and therefore for efficient coupling to a telescope the FBGs must be incorporated into a photonic lantern. At the time when the GNOSIS FBGs were being made, the most efficient photonic lanterns had 19 single mode fibres, and therefore these were selected. In order to increase the total number of modes, and thereby the field-of-view, 7 photonic lanterns were made, each containing identical FBGs. For efficient performance the multimode input of each photonic lantern must be fed at the correct focal ratio to excite approximately 19 modes. In fact the throughput of a photonic lantern is a non-trivial function of the input focal ratio, but has been well characterised empirically (\citealt{hor14}). Consideration of this throughput dependence is of central importance in the design of the fore-optics, which will be discussed next.
\subsection{Fore-optics}
The primary purpose of the fore-optics is to couple light from the f/15 Cassegrain focus of the AAT into the multimode inputs of the photonic lanterns. The injection follows the standard pupil imaging technique of many fibre array integral field units (\citealt{ren02}) in which a microlens array segments the image plane, and each microlens forms a pupil image on the front face of the fibre. Before the microlens array are some relay optics which change the plate-scale from the default f/15 focus to provide the correct sampling for each 250~$\mu$m wide hexagonal microlens.
For PRAXIS the appropriate sampling for the microlenses is that which maximises the signal-to-noise in the fibres, which must take into account the transmission of the photonic lanterns as a function of input focal ratio, as well as the dependence of the source and background counts on the area of the sky subtended by each fibre. This optimisation differs for a point source or for a constant surface brightness. Since one of the primary science cases for PRAXIS is to measure the night sky background with OH suppression, including the interline continuum, the optimal spatial sampling was chosen as 0.55 arcsec per microlens, corresponding to a fibre injection speed of f/4, which is a compromise between optimising for the sky brightness whilst still allowing scientific observations of individual sources.
To increase the field-of-view, PRAXIS has a small IFU of 7 fibres, each feeding its own photonic lanterns, so the total field of view is therefore 1.65 arcsec across, or an area of 1.8 arcsec$^{2}$. In addition, the IFU has an outer ring of 12 fibres which are not OH suppressed, but lead directly to the spectrograph, see Figure~\ref{fig:praxis}. These fibres provide a larger field-of-view to facilitate acquisition, and are also useful to provide control spectra for comparison with the OH suppressed spectra. The 12 non-suppressed fibres are physically separated from the OH suppressed fibres at the slit to avoid cross-talk between adjacent spectra.
The fore-optics unit also contains a dichroic beam-splitter as the first optical element, which reflects light with $\lambda < 1.05$~$\mu$m to a visible acquisition and guiding camera. The relay-optics contain an intermediate pupil, at which point there is a cold-stop at 262~K to baffle thermal emission from outside the beam, and from the telescope central obstruction.
\subsection{Fibre cable}
The microlens array feeds an array of 19 fibres each with a core diameter of 50~$\mu$m and a numerical aperture (NA) of 0.2. The fibre cable is 15~m long in order to reach the floor of the AAT dome, where the spectrograph is situated, from the Cassegrain focus. The fibres are terminated with FC/PC connectors, which connect to the input of the FBG unit for the inner seven fibres, or directly to the spectrograph fibre cable for the outer 12. The output of the FBG unit also connects to the spectrograph fibre cable with FC/PC connectors.
The fibres enter the spectrograph pre-slit area via a vacuum feed-through. The fibres are terminated in a slit block, which forms the entrance slit of the spectrograph. The mapping of the IFU to the slit is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:ifumap}. Note that the non-suppressed fibres are separated from the suppressed fibres by $30$ times the fibre core diameter to ensure there is no cross-talk between the fibres.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{slitmap.pdf}
\caption{The orientation of the IFU and the mapping of the fibres onto the spectrograph slit. The non-suppressed fibres are separated from the OH suppressed fibres to avoid cross-contamination.}
\label{fig:ifumap}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Spectrograph}
Much of the improved performance of PRAXIS compared to GNOSIS is due to the spectrograph, which was designed specifically for the FBG fibre feed, with increased throughput, low detector noise, and a low thermal background. The increased throughput and low detector noise have been demonstrated, but the low thermal background has not yet been demonstrated on-sky; we describe these measurements in \S\ref{sec:perf}, and here we describe the design.
The PRAXIS spectrograph has a fixed format designed to cover only the wavelengths of the GNOSIS FBGs, i.e.\ 1.47 -- 1.7~$\mu$m, and therefore all components, including glasses, coatings, and the VPH grating were optimised for this wavelength range. It uses a state-of-the-art Hawaii-2RG HgCdTe Teledyne detector, housed in its own cryostat, with an ASIC sidecar controller, provided by GL Scientific. These detectors have high quantum efficiency, low read out noise and low dark current; see \S\ref{sec:det}.
PRAXIS is designed to have low thermal background by cooling all significantly emitting parts. The spectrograph optics are all enclosed in a radiation shield cooled to 123.5~K with a SunPower cryocooler. The detector, is housed in a separate dewar and operated at 75~K, with the radiation shield, including baffles is at 125~K.
\section{PRAXIS: performance}
\label{sec:perf}
The on-sky performance of PRAXIS has been demonstrated in three commissioning runs. The instrument is not yet fully commissioned, but a number of important milestones for OH suppression have now been demonstrated.
The commissioning runs are summarised in Table~\ref{tab:comm}. The assembly and integration of the instrument was achieved without major difficulty, and all standard observing procedures, including acquisition, guiding, calibrations, and data acquisition have been established. Below we describe the performance of PRAXIS, demonstrating that effectual OH suppression is now achievable.
\begin{table*}
\centering
\caption{Summary of the first two PRAXIS commissioning runs.}
\begin{tabular}{lll}
Dates & Number of clear nights & Achievements \\ \hline
26th -- 31st July 2018 & 2 & Integration on telescope\\
&& Image quality\\
&& Acquisition with offset guide camera\\
&& Offset guiding\\
&& Image reconstruction software \\
&& Data acquistion and detector operation\\
&& Wavelength calibration\\
&& Flat-field calibration \\
\hline
16th -- 21st October 2018 & 2 & Acquisition and guiding with Cassegrain unit camera\\
&& Throughput \\
&& Scientific verification \\
&& Data reduction procedures\\
\hline
15th -- 21st July 2019 & 5 & Measurement and characterisation of thermal emission
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:comm}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Throughput}
The end-to-end throughput of PRAXIS has been measured on-sky using photometric standard stars, by which we mean the throughput from the top of the atmosphere to the detector, including the effects of the telescope and the atmosphere as well as PRAXIS itself. Stars of type A0V were observed, and the data were reduced following standard procedures written in Mathematica. A data reduction pipeline for PRAXIS is now available in P3D (\citealt{san10}).
The throughput was estimated as follows. The \citet{cas94} Vega model was scaled to the appropriate H band magnitude of the star observed, and then converted to ADU per pixel by multplying by the exposure time, the collecting area (taking into account the central obstruction of 15 per cent by area for the f/15 top-end of the AAT), the dispersion per pixel, the detector gain, and correcting for the aperture losses. The throughput of the entire optical train from the atmosphere to the detector is then found by dividing the observed spectrum by the model spectrum.
The most uncertain step in this calculation is the correction for aperture losses, which depends on both the seeing and the centring of the object during the observation. This was calculated in the following way. First, the centroid of the star in the IFU was determined from the centre-of-gravity of the fluxes in each spaxel. Then a Moffat profile PSF was fit to the fluxes in each spaxel, including the unsuppressed outer 12 fibres, using the best fit centre of gravity and 1 arcsec seeing as initial estimates. The best fitting PSF was compared to estimates of the seeing made during the night for consistency. Thereafter the fraction of flux enclosed within the inner 7 OH suppressed fibres was calculated from the best fitting Moffat profile. The results of this process for HIP~101106, HIP~209960, and HIP~110963 observed on 18th and 21st October are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:aploss}. The best fitting seeing was 1.1 arcsec on 18th October, and 1.6 -- 2.4 arcsec on 21st October, consistent with estimates made from the acquisition and guiding camera throught the night.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\subfigure[HIP 101106 -- 18th October, seeing = 1.1 arcsec]{
\includegraphics[scale=0.9]{aplossplot.pdf}}
\subfigure[HIP 209960 -- 21st October, seeing = 2.4 arcsec]{
\includegraphics[scale=0.9]{aplossplot2.pdf}}
\subfigure[HIP 110963 -- 21st October, seeing = 1.6 arcsec]{
\includegraphics[scale=0.9]{aplossplot3.pdf}}
\caption{The reconstructed images of the standard stars (left); the best fitting Moffat profile and total fractional flux enclosed in the IFU (middle); the best fitting Moffat profile and fractional flux enclosed in the centre 7 fibres (right).}
\label{fig:aploss}
\end{figure*}
The resulting measured throughputs as a function of wavelength are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:through}. Excluding the FBG notches, the average end-to-end throughput from telescope to detector between 1.55 and 1.65~$\mu$m is $18 \pm 1$ per cent.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{tptavplot.pdf}
\caption{The measured throughput, from the top of the atmosphere to the detector, from the three standard stars in Figure~\ref{fig:aploss}. The dips are due to the FBG filter notches, convolved with the resolving power of the spectrograph.}
\label{fig:through}
\end{figure}
The throughput described above includes the effect of the FBG unit which provides the OH suppression. The FBG unit itself has a throughput of 0.39, which was found by comparing the total counts in each of the suppressed fibres to the total counts in each of the non-suppressed fibres for the fibre flat-field exposures. For this calculation, the effect of the notches was excluded. Including the notches the throughput of the FBG unit is 0.36. Figure~\ref{fig:ffvar} shows a bar chart of the relative throughput of each fibre.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.46]{fvndplot.pdf}
\caption{The relative throughput of each fibre from flat-field exposures, excluding the effect of the FBG notches.}
\label{fig:ffvar}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Instrument background}
\label{sec:back}
In order to fully exploit the benefits of OH suppression, PRAXIS was designed to have a high throughput, and a low instrumental background. As discussed in the previous section, the goal of high efficiency has been achieved. We now turn our attention to the instrument background.
\subsubsection{Detector background}
\label{sec:det}
PRAXIS uses a state-of-the-art Hawaii-2RG HgCdTe detector from Teledyne, with a 2.5~$\mu$m cut-off. This is housed in a dedicated dewar provided by GL Scientific, and controlled with an ASIC sidecar controller.
The performance of the detector was characterised at innoFSPEC AIP prior to commissioning.
The gain, read noise, and dark current were all measured using standard techniques, for different pre-amp settings. The best noise characteristics were found with a gain of 2.23~e$^{-}$/ADU. The read noise was 12.87~e$^{-}$~pix$^{-1}$ for correlated double sampling images, or an effective read noise of $\approx 3.5$~e$^{-}$~pix$^{-1}$ for Fowler sampling with 32 non-destructive reads at the beginning and end of each exposure. The dark current was measured to be $0.010 \pm 0.003$~e$^{-}$~s$^{-1}$~pix$^{-1}$.
\subsubsection{Thermal background}
\label{sec:thermal}
The major limiting factor in the performance of PRAXIS is the thermal background, which is much higher than planned, despite a design intended to reduce this.
Long sky exposures taken during the second and third commissioning runs show that the instrument background is $\approx 16$ times higher than the interline continuum near the centre of the detector window, and $\approx 6$ times higher near the edge of the window, see Figure~\ref{fig:blob}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.32]{blob19.pdf}
\caption{The PRAXIS instrument background near the centre of the detector window, compared to the background subtracted sky. This excess thermal emission is the limiting factor in the performance of PRAXIS.}
\label{fig:blob}
\end{figure}
Dark exposures taken during the third commissioning run, and during laboratory tests suggest a significant part of this is scattered radiation entering between the windows of the spectrograph and detector, despite the combination of baffles and interference filter designed to block any such thermal emission. Other tests suggest that some fraction of the emission may also be from the spectrograph itself. Tests to determine the exact origins of the instrument background are ongoing. Note that the warm gap was an unavoidable part of the design resulting from the necessity of using a separate turn-key detector system due to practical reasons.
In any case, we wish to emphasise that the radiation is \emph{not} a result of the photonic OH suppression technology. The background does not originate in the FBGs, nor the photonic lanterns, nor the rest of the fibre cable, but occurs between the fibre traces. Rather, it is likely that the ultimate cause is either a result of compromising on the design of the spectrograph with warm windows and a gap between the spectrograph camera and the detector dewar, or inadequate baffling inside the spectrograph, or inadequate blocking of long wavelength thermal radiation, or some combination of all these. With proper baffling and filtering of thermal radiation all these issues can be ameliorated.
\subsection{OH suppression}
\label{sec:ohupp}
The efficacy of OH suppression with fibre Bragg gratings has already been demonstrated with GNOSIS, resulting in a reduction of integrated background between 1.47 and 1.7~$\mu$m by a factor of 9 (\citealt{ell12a}). Figure~\ref{fig:ohsupp} shows the night sky spectrum as measured by PRAXIS through the OH suppression fibres (red line) and through the control fibres (blue line). The integrated background of PRAXIS is a factor of $\sim 8$ lower with the OH suppression fibres, after subtracting off the instrument thermal emission. However, there are significant systematic uncertainties in the estimation and subtraction of the instrument thermal background emission, which is quite large. Therefore, the overall reduction in background should be taken as indicative, and the GNOSIS value of $\approx 9$ should be considered more accurate.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics{ohsuppplotcol19.pdf}
\caption{The night sky spectrum measured by PRAXIS, for the OH suppression fibres (red), and the non-suppressed control fibres (blue).}
\label{fig:ohsupp}
\end{figure*}
\section{Science observations}
\label{sec:sv}
The general performance of PRAXIS has been presented in Section~\ref{sec:perf}.
We now show the potential of OH suppression with example science observations.
\emph{It should be borne in mind that the observations presented in this section do not represent the full potential of OH suppression.} The PRAXIS background is dominated by very strong instrumental thermal emission, and therefore the full benefit of suppressing the sky background is not apparent. Nevertheless, it is instructive to show the results and process of OH suppression with a science observation
\subsection{Seyfert galaxies}
There are compelling scientific reasons for obtaining H band spectra of Seyfert galaxies. Observations are less affected by dust extinction in the NIR than in the visible (\citealt{car89}); the H band contains several diagnostic spectroscopic features, such as [FeII] emission line at 1.644~$\mu$m and other weaker lines, which indicate photoionisation or shock ionisation (\citealt{sch98}), and provide a useful measurement of the kinematics of the ionised gas; the H band also covers the transition between continuum emission from the central source, which dominates at visible wavelengths, and a stellar and dust dominated thermal continuum (\citealt{mar10});
information on the stellar populations can be obtained from the absorption line features e.g.\ CO, Si~I and Mg~I can together
provide a good classification of spectral type (\citealt{ram06}).
However, in the case of PRAXIS, the main reason Seyfert galaxies were selected to be observed was
(i) they are relatively bright, and PRAXIS was not performing to full specification due to instrumental thermal emission (\S~\ref{sec:thermal}), (ii) the H band spectra of Seyferts contain several emission and absorption line features providing a useful means to assess the impact of OH suppression.
We observed the bright Seyfert galaxy, NGC~7674 on 18th October 2018. The exposure time was $3 \times 647$~s, with an equal amount of time spent observing sky.
The spectrum of NGC~7674 is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:ngc7674steps} for different stages of sky-subtraction and OH suppression to illustrate the advantage of OH suppression. All spectra have had the thermal background subtracted.
The comparison of non-sky subtracted spectra illustrates clearly the benefit of OH suppression; the starting-point for the OH suppressed spectrum (blue) contains far less background than the corresponding control spectrum (purple); the sky-subtracted OH spectrum (red) is therefore much less affected by background noise and sky-residuals.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{ngc7674supersteps.pdf}
\caption{Spectra of NGC~7674 showing different stages of sky-subtraction and OH suppression. The spectra have been thermal-subtracted, and are offset for clarity. The inset plot shows the region around the 1.644~$\mu$m [FeII] emission line as an example of the features visible in the final spectrum.}
\label{fig:ngc7674steps}
\end{figure*}
The OH suppressed spectra show clear [FeII] emission lines as well as CO(6,3), CO(7,3), and Mg absorption lines, see for example the inset plot.
We note that the exposure times were relatively long for typical H band observations, which is possible since the systematic sky-subtraction errors from varying OH line brightness associated with long exposure times is no longer a problem; this has a considerable operational advantage, since longer exposure times reduce detector read noise and minimise overheads lost in beam-switching.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conc}
A major success of PRAXIS is the demonstration of OH suppression in a high efficiency spectrograph for the first time. GNOSIS had already demonstrated clean suppression of the night sky emission lines, but in a low throughput instrument. This was always understood to be caused by the retro-fitting of the photonic OH suppression technology to an existing near-infrared spectrograph, and moreover one which was not desgined for a fibre feed. With PRAXIS, we have shown that OH suppression is indeed achievable at high efficiency, and the photonic components have no deleterious effect on performance.
The major limitation of PRAXIS is the high thermal emission.
This is probably due to inadequate filtering at
long wavelengths, or inadequate shielding
of radiation, either within the spectrograph, or most likely
between the spectrograph and detector dewars. Due to practical constraints a separate turn-key detector system was a necessary part of the design, and the warm gap was therefore unavoidable. Despite a careful design to mitigate the effects of this gap, extraneous thermal emission was always a risk of this compromise. Note that we are planning on eliminating this warm interface as the next step of the project.
We wish to reiterate that the thermal emission is not associated with the OH suppression technology. There is no reason why an FBG OH suppression spectrograph cannot be made with low thermal background. We have already demonstrated the effectiveness of OH suppression in reducing the sky background (\citealt{ell12a}). Here we have demonstrated that this is possible in a high efficiency spectrograph. Re-designing PRAXIS to have a low thermal background will finally enable the true potential of photonic OH suppression to be exploited.
We have not yet been able to assess the effect of OH suppression on the value of the interline continuum. In \citet{bland04} and \citet{ell08} we argued that OH suppression should significantly lower the interline continuum, since some large fraction of typical measured values will be due to scattered OH light, some support for which was found in a detailed study of the NIR night sky spectrum by \citet{sul12}. \citet{oli15} stated that following the GNOSIS results we retracted this claim in \citet{ell12a}; in fact the thermal emission in both GNOSIS and PRAXIS have prevented an accurate characterisation of the true interline continuum, and this issue is not yet settled.
Finally, we wish to address a common misunderstanding of OH suppression. It has often been suggested to us in private communication that the FBG notches will render the filtered parts of the spectrum unusable, and therefore negate any benefit of filtering the emission lines. However, the OH lines are filtered at high resolution ($\Delta\lambda \approx 0.18$~nm), which is only $\sim0.5$ of a pixel, and thus the OH lines do not get smeared over several pixels due to the instrument PSF or scattering (\citealt{ell08}). Moreover, the instrument response is calibrated using fibre flat-field exposures in the normal way. Examination of the spectra of NGC~7674 (Figure~\ref{fig:ngc7674steps}) shows that the notches are indeed not visible in the spectra, and that all spectral details are in fact recoverable, unlike the case in which there are significant sky-subtraction residuals. It remains to demonstrate the same advantage in much fainter objects, which we will do with a future OH suppression spectrograph capitalising on the progress made with GNOSIS and PRAXIS.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The prototype of the PRAXIS instrument, GNOSIS, was funded under an ARC Federation Fellowship (FF0776384, PI: Bland-Hawthorn) and two ARC LIEF grants LE100100164 and LE120100199. PRAXIS was funded under an ARC Laureate Fellowship (FL140100278, PI: Bland-Hawthorn), and an ARC LIEF grant LE160100191. innoFSPEC
acknowledges support from BMBF under grant no. 03Z2AN11. We thank the SSO Director, Chris Lidman, for allocating Director's time towards PRAXIS commissioning and testing. We thank the staff at the AAT for all their assistance and support during the commissioning of PRAXIS. We thank the referee for constructive and helpful comments which have improved this paper.
\bibliographystyle{mnras}
|
\section{Introduction}
Deep learning techniques, such as Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), have been successfully applied to various computer vision and natural language processing
problems, and some of the advanced models can even outperform human beings in some specific datasets \cite{he-iccv15}.
Over the past few years, many mobile applications have been developed to apply CNN models for video analytics.
For example, Samsung Bixby can help users extract texts showing up in the video frames.
Although these advanced CNN models can provide us with better results, they also suffer from the high computational overhead
which means long delay and more energy consumption when running on mobile devices.
Most existing techniques \cite{chen-sensys15, chen-sensys18, teerapittayanon-icdcs17, ran-infocom18, han-mobisys16} address this problem through computation offloading. By offloading data/video to the edge server and letting the edge server run these deep learning models, energy and processing time can be saved. However, this is under the assumption of good network condition and small input data size. In many cases, when the network condition is poor or for applications such as video analytics where a large amount of data is processed, offloading may take longer time, and thus may not be the best option.
Recently, many companies such as Huawei, Qualcomm, and Samsung are developing dedicated {\em Neural Processing Units (NPUs)} for mobile devices, which can process AI features. With NPU, the running time of these deep learning models can be significantly reduced.
For example, the processing time of the ResNet-50 model \cite{he-iccv15} is about one second using CPU, but only takes about 50 $ms$ with NPU.
Although NPUs are limited to advanced phone models at this time, this technique has great potential to be applied to other mobile devices, and even for IoT devices in the future.
There are some limitations with NPU.
First, NPU uses 16 bits or 8 bits to represent the floating-point numbers instead of 32 bits in CPU.
As a result, it runs CNN models much faster but less accurate compared to CPU.
Second, NPU has its own memory space and sometimes the CNN models are too large to be loaded into memory.
Then, the CNN model has to be compressed in order to be loaded by NPU and then reducing the accuracy.
For instance, HUAWEI mate 10 pro only has 200MB memory space for NPU and many advanced CNN models must be compressed at the cost of accuracy.
There is a tradeoff between the offloading based approach and the NPU based approach. Offloading based approach has good accuracy, but may have longer delay under poor network condition. On the other hand, NPU based approach can be faster, but with less accuracy.
In this paper, we propose FastVA, a framework that combines these two approaches for real time video analytics on mobile devices.
The major challenge is to determine when to offload the computation and when to use NPU based on the network condition, the video processing time, and the accuracy requirement of the application.
Consider an example of a flying drone.
The camera on the drone is taking videos which are processed in real time to detect nearby objects to avoid crashing into a building or being trapped by a tree.
To ensure no object is missed, the detection result should be as accurate as possible.
Here, the time constraint is critical and we should maximize the detection accuracy under such time constraint.
For many other mobile applications such as unlocking a smartphone, making a payment through face recognition, or
using Google glasses to enhance user experience by recognizing the objects or landmarks and showing related information, accuracy and processing time are both important. Hence, we should achieve a better tradeoff between them.
Based on the accuracy and the processing time requirement of the mobile application, we study two problems:
\textit{Max-Accuracy} where the goal is to maximize the accuracy under some time constraints, and
\textit{Max-Utility} where the goal is to maximize the utility which is a weighted function of accuracy and processing time.
To solve these two problems, we have to determine when to offload the computation and when to use NPU. The solution depends on the network condition, the special characteristics of NPU, and the optimization goal.
We will formulate them as integer programming problems, and propose heuristics based solutions.
Our contributions are summarized as follows.
\begin {itemize}
\item
We study the benefits and limitations of using NPU to run CNN models to better understand the characteristics of NPU in mobile.
\item
We formulate the Max-Accuracy problem and propose a heuristic based solution.
\item
We formulate the Max-Utility problem and propose an approximation based solution.
\item
We implement FastVA on smartphones and compare it with other techniques through extensive evaluations.
\end {itemize}
The rest of the paper is organized as follows.
Section \ref{sec:related-work} presents related work.
Section \ref{sec:preliminary} studies the benefits and limitation of NPU and provides an overview of FastVA.
We formulate the \textit{Max-Accuracy Problem} and propose a solution in Section \ref{sec:max-acc}.
In Section \ref{sec:max-utl}, we study the \textit{Max-Utility Problem} and give a heuristic based solution.
Section \ref{sec:evaluation} presents the evaluation results and
Section \ref{sec:conclusion} concludes the paper.
\section{Related Work} \label{sec:related-work}
Over past years, there have been significant advances on object recognition with CNN models.
For example, GoogleNet \cite{szegedy-cvpr15} and ResNet \cite{he-cvpr16} can achieve high accuracy.
However, these CNN models are designed for machines with powerful CPU and GPU, and it is hard to run them on mobile devices due to limited memory space and computation power.
To address this issue, various model compression techniques have been developed.
For example, in \cite{bhattacharya-sensys16}, the authors propose to separate convolutional kernels from the convolutional layers and compress the fully-connected layers to reduce the processing time of CNN models.
Liu \textit{et al.} \cite{liu-cvpr15} optimize the convolutional operations by reducing the redundant parameters in the neural network.
FastDeepIoT \cite{yao-sensys18} compresses the CNN models by optimizing the neural network configuration based on the non-linear relationship between the model architecture and the processing time.
Although the efficiency can be improved through these model compression techniques, the accuracy also drops.
Offloading techniques have been widely used to address the resource limitation of mobile devices.
MAUI \cite{cuervo-mobisys10} and many other works \cite{Geng-ICNP2015, Geng-infocom18, Geng-twc18} are general offloading frameworks that optimize the energy usage and the computation overhead for mobile applications.
However, these techniques have limitations when applied to video analytics where a large amount of video data has to be uploaded to the server.
To reduce the data offloading time, some local processing techniques have been proposed to filter out the less important or redundant data.
For example, Glimpse \cite{chen-sensys15} only offloads a frame when the system detects that the scene changes significantly.
Similar to Glimpse, MARVEL \cite{chen-sensys18} utilizes the inertial sensors to detect and filter out the redundancy before offloading. However, both MARVEL and Glimpse may not work well when the network condition is poor or when there are many scene changes.
To address this issue, other researchers consider how to guarantee a strict time constraint by running different CNN models locally under different network conditions \cite{han-mobisys16, ran-infocom18}.
Some recent work focuses on improving the execution efficiency of CNN models on mobile devices through hardware support.
For example, Cappuccino \cite{motamedi-esl19} optimizes computation by exploiting imprecise computation on the mobile system-on-chip (SoC). Oskouei \textit{et al.} \cite{oskouei-mm16} developed an Android library called CNNdroid for running
CNN models on mobile GPU.
DeepMon \cite{huynh-mobisys17} leverages GPU for continuous vision analysis on mobile devices.
DeepX \cite{lane-ipsn16} divides the CNN models into different blocks which can be efficiently run on CPU or GPU.
The processing time is reduced by scheduling these blocks on different processors, such as CPU and GPU.
Different from them, we use NPUs.
\section{Preliminary} \label{sec:preliminary}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\subfloat[Processing Time Comparison]{\label{fig:NPU-process-time}\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth,valign=c]{fig/processing-time}}
\,
\subfloat[Accuracy Comparison]{\label{fig:NPU-accuracy}\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth,valign=c]{fig/CPU-NPU}}
\caption{Performance Comparison of NPU and CPU.}
\label{fig:NPU-profile}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{figure}
A video frame can be processed locally by the NPU or offloaded to the server. The decision depends on the application requirements on the tradeoff between accuracy and processing time. More importantly, the decision depends on how various CNN models perform on NPUs in terms of accuracy and processing time. In this section, we first show some results on how various CNN models perform on NPUs and local CPUs to understand the characteristics of NPU, and then give an overview of the proposed FastVA framework.
\subsection{Understanding NPU}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\subfloat[The Original Image]{\label{fig:detection-original-image}\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth,valign=c]{fig/original.png}}
\,
\subfloat[Ground Truth]{\label{fig:detection-ground-truth}\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth,valign=c]{fig/detection-groundtruth.png}}
\,
\subfloat[Detection Result on CPU]{\label{fig:cpu-detect-result}\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth,valign=c]{fig/yolo-test-detected.png}}
\,
\subfloat[Detection Result on NPU]{\label{fig:npu-detect-result}\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth,valign=c]{fig/npu-yolo-test.png}}
\caption{Detection result with YOLO Small }
\label{fig:detection-comparision}
\vspace{-0.7cm}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth,valign=c]{fig/overview}
\caption{FastVA overview}
\label{fig:overview}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\end{figure}
To have a better understanding of NPU, we compare the accuracy and the processing time of running different CNN models on NPU and CPU.
The experiment is conducted on HUAWEI mate 10 pro which has a NPU, and the results are shown in Figure \ref{fig:NPU-profile}.
Three CNN models are used in the evaluations and the details are as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item The VGG model \cite{parkhi-bmvc15} which is used for face recognition.
In the experiment, we use the face images from the LFW dataset \cite{lfw-dataset}.
\item The ResNet-50 model \cite{he-cvpr16} which is used for object recognition.
The evaluation was based on 4000 object images randomly chosen from the VOC dataset \cite{everingham-ijcv15}, and the results were based on the
Top-1 accuracy.
\item The YOLO Small model \cite{redmon-cvpr16} which is designed for detecting objects in an image.
The evaluation was based on 100 images randomly chosen from the COCO dataset \cite{lin-eccv14}, and the results were based on the F1-score.
\end{itemize}
As shown in Figure \ref{fig:NPU-profile}(a), compared to CPU, running VGG, ResNet-50, or Yolo small on NPU can significantly reduce the processing time, by 95\%. As shown in Figure \ref{fig:NPU-profile}(b), the accuracy loss of using NPU is different for different CNN models.
For example, compared to CPU, using NPU has similar accuracy when running VGC, 20\% accuracy loss when running ResNet, and the F1-score drops to 0.3 when running YOLO Samll. This is because different CNN models have different ways to process these images.
VGG compares the similarity between the two feature vectors $[x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_n]$ and $[y_1, y_2, \ldots, y_n]$,
which are extracted from the face images.
They belong to the same person if the similarity is below a predefined threshold.
The similarity can be measured by the square of the Euclidean distance between two vectors, where $d = \sum_{i=1}^{n} (x_i - y_i)^2$.
Since NPU uses less number of bits to represent the floating point numbers, some errors will be introduced.
The error introduced by NPU changes $d$ to $d' = \sum_{i=1}^{n} (x_i - y_i + \epsilon_i)^2$.
If we consider $\epsilon_i$ as noise data with mean value 0, the expected value of $d'$ is equal to $E(d) + \sum_{i} E(\epsilon_i^2)$.
Since $\epsilon_i$ is small, it will not change the relationship between $d$ and the threshold too much for most input data, and hence
has the same level of accuracy as CPU.
Suppose the feature vector extracted from an image is $\Vec{f_1} = [x_1, x_2, \ldots x_n]$, ResNet-50 classifies the image based on the largest element.
Assume $x_p$ and $x_q$ are the two largest elements in $\Vec{f_1}$, and $x_p > x_q$. Then, the image will be classified as the $p^{th}$ category image.
The errors introduced by NPU may change the elements to $x'_p= x_p + \epsilon_1$ and $x'_q = x_q + \epsilon_2$.
If the difference between $x_p$ and $x_q$ is small, $x'_q$ may be larger than $x'_p$ due to errors $\epsilon_1, \epsilon_2$.
Then, the object will be classified as the $q^{th}$ category, and getting a wrong result.
YOLO Small is much more complex than ResNet and VGG.
Its feature vector includes information related to location, category and size of the objects, and a small error in the feature vector can change the result.
For instance, Figure \ref{fig:detection-comparision} shows the detection result of a test image using CPU and NPU.
Figure \ref{fig:detection-comparision}(c) shows the result with CPU, where the bounding boxes accurately include the objects, and the objects can be correctly recognized as horse and person respectively.
Figure \ref{fig:detection-comparision}(d) shows the result with NPU. As can be seen, the detection result only includes part of the objects. The center and the size of the objects are incorrect, leading to wrong detection results.
From these evaluations, we can see that NPU runs much faster than CPU; however, it may not always be the best choice for running CNN models, especially when accuracy is important.
\subsection{FastVA Overview}
The overview of FastVA is shown in Figure \ref{fig:overview}.
FastVA can process frames through offloading or local processing with NPU.
For offloading, FastVA may reduce the frame resolution before transmitting so that more frames can be uploaded at the cost of accuracy.
Similarly, multiple CNN models can be used, where a smaller CNN model can reduce the processing time at the cost of accuracy, and
a larger model can increase the accuracy at the cost of longer processing time.
If several CNN models are available, FastVA will choose the proper one for processing under different constraints.
Based on the network condition and the accuracy of the CNN models,
the schedule decision will be determined by the proposed Max-Accuracy or Max-Utility.
To provide real time video analytics, FastVA ensures that the processing of each video frame is completed within a time constraint.
Due to the limited computational and bandwidth resources, the scheduling needs to be designed carefully in order to maximize the accuracy or utility.
In the following sections, we formulate and solve the Max-Accuracy problem and the Max-Utility problem.
\section{The Max-Accuracy Problem} \label{sec:max-acc}
In this section, we study the Max-Accuracy problem which aims to maximize the accuracy under some time constraints.
We first formulate the problem and then propose a heuristic based solution.
\subsection{Problem Formulation}
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c | l |}
\hline
Notation & Description \\ \hline
$I_i$ & the $i$th frame \\ \hline
$S(I_i, r)$ & the data size of the frame $I_i$ in resolution $r$ \\ \hline
$T^{\textit{npu}}_j$ & The processing time of $j^{th}$ model on NPU \\ \hline
$T^{\textit{o}}_j$ & Processing time using the $j^{th}$ model on the server \\ \hline
$a(j, r)$ & The accuracy of the $j^{th}$ model with input images \\
& in resolution $r$\\ \hline
$T_c$ & Communication delay between mobile device and server \\ \hline
$B$ & upload bandwidth (data rate) \\ \hline
$f$ & video frame rate (fps) \\ \hline
$\gamma$ & the time interval between two consecutive frames \\ \hline
$T$ & the time constraint for each frame\\ \hline
$n$ & the number of video frames that needs to be processed \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Notation.}
\label{table:notations}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\end{table}
Assume the incoming frame rate is $f$, the time interval between two consecutive video frames is $\gamma = \frac{1}{f}$.
For the $i^{th}$ frame in the video, assume its arrival time is $i \gamma$ and FastVA needs to process it before $T + i \gamma$, where $T$ is the time constraint.
For each frame, it can either be processed locally by the NPU or offloaded to the server.
Multiple CNN models are used on the edge server and the mobile device to process these frames.
If the frame $I_i$ is processed by the $j^{th}$ model locally, the corresponding processing time is $T^{\textit{npu}}_j$.
If $I_i$ is processed at the edge server, the data can be offloaded with the original resolution or reduce the resolution to $r$ before uploading to save bandwidth.
Let $B$ denote the upload bandwidth and let $T_c$ denote the communication delay between the edge server and the mobile device.
Then, it takes $\frac{S(I_i, r)}{B} + T^{\textit{o}}_j + T_c$ to transmit the $i^{th}$ frame in resolution $r$ and receive the result from the server.
Although the transmission time can be reduced by reducing the frame to a lower resolution, the accuracy is lower.
The notations used in the problem formulation and the algorithm design are shown in Table \ref{table:notations}.
The Max-Accuracy problem can be formulated as an integer programming in the following way.
\begingroup
\allowdisplaybreaks
\begin{align}
\max \quad & \frac{1}{n} \displaystyle\sum^{n}_{i=0} \sum_j \sum_r a(j, r) X^j_i Y^r_i \\
\textrm{s.t.} \quad
& \sum^{i}_{k=i'} \sum_j T^{\textit{npu}}_j X^j_k + i' \gamma \leq T + i \gamma, \, \forall i, i', i' \leq i \\
& D(i', i) + T_c \leq i \gamma + T, \, \forall i, i', i' \leq i \\
& \sum_j X^j_i = 1, \,\forall i \\
& \sum_r Y^r_i = 1, \,\forall i \\
& Y^r_i, X^j_i \in \{0, 1\} \,\forall i, j
\end{align}
\endgroup
Where $D(i', i) = i' \gamma + \sum_j(\sum_r \sum^{i}_{k=i'} \frac{S(k, r) Y^r_k}{B} + T^o_j X^j_i)$ is the offloading time for the frames that arrive between $I_{i'}$ and $I_i$. $X^j_i$ is a variable to show which model is used to process the frame and $Y^r_i$ is a variable to show which resolution the frame is resized to before offloading.
If $X^j_i = 0$, the frame $I_i$ is not processed by the $j^{th}$ model.
If $X^j_i = 1$, the frame $I_i$ is run by the $j^{th}$ model.
If $Y^r_i = 1$, the frame $I_i$ is resized to resolution $r$ before offloading.
Objective (1) is to maximize the accuracy of the processed frames in the time window.
Constraint (2) specifies that all local processed frames should be completed before the deadline,
and constraint (3) specifies that the results of the offloaded frames should be returned within the time constraint.
\subsection{Max-Accuracy Algorithm}
\begin{algorithm}[ht]
\SetAlgoLined
\KwData{Video frames in the buffer}
\KwResult{Scheduling decision}
\SetKw{Continue}{continue}
\SetKw{Break}{break}
\SetKw{Return}{return}
\DontPrintSemicolon
The frame schedule list $S \leftarrow \{\}$ \\
$A \leftarrow 0$, $n_s \leftarrow$ the number of models on the server side \\
\For{each possible resolution $r$} {
Resize the $I_0$ to the resolution $r$ \\
$A' \leftarrow 0, S' \leftarrow \{\}$ \\
Sort the remote models in the descending order based on their accuracy $a(j, r)$. \\
\For{$j$ from 1 to $n_s$} {
\If{$t + T^{\textit{o}}_j + T_c \leq T$} {
Add $(0, j, r)$ to $S'$ \\
$A' \leftarrow A' + a(j, r)$ \\
\Break \\
}
}
$n_l \leftarrow \floor{\frac{S(I_i, r)}{B \gamma}}$ \\
Compute $H(i, t)$ according to Equation \ref{eq:local-initcase} and \ref{eq:local-phase} for $i \in [1, n_l]$ and $t \in [\gamma, n_l \gamma + T]$ \\
$h' \leftarrow \max_{t} H(n_l, t)$ \\
$t' \leftarrow \arg \max_{t} H(n_l, t)$ \\
\For{$i$ from $n_l$ to $1$} {
\For{each local model $j$}{
\If {$H(i-1, t' - T^{\textit{npu}}_j) = h'$} {
Add $(i, j, r_{max})$ to $S'$ \\
$t' \leftarrow t' - T^{\textit{npu}}_j, h' \leftarrow h' - a(j, r_{max}), A' \leftarrow A' + a(i, j)$ \\
\Break \\
}
}
}
\If{$\frac{A'}{n_l + 1} > A$} {
$A \leftarrow \frac{A'}{n_l + 1}, S \leftarrow S'$ \\
}
}
\Return $S$ \\
\caption{Max-Accuracy Algorithm}
\label{alg:max-acc}
\end{algorithm}
A brute force method to solve the Max Accuracy Problem is to try all the possible scheduling options, and
it takes $O((n_c * n_r)^{n})$, where $n_c$ is the number of CNN models available for processing the frames and $n_r$ is the number of resolution options.
Since the brute force method is impractical, we propose a heuristic solution.
The basic idea is as follows.
Since offloading based approach can achieve better accuracy than NPU based approach for the same CNN model,
the arriving video frame should be offloaded as long as there is available bandwidth.
Due to limited bandwidth, some frames cannot be offloaded and will be processed by the NPU locally.
More specifically, our Max-Accuracy algorithm consists of multiple rounds.
In each round, there are two phases: offload scheduling phase and local scheduling phase.
In both phases, the right CNN model is selected to process the video frame within the time constraint and maximize the accuracy.
\subsubsection{Offload Scheduling}
In this phase, the goal is to find out the CNN model that can be used for processing the offloaded video frame within time constraint and maximize the accuracy.
Assume that the network interface is idle and $I_0$ is the new frame arriving at the buffer.
$I_0$ will be resized to resolution $r$ and offloaded to the server.
On the server side, the only requirement for selecting the CNN model is the time constraint, which requires the result must be returned in time.
In other words, the constraint $\frac{S(I_0, r)}{B} + T_c + T^{\textit{o}}_j \leq T$ must be satisfied for the uploaded frame $I_0$.
A CNN model will be selected if it can satisfy the time constraint and has the highest accuracy on images with resolution $r$.
Since video frames arrive at a certain interval $\gamma$, $n_l = \floor{\frac{S(I_0, r)}{B \gamma}}$ frames will be buffered
while $I_0$ is being transmitted.
These frames will be processed locally, and the local scheduling phase will be used to determine their optimal scheduling decision.
\subsubsection{Local Scheduling}
In this phase, the goal is to find out the CNN model that can be used for processing the video frame within time constraint and maximize the accuracy.
For each CNN model, the video processing time and the accuracy vary. A simple dynamic programming algorithm is used to find an optimal scheduling decision.
More specifically, let $H(k, t)$ denote the optimal accuracy for processing the first $k$ frames with time constraint $t$, where $k \in [0, n_l]$.
Then, frame $I_1$ arrives at the frame buffer at time $\gamma$ and the last frame $I_{n_l}$ must be processed before time $n_l \gamma + T$, thus $t \in [\gamma, n_l \gamma + T]$.
If it is impossible to process all $k$ frames within $t$, $H(k, t) = - \infty$. Initially, since the frame $I_0$ is offloaded to the server, $H(0, t)$ can be computed as follow:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:local-initcase}
H(0, t) = \begin{cases}
-\infty, & \text{if $t < T^{idle}$} \\
0 & \textrm{Otherwise}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
{\noindent}where $T^{idle}$ is the queuing time for $I_1$.
For frame $I_k (k > 0)$, it can be processed on one of the local CNN model $j$. $H(k, t)$ can be computed as follow:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:local-phase}
H(k, t) = \begin{cases}
-\infty, & \hspace{-1.75cm} \text{if $\forall j, k \gamma + T^{\textit{npu}}_j < t$} \\
\max_j (H(k-1, t-T^{\textit{npu}}_j) + a(j, r_{max})), & \hspace{-0.3cm} \textrm{Otherwise}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Based on the computed $H(k, t)$, the scheduling decision can be made by backtracking.
The Max-Accuracy algorithm is summarized in Algorithm \ref{alg:max-acc}.
Lines 4-11 are the offloading scheduling phase and Lines 12-21 are for the local scheduling phase.
In the algorithm, a variable $A$ is used for tracking the maximum accuracy that is found so far, and its corresponding schedule decision is maintained in $S'$.
The frame schedule list $S'$ is a list of pair $(i, j, r)$, which means that frame $I_i$ is processed by the $j^{th}$ model with resolution $r$.
The running time of our algorithm is $O(n_r * n_c * n)$
\section{Max-Utility Problem} \label{sec:max-utl}
In this section, we study the Max-Utility problem.
The goal is to maximize the utility which is a weighted function of accuracy and video processing time.
We first formulate the problem and then propose an approximated based solution.
\subsection{Problem Formulation}
With time constraint, FastVA may not be able to process all frames using the CNN model with the highest accuracy. To achieve high accuracy with limited resources, FastVA may skip some frames whose queuing time is already close to its time constraint.
With the notations used in the last section, the length of the video is $n \gamma$ and $\sum_{i} \sum_{j} X^{j}_{i}$ is the total number of frames to be processed. Then, the video is processed at a real frame rate of $\frac{\sum_{i} \sum_{j} X^{j}_{i}}{n \gamma}$.
The average accuracy can be computed as $\frac{\sum_{i} \sum_{j} a(j, r)X^{j}_{i} Y^{r}_{i}}{\sum_{i} \sum_{j} X^{j}_{i}}$.
Let $\alpha$ denote the tradeoff parameter between accuracy and processing time (measured with the frame processing rate).
Then, the utility can be computed as $\sum_{i} \sum_{j} \frac{X^{j}_{i}}{n \gamma} + \alpha \frac{\sum_{i} \sum_{j} a(j, r)X^{j}_{i} Y^{r}_{i}}{\sum_{i} \sum_{j} X^{j}_{i}}$.
Similar to the Max-Accuracy problem, the Max-Utility Problem can be formulated as an integer programming in the following way.
\begingroup
\allowdisplaybreaks
\begin{align}
\max \quad & \sum^{n}_{i=0} \sum_{j} \frac{X^{j}_{i}}{n \gamma} + \alpha \frac{\sum_{i} \sum_{j} a(j, r)X^{j}_{i} Y^{r}_{i}}{\sum_{i} \sum_{j} X^{j}_{i}} \\
\textrm{s.t.} \quad
& \sum^{i}_{k=i'} \sum_j T^{\textit{npu}}_j X^j_k + i' \gamma \leq i \gamma + T, \, \forall i, i', i' \leq i \\
& D(i', i) + T_c \leq i \gamma + T, \, \forall i, i', i' \leq i \\
& \sum_j X^j_i \leq 1, \,\forall i \\
& \sum_r Y^r_i \leq \sum_j X^j_i, \,\forall i \\
& Y^r_i, X^j_i \in \{0, 1\}, \,\forall i, j
\end{align}
\endgroup
Objective (9) maximizes the utility.
Constraints (10) and (11) specify that the frames must be processed within the time requirement.
Constraint (13) specifies that each frame can at most be processed by a CNN model either remotely or locally.
Constraint (14) specifies that each image can only be resized to a certain resolution.
\subsection{Max-Utility Algorithm}
Since the problem is NP-hard, it costs too much time to find the optimal solution.
Therefore, we propose a heuristic based algorithm (called the Max-Utility Algorithm) to solve it.
The basic idea of the algorithm is as follows.
Since the offloading based approach can achieve better accuracy than NPU based approach for the same CNN model, our algorithm first maximizes the utility by offloading the arriving video frame with the available bandwidth.
Due to the limited bandwidth, some frames will not be offloaded and our Max-Utility algorithm further improves the utility using a dynamic programming algorithm to decide which frames should be skipped and which frames should be processed locally.
Assume the network interface is idle when a new frame $I_0$ arrives in the buffer.
$I_0$ will be resized to a resolution $r$ and offloaded to the server.
The offloading time for this frame is $\frac{S(I_0, r)}{B}$, which means the frames are offloaded at the frame rate $\frac{B}{S(I_0, r)}$.
The schedule decision for $I_0$ is made by solving $\max_{r, j} \frac{B}{S(I_0, r)} + \alpha \times a(j, r)$.
Since the result from the server should be received within the time limitation,
the constraint $T \geq \frac{S(I_0, r)}{B} + T_c + T^{\textit{o}}_j$ should be satisfied.
$n_l = \floor{\frac{S(I_0, r)}{B}}$ frames will be buffered while $I_{0}$ is being transmitted.
These frames will be processed locally, and a dynamic programming algorithm is used to find out the optimal solution.
In the algorithm, an array $U(k)$ ($k \in [0, n_l]$) is maintained to find the schedule for maximizing the utility.
$U(k)$ is a list of triples, and each triple is denoted as $(t, u, m)$, where utility $u$ is gained by processing $m$ out of the $k$ frames locally
within time $t$.
Notice that not all possible triples are maintained in $U(k)$, and only the most efficient ones (i.e., with more utility and less processing time) are kept
More specifically, a triple $(t', u', m')$ is said to dominate another triple $(t, u, m)$ if and only if $t' \leq t, u'\geq u$.
Obviously, triple $(t', u', m')$ is more efficient than triple $(t, u, m)$ and all dominated triples will be removed from the list of $U(k)$.
Assume that $T^{idle}$ is the queuing time for $I_1$. Initially, $U(0) = \{(T^{idle}, 0, 0)\}$.
To add triples to the list of $U(k)$, we consider two cases: no processing, local processing.
\textbf{No processing:}
In this case, the $k^{th}$ frame will not be processed.
Processing more frames may require a faster local CNN model to be used for processing.
In such cases, the average accuracy decreases and the utility may also decrease.
A better solution is to skip this frame.
Therefore, we will add all the triples in $U(k-1)$ to $U(k)$.
\textbf{Local Processing:}
In this case, it requires $T^{\textit{npu}}_j$ time to process the frame using the $j^{th}$ model locally.
Since the frame does not need to be resized, it is processed with the maximum resolution $r_{max}$.
The new average accuracy can be computed as $A = \frac{m}{m+1} (u - \frac{m}{n_l \gamma}) + \alpha \frac{a(j, r_{max})}{m+1}$.
For each triple $(t, u, m) \in U(k-1)$, a new triple $(\max(t, k \gamma) + T^{\textit{npu}}_j, A + \frac{m + 1}{n_l \gamma}, m+1)$ is added to the list of $U(k)$.
Notice that all local processed frames should be finished within the time constraint.
Therefore, $\max(t, k \gamma) + T^{\textit{npu}}_j \leq k \gamma + T$ should be satisfied for all new triples.
With the list of $U(k)$, we can find a schedule to maximize the utility.
The complete description of our algorithm is shown in Algorithm \ref{alg:dp-max-utility}.
In Lines 2-8, the algorithm maximizes the utility for the offloaded frame, and the schedule decision is determined for the local processing frames in Lines 9-27.
The running time of the algorithm is $O(n^2 * n_c)$.
\begin{algorithm}[ht]
\SetAlgoLined
\KwData{Video frames in the buffer}
\KwResult{Scheduling decisions}
\SetKw{Break}{break}
\DontPrintSemicolon
The frame schedule list $S \leftarrow \{\}$ \\
$u \leftarrow 0$ \\
\For{$j$ from 1 to $n_s$} {
\For{each possible resolution $r$} {
$u' \leftarrow \frac{B}{S(I_0, r)} + \alpha \times a(j, r)$ \\
\If{$\frac{S(I_0, r)}{B} + T^{\textit{o}}_j + T_c \leq T$ and $u < u'$} {
$p \leftarrow (0, j, r), u \leftarrow u'$
}
}
}
Add $p$ to $S$ \\
$n_l \leftarrow \floor{\frac{S(I_0, r)}{B}}$, $U(0) \leftarrow \{(T^{idle}, 0, 0)\}$ \\
\For{$i \leftarrow 1$ to $n_l$}{
\For{each $(t, u, m) \in U(i-1)$}{
Add $(t, u, m)$ to $U(i)$ \\
\For{each local model j}{
$t' \leftarrow \max(t, i \gamma) + T^{\textit{npu}}_j$ \\
\If{$t' \leq T + i \gamma$ and $i \gamma < t$}{
$A \leftarrow \frac{m}{m+1} (u - \frac{m}{n_l \gamma}) + \alpha \frac{a(j, r_{max})}{m+1}$ \\
Add $(t', A + \frac{m + 1}{n_l \gamma}, m+1)$ to $U(i)$ \\
}
}
}
Remove the dominated pairs from U(i) \\
}
$(t', u', m') \leftarrow \arg \max_{(t, u, m) \in U(n_l)} u$ \\
\For{$i$ from $n_l - 1$ to $0$}{
\For{each pair $(t, u, m)$ in $U(i)$} {
\For{each local model j}{
$A \leftarrow \frac{m}{m'} (u - \frac{m}{n_l \gamma}) + \alpha \frac{a(j, r_{max})}{m'}$ \\
\If{$t + T^{\textit{npu}}_j = t'$ and $A + \frac{m'}{n_l \gamma} = u'$}{
Add $(i+1, j, r_{max})$ to $S$ \\
$t' \leftarrow t, u' \leftarrow u, m' \leftarrow m$ \\
\Break \\
}
}
}
}
\Return $S$ \\
\caption{Max-Utility Algorithm}
\label{alg:dp-max-utility}
\end{algorithm}
\section{Performance Evaluations} \label{sec:evaluation}
In this section, we evaluate the performance of the proposed algorithms, Max-Accuracy and Max-Utility, and compare them with other approaches.
\subsection{Experiment Setup}
Currently, there are only a few smartphones on the market with dedicated NPUs.
In the evaluation, we use HUAWEI Mate 10 pro smartphone because it is equipped with NPU and it has a published HUAWEI DDK \cite{hiai} for developers.
Since NPU has a different architecture from CPU, the existing CNN models have to be optimized before running on NPU.
The HUAWEI DDK includes toolsets to do such optimization for NPU from CNN models trained by the deep learning frameworks Caffe \cite{jia-mm14}.
The HUAWEI DDK also includes the APIs to run the CNN models, and a few Java Native Interface (JNI) functions are provided to use the APIs on Android.
Since these JNI functions are hard coded for running a specific model, we have implemented more flexible JNI functions which can run different CNN models.
In FastVA, the frames are offloaded in the lossless PNG format.
The edge server is a desktop with AMD Ryzen 7 1700 CPU, GeForce GTX1070 Ti graphics card and 16 GB RAM.
We have installed the Caffe framework to run the CNN models on GPU.
In the experiment, object classifications are performed on mobile devices, which are common computer vision tasks for many mobile applications.
In our experiment, two different object recognition CNN models are used, ResNet-50 \cite{he-cvpr16} and SqueezeNet \cite{squeezenet}, which are
well known and are widely used. Moreover, SqueezeNet has a compact structure and it is much smaller than ResNet.
It can be considered as a compressed model that runs faster than ResNet at the cost of accuracy. This allows the application to achieve tradeoffs between accuracy and processing time under different network condition and time constraint.
In the evaluation, we use a subset of videos from the FCVID dataset \cite{jiang-TPAMI18}, which includes many real-world videos.
These videos have been used for training models related to object classification and activity recognition.
In our experiment, we focus on object classification, and thus activity recognition clips are not used.
Since the dataset is very large, about 1.9 TB, we randomly select 40 videos from the dataset and filter out the noisy data.
Since the labels of FCVID and ImageNet are different, we map the labels produced by the CNN models to that used by the FCVID dataset.
We evaluate the proposed algorithms with different frame rates.
Most videos in the dataset use 30 fps, and thus we have to change their frame rate by decoding/encoding.
For both CNN models (ResNet-50 and SqueezeNet), the maximum resolution of the input image is 224x224 pixels.
This resolution can be downsized for some offloading images, and we consider 5 different resolutions: 45x45, 90x90, 134x134, 179x179 and 224x224 pixels.
The time constraint for each frame is set to be 200 ms in all the experiments.
The running time of Max-Accuracy and Max-Utility algorithm is less than 1 ms on the smartphone and it is negligible compared to the time constraint (100 ms level).
\subsection{The Effects of CNN models}
\begin{table*}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|l|}
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{CNN model} & Processing Time (ms) & Transmission Time (ms) & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Top-1 Accuracy} \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{ResNet} & Local & 52 & 0 & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{0.52} \\ \cline{2-6}
& Server & 69 & 39 - 242 & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{0.67} \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{SqueezeNet} & Local & 17 & 0 & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{0.41} \\ \cline{2-6}
& Server & 9 & 39 - 242 & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{0.51} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\caption{The performance of the CNN models.}
\label{table:model-performance}
\vspace{-0.8cm}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth,valign=t]{fig/acc_vs_resolution.pdf}
\caption{Accuracy vs. Resolution.}
\label{fig:resolutions}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\end{figure}
To have a better understanding of how the CNN models perform,
we run ResNet-50 and SqueezeNet on the edge server and NPU with randomly selected 4000 images from the VOC dataset.
As shown in table \ref{table:model-performance}, the accuracy of ResNet-50 is about 30\% better than SqueezeNet on the server
and it is about 25\% better than SqueezeNet on the NPU.
However, SqueezeNet is 700\% faster than ResNet-50 on the server and
it is 300\% faster than ResNet-50 on the NPU.
Although running these CNN models has high accuracy on the server, there is a communication delay between the server and mobile device.
As shown in the table, the transmission time can range from tens of milliseconds to hundreds of milliseconds
based on the network condition and frame data size. When the network condition is poor, offloading may take much longer time than running on NPU.
Figure \ref{fig:resolutions} shows the tradeoff between accuracy and resolution.
We note that the accuracy does not scale linearly with the resolution.
The data in Table \ref{table:model-performance} and Figure \ref{fig:resolutions} are used for making scheduling decisions in FastVA.
\subsection{The Performance of Max-Accuracy}
We compare the performance of Max-Accuracy with the following schedule algorithms.
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Offload:} In this method, all frames must be offloaded to the edge server for processing.
Each frame will be resized to a resolution so that it can be offloaded before the next frame arrives, and the server chooses the most accurate model that can process the frames and return the result within the time constraint.
\item \textbf{Local:}
In this method, all frames are processed locally.
It uses the proposed dynamic programming technique to find the optimal schedule decision for local processing.
\item \textbf{DeepDecision:}
This is a simplified version of DeepDecision \cite{ran-infocom18} which optimizes the accuracy and utility within the time constraint.
DeepDecision divides time into windows of equal size.
At the beginning of each time window, it picks a specific resolution and CNN model to process all the frames within a time window.
\item \textbf{Optimal:} This shows the upper bound for all methods.
It tries all possible combinations and chooses the schedule that maximizes the accuracy.
Notice that this method cannot be used for processing videos in real time since it takes too much time to search all possible schedules.
We can only find the optimal solution offline by replaying the data trace.
\end{itemize}
The performance of the schedule algorithms depends on several factors, the bandwidth, delay and the processing time requirement specified by the applications.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\subfloat[Frame Rate 30 fps]{{
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth, valign=t]{fig/max_acc2_band1}
\label{fig:max-acc-bandwidth-1}}}
\subfloat[Frame Rate 50 fps]{{
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth, valign=t]{fig/max_acc2_band2}
\label{fig:max-acc-bandwidth-2}}}
\caption{The performance of different methods under different network conditions.}
\label{fig:exp-max-acc-bandwidth}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\end{figure}
In Figure \ref{fig:exp-max-acc-bandwidth}, we compare Max-Accuracy with the Local and Offload method under different network conditions. In the evaluation, we set the frame upload delay to be 100 ms.
The Local method does not offload any frames, and thus its performance remains the same under different network conditions.
The Local method can achieve the same accuracy as the Max-Accuracy algorithm when the bandwidth is low, since most of the video frames will be processed locally and the Local method can find an optimal solution.
Notice that the Local method performs better than DeepDecision when the bandwidth is low.
The reason is as follows.
DeepDecision makes the same schedule decision for frames within a time slot and NPU may not be fully utilized if only SqueezeNet is used.
In contrast, the Local method achieves higher accuracy by using ResNet to process some of the frames within the time slot.
In Figure \ref{fig:exp-max-acc-bandwidth}(b), the Offload method is not capable of processing all frames when the bandwidth is lower than 1.5 Mbps.
When the network bandwidth is low, the Offload method performs poorly since it has to resized video frames into an extremely small size and then reduce the accuracy.
As shown in Figure \ref{fig:resolutions}, even with an advanced CNN model, the accuracy is till low with these low resolution images.
As the network bandwidth increases, the differences among the Max-Accuracy, DeepDecision and Offload become smaller since the mobile device can offload most of the frames in high resolution and achieve better accuracy.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\subfloat[$B = 2$ Mbps]{{
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{fig/max_acc2_fr1}
\label{fig:max-acc-fps-1}}}
\subfloat[$B = 3$ Mbps]{{
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{fig/max_acc2_fr2}
\label{fig:max-acc-fps-2}}}
\caption{The performance of different methods under different frame rate requirements.}
\label{fig:exp-max-acc-fps}
\vspace{-0.7cm}
\end{figure}
In Figure \ref{fig:exp-max-acc-fps}, we evaluate the impact of frame rate for different methods.
As can be seen from the figures, the performance of all methods drops when the frame rate is high.
As the frame rate requirement increases, more frames have to be resized to lower resolutions.
That is why the Offload method suffers a 30\% accuracy drop in the experiments.
In contrast, there is no significant accuracy drop in Max-Accuracy, since they can avoid reducing the solution by processing the video frames on NPU.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\subfloat[Performance of the Optimal]{{
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{fig/3d-max-acc-optimal.pdf}
}}
\subfloat[Difference between Max-Accuracy and Optimal]{{
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{fig/3d-max-acc-alg.pdf}
}}
\caption{Comparison between optimal and Max-Accuracy}
\label{fig:exp-max-acc-3d}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\end{figure}
In Figure \ref{fig:exp-max-acc-3d}, we compare Max-Accuracy with the Optimal method under various frame rates and network conditions.
As shown in Figure \ref{fig:exp-max-acc-3d}(a), the accuracy of Optimal increases when the network bandwidth increases, because
the mobile device can upload more frames with higher resolution.
To support a higher frame rate, more frames must be processed within the time constraint and the optimal method has to use fast CNN models with low resolution or low accuracy, resulting in low accuracy.
In figure \ref{fig:exp-max-acc-3d}(b), we plot the accuracy difference between Optimal and Max-Accuracy.
The accuracy difference is computed using the accuracy of the Optimal method minus that of Max-Accuracy.
As can be seen from the figure, the difference is almost 0 in most cases, which indicates that Max-Accuracy is close to Optimal.
In Figure \ref{fig:exp-max-acc-latency}, we evaluate the impact of frame upload delay on accuracy.
We set the uplink network bandwidth to be 3 Mbps and set the frame rate to be 30 and 50 fps.
Since the Local method does not offload any frames, its performance remains the same.
A longer delay means that less frames can be offloaded to the server for processing, since the result must be returned within the time constraint.
Therefore, for the Offload, DeepDecision, Optimal and Max-Accuracy algorithms, the performance drops as the upload delay increases.
Compared to DeepDecision, Optimal and Max-Accuracy, a significant accuracy drop can be observed in the Offload method, when the upload delay becomes larger. This is because DeepDecision, Optimal and Max-Accuracy can schedule frames to be processed locally at this time to deal with the long upload delay. Although the accuracy is also dropped by processing the frames on NPU, the impact is not as significant as that in the Offload method.
\subsection{The Performance of Max-Utility}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\subfloat[Frame Rate 30 fps]{{
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{fig/max_acc2_latency}
\label{fig:max-acc-latency-1}}}
\subfloat[Frame Rate 50 fps]{{
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{fig/max_acc2_latency2}
\label{fig:max-acc-latency-2}}}
\caption{The performance of different methods under different frame upload delay.}
\label{fig:exp-max-acc-latency}
\vspace{-0.8cm}
\end{figure}
To evaluate the performance of Max-utility, we still compare it to Offload, Local, and Optimal. Since we focus on utility instead of accuracy in this subsection, these algorithms are also modified to maximize utility instead of accuracy.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\subfloat[$\alpha=200$]{{
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{fig/max_utl2_bandwidth2}\label{fig:max-utl-bandwidth-1}}}
\subfloat[$\alpha=50$]{{
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{fig/max_utl2_bandwidth}\label{fig:max-utl-bandwidth-2}}}
\caption{The impact of network bandwidth.}
\label{fig:exp-max-utl-bandwidth}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\end{figure}
In Figure \ref{fig:exp-max-utl-bandwidth}, we evaluate the impact of network bandwidth for different methods.
In the comparison, the frame rate and the upload delay are set to be 30 fps and 100 ms respectively, and the tradeoff parameter $\alpha$ is set to be 50 and 200.
The Local approach cannot offload any video frames to the server, and thus its utility remains the same in different network conditions.
When the bandwidth is low, the Offload method may have to upload low resolution frames, resulting in low utility, and thus it underperforms the Local method.
As the network bandwidth increases, the performance difference among Offload, DeepDecision, Max-Utility, and Optimal becomes smaller, since most frames can be transmitted with higher resolution to achieve better accuracy.
As shown in the figure, when the network bandwidth decreases, the performance of Offload, DeepDecision, Max-Utility and Optical all drops.
However, the performance of DeepDecision, Max-Utility and Optimal drops much slower than Offload.
The reason is as follows.
When $\alpha$ is large, as shown Figure \ref{fig:exp-max-utl-bandwidth}(a), the accuracy has more weight in calculating
the utility. Max-Utility achieves high accuracy and then high utility by offloading when network bandwidth is high and by local execution when the network bandwidth is low.
When $\alpha$ is small, as shown Figure \ref{fig:exp-max-utl-bandwidth}(b), the processing time (frame rate) has more weight in calculating the utility. Max-Utility supports high frame rate and then achieves high utility by offloading when network bandwidth is high and by local execution when the network bandwidth is low.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\subfloat[$\alpha=200$]{{
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{fig/max_utl2_fr2}}}
\subfloat[$\alpha=50$]{{
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{fig/max_utl2_fr}}}
\caption{The effects of frame rates.}
\label{fig:exp-max-utl-fps}
\vspace{-0.27cm}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:exp-max-utl-fps} shows the impacts of frame rate for different methods.
In the evaluation, we set the network bandwidth to be 2.5 Mbps and the upload frame delay to be 100 ms.
As shown in the figure, Max-Utility outperforms Offload, Local and DeepDecision methods.
When $\alpha$ is small, as shown Figure \ref{fig:exp-max-utl-fps}(b), the processing time (frame rate) has more weight in calculating the utility, and thus the utility of all methods increases when the frame rate increases.
When $\alpha$ is large, as shown Figure \ref{fig:exp-max-utl-fps}(a), the accuracy has more weight in calculating the utility, and thus the utility of all methods does not increases too much when the frame rate increases.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\subfloat[$\alpha=200$]{{
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{fig/max_utl2_latency2}}}
\subfloat[$\alpha=50$]{{
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{fig/max_utl2_latency}}}
\caption{The effects of upload delay}
\label{fig:exp-max-utl-latency}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:exp-max-utl-latency} shows the impact of upload delay for different methods.
We set the frame rate to be 30 fps and the network bandwidth to be 2 Mbps.
Since the Local method does not offload any video frames to the server, its performance remains the same.
As the upload delay increases, less video frames can be offloaded to the server due to time constraints, and hence degrading the performance of the
Offload, DeepDecision, Max-Utility, and Optimal algorithms.
\section{Conclusions} \label{sec:conclusion}
In this paper, we proposed a framework called FastVA, which supports deep learning video analytics through edge processing and Neural
Processing Unit (NPU) in mobile.
We are the first to study the benefits and limitations of using NPU to run CNN models to better understand the characteristics of NPU in mobile.
Based on the accuracy and processing time requirement of the mobile application, we studied two problems:
\textit{Max-Accuracy} where the goal is to maximize the accuracy under some time constraints, and
\textit{Max-Utility} where the goal is to maximize the utility which is a weighted function of processing time and accuracy.
To solve these two problems, we have to determine when to offload the computation and when to use NPU. The solution depends on the network condition, the special characteristics of NPU, and the optimization goal.
We formulated them as integer programming problems and proposed heuristics based solutions.
We have implemented FastVA on smartphones and demonstrated its effectiveness through extensive evaluations.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
\section{Introduction}
Deep learning techniques, such as Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), have been successfully applied to various computer vision and natural language processing
problems, and some of the advanced models can even outperform human beings in some specific datasets \cite{he-iccv15}.
Over the past few years, many mobile applications have been developed to apply CNN models for video analytics.
For example, Samsung Bixby can help users extract texts showing up in the video frames.
Although these advanced CNN models can provide us with better results, they also suffer from the high computational overhead
which means long delay and more energy consumption when running on mobile devices.
Most existing techniques \cite{chen-sensys15, chen-sensys18, teerapittayanon-icdcs17, ran-infocom18, han-mobisys16} address this problem through computation offloading. By offloading data/video to the edge server and letting the edge server run these deep learning models, energy and processing time can be saved. However, this is under the assumption of good network condition and small input data size. In many cases, when the network condition is poor or for applications such as video analytics where a large amount of data is processed, offloading may take longer time, and thus may not be the best option.
Recently, many companies such as Huawei, Qualcomm, and Samsung are developing dedicated {\em Neural Processing Units (NPUs)} for mobile devices, which can process AI features. With NPU, the running time of these deep learning models can be significantly reduced.
For example, the processing time of the ResNet-50 model \cite{he-iccv15} is about one second using CPU, but only takes about 50 $ms$ with NPU.
Although NPUs are limited to advanced phone models at this time, this technique has great potential to be applied to other mobile devices, and even for IoT devices in the future.
There are some limitations with NPU.
First, NPU uses 16 bits or 8 bits to represent the floating-point numbers instead of 32 bits in CPU.
As a result, it runs CNN models much faster but less accurate compared to CPU.
Second, NPU has its own memory space and sometimes the CNN models are too large to be loaded into memory.
Then, the CNN model has to be compressed in order to be loaded by NPU and then reducing the accuracy.
For instance, HUAWEI mate 10 pro only has 200MB memory space for NPU and many advanced CNN models must be compressed at the cost of accuracy.
There is a tradeoff between the offloading based approach and the NPU based approach. Offloading based approach has good accuracy, but may have longer delay under poor network condition. On the other hand, NPU based approach can be faster, but with less accuracy.
In this paper, we propose FastVA, a framework that combines these two approaches for real time video analytics on mobile devices.
The major challenge is to determine when to offload the computation and when to use NPU based on the network condition, the video processing time, and the accuracy requirement of the application.
Consider an example of a flying drone.
The camera on the drone is taking videos which are processed in real time to detect nearby objects to avoid crashing into a building or being trapped by a tree.
To ensure no object is missed, the detection result should be as accurate as possible.
Here, the time constraint is critical and we should maximize the detection accuracy under such time constraint.
For many other mobile applications such as unlocking a smartphone, making a payment through face recognition, or
using Google glasses to enhance user experience by recognizing the objects or landmarks and showing related information, accuracy and processing time are both important. Hence, we should achieve a better tradeoff between them.
Based on the accuracy and the processing time requirement of the mobile application, we study two problems:
\textit{Max-Accuracy} where the goal is to maximize the accuracy under some time constraints, and
\textit{Max-Utility} where the goal is to maximize the utility which is a weighted function of accuracy and processing time.
To solve these two problems, we have to determine when to offload the computation and when to use NPU. The solution depends on the network condition, the special characteristics of NPU, and the optimization goal.
We will formulate them as integer programming problems, and propose heuristics based solutions.
Our contributions are summarized as follows.
\begin {itemize}
\item
We study the benefits and limitations of using NPU to run CNN models to better understand the characteristics of NPU in mobile.
\item
We formulate the Max-Accuracy problem and propose a heuristic based solution.
\item
We formulate the Max-Utility problem and propose an approximation based solution.
\item
We implement FastVA on smartphones and compare it with other techniques through extensive evaluations.
\end {itemize}
The rest of the paper is organized as follows.
Section \ref{sec:related-work} presents related work.
Section \ref{sec:preliminary} studies the benefits and limitation of NPU and provides an overview of FastVA.
We formulate the \textit{Max-Accuracy Problem} and propose a solution in Section \ref{sec:max-acc}.
In Section \ref{sec:max-utl}, we study the \textit{Max-Utility Problem} and give a heuristic based solution.
Section \ref{sec:evaluation} presents the evaluation results and
Section \ref{sec:conclusion} concludes the paper.
\section{Related Work} \label{sec:related-work}
Over past years, there have been significant advances on object recognition with CNN models.
For example, GoogleNet \cite{szegedy-cvpr15} and ResNet \cite{he-cvpr16} can achieve high accuracy.
However, these CNN models are designed for machines with powerful CPU and GPU, and it is hard to run them on mobile devices due to limited memory space and computation power.
To address this issue, various model compression techniques have been developed.
For example, in \cite{bhattacharya-sensys16}, the authors propose to separate convolutional kernels from the convolutional layers and compress the fully-connected layers to reduce the processing time of CNN models.
Liu \textit{et al.} \cite{liu-cvpr15} optimize the convolutional operations by reducing the redundant parameters in the neural network.
FastDeepIoT \cite{yao-sensys18} compresses the CNN models by optimizing the neural network configuration based on the non-linear relationship between the model architecture and the processing time.
Although the efficiency can be improved through these model compression techniques, the accuracy also drops.
Offloading techniques have been widely used to address the resource limitation of mobile devices.
MAUI \cite{cuervo-mobisys10} and many other works \cite{Geng-ICNP2015, Geng-infocom18, Geng-twc18} are general offloading frameworks that optimize the energy usage and the computation overhead for mobile applications.
However, these techniques have limitations when applied to video analytics where a large amount of video data has to be uploaded to the server.
To reduce the data offloading time, some local processing techniques have been proposed to filter out the less important or redundant data.
For example, Glimpse \cite{chen-sensys15} only offloads a frame when the system detects that the scene changes significantly.
Similar to Glimpse, MARVEL \cite{chen-sensys18} utilizes the inertial sensors to detect and filter out the redundancy before offloading. However, both MARVEL and Glimpse may not work well when the network condition is poor or when there are many scene changes.
To address this issue, other researchers consider how to guarantee a strict time constraint by running different CNN models locally under different network conditions \cite{han-mobisys16, ran-infocom18}.
Some recent work focuses on improving the execution efficiency of CNN models on mobile devices through hardware support.
For example, Cappuccino \cite{motamedi-esl19} optimizes computation by exploiting imprecise computation on the mobile system-on-chip (SoC). Oskouei \textit{et al.} \cite{oskouei-mm16} developed an Android library called CNNdroid for running
CNN models on mobile GPU.
DeepMon \cite{huynh-mobisys17} leverages GPU for continuous vision analysis on mobile devices.
DeepX \cite{lane-ipsn16} divides the CNN models into different blocks which can be efficiently run on CPU or GPU.
The processing time is reduced by scheduling these blocks on different processors, such as CPU and GPU.
Different from them, we use NPUs.
\section{Preliminary} \label{sec:preliminary}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\subfloat[Processing Time Comparison]{\label{fig:NPU-process-time}\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth,valign=c]{fig/processing-time}}
\,
\subfloat[Accuracy Comparison]{\label{fig:NPU-accuracy}\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth,valign=c]{fig/CPU-NPU}}
\caption{Performance Comparison of NPU and CPU.}
\label{fig:NPU-profile}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{figure}
A video frame can be processed locally by the NPU or offloaded to the server. The decision depends on the application requirements on the tradeoff between accuracy and processing time. More importantly, the decision depends on how various CNN models perform on NPUs in terms of accuracy and processing time. In this section, we first show some results on how various CNN models perform on NPUs and local CPUs to understand the characteristics of NPU, and then give an overview of the proposed FastVA framework.
\subsection{Understanding NPU}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\subfloat[The Original Image]{\label{fig:detection-original-image}\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth,valign=c]{fig/original.png}}
\,
\subfloat[Ground Truth]{\label{fig:detection-ground-truth}\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth,valign=c]{fig/detection-groundtruth.png}}
\,
\subfloat[Detection Result on CPU]{\label{fig:cpu-detect-result}\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth,valign=c]{fig/yolo-test-detected.png}}
\,
\subfloat[Detection Result on NPU]{\label{fig:npu-detect-result}\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth,valign=c]{fig/npu-yolo-test.png}}
\caption{Detection result with YOLO Small }
\label{fig:detection-comparision}
\vspace{-0.7cm}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth,valign=c]{fig/overview}
\caption{FastVA overview}
\label{fig:overview}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\end{figure}
To have a better understanding of NPU, we compare the accuracy and the processing time of running different CNN models on NPU and CPU.
The experiment is conducted on HUAWEI mate 10 pro which has a NPU, and the results are shown in Figure \ref{fig:NPU-profile}.
Three CNN models are used in the evaluations and the details are as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item The VGG model \cite{parkhi-bmvc15} which is used for face recognition.
In the experiment, we use the face images from the LFW dataset \cite{lfw-dataset}.
\item The ResNet-50 model \cite{he-cvpr16} which is used for object recognition.
The evaluation was based on 4000 object images randomly chosen from the VOC dataset \cite{everingham-ijcv15}, and the results were based on the
Top-1 accuracy.
\item The YOLO Small model \cite{redmon-cvpr16} which is designed for detecting objects in an image.
The evaluation was based on 100 images randomly chosen from the COCO dataset \cite{lin-eccv14}, and the results were based on the F1-score.
\end{itemize}
As shown in Figure \ref{fig:NPU-profile}(a), compared to CPU, running VGG, ResNet-50, or Yolo small on NPU can significantly reduce the processing time, by 95\%. As shown in Figure \ref{fig:NPU-profile}(b), the accuracy loss of using NPU is different for different CNN models.
For example, compared to CPU, using NPU has similar accuracy when running VGC, 20\% accuracy loss when running ResNet, and the F1-score drops to 0.3 when running YOLO Samll. This is because different CNN models have different ways to process these images.
VGG compares the similarity between the two feature vectors $[x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_n]$ and $[y_1, y_2, \ldots, y_n]$,
which are extracted from the face images.
They belong to the same person if the similarity is below a predefined threshold.
The similarity can be measured by the square of the Euclidean distance between two vectors, where $d = \sum_{i=1}^{n} (x_i - y_i)^2$.
Since NPU uses less number of bits to represent the floating point numbers, some errors will be introduced.
The error introduced by NPU changes $d$ to $d' = \sum_{i=1}^{n} (x_i - y_i + \epsilon_i)^2$.
If we consider $\epsilon_i$ as noise data with mean value 0, the expected value of $d'$ is equal to $E(d) + \sum_{i} E(\epsilon_i^2)$.
Since $\epsilon_i$ is small, it will not change the relationship between $d$ and the threshold too much for most input data, and hence
has the same level of accuracy as CPU.
Suppose the feature vector extracted from an image is $\Vec{f_1} = [x_1, x_2, \ldots x_n]$, ResNet-50 classifies the image based on the largest element.
Assume $x_p$ and $x_q$ are the two largest elements in $\Vec{f_1}$, and $x_p > x_q$. Then, the image will be classified as the $p^{th}$ category image.
The errors introduced by NPU may change the elements to $x'_p= x_p + \epsilon_1$ and $x'_q = x_q + \epsilon_2$.
If the difference between $x_p$ and $x_q$ is small, $x'_q$ may be larger than $x'_p$ due to errors $\epsilon_1, \epsilon_2$.
Then, the object will be classified as the $q^{th}$ category, and getting a wrong result.
YOLO Small is much more complex than ResNet and VGG.
Its feature vector includes information related to location, category and size of the objects, and a small error in the feature vector can change the result.
For instance, Figure \ref{fig:detection-comparision} shows the detection result of a test image using CPU and NPU.
Figure \ref{fig:detection-comparision}(c) shows the result with CPU, where the bounding boxes accurately include the objects, and the objects can be correctly recognized as horse and person respectively.
Figure \ref{fig:detection-comparision}(d) shows the result with NPU. As can be seen, the detection result only includes part of the objects. The center and the size of the objects are incorrect, leading to wrong detection results.
From these evaluations, we can see that NPU runs much faster than CPU; however, it may not always be the best choice for running CNN models, especially when accuracy is important.
\subsection{FastVA Overview}
The overview of FastVA is shown in Figure \ref{fig:overview}.
FastVA can process frames through offloading or local processing with NPU.
For offloading, FastVA may reduce the frame resolution before transmitting so that more frames can be uploaded at the cost of accuracy.
Similarly, multiple CNN models can be used, where a smaller CNN model can reduce the processing time at the cost of accuracy, and
a larger model can increase the accuracy at the cost of longer processing time.
If several CNN models are available, FastVA will choose the proper one for processing under different constraints.
Based on the network condition and the accuracy of the CNN models,
the schedule decision will be determined by the proposed Max-Accuracy or Max-Utility.
To provide real time video analytics, FastVA ensures that the processing of each video frame is completed within a time constraint.
Due to the limited computational and bandwidth resources, the scheduling needs to be designed carefully in order to maximize the accuracy or utility.
In the following sections, we formulate and solve the Max-Accuracy problem and the Max-Utility problem.
\section{The Max-Accuracy Problem} \label{sec:max-acc}
In this section, we study the Max-Accuracy problem which aims to maximize the accuracy under some time constraints.
We first formulate the problem and then propose a heuristic based solution.
\subsection{Problem Formulation}
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c | l |}
\hline
Notation & Description \\ \hline
$I_i$ & the $i$th frame \\ \hline
$S(I_i, r)$ & the data size of the frame $I_i$ in resolution $r$ \\ \hline
$T^{\textit{npu}}_j$ & The processing time of $j^{th}$ model on NPU \\ \hline
$T^{\textit{o}}_j$ & Processing time using the $j^{th}$ model on the server \\ \hline
$a(j, r)$ & The accuracy of the $j^{th}$ model with input images \\
& in resolution $r$\\ \hline
$T_c$ & Communication delay between mobile device and server \\ \hline
$B$ & upload bandwidth (data rate) \\ \hline
$f$ & video frame rate (fps) \\ \hline
$\gamma$ & the time interval between two consecutive frames \\ \hline
$T$ & the time constraint for each frame\\ \hline
$n$ & the number of video frames that needs to be processed \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Notation.}
\label{table:notations}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\end{table}
Assume the incoming frame rate is $f$, the time interval between two consecutive video frames is $\gamma = \frac{1}{f}$.
For the $i^{th}$ frame in the video, assume its arrival time is $i \gamma$ and FastVA needs to process it before $T + i \gamma$, where $T$ is the time constraint.
For each frame, it can either be processed locally by the NPU or offloaded to the server.
Multiple CNN models are used on the edge server and the mobile device to process these frames.
If the frame $I_i$ is processed by the $j^{th}$ model locally, the corresponding processing time is $T^{\textit{npu}}_j$.
If $I_i$ is processed at the edge server, the data can be offloaded with the original resolution or reduce the resolution to $r$ before uploading to save bandwidth.
Let $B$ denote the upload bandwidth and let $T_c$ denote the communication delay between the edge server and the mobile device.
Then, it takes $\frac{S(I_i, r)}{B} + T^{\textit{o}}_j + T_c$ to transmit the $i^{th}$ frame in resolution $r$ and receive the result from the server.
Although the transmission time can be reduced by reducing the frame to a lower resolution, the accuracy is lower.
The notations used in the problem formulation and the algorithm design are shown in Table \ref{table:notations}.
The Max-Accuracy problem can be formulated as an integer programming in the following way.
\begingroup
\allowdisplaybreaks
\begin{align}
\max \quad & \frac{1}{n} \displaystyle\sum^{n}_{i=0} \sum_j \sum_r a(j, r) X^j_i Y^r_i \\
\textrm{s.t.} \quad
& \sum^{i}_{k=i'} \sum_j T^{\textit{npu}}_j X^j_k + i' \gamma \leq T + i \gamma, \, \forall i, i', i' \leq i \\
& D(i', i) + T_c \leq i \gamma + T, \, \forall i, i', i' \leq i \\
& \sum_j X^j_i = 1, \,\forall i \\
& \sum_r Y^r_i = 1, \,\forall i \\
& Y^r_i, X^j_i \in \{0, 1\} \,\forall i, j
\end{align}
\endgroup
Where $D(i', i) = i' \gamma + \sum_j(\sum_r \sum^{i}_{k=i'} \frac{S(k, r) Y^r_k}{B} + T^o_j X^j_i)$ is the offloading time for the frames that arrive between $I_{i'}$ and $I_i$. $X^j_i$ is a variable to show which model is used to process the frame and $Y^r_i$ is a variable to show which resolution the frame is resized to before offloading.
If $X^j_i = 0$, the frame $I_i$ is not processed by the $j^{th}$ model.
If $X^j_i = 1$, the frame $I_i$ is run by the $j^{th}$ model.
If $Y^r_i = 1$, the frame $I_i$ is resized to resolution $r$ before offloading.
Objective (1) is to maximize the accuracy of the processed frames in the time window.
Constraint (2) specifies that all local processed frames should be completed before the deadline,
and constraint (3) specifies that the results of the offloaded frames should be returned within the time constraint.
\subsection{Max-Accuracy Algorithm}
\begin{algorithm}[ht]
\SetAlgoLined
\KwData{Video frames in the buffer}
\KwResult{Scheduling decision}
\SetKw{Continue}{continue}
\SetKw{Break}{break}
\SetKw{Return}{return}
\DontPrintSemicolon
The frame schedule list $S \leftarrow \{\}$ \\
$A \leftarrow 0$, $n_s \leftarrow$ the number of models on the server side \\
\For{each possible resolution $r$} {
Resize the $I_0$ to the resolution $r$ \\
$A' \leftarrow 0, S' \leftarrow \{\}$ \\
Sort the remote models in the descending order based on their accuracy $a(j, r)$. \\
\For{$j$ from 1 to $n_s$} {
\If{$t + T^{\textit{o}}_j + T_c \leq T$} {
Add $(0, j, r)$ to $S'$ \\
$A' \leftarrow A' + a(j, r)$ \\
\Break \\
}
}
$n_l \leftarrow \floor{\frac{S(I_i, r)}{B \gamma}}$ \\
Compute $H(i, t)$ according to Equation \ref{eq:local-initcase} and \ref{eq:local-phase} for $i \in [1, n_l]$ and $t \in [\gamma, n_l \gamma + T]$ \\
$h' \leftarrow \max_{t} H(n_l, t)$ \\
$t' \leftarrow \arg \max_{t} H(n_l, t)$ \\
\For{$i$ from $n_l$ to $1$} {
\For{each local model $j$}{
\If {$H(i-1, t' - T^{\textit{npu}}_j) = h'$} {
Add $(i, j, r_{max})$ to $S'$ \\
$t' \leftarrow t' - T^{\textit{npu}}_j, h' \leftarrow h' - a(j, r_{max}), A' \leftarrow A' + a(i, j)$ \\
\Break \\
}
}
}
\If{$\frac{A'}{n_l + 1} > A$} {
$A \leftarrow \frac{A'}{n_l + 1}, S \leftarrow S'$ \\
}
}
\Return $S$ \\
\caption{Max-Accuracy Algorithm}
\label{alg:max-acc}
\end{algorithm}
A brute force method to solve the Max Accuracy Problem is to try all the possible scheduling options, and
it takes $O((n_c * n_r)^{n})$, where $n_c$ is the number of CNN models available for processing the frames and $n_r$ is the number of resolution options.
Since the brute force method is impractical, we propose a heuristic solution.
The basic idea is as follows.
Since offloading based approach can achieve better accuracy than NPU based approach for the same CNN model,
the arriving video frame should be offloaded as long as there is available bandwidth.
Due to limited bandwidth, some frames cannot be offloaded and will be processed by the NPU locally.
More specifically, our Max-Accuracy algorithm consists of multiple rounds.
In each round, there are two phases: offload scheduling phase and local scheduling phase.
In both phases, the right CNN model is selected to process the video frame within the time constraint and maximize the accuracy.
\subsubsection{Offload Scheduling}
In this phase, the goal is to find out the CNN model that can be used for processing the offloaded video frame within time constraint and maximize the accuracy.
Assume that the network interface is idle and $I_0$ is the new frame arriving at the buffer.
$I_0$ will be resized to resolution $r$ and offloaded to the server.
On the server side, the only requirement for selecting the CNN model is the time constraint, which requires the result must be returned in time.
In other words, the constraint $\frac{S(I_0, r)}{B} + T_c + T^{\textit{o}}_j \leq T$ must be satisfied for the uploaded frame $I_0$.
A CNN model will be selected if it can satisfy the time constraint and has the highest accuracy on images with resolution $r$.
Since video frames arrive at a certain interval $\gamma$, $n_l = \floor{\frac{S(I_0, r)}{B \gamma}}$ frames will be buffered
while $I_0$ is being transmitted.
These frames will be processed locally, and the local scheduling phase will be used to determine their optimal scheduling decision.
\subsubsection{Local Scheduling}
In this phase, the goal is to find out the CNN model that can be used for processing the video frame within time constraint and maximize the accuracy.
For each CNN model, the video processing time and the accuracy vary. A simple dynamic programming algorithm is used to find an optimal scheduling decision.
More specifically, let $H(k, t)$ denote the optimal accuracy for processing the first $k$ frames with time constraint $t$, where $k \in [0, n_l]$.
Then, frame $I_1$ arrives at the frame buffer at time $\gamma$ and the last frame $I_{n_l}$ must be processed before time $n_l \gamma + T$, thus $t \in [\gamma, n_l \gamma + T]$.
If it is impossible to process all $k$ frames within $t$, $H(k, t) = - \infty$. Initially, since the frame $I_0$ is offloaded to the server, $H(0, t)$ can be computed as follow:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:local-initcase}
H(0, t) = \begin{cases}
-\infty, & \text{if $t < T^{idle}$} \\
0 & \textrm{Otherwise}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
{\noindent}where $T^{idle}$ is the queuing time for $I_1$.
For frame $I_k (k > 0)$, it can be processed on one of the local CNN model $j$. $H(k, t)$ can be computed as follow:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:local-phase}
H(k, t) = \begin{cases}
-\infty, & \hspace{-1.75cm} \text{if $\forall j, k \gamma + T^{\textit{npu}}_j < t$} \\
\max_j (H(k-1, t-T^{\textit{npu}}_j) + a(j, r_{max})), & \hspace{-0.3cm} \textrm{Otherwise}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Based on the computed $H(k, t)$, the scheduling decision can be made by backtracking.
The Max-Accuracy algorithm is summarized in Algorithm \ref{alg:max-acc}.
Lines 4-11 are the offloading scheduling phase and Lines 12-21 are for the local scheduling phase.
In the algorithm, a variable $A$ is used for tracking the maximum accuracy that is found so far, and its corresponding schedule decision is maintained in $S'$.
The frame schedule list $S'$ is a list of pair $(i, j, r)$, which means that frame $I_i$ is processed by the $j^{th}$ model with resolution $r$.
The running time of our algorithm is $O(n_r * n_c * n)$
\section{Max-Utility Problem} \label{sec:max-utl}
In this section, we study the Max-Utility problem.
The goal is to maximize the utility which is a weighted function of accuracy and video processing time.
We first formulate the problem and then propose an approximated based solution.
\subsection{Problem Formulation}
With time constraint, FastVA may not be able to process all frames using the CNN model with the highest accuracy. To achieve high accuracy with limited resources, FastVA may skip some frames whose queuing time is already close to its time constraint.
With the notations used in the last section, the length of the video is $n \gamma$ and $\sum_{i} \sum_{j} X^{j}_{i}$ is the total number of frames to be processed. Then, the video is processed at a real frame rate of $\frac{\sum_{i} \sum_{j} X^{j}_{i}}{n \gamma}$.
The average accuracy can be computed as $\frac{\sum_{i} \sum_{j} a(j, r)X^{j}_{i} Y^{r}_{i}}{\sum_{i} \sum_{j} X^{j}_{i}}$.
Let $\alpha$ denote the tradeoff parameter between accuracy and processing time (measured with the frame processing rate).
Then, the utility can be computed as $\sum_{i} \sum_{j} \frac{X^{j}_{i}}{n \gamma} + \alpha \frac{\sum_{i} \sum_{j} a(j, r)X^{j}_{i} Y^{r}_{i}}{\sum_{i} \sum_{j} X^{j}_{i}}$.
Similar to the Max-Accuracy problem, the Max-Utility Problem can be formulated as an integer programming in the following way.
\begingroup
\allowdisplaybreaks
\begin{align}
\max \quad & \sum^{n}_{i=0} \sum_{j} \frac{X^{j}_{i}}{n \gamma} + \alpha \frac{\sum_{i} \sum_{j} a(j, r)X^{j}_{i} Y^{r}_{i}}{\sum_{i} \sum_{j} X^{j}_{i}} \\
\textrm{s.t.} \quad
& \sum^{i}_{k=i'} \sum_j T^{\textit{npu}}_j X^j_k + i' \gamma \leq i \gamma + T, \, \forall i, i', i' \leq i \\
& D(i', i) + T_c \leq i \gamma + T, \, \forall i, i', i' \leq i \\
& \sum_j X^j_i \leq 1, \,\forall i \\
& \sum_r Y^r_i \leq \sum_j X^j_i, \,\forall i \\
& Y^r_i, X^j_i \in \{0, 1\}, \,\forall i, j
\end{align}
\endgroup
Objective (9) maximizes the utility.
Constraints (10) and (11) specify that the frames must be processed within the time requirement.
Constraint (13) specifies that each frame can at most be processed by a CNN model either remotely or locally.
Constraint (14) specifies that each image can only be resized to a certain resolution.
\subsection{Max-Utility Algorithm}
Since the problem is NP-hard, it costs too much time to find the optimal solution.
Therefore, we propose a heuristic based algorithm (called the Max-Utility Algorithm) to solve it.
The basic idea of the algorithm is as follows.
Since the offloading based approach can achieve better accuracy than NPU based approach for the same CNN model, our algorithm first maximizes the utility by offloading the arriving video frame with the available bandwidth.
Due to the limited bandwidth, some frames will not be offloaded and our Max-Utility algorithm further improves the utility using a dynamic programming algorithm to decide which frames should be skipped and which frames should be processed locally.
Assume the network interface is idle when a new frame $I_0$ arrives in the buffer.
$I_0$ will be resized to a resolution $r$ and offloaded to the server.
The offloading time for this frame is $\frac{S(I_0, r)}{B}$, which means the frames are offloaded at the frame rate $\frac{B}{S(I_0, r)}$.
The schedule decision for $I_0$ is made by solving $\max_{r, j} \frac{B}{S(I_0, r)} + \alpha \times a(j, r)$.
Since the result from the server should be received within the time limitation,
the constraint $T \geq \frac{S(I_0, r)}{B} + T_c + T^{\textit{o}}_j$ should be satisfied.
$n_l = \floor{\frac{S(I_0, r)}{B}}$ frames will be buffered while $I_{0}$ is being transmitted.
These frames will be processed locally, and a dynamic programming algorithm is used to find out the optimal solution.
In the algorithm, an array $U(k)$ ($k \in [0, n_l]$) is maintained to find the schedule for maximizing the utility.
$U(k)$ is a list of triples, and each triple is denoted as $(t, u, m)$, where utility $u$ is gained by processing $m$ out of the $k$ frames locally
within time $t$.
Notice that not all possible triples are maintained in $U(k)$, and only the most efficient ones (i.e., with more utility and less processing time) are kept
More specifically, a triple $(t', u', m')$ is said to dominate another triple $(t, u, m)$ if and only if $t' \leq t, u'\geq u$.
Obviously, triple $(t', u', m')$ is more efficient than triple $(t, u, m)$ and all dominated triples will be removed from the list of $U(k)$.
Assume that $T^{idle}$ is the queuing time for $I_1$. Initially, $U(0) = \{(T^{idle}, 0, 0)\}$.
To add triples to the list of $U(k)$, we consider two cases: no processing, local processing.
\textbf{No processing:}
In this case, the $k^{th}$ frame will not be processed.
Processing more frames may require a faster local CNN model to be used for processing.
In such cases, the average accuracy decreases and the utility may also decrease.
A better solution is to skip this frame.
Therefore, we will add all the triples in $U(k-1)$ to $U(k)$.
\textbf{Local Processing:}
In this case, it requires $T^{\textit{npu}}_j$ time to process the frame using the $j^{th}$ model locally.
Since the frame does not need to be resized, it is processed with the maximum resolution $r_{max}$.
The new average accuracy can be computed as $A = \frac{m}{m+1} (u - \frac{m}{n_l \gamma}) + \alpha \frac{a(j, r_{max})}{m+1}$.
For each triple $(t, u, m) \in U(k-1)$, a new triple $(\max(t, k \gamma) + T^{\textit{npu}}_j, A + \frac{m + 1}{n_l \gamma}, m+1)$ is added to the list of $U(k)$.
Notice that all local processed frames should be finished within the time constraint.
Therefore, $\max(t, k \gamma) + T^{\textit{npu}}_j \leq k \gamma + T$ should be satisfied for all new triples.
With the list of $U(k)$, we can find a schedule to maximize the utility.
The complete description of our algorithm is shown in Algorithm \ref{alg:dp-max-utility}.
In Lines 2-8, the algorithm maximizes the utility for the offloaded frame, and the schedule decision is determined for the local processing frames in Lines 9-27.
The running time of the algorithm is $O(n^2 * n_c)$.
\begin{algorithm}[ht]
\SetAlgoLined
\KwData{Video frames in the buffer}
\KwResult{Scheduling decisions}
\SetKw{Break}{break}
\DontPrintSemicolon
The frame schedule list $S \leftarrow \{\}$ \\
$u \leftarrow 0$ \\
\For{$j$ from 1 to $n_s$} {
\For{each possible resolution $r$} {
$u' \leftarrow \frac{B}{S(I_0, r)} + \alpha \times a(j, r)$ \\
\If{$\frac{S(I_0, r)}{B} + T^{\textit{o}}_j + T_c \leq T$ and $u < u'$} {
$p \leftarrow (0, j, r), u \leftarrow u'$
}
}
}
Add $p$ to $S$ \\
$n_l \leftarrow \floor{\frac{S(I_0, r)}{B}}$, $U(0) \leftarrow \{(T^{idle}, 0, 0)\}$ \\
\For{$i \leftarrow 1$ to $n_l$}{
\For{each $(t, u, m) \in U(i-1)$}{
Add $(t, u, m)$ to $U(i)$ \\
\For{each local model j}{
$t' \leftarrow \max(t, i \gamma) + T^{\textit{npu}}_j$ \\
\If{$t' \leq T + i \gamma$ and $i \gamma < t$}{
$A \leftarrow \frac{m}{m+1} (u - \frac{m}{n_l \gamma}) + \alpha \frac{a(j, r_{max})}{m+1}$ \\
Add $(t', A + \frac{m + 1}{n_l \gamma}, m+1)$ to $U(i)$ \\
}
}
}
Remove the dominated pairs from U(i) \\
}
$(t', u', m') \leftarrow \arg \max_{(t, u, m) \in U(n_l)} u$ \\
\For{$i$ from $n_l - 1$ to $0$}{
\For{each pair $(t, u, m)$ in $U(i)$} {
\For{each local model j}{
$A \leftarrow \frac{m}{m'} (u - \frac{m}{n_l \gamma}) + \alpha \frac{a(j, r_{max})}{m'}$ \\
\If{$t + T^{\textit{npu}}_j = t'$ and $A + \frac{m'}{n_l \gamma} = u'$}{
Add $(i+1, j, r_{max})$ to $S$ \\
$t' \leftarrow t, u' \leftarrow u, m' \leftarrow m$ \\
\Break \\
}
}
}
}
\Return $S$ \\
\caption{Max-Utility Algorithm}
\label{alg:dp-max-utility}
\end{algorithm}
\section{Performance Evaluations} \label{sec:evaluation}
In this section, we evaluate the performance of the proposed algorithms, Max-Accuracy and Max-Utility, and compare them with other approaches.
\subsection{Experiment Setup}
Currently, there are only a few smartphones on the market with dedicated NPUs.
In the evaluation, we use HUAWEI Mate 10 pro smartphone because it is equipped with NPU and it has a published HUAWEI DDK \cite{hiai} for developers.
Since NPU has a different architecture from CPU, the existing CNN models have to be optimized before running on NPU.
The HUAWEI DDK includes toolsets to do such optimization for NPU from CNN models trained by the deep learning frameworks Caffe \cite{jia-mm14}.
The HUAWEI DDK also includes the APIs to run the CNN models, and a few Java Native Interface (JNI) functions are provided to use the APIs on Android.
Since these JNI functions are hard coded for running a specific model, we have implemented more flexible JNI functions which can run different CNN models.
In FastVA, the frames are offloaded in the lossless PNG format.
The edge server is a desktop with AMD Ryzen 7 1700 CPU, GeForce GTX1070 Ti graphics card and 16 GB RAM.
We have installed the Caffe framework to run the CNN models on GPU.
In the experiment, object classifications are performed on mobile devices, which are common computer vision tasks for many mobile applications.
In our experiment, two different object recognition CNN models are used, ResNet-50 \cite{he-cvpr16} and SqueezeNet \cite{squeezenet}, which are
well known and are widely used. Moreover, SqueezeNet has a compact structure and it is much smaller than ResNet.
It can be considered as a compressed model that runs faster than ResNet at the cost of accuracy. This allows the application to achieve tradeoffs between accuracy and processing time under different network condition and time constraint.
In the evaluation, we use a subset of videos from the FCVID dataset \cite{jiang-TPAMI18}, which includes many real-world videos.
These videos have been used for training models related to object classification and activity recognition.
In our experiment, we focus on object classification, and thus activity recognition clips are not used.
Since the dataset is very large, about 1.9 TB, we randomly select 40 videos from the dataset and filter out the noisy data.
Since the labels of FCVID and ImageNet are different, we map the labels produced by the CNN models to that used by the FCVID dataset.
We evaluate the proposed algorithms with different frame rates.
Most videos in the dataset use 30 fps, and thus we have to change their frame rate by decoding/encoding.
For both CNN models (ResNet-50 and SqueezeNet), the maximum resolution of the input image is 224x224 pixels.
This resolution can be downsized for some offloading images, and we consider 5 different resolutions: 45x45, 90x90, 134x134, 179x179 and 224x224 pixels.
The time constraint for each frame is set to be 200 ms in all the experiments.
The running time of Max-Accuracy and Max-Utility algorithm is less than 1 ms on the smartphone and it is negligible compared to the time constraint (100 ms level).
\subsection{The Effects of CNN models}
\begin{table*}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|l|}
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{CNN model} & Processing Time (ms) & Transmission Time (ms) & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Top-1 Accuracy} \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{ResNet} & Local & 52 & 0 & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{0.52} \\ \cline{2-6}
& Server & 69 & 39 - 242 & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{0.67} \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{SqueezeNet} & Local & 17 & 0 & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{0.41} \\ \cline{2-6}
& Server & 9 & 39 - 242 & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{0.51} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\caption{The performance of the CNN models.}
\label{table:model-performance}
\vspace{-0.8cm}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth,valign=t]{fig/acc_vs_resolution.pdf}
\caption{Accuracy vs. Resolution.}
\label{fig:resolutions}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\end{figure}
To have a better understanding of how the CNN models perform,
we run ResNet-50 and SqueezeNet on the edge server and NPU with randomly selected 4000 images from the VOC dataset.
As shown in table \ref{table:model-performance}, the accuracy of ResNet-50 is about 30\% better than SqueezeNet on the server
and it is about 25\% better than SqueezeNet on the NPU.
However, SqueezeNet is 700\% faster than ResNet-50 on the server and
it is 300\% faster than ResNet-50 on the NPU.
Although running these CNN models has high accuracy on the server, there is a communication delay between the server and mobile device.
As shown in the table, the transmission time can range from tens of milliseconds to hundreds of milliseconds
based on the network condition and frame data size. When the network condition is poor, offloading may take much longer time than running on NPU.
Figure \ref{fig:resolutions} shows the tradeoff between accuracy and resolution.
We note that the accuracy does not scale linearly with the resolution.
The data in Table \ref{table:model-performance} and Figure \ref{fig:resolutions} are used for making scheduling decisions in FastVA.
\subsection{The Performance of Max-Accuracy}
We compare the performance of Max-Accuracy with the following schedule algorithms.
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Offload:} In this method, all frames must be offloaded to the edge server for processing.
Each frame will be resized to a resolution so that it can be offloaded before the next frame arrives, and the server chooses the most accurate model that can process the frames and return the result within the time constraint.
\item \textbf{Local:}
In this method, all frames are processed locally.
It uses the proposed dynamic programming technique to find the optimal schedule decision for local processing.
\item \textbf{DeepDecision:}
This is a simplified version of DeepDecision \cite{ran-infocom18} which optimizes the accuracy and utility within the time constraint.
DeepDecision divides time into windows of equal size.
At the beginning of each time window, it picks a specific resolution and CNN model to process all the frames within a time window.
\item \textbf{Optimal:} This shows the upper bound for all methods.
It tries all possible combinations and chooses the schedule that maximizes the accuracy.
Notice that this method cannot be used for processing videos in real time since it takes too much time to search all possible schedules.
We can only find the optimal solution offline by replaying the data trace.
\end{itemize}
The performance of the schedule algorithms depends on several factors, the bandwidth, delay and the processing time requirement specified by the applications.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\subfloat[Frame Rate 30 fps]{{
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth, valign=t]{fig/max_acc2_band1}
\label{fig:max-acc-bandwidth-1}}}
\subfloat[Frame Rate 50 fps]{{
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth, valign=t]{fig/max_acc2_band2}
\label{fig:max-acc-bandwidth-2}}}
\caption{The performance of different methods under different network conditions.}
\label{fig:exp-max-acc-bandwidth}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\end{figure}
In Figure \ref{fig:exp-max-acc-bandwidth}, we compare Max-Accuracy with the Local and Offload method under different network conditions. In the evaluation, we set the frame upload delay to be 100 ms.
The Local method does not offload any frames, and thus its performance remains the same under different network conditions.
The Local method can achieve the same accuracy as the Max-Accuracy algorithm when the bandwidth is low, since most of the video frames will be processed locally and the Local method can find an optimal solution.
Notice that the Local method performs better than DeepDecision when the bandwidth is low.
The reason is as follows.
DeepDecision makes the same schedule decision for frames within a time slot and NPU may not be fully utilized if only SqueezeNet is used.
In contrast, the Local method achieves higher accuracy by using ResNet to process some of the frames within the time slot.
In Figure \ref{fig:exp-max-acc-bandwidth}(b), the Offload method is not capable of processing all frames when the bandwidth is lower than 1.5 Mbps.
When the network bandwidth is low, the Offload method performs poorly since it has to resized video frames into an extremely small size and then reduce the accuracy.
As shown in Figure \ref{fig:resolutions}, even with an advanced CNN model, the accuracy is till low with these low resolution images.
As the network bandwidth increases, the differences among the Max-Accuracy, DeepDecision and Offload become smaller since the mobile device can offload most of the frames in high resolution and achieve better accuracy.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\subfloat[$B = 2$ Mbps]{{
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{fig/max_acc2_fr1}
\label{fig:max-acc-fps-1}}}
\subfloat[$B = 3$ Mbps]{{
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{fig/max_acc2_fr2}
\label{fig:max-acc-fps-2}}}
\caption{The performance of different methods under different frame rate requirements.}
\label{fig:exp-max-acc-fps}
\vspace{-0.7cm}
\end{figure}
In Figure \ref{fig:exp-max-acc-fps}, we evaluate the impact of frame rate for different methods.
As can be seen from the figures, the performance of all methods drops when the frame rate is high.
As the frame rate requirement increases, more frames have to be resized to lower resolutions.
That is why the Offload method suffers a 30\% accuracy drop in the experiments.
In contrast, there is no significant accuracy drop in Max-Accuracy, since they can avoid reducing the solution by processing the video frames on NPU.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\subfloat[Performance of the Optimal]{{
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{fig/3d-max-acc-optimal.pdf}
}}
\subfloat[Difference between Max-Accuracy and Optimal]{{
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{fig/3d-max-acc-alg.pdf}
}}
\caption{Comparison between optimal and Max-Accuracy}
\label{fig:exp-max-acc-3d}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\end{figure}
In Figure \ref{fig:exp-max-acc-3d}, we compare Max-Accuracy with the Optimal method under various frame rates and network conditions.
As shown in Figure \ref{fig:exp-max-acc-3d}(a), the accuracy of Optimal increases when the network bandwidth increases, because
the mobile device can upload more frames with higher resolution.
To support a higher frame rate, more frames must be processed within the time constraint and the optimal method has to use fast CNN models with low resolution or low accuracy, resulting in low accuracy.
In figure \ref{fig:exp-max-acc-3d}(b), we plot the accuracy difference between Optimal and Max-Accuracy.
The accuracy difference is computed using the accuracy of the Optimal method minus that of Max-Accuracy.
As can be seen from the figure, the difference is almost 0 in most cases, which indicates that Max-Accuracy is close to Optimal.
In Figure \ref{fig:exp-max-acc-latency}, we evaluate the impact of frame upload delay on accuracy.
We set the uplink network bandwidth to be 3 Mbps and set the frame rate to be 30 and 50 fps.
Since the Local method does not offload any frames, its performance remains the same.
A longer delay means that less frames can be offloaded to the server for processing, since the result must be returned within the time constraint.
Therefore, for the Offload, DeepDecision, Optimal and Max-Accuracy algorithms, the performance drops as the upload delay increases.
Compared to DeepDecision, Optimal and Max-Accuracy, a significant accuracy drop can be observed in the Offload method, when the upload delay becomes larger. This is because DeepDecision, Optimal and Max-Accuracy can schedule frames to be processed locally at this time to deal with the long upload delay. Although the accuracy is also dropped by processing the frames on NPU, the impact is not as significant as that in the Offload method.
\subsection{The Performance of Max-Utility}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\subfloat[Frame Rate 30 fps]{{
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{fig/max_acc2_latency}
\label{fig:max-acc-latency-1}}}
\subfloat[Frame Rate 50 fps]{{
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{fig/max_acc2_latency2}
\label{fig:max-acc-latency-2}}}
\caption{The performance of different methods under different frame upload delay.}
\label{fig:exp-max-acc-latency}
\vspace{-0.8cm}
\end{figure}
To evaluate the performance of Max-utility, we still compare it to Offload, Local, and Optimal. Since we focus on utility instead of accuracy in this subsection, these algorithms are also modified to maximize utility instead of accuracy.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\subfloat[$\alpha=200$]{{
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{fig/max_utl2_bandwidth2}\label{fig:max-utl-bandwidth-1}}}
\subfloat[$\alpha=50$]{{
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{fig/max_utl2_bandwidth}\label{fig:max-utl-bandwidth-2}}}
\caption{The impact of network bandwidth.}
\label{fig:exp-max-utl-bandwidth}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\end{figure}
In Figure \ref{fig:exp-max-utl-bandwidth}, we evaluate the impact of network bandwidth for different methods.
In the comparison, the frame rate and the upload delay are set to be 30 fps and 100 ms respectively, and the tradeoff parameter $\alpha$ is set to be 50 and 200.
The Local approach cannot offload any video frames to the server, and thus its utility remains the same in different network conditions.
When the bandwidth is low, the Offload method may have to upload low resolution frames, resulting in low utility, and thus it underperforms the Local method.
As the network bandwidth increases, the performance difference among Offload, DeepDecision, Max-Utility, and Optimal becomes smaller, since most frames can be transmitted with higher resolution to achieve better accuracy.
As shown in the figure, when the network bandwidth decreases, the performance of Offload, DeepDecision, Max-Utility and Optical all drops.
However, the performance of DeepDecision, Max-Utility and Optimal drops much slower than Offload.
The reason is as follows.
When $\alpha$ is large, as shown Figure \ref{fig:exp-max-utl-bandwidth}(a), the accuracy has more weight in calculating
the utility. Max-Utility achieves high accuracy and then high utility by offloading when network bandwidth is high and by local execution when the network bandwidth is low.
When $\alpha$ is small, as shown Figure \ref{fig:exp-max-utl-bandwidth}(b), the processing time (frame rate) has more weight in calculating the utility. Max-Utility supports high frame rate and then achieves high utility by offloading when network bandwidth is high and by local execution when the network bandwidth is low.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\subfloat[$\alpha=200$]{{
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{fig/max_utl2_fr2}}}
\subfloat[$\alpha=50$]{{
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{fig/max_utl2_fr}}}
\caption{The effects of frame rates.}
\label{fig:exp-max-utl-fps}
\vspace{-0.27cm}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:exp-max-utl-fps} shows the impacts of frame rate for different methods.
In the evaluation, we set the network bandwidth to be 2.5 Mbps and the upload frame delay to be 100 ms.
As shown in the figure, Max-Utility outperforms Offload, Local and DeepDecision methods.
When $\alpha$ is small, as shown Figure \ref{fig:exp-max-utl-fps}(b), the processing time (frame rate) has more weight in calculating the utility, and thus the utility of all methods increases when the frame rate increases.
When $\alpha$ is large, as shown Figure \ref{fig:exp-max-utl-fps}(a), the accuracy has more weight in calculating the utility, and thus the utility of all methods does not increases too much when the frame rate increases.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\subfloat[$\alpha=200$]{{
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{fig/max_utl2_latency2}}}
\subfloat[$\alpha=50$]{{
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{fig/max_utl2_latency}}}
\caption{The effects of upload delay}
\label{fig:exp-max-utl-latency}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:exp-max-utl-latency} shows the impact of upload delay for different methods.
We set the frame rate to be 30 fps and the network bandwidth to be 2 Mbps.
Since the Local method does not offload any video frames to the server, its performance remains the same.
As the upload delay increases, less video frames can be offloaded to the server due to time constraints, and hence degrading the performance of the
Offload, DeepDecision, Max-Utility, and Optimal algorithms.
\section{Conclusions} \label{sec:conclusion}
In this paper, we proposed a framework called FastVA, which supports deep learning video analytics through edge processing and Neural
Processing Unit (NPU) in mobile.
We are the first to study the benefits and limitations of using NPU to run CNN models to better understand the characteristics of NPU in mobile.
Based on the accuracy and processing time requirement of the mobile application, we studied two problems:
\textit{Max-Accuracy} where the goal is to maximize the accuracy under some time constraints, and
\textit{Max-Utility} where the goal is to maximize the utility which is a weighted function of processing time and accuracy.
To solve these two problems, we have to determine when to offload the computation and when to use NPU. The solution depends on the network condition, the special characteristics of NPU, and the optimization goal.
We formulated them as integer programming problems and proposed heuristics based solutions.
We have implemented FastVA on smartphones and demonstrated its effectiveness through extensive evaluations.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\subsection{Threshold in the theoretical number of operations for dimensions that are a power of two}
Here, we look for a theoretical threshold where our fast symmetric algorithm performs less arithmetic operations than the classical one.
Below that threshold any recursive call should call a classical algorithm for~$\MatrixProduct{A}{\Transpose{A}}$.
But, depending whether padding or static/dynamic peeling is used, this threshold varies.
For powers of two, however, no padding nor peeling occurs and we thus
have a look in this section of the thresholds in this case.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\footnotesize
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{|c||}{n} & 4 & 8 & 16 & 32 & 64 & 128\\
\hline
\textsc{syrk} &&&70 & 540 & 4216 & 33264 & 264160 & 2105280\\
\hline
& Rec. & SW & & & & & &\\
\hline
Syrk-i&\multirow{3}{*}{1 } & \multirow{3}{*}{0}&\color{blue}\bf 70 &
\color{blue}\bf 540 & \color{blue}\bf 4216 & 33264 & 264160 &
2105280\\
G0-i&&&81 & 554 & \color{orange}\bf 4020 & 30440 & 236496 & 1863584\\
G1-i&&&89 & 586 & \color{red}\bf 4148 & 30952 & 238544 & 1871776\\
G2-i&&&97 & 618 & 4276 & 31464 & 240592 & 1879968 \\
G3-i&&&105 & 650 & 4404 & \color{green}\bf 31976 & 242640 & 1888160\\
\hline
Syrk-i&\multirow{3}{*}{2 } & \multirow{3}{*}{1}&90 & 604 & 4344 &
\color{blue}\bf 32752 & 253920 & 1998784\\
G0-i&&& & 651 & 4190 & \color{orange}\bf 29340 & 217784 & 1674096\\
G1-i&&& & 707 & 4414 & \color{red}\bf 30236 & 221368 & 1688432\\
G2-i&&& & 763 & 4638 & \color{violet}\bf 31132 & 224952 & 1702768 \\
G3-i&&& & 819 & 4862 & 32028 & 228536 & 1717104\\
\hline
Syrk-i&\multirow{3}{*}{3 } & \multirow{3}{*}{2}& & 824 & 5048 & 34160
& \color{blue}\bf 248288 & 1886144\\
G0-i&&& & & 4929 & 30746 & \color{orange}\bf 210900 & 1546280\\
G1-i&&& & & 5225 & 31930 & \color{red}\bf 215636 & 1565224\\
G2-i&&& & & 5521 & 33114 & \color{violet}\bf 220372 & 1584168\\
G3-i&&& & & 5817 & 34298 & \color{green}\bf 225108 & 1603112\\
\hline
Syrk-i&\multirow{3}{*}{4 } & \multirow{3}{*}{3}& & & 6908 & 40112 &
260192 & \color{blue}\bf 1838528\\
G0-i&&& & & & 36099 & 221390 & \color{orange}\bf 1500540\\
G1-i&&& & & & 37499 & 226990 & \color{red}\bf 1522940\\
G2-i&&& & & & 38899 & 232590 & \color{violet}\bf 1545340\\
G3-i&&& & & & 40299 & 238190 & \color{green}\bf 1567740\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Number of arithmetic operations in the multiplication an~$\matrixsize{n}{n}$ matrix by its transpose:
{\color{blue}\bf blue} when Syrk-i (using Strassen-Winograd
with~${i-1}$ recursive levels) is better than other Syrk;
{\color{orange}\bf orange}/{\color{red}\bf red}/{\color{violet}\bf violet}/{\color{green}\bf
green} when ours (using Strassen-Winograd with~${i-1}$ recursive
levels, and {\color{orange}\bf G0-i} for~$\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}$ / {\color{red}\bf G1-i}
if~$-1$ is a square / {\color{violet}\bf G2-i} or {\color{green}\bf
G3-i} otherwise, depending whether $-2$ is a square or not) is better than others.}\label{tab:winolevels}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\par
First, from Section~\ref{ssec:skeworthmat}, over~$\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}$, we can choose~${Y=i\,\IdentityMatrixOfSize{n}}$.
Then multiplications by~$i$ are just exchanging the real and imaginary parts.
In Equation~(\ref{eq:complexity}) this is an extra cost of~${y=0}$ arithmetic operations in usual machine representations of complex numbers.
Overall, for~${y=0}$ (complex case),~${y=1}$ ($-1$ a square in the finite field) or~${y=3}$ (any other finite field), the dominant term of the complexity is anyway unchanged, but there is a small effect on the threshold.
In the following, we denote by~$G0,G1$ and~$G3$ these three variants.
\par
More precisely, we denote by \textsc{syrk} the classical multiplication of a matrix by its transpose.
Then we denote by Syrk-i the algorithm making four recursive calls and two calls to a generic matrix multiplication via Strassen-Winograd's algorithm, the latter with~${i-1}$ recursive calls before calling the classical matrix multiplication.
Finally G1-i (resp.\ G3-i) is our Algorithm~\ref{alg:wishartp} when~$-1$ is a square (resp.\ not a square), with three recursive calls and two calls to Strassen-Winograd's algorithm, the latter with~${i-1}$ recursive calls.
\par
Now, we can see in Table~\ref{tab:winolevels} in which range the thresholds live.
For instance, over a field where~$-1$ is a square, Algorithm~\ref{alg:wishartp} is better for~${{n}\geq{16}}$ with~$1$ recursive level (and thus~$0$ recursive levels for Strassen-Winograd), for~${{n}\geq{32}}$ with~$2$ recursive levels, etc.
Over a field where~$-1$ is not a square, Algorithm~\ref{alg:wishartp} is better for~${{n}\geq{32}}$ with~$1$ recursive level, for~${{n}\geq{64}}$ with~$3$ recursive levels, etc.
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:prelim}
Strassen's algorithm~\cite{Strassen:1969:GENO}, with~$7$ recursive
multiplications and~$18$ additions, was the first sub-cubic time
algorithm for matrix product, with a cost of~$\GO{n^{2.81}}$.
Summarizing the many improvements which have happened since then, the cost of multiplying two arbitrary~$\matrixsize{n}{n}$ matrices~$\GO{n^{\omega}}$ will be denoted by~${\mathrm{MM}_{\omega}(n)}$ (see~\cite{LeGall:2014:fmm} for the best theoretical value of~$\omega$ known to date).
\par
We propose a new algorithm for the computation of the product~${\MatrixProduct{A}{\Transpose{A}}}$ of a~${\matrixsize{2}{2}}$-block-matrix by its transpose using only~$5$ block multiplications over some base field, instead of~$6$ for the natural divide \& conquer algorithm.
For this product, the best previously known complexity bound was dominated by~${\frac{2}{2^{\omega}-4}\mathrm{MM}_{\omega}(n)}$ over any field (see~\cite[\S~6.3.1]{jgd:2008:toms}).
Here, we establish the following result:
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:main}
%
The product of an~$\matrixsize{n}{n}$ matrix by its transpose can be computed in~${\frac{2}{2^{\omega}-3}\textrm{MM}_{\omega}(n)}$ field operations over a base field for which there exists a skew-orthogonal matrix.
\end{theorem}
Our algorithm is derived from the class of Strassen-like algorithms multiplying~$\matrixsize{2}{2}$ matrices in~$7$ multiplications.
Yet it is a reduction of multiplying a matrix by its transpose to general matrix multiplication, thus supporting any admissible value for~$\omega$.
By exploiting the symmetry of the problem, it requires about half of the arithmetic cost of general matrix multiplication when~$\omega$ is~$\log_{2}{7}$.
\par
We focus on the computation of the product of an~$\matrixsize{n}{k}$ matrix by its transpose and possibly accumulating the result to another matrix.
Following the terminology of the {{\textsc{blas}{\footnotesize{3}}}\xspace} standard~\cite{DDHD90}, this operation is a symmetric rank~$k$ update ({{\textsc{syrk}}\xspace} for short).
\section{Matrix product algorithms encoded by tensors}
Considered as~$\matrixsize{2}{2}$ matrices, the matrix product~${C=\MatrixProduct{A}{B}}$ could be computed using Strassen algorithm by performing the following computations (see~\cite{Strassen:1969:GENO}):
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:StrassenMultiplicationAlgorithm}
\begin{array}{ll}
\mathcolor{brown}{\rho_{1}}\leftarrow{\mathcolor{brown}{a_{11}}(\mathcolor{brown}{b_{12}-b_{22}})},
&
\\
\mathcolor{red}{\rho_{2}}\leftarrow{(\mathcolor{red}{a_{11}+a_{12}})\mathcolor{red}{b_{22}}},
&
\mathcolor{green}{\rho_{4}}\leftarrow{(\mathcolor{green}{a_{12}-a_{22}})(\mathcolor{green}{b_{21}+b_{22}})},
\\
\mathcolor{blue}{\rho_{3}}\leftarrow{(\mathcolor{blue}{a_{21}+a_{22}}) \mathcolor{blue}{b_{11}}},
&
\mathcolor{purple}{\rho_{5}}\leftarrow{(\mathcolor{purple}{a_{11}+a_{22}})(\mathcolor{purple}{b_{11}+b_{22}})},
\\
\mathcolor{dimgray}{\rho_{6}}\leftarrow{\mathcolor{dimgray}{a_{22}}(\mathcolor{dimgray}{b_{21}-b_{11}})},
&
\mathcolor{chocolate}{\rho_{7}}\leftarrow{(\mathcolor{chocolate}{a_{21}-a_{11}})(\mathcolor{chocolate}{b_{11}+b_{12}})},
\\[\smallskipamount]
\multicolumn{2}{c}{
\begin{smatrix} c_{11} &c_{12} \\ c_{21} &c_{22} \end{smatrix}
=
\begin{smatrix}
\mathcolor{purple}{\rho_{5}} + \mathcolor{green}{\rho_{4}} - \mathcolor{red}{\rho_{2}} + \mathcolor{dimgray}{\rho_{6}} &
\mathcolor{dimgray}{\rho_{6}} + \mathcolor{blue}{\rho_{3}} \\
\mathcolor{red}{\rho_{2}} + \mathcolor{brown}{\rho_{1}}&
\mathcolor{purple}{\rho_{5}} + \mathcolor{chocolate}{\rho_{7}} + \mathcolor{brown}{\rho_{1}}- \mathcolor{blue}{\rho_{3}}
\end{smatrix}\!.}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
In order to consider this algorithm under a geometric standpoint, we present it as a tensor.
Matrix multiplication is a bilinear map:
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{ccl}
\ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}^{\matrixsize{m}{n}} \times \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}^{\matrixsize{n}{p}} & \rightarrow &\ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}^{\matrixsize{m}{p}}, \\
(X,Y) &\rightarrow & \MatrixProduct{X}{Y},
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where the spaces~$\ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}^{\matrixsize{a}{b}}$ are finite vector spaces that can be endowed with the Frobenius inner product~${{\langle M,N\rangle}={\textup{Trace}({\MatrixProduct{\Transpose{M}}{N}})}}$.
Hence, this inner product establishes an isomorphism between~$\ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}^{\matrixsize{a}{b}}$ and its dual space~$\bigl(\ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}^{\matrixsize{a}{b}}\bigr)^{\star}$ allowing for example to associate matrix multiplication and the trilinear form~${\textup{Trace}(\MatrixProduct{\Transpose{Z}}{\MatrixProduct{X}{Y}})}$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:TrilinearForm}
\begin{array}{ccc}
\ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}^{\matrixsize{m}{n}} \times \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}^{\matrixsize{n}{p}} \times {(\ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}^{\matrixsize{m}{p}})}^{\star}&\rightarrow & \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}, \\
(X,Y,\Transpose{Z}) &\rightarrow & \langle {Z},\MatrixProduct{X}{Y}\rangle.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
As by construction, the space of trilinear forms is the canonical dual space of order three tensor product, we could associate the Strassen multiplication algorithm~(\ref{eq:StrassenMultiplicationAlgorithm}) with the tensor~$\tensor{S}$ defined by:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:StrassenTensor}
\begin{array}{r}
\sum_{i=1}^{7}{S_{i1}}\!\otimes\!{S_{i2}}\!\otimes\!{S_{i3}}=
\mathcolor{brown}{\begin{smatrix}1&0\\0&0\\\end{smatrix}\!\otimes\!\begin{smatrix}0&1\\0&-1\\\end{smatrix}\!\otimes\!\begin{smatrix}0&0\\1&1\\\end{smatrix}
}
\!+\!\\[\bigskipamount]
\mathcolor{red}{\begin{smatrix}1&1\\0&0\\\end{smatrix}\!\otimes\!\begin{smatrix}0&0\\0&1\\\end{smatrix}\!\otimes\!\begin{smatrix}-1&0\\1&0\\\end{smatrix}}
\!+\!
\mathcolor{blue}{\begin{smatrix}0&0\\1&1\\\end{smatrix}\!\otimes\!\begin{smatrix}1&0\\0&0\\\end{smatrix}\!\otimes\!\begin{smatrix}0&1\\0&-1\end{smatrix}}
\!+\!\\[\bigskipamount]
\mathcolor{green}{\begin{smatrix}0&1\\0&-1\\\end{smatrix}\!\otimes\!\begin{smatrix}0&0\\1&1\\\end{smatrix}\!\otimes\!\begin{smatrix}1&0\\0&0\\\end{smatrix}}
\!+\!
\mathcolor{purple}{{\begin{smatrix}1&0\\0&1\end{smatrix}}\!\otimes\!{\begin{smatrix}1&0\\0&1\end{smatrix}}\!\otimes\!\begin{smatrix}1&0\\0&1\\\end{smatrix}}
\!+\!\\[\bigskipamount]
\mathcolor{dimgray}{\begin{smatrix}0&0\\0&1\\\end{smatrix}\!\otimes\!\begin{smatrix}-1&0\\1&0\\\end{smatrix}\!\otimes\!\begin{smatrix}1&1\\0&0\\\end{smatrix}}
\!+\!
\mathcolor{chocolate}{\begin{smatrix}-1&0\\1&0\\\end{smatrix}\!\otimes\!\begin{smatrix}1&1\\0&0\\\end{smatrix}\!\otimes\!\begin{smatrix}0&0\\0&1\\\end{smatrix}}
\!
\end{array}
\end{equation}
in~${{(\ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}^{\matrixsize{m}{n}})}^{\star} \otimes {(\ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}^{\matrixsize{n}{p}})}^{\star} \otimes \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}^{\matrixsize{m}{p}}}$ with~${m=n=p=2}$.
Given any couple~$(A,B)$ of~$\matrixsize{2}{2}$-matrices, one can explicitly retrieve from tensor~$\tensor{S}$ the Strassen matrix multiplication algorithm computing~$\MatrixProduct{A}{B}$ by the \emph{partial} contraction~${\Contraction{\tensor{S}}{A\otimes B}}$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:TensorAction}
\begin{array}{c}
\left({(\ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}^{\matrixsize{m}{n}})}^{\star}\! \otimes \! {(\ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}^{\matrixsize{n}{p}})}^{\star}\! \otimes\! \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}^{\matrixsize{m}{p}} \right)\! \otimes \! \left(
\ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}^{\matrixsize{m}{n}}\! \otimes\! \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}^{\matrixsize{n}{p}} \right)
\!\rightarrow\!
\ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}^{\matrixsize{m}{p}}, \\[\smallskipamount]
\tensor{S}\otimes (A \otimes B) \rightarrow
\sum_{i=1}^{7} \langle {S_{i1}}, A \rangle
\langle {S_{i2}}, B \rangle S_{i3},
\end{array}
\end{equation}
while the \emph{complete} contraction~${\Contraction{\tensor{S}}{{A}\otimes{B}\otimes{\Transpose{C}}}}$ is~${\textup{Trace}(\MatrixProduct{\MatrixProduct{A}{B}}{C})}$.
\par
The tensor formulation of matrix multiplication algorithm gives explicitly its symmetries (a.k.a.\ \emph{isotropies}).
As this formulation is associated to the trilinear form~$\textup{Trace}(\MatrixProduct{\MatrixProduct{A}{B}}{C})$, given three invertible matrices~$U,V,W$ of suitable sizes and the classical properties of the trace, one can remark that~${\textup{Trace}(\MatrixProduct{A}{\MatrixProduct{B}{C}})}$ is equal to:
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
\label{eq:isotropy}
\textup{Trace}\bigl(\Transpose{(\MatrixProduct{\MatrixProduct{A}{B}}{C})}\bigr)
=\textup{Trace}(\MatrixProduct{C}{\MatrixProduct{A}{B}})
=\textup{Trace}(\MatrixProduct{B}{\MatrixProduct{C}{A}}),\\
\textrm{and}\ \textup{Trace}\bigl(\MatrixProduct{\Inverse{U}}{\MatrixProduct{A}{V}}
\cdot \Inverse{V} \cdot B \cdot W \cdot \Inverse{W} \cdot C \cdot U\bigr).
\end{array}
\end{equation}
These relations illustrate the following theorem:
\begin{theorem}[{\cite[\S~2.8]{groot:1978a}}]
The isotropy group of the~$\matrixsize{n}{n}$ matrix multiplication tensor is~${{{\mathsc{psl}^{\pm}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}^{n}})}^{\times 3}}\!\rtimes{\mathfrak{S}_{3}}}$, where~$\mathsc{psl}$ stands for the group of matrices of determinant~${\pm{1}}$ and~$\mathfrak{S}_{3}$ for the symmetric group on~$3$ elements.
\end{theorem}
The following definition recalls the \emph{sandwiching} isotropy on matrix multiplication tensor:
\begin{definition}\label{def:sandwiching}
Given~${\Isotropy{g}={(U\times V \times W)}}$ in~${\mathsc{psl}^{\pm}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}}^{n})}^{\times 3}$, its action~${\IsotropyAction{\Isotropy{g}}{\tensor{S}}}$ on a tensor~$\tensor{S}$ is given by~${\sum_{i=1}^{7} \IsotropyAction{\Isotropy{g}}{(S_{i1}\otimes{} S_{i2}\otimes{} S_{i3})}}$ where the term~${\IsotropyAction{\Isotropy{g}}{(S_{i1}\otimes{} S_{i2}\otimes{} S_{i3})}}$ is equal to:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:sandwiching}
{\left(\MatrixProduct{\InvTranspose{U}}{\MatrixProduct{S_{i1}}{\Transpose{V}}}\right)}
\otimes
{\left(\MatrixProduct{\InvTranspose{V}}{\MatrixProduct{S_{i2}}{\Transpose{W}}}\right)}
\otimes
{\left(\MatrixProduct{\InvTranspose{W}}{\MatrixProduct{S_{i3}}{\Transpose{U}}}\right)}.
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}\label{rem:groupcomposition}
In~${\mathsc{psl}^{\pm}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}^{n}})}^{\times 3}$, the product~$\circ$ of two isotropies~$g_{1}$ defined by~${{u_{1}}\times{v_{1}}\times{w_{1}}}$ and~${g_{2}}$ by~${{u_{2}}\times{v_{2}}\times{w_{2}}}$ is the isotropy~${g_{1}\circ g_{2}}$ equal to~${\MatrixProduct{u_{1}}{u_{2}}\times{}\MatrixProduct{v_{1}}{v_{2}}\times{}\MatrixProduct{w_{1}}{w_{2}}}$.
Furthermore,the complete contraction~${\Contraction{{g_{1}}\circ{g_{2}}}{{A}\otimes{B}\otimes{C}}}$ is equal to~${\Contraction{g_{2}}{\IsotropyAction{\Transpose{g_{1}}}{{A}\otimes{B}\otimes{C}}}}$.
\end{remark}
The following theorem shows that all~$\matrixsize{2}{2}$-matrix product algorithms with~$7$ coefficient multiplications could be obtained by the action of an isotropy on Strassen tensor:
\begin{theorem}[{\cite[\S~0.1]{groot:1978}}]
The group~${{\mathsc{psl}^{\pm}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}^{n}})}^{\times 3}}$ acts transitively on the variety of optimal algorithms for the computation of~$\matrixsize{2}{2}$-matrix multiplication.
\end{theorem}
Thus, isotropy action on Strassen tensor may define other matrix
product algorithm with interesting computational properties.
\subsection{Design of a specific~\texorpdfstring{$\matrixsize{2}{2}$}{2x2}-matrix product}
This observation inspires our general strategy to design specific algorithms suited for particular matrix product.
\begin{strategy}\label{strategy}
By applying an undetermined isotropy:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:GenericIsotropy}
\Isotropy{g} = U \times V \times W =
\begin{smatrix} u_{11} & u_{12} \\ u_{21} & u_{22}\end{smatrix} \times
\begin{smatrix} v_{11} & v_{12} \\ v_{21} & v_{22}\end{smatrix} \times
\begin{smatrix} w_{11} & w_{12} \\ w_{21} & w_{22}\end{smatrix}
\end{equation}
on Strassen tensor~$\tensor{S}$, we obtain a parameterization~${\tensor{T}=\IsotropyAction{\Isotropy{g}}{\tensor{S}}}$ of all matrix product algorithms requiring~$7$ coefficient multiplications:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:optimal2x2algoparam}
\tensor{T}=\sum_{i=1}^{7} T_{i1}\otimes T_{i2}\otimes T_{i3},\
T_{i1}\otimes T_{i2}\otimes T_{i3}
= \IsotropyAction{\Isotropy{g}}{S_{i1}\otimes S_{i2}\otimes S_{i3}}.
\end{equation}
Then, we could impose further conditions on these algorithms and check by a Gr\"{o}bner basis computation if such an algorithm exists.
If so, there is subsequent work to do for choosing a point on this variety;
this choice can be motivated by the additive cost bound and the scheduling property of the evaluation scheme given by this point.
\end{strategy}
Let us first illustrate this strategy with the well-known Winograd variant of Strassen algorithm presented in~\cite{Winograd:1977:complexite}.
\begin{example}\label{ex:bshouty}
Apart from the number of multiplications, it is also interesting in practice to reduce the number of additions in an algorithm.
Matrices~$S_{11}$ and~$S_{61}$ in tensor~(\ref{eq:StrassenTensor}) do not increase the additive cost bound of this algorithm.
Hence, in order to reduce this complexity in an algorithm, we could try to maximize the number of such matrices involved in the associated tensor.
To do so, we recall Bshouty's results on additive complexity of matrix product algorithms.
\begin{theorem}[\cite{bshouty:1995a}]
Let~${e_{(i,j)}=(\delta_{i,k}\delta_{j,l})_{(k,l)}}$ be the single entry elementary matrix.
A~$\matrixsize{2}{2}$ matrix product tensor could not have~$4$ such matrices as first (resp.\ second, third) component~(\cite[Lemma~8]{bshouty:1995a}).
The additive complexity bound of first and second components are equal~(\cite[eq.~(11)]{bshouty:1995a}) and at least~${4=7-3}$.
The total additive complexity of~$\matrixsize{2}{2}$-matrix product is at least~$15$~(\cite[Theorem~1]{bshouty:1995a}).
\end{theorem}
Following our strategy, we impose on tensor~$\tensor{T}$~(\ref{eq:optimal2x2algoparam}) the constraints
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:WinogradConstraints}
{T_{11}=e_{1,1}=\begin{smatrix} 1&0\\0&0\end{smatrix}\!,\quad T_{12}=e_{1,2},\quad T_{13}=e_{2,2}}
\end{equation}
and obtain by a Gr\"obner basis computation~\cite{FGb} that such tensors are the images of Strassen tensor by the action of the following isotropies:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:IsotropyFromStrassen2Wingrad}
\Isotropy{w}=
\begin{smatrix}1&0\\0&1\end{smatrix} \times
\begin{smatrix}1&-1\\0&-1\end{smatrix} \times
\begin{smatrix}w_{11}&w_{12}\\w_{21}&w_{22}\end{smatrix}\!.
\end{equation}
The variant of the Winograd tensor~\cite{Winograd:1977:complexite}
presented with a renumbering as \cref{alg:sw} is obtained by the action of~$\Isotropy{w}$ with the specialization~${w_{12}=w_{21}=1=-w_{11},w_{22}=0}$ on the Strassen tensor~$\tensor{S}$.
While the original Strassen algorithm requires~$18$ additions, only~$15$ additions are necessary in the Winograd \cref{alg:sw}.
\end{example}
\begin{algorithm}[htbp]\caption{: $C=\mathrm{W}(A,B)$}\label{alg:sw}
\begin{algorithmic}
\Require{${A=\begin{smatrix} a_{11}&a_{12}\\ a_{21}&a_{22}\end{smatrix}}$ and~${B=\begin{smatrix} b_{11}&b_{12}\\ b_{21}&b_{22}\end{smatrix}}$;}
\Ensure{${C=\MatrixProduct{A}{B}}$}
\State{%
\( \renewcommand{\arraycolsep}{.7mm}
\begin{array}{LLLL}
s_{1} \leftarrow \mathcolor{green}{a_{11} - a_{21}}, &{}
s_{2} \leftarrow \mathcolor{chocolate}{a_{21} + a_{22}}, &{}
s_{3} \leftarrow \mathcolor{purple}{s_{2} - a_{11}}, &{}
s_{4} \leftarrow \mathcolor{dimgray}{a_{12} - s_{3}}, \\
t_{1} \leftarrow \mathcolor{green}{b_{22} - b_{12}}, &{}
t_{2} \leftarrow \mathcolor{chocolate}{b_{12} - b_{11}}, &{}
t_{3} \leftarrow \mathcolor{purple}{b_{11} + t_{1}}, &{}
t_{4} \leftarrow \mathcolor{blue}{b_{21} - t_{3}}.\\
\end{array}
\)
%
}
\State{%
\(
\renewcommand{\arraycolsep}{.7mm}
\begin{array}{LLLL}
\mathcolor{brown}{p_{1}\leftarrow{a_{11}}{\cdot}{b_{11}}},&
\mathcolor{red}{p_{2}\leftarrow{a_{12}}{\cdot}{b_{21}}},&
\mathcolor{blue}{p_{3}\leftarrow{a_{22}}{\cdot}{t_{4}}}, &
\mathcolor{green}{p_{4}\leftarrow{s_{1}}{\cdot}{t_{1}}},\\
&
\mathcolor{purple}{p_{5}\leftarrow{s_{3}}{\cdot}{t_{3}}}, &
\mathcolor{dimgray}{p_{6}\leftarrow{s_{4}}{\cdot}{b_{22}}}, &
\mathcolor{chocolate}{p_{7}\leftarrow{s_{2}}{\cdot}{t_{2}}}.\\
\end{array}
\)
}
\State{%
%
\( \renewcommand{\arraycolsep}{.7mm}
\begin{array}{LLLL}
c_{1} \leftarrow \mathcolor{brown}{p_{1}} + \mathcolor{purple}{p_{5}}, &
c_{2} \leftarrow c_{1} + \mathcolor{green}{p_{4}}, &
c_{3} \leftarrow \mathcolor{brown}{p_{1}} + \mathcolor{red}{p_{2}}, &
c_{4} \leftarrow c_{2} + \mathcolor{blue}{p_{3}}, \\
c_{5} \leftarrow c_{2} + \mathcolor{chocolate}{p_{7}}, &
c_{6} \leftarrow c_{1} + \mathcolor{chocolate}{p_{7}}, &
c_{7} \leftarrow c_{6} + \mathcolor{dimgray}{p_{6}}.&
\end{array}
\)
}
\Return {$ C = \begin{smatrix} c_{3} & c_{7} \\ c_{4} & c_{5} \end{smatrix}$.}
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
As a second example illustrating our strategy, we consider now the matrix squaring that was already explored by Bodrato in~\cite{Bodrato:2010:square}.
\begin{example}
When computing~$A^{2}$, the contraction~(\ref{eq:TensorAction}) of the
tensor~$\tensor{T}$~(\ref{eq:optimal2x2algoparam})
with~${{A}\otimes{A}}$ shows that choosing a subset~$J$
of~${\{1,\ldots,7\}}$ and imposing~${T_{i1}=T_{i2}}$ as constraints
with~$i$ in~$J$ (see~\cite[eq~4]{Bodrato:2010:square}) can
save~$\card{J}$ operations and thus reduce the computational
complexity.
\par
The definition~(\ref{eq:optimal2x2algoparam}) of\,~$\tensor{T}$, these constraints, and the fact that $U, V$ and~$W$'s determinant are~$1$, form a system with~${3+4\,\card{J}}$ equations and~$12$ unknowns whose solutions define matrix squaring algorithms.
\par
The algorithm~\cite[\S~2.2, eq~2]{Bodrato:2010:square} is given by the action of the isotropy:
\begin{equation}
\Isotropy{g} =
\begin{smatrix} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & 0 \end{smatrix} \times
\begin{smatrix} 1 & 1 \\ 0 & 1 \end{smatrix} \times
\begin{smatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 1 & 1 \end{smatrix}
\end{equation}
on Strassen's tensor and is just Chatelin's algorithm~\cite[Appendix~A]{Chatelin:1986:transformations}, with~${\lambda=1}$ (published~$25$ years before~\cite{Bodrato:2010:square}, but not applied to squaring).
\end{example}
\begin{remark}
Using symmetries in our strategy reduces the computational cost compared to the resolution of Brent's equations~\cite[\S~5, eq~5.03]{brent:1970a} with an undetermined tensor~$\tensor{T}$.
In the previous example by doing so, we should have constructed a system of at most~$64$ algebraic equations with~${{4(3\, (7-\card{J})+2\,\card{J})}}$ unknowns, resulting from the constraints on~$\tensor{T}$ and the relation~${\tensor{T}=\tensor{S}}$, expressed using Kronecker product as a single zero matrix in~$\ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}^{\matrixsize{8}{8}}$.
\end{remark}
We apply now our strategy on the~$\matrixsize{2}{2}$ matrix product~$\MatrixProduct{A}{\Transpose{A}}$.
\subsection{\texorpdfstring{${{2}\times{2}}$}{2x2}-matrix product by its transpose}\label{sec:GramMultAlg}
Applying our Strategy~\ref{strategy}, we consider~(\ref{eq:optimal2x2algoparam}) a generic matrix multiplication tensor~${\tensor{T}}$ and our goal is to reduce the computational complexity of the partial contraction~(\ref{eq:TensorAction}) with~${{A}\otimes{\Transpose{A}}}$ computing~$\MatrixProduct{A}{\Transpose{A}}$.
\par
By the properties of the transpose operator and the trace, the following relations hold:
\begin{equation}
\bigl\langle {T_{i2}}, \Transpose{A} \bigr\rangle
\begin{array}[t]{l}
=\textup{Trace}\bigl(\MatrixProduct{\Transpose{T_{i2}}}{\Transpose{A}}\bigr)
=\textup{Trace}\bigl(\Transpose{(\MatrixProduct{A}{T_{i2}})}\bigr),\\
=\textup{Trace}\bigl(\MatrixProduct{A}{T_{i2}}\bigr)
=\textup{Trace}\bigl(\MatrixProduct{T_{i2}}{A}\bigr)
= \bigl\langle {\Transpose{T_{i2}}}, A \bigr\rangle.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Thus, the partial contraction~(\ref{eq:TensorAction}) satisfies here the following relation:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:MainExpression}
\sum_{i=1}^{7} \bigl\langle T_{i1}, A \bigr\rangle \bigl\langle T_{i2}, \Transpose{A} \bigr\rangle T_{i3} =\sum_{i=1}^{7} \bigl\langle T_{i1}, A \bigr\rangle \langle \Transpose{T_{i2}}, A \rangle T_{i3}.
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Supplementary symmetry constraints}
Our goal is to save computations in the evaluation of~(\ref{eq:MainExpression}).
To do so, we consider the subsets~${J}$ of~${\{1,\ldots,7\}}$ and~${H}$ of~${\left\{{(i,j)}\in{{\{2,\ldots,7\}}^{2}} | i\not =j, i\not\in J, j\not\in J\right\}}$ in order to express the following constraints:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:aatconstraints}
T_{i1}=\Transpose{T_{i2}},\ i\in J,\quad T_{j1}=\Transpose{T_{k2}},\ T_{k1}=\Transpose{T_{j2}}, \ (j,k)\in H.
\end{equation}
The constraints of type~$J$ allow one to save preliminary additions
when applying the method to matrices~${B=\Transpose{A}}$: since then operations on~$A$ and~$\Transpose{A}$ will be the same.
The constraints of type~$H$ allow to save multiplications especially
when dealing with a block-matrix product: in fact, if some matrix
products are transpose of another, only one of the pair needs to
be computed as shown in Section~\ref{sec:GamBlocMatrixProduct}.
\par
We are thus looking for the largest possible sets~$J$ and~$H$.
By exhaustive search, we conclude that the cardinality of~$H$ is at
most~$2$ and then the cardinality of~$J$ is at most~$3$.
For example, choosing the sets~${J=\{1,2,5\}}$ and~${H=\{(3,6),(4,7)\}}$ we obtain for these solutions the following parameterization expressed with a primitive element~${z=v_{11}-v_{21}}$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:SolutionsParameterization}
\begin{array}{ccl}
v_{11}&=&z+v_{21}, \\
v_{22}&=& \bigl({2\,v_{21}}{({v_{21}}+z)} -1\bigr){v_{21}} +z^{3},\\
v_{12}&=& -\bigl({v_{21}}^{2}+{({v_{21}}+z^{2})}^{2}+1\bigr){v_{21}}-z,\\
u_{11} &=& -\bigl({(z+v_{21})}^2+{v_{21}}^{\!2}\bigr) (w_{21}+w_{22}), \\
u_{21} &=& -\bigl({(z+v_{21})}^2+{v_{21}}^{\!2}\bigr) (w_{11}+w_{12}), \\
u_{12} &=& -\bigl({(z+v_{21})}^2+{v_{21}}^{\!2}\bigr) w_{22}, \\
u_{22} &=& \bigl({(z+v_{21})}^2+{v_{21}}^{\!2}\bigr) w_{12},
\\[\smallskipamount]
\multicolumn{3}{c}{{\bigl({(z+v_{21})}^{2}+{v_{21}}^{\!2}\bigr)}^{2}+1=0,\ {w_{11}w_{22}-w_{12}w_{21}=1.}}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
\begin{remark}
As~${{\bigl({(z+v_{21})}^{2}+{v_{21}}^{\!2}\bigr)}^{2}+1=0}$ occurs in this parameterization, field extension could not be avoided in these algorithms if the field does not have---at least---a square root of~${-1}$.
We show in Section~\ref{sec:GamBlocMatrixProduct} that we can avoid
these extensions with block-matrix products and use our algorithm
directly in any field of prime characteristic.
\end{remark}
\subsubsection{Supplementary constraint on the number of additions}
As done in Example~\ref{ex:bshouty}, we could also try to reduce the additive complexity and use~$4$ pre-additions on~$A$ (resp.~$B$)~\cite[Lemma~9]{bshouty:1995a} and~$7$ post-additions on the products to form~$C$~\cite[Lemma~2]{bshouty:1995a}.
In the current situation, if the operations on~$B$ are exactly the transpose of that of~$A$, then we have the following lower bound:
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:eleven}
Over a non-commutative domain,~$11$ additive operations are necessary to multiply a~$\matrixsize{2}{2}$ matrix by its transpose with a bilinear algorithm that uses~$7$ multiplications.
\end{lemma}
Indeed, over a commutative domain, the lower left and upper right parts of the product are transpose of one another and one can save also multiplications.
Differently, over non-commutative domains,~$\MatrixProduct{A}{\Transpose{A}}$ is not symmetric in general (say~${{ac+bd}\neq{ca+db}}$) and all four coefficients need to be computed.
But one can still save~$4$ additions, since there are algorithms where
pre-additions are the same on~$A$ and~$\Transpose{A}$.
Now, to reach that minimum, the constraints~(\ref{eq:aatconstraints}) must be combined with the minimal number~$4$ of pre-additions for~$A$.
Those can be attained only if~$3$ of the~$T_{i1}$ factors do not require any addition~\cite[Lemma~8]{bshouty:1995a}.
Hence, those factors involve only one of the four elements of~$A$ and they are just permutations of~$e_{11}$.
We thus add these constraints to the system for a subset~$K$
of~${\{1,\ldots,7\}}$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:addconstraints}
\card{K}=3~\text{and}~T_{i1}\ \textrm{is in}\ \left\{
\begin{smatrix} 1&0\\0&0\end{smatrix},
\begin{smatrix} 0&1\\0&0\end{smatrix},
\begin{smatrix} 0&0\\1&0\end{smatrix},
\begin{smatrix} 0&0\\0&1\end{smatrix}
\right\}\ \textrm{and}\ i\ \textrm{in}\ K.
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Selected solution}
We choose~${K=\{1,2,3\}}$ similar to~(\ref{eq:WinogradConstraints}) and obtain the following isotropy that sends Strassen tensor to an algorithm computing the symmetric product more efficiently:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ChoosenAAT}
\Isotropy{a}=
\begin{smatrix}z^{2}&0\\0&z^{2}\end{smatrix} \times
\begin{smatrix}z&-z\\0&z^{3}\end{smatrix} \times
\begin{smatrix}-1&1\\1&0\end{smatrix},\quad z^{4}=-1.
\end{equation}
We remark that~${\Isotropy{a}}$ is equal to~${\Isotropy{d}\circ\Isotropy{w}}$ with~$\Isotropy{w}$ the isotropy~(\ref{eq:IsotropyFromStrassen2Wingrad}) that sends Strassen tensor to Winograd tensor and with:
\begin{equation}
\Isotropy{d}={D_{1}}\otimes{D_{2}}\otimes{D_{3}}=
\begin{smatrix}z^{2}&0\\0&z^{2}\end{smatrix} \times
\begin{smatrix}z&0\\0&-z^{3}\end{smatrix} \times
\begin{smatrix}1&0\\0&1\end{smatrix},\ z^{4}=-1.
\end{equation}
Hence, the induced algorithm can benefit from the scheduling and additive complexity of the classical Winograd algorithm.
In fact, our choice~${\IsotropyAction{\Isotropy{a}}{\tensor{S}}}$ is equal to~${\IsotropyAction{(\Isotropy{d}\circ\Isotropy{w})}{\tensor{S}}}$ and thus, according to remark~(\ref{rem:groupcomposition}) the resulting algorithm expressed as the total contraction
\begin{equation}
\Contraction{\IsotropyAction{(\Isotropy{d}\circ\Isotropy{w})}{\tensor{S}}}{({A}\otimes{\Transpose{A}}\otimes{C})}=
\Contraction{\IsotropyAction{\Isotropy{w}}{\tensor{S}}}{\IsotropyAction{\Transpose{d}}{({A}\otimes{\Transpose{A}}\otimes{C})}}
\end{equation}
could be written as a slight modification of Algorithm~\ref{alg:sw} inputs.
\par
Precisely, as~$\Isotropy{d}$'s components are diagonal, the relation~${\Transpose{\Isotropy{d}}=\Isotropy{d}}$ holds; hence, we could express input modification as:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:FromGB2ModifiedWinograd}
{\left(\MatrixProduct{\Inverse{D_{1}}}{\MatrixProduct{A}{D_{2}}} \right)}
\otimes
{\left(\MatrixProduct{\Inverse{D_{2}}}{\MatrixProduct{\Transpose{A}}{D_{3}}}\right)}
\otimes
{\left(\MatrixProduct{\Inverse{D_{3}}}{\MatrixProduct{C}{D_{1}}} \right)}.
\end{equation}
The above expression is trilinear and the matrices~$D_{i}$ are scalings of the identity for~$i$ in~${\{1,3\}}$, hence our modifications are just:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:InputsFromGB2ModifiedWinograd}
{\left({\frac{1}{z^{2}}\MatrixProduct{A}{D_{2}}} \right)}
\otimes
{\left(\MatrixProduct{\Inverse{D_{2}}}{\Transpose{A}}\right)}
\otimes
{{z^{2}}{C}}.
\end{equation}
Using notations of Algorithm~\ref{alg:sw}, this is~${C=\mathrm{W}\bigl(\MatrixProduct{A}{D_{2}},\MatrixProduct{\Inverse{D_{2}}}{\Transpose{A}}\bigr)}$.
\par
Allowing our isotropies to have determinant different from~$1$, we rescale~$D_{2}$ by a factor~$1/z$ to avoid useless~$4$th root as follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Y}
Q=\frac{D_{2}}{z} =\begin{smatrix}1&0\\0&-z^{2}\end{smatrix} =\begin{smatrix}1&0\\0&-y\end{smatrix} \!,\quad z^{4}=-1
\end{equation}
where~$y$ designates the expression~${z^{2}}$ that is a root
of~$-1$.
Hence, our algorithm to compute the symmetric product is:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:2x2GramAlgo}
C=\mathrm{W}\left(\MatrixProduct{A}{\frac{D_{2}}{z}},\MatrixProduct{\Inverse{\left(\frac{D_{2}}{z}\right)}}{\Transpose{A}}\right)=\mathrm{W}\!\left(\MatrixProduct{A}{Q},\Transpose{\left(\MatrixProduct{A}{\Transpose{(\Inverse{Q})}}\right)}\right)\!.
\end{equation}
In the next sections, we describe and extend this algorithm to higher-dimensional symmetric products~${\MatrixProduct{A}{\Transpose{A}}}$ with a~$\matrixsize{2^{\ell}m}{2^{\ell}m}$ matrix~$A$.
\section{Fast~\texorpdfstring{$\matrixsize{2}{2}$}{2x2}-block recursive {\textsc{syrk}}\xspace}\label{sec:GamBlocMatrixProduct}
The algorithm presented in the previous section is non-commutative and thus we can extend it to higher-dimensional matrix product by a divide and conquer approach.
To do so, we use in the sequel upper case letters for coefficients in
our algorithms instead of lower case previously (since these
coefficients now represent matrices).
Thus, new properties and results are induced by this shift of perspective.
For example, the coefficient~$Y$ introduced in~(\ref{eq:Y}) could now be transposed in~(\ref{eq:2x2GramAlgo}); that leads to the following definition:
\begin{definition}
An invertible matrix is \emph{skew-orthogonal} if the following relation~${\Transpose{Y}= -\Inverse{Y}}$ holds.
\end{definition}
If~$Y$ is skew-orthogonal, then of the~$7$ recursive matrix products involved in expression~(\ref{eq:2x2GramAlgo}):~$1$ can be avoided ($P_{6}$) since we do not need the upper right coefficient anymore,~$1$ can be avoided since it is the transposition of another product (${P_{7}=\Transpose{P_{4}}}$) and~$3$ are recursive calls to {{\textsc{syrk}}\xspace}.
This results in Algorithm~\ref{alg:wishartp}.
\begin{algorithm}[htbp]\caption{\texttt{syrk}: symmetric
%
matrix product
}\label{alg:wishartp}
\begin{spacing}{1}
\begin{algorithmic}
\Require{$A=\begin{smatrix} A_{11}&A_{12}\\ A_{21}&A_{22}\end{smatrix}$; a skew-orthogonal matrix~$Y$.}
\Ensure{The lower left triangular part of~$C=\MatrixProduct{A}{\Transpose{A}}=\begin{smatrix}
C_{11}& \Transpose{C_{21}}\\ {C_{21}} &C_{22}\end{smatrix}$.}
\State \Comment{4 additions and 2 multiplications by~$Y$:}
\State \({S_{1}}\leftarrow{\MatrixProduct{(A_{21} - A_{11})}{Y}}, \hspace{.8em} {S_{2}}\leftarrow{A_{22} - \MatrixProduct{A_{21}}{Y}}\),
\State \({S_{3}}\leftarrow{S_{1} - A_{22}},\hspace{3.4em} {S_{4}}\leftarrow{S_{3} + A_{12}}\).
\State \Comment{3 recursive {{\textsc{syrk}}\xspace} (${P_{1}, P_{2}, P_{5}}$) and~$2$ generic (${P_{3}, P_{4}}$) products:}
\State \(\mathcolor{brown}{P_{1} \leftarrow\MatrixProduct{A_{11}}{\Transpose{A_{11}}}}, \hspace{2.5em}
\mathcolor{red}{P_{2} \leftarrow\MatrixProduct{A_{12} }{\Transpose{A_{12}}}}\),
\State \(\mathcolor{blue}{P_{3} \leftarrow\MatrixProduct{A_{22}}{\Transpose{S_{4}}}}, \hspace{3em}
\mathcolor{green}{P_{4} \leftarrow\MatrixProduct{S_{1}}{\Transpose{S_{2}}}}, \hspace{3em}
\mathcolor{purple}{P_{5} \leftarrow\MatrixProduct{S_{3}}{\Transpose{S_{3}}}}.\)
\State \Comment{2 symmetric additions (half additions):}
\State \(\text{Low}(U_{1})\!\leftarrow\!\text{Low}(P_{1})\!+\!\text{Low}(P_{5})\), \Comment{$U_{1}, P_{1}, P_{5}$~\text{are symm.}}
\State \(\text{Low}(U_{3})\!\leftarrow\!\text{Low}(P_{1})\!+\!\text{Low}(P_{2})\), \Comment{$U_{3}, P_{1}, P_{2}$~\text{are symm.}}
\State \Comment{2 complete additions ($P_{4}$ and~$P_{3}$ are not symmetric):}
\State \(\text{Up}(U_{1})\leftarrow\Transpose{\text{Low}(U_{1})},
\hspace{15pt}
U_{2} \leftarrow U_{1} + P_{4},
\hspace{15pt}
U_{4} \leftarrow U_{2} + P_{3},\)
\State \Comment{1 half addition ($U_{5}=U_{1}+P_{4}+\Transpose{P_{4}}$ is symmetric):}
\State \(\text{Low}(U_{5}) \leftarrow \text{Low}(U_{2}) + \text{Low}(\Transpose{P_{4}}).\)
\State \Return{$\begin{smatrix} \text{Low}(U_{3}) &\\ U_{4} & \text{Low}(U_{5}) \end{smatrix}$.}
\end{algorithmic}
\end{spacing}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{restatable}[Appendix~\ref{thm:proof}]{proposition}{wishartp}\label{thm:wishartp}
Algorithm~\ref{alg:wishartp} is correct for any skew-orthogonal matrix~$Y$.
\end{restatable}
\subsection{Skew orthogonal matrices}\label{ssec:skeworthmat}
Algorithm~\ref{alg:wishartp} requires a skew-orthogonal matrix.
Unfortunately there are no skew-orthogonal matrices over~$\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$, nor~$\ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}$.
Hence, we report no improvement in these cases.
In other domains, the simplest skew-orthogonal matrices just use a square root of~$-1$.
\subsubsection{Over the complex field}
Therefore Algorithm~\ref{alg:wishartp} is directly usable over~$\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}^{n{\times}n}$ with~${Y=i\,\IdentityMatrixOfSize{n}\in\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}^{n{\times}n}}$.
Further, usually, complex numbers are emulated by a pair of floats so then the multiplications by~${Y=i\,\IdentityMatrixOfSize{n}}$ are essentially free since they just exchange the real and imaginary parts, with one sign flipping.
Even though over the complex the product \textsc{zherk} of a matrix by its \emph{conjugate} transpose is more widely used, \textsc{zsyrk} has some applications, see for instance~\cite{Baboulin:2005:csyrk}.
\subsubsection{Negative one is a square}
Over some fields with prime characteristic, square roots of~$-1$ can be elements of the base field, denoted~$i$ in~$\ensuremath{\mathbb{F}}$ again.
There, Algorithm~\ref{alg:wishartp} only requires some
pre-multiplications by this square root (with
also~${Y=i\,\IdentityMatrixOfSize{n}\in\ensuremath{\mathbb{F}}^{n{\times}n}}$), but
\emph{within the field}.
\cref{lem:lemsqrt} thereafter characterizes these fields.
\begin{proposition}\label{lem:lemsqrt}
Fields with characteristic two, or with an odd
characteristic~${{p}\equiv{1}\bmod{4}}$, or finite fields that are an even extension, contain a square root of~$-1$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
If~${p=2}$, then~${1=1^{2}=-1}$.
If~${{{p}\equiv{1}}\bmod{4}}$, then half of the non-zero elements~$x$ in the base field of size~$p$ satisfy~${x^{\frac{p-1}{4}} \neq \pm 1}$ and then the square of the latter must be~$-1$.
If the finite field~$\ensuremath{\mathbb{F}}$ is of cardinality~$p^{2k}$, then, similarly, there exists elements~${x^{\frac{p^{k}-1}{2}\frac{p^{k}+1}{2}}}$ different from~$\pm 1$ and then the square of the latter must be~$-1$.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Any field with prime characteristic}
Finally, we show that Algorithm~\ref{alg:wishartp} can also be run without any field extension, even when~$-1$ is not a square:
form the skew-orthogonal matrices constructed in
\cref{lem:pigeonhole}, thereafter, and use them directly as
long as the dimension of~$Y$ is even.
Whenever this dimension is odd, it is always possible to pad with zeroes so that~${\MatrixProduct{A}{\Transpose{A}}=\MatrixProduct{\begin{smatrix}A&0\end{smatrix}}{\begin{smatrix} \Transpose{A} \\ 0\end{smatrix}}}$.
\begin{proposition}\label{lem:pigeonhole}
Let~$\ensuremath{\mathbb{F}}$ be a field of characteristic~$p$, there exists~${(a,b)}$ in~${\ensuremath{\mathbb{F}}^{2}}$ such that the matrix:
\begin{equation}
\begin{smatrix}
a & b\\
-b & a
\end{smatrix}\otimes{\IdentityMatrixOfSize{n}} =
\begin{smatrix}
a\, \IdentityMatrixOfSize{n} & b\, \IdentityMatrixOfSize{n}\\
-b\, \IdentityMatrixOfSize{n} & a\, \IdentityMatrixOfSize{n}
\end{smatrix}\quad \textrm{in}\quad \ensuremath{\mathbb{F}}^{2n{\times}2n}
\end{equation}
is skew-orthogonal.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Using the relation
\begin{equation}
\begin{smatrix}
a \,\IdentityMatrixOfSize{n} & b \,\IdentityMatrixOfSize{n}\\
-b \,\IdentityMatrixOfSize{n} & a \,\IdentityMatrixOfSize{n}
\end{smatrix}
\Transpose{%
\begin{smatrix}
a \,\IdentityMatrixOfSize{n} & b \,\IdentityMatrixOfSize{n}\\
-b \,\IdentityMatrixOfSize{n} & a \,\IdentityMatrixOfSize{n}
\end{smatrix}}=
(a^2+b^2)\,\IdentityMatrixOfSize{2n},
\end{equation}
it suffices to prove that there exist~$a,b$ such that~${a^{2}+b^{2}=-1}$.
In characteristic~2,~${{a=1},{b=0}}$ is a solution as~${1^{2}+0^{2}=-1}$.
In odd characteristic, there are~${\frac{p+1}{2}}$ distinct square elements~${x_{i}}^{2}$ in the base prime field.
Therefore, there are~$\frac{p+1}{2}$ distinct elements~${-1-{x_{i}}^{2}}$.
But there are only~$p$ distinct elements in the base field, thus there exists a couple~$(i,j)$ such
that~${-1-{x_{i}}^{2}}={x_{j}}^{2}$~\cite[Lemma~6]{Seroussi:1980:BBgfp}.
\end{proof}
\cref{lem:pigeonhole} shows that skew-orthogonal matrices
do exist for any field with prime characteristic.
For Algorithm~\ref{alg:wishartp}, we need to build them mostly for~${{p}\equiv{3}\bmod 4}$ (otherwise use \cref{lem:lemsqrt}).
\par
For this, without the extended Riemann hypothesis (\textsc{erh}), it is possible to use the decomposition of primes into squares:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Compute first a prime~${r=4pk+(3-1)p-1}$, then the relations~${{r}\equiv{1}\bmod{4}}$ and~${r\equiv{-1}\bmod{p}}$ hold;
\item Thus, results of~\cite{brillhart:1972:twosquares} allow one to decompose primes into squares and give a couple~${(a,b)}$ in~${\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}^{2}}$ such that~${a^2+b^2=r}$.
Finally, we get~${{{a^{2}+b^{2}}\equiv{-1}}\bmod{p}}$.
\end{enumerate}
By the prime number theorem the first step is polynomial in~$\log(p)$,
as is the second step (square root modulo a prime, denoted \ensuremath{\text{\texttt{sqrt}}}, has a cost close to exponentiation and then the rest of Brillhart's algorithm is \textsc{gcd}-like).
In practice, though, it is faster to use the following
Algorithm~\ref{alg:sosmodp}, even though the latter has a better
asymptotic complexity bound only if the \textsc{erh} is true.
\begin{algorithm}[htbp]\caption{\texttt{SoS}: Sum of squares decomposition over a finite field}\label{alg:sosmodp}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Require{${p\in\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}\backslash\{2\}}$,~${k\in\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$.}
\Ensure{${(a,b)\in\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}^{2}}$, s.t.~${a^{2}+b^{2}\equiv{k}\bmod{p}}$.}
\If{$\left(\frac{k}{p}\right)=1$}
\Comment{$k$ is a square mod~$p$}
\State \Return{$\left(\FFSqrt{p}{k},0\right)$.}
\Else \Comment{Find smallest quadratic non-residue}
\State $s\ensuremath{\leftarrow\xspace} 2$;
\InlineWhile{$\left(\frac{s}{p}\right)==1$}{$s\ensuremath{\leftarrow\xspace} s+1$}
\EndIf
\State ${c \ensuremath{\leftarrow\xspace} \FFSqrt{p}{s-1}}$ \hfill\Comment{${s-1}$ must be a square}
\State $r \ensuremath{\leftarrow\xspace} k s^{-1} \bmod{p}$
\State ${a \ensuremath{\leftarrow\xspace} \FFSqrt{p}{r}}$ \Comment{Now~${{k}\equiv{a^{2}s}\equiv{a^{2}(1+c^{2})}\bmod{p}}$}
\State \Return $\left(a, ac\bmod{p}\right)$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{proposition}\label{thm:sosmodpcorrect}
Algorithm~\ref{alg:sosmodp} is correct and, under the~\textsc{erh}, runs in expected time~${\widetilde{O}\bigl({\log}^{3}(p)\bigr)}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
If~$k$ is square then the square of one of its square roots added to the square of zero is a solution.
Otherwise, the lowest quadratic non-residue (\textsc{lqnr}) modulo~$p$ is one plus a square~$b^{2}$ ($1$ is always a square so the \textsc{lqnr} is larger than~$2$).
For any generator of~$\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}_{p}$, quadratic non-residues, as well as their inverses ($s$ is invertible as it is non-zero and~$p$ is prime), have an odd discrete logarithm.
Therefore the multiplication of~$k$ and the inverse of the \textsc{lqnr} must be a square~$a^{2}$.
This means that the relation~${k=a^{2}\bigr(1+b^{2}\bigl)=a^{2}+{(ab)}^{2}}$ holds.
Now for the running time, under \textsc{erh}, the \textsc{lqnr} should be lower than~${3\log^{2}(p)/2-44\log(p)/5+13}$~\cite[Theorem~6.35]{Wedeniwski:2001:lqnr}.
The expected number of Legendre symbol computations is~$O\bigr(\log^{2}(p)\bigl)$ and this dominates the modular square root computations.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Another possibility is to use randomization: instead of using the
lowest quadratic non-residue (\textsc{lqnr}), randomly select a
non-residue~$s$, and then decrement
it until~${s-1}$ is a quadratic residue ($1$ is a square so this will
terminate)\footnote{In practice, the running time seems very close
to that of Algorithm~\ref{alg:sosmodp} anyway, see, e.g.\ the
implementation in Givaro rev.~7bdefe6,
\url{https://github.com/linbox-team/givaro}.}.
Also, when computing~$t$ sum of squares modulo the same prime, one can
compute the \textsc{lqnr}
\emph{only once} to get all the sum of squares with an expected cost bounded
by~${\widetilde{O}\bigl({{\log^{3}}(p)+t{\log^{2}}(p)\bigr)}}$.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}\label{alg:FFSoS}
Except in characteristic~$2$ or in algebraic closures, where every element is a square anyway, Algorithm~\ref{alg:sosmodp} is easily extended over any finite field: compute the \textsc{lqnr} in the base prime field, then use Tonelli-Shanks or Cipolla-Lehmer algorithm to compute square roots in the extension field.
Denote by~$\FFSoS{q}{k}$ this algorithm decomposing~$k$ as a sum of squares within any finite field~$\ensuremath{\mathbb{F}}_{q}$.
This is not always possible over infinite fields, but there Algorithm~\ref{alg:sosmodp} still works anyway for the special case~${k=-1}$: just run it in the prime subfield.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Conjugate transpose}\label{ssec:herk}
Note that Algorithm~\ref{alg:wishartp} remains valid if transposition is replaced by \emph{conjugate transposition}, provided that there exists a matrix~$Y$ such that~${\MatrixProduct{Y}{\CTranspose{Y}}=-\mathrm{I}{}}$.
This is not possible anymore over the complex field, but works for any even extension field, thanks to Algorithm~\ref{alg:sosmodp}:
if~$-1$ is a square in~$\ensuremath{\mathbb{F}}_{q}$,
then~${Y=\sqrt{-1}\cdot\IdentityMatrixOfSize{n}}$ still works;
otherwise there exists a square root~$i$ of~$-1$ in~$\ensuremath{\mathbb{F}}_{q^{2}}$, from
\cref{lem:lemsqrt}.
In the latter case, thus build~$(a,b)$, both in~$\ensuremath{\mathbb{F}}_{q}$, such
that~${a^{2}+b^{2}=-1}$.
Now~${Y=(a+ib)\cdot{}{\IdentityMatrixOfSize{n}}}$
in~${{\ensuremath{\mathbb{F}}_{q^{2}}}^{n{\times}n}}$ is appropriate: indeed, since~${{q}\equiv{{3}\bmod{4}}}$, we have that~${\overline{a+ib}={(a+ib)}^{q}={a-ib}}$.
\section{Analysis and implementation}
\subsection{Complexity bounds}
\begin{thm}\label{thm:complexitybound}
\cref{alg:wishartp}
requires~${\frac{2}{2^{\omega}-3}C_{\omega}n^{\omega} +\LO{n^{\omega}}}$ field operations, over
\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}~or over any field with prime characteristic.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
\cref{alg:wishartp} is applied recursively to compute three products~$P_{1}, P_{2}$ and~$P_{7}$, while~$P_{4}$ and~$P_{5}$ are computed in~$\textrm{MM}_\omega(n)=C_{\omega}n^{\omega}+\LO{n^{\omega}}$ using a general matrix multiplication algorithm.
We will show that applying the skew-orthogonal matrix~$Y$ to a~${{n}\times{n}}$ matrix costs~$yn^{2}$ for some constant~$y$ depending on the base field.
Then applying \cref{rq:7.5} thereafter, the cost~$T(n)$ of \cref{alg:wishartp} satisfies:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:complexity}
T(n) \leq 3T(n/2) + 2C_{\omega} {(n/2)}^{\omega} + (7.5+2y){(n/2)}^{2} + \LO{n^2}
\end{equation}
and~$T(4)$ is a constant.
Thus, by the master Theorem:
\begin{equation}
T(n) \leq \frac{2C_{\omega}}{2^{\omega}-3}n^{\omega} +\LO{n^{\omega}} =
\frac{2}{2^{\omega}-3}\textrm{MM}_{\omega}(n)+\LO{n^{\omega}}.
\end{equation}
\par
If the field is~$\mathbb{C}$ or satisfies the conditions of \cref{lem:lemsqrt}, there is a square root~$i$ of~$-1$.
Setting~${Y=i\,\IdentityMatrixOfSize{n/2}}$ yields~${y=1}$.
Otherwise, in characteristic~${p\equiv{3}\bmod{4}}$, \cref{lem:pigeonhole} produces~$Y$ equal to~${\begin{smatrix}a&b\\-b&a\end{smatrix}\otimes{\IdentityMatrixOfSize{n/2}}}$ for which~${y=3}$.
As a subcase, the latter can be improved when~${p\equiv{3}\bmod{8}}$:
then~$-2$ is a square
(indeed,
$\left(\frac{-2}{p}\right)=\left(\frac{-1}{p}\right)\left(\frac{2}{p}\right)=(-1)^{\frac{p-1}{2}}(-1)^{\frac{p^2-1}{8}}=(-1)(-1)=1$).
Therefore, in this case set~${a=1}$ and~${b\equiv\sqrt{-2}\bmod{p}}$ such that the relation~${a^{2}+b^{2}=-1}$ yields~${Y=\begin{smatrix} 1 & \sqrt{-2}\\ -\sqrt{-2} & 1\end{smatrix}\otimes{\IdentityMatrixOfSize{n/2}}}$ for which~${y=2}$.
\end{proof}
To our knowledge, the best previously known result was with a~$\frac{2}{2^{\omega}-4}$ factor instead, see e.g.~\cite[\S~6.3.1]{jgd:2008:toms}.
Table~\ref{tab:ffcomplex} summarizes the arithmetic complexity bound improvements.
\begin{table}[htbp]\centering\small%
\begin{tabular}{crrrr}
\toprule
Problem & Alg.\ & $\GO{n^{3}}$ & $\GO{n^{\log_2(7)}}$ & $\GO{n^{\omega}}$ \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{$\MatrixProduct{A}{\Transpose{A}} \in\ensuremath{\mathbb{F}}^{n{\times}n}$}
& \cite{jgd:2008:toms} & $n^{3}$ & $\frac{2}{3}\,\textrm{MM}_{\log_{2}(7)}(n)$& $\frac{2}{2^{\omega}-4}\,\textrm{MM}_{\omega}(n)$\\
& Alg.~\ref{alg:wishartp} & $0.8 n^{3}$ & $\frac{1}{2}\,\textrm{MM}_{\log_{2}(7)}(n)$& $\frac{2}{2^{\omega}-3}\,\textrm{MM}_{\omega}(n)$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Arithmetic complexity bounds leading terms.}\label{tab:ffcomplex}\mvspace{-15pt}
\end{table}
Alternatively, over~$\mathbb{C}$, the~$3M$ method (Karatsuba) for
non-symmetric matrix multiplication reduces the number of
multiplications of real matrices from~$4$
to~$3$~\cite{Higham:1992:complex3M}:
if~$RR_{\omega}(n)$ is the cost of multiplying~${{n}\times{n}}$ matrices over~$\mathbb{R}$, then the~$3M$~method costs~$3RR_{\omega}(n)+\LO{n^\omega}$ operations over~$\mathbb{R}$.
Adapting this approach to the symmetric case yields a~$2M$ method to compute the product of a complex matrix by its transpose, using only~$2$ real products:
${H=\MatrixProduct{A}{\Transpose{B}}}$
and~${G=\MatrixProduct{(A+B)}{(\Transpose{A}-\Transpose{B})}}$.
Combining those into~$(G-\Transpose{H}+H)+i(H+\Transpose{H})$,
yields the product~${\MatrixProduct{(A+iB)}{(\Transpose{A}+i\Transpose{B})}}$.
This approach costs~${2RR_{\omega}}+\LO{n^{\omega}}$ operations in~$\mathbb{R}$.
\par
Classical algorithm~\cite[\S~6.3.1]{jgd:2008:toms} applies a divide and conquer approach directly on the complex field.
This would use only the equivalent of~$\frac{2}{2^{\omega}-4}$ complex floating point~$\matrixsize{n}{n}$ products.
Using the~$3M$ method for the complex products, this algorithm
uses overall~${\frac{6}{2^{\omega}-4}RR_{\omega}+\LO{n^\omega}}$ operations in~$\mathbb{R}$.
Finally, Algorithm~\ref{alg:wishartp} only costs~$\frac{2}{2^{\omega}-3}$ complex multiplications for a leading term bounded by~$\frac{6}{2^{\omega}-3}\textrm{RR}_{\omega}$, better than~$2\textrm{RR}_\omega$ for~${\omega>\log_{2}(6)\approx 2.585}$.
This is summarized in Table~\ref{tab:complexcomplex}, replacing~$\omega$ by~$3$ or~$\log_{2}(7)$.
\begin{table}[htbp]\centering\small%
\begin{tabular}{crrrr}
\toprule
Problem & Alg.\ & $\textrm{MM}_3(n)$ & $\textrm{MM}_{\log_2 7} (n)$ & $\textrm{MM}_\omega(n)$ \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{$\MatrixProduct{A}{B} \in\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}^{n{\times}n}$}
& naive & $8n^{3}$ & $4\,\textrm{RR}_{\log_{2}(7)}(n)$& $4\,\textrm{RR}_{\omega}(n)$\\
& 3M & $6n^{3}$ & $3\,\textrm{RR}_{\log_{2}(7)}(n)$& $3\,\textrm{RR}_{\omega}(n)$\\
\midrule
\multirow{3}{*}{$\MatrixProduct{A}{\Transpose{A}}\in\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}^{n{\times}n}$}
& 2M & $4n^{3}$ & $2\,\textrm{RR}_{\log_{2}(7)}(n)$& $2\,\textrm{RR}_{\omega}(n)$\\
& \cite{jgd:2008:toms} & $3n^{3}$ & $2\,\textrm{RR}_{\log_{2}(7)}(n)$
& $\frac{6}{2^{\omega}-4}\,\textrm{RR}_{\omega}(n)$\\
& Alg.~\ref{alg:wishartp} & $2.4 n^{3}$ & $\frac{3}{2}\,\textrm{RR}_{\log_{2}(7)}(n)$ & $\frac{6}{2^{\omega}-3}\,\textrm{RR}_{\omega}(n)$\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Symmetric multiplication over~$\mathbb{C}$: leading term of the cost in number of operations over~$\mathbb{R}$.}\label{tab:complexcomplex}\mvspace{-10pt}
\end{table}
\begin{remark}\label{rq:7.5}
Each recursive level of \cref{alg:wishartp} is composed of 9 block additions.
An exhaustive search on all symmetric algorithms derived from Strassen's showed that this number is minimal in this class of algorithms.
Note also that~$3$ out of these~$9$ additions in \cref{alg:wishartp} involve symmetric matrices and are therefore only performed on the lower triangular part of the matrix.
Overall, the number of scalar additions is~${6n^{2}+3/2n(n+1)=15/2n^{2}+1.5n}$, nearly half of the optimal in the non-symmetric case~\cite[Theorem~1]{bshouty:1995a}.
\end{remark}
To further reduce the number of additions, a promising approach is that undertaken in~\cite{Karstadt:2017:strassen,Beniamini:2019:fmmsd}.
This is however not clear to us how to adapt our strategy to their recursive transformation of basis.
\subsection{Implementation and scheduling}
This section reports on an implementation of Algorithm~\ref{alg:wishartp} over prime fields.
We propose in Table~\ref{tab:schedule:AAT} and Figure~\ref{fig:DAG:AAT} a schedule for the operation~${C\leftarrow\MatrixProduct{A}{\Transpose{A}}}$ using no more extra storage than the unused upper triangular part of the result~$C$.
\begin{table}[htb]
\small
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cll|cll}
\toprule
\# & operation & loc.\ & \# & operation & loc.\\
\midrule
1&$S_{1}=\MatrixProduct{(A_{21}-A_{11})}{Y}$ &$C_{21}$&9&$U_{1}=P_{1}+P_{5}$&$C_{12}$\\
2&$S_{2}=A_{22}-\MatrixProduct{A_{21}}{Y}$ &$C_{12}$&&$\text{Up}(U_{1})=\Transpose{\text{Low}(U_{1})}$&$C_{12}$\\
3&$\Transpose{P_{4}}=\MatrixProduct{S_{2}}{\Transpose{S_{1}}}$&$C_{22}$&10&$U_{2}=U_{1}+P_{4}$&$C_{12}$\\
4&$S_{3}=S_{1}-A_{22}$&$C_{21}$&11&$U_{4}=U_{2}+P_{3}$&$C_{21}$\\
5&$P_{5}=\MatrixProduct{S_{3}}{\Transpose{S_{3}}}$&$C_{12}$&12&$U_{5}=U_{2}+\Transpose{P_{4}}$&$C_{22}$\\
6&$S_{4}=S_{3}+A_{12}$&$C_{11}$&13&$P_{2}=\MatrixProduct{A_{12}}{\Transpose{A_{12}}}$&$C_{12}$\\
7&$P_{3}=\MatrixProduct{A_{22}}{\Transpose{S_{4}}}$&$C_{21}$&14&$U_{3}=P_{1}+P_{2}$&$C_{11}$\\
8&$P_{1}=\MatrixProduct{A_{11}}{\Transpose{A_{11}}}$&$C_{11}$\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{%
Memory placement and schedule of tasks to compute the lower triangular part of~${C\leftarrow \MatrixProduct{A}{\Transpose{A}}}$ when~${k\leq n}$.
The block~$C_{12}$ of the output matrix is the only temporary used.
}\label{tab:schedule:AAT}\mvspace{-10pt}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}%
\matrix (m) [matrix of math nodes, row sep=.1em, column sep=4em ]
{%
C_{22} & C_{12} & C_{21} & C_{11} \\
& S_{2} & S_{1} & \\
\Transpose{P_{4}} & & S_{3} & \\
& P_{5} & & S_{4} \\
& & P_{3} & \\
& & & P_{1} \\
& U_{1} & & \\
& U_{2} & & \\
U_{5} & & U_{4} & \\
& P_{2} & & \\
& & & U_{3} \\
};
\path[-stealth]
(m-2-2) edge (m-3-1)
(m-2-3) edge (m-3-1)
edge (m-3-3)
(m-3-3) edge (m-4-2)
edge (m-4-4)
(m-4-4) edge (m-5-3)
(m-4-2) edge (m-7-2)
(m-6-4) edge (m-7-2)
(m-7-2) edge (m-8-2)
(m-3-1) edge (m-8-2)
edge (m-9-1)
(m-8-2) edge (m-9-1)
edge (m-9-3)
(m-5-3) edge (m-9-3)
(m-10-2) edge (m-11-4)
(m-6-4) edge (m-11-4);
\end{tikzpicture}\mvspace{-10pt}
\caption{\textsc{dag} of the tasks and their memory location for the computation of~${C\leftarrow \MatrixProduct{A}{\Transpose{A}}}$ presented in Table~\ref{tab:schedule:AAT}.}\label{fig:DAG:AAT}
\Description[]{\textsc{dag} of the tasks and their memory location for the computation of~${C\leftarrow \MatrixProduct{A}{\Transpose{A}}}$ presented in Table~\ref{tab:schedule:AAT}.}\mvspace{-10pt}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[htb]
\small
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ll|ll}
\toprule
operation & loc.\ & operation & loc.\\
\midrule
${S_{1}=\MatrixProduct{(A_{21}-A_{11})}{Y}}$&tmp&$P_{1}=\alpha\MatrixProduct{A_{11}}{\Transpose{A_{11}}}$&tmp\\
${S_{2}=A_{22}-\MatrixProduct{A_{21}}{Y}}$&$C_{12}$&$U_{1}=P_{1}+P_{5}$&$C_{12}$\\
$\text{Up}(C_{11})=\Transpose{\text{Low}(C_{22})}$&$C_{11}$&$\text{Up}(U_{1})=\Transpose{\text{Low}(U_{1})}$&$C_{12}$\\
$\Transpose{P_{4}}=\alpha\MatrixProduct{S_{2}}{\Transpose{S_{1}}}$&$C_{22}$&$U_{2}=U_{1}+P_{4}$&$C_{12}$\\
$S_{3}=S_{1}-A_{22}$&tmp&$U_{4}=U_{2}+P_{3}$&$C_{21}$\\
$P_{5}=\alpha\MatrixProduct{S_{3}}{\Transpose{S_{3}}}$&$C_{12}$&$U_{5}=U_{2}+\Transpose{P_{4}}+\beta\Transpose{\text{Up}(C_{11})}$&$C_{22}$\\
$S_{4}=S_{3}+A_{12}$&tmp&$P_{2}=\alpha\MatrixProduct{A_{12}}{\Transpose{A_{12}}}+\beta C_{11}$&$C_{11}$\\
$P_{3}=\alpha\MatrixProduct{A_{22}}{\Transpose{S_{4}}}+\beta C_{21}$&$C_{21}$&$U_{3}=P_{1}+P_{2}$&$C_{11}$\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{%
Memory placement and schedule of tasks to compute the lower triangular part of~${C\leftarrow \alpha \MatrixProduct{A}{\Transpose{A}}+\beta C}$ when~${k\leq n}$.
The block~$C_{12}$ of the output matrix as well as an~${n/2\times n/2}$ block tmp are used as temporary storages.}\label{tab:schedule:AATpC}\mvspace{-10pt}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}%
\matrix (m) [matrix of math nodes, row sep=.1em, column sep=3em ]
{%
C_{11} &C_{22} & C_{12} & \text{tmp} &C_{21} \\
\text{Up}(C_{11})& & S_{2} & S_{1} & \\
& \Transpose{P_{4}}& & S_{3} & \\
& & P_{5} & S_{4} & \\
& & & P_{1} & P_{3} \\
& & U_{1} & & \\
& & U_{2} & & \\
& U_{5} & & & U_{4} \\
P_{2} & & & & \\
U_{3} & & & & \\
};
\path[-stealth]
(m-1-2) edge (m-2-1)
(m-1-1) edge (m-2-1)
(m-2-3) edge (m-3-2)
(m-2-4) edge (m-3-2)
edge (m-3-4)
(m-3-4) edge (m-4-3)
edge (m-4-4)
(m-4-4) edge (m-5-5) %
(m-4-3) edge (m-6-3) %
(m-6-3) edge (m-7-3) %
(m-3-2) edge (m-7-3) %
edge (m-8-2) %
(m-5-4) edge (m-6-3) %
(m-5-5) edge (m-8-5) %
(m-7-3) edge (m-8-5) %
edge (m-8-2) %
(m-5-4) edge[bend left] (m-10-1) %
(m-9-1) edge (m-10-1) %
(m-1-5) edge (m-5-5) %
(m-2-1) edge (m-8-2) %
edge (m-9-1); %
\end{tikzpicture}\mvspace{-10pt}
\caption{\textsc{dag} of the tasks and their memory location for the computation of~${C\leftarrow \alpha \MatrixProduct{A}{\Transpose{A}} + \beta C}$ presented in Table~\ref{tab:schedule:AATpC}.}\label{fig:DAG:AATpC}
\Description[]{\textsc{dag} of the tasks and their memory location for the computation of~${C\leftarrow \alpha \MatrixProduct{A}{\Transpose{A}} + \beta C}$ presented in Table~\ref{tab:schedule:AATpC}.}\mvspace{-10pt}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
For the more general operation~${C\leftarrow \alpha \MatrixProduct{A}{\Transpose{A}} + \beta C}$, Table~\ref{tab:schedule:AATpC} and Figure~\ref{fig:DAG:AATpC} propose a schedule requiring only an additional~${{n/2}\times{n/2}}$ temporary storage.
These algorithms have been implemented as the \texttt{fsyrk} routine
in the \texttt{fflas-ffpack} library for dense linear algebra over a
finite
field~\cite[\href{https://github.com/linbox-team/fflas-ffpack/commit/0a91d61e6518568b006873076df925fcd6fcc112}{from
commit 0a91d61e}]{fflas19}.
Figure~\ref{fig:perfs} compares the computation speed in effective
Gfops (defined as~${n^{3}/(10^{9}\times\textrm{time})}$) of this
implementation over~${\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}/131071\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$ with that of the double precision
\textsc{blas} routines \texttt{dsyrk}, the classical cubic-time routine
over a finite field (calling \texttt{dsyrk} and performing modular
reductions on the result), and the classical divide and conquer
algorithm~\cite[\S~6.3.1]{jgd:2008:toms}.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.46\textwidth]{fsyrk_classic_vs_wino}\mvspace{-10pt}
\caption{Speed of an implementation of Algorithm~\ref{alg:wishartp}}\label{fig:perfs}%
\mvspace{-10pt}
\Description[Speed of an implementation of Algorithm~\ref{alg:wishartp}]{Speed of an implementation of Algorithm~\ref{alg:wishartp}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The \texttt{fflas-ffpack} library is linked with
Open\textsc{blas}~\cite[v0.3.6]{openblas}
and compiled with \texttt{gcc-9.2} on an Intel skylake~i7-6700 running
a Debian \textsc{gnu}/Linux system (v5.2.17).
\par
The slight overhead of performing the modular reductions is quickly compensated by the speed-up of the sub-cubic algorithm (the threshold for a first recursive call is near~${n=2000}$).
The classical divide and conquer approach also speeds up the classical algorithm, but starting from a larger threshold, and hence at a slower pace.
Lastly, the speed is merely identical modulo~${131041}$, where square roots of~$-1$ exist, thus showing the limited overhead of the preconditioning by the matrix~$Y$.
\section{{\textsc{syrk}}\xspace with block diagonal scaling}
Symmetric rank k updates are a key building block for symmetric triangular factorization
algorithms, for their efficiency is one of the bottlenecks.
In the most general setting (indefinite factorization), a block diagonal scaling by a matrix~$D$, with~$1$ or~$2$ dimensional diagonal blocks, has to be inserted within the product, leading to the operation:~${{C}\leftarrow{C -\MatrixProduct{A}{\MatrixProduct{D}{\Transpose{A}}}}}$.
\par
Handling the block diagonal structure over the course of the recursive
algorithm may become tedious and quite expensive.
For instance, a~$\matrixsize{2}{2}$ diagonal block might have to be cut by a recursive split.
We will see also in the following that non-squares in the diagonal need to be dealt with in pairs.
In both cases it might be necessary to add a column to deal with these cases: this is potentially~$\GO{\log_{2}(n)}$ extra columns in a recursive setting.
\par
Over a finite field, though, we will show in this section, how to factor the block-diagonal matrix~$D$ into~${D=\MatrixProduct{\Delta}{\Transpose{\Delta}}}$, \emph{without needing any field extension}, and then compute instead~${\MatrixProduct{(\MatrixProduct{A}{\Delta})}{\Transpose{(\MatrixProduct{A}{\Delta})}}}$.
\cref{alg:ApsiAT}, deals with non-squares and~$\matrixsize{2}{2}$ blocks only once beforehand, introducing no more than~$2$ extra-columns overall.
\cref{ssec:nonsquares} shows how to factor a diagonal matrix, without resorting
to field extensions for non-squares.
Then \cref{ssec:antiodd,ssec:antieven} show how to deal with the~${{2}\times{2}}$ blocks depending on the characteristic.
\subsection{Factoring non-squares within a finite field}\label{ssec:nonsquares}
First we give an algorithm handling pairs of non-quadratic residues.\\
\begin{algorithm}[htbp]\caption{: \texttt{nrsyf}: Sym.\ factorization. of a pair of
non-residues}\label{alg:factnonres}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Require ${(\alpha,\beta)\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{F}}_{q}}^{2}}$, both being quadratic non-residues.
\Ensure ${Y\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{F}}_{q}}^{\matrixsize{2}{2}}}$, s.t.~${\MatrixProduct{Y}{\Transpose{Y}}=\begin{smatrix}\alpha&0\\0&\beta\end{smatrix}}$.
\State ${{(a,b)}\ensuremath{\leftarrow\xspace}{\FFSoS{q}{\alpha}}}$;
\hfill\Comment{${\alpha=a^{2}+b^{2}}$}
\State ${{d}\ensuremath{\leftarrow\xspace}{a\,\FFSqrt{q}{\beta\alpha^{-1}}}}$; \hfill\Comment{${d^{2}=a^{2}\beta\alpha^{-1}}$}
\State ${{c}\ensuremath{\leftarrow\xspace}{-bda^{-1}}}$; \hfill\Comment{${ac+bd=0}$}
\State \Return ${Y\ensuremath{\leftarrow\xspace} \begin{smatrix}a&b\\c&d\end{smatrix}}$.
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{proposition}\label{thm:factnonrescorrect}
Algorithm~\ref{alg:factnonres} is correct.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Given~$\alpha$ and~$\beta$ quadratic non-residues, the couple~$(a,b)$, such that~${\alpha=a^{2}+b^{2}}$, is found by the algorithm of Remark~\ref{alg:FFSoS}.
Second, as~$\alpha$ and~$\beta$ are quadratic non-residues, over a
finite field their quotient is a residue since:~${{\left(\beta\alpha^{-1}\right)}^{\frac{q-1}{2}}=\frac{-1}{-1}=1}$.
Third, if~${c}$ denotes~${-bda^{-1}}$ then~${c^{2}+d^{2}}$ is equal
to~${{(-bd/a)}^{2}+d^{2}}$ and thus to~${(b^{2}/a^{2}+1)d^{2}}$; this
last quantity is equal to~${(\alpha)d^{2}/a^{2}}$ and then to~${\alpha{(a\sqrt{\beta/\alpha})}^{2}/a^{2}=\alpha(a^{2}\beta/\alpha)/a^{2}=\beta}$.
Fourth,~$a$ (or w.l.o.g.~$b$) is invertible.
Indeed,~$\alpha$ is not a square, therefore it is non-zero and thus one of~$a$ or~$b$ must be non-zero.
Finally, we obtain the cancellation~${ac+bd = a(-dba^{-1})+bd =
-db+bd=0}$ and the matrix product~$\MatrixProduct{Y}{\Transpose{Y}}$
is~${\begin{smatrix}a&b\\c&d\end{smatrix}\begin{smatrix}a&c\\b&d\end{smatrix}=\begin{smatrix}a^{2}+b^{2}&ac+bd\\ac+bd&c^{2}+d^{2}\end{smatrix}=\begin{smatrix}\alpha&0\\0&\beta\end{smatrix}}$.
\end{proof}
Using Algorithm~\ref{alg:factnonres}, one can then factor any diagonal matrix within a finite field as a symmetric product with a tridiagonal matrix.
This can then be used to compute efficiently~$\MatrixProduct{A}{\MatrixProduct{D}{\Transpose{A}}}$ with~$D$ a diagonal matrix: factor~$D$ with a tridiagonal matrix~${D=\MatrixProduct{\Delta}{\Transpose{\Delta}}}$, then pre-multiply~$A$ by this tridiagonal matrix and run a fast symmetric product on the resulting matrix.
This is shown in Algorithm~\ref{alg:diagADAT}, where the overhead,
compared to simple matrix multiplication, is only~$\GO{n^{2}}$ (that is~$\GO{n}$ square roots and~$\GO{n}$ column scalings).
\begin{algorithm}[htbp]
\caption{\texttt{syrkd}: sym.
%
matrix product
with diagonal scaling}
\label{alg:diagADAT}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Require{${A\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{F}}_{q}}^{\matrixsize{m}{n}}}$
and~${D=\text{Diag}(d_{1},\ldots,d_n)\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{F}}_{q}}^{\!n\times n}}$}
\Ensure{$\MatrixProduct{A}{\MatrixProduct{D}{\Transpose{A}}}$
in~${\ensuremath{\mathbb{F}}_{q}}^{\!\matrixsize{m}{m}}$}
\If{number of quadratic non-residues in~${\{d_1,\ldots,d_n\}}$ is odd}
\ Let~$d_{\ell}$ be one of the quadratic non-residues
\State $\bar{D} \ensuremath{\leftarrow\xspace} \text{\text{Diag}}(d_{1},\ldots,d_{n},d_{\ell})\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{F}}_{q}}^{\!\matrixsize{(n+1)}{(n+1)}}$
\State $\bar{A} \ensuremath{\leftarrow\xspace} \begin{smatrix}A&0\end{smatrix}\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{F}}_{q}}^{{m}{\times}{(n+1)}}$
\Comment{Augment~$A$ with a zero column}
\Else
\State $\bar{D} \ensuremath{\leftarrow\xspace} \text{\text{Diag}}(d_{1},\ldots,d_n)\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{F}}_{q}}^{n{\times}n}$
\State $\bar{A} \ensuremath{\leftarrow\xspace} A\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{F}}_{q}}^{m{\times}n}$
\EndIf
\ForAll{quadratic residues~$d_{j}$ in~$\bar{D}$}
\State $\bar{A}_{*,j} \ensuremath{\leftarrow\xspace} \FFSqrt{q}{d_{j}}\cdot{}\bar{A}_{*,j}$
\Comment{Scale col.~$j$ of~$\bar{A}$ by a sq.\ root of~$d_{j}$}
\EndFor
\ForAll{distinct pairs of quadratic non-residues~$(d_{i},d_{j})$ in~$\bar{D}$}
\State $\Delta \ensuremath{\leftarrow\xspace} \texttt{nrsyf}(d_i,d_j)$
\Comment{$\MatrixProduct{\Delta}{\Transpose{\Delta}}=\begin{smatrix}d_{i}&0\\0&d_{j}\end{smatrix}$
using~\cref{alg:factnonres}}
%
%
%
\State $\begin{smatrix}\bar{A}_{*,i}&\bar{A}_{*,j}\end{smatrix}
\ensuremath{\leftarrow\xspace} \MatrixProduct{\begin{smatrix}\bar{A}_{*,i}&\bar{A}_{*,j}\end{smatrix}}{\Delta}
%
$;
\EndFor
\State\Return $\texttt{syrk}(\bar{A})$ \Comment{$\MatrixProduct{\bar{A}}{\Transpose{\bar{A}}}$ using~\cref{alg:wishartp}}
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{Antidiagonal and antitriangular blocks}\label{ssec:antianti}
In general, an~$\MatrixProduct{L}{\MatrixProduct{D}{\Transpose{L}}}$ factorization may have antitriangular or antidiagonal blocks in~$D$~\cite{Dumas:2018:ldlt}.
In order to reduce to a routine for fast symmetric multiplication with diagonal scaling, these blocks
need to be processed once for all, which is what this section is about.
\subsubsection{Antidiagonal blocks in odd characteristic}\label{ssec:antiodd}
In odd characteristic, the~$2$-dimensional blocks in an~$\MatrixProduct{L}{\MatrixProduct{D}{\Transpose{L}}}$ factorization are only of the
form~$\begin{smatrix}0&\beta\\\beta&0\end{smatrix}$, and always have the symmetric factorization:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:antidiagonal}
\begin{smatrix}1&1\\1&-1\end{smatrix}
\begin{smatrix}\frac{1}{2}\beta&0\\0&-\frac{1}{2}\beta\end{smatrix}
\Transpose{\begin{smatrix}1&1\\1&-1\end{smatrix}}
= \begin{smatrix}0&\beta\\\beta&0\end{smatrix}.
\end{equation}
This shows the reduction to the diagonal case (note the requirement that~$2$ is invertible).
\subsubsection{Antitriangular blocks in characteristic~2}\label{ssec:antieven}
In characteristic~2, some~${\matrixsize{2}{2}}$ blocks might not be reduced further than an antitriangular form:~$\begin{smatrix}0&\beta\\ \beta&\gamma\end{smatrix}$, with~${\gamma\neq 0}$.
\par
In characteristic~2 every element is a square, therefore those antitriangular blocks can be factored as shown in \cref{eq:antitriangular}:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:antitriangular} \arraycolsep=.55\arraycolsep
\begin{smatrix}0&\beta\\\beta&\gamma\end{smatrix} =
\left(\begin{smatrix}\beta\gamma^{-1/2}&0\\0&\gamma^{1/2}\end{smatrix}
\begin{smatrix}1&1\\1&0\end{smatrix}\right)
\Transpose{\left(\begin{smatrix}\beta\gamma^{-1/2}&0\\0&\gamma^{1/2}\end{smatrix}\begin{smatrix}1&1\\1&0\end{smatrix}\right)}.
\end{equation}
Therefore the antitriangular blocks also reduce to the diagonal case.%
\subsubsection{Antidiagonal blocks in characteristic~2}
The symmetric factorization in this case
might require an extra row or column~\cite{Lempel:1975:BBft}
as shown in \cref{eq:antidiagonaleven}:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:antidiagonaleven} \arraycolsep=.8\arraycolsep
\begin{smatrix}1&0\\0&\beta\end{smatrix}
\begin{smatrix}1&0&1\\0&1&1\end{smatrix}
\Transpose{\left(\begin{smatrix}1&0\\0&\beta\end{smatrix}\begin{smatrix}1&0&1\\0&1&1\end{smatrix}\right)}=\begin{smatrix}0&\beta\\\beta&0\end{smatrix}\bmod{2}.
\end{equation}
A first option is to augment~$A$ by one column for each antidiagonal block, by
applying the~$2{\times}3$ factor in \cref{eq:antidiagonaleven}.
However one can instead combine a diagonal element, say~$x$, and an antidiagonal
block as shown in \cref{eq:pentadiagonal}.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:pentadiagonal}
\begin{smatrix}\sqrt{x}&\sqrt{x}&\sqrt{x}\\1&0&1\\0&\beta&\beta\end{smatrix}
\Transpose{\begin{smatrix}\sqrt{x}&\sqrt{x}&\sqrt{x}\\1&0&1\\0&\beta&\beta\end{smatrix}}
=\begin{smatrix}x&0&0\\0&0&\beta\\0&\beta&0\end{smatrix}\bmod{2}.
\end{equation}
Hence, any antidiagonal block can be combined with any~${1{\times}1}$ block to
form a symmetric factorization.
\par
There remains the case when there are no~${1{\times}1}$ blocks.
Then, one can use \cref{eq:antidiagonaleven} once, on the first antidiagonal block, and add column to~$A$.
This indeed extracts the antidiagonal elements and creates
a~${3{\times}3}$ identity block in the middle. Any one of its three
ones can then be used as~$x$ in a further combination
with the next antidiagonal blocks.
\cref{alg:ApsiAT} sums up the use of
\cref{eq:antidiagonal,eq:antitriangular,eq:antidiagonaleven,eq:pentadiagonal}.
\input{algo_abat}
\bibliographystyle{abbrvurl}
|
\section*{References}%
\begin{quotation}\mbox{}\par}
\def\refer#1\par{{\setlength{\parindent}{-\leftmargin}\indent#1\par}}
\def\end{quotation}{\end{quotation}}
{\noindent\small{\bf Abstract:}
Modeling properly the interface between convective cores and radiative interiors is one the most challenging and important open questions in modern stellar physics. The rapid development of asteroseismology, with the advent of space missions partly dedicated to this discipline, has provided new constraints to progress on this issue. We here give an overview of the information that can be obtained from pressure modes, gravity modes and mixed modes. We also review some of the most recent constraints obtained from space-based asteroseismology on the nature and the amount of mixing beyond convective cores.
}
\vspace{0.5cm}\\
{\noindent\small{\bf Keywords:} Stellar evolution -- convection -- asteroseismology}
\section{Introduction}
At the occasion of the workshop "How much do we trust stellar models?" organized in Li\`ege to celebrate the 75$^{\rm th}$ birthday of Arlette Noels, I was asked to review the recent results obtained with asteroseismology to better understand the interface between convective cores and radiative interiors. This topic is both one of the most pressing open questions for stellar physics and a subject that is dear to Arlette's heart. The impact on stellar physics is clear. The mixed region associated to the convective core plays the role of a reservoir for nuclear reactions and knowing its extent is crucial to accurately model stellar evolution, in particular to estimate stellar ages. Over the last decade, the advent of spatial asteroseismology has yielded precious constraints on the size of the mixed core for stars of various masses and stages of evolution. The interpretation of these seismic data has greatly benefitted from the work of Arlette Noels and her collaborators in Li\`ege on the physical processes responsible for the extension of convective cores (overshooting, semiconvection) and their asteroseismic signature (see, e.g., \citealt{noels10}).
Among the processes that can extend convective cores, overshooting is the most often cited. Formally, the limit of the convective core is set by the Schwarzschild criterion and it corresponds to the layer above which upward-moving convective blobs start to be braked. However, this criterion does not take into account the inertia of the ascending blobs, which can in fact \textit{overshoot} over a certain distance inside the stable region. This is expected to extend the size of the mixed core. Despite the large number of studies dedicated to this phenomenon, the details of how it operates remain very uncertain. Three physical quantities need to be determined in order to properly model core overshooting:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The distance $d_{\rm ov}$ over which chemical elements are mixed beyond the formal limit of the convective core.
Theoretical studies wildly disagree on the value of $d_{\rm ov}$, with predictions ranging from 0 to several units of local pressure scale height $H_P$ (e.g., \citealt{saslaw65}, \citealt{shaviv71}, \citealt{roxburgh78}, \citealt{zahn91}).
\item The nature of the extra-mixing beyond the convective core. Overshooting can be modeled either as an instantaneous mixing (all chemical elements being homogeneous in the overshooting region), or as a diffusive process where the turbulent velocities are generally assumed to decay exponentially in the overshoot region (\citealt{herwig00}).
\item The temperature stratification in the extra-mixing region. According to the Schwarzschild criterion, the temperature gradient should correspond to the radiative gradient ($\nabla =\nabla_{\rm rad}$) in the overshoot region. However, the convective blobs that penetrate inside the stable regions could heat these layers and bring the temperature gradient closer to the adiabatic gradient $\nabla_{\rm ad}$. The latter case is usually referred to as \textit{penetrative convection} and by opposition, the case of an inefficient penetration that does not alter the temperature gradient ($\nabla = \nabla_{\rm rad}$ in the extra-mixed region) is referred to as \textit{non-penetrative convection}\footnote{Note that the initial terminology proposed by \cite{zahn91} was to reserve the term \textit{overshooting} for the case of an inefficient penetration. However, since the term \textit{overshooting} is widely used to refer to the general process, regardless of the temperature stratification, we prefer to use the term \textit{non-penetrative convection} instead in this review.}.
\end{enumerate}
The situation is even more complicated because other poorly-understood processes can also extend the size of convective cores, such as rotation-induced mixing (e.g. \citealt{maeder09}) or semiconvection (e.g. \citealt{langer85}).
The combined effects of all these phenomena are generally modeled in stellar evolution codes by a simple extension of the mixed core over a distance considered as a free parameter. This distance is often referred to as the \textit{overshooting distance} and denoted as $d_{\rm ov}$, even though one should keep in mind that the extension of the core may in fact be caused by several distinct processes, not only core overshooting. We also use this terminology in this review. The details of how the core extension is implemented vary from one evolution code to another. The codes assuming an instantaneous mixing in the overshoot region usually take $d_{\rm ov}$ as a fraction $\alpha_{\rm ov}$ of the pressure scale height $H_P$ at the core boundary. Core overshooting can also be implemented as a diffusive process and in this case the diffusion coefficient is generally taken as
\begin{equation}
D_{\rm ov}(r) = D_{\rm conv} \exp\left[ \frac{2(r-r_{\rm s})}{f_{\rm ov}H_P} \right]
\label{eq_ov_exp}
\end{equation}
where $r_{\rm s}$ is the radius of the Schwarzschild boundary, $D_{\rm conv}$ is the MLT diffusion coefficient some distance below $r_{\rm s}$, and $f_{\rm ov}$ is an adjustable parameter controlling the distance of overshooting. The temperature gradient is chosen to be either $\nabla_{\rm ad}$ (penetrative convection) or $\nabla_{\rm rad}$ (non-penetrative convection). Another important aspect is the treatment of the extension of ``small'' convective cores, for stars with masses around 1.2 $M_\odot$. The pressure scale height diverges in the center, so for small cores, the classical implementation described above generates unrealistically large core extensions that can reach the size of the core itself. Here again, evolution codes have different ways of remedying this problem. For instance, \textsc{Cesam2k}\ defines the overshooting distance as $d_{\rm ov} = \alpha_{\rm ov} \min(H_P,r_{\rm s})$. By default, \textsc{MESA}\ adopts the definition $d_{\rm ov} = \alpha_{\rm ov} \min(H_P,r_{\rm s}/\alpha_{\rm MLT})$ where $\alpha_{\rm MLT}$ is the mixing length parameter. Considering these definitions, small convective cores can have extensions over distances that vary by a factor $\alpha_{\rm MLT}$ for the same value of $\alpha_{\rm ov}$ in the two codes. Other studies chose to impose a linear dependence of $\alpha_{\rm ov}$ on stellar mass in this mass range (e.g., \citealt{pietrinferni04}, \citealt{bressan12}). One should be aware of these differences, which prevent direct comparisons of overshooting efficiencies between codes that adopt different prescriptions.
The diversity of these implementations is due to the current lack of observations that could help constrain the physical properties of the extra-mixing beyond convective cores. So far, constraints on core overshooting were obtained mainly from the modeling of eclipsing binaries (e.g. \citealt{stancliffe15}, \citealt{claret18}) and from the color-magnitude diagrams of clusters (e.g., \citealt{maeder81}, \citealt{vandenberg06}). These observational data are essentially sensitive to the distance of the extra-mixing $d_{\rm ov}$. Asteroseismology can directly probe the size of the mixed core at current age because oscillation modes are sensitive to the sharp gradient of chemical composition at this location. As will be shown in the following sections, seismic constraints can also be obtained on the chemical profile within the region of extra-mixing and on the temperature stratification, which opens the interesting prospect of testing more complex models of core overshooting.
In this review, we present a selection of the most recent seismic constraints on the physical properties of the boundaries of convective cores. Our aim is not to be exhaustive, but to give an overview of the latest developments made possible thanks to space-based asteroseismology. For this purpose, we focus on four types of stars. We start on the main sequence with results obtained for solar-like pulsators using pressure modes (Sect. \ref{sect_solarlike}) and for slowly pulsating B (SPB) stars using gravity modes (Sect \ref{sect_classical}). We then show that mixed modes can also place strong constraints on core overshooting in subgiants (Sect. \ref{sect_subgiants}) and core-helium burning giants (Sect. \ref{sect_CHeB}).
\section{Constraints from main sequence solar-like pulsators \label{sect_solarlike}}
\subsection{What constraints can we expect from pressure modes?}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=10cm]{fig_ratio.pdf}
\caption{Variations in the ratio $r_{01}$ as a function of frequency for 1.15-$M_\odot$ main sequence models with $\alpha_{\rm ov} = 0$ (green), $0.1$ (red), $0.15$ (cyan), $0.2$ (blue). The vertical dashed lines indicate the frequency interval where solar-like oscillations are expected to be excited. From \cite{deheuvels15b}.
\label{fig_ratio_ov}}
\end{figure}
Pressure modes are sensitive to the region of extra-mixing beyond the convective core through its effect on the sound speed velocity $c_{\rm s}$. Assuming an ideal gas law, $c_{\rm s}^2 = \Gamma_1 \mathcal{R}T/\mu$, where $\Gamma_1$ is the adiabatic exponent, $T$ is the temperature, and $\mu$ is the mean molecular weight. At the boundary of the mixed core, a strong $\mu$-gradient develops, which creates a near discontinuity in the sound speed velocity. This generates an \textit{acoustic glitch} for pressure modes (the spatial scale of the variations in $c_{\rm s}$ is smaller than the mode wavelength), which produces a clear signature in the frequencies of these modes. It is well known that acoustic glitches generate a periodic modulation of the mode frequencies (\citealt{gough90}). The amplitude of the modulation depends on the intensity of the glitch (sharpness of the $\mu$-gradient) and the period depends on the location of the glitch (the deeper the boundary of the mixed core, the longer the period). In principle, pressure modes thus convey information about the size of the mixed core and the nature of the mixing in the overshoot region. Note that acoustic glitches are also produced by the bottom of the convective envelope (e.g., \citealt{christensen11}) and the zone of ionization of helium (e.g., \citealt{mazumdar14}, \citealt{verma14}).
Although the periodic modulation due to the acoustic glitch is present in the mode frequencies themselves, it is more convenient to use combinations of mode frequencies instead. Most studies use small differences $d_{01}$ or second differences $dd_{01}$ built with radial and dipolar modes
\begin{align}
d_{01} & = \frac{1}{2} \left( - \nu_{1,n-1} + 2\nu_{0,n} - \nu_{1,n} \right) \\
dd_{01} & = \frac{1}{8} \left( \nu_{0,n-1} - 4\nu_{1,n-1} + 6\nu_{0,n} - 4\nu_{1,n} + \nu_{0,n+1} \right).
\end{align}
It has indeed been shown that these quantities are particularly sensitive to the structure of the core (e.g., \citealt{provost05}). Besides, the ratios $r_{01}$ defined as $dd_{01}/\Delta\nu_1$, where $\Delta\nu_1$ corresponds to the large separation of dipolar modes ($\Delta\nu_{1,n} = \nu_{1,n}-\nu_{1,n-1}$), have been shown to be largely insensitive to the structure of the outer layers, which makes them almost immune to the well-known near-surface effects (\citealt{roxburgh03}).
As an illustration, Fig. \ref{fig_ratio_ov} shows the variations in the ratio $r_{01}$ with frequency for 1.15 $M_\odot$ main sequence models. Different extensions of the convective core were considered, ranging from $\alpha_{\rm ov} = 0$ to $\alpha_{\rm ov} = 0.2$, and models were evolved until the same age. For $\alpha_{\rm ov}>0.1$, the models have a convective core at the current age and the periodic modulation caused by the edge of the core is clearly visible. It is also evident that for larger core sizes (when $\alpha_{\rm ov}$ increases), the period of the oscillation decreases. Fig. \ref{fig_ratio_ov} also shows the approximate range of frequencies where p-modes are expected have detectable amplitudes. It appears that this interval is much shorter than the period of the modulation, which unfortunately prevents us from getting model-independent measurements of the size of the mixed core. However, the behavior of $r_{01}$ in the range of observed modes changes significantly as $\alpha_{\rm ov}$ is varied, showing that the extent of the convective core can be determined using model-dependent analyses. In particular, the coefficients of a linear regression of $r_{01}(\nu)$ have been shown to efficiently constrain the amount of extra mixing (\citealt{deheuvels10}, \citealt{silva11}). Several analyses of this type have been recently obtained.
\subsection{Some recent results}
\noindent \textit{HD49933:} HD49933 is an F5-type main sequence star and was the first solar-like pulsator to be observed with the \textsc{CoRoT}\ satellite. It benefitted from 180 days of nearly continuous observations and the properties of its oscillation modes were determined by \cite{benomar09b}. The identification of the degree of the detected modes initially caused problems, an ambiguity arising between the $l=1$ rotationally split modes and the overlapping $l=0$ and $l=2$ modes. This problem is now known to occur for all F-type pulsators owing to their large mode width, and several methods have been proposed to remedy this issue (e.g., \citealt{bedding10}). The mode identification for HD49933 is now robust, and \cite{goupil11} performed a modeling of the star. They found that HD49933 has a stellar mass of in the range 1.05-1.18\,$M_\odot$ and an age in the range 2.9-3.9\,Gyr. They showed that to reproduce the behavior of the observed small differences $d_{01}$, an extension of the convective core over a distance $d_{\rm ov} \approx 0.2 H_P$ needs to be invoked. They also calculated models of the star including microscopic diffusion and rotationally-induced mixing using the code CESTAM (\citealt{marques13}). They found that these models fail to reproduce the slope of $d_{01}(\nu)$ and that some amount of core overshoot needs to be included to produce a good agreement with the seismic data. \\
\noindent \textit{KIC12009504 (Dushera):} The \textit{Kepler}\ satellite has provided us with nearly four years of continuous observations during the nominal mission. An early analysis of the \textit{Kepler}\ main sequence target KIC12009504 (dubbed Dushera) already permitted to find evidence that the star has a convective core and to place constraints on its extent (\citealt{silva13}). The authors modeled the star using nine months of \textit{Kepler}\ data analyzed by \cite{appourchaux12b}. They found that the star has a stellar mass of $1.15\pm0.04\,M_\odot$, a radius of $1.39\pm0.01\,R_\odot$ and an age of $3.80\pm0.37$ Gyr. They also showed that the observed ratios $r_{01}$ could be reproduced only by models with a convective core that extends beyond the Schwarzschild boundary (see Fig. \ref{fig_silva13}). Optimal fits were obtained when the limit of the mixed core is located at an acoustic radius equal to $\sim2.4\%$ of the total acoustic radius\footnote{The acoustic radius is defined as $\tau \equiv \int_0^r \hbox{d}r/c_{\rm s}$. It corresponds to the wave travel time from the center to a radius $r$.}. \\
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{minipage}{8cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig_silva13.pdf}
\caption{Ratios $r_{01}$ of KIC12009504 (open circles). The colored symbols correspond to models computed with various evolutions codes and input physics (see \citealt{silva13}). \label{fig_silva13}}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}{8cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig_mass_ov.pdf}
\caption{Amount of core overshooting required for the eight stars studied by \cite{deheuvels16} plotted as a function of the stellar mass. Blue squares (resp. gray circles) indicate models computed without (resp. with) microscopic diffusion. Vertical arrows indicate upper values of $\alpha_{\rm ov}$ for five other stars. \label{fig_deheuvels16}}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\noindent \textit{Dependence of the amount of overshoot with stellar mass:} As illustrated by the examples presented here, several asteroseismic studies were led on individual stars, which all reported the need for extended convective cores. It is important now to have access to consistent studies of larger samples of stars in order to better understand how the efficiency of the extra-mixing beyond convective cores depends on global stellar properties. \cite{deheuvels16} modeled 24 \textit{Kepler}\ solar-like pulsators in a consistent way, using the coefficients of a $2^{\rm nd}$-order polynomial fit to the ratios $r_{01}$ to probe the mixed core. Within this sample, 10 stars were found to be already on the post-main-sequence. Among the other targets, the authors detected a convective core in eight stars and they were able to estimate the size of their mixed core, finding a good agreement with the two evolution codes \textsc{Cesam2k}\ and \textsc{MESA}\ (using identical prescriptions for core overshooting). It was necessary to include significant extensions of the mixed core in all the considered targets. The optimal values of $\alpha_{\rm ov}$ obtained for these eight stars are shown as a function of stellar mass in Fig. \ref{fig_deheuvels16}. As can be seen in this figure, there seems to be a tendency of core overshooting to increase with stellar mass in the considered mass range, although more data points will be required to confirm this trend. Interestingly an increase of the efficiency of core overshooting with mass was also found using constraints from double-lined eclipsing binaries by \cite{claret18}, although this result is currently debated (\citealt{constantino18}). One should also beware that the stars studied by \cite{deheuvels16} are in the range of mass where the radius of the convective core is smaller than the pressure scale height at the core edge during most of the main sequence evolution. The efficiency of the extra-mixing beyond the convective core parameterized by $\alpha_{\rm ov}$ thus depends on the treatment that they adopted for ``small'' convective cores ($d_{\rm ov}$ redefined as $\alpha_{\rm ov} r_{\rm s}$ when $H_P>r_{\rm s}$ in this study). \\
\section{Constraints from main sequence g-mode pulsators \label{sect_classical}}
Gravity modes are expected to be excellent probes of the region of extra-mixing beyond the convective core, through their dependence on the Brunt-V\"ais\"al\"a\ frequency $N$ (see Sect. \ref{sect_gmodes}). The \textsc{CoRoT}\ and \textit{Kepler}\ missions have produced exquisite photometric data for g-mode classical pulsators, in particular slowly pulsating B (SPB) stars and $\gamma$ Doradus stars, thus providing information about core properties for stars of intermediate masses.
\subsection{What constraints can we expect from gravity modes? \label{sect_gmodes}}
High-order gravity modes (in the asymptotic regime) are expected to be equally spaced in period. The asymptotic period spacing of g modes of degree $l$ is approximately given by
\begin{equation}
\Delta\Pi_l \approx \frac{2\pi^2}{L} \int_{r_{\rm i}}^{r_{\rm o}} \left( \frac{N}{r} \,\hbox{d}r \right)^{-1},
\label{eq_deltap}
\end{equation}
where $L^2 = l(l+1)$ and the radii $r_{\rm i}$ and $r_{\rm o}$ are the inner and outer turning points of the g-mode cavity. The Brunt-V\"ais\"al\"a\ frequency directly depends on the temperature stratification and the $\mu$-gradient in the g-mode cavity through the relation
\begin{equation}
N^2 = \frac{g\delta}{H_P} \left( \nabla_{\rm ad} - \nabla + \frac{\varphi}{\delta} \nabla_\mu \right)
\end{equation}
where $\nabla_\mu \equiv (\hbox{d}\ln\mu/\hbox{d}\ln P)$, $\delta = \left(\partial\ln\rho/\partial\ln T\right)_{P,\mu}$, and $\varphi = \left(\partial\ln\rho/\partial\ln\mu\right)_{P,T}$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5.6cm]{fig_miglio08_1.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=5.4cm]{fig_miglio08_2.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=5.6cm]{fig_miglio08_3.pdf}
\caption{Behavior of the hydrogen abundance profile (left), of the Brunt-V\"ais\"al\"a\ frequency (center) and of the $l=1$ g-mode period spacing (right) in a 1.6-$M_\odot$ model computed with (thick lines) or without (thin lines) overshooting (from \citealt{miglio08}).
\label{fig_miglio08}}
\end{figure}
As stars evolve, the hydrogen content in the convective core decreases and a region of increasingly large $\mu$-gradient develops above the boundary of the core (see Fig. \ref{fig_miglio08}). This generates a \textit{buoyancy glitch} at the outer edge of the $\mu$-gradient region, where $\nabla_\mu$ varies on a length scale that is shorter than the mode wavelength. This glitch produces a periodic modulation of $\Delta\Pi_l$, whose period depends on the location $r_\mu$ of the glitch within the cavity (the deeper the glitch, the longer the period, as can be seen in the right panel of Fig. \ref{fig_miglio08}).
The amplitude of the modulation depends on the intensity of the glitch, i.e., on the smoothness of the chemical profile outside the convective core. For stars massive enough for the CNO cycle to dominate during their main-sequence evolution, the convective core recedes, which increases the size of the $\mu$-gradient region. As a result, the outer edge of the $\mu$-gradient region moves outwards and the period of the modulation decreases, as can be seen in the right panel of Fig. \ref{fig_miglio08}.
The characteristics of this periodic modulation give direct constraints on the properties of the extra-mixing beyond the convective core. As shown by \cite{miglio08}, adding core overshooting to stellar models changes the size of the $\mu$-gradient region and thus modifies the period of the modulation (see Fig. \ref{fig_miglio08}). The nature of the mixing in the overshoot region can also be tested. When core overshooting is treated as a diffusive process, $\nabla_\mu$ varies more smoothly than when an instantaneous mixing is assumed and the glitch produced in the Brunt-V\"ais\"al\"a\ frequency is less steep (see left panel of Fig. \ref{fig_morav16}). This makes a difference for g-modes with higher periods. These modes have shorter wavelengths, which eventually become smaller than the length scale of the sharp feature in $\nabla_\mu$ as mode period increases. Thus, higher-period g modes do not ``feel'' this feature as a glitch and we expect the amplitude of the periodic modulation in $\Delta\Pi_l$ to decrease as mode period increases. The situation is different for an actual discontinuity in the Brunt-V\"ais\"al\"a\ frequency, for which all the modes have wavelengths longer than the length scale of the glitch.
To test this quantitatively, \cite{pedersen18} calculated a reference model of 3.25 $M_\odot$ with diffusive overshooting and tried to see if its seismic content could be reproduced by models computed with an instantaneous overshooting. For this purpose, they generated a grid of models with instantaneous mixing in the overshoot region, with varying masses, initial hydrogen abundances, central hydrogen contents, and overshooting efficiencies. They showed that no model of the grid was able to reproduce the period spacings of the reference model computed with diffusive overshoot (see Fig. \ref{fig_pedersen18}). This shows that for this type of star, one should be able to distinguish between an instantaneous and a diffusive overshoot. This is no longer true for more evolved models nearing the end of the main sequence (\citealt{pedersen18}).
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}{6.5cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6.5cm]{fig_morav16.pdf}
\caption{Profile of the Brunt-V\"ais\"al\"a\ frequency (red dashed curves) where overshooting is treated as a diffusive process (left) or as an instantaneous mixing (right) (from \citealt{moravveji16}). \label{fig_morav16}}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}{9.5cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=9.5cm]{fig_pedersen18.pdf}
\caption{Comparison between the period spacings of a reference model with diffusive overshoot (red curve) and the 15 best matching models of a grid computed with instantaneous mixing. The colors indicate the level of agreement with the reference model (from \citealt{pedersen18}). \label{fig_pedersen18}}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
In principle, information could also be obtained about the temperature stratification in the overshooting region. Indeed, with penetrative convection ($\nabla = \nabla_{\rm ad}$), the Brunt-V\"ais\"al\"a\ frequency vanishes in the overshooting region, whereas with non-penetrative overshooting ($\nabla = \nabla_{\rm rad}$), it remains strictly positive. The inner turning point $r_{\rm i}$ of the g-mode cavity is therefore located deeper in the latter case. This should have an impact on the \textit{buoyancy radius} of the sharp $\mu$-gradient, defined as $\Pi_\mu = \left( \int_{r_{\rm i}}^{r_\mu} \frac{N}{r} \,\hbox{d}r \right)^{-1}$, and thus on the period of the oscillatory behavior of $\Delta\Pi_l$, which corresponds to the ratio between the buoyancy radius of the glitch and the total buoyancy radius of the cavity. This remains to be theoretically addressed.
To use the information conveyed by $\gamma$ Doradus and SPB stars about the core properties, one difficulty arises: these stars are usually fast rotators and the effects of rotation need to be taken into account to properly identify and interpret the periodic modulation caused by the $\mu$-gradient region. This issue has been extensively studied and goes beyond the scope of the present review. However, we can mention that the validity of the so-called \textit{traditional approximation of rotation} (TAR, \citealt{eckart60})\footnote{This approximation consists in assuming a spherical shape for the star and neglecting the horizontal component of the rotation vector. This way, the problem remains separable in the radial and latitudinal coordinates, as it is for slow rotators.} has been shown (\citealt{ballot12}). This has made it possible to successfully identify the modes and analyze the oscillation spectra of fast-rotating $\gamma$ Doradus and SPB stars (\citealt{bouabid13}).
\subsection{Some recent results}
\noindent \textit{HD50230:} This star is a hybrid pulsator, oscillating both as an SPB star (gravity modes) and a $\beta$ Cephei star (pressure modes) orbserved with \textsc{CoRoT}. It is also a slow rotator, which simplifies the interpretation of its oscillation spectrum. In the g-mode region of the spectrum, a group of eight modes with nearly constant period spacing was found by \cite{degroote10}. The period spacings of these modes show a periodic modulation that the authors attributed to the edge of the mixed more. The authors found that the period of this modulation can only be accounted for with extra-mixing beyond the convective core over a distance of at least $0.2\,H_P$. Interestingly, the amplitude of the modulation seems to decrease with increasing period, which the authors interpreted as an evidence for a smooth gradient of chemical composition at the boundary of the mixed core. \\
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=7cm]{fig_morav15.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{fig_morav16b.pdf}
\caption{Period spacings of consecutive dipolar g modes detected in the spectra of the SPB stars KIC10526294 (left) and KIC7760680 (right). The black circles (resp. blue squares) show the mode periods for the best model obtained with (resp. without) diffusive overshooting. The bottom plots show the residuals. Figures from \cite{moravveji15} (left) and \cite{moravveji16} (right).
\label{fig_morav}}
\end{figure}
\noindent \textit{KIC10526294:} KIC10526294 is an SPB star observed with \textit{Kepler}. A series of 19 dipolar gravity modes with consecutive radial orders were detected by \cite{papics14} for this star, making it a particularly interesting target to search for periodic modulation induced by the convective core. Rotational splittings could be measured for the star, which indicated that it is a very-slow rotator (average rotation period of $\sim$ 188 days). The period spacings $\Delta P$ of the detected modes exhibit a clear deviation from the asymptotic period spacing. \cite{moravveji15} performed a detailed modeling of this target. They showed that the variations of $\Delta P$ with mode period are better reproduced with core overshooting implemented as a diffusive process than with an instantaneous mixing in the overshoot region. They found optimal values of the overshoot parameters of $f_{\rm ov}$ between 0.017 and 0.018 (see Eq. \ref{eq_ov_exp}). They also claim that including an extra-mixing in the radiative interior outside the overshooting region can significantly improve the agreement between the models and the observations. It should however be remarked that the optimal models are still far from giving a good statistical agreement with the \textit{Kepler}\ observations (see Fig. \ref{fig_morav}, left panel). This suggests that the models might be missing some important ingredient. \\
\noindent \textit{KIC7760680:} This star is a moderately-rotating SPB star observed with the \textit{Kepler}\ satellite. It exhibits a series of 36 consecutive gravity modes, in which a clear periodic modulation can be detected (see Fig. \ref{fig_morav}, right panel). It is also apparent that the period spacings of KIC7760680 show an almost linear decrease with mode period. This is the clear signature of moderate rotation for prograde modes (\citealt{bouabid13}). \cite{moravveji16} modeled the star, considering different assumptions for the mixing within the overshooting region. They considered a solid-body rotation for the star and for each model, they optimized the rotation rate to reproduce the slope of the period spacings as a function of the mode period. As was the case for HD50230 and KIC10526294, they found that a diffusive overshoot reproduces the periodic modulation in the period spacings better than an instantaneous overshoot. With both implementations, the optimal models include a sizable overshooting region ($f_{\rm ov} = 0.024\pm0.001$ in the case of a diffusive overshoot and $\alpha_{\rm ov}\sim0.32$ for an instantaneous overshoot). Here again, the optimal solutions are quite far from the observations, yielding reduced $\chi^2$ of the order of 2000. The bottom right panel of Fig. \ref{fig_morav} shows that there is clear structure in the residuals (periodic modulation for mode periods larger than $\sim$1.25 days). This shows that the period of the modulation in $\Delta P$ differs between the models and the observations, especially for large mode periods. This is likely indicating that improvements could be made in the modeling of the chemical composition profile in the overshooting region. \\
\noindent \textit{$\gamma$ Doradus stars:} Recently, long series of consecutive g modes were also revealed in the spectra of $\gamma$ Doradus stars (\citealt{vanreeth16}, \citealt{christophe18}). These stars are generally moderate to fast rotators. However, once the signature of rotation has been correctly identified, an oscillatory behavior of the period spacings has been reported for some $\gamma$ Doradus stars (\citealt{christophe18}). These stars could therefore also provide precious information on the properties of the extended mixed cores in the near future.
\section{Subgiants \label{sect_subgiants}}
When stars evolve past the end of the main sequence, their inner layers contract as hydrogen starts burning in a shell. This causes the frequencies of gravity modes to increase owing to the increasing Brunt-V\"ais\"al\"a\ frequency in the core. In the meantime, the envelope expends as stars become subgiants. The mean density of the star decreases and therefore the frequencies of pressure modes also decrease. As a result, the frequencies of the lowest radial order g modes become of the same order of magnitude as the frequencies of the p modes that are stochastically excited in the outer part of the convective envelope. At this point, non-radial modes develop a \textit{mixed nature}, behaving as g modes in the core and as p modes in the envelope. This phenomenon arises because of the coupling exerted between the two cavities by the evanescent zone that separates them. Mixed modes have a large potential because they convey information about the core properties while having detectable amplitudes at the surface.
\subsection{What constraints can we expect from mixed modes?}
The helium core of subgiants is radiative because hardly produces any luminosity. So even if the star had a convective core during the main sequence, convective mixing has ceased when the star becomes a subgiant. Nevertheless, the main sequence convective core leaves an imprint in the chemical composition profile of young subgiants. Since mixed modes are sensitive to the Brunt-V\"ais\"al\"a\ profile, and thus to the profile of $\mu$, they can bring indirect information about the extent of the core and the nature of the mixing at its edge.
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}{8cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig_diag_prop.pdf}
\caption{Propagation diagram of a $1.3\,M_\odot$ subgiant. The Brunt-V\"ais\"al\"a\ frequency (black curve) is split into its thermal part (blue dashed line) and its chemical part (red solid line). The $l=1$ Lamb frequency is shown by the black dashed line. The horizontal line indicates the frequency of an $l=1$ mixed mode with dotted lines showing evanescent regions. Figure from \cite{deheuvels11}. \label{fig_deheuvels11a}}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}{8cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig_deheuvels11b.pdf}
\caption{Variations in the large separation of $l=1$ modes as a function of mode frequency for HD49385. The black dots correspond to \textsc{CoRoT}\ data, the red solid line shows $\Delta\nu_1$ for the best-fit model, obtained with $\alpha_{\rm ov}=0.19$, and the blue dashed line corresponds to the best model with $\alpha_{\rm ov}=0.1$. Figure from \cite{deheuvels11}. \label{fig_deheuvels11b}}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
The oscillation spectra of young subgiants contain only a few g-dominated modes, i.e., modes that are trapped mainly in the g-mode cavity. However, in subgiants, the coupling between the p- and g-mode cavities is strong for dipolar modes, and the frequencies of p-dominated modes are significantly affected by this coupling (\citealt{rome}). Mixed modes convey information about the core properties through two channels:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textit{The frequencies of g-dominated modes.} As is apparent from Eq. \ref{eq_deltap}, they depend essentially on the integral $\int_{r_1}^{r_2} N/r \,\hbox{d}r$, where $r_1$ and $r_2$ are the inner and outer turing points of the g-mode cavity. Fig. \ref{fig_deheuvels11a} shows the Brunt-V\"ais\"al\"a\ profile of a $1.3\,M_\odot$ model in the subgiant phase. In the outer part of the g-mode cavity (below $r_2$), the Brunt-V\"ais\"al\"a\ frequency is dominated by the contribution of the $\mu$-gradient ($N^2_\mu = g\varphi\nabla_\mu/H_P$, red solid line), whose shape depends on the extent of the main sequence convective core.
\item \textit{The intensity of the coupling between the p- and g-mode cavities.} The coupling essentially depends on the Brunt-V\"ais\"al\"a\ profile in the evanescent zone ($r_2\leqslant r \leqslant r_3$ in Fig. \ref{fig_deheuvels11a}). It thus conveys information about the $\mu$-gradient above $r_2$, as can be seen in Fig. \ref{fig_deheuvels11a}. The intensity of the coupling can be estimated observationally by observing its effect on the p-dominated modes. For low coupling intensities, their frequencies will hardly deviate from the asymptotic frequencies of p modes, whereas if the coupling is strong, large deviations are expected.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Recent results}
The star HD49385 was observed with the \textsc{CoRoT}\ satellite during 137 days and its oscillation spectrum was analyzed by \cite{analyse_49385}. Fig. \ref{fig_deheuvels11b} shows the variations in the large separation $\Delta\nu_1$ of dipolar modes as a function of mode frequency. At low frequency, $\Delta\nu_1$ strongly deviates from the roughly constant value that is expected from asymptotic developments. It was later established that this was caused by the presence of a g-dominated mixed mode in the lower-frequency part of the spectrum, which coupled to the detected p modes and altered their mode frequencies (\citealt{rome}).
\cite{deheuvels11} proposed a new optimization technique adapted to the modeling of stars with mixed modes, which they applied to HD49385. They found that the star has a mass of $1.25\pm0.05\,M_\odot$ and an age of $5.0\pm0.3$ Gyr. For their modeling, the authors considered models with an instantaneous overshooting over an adjustable distance $d_{\rm ov}$. They found two different families of solutions: one with a small amount of overshooting ($\alpha_{\rm ov}<0.05$) and the other with a moderate amount of overshooting ($\alpha_{\rm ov}=0.19\pm0.01$). The models from the latter family provide the closest agreement with the observations and the large separation of their $l=1$ modes are shown in Fig. \ref{fig_deheuvels11b}. \cite{deheuvels11} showed that this bimodality of the solutions is due to the strong dependence of the mode coupling to the stellar mass (the higher the mass, the lower the coupling). Only models with masses around $1.25\,M_\odot$ are able to produce the correct coupling and thus reproduce the observed frequencies of $l=1$ modes. The optimal mass was found to vary non-linearly with the amount of overshooting. Only low ($\alpha_{\rm ov}<0.05$) or moderate ($\alpha_{\rm ov}=0.19\pm0.01$) values of overshooting correspond to a stellar mass of about $1.25\,M_\odot$. Models with $\alpha_{\rm ov}\sim0.1$ have higher masses and thus a mode coupling that is too weak (see blue dashed curve in Fig. \ref{fig_deheuvels11b}). Models with $\alpha_{\rm ov}>0.2$ have lower masses and thus a coupling that is too strong.
Mixed modes can thus give measurements of the size of main sequence convective cores using a diagnostic that is completely independent from the one used for main sequence solar-like pulsators (Sect. \ref{sect_solarlike}). Several tens of subgiants have been observed with \textit{Kepler}\ and could also provide constraints on the size of main sequence convective cores. The study of these targets is under way.
\section{Core-He burning giants \label{sect_CHeB}}
Giant stars with masses $M\gtrsim0.7 M_\odot$ eventually start burning helium in their core. This happens either quietly in a non-degenerate core (for stars with masses $M\gtrsim 2 M_\odot$) or in a flash for stars with masses $M\lesssim 2 M_\odot$, whose core is degenerate when it reaches the temperature at which He starts burning. In both cases, the star then develops a convective core. Measuring the extent of the mixed core at this evolutionary stage can bring complementary information about the interface between convective and radiative regions.
We start by briefly introducing the challenges posed by the modeling of convective cores in core-helium burning (CHeB) stars (Sect. \ref{sect_core_clump}) and we then present the constraints derived from asteroseismology (\ref{sect_clump_sismo}).
\subsection{Modeling the convective core of CHeB giants \label{sect_core_clump}}
The modeling of mixing in the core of low- and intermediate-mass stars during the CHeB phase is notoriously challenging. Depending on the criterion that is adopted for convective stability, evolutionary codes predict very different values for the size of the He-burning convective core, and thus also for the duration of the CHeB phase (see Fig. \ref{fig_constantino15}). The situation is more complicated than during the main sequence because C and O, which accumulate as He is burnt in the core, are more opaque than He. As a result, the radiative gradient increases in the convective core, and a discontinuity of the radiative gradient tends to develop at the boundary of the convective core. We here briefly describe some of the choices made to treat this in evolutionary codes and refer the interested reader to the review by \citealt{salaris17} for more details.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=10cm]{fig_constantino15.pdf}
\caption{Size of the mixed core during the CHeB phase with different modelings for the boundary of the convective core. Figure from \cite{constantino15}.
\label{fig_constantino15}}
\end{figure}
In what is usually referred to as the \textit{bare Schwarzschild} (BS) model, the Schwarzschild criterion is applied \textit{on the radiative side} of the convective boundary (panel (a) of Fig. \ref{fig_castellani71a}). Since the radiative gradient is hardly modified over time on the radiative side, the core size remains roughly constant during the whole CHeB phase (see black curve in Fig. \ref{fig_constantino15}, labeled as the ``no ivershooting'' case). Meanwhile, the radiative gradient increases in the core, and the quantity $\nabla_{\rm rad} - \nabla_{\rm ad}$ thus increases \textit{on the convective side} of the core boundary. As established by \cite{schwarzschild58} and reminded by \cite{castellani71a} and \cite{gabriel14}, this situation is in fact unphysical because the convective velocities are expected to vanish at the edge of the convective core. As a result, the total flux should be equal to the radiative flux at this layer, and one should have $\nabla_{\rm rad} = \nabla \approx \nabla_{\rm ad}$ there. The BS model is therefore an incorrect implementation of the Schwarzschild criterion.
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}{8cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=7cm]{fig_castellani71a.pdf}
\caption{Schematic behavior of the temperature gradient near the boundary of the convective core with $\nabla_{\rm rad}=\nabla_{\rm ad}$ imposed on the radiative side (a) and on the convective side (b) of the boundary (from \citealt{castellani71a}). \label{fig_castellani71a}}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}{8cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{fig_castellani71b.pdf}
\caption{Schematic behavior of $\nabla_{\rm rad}$ after it has reached a minimum in the convective core. Panel a (reps. b) shows the evolution with standard overshooting and an increasing (resp. decreasing) radiative gradient. Panel c: evolution with semiconvection. Figure from \cite{castellani71b}. \label{fig_castellani71b}}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
Another way of understanding the inadequacy of the BS model is to realize that it is unstable to any mixing beyond the core boundary. Indeed, let us assume a mild extra-mixing, such that the first layer above the convective core is mixed with the convective core. In this layer, the abundance in carbon and oxygen increases, the opacity increases and hence the radiative gradient increases above the adiabatic gradient. The layer then becomes definitively convective. At the next time step, the layer above the enlarged convective core will in turn become convective. This process stops only when $\nabla_{\rm rad}=\nabla_{\rm ad}$ \textit{on the convective side} of the core boundary. Panel (b) of Fig. \ref{fig_castellani71a} thus shows the correct implementation of the Schwarzschild criterion. In practice, this is implemented in evolution codes by including a small amount of core overshooting (the extension of the convective core that it produces is sometimes referred to as \textit{induced overshooting}) or by checking at each time step whether the layers above the convective core would become convective if they were mixed with the core, and by adding these layers to the core if it is the case.
However, a complication occurs when the mass fraction of helium in the core drops below $\sim 0.7$. Then, a minimum appears in the profile of the radiative gradient in the core, as can be seen in panel (a) of Fig. \ref{fig_castellani71b}. For low and intermediate amounts of overshooting, the outward mixing brings fresh helium into the core and thus induces a decrease of $\nabla_{\rm rad}$ in the whole convective core (panel (b) of Fig. \ref{fig_castellani71b}). The minimum of $\nabla_{\rm rad}$ eventually drops below $\nabla_{\rm ad}$ and the convective core is split in two convective regions separated by an intermediate radiative zone. The outer convective region rapidly vanishes because of the decrease in $\nabla_{\rm rad}$. The convective core is thus comprised only of the inner convective region and it has shrunk. As helium is burnt in the core, the abundance of carbon and oxygen increases again, $\nabla_{\rm rad}$ increases and eventually has again a minimum within the core. We are then brought back to panel (a) of Fig. \ref{fig_castellani71b} and the situation reiterates. As a result, the boundary of the convective core goes back and forth (see the case labeled as \textit{standard overshooting} in Fig. \ref{fig_constantino15}), leaving behind step-like features in the helium abundance profile. In this case, the behavior of the convective core is in fact independent of the amount of core overshooting that is included (this is no longer true for large amounts of overshooting as explained below).
The treatment of the intermediate radiative region that appears in the vicinity of the minimum of $\nabla_{\rm rad}$ has been the subject of several studies. It is generally thought that it undergoes a partial mixing that enforces convective neutrality ($\nabla_{\rm rad} = \nabla_{\rm ad}$) in this zone (\citealt{castellani71b}, \citealt{castellani85}), as can be seen in panel (c) of Fig. \ref{fig_castellani71b}. The partially mixed region shares similar features with a semi-convective layer, and this mechanism has been referred to as \textit{induced semi-convection}. Modeling this intermediate region as a semi-convective layer produces core sizes that are very similar to those obtained with overshooting (see how the cyan and orange curves nearly overlap in Fig. \ref{fig_constantino15}), but without the back-and-forth motion of the core boundary, and therefore with a smoother chemical composition profile.
It was also found that when applying large amounts of core overshooting at the boundary of the convective core, the extra-mixed region becomes large enough to prevent the formation of a semi-convective region (\citealt{bressan86}, \citealt{bossini15}). In this case, the size of the mixed core depends on the amount of core overshooting that is imposed.
\subsection{Constraints from asteroseismology \label{sect_clump_sismo}}
\subsubsection{Asymptotic period spacings of g modes in CHeB giants}
Thanks to the space missions \textsc{CoRoT}\ and \textit{Kepler}, mixed modes have now been detected in tens of thousands of red giants. The frequencies of these modes can be identified using their asymptotic expression, which was first developed by \cite{shibahashi79}. By fitting this analytic expression to the observed mode frequencies, one can obtain estimates of various global seismic characteristics of the star, including the asymptotic period spacing $\Delta\Pi_1$ of its dipolar gravity modes (see Eq. \ref{eq_deltap}). The fitting procedure is challenging because of the large number of modes and it is made much more complicated by the splitting of mixed modes due to rotation. \cite{mosser15} have proposed a convenient method, based on the calculation of corrected mode periods (called \textit{stretched periods}), which made it possible to perform an automatic fitting of red giants. Using this method, \cite{vrard16} were able to measure the asymptotic period spacing $\Delta\Pi_1$ of 6100 \textit{Kepler}\ red giants.
This database constitutes an unprecedented opportunity to probe the core of red giants. \cite{bedding11} showed that the period spacing $\Delta\Pi_1$ can be used to reliably distinguish CHeB giants from H-shell burning giants, which are ascending the red giant branch (RGB). The reason for this is evident from Eq. \ref{eq_deltap}. In contrast with RGB stars, CHeB giants have a convective core. Their g-mode cavity is therefore smaller and they have larger values of $\Delta\Pi_1$. For CHeB giants, \cite{montalban13} showed that there is a nearly linear relation between the size of the convective core and the asymptotic period spacing $\Delta\Pi_1$. Indeed, if the convective core expends, the g-mode cavity becomes smaller and $\Delta\Pi_1$ increases. The \textit{Kepler}\ data thus have a great potential to measure the size of the mixed core in CHeB stars.
The asymptotic period spacings can also convey information about the temperature stratification. Indeed, in the case of penetrative convection, we have $\nabla=\nabla_{\rm ad}$ and thus $N^2 = 0$ in the extra-mixed region. As a result, gravity waves do not propagate in the overshoot region. On the contrary, with non-penetrative overshooting, $N^2 = N_T^2>0$ and the overshoot region is part of the g-mode cavity. We thus expect models with non-penetrative convection to have smaller values of $\Delta\Pi_1$ than models computed with penetrative convection. For models with semi-convection above the convective core, $N^2 = N_\mu^2 >0$ in the partially mixed region and $\Delta\Pi_1$ is also expected to be smaller than with penetrative overshooting.
As described in Sect. \ref{sect_gmodes}, sharp variations in the Brunt-V\"ais\"al\"a\ frequency (buoyancy glitches) induce periodic modulations in the period spacings of g modes. Such features could be measured from the frequencies of mixed modes and give strong constraints on the chemical composition profile near the core boundary. We come back to this in more detail in Sect. \ref{sect_glitch_clump}.
\subsubsection{Seismic constraints on the convective core of CHeB giants}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig_constantino15b.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig_constantino15c.pdf}
\caption{Evolution in the $\Delta\nu$-$\Delta\Pi_1$ plane of 1\,$M_\odot$ (left figure) and 2.5\,$M_\odot$ (right figure) CHeB models computed with different mixing schemes (``bare Schwarzschild'' in black, low overshoot in cyan, semi-convection in orange, maximal overshoot in magenta). The grey dots correspond to the observed period spacings of \textit{Kepler}\ giants restricted to stars that have undergone a He flash ($M\leqslant 2M_\odot$) in the left figure, and stars that triggered He-burning quietly ($M\geqslant 2M_\odot$). Panels (b) of both figures show probability density curves with the same color code (observations in thick grey dashes). Figures from \cite{constantino15}.
\label{fig_constantino15b}}
\end{figure}
\cite{constantino15} and \cite{bossini15} both led studies to compare the observed distribution of period spacings of CHeB giants to the distributions that would be predicted with different mixing schemes beyond the convective core. They found generally consistent results.
The ``bare Schwarzschild'' models have the smallest convective cores because the (incorrect) implementation of the Schwarzschild criterion on the radiative side prevents the core from growing. The highest period spacings $\Delta\Pi_1$ predicted by these models are around 250\,s (see black symbols in Fig. \ref{fig_constantino15b}), well below the maximum observed period spacings, which are around 340 s. \cite{bossini15} reach the same conclusion. This confirms that the convective cores of the bare Schwarzschild models are much too small.
Models that include low amounts of core overshooting or semi-convection also have period spacings that appear to be too small compared to the observations (cyan and orange symbols in Fig. \ref{fig_constantino15b}). This means that their convective cores are too small. We already mentioned in Sect. \ref{sect_core_clump} that models computed with semi-convection and models computed with low overshooting have very similar core sizes (Fig. \ref{fig_constantino15}). Yet Fig. \ref{fig_constantino15b} shows that the latter models have larger period spacings. According to \cite{constantino15}, this is justified by the fact that large $\mu$-gradients develop in models computed with overshooting, owing to the back-and-forth motion of the core boundary. This is enough to create efficient mode trapping inside the partially mixed region. As a result, the observed period spacing corresponds to the asymptotic expression of Eq. \ref{eq_deltap} calculated excluding the region of $\mu$-gradient. It is thus larger than for models computed with low overshooting than for models computed with semi-convection, for which the chemical composition profile is smooth and such mode trapping does not occur.
The \textit{Kepler}\ data clearly point in favor of an extended mixed core, larger than the one produced with semi-convection or standard amounts of overshooting. To reproduce the seismic data, \cite{bossini15} calculated models with high amounts of overshooting. They found that models with non-penetrative convection over a distance of 1\,$H_P$ or with penetrative convection over a distance of 0.5\,$H_P$ could roughly reproduce the distribution of the observed period spacings. They gave their preference to the latter models because they also match the luminosity of the asymptotic-giant-branch (AGB) bump, which can be measured from \textit{Kepler}\ data. \cite{constantino15} calculated models with a modified implementation of core overshooting. They prevented at all time the splitting of the convective core that occurs because of the minimum in $\nabla_{\rm rad}$. This model, which they refer to as \textit{maximal overshooting} has no physical justification but aims at building convective core with maximal sizes. The authors found that these models produce period spacings that are consistent with the bulk of the low-mass observations (see magenta line in Fig. \ref{fig_constantino15b}).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=10cm]{fig_bossini17.pdf}
\caption{CHeB giants of NGC\,6791 and NGC\,6819 shown in the $\Delta\nu$-$\Delta\Pi_1$ plane. Predictions from models with different mixing schemes are overplotted: intermediate (MOV) and high (HOV) non-penetrative convection, intermediate (MPC) and high (HPC) penetrative convection. Figure from \cite{bossini17}.
\label{fig_bossini17}}
\end{figure}
Additional information was recently obtained from the measurement of period spacings in the CHeB giants of the two old open clusters NGC\,6791 and NGC\,6819 (\citealt{bossini17}). Fig. \ref{fig_bossini17} shows the location in the $\Delta\nu$-$\Delta\Pi_1$ plane of the CHeB-members of these two clusters. The authors calculated models with the same physical properties as the CHeB giants of both clusters and using different mixing schemes at the core boundary. They found that models computed with a moderate amount of overshooting can reproduce the range of observed period spacings. Interestingly, the models computed with penetrative convection (adiabatic stratification in the extra-mixed region) predict too large period spacings for the stars at the beginning of the CHeB phase in NGC\,6819, which led the authors to favor the non-penetrative convection scenario. Naturally more evidence is required to be more conclusive.
\subsubsection{Constraints from buoyancy glitches \label{sect_glitch_clump}}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5cm]{fig_mosser15.pdf}
\caption{Stretched period \'echelle diagram (see explanations in \citealt{mosser15}) of a \textit{Kepler}\ CHeB giant. The blue squares indicate high peaks in the oscillation spectrum of the star. In the absence of a buoyancy glitch, they are expected to line up on a straight ridge. Here, a modulation is observed (orange dashed line), which is compatible with a buoyancy glitch. Figure from \cite{mosser15}.
\label{fig_mosser15}}
\end{figure}
Further constraints could also be obtained in the near future by detecting the signature of buoyancy glitches in the period spacings of g modes in CHeB giants. The mixing schemes presented in Sect. \ref{sect_core_clump} predict very different abundance profiles in the region above the fully mixed core. For instance, models computed with standard overshooting show step-like features in the helium abundance above the core, while models computed with semi-convection have smooth helium profiles. Sharp variations of $\mu$ are expected to be felt as buoyancy glitches by g modes, which should produce an oscillatory component in the period spacing, as was described in Sect. \ref{sect_gmodes}. The occurrence of buoyancy glitches in the cores of red giants and their seismic signature in the period spacing of g modes has been extensively addressed by \cite{cunha15} using stellar models. Detecting these modulations in $\Delta\Pi_1$ is more complicated for CHeB giants than for main sequence g-mode pulsators because of the mixed character of the modes. Nonetheless, the method of \cite{mosser15} can be used to recover the period spacings of pure gravity modes and thus reveal potential periodic modulations produced by glitches (see Fig. \ref{fig_mosser15}). Glitches produced by sharp $\mu$-gradients above the mixed core are located deep within the g-mode cavity and are thus expected to produce long-period modulations. A systematic search for such features in the oscillation spectra of CHeB giants observed with \textit{Kepler}\ should bring strong constraints on the way chemical elements are mixed above the convective core.
\section{Conclusion}
The advent of space asteroseismology has yielded numerous novel constraints on the properties of convective cores for stars with various masses and evolutionary stages. We started this review by mentioning that three physical quantities needed to be known to progress in our modeling of the boundary of convective cores. We conclude by summarizing the recent findings of asteroseismology for each of them:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textit{Distance over which mixed cores are extended:} We here presented only a small selection of all the seismic studies that provided constraints on the extent of the mixed core. The great majority of them concluded that an extension of the mixed core beyond the Schwarzschild limit needed to be invoked. These studies also showed that large star-to-star variations exist for the distance of the extra-mixing. Nevertheless, tendencies can be found in the available data. Main sequence intermediate-mass stars seem to require extensions of the order of 0.2-$0.3\,H_P$. For lower-mass stars ($1.1\lesssim M/M_\odot\lesssim1.5$), lower extensions are needed (from 0.05 to $0.2\,\min(H_P,r_{\rm s}$), where $r_{\rm s}$ is the formal boundary of the convective core). In this mass range, a potential increase of the distance of extra-mixing with stellar mass has been reported but needs to be confirmed. In this review, we have focused on low- and intermediate-mass stars, which have so far benefitted more from space-based asteroseismology, but seismic constraints have also been obtained on the core properties of massive stars. The seismic analyses of $\beta$ Cephei pulsators (8 to 20 $M_\odot$), essentially with ground-based observations, have shown quite large variations in the extent of the extra-mixed region from one star to another, typically ranging from 0 to 0.3 $H_P$ (e.g., \citealt{dupret04}, \citealt{ausseloos04}, \citealt{aerts11}, \citealt{briquet12}). Finally, it has been found that the convective core of core-helium-burning stars needs to be extended over even larger distances, likely in the range of 0.5-$1\,H_P$.
\item \textit{Nature of the mixing in the core extension:} Seismology is currently the only tool to test how efficient the mixing of chemicals is beyond the edge of the convective core. Gravity modes, through their sensitivity to the gradient of $\mu$, are particularly well suited for this purpose. The seismic study of three SPB stars has consistently shown that a diffusive overshooting modeled with an exponentially decaying diffusion coefficient yields better agreement with seismic observations than an instantaneous mixing in the overshoot region. Other constraints on the nature of the mixing could be brought in the near future by using mixed modes in subgiants.
\item \textit{Temperature stratification in the region of extra-mixing:} Measuring this quantity is particularly difficult. However, having penetrative ($\nabla=\nabla_{\rm ad}$) or non-penetrative ($\nabla=\nabla_{\rm rad}$) convection changes the propagation of gravity modes in the overshoot region. This modifies the period spacing of g modes. Hints in favor of non-penetrative convection were obtained from the core-helium burning giants of an old open cluster. Further constraints could be obtained from SPB and $\gamma$ Doradus stars. We here note that constraints have been obtained on the temperature stratification at the bottom of the envelope convection of the Sun. \cite{christensen11} found evidence for a smooth transition from $\nabla=\nabla_{\rm ad}$ to $\nabla=\nabla_{\rm rad}$ in the overshoot region.
\end{enumerate}
We note that in this review, we have focused exclusively on results obtained with the forward modeling approach. Seismic inversions also have a large potential to bring information on the properties of convective cores. Recent studies have shown promising results for solar-like pulsators (\citealt{bellinger17}, \citealt{buldgen18}) and new, model-independent constraints could come from such analyses in the near future.
The number of targets for which the edge of the mixed core could be seismically probed is increasing rapidly. We are starting to build large enough samples so that trends can be searched in the properties of the extra-mixed region as a function of global stellar parameters. On the short term, this can help us calibrate more refined models of convective core extensions in evolutionary codes. This could provide us with more reliable stellar ages, which is crucial for disciplines that require high-precision stellar modeling, such as the characterization of exoplanets, with the upcoming \textsc{PLATO}\ mission, or galactic archaeology. Even more challenging will be the task of disentangling the contributions from the different physical processes to the extensions of convective cores. So far a pragmatic approach has generally been adopted, whereby the effects of all these processes are modeled together in a parametric way. To establish the contribution of rotational mixing, it would be very interesting to search for correlations between the amount of mixing beyond convective cores and the rotational properties of stars.
Stars for which seismology can provide measurements of the size of the mixed core and the internal rotation profile would be particularly useful. Magnetic fields are also expected to play a role by inhibiting rotational mixing through the damping of differential rotation in radiative interiors. For instance, this might be happening in the $\beta$ Cephei pulsator V2052 Ophiuci, which hosts a fossil magnetic field with $B_{\rm pol} \sim 400$ G. Through a seismic modeling of the star, \cite{briquet12} found that it indeed has an unexpectedly low amount of extra-mixing beyond the convective core. More studies of this type are needed to progress in our understanding of the processes that can extend the size of mixed cores. In this context, the \textsc{TESS} and \textsc{PLATO}\ missions are particularly welcome. They will provide us with seismic data with a nearly all-sky coverage, which will greatly increase the number of targets for which seismic constraints on the core properties can be derived. In particular, with \textsc{PLATO}\ data, we will be able to perform much more meaningful statistical studies of the extent of the mixed core in solar-like pulsators.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
I am thankful to Marc-Antoine Dupret for inviting me to the Li\`ege Workshop organized in honor of Arlette Noels. I also take the opportunity to express my deep gratitude to Arlette, for all the very enlightening discussions that I have had with her. She is a great source of inspiration for me. I also acknowledge support from the project BEAMING ANR-18-CE31-0001 of the French National Research Agency (ANR) and from the Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales (CNES).
\footnotesize
\bibliographystyle{aa.bst}
|
\section{Introduction}
We denote by $\mathbb{Z}, \mathbb{Z}_+, \mathbb{N}, {\mathbb Q}$ and $\mathbb{C}$ the sets of all integers, non-negative integers, positive integers, rational numbers and complex numbers, respectively. All vector spaces and algebras in this paper are over $\mathbb{C}$, and all modules over Lie superalgebras are $\mathbb{Z}_2$-graded. We denote by $U(\mf{a})$ the universal enveloping algebra of the Lie superalgebra $\mf{a}$
Let $A=A_{m,n}$ be the tensor superalgebra of the Laurient polynomial algebra in $m$ even variables $t_1,t_2,\ldots,t_m$ and the exterior algebra in $n$ odd variables $\xi_1,\xi_2,\ldots, \xi_n$, and the Witt superalgebra $W=W_{m,n}$ be the Lie superalgebra of superderivations of $A_{m,n}$. Denote by
$D_{m}={\rm span}\{ t_i\frac{\partial}{\partial t_i}|\,i=1,2,\ldots,m\}$ the Cartan subalgebra of $W_{m,0}$. Throughout this paper, a $W_{m,n}$ module $M$ is called a weight module if the action of $D_m$ on $M$ is diagonalizable.
Representation theory of Witt algebra $W_{m,0}$ has been well-developed. Simple weight modules with finite-dimensional weight spaces (also called Harish-Chandra modules) for the Virasoro algebra (which is the universal central extension of $W_{1,0}$) were conjectured by V. Kac in \cite{K2} and classified by O.Mathieu in \cite{Ma}, see also \cite{Su2} for another approach. Then similar classification was given for the higher rank Virasoro algebras in \cite{Su1,LZ2}. In 2004 Eswara Rao conjectured in \cite{E2} that a simple weight module for $W_{m.0}$ with finite-dimensional weight spaces is either a quotient of a tensor module or a module of highest weight type. The weight set of those modules for $W_{m,0}$ was given in \cite{MZ}. Finally, Y. Billig and V. Futorny completed the classification for $W_{m,0}$ in \cite{BF1}. The $A_{m,0}$-cover method developed in \cite{BF1} turns out to be extremely useful. For more related results, we refer the readers to \cite{BF2, E1, E2, Sh} and the references therein.
The finite-dimensional simple $W_{0,n}$ modules were classified in \cite{BL}. Very recently, the simple weight modules with finite-dimensional weight spaces over the $N=2$ Ramond algebra (which is a central extension of $W_{1,1}$) were classified in \cite{Liu1}.
Hence it is natural to consider the classification of simple weight modules over $W_{m,n}$ which have finite-dimensional weight spaces.
A $W_{m,n}$ weight module is called {\it cuspidal} or {\it uniformly bounded} if the dimensions of its weight spaces are uniformly bounded by some constant.
This paper is arranged as follows. In Section 2, we collect some notations and results for later use. In Section 3, we classify simple cuspidal $W_{m,n}$ modules by extending the methods and results by E. Rao, Y. Billig, V. Futorny for the Lie algebras $W_{m,0}$ to that for the Lie superalgebras $W_{m,n}$, see Theorem \ref{the3.11}. This is the main part of this paper, and the ideas in this section are used to solve the classification of simple cuspidal modules for the Lie algebra of vector fields on $\mathbb{C}^n$, see \cite{LX}. In Section 4, we classify simple cuspidal modules over the extended Witt superalgebra by using the results in Section 3, see Theorem \ref{the4.4}. In Section 5, we classify simple weight $W_{m,n}$ modules with finite-dimensional weight spaces after proving several auxiliary lemmas as those in \cite{MZ} for modules that are not cuspidal. Every such module is either a quotient of a tensor module or a module of highest weight type, see Theorem \ref{main}.
\section{Preliminaries}
In this section, we collect some basic definitions and results for our study.
A vector superspace $V$ is a vector space endowed with a $\mathbb{Z}_2$-gradation $V=V_{\bar 0}\oplus V_{\bar 1}$. The parity of a homogeneous element $v\in V_{\bar{i}}$ is denoted by $|v|=\bar{i}\in \mathbb{Z}_2$. Throughout this paper, when we write $|v|$ for an element $v\in V$, we will always assume that $v$ is a homogeneous element. Denote by $|I|$ the number of elements in the finite set $I$.
Denote by $d_i=t_i\frac{\partial}{\partial t_i},\forall i=1,2,\ldots,m$. Let $$\Delta=\Delta_{m,n}={\rm span}\{d_i,\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi_j}\ |\ i=1,\ldots,m;j=1,\ldots,n\}.$$
Let $e_1,\dots,e_m$ be the standard basis of $\mathbb{Z}^m$.
For convenience, we will omit $\otimes$ in $A_{m,n}$, and write $t^{\alpha}:=t_1^{\alpha_1}t_2^{\alpha_2}\cdots t_m^{\alpha_m}$, $\xi_{i_1,i_2,\ldots,i_k}:=\xi_{i_1}\xi_{i_2}\cdots \xi_{i_k},\forall\, \alpha=(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_m)\in \mathbb{Z}^m, i_1,i_2,\ldots,i_k\in \{1,2,\ldots,n\}$.
For any subset $I=\{i_1,\ldots,i_k\}\subseteq \{1,2,\ldots,n\}$, we denote $\underline{I}=(l_1,l_2,\ldots,l_k)$ if $\{i_1,i_2,\ldots,i_k\}=\{l_1,l_2,\ldots,l_k\}$ and $l_1<\dots<l_k$. Denote $\xi_{I}:=\xi_{l_1,\ldots,l_k}$. We set $\xi_{\varnothing}=1$.
Then $W_{m,n}=A_{m,n}\Delta$ has a standard basis $$\{t^{\alpha}\xi_Id_i, t^{\alpha}\xi_I\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi_j}\ |\ i=1,2,\ldots,m;j=1,2,\ldots,n; \alpha\in\mathbb{Z}^m; I\subseteq \{1,2,\ldots,n\}\}.$$
We will also need the extended Witt superalgebra $\tilde{W}_{m,n}=W_{m,n}\ltimes A_{m,n}$ with the brackets
$$[a,a']=0,\ [x,a]=-(-1)^{|x||a|}[a,x]=x(a),\ \forall a,a'\in A_{m,n},\ x\in W_{m,n}.$$
Let $\mf{g}$ be any of $\tilde{W}_{m,n}$, $W_{m,n}$ or any Lie supersubalgebra of $\tilde{W}_{m,n}$ that contains $D_m$. A $\mf{g}$ module $M$ is called a {\it weight} module provided that the action of $D_m$ on $M$ is diagonalizable. Let $M$ be a weight $\mf{g}$ module. Then
\begin{equation}M=\oplus_{\lambda\in \mathbb{C}^m} M_{\lambda},\end{equation} where $M_{\lambda}=\{v\in M| d_i v=\lambda_i v,i=1,2,\ldots,m\}$. $M_{\lambda}$ is called a weight space corresponding to the weight $\lambda$. The support ${\rm Supp}(M)$ of $M$ is defined as the set of all weights $\lambda$ for which $M_{\lambda}\ne 0$. In particular $\tilde{W}_{m,n}$ as a weight module over itself has support $\mathbb{Z}^m$. Therefore, for any indecomposable weight $\mf{g}$ module we have ${\rm Supp}(M)\subseteq \lambda+\mathbb{Z}^m$ for some $\lambda\in\mathbb{C}^m$. A weight $\mf{g}$ module $M$ is called {\it cuspidal} or {\it uniformly bounded} provided that there exists a positive integer $N$ such that $\dim V_{\lambda}<N$ for all $\lambda\in {\rm Supp}(V)$. For any subset $S$ of $\mathbb{C}^m$, denote $M_{S}=\oplus_{\lambda\in S} M_S$. In particular, $\mf{g}_G$ is a Lie supersubalgebra of $\mf{g}$ if $G$ is a semi-subgroup of the addtive group $\mathbb{C}^m$.
For any $\mathfrak{u}\in \mathbb{C}^m$, denote $d_{\mathfrak{u}}=\mathfrak{u}_1d_1+\cdots+\mathfrak{u}_md_m$. $\mathfrak{u}$ is called {\it generic} if $\mathfrak{u}_1,\mathfrak{u}_2,\ldots,\mathfrak{u}_m$ are linearly independent over ${\mathbb Q}$. For a given generic $\mathfrak{u}$, we denote by $\mathrm{Vir}[\mathfrak{u}]=A_{m,0}(\mathfrak{u}_1d_1+\ldots+\mathfrak{u}_m d_m)$ the solenoidal Lie algebra (also called the centerless higher rank Virasoro algebra). A $\mathrm{Vir}[\mathfrak{u}]$ module $M$ is called a weight module if the action of $d_{\mathfrak{u}}$ on $M$ is diagonalizable.
Let $\sigma:L\rightarrow L'$ be any homomorphism of Lie superalgebras or associative superalgebras, and $M$ be any $L'$ module. We make $M$ into an $L$ module by $x\cdot v=\sigma(x) v,\forall x\in L, v\in M$. The resulting module will be denoted by $M^{\sigma}$. Denote by $T$ the automorphism of $L$ defined by $T(x)=(-1)^{|x|}x,\forall x\in L$. For any $L$ module $M$, we can make it into a new module $\Pi(M)$ by a parity-change of $M$.
Let $B$ be any associative superalgebra. A $B$ module $M$ is called {\it strictly simple} if it is a simple module over the associative algebra $B$ (forgetting the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-gradation), i.e., $M$ has no $B$ invariant subspaces (not necessarily $\mathbb{Z}_2$-graded) except $0$ and $M$.
We will need the following two results on tensor modules over tensor superalgebras.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem2.1}Let $B, B'$ be unital associative superalgebras, and $M,M'$ be $B,B'$ modules, respectively. Then
$M\otimes {M'}\cong \Pi(M)\otimes \Pi({M'}^{T})$ as $B\otimes B'$ modules.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} It follows directly from $(b\otimes b')(v\otimes v')=(-1)^{|v||b'|} bv\otimes b'v'\in M\otimes M'$ and $(b\otimes b')(v\otimes v')=(-1)^{|b'|(|v|-1)}(bv)\otimes ((-1)^{|b'|}b'v')=(-1)^{|v||b'|} bv\otimes {b'v'}\in \Pi(M)\otimes \Pi({M'}^{ T})$. \end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem2.2}Let $B, B'$ be unital associative superalgebras such that $B'$ has a countable basis, $R=B\otimes B'$,
$M'$ be a strictly simple $B'$ module and $M$ be a $B$ module. Then
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1).] Any $R$ submodule of $M\otimes M'$ is of the form $N\otimes M'$ for some $B$ submodule $N$ of $M$;
\item[(2).] Any simple quotient of the $R$ module $M\otimes M'$ is isomorphic to some $K\otimes M'$ for some simple quotient $K$ of $M$;
\item[(3).] $M\otimes M'$ is a simple $R$ module if and only if $M$ is a simple $B$ module;
\item[(4).] Suppose that $V$ is a simple $R$ module and $V$ contains a $B'=\mathbb{C}\otimes B'$ submodule $M'$ that is strictly simple . Then $V\cong M\otimes M'$ for some simple $B$ module $M$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Let $F$ be any $R$ submodule of $M\otimes M'$. Then for any nonzero homogeneous vector $v\in F$, we may write $v=\sum_{i=1}^k {w_i}\otimes w_i'$ with $w_1,\ldots, w_k$ and $w_1',\ldots,w_k'$ being homogeneous elements respectively, and $w_1',\ldots,w_k'$ being linearly independent. Since $B'$ has a countable basis and $M'$ is a strictly simple $B'$ modules, from the Theorem of Density, there exists a $b'\in B'$ such that $b'w_i'=\delta_{i,1}w_i', i=1,2,\ldots,k.$ Moreover, since $w_i'$ are homogeneous, we may assume that $b'$ is homogeneous. Therefore, $b'v=b'(\sum_{i=1}^k w_i\otimes w_i')=(-1)^{|w_1||b'|} w_1\otimes w_1' \in F$. So $(\mathbb{C}\otimes B')(w_1\otimes w_1')=\mathbb{C} w_1\otimes B'w_1'=\mathbb{C} w_1\otimes M'\subseteq F$. Similarly, we have $\mathbb{C} w_i\otimes M'\subseteq F$. Now we have proved $F=K\otimes M'$, where $K=\{w\in M\ |\ w\otimes M'\subseteq F\}$. It is clear that $K$ is a $B$ submodule of $M$ and we have (1).
(2) and (3) follow easily from (1). Suppose that $V$ is a simple $R$ module and $V$ contains a $\mathbb{C}\otimes B'$ submodule $M'$ that is strictly simple. Then $V$ is a simple quotient of ${\rm Ind}_{B'}^{B\otimes B'} M'\cong B\otimes M'$. Now (4) follows from (2).
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} We do not have the results in the lemma if $M'$ is a simple instead of strictly simple $B'$ module. See for example \cite[Section 3.1]{CW}. \end{remark}
Let us briefly introduce exp-polynomial Lie superalgebras and exp-polynomial modules as in \cite{BZ}.
A Lie superalgebra $L$ is called $\mathbb{Z}^m$-graded if $L=\oplus_{\alpha\in \mathbb{Z}^m} L_{\alpha}$ as superspaces and $[L_{\alpha,\bar{i}},L_{\alpha',\bar{i'}}]\subseteq L_{\alpha+\alpha',\bar{i}+\bar{i}'},\forall \alpha,\alpha'\in \mathbb{Z}^m,\bar{i},\bar{i}'\in \mathbb{Z}_2$. Let $K=K_{\bar{0}}\sqcup K_{\bar{1}}$ be an index set. Then $L$ is said to be a $\mathbb{Z}^m$-graded {\it exp-polynomial Lie superalgebra} if $L$ has a spanning set $\{g_{k}(\alpha)|k\in K, \alpha\in \mathbb{Z}^m\}$ with $g_{k}(\alpha)\in L_{\alpha,\bar{i}},\forall k\in K_{\bar{i}} $, and there exists a family of exp-polynomial functions $\{f_{k,k'}^s(\alpha,\alpha')|k,k',s\in K\}$ in $2m$ variables $\alpha_i,\alpha_i'$ and where for each $k,k'$ the set $\{s|f_{k,k'}^s(\alpha,\alpha')\ne 0\}$ is finite, such that $[g_{k}(\alpha),g_{k'}(\alpha')]=\sum_{s\in K}f_{k,,k'}^s(\alpha,\alpha')g_{s}(\alpha+\alpha'), \forall k,k'\in K,\alpha,\alpha'\in \mathbb{Z}^m.$ An $L$ module $V$ is call $\mathbb{Z}^m$-graded if $V=\oplus_{\alpha\in \mathbb{Z}^m} V_{\alpha}$ as superspaces and $L_{\alpha,\bar{i}}V_{\beta,\bar{j}}\subseteq V_{\alpha+\beta,\bar{i+j}},\forall \bar{i,}\bar{j}\in \mathbb{Z}_2, \alpha,\beta\in \mathbb{Z}^m$. Let $J=J_{\bar{0}}\sqcup J_{\bar{1}}$ be a finite index set. Then a $\mathbb{Z}^m$-graded $L$ module $V$ is called {\it $\mathbb{Z}^m$-graded exp-polynomial modules} if $V$ has a spanning set $\{v_j(\alpha)|j\in J, \alpha \in \mathbb{Z}^m\}$ with $v_j(\alpha)\in V_{\alpha,\bar{i}},\forall j\in J_{\bar{i}}$, and there exists a family of exp-polynomial functions $h_{k,j}^{j'}(\alpha,\beta)$ for $k\in K, j,j'\in J$ such that $g_{k}(\alpha)v_{j}(\beta)=\sum_{j'\in J}h_{k,j}^{j'}(\alpha,\beta)v_{j'}(\alpha+\beta)$, where for each $k,j$ the set $\{j'|h_{k,j}^{j'}(\alpha,\beta)\ne 0\}$ is finite. A $\mathbb{Z}^m$-graded exp-polynomial Lie superalgebra $L$ is called {\it $\mathbb{Z}^m$-extragraded} if $L$ has another $\mathbb{Z}$-gradation \begin{equation}\label{extragrading}L=\oplus_{s\in\mathbb{Z}} L^{(s)}\end{equation} and the set $K$ is a disjoint union of finite subsets $K_s$ such that $\{g_{k}(\alpha)|k\in K_{s}, \alpha\in \mathbb{Z}^m\}$ spans the vector superspace $L^{(s)}$ for each $s\in \mathbb{Z}$.
Assume that $V=\oplus_{\alpha\in \mathbb{Z}^m} V_{\alpha}$ is a $\mathbb{Z}^m$-graded exp-polynomial $L^{(0)}$ module. we can define the action of $L^+=\oplus_{i\in \mathbb{N}} L^{(i)}$ on $V$ by $L^+V=0$ and then consider the induced module $\tilde{M}(V)={\rm Ind}_{L^{(0)}+L^+}^L V\cong U(L^{-})\otimes V$. It is clear that $\tilde{M}(V)$ is a $\mathbb{Z}^{m+1}$-graded module over $L$. And $\tilde{M}(V)$ has a unique maximal proper $\mathbb{Z}^{m+1}$-graded submodule $\tilde{M}^{rad}$ which intersects trivialy with $V$. Let $M(V)=\tilde{M}(V)/\tilde{M}^{\text{rad}}$.
\begin{lemma}\label{exp}\cite[Theorem 1.5]{BZ} Let $L$ be a $\mathbb{Z}^m$-extragraded Lie superalgebra with grading (\ref{extragrading}), and $V$ be a $\mathbb{Z}^m$-graded exp-polynomial $L^{(0)}$ module. Then the $\mathbb{Z}^{m+1}$-graded $L$ module $M(V)$ has finite-dimensional $\mathbb{Z}^{m+1}$-graded spaces.\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}The proof is similar to that of Theorem 1.5 in \cite{BZ}. \end{proof}
\section{Cuspidal modules}
In this section, we will classify simple cuspidal $W_{m,n}$ modules. Let us fix a $ (m,n)\in \mathbb{Z}_+^2\backslash \{(0,0)\}$. Denote $A=A_{m,n}, W=W_{m,n}, \tilde{W}=\tilde{W}_{m,n}$, and $\Delta=\Delta_{m,n}$ for short.
A $\tilde{W}$ module $M$ is called an $AW$ module if the action of $A$ on $M$ is associative, i.e.,
$$a\cdot a'\cdot v=(aa')\cdot v, t^0\cdot v=v,\, \forall a,a'\in A,\ v\in M.$$
Denote by $\tau(i_1,\ldots,i_k)$ the inverse order of the sequence $i_1,\ldots,i_k$, and $\tau(I,J):=\tau(\underline{I},\underline{J})=\tau(k_1,\dots,k_s,l_1,\dots,l_r)$ when $I\cap J=\varnothing$, where $\underline{I}=(k_1,\dots,k_s),\underline{J}=(l_1,\dots,l_r)$. We set $\tau(\varnothing,\varnothing)=\tau(\varnothing)=0$. Denote $\xi_{I,J}=\xi_I\xi_J$. Then $\xi_{I\cup J}=(-1)^{\tau(I,J)}\xi_I\xi_J$ for all $I\cap J=\varnothing$.
Let $\mathcal{J}$ be the left ideal of $U(\tilde{W})$ generated by $\{t^0-1,t^{\alpha}\xi_I\cdot t^{\beta}\xi_J-t^{\alpha+\beta}\xi_I\xi_J|\alpha,\beta\in \mathbb{Z}^m, I,J\subseteq \{1,2,\ldots,n\} \}$. Then it is easy to see that $\mathcal{J}$ is in fact an ideal of $U(\tilde{W})$. Now we have the quotient algebra $\bar{U}_{m,n}=U(\tilde{W})/{\mathcal{J}}=(U(A) U(W))/\mathcal{J}$. From PBW Theorem, we may identify $A$, $W$ with their images in $\bar{U}=\bar{U}_{m,n}$. Thus $\bar{U}=A\cdot U(W)$. And denote by $K_{m,n}$ the associative supersubalgebra of $\bar{U}$ generated by $A$ and $\Delta$, which is the Weyl superalgebra, see \cite{SZZ}.
$A\cdot W$ is a Lie supersubalgebra of $\bar{U}$ with a basis $${\{}t^{\alpha}\xi_I\cdot t^{\beta}\xi_Jd_i,t^{\alpha}\xi_I\cdot t^{\beta}\xi_J\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi_j}| i=1,2,\ldots,m;j=1,2,\ldots,n;\alpha,\beta\in \mathbb{Z}^m;I,J\subseteq \{1,2,\ldots,n\}{\}}$$ and the brackets
\begin{equation*}[f\cdot b, g\cdot d]=f[b,g]\cdot d-(-1)^{|f\cdot b||g\cdot d|}g[d,f]\cdot b+(-1)^{|b||g|}fg\cdot [b,d],\end{equation*} $\forall f,g\in A,b,d\in W$.
Let
\begin{eqnarray*}
&X_{\alpha,i}=t^{-\alpha}\cdot t^{\alpha}d_i-d_i,Y_{\alpha,j}=t^{-\alpha}\cdot t^{\alpha}\frac{\partial}{\partial\xi_j}-\frac{\partial}{\partial\xi_j},\\
&X'_{\alpha,I,i}=\sum_{J\subseteq I}(-1)^{\tau(J,I\setminus J)+|J|}t^{-\alpha}\xi_{J}\cdot t^{\alpha}\xi_{I\setminus J} d_i,\\
&Y'_{\alpha,I,j}=\sum_{J\subseteq I}(-1)^{\tau(J,I\setminus J)+|J|}t^{-\alpha}\xi_{J}\cdot t^{\alpha}\xi_{I\setminus J} \frac{\partial}{\partial\xi_j},\\ & \forall \alpha\in\mathbb{Z}^m,\ i\in\{1,\dots,\ m\},\ j\in\{1,\dots,\ n\}, I\subseteq \{1,2,\ldots,n\}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Let $\mathcal{T}=\mathcal{T}_{m,n}$ be the supersubspace of $\bar{U}$ with a basis $\mathcal{B}$ consisting of $X_{\alpha,i},Y_{\alpha,j},X'_{\beta,I,i},Y'_{\beta,I,j}$, where $\alpha\in \mathbb{Z}^m\setminus\{0\}, \beta\in\mathbb{Z}^m, i\in\{1,\dots,\ m\},\ j\in\{1,\dots,\ n\}, \varnothing\ne I\subseteq \{1,2,\ldots,n\}$.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem3.1}Let $\underline{I}=(l_1,\ldots,l_k)$ and $s\in \{1,\ldots,k\}$. We have
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1).] $t^{-\beta}\cdot t^{\beta}\xi_I d_i=\sum_{J\subseteq I}(-1)^{\tau(J,I\setminus J) }\xi_{J}\cdot X'_{\beta,I\setminus J,i}$;
\item[(2).]$t^{-\beta}\cdot t^{\beta}\xi_I\frac{\partial}{\partial\xi_j}=\sum_{J\subseteq I}(-1)^{\tau(J,I\setminus J)} \xi_{J}\cdot Y'_{\beta,I
\setminus J,j}$;
\item[(3).]$\sum_{J\subseteq I}(-1)^{\tau(J,I\setminus J)+|J|}t^{-\beta}\frac{\partial \xi_{J}}{\partial \xi_{l_s}}\cdot t^{\beta}\xi_{I\setminus J} d_i=(-1)^{s}X'_{\beta,I\setminus\{l_s\},i}$;
\item[(4).]$\sum_{J\subseteq I}(-1)^{\tau(J,I\setminus J)+|J|}t^{-\beta}\frac{\partial \xi_{J}}{\partial \xi_{l_s}}\cdot t^{\beta}\xi_{I\setminus J}\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi_{j}}=(-1)^{s}Y'_{\beta,I\setminus\{l_s\},j}$;
\item[(5).]$\sum_{J\subseteq I}(-1)^{\tau(J,I\setminus J)}t^{-\beta}\xi_{J}\cdot t^{\beta}\frac{\partial \xi_{I\setminus J}}{\partial \xi_{l_s}}d_i=(-1)^{s-1} X'_{\beta,I\setminus\{l_s\},i}$;
\item[(6).]$\sum_{J\subseteq I}(-1)^{\tau(J,I\setminus J)}t^{-\beta}\xi_{J}\cdot t^{\beta}\frac{\partial \xi_{I\setminus J}}{\partial \xi_{l_s}} \frac{\partial}{\partial \xi_{j}}=(-1)^{s-1} Y'_{\beta,I\setminus\{l_s\},j}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} First of all, from
\begin{align*}&\Big(\sum_{J\subseteq K} (-1)^{\tau(J,I\setminus J)+\tau(K\setminus J, I\setminus K)+|K\setminus J|+\tau(J,K\setminus J)}\Big)\xi_{K}\xi_{I\setminus K}\\
&=\sum_{J\subseteq K} (-1)^{\tau(J,I\setminus J)+\tau(K\setminus J, I\setminus K)+|K\setminus J|}\xi_{J} \xi_{K\setminus J}\xi_{I\setminus K}\\ &=\sum_{J\subseteq K} (-1)^{\tau(J,I\setminus J)+|K\setminus J|}\xi_{J} \xi_{(K\setminus J)\cup (I\setminus K)}\\& =\sum_{J\subseteq K} (-1)^{\tau(J,I\setminus J)+|K\setminus J|}\xi_{J} \xi_{I\setminus J}\\ &=\sum_{J\subseteq K} (-1)^{|K\setminus J|}\xi_{I}=0,\forall K\ne \varnothing,\end{align*} we have $\sum_{J\subseteq K} (-1)^{\tau(J,I\setminus J)+\tau(K\setminus J, I\setminus K)+|K\setminus J|+\tau(J,K\setminus J)}=0,\forall \varnothing \ne K\subseteq I$.
Then \begin{align*}&\sum_{J\subseteq I}(-1)^{\tau(J,I\setminus J) }\xi_{J}\cdot X'_{\beta,I\setminus J,i}\\
&= \sum_{J\subseteq I}\sum_{J'\subseteq I\setminus J}(-1)^{\tau(J,I\setminus J) }(-1)^{\tau(J', I\setminus (J\cup J'))+|J'|}\xi_{J}\cdot t^{-\beta}\xi_{J'}\cdot t^{\beta}\xi_{I\setminus (J\cup J')}d_i\\
&=\sum_{K\subseteq I}\sum_{J\subseteq K}(-1)^{\tau(J,I\setminus J)+\tau(K\setminus J, I\setminus K)+|K\setminus J|}\xi_{J}\cdot t^{-\beta}\xi_{K\setminus J}\cdot t^{\beta}\xi_{I\setminus K}d_i\\
&=\sum_{K\subseteq I}\sum_{J\subseteq K}(-1)^{\tau(J,I\setminus J)+\tau(K\setminus J, I\setminus K)+|K\setminus J|+\tau(J,K\setminus J)} t^{-\beta}\xi_{K}\cdot t^{\beta}\xi_{I\setminus K}d_i\\
&=t^{-\beta}\cdot t^{\beta}\xi_I d_i+\sum_{\varnothing\ne K\subseteq I}\Big(\sum_{J\subseteq K}(-1)^{\tau(J,I\setminus J)+\tau(K\setminus J, I\setminus K)+|K\setminus J|+\tau(J,K\setminus J)}\Big) t^{-\beta}\xi_{K}\cdot t^{\beta}\xi_{I\setminus K}d_i\\
&=t^{-\beta}\cdot t^{\beta}\xi_I d_i.\end{align*} We get (1).
Similarly we have (2).
For any $\underline{J}=(l_{i_1},\ldots l_{i_p})$ with $i_q=s$ for some $1\le q\le p$, there are exactly $(s-1)-(q-1)=s-q$ elements in $I\setminus J$ smaller than $l_{s}$. So $\tau(J,I\setminus J)=s-q+\tau(J\setminus \{l_s\}, I\setminus J)$. Then $(-1)^{\tau(J,I\setminus J)+|J|}\frac{\partial \xi_{J}}{\partial \xi_{l_s}}=(-1)^{\tau(J\setminus\{l_s\},I\setminus J)+s-q+|J\setminus\{l_s\}|+1}(-1)^{q-1} \xi_{J\setminus\{l_s\}}=(-1)^{\tau(J\setminus\{l_s\},I\setminus J)+|J\setminus\{l_s\}|+s} \xi_{J\setminus\{l_s\}}$. Thus
\begin{align*}&\sum_{J\subseteq I}(-1)^{\tau(J,I\setminus J)+|J|}t^{-\beta}\frac{\partial \xi_{J}}{\partial \xi_{l_s}}\cdot t^{\beta}\xi_{I\setminus J} d_i\\
&=\sum_{l_s\in J\subseteq I}(-1)^{\tau(J\setminus\{l_s\},I\setminus J)+|J\setminus\{l_s\}|+s}t^{-\beta}\xi_{J\setminus \{l_s\}}\cdot t^{\beta}\xi_{I\setminus J} d_i=(-1)^{s}X'_{\beta,I\setminus\{l_s\},i}.
\end{align*} So we get (3). Similarly we have (4). Now for any $\underline{I\setminus J}=(l_{i_{p+1}},\ldots,l_{i_k})$ with $i_{q}=s$ for some $p+1\le q\le k$, there are exactly $(k-s)-(k-q)$ elements in $J$ greater than $l_s$. Thus $\tau(J,I\setminus J)=q-s+\tau(J, I\setminus (J\cup \{l_s\}))$ and $(-1)^{\tau(J,I\setminus J)}\frac{\partial \xi_{I\setminus J}}{\partial \xi_{l_s}} =(-1)^{\tau(J, I\setminus (J\cup \{l_s\}))+q-s}\frac{\partial \xi_{I\setminus J}}{\partial \xi_{l_s}}=(-1)^{\tau(J, I\setminus (J\cup \{l_s\}))+q-s}(-1)^{q-|J|-1}\xi_{ I\setminus (J\cup \{l_s\})}=(-1)^{\tau(J, I\setminus (J\cup \{l_s\}))+|J|+s-1}\xi_{ I\setminus (J\cup \{l_s\})}$, from which we may easily deduce (5) and (6).
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem3.2}{\rm (1).} $\mathcal{T}=\{x\in A\cdot W|[x, \Delta]=[x,A]=0\}$. Thus $\mathcal{T}$ is a Lie supersubalgebra of $\bar U$.
{\rm (2).} $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}=\mathcal{B}\cup \{d_i,\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi_j}|i=1,\ldots,m;j=1,\ldots,n\}$ is a basis of the free left $A$ module $A\cdot W$.\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}From Lemma \ref{lem3.1} (1) and (2), we know that $\mathcal{B}\cup \{d_i,\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi_j}|i=1,\ldots,m;j=1,\ldots,n\}$ is a generating set of the free left $A$ module $A\cdot W$. And it is straightforward to verify that $\mathcal{B}\cup \{d_i,\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi_j}|i=1,\ldots,m;j=1,\ldots,n\}$ is $A$-linearly independent. So we have (2). Denote $T_1=\{x\in A\cdot W|[x, \Delta]=[x,A]=0\}$. It is easy to see that $[\mathcal{T},A]=0$, and from Lemma \ref{lem3.1} (3)-(6), we have $[\mathcal{T},\Delta]=0$. So $\mathcal{T}\subseteq T_1$.
Using (2), for any $x\in T_1$, write $x=\sum_{i=1}^k f_i\cdot x_i+x'$ with $f_i\in A, x_i\in \mathcal{B},x'\in A\cdot \Delta$. Then $[d,x]=\sum_{i=1}^k[d,f_i]\cdot x_i+[d,x']=0,\forall d\in \Delta$. That is $[\Delta, f_i]=[\Delta,x']=0,\forall i=1,2,\ldots,k$. So we have $f_i\in \mathbb{C}$ and $x'\in \Delta$. And from $[x, f]=[x',f]=0,\forall f\in A$, we have $x'=0$. Now $T_1\subseteq \mathcal{T}$. So we have proved $\mathcal{T}=T_1$, which is (1).
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem3.3} We have the associative superalgebra isomorphism \begin{equation}\label{iota}
\iota:K_{m,n}\otimes U(\mathcal{T})\rightarrow \overline{U}, \ \
\iota(x \otimes y)=x\cdot y,
\end{equation}
where $x\in K_{m,n}, y\in U(\mathcal{T})$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Note that $\mathcal{T}$ is a Lie supersubalgebra of $\bar{U}$ and $K_{m,n}$ is an associative supersubalgebra of $\bar{U}$. So the restrictions of $\iota$ on $K_{m,n}$ and $U(\mathcal{T})$ are well-defined. From Lemma \ref{lem3.2}, $\iota(K_{m,n})$ and $\iota(U(\mathcal{T}))$ are super commutative in $\bar{U}$. Hence $\iota$ is a well-defined homomorphism of associative superalgebras. Let $W'=A\otimes \mathcal{T}+(A\cdot \Delta+A)\otimes \mathbb{C} \subseteq K_{m,n}\otimes U(\mathcal{T})$. From Lemma \ref{lem3.1} (1) and (2), it is straightforward to verify that $\iota'=\iota|_{W'}:W'\rightarrow A\cdot W+A$ is bijective hence a Lie superalgebra isomorphism. Therefore, the restriction of ${\iota'}^{-1}$ to $\tilde{W}=W+A$ gives a Lie superalgebra homomorphism $\eta: \tilde{W}\rightarrow K_{m,n}\otimes U(\mathcal{T})$ with
\begin{equation}\begin{split}&\eta(t^{\beta}\xi_I)=t^{\beta}\xi_I\otimes 1;\\
&\eta(t^{\beta}\xi_Id_i)=\sum_{ J\subsetneq I}(-1)^{\tau(J,I\setminus J) }t^{\beta}\xi_{J}\otimes X'_{\beta,I\setminus J,i}+t^{\beta}\xi_I\otimes X_{\beta,i}+(t^{\beta}\xi_I\cdot d_i)\otimes 1;\\
&\eta(t^{\beta}\xi_I\frac{\partial}{\partial\xi_j})=\sum_{J\subsetneq I}(-1)^{\tau(J,I\setminus J) }t^{\beta}\xi_{J}\otimes Y'_{\beta,I\setminus J,j}+t^{\beta}\xi_I\otimes Y_{\beta,j}+(t^{\beta}\xi_I\cdot\frac{\partial}{\partial\xi_j})\otimes 1.\end{split}
\end{equation}
So we have the associative superalgebra homomorphism $\tilde{\eta}:U(\tilde{W})\rightarrow K_{m,n}\otimes U(\mathcal{T})$ with $\tilde{\eta}|_{\tilde{W}}=\eta$. And it is clear that $\mathcal{J}\subseteq {\rm Ker}(\tilde{\eta})$. Hence we have the induced associative superalgebra homomorphism $\bar{\eta}:\bar{U}\rightarrow K_{m,n}\otimes U(\mathcal{T})$. It is clear that $\bar{\eta}=\iota^{-1}$ and $\iota$ is an isomorphism.
\end{proof}
Let $\mathfrak{m}=\mathfrak{m}_{m,n}$ be the maximal ideal of $A_{m,n}$ generated by $t_i-1, \xi_j, i=1,2,\ldots,m;j=1,2,\ldots,n$. Then $\mathfrak{m}\Delta$ is a Lie super subalgebra of $W=A\Delta$. And $\mathfrak{m}\Delta$ has a basis consisting of
\begin{equation}
(t^\alpha-1)d_i,(t^\alpha-1)\frac{\partial}{\partial\xi_j},t^\beta\xi_{I}d_i,
t^\beta\xi_{I}\frac{\partial}{\partial\xi_j},\end{equation}
$\alpha\in\mathbb{Z}^m\setminus \{0\}, \beta\in \mathbb{Z}^m,\, i=1,\dots,m,\ j=1,\dots,n; \varnothing\ne I \subseteq\{1,\dots,n\}.$
In general, the Lie brackets in $\mathcal{T}$ is hard to compute out directly even for $W_{m,0}$, see \cite{E2}. Here we construct a new isomorphism from $\mathcal{T}$ to $\mathfrak{m}\Delta$, which we believe is useful for further study on various Lie superalgebras of Cartan type.
Define a linear map $\psi:\mathcal{T}\rightarrow \mathfrak{m}\Delta$ by
\begin{equation}\begin{split}&\psi(X_{\alpha,i})=(t^\alpha-1)d_i, \psi(X'_{\alpha,I,i})=t^\alpha\xi_{I}d_i,\\
&\psi(Y_{\alpha,i})=(t^\alpha-1)\frac{\partial}{\partial\xi_i},\psi(Y'_{\alpha,I,i})=t^\alpha\xi_{I}\frac{\partial}{\partial\xi_i}. \end{split}\end{equation}
$\psi$ is clearly an isomorphism of vector superspaces. In fact, we have
\begin{theorem}\label{the3.4}$\psi:\mathcal{T}
\rightarrow \mathfrak{m}\Delta$ is an isomorphism of Lie superalgebras.\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}From Lemma \ref{lem3.1} (1)(2), we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq3.5}\begin{split}
&(t^{\alpha}-1)d_i=t^{\alpha}\cdot X_{\alpha,i}+(t^{\alpha}-1)\cdot d_i;\\&(t^{\alpha}-1)\frac{\partial}{\partial\xi_j}=t^{\alpha}\cdot Y_{\alpha,i}+(t^{\alpha}-1)\cdot\frac{\partial}{\partial\xi_j};\\&t^{\alpha}\xi_Id_i=\sum_{ J\subsetneq I}(-1)^{\tau(J,I\setminus J) }t^{\alpha}\xi_{J}\cdot X'_{\alpha,I\setminus J,i}+t^{\alpha}\xi_I\cdot X_{\alpha,i}+t^{\alpha}\xi_I\cdot d_i ;\\&t^{\beta}\xi_{I'}\frac{\partial}{\partial\xi_j}=\sum_{J'\subsetneq I'}(-1)^{\tau(J',I'\setminus J') }t^{\beta}\xi_{J'}\cdot Y'_{\beta,I'\setminus J',j}+t^{\beta}\xi_{I'}\cdot Y_{\beta,j}+t^{\beta}\xi_{I'}\cdot\frac{\partial}{\partial\xi_j}.\end{split}
\end{equation}
Hence we have $\mathfrak{m}\Delta\subseteq \mathfrak{m}\cdot \Delta+A\cdot \mathcal{T}$. However $\mathfrak{m}\cdot \Delta+\mathfrak{m}\cdot \mathcal{T}$ is clearly an ideal of $\mathfrak{m}\cdot \Delta+A\cdot \mathcal{T}$, so we have the Lie superalgebra homomorphism $\omega:\mathfrak{m}\Delta\subseteq \mathfrak{m}\cdot \Delta+A\cdot \mathcal{T}\rightarrow (\mathfrak{m}\cdot \Delta+A\cdot \mathcal{T})/ (\mathfrak{m}\cdot \Delta+\mathfrak{m}\cdot \mathcal{T}) \rightarrow (A\cdot \mathcal{T})/(\mathfrak{m} \cdot \mathcal{T}) \rightarrow \mathcal{T}$. More precisely, from (\ref{eq3.5}), we have
\begin{equation}\begin{split}&\omega((t^\alpha-1)d_i)=X_{\alpha,i}, \omega(t^\alpha\xi_{I}d_i))=X'_{\alpha,I,i},\\
&\omega((t^\alpha-1)\frac{\partial}{\partial\xi_i})=Y_{\alpha,i},\omega(t^\alpha\xi_{I}\frac{\partial}{\partial\xi_i})=Y'_{\alpha,I,i}. \end{split}\end{equation}
Hence $\psi=\omega^{-1}$ and $\omega$ is a Lie superalgebra isomorphism, so is $\psi$.
\end{proof}
For any $\lambda\in \mathbb{C}^m$, let $\sigma_{\lambda}$ be the automorphism of the associative superalgebra $K_{m,n}$ with $\sigma_{\lambda}(d_i)=d_i+\lambda_i, \sigma_{\lambda}(\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi_j})=\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi_j}, \sigma_{\lambda}|_{A}={\rm id}_{A}$. Denote $A(\lambda):=A^{\sigma_{\lambda}}$. It is clear that $A(\lambda)\cong K_{m,n}/\mathcal{I}_{\lambda}$, where $\mathcal{I}_{\lambda}$ is the left ideal of $K_{m,n}$ generated by $d_i-\lambda_i, \frac{\partial}{\partial \xi_j},i=1,\ldots,m;j=1,\ldots,n$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem3.5} {\rm (1).} $A(\lambda)$ is a strictly simple $K_{m,n}$ module;
{\rm (2).} Any simple weight $K_{m,n}$ module is isomorphic to some $A(\lambda)$ for some $\lambda\in \mathbb{C}^m$ up to a parity-change.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} It is easy to see that $A(0)$ hence $A(\lambda)$ is a strictly simple $K_{m,n}$ module. Now let $V$ be any simple weight $K_{m,n}$ module with $\lambda\in {\rm supp}(V)$. Fix a nonzero homogeneous element $v\in V_{\lambda}$. Since $V'=\mathbb{C}[\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi_1},\ldots,\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi_n}]v$ is a finite-dimensional supersubspace with $\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi_1},\ldots,\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi_n}$ acting nilpotently, we may find a nonzero homogeneous element $v'\in V'$ with $\mathcal{I}_{\lambda} v'=0$. Then up to a parity-change $V=K_{m,n}v'$ is isomorphic to a simple quotient of $A(\lambda)\cong K_{m,n}/\mathcal{I}_{\lambda}$. That is $V\cong A(\lambda)$. \end{proof}
Now for any $\mathfrak{m}\Delta$ module $V$, we have the $AW$ module $\Gamma(\lambda,V ):=(A_{m,n}(\lambda)\otimes V)^{\phi_1}$, where $\phi_1:\bar{U}\stackrel{\eta}{\longrightarrow} K_{m,n}\otimes U(\mathcal{T}) \stackrel{{\rm id}\otimes \psi }{\longrightarrow} K_{m,n}\otimes U(\mathfrak{m}\Delta)$. More precisely, $\Gamma(\lambda,V)=A_{m,n}\otimes V$ with actions
\begin{equation}\label{eq3.7}\begin{split}&t^{\beta}\xi_Id_i \cdot (y\otimes v)=\sum_{J\subsetneq I} (-1)^{\tau(J,I\setminus J)+|I\setminus J||y|}t^{\beta}\xi_Jy\otimes t^{\beta}\xi_{I\setminus J}d_i v+t^{\beta}\xi_I y\otimes (t^{\beta}-1)d_i v\\&+(t^{\beta}\xi_I(d_i+\lambda_i)(y))\otimes v;\\
&t^{\beta}\xi_I\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi_j} \cdot (y\otimes v)=\sum_{J\subsetneq I} (-1)^{\tau(J,I\setminus J)+(|I\setminus J|+1)|y|}t^{\beta}\xi_Jy\otimes t^{\beta}\xi_{I\setminus J}\frac{\partial y}{\partial \xi_j} v\\
&+(-1)^{|y|}t^{\beta}\xi_I y\otimes (t^{\beta}-1)\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi_j} v+t^{\beta}\xi_I\cdot \frac{\partial y}{\partial \xi_j} \otimes v;\\
&x\cdot (y\otimes v)=xy\otimes v,\forall x,y\in A, v\in V.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem3.6} {\rm (1).} For any $\lambda\in \mathbb{C}^m$ and any simple $\mathfrak{m}\Delta$ module $V$, $\Gamma(\lambda, V)$ is a simple weight $AW_{m,n}$ module.
{\rm (2).} Let $M$ be any simple weight $AW_{m,n}$ module with $\lambda\in {\rm supp}(M)$. There exists a simple $\mathfrak{m}\Delta$ module $V$ such that $M\cong \Gamma(\lambda, V)$. \end{lemma}
\begin{proof} From Lemma \ref{lem3.5} (1) and Lemma \ref{lem2.2} (3) , we know that $A(\lambda)\otimes V$ is a simple $K_{m,n}\otimes U(\mathfrak{m}\Delta)$ module for any $\lambda\in \mathbb{C}^m$ and any simple $\mathfrak{m}\Delta$ module $V$. From the definition of $\Gamma(\lambda, V)$, we have (1).
Let $M$ be any simple weight $AW$ module with $\lambda\in {\rm supp}(V)$. Then $M^{\phi_1^{-1}}$ is a simple $K_{m,n}\otimes U(\mathfrak{m}\Delta)$ module. By a same argument as in the proof of Lemma \ref{lem3.5} (2), we may find a nonzero homogeneous $v'\in M_{\lambda}$ with $\mathcal{I}_{\lambda} v'=0$ and $K_{m,n}v'\cong A(\lambda)$ or $K_{m,n}v'\cong \Pi(A(\lambda))$. From Lemma \ref{lem2.2} (4), there exists a simple $U(\mathfrak{m}\Delta)$ module $P$ such that $M^{\phi_1^{-1}}\cong A(\lambda)\otimes P$ or $M^{\phi_1^{-1}}\cong \Pi(A(\lambda))\otimes P\cong A(\lambda)\otimes \Pi(P^{T})$. Note that the last isomorphism is due to Lemma \ref{lem2.1}. Thus (2) follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem3.7}{\rm (1).} $\mathfrak{m}\Delta/\mathfrak{m}^2\Delta\cong \mathfrak{gl}(m,n)$;
{\rm (2).} Let $V$ be any finite-dimensional $\mathfrak{m}\Delta$ module. Then there exists some $k\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $\mathfrak{m}^k \Delta V=0$;
{\rm (3). } Let $V$ be any finite-dimensional simple $\mathfrak{m}\Delta$ module. Then we have $\mathfrak{m}^2\Delta V=0$. Therefore, $V$ can be regarded as a simple $\mathfrak{gl}(m,n)$ module via the isomorphism in (1).\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} It is easy to verify that the linear map $\pi: \mathfrak{m}\Delta/\mathfrak{m}^2\Delta\rightarrow \mathfrak{gl}(m,n)$ defined by \begin{align*}&\pi((t_i-1)\frac{\partial}{\partial t_j}+\mathfrak{m}^2\Delta)=E_{i,j}, \pi(\xi_s\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi_j}+\mathfrak{m}^2\Delta)=E_{m+s,m+j}, \\& \pi((t_i-1)\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi_j}+\mathfrak{m}^2\Delta)=E_{i,m+j}, \pi(\xi_j\frac{\partial}{\partial t_i}+\mathfrak{m}^2\Delta)=E_{m+j,i}.\end{align*} is a Lie superalgebra isomorphism. So we have (1).
Let $V$ be any finite-dimensional $\mathfrak{m}\Delta$ module. Let $\Delta'={\rm span}\{\frac{\partial}{\partial t_i}, \frac{\partial}{\partial \xi_j}| i=1,2,\ldots,m; j=1,2,\ldots,n\}$. Let $A^+=\mathbb{C}[t_1,\ldots,t_m,\xi_1,\ldots,\xi_n]$, $d=\sum_{i=1}^{m}(t_i-1)\frac{\partial}{\partial t_i}+\sum_{j=1}^{n} \xi_j\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi_j}$ and $\mathfrak{m}^+=\mathfrak{m}\cap A^+$. Then $\mathfrak{m}^+=\oplus_{i=1}^{+\infty}\mathfrak{m}^+_i$ with $\mathfrak{m}^+_k=\{x\in \mathfrak{m}^+|[d,x]=kx\}={\rm span}\{(t_1-1)^{p_1}\cdots (t_m-1)^{p_m}\xi_I \in A^+|p_1+\cdots+p_m+|I|=k,p_1,\ldots,\mf{p}_m\in \mathbb{Z}_+\}.$ And $\mathfrak{m}^+\Delta'$ is a Lie supersubalgebra of $W=A\Delta'$.
Let $f(\lambda)=\Pi_{i=1}^s(\lambda-\lambda_i)^{k_i}$ be the characteristic polynomial of $d$ as an operator on $V$. Then there exists some integer number $k>3$ such that $(f(\lambda-l), f(\lambda))=1$ if $l\ge k-3$. From $f(d-l) (x v)=xf(d)v=0,\forall x\in \mathfrak{m}^+_{l+1}\Delta', v \in V$, we have $xv=0$. That is $(\mathfrak{m}^+)^{k-2} \Delta'V=0$. Let $\mathfrak{a}$ be the ideal of $\mathfrak{m}\Delta'$ generated by $(\mathfrak{m}^+)^{k-2}\Delta'$. Then $\mathfrak{a} V=0$. From $[yt^{\beta}d, xd]-[t^{\beta}d, yxd]=[y,xd]t^\beta d+y[t^{\beta}d,xd]-[t^{\beta}d,y]xd-y[t^{\beta}d,xd]=-2t^{\beta}yxd\in \mathfrak{a},\forall x\in (\mathfrak{m}^+)^{k-2},y\in \mathfrak{m}^+_1,\beta\in\mathbb{Z}^m $ we have $\mathfrak{m}^{k-1}d\subseteq\mathfrak{a}$. So $yx\partial=[yd, x\partial]+(-1)^{|x\partial||y|}x[\partial,y]d\in \mathfrak{a},\forall x\in \mathfrak{m}_1^+, y\in \mathfrak{m}^{k-1},\partial\in \Delta'$. Thus $\mathfrak{m}^k\Delta' \subseteq \mathfrak{a}$, which implies (2).
Now suppose $V$ is a finite-dimensional simple $\mathfrak{m}\Delta$ module. From (2), $V$ is also a simple module over $\mathfrak{m}^+\Delta'/(\mathfrak{m}^+)^k\Delta'\cong \mathfrak{m}\Delta'/\mathfrak{m}^k\Delta'=\mathfrak{m}\Delta/\mathfrak{m}^k\Delta$ for some $k$. So $d$ is diagonalizable on $V$. Let $\{\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_s\}$ be all eigenvalues of $d$ on $V$. Then all eigenvalues of $d$ on $(\mathfrak{m}^+)^2\Delta'V$ is contained in $\{\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_s\}+\mathbb{N}$. Thus $(\mathfrak{m}^+)^2\Delta'V\ne V$. From the simplicity of $V$ we have $(\mathfrak{m}^+)^2\Delta'V=0$. Hence $\mathfrak{m}^2\Delta V=0$. So we have (3) hold.
\end{proof}
Now we have the Lie superalgebra homomorphism $\bar{\psi}: \mathfrak{m}\Delta\rightarrow \mathfrak{m}\Delta/\mathfrak{m}^2\Delta\rightarrow \mathfrak{gl}(m,n)$ with
\begin{equation}\begin{split}&\bar{\psi}((t^{\alpha}-1)d_i)=\sum_{s=1}^m \alpha_s E_{si}, \bar{\psi}(t^{\alpha}\xi_Id_i)
=\left\{\begin{aligned}&E_{m+j,i}, &I=\{j\};\\
&0, &|I|>1,\end{aligned}\right.\\
&\bar{\psi}(t^{\alpha}-1)\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi_j})=\sum_{s=1}^m \alpha_sE_{s,m+j},\bar{\psi}(t^{\alpha}\xi_I\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi_j})=\left\{\begin{aligned}&E_{m+s,m+j}, &I=\{s\};\\
&0, &|I|>1.\end{aligned}\right. \end{split}\end{equation}
We therefore have the associative superalgebra homomorphism $\phi: \bar{U}\rightarrow K_{m,n}\otimes U(\mathfrak{m}\Delta)\rightarrow K_{m,n}\otimes U(\mathfrak{gl}(m,n))$ with
\begin{align*}&\phi(t^{\alpha}\xi_{I})=t^{\alpha}\xi_{I}\otimes 1,\\
& \phi(t^{\alpha}\xi_{I}d_i)=\sum_{s=1}^n (-1)^{|I|-1}\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi_s}(t^{\alpha}\xi_{I})\otimes E_{m+s,i}+\sum_{s=1}^m d_s(t^{\alpha}\xi_{I})\otimes E_{s,i}+(t^{\alpha}\xi_{I}\cdot d_i)\otimes 1,\\ &\phi(t^{\alpha}\xi_{I}\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi_j})=\sum_{s=1}^n (-1)^{|I|-1}\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi_s}(t^{\alpha}\xi_{I})\otimes E_{m+s,m+j}+\sum_{s=1}^m d_s(t^{\alpha}\xi_{I})\otimes E_{s,m+j}+(t^{\alpha}\xi_{I}\cdot \frac{\partial}{\partial \xi_j})\otimes 1.\end{align*}
For any $\mathfrak{gl}(m,n)$ module $V$, we have the $AW$ module $\Gamma(\lambda,V):=(A(\lambda)\otimes V)^{\phi}$, which will be called a {\it tensor} module or {\it Shen-Larsson} module. More precisely, $\Gamma(\lambda,V)=A_{m,n}\otimes V$ with actions
\begin{equation}\label{eq3.9}\begin{split}&xd_i \cdot(y\otimes v)=\sum_{s=1}^n (-1)^{|x|-1+|y|}\frac{\partial x}{\partial \xi_s}y \otimes E_{m+s,i}v+ \sum_{s=1}^m d_s(x)y\otimes E_{s,i}v+x(d_i(y)+\lambda_iy)\otimes v;\\
&x\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi_j} \cdot (y\otimes v)=\sum_{s=1}^n (-1)^{|x|-1}\frac{\partial x}{\partial {\xi_s}}y\otimes E_{m+s,m+j}v+\sum_{s=1}^m (-1)^{|y|}d_s(x)y\otimes E_{s,m+j}v +x\frac{\partial y}{\partial \xi_j}\otimes v;\\
&x\cdot (y\otimes v)=xy\otimes v,\forall x,y\in A_{m,n}, v\in V.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Recall that the finite-dimensional simple $\mathfrak{gl}(m,n)$ modules were classified in \cite{K}. We classify the simple cuspidal $AW$ module in the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem3.8} For any simple cuspidal $AW_{m,n}$ module $M$, there exists some finite-dimensional simple $\mathfrak{gl}(m,n)$ module $V$ and $\lambda\in \mathbb{C}^m$ such that $M\cong \Gamma(\lambda, V)$. \end{lemma}
\begin{proof}Let $M$ be a simple cuspidal $AW_{m,n}$ module. Then from Lemma \ref{lem3.6} (2), $M\cong \Gamma(\lambda, V)$ for some $\lambda\in \mathbb{C}^m$ and a simple $\mathfrak{m}\Delta$ module $V$. Since $M$ is cuspidal, we know that $V$ is a finite-dimensional $\mathfrak{m}\Delta$ module. Thus from Lemma \ref{lem3.7} (3), $V$ can be regarded as a simple $\mathfrak{gl}(m,n)$ module. So we have proved the lemma.\end{proof}
Next we are going to define the $A$-cover $\hat{M}$ of a cuspida $W$ module $M$.
Consider $W$ as the adjoint $W$ module. We can make the tensor product $W$ module
$W\otimes M$ into an $AW$ module by defining
$$ x \cdot (y \otimes v)=(xy)\otimes v, \forall x\in A, y\in W, v\in M. $$
Denote $K(M)=\{ \sum_{i=1}^k x_i\otimes v_i\in W\otimes M| \sum_{i=1}^k(ax_i) v_i=0,\forall a\in A\}$. Then it is easy to see
$K(M)$ is a $AW$ submodule of $W\otimes M$. Then we have the $AW$ module $\hat{M}=(W\otimes M)/K(M)$. As in \cite{BF1}, we call $\hat{M}$ {\it the cover of} $M$ if $WM=M$.
Clearly, the linear map
\begin{equation}\label{cover}\begin{split}
\pi: \,\,\hat{M} &\to\ \ WM,\\
w\otimes y+K(M)\ & \mapsto\ \ wy,\quad \forall\ w\in W, y\in M
\end{split}\end{equation}
is a $W$ module epimorphism.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem3.9}For any cuspidal $W_{m,n}$ module $M$, there exists some $l_0\in \mathbb{N}$ such that
$\sum_{i=0}^{l_0}(-1)^i \binom {l_0} i t^{\alpha+i\gamma} \xi_I \partial \cdot t^{\beta-i\gamma} d_\mathfrak{u} v=0,\,\forall\,\partial\in \Delta, I\subseteq \{1,\ldots,n\}, v\in M,\alpha,\beta,\gamma\in \mathbb{Z}^m,\mathfrak{u}\in \mathbb{C}^m$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} We only need to prove it for generic $\mathfrak{u}$. It's clear for $\gamma=0$. We assume that $\gamma\ne 0$ and $\mathfrak{u}$ is generic. Denote ${\rm ann(M)}=\{x\in U(W)|x M=0\}$. From \cite{BF1}, there exists some $l_0\ge 3$ such that $\Omega_{\alpha,\beta,\gamma}^{(l)} \in \rm ann(M), \forall l\ge l_0-3,\alpha,\beta\in \mathbb{Z}^m$, where $\Omega_{\alpha,\beta,\gamma}^{(l)}=\sum_{i=0}^{l}(-1)^i \binom {l} i t^{\alpha-i\gamma} d_\mathfrak{u} \cdot t^{\beta+i\gamma} d_\mathfrak{u}$. Then
\begin{align*}&[\Omega_{\alpha+s\gamma,\beta+p\gamma,\gamma}^{(l)}, t^{k\gamma}\xi_I \frac{\partial}{\partial \xi_j}]\\ &=\sum_{i=0}^{l}(-1)^i \binom {l} i [t^{\alpha+(s-i)\gamma} d_\mathfrak{u}, t^{k\gamma}\xi_I \frac{\partial}{\partial \xi_j}] \cdot t^{\beta+(p+i)\gamma} d_\mathfrak{u} \\ &+\sum_{i=0}^{l}(-1)^i \binom {l} i t^{\alpha+(s-i)\gamma} d_\mathfrak{u} \cdot [ t^{\beta+(p+i)\gamma} d_\mathfrak{u} ,t^{k\gamma}\xi_I\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi_j}] \\ &=k(\mathfrak{u},\gamma)\sum_{i=0}^{l}(-1)^i \binom {l} i t^{\alpha+(s+k-i)\gamma}\xi_I \frac{\partial}{\partial \xi_j} \cdot t^{\beta+(p+i)\gamma} d_\mathfrak{u} \\ &+k(\mathfrak{u},\gamma)\sum_{i=0}^{l}(-1)^i \binom {l} i t^{\alpha+(s-i)\gamma} d_\mathfrak{u} \cdot t^{\beta+(p+k+i)\gamma}\xi_I\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi_j}\in \rm ann(M).\end{align*}
Thus \begin{align*}&2[\Omega_{\alpha+\gamma,\beta,\gamma}^{(l)}, t^{-\gamma}\xi_I \frac{\partial}{\partial \xi_j}]-[\Omega_{\alpha+\gamma,\beta+\gamma,\gamma}^{(l)}, t^{-2\gamma}\xi_I \frac{\partial}{\partial \xi_j}]\\ &=-2(\gamma,\mathfrak{u})\Big( \sum_{i=0}^{l}(-1)^i \binom {l} i t^{\alpha-i\gamma}\xi_I \frac{\partial}{\partial \xi_j} \cdot t^{\beta+i\gamma} d_\mathfrak{u} - \sum_{i=0}^{l}(-1)^i \binom {l} i t^{\alpha-(1+i)\gamma}\xi_I \frac{\partial}{\partial \xi_j} \cdot t^{\beta+(i+1)\gamma} d_\mathfrak{u} \Big)\\&=-2(\gamma,\mathfrak{u})\Big( \sum_{i=0}^{l+1}(-1)^i \binom {l+1} i t^{\alpha-i\gamma} \xi_I \frac{\partial}{\partial \xi_j}\cdot t^{\beta+i\gamma} d_\mathfrak{u} \Big)\in \rm ann(M).\end{align*} We get \begin{equation}\label{eq3.11}\sum_{i=0}^{l+1}(-1)^i \binom {l+1} i t^{\alpha-i\gamma} \xi_I \frac{\partial}{\partial \xi_j}\cdot t^{\beta+i\gamma} d_\mathfrak{u} \in \rm ann(M).\end{equation}
From \begin{align*}&[\Omega_{\alpha+s\gamma,\beta+p\gamma,\gamma}^{(l)}, t^{k\gamma}\xi_I d_{\mathfrak{u}}]\\ &=\sum_{i=0}^{l}(-1)^i \binom {l} i [t^{\alpha+(s-i)\gamma} d_\mathfrak{u}, t^{k\gamma}\xi_I d_\mathfrak{u}] \cdot t^{\beta+(p+i)\gamma} d_\mathfrak{u}
\\ &+\sum_{i=0}^{l}(-1)^i \binom {l} i t^{\alpha+(s-i)\gamma} d_\mathfrak{u} \cdot [ t^{\beta+(p+i)\gamma} d_\mathfrak{u} ,t^{k\gamma}\xi_Id_\mathfrak{u}] \\ &=\sum_{i=0}^{l}(-1)^i \binom {l} i (\mathfrak{u},-\alpha+(k-s+i)\gamma)t^{\alpha+(s+k-i)\gamma}\xi_I d_\mathfrak{u} \cdot t^{\beta+(p+i)\gamma} d_\mathfrak{u} \\ &+\sum_{i=0}^{l}(-1)^i \binom {l} i (\mathfrak{u},-\beta+(k-p-i)\gamma) t^{\alpha+(s-i)\gamma} d_\mathfrak{u} \cdot t^{\beta+(p+k+i)\gamma}\xi_Id_\mathfrak{u} \in \rm ann(M),\end{align*}
We have
\begin{align*}&f(s,p,k)\\&:=2[\Omega_{\alpha+s\gamma,\beta+p\gamma,\gamma}^{(l)},t^{k\gamma}\xi_I d_{\mathfrak{u}}]-[\Omega_{\alpha+s\gamma,\beta+(p+1)\gamma,\gamma}^{(l)},t^{(k-1)\gamma}\xi_I d_{\mathfrak{u}}]-[\Omega_{\alpha+s\gamma,\beta+(p-1)\gamma,\gamma}^{(l)}, t^{(k+1)\gamma}\xi_I d_{\mathfrak{u}}]\\ &=2\sum_{i=0}^{l}(-1)^i \binom {l} i (\mathfrak{u},-\alpha+(k-s+i)\gamma) t^{\alpha+(s+k-i)\gamma}\xi_I d_\mathfrak{u} \cdot t^{\beta+(p+i)\gamma} d_\mathfrak{u}\\&-
\sum_{i=0}^{l}(-1)^i \binom {l} i (\mathfrak{u},-\alpha+(k-1-s+i)\gamma)t^{\alpha+(s+k-1-i)\gamma}\xi_I d_\mathfrak{u} \cdot t^{\beta+(p+1+i)\gamma} d_\mathfrak{u} \\&-
\sum_{i=0}^{l}(-1)^i \binom {l} i (\mathfrak{u},-\alpha+(k+1-s+i)\gamma)t^{\alpha+(s+k+1-i)\gamma}\xi_I d_\mathfrak{u} \cdot t^{\beta+(p-1+i)\gamma} d_\mathfrak{u}\in \rm ann(M).
\end{align*}
Then \begin{equation}\label{eq3.12}\begin{split}& \frac 1{-2(\mathfrak{u},\gamma)}(f(0,1,-1)-f(1,1,-2))\\&= -2\sum_{i=0}^{l}(-1)^i \binom {l} i t^{\alpha-(1+i)\gamma}\xi_I d_\mathfrak{u} \cdot t^{\beta+(1+i)\gamma} d_\mathfrak{u}+\sum_{i=0}^{l}(-1)^i \binom {l} i t^{\alpha-(2+i)\gamma}\xi_I d_\mathfrak{u} \cdot t^{\beta+(2+i)\gamma} d_\mathfrak{u}\\ &+\sum_{i=0}^{l}(-1)^i \binom {l} i t^{\alpha-i\gamma}\xi_I d_\mathfrak{u} \cdot t^{\beta+i\gamma} d_\mathfrak{u}\\&
=\sum_{i=0}^{l+2}(-1)^i \binom {l+2} i t^{\alpha-i\gamma}\xi_I d_\mathfrak{u} \cdot t^{\beta+i\gamma} d_\mathfrak{u}\in \rm ann(M).\end{split}
\end{equation}
Similarly, we have $\sum_{i=0}^{l+2}(-1)^i(^{l+2}_i)t^{\alpha-i\gamma}d_\mathfrak{u}\cdot t^{\beta+i\gamma}\xi_Id_\mathfrak{u}\in\rm ann(M)$.
Now for any $\mathfrak{u}'\in \mathbb{C}^m$ with $(\mathfrak{u}',\gamma)=0$, we have
\begin{align*}&[\Omega_{\alpha+s\gamma,\beta+p\gamma,\gamma}^{(l)}, t^{k\gamma}\xi_I d_{\mathfrak{u}'}]\\ &=\sum_{i=0}^{l}(-1)^i \binom {l} i [t^{\alpha+(s-i)\gamma} d_\mathfrak{u}, t^{k\gamma}\xi_I d_{\mathfrak{u}'}] \cdot t^{\beta+(p+i)\gamma} d_\mathfrak{u} \\ &+\sum_{i=0}^{l}(-1)^i \binom {l} i t^{\alpha+(s-i)\gamma} d_\mathfrak{u} \cdot [ t^{\beta+(p+i)\gamma} d_\mathfrak{u} ,t^{k\gamma}\xi_Id_{\mathfrak{u}'}] \\&=k(\mathfrak{u},\gamma)\sum_{i=0}^{l}(-1)^i \binom {l} i t^{\alpha+(s+k-i)\gamma}\xi_I d_{\mathfrak{u}'} \cdot t^{\beta+(p+i)\gamma} d_\mathfrak{u}\\&-(\alpha,\mathfrak{u}')\sum_{i=0}^{l}(-1)^i \binom {l} i t^{\alpha+(s+k-i)\gamma}\xi_I d_\mathfrak{u} \cdot t^{\beta+(p+i)\gamma} d_\mathfrak{u} \\ &+k(\mathfrak{u},\gamma)\sum_{i=0}^{l}(-1)^i \binom {l} i t^{\alpha+(s-i)\gamma} d_\mathfrak{u} \cdot t^{\beta+(k+p+i)\gamma} \xi_Id_{\mathfrak{u}'}\\&-(\beta,\mathfrak{u}')\sum_{i=0}^{l}(-1)^i \binom {l} i t^{\alpha+(s-i)\gamma} d_\mathfrak{u} \cdot t^{\beta+(k+p+i)\gamma}\xi_I d_\mathfrak{u}\in \rm ann(M).\end{align*}
From (\ref{eq3.12}), we have $g(s,p,k):=\sum_{i=0}^{l+2}(-1)^i \binom {l+2} i t^{\alpha+(s+k-i)\gamma}\xi_I d_{\mathfrak{u}'} \cdot t^{\beta+(p+i)\gamma} d_\mathfrak{u}\newline+\sum_{i=0}^{l+2}(-1)^i \binom {l+2} i t^{\alpha+(s-i)\gamma} d_\mathfrak{u} \cdot t^{\beta+(k+p+i)\gamma} \xi_Id_{\mathfrak{u}'}\in \rm ann(M),\forall k\ne 0$.
Then \begin{equation}\label{eq3.13}\begin{split}&g(1,0,-1)-g(1,1,-2)\\&=\sum_{i=0}^{l+2}(-1)^i \binom {l+2} i t^{\alpha-i\gamma}\xi_I d_{\mathfrak{u}'}\cdot t^{\beta+i\gamma} d_\mathfrak{u}\\& -\sum_{i=0}^{l+2}(-1)^i \binom {l+2} i t^{\alpha-(i+1)\gamma}\xi_I d_{\mathfrak{u}'} \cdot t^{\beta+(1+i)\gamma} d_\mathfrak{u}\\&=\sum_{i=0}^{l+3}(-1)^i \binom {l+3} i t^{\alpha-i\gamma}\xi_I d_{\mathfrak{u}'} \cdot t^{\beta+i\gamma} d_\mathfrak{u}\in \rm ann(M).\end{split}\end{equation}
The lemma follows from (\ref{eq3.11}),(\ref{eq3.12}) and (\ref{eq3.13}).
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem3.10} For any cuspidal $W_{m,n}$ module $M$, $\hat{M}$ is also cuspidal.\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} It is obvious for $m=0$. Suppose that $m\in \mathbb{N}$. Let $\|\alpha||= \sum_{i=1}^m|\alpha_i|$ for all $\alpha\in \mathbb{Z}^m$. From Lemma \ref{lem3.9}, there exists some $l_0\in \mathbb{N}$ such that
$\sum_{i=0}^{l_0}(-1)^i \binom {l_0} i t^{\alpha-i\gamma} \xi_I \partial \cdot t^{\beta+i\gamma} d_\mathfrak{u} v=0,\,\forall\,\partial\in \Delta, I\subseteq \{1,\ldots,n\}, v\in M,\alpha,\beta,\gamma\in \mathbb{Z}^m,\mathfrak{u}\in\mathbb{C}^m$. Then
\begin{equation}\label{eq3.14}\sum_{i=0}^{l_0}(-1)^i \binom {l_0} i t^{\alpha-i\gamma} \xi_I \partial \otimes t^{\beta+i\gamma} d_\mathfrak{u} v\in K(M) \end{equation}
for all $\partial\in \Delta, I\subseteq \{1,\ldots,n\}, v\in M,\alpha,\beta,\gamma\in \mathbb{Z}^m,\mathfrak{u}\in\mathbb{C}^m$.
We are going to prove by induction on $\|\alpha\|$ that
\begin{equation}\label{eq3.15}t^{\alpha}\xi_I \partial \otimes t^{\beta}d_{\mathfrak{u}} v\in \sum_{\begin{matrix}\|\alpha' \|\le ml_0,\\ I'\subseteq \{1,\ldots,n\}\end{matrix}}t^{\alpha'}\xi_{I'}\Delta\otimes M +K(M),\end{equation} for all $\alpha,\beta\in \mathbb{Z}^m,\partial\in \Delta, I\subseteq \{1,\ldots,n\},\mathfrak{u}\in\mathbb{C}^m,v\in M_{\lambda}$.
This is obvious for $\alpha\in\mathbb{Z}^m$ with $\|\alpha\|\le ml_0$. Now we assume that $\|\alpha\|>ml_0$. Without lose of generality, we may assume that $\alpha_1>l_0$. Then by (\ref{eq3.14}) and the induction hypothesis, for any $j\in\{1,\dots,m\}$, we have
$t^{\alpha}\xi_I \partial \otimes t^{\beta}d_j v=(\sum_{i=0}^{l_0}(-1)^i \binom {l_0} i t^{\alpha-ie_1} \xi_I \partial \otimes t^{\beta+ie_1} d_j v)-(\sum_{i=1}^{l_0}(-1)^i \binom {l_0} i t^{\alpha-ie_1} \xi_I \partial \otimes t^{\beta+ie_1} d_j v)\in K(M)$ as desired.
Since $M=M_0+(\sum_{j=1}^md_jM)$, we deduce that
\begin{equation}W\otimes M=
W\otimes M_0+\sum_{\begin{matrix}\|\alpha \|\le ml_0,\\ I\subseteq \{1,\ldots,n\}\end{matrix}}t^{\alpha}\xi_I\Delta\otimes M +K(M).\end{equation} Now it's clear that $\hat{M}=(W\otimes M)/K(M)$ is cuspidal.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{the3.11}Let $(m,n)\in \mathbb{Z}_+^2\backslash\{(0,0)\}$. Any nontrivial simple cuspidal $W_{m,n}$ module is isomorphic to a simple quotient of a tensor module $\Gamma(\alpha, V)$ for some finite-dimensional simple $\mathfrak{gl}(m,n)$ module $V$ and some $\alpha\in \mathbb{C}^m$. \end{theorem}
\begin{proof} Let $M$ be any nontrivial simple cuspidal $W$ module. Then $WM=M$, and there is an epimorphism $\pi:\hat{M}\rightarrow M$. From Lemma \ref{lem3.10}, $\hat{M}$ is cuspidal. Hence $\hat{M}$ has a composition series of $AW$ submodules:
$$0=\hat{M}^{(1)}\subset \hat{M}^{(2)}\subset\cdots \subset \hat{M}^{(s)}=\hat{M}$$ with $\hat{M}^{(i)}/\hat{M}^{(i-1)}$ being simple $AW$ modules. Let $l$ be the minimal integer such that $\pi(\hat{M}^{(l)})\ne 0$. Since $M$ is simple $W$ module, we have $\pi(\hat{M}^{(l)})=M$ and $\pi(\hat{M}^{(l-1)})=0$. This gives us an epimorphism of $W$ modules from the simple cuspidal $AW$ module $\hat{M}^{(l)}/\hat{M}^{(l-1)}$ to $M$. From
Lemma \ref{lem3.8}, we have $\hat{M}^{(l)}/\hat{M}^{(l-1)}$ is isomorphic to a tensor module $\Gamma(\alpha,V)$ for a finite-dimensional simple $\mathfrak{gl}(m,n)$ module $V$ and an $\alpha\in \mathbb{C}^m$. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\section{ Simple cuspidal modules over the extended Witt superalgebras}
For any $m\in \mathbb{N}$, let $G=\mathbb{Z} e_1+\cdots \mathbb{Z} e_{m-1}$, $W_{m,n}':=(W_{m,n})_{G}=A_{m-1,n}\Delta=W_{m-1,n}+A_{m-1,n}d_m, \tilde{W}_{m,n}':=(\tilde{W}_{m,n})_G=W_{m,n}'+A_{m-1,n}$ be Lie supersubalgebras of $\tilde{W}_{m,n}$. Clearly we have $W_{m,n}'\cong \tilde{W}_{m-1,n}$. In this section, we determine the simple cuspidal module over $W_{m,n}'$. Similarly, a $\tilde{W}_{m,n}'$ module is called $AW_{m,n}'$ module if $A_{m-1,n}$ acts associatively.
Let $\mathcal{J}'$ be the left ideal of $U(\tilde{W}_{m,n}')$ generated by $\{t^0-1,t^{\alpha}\xi_I\cdot t^{\beta}\xi_J-t^{\alpha+\beta}\xi_I\xi_J|\alpha,\beta\in \mathbb{Z}^{m-1}, I,J\subseteq \{1,2,\ldots,n\} \}$. Then $\mathcal{J}'$ is an ideal of $U(\tilde{W}_{m,n}')$ and we have the quotient algebra $\bar{U}'=(U(A_{m-1,n}) U(W_{m,n}'))/\mathcal{J}'$. From PBW Theorem, we may identify $A_{m-1,n}$, $W_{m,n}'$ with their images in $\bar{U}'$. Thus $\bar{U}'=A_{m-1,n}\cdot U(W_{m,n}')$ and we may regard $\bar{U}'$ as a supersubalgebra of $\bar{U}_{m,n}$. Let $\mathcal{T}'=\mathcal{T}_{m,n}\cap \bar{U}'$, $K'=K_{m,n}\cap \bar{U}'$. Let ${\mathfrak{a}}_{m,n}={\rm Span}\{E_{s,t}|s,t\in \{1,2,\ldots,m-1, m+1,\ldots, m+n\}\}\subseteq \mathfrak{gl}(m,n)$, ${\mathfrak{b}}_{m,n}={\rm Span}\{E_{s,m}|s\in \{1,2,\ldots,m-1, m+1,\ldots, m+n\}\}$ be Lie supersubalgebras of $\mathfrak{gl}(m,n)$. Then
\begin{lemma}\label{lem4.1} {\rm (1).} We have the associative superalgebra isomorphism
\begin{equation}\label{iota1}
\iota':K' \otimes U(\mathcal{T}')\rightarrow \bar{U}', \ \
\iota'(x \otimes y)=x\cdot y
\end{equation}
where $x\in K', y\in U(\mathcal{T}')$.
{\rm (2).} $\mathcal{T}'\cong \mathfrak{m}_{m-1,n}\Delta_{m,n}$.
{\rm (3).} $ \mathfrak{m}_{m-1,n}\Delta_{m,n}/ \mathfrak{m}_{m-1,n}^2\Delta_{m,n}\cong {\mathfrak{a}}_{m,n}\ltimes {\mathfrak{b}}_{m,n}\cong \mathfrak{gl}(m-1,n)\ltimes \mathbb{C}^{m-1,n}$.
{\rm (4).} For any finite-dimensional simple $\mathfrak{m}_{m-1,n}\Delta_{m,n}$ module $V$, we have $(\mathfrak{m}_{m-1,n}^2 \Delta_{m,n}+\mathfrak{m}_{m-1,n}d_m) V=0$. Hence $V$ can be regarded as a simple $ \mathfrak{gl}(m-1,n)$ module via $$\mathfrak{m}_{m-1,n}\Delta_{m,n}/(\mathfrak{m}_{m-1,n}^2 \Delta_{m,n}+\mathfrak{m}_{m-1,n}d_m)\cong \mathfrak{gl}(m-1,n).$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} The isomorphisms in (1)-(3) are restrictions of isomorphisms in Lemma \ref{lem3.3}, Theorem \ref{the3.4} and Lemma \ref{lem3.7} (1) respectively. For any finite-dimensional simple $\mathcal{T}'$ module $V$, by a same argument as in the proof of Lemma \ref{lem3.7} (2) and (3), we have $\mathfrak{m}_{m-1,n}^2 \Delta_{m,n} V=0$. Hence $V$ can be regarded as a finite-dimensional simple $\mathfrak{gl}(m-1,n)\ltimes \mathbb{C}^{m-1,n}$ module via the isomorphism in (3). Now we only need to show that $\mathbb{C}^{m-1,n} V=0$. Let $I$ be the identity matrix in $\mathfrak{gl}(m-1,n)$. Let $\{\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_s\}$ be the set of all eigenvalues of $I$ on $V$. Then from $[I,x]=x, \forall x\in \mathbb{C}^{m-1,n}$, we have the eigenvalues of $I$ on $\mathbb{C}^{m-1,n} V$ are contained in $\{\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_s\}+\mathbb{N}$. Therefore, $\mathbb{C}^{m-1,n} V\ne V$. And from the simplicity of $V$ we deduce that $\mathbb{C}^{m-1,n} V=0$ as required.\end{proof}
Now we have the homomorphism $\phi': \bar{U}'\rightarrow K'\otimes U({\mathfrak{m}}_{m-1,n}\Delta_{m,n})\rightarrow K'\otimes U(\mathfrak{gl}(m-1,n))$.
Let $A_{m,n}(\lambda)'=A_{m-1,n}\subset A_{m,n}(\lambda)$ be the $K'$ submodule of $A_{m,n}(\lambda)$. Then for any $\lambda\in \mathbb{C}^m$ and any simple $\mathfrak{gl}(m-1,n)$ module $V$ we have the $AW_{m,n}'$ module $\Gamma(\lambda,V)=(A_{m-1,n}(\lambda)' \otimes V)^{\phi'}$.
More precisely, $\Gamma(\lambda,V)=A_{m-1,n}\otimes V$ with the actions
\begin{equation}\label{eq4.2}\begin{split}&xd_i \cdot(y\otimes v)=\sum_{s=1}^n (-1)^{|x|-1+|y|}\frac{\partial x}{\partial \xi_s} y\otimes E_{m-1+s,i}v+ \sum_{s=1}^{m-1} d_s(x)y\otimes E_{s,i}v+x(d_i+\lambda_i)(y)\otimes v;\\
&x\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi_j}\cdot (y\otimes v)=\sum_{s=1}^n (-1)^{|x|-1}\frac{\partial x}{\partial {\xi_s}}y\otimes E_{m-1+s,m-1+j}v+\sum_{s=1}^{m-1} (-1)^{|y|}d_s(x)y\otimes E_{s,m-1+j}v\\& +x\frac{\partial y}{\partial \xi_j}\otimes v;\\
&xd_m\cdot (y\otimes v)=\lambda_mx y\otimes v;\\
&x\cdot (y\otimes v)=xy\otimes v,\forall x,y\in A_{m-1,n}, v\in V,i=1,2,\ldots,m-1;j=1,2,\ldots,n.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem4.2} For any simple cuspidal $AW_{m,n}'$ module $M$, there exists some finite-dimensional simple $\mathfrak{gl}(m-1,n)$ module $V$ and $\lambda\in \mathbb{C}^m$ such that $M\cong \Gamma(\lambda, V)$.\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} By a similar argument as in Lemma \ref{lem3.5}, we have $A_{m,n}(\lambda)'$ is a strictly simple $K'$ module and any simple weight $K'$ module is isomorphic to $A_{m,n}(\lambda)'$ up to a parity-change. Then by a similar argument as in Lemma \ref{lem3.6}(2), we have any simple cuspidal $AW_{m,n}'$ module $M$ is isomorphic to some $(A_{m,n}(\lambda)'\otimes V)^{\iota'^{-1}}$ for some simple $\mathcal{T}'$ module $V$. Since $M$ is cuspidal, we have $V$ is finite-dimensional. Thus from Lemma \ref{lem4.1} (4) $V$ can be regarded as a simple $\mathfrak{gl}(m-1,n)$ module.
The lemma follows from the definition of $\Gamma(\lambda, V)$.\end{proof}
Now we are going to define the $A_{m-1,n}$-cover $\hat{M}$ of a simple nontrivial cuspida $W_{m,n}'$ module $M$.
Consider $W_{m,n}'$ as the adjoint $W_{m,n}'$ module. We can make the tensor product $W_{m,n}'$ module
$W_{m,n}'\otimes M$ into an $AW_{m,n}'$ module by defining
$$ x \cdot (y \otimes v)=(xy)\otimes v, \forall x\in A_{m-1,n}, y\in W_{m,n}',v\in M. $$
Denote $K(M)=\{ \sum_{i=1}^k x_i\otimes v_i\in W_{m,n}'\otimes M| \sum_{i=1}^k(ax_i) v_i=0,\forall a\in A_{m-1,n}\}$. Then it is easy to see
$K(M)$ is an $AW_{m,n}'$ submodule of $W_{m,n}'\otimes M$. Then we have the $AW_{m,n}'$ module
$\hat{M}=(W_{m,n}'\otimes M)/K(M)$, which is called as {\it the cover of} $M$ if $W_{m,n}'M=M$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem4.3}If $M$ is a nontrivial simple cuspidal $W_{m,n}'$ module, then $\hat{M}$ is also cuspidal .\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}Let $L=\sum_{i=1}^{m-1} A_{m-1,n}(d_i+d_m)+\sum_{j=1}^n A_{m-1,n}\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi_j}$.
Then it is clear that
$L\cong W_{m-1,n}$. From $[d_m, W_{m,n}']=0$ and $M$ is a simple weight module, we see that $d_m$ acts as a scalar on $M$. Therefore, $M$ is a cuspidal $L$ module and
a cuspidal $W_{m-1,n}$ module. Let $K_1(M)=\{ \sum_{i=1}^k x_i\otimes v_i\in W_{m-1,n}\otimes M| \sum_{i=1}^k(ax_i) v_i=0,\forall a\in A_{m-1,n}\}$ and
$K_2(M)=\{ \sum_{i=1}^k x_i\otimes v_i\in L \otimes M| \sum_{i=1}^k(ax_i) v_i=0,\forall a\in A_{m-1,n}\}$. Then applying Lemma \ref{lem3.10} to $W_{m-1,n}$
module $M$ and $L$ module $M$ respectively, we have that $(W_{m-1,n}\otimes M)/ K_1(M)$ and $(L\otimes M)/ K_2(M)$ are cuspidal. Therefore, there exists a $N\in \mathbb{N}$, such that $\dim (W_{m-1,n}\otimes M)_{\lambda}/ K_1(M)_{\lambda}\le N$ and $\dim (L\otimes M)_{\lambda}/ K_2(M)_{\lambda}\le N$ for all $\lambda\in {\rm supp}(\hat{M})$. Note that $K(M)\supseteq K_1(M)+K_2(M)$. Thus $\dim \hat{M}_{\lambda} =\dim (W_{m,n}'\otimes M)_{\lambda}/K(M)_{\lambda}\le \dim ((W_{m-1,n}+L)\otimes M)/(K_1(M)+K_2(M))_{\lambda}=\dim ((W_{m-1,n}\otimes M+K_2(M))/((K_1(M)+K_2(M))_{\lambda}+(L\otimes M+K_1(M))/((K_1(M)+K_2(M)))_{\lambda} \le \dim (W_{m-1,n}\otimes M)_{\lambda}/ K_1(M)_{\lambda}+\dim (L\otimes M)_{\lambda}/ K_2(M)_{\lambda}\le N+N=2N$ for all $\lambda\in {\rm supp}(\hat{M})$. The lemma follows. \end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{the4.4} Let $(m,n)\in \mathbb{N}\times \mathbb{Z}_+$. Any nontrivial simple cuspidal $W_{m,n}'$ module is isomorphic to a simple quotient of a tensor module $\Gamma(\alpha, V)$ for a finite-dimensional simple $\mathfrak{gl}(m-1,n)$ module $V$ and an $\alpha\in \mathbb{C}^m$. \end{theorem}
\begin{proof}The proof is similar as that of Theorem \ref{the3.11}.\end{proof}
\section{Main result}
In this section, we are going to classification the simple weight $W$ modules with finite-dimensional weight spaces which are not cuspidal.
Let $m,n\in \mathbb{N}$, $e_1,\dots,e_m$ be the standard basis of $\mathbb{Z}^m$ and $W=W_{m,n}$. Then $\dim W_\alpha=2^n(m+n),\forall \alpha\in \mathbb{Z}^m$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem5.1}
Let $\alpha,\beta\in\mathbb{Z}^m$ with $\beta\neq 0$, then $[W_\alpha,W_\beta]=W_{\alpha+\beta}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $i'\in\{1,\dots,m\}$ such that $\beta_{i'}\neq 0$. For any $i\in\{1,\dots,m\},j\in\{1,\dots,n\},\ k\in\mathbb{Z}_+,I\subseteq \{1,\dots,n\}$, we have
\begin{equation*}\begin{split}
&[t^\alpha d_{i'},t^\beta\xi_I\frac{\partial}{\partial\xi_j}]=\beta_{i'}t^{\alpha+\beta}\xi_I\frac{\partial}{\partial\xi_j},\\
&[t^\alpha\xi_{I}\frac{\partial}{\partial\xi_1},t^\beta\xi_1 d_i]=t^{\alpha+\beta}\xi_{I}d_i+(-1)^{|I|}\alpha_it^{\alpha+\beta}\xi_1\xi_I\frac{\partial}{\partial\xi_1}.
\end{split}\end{equation*}
So $t^{\alpha+\beta}\xi_I\frac{\partial}{\partial\xi_j},t^{\alpha+\beta}\xi_Id_i\in[W_\alpha,W_\beta]$. Hence the lemma holds.
\end{proof}
From now on, we will assume that $M$ is a simple weight $W$ module with finite-dimensional weight spaces which is not cuspidal. Let $\lambda$ be a nonzero weight of $M$.
Now let $G$ be a subgroup of $\mathbb{Z}^m$, $\beta$ be a nonzero element of $\mathbb{Z}^m$ with $\mathbb{Z}^m=G\oplus\mathbb{Z}\beta$. Then $W$ has a triangular decomposition $W=W_{G-\mathbb{N}\beta}\oplus W_G\oplus W_{G+\mathbb{N}\beta}$.
Suppose $X$ is a simple weight $W_G$ module. Turn $X$ into a $W_G\oplus W_{G+\mathbb{N}\beta}$ module by setting $W_{G+\mathbb{N}\beta}\cdot X=0$.
Let $M(G,\beta,X)=U(W)\bigotimes_{U(W_G\oplus W_{G+\mathbb{N}\beta})}X$ be the induced $ W$ module. Then $M(G,\beta,X)$ has a unique simple quotient, which will be denoted by $L(G,\beta,X)$. We call $L(G,\beta,X)$ a {\it module of highest weight type} if $X$ is a cuspidal $g_G$ module.
The following result is well-known.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem5.2}Let $M$ be a $W_{1.0}$ weight module with finite-dimensional weight spaces and ${\rm supp}(M)\subseteq \lambda+\mathbb{Z}$. If for any $v\in M$, there exists some $N(v)\in \mathbb{N}$ such that $t_1^i d_1 v=0,\forall i\ge N(v)$. Then the weight set of $M$ is upper bounded, i.e., ${\rm supp}(M)\subseteq \lambda_0-\mathbb{Z}_+$ for some $\lambda_0\in \mathbb{C}$. \end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem5.3}If $m=1$, then $M$ is a highest (or lowest) weight module.\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}Since $M$ is not cuspidal, there is a $k\in \mathbb{Z}$, such that $\dim M_{-k+\lambda}>2^n(n+1)(\dim M_{\lambda}+\dim M_{\lambda-1})$. Without lost of generality, we may assume that $k\in \mathbb{N}$. Then there exists a nonzero homogeneous element $w\in M_{-k+\lambda}$ such that $ W_{k}w= W_{k+1}w=0$. Hence from Lemma \ref{lem5.1}, $ W_i w=0,\forall i\ge k^2$.
It is easy to see that $M'=\{v\in M| \dim W_{\mathbb{N}} v<\infty\}$ is a $ W$ submodule of $M$ with $w\in M'$. Hence $M'=M$. From Lemma \ref{lem5.2}, we know the weight set of $M$ is upper bounded. So $M$ has to be a highest weight module.
\end{proof}
We regard the general linear group ${\rm GL}_m(\mathbb{Z})$ as a subgroup of the automorphism group of $W_{m,n}$ by $B(t^{\alpha}\xi_Id_i)=t^{\alpha B^T}\xi_Id_{e_i B^{-1}}$ and $B(t^{\alpha}\xi_I\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi_j})=t^{\alpha B^T}\xi_I\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi_j}$ for all $i=1,2,\ldots,m;j=1,2,\ldots,n;\alpha\in\mathbb{Z}^m; I\subseteq \{1,2,\ldots,n\}, B\in {\rm GL}_m(\mathbb{Z})$.
Let generic $\mathfrak{u}$ and $Vir[\mathfrak{u}]$ be as defined in Section 2.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem5.4}Suppose that $m>1$. Let $G$ be a subgroup of $\mathbb{Z}^m$, $\beta$ be a nonzero element of $\mathbb{Z}^m$ with $\mathbb{Z}^m=G\oplus\mathbb{Z}\beta$, $X$ be a simple weight $ W_G$ module. Then $L(G,\beta, X)$ has finite-dimensional weight spaces if and only if $X$ is a cuspidal $ W_G$ module. \end{lemma}
\begin{proof}Replace $L(G,\beta, X)$ by $L(G,\beta, X)^g$ by a suitable $g\in {\rm GL}_m(\mathbb{Z})$ if necessary, we may assume that $G=\mathbb{Z} e_1+\cdots+\mathbb{Z} e_{m-1}$ and that $\beta=e_m$. It is straightforward to verify that $ W$ is a $G$-extragraded exp-polynomial Lie superalgebra. Suppose that $X$ is a nontrivial cuspidal $ W_G$ module. From Theorem \ref{the4.4}, $X$ is a $G$-graded exp-polynomial $ W_G$ module. Then from Lemma \ref{exp}, $L(G,\beta, X)$ has finite-dimensional weight spaces. Now suppose that $L(G,\beta, X)$ has finite dimensional weight spaces. Note that the support set of $L(G,\beta,X)$ is contained in $\gamma+G-\mathbb{Z}_+ \beta$ for some $\gamma\in{\rm supp}(X)$. Hence any nontrivial simple $\mathrm{Vir}[\mathfrak{u}]_G$ sub-quotient of $L(G,\beta,X)$ has to be isomorphic to $L_{\mathrm{Vir}[\mathfrak{u}]}(G,\beta,X')$ for some simple cuspidal $\mathrm{Vir}[\mathfrak{u}]_G$ module $X'$. This implies that all simple $\mathrm{Vir}[\mathfrak{u}]_G$ sub-quotients of $X$ are cuspidal. So we have $X$ is cuspidal.
\end{proof}
Now we will follow \cite{MZ} to deal with the case $m>1$. As we will see, the proof in \cite{MZ} still works for our algebra $ W$.
\begin{lemma}\cite[Lemma 3.2]{MZ}\label{lem5.5} Suppose that $m>1$.
After an appropriate change of variables $t_1,t_2,\ldots,t_m$ and weight $\lambda$, we may assume that $\lambda\ne 0$ and that there is a nonzero homogeneous vector $w\in V_\lambda$ such that $g_{e_i}\cdot w=0,i=1,\dots,m$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
$M$ as a $Vir[\mathfrak{u}]$ module is a weight module but not cuspidal. From \cite[Theorem 3.9]{LZ2}, we know that every nontrivial cuspidal $Vir[\mathfrak{u}]$ module has support set $\gamma+\mathbb{Z}^m$ or $\mathbb{Z}^m\setminus\{0\}$ for some $\gamma \in\mathbb{C}^m$. So $V$ has a simple $Vir[\mathfrak{u}]$-subquotient $X$ that is not cuspidal. Again by \cite[Theorem 3.9]{LZ2}, $X$ is a $Vir[\mathfrak{u}]$ module of highest weight type, and after an appropriate change of variables $t_1,t_2,\ldots,t_m$, $X$ is isomorphic to $L_{Vir[\mathfrak{u}]}(G,e_1,Y)$, where $G$ is the subgroup of $\mathbb{Z}^m$ generated by $e_2,\dots,e_m$, $Y$ is a simple cuspidal $\mathrm{Vir}[\mathfrak{u}]_G$ module. From \cite{LZ2}, $\dim V_{-ke_1+\lambda},k\in\mathbb{N}$ are not uniformly bounded. Fix an integer $N>3$, and let $B_N(\lambda)=\lambda+\{\alpha\in\mathbb{Z}^m\big||\alpha_i|\leqslant N,i=1,\dots,m\}$. Since $B_N(\lambda)$ is a finite set, there is a $k\in\mathbb{N}$ such that$-ke_1+\lambda\ne 0$ and $\dim M_{-ke_1+\lambda}>2^n(m+n)\sum_{\beta\in B_N(\lambda)}\dim M_\beta$.
Set $e'_1=(k+1)e_1+e_2,e'_2=ke_1+e_2,e'_j=e'_1+e_j$ for $3\leqslant j\leqslant m$. Then $\{e'_1,\dots,e'_m\}$ is a new $\mathbb{Z}$-basis of $\mathbb{Z}^m$ and $-ke_1+\lambda+e'_j\in B_N(\lambda)$ for all $j$. Since $\dim \mf{g}_{e'_i}=2^n(m+n)$, there exists a nonzero homogeneous element $w\in V_{-ke_1+\lambda}$ such that $g_{e'_i}\cdot w=0$ for all $i$. Then the lemma follows after replacing $\lambda$ with $-ke_1+\lambda$ and $e_i$ with $e'_i$.\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\cite[Lemma 3.3]{MZ}\label{lem5.6}
Suppose $m>1$. Let $e_1,\dots,e_m,\lambda$ and $w$ be as in Lemma \ref{lem5.5}. Then for any $v\in M$ there is a $N(v)\in \mathbb{N}$ such that $ W_\alpha\cdot v=0$ for any $\alpha\in\mathbb{Z}^m$ with $\alpha_i>N(v), \forall i=1,\dots,m$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Let $M'$ be the subset of $M$ consisting of $v\in M$ for which there is a $N(v)\in \mathbb{N}$ such that $ W_\alpha\cdot v=0$ for any $\alpha\in\mathbb{Z}^m$ with $\alpha_i>N(v), \forall i=1,\dots,m$. We need to show that $M=M'$. Clearly $M'$ is a subspace of $M$ with $w\in M'$.
Now for any $v\in M'$ and $\beta\in \mathbb{Z}^m$, let $N=max\{|\beta_1|,\dots,|\beta_m|\}$. Then any $\alpha\in\mathbb{Z}^m$ with $\alpha_i>N(v)+N,\ i=1,\dots,m$, we have
$$ W_\alpha W_\beta v\subseteq W_\beta\mf{g}_\alpha v+[ W_\alpha, W_\beta]v\subseteq W_\beta W_\alpha v+ W_{\alpha+\beta}v=0.$$
So $ W_\beta w\in M'$. $M'$ therefore is a nonzero submodule of the simple module $M$. Thus $M=M'$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\cite[Lemma 3.4]{MZ}\label{lem5.7}
Suppose $m>1$. Let $e_1,\dots,e_m,\lambda$ and $w$ be as in Lemma \ref{lem5.5}. Then $ W_{-\alpha}v\neq 0$ for any nonzero $v\in M$ and any $\alpha\in\mathbb{N}^m$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Suppose $ W_{-\alpha} v=0$ for some nonzero homogeneous $v\in M$ and $\alpha\in\mathbb{N}^m$. By Lemma \ref{lem5.6}, there is a $N\in \mathbb{N}$ such that $ W_{e_i+N\alpha}\cdot v=0,\ i=1,\dots,m$. Lemma \ref{lem5.1} implies that $ W$ is generated by $ W_{e_i+N\alpha},\ i=1,\dots,m$ and $ W_{-\alpha}$ as Lie superalgebra. Then $ W\cdot v=0$. This means that $M=\mathbb{C} v$, which contradicts with the assumption that $M$ is not cuspidal. So the lemma holds.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\cite[Lemma 3.5]{MZ}\label{lem5.8}
Suppose $m>1$. Let $e_1,\dots,e_m,\lambda$ and $w$ be as in Lemma \ref{lem5.5}. Then for any $\mathfrak{u}\in supp(M)$ and any $\alpha\in\mathbb{N}^n$ we have $\{k\in\mathbb{Z}|\mathfrak{u}+k\alpha\in supp(M)\}=\mathbb{Z}_{\leqslant m}$ for some $m\in\mathbb{Z}_+$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Let $S:=\{k\in\mathbb{Z}|\mathfrak{u}+k\alpha\in supp(V)\}$.
By Lemma \ref{lem5.7}, $S=\mathbb{Z}_{\leqslant m}$ for some $m\in\mathbb{Z}_+$ or $S=\mathbb{Z}$. Let $B={\rm span}\{t^{k\alpha}d_{\mathfrak{u}} |k\in\mathbb{Z}\}$ be the subalgebra of $\mathrm{Vir}[\mathfrak{u}]$. Then $B\cong W_{1.0}$ and $V=M_{\mathfrak{u}+\mathbb{Z}\alpha}$ is a weight $B$ module with finite-dimensional weight spaces.
By Lemma \ref{lem5.6}, for any $v\in V$, there is a $k_0\in \mathbb{N}$ such that $t^{k\alpha}d\cdot v=0$ for all $k\geqslant k_0$. From Lemma \ref{lem5.2}, the support set of $B$ module $M$ is upper bounded. Hence $S\ne \mathbb{Z}$, and the lemma follows.\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\cite[Lemma 3.6]{MZ}\label{lem5.9}
Suppose $m>1$. Let $e_1,\dots,e_m,\lambda$ and $w$ be as in Lemma \ref{lem5.5} . Then, after an appropriate change of variables $t_1,t_2,\ldots,t_m$, we have:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1).] $ W_{e_1}\cdot w=0,i=1,\dots,m$.
\item[(2).]$\lambda+\alpha\notin {\rm Supp}(M)$ for any nonzero $\alpha\in\mathbb{Z}_+^m$.
\item[(3).]$\lambda-\alpha\in {\rm Supp}(M)$ for any $\alpha\in\mathbb{Z}_+^m$.
\item[(4).]For any $\alpha,\beta\in\mathbb{Z}^m$ such that $\alpha_i\leqslant\beta_i,\ i=1,\dots,m$, we have $\lambda+\alpha\notin {\rm supp}(M)$ implies that $\lambda+\beta\notin {\rm supp}(M)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma \ref{lem5.8}, there is an integer $p\geqslant 2$ such that $\{k\in\mathbb{Z}|\lambda+k(1,\dots,1)\in {\rm supp}(M)\}=\mathbb{Z}_{\leqslant p-2}$. Let $e'_1=(p+1)e_1+pe_2+\dots+pe_m,e'_2=e_1+e_2+e'_1,e'_i=e'_1+e_i,i=3,\dots,m$.
Then $e'_1,\dots,e'_m$ is another $\mathbb{Z}$-basis of $\mathbb{Z}^m$. Replace $e_i$ with $e'_i$ for all $i\in\{1,\dots,m\}$. Then (1) is clear, and (3) follows from Lemma \ref{lem5.8}. (2) and (3) are proved in a similar way to the proof of Lemma \ref{lem5.7} by noting that $\lambda+(p-1)(1,1,\ldots,1)\not\in {\rm supp}(M)$. \end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\cite[Lemma 3.7]{MZ}\label{lem5.10}
Suppose $m>1$. Let $e_1,\dots,e_m,\lambda$ and $w$ be as in the Lemma \ref{lem5.9}. Then $M\cong L(G,\beta,X)$ for some subgroup $G$ of $\mathbb{Z}^m$ and $0\ne \beta\in \mathbb{Z}^m$ with $\mathbb{Z}^m=G\oplus \mathbb{Z}\beta$ and a simple cuspidal $ W_G$ module $X$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
$M$ is a weight $Vir[\mathfrak{u}]$ module with finite-dimensional weight spaces, then $M$ has a simple $Vir[\mathfrak{u}]$-subquotient $V$ with $V_\lambda\neq 0$. Since ${\rm supp} (V)\cap(\lambda+\mathbb{Z}_+^m)=\lambda$, $V$ is isomorphic to $L_{Vir[\mathfrak{u}]}(G,\beta,X)$ for some subgroup $G$ of $\mathbb{Z}^m$, nonzero $\beta\in\mathbb{Z}^m$ with $\mathbb{Z}^m=G\oplus\mathbb{Z}\beta$ and some simple cuspidal $Vir_G[\mathfrak{u}]$ module $X$. It follows that \begin{equation}\label{5.1}(\lambda-\mathbb{Z}_+\beta+G)\setminus\{0\}\subseteq {\rm supp}(M).\end{equation}
There exists $\alpha\in\mathbb{N}^m$ such that $G=\{\gamma\in\mathbb{Z}^m|(\gamma,\alpha)=0\}$. In fact, such $\alpha$ exists in $\mathbb{Z}^m$. If $\alpha_i=0$ for some $i\in\{1,\dots,m\}$, then $e_i\in G$. This contradicts with the fact that $(\lambda+G)\setminus\{0\}\subseteq {\rm supp}(M)$ and $\lambda+\gamma\notin {\rm supp}(M)$ for any nonzero $\gamma\in\mathbb{Z}_+^m$. So $\alpha_i\neq 0$ for all $i$. If $\alpha_i\alpha_j<0$ for some $i,j\in\{1,\dots,m\}$, then $\alpha_je_i-\alpha_ie_j\in G$ will also lead to a contradiction. Hence we may assume that $\alpha\in\mathbb{N}^m$.
Case 1. $\{\lambda+k\beta+G\}\cap {\rm supp}(M)=\varnothing$ for some $k\in\mathbb{N}$.
Choose $k$ as minimal as possible. Let $X'=M_{\lambda+(k-1)\beta+G}$. Then $V\cong L(G,\beta,X')$ with $X'$, from Lemma \ref{lem5.4}, being a simple cuspidal $ W_G$ module.
Case 2. $\{\lambda+k\beta+G\}\cap {\rm supp}(M)\neq\varnothing$ for all $k\in\mathbb{N}$.
Let $k_0\in\mathbb{Z}$ such that $\alpha\in k_0\beta+G$. From Lemma \ref{lem5.9}, we have $\lambda+k\alpha\notin {\rm supp}(M)$ for any $k\in\mathbb{N}$. This together with (\ref{5.1}) gives $k_0\in \mathbb{N}$.
Since $\alpha\in (k_0\beta+G)\cap\mathbb{N}^m$ with $k_0\in\mathbb{N}$, we can choose sufficiently large $k$ such that
(I)$|\{\lambda+k\beta+G\}\cap\{\lambda+\mathbb{Z}_+^m\}|>1$
(II)$|\{\lambda+(k-1)\beta+G\}\cap\{\lambda+\mathbb{Z}_+^m\}|>1$.
Then $M_{\lambda+k\beta+G}$ is a weight $\mathrm{Vir}_G[\mathfrak{u}]$ module with finite-dimensional weight spaces. From the assumption in (I), and the support set of a cuspidal module, we have $M_{\lambda+k\beta+G}$ is not cuspidal. From a same arguments as in the proof of Lemma \ref{lem5.5}, that there is a $\mathbb{Z}$-basis $\beta_2,\dots,\beta_m$ of $G,\mathfrak{u} \in\lambda+k\beta+G$ and a nonzero homogeneous vector $v\in M_\mathfrak{u}$ such that $ W_{\beta_i}v=0,i=2,\dots,m$.
Let $\nu\in\{\lambda+(k-1)\beta+G\}\cap\{\lambda+\mathbb{Z}_+^m\}$ with $\nu\neq\lambda$, which exists by (II). Then $\nu\notin {\rm supp}(M)$ by Lemma \ref{lem5.9} (2). Let $\beta_1=\nu-\mathfrak{u}$, then $ W_{\beta_1}v=0$. Clearly, $\beta_1,\dots,\beta_m$ is a $\mathbb{Z}$-basis of $\mathbb{Z}^m$. By Lemma \ref{lem5.6}, $\mathfrak{u}+r(\beta_1+\dots+\beta_m)\notin {\rm supp}(M)$ for sufficiently large $r$. On the other hand, for $r\in \mathbb{N}$, we have
$$(\alpha, r(\beta_1+\cdots+\beta_m))=r(\alpha,\beta_1)=-r(\alpha,\beta)<0.$$
Hence, $\mathfrak{u}+r(\beta_1+\dots+\beta_m)\in(\lambda-\mathbb{Z}_+\beta+G)\setminus\{0\}$ for sufficiently large $r$. This contradicts with (\ref{5.1}). Hence Case 2 cannot happen. The claim of the lemma follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{main} Let $(m,n)\in \mathbb{N}\times \mathbb{Z}_+$. Any simple weight $W=W_{m,n}$ module with finite-dimensional weight spaces is isomorphic to one of the following modules:
{\rm (1).} a simple quotient of a tensor module $\Gamma(\lambda, V)$, where $\lambda\in \mathbb{C}^m$ and $V$ is a finite-dimensional simple $\mathfrak{gl}(m,n)$ module;
{\rm (2).} a module $L(G,e_m, X)^B$ of highest weight type, where $G=\mathbb{Z} e_1+\ldots+\mathbb{Z} e_{m-1}$, $B\in {\rm GL}_m(\mathbb{Z})$, $X$ is a simple quotient of the $W_{G}$ module $\Gamma(\lambda, V)$ for some $\lambda\in \mathbb{C}^m$ and a finite-dimensional simple $\mathfrak{gl}(m-1,n)$ module $V$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} Let $M$ be any simple weight $W=W_{m,n}$ module with finite-dimensional weight spaces. If $M$ is cuspdial, we have (1) from Theorem \ref{the3.11}. Now suppose that $M$ is not cuspidal, then from Lemma \ref{lem5.3} and Lemma \ref{lem5.10}, we have $M\cong L(G,e_m, X)^B$, where $G=\mathbb{Z} e_1+\cdots+\mathbb{Z} e_{m-1}$, $B\in {\rm GL}_m(\mathbb{Z})$, and $X$ is a simple cuspidal $W_G$ module. From Theorem \ref{the4.4}, such $X$ is a simple quotient of the $W_G$ module $\Gamma(\lambda, V)$ for some $\lambda\in \mathbb{C}^m$ and a finite-dimensional simple $\mathfrak{gl}(m-1,n)$ module $V$. We therefore have (2) in this case. \end{proof}
{\bf Ackowledgement.} {This work is partially supported by NSF of China (Grant 11471233, 11771122, 11971440)}.
|
\section{Introduction}
Recently, there has been a lot of activities in the research on non-Hermitian
topological
systems\cite{Rudner2009,Esaki2011,Hu2011,Liang2013,Zhu2014,Lee2016,San2016,Leykam2017,Shen2018,Lieu2018,
Xiong2018,Kawabata2018,Gong2018,Yao2018,YaoWang2018,Yin2018,Kunst2018,KawabataUeda2018,Alvarez2018,
Jiang2018,Ghatak2019,Avila2019,Jin2019,Lee2019,Liu2019,38-1,38,chen-class2019,Edvardsson2019,
Herviou2019,Yokomizo2019,zhouBin2019,Kunst2019,Deng2019,SongWang2019,xi2019,Longhi2019,chen-edge2019
, including non-Hermitian topological insulators, non-Hermitian topological
superconductors, and non-Hermitian topological semi-metals. After considering
the non-Hermitian extensions of the usual topological band systems, quantum
exotic effects are uncovered, such as the fractional topological invariant and
defective edge states\cite{Lee2016,Yin2018}, non-Hermitian skin
effect\cite{Yao2018,Ghatak2019,Lee2019,SongWang2019,Longhi2019}, and the
breakdown of bulk-boundary
correspondence\cite{Xiong2018,Yao2018,YaoWang2018,Kunst2018,Herviou2019,Yokomizo2019,Kunst2019,Deng2019,Longhi2019
. In addition to the research on non-Hermitian topological band systems, the
non-Hermitian extensions of intrinsic topological orders that are many-body
topological systems with long range entanglement are studied\cite{kou-to,ud}.
In Ref.\cite{kou-to}, the non-Hermitian strings and the breakdown of the
correspondence between bulk quasi-particles and topologically protected
degenerate ground states are discovered. In Ref.\cite{ud}, a continuous
quantum phase transition without gap closing was explored that occurs in
non-Hermitian topological orders together with the breakdown of the
Lieb-Robinson bound.
Therefore, one must give it careful reconsideration on the non-Hermitian
extensions of topological stability for intrinsic topological orders. It was
well known that for the topological ordered states, due to the existence of
energy gap, the ground states are robust. The degeneracy of the ground states
depends on the topology of the system and is also robust against any small and
local perturbations. Topological phase transition between topological
ordered states and trivial states may occur when the perturbations become
large enough and are beyond certain thresholds.
In this paper, we will study topological stability for intrinsic topological
orders under non-Hermitian perturbations by taking the non-Hermitian
toric-code model as an example. The effect of non-Hermitian avalanche for a
designed toric-code model is uncovered: for the designed toric-code model with
special external fields, a tiny non-Hermitian perturbation (local imaginary
state selective dissipation) leads to anomalous topological degeneracy and
the breakdown of bulk-degeneracy correspondence (a correspondence between bulk
quasi-particles and topologically protected degenerate ground states).
\section{Topological stability of (Hermitian) $Z_{2}$ topological order}
Firstly, we show the topological stability of (Hermitian) $Z_{2}$ topological order.
For a $Z_{2}$ topological order, there are four types of topological sectors
(ground state and three types of quasi-particles), \textrm{1} (vacuum),
\textrm{e} (e-particle or $Z_{2}$ charge), \textrm{m} (m-particle or $Z_{2}$
vortex), \textrm{f} (fermion). e-particle and m-particle are all bosons with
mutual $\pi$ statistics between them. The fermion can be regarded as a bound
state of an e-particle and an m-particle. All these quasi-particles have
finite energy gaps $\Delta^{I},$ ($I=\mathrm{e},$ \textrm{m}$,$ \textrm{f}).
The four kinds of topological sectors is denoted by $\mathcal{N}=4$ where
$\mathcal{N}$ denotes the number of topological sector of quasi-particles.
When we consider the perturbations on the systems, the energy gaps $\Delta
^{I}$ may change slightly, $\Delta^{I}\rightarrow(\Delta^{I})^{^{\prime
}=\Delta^{I}+\delta \Delta^{I}$ ($\delta \Delta^{I}\ll \Delta^{I}$) and cannot be
closed. That indicate all perturbations are irrelevant.
When we consider the system on a torus, the ground states have topological
degeneracy. Each degenerate ground state $\left \vert 0\right \rangle _{I}$
corresponds to the one by adding a virtual quasi-particle. We can use the
basis of sectors of (virtual) quasi-particles to characterize the ground
states, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\left( |0\rangle,|e\rangle,|m\rangle,|f\rangle \right) .
\end{equation}
This is named \emph{bulk-degeneracy correspondence} (BDC). We denote the BDC
b
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{N}(=4)=\mathcal{D},
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{D}$ denotes the number of ground state degeneracy. For a
system with infinite size, the four ground states $\left( |0\rangle
,|e\rangle,|m\rangle,|f\rangle \right) $ become degenerate with exact zero
energy splitting. When one considers the perturbations on the systems, the
degeneracy of the four ground states doesn't change. In Ref.\cite{zeng}, it
is pointed out that the topological-order classes are stable against any small
stochastic local transformations and there exists a phenomenon of emergence of unitarity.
We use the Kitaev's toric-code model as an example to illustrate the
topological stability of (Hermitian) $Z_{2}$ topological order. The toric-code
model is an exactly solvable spin model, of which the Hamiltonian is
\begin{equation}
\hat{H}_{TC}=-g({\sum_{s}A_{s}}+{\sum_{p}B_{p}}),
\end{equation}
where $A_{s}=\prod_{i\in s}\sigma_{i}^{x}$ and $B_{p}=\prod_{i\in p}\sigma
_{i}^{z}$, the subscripts $s$ and $p$ represent the vertices and
plaquettes of a square lattice, respectively. In this paper, we set $g\equiv1$. For the toric-code model, the
ground states are defined as $A_{s}|\psi_{g}\rangle=|\psi_{g}\rangle,$
$B_{p}|\psi_{g}\rangle=|\psi_{g}\rangle$ for all $A_{s}$ and $B_{p}$.
Furthermore, the elementary excitations are defined as ${A_{s}=-1}$ and
${B_{p}=-1}$.
The quantum states of $Z_{2}$ topological order are characterized by different
configurations of strings, $\hat{W}(C)=\prod_{i\in C}\sigma_{i}^{\alpha_{i}}$
where $\sigma_{i}^{\alpha_{i}}$ is $\alpha_{i}$-type Pauli matrix on site $i$
and $\prod_{i\in C}$ is over all the sites on the string along a loop $C$,
i.e., $\left \vert \Phi \right \rangle =\sum_{C}a_{C}\hat{W}(C)|0\rangle$ where
$|0\rangle$\ denotes the spin polarized states with all spin down ($\left \vert
\downarrow \downarrow,...,\downarrow \right \rangle $), $\hat{W}(C)$ denotes the
possible string operators, and $a_{C}$\ is weight of the string operator. The
different configurations of open strings correspond to different excited
states of different quasi-particles. For e-particle/m-particle, the string
connects the nearest neighboring odd (even) sub-plaquettes
\begin{equation}
\hat{W}_{c/v}(C)=\prod_{i\in C}\sigma_{i}^{s_{c/v}},
\end{equation}
where the product $\prod_{i\in C}$ is over all the sites on the string along a
loop $C$ connecting odd-plaquettes (or even-plaquettes), $s_{c}=z$ and
$s_{v}=x$. The string for f-particles is defined as
\begin{equation}
\hat{W}_{f}(C)=\hat{W}_{v}(C)\hat{W}_{c}(C)=\prod_{i\in C}\sigma_{i}^{s_{f}},
\end{equation}
where $s_{f}=y.$ We point out that the local perturbations on the $Z_{2}$
topological order just locally, and slightly deform the string configurations
but can never change the degeneracy of ground states.
In addition, for the toric-code model, the dissipation effect had been
studied in Ref\cite{nayak}. The results show that small
dissipations cannot change the ground states. As a result, the degenerate
ground states make up a protected code subspace and can be regarded as
topological qubits{ to do possible topological quantum computation}
\cite{kitaev}.
\section{Designed toric-code model and its degenerate ground states}
In this section, we introduce the designed toric-code model, of which the
Hamiltonian is expressed a
\begin{equation}
\hat{H}_{TC}^{\prime}=\hat{H}_{TC}+\hat{H}^{\prime},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\hat{H}^{\prime}=h_{x}\sum_{i\in \mathcal{L}_{1}}\sigma_{i}^{x}+h_{z}\sum
_{i\in \mathcal{L}_{2}}\sigma_{i}^{z}+h_{x}^{\prime}\sum_{i\in \mathcal{L}_{3
}\sigma_{i}^{x}.
\end{equation}
Here, $h_{x}$, $h_{z}$ and $h_{x}^{\prime}$ are real parameters, and
$h_{x}^{\prime}$ is a small real parameter.
The dominating external fields are applied only on two crossing lines
($\mathcal{L}_{1}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{2}$). In addition, the auxiliary external
fields are applied on $\mathcal{L}_{3}$. See the illustration in Fig.1.
Under the perturbation $\hat{H}^{\prime}=h_{x}\sum
_{i\in \mathcal{L}_{1}}\sigma_{i}^{x}+h_{z}\sum_{i\in \mathcal{L}_{2}}\sigma
_{i}^{z}+h_{x}^{\prime}\sum_{i\in \mathcal{L}_{3}}\sigma_{i}^{x},$ the
quasi-particles begin to hop. The terms $h_{x}\sum_{i\in \mathcal{L}_{1}
\sigma_{i}^{x}$ and $h_{x}^{\prime}\sum_{i\in \mathcal{L}_{3}}\sigma_{i}^{x}$
drives the m-particle without affecting fermion and e-particle along
$\mathcal{L}_{1}$ string and $\mathcal{L}_{3}$ string, respectively. The term
$h_{z}\sum_{i\in \mathcal{L}_{2}}\sigma_{i}^{z}$ drives the e-particle without
affecting fermion and m-particle along $\mathcal{L}_{2}$ string.
\begin{figure}[ptb]
\includegraphics[clip,width=0.5\textwidth]{fig1.eps}\caption{(Color online)
The schematic diagram of the designed toric-code model. The external fields
are applied only on three paths.
\end{figure}
The ground state for $\hat{H}_{TC}$ is a $Z_{2}$ topological
order\cite{kitaev,wen1,kou}. The ground states have topological degeneracy,
i.e., different topologically degenerate ground states are classified by
different topological closed operation strings $\hat{W}_{a}(C
^{\mathrm{close,topo}})$. The operator $\hat{W}_{a}(C^{\mathrm{close,topo}})$
takes on binary values $0,$ $1$ and denotes whether the loops $C
^{\mathrm{close,topo}}$ belong to the even or odd winding number sectors along
the x/y-direction. So, we can use the basis of even-odd parity of the winding
number of electric field lines around the torus $\left \vert m_{ab
\right \rangle ,$ $\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{cccc
|0,0\rangle & |0,1\rangle & |1,0\rangle & |1,1\rangle
\end{array}
\right) .$ For a $Z2$ topological order with $4$ degenerate ground states,
there exist the following equations that illustrate the relationship between
the basis of even-odd parity of the winding number of electric field lines
around the torus $\left \vert m_{ab}\right \rangle $ ($a,b=0,1$) and the basis
of topological sectors labeled by different quasi-particles
\[
\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{c
|0\rangle \\
|e\rangle \\
|m\rangle \\
|f\rangle
\end{array}
\right) =U\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{c
|0,0\rangle \\
|0,1\rangle \\
|1,0\rangle \\
|1,1\rangle
\end{array}
\right) U^{-1
\]
where
\[
U=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{cccc
1 & 1 & 0 & 0\\
1 & -1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1 & 1\\
0 & 0 & 1 & -1
\end{array}
\right) .
\]
As a result, the bulk-degeneracy correspondence is valid, i.e.
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{N}(=4)=\mathcal{D}.
\end{equation}
We use a four-level system to describe the topologically degenerate ground
states\cite{kou}. After considering $\hat{H}^{\prime},$ three quantum
tunneling processes occur: (1) virtual $Z_{2}$-vortex propagating along
$\mathcal{L}_{1}$ ($\hat{e}_{x}$ direction); (2) virtual $Z_{2}$-charge
propagating along $\mathcal{L}_{2}$ ($\hat{e}_{y}$ direction); (3) virtual
$Z_{2}$-vortex propagating along $\mathcal{L}_{3}$ ($\hat{e}_{y}$ direction)
around the torus. With the help of the high-order purterbative theory, the
four-level quantum system of the four nearly degenerate ground states on a
$2\ast L_{x}\ast L_{y}$ lattice (with $2\ast L_{x}\ast L_{y}$ spins) is
obtained
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{\hat{H}}_{\mathrm{eff}}^{L_{x}\ast L_{y}}=\Delta(\tau_{1}^{x
\otimes1)+\varepsilon(\tau_{1}^{z}\otimes \tau_{2}^{x})+\kappa(1\otimes \tau
_{2}^{x}),
\end{equation}
where $\Delta=(\alpha h_{x})^{L_{x}}$, $\varepsilon=(\alpha h_{z})^{L_{y}}$
and $\kappa=(\alpha h_{x}^{\prime})^{L_{y}}$ ($\alpha$ is real parameter). The
eigenvalues of $\mathcal{\hat{H}}_{\mathrm{eff}}^{L_{x}\ast L_{y}}$can be
obtained as $\pm \kappa \pm \sqrt{\Delta^{2}+\varepsilon^{2}}$.
\section{Topological poisoning effect of the non-Hermitian topological order}
We then take the toric-code model as an example to illustrate the string
poisoning effect by considering the non-Hermitian local perturbations. Here,
the non-Hermitian toric-code model is defined by adding non-Hermitian external
fields,
\begin{equation}
\hat{H}_{NTC}^{\prime \prime}=\hat{H}_{TC}+\hat{H}^{\prime \prime},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\hat{H}^{\prime \prime}=\sum \limits_{i}\mathbf{h}_{i}\cdot \mathbf{\sigma
_{i}=\sum \limits_{i}h_{i}^{x}\sigma_{i}^{x}+\sum \limits_{i}h_{i}^{y}\sigma
_{i}^{y}+\sum \limits_{i}h_{i}^{z}\sigma_{i}^{z}.
\end{equation}
Now, we introduce $\mathbf{h}_{i}\neq \mathbf{h}_{i}^{\ast}$ for $i$th-spin, therefore the Hamiltonian satisfies $\hat{H}_{NTC}^{\prime \prime}\neq \hat{H}_{NTC}^{\prime \prime\ast}$.
To characterize the quantum properties of the non-Hermitian $Z_{2}$
topological order, the (non-Hermitian) dynamic strings were defined
as\cite{kou-to}
\[
D_{a}(C_{N})=\prod_{i\in C}\frac{\hat{t}_{i}^{a}}{\left \vert \hat{t}_{i
^{a}\right \vert }=\prod_{i\in C}h_{i}^{a}\sigma_{i}^{a},
\]
where $h_{i}^{a}\sigma_{i}^{a}$ acts at step $i$ for $a$-type excitation and the
indices $a=v,$ $c,$ $f$ correspond to three types of quasi-particles. For the
case of $D_{a}(C_{N})\neq D_{a}^{\dagger}(C_{N}),$ a dynamical string becomes
non-Hermitian. To study its non-Hermitian property, we had introduced the
biorthogonal set for the quantum string states of $Z_{2}$ topological order.
In this paper, we consider the non-Hermitian model with local non-Hermitian
external field on single lattice site $i_{0}$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{h}_{i_{0}}\neq \mathbf{h}_{i_{0}}^{\ast},\text{ }\mathbf{h}_{i\neq
i_{0}}=\mathbf{h}_{i\neq i_{0}}^{\ast}.
\end{equation}
Now, arbitrary dynamic strings passing through site $i_{0}$ (long or short)
becomes non-Hermitian,
\begin{equation}
D_{a}(C_{N}\rightsquigarrow i_{0})\neq D_{a}^{\dagger}(C_{N}\rightsquigarrow
i_{0}),
\end{equation}
where $C_{N}\rightsquigarrow i_{0}$ means the pathes crossing site $i_{0}.$ We
call it \emph{topological poisoning effect} under local non-Hermitian
perturabtions. Due to the topological poisoning effect, a local
non-Hermitian perturabtion (for example, $\mathbf{h}_{i_{0}}$ at non-Hermitian
external field at site $i_{0}$) may causes highly non-local influence. See the
illustration in Fig.2. The red dashed strings are all non-Hermitian dynamic
strings poisoned by the local non-Hermitian perturbations at site $i_{0}.$
\begin{figure}[ptb]
\includegraphics[clip,width=0.5\textwidth]{fig2.eps}\caption{(Color online)
The schematic diagram of topological poisoning effect: (a) The Hermitian
(dynamic) strings for the Hermitian Z2 topological order; (b) Arbitrary
dynamic strings passing through site $i_{0}$ (long or short) become
non-Hermitian. This is the physics consequence of topological poisoning effect
by adding local non-Hermitian perturbation on site $i_{0},$ i.e., $D_{a
(C_{N}\rightsquigarrow i_{0}).$
\end{figure}
\section{Non-Hermitian avalanche effect}
\subsection{Local non-Hermitian perturbation}
Now, we consider a particular local non-Hermitian perturbation on the designed
toric-code model,
\begin{equation}
\hat{H}_{NTC}=\hat{H}_{TC}^{\prime}+\hat{H}^{\prime \prime}=\hat{H}_{TC
+\hat{H}^{\prime}+\hat{H}^{\prime \prime},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\hat{H}^{\prime \prime}=(\lambda_{\mathrm{Re}}+i\lambda_{\mathrm{Im}})
\sigma_{i_{0}}^{z}.
\end{equation}
It is obvious that $\hat{H}_{NTC}$ doesn't have Parity-time symmetry.
However, an important changes is topological poisoning effect under local
non-Hermitian perturabtions, $D_{a}(C_{N}\rightsquigarrow i_{0}).$
When considering above extra non-Hermitian term, the effective Hamiltonian of
the degenerate ground states $\mathcal{\hat{H}}_{\mathrm{eff}}^{L_{x}\ast
L_{y}}$ on designed toric-code model may change:
\begin{enumerate}
\item When the site $i_{0}$ is on vertical dynamic string $\mathcal{L}_{2}$,
$\mathcal{\hat{H}}_{\mathrm{eff}}^{L_{x}\ast L_{y}}$ become
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{\hat{H}}_{\mathrm{eff}}^{L_{x}\ast L_{y}}=\Delta(\tau_{1}^{x
\otimes1)+\varepsilon^{\prime}(\tau_{1}^{z}\otimes \tau_{2}^{x})+\kappa
(1\otimes \tau_{2}^{x}),
\end{equation}
where $\Delta=(\alpha h_{x})^{L_{x}}$, $\varepsilon^{\prime}=\alpha^{L_{y
}(h_{z})^{L_{y}-1}(h_{z}+\lambda_{\mathrm{Re}}+i\lambda_{\mathrm{Im}})$ and
$\kappa=(\alpha h^{\prime}_{x})^{L_{y}}$ . The eigenvalues of $\mathcal{\hat
{H}}_{\mathrm{eff}}^{L_{x}\ast L_{y}}$ can be obtained as $\pm \kappa \pm
\sqrt{\Delta^{2}+(\varepsilon^{\prime})^{2}}$;
\item When the site $i_{0}$ is on transverse dynamic string $\mathcal{L}_{1}$,
$\mathcal{\hat{H}}_{\mathrm{eff}}^{L_{x}\ast L_{y}}$ become
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{\hat{H}}_{\mathrm{eff}}^{L_{x}\ast L_{y}}=\Delta^{\prime}(\tau
_{1}^{x}\otimes1)+\varepsilon(\tau_{1}^{z}\otimes \tau_{2}^{x})+\kappa
(1\otimes \tau_{2}^{x}),
\end{equation}
where $\Delta^{\prime}=\alpha^{L_{x}}(h_{x})^{L_{x}-1}(h_{x}+\lambda
_{\mathrm{Re}}+i\lambda_{\mathrm{Im}})$, $\varepsilon=(\alpha h_{z})^{L_{y}}$
and $\kappa=(\alpha h^{\prime}_{x})^{L_{y}}$. The eigenvalues of
$\mathcal{\hat{H}}_{\mathrm{eff}}^{L_{x}\ast L_{y}}$ can be obtained as
$\pm \kappa \pm \sqrt{(\Delta^{\prime})^{2}+\varepsilon^{2}}$;
\item When the site $i_{0}$ is on crossing between $\mathcal{L}_{1}$ and
$\mathcal{L}_{2}$, $\mathcal{\hat{H}}_{\mathrm{eff}}^{L_{x}\ast L_{y}}$
become
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{\hat{H}}_{\mathrm{eff}}^{L_{x}\ast L_{y}}=\Delta^{\prime}(\tau
_{1}^{x}\otimes1)+\varepsilon^{\prime}(\tau_{1}^{z}\otimes \tau_{2}^{x
)+\kappa(1\otimes \tau_{2}^{x}),
\end{equation}
where $\Delta^{\prime}=\alpha^{L_{x}}(h_{x})^{L_{x}-1}(h_{x}+\lambda
_{\mathrm{Re}}+i\lambda_{\mathrm{Im}})$, $\varepsilon^{\prime}=\alpha^{L_{y
}(h_{z})^{L_{y}-1}(h_{z}+\lambda_{\mathrm{Re}}+i\lambda_{\mathrm{Im}})$ and
$\kappa=(\alpha h^{\prime}_{x})^{L_{y}}$. The eigenvalues of $\mathcal{\hat
{H}}_{\mathrm{eff}}^{L_{x}\ast L_{y}}$ can be obtained as $\pm \kappa \pm
\sqrt{(\Delta^{\prime})^{2}+(\varepsilon^{\prime})^{2}}$;
\item When the site $i_{0}$ is not on dynamic strings ($\mathcal{L}_{1}$,
$\mathcal{L}_{2}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{3}$), $\mathcal{\hat{H}}_{\mathrm{eff
}^{L_{x}\ast L_{y}}$ doesn't change. The eigenvalues of $\mathcal{\hat{H
}_{\mathrm{eff}}^{L_{x}\ast L_{y}}$ can be obtained as $\pm \kappa \pm
\sqrt{\Delta^{2}+\varepsilon^{2}}$.
\end{enumerate}
In this paper, we focus on the case 1 and $\hat{H}^{\prime \prime
=-h_{z}+ih_{z}\sigma_{i_{0}}^{x}$. Therefore, The eigenvalues of
$\mathcal{\hat{H}}_{\mathrm{eff}}^{L_{x}\ast L_{y}}$ can be obtained as
$E_{\pm}=\pm \kappa \pm \sqrt{\Delta^{2}-\varepsilon^{2}}$.
\subsection{Spontaneous PT-symmetry breaking}
When the site $i_{0}$ is on vertical dynamic string $\mathcal{L}_{2}$ and $\hat{H}^{\prime \prime
=-h_{z}+ih_{z}\sigma_{i_{0}}^{x}$, we have $\varepsilon^{\prime}=i\varepsilon$. Then $\mathcal{\hat{H
}_{\mathrm{eff}}^{L_{x}\ast L_{y}}$ become
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{\hat{H}}_{\mathrm{eff}}^{L_{x}\ast L_{y}}= \Delta(\tau_{1
^{x}\otimes1)+i\varepsilon(\tau_{1}^{z}\otimes \tau_{2}^{x})+\kappa(1\otimes \tau_{2}^{x}),
\end{equation}
where $\Delta=(\alpha h_{x})^{L_{x}}$, $\varepsilon=(\alpha h_{z})^{L_{y}}$ and $\kappa=(\alpha h^{\prime}_{x})^{L_{y}}$. The effective Hamiltonian
$\mathcal{\hat{H}}_{\mathrm{eff}}^{L_{x}\ast L_{y}}$ has PT symmetry. The
eigenvalues of $\mathcal{\hat{H}}_{\mathrm{eff}}^{L_{x}\ast L_{y}}$ can be
obtained as
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
E_{1}&=- \kappa- \sqrt{\Delta
^{2}-\varepsilon^{2}},~~
E_{2}=- \kappa+ \sqrt{\Delta
^{2}- \varepsilon ^{2}},\\
E_{3}&= \kappa- \sqrt{\Delta
^{2}-\varepsilon^{2}},~~
E_{4}= \kappa+ \sqrt{\Delta
^{2}- \varepsilon ^{2}}.\\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
When the site $i_{0}$ is on vertical dynamic string, for the case of
$|\Delta|\geq|\varepsilon|$, the system belongs to a phase with $\mathcal{PT}$
symmetry, of which $E$ are real and the eigenvectors are eigenstates of the
symmetry operator, i.e., $\mathcal{PT}|\varphi_{i}\rangle=|\varphi_{i}\rangle
$. For the case of $|\Delta|<|\varepsilon|$, $E$ are complex, and
$\mathcal{PT}|\varphi_{i}\rangle \neq|\varphi_{i}\rangle$. A $\mathcal{PT
$-symmetry-breaking transition occurs at the exceptional points $|\Delta
|=|\varepsilon|$, which leads to the following relation $h_{x}=h_{z}$ when
$L_{x}=L_{y}$. It is clear that $|\psi_{1}\rangle$ and $|\psi_{2}\rangle$
compose a pair of $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetry, and $|\psi_{3}\rangle$ and
$|\psi_{4}\rangle$ compose another pair of $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetry.
The eigenstates $|\varphi_{i}\rangle$ of $\mathcal{\hat{H}}_{\mathrm{eff
}^{L_{x}\ast L_{y}}$ can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{eqfi}
|\psi_{1}\rangle=\frac{1}{\mathrm{N}_{1}}\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{c
\frac{i\varepsilon+\sqrt{\Delta^{2}-\varepsilon^{2}}}{\Delta}\\
\frac{-\Delta^{2}+(\varepsilon-i\sqrt{\Delta^{2}-\varepsilon^{2}
)(\varepsilon-i\kappa)}{\Delta(\sqrt{\Delta^{2}-\varepsilon^{2}}+\kappa)}\\
-1\\
1
\end{array}
\right) ,\nonumber
\end{equation
\begin{equation}
|\psi_{2}\rangle=\frac{1}{\mathrm{N}_{2}}\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{c
\frac{i\varepsilon-\sqrt{\Delta^{2}-\varepsilon^{2}}}{\Delta}\\
\frac{\Delta^{2}+(-\varepsilon-i\sqrt{\Delta^{2}-\varepsilon^{2}
)(\varepsilon-i\kappa)}{\Delta(\sqrt{\Delta^{2}-\varepsilon^{2}}-\kappa)}\\
-1\\
1
\end{array}
\right) ,\nonumber
\end{equation
\begin{equation}
|\psi_{3}\rangle=\frac{1}{\mathrm{N}_{3}}\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{c
\frac{i\varepsilon-\sqrt{\Delta^{2}-\varepsilon^{2}}}{\Delta}\\
\frac{-\Delta^{2}+(\varepsilon+i\sqrt{\Delta^{2}-\varepsilon^{2}
)(\varepsilon-i\kappa)}{\Delta(\sqrt{\Delta^{2}-\varepsilon^{2}}-\kappa)}\\
1\\
1
\end{array}
\right) ,\nonumber
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
|\psi_{4}\rangle=\frac{1}{\mathrm{N}_{4}}\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{c
\frac{i\varepsilon+\sqrt{\Delta^{2}-\varepsilon^{2}}}{\Delta}\\
\frac{\Delta^{2}+(-\varepsilon+i\sqrt{\Delta^{2}-\varepsilon^{2}
)(\varepsilon-i\kappa)}{\Delta(\sqrt{\Delta^{2}-\varepsilon^{2}}+\kappa)}\\
1\\
1
\end{array}
\right) ,
\end{equation}
where $\mathrm{N}_{i}$ ($i=1,2,3,4$) are normalization constant. In the region
of $\mathcal{PT}$-unbroken phase ($|\Delta|\geq|\varepsilon|$), the
normalization constant are obtained as $\mathcal{N}_{1}=\mathcal{N
_{2}=\mathcal{N}_{3}=\mathcal{N}_{4}=2$. And in the region of $\mathcal{PT
$-broken phase ($|\Delta|<|\varepsilon|$), the normalization constant are
obtained as $\mathcal{N}_{1}=\mathcal{N}_{4}=\frac{2\sqrt{\varepsilon
^{2}+\varepsilon \sqrt{\varepsilon^{2}-\Delta^{2}}}}{\Delta}$, $\mathcal{N
_{2}=\mathcal{N}_{3}=\frac{2\sqrt{\varepsilon^{2}-\varepsilon \sqrt
{\varepsilon^{2}-\Delta^{2}}}}{\Delta}$.
From the result, one can see there exist exceptional points (EPs) at
$|\Delta|=|\varepsilon|$. In the limit of $\Delta \rightarrow0,$ $\varepsilon
\rightarrow0$ according to the condition of quantum phase transition
($|\Delta|=|\varepsilon|$), an arbitrary small local perturbation (a local
complex external field) causes the quantum phase transition for the ground
states. We call it \emph{non-Hermitian avalanche effect}. In the followings,
we show the physics consequences of the non-Hermitian avalanche effect -
breakdowns of bulk-degeneracy correspondence for Z2 topological order.
\subsection{Breakdowns of bulk-degeneracy correspondence for Z2 topological
order}
To characterize the non-Hermitian avalanche effect, we define the
(non-Hermitian) degeneracy $\mathcal{D}$ under local non-Hermitian
perturbation.
Firstly, we define the overlap of any two of these four nearly degenerate
eigenstates as follows,
\begin{equation}\label{eqoo}
\begin{split}
O_{12} & =|\langle \psi_{2}|\psi_{1}\rangle|,~O_{13}=|\langle \psi_{3
|\psi_{1}\rangle|,~O_{14}=|\langle \psi_{4}|\psi_{1}\rangle|,\\
O_{23} & =|\langle \psi_{3}|\psi_{2}\rangle|,~O_{24}=|\langle \psi_{4
|\psi_{2}\rangle|,~O_{34}=|\langle \psi_{4}|\psi_{3}\rangle|.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
By inserting Eq.(\ref{eqfi}) into Eq.(\ref{eqoo}) , we obtain the overlap as
\begin{equation
\begin{split}
O_{12} & =|\frac{\varepsilon}{\Delta}|,~O_{34}=|\frac{\varepsilon}{\Delta
}|,\\
O_{13} & =0,~O_{23}=0,~O_{24}=0,~O_{14}=0,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
in the region of $\mathcal{PT}$-unbroken phase ($|\Delta|\geq|\varepsilon|$),
and
\begin{equation
\begin{split}
O_{12} & =|\frac{\Delta}{\varepsilon}|,~O_{34}=|\frac{\Delta}{\varepsilon
}|,\\
O_{13} & =0,~O_{23}=0,~O_{24}=0,~O_{14}=0,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
in the region of $\mathcal{PT}$-broken phase ($|\Delta|<|\varepsilon|$).
Then, we define the degeneracy of ground states in this case as $\mathcal{D}=4-O_{12}-O_{34}$.
According to the results in Fig.3, the degeneracy becomes change under the
non-Hermitian strength. As a result, the
bulk-degeneracy correspondence is broken, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{N}(=4)\neq \mathcal{D}(=4-O_{12}-O_{34}).
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[ptb]
\includegraphics[clip,width=0.35\textwidth]{fig3.eps}\caption{(Color online)
The non-Hermitian degeneracy that is away from 4. At exceptional point, it is
2.
\end{figure}
\subsection{Fidelity susceptibility of ground state}
To confirm the existence of the quantum phase transition from non-Hermitian
avalanche effect, we calculate the fidelity susceptibility of ground state.\
Fidelity susceptibility of ground state can be used to characterize the occurrence of the
quantum phase transitions. In this section, we study fidelity susceptibility of a given
ground state $|\psi_{i}\rangle (i=1,2,3,4)$ in non-Hermitian toric-code model. The
fidelity of ground state in terms of $\varepsilon$ can be defined as
\begin{equation}
F(\varepsilon,\delta)=|\langle \psi_{i}(\varepsilon)|\psi_{i}(\varepsilon
+\delta)\rangle|.
\end{equation}
The fidelity susceptibility of ground state in terms of $\varepsilon$ can be
defined as
\begin{equation}
\chi(\varepsilon,\delta)=\mathrm{lim}_{(\delta \rightarrow0)}\frac{-2\mathrm{ln
F}{\delta^{2}}.
\end{equation}
The behavior of $|\psi_{i}\rangle$ of the effective model $\mathcal{\hat{H
}_{\mathrm{eff}}^{L_{x}\ast L_{y}}=\Delta(\tau_{1}^{x}\otimes1)+\varepsilon
(\tau_{1}^{z}\otimes \tau_{2}^{x})$ $(\kappa \rightarrow0)$ is same as that of
$H=\Delta \tau_{1}^{x}+\varepsilon \tau_{1}^{z}.$ As a result, the fidelity and
fidelity susceptibility of each ground state are obtained as
\begin{equation}
F(\varepsilon,\delta)=\left \{
\begin{array}
[c]{ll
1-\frac{\delta^{2}}{8(\Delta^{2}-\varepsilon^{2})}, &
\hbox{$|\Delta| \geq |\varepsilon|$}\\
1-\frac{\Delta^{2}\delta^{2}}{8\varepsilon^{2}(\varepsilon^{2}-\Delta^{2})}, &
\hbox{$|\Delta| < |\varepsilon|$}
\end{array}
\right. ,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\chi(\varepsilon,\delta)=\left \{
\begin{array}
[c]{ll
\frac{1}{4(\Delta^{2}-\varepsilon^{2})}, &
\hbox{$|\Delta| \geq |\varepsilon|$}\\
\frac{\Delta^{2}}{4\varepsilon^{2}(\varepsilon^{2}-\Delta^{2})}, &
\hbox{$|\Delta| < |\varepsilon|$}
\end{array}
\right. .
\end{equation}
In Fig.4, we plot the fidelity susceptibility of ground states in terms of $\varepsilon$.
\begin{figure}[ptb]
\includegraphics[clip,width=0.35\textwidth]{fig4.eps}\caption{(Color online)
The fidelity susceptibility of ground states in terms of $\varepsilon$.}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Numerical calculations of the non-Hermitian toric-code model}
To support our theoretical predictions, we do numerical calculations based on
the non-Hermitian toric-code model $\hat{H}_{NTC}$ on $2\ast2\ast2$lattice
and on $2\ast3\ast3$ lattice.
In Fig.5, we plot the numerical results from the exact diagonalization
technique of the non-Hermitian toric code model $\hat{H}_{NTC}$ on $2\ast
2\ast2$ lattice with periodic boundary conditions. Fig.5 shows the global
phase diagram of $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetry-breaking transition for topologically
degenerate ground states. The phase boundary are all exceptional points
characterized by the relation $(\alpha h_{x})^{2}=(\alpha h_{z})^{2}$.
\begin{figure}[ptb]
\includegraphics[clip,width=0.35\textwidth]{fig5.eps}\caption{(Color online)
Phase diagram for spontaneous PT-symmetry breaking for the topologically
degenerate ground states on $2\ast2\ast2$ lattice: in white regions,
PT-symmetry is broken; in the dark regions, PT-symmetry is not broken. The
phase boundaries are exceptional points.
\end{figure}
In Fig.6, we plot the numerical results from the exact diagonalization
technique of the non-Hermitian toric-code model $\hat{H}_{NTC}$ on $2\ast
3\ast3$ lattice with periodic boundary conditions. Fig.6 shows the real part
and imaginary part of energy for the four nearly degenerate ground states for
the non-Hermitian toric-code model with $h_{x}=0.1$ and $h'_{x}=0.1$ on $2\ast3\ast3$lattice,
respectively. The numerical results indicate that exceptional points occur
when $h_{x}=h_{z}$, which is consistent with theoretical prediction.
\begin{figure}[ptb]
\includegraphics[clip,width=0.48\textwidth]{fig6.eps}\caption{(Color online)
(a) The real part of energy for the four degenerate ground states for the case
of $h_{x}=0.1$ and $h'_{x}=0.1$ via $h_{z}$ based on the non-Hermitian toric-code model on
$2\ast3\ast3$ lattice; (b) The imaginary of energy for the four degenerate
ground states for the case of $h_{x}=0.1$ and $h'_{x}=0.1$ via $h_{z}$ based on the
non-Hermitian toric-code model on $2\ast3\ast3$ lattice.
\end{figure}
In addition, we calculate the overlap of any two of these four nearly
degenerate eigenstates $O_{ij}$defined as above. We theoretically
predict that the overlaps are
\begin{equation
\begin{split}
O_{12} & =O_{34}=|\frac{\varepsilon}{\Delta}|\sim \Bigg \{
\begin{array}
[c]{c
\frac{h_{z}^{2}}{h_{x}^{2}}~~(2\ast2\ast2 ~\mathrm{lattice})\\
\\
\frac{h_{z}^{3}}{h_{x}^{3}}~~(2\ast3\ast3~\mathrm{lattice})
\end{array}
\\
O_{13} & =O_{23}=O_{24}=O_{14}=0,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
in $\mathcal{PT}$-unbroken phase. In addition,
\begin{equation
\begin{split}
O_{12} & =O_{34}=|\frac{\Delta}{\varepsilon}|\sim \Bigg \{
\begin{array}
[c]{c
\frac{h_{x}^{2}}{h_{z}^{2}}~~(2\ast2\ast2 ~\mathrm{lattice})\\
\\
\frac{h_{x}^{3}}{h_{z}^{3}}~~(2\ast3\ast3~\mathrm{lattice})
\end{array}
\\
O_{13} & =O_{23}=O_{24}=O_{14}=0,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
in $\mathcal{PT}$-broken phase.
In Fig.7, we present the numerical results from the exact diagonalization
technique of the non-Hermitian toric-code model on $2\ast2\ast2$ and
$2\ast2\ast3$ lattices with periodic boundary conditions, respectively. We
plot the the non-Hermitian degeneracy as a function of $h_{z}$ for the case of
$h_{x}=0.1$ and $h'_{x}=0.1$, which is consistent with the theoretical prediction. The results
indicate the degeneracy of ground states may be different from $4$. Now, he
bulk-degeneracy correspondence is broken, i.e.
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{N}(=4)\neq \mathcal{D}.
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[ptb]
\includegraphics[clip,width=0.4\textwidth]{fig7.eps}\caption{(Color online)
The non-Hermitian degeneracy for the ground states for the case of $h_{x}=0.1$ and $h'_{x}=0.1$
via $h_{z}$ based on the non-Hermitian toric-code model on $2\ast2\ast2$
lattice and those on $2\ast3\ast3$ lattice.
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ptb]
\includegraphics[clip,width=0.4\textwidth]{fig8.eps}\caption{(Color online)
The fidelity susceptibility for the ground states for the case of $h_{x}=0.1$ and $h'_{x}=0.1$
via $h_{z}$ based on the non-Hermitian toric-code model on $2\ast2\ast2$
lattice and those on $2\ast3\ast3$ lattice.
\end{figure}
In Fig.8, we show the fidelity susceptibility of the ground state from the
exact diagonalization technique of the non-Hermitian toric-code model on
$2\ast2\ast2$ and $2\ast2\ast3$ lattices with periodic boundary conditions,
respectively. The results show that the quantum PT phase transition occurs at EPs.
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we study the non-Hermitian avalanche effect induced by a local non-Hermitian perturbation. we investigate the effective models for topological degenerate
ground states of the designed non-Hermitian toric-code model by high-order degenerate
perturbation theory. In particular, there exists spontaneous $\mathcal{PT}$-
symmetry breaking for the topologically degenerate ground states subspace. At
\textquotedblleft exceptional points\textquotedblright, the topological
degenerate ground states merge and the topological degeneracy turns into
non-Hermitian degeneracy. Therefore, based on a non-Hermitian toric-code
model, we surprisingly find that the degeneracy of ground states can be
reduced by a local Non-Hermitian perturbation. In addition, the $\mathcal{PT}$-
symmetry breaking transition can be observed by fidelity susceptibility. In the end, the
influence of non-Hermitian on topological order are discussed.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Observations have revealed that the typical lifetime of protoplanetary disks is several million years (Myr) \citep[e.g.,][]{Haisch+01, Mamajek09, Yasui+10, Takagi+14}.
Their evolution and dispersal is crucial for the planet formation in protoplanetary disks: for example,
the growth of solid particles and the migration of (proto)planets depend on the disk properties \citep[e.g.,][]{Matsuyama+03b, Ogihara+15, Kobayashi+Tanaka18}.
A current major scenario of the evolution of protoplanetary disks is that the disk material is dispersed by the combined effect of the viscous accretion and the photoevaporation (PEW hereafter) driven by the irradiation of high-energy photons from a central star \citep[e.g.,][]{Clarke+01, Alexander+06b, Gorti+09, Owen+10}.
In the early phase viscous accretion dominates the PEW and both the disk mass and accretion rate onto a star decrease with time. When the accretion rate becomes comparable to the PEW rate, a gap opens at $\sim1\,{\rm au}$ \citep[][]{Clarke+01,Liffman03}.
An inner disk is drawn by the central star quickly and the outer disk is also quickly dispersed by the PEW.
Magnetorotational instability \citep[MRI hereafter;][]{Velikhov59,Chandrasekhar61,Balbus+Hawley91} was highlighted as a source of the turbulent viscosity that induces the mass accretion. However, both recent observations \citep[e.g.,][]{Pinte+16, Flaherty+17} and theoretical studies \citep[e.g.,][]{Turner+14, Mori+16} have suggested that MRI turbulence may not be vigorous in protoplanetary disks because of the insufficient ionization.
In the MRI-inactive disks, however, the expected lifetime of protoplanetary disks is much longer ($\gtrsim 10$ Myr) than the observed value owing to the suppressed accretion, even though the PEW simultaneously contributes to their dispersal \citep{Morishima12}.
In addition to the PEW, magnetically driven disk wind (hereafter MDW) is also one of the essential processes that controls the evolution of protoplanetary disks.
\citet{Suzuki+Inutsuka09} proposed that the MDW driven by the MRI turbulence potentially contributes to the mass loss of the gas component of protoplanetary disks.
{Follow-up studies \citep{Bai+Stone13a,Lesur+13,Fromang+13} have confirmed the MDW.}
While this mechanism is partially suppressed in magnetically inactive dead zones \citep{Suzuki+10}, magnetocentrifugal driven winds, which carry off the angular momentum of disks in addition to the mass \citep{Blandford+Payne82,Pelletier+Pudritz92}, also give a significant impact on their evolution, particularly because mass accretion is induced by the wind torque \citep{Bai+Stone13b,Simon+15,Hasegawa+17}.
On this basis, \citet[][hereafter \citetalias{Suzuki+16}]{Suzuki+16} constructed a model that incorporates the general properties of the MDW and investigated the long-term evolution of protoplanetary disks.
In this paper we wish to investigate the disk evolution around low-mass stars\footnote{
We note that \citet{Tanaka+17} investigated the disk evolution including both winds in the context of massive star formation.
In this work we focus only on the disks around a $1\,\rm M_{\sun}$ star.
} including viscous accretion, the PEW and the MDW particularly focusing on the MRI-inactive disks.
This paper is organized as follows. In Sect.\,\ref{sec:method}, we describe our physical models of the PEW, the MDW and accretion, and computation method for simulating the disk evolution. In Sect.\,\ref{sec:result}, we explore how the wind model and the viscosity affect the disk evolution.
We describe the caveats of our model in Sect.\,\ref{sec:discussion}, and our results are summarized in Sect.\,\ref{sec:conclusion}.
\section{Methods} \label{sec:method}
We simulate the time evolution of protoplanetary disks including the effects of viscous accretion, PEW and MDW (Sect.\,\ref{sec:basiceq}).
We adopt wind models in the literature (Sects.\,\ref{sec:dw}, \ref{sec:pe}).
The magnetic braking by the MDW is also included (Sect.\,\ref{sec:apz}).
The settings are mostly the same as those of \citetalias{Suzuki+16} except for the PEW model (Sects.\,\ref{sec:init}, \ref{sec:setting}).
\subsection{Basic equations}\label{sec:basiceq}
We numerically solve the one-dimensional diffusion equation {\citep[e.g.,][]{Lynden-Bell+Pringle74}}:
\begin{align}
&\frac{\partial \Sigma}{\partial t} - \frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}
\left[\frac{2}{r\Omega}\left\{\frac{\partial}{\partial r}(r^2 \Sigma
\overline{\alpha_{r\phi}}c_{\rm s}^2) + r^2 \overline{\alpha_{\phi z}}
(\rho c_{\rm s}^2)_{\rm mid} \right\}\right]\nonumber\\
&+ \dot{\Sigma}_{\rm MDW} + \dot{\Sigma}_{\rm PEW} =0\,,
\label{eq:sgmevl}
\end{align}
with usual notations, that is, $\Sigma\equiv \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \rho\mathrm{d} z$ is the surface density, $r$ the distance from the central star, $\Omega$ the angular velocity, $\rho$ the density, and $c\sub{s}$ the sound speed.
We use the cylindrical coordinates ($r, \phi, z$).
We neglect the disk self-gravity and the gas pressure gradient force, and assume $\Omega=\Omega\sub{K}=\sqrt{GM_\star/r^3}$, where $G$ is the gravitational constant and $M_\star$ the stellar mass.
The subscript ``mid'' stands for quantities at the disk midplane.
We describe the models of the mass-loss rate due to MHD ($\dot{\Sigma}_{\rm MDW}$) and photoevaporative ($\dot{\Sigma}_{\rm PEW}$) winds
later in Sects.\,\ref{sec:dw} and \ref{sec:pe}.
The terms including $\overline{\alpha_{r\phi}}$ and $\overline{\alpha_{\phi z}}$ represent the viscous and wind-driven accretion, respectively.
They are defined as
\begin{equation}
\int \mathrm{d} z \left(\rho v_r \delta v_{\phi} - \frac{B_rB_{\phi}}{4\pi}\right)
\equiv \int \mathrm{d} z \rho \alpha_{r\phi} c_{\rm s}^2 \equiv \Sigma
\overline{\alpha_{r\phi}} c_{\rm s}^2
\label{eq:rphistress}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\left(\rho \delta v_{\phi} v_z - \frac{B_{\phi} B_z}{4\pi}\right)_{\rm w}
\equiv (\rho c_{\rm s}^2\alpha_{\phi z})_{\rm w} \equiv
(\rho c_{\rm s}^2)_{\rm mid} \overline{\alpha_{\phi z}}\,,
\label{eq:phizstress}
\end{equation}
where $\bm{B}$ represents the magnetic field, $\bm{v}$ the velocity, and $\delta v_{\phi}$ the deviation from the Keplerian velocity (see \citetalias[][]{Suzuki+16}).
The subscript ``w'' stands for quantities in wind regions.
We note that $\overline{\alpha_{r\phi}}$ corresponds to the $\alpha$ viscosity introduced by \citet{Shakura+Sunyaev73}, which is related to viscosity, $\nu = (2/3) \overline{\alpha_{r\phi}} c\sub{s}^{2}/\Omega$ {\citepalias[see][for the origin of the factor 2/3]{Suzuki+16}}.
We do not specify the origin of the anisotropic stress, $\overline{\alpha_{r\phi}}$. In regions with sufficient ionization, MRI is the primary mechanism to give an order of $\overline{\alpha_{r\phi}}\sim 10^{-2}$ \cite[e.g.,][]{Sano+04, Suzuki+10}.
On the other hand, in dead zones with insufficient ionization \citep{Gammie96}, a moderate level of $\overline{\alpha_{r\phi}}\sim 10^{-4}$--$10^{-3}$ is probably sustained by hydrodynamical processes such as vertical shear instability \citep[e.g.,][]{Nelson+13}.
We describe the models of $\overline{\alpha_{\phi z}}$ in Sect.\,\ref{sec:apz}.
\subsection{Disk thermal structure} \label{sec:Tprof}
For the temperature profile at the midplane, we consider viscous heating and stellar irradiation as
\begin{align}\label{eq:Tmid}
T\sub{mid}^4 &= T\sub{vis}^4 + T\sub{irr}^4
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
&2\sigma\sub{SB}T\sub{vis}^4 = \left( \frac{3}{8}\tau\sub{R} + \frac{1}{2\tau\sub{P}} \right) F\sub{rad}\label{eq:Tvis}
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}\label{eq:Tirr}
&T\sub{irr} = 280\,{\rm K} \left( \frac{r}{{\rm au}} \right)^{-1/2} \left( \frac{ L_\star }{ \rm L_{\sun} } \right)^{1/4} \,.
\end{align}
{We refer to \citet[][]{Nakamoto+Nakagawa94} for Eqs.\,(\ref{eq:Tmid}) and (\ref{eq:Tvis}) and \citet[][]{Hayashi81} for Eq.\,(\ref{eq:Tirr}).}
We note that the ambient radiation field is often included in the literature, which sets a lower limit at around 10\,K. However, we confirmed that it has little impact on the long-term disk evolutions and we neglect the effect in this article.
The viscous heating rate, $F\sub{rad}$, is described below (see Sect.\,\ref{sec:cw}).
$\sigma\sub{SB}$ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant.
Here we assume that the gravitational energy, which is liberated by the accretion at the midplane, is transported to the disk surface by diffusion\footnote{
We note that recent MHD simulations have revealed that this widely-used assumption may not be valid \citep{Mori+19}.
In this article we stick to this assumption for simplicity.
}.
The Rosseland-mean and Plank-mean optical depths at the midplane are given by\footnote{
We note that in \citetalias{Suzuki+16}, $\tau\sub{R}$ was defined as $\kappa\sub{R}\Sigma/2$ (see their Eq.\,24). However, the factor 1/2 was not needed \citep[see Appendix A of][]{Nakamoto+Nakagawa94}. }
\begin{align}
&{\tau\sub{R} = \kappa\sub{R}\Sigma} \label{eq:tauR}
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
&\tau\sub{P}=\max(2.4\tau\sub{R}, 0.5)\,. \label{eq:tauP}
\end{align}
According to \citet{Nakamoto+Nakagawa94}, the Rosseland-mean opacity, $\kappa\sub{R}$, is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:kap}
\kappa\sub{R}=
\begin{cases}
4.5\,\brafracket{T\sub{mid}}{150\,{\rm{K}}}^2\,{\rm{cm^{2}\,g^{-1}}} & {\rm for}\ T<150\,\rm{K}\\
4.5\,{\rm{cm^{2}\,g^{-1}}} & {\rm for}\ 150\leq T\leq1500\,\rm{K}\\
0\,{\rm{cm^{2}\,g^{-1}}} & {\rm for}\ T>1500\,\rm{K} \,.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
To avoid numerical problems, we use the following smoothed opacity instead of Eq.\,(\ref{eq:kap}):
\begin{align} \label{eq:kap-smth}
\kappa\sub{R} = & 2.25\,{\rm{cm^{2}\,g^{-1}}}
\left[ 1-\tanh\brafracket{T\sub{mid}-1500\,{\rm K}}{150\,{\rm K}} \right] \nonumber \\
&\times \min\left[ 1, \brafracket{T\sub{mid}}{150\,{\rm K}}^2 \right] \,.
\end{align}
{We note that in the high-temperature ($T>1500\,{\rm K}$) range, the opacity depends on temperature in a more complicated manner \citep{Zhu+09} than that in \citet{Nakamoto+Nakagawa94}, which may cause thermal instability in the disk innermost region \citep{Bell+Lin94,Kimura+Tsuribe12}. However, since it is beyond the scope of this study to investigate the detailed properties of the thermal instability, we adopt the simpler opacity.
}
With the midplane temperature, the sound speed, the disk scale height, and the density at the midplane are given by
\begin{align}
&{c\sub{s}^2} = \frac{ \mathrm{k_B} T\sub{mid}}{\mu \mathrm{m_u}}\,,\\
&h = \sqrt{2}c\sub{s}/\Omega\sub{K}\,, \label{eq:h}\\
&\rho\sub{mid} = \frac{\Sigma}{\sqrt{\pi}h}\,,
\end{align}
where $\mu=2.34$ is the mean molecular weight, $\mathrm{m_u}$ the atomic mass unit, and $\mathrm{k_B}$ the Boltzmann constant.
\subsection{Models of magnetically driven disk winds} \label{sec:dw}
We adopt the MDW model in \citetalias{Suzuki+16}.
Here we briefly summarize the parameters of the MDW.
For full details of the model, readers are advised to refer to \citetalias{Suzuki+16}.
\subsubsection{Mass-loss rate} \label{sec:cw}
We give the the mass-loss rate of the MDW as
\begin{equation}
\dot{\Sigma}_{\rm MDW}=(\rho v\sub{z})\sub{w}=(\rho c\sub{s})\sub{mid} C\sub{w}\,. \label{eq:DW}
\end{equation}
$C\sub{w}$ is a non-dimensional factor given by
\begin{equation}
C\sub{w}=\min \left( C\sub{w,0}, C\sub{w,e} \right)\,,
\end{equation}
where $C\sub{w,0}$ is a constant maximum value inferred from local shearing box MHD simulations \citep{Suzuki+Inutsuka09,Suzuki+10} and $C\sub{w,e}$ the limiter from the accretion energetics of protoplanetary disks.
$C\sub{w,0}$ weakly depends on the coupling between the magnetic field and the gas; $C\sub{w,0}$ is smaller in magnetically inactive conditions.
Following \citetalias{Suzuki+16}, here we consider two cases for $C\sub{w,e}$.
The first case (called ``strong DW'' in \citetalias{Suzuki+16}) corresponds to {the most energetic wind}, that is, all liberated gravitational energy is transferred into the energy to launch wind flows, and the viscous heating is balanced to radiative cooling, $F\sub{rad}$.
Therefore we adopt
\begin{align}
&C\sub{w,e} = \max\left[ \frac{2}{r^3\Omega (\rho c\sub{s})\sub{mid}} \pderiv{}{r}\left( r^2\Sigma\overline{\alpha_{r\phi}} c\sub{s}^2 \right) + \frac{2c\sub{s}}{r\Omega}\overline{\alpha_{\phi z}} , 0 \right] \,,
\label{eq:strongcwe} \\
&F\sub{rad} = \max \left[ -\frac{1}{r}\pderiv{}{r}\left( r^2\Sigma\Omega \arpc\sub{s}^2 \right) , 0\right]\,. \label{eq:strongfrad}
\end{align}
For the second case called ``weak DW'', we introduce a dimensionless free parameter $\epsilon\sub{rad}$.
We assume that the fraction $\epsilon\sub{rad}$ of all the available energy (i.e., both gravitational energy and viscous heating) is radiated away and the rest is used to launch winds.
Therefore we obtain
\begin{align}
&C\sub{w,e} = (1-\epsilon\sub{rad})\left[
\frac{3\sqrt{2\pi}c\sub{s}^2}{r^2\Omega^2} \overline{\alpha_{r\phi}}
+ \frac{2c\sub{s}}{r\Omega} \overline{\alpha_{\phi z}}
\right]\,,
\label{eq:weakcwe} \\
&F\sub{rad} = \epsilon\sub{rad} \left[
\frac{3\sqrt{2\pi}(\rhoc\sub{s}^3)\sub{mid}}{ 2 } \overline{\alpha_{r\phi}}
+ r\Omega(\rhoc\sub{s}^2)\sub{mid} \overline{\alpha_{\phi z}}
\right]\,. \label{eq:weakfrad}
\end{align}
In the weak MDW case, we {adopt $\epsilon\sub{rad}=0.9$ as a lower limit in the wind energy}, that is, only a small amount of energy is used for winds and the rest is radiated away.
We note that in the absence of the MDW (i.e., $\epsilon\sub{rad}=1$ and $\overline{\alpha_{\phi z}}=0$), $F\sub{rad}$ becomes $\frac{3}{2}(\Sigma\Omegac\sub{s}^2)\overline{\alpha_{r\phi}}$ that is used in standard accretion disk models.
\subsubsection{Magnetic braking}\label{sec:apz}
Following \citetalias{Suzuki+16}, we refer to the angular momentum transport (i.e., magnetic braking) by the MDW as wind torque.
Although the strength of the wind torque depends on the net vertical magnetic field \citep{Bai13}, its evolution is still uncertain \citep[see, e.g.,][]{Okuzumi+14, Takeuchi+Okuzumi14, Guilet+Ogilvie14}.
Following \citetalias{Suzuki+16}, we adopt the upper limit of the wind torque, that is, the field strength is conserved.
In this case, the relative strength of magnetic stress to gas pressure increases with decreasing $\Sigma$ and then the density-dependent $\overline{\alpha_{\phi z}}$ is given by (\citetalias{Suzuki+16})
\begin{equation}
\overline{\alpha_{\phi z}} = \min \left[ {\overline{\alpha_{\phi z,0}}} \brafracket{\Sigma}{\Sigma\sub{ini}}^{-0.66} , 1 \right]\,, \label{eq:apz}
\end{equation}
{where $\overline{\alpha_{\phi z,0}} = 10^{-5}$}.
\subsection{Photoevaporation models} \label{sec:pe}
So far a number of studies have been conducted on the PEW driven by stellar irradiation \citep[e.g.,][]{Hollenbach+94,Ercolano+08,Gorti+Hollenbach09,Tanaka+13}.
We also refer to recent reviews \citep[][and references therein]{Alexander+14,Gorti+16,Ercolano+Pascucci17}.
We adopt the PEW rate, $\dot{\Sigma}_{\rm PEW}$, in the literature.
We consider the PEW by extreme ultra-violet photons (EUV; 13.6--100\,eV) and X-rays ($\geq0.1$\,keV) from a central star and assume that $\dot{\Sigma}_{\rm PEW}=\dot{\Sigma}_{\rm EUV} + \dot{\Sigma}_{\rm X}$.
In this paper we do not consider the external irradiation by a nearby massive star \citep[e.g.,][]{Adams+04}.
We also consider that for both EUV and X-ray PEW, the mass-loss profiles change after an inner hole is created and then the outer disk is directly irradiated by high-energy photons (so-called direct photoevaporation).
\subsubsection{Mass-loss rate}\label{sec:PEMdot}
We adopt the model of $\dot{\Sigma}_{\rm EUV}$ for primordial disks in \citet[][see their Appendix\,A]{Alexander+Armitage07}, which is based on hydrodynamic simulations by \citet{Font+04}, and the model in \citet{Alexander+06a} for the direct PEW.
We adopt the $\dot{\Sigma}_{\rm X}$ models for both primordial disks and the direct PEW in \citet[][see their Appendix\,B]{Owen+12}, which are based on hydrodynamic simulations by \citet{Owen+10,Owen+11b}.
The total mass-loss rates for the X-ray PEW in the both regimes are
\begin{align}
&\dot{M}\sub{X,p} = 6.3\times 10^{-9}\,{\rm M_{\sun}/\rm{yr}}
\brafracket{L\sub{X}}{10^{30}\,\rm{erg/s}}^{1.14}
\brafracket{M_\star}{\rm M_{\sun}}^{-0.068} \label{eq:Xprim}
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
&\dot{M}\sub{X,d} = 4.8\times 10^{-9}\,{\rm M_{\sun}/\rm{yr}}
\brafracket{L\sub{X}}{10^{30}\,\rm{erg/s}}^{1.14}
\brafracket{M_\star}{\rm M_{\sun}}^{-0.148}\,, \label{eq:Xdirect}
\end{align}
where $L\sub{X}$ is the stellar X-ray luminosity, and the subscripts ``p'' and ``d'' stand for the primordial disk case and the direct PEW case, respectively.
The total mass-loss rates for the EUV PEW in the both regimes are
\begin{align}
&\dot{M}\sub{EUV,p} = 1.6\times 10^{-10}\,{\rm M_{\sun}/{\rm{yr}}}
\brafracket{\Phi\sub{EUV}}{10^{41}{\rm{s}}^{-1}}^{1/2}
\brafracket{M_\star}{1\rm M_{\sun}}^{1/2} \label{eq:EUVprim}
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
&\dot{M}\sub{EUV,d} = 1.3\times 10^{-9}\,{\rm M_{\sun}/{\rm{yr}}}
\brafracket{\Phi\sub{EUV}}{10^{41}{\rm{s}}^{-1}}^{1/2} \brafracket{R\sub{hole}}{3\,{\rm au} }^{1/2}\,, \label{eq:EUVdirect}
\end{align}
where $\Phi\sub{EUV}$ the EUV photon luminosity.
We assume the aspect ratio $h/r=0.05$ in Eq.\,(\ref{eq:EUVdirect}) \citep[see][]{Alexander+06a}.
We refer to \citet{Alexander+Armitage07} and \citet{Owen+12} for the formulae of $\dot{\Sigma}_{\rm X}$ and $\dot{\Sigma}_{\rm EUV}$.
The $\dot{\Sigma}_{\rm X}$ and $\dot{\Sigma}_{\rm EUV}$ profiles for full disks have a characteristic feature:
they have a peak at $\simeq2.5\,{{\rm au}}\,(M_{\star}/\rm M_{\sun})$ and $\simeq1.1\,{{\rm au}}\,(M_{\star}/\rm M_{\sun})$, respectively.
The peak radii roughly correspond to the critical radius, inside which the gravitational potential is so deep that heated gas cannot flow out.
The critical radius is $R\sub{crit}\sim0.1$--$0.2 R\sub{g}$ \citep[][]{Liffman03} where $R\sub{g}$ is the gravitational radius
\begin{eqnarray}
R_{\rm{g}}&\equiv&\frac{GM_{\star}}{c_{\rm{s}}^2}
=8.87\,{{\rm au}}
\left( \frac{M_{\star}}{1\,\rm M_{\sun}} \right)
\left( \frac{c_{\rm{s}}}{10\,\rm{km/s}} \right)^{-2}\,.
\end{eqnarray}
We note that in the ionized region, $T\simeq10^4\,{\rm K}$ and $c\sub{s}\simeq10\,\rm{km/s}$.
As for the direct PEW, the peaks are located at the inner edge of the outer disk.
\subsubsection{Hole size}
\label{sec:Rhole}
Once the size of an inner hole exceeds $R\sub{crit}$, then we switch $\dot{\Sigma}_{\rm PEW}$ from the indirect (primordial) one to the direct one.
We define the hole sizes ($R\sub{hole,X}$ for X-rays and $R\sub{hole,EUV}$ for EUV) as the radius where the optical depth along the midplane is unity \citep[see, e.g., ][]{Alexander+06b, Kimura+16}.
The optical depth for the radiation with the wavelength $\lambda$ is given by $\tau_\lambda = \sigma_\lambda N\sub{mid}$, where $N\sub{mid}$ is the column density along the midplane:
\begin{equation}
N\sub{mid}(r)
=\int_0^r n\sub{mid}dr'
=\int_0^r (\rho\sub{mid}/(\mu \mathrm{m_u}))dr'\,.
\end{equation}
$n\sub{mid}$ is the gas number density at the midplane.
We adopt the absorption cross sections $\sigma_\lambda$ of X-rays and EUV photons in the solar-metallicity case: $10^{-22}\,\rm{cm}^{-2}$ and $6.3\times10^{-18}\,\rm{cm}^2$, respectively \citep{Wilms+00, Osterbrock+Ferland06}.
\subsubsection{Smoothing functions}
\label{sec:smthpe}
To avoid numerical problems, we smooth the $\dot{\Sigma}\sub{X,p}$ profile in the outer region, and the $\dot{\Sigma}\sub{X,d}$ and
$\dot{\Sigma}\sub{EUV,d}$ profiles in the vicinity of the $R\sub{hole,X}$ and $R\sub{hole,EUV}$.
The original $\dot{\Sigma}\sub{X,p}$ profile described in \citet{Owen+12} (see their Eq.\,B2) has a sharp cut-off at $100\,{\rm au}$.
This may result from the computational domain size of the hydrodynamic simulations in \citet{Owen+10}.
Hence, we make the cut-off more gradual:
The original profile contains a term $\exp\left[ -\left( x/100 \right)^{10} \right]$, where $x=0.85(r/1\,{\rm au})(M_\star/\rm M_{\sun})^{-1}$.
In this paper we modify the term to $\exp\left[ -\left( x/100 \right)^{1} \right]$, which results in the lower $\dot{\Sigma}\sub{X,p}$ in $r\sim30$--100\,au and a $20\%$ decrease in $\dot{M}\sub{X,p}$.
We also introduce a smoothing function in the $\dot{\Sigma}\sub{X,d}$ and
$\dot{\Sigma}\sub{EUV,d}$ profiles following \citet{Takeuchi+05} and \citet{Alexander+Armitage07}.
After the mass-loss profile is switched to the direct PEW, there remains a small amount of gas inside the hole radius by definition.
Although the gas is expected to be heated up and flow out, both $\dot{\Sigma}_{\rm X}$ and $\dot{\Sigma}_{\rm EUV}$ are zero in the prescriptions of \citet{Owen+12} and \citet{Alexander+Armitage07}.
To avoid a numerical problem, we multiply the prescriptions by a smoothing function:
\begin{equation}
f_i(r)=\left[ 1+\exp\left( - \frac{r-R_{\mathrm{hole},i}}{h_{\mathrm{hole},i}} \right) \right]^{-1}\,,
\end{equation}
where $i$ is X-ray or EUV, and $h\sub{hole}$ is the scale height at $R\sub{hole}$.
\subsection{Initial condition}\label{sec:init}
{We adopt the same initial density profile as \citetalias{Suzuki+16};}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:init}
\Sigma\sub{ini} = \Sigma\sub{1\,{\rm au}} (r/1\,{\rm au})^{-3/2} {\exp{(-r/r_1)}},
\end{equation}
where $\Sigma\sub{1\,{\rm au}}$ is the initial surface density at $1\,{\rm au}$ and $r_1$ the initial cut-off radius.
The power law corresponds to the minimum mass solar nebula model \citep[{MMSN;}][]{Hayashi81}, which decays exponentially beyond $r_1$.
Following \citetalias{Suzuki+16}, we choose a larger value of $\Sigma\sub{1\,{\rm au}}$ than the original MMSN model:
We adopt $\Sigma\sub{1\,{\rm au}}=1.7\times10^4\,\mathrm{g\,cm^{-2}}$ and $r_1=30\,{\rm au}$, and thus the initial disk mass, $M\sub{d,ini}=0.118\,\rm M_{\sun}$.
{We note that recent observations \citep[e.g.,][]{Andrews+10} showed that the surface density profile of the inner disk would be flatter ($\propto r^{-1}$, rather than $\propto r^{-3/2}$ in the MMSN model).
}
We {also} note that the wind torque depends on the initial surface density profile (see Eq.\,\ref{eq:apz}).
Therefore if a different $\Sigma\sub{ini}$ profile is assumed, the subsequent evolution of the wind-torque strength differs.
{Although we will not change the initial condition in this paper, we discuss the uncertainties in the initial condition in Sect.\,\ref{sec:discs-input}.}
\subsection{Disk dispersal condition} \label{sec:tNIR}
We will compare our results with the observations of disk lifetime, many of which use near-infrared (NIR; $\sim1$--$8\,\micron$) dust emissions \citep[see, e.g.,][]{Haisch+01,Hernandez+07,Mamajek09,Fedele+10, Yasui+10}.
Hence, following \citet[][]{Kimura+16}, we define the time when an inner disk becomes transparent in the NIR wavelength (i.e., $\kappa\Sigma < 1$ in the entire NIR-emitting region) as an inner disk lifetime ($t\sub{NIR}$).
Given the opacity $\kappa\sim10\,\mathrm{cm^2/g}$ in NIR \citep{Miyake+Nakagawa93}, the condition reads $\Sigma < 0.1\,\mathrm{g/cm^2} \equiv \Sigma\sub{crit}$.
The NIR-emitting region is defined as the region where $T\sub{mid} \geq 300\,{\rm K}$.
In this paper we neglect the effect of dust depletion \citep[e.g.,][]{Takeuchi+05}.
The growth of small dust grains to larger bodies effectively reduces the dust-to-gas ratio that determines the NIR opacity. In other words, the dust growth would give effectively larger $\Sigma_{\rm crit}$.
We confirmed that, with the criteria $\Sigma\sub{crit}=1\,\mathrm{g/cm^2}$, $t\sub{NIR}$ becomes shorter by $\lesssim 5\%$ and therefore is not sensitive to the assumed $\Sigma\sub{crit}$ value.
\subsection{Numerical method}\label{sec:setting}
We solve the time integration of Eq.\,(\ref{eq:sgmevl}) using the time-explicit method.
The numerical flux is measured with the central difference scheme for the viscous accretion and the upwind difference scheme for the wind torque.
We confirmed the mass conservation in all calculations.
We also confirmed the numerical convergence (i.e., no dependence of the results on the Courant number).
The temperature structure including viscous heating (Eq.\,\ref{eq:Tmid}) is iteratively solved using the bisection method.
The calculation domain ranges from 0.01 to $10^4$\,au.
At the inner and outer boundaries, we impose $\pderiv{}{r}\left( \Sigma r^{-3/2} \right) =0$, which is the zero-torque boundary condition in the case that $\overline{\alpha_{r\phi}}$ is constant with radius, $\overline{\alpha_{\phi z}}=0$ and $T\sub{mid}\propto r^{-1/2}$ \citep[see][\citetalias{Suzuki+16}]{Lynden-Bell+Pringle74}.
The grid size is in proportion to $\sqrt{r}$ and the number of mesh points is 2000.
We stop calculations either at 20\,Myr or when a disk completely dispersed (disk mass $M\sub{disk}<10^{-10}\,\rm M_{\sun}$).
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Model parameters and fiducial values.}
\label{tab:init}
\begin{tabular}{ll}
\hline\hline
Parameter & Fiducial value\\
\hline
Stellar mass, $M_\star$ & $1\,\rm M_{\sun}$ \\
Initial disk mass, $M\sub{d,ini}$ & $0.118\,\rm M_{\sun}$ \\
Initial cut-off radius, $r_{1}$ & 30\,{\rm au} \\
Stellar bolometic luminosity, $L_\star$ & $1\,\rm L_{\sun}$ \\
Stellar X-ray luminosity, $L\sub{X}$ & $10^{30}\,{\rm{erg\,s^{-1}}}$ \\
Stellar EUV photon flux, $\Phi_{\rm{EUV}}$ & $10^{41}\,{\rm{s^{-1}}}$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
In Table\,\ref{tab:init}, we summarize the parameters and their fiducial values in this paper.
We adopt the typical values of the X-ray and EUV luminosities of $1\,\rm M_{\sun}$ T Tauri stars: $L\sub{X}=10^{30}\,\rm{erg/s}$ \citep[][]{Flaccomio+03, Preibisch+05, Telleschi+07a} and $\Phi\sub{EUV}=10^{41}\,\rm{s^{-1}}$ \citep[][]{Bouret+Catala98, Alexander+05}.
We note that the influence of the variations in $L\sub{X}$ and the initial conditions on the evolution has been investigated in \citet{Kimura+16} (see also Sect.\,\ref{sec:LX}).
\section{Results} \label{sec:result}
Here we show the evolutionary models of protoplanetary disks varying the settings as summarized in Table\,\ref{tab:models}.
We calculated the disk evolutions with two choices of $\overline{\alpha_{r\phi}}$: $8\times10^{-5}$ representing the MRI-inactive disks, and $8\times10^{-3}$ the MRI-active disks, following \citetalias{Suzuki+16}.
The MDW mass loss is also affected by the choice: $C\sub{w,0}=2\times10^{-5}$ for the former, and $1\times10^{-5}$ for the latter.
\begin{table*}
\centering
\caption{Model settings and results.}
\label{tab:models}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
\hline\hline
Model & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Settings} & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Results} \\
\cline{2-5} \cline{7-8}
& MDW$^a$ & MDW & PEW$^c$ & MRI$^d$ & & $t\sub{NIR}^e$ & $M\sub{acc}/M\sub{MDW}/M\sub{PEW}$ $^f$\\
& & torque$^b$ & & & & [Myr] & {[\%]} \\
\hline
A-i & no & --- & on & inactive & & {15.9} & {32/---/68} \\
B-i & strong & on & off & inactive& & 14.1 & {18/76/---} $^g$ \\
C-i & strong & on & on & inactive & & {2.98} & {9/57/35}\\
D-i & strong & off & on & inactive & & {7.83} & {1/44/55}\\
E-i & weak & on & on & inactive & & 5.11 & {35/23/42}\\
F-i & weak & off & on & inactive & & {12.4} & {12/27/61} \\
\hline
A-a & no & --- & on & active & & {2.44} & {72/---/ 28}\\
B-a & strong & on & off & active & & {8.40} & {20/76/---} $^g$ \\
C-a & strong & on & on & active & & {1.56} & {12/67/21} \\
D-a & strong & off & on & active & & {1.70} & {3/75/22} \\
E-a & weak & on & on & active & & 1.52 & {30/50/20} \\
F-a & weak & off & on & active & & 1.70 & {23/56/21}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\\
\footnotesize{{\bf Notes.}
$^{(a)}$ In the strong and weak MDW cases, Eqs.\,(\ref{eq:strongcwe})--(\ref{eq:strongfrad}) and Eqs.\,(\ref{eq:weakcwe})--(\ref{eq:weakfrad}) with $\epsilon\sub{rad}=0.9$ are used, respectively (see Sect.\,\ref{sec:cw}).
$^{(b)}$ See Sect.\,\ref{sec:apz}.
$^{(c)}$ See Sect.\,\ref{sec:pe} for the PEW models.
$^{(d)}$ In the MRI-inactive case
$(\overline{\alpha_{r\phi}}, C\sub{w,0})=(8\times10^{-5}, 1\times10^{-5})$, whereas
$(8\times10^{-3}, 2\times10^{-5})$ in the MRI-active case.
$^{(e)}$ Inner disk lifetime (Sect.\,\ref{sec:tNIR}).
$^{(f)}$ {Total masses, $M\sub{acc}, M\sub{MDW},$ and $M\sub{PEW}$, normalized by the initial disk mass, $M\sub{d,ini}=0.118\,\rm M_{\sun}$, when the disks disperse.}
{$^{(g)}$ In Model B (i.e., no PEW cases), although inner disks become optically thin to NIR at $t\sub{NIR}$, a small amount of gas exists even at 20\,Myr. Therefore $M\sub{acc}$ and $M\sub{MDW}$ at 20\,Myr are described.}
}
\end{table*}
\subsection{MRI-inactive cases}\label{sec:inactive}
First we show the evolution of MRI-inactive disks, which are preferred by recent observations and theoretical studies {(see Sect.\,\ref{sec:intro})}.
\subsubsection{No MDW case (Model A-i)}
\label{sec:nodw}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=2.1\columnwidth]{nodw-multi.pdf}
\caption{
Temporal evolution of Model A-i (see Table\,\ref{tab:models}).
The panels (a) and (b) show the evolution of surface density ($\Sigma$) profile and the midplane temperature ($T\sub{mid}$) profile, respectively.
Each line shows a snapshot.
%
The panel (c) shows the evolution of mass accretion rate ($\dot{M}\sub{acc}$, thick dashed line) and mass-loss rate by photoevaporation ($\dot{M}\sub{PEW}$, thick dotted), where $\dot{M}\sub{PEW} = \dot{M}\sub{X}+\dot{M}\sub{EUV}$ (thin solid and dashed, respectively).
We note that $\dot{M}\sub{PEW} \simeq \dot{M}\sub{X}$ and the two lines are overlapped.
The thin dashed vertical line displays $t\sub{NIR}$.
%
The panel (d) shows the evolution of the time-integrated masses of accretion ($M\sub{acc}$, dashed line) and photoevaporation ($M\sub{PEW}$, dotted), and the evolution of disk mass ($M\sub{disk}$, double dot-dashed line).
The thin solid and dashed lines show $M\sub{X}$ and $M\sub{EUV}$, respectively.
}
\label{fig:nodw}
\end{figure*}
First let us show the results of Model A-i (with the PEW but without the MDW).
Figures\,\ref{fig:nodw}a and \ref{fig:nodw}b show the evolution of the profiles of the surface density and midplane temperature.
Figure\,\ref{fig:nodw}c shows the evolution of the mass accretion rate ($\dot{M}\sub{acc}$)\footnote{
In the cases with the MDW, $\dot{M}\sub{acc}$ depends on the radius (see \citetalias{Suzuki+16}). In this paper we measure it at 0.01\,au.
} and the mass-loss rate by the PEW ($\Mdot\sub{PEW}=\dot{M}\sub{X}+\dot{M}\sub{EUV}$).
Finally Fig.\,\ref{fig:nodw}d shows the evolutions of the disk mass, $M\sub{disk}$, the time-integrated mass of accreted materials onto the star ($M\sub{acc}\equiv\int_0^t\dot{M}\sub{acc}dt'$), and the time-integrated ejected mass by the PEW ($M\sub{X}\equiv\int_0^t\dot{M}\sub{X}dt'$,
$M\sub{EUV}\equiv\int_0^t\dot{M}\sub{EUV}dt'$, and
$M\sub{PEW}=M\sub{X}+M\sub{EUV}$).
The qualitative behavior of the evolution is the same as the long-term disk evolution models in the literature including both viscous accretion and the PEW \citep[e.g.,][]{Clarke+01, Alexander+06b, Gorti+09, Owen+10, Morishima12, Bae+13, Kimura+16}:
(i) the disk mass decreases with time due to viscous accretion, (ii) a gap is created when and where the accretion rate decreases down to the PEW rate, (iii) an inner disk depletes in the viscous timescale at the gap, and then (iv) after the dispersal of the inner disk, the outer disk is directly irradiated and also quickly dispersed.
The viscous heating dominates, in particular in the inner region and in the early phase (Fig.\,\ref{fig:nodw}b).
Owing to the non-linear profile of the opacity on temperature (Eq.\,\ref{eq:kap}), the $T\sub{mid}$ profile is also a non-smooth function of $r$ in the early phase ($\lesssim 13\,{\rm Myr}$), which results in the non-linear $\Sigma$ profile (Fig.\,\ref{fig:nodw}a).
We note that the flat $T\sub{mid}$ profile ranging $\sim1500$--$2500\,{\rm K}$ appears because we adopted the smoothed opacity profile (Eq.\,\ref{eq:kap-smth}).
The mass-loss rate of the EUV PEW is 1--2 orders of magnitude lower than that of the X-ray PEW (see discussions in Sect.\,\ref{sec:discussion_pe}) and therefore $\dot{M}\sub{PEW}\simeq\dot{M}\sub{X}$.
In Model A-i, the disk lifetime, $t\sub{NIR}$, is 16.1\,Myr.
Therefore the classical picture with the viscous accretion and the PEW is inconsistent with the observation in the MRI-inactive disks.
This is because the phase (i) lasts long with the low turbulent viscosity $\overline{\alpha_{r\phi}}$.
The duration of the phase (iii) is also several Myr (i.e., the inner disk lasts long), even though the inner disk is small ($\simeq3$\,au).
The amount of the total photoevaporated mass, $M\sub{PEW}$, is a factor of $\sim2$ larger than the total accreted mass, $M\sub{acc}$.
The existence of the inner disk prevents the EUV PEW from switching to the direct one.
The X-ray PEW switches to the direct one just before the disk dispersal and then $\dot{M}\sub{X}$ drops down to zero after $R\sub{hole,X}$ reaches the computational outer boundary ($10^4$\,au).
\subsubsection{No PEW case (Model B-i)}
\label{sec:nope}
As for the evolution of Model B-i (i.e., with the strong MDW but without the PEW), we refer to \citetalias{Suzuki+16} (see their Sect.\,3.2 and Fig.\,5--9).
Owing to both the MDW mass-loss and the accretion driven by the wind torque, the surface density in the inner region is significantly lower than that in Model A-i and has a positive gradient with radius.
Therefore the evolution is qualitatively different.
Due to the reduced surface density in the inner region, $t\sub{NIR}$ is smaller than that of Model A-i.
We note that even at 20\,Myr, there still remains the disk gas ({$M\sub{disk}=0.007\,{\rm M_{\sun}}, \Mdot\sub{acc} = 2.2\times10^{-10}\,\rm M_{\sun}/{\rm yr}$}).
This is because the MDW is self-regulated; since the energy to launch the MDW comes from the liberated gravitational energy of accreting materials, $\Mdot\sub{MDW}$ decreases with time along with the decreasing $\Mdot\sub{acc}$.
This is a clear difference between the MDW and the PEW: the PEW does not depend on the accretion.
Therefore, only with the MDW, the disk does not disperse rapidly.
In this sense, the evolution in Model B-i is inconsistent with observations, which have suggested that $t\sub{NIR}$ is several Myr and that the entire disk disperses rapidly \citep[e.g.,][]{Andrews+Williams05}.
Nevertheless, the mass-loss rate in the early phase in Model B-i by the MDW is much larger than that by the PEW in Model A-i. Moreover in Model B-i, the total mass lost by the MDW until 20\,Myr is 4.3 times larger than that by accretion.
These express the importance of the MDW.
\subsubsection{Case with both the MDW and the PEW (Model C-i--F-i)}
\label{sec:str}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=2.1\columnwidth]{strtrq-multi-2.pdf}
\caption{
Same as Fig.\,\ref{fig:nodw} but with MDW (Model C-i).
In the panels (c) and (d), the mass-loss rate and total ejected mass by the MDW are shown by the solid lines.
}
\label{fig:strtrq}
\end{figure*}
Figure\,\ref{fig:strtrq} shows the results of Model C-i, including the strong MDW and the wind torque in addition to the PEW.
The evolutionary nature is clearly different from Fig.\,\ref{fig:nodw}.
The MDW is the dominant mass-loss process especially in the early phase.
Figure\,\ref{fig:strtrq}c shows that at first $\Mdot\sub{MDW}$ is two orders of magnitude larger than $\dot{M}\sub{PEW}$, whereas $\Mdot\sub{PEW}$ dominates after 2.0\,Myr.
In the late phase, as in Fig.\,\ref{fig:nodw}, the PEW opens a gap at 3.3\,Myr and the disk quickly disperses.
Although the PEW drives the rapid dispersal at the end, most disk materials are ejected by the MDW in Model C-i.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{strtrq-Sigdot.pdf}
\caption{
Snapshot of the profiles of $\dot{\Sigma}_{\rm MDW}$ (solid line), $\dot{\Sigma}_{\rm PEW}$ (dotted), $\dot{\Sigma}_{\rm X}$ (dot-dashed) and $\dot{\Sigma}_{\rm EUV}$ (double dot-dashed) at 0.1\,Myr (thick lines) and 3\,Myr (thin) in the Model C-i.
}
\label{fig:strtrq-Sigdot}
\end{figure}
Figure\,\ref{fig:strtrq-Sigdot} shows the mass-loss profiles of the MDW ($\dot{\Sigma}_{\rm MDW}$) and the PEW ($\dot{\Sigma}_{\rm PEW}$) at 0.1 and 3\,Myr.
$\dot{\Sigma}_{\rm PEW}$ does not change until 3.3\,Myr because it is determined by the external process of the irradiation from the central star. In contrast, the MDW dominates at the early phase and in particular in the inner region. The reason why $\dot{\Sigma}_{\rm MDW}$ dominates at the small $r$ is that the mass-loss timescale of the MDW ($\tau\sub{MDW} \equiv \Sigma/\dot{\Sigma}_{\rm MDW}$) is proportional to the Kepler time;
\begin{align}
\tau\sub{MDW} \propto C\sub{w}^{-1} \Omega\sub{K}^{-1}
\end{align}
(see Eqs.\,\ref{eq:h}--\ref{eq:DW}; \citetalias{Suzuki+16}).
We note that interestingly $t\sub{NIR}$ (3.0\,Myr) is shorter than the gap-opening time.
The wind torque maintains the accretion rate at a high level ($\sim10^{-10}\,\rm M_{\sun}/{\rm yr}$ at the inner edge) even with $\Sigma<0.1\,\mathrm{g/cm^2}$ in the inner disk.
This vigorous accretion (i.e., large radial velocity) feeds materials into a few au and prevents the PEW from opening a gap even when the inner disk is transparent to NIR.
In Model\,D-i, the wind torque is not considered. In this case the disk lifetime $t\sub{NIR}$ ($=7.9\,{\rm Myr}$) is much longer than that of Model C-i (3.0\,Myr).
This difference clearly illustrates the great impact of the wind torque in the MRI-inactive case.
The cases with the weak MDW give a quantitatively longer $t\sub{NIR}$ and a smaller $M\sub{MDW} (\equiv \int_0^t\dot{M}\sub{MDW}dt')$ than the strong MDW cases. However, the qualitative behavior of the evolution is the same.
We note that the dominance of $M\sub{MDW}$ over $M_{\rm acc}$ does not necessarily mean that a large portion of the gas is lost by the MDW rather than the accretion.
This is because it is expected that a sizable fraction of the wind material launched from the inner disk does not escape from the system but accretes onto the central star via funnel-wall accretion \citep{Takasao+18}, which we do not take into account in our model. In other words, a part of $M\sub{MDW}$ is regarded to contribute to the accretion from an observational point of view.
Finally, in Fig.\,\ref{fig:tNIR} we summarize the inner disk lifetime $t\sub{NIR}$.
In the MRI-inactive cases, $t\sub{NIR}$ depends on the MDW model parameters.
Under the current settings, we find that $t\sub{NIR}$ is comparable to the observed values ($\sim$3--6\,Myr), only if the PEW, the MDW and the wind torque cooperatively operate {(i.e., Model C-i and E-i)}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{tNIR.pdf}
\caption{
Comparison of the inner disk lifetime, $t\sub{NIR}$, in the MRI-inactive (squares) and MRI-active (circles) cases.
The differences between Models C and D and between E and F illustrate the impact of wind torque (see also Table\,\ref{tab:models}).
The horizontal dotted line (6\,Myr) indicates a constraint from NIR observations \citep[e.g.,][]{Haisch+01}.
{The symbols of Model C-i and E-i are highlighted by a larger filled square because they are consistent with observations (see text).}
}
\label{fig:tNIR}
\end{figure}
\subsection{MRI-active cases}\label{sec:active}
Here, we describe the evolution of MRI-active disks.
The qualitative behavior of the disk evolution is similar to the MRI-inactive cases. In Model C-a--F-a, most materials are dispersed by the MDW and then the PEW plays a role during the final phase.
However, the quantities are different from the MRI-inactive cases.
The MRI-active cases with the larger $\overline{\alpha_{r\phi}}$ result in the more vigorous accretion than the MRI-inactive cases.
Thus $M\sub{acc}$ is larger in all the MRI-active cases (Model A-a--F-a, see Table\,\ref{tab:models}).
As a consequence, the MDW is also stronger and therefore $M\sub{MDW}$ is also larger in the MRI-active cases, because the MDW is launched by using the accretion energy.
Regardless of the MDW model, $M\sub{MDW}>M\sub{PEW}$ in MRI-active cases.
Despite the larger impact of the MDW, the disk lifetime $t\sub{NIR}$ is less sensitive to the MDW model in the MRI-active cases: it is around 2\,Myr except for Model B-a.
Without the PEW, even if a large $\overline{\alpha_{r\phi}}$ is assumed and the strong MDW is adopted with the wind torque, $t\sub{NIR}$ is longer than the observed value.
\section{Discussions: Model caveats} \label{sec:discussion}
\subsection{Photoevaporation models}
\label{sec:discussion_pe}
In this work we adopt the X-ray and EUV PEW models in the literature (see Sect.\,\ref{sec:pe}).
Recently there has been much progress on the PEW models by \citet{Wang+Goodman17} and \citet{Nakatani+18a,Nakatani+18b}.
They performed radiation hydrodynamic simulations including X-ray and UV radiation.
They claimed that the X-ray PEW rate by \citet{Owen+10,Owen+11b} was overestimated, because Owen et al. did not self-consistently solve radiative transfer and thermochemistry.
Instead, they claimed that the UV (EUV and far-UV) PEW drives the mass-loss comparable to the X-ray PEW rate obtained by \citet{Owen+10} (i.e., $10^{-8}$--$10^{-9}\,\rm M_{\sun}/{\rm yr}$).
Moreover, the overall profile of the PEW profile (i.e., decreasing with radius) is not changed \citep[see Fig.\,8 of][$\dot{\Sigma}_{\rm PEW}\propto r^{-2}$]{Wang+Goodman17}.
Therefore we believe that the the evolutionary nature and the conclusion in this article are not affected by the updated PEW model.
The long-term disk evolution with the recent PEW model should be studied in future.
\subsection{Interplay between photoevaporative and MHD winds}
\label{sec:interplay}
In this paper we simply assume that the total mass-loss rate is the sum of the PEW and the MDW, that is, $\dot{\Sigma} = \dot{\Sigma}_{\rm PEW} + \dot{\Sigma}_{\rm MDW}$.
However, the interplay may not be so simple.
Recently \citet{Wang+19} have performed the global radiation magnetohydrodynamic simulations for the first time.
They found that adding EUV photons reduces the mass-loss rate due to the enhanced ambipolar dissipation (see their Sect. 5.4).
As shown in Fig.\,\ref{fig:strtrq}c, $\Mdot\sub{MDW}$ and $\Mdot\sub{PEW}$ are comparable only for a short period of the whole lifetime.
In the rest of the time, one mechanism dominates the other; the MDW (PEW) dominates the PEW (MDW) in the early (late) phase.
Therefore we expect that the interplay may not affect the results in this article.
Further investigation on the magneto-thermal winds is highly encouraged.
\subsection{Uncertainties of input parameters}\label{sec:discs-input}
We adopt a unique mass and size for the initial conditions in all cases.
These are also known to affect the disk lifetime \citep[e.g.,][]{Alexander+Armitage09}.
Therefore, the disk lifetime in Fig.\,\ref{fig:tNIR} should be regarded as a median value, but in reality it includes a large scatter.
The turbulent viscosity, the MDW mass-loss rate, and the wind torque depend on the strength and shape of the magnetic field, which are still uncertain. Therefore the values of $\overline{\alpha_{r\phi}}$, $C\sub{w}$ and $\overline{\alpha_{\phi z}}$ also remains uncertain, even though they largely affect the disk evolution (see Sect.\,4.1 of \citetalias{Suzuki+16}).
To construct realistic disk evolutionary models and predict the disk lifetime, it is essential to understand the global evolution of the poloidal magnetic field in disks.
To investigate the influence of the uncertainties in $\overline{\alpha_{r\phi}}$, $C\sub{w}$ and $\overline{\alpha_{\phi z}}$ on the disk evolution, we perform a suit of disk evolution calculations with varying them.
We use a Monte Carlo approach to derive the $\overline{\alpha_{r\phi}}$ and $\overline{\alpha_{\phi z}}$ values.
We assume a Gaussian distribution with the mean values to be $\overline{\alpha_{r\phi}}=8\times10^{-4}$ and $\overline{\alpha_{\phi z,0}} = 10^{-5}$ (see Eq.\,\ref{eq:apz}), and the standard deviation of 1\,dex.
According to \citet[][]{Suzuki+10}, $C\sub{w}$ has a weak positive correlation with $\overline{\alpha_{r\phi}}$. Therefore we derive $C\sub{w,0}$ by using both the $\overline{\alpha_{r\phi}}$ value and the linear fit of the two cases in this paper, that is, $(\overline{\alpha_{r\phi}}, C\sub{w,0}) = (8\times 10^{-5}, 1\times 10^{-5})$ and $(8\times 10^{-3}, 2\times 10^{-5})$. We set a maximum value of $C\sub{w,0}$ to be $5\times10^{-5}$.
For the Monte Carlo simulations, we need to save the CPU time of each simulation. Since we use the time-explicit method, we increase the time step by enlarging the grid sizes; the number of mesh points and the calculation domain are changed to 200 from 2000, and to [0.1, $3\times10^3$]\,au from [0.01, $10^4$]\,au, respectively.
We performed the simulation of Model C-i with the coarser grids and confirmed that the change of the disk lifetime, $t\sub{NIR}$, was 5.7\%.
Here we focus on the two cases: Model A (i.e., with PEW but without MDW; see Model A-i and A-a in Table\,\ref{tab:models}) and Model C (i.e., with both PEW and MDW). We performed 256 calculations for each case.
Figure\,\ref{fig:MC} shows the inner disk fraction (i.e., the fraction of disks with $t\sub{NIR}\geq t$) as a function of time, $t$.
We find that the variations in $\overline{\alpha_{r\phi}}$ and $\overline{\alpha_{\phi z}}$ result in the gradual decrease of the disk fraction in both cases.
We find a clear difference; the half-life period is 2.22\,Myr in Model C and 7.35\,Myr in Model A.
The observed half-life period is a few Myr \citep[see][]{Haisch+01, Mamajek09} and therefore seems to prefer Model C.
We note that, however, we find that the observed inner disk fraction \citep[see][]{Mamajek09, Yasui+14} is broader than that of Model C. This may point out the importance of the variety in the other parameters, such as the initial mass distribution and $L\sub{X}$.
We will investigate this issue in our future work.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{MC.pdf}
\caption{
Inner disk fraction as a function of time.
The solid and dashed lines show the results of two Monte Carlo simulations in Model C (i.e., with both MDW and PEW) and Model A (i.e., without MDW but with PEW), respectively.
The vertical dotted lines illustrate their half-life period (2.22 and 7.35\,Myr, respectively).
}
\label{fig:MC}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Effect of stellar evolution}\label{sec:LX}
\citet{Kimura+16} reported that the X-ray luminosity, $L\sub{X}$, has an even larger impact on the disk lifetime than the initial conditions.
Although so far we have adopted a constant $L\sub{X}=10^{30}\,$erg/s, the young star's $L\sub{X}$ is known to evolve with time \citep[see, e.g.,][]{Flaccomio+03}.
Here we investigate the impact of the $L\sub{X}$ evolution on the disk evolution, with the same parameters as Model C-i except for $L\sub{X}$.
The young stars' $L\sub{X}$ is well correlated to the stellar bolometric luminosity $L_\star$ and therefore we can safely approximate that the ratio $L\sub{X}/L_\star$ is constant \citep{Noyes+84,Mangeney+Praderie84}.
Following \citet{Wright+11}, we adopt $L\sub{X}/L_\star=10^{-3.13}$.
Also, we simulate {the evolution of} a $1\,\rm M_{\sun}$ pre-main-sequence star using the MESA code \citep{Paxton+11} \citep[version 2258, see the details in][]{Kunitomo+11}.
We assume that the star enters its pre-main sequence (i.e., we set $t=0$) on the birthline introduced in \citet{Stahler+Palla05}.
Together with the $L\sub{X}/L_\star$ ratio and the $L\sub{X}$ evolution model, we obtain the $L\sub{X}$ evolution.
Figure\,\ref{fig:LX} shows the disk evolution with the time-dependent $L\sub{X}$.
$\Mdot\sub{PEW}$ gradually decreases with time, in contrast to the original Model C-i case which gives a constant $\Mdot\sub{PEW}$.
However, its time evolution is much slower than that of $\Mdot\sub{acc}$ and $\Mdot\sub{MDW}$.
Therefore we conclude that our results above (i.e., the MDW dominates in the early phase and the PEW in the late phase) are valid.
Since the evolution of lower-mass stars is slower, the effect of the $L\sub{X}$ evolution can be safely neglected for the disk evolutions around low-mass ($\lesssim 1\,\rm M_{\sun}$) stars.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{strtrq-LX-Mdot.pdf}
\caption{
Same as Fig\,\ref{fig:strtrq}c, but with time-dependent $L\sub{X}$.
}
\label{fig:LX}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusion}
We investigated the long-term disk evolution considering the viscous accretion, the PEW mass loss, and the mass loss and wind torque by the MDW.
We performed simulations varying the wind models ($\dot{\Sigma}_{\rm PEW}$ and $\dot{\Sigma}_{\rm MDW}$), the strength of viscosity ($\overline{\alpha_{r\phi}}$) and the effect of the wind-driven accretion ($\overline{\alpha_{\phi z}}$).
In particular, we focused on MRI-inactive (i.e., low $\overline{\alpha_{r\phi}}$) disks suggested by recent observations and theoretical studies {(see Sect.\,\ref{sec:intro})}.
We started the calculations from the early phase of disk evolutions and thus assumed a relatively compact (cut-off radius $r_1=30\,{\rm au}$), massive ($0.118\,\rm M_{\sun}$) disk around a $1\,\rm M_{\sun}$ star.
We found that the MDW (PEW) dominates the PEW (MDW) in the inner (outer) disk in the early (late) phase.
Each wind process has a distinct role on the disk evolution.
In particular, in the MRI-inactive cases, both the MDW with the wind torque and the PEW mass loss are required to work in a cooperative manner to explain the observed inner disk lifetime (i.e., $t\sub{NIR}\lesssim$ several Myr).
{We confirmed the necessity of the cooperation of MDW and PEW using Monte Carlo simulation with varying $\overline{\alpha_{r\phi}}$, $C\sub{w}$ and $\overline{\alpha_{\phi z}}$.}
In the MRI-active cases, although $t\sub{NIR}$ is insensitive to the adopted MDW model,
the MDW eject most materials (Table\,\ref{tab:models}) and
affect the density profile.
The effect of stellar evolution on the disk evolution has not been investigated in the previous works.
We confirmed that, at least around low-mass ($\lesssim1\,\rm M_{\sun}$) stars, it can be safely neglected.
{In this work we have regarded protoplanetary disks as a one-component fluid, that is, we have not considered dust grains or the abundances of each element.
It is important to model the evolution of disk composition not only for the evolution itself \citep[e.g.,][]{Gorti+15} but also the properties of formed planets \citep{Guillot+Hueso06}.
}
In this work we have not surveyed large parameter ranges of the initial conditions, $r_1$ and $M\sub{d,ini}$, the stellar X-ray luminosity, $L\sub{X}$, and the stellar mass, $M_\star$.
There still remain unresolved problems concerning the evolution of protoplanetary disks and transitional disks; (i) the decreasing disk fraction as a function of the cluster age \citep[e.g.,][]{Haisch+01,Mamajek09}, (ii) the dependence of the disk lifetime on stellar mass \citep[e.g.,][]{Hillenbrand+92,Yasui+14}, and (iii) the fraction, accretion rate and hole size of transition disks \citep[e.g.,][]{Owen16}.
Simulations in a wide parameter space are required to directly compare our model results to these observational constraints \citep[e.g.,][]{Alexander+Armitage09, Kimura+16}, which we will pursue in our future works.
We are planning to investigate the dependence of the disk evolution on the initial conditions by incorporating a disk formation model \citep[e.g.,][]{Takahashi+13}.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We are grateful to Hiroshi Kobayashi, Shinsuke Takasao, Shoji Mori, Kei E. I. Tanaka, and Ryunosuke Nakano for fruitful discussions and comments.
{We appreciate the constructive comments of the anonymous referee, which helped us to improve this paper.}
This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers 23244027, 16H02160, 17H01105 and 17H01153.
{This work made use of the IPython package \citep{Perez+Granger07}, matplotlib, a Python library for publication
quality graphics \citep{Hunter07}, and NumPy \citep{vanderWalt+11}.}
{\textit{Software}: Numpy}
\bibliographystyle{mnras}
|
\section{Introduction}
Linear stability methods are important computational tools for the prediction of the laminar-turbulent transition of boundary layers. The methods deployed by the industry are LST (Linear Stability Theory, \cite{MackAGARD}), which accounts for one-dimensional flow properties only, and PSE (Parabolised Stability Equations, \cite{Herbert1997}), which improves upon LST by marching downstream, allowing to account for small streamwise changes in the flow. The streamwise BiGlobal stability approach is superior to both LST and PSE, in the sense that it can represent all linear perturbation dynamics of practically arbitrary two-dimensional flows \citep{Theofilis2003}.
Practice has shown, however, that representing convective instability mechanisms, specifically, with the streamwise BiGlobal stability approach suffers from a notorious sensitivity to the computational set-up. This particularly involves the truncation of the domain in the streamwise direction, e.g.\ the specific choice of the domain length and boundary conditions \citep{EhrensteinGallaire,AlizardRobinet,Rodriguez2011}.
The results of \citet[\S IV.B.2]{AlizardRobinet} suggest that the part of the spectrum that is of interest tends to a continuum as the domain length tends to infinity. In regard to this expected limit of the spectrum, \citet{Theofilis2003} states that: `the discretised approximation of the continuous spectrum will always be under-resolved.' The main goal of the proposed methodology in the present paper is to solve the sensitivity issues related to the truncation of the domain.
Next to the convergence problems due to the domain truncation, the physical interpretation of the BiGlobal stability results, again specifically in the case of convective mechanisms, poses an entirely independent issue. The relationship between global and (non-)local stability approaches is known if a global instability exists, e.g.\ see \cite{monkewitz1993global} and \cite{siconolfi2017towards}. This article provides a first step in developing the physical interpretation of the BiGlobal results in the case of convective instabilities by establishing the link between the BiGlobal stability results on the one hand and $\text{(non-)}$local methods like LST and PSE on the other. \citet{AlizardRobinet} and \citet{Rodriguez2010} have demonstrated the relationship between the solutions corresponding to these different methods by using the complex frequency provided by BiGlobal simulations as the input for the LST and PSE approaches. Using the currently proposed methodology, the link can be made without making use of the BiGlobal stability results.
The paper is structured as follows: the methodologies used to obtain the BiGlobal and base flow solutions are discussed in \S \ref{sec:methodology}, the results are presented in \S \ref{sec:BiGresults} and the link with LST and PSE solutions is established in \S \ref{sec:linkLSTPSE}. The paper is concluded in \S \ref{sec:conclusion}.
\section{Methodology}
\label{sec:methodology}
It is this article's goal to demonstrate that the sensitivity to the computational set-up can be resolved by formulating the problem in a moving reference frame. An extensive theoretical motivation is presented by \citet[\S 8.6.2]{GrootPhDThesis} and \citet[Appendix A]{groot2019accurate}.
The streamwise BiGlobal stability problem has been considered in a moving reference frame before \citep{mittal2007stabilized}, but never with the aim of resolving the currently targeted issues.
\subsection{Streamwise BiGlobal stability problem in a moving reference frame}
In the streamwise BiGlobal stability problem, one considers an infinitesimally small perturbation to a base flow, whose variables are denoted as $\overline{Q}$. Base flows are considered that depend only on the wall-normal $y$- and streamwise $\bar{x}$-coordinate, where the bar denotes the stationary reference frame, in which the base flow is independent of time $\bar{t}$.
We reformulate the perturbation problem in a reference frame that moves downstream with the constant speed $c_\mathrm{g}$. To this end, the $\bar{x}$- and $\bar{t}$-derivatives in the governing equations have to be transformed as follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:movingreferenceframe}
\frac{\partial }{\partial \bar{x}} = \frac{\partial}{\partial x}, \qquad \frac{\partial }{\partial \bar{t}} = \frac{\partial}{\partial t} - c_\mathrm{g}\frac{\partial}{\partial x},
\end{equation}
\noindent where $x = \bar{x} - c_\mathrm{g} \bar{t}$ and $t = \bar{t}$ correspond to the moving reference frame; $y$-derivatives remain unchanged. While independent of $\bar{t}$, the base flow does depend on $t$. Taylor expanding the base flow variables for the elapsed time $\Delta t = t - t_0$ yields:
\begin{eqnarray}
\overline{Q}(\bar{x}(x,t),y)
&= \overline{Q}(\bar{x}(x,t_0),y) + c_\mathrm{g}\Delta t\frac{\partial \overline{Q}}{\partial \bar{x}}(\bar{x}(x,t_0),y) + O\left( \frac{(c_\mathrm{g}\Delta t)^2}{2!}\frac{\partial^2 \overline{Q}}{\partial \bar{x}^2}(\bar{x}(x,t_0),y)\right)
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent where $t_0$ is a reference time. This reveals that the base flow can be assumed to be constant in $t$ when permitting an error of $O\big(c_\mathrm{g} \Delta t\, {\partial \overline{Q}}/{\partial \bar{x}}\big)$, which is small when $c_\mathrm{g}$, $\Delta t$ or $\partial \overline{Q}/\partial \bar{x}$ is small. When $\Delta t = 0$, the solutions are exact. For non-zero $\Delta t$, the solutions of the present approach can be time-integrated such that all unsteady effects due to the moving reference frame are accounted for. Accordingly, the introduced model error can be removed for non-zero $\Delta t$, but this lies out of the current scope. Therefore the time-evolution of the solutions is here discarded.
Upon neglecting the time-dependence of $\overline{Q}(\bar{x}(x,t),y)$, the perturbation problem in the moving reference frame has constant coefficients. In that case, a two-dimensional perturbation variable $q'$ can be represented as the product of an eigenfunction $\tilde{q} = \tilde{q}(x,y)$ and an exponential function of time $t$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ansatz}
q'(x,y,t) = \tilde{q}(x,y)\,\mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i}\omega t} + c.c.,
\end{equation}
\noindent where the eigenvalue $\omega$ is a complex angular frequency and $c.c.$ the complex conjugate. The subscripts $r$ and $i$ will denote real and imaginary parts, respectively.
Substituting equations \eqref{eq:movingreferenceframe} and \eqref{eq:ansatz} into the linearised incompressible Navier-Stokes equations yields the streamwise BiGlobal stability equations for a moving reference frame:
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:BiG}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:BiGx}
-\mathrm{i}\,\omega\,\tilde{u}+\left(\overline{U} - c_\mathrm{g}\right)\frac{\partial \tilde{u}}{\partial x}+\overline{V}\,\frac{\partial\tilde{u}}{\partial y}+\tilde{u}\, \frac{\partial\overline{U}}{\partial x}+\tilde{v}\,\frac{\partial\overline{U}}{\partial y}&=-\frac{\partial \tilde{p}}{\partial x}+\frac{1}{Re}\left(\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2} + \frac{\partial^2}{\partial y^2}\right) \tilde{u}; \\
\label{eq:BiGy}
-\mathrm{i}\,\omega\,\tilde{v}+\left(\overline{U} - c_\mathrm{g}\right)\frac{\partial \tilde{v}}{\partial x}+\overline{V}\,\frac{\partial\tilde{v}}{\partial y}+\tilde{u}\, \frac{\partial\overline{V}}{\partial x}+\tilde{v}\,\frac{\partial\overline{V}}{\partial y}
&=-\frac{\partial \tilde{p}}{\partial y}+\frac{1}{Re}\left( \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2}+\frac{\partial^2}{\partial y^2}\right) \tilde{v}; \\
\label{eq:BiGc}
\frac{\partial \tilde{u}}{\partial x} + \frac{\partial \tilde{v}}{\partial y}&=0.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\noindent The stationary reference frame corresponds to $c_{\mathrm{g}} = 0$. To illustrate how the results in the moving reference frame manifest themselves in the stationary reference frame, define $\bar{\omega}_{\tilde{u}}$ and $\bar{\omega}_{\tilde{v}}$ as follows:
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:generalisedDoppler}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:generalisedDoppleru}
\omega = \bar{\omega}_{\tilde{u}}(x,y) + \mathrm{i}\,\frac{c_{\mathrm{g}}}{\tilde{u}}\frac{\partial \tilde{u}}{\partial x}(x,y), \qquad \text{where:} \quad \bar{\omega}_{\tilde{u}} = \bar{\omega}_{\tilde{u}}(x,y);\\
\label{eq:generalisedDopplerv}
\omega = \bar{\omega}_{\tilde{v}}(x,y) + \mathrm{i}\,\frac{c_{\mathrm{g}}}{\tilde{v}}\frac{\partial \tilde{v}}{\partial x}(x,y), \qquad \text{where:} \quad\bar{\omega}_{\tilde{v}} = \bar{\omega}_{\tilde{v}}(x,y).
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\noindent By substituting equation \eqref{eq:generalisedDoppleru} for $\omega$ into equation \eqref{eq:BiGx}, the $c_{\mathrm{g}}$-term is eliminated from equation \eqref{eq:BiGx}. The same can be done with equations \eqref{eq:BiGy} and \eqref{eq:generalisedDopplerv}. This demonstrates that system \eqref{eq:BiG} governs solutions in a stationary reference frame, while permitting a `varying eigenvalue': $\bar{\omega}_{\tilde{u}}$ and $\bar{\omega}_{\tilde{v}}$ are functions of $x$, $y$, $\tilde{u}$ and $\tilde{v}$. The right hand sides of equations \eqref{eq:generalisedDoppler} add up to a constant $\omega$, such that no extra $x$- and $y$-derivatives are introduced when substituting ansatz \eqref{eq:ansatz}. The real part of equations \eqref{eq:generalisedDoppler} corresponds to a Doppler shift, while the imaginary part represents the instantaneous advection-induced $\bar{x}$-translation of the amplitude distribution.
The only physically substantiated boundary condition for external incompressible flow problems is given at solid walls. There no-slip is imposed for $\tilde{u}$ and $\tilde{v}$ and the Laplace equation for $\tilde{p}$, consistent with the conditions proposed by \citet{theofilis2017linearized}.
\subsection{Base flow}
\label{sec:baseflows}
Stability results, obtained with any stability method, are notoriously sensitive to the base flow, see \cite{Arnal:agard1994}. In addition to this, the solutions of the streamwise BiGlobal problem are also sensitive to the computational set-up. The latter sensitivity is the focal point of this study. Therefore, we consider the self-similar Blasius boundary layer as our base flow. It does not satisfy the full Navier-Stokes equations, but it is slowly-developing, universal and obtainable to arbitrary precision, eliminating all uncertainty associated with the base flow. We would like to emphasise that the goal of this paper is not to analyse the stability of the flow over a flat plate, but rather to demonstrate that the inherent methodological sensitivity is removed by considering the proposed technique.
The self-similar boundary-layer solution is computed with DEKAF, for all details see \citet{groot2018dekaf}, setting the Mach number $M = 0$. The largest Newton-Raphson residual
corresponds to $\partial^2 \overline{U}/\partial y^2$ and equals $O(10^{-15})$. $N_{\eta} = 500$ nodes were used in the wall-normal direction, yielding at most $O(10^{-12})$ differences with the solution on a grid with $2N_{\eta}-1$ nodes. Both $\overline{U}$ and $\overline{V}$ and their $y$-derivatives are obtained from the self-similar solutions, which are then `GICM-interpolated' onto the BiGlobal grid's collocation nodes. GICM (Groot-Illingworth-Chebyshev-Malik) is an iterative procedure that ensures the spectral accuracy of the Chebyshev discretisation after the inversion of the Malik collocation point mapping and the Illingworth self-similarity transformation. The $x$-derivatives of the base flow quantities are determined with the spectral differentiation matrix corresponding to the BiGlobal problem's discretisation.
\subsection{Numerical set-up}
The solutions to system \eqref{eq:BiG} are obtained numerically on a domain that is truncated in the up- and downstream directions, at $x=x_{\mathrm{in}}$ and $x=x_{\mathrm{out}}$, and far from the flat plate at $y=y_{\mathrm{max}}$ ($x=0$ corresponds to the leading edge and $y=0$ to the wall). At the latter boundary, all perturbation variables are zeroed. The truncation boundaries at $x=x_{\mathrm{in}}$ and $x=x_{\mathrm{out}}$ are respectively referred to as the in- and outflow boundaries. The streamwise domain length is denoted by $L = x_{\mathrm{out}} - x_{\mathrm{in}}$. The literature presents several attempts in prescribing reasonable boundary conditions at the in- and outflow boundaries, see \cite{AlizardRobinet}, \citet[\S 5.4.3]{Rodriguez2010}, \citet[chapter 8]{GrootMScThesis} and \citet{groot2015closing}. Our present aim is to ensure that the solutions are \textit{independent of all truncation boundary conditions} through the use of the moving reference frame. Unless stated otherwise, we use Neumann conditions at the in- and outflow boundaries. This allows revealing when the solutions become dominant at the boundaries and, in turn, when they do become dependent on the boundary conditions.
The problem is discretised with Chebyshev collocation \citep{Canuto1} in both $x$ and $y$. A BiQuadratic mapping \citep{groot2018secondary} is used in the $x$-direction, mapping one-third of the collocation points in-between the points $x_{i1}$ and $x_{i2} > x_{i1}$, each lying within $[x_{\mathrm{in}},x_{\mathrm{out}}]$. The values $x_{i1} = x_{\mathrm{in}} + \frac{1}{3}(x_{\mathrm{out}} - x_{\mathrm{in}})$ and $x_{i2} = x_{\mathrm{in}} + \frac{2}{3}(x_{\mathrm{out}} - x_{\mathrm{in}})$ are used for all presented results. The Malik mapping \citep{malik1990numerical} is used for the wall-normal direction $y$, mapping half the collocation nodes above and below $y_i$.
Velocity and length scales are respectively made non-dimensional with the freestream speed $\overline{U}\hspace{-.5mm}_e$ and the `global' Blasius length
$\ell = \nu/\overline{U}\hspace{-.5mm}_e$,
where $\nu$ is the kinematic viscosity. According to this choice,
$Re = 1$ (using a different scaling had no impact on the numerical results). Table~\ref{tab:refparms} presents the parameters used for the selected reference case. The Arnoldi algorithm is used to solve the discretised problem for the 1000 smallest eigenvalues.
\begin{table*}[h]
\begin{center}
\def~{\hphantom{0}}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{c c ccccc c cccc}
$c_{\mathrm{g}}/\overline{U}\hspace{-.5mm}_e$ & {} {} & $N_x$ & $x_{\mathrm{in}}/\ell$ & $x_{i1}/\ell$ & $x_{i2}/\ell$ & $x_{\mathrm{out}}/\ell$ & {} {} & $N_y$ & $y_{i}/\ell$ & $y_{\mathrm{max}}/\ell$ \\[3pt]
0.415 & & 300 & $0.2 \times 10^5$ & $2.8 \times 10^5$ & $5.4 \times 10^5$ & $8.0 \times 10^5$ & & 50 & $4.0 \times 10^3$ & $1.6 \times 10^5$\\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\caption{Reference case parameters (not rounded, yielding largest $\omega_i$ for a 3 digit $c_{\mathrm{g}}$-value). }
\label{tab:refparms}
\vspace{-0mm}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\section{Results}
\label{sec:BiGresults}
The spectrum and $\tilde{u}$-eigenfunctions of interest for the reference case $c_{\mathrm{g}}/\overline{U}\hspace{-.5mm}_e = 0.415$ are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:existentialgraph}. The attention is restricted to eigenvalues with negative $\omega_r$-values (marked blue in Fig.~\ref{fig:existentialgraph}($b$)). The reference case and eigenmode selection will be justified in \S \ref{sec:variationcg}. The modes of interest form a branch with 3 sub-branches: the top-left `main' branch, housing modes labelled 1 to 5, the rightward `side' branch, in which mode 9 resides, and the downward branch, accommodating mode 7, that appears to continue indefinitely into the stable half-plane. The selected eigenmodes represent wave packets: all eigenfunctions ($\tilde{u}$, $\tilde{v}$ and $\tilde{p}$) decay exponentially toward all truncation boundaries. The instantaneous propagation speed of these wave packets is equal to the speed of the reference frame, therefore this justifies referring to the latter speed as a group speed. The solutions along the main branch are independent of the numerical set-up, this is demonstrated next.
\begin{figure*}[h]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures/existentialgraph_inset.pdf}
\vspace{-0mm}
\caption{($a$) $\omega$-spectrum, ($b$) zoom on box and ($c$--$g$) isocontours of the real part of $\tilde{u}$ (coloured lines, from min- (blue) to maximum (red) with $\Delta = 2/9$, scaling the maximum to unity) and $|\tilde{u}|$ (dotted, level: 1/9) corresponding to the eigenvalues labelled in ($b$) for the reference case $c_{\mathrm{g}}/\overline{U}\hspace{-.5mm}_e = 0.415$, $\delta_{99}$-isocontour (dashed).}
\label{fig:existentialgraph}
\vspace{-0mm}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Independence of the numerical set-up and truncation boundary conditions}
\label{sec:BiG:numpars}
Convergence information is given in Table~\ref{tab:conv} for several of the labelled modes in Figs.~\ref{fig:existentialgraph}($a$) and \ref{fig:cgsweepgraphreal}($a$). The relative error in the eigenvalue's magnitude is determined by varying the following numerical aspects independently: the streamwise domain length (indicated by $\epsilon_L$, fixing the relative resolution $N_x/L$), the resolution in the streamwise direction ($\epsilon_{N_x}$), the boundary conditions ($\epsilon_{\mathrm{BC}}$) and the domain height ($\epsilon_{y_{\mathrm{max}}}$, fixing the resolution in the boundary layer by keeping $N_y$ and $y_i$ constant). Overall, relative errors of $O(10^{-4})$ are attained. When representing convective instability mechanisms with the streamwise BiGlobal approach, these small errors are unprecedented in the sense that spectra computed in the stationary frame of reference presented in literature experienced $O(1)$ errors while changing the streamwise domain length. Before elaborating further, it should be noted that $\epsilon_{y_{\mathrm{max}}}$ is the largest contributor to the overall eigenvalue error. Now that the issues related to the streamwise direction are tackled, $\epsilon_{y_{\mathrm{max}}}$ features the slowest convergence rate. Accordingly, the selection of the reference case and the convergence study were approached by reducing $\epsilon_{y_{\mathrm{max}}}$ to a reasonably low level and using that level as an upper bound for the other errors.
\begin{table*}[h]
\begin{center}
\vspace{-0mm}
\def~{\hphantom{0}}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{r c c c c}
\multirow{4}{*}{\hspace{-3mm}$\begin{array}{r}
\text{Mode} \\ \text{properties}
\end{array}\left| \begin{array}{c}
{}\\{}\\{}\\{}\\{}
\end{array} \right.$ \hspace{-5mm}} & Mode$\,$\# & {}\;\hspace{15mm}1 & {}\;\hspace{5mm}5 & {}\;\hspace{10mm}10 \\[3pt]
& $c_{\mathrm{g}}/\overline{U}\hspace{-.5mm}_e$ & {}\;\hspace{14mm}0.415 & {}\;\hspace{4mm}0.415 & {}\;\hspace{9mm}0.470 \\[3pt]
& $\omega_r\,\ell/\overline{U}\hspace{-.5mm}_e$ & $-1.546\underline{07445982
\times 10^{-5}$ & $-1.488\underline{26
\times 10^{-5}$ & $-3.84\underline{287728
\times 10^{-5}$\\[3pt]
%
& $\omega_i\,\ell/\overline{U}\hspace{-.5mm}_e$ & $ + 3.014\underline{3827834}
\times 10^{-6}$ & $+2.335\underline{23
\times 10^{-6}$ & $-3.0\underline{7160739
\times 10^{-7}$\\[3pt]
%
\multirow{4}{*}{$\begin{array}{r}
\text{Relative} \\ \text{$|\omega|$-errors} \end{array} \left| \begin{array}{c}
{}\\{}\\{}\\{}\\{}
\end{array} \right.$ \hspace{-5mm}} & $\epsilon_{L}$ & $ ~~~~~~~~~~+2.8\times 10^{-5~}$ & $ ~~~~ -1.7\times 10^{-4}$ & $ ~~~~~~~+4.3\times 10^{-5~}$\\[3pt]
& $\epsilon_{N_x}$ & $ ~~~~~~~~~~+4.9\times 10^{-12}$ & $ ~~~~ +2.5\times 10^{-7}$ & $ ~~~~~~~-2.2\times 10^{-10}$ \\[3pt]
& $\epsilon_{\mathrm{BC}}$ & $ ~~~~~~~~~~+1.5\times 10^{-10}$ & $ ~~~~ -3.6\times 10^{-7}$ & $ ~~~~~~~-6.9\times 10^{-11}$ \\[3pt]
& $\epsilon_{y_{\mathrm{max}}}$ & $ ~~~~~~~~~~-2.3\times 10^{-4~}$ & $ ~~~~ -2.2\times 10^{-4}$ & $ ~~~~~~~-3.5 \times 10^{-4~}$
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\caption{Mode properties and relative errors in the eigenvalue magnitude for the reference parameters given in Table \ref{tab:refparms} with respect to the parameter changes: $x_{\mathrm{out}}/\ell = 7.0 \times 10^5$ (fixing the density $N_x/L$); $N_x = 260$; the use of Dirichlet in-/outflow boundary conditions; and $y_{\mathrm{max}}/\ell = 1.4 \times 10^5$ (fixing $N_y=50$ and $y_i=4.0 \times 10^3$). The reported digits are truncated (not rounded) and those that are tainted by the largest reported error are underlined.}\label{tab:conv}
\vspace{-0mm}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
The error introduced by the finite domain length, $\epsilon_L$, representing a primary source of error in the literature mentioned in the introduction, can be made an order of magnitude smaller than $\epsilon_{y_{\mathrm{max}}}$. Altering the resolution in the streamwise direction yields a very small error, $\epsilon_{N_x}$, due to the use of the spectral scheme with $N_x=260$ to $300$ nodes. It should be emphasised that these amounts of nodes are not at all necessary to obtain converging solutions for the reference case; using $N_x = 100$ nodes for mode 1 results in an error comparable to $\epsilon_{y_{\mathrm{max}}}$. The truncation boundary conditions represent the other primary uncertainty throughout the literature. By changing from Neumann to Dirichlet conditions, a remarkably small $\epsilon_{\mathrm{BC}}$ is obtained, that is equivalent to $\epsilon_{N_x}$.
These results conclusively demonstrate that the obtained solutions are independent of the numerical set-up. The negligible influence of the streamwise domain length and truncation boundary conditions is observed to be directly related to the small amplitude of the eigenfunctions at the truncation boundaries. The spatial decay of the eigenfunctions within the domain allows placing the truncation boundaries at a \textit{far enough, but finite} distance, so that the eigeninformation is virtually unaffected.
Only the modes along the main branch are found to converge; the side and downward branches persistently depend on the domain length. For increasing $L$, the side branch moves downward and modes that are originally positioned within the downward branch either merge with the main branch (and do converge thereafter) or they merge with the side branch. The fact that the side and downward branches do not converge is unexpected, because the corresponding eigenfunctions do decay toward all truncation boundaries, e.g.\ see modes 7 and 9 in Figs.~\ref{fig:existentialgraph}($f$,$g$). This illustrates that an eigenfunction's spatial decay toward the truncation boundaries is not a sufficient condition for the eigensolution to be independent of the numerical set-up.
\subsection{Dependence on $c_{\mathrm{g}}$}
\label{sec:variationcg}
Next, the movement of the converged part of the spectrum is studied while varying $c_\mathrm{g}$, see Fig.~\ref{fig:cgsweepgraphreal}($a$). The Doppler effect dictates that the frequency $\omega_r$ should decrease while $c_{\mathrm{g}}$ increases.
System \eqref{eq:BiG} has real coefficients, rendering the spectrum symmetric about the $\omega_i$-axis.
The branch with $\omega_r<0$ moves as expected from the Doppler effect and is therefore considered. The reference case $c_{\mathrm{g}}/\overline{U}\hspace{-.5mm}_e = 0.415$ yielded the largest $\omega_i$-value.
By increasing $c_{\mathrm{g}}/\overline{U}\hspace{-.5mm}_e \geq 0.41$, the main and side branches increase in extent and the eigenfunctions move upstream, see Figs.~\ref{fig:cgsweepgraphreal}($e$--$h$). While moving upstream, the streamwise extent of the eigenfunctions decreases and so does the streamwise wavelength. This is consistent with the boundary layer becoming thinner.
\begin{figure*}[h]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures/cgsweepgraph_v2.pdf}
\vspace{-0mm}
\caption{($a$) Relevant $\omega$-spectrum part and ($b$--$h$) isocontours of the real part of $\tilde{u}$ (coloured lines: from min- (blue) to maximum (red) with $\Delta = 2/9$, scaling the maximum to unity) and $|\tilde{u}|$ (black dotted, level: $1/9$) corresponding to the maximum $\omega_i$-eigenvalues along the labelled branches in ($a$) for indicative values of $c_{\mathrm{g}}$ ($\Delta c_{\mathrm{g}}/\overline{U}\hspace{-.5mm}_e = 0.01$), $\delta_{99}$-isocontour (black dashed).}
\label{fig:cgsweepgraphreal}
\vspace{-0mm}
\end{figure*}
By decreasing $c_{\mathrm{g}}/\overline{U}\hspace{-.5mm}_e < 0.41$, the side branch coalesces with the main branch and the downward branch splits in two. The eigenfunctions move downstream and reach the outflow boundary. When close enough, the functions suddenly `latch' onto the outflow boundary and, simultaneously, an artificial structure emerges from the \textit{in}flow boundary. The point where the downwards branch splits reaches the top of the branch as $c_{\mathrm{g}}/\overline{U}\hspace{-.5mm}_e$ approaches 0.35, which causes the spectrum to have an arc-branch shape, as so described by \citet{lesshafft2017artificial}. As the spectrum attains the arc-branch shape, the latching tail from the inlet reaches the downstream structure, overwhelming the solution throughout the entire domain; all dynamics are then dominated by the artificial truncation boundary conditions. Tests show that solutions displaying this feature are strongly dependent on the artificial boundary conditions, domain size and $x$-resolution. Although the process changes by which the downward branch splits and how the eigenfunctions undergo latching, deploying fourth-order finite differences in the streamwise direction also results in artificial structures that reach from the in- to the outflow boundary at $c_{\mathrm{g}}/\overline{U}\hspace{-.5mm}_e = 0.35$.
The results of \citet[\S IV.B.2, for $c_{\mathrm{g}} = 0$]{AlizardRobinet} suggest that arc-shaped spectra obtained for too small $c_{\mathrm{g}}$ approach a continuum as the streamwise domain length tends to infinity. Numerous analyses presented in the literature are performed in the stationary reference frame and result in arc-shaped spectra. The present analysis suggests that the domain truncation has had a non-negligible artificial impact on these results.
It is concluded that, keeping the reference domain length fixed, a large enough $c_{\mathrm{g}}$-value is required to prevent the eigenfunctions from reaching the outlet truncation boundary and eliminate the unwanted dependency on the numerical set-up.
\subsection{The limit $c_\mathrm{g}\rightarrow 0$}
By increasing the domain length, the eigenfunctions can propagate further downstream and $c_\mathrm{g}$ could be further decreased, attempting to recover the stationary reference frame.
`Latching' is from now on identified with the emergence of an artificial inlet structure. It is observed when the $\tilde{u}$-eigenfunction attains an $O(10^{-3})$ relative magnitude at the outflow boundary for the reference domain length. Hence, the most up- and downstream position of the wavepacket, $x_{\mathrm{front}}$ and $x_{\mathrm{aft}}$, are respectively defined to be the first and last positions where this level is measured.
Furthermore, the minimum wavelength $\lambda_{\mathrm{min}}$ (represented by the real and imaginary part of $\tilde{u}$) for $x\in[x_{\mathrm{front}},x_{\mathrm{aft}}]$ is measured. The domain length is increased (fixing $N_x/L$) to properly capture the most unstable solution along the main branch. The measured variation of $x_{\mathrm{aft}}- x_{\mathrm{front}}$, $x_{\mathrm{aft}}$ and $\lambda_{\mathrm{min}}$ with $c_{\mathrm{g}}$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:variationWPchar2}($b$); all increase with decreasing $c_{\mathrm{g}}$. Their growth rates are quantified by fitting a power and exponential law; the resulting parameters are reported in Table~\ref{tab:fits}.
\begin{figure*}[h]
\vspace{-0mm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{Figures/variationWPchar3.pdf}
\vspace{-0mm}
\caption{For the most unstable $\tilde{u}$-eigenfunction: aft-most location ($x_{\mathrm{aft}}$, black), streamwise extent ($x_{\mathrm{aft}} - x_{\mathrm{front}}$, red) and minimum wavelength ($10\times \lambda_\mathrm{min}$, blue) versus $c_\mathrm{g}$. Measured values (symbols), power (solid lines) and exponential (dashed) fits and outflow boundary $x_{\mathrm{out}}$ (dash-dotted). ($a$) Trend-extrapolation as $c_\mathrm{g}\rightarrow 0$ (minimum: $0.025\overline{U}\hspace{-.5mm}_e$) and ($b$) data and fits.}
\label{fig:variationWPchar2}
\vspace{-0mm}
\end{figure*}
If the power-law trend holds in the limit, the quantities approach infinity when $c_{\mathrm{g}}\rightarrow 0$, as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:variationWPchar2}($a$), rendering resolving localised wavepackets in the stationary reference frame impossible. The conjecture that this is impossible is supported by the theory presented by \citet[equation 8.10]{GrootPhDThesis}. Based on the results that could be obtained with the available computational resources, significantly larger correlations were found for the power versus exponential law, see Table~\ref{tab:fits}. Furthermore, independent of the fitting law used, $\lambda_{\mathrm{min}}$ increases at a much lower rate than $x_{\mathrm{aft}}-x_{\mathrm{front}}$. Therefore, both the $x$-resolution and the domain length have to be increased as $c_{\mathrm{g}}\rightarrow 0$, so that the problem becomes computationally intractable when $c_{\mathrm{g}}$ becomes small. An insufficient $x$-resolution was also observed to cause latching to the in-/outflow boundaries.
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\vspace{-0mm}
\def~{\hphantom{0}}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{r c c c c c}
& $x_{\mathrm{aft}}$ & & $x_{\mathrm{aft}} - x_{\mathrm{front}}$ & & $\lambda_\mathrm{min}$ \\[3pt]
Power law: & $-9.0$ (0.9999) & & $-7.9$ (0.9998) & & $-5.8$ (0.9995) \\
Exponential law: & $-9.5$ (0.9979) & & $-8.2$ (0.9981) & & $-6.1$ (0.9972)
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\vspace{-0mm}
\caption{Fit parameters based on the outermost $c_{\mathrm{g}}$ data points in Fig. \ref{fig:variationWPchar2} for $x_{\mathrm{aft}}$, $x_{\mathrm{aft}} - x_{\mathrm{front}}$
and $\lambda_\mathrm{min}$ of the wavepacket: $p$ in $a c_{\mathrm{g}}^p$ for the power law, $\varepsilon$ in $b \mathrm{e}^{\varepsilon c_{\mathrm{g}}}$ for the exponential law, the Pearson correlation coefficients are given in brackets.}
\vspace{-0mm}
\label{tab:fits}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\section{Link with local and non-local methods}
\label{sec:linkLSTPSE}
As opposed to the approach used in literature \citep{AlizardRobinet,Rodriguez2010}, this section demonstrates the link between local (LST), non-local (PSE) and global stability methods for Blasius flow without making use of the BiGlobal eigeninformation. The converged modes appear as \textit{discrete} (i.e.\ not \textit{forced continuum}) modes, which permits their approximation via the global mode theory developed by \citet{monkewitz1993global}. From a physical perspective, this can be justified as follows. A convective instability appears as an absolute instability in a moving reference frame \citep{HuerrePMonkewitz1985,SchmidHenningson}. In turn, the existence of an absolute instability is a necessary condition for the existence of a global instability \citep{HuerreMonkewitz}. To demonstrate these instability natures, a spatio-temporal stability framework must be used. For conciseness, this framework will here be recited in recipe form, after describing the used (non-)local stability approaches, see \citet{monkewitz1993global} for all details.
The LST and PSE problems are discretised as consistently as possible with respect to the BiGlobal problem.
For PSE, the stabilised discretisation method proposed by \citet{andersson1998stabilization} is used.
The streamwise wavenumber $\sigma$ equals:
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{rl}
\text{LST:}& \quad \sigma = \alpha;\\
\text{PSE:}& \quad \sigma = \alpha + \alpha_{\mathrm{aux}},
\end{array} \quad \text{where:}\quad \alpha_{\mathrm{aux}} = -\mathrm{i} \int_0^{y_{\mathrm{max}}} \tilde{u}^* \frac{\partial \tilde{u}}{\partial x}\,\mathrm{d}y\Bigg/\int_0^{y_{\mathrm{max}}} |\tilde{u}|^2\,\mathrm{d}y,
\end{equation}
\noindent and $\alpha$ is the streamwise wavenumber in the standard perturbation ansatzes \citep{MackAGARD,Herbert1997} and the star denotes complex conjugation. For PSE, the growth in the shape function is accounted for with $\alpha_{\mathrm{aux}}$, which is minimised up to $O(10^{-10})$ relative errors. Both problems are solved for a frequency $\bar{\omega}$ and location $\bar{x}$ corresponding to the stationary frame of reference, such that $\sigma = \sigma(\bar{x},\bar{\omega})$. The frequency in the moving frame of reference is obtained through the Doppler shift formula: $\omega(\bar{x},\bar{\omega}) = \bar{\omega} - \sigma(\bar{x},\bar{\omega}) c_{\mathrm{g}}$, equivalent to equation \eqref{eq:generalisedDoppler}. In the moving reference frame, the solutions have a non-convective nature. Therefore, the PSE problem would diverge if solved in that reference frame; resorting to the stationary reference frame allows circumventing this issue entirely.
The global frequency is obtained by manipulating the LST/PSE solutions as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Find $\bar{\omega}\in \mathbb{C}$ for which $|\mathrm{d}\omega/\mathrm{d}\sigma| = 0$, while fixing $\bar{x}$. This is equivalent to $|\mathrm{d} \omega/\mathrm{d} \bar{\omega}| = 0$, because ${\mathrm{d} \omega}/{\mathrm{d} \sigma} = c_{\mathrm{g}}/((\mathrm{d} \bar{\omega}/\mathrm{d} \omega) - 1)$. The corresponding solutions are indicated by the subscript $0$; $\omega=\omega_0$ represents a saddle point when $\omega$ is graphed versus $\sigma$ and $\sigma_0$ is a double root of the dispersion relation. Note that $\omega_0$ and $\sigma_0$ are both a function of $\bar{x}$.
\item Find $\bar{x}$ for which $|\mathrm{d}\omega_0/\mathrm{d}\bar{x}| = 0$. For this $\bar{x}$-value, $\omega_0(\bar{x})$ displays a cusp in the $\omega$-plane and this cusp-point, denoted by $\omega_\mathrm{g}$, approximates one BiGlobal eigenvalue.
\end{enumerate}
The criteria (i) and (ii) were checked numerically by evaluating the solutions for increasingly denser $\bar{\omega}$- and $\bar{x}$-sequences, respectively. The criteria were deemed satisfied if the magnitude of the derivatives $|\mathrm{d}\omega/\mathrm{d}\bar{\omega}|$ and $|\mathrm{d}\omega_0/\mathrm{d}\bar{x}|$ was of $O(10^{-6})$ and $O(10^{-14}\overline{U}\hspace{-.5mm}_e/\ell^2)$
, respectively. No $\omega_{\mathrm{g}}$-cusp could be found for the real-valued $c_{\mathrm{g}} = 0.415\overline{U}\hspace{-.5mm}_e$. Therefore $c_{\mathrm{g},r}$ was fixed (to the reference value 0.415$\overline{U}\hspace{-.5mm}_e$) and non-zero $c_{\mathrm{g},i}$-values were permitted. This is equivalent to the use of a complex spatial $\bar{x}$-coordinate by \citet{monkewitz1993global}. This did yield LST and PSE solutions satisfying both criteria ($10^{3}c_{\mathrm{g},i}/\overline{U}\hspace{-.5mm}_e = -3.0$ for PSE and $-6.8$ for LST). Note that the use of complex group speeds is necessary only to perform the comparison with LST and PSE; having retrieved converged BiGlobal modes for real $c_{\mathrm{g}}$ demonstrates that complex group speeds can be circumvented completely through the use of the moving reference frame. An interpretation of the complex group speeds and complex spatial coordinates is therefore immaterial. Fig.~\ref{fig:comparisonLSTPSE}($a$) displays the cusped $\omega_0(\bar{x})$-branches and the BiGlobal spectra for the corresponding complex $c_{\mathrm{g}}$-values.
\begin{figure*}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures/comparisonLSTPSE.pdf}
\vspace{-0mm}
\caption{($a$) Comparison of the BiGlobal spectra (open symbols) for the complex $c_{\mathrm{g}}$-values for which cusp-branches could be obtained with PSE (red dots) and LST (black dots); equal colours indicate equal $c_{\mathrm{g},i}$-values, $\omega$-values for LST and PSE cusps and most unstable BiGlobal eigenvalues are presented in the legend (for $c_{\mathrm{g},i} = 0$: $\omega\,\ell/\overline{U}\hspace{-.5mm}_e = (-15.46 + 3.01\mathrm{i})\times 10^{-6}$). ($b$,$c$) Comparison of the reconstruction of the BiGlobal $|\tilde{u}|$-eigenfunction (red solid, levels: 1, 3, $\ldots$ 9, scaling the maximum to 10) with LST ($b$, black dashed) and PSE ($c$, black dashed) for the respective $c_{\mathrm{g},i}$-values used in ($a$). The value $c_{\mathrm{g},r}/\overline{U}\hspace{-.5mm}_e = 0.415$ is used for all presented cases.}
\label{fig:comparisonLSTPSE}
\vspace{-0mm}
\end{figure*}
Comparing the $\omega_{\mathrm{g}}$-values to the BiGlobal eigenvalues (given in the legend), the minimum distance is smaller for PSE (red) than for LST (black). Similarly, a smaller $c_{\mathrm{g},i}$-value is required for PSE than LST. Both the smaller distance of the $\omega_{\mathrm{g}}$-value and smaller $c_{\mathrm{g},i}$-value are argued to be caused by the smaller model error in the PSE over the LST approach, i.e.\ due to non-parallel effects. The reconstruction of the BiGlobal eigenfunction with the (non-)local solutions is shown in Figs.~\ref{fig:comparisonLSTPSE}($b$,$c$), obtained by fixing the frequency in the moving reference frame to $\omega_{\mathrm{g}}$ and selecting the $\alpha$-branches that represent decaying solutions in the up- and downstream directions \citep[equation 3.16]{monkewitz1993global}. The obtained $|\tilde{u}|$-functions closely resemble the BiGlobal equivalents. The structure found with LST lies significantly upstream of the BiGlobal one, while a striking match is obtained with PSE. These comparisons reflect the found differences in the $\omega_{\mathrm{g}}$- and $c_{\mathrm{g},i}$-values and they confirm that the most unstable BiGlobal modes are recovered.
These results establish the link between the BiGlobal and $\text{(non-)}$local stability approaches for convective mechanisms, specifically. It moreover demonstrates that, while Tollmien-Schlichting waves are a convective instability in the stationary reference frame, they represent a global instability mechanism in a moving reference frame.
In conclusion, the BiGlobal stability method formulated in the moving reference frame does exactly what it is supposed to do: it localises global instability mechanisms without having to go through the complicated $\sigma$-saddle- and $\omega$-cusp-point-finding algorithms and without having to deal with esoteric complex group speeds or complex spatial coordinates.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
By solving the BiGlobal problem in a moving frame of reference, we obtain eigensolutions that converge numerically for a sufficiently large, but finite resolution and domain length. These solutions appear as discrete modes in the eigenvalue spectrum, which enabled us to independently approximate the BiGlobal eigenvalues with $\text{(non-)}$local stability methods, i.e.\ without using the BiGlobal results as input. Moreover, we demonstrate that retrieving converged eigensolutions in the stationary reference frame is likely impossible for the examined base flow case.
A moving reference frame renders developing base flows unsteady. While currently not accounting for the related effects, the present methodology and results establish a reliable point of departure for their quantification by performing time-integration in the future. Further investigations should be focused on more closely establishing the link between the absolute and global instability characteristics and reproducing the equivalents of the neutral and amplification ($N$-factor) curves.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The authors acknowledge the funding provided by the FNRS-FRIA fellowship granted to Sébastien E.M. Niessen and thank Henk Schuttelaars and Stefan Hickel at Delft University of Technology, Fabio Pinna at the Von K\'arm\'an Institute for Fluid Dynamics, Vincent Terrapon at Universit\'e de Li\`ege and Ethan Beyak, Andrew Riha and Helen Reed at Texas A\&M University for the useful discussions.
|
\section{Introduction}
In 2003, the Belle collaboration observed a narrow charmonium-like structure $X(3872)$ in the $\pi^+ \pi^- J/\psi$ invariant mass spectrum in the exclusive $B$-decays \cite{X3872-2003}, which cannot be accommodated in the traditional or normal quark-antiquark model. Thereafter, more than twenty charmonium-like exotic states were observed by the BaBar, Belle, BESIII, CDF, CMS, D0, LHCb collaborations \cite{PDG}, some exotic states are still needed confirmation and their quantum numbers have not been established yet.
There have seen several possible interpretations for those $X$, $Y$ and $Z$ states, such as the tetraquark states, tetraquark (or hadronic) molecular states, dynamically generated resonances, hadroquarkonium,
kinematical effects, cusp effects, etc \cite{HXChen-review-1601,MNielsen-review-1812}.
Among those possible interpretations, the tetraquark states and tetraquark molecular states are outstanding and attract much attention as the exotic $X$, $Y$ and $Z$ states lie near the thresholds of two charmed mesons.
In 2006, R. D. Matheus et al assigned the $X(3872) $ to be the $J^{PC}=1^{++}$ diquark-antidiquark type tetraquark state, and studied its mass with the QCD sum rules \cite{Narison-3872}. It is the first time to apply the QCD sum rules to study the exotic $X$, $Y$ and $Z$ states. Thereafter the QCD sum rules become a powerful theoretical approach in studying the masses and widths of the exotic $X$, $Y$ and $Z$ states, irrespective of assigning them as the hidden-charm (or hidden-bottom) tetraquark states or tetraquark (or hadronic) molecular states, and have given many successful descriptions of the hadron properties \cite{MNielsen-review-1812,Narison-3872,QCDSR-4-quark-mass,WangHuangtao-PRD,Wang-tetra-formula,WangHuang-2014-NPA,
QCDSR-4-quark-width,WangZG-4-quark-mole,WangZG-CPC-Y4390}.
In the QCD sum rules for the tetraquark states and tetraquark molecular states, we choose the diquark-antidiquark type currents or meson-meson type (more precisely, the color-singlet-color-singlet type currents), respectively, they can be reformed into each other via Fierz rearrangements, for example,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Fierz}
J_{\mu}&=&\frac{\varepsilon^{ijk}\varepsilon^{imn}}{\sqrt{2}}\Big\{u^{T}_jC\gamma_5 c_k \bar{d}_m\gamma_\mu C \bar{c}^{T}_n
-u^{T}_jC\gamma_\mu c_k\bar{d}_m\gamma_5 C \bar{c}^{T}_n \Big\} \, , \nonumber\\
&=&\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}\Big\{\,i\bar{c}i\gamma_5 c\,\bar{d}\gamma_\mu u-i\bar{c} \gamma_\mu c\,\bar{d}i\gamma_5 u+\bar{c} u\,\bar{d}\gamma_\mu\gamma_5 c
-\bar{c} \gamma_\mu \gamma_5u\,\bar{d}c \nonumber\\
&& - i\bar{c}\gamma^\nu\gamma_5c\, \bar{d}\sigma_{\mu\nu}u+i\bar{c}\sigma_{\mu\nu}c\, \bar{d}\gamma^\nu\gamma_5u
- i \bar{c}\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_5u\,\bar{d}\gamma^\nu c+i\bar{c}\gamma^\nu u\, \bar{d}\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_5c \,\Big\} \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where the $i$, $j$, $k$, $m$, $n$ are color indices.
In the correlation functions for the color-singlet-color-singlet type currents, Lucha, Melikhov and Sazdjian assert that the Feynman diagrams can be divided into or separated into factorizable diagrams and nonfactorizable diagrams in the color space in the operator product expansion,
the contributions at the order $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^k)$ with $k\leq1$, which are factorizable in the color space, are exactly canceled out by the meson-meson scattering states at the hadron side,
the nonfactorizable diagrams, if have a Landau singularity, begin to make contributions to the tetraquark (molecular) states, the tetraquark (molecular) states begin to receive contributions at the order $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^2)$ (according to the Fierz rearrangements, see Eq.\eqref{Fierz}) \cite{Chu-Sheng-PRD}.
About ten years before the work of Lucha, Melikhov and Sazdjian, Lee and Kochelev studied the two-pion contributions in the QCD sum rules for the scalar meson $f_0(600)$ (or $f_0(500)$ named by the Particle Data Group now \cite{PDG}) as the tetraquark state, and observed that the contributions of the order $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^k)$ with $k\leq1$ cannot be canceled out by the two-pion scattering states \cite{Lee-0702-PRD}.
In this article, we will examine the assertion of Lucha, Melikhov and Sazdjian
in details and use two examples to illustrate that the Landau equation is of no use in the QCD sum rule for the tetraquark molecular states.
The article is arranged as follows: in Sect.2, we discuss the usefulness of the Landau equation in
the QCD sum rules for the tetraquark molecular states;
in Sect.3, we obtain the QCD sum rules for
the meson-meson scattering states and tetraquark molecular states as an example; in Sect.4,
we present the numerical results and discussions; Sect.5 is reserved for our conclusion.
\section{Is Landau equation useful in the QCD sum rules for the tetraquark molecular states?}
In the following, we write down the two-point correlation function $\Pi_{\mu\nu}(p)$ in the QCD sum rules as an example,
\begin{eqnarray}
\Pi_{\mu\nu}(p)&=&i\int d^4x e^{ip \cdot x} \langle0|T\Big\{J_\mu(x)J_\nu^{\dagger}(0)\Big\}|0\rangle \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
J_\mu(x)&=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\Big[\bar{u}(x)i\gamma_5 c(x)\bar{c}(x)\gamma_\mu d(x)+\bar{u}(x)\gamma_\mu c(x)\bar{c}(x)i\gamma_5 d(x) \Big] \, .
\end{eqnarray}
The color-singlet-color-singlet type current $J_\mu(x)$ has the quantum numbers $J^{PC}=1^{+-}$, at the hadron side, the quantum field theory allows non-vanishing couplings to the $D\bar{D}^*+D^*\bar{D}$ scattering states or tetraquark molecular states with the $J^{PC}=1^{+-}$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[totalheight=4cm,width=5cm]{meson-meson-afs2.eps}
\caption{ The nonfactorizable Feynman diagrams of the order $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^2)$ for the color-singlet-color-singlet type currents, other diagrams obtained by interchanging of the heavy quark lines (dashed lines) and light quark lines (solid lines) are implied.}\label{meson-afs2}
\end{figure}
At the QCD side, when we carry out the operator product expansion, Lucha, Melikhov and Sazdjian assert that the Feynman diagrams can be divided into or separated into factorizable diagrams and nonfactorizable diagrams, the Feynman diagrams of the orders $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^0)$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^1)$ are factorizable, the factorizable diagrams are exactly canceled out by the meson-meson scattering states, while the nonfactorizable Feynman diagrams, which are of the order $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^2)$, if have a Landau singularity, begin to make contributions to the tetraquark (molecular) states, the tetraquark (molecular) states begin to receive contributions at the order $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^2)$ \cite{Chu-Sheng-PRD}, see the Feynman diagrams shown Fig.\ref{meson-afs2}. In fact, such an assertion is questionable.
{\bf Firstly}, we cannot assert that the factorizable Feynman diagrams in color space are exactly canceled out by the meson-meson scattering states, because the meson-meson scattering state and tetraquark molecular state both have four valence quarks, which can be divided into or separated into two color-neutral clusters. We cannot distinguish which Feynman diagrams contribute to the meson-meson scattering state or tetraquark molecular state based on the two color-neutral clusters.
{\bf Secondly}, the quarks and gluons are confined objects, they cannot be put on the mass-shell, it is questionable to assert that the Landau equation is applicable in the nonperturbative calculations dealing with the quark-gluon bound states \cite{Landau}.
If we insist on applying the Landau equation to study the Feynman diagrams in the QCD sum rules, we should choose the pole masses rather than the $\overline{MS}$ masses to warrant that there exists a mass pole which corresponds to the mass-shell in pure perturbative calculations, just like in the quantum electrodynamics, where the electron, muon and tau can be put on the mass-shell.
According to the assertion of Lucha, Melikhov and Sazdjian, the tetraquark (molecular) states begin to receive contributions at the order $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^2)$ \cite{Chu-Sheng-PRD},
it is reasonable to take the pole masses $\hat{m}_Q$ as,
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{m}_Q&=&m_Q(m_Q)\left[1+\frac{4}{3}\frac{\alpha_s(m_Q)}{\pi}+f\left(\frac{\alpha_s(m_Q)}{\pi}\right)^2+g\left(\frac{\alpha_s(m_Q)}{\pi}\right)^3\right]\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
to put the heavy quark lines on the mass-shell, the explicit expressions of the coefficients $f$ and $g$ can be found in Refs.\cite{PDG,Three-loop-mass}. It is
straightforward to obtain
$ \hat{m}_b=m_b(m_b)\left(1 + 0.10 + 0.05 + 0.03\right)=4.78\pm0.06\,\rm{GeV}$ \cite{PDG}.
If the Landau equation is applicable in the QCD sum rules for the tetraquark states and tetraquark molecular states, it is certainly applicable in the QCD sum rules for
the traditional or normal charmonium and bottomonium states.
In the case of the $c$-quark, the pole mass $\hat{m}_c=1.67\pm0.07\,\rm{GeV}$ from the Particle Data Group \cite{PDG}, the Landau singularity appears at the $s$-channel $\sqrt{s}=\sqrt{p^2}=2\hat{m}_c=3.34\pm0.14\,{\rm{GeV}}>m_{\eta_c}$ and $m_{J/\psi}$. While in the case of the $b$-quark, the pole mass $\hat{m}_b=4.78\pm0.06\,\rm{GeV}$ from the Particle Data Group \cite{PDG}, the Landau singularity appears at the $s$-channel $\sqrt{s}=\sqrt{p^2}=2\hat{m}_b=9.56\pm0.12\,{\rm{GeV}}>m_{\eta_b}$ and $m_{\Upsilon}$. It is odd or unreliable that the masses of the charmonium (bottomonium) states lie below the threshold $2\hat{m}_c$ ($2\hat{m}_b$) in the QCD sum rules for the $\eta_c$ and $J/\psi$ ($\eta_b$ and $\Upsilon$), as the integrals of the forms
\begin{eqnarray}
\int_{4\hat{m}_c^2}^{s_0} \delta\left(s-m_{\eta_c/J/\psi}^2 \right)\exp\left( -\frac{s}{T^2}\right) ds \, , \nonumber \\
\int_{4\hat{m}_b^2}^{s_0} \delta\left(s-m_{\eta_b/\Upsilon}^2 \right)\exp\left( -\frac{s}{T^2}\right) ds \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
at the hadron side are meaningless, where the $T^2$ is the Borel parameter. The tiny widths of the $\eta_c$, $J/\psi$, $\eta_b$ and $\Upsilon$ valuate the zero-width approximation, the hadronic spectral densities are of the form $\delta\left(s-m_{\eta_c/J/\psi/\eta_b/\Upsilon}^2 \right)$.
{\bf Thirdly}, the nonfactorizable Feynman diagrams which have the Landau singularities begin to appear at the order $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^0/\alpha_s^1)$ rather than at the order $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^2)$, and make contributions to the tetraquark molecular states, if the assertion (the nonfactorizable Feynman diagrams which have Landau singularities make contributions to the tetraquark molecular states) of Lucha, Melikhov and Sazdjian is right.
The nonperturbative contributions play an important role and serve as a hallmark for the nonperturbative nature of the QCD sum rules, the nonfactorizable contributions appear at the order $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s)$ due to the operators $\bar{q}g_sGq\bar{q}g_sGq$, which come from the Feynman diagrams shown in Fig.\ref{meson-qqg-qqg}.
Such Feynman diagrams can be taken as annihilation diagrams, which play an important role in the tetraquark molecular states \cite{FKGuo1308}.
If we insist on applying the landau equation to study the Feynman diagrams shown in Fig.\ref{meson-qqg-qqg} and choose the pole mass of the $c$-quark, we obtain a sub-leading Landau singularity at the $s$-channel $s=p^2=(\hat{m}_c+\hat{m}_c)^2$, which indicates that it contributes to the tetraquark molecular states.
From the operators $\bar{q}g_sGq\bar{q}g_sGq$, we can obtain the vacuum condensate $\langle\bar{q}g_s\sigma Gq\rangle^2$, where the $g_s^2=4\pi \alpha_s$ is absorbed into the vacuum condensate, so the Feynman diagrams in Fig.\ref{meson-qqg-qqg} can be counted as of the order $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^0)$. The nonfactorizable Feynman diagrams appear at the order $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^0)$
or $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^1)$ (based on how to account for the $g_s^2$ in the vacuum condensates), not at the order $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^2)$ asserted in Ref.\cite{Chu-Sheng-PRD}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[totalheight=4cm,width=5cm]{meson-meson-qqg-qqg.eps}
\caption{ The nonfactorizable Feynman diagrams contribute to the vacuum condensates
$\langle \bar{q}g_s\sigma G q \rangle^2$ for the color-singlet-color-singlet type currents, where the solid lines and dashed lines denote the light quarks and heavy quarks, respectively. }\label{meson-qqg-qqg}
\end{figure}
{\bf Fourthly}, the Landau equation servers as a kinematical equation in the momentum space, and is independent on the factorizable and nonfactorizable properties of the Feynman diagrams in the color space. Without taking it for granted that the factorizable Feynman diagrams in the color space only make contributions to the two-meson scattering states, the Landau equation cannot exclude the factorizable Feynman diagrams in the color space, those diagrams can also have the Landau singularities.
In the leading order, the factorizable Feynman diagrams shown in Fig.\ref{Lowest-diagram} can be divided into or separated into two color-neutral clusters, each cluster corresponds to a trace both in the color space and in the Dirac spinor space. However, in the momentum space, they are nonfactorizable diagrams, the basic integrals are of the form,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Basic-Integral}
\int d^4q d^4k d^4l \frac{1}{\left(p+q-k+l\right)^2-m_c^2}\frac{1}{q^2-m_q^2}\frac{1}{k^2-m_q^2}\frac{1}{l^2-m_c^2}\, .
\end{eqnarray}
If we choose the pole masses, there exists a Landau singularity or an $s$-channel singularity at $s=p^2=(\hat{m}_u+\hat{m}_d+\hat{m}_c+\hat{m}_c)^2$, which is just a signal of a four-quark intermediate state. We cannot assert that it is a signal of a meson-meson scattering state or a tetraquark molecular state, because the meson-meson scattering state and tetraquark molecular state both have four valence quarks, $q$, $\bar{q}$, $c$ and $\bar{c}$, which form two color-neutral clusters.
The Landau singularity is just a kinematical singularity, not a dynamical singularity \cite{FKGuo-cusps}, it is useless in distinguishing the contributions to the meson-meson scattering state and tetraquark molecular state. If we switch off the assertion that the
factorizable Feynman diagrams shown in Fig.\ref{Lowest-diagram} make contributions to the meson-meson scattering states alone, the $s$-channel singularity at $s=p^2=(\hat{m}_u+\hat{m}_d+\hat{m}_c+\hat{m}_c)^2$ supports that they also contribute to the tetraquark molecular states.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[totalheight=6cm,width=8cm]{meson-meson-tree.eps}
\caption{ The Feynman diagrams for the lowest order contributions, where the solid lines and dashed lines represent the light quarks and heavy quarks, respectively. }\label{Lowest-diagram}
\end{figure}
{\bf Fifthly}, only formal QCD sum rules for the tetraquark states or tetraquark molecular states are obtained based on the assertion of Lucha, Melikhov and Simula
in Ref.\cite{Chu-Sheng-PRD},
no feasible QCD sum rules with predictions can be confronted to the experimental data are obtained up to now.
{\bf Sixthly}, in the QCD sum rules, we carry out the operator product expansion in the deep Euclidean space, $-p^2 \to \infty$, then obtain the physical spectral densities at the quark-gluon level through dispersion relation \cite{SVZ79,Reinders85,ColangeloReview},
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho_{QCD}(s)&=&\frac{1}{\pi}{\rm Im}\,\Pi(s+i\epsilon)\mid_{\epsilon\to 0}\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where the $\Pi(s)$ denotes the correlation functions. The Landau singularities require that the squared momentum $p^2=(\hat{m}_u+\hat{m}_d+\hat{m}_c+\hat{m}_c)^2$ in the Feynman diagrams, see Fig.\ref{Lowest-diagram} and Eq.\eqref{Basic-Integral}, it is questionable to perform the operator product expansion.
\section{QCD sum rules with color-singlet-color-singlet type currents }
Now let us assume that the assertion of Lucha, Melikhov and Sazdjian is right, the tetraquark molecular states begin to receive contributions at the order $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^2)$, the contributions at the order $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^k)$ with $k\leq1$ are exactly canceled out by the meson-meson scattering states.
We saturate the QCD sum rules with the meson-meson scattering states and examine whether or not we can obtain feasible QCD sum rules.
In the following, we write down the two-point correlation functions $\Pi_{\mu\nu}(p)$ and $\Pi_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}(p)$ in the QCD sum rules,
\begin{eqnarray}
\Pi_{\mu\nu}(p)&=&i\int d^4x e^{ip \cdot x} \langle0|T\Big\{J_\mu(x)J_\nu^{\dagger}(0)\Big\}|0\rangle \, , \\
\Pi_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}(p)&=&i\int d^4x e^{ip \cdot x} \langle0|T\left\{J_{\mu\nu}(x)J_{\alpha\beta}^{\dagger}(0)\right\}|0\rangle \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
J_\mu(x)&=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\Big[\bar{u}(x)i\gamma_5 c(x)\bar{c}(x)\gamma_\mu d(x)+\bar{u}(x)\gamma_\mu c(x)\bar{c}(x)i\gamma_5 d(x) \Big] \, , \\
J_{\mu\nu}(x)&=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\Big[\bar{s}(x)\gamma_\mu c(x) \bar{c}(x)\gamma_\nu\gamma_5 s(x)-\bar{s}(x)\gamma_\nu\gamma_5 c(x) \bar{c}(x)\gamma_\mu s(x)\Big]\, . \end{eqnarray}
The current $J_\mu(x)$ has the quantum numbers $J^{PC}=1^{+-}$, while the current $J_{\mu\nu}(x)$ has definite charge conjugation, the components $J_{0i}(x)$ and
$J_{ij}(x)$ have positive-parity and negative-parity, respectively, where the space indexes $i$, $j=1$, $2$, $3$.
The charged current $J_\mu(x)$ couples potentially to the $D\bar{D}^*+D^*\bar{D}$ scattering state or tetraquark molecular state with the $J^{PC}=1^{+-}$, while the neutral
current $J_{\mu\nu}(x)$ couples potentially to the $D_s^*\bar{D}_{s1}-D_{s1}\bar{D}_s^*$ meson-meson scattering states or tetraquark molecular states with the $J^{PC}=1^{++}$ and $1^{-+}$. Thereafter, we will denote the charged $D\bar{D}^*+D^*\bar{D}$ tetraquark molecular state with the $J^{PC}=1^{+-}$ as the $Z_c$, and denote the neutral $D_s^*\bar{D}_{s1}-D_{s1}\bar{D}_s^*$ tetraquark molecular states with the $J^{PC}=1^{++}$ and $1^{-+}$ as the $X_c^+$ and $X^-_c$, respectively, where the superscripts $\pm$ on the $X_c^\pm$ denote the positive-parity and negative-parity, respectively.
In the following, we write down the possible current-hadron couplings explicitly,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{JA-MM-Z-MM}
\langle0|J_\mu(0)|D(q)\bar{D}^*(p-q)\rangle&=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{f_D m_D^2}{m_c}f_{D^*}m_{D^*}\,\varepsilon_\mu(p-q)\, ,\nonumber\\
\langle0|J_\mu(0)|D^*(q)\bar{D}(p-q)\rangle&=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{f_D m_D^2}{m_c}f_{D^*}m_{D^*}\,\varepsilon_\mu(q)\, ,\nonumber\\
\langle0|J_\mu(0)|D(q)\bar{D}_0(p-q)\rangle&=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{f_D m_D^2}{m_c}f_{D_0}\,(p-q)_\mu\, ,\nonumber\\
\langle0|J_\mu(0)|D_0(q)\bar{D}(p-q)\rangle&=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{f_D m_D^2}{m_c}f_{D_0}\,q_\mu\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{JA-MM-Z}
\langle 0|J_{\mu}(0)|Z_c(p)\rangle &=& \lambda_{Z} \, \varepsilon_{\mu}(p)\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{JT-MM-Z-MM}
\langle0|J_{\mu\nu}(0)|D^*_s(q)\bar{D}_{s1}(p-q)\rangle&=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}f_{D^*_s}m_{D^*_s} f_{D_{s1}}m_{D_{s_1}}\,\varepsilon_{\mu}(q)\varepsilon_\nu(p-q)\, ,\nonumber\\
\langle0|J_{\mu\nu}(0)|D_{s1}(q)\bar{D}^*_{s}(p-q)\rangle&=&-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}f_{D_{s1}}m_{D_{s_1}}f_{D^*_s}m_{D^*_s}\,\varepsilon_{\nu}(q)\varepsilon_{\mu}(p-q) \, ,\nonumber\\
\langle0|J_{\mu\nu}(0)|D^*_s(q)\bar{D}_{s}(p-q)\rangle&=&\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}f_{D^*_s}m_{D^*_s} f_{D_{s}}\,\varepsilon_{\mu}(q)(p-q)_\nu\, ,\nonumber\\
\langle0|J_{\mu\nu}(0)|D_{s}(q)\bar{D}^*_{s}(p-q)\rangle&=&-\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}f_{D_{s}}f_{D^*_s}m_{D^*_s}\,q_{\nu}\varepsilon_{\mu}(p-q) \, ,\nonumber\\
\langle0|J_{\mu\nu}(0)|D_{s0}(q)\bar{D}_{s}(p-q)\rangle&=&\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}f_{D_{s0}} f_{D_{s}}\,q_{\mu}(p-q)_\nu\, ,\nonumber\\
\langle0|J_{\mu\nu}(0)|D_{s}(q)\bar{D}_{s0}(p-q)\rangle&=&-\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}f_{D_{s}}f_{D_{s0}}\,q_{\nu}(p-q)_{\mu} \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{JT-MM-Z}
\langle 0|J_{\mu\nu}(0)|X_c^-(p)\rangle &=& \frac{\lambda_{X^-}}{M_{X^-}} \, \varepsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta} \, \varepsilon^{\alpha}(p)p^{\beta}\, , \nonumber\\
\langle 0|J_{\mu\nu}(0)|X_c^+(p)\rangle &=&\frac{\lambda_{X^+}}{M_{X^+}} \left[\varepsilon_{\mu}(p)p_{\nu}-\varepsilon_{\nu}(p)p_{\mu} \right]\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
the $\varepsilon_\mu$ are the polarization vectors of the vector and axialvector mesons or tetraquark molecular states,
the $f_{D}$, $f_{D_s}$, $f_{D^*}$, $f_{D_s^*}$, $f_{D_0}$, $f_{D_{s0}}$ and $f_{D_{s1}}$ are the decay constants of the traditional or normal heavy mesons, the $\lambda_Z$ and $\lambda_{X^\pm}$ are the pole residues of the tetraquark molecular states.
The charged $D\bar{D}^*+D^*\bar{D}$ tetraquark molecular state $Z_c$ with the $J^{PC}=1^{+-}$ and the neutral $D_s^*\bar{D}_{s1}-D_{s1}\bar{D}_s^*$ tetraquark molecular state $X_c^-$ with the $J^{PC}=1^{-+}$ differ from the traditional mesons significantly, and are good subjects to study the exotic states.
Now we take a short digression to give some explanations for the definitions of the current-hadron couplings in Eq.\eqref{JA-MM-Z-MM} and Eq.\eqref{JT-MM-Z-MM}.
Firstly, let us write down the standard definitions for the decay constants of the traditional or normal heavy mesons,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{decay-constant}
\langle 0|\bar{q}(0)i\gamma_5c(0)|D(q)\rangle&=&\frac{f_D m_D^2}{m_c}\, , \nonumber \\
\langle 0|\bar{q}(0)\gamma_{\mu}c(0)|D^*(q)\rangle&=&f_{D^*} m_{D^*}\varepsilon_{\mu}(q)\, , \nonumber \\
\langle 0|\bar{s}(0)\gamma_{\mu}c(0)|D_s^*(q)\rangle&=&f_{D_s^*} m_{D_s^*}\varepsilon_{\mu}(q)\, , \nonumber \\
\langle 0|\bar{q}(0)\gamma_{\mu}c(0)|D_0(q)\rangle&=&f_{D_0} q_{\mu}\, , \nonumber \\
\langle 0|\bar{s}(0)\gamma_{\mu}c(0)|D_{s0}(q)\rangle&=&f_{D_{s0}} q_{\mu}\, ,\nonumber \\
\langle 0|\bar{s}(0)\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_5c(0)|D_{s1}(q)\rangle&=&f_{D_{s1}} m_{D_{s1}}\varepsilon_{\mu}(q)\, , \nonumber \\
\langle 0|\bar{s}(0)\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_5c(0)|D_s(q)\rangle&=&if_{D_s} q_{\mu}\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
based on the properties of the vector currents and axialvector currents and their conservation features, where $q=u$, $d$. On the other hand, the heavy meson fields have the properties,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{heavy-meson-field}
\langle 0|D_{(s/0/s0)}(0)|D_{(s/0/s0)}(q)\rangle&=&1\, , \nonumber \\
\langle 0|D^*_{(s)\mu}(0)|D_{(s)}^*(q)\rangle&=&\varepsilon_{\mu}(q)\, , \nonumber \\
\langle 0|D_{s1,\mu}(0)|D_{s1}(q)\rangle&=&\varepsilon_{\mu}(q)\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
which imply that $\bar{q}(x)i\gamma_5c(x)=\frac{f_D m_D^2}{m_c}D(x)+\cdots$, etc, at the hadron degrees of freedom.
From Eq.\eqref{JA-MM-Z} and Eqs.\eqref{JT-MM-Z}-\eqref{heavy-meson-field}, we can express the four-quark currents $J_\mu(x)$ and $J_{\mu\nu}(x)$ in terms of the heavy meson fields (in other words, the Eq.\eqref{JA-MM-Z} and Eqs.\eqref{JT-MM-Z}-\eqref{heavy-meson-field} imply that),
\begin{eqnarray}
J_\mu(x)&=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{f_D m_D^2}{m_c}f_{D^*}m_{D^*}\left[D^0(x)D^{*-}_\mu(x)+D^{*0}_\mu(x)D^{-}(x)\right]\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{f_D m_D^2}{m_c}f_{D_0}\left[D^0(x)i\partial_{\mu}D_{0}^-(x)+i\partial_{\mu}D^{0}_{0}(x)D^{-}(x)\right]+\lambda_{Z}Z_{c,\mu}(x)+\cdots\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
J_{\mu\nu}(x)&=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}f_{D_s^*}m_{D_s^*}f_{D_{s1}}m_{D_{s1}}\left[D_{s,\mu}^{*+}(x)D^{-}_{s1,\nu}(x) -D_{s1,\nu}^{+}(x)D^{*-}_{s,\mu}(x)\right]\nonumber\\
&&-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}f_{D_s^*}m_{D_s^*}f_{D_{s}}\left[D_{s,\mu}^{*+}(x)\partial_{\nu}D_s^{-}(x) -\partial_{\nu}D_{s}^{+}(x)D^{*-}_{s,\mu}(x)\right]\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}f_{D_{s0}}f_{D_{s1}}m_{D_{s1}}\left[i\partial_{\mu} D_{s0}^{+}(x)D^{-}_{s1,\nu}(x) -D_{s1,\nu}^{+}(x)i\partial_{\mu}D^{-}_{s0}(x)\right]\nonumber\\
&&-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}f_{D_{s0}}f_{D_{s}}\left[i\partial_{\mu} D_{s0}^{+}(x)\partial_{\nu}D^{-}_{s}(x) -\partial_{\nu}D_{s}^{+}(x)i\partial_{\mu}D^{-}_{s0}(x)\right]\nonumber\\
&&-\frac{\lambda_{X^-}}{M_{X^-}}\varepsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}i\partial^{\alpha}X_c^{-\beta}(x)
-\frac{\lambda_{X^+}}{M_{X^+}}\left[i\partial_{\mu}X^{+}_{c,\nu}(x)-i\partial_{\nu}X^{+}_{c,\mu}(x)\right]+\cdots\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
according to the assumption of current-hadron duality. It is straightforward to obtain the current-hadron couplings in Eq.\eqref{JA-MM-Z-MM} and Eq.\eqref{JT-MM-Z-MM}.
At the hadron side, we insert a complete set of intermediate hadronic states with
the same quantum numbers as the current operators $J_\mu(x)$ and $J_{\mu\nu}(x)$ into the
correlation functions $\Pi_{\mu\nu}(p)$ and $\Pi_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}(p)$ to obtain the hadronic representation
\cite{SVZ79,Reinders85}. We isolate the contributions of the meson-meson scattering states and the lowest axialvector and vector tetraquark states according to Eqs.\eqref{JA-MM-Z-MM}-\eqref{JT-MM-Z}, and
get the results,
\begin{eqnarray}
\Pi_{\mu\nu}(p)&=&\Pi(p^2)\left(-g_{\mu\nu} +\frac{p_\mu p_\nu}{p^2}\right) +\cdots\, \, , \\
\Pi_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}(p)&=&\Pi_{-}(p^2)\left(g_{\mu\alpha}g_{\nu\beta} -g_{\mu\beta}g_{\nu\alpha} -g_{\mu\alpha}\frac{p_{\nu}p_{\beta}}{p^2}-g_{\nu\beta}\frac{p_{\mu}p_{\alpha}}{p^2}+g_{\mu\beta}\frac{p_{\nu}p_{\alpha}}{p^2}+g_{\nu\alpha}\frac{p_{\mu}p_{\beta}}{p^2}\right) \nonumber\\
&&+\Pi_{+}(p^2)\left( -g_{\mu\alpha}\frac{p_{\nu}p_{\beta}}{p^2}-g_{\nu\beta}\frac{p_{\mu}p_{\alpha}}{p^2}+g_{\mu\beta}\frac{p_{\nu}p_{\alpha}}{p^2}+g_{\nu\alpha}\frac{p_{\mu}p_{\beta}}{p^2}\right) \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\Pi(p^2)&=&\frac{\lambda_Z^2}{M_Z^2-p^2}+\Pi_{TW}(p^2)+\cdots\, , \nonumber\\
\Pi_{-}(p^2)&=&P_{-}^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\Pi_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}(p) =\frac{\lambda_{X^-}^2}{M_{X^-}^2-p^2}+\Pi^-_{TW}(p^2)+\cdots\, , \nonumber\\
\Pi_{+}(p^2)&=&P_{+}^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\Pi_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}(p) =\frac{\lambda_{X^+}^2}{M_{X^+}^2-p^2}+\cdots\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
we project out the components $\Pi_{-}(p^2)$ and $\Pi_{+}(p^2)$ by introducing the operators $P_{-}^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}$ and $P_{+}^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}$ respectively,
\begin{eqnarray}
P_{-}^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}&=&\frac{1}{6}\left( g^{\mu\alpha}-\frac{p^\mu p^\alpha}{p^2}\right)\left( g^{\nu\beta}-\frac{p^\nu p^\beta}{p^2}\right)\, , \nonumber\\
P_{+}^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}&=&\frac{1}{6}\left( g^{\mu\alpha}-\frac{p^\mu p^\alpha}{p^2}\right)\left( g^{\nu\beta}-\frac{p^\nu p^\beta}{p^2}\right)-\frac{1}{6}g^{\mu\alpha}g^{\nu\beta}\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Pi-TW}
\Pi_{TW}(p^2)&=&\frac{\lambda_{DD^*}^2}{16\pi^2}\int_{\Delta_1^2}^{s_0}ds \frac{1}{s-p^2}\frac{\sqrt{\lambda(s,m_{D}^2,m_{D^*}^2)}}{s}\left[1+\frac{\lambda(s,m_{D}^2,m_{D^*}^2)}{12sm_{D^*}^2} \right]\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{\lambda_{DD_0}^2}{16\pi^2}\int_{\Delta_2^2}^{s_0}ds \frac{1}{s-p^2}\frac{\sqrt{\lambda(s,m_{D}^2,m_{D_0}^2)}}{s}\frac{\lambda(s,m_{D}^2,m_{D_0}^2)}{12s}
+\cdots\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Pi-TW-N}
\Pi^-_{TW}(p^2)&=&\frac{\lambda_{D^*_sD_{s1}}^2}{16\pi^2}\int_{\Delta_3^2}^{s_0}ds \frac{1}{s-p^2}\frac{\sqrt{\lambda(s,m_{D_s^*}^2,m_{D_{s1}}^2)}}{s}\left[1+\frac{\lambda(s,m_{D^*_s}^2,m_{D_{s1}}^2)}{12sm_{D^*_s}^2} \frac{\lambda(s,m_{D^*_s}^2,m_{D_{s1}}^2)}{12sm_{D_{s1}}^2}\right] \nonumber\\
&&+\frac{\lambda_{D_s^*D_s}^2}{16\pi^2}\int_{\Delta_4^2}^{s_0}ds \frac{1}{s-p^2}\frac{\sqrt{\lambda(s,m_{D_s^*}^2,m_{D_s}^2)}}{s}\frac{\lambda(s,m_{D_s^*}^2,m_{D_s}^2)}{12s}\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{\lambda_{D_{s0}D_{s1}}^2}{16\pi^2}\int_{\Delta_5^2}^{s_0}ds \frac{1}{s-p^2}\frac{\sqrt{\lambda(s,m_{D_{s0}}^2,m_{D_{s1}}^2)}}{s}\frac{\lambda(s,m_{D_{s0}}^2,m_{D_{s1}}^2)}{12s}
+\cdots\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda_{DD^*}^2&=&\frac{f_{D}^2m_{D}^4f_{D^*}^2m_{D^*}^2}{m_c^2}\, ,\nonumber\\
\lambda_{DD_0}^2&=&\frac{f_{D}^2m_{D}^4f_{D_0}^2}{m_c^2}\, ,\nonumber\\
\lambda_{D_s^*D_{s1}}^2&=&f_{D^*_s}^2m_{D^*_s}^2f_{D_{s1}}^2m_{D_{s1}}^2\, ,\nonumber\\
\lambda_{D_s^*D_{s}}^2&=&f_{D^*_s}^2m_{D^*_s}^2f_{D_{s}}^2\, ,\nonumber\\
\lambda_{D_{s0}D_{s1}}^2&=&f_{D_{s0}}^2f_{D_{s1}}^2m_{D_{s1}}^2\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta_1^2&=&(m_{D}+m_{D^*})^2\, ,\nonumber\\
\Delta_2^2&=&(m_{D}+m_{D_0})^2\, ,\nonumber\\
\Delta_3^2&=&(m_{D^*_s}+m_{D_{s1}})^2\, ,\nonumber\\
\Delta_4^2&=&(m_{D_s^*}+m_{D_s})^2\, ,\nonumber\\
\Delta_5^2&=&(m_{D_{s0}}+m_{D_{s1}})^2\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
$\lambda(a,b,c)=a^2+b^2+c^2-2ab-2bc-2ca$. The components $\Pi_{-}(p^2)$ and $\Pi_{+}(p^2)$ receive contributions from the $D_s^*\bar{D}_{s1}-D_{s1}\bar{D}_s^*$ meson-meson scattering states or tetraquark molecular states with the $J^{PC}=1^{-+}$ and $1^{++}$, respectively.
The conventional hidden-flavor mesons have the normal quantum numbers, $J^{PC}=0^{-+}$, $0^{++}$, $1^{--}$, $1^{+-}$, $1^{++}$, $2^{--}$, $2^{-+}$, $2^{++}$, $\cdots$.
The component $\Pi_{-}(p^2)$ receives contributions with the exotic quantum numbers $J^{PC}=1^{-+}$, while the component $\Pi_{+}(p^2)$ receives contributions with the normal quantum numbers $J^{PC}=1^{++}$. In this article, we study the tetraquark molecular states (in other words, the exotic states), it is better to choose the component $\Pi_{-}(p^2)$ with the exotic quantum numbers $J^{PC}=1^{-+}$, so we discard the component $\Pi_{+}(p^2)$ with the normal quantum numbers $J^{PC}=1^{++}$. Thereafter, we will neglect the superscript $-$ in the $X_c^-$ for simplicity.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[totalheight=5cm,width=7cm]{Two-meson-Int.eps}
\caption{ The Feynman diagrams for the two-meson intermediate states, where the dashed line represents the cut. }\label{two-meson-cut}
\end{figure}
Now we give some explanations for the components $\Pi_{TW}(p^2)$ and $\Pi^-_{TW}(p^2)$ in Eqs.\eqref{Pi-TW}-\eqref{Pi-TW-N}. We draw up the Feynman diagrams for the two-meson scattering state contributions in the correlation functions $\Pi_{\mu\nu}(p)$ and $\Pi_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}(p)$, see Fig.\ref{two-meson-cut}, and resort to the Cutkosky's rule to calculate the imaginary parts ${\rm Im}\,\Pi_{TW}(p^2)$ and ${\rm Im}\,\Pi^-_{TW}(p^2)$ with the simple replacements of the
two heavy-meson lines,
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{1}{q^2-m_A^2+i\epsilon} &\to & -2\pi i\,\delta \left( q^2-m_A^2\right)\, , \nonumber\\
\frac{1}{(p-q)^2-m_B^2+i\epsilon} &\to & -2\pi i\,\delta \left( (p-q)^2-m_B^2\right)\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where the $m_A$ and $m_B$ denote the masses of the two heavy mesons, respectively. Then it is straight forward to carry out the integral over the four-vector $q_\alpha$, and obtain the two-meson scattering state contributions $\Pi_{TW}(p^2)$ and $\Pi^-_{TW}(p^2)$ through dispersion relation.
In this article, we carry out the
operator product expansion to the vacuum condensates up to dimension-10, and take into account the vacuum condensates which are vacuum expectations of the quark-gluon operators of the order $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^k)$ with $k\leq1$. In calculations, we assume vacuum saturation for the higher dimensional vacuum condensates.
For the current $J_\mu(x)$, we take into account the vacuum condensates
$\langle \bar{q}q\rangle$,
$\langle \frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}GG\rangle$,
$\langle \bar{q} g_s \sigma Gq\rangle$,
$\langle \bar{q}q\rangle^2$, $g_s^2\langle \bar{q}q\rangle^2$,
$\langle \bar{q}q\rangle\langle \frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}GG\rangle$,
$\langle \bar{q}q\rangle\langle \bar{q} g_s \sigma Gq\rangle$,
$\langle \bar{q}q\rangle^2\langle \frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}GG\rangle$,
$\langle \bar{q} g_s \sigma Gq\rangle^2$. The four-quark condensate $g_s^2\langle \bar{q}q\rangle^2$ comes from the terms
$\langle \bar{q}\gamma_\mu t^a q g_s D_\eta G^a_{\lambda\tau}\rangle$, $\langle\bar{q}_jD^{\dagger}_{\mu}D^{\dagger}_{\nu}D^{\dagger}_{\alpha}q_i\rangle$ and
$\langle\bar{q}_jD_{\mu}D_{\nu}D_{\alpha}q_i\rangle$, rather than comes from the perturbative corrections of the $\langle \bar{q}q\rangle^2$. The four-quark condensate $g_s^2\langle \bar{q}q\rangle^2$ plays an important role in choosing the input parameters due to the relation $g_s^2=4\pi \alpha_s(\mu)$, which introduces explicit
energy scale dependence, on the other hand, it plays a minor important role in numerical calculations.
For the current $J_{\mu\nu}(x)$, we take into account the vacuum condensates
$\langle \bar{s}s\rangle$,
$\langle \frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}GG\rangle$,
$\langle \bar{s} g_s \sigma Gs\rangle$,
$\langle \bar{s}s\rangle^2$,
$\langle \bar{s}s\rangle\langle \frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}GG\rangle$,
$\langle \bar{s}s\rangle\langle \bar{s} g_s \sigma Gs\rangle$,
$\langle \bar{s}s\rangle^2\langle \frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}GG\rangle$,
$\langle \bar{s} g_s \sigma Gs\rangle^2$, and neglect the condensate $g_s^2\langle\bar{s}s\rangle^2$. After carrying out the operator product expansion, we obtain the analytical expressions of the correlation functions $\Pi(p^2)$ and $\Pi_{-}(p^2)$ at the quark-gluon level,
\begin{eqnarray}
\Pi(p^2)&=&\int_{4m_c^2}^{s_0} \frac{\rho_{Z,QCD}(s)}{s-p^2}+\cdots\, , \nonumber\\
\Pi_{-}(p^2)&=&\int_{4m_c^2}^{s_0} \frac{\rho_{X,QCD}(s)}{s-p^2}+\cdots\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where the $\rho_{Z,QCD}(s)$ and $\rho_{X,QCD}(s)$ are the QCD spectral densities,
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho_{Z,QCD}(s)&=&\frac{1}{\pi}{\rm Im}\Pi(s+i\epsilon)\mid_{\epsilon \to 0}\, , \nonumber \\
\rho_{X,QCD}(s)&=&\frac{1}{\pi}{\rm Im}\Pi_{-}(s+i\epsilon)\mid_{\epsilon \to 0} \, .
\end{eqnarray}
According to the assertion of Lucha, Melikhov and Sazdjian \cite{Chu-Sheng-PRD}, all the contributions of the order $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^k)$ with $k\leq 1$ are exactly canceled out by the meson-meson scattering states, we can set
\begin{eqnarray}
\Pi(p^2)&=&\Pi_{TW}(p^2)+\cdots\, , \nonumber\\
\Pi_{-}(p^2)&=&\Pi^-_{TW}(p^2)+\cdots\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
at the hadron side, as we carry out the operator product expansion by taking into account only the contributions of the order $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^k)$ with $k\leq 1$.
Now let us take the
quark-hadron duality below the continuum threshold $s_0$ and saturate the hadron side of the correlation functions with the meson-meson scattering states, then perform Borel transform with respect to
the variable $P^2=-p^2$ to obtain the QCD sum rules:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{TW-A-QCDSR}
\Pi_{TW}(T^2)&=&\frac{\lambda_{DD^*}^2}{16\pi^2}\int_{\Delta_1^2}^{s_0}ds \frac{\sqrt{\lambda(s,m_{D}^2,m_{D^*}^2)}}{s}\left[1+\frac{\lambda(s,m_{D}^2,m_{D^*}^2)}{12sm_{D^*}^2} \right]\exp\left(-\frac{s}{T^2}\right)\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{\lambda_{DD_0}^2}{16\pi^2}\int_{\Delta_2^2}^{s_0}ds \frac{\sqrt{\lambda(s,m_{D}^2,m_{D_0}^2)}}{s}\frac{\lambda(s,m_{D}^2,m_{D_0}^2)}{12s}\exp\left(-\frac{s}{T^2}\right)\nonumber\\
&=&\kappa\int_{4m_c^2}^{s_0}ds\,\rho_{Z,QCD}(s)\exp\left(-\frac{s}{T^2}\right)\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{TW-Negative-V-QCDSR}
\Pi^-_{TW}(T^2)&=&\frac{\lambda_{D^*_sD_{s1}}^2}{16\pi^2}\int_{\Delta_3^2}^{s_0}ds \frac{\sqrt{\lambda(s,m_{D_s^*}^2,m_{D_{s1}}^2)}}{s}\left[1+\frac{\lambda(s,m_{D^*_s}^2,m_{D_{s1}}^2)}{12sm_{D^*_s}^2} \frac{\lambda(s,m_{D^*_s}^2,m_{D_{s1}}^2)}{12sm_{D_{s1}}^2}\right]\exp\left(-\frac{s}{T^2}\right) \nonumber\\
&&+\frac{\lambda_{D_s^*D_s}^2}{16\pi^2}\int_{\Delta_4^2}^{s_0}ds \frac{\sqrt{\lambda(s,m_{D_s^*}^2,m_{D_s}^2)}}{s}\frac{\lambda(s,m_{D_s^*}^2,m_{D_s}^2)}{12s}\exp\left(-\frac{s}{T^2}\right)\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{\lambda_{D_{s0}D_{s1}}^2}{16\pi^2}\int_{\Delta_5^2}^{s_0}ds \frac{\sqrt{\lambda(s,m_{D_{s0}}^2,m_{D_{s1}}^2)}}{s}\frac{\lambda(s,m_{D_{s0}}^2,m_{D_{s1}}^2)}{12s}\exp\left(-\frac{s}{T^2}\right)\nonumber\\
&=&\kappa\int_{4m_c^2}^{s_0}ds\,\rho_{X,QCD}(s)\exp\left(-\frac{s}{T^2}\right)\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
the explicit expressions of the QCD spectral densities $\rho_{Z,QCD}(s)$ and $\rho_{X,QCD}(s)$ are given in the Appendix, where we have rewritten the
terms of the forms $\frac{d}{ds}\delta(s-\overline{m}_c^2)$, $\frac{d^2}{ds^2}\delta(s-\overline{m}_c^2)$, $\cdots$, $\frac{d}{ds}\delta(s-\widetilde{m}_c^2)$, $\frac{d^2}{ds^2}\delta(s-\widetilde{m}_c^2)$, $\cdots$ in more concise forms.
We saturate the QCD side of the correlation functions with the two-meson scattering states at the hadron side "by hand" according to the assertion of Lucha, Melikhov and Sazdjian \cite{Chu-Sheng-PRD}. In Sect.2, we present detailed discussions to approve that the assertion is questionable, we have to introduce some parameters to evaluate the assertion in practical calculations.
In Eqs.\eqref{TW-A-QCDSR}-\eqref{TW-Negative-V-QCDSR}, we introduce the parameter $\kappa$ to measure the deviations from $1$, if $\kappa\approx1$, we can get the conclusion tentatively that
the meson-meson scattering states can saturate the QCD sum rules.
Then we differentiate Eqs.\eqref{TW-A-QCDSR}-\eqref{TW-Negative-V-QCDSR} with respect to $\frac{1}{T^2}$, and obtain two additional QCD sum rules,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{TW-A-QCDSR-Dr}
-\frac{d\Pi_{TW}(T^2)}{d(1/T^2)}&=&-\kappa\frac{d}{d(1/T^2)}\int_{4m_c^2}^{s_0}ds\,\rho_{Z,QCD}(s)\exp\left(-\frac{s}{T^2}\right)\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{TW-Negative-V-QCDSR-Dr}
-\frac{d\Pi^-_{TW}(T^2)}{d(1/T^2)}&=&-\kappa\frac{d}{d(1/T^2)}\int_{4m_c^2}^{s_0}ds\,\rho_{X,QCD}(s)\exp\left(-\frac{s}{T^2}\right)\, .
\end{eqnarray}
Thereafter, we will denote the QCD sum rules in Eqs.\eqref{TW-A-QCDSR-Dr}-\eqref{TW-Negative-V-QCDSR-Dr} as the QCDSR I, and
the QCD sum rules in Eqs.\eqref{TW-A-QCDSR}-\eqref{TW-Negative-V-QCDSR} as the QCDSR II.
On the other hand, if the meson-meson scattering states cannot saturate the QCD sum rules, we have to introduce the tetraquark molecular states to saturate the QCD sum rules,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{TetraQ-A-QCDSR}
\lambda_Z^2\exp\left(-\frac{M_Z^2}{T^2}\right)&=&\int_{4m_c^2}^{s_0}ds\,\rho_{Z,QCD}(s)\exp\left(-\frac{s}{T^2}\right)\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{TetraQ-Negative-V-QCDSR}
\lambda_X^2\exp\left(-\frac{M_X^2}{T^2}\right)&=&\int_{4m_c^2}^{s_0}ds\,\rho_{X,QCD}(s)\exp\left(-\frac{s}{T^2}\right)\, .
\end{eqnarray}
We differentiate Eqs.\eqref{TetraQ-A-QCDSR}-\eqref{TetraQ-Negative-V-QCDSR} with respect to $\frac{1}{T^2}$, and obtain two QCD sum rules for the masses of the tetraquark molecular states,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{TetraQ-A-QCDSR-Dr}
M_Z^2&=&\frac{-\frac{d}{d(1/T^2)}\int_{4m_c^2}^{s_0}ds\,\rho_{Z,QCD}(s)\exp\left(-\frac{s}{T^2}\right)}{\int_{4m_c^2}^{s_0}ds\,\rho_{Z,QCD}(s)\exp\left(-\frac{s}{T^2}\right)}\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{TetraQ-Negative-V-QCDSR-Dr}
M_X^2&=&\frac{-\frac{d}{d(1/T^2)}\int_{4m_c^2}^{s_0}ds\,\rho_{X,QCD}(s)\exp\left(-\frac{s}{T^2}\right)}{\int_{4m_c^2}^{s_0}ds\,\rho_{X,QCD}(s)\exp\left(-\frac{s}{T^2}\right)}\, .
\end{eqnarray}
\section{Numerical results and discussions}
At the QCD side, we choose the standard values of the vacuum condensates $\langle
\bar{q}q \rangle=-(0.24\pm 0.01\, \rm{GeV})^3$, $\langle\bar{s}s \rangle=(0.8\pm0.1)\langle\bar{q}q \rangle$,
$\langle\bar{q}g_s\sigma G q \rangle=m_0^2\langle \bar{q}q \rangle$,
$\langle\bar{s}g_s\sigma G s \rangle=m_0^2\langle \bar{s}s \rangle$,
$m_0^2=(0.8 \pm 0.1)\,\rm{GeV}^2$, $\langle \frac{\alpha_s
GG}{\pi}\rangle=(0.33\,\rm{GeV})^4 $ at the energy scale $\mu=1\, \rm{GeV}$
\cite{SVZ79,Reinders85,ColangeloReview}, and choose the $\overline{MS}$ masses $m_{c}(m_c)=(1.275\pm0.025)\,\rm{GeV}$ and $m_s(\mu=2\,\rm{GeV})=(0.095\pm0.005)\,\rm{GeV}$
from the Particle Data Group \cite{PDG}, and set $m_u=m_d=0$.
Moreover, we take into account the energy-scale dependence of the input parameters,
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle\bar{q}q \rangle(\mu)&=&\langle\bar{q}q \rangle({\rm 1 GeV})\left[\frac{\alpha_{s}({\rm 1 GeV})}{\alpha_{s}(\mu)}\right]^{\frac{12}{25}}\, , \nonumber\\
\langle\bar{s}s \rangle(\mu)&=&\langle\bar{s}s \rangle({\rm 1GeV})\left[\frac{\alpha_{s}({\rm 1GeV})}{\alpha_{s}(\mu)}\right]^{\frac{12}{25}}\, , \nonumber\\
\langle\bar{q}g_s \sigma Gq \rangle(\mu)&=&\langle\bar{q}g_s \sigma Gq \rangle({\rm 1 GeV})\left[\frac{\alpha_{s}({\rm 1 GeV})}{\alpha_{s}(\mu)}\right]^{\frac{2}{25}}\, , \nonumber\\
\langle\bar{s}g_s \sigma G s \rangle(\mu)&=&\langle\bar{s}g_s \sigma Gs \rangle({\rm 1GeV})\left[\frac{\alpha_{s}({\rm 1GeV})}{\alpha_{s}(\mu)}\right]^{\frac{2}{25}}\, , \nonumber\\
m_c(\mu)&=&m_c(m_c)\left[\frac{\alpha_{s}(\mu)}{\alpha_{s}(m_c)}\right]^{\frac{12}{25}} \, ,\nonumber\\
m_s(\mu)&=&m_s({\rm 2GeV} )\left[\frac{\alpha_{s}(\mu)}{\alpha_{s}({\rm 2GeV})}\right]^{\frac{12}{25}} \, ,\nonumber\\
\alpha_s(\mu)&=&\frac{1}{b_0t}\left[1-\frac{b_1}{b_0^2}\frac{\log t}{t} +\frac{b_1^2(\log^2{t}-\log{t}-1)+b_0b_2}{b_0^4t^2}\right]\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $t=\log \frac{\mu^2}{\Lambda^2}$, $b_0=\frac{33-2n_f}{12\pi}$, $b_1=\frac{153-19n_f}{24\pi^2}$,
$b_2=\frac{2857-\frac{5033}{9}n_f+\frac{325}{27}n_f^2}{128\pi^3}$,
$\Lambda=210\,\rm{MeV}$, $292\,\rm{MeV}$ and $332\,\rm{MeV}$ for the flavors
$n_f=5$, $4$ and $3$, respectively \cite{PDG,Narison-mix}, and evolve all the input parameters to the ideal energy scales $\mu$ with $n_f=4$ to extract the
tetraquark molecular masses or the parameters $\kappa$. The QCD spectral densities $\rho_{Z,QCD}(s)$ and $\rho_{X,QCD}(s)$, and the thresholds $4m_c^2$ depend on
the energy scales $\mu$, the values of the parameters $\kappa$, masses $M_{Z/X}$ and pole residues $\lambda_{Z/X}$ extracted from the QCD sum rules in Eqs.\eqref{TW-A-QCDSR}-\eqref{TetraQ-Negative-V-QCDSR-Dr} vary with the energy scales $\mu$, we should resort to some methods to choose the ideal energy scales (or pertinent energy scales) $\mu$ to extract those quantities in a consistent way.
At the hadron side, we take the hadronic parameters as
$m_{D}=1.8672\,\rm{GeV}$, $m_{D_s}=1.9690\,\rm{GeV}$,
$m_{D^*}=2.0086\,\rm{GeV}$, $m_{D_s^*}=2.1122\,\rm{GeV}$,
$m_{D_0}=2.3245\,\rm{GeV}$, $m_{D_{s0}}=2.3180\,\rm{GeV}$, $m_{D_{s1}}=2.5352\,\rm{GeV}$
from the Particle Data Group \cite{PDG};
$f_{D}=0.208 \,\rm{GeV}$, $f_{D_s}=0.240 \,\rm{GeV}$,
$f_{D^*}=0.263 \,\rm{GeV}$, $f_{D_s^*}=0.308 \,\rm{GeV}$,
$f_{D_0}=0.373 \,\rm{GeV}$, $f_{D_{s0}}=0.333 \,\rm{GeV}$ \cite{Wang-DecayConst}, $f_{D_{s1}}=0.364 \,\rm{GeV}$ from the QCD sum rules.
The $D\bar{D}^*+D^*\bar{D}$ and $D_s^*\bar{D}_{s1}-D_{s1}\bar{D}_s^*$ thresholds are $m_{D}+m_{D^*}=3.88\,\rm{GeV}$ and $m_{D_s^*}+m_{D_{s1}}=4.65\,\rm{GeV}$, respectively. For the conventional heavy mesons, the mass-gaps between the ground states and the first radial excited states are about $0.4-0.6\,\rm{GeV}$, so the continuum threshold parameters can be chosen as $\sqrt{s_0}=4.40\pm0.10\,\rm{GeV}$ and $5.15\pm0.10\,\rm{GeV}$, respectively.
We search for the acceptable Borel parameters $T^2$ to warrant convergence of the operator product expansion and pole dominance via trial and error.
Firstly, let us define the pole contributions $\rm{PC}$,
\begin{eqnarray}
{\rm PC}&=& \frac{ \int_{4m_c^2}^{s_0} ds\,\rho_{Z/X,QCD}(s)\,\exp\left(-\frac{s}{T^2}\right)}{\int_{4m_c^2}^{\infty} ds \,\rho_{Z/X,QCD}(s)\,\exp\left(-\frac{s}{T^2}\right)}\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
and the contributions of the vacuum condensates $D(n)$,
\begin{eqnarray}
D(n)&=& \frac{ \int_{4m_c^2}^{s_0} ds\,\rho_{Z/X,QCD;n}(s)\,\exp\left(-\frac{s}{T^2}\right)}{\int_{4m_c^2}^{s_0} ds \,\rho_{Z/X,QCD}(s)\,\exp\left(-\frac{s}{T^2}\right)}\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where the subscript $n$ in the QCD spectral densities $\rho_{Z/X,QCD;n}(s)$ represents the vacuum condensates of dimension $n$.
In Fig.\ref{PC-mu}, we plot the pole contributions with variations of the energy scales of the QCD spectral densities with the parameters $T_Z^2=2.9\,\rm{GeV}^2$, $\sqrt{s^0_Z}=4.40\,\rm{GeV}$ and $T_X^2=3.9\,\rm{GeV}^2$, $\sqrt{s^0_X}=5.15\,\rm{GeV}$ for the QCD spectral densities $\rho_{Z,QCD}(s)$ and $\rho_{X,QCD}(s)$, respectively.
We choose those typical values because the continuum threshold parameters $s_0$ and Borel parameters $T^2$ have the relation $\frac{s^0_{Z}}{T_Z^2}=\frac{s^0_X}{T_X^2}$, the weight functions $\exp\left(-\frac{s}{T^2}\right)$ have the same values. From Fig.\ref{PC-mu}, we can see that the pole contributions increase monotonically and
considerably with the increase of the energy scales at the region $\mu<3.0\,\rm{GeV}$, then the pole contributions increase monotonically but slowly
with the increase of the energy scales. The pole contributions exceed $50\%$ at the energy scales $\mu=1.3\,\rm{GeV}$ and $2.7\,\rm{GeV}$ for the QCD spectral densities $\rho_{Z,QCD}(s)$ and $\rho_{X,QCD}(s)$, respectively.
In Fig.\ref{D6-mu}, we plot the absolute values of the $D(6)$ with variations of the energy scales $\mu$ of the QCD spectral densities with the parameters $T_Z^2=2.9\,\rm{GeV}^2$, $\sqrt{s^0_Z}=4.40\,\rm{GeV}$ and $T_X^2=3.9\,\rm{GeV}^2$, $\sqrt{s^0_X}=5.15\,\rm{GeV}$ for the QCD spectral densities $\rho_{Z,QCD}(s)$ and $\rho_{X,QCD}(s)$, respectively. The contributions of the vacuum condensates of dimension $6$ play a very important role in the QCD sum rules for the hidden-charm or hidden-bottom tetraquark (molecular) states. From Fig.\ref{D6-mu}, we can see that the contributions $|D(6)|$ decrease monotonically with the increase of the energy scales. A larger energy scale $\mu$ leads to a larger pole contribution, but a smaller contribution of the vacuum condensate $D(6)$. Too small
contributions of the vacuum condensates will impair the stability of the QCD sum rules.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[totalheight=7cm,width=9cm]{Pole-mu.EPS}
\caption{ The pole contributions with variations of the energy scales $\mu$, where the $A$ and $B$ correspond to the QCD spectral densities $\rho_{Z,QCD}(s)$ and $\rho_{X,QCD}(s)$, respectively. }\label{PC-mu}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[totalheight=7cm,width=9cm]{D6-mu.EPS}
\caption{ The absolute values of the $D(6)$ with variations of the energy scales $\mu$, where the $A$ and $B$ correspond to the QCD spectral densities $\rho_{Z,QCD}(s)$ and $\rho_{X,QCD}(s)$, respectively. }\label{D6-mu}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Meson-meson scattering states alone}
We saturate the hadron side of the QCD sum rules with the meson-meson scattering states alone, and study the QCD sum rues shown in Eqs.\eqref{TW-A-QCDSR}-\eqref{TW-Negative-V-QCDSR-Dr}. In this article, we choose the pole contributions as large as $(40-60)\%$, the pole dominance criterion is satisfied.
The Borel windows, continuum threshold parameters, energy scales of the QCD spectral densities and pole contributions are shown explicitly in Table \ref{kappa}.
In the Borel windows, the contributions of the higher dimensional vacuum condensates are $|D(8)|=(3-5)\%$, $|D(10)|\ll1\%$ and
$D(8)=(1-2)\%$, $D(10)\ll1\%$ for the QCD spectral densities $\rho_{Z,QCD}(s)$ and $\rho_{X,QCD}(s)$, respectively. The operator product expansion converges very very good.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline\hline
$J^{PC}$ &$T^2 (\rm{GeV}^2)$ &$\sqrt{s_0} (\rm{GeV})$ &$\mu(\rm GeV)$ &pole & $\kappa_{\rm I}$ & $\kappa_{\rm II}$ \\ \hline
$1^{+-}\,(\bar{u}c\bar{c}d)$ &$2.7-3.1$ &$4.40\pm0.10$ &$1.3$ &$(40-63)\%$ & $1.55\pm0.40$ & $1.37\pm0.40$ \\ \hline
$1^{-+}\,(\bar{s}c\bar{c}s)$ &$3.7-4.1$ &$5.15\pm0.10$ &$2.9$ &$(42-60)\%$ & $0.50\pm0.09$ & $0.46\pm0.09$ \\ \hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{ The Borel parameters, continuum threshold parameters, energy scales of the QCD spectral densities, pole contributions and $\kappa$ for the QCDSR I and II, where we show the quark constituents of the meson-meson scattering states in the brackets. }\label{kappa}
\end{table}
We take into account all uncertainties of the input parameters at the QCD side,
and obtain the values of the $\kappa$ from the QCDSR I and II directly, which are shown in Table \ref{kappa}. In calculations, we add an uncertainty $\delta \mu=\pm0.1\,\rm{GeV}$ to the energy scales $\mu$. From Table \ref{kappa}, we can see that the values
$\kappa_{\rm I}=1.55\pm0.40$ and $\kappa_{\rm II}=1.37\pm0.40$ overestimate the contributions of the $\bar{u}c\bar{c}d$ meson-meson scattering states with the $J^{PC}=1^{+-}$, while the values $\kappa_{\rm I}=0.50\pm0.09$ and $\kappa_{\rm II}=0.46\pm0.09$ underestimate the contributions of the $\bar{s}c\bar{c}s$ meson-meson scattering states with the $J^{PC}=1^{-+}$. In the two cases, the values of the $\kappa$ from the QCDSR I and II deviate from $1$ significantly, the two-meson scattering sates cannot saturate the QCD sum rules.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[totalheight=6cm,width=7cm]{DvD-TwoPart.EPS}
\includegraphics[totalheight=6cm,width=7cm]{DsvDs1-TwoPart.EPS}
\caption{ The $\kappa$ with variations of the Borel parameters $T^2$, where the $A$ and $B$ correspond to the $\bar{u}c\bar{c}d$ and $\bar{s}c\bar{c}s$ meson-meson scattering states, respectively, the (I) and (II) correspond to QCDSR I and II, respectively, the $\kappa$ values are normalized to be $1$ for the Borel parameters $T^2=1.5\,\rm{GeV}^2$ and $2.4\,\rm{GeV}^2$, respectively. }\label{kappa-Borel}
\end{figure}
In Fig.\ref{kappa-Borel}, we plot the values of the $\kappa$ with variations of the Borel parameters $T^2$ with the continuum threshold parameters
$\sqrt{s_0}=4.40\,\rm{GeV}$ and $5.15\,\rm{GeV}$ for the $\bar{u}c\bar{c}d$ and $\bar{s}c\bar{c}s$ meson-meson scattering states, respectively, where we normalize the values of the $\kappa$ to be $1$ at the points $T^2=1.5\,\rm{GeV}^2$ and $2.4\,\rm{GeV}^2$ for the $\bar{u}c\bar{c}d$ and $\bar{s}c\bar{c}s$ meson-meson scattering states, respectively. In this way, we can see the variation trends of the $\kappa$ with the changes of the Borel parameters more explicitly.
From Fig.\ref{kappa-Borel}, we can see that the values of the $\kappa$ increase monotonically and
quickly with the increase of the Borel parameters $T^2$, no platform appears, which indicates that the QCD sum rules in Eqs.\eqref{TW-A-QCDSR}-\eqref{TW-Negative-V-QCDSR} obtained according to the assertion of Lucha, Melikhov and Sazdjian are unreasonable. Reasonable QCD sum rules lead to platforms flat enough or not flat enough, rather than no evidence of platforms.
Now we can obtain the conclusion tentatively that the meson-meson scattering states cannot saturate the QCD sum rules at the hadron side.
\subsection{Tetraquark molecular states alone}
We saturate the hadron side of the QCD sum rules with the tetraquark molecular states alone, and study the QCD sum rues shown in Eqs.\eqref{TetraQ-A-QCDSR}-\eqref{TetraQ-Negative-V-QCDSR-Dr}.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline\hline
$J^{PC}$ &$T^2 (\rm{GeV}^2)$ &$\sqrt{s_0} (\rm{GeV})$&$\mu(\rm GeV)$ &pole & $M(\rm{GeV})$ & $\lambda(10^{-2}\rm{GeV}^5)$ \\ \hline
$1^{+-}\,(\bar{u}c\bar{c}d)$ &$2.7-3.1$ &$4.40\pm0.10$ &$1.3$ &$(40-63)\%$ & $3.89\pm0.09$ & $1.72\pm0.30$ \\ \hline
$1^{-+}\,(\bar{s}c\bar{c}s)$ &$3.7-4.1$ &$5.15\pm0.10$ &$2.9$ &$(42-60)\%$ & $4.67\pm0.08$ & $6.87\pm0.84$ \\ \hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{ The Borel windows, continuum threshold parameters, energy scales of the QCD spectral densities, pole contributions, masses and pole residues of the $\bar{u}c\bar{c}d$ and $\bar{s}c\bar{c}s$ tetraquark molecular states. }\label{Borel-pole-mass}
\end{table}
In Fig.\ref{mass-mu}, we plot the masses with variations of the energy scales of the QCD spectral densities with the parameters $T_Z^2=2.9\,\rm{GeV}^2$, $\sqrt{s^0_Z}=4.40\,\rm{GeV}$ and $T_X^2=3.9\,\rm{GeV}^2$, $\sqrt{s^0_X}=5.15\,\rm{GeV}$ for the $\bar{u}c\bar{c}d$ and $\bar{s}c\bar{c}s$ tetraquark molecular states, respectively. From Fig.\ref{mass-mu}, we can see that the values of the masses decrease monotonically and
slowly with the increase of the energy scales $\mu$. Now we encounter the problem how to choose the pertinent energy scales of the QCD spectral densities $\rho_{Z,QCD}(s)$ and $\rho_{X,QCD}(s)$.
We describe the heavy tetraquark system $Q\bar{Q}q\bar{q}$ (or the exotic $X$, $Y$, $Z$ states) by a double-well potential with the two light quarks $q$ and $\bar{q}$ lying in the two potential wells, respectively.
In the heavy quark limit, the $Q$-quark serves as an static well potential,
and attracts the light quark $q$ to form a diquark in the color antitriplet channel or attracts the light antiquark $\bar{q}$ to
form a meson in the color singlet channel.
Then the heavy tetraquark (molecular) states are characterized by the effective heavy quark mass ${\mathbb{M}}_Q$ (or constituent quark mass) and
the virtuality $V=\sqrt{M^2_{X/Y/Z}-(2{\mathbb{M}}_Q)^2}$.
It is natural to choose the energy scales of the QCD spectral densities as,
\begin{eqnarray}
\mu^2&=&V^2=M^2_{X/Y/Z}-(2{\mathbb{M}}_Q)^2\, .
\end{eqnarray}
Analysis of the $J/\psi$ and $\Upsilon$
with the famous Coulomb-plus-linear potential or Cornell potential leads to the constituent quark masses $m_c=1.84\,\rm{GeV}$ and $m_b=5.17\,\rm{GeV}$ \cite{Cornell}.
If we set ${\mathbb{M}}_c=m_c=1.84\,\rm{GeV}$, we can obtain the dash-dotted line $M_{X/Z}=\sqrt{\mu^2+4\times(1.84\,\rm{GeV})^2}$ in Fig.\ref{mass-mu}, which intersects with the lines of the masses of the
$\bar{u}c\bar{c}d$ and $\bar{s}c\bar{c}s$ tetraquark molecular states at the energy scales about $\mu=1.3\,\rm{GeV}$ and $2.9\,\rm{GeV}$, respectively.
The values of the cross points are $3.89\,\rm{GeV}$ and $4.67\,\rm{GeV}$, which happen to coincide with the $D\bar{D}^*+D^*\bar{D}$ and $D_s^*\bar{D}_{s1}-D_{s1}\bar{D}_s^*$ thresholds $3.88\,\rm{GeV}$ and $4.65\,\rm{GeV}$, respectively. The old value ${\mathbb{M}}_c=1.84\,\rm{GeV}$ and updated value
${\mathbb{M}}_c=1.85\,\rm{GeV}$ fitted in the QCD sum rules for the hidden-charm tetraquark molecular states
are all consistent with the constituent quark mass $m_c=1.84\,\rm{GeV}$ \cite{WangZG-4-quark-mole,WangZG-CPC-Y4390}.
We can set the value of the effective $c$-quark mass as ${\mathbb{M}}_c=1.84\pm0.01\,\rm{GeV}$. In this article, we use the energy scale formula
$\mu=\sqrt{M_{X/Z}^2-4\times(1.84\,\rm{GeV})^2}$ as the constraints to choose the best energy scales of the QCD spectral densities.
Again, we choose the pole contributions as large as $(40-60)\%$.
The Borel windows, continuum threshold parameters, energy scales of the QCD spectral densities and pole contributions are shown explicitly in Table \ref{Borel-pole-mass}, just like in Table \ref{kappa}. Again, in the Borel windows, $|D(8)|=(3-5)\%$, $|D(10)|\ll1\%$ and
$D(8)=(1-2)\%$, $D(10)\ll1\%$ for the QCD spectral densities $\rho_{Z,QCD}(s)$ and $\rho_{X,QCD}(s)$, respectively.
Now let us take into account all uncertainties of the input parameters,
and obtain the values of the masses and pole residues of the tetraquark molecular states, which are shown in Table \ref{Borel-pole-mass} and Figs.\ref{mass-Borel}-\ref{residue-Borel}. In calculations, we add an uncertainty $\delta \mu=\pm0.1\,\rm{GeV}$ to the energy scales $\mu$ according the
uncertainty in the effective $c$-quark mass ${\mathbb{M}}_c=1.84\pm0.01\,\rm{GeV}$. From Figs.\ref{mass-Borel}-\ref{residue-Borel}, we can see that there appear Borel platforms in the Borel windows indeed. The tetraquark molecular states alone can satisfy the QCD sum rules.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[totalheight=7cm,width=9cm]{mass-mu.EPS}
\caption{ The masses with variations of the energy scales $\mu$, where the $A$ and $B$ correspond to the $\bar{u}c\bar{c}d$ and $\bar{s}c\bar{c}s$ tetraquark molecular states, respectively, the ESF denotes the energy scale formula $M_{X/Z}=\sqrt{\mu^2+4\times(1.84\,\rm{GeV})^2}$. }\label{mass-mu}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[totalheight=6cm,width=7cm]{mass-DvD.EPS}
\includegraphics[totalheight=6cm,width=7cm]{mass-DsvDs1.EPS}
\caption{ The masses with variations of the Borel parameters $T^2$, where the $A$ and $B$ correspond to the $\bar{u}c\bar{c}d$ and $\bar{s}c\bar{c}s$ tetraquark molecular states, respectively, the regions between the two vertical lines are the Borel windows. }\label{mass-Borel}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[totalheight=6cm,width=7cm]{residue-DvD.EPS}
\includegraphics[totalheight=6cm,width=7cm]{residue-DsvDs1.EPS}
\caption{ The pole residues with variations of the Borel parameters $T^2$, where the $A$ and $B$ correspond to the $\bar{u}c\bar{c}d$ and $\bar{s}c\bar{c}s$ tetraquark molecular states, respectively, the regions between the two vertical lines are the Borel windows. }\label{residue-Borel}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Taking into account the meson-meson scattering states besides the tetraquark molecular states}
From the previous two subsections, we observe that the meson-meson scattering scattering states alone cannot saturate the QCD sum rules, while the tetraquark molecular states alone can saturate the QCD sum rules. However, the quantum field theory does not forbid the couplings between the four-quark currents and meson-meson scattering states if they have the same quantum numbers. We should take into account both the tetraquark molecular states and the meson-meson scattering states at the hadron side.
Now we study the contributions of the intermediate meson-meson scattering states $D
\bar{D}^\ast$, $J/\psi \pi$, $J/\psi \rho$, etc besides the tetraquark molecular state $Z_c$ to the correlation function $\Pi_{\mu\nu}(p)$ as an example,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Self-Energy}
\Pi_{\mu\nu}(p) &=&-\frac{\widehat{\lambda}_{Z}^{2}}{ p^2-\widehat{M}_{Z}^2-\Sigma_{DD^*}(p^2)-\Sigma_{J/\psi\pi}(p^2)-\Sigma_{J/\psi\rho}(p^2)+\cdots}\widetilde{g}_{\mu\nu}(p)+\cdots \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where
$\widetilde{g}_{\mu\nu}(p)=-g_{\mu\nu}+\frac{p_{\mu}p_{\nu}}{p^2}$. We choose the bare quantities $\widehat{\lambda}_{Z}$ and $\widehat{M}_{Z}$ to absorb the divergences in the self-energies $\Sigma_{D\bar{D}^*}(p^2)$, $\Sigma_{J/\psi \pi}(p^2)$, $\Sigma_{J/\psi \rho}(p^2)$, etc. The renormalized energies satisfy the relation $p^2-M_{Z}^2-\overline{\Sigma}_{DD^*}(p^2)-\overline{\Sigma}_{J/\psi\pi}(p^2)-\overline{\Sigma}_{J/\psi\rho}(p^2)+\cdots=0$, where the overlines above the
self-energies denote that the divergent terms have been subtracted. As the tetraquark molecular state $Z_c$ is unstable, the relation should be modified,
$p^2-M_{Z}^2-{\rm Re}\overline{\Sigma}_{DD^*}(p^2)-{\rm Re}\overline{\Sigma}_{J/\psi\pi}(p^2)-{\rm Re}\overline{\Sigma}_{J/\psi\rho}(p^2)+\cdots=0$, and
$-{\rm Im}\overline{\Sigma}_{DD^*}(p^2)-{\rm Im}\overline{\Sigma}_{J/\psi\pi}(p^2)-{\rm Im}\overline{\Sigma}_{J/\psi\rho}(p^2)+\cdots=\sqrt{p^2}\Gamma(p^2)$. The negative sign in front of the self-energies come from the special definitions in this article, if we redefine the self-energies, $\Sigma(p^2) \to -\Sigma(p^2)$ in Eq.\eqref{Self-Energy}, the negative sign can be removed.
The renormalized self-energies contribute a finite imaginary part to modify the dispersion relation,
\begin{eqnarray}
\Pi_{\mu\nu}(p) &=&-\frac{\lambda_{Z}^{2}}{ p^2-M_{Z}^2+i\sqrt{p^2}\Gamma(p^2)}\widetilde{g}_{\mu\nu}(p)+\cdots \, .
\end{eqnarray}
If we assign the $Z_c(3900)$ to be the $D\bar{D}^*+D^*\bar{D}$ tetraquark molecular state with the $J^{PC}=1^{+-}$ \cite{WangZG-4-quark-mole}, the physical width $\Gamma_{Z_c(3900)}(M_Z^2)=(28.2 \pm 2.6)\, \rm{MeV}$ from the Particle Data Group \cite{PDG}.
We can take into account the finite width effect by the following simple replacement of the hadronic spectral density,
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda^2_{Z}\delta \left(s-M^2_{Z} \right) &\to& \lambda^2_{Z}\frac{1}{\pi}\frac{M_{Z}\Gamma_{Z}(s)}{(s-M_{Z}^2)^2+M_{Z}^2\Gamma_{Z}^2(s)}\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma_{Z}(s)&=&\Gamma_{Z} \frac{M_{Z}}{\sqrt{s}}\sqrt{\frac{s-(M_{D}+M_{D^*})^2}{M^2_{Z}-(M_{D}+M_{D^*})^2}} \, .
\end{eqnarray}
Then the hadron sides of the QCD sum rules in Eq.\eqref{TetraQ-A-QCDSR} and Eq.\eqref{TetraQ-A-QCDSR-Dr} undergo the following changes,
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda^2_{Z}\exp \left(-\frac{M^2_{Z}}{T^2} \right) &\to& \lambda^2_{Z}\int_{(m_{D}+m_{D^*})^2}^{s_0}ds\frac{1}{\pi}\frac{M_{Z}\Gamma_{Z}(s)}{(s-M_{Z}^2)^2+M_{Z}^2\Gamma_{Z}^2(s)}\exp \left(-\frac{s}{T^2} \right)\, , \nonumber\\
&=&(0.78\sim0.79)\,\lambda^2_{Z}\exp \left(-\frac{M^2_{Z}}{T^2} \right)\, , \\
\lambda^2_{Z}M^2_{Z}\exp \left(-\frac{M^2_{Z}}{T^2} \right) &\to& \lambda^2_{Z}\int_{(m_{D}+m_{D^*})^2}^{s_0}ds\,s\,\frac{1}{\pi}\frac{M_{Z}\Gamma_{Z}(s)}{(s-M_{Z}^2)^2+M_{Z}^2\Gamma_{Z}^2(s)}\exp \left(-\frac{s}{T^2} \right)\, , \nonumber\\
&=&(0.80\sim0.81)\,\lambda^2_{Z}M^2_{Z}\exp \left(-\frac{M^2_{Z}}{T^2} \right)\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
with the value $\sqrt{s_0}=4.40\,\rm{GeV}$.
We can absorb the numerical factors $0.78\sim0.79$ and $0.80\sim0.81$ into the pole residue with the simple replacement $\lambda_{Z}\to 0.89\lambda_Z$ safely, the intermediate meson-loops cannot affect the mass $M_{Z}$ significantly, but affect the pole residue remarkably, which are consistent with the fact that we obtain the masses of the tetraquark molecular states from a fraction, see Eqs.\eqref{TetraQ-A-QCDSR-Dr}-\eqref{TetraQ-Negative-V-QCDSR-Dr}. If we only take into account the tetraquark molecular states at the hadron side, we can obtain reasonable molecule masses but overestimate the pole residues.
\section{Conclusion}
The quarks and gluons are confined objects, they cannot be put on the mass-shell, it is questionable to use the Landau equation to study the quark-gluon bound states.
Furthermore, we carry out the operator product expansion in the deep Euclidean region $p^2\to -\infty$ in the QCD sum rules, where the Landau singularities cannot exist.
If we insist on applying the Landau equation to study the Feynman diagrams in the QCD sum rules, we should choose the pole masses rather than the $\overline{MS}$ masses, which lead to obvious problems in the QCD sum rules for the traditional or normal charmonium and bottomonium states.
Lucha, Melikhov and Sazdjian assert that the contributions at the order $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^k)$ with $k\leq1$ in the operator product expansion, which are factorizable in the color space, are exactly canceled out by the meson-meson scattering states, the nonfactorizable diagrams in the color space, if have a Landau singularity, begin to make contributions to the tetraquark (molecular) states, the tetraquark molecular states begin to receive contributions at the order $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^2)$.
In fact, the nonfactorizable Feynman diagrams begin to appear at the order $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^0/\alpha_s^1)$ rather than at the order $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^2)$, and make contributions to the tetraquark molecular states. Furthermore, the Landau singularities obtained by Lucha, Melikhov and Sazdjian are questionable, as the Landau singularities appear at the region $p^2\geq(\hat{m}_{u/s}+\hat{m}_{d/s}+\hat{m}_c+\hat{m}_c)^2$ rather than at the deep Euclidean region $p^2\to -\infty$.
The meson-meson scattering state and tetraquark molecular state both have four valence quarks, which form two color-neutral clusters, we cannot distinguish which Feynman diagrams contribute to the meson-meson scattering state or tetraquark molecular state based on the two color-neutral clusters in the factorizable Feynman diagrams.
The Landau equation servers as a kinematical equation in the momentum space, and is independent on the factorizable and nonfactorizable properties of the Feynman diagrams in the color space.
We choose the axialvector current $J_\mu(x)$ and tensor current $J_{\mu\nu}(x)$ to examine the outcome if the assertion of Lucha, Melikhov and Sazdjian
is right.
The axialvector current $J_\mu(x)$ couples potentially to the charged $D\bar{D}^*+D^*\bar{D}$ meson-meson scattering states or tetraquark molecular states with the $J^{PC}=1^{+-}$, while the tensor current $J_{\mu\nu}(x)$ couples potentially to the neutral $D_s^*\bar{D}_{s1}-D_{s1}\bar{D}_s^*$ meson-meson scattering states or tetraquark molecular states with the $J^{PC}=1^{-+}$. The quantum numbers of the $D\bar{D}^*+D^*\bar{D}$ and $D_s^*\bar{D}_{s1}-D_{s1}\bar{D}_s^*$ differ from the traditional or normal mesons significantly, and are good subjects to study the exotic states.
After detailed analysis, we observe that the meson-meson scattering states cannot saturate the QCD sum rules, while
the tetraquark molecular states can saturate the QCD sum rules. We can take into account the meson-meson scattering states reasonably by adding a finite width to the
tetraquark molecular states.
The Landau equation is useless to study the Feynman diagrams in the QCD sum rules for the tetraquark molecular states, the tetraquark molecular states begin to receive contributions at the order $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^0/\alpha_s^1)$ rather than at the order $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^2)$.
\section*{Appendix}
The explicit expressions of the QCD spectral densities $\rho_{Z,QCD}(s)$ and $\rho_{X,QCD}(s)$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho_{Z,QCD}(s)&=&\rho^Z_0(s)+\rho^Z_3(s)+\rho^Z_4(s)+\rho^Z_5(s)+\rho^Z_6(s)+\rho^Z_7(s)+\rho^Z_8(s)+\rho^Z_{10}(s)\, ,\nonumber\\
\rho_{X,QCD}(s)&=&\rho^X_0(s)+\rho^X_3(s)+\rho^X_4(s)+\rho^X_5(s)+\rho^X_6(s)+\rho^X_7(s)+\rho^X_8(s)+\rho^X_{10}(s)\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho^Z_0(s)&=&\frac{1}{4096\pi^6}\int dydz \, yz\left(1-y-z\right)^3\left(s-\overline{m}_c^2\right)^2
\left(35s^2-26s\overline{m}_c^2+3\overline{m}_c^4\right) \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho^Z_3(s)&=&-\frac{3m_c\langle\bar{q}q\rangle}{256\pi^4} \int dydz\, (y+z)\left(1-y-z\right)\left(s-\overline{m}_c^2\right)\left(7s-3\overline{m}_c^2\right)\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho^Z_{4}(s)&=&-\frac{m_c^2}{3072\pi^4}\langle\frac{\alpha_{s}GG}{\pi}\rangle \int dydz
\left(\frac{z}{y^2}+\frac{y}{z^2}\right)\left(1-y-z\right)^3\left[8s-3\overline{m}_c^2 +s^2\delta\left(s-\overline{m}_c^2\right)\right] \nonumber\\
&&+\frac{1}{1024\pi^4}\langle\frac{\alpha_{s}GG}{\pi}\rangle \int dydz
\,(y+z)\left(1-y-z\right)^2 s\left(5s-4\overline{m}_c^2\right) \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho^Z_5(s)&=&\frac{3m_c\langle\bar{q}g_{s}\sigma Gq\rangle}{512\pi^4} \int dydz\, (y+z)\left(5s-3\overline{m}_c^2\right) \nonumber\\
&&-\frac{3m_c\langle\bar{q}g_{s}\sigma Gq\rangle}{256\pi^4} \int dydz \left(\frac{y}{z}+\frac{z}{y}\right)\left(1-y-z\right)
\left(2s-\overline{m}_c^2\right) \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho^Z_6(s)&=&\frac{m_c^2\langle\bar{q}q\rangle^2}{16\pi^2} \int dy +\frac{g_s^2\langle\bar{q}q\rangle^2}{864\pi^4} \int dydz\, yz
\left[8s-3\overline{m}_c^2+s^2\delta\left(s-\overline{m}_c^2\right)\right]\nonumber\\
&&-\frac{g_s^2\langle\bar{q}q\rangle^2}{576\pi^4} \int dydz
\left(\frac{z}{y}+\frac{y}{z}\right)\left(1-y-z\right) \left(7s-4\overline{m}_c^2\right) \nonumber\\
&&-\frac{m_c^2g_s^2\langle\bar{q}q\rangle^2}{1728\pi^4} \int dydz
\left(\frac{z}{y^2}+\frac{y}{z^2}\right)\left(1-y-z\right)\left[7+5s\,\delta\left(s-\overline{m}_c^2\right)\right]\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{g_s^2\langle\bar{q}q\rangle^2}{1728\pi^4} \int dydz
(y+z) \left(1-y-z\right) \left(4s-3\overline{m}_c^2\right)\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho^Z_{7}(s)&=&\frac{m_c^3\langle\bar{q}q\rangle}{768\pi^2} \langle\frac{\alpha_{s}GG}{\pi}\rangle \int dydz\,
(y+z)\left(\frac{1}{z^3}+\frac{1}{y^3}\right)\left(1-y-z\right)
\left(1+\frac{2s}{T^2}\right)\delta\left(s-\overline{m}_c^2\right) \nonumber\\
&&-\frac{3m_c\langle\bar{q}q\rangle}{256\pi^2} \langle\frac{\alpha_{s}GG}{\pi}\rangle \int dydz
\left(\frac{y}{z^2}+\frac{z}{y^2}\right)\left(1-y-z\right)
\left[1+\frac{2s}{3}\delta\left(s-\overline{m}_c^2\right)\right]\nonumber\\
&&-\frac{m_c \langle\bar{q}q\rangle}{128\pi^2} \langle\frac{\alpha_{s}GG}{\pi}\rangle \int dy dz
\left[1+\frac{2s}{3}\delta\left(s-\overline{m}_c^2\right)\right]\nonumber\\
&&-\frac{m_c\langle\bar{q}q\rangle}{512\pi^2} \langle\frac{\alpha_{s}GG}{\pi}\rangle \int dy
\left[1+\frac{2s}{3}\delta\left(s-\widetilde{m}_c^2\right)\right]\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho^Z_8(s)&=&-\frac{m_c^2\langle\bar{q}q\rangle \langle\bar{q}g_{s}\sigma Gq\rangle}{32\pi^2} \int dy\left(1+\frac{s}{T^2}\right)
\delta\left(s-\widetilde{m}_c^2\right) \nonumber\\
&&+\frac{ \langle\bar{q}q\rangle \langle\bar{q}g_{s}\sigma Gq\rangle}{64\pi^2} \int dy\, s\,
\delta\left(s-\widetilde{m}_c^2\right)\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho^Z_{10}(s)&=& -\frac{ \langle\bar{q}g_{s}\sigma Gq\rangle^2}{256\pi^2T^4} \left(1-\frac{m_c^2}{T^2} \right)\int dy \,s^2\,\delta\left(s-\widetilde{m}_c^2\right) \nonumber\\
&&-\frac{m_c^4\langle\bar{q}q\rangle^2}{288T^4} \langle\frac{\alpha_{s}GG}{\pi}\rangle \int dy \left[\frac{1}{y^3}+\frac{1}{\left(1-y\right)^3}\right]
\delta\left(s-\widetilde{m}_c^2\right) \nonumber\\
&&+\frac{m_c^2\langle\bar{q}q\rangle^2}{96T^2} \langle\frac{\alpha_{s}GG}{\pi}\rangle \int dy
\left[\frac{1}{y^2}+\frac{1}{\left(1-y\right)^2}\right]\delta\left(s-\widetilde{m}_c^2\right)\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{\langle\bar{q}g_{s}\sigma Gq\rangle^2}{18432\pi^2} \int dy\left(1+\frac{2s}{T^2}\right)
\delta\left(s-\widetilde{m}_c^2\right)\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{m_c^2\langle\bar{q}q\rangle^2}{288T^6} \langle\frac{\alpha_{s}GG}{\pi}\rangle \int dy
s^2\delta\left(s-\widetilde{m}_c^2\right) \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho^X_{0}(s)&=&\frac{1}{2048\pi^6}\int dydz\, yz\left(1-y-z\right)^2 \left(s-\overline{m}_c^2\right)^3\left(6s-\overline{m}_c^2\right) \nonumber\\
&&+\frac{1}{8192\pi^6}\int dydz\, yz\left(1-y-z\right)^3\left(s-\overline{m}_c^2\right)^2\left(33s^2-18s\overline{m}_c^2+\overline{m}_c^4\right) \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho^X_{3}(s)&=&\frac{m_s\langle\bar{s}s\rangle}{128\pi^4}\int dydz\, yz \left(s-\overline{m}_c^2\right) \left(7s-2\overline{m}_c^2\right) \nonumber\\
&&+\frac{m_s\langle\bar{s}s\rangle}{256\pi^4} \int dydz\, yz\left(1-y-z\right)\left(35s^2-30s\overline{m}_c^2+3\overline{m}_c^4\right) \nonumber\\
&&+\frac{9m_s m_c^2\langle\bar{s}s\rangle}{64\pi^4}\int dydz\, \left(s-\overline{m}_c^2\right)\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho^X_{4}(s)&=&-\frac{m_c^2}{6144\pi^4}\langle\frac{\alpha_{s}GG}{\pi}\rangle \int dydz
\left(\frac{z}{y^2}+\frac{y}{z^2}\right) \left(1-y-z\right)^2\left(9s-4\overline{m}_c^2\right) \nonumber\\
&&-\frac{m_c^2}{6144\pi^4}\langle\frac{\alpha_{s}GG}{\pi}\rangle \int dydz \left(\frac{z}{y^2}+\frac{y}{z^2}\right)\left(1-y-z\right)^3
\left[5s-\overline{m}_c^2 +\frac{4s^2}{3}\delta\left(s-\overline{m}_c^2\right)\right] \nonumber\\
&&-\frac{1}{3072\pi^4}\langle\frac{\alpha_{s}GG}{\pi}\rangle \int dydz \, (y+z) \left(1-y-z\right)
\left(s-\overline{m}_c^2\right)\left(20s-7\overline{m}_c^2\right) \nonumber\\
&&+\frac{1}{12288\pi^4}\langle\frac{\alpha_{s}GG}{\pi}\rangle \int dydz\, (y+z)\left(1-y-z\right)^2
\left(35s^2-30s\overline{m}_c^2+3\overline{m}_c^4\right)\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho^X_{5}(s)&=&-\frac{m_s\langle\bar{s}g_{s}\sigma Gs\rangle}{768\pi^4} \int dy\, y\left(1-y\right)\left(9s-4\widetilde{m}_c^2\right) \nonumber\\
&&-\frac{m_s\langle\bar{s}g_{s}\sigma Gs\rangle}{256\pi^4} \int dydz\, yz \left[5s-\overline{m}_c^2
+\frac{4s^2}{3}\delta\left(s-\overline{m}_c^2\right)\right] \nonumber\\
&&-\frac{9m_s m_c^2\langle\bar{s}g_{s}\sigma Gs\rangle}{256\pi^4} \int dy \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho^X_{6}(s)&=&-\frac{3m_c^2\langle\bar{s}s\rangle^2}{32\pi^2} \int dy\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho^X_{7}(s)&=&\frac{m_s m_c^2\langle\bar{s}s\rangle}{2304\pi^2} \langle\frac{\alpha_{s}GG}{\pi}\rangle \int dydz
\left(\frac{z}{y^2}+\frac{y}{z^2}\right)\left(1-\frac{5s}{T^2}\right)\delta\left(s-\overline{m}_c^2\right) \nonumber\\
&&+\frac{m_s m_c^2\langle\bar{s}s\rangle}{576\pi^2} \langle\frac{\alpha_{s}GG}{\pi}\rangle \int dydz\,
\left(\frac{z}{y^2}+\frac{y}{z^2}\right) \left(1-y-z\right)\left(\frac{1}{4}+\frac{s}{T^2}-\frac{s^2}{T^4}\right)
\delta\left(s-\overline{m}_c^2\right) \nonumber\\
&&+\frac{m_s m_c^2\langle\bar{s}s\rangle}{64\pi^2} \langle\frac{\alpha_{s}GG}{\pi}\rangle \int dydz
\frac{1}{y^2} \left(2-y -\frac{y s}{T^2}\right)\delta\left(s-\overline{m}_c^2\right) \nonumber\\
&&-\frac{m_s\langle\bar{s}s\rangle}{4608\pi^2}\langle\frac{\alpha_{s}GG}{\pi}\rangle \int dy
\left[14+13s\delta\left(s-\widetilde{m}_c^2\right)\right] \nonumber\\
&&+\frac{m_s\langle\bar{s}s\rangle}{1152\pi^2}\langle\frac{\alpha_{s}GG}{\pi}\rangle \int dydz\,
(y+z)\left[\frac{3}{4}+\left(s+\frac{s^2}{T^2}\right)\delta\left(s-\overline{m}_c^2\right)\right] \nonumber\\
&&+\frac{m_s m_c^2\langle\bar{s}s\rangle}{256\pi^2} \langle\frac{\alpha_{s}GG}{\pi}\rangle \int dy \left(
1+\frac{s}{T^2}\right)\delta\left(s-\widetilde{m}_c^2\right) \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho^X_{8}(s)&=&\frac{3m_c^2\langle\bar{s}s\rangle \langle\bar{s}g_{s}\sigma Gs\rangle}{64\pi^2} \int dy
\left(1+\frac{s}{T^2}\right)\delta\left(s-\widetilde{m}_c^2\right) \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho^X_{10}(s)&=&-\frac{3m_c^2 \langle\bar{s}g_{s}\sigma Gs\rangle^2}{512\pi^2T^6} \int dy\, s^2 \delta\left(s-\widetilde{m}_c^2\right)\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{m_c^2\langle\bar{s}s\rangle^2}{48T^2} \langle\frac{\alpha_{s}GG}{\pi}\rangle \int dy\, \frac{1}{y^2}
\left(1-\frac{y s}{2T^2}\right)\delta\left(s-\widetilde{m}_c^2\right)\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{\langle\bar{s}g_{s}\sigma Gs\rangle^2}{3072\pi^2T^2}\int dy \, s\, \delta\left(s-\widetilde{m}_c^2\right)\nonumber\\
&&-\frac{m_c^2\langle\bar{s}s\rangle^2}{192T^6} \langle\frac{\alpha_{s}GG}{\pi}\rangle \int dy\,
s^2\delta\left(s-\widetilde{m}_c^2\right)\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\int dydz=\int_{y_i}^{y_f}dy\int_{z_i}^{1-y}dz$, $\int dy=\int_{y_i}^{y_f} dy$, $y_{f}=\frac{1+\sqrt{1-4m_c^2/s}}{2}$,
$y_{i}=\frac{1-\sqrt{1-4m_c^2/s}}{2}$, $z_{i}=\frac{ym_c^2}{y s -m_c^2}$, $\overline{m}_c^2=\frac{(y+z)m_c^2}{yz}$,
$ \widetilde{m}_c^2=\frac{m_c^2}{y(1-y)}$, $\int_{y_i}^{y_f}dy \to \int_{0}^{1}dy$, $\int_{z_i}^{1-y}dz \to \int_{0}^{1-y}dz$ when the $\delta$ functions $\delta\left(s-\overline{m}_c^2\right)$ and $\delta\left(s-\widetilde{m}_c^2\right)$ appear.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
This work is supported by National Natural Science Foundation, Grant Number 11775079.
|
\section{Introduction}
Sensitivity Analysis (SA) can be defined as the study of how uncertainty in a model's output can be apportioned to different sources of uncertainty in the model input \cite{Saltelli2008}. Note that SA differs from uncertainty analysis (UA) which, instead, characterises the uncertainty in the model output in terms of, for example, the empirical probability densitiy or confidence bounds \cite{Saltelli2000, Saltelli2019b}. In other words, UA asks how uncertain the model output is, whereas SA aims to identify the main sources of this uncertainty \cite{Saltelli2010a}. The analysis of a mathematical model can greatly benefit from including SA. Some of the common applications of SA include model reduction, inference about various aspects of the studied phenomenon or experimental design.
In the biomedical sciences and biology, SA is especially important for several reasons. Biological processes are inherently stochastic \cite{Lipniacki2006} and the collected data are subject to uncertainty \cite{White2004, Blower1994, Geris2016}. Also, while mathematical models are important tools for formulating and testing hypotheses about complex biological systems \cite{Kitano2002b, Voit2006, Mahdi2013b}, a major obstacle confronting such models is that they typically have a large number of free parameters whose values can affect model behaviour and its interpretation. It has been observed that although high-throughput methods are well-suited for discovering interactions, they remain of limited use for the measurement of biological and biochemical parameters \cite{Maerkl2007, Gutenkunst2007}. Model parameters can also be approximated collectively through data fitting, rather than direct measurement \cite{Lillacci2010}. However, this often leads to large parameter uncertainties if the model is unidentifiable. SA methods can be used to ensure identifiability, a property which the model must satisfy for accurate and meaningful (unique) parameter inference, given the measurement data.
There have been many studies of SA techniques and their implementation. It is worthwhile briefly mentioning some reviews. These tend to include applications to some specific area of research, such as complex kinetic systems \cite{Turanyi1990}, environmental models \cite{Hamby1994, Norton2008, Pianosi2016}, building energy analysis \cite{Wei2013}, radioactive waste \cite{Helton1993}, hydrogeology \cite{Wainwright2014a}, operations research \cite{Borgonovo2015}, reliability analysis \cite{Aven2010} and system biology \cite{Zi2008, Marino2008a}. In addition, there are more general reviews \cite{Saltelli2006} and several textbooks introducing the field, which tend to focus on global methods \cite{Eslami2013, Saltelli2000, Saltelli2002, Saltelli2008}.
While reviews and books on SA do already exist, here we provide an elementary introduction to sensitivity methods, together with some practical examples with a biomedical focus. Also included is an overview of each method, the settings where it is advantageous to apply these methods, as well as where their limitations lie. We then apply each method to a simple example problem, illustrating the results. There follows, for the benefit of readers who wish to conduct their own SA, a summary of computational software implementing different techniques, as well as a practical workflow. Finally, we apply the Morris and Sobol methods, two popular techniques, to both an algebraic and a time-dependent biomedical model. Our aim is to introduce the readers to SA techniques, showing how to choose the most suitable approach for the problem at hand, as well as appropriate practices for SA implementation.
\section{Basic definitions and concepts}
This section introduces some basic definitions and concepts used in the context of SA. We will refer to the terminology introduced here in later sections.
\subsection{Input factors and outputs}
When we refer to a {\it mathematical model}, we understand a relationship of the form
\begin{equation}
\label{ModelForm}
Y=f(X_1,X_2,...X_n),
\end{equation}
where $Y$ is the {\it model output} and $X_1,\ldots,X_n$ the {\it model inputs}. The output can be either single-valued or a vector. This review primarily focuses on models of this form. To be consistent with the terminology in the literature, we will also refer to the $i$th input, $X_i$, as the {\it i}th model {\it factor}.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{flow8.png}
\caption{{\bf Typical workflow for experimentation and modelling in biomedical sciences.} Sensitivity analysis is an integral part of the mathematical modelling cycle and is placed within model analysis module. The flowchart (adapted from \cite{Tanaka2013}) shows how modelling and experiments can be conducted to investigate a phenomenon of interest. After making a hypothesis, we conduct experiments and implement mathematical models. Model analysis follows the latter and this may include structural and practical identifiability, uncertainty quantification and sensitivity analyses, which is focus of the this review.}
\label{FlowChart}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Experimentation and modelling in biomedical sciences}
Mathematical modelling of biological or physiological systems typically begins by setting the scope of the study and defining the research question, or hypothesis. This includes identification of the model structure, such as the inputs and outputs of the system and any interactions between various components, a process informed by the underlying biomedical phenomenon \cite{Keener2009}. We note that in this structure the outputs encode information about the normal and affected states. The choice of the most appropriate mathematical modelling approach, which may range from a simple algebraic equation to a complex time-dependent system, is dependent upon the nature of the biological problem under investigation.
The parallel between the workflow for clinical experiments and mathematical modelling is illustrated in Figure \ref{FlowChart}. The mathematical modelling workflow (Figure \ref{FlowChart}a) allows us to develop the model and subsequently simulate conditions which may not be feasible in a real-world setting. The analogous clinical experiments (Figure \ref{FlowChart}b) yield data which are subsequently analysed and the results fed back to either modify the experiment or draw conclusions about the research question. Clinical data may also be used, if available, to further calibrate the model through parameter estimation.
After completing the initial mathematical model, model analysis is performed \cite{Kitano2002}. This includes a variety of techniques such as practical identifiability \cite{Miao2011, Olufsen2013, Saccomani2016}, stability \cite{Mader2015} and bifurcation analysis \cite{Mahdi2017b}, as well as SA, which is the main topic of this paper. Within the mathematical modelling workflow, it is possible to perform model analysis even without evaluating the model by using, for instance, structural identifiability techniques \cite{Villaverde2016, Mahdi2014}.
\subsection{Aims of SA}
Before proceeding, it is important to understand what SA can achieve. In the literature, we commonly identify the following aims:
\begin{itemize}
\item {\it Ranking} involves ordering the inputs in terms of their effect on the variability of model output. Those ranked more highly then become the focus of experimental or numerical estimation, since the elucidation of these input values results in the greatest reduction of the output uncertainty.
\item {\it Screening} establishes which model inputs are unidentifiable, i.e. those which have little or no effect on the variability of mode output. This allows us to reduce the model by setting these inputs to fixed values.
\item {\it Mapping} observes the effect of the inputs on the output. This may involve determining the parameter values for which the model is stable, reaches its maximum output, or reaches some optimal set of values, for instance.
\end{itemize}
There is no method suitable for all three SA applications and so careful selection of the method must occur, depending on the aim. To do this requires classification of the various SA methods, and so necessitates the introduction of some terminology. Since most sensitivity analysis techniques can be used for ranking or screening but not mapping, the review focuses on the first two applications.
\subsection{Local and global SA}
SA methods can also be classified by determining whether they explore the input space at one point or a larger region of it.
\begin{itemize}
\item {\it Local} methods examine the sensitivity of the model inputs at one specific point in the input space.
\item {\it Global} methods, on the other hand, take the sensitivities at multiple points in the input space, before taking some measure of the average of these sensitivities. This averaged value then represents the influence that the input exerts on the output uncertainty.
\end{itemize}
While the simplicity and low computational cost of the local methods ensure their popularity, they tend to be informative only when the model is linear, as the sensitivity at any point can then be extrapolated to those further away. Extrapolation of a nonlinear model, however, may lead to incorrect conclusions \cite{Saltelli2008}. Many global methods can also give some indication of each input's interactions with other input(s), furthering the case for their implementation on nonlinear models.
\subsection{One-at-a-time and Many-at-a-time SA} \label{sec:OATMAT}
Each sensitivity technique requires the evaluation of the model using different sets of input values. Hence, another way to classify these techniques is by simply counting how many input values change for each successive model simulation.
\begin{itemize}
\item {\it One-at-a-time} (OAT) methods change only one input per model evaluation.
\item {\it Many-at-a-time} (MAT) methods operate by changing two or more inputs simultaneously, which we refer to as {\it many-at-a-time} (MAT) methods.
\end{itemize}
Most OAT techniques start from a baseline set of input values at which the model is known to converge. Hence, changing the value of one input reduces the chance of the model evaluation failing due to, for instance, instabilities or numerical error. Aside from their resilience to convergence issues, another advantage of OAT methods is that, if the model evaluation of a set of baseline values differs from that when one of the inputs is changed, then we can hold responsible that particular input for causing such a difference: it must have some effect on the output, at least at that location in input space. OAT methods, however, suffer from some serious limitations, notably their difficulties in analysing nonlinear models (see Section \ref{OATLimitationsSection}).
Global sensitivity techniques can be either OAT or MAT, while local methods can only be OAT-based. Although MAT are more likely to evaluate the model at input values where it is unstable, and are often computationally more expensive, they are preferred for analysis of nonlinear functions as they explore a larger proportion of factor space \cite{Saltelli2000, Saltelli2010a}.
\subsection{Sampling strategies} \label{samplingsection}
\medskip
Frequently, sensitivity indices cannot be calculated analytically. Instead, numerical approximations are computed, necessitating the generation of input samples through a process called sampling. This section briefly examines some common sampling procedures. These are required for the {sampling-based methods} (Section \ref{corregress}), which rely on the relationship between the sampled inputs and their corresponding outputs \cite{McKay1979, Iman1981}. The procedures can also be used for the sampling stage of other sensitivity techniques, including the Sobol method (Section \ref{sobol}).
\begin{itemize}
\item In {\it Random sampling} a number taken from the interval $[0, 1]$ is associated with each of $n$ model factors to form a vector \cite{Fishman1996, Barry1996}. In practice, this is done using pseudorandom number generators (by reproducible algorithmic processes).
The process is repeated to generate $k$ vectors of dimension $n$. Random sampling does not record the history of previous points and therefore it is possible for points to accumulate in some region \cite{Saltelli2000}. The issue with taking clustered samples is that the model approximations become less reliable in regions further away from this cluster, due to nonlinearities, for instance. Hence, it is good practice to use sampling strategies that fill the factor space more evenly, which we discuss next \cite{Forrester2008}.
\item {\it Latin hypercube sampling} generates near-random samples from a multidimensional distribution, ensuring that samples have low discrepancy, i.e. are more evenly distributed across the factor space \cite{Helton2003}. It is a generalisation (to any number of dimensions) of the concept of a Latin square, which is a grid containing sample positions in such a way that there is only one sample in each row and column. When implementing the Latin hypercube method, the samples are generated sequentially and one must record, in contrast to the random sampling method, in which row and column the previous samples have been placed \cite{Seaholm1988}.
\begin{table}
\centering
\small
\begin{tabu}{llllllll}
\tabucline[0.7pt] {-}
Method &Section & Type & Inter- & Non- & Cost &Evalu- &Aim\\
& & & actions & linearities & &ations & \\
\hline
One-way &\ref{Sec:oneway} & Local & No & No &Low &OAT &Rank$^{**}$ \\
Multi-way & \ref{Sec:multiway} & Local & No & No & Low &MAT &Rank$^{**}$ \\
Local-derivative &\ref{Sec:local} & Local & No & No & Low &OAT &Rank$^{**}$ \\
Morris &\ref{Sec:morris} & Global & Yes & Yes & Medium &OAT &Screen \\
Sobol &\ref{sobol} & Global &Yes &Yes & High &MAT &Rank, Screen \\
FAST/eFAST &\ref{Sec:FAST} & Global &Yes & Yes & High &MAT &Rank, Screen\\
DGSM &\ref{Sec:DGSM} & Global &Yes &Yes & Medium &OAT &Screen\\
Sensitivity index &\ref{Sec:SI} & Local & No & No & Low &OAT &Rank$^{**}$\\
Importance index &\ref{Sec:Importance} & Global & No & Yes & Low &OAT &Rank\\
${\rm CC}_i$ &\ref{corregress} & Global & No & No & Medium &OAT &Rank\\
${\rm SRC}_i$ &\ref{corregress} & Global &No$^*$ & No & Medium &OAT &Rank\\
${\rm PRC}_i$ &\ref{corregress} & Global &Yes & No & Medium &OAT &Rank\\
${\rm SRCC}_i$ &\ref{corregress} & Global & No & Yes &Medium &OAT &Rank\\
${\rm PRCC}_i$ &\ref{corregress} & Global & Yes & Yes &Medium &OAT &Rank\\
\tabucline[0.7pt] {-}
\end{tabu}
\caption{Summary of SA methods covered in this paper, stating whether they are local or global methods, their ability to handle nonlinearities in the model, detect interactions between factors, the computational cost and aim(s).
$^*$The SRC can be modified to detect interactions between factors \cite{Robert2010}.
$^{**}$ Note that using any local method for ranking is typically valid only in a small neighbourhood around the nominal values \cite{Saltelli2008,Saltelli2019b}.}
\label{MethodsSummary}
\end{table}
\item {\it Sobol sequence} is another quasi-random, low discrepancy sequence, typically resulting in a faster convergence and more stable estimates \cite{Sobol1967}. Quasi-random sequences ensure that the samples fill the space more uniformly than uncorrelated random samples \cite{Lemieux2009}. As a consequence of this, quasi-random sequences require fewer model evaluations for convergence \cite{Niederreiter1978}. Sobol sequences are especially useful when numbers are computed on a grid and it is unknown {\it a priori} how fine the grid must be to obtain sufficiently accurate results \cite{Trandafir}.
\end{itemize}
\section{Review of SA methods}
With so many SA methods available, it is worth examining the most commonly applied methods individually. Our discussion of each method will conclude by its application to the following simple model
\begin{equation}
\label{ToyModel}
\ Y=X_1^2+X_2X_3+X_4,
\end{equation}
where $X_i$ are uniformly distributed in the interval $[0,1]$ model inputs (factors), that is, $X_i\sim{\it U}[0,1], i=1,\ldots,4$ and $Y$ is the model output.
\subsection{One-way sensitivities}\label{Sec:oneway}
Perhaps the simplest and most commonly-used form of SA is the {\it univariate} or {\it one-way} method. This has been used to assess cost-effectiveness, with examples found frequently in the area of healthcare \cite{Wen2016,Wang2003a}. The method works by changing one factor by a fraction of its nominal value, holding all other factors constant, and observing the resultant fractional change in the output. Since it is an OAT method, the one-way method is most suitable when the model is linear. The results can be displayed in a table or using a {\it tornado plot} (see Section \ref{GraphicalSection}), a type of bar chart comparing one-way sensitivity indices of a model's factors (see Section \ref{GraphicalSection}) \cite{Eschenbach1992,Borgonovo2015}.
\medskip
\begin{example}\upshape
Table \ref{OneWayTable} shows the results of a one-way SA on model \eqref{ToyModel}. All factors are set to a value of $0.1$, before each is incremented by 10\%, with all other factors held constant. We then calculate the percentage increase in the output after each increment. In this particular case, changing factor $X_4$ causes the greatest output variation.
\end{example}
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabu}{lcc}
\tabucline[1pt] {-}
\hline
Factor & 10\% increase & 10\% decrease \\
\hline
$X_1$ & 1.75\% & -1.58\% \\
$X_2$ & 0.83\% & -0.83\% \\
$X_3$ & 0.83\% & -0.83\% \\
$X_4$ & 8.33\% & -8.33\% \\
\hline
\tabucline[1pt] {-}
\end{tabu}
\caption{This table shows the results of a one-way SA conducted on model \eqref{ToyModel}. We tabulate the percentage change in the output after increasing and then decreasing each factor by 10\%. Each factors is initially set to a value of 0.1.}\label{OneWayTable}
\end{table}
\subsection{Multi-way sensitivities} \label{Sec:multiway}
If, instead of varying one model factor, we vary two or more simultaneously and observe the change in model output, we would then be conducting a {\it multi-way} SA. A two-way SA, for example, examines the effect of changing two factors of interest. However, it remains local in nature and so is best used to analyse linear models.
Multi-way techniques have been used to investigate the cost-effectiveness of healthcare routines, such as the screening of smokers for suspected lung cancer \cite{Mahadevia2003}, treatments for ischaemic stroke \cite{Fagan1998} and a potential vaccine for the human papillomavirus \cite{Sanders2003}.
\begin{table}[]
\centering
{\small
\begin{tabu}{lllll}
\tabucline[0.7pt] {-}
Factor & $X_1$ & $X_2$ & $X_3$ & $X_4$ \\
\hline
$X_1$ & N/A & 2.52 & 2.52 & 10.08 \\
$X_2$ & 2.52 & N/A &1.75 & 9.17 \\
$X_3$ & 2.52 & 1.75 & N/A & 9.17 \\
$X_4$ & 10.08 & 9.17 &9.17 & N/A \\ \tabucline[0.7pt] {-}
\end{tabu}
\hspace{4ex}
\begin{tabu}{lllll}
\tabucline[0.7pt] {-}
Factor & $X_1$ & $X_2$ & $X_3$ & $X_4$ \\
\hline
$X_1$ & N/A & -2.42 & -2.42 & -9.92 \\
$X_2$ & -2.42 & N/A &-1.58 & -9.17 \\
$X_3$ & -2.42 & -1.58 & N/A & -9.17 \\
$X_4$ & -9.92 & -9.17 &-9.17 & N/A \\ \tabucline[0.7pt] {-}
\end{tabu}
}
\caption{The results of a two-way SA conducted on model \eqref{ToyModel}. We tabulate the percentage change in the output after increasing and then decreasing two factors by 10\%. Each factor is initially set to a value of 0.1. Here, N/A stands for {\it not applicable}.}\label{MultiwayTable}
\end{table}
\medskip
\begin{example}\upshape
Table \ref{MultiwayTable} shows the results of applying a two-way SA to model \eqref{ToyModel}. First we set all factors to a baseline value; here, all factors are set to 0.1. We then apply a 10\% increase to two factors simultaneously and calculate the corresponding percentage change in the output. Analogous computations are performed for a 10\% decrease. In both cases, changing the pair $[X_1, X_4]$ creates the greatest magnitude of change in the output.
\end{example}
\subsection{Derivative-based local sensitivities} \label{Sec:local}
Traditionally, SA involved calculating the partial derivative of the output with respect to the input factor of interest. Mathematically, we can denote this as
\begin{equation}
\label{LocalSensEquation}
\ S_i^{method}=\gamma_i \frac{\partial Y}{\partial X_i}\Big\rvert_{X=x^*}
\end{equation}
where $S_i^{method}$ is the sensitivity index of the $i$th factor, $x^*$ the point at which the derivative is evaluated, and $\gamma_i$ takes one of the following three forms, depending on the method used:
\smallskip
\noindent
{\it Absolute sensitivity index $S_i^{\rm abs}$} ($\gamma_i=1$). This gives us the rate of change of the output as $X_i$, alone, is altered. The index is best used when comparing factors with the same units and similar nominal values and variances. If a factor differs from the others in any of these three categories, the two indices below tend to be used instead.
\smallskip
\noindent
{\it Relative sensitivity index $S_i^{\rm rel}$} ($\gamma_i=X_i^0 / Y^0$). Here $X_i^0$ is some nominal or reference value for the $i$th factor, and $Y^0$ some reference value for the output. The relative sensitivity index is a normalised measure and this enables comparisons between factors with different units or values at different orders of magnitude. However, one persisting limitation is that the spread, or standard deviation, of the respective factors remains unaccounted for.
\smallskip
\noindent
{\it Variance sensitivity index $S_i^{\rm var}$} ($\gamma_i=\sigma_{X_i}/\sigma_Y$). Here $\sigma_{X_i}$ and $\sigma_{Y}$ are the standard deviations of the factor $X_i$ and the output $Y$, respectively. Since the variance sensitivity index $S_i^{\rm var}$ requires information about the spread of all the factors, it has been described as a hybrid local-global method \cite{Saltelli2002}.
\medskip
\begin{example}\upshape
Table \ref{TableLocal} gives the results of applying three local derivative-based sensitivity methods $S_i^{abs}, S_i^{rel}$ and $S_i^{var}$ to model \eqref{ToyModel}. The sensitivities are evaluated when all factors are set to 0.1. Note that the individual sensitivities depend on the point in factor space at which the methods are evaluated (with the exception of the linear additive term $X_4$).
\end{example}
\begin{table}[]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabu}{lccc}
\tabucline[.8pt] {-}
\hline
Factor & $S_i^{\rm abs}$ & $S_i^{\rm rel}$ &$S_i^{\rm var}$\\
\hline
$X_1$ & 0.2 & 0.167 & 0.014 \\
$X_2$ & 0.1 & 0.083 & 0.007 \\
$X_3$ & 0.1 & 0.083 & 0.007 \\
$X_4$ & 1.0 & 0.833 & 0.071 \\
\hline
\tabucline[.8pt] {-}
\end{tabu}
\caption{ The results of local derivative-based sensitivities applied to model \eqref{ToyModel} calculated at 0.1. For the relative sensitivity index, $S_i^{\rm rel}$, we have $X_i^0=0.1$ and $Y_i^0=0.12$; and for the variance sensitivity index, $S_i^{\rm var}$, $\sigma_{X_i}^2=0.083$ and $\sigma_Y^2=1.17$.}\label{TableLocal}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\subsection{Morris method}\label{Sec:morris}
The Morris method \cite{Morris1991} can be viewed as an extension of the local derivative-based sensitivity measures of the previous section. This extension turns the Morris method into a global technique, making it one of the more widely applied sensitivity methods.
Instead of taking the partial derivative of the output with respect to the factor of interest, say $X_i$, the Morris method approximates this derivative using a finite difference scheme. The resultant value is called the {\it elementary effect}, ${\rm EE}_i$ of the {\it i}th factor:
\begin{equation}
\label{MorrisMethodEq}
{\rm EE}_i=\frac{f(X_1,X_2,\dots,X_i+\Delta,\ldots,X_n )-f(X_1,X_2,\ldots, X_i, \ldots, X_n )}{\Delta},
\end{equation}
where the increment or step-size, $\Delta$, is typically chosen to be ${n}/{(2(n-1))}$, with $n$ being the number of factors \cite{Saltelli2000}.
Each of these factors is, first, rescaled to be uniformly distributed in the interval $[0,1]$. Starting from an initial base value, selected at random from this uniform distribution, one random factor is incremented or decremented and its elementary effect calculated. From this next value, another random factor is again incremented, and its elementary effect calculated and so on until we have calculated one elementary effect for each factor. The aim of the Morris method is to take the average of a number of elementary effects, each calculated at different points in factor space. Denoting this number by $r$, we would then require a total of $r$ elementary effects per factor. Hence, we repeat the process described above $(r-1)$ times to generate the remaining elementary effects. Each repetition, called a {\it run}, generates a set, or {\it trajectory}, of $n$ elementary effects (one per factor). Interested readers can find an algorithm for this process in \cite{Morris1991,Saltelli2002}.
Having computed these $r$ elementary effects per factor, we find the average of their absolute values, $\mu_i^*$, and standard deviation of the signed values, $\sigma_i$:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\mu^*_i=\frac{\sum_{k=1}^{r} \mid{{\rm EE}_i^k}\mid}{r} \label{MorrisMethodMuStar} \\
&&\sigma_i = \Big[\frac{\sum_{k=1}^{r} ({\rm EE}_i^k-\mu_i)^2 }{r-1} \Big]^{1/2} \label{MorrisMethodSigma}
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\rm EE}_i^k$ denotes the elementary effect of the $i$th factor during the $k$th model evaluation and $\mu_i=\sum_{k=1}^{r} {{\rm EE}^k_i}/r$ is the mean of these elementary effects.
The greater the value of $\mu_i^*$, the more the {\it i}th factor affects the model output, while the greater the $\sigma_i$ value, the more the factor is nonlinear or involved with interactions with other factors; a low $\sigma_i$, by contrast, indicates a linear, additive factor. While Morris' original paper \cite{Morris1991} used only $\mu_i$, Campolongo et al. \cite{Campolongo2007} introduced the $\mu^*$ term. They observed that, by using their absolute values, elementary effects of different signs would not cancel each other out in \eqref{MorrisMethodMuStar}. However, the signed elementary effects are still used to calculate $\sigma_i$ in \eqref{MorrisMethodSigma}. The Morris method is computationally efficient and can be extended to deal with groups of factors \cite{Saltelli2002}.
The sampling scheme used may affect the performance of the Morris method. For instance, the trajectory-based scheme can be modified by selecting only the trajectories with the largest geometric distance between their respective points \cite{Campolongo2007}. This is known as the {\it optimised trajectories} scheme. A related scheme is the {\it winding stairs} method, \cite{Jansen1994}. The difference between the winding stairs and trajectory-based schemes is that, while every point sampled by the former is linked to the same trajectory, in the latter, there are $r$ different sets of trajectories, each generated from a new initial base value. A different scheme that was first used in variance-based methods, known as the {\it radial design} \cite{Saltelli2002}, involves obtaining a trajectory where each point is only one step distant from the base point, which is a randomly-selected point in factor space.
This was found to give better overall performance on a number of test functions than the trajectory-based scheme \cite{Campolongo2011}.
The Morris method provides only semi-quantitative information and so is typically used for factor screening \cite{Saltelli2008,Saltelli2002}. However, being a semi-quantitative method, there is no definitive boundary separating the important and unidentifiable parameters. It turns out that in most models with a large number of variables ($>20$), there are only a few influential variables with many uninfluential ones in between \cite{Saltelli2008}. Hence, in practice, a line of demarcation separating influential and less important variables can often be ascertained qualitatively. Nonetheless, the Morris method is at a disadvantage when dealing with factor interactions. Though able to detect if a factor is involved in nonlinearities or interactions, it cannot determine which of these is present, nor, in the case of interactions, can it identify which factors are involved. Instead it gives only one lumped measure, $\sigma_i$, of the total magnitude of its interactions and nonlinearities. In situations where more clarity is required, we turn to the more computationally expensive variance-based methods discussed next.
Being a popular method, the Morris method has been used extensively for SA of models in the biomedical sciences \cite{Laranjeira2017, Laranjeira2018,Hall2015}, hydrology \cite{Wainwright2014a} and chemical engineering \cite{Sin2009}, among other applications.
\medskip
\begin{example}\upshape
To implement the Morris method on model \eqref{ToyModel}, we set the number of elementary effects per factor to be 100 and choose the step-size $\Delta=1/100$. The variables $X_1$ and $X_4$ have the largest values of $\mu^*$ and so are the two factors that most affect the output variance. The other two factors, $X_2$ and $X_3$, have less effect on the output, having lower values of $\mu^*$. We now turn our attention to the magnitude of interactions and nonlinearities that each factor is involved in, represented by the $\sigma$ values. With the exception of $X_4$, the values of $\sigma_i$ for all other factors are nonzero, since the only linear term in model \eqref{ToyModel} is the term $X_4$. We note that the Morris sensitivity indices of the first three factors will vary unless $\Delta$ is chosen to be sufficeintly small. However, the indices of $X_4$ stays the same regardless of the step size, again due to its appearance only as a linear term.
Finally, since $X_2$ and $X_3$ interact with each other, their $\sigma_i$ values are similar.
As noted previously, one feature of the Morris method is that it allows us to find any unidentifiable factors (having little or not influence on the output). In our example, however, since the $\mu^*$ of each variable is much greater than $0$, we conclude that all the factors play a role in the output variance.
\end{example}
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabu}{lll}
\tabucline[1pt] {-}
\hline
Factor & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\mu^*_i$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}} $\sigma_i$ \\ \end{tabular}} \\
\hline
$X_1$ & 1.04 & 0.58 \\
$X_2$ & 0.51 & 0.28 \\
$X_3$ & 0.47 & 0.30 \\
$X_4$ & 1.00 & 0.00 \\
\hline
\tabucline[1pt] {-}
\end{tabu}
\caption{The results obtained upon implementing the Morris method on model \eqref{ToyModel}. We show
$\mu_i^*$ and $\sigma_i$ when the number of runs, $r$, is set to 100, and the step size $\Delta=1/100$. }
\label{TableMorrisToy}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\subsection{Sobol method}\label{sobol}
In the following two sections, we will discuss two common variance-based SA techniques. These methods calculate the proportion of the model variance caused by each input factor, as well as its interaction with every other factor. The trade-off, however, is that variance-based methods are computationally expensive.
The first of these variance-based techniques is the Sobol method \cite{Sobol1993, Sobol2001}, which decomposes the model variance into contributions from each factor as well as all its interactions. The Sobol sensitivity indices can be written in terms of conditional variances \cite{Jansen1999, Oakley2004, Saltelli2010}. For instance, the {\it first-order indices}, or {\it main effects}, measure the direct contribution of each input factor to the output variance
\begin{equation}\label{SobolFirstIndices}
S_i=\frac{{\rm V}_{X_i}({\rm E}_{X_{\sim i}}(Y| X_i))}{{\rm V}(Y)},
\end{equation}
where ${\rm E}$ is the expected value, ${\rm V}$ the variance, $X_{\sim i}$ denotes all model factors except the $i$th and $Y$ is the model output. For the expectation operator, the mean of $Y$ is taken over all possible values of $X_{\sim i}$ (denoted in the subscript) while keeping the factor $X_i$ fixed. The variance, on the other hand, is taken over all possible values of $X_i$. The {\it total-order indices}, or {\it total effects}, introduced by Homma and Saltelli \cite{Homma1996}, measure the part of output variance explained by all the effects in which it plays a part and is defined as
\begin{equation}\label{Sobol_total}
S_{T_i}=\frac{{\rm E}_{X_{\sim i}}({\rm V}_{X_i}(Y|X_{\sim i}))}{{\rm V}(Y)}.
\end{equation}
The first-order indices $S_i$ and total indices $S_{T_i}$ can be interpreted in terms of expected reduction of variance \cite{Saltelli2010}. Note that ${\rm V}_{X_i}({\rm E}_{X_{\sim i}}(Y| X_i))$ can be thought of as the expected reduction in model variance that would be obtained if $X_i$ was to be fixed. Also, ${\rm E}_{X_{\sim i}}({\rm V}_{X_i}(Y|X_{\sim i}))$ is the expected variance that would be left if all factors but $X_i$ were to be fixed.
If the total-order index of a factor is zero, then that factor is non-influential. Thus, $S_{T_i}$ is especially well-suited for factor screening. First-order indices, on the other hand, are typically used for ranking, especially when the interactions with other variables do not contribute significantly to the output variance \cite{Pianosi2016}. It is also possible to define sensitivity indices of any order. For example, second-order indices measure the contribution made by the interaction between a pair of factors to the output variance and so on \cite{Borgonovo2007}.
There are two main steps involved in the computation of Sobol indices. The first is to draw sample values for the input factors. Three appropriate sampling methods are discussed in Section \ref{samplingsection}. Other sampling schemes originally designed for the computation of variance-based sensitivity indices include the winding stairs method \cite{Jansen1994}, which uses either pseudorandom \cite{Chan2000} or quasi-random sequences \cite{Owen1998}, to generate values for each factor and the radial design \cite{Saltelli2002}, which was shown in \cite{Saltelli2010} to be the more efficient of these two schemes for calculating the total-order Sobol indices of several test functions.
The second step is to calculate the sensitivity indices, $S_i$ and $S_{T_i}$, using the samples generated from the sampling scheme. Several algorithms have been introduced for this purpose. The available algorithms for $S_i$ include Sobol's approach \cite{Sobol1993} as well as later versions by Jansen \cite{Jansen1999} and Saltelli et al. \cite{Saltelli2010}, among others. There are also many algorithms for implementing $S_{T_i}$. Homma and Saltelli, for example, not only introduced this index but also gave the first algorithm for its calculation \cite{Homma1996}. Other versions by Jansen \cite{Jansen1999} and Sobol \cite{Sobol2007} were proposed later. Of these three estimators of $S_{T_i}$, Jansen's algorithm was shown to be the most efficient \cite{Saltelli2010}.
Several extensions to the Sobol method have been proposed including the case of dependent variables \cite{Kucherenko2012} as well as stochastic and statistical models \cite{Hart2017, Hart2019b}. It has been used extensively to analyse models in, for example, the fields of hydrology \cite{Nossent2011,Zhang2013} and biomedical science \cite{Ojeda2016, Jarrett2016}, including analysis on high-dimensional models \cite{Hart2019a}.
\begin{table}[]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabu}{llcclcc}
\tabucline[0.7pt] {-}
\multirow{2}{*}{Factor} &\qquad& \multicolumn{2}{c}{Sobol} &\qquad & \multicolumn{2}{c}{FAST/eFAST} \\
&& $S_i$ & $S_{T_i}$ && $S_i$ & $S_{T_i}$ \\
\hline
$X_1$ && 0.403 & 0.403 && 0.403 & 0.408 \\
$X_2$ && 0.094 & 0.126 && 0.094 & 0.131 \\
$X_3$ && 0.094 & 0.126 && 0.094 & 0.131 \\
$X_4$ && 0.377 & 0.377 && 0.368 & 0.373 \\
\tabucline[0.7pt] {-}
\end{tabu}
\caption{This table shows the first and total-order sensitivity indices of each factor in the model \eqref{ToyModel}, calculated using both the Sobol and FAST/eFAST methods.}
\label{VarianceBasedTable}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\medskip
\begin{example}\upshape
The Sobol indices for model \eqref{ToyModel} are given in Table \ref{VarianceBasedTable}.
Note that $X_1$ is the most sensitive factor; and $X_2$ and $X_3$ are the only variables involved in interactions. Note how this differs from the Morris method, where $\sigma_i$ is non-zero for not only these two factors but $X_1$ as well. Hence, running both the Morris and Sobol methods in tandem and subsequently comparing $\sigma_i$ with $S_{T_i}-S_i$ isolates the nonlinear and interaction (or {\it additional}) effects of each factor, as noted by Wainwright et al. \cite{Wainwright2014a}. We also illustrate this through an example (see Section \ref{ODECellDiffModel}).
\end{example}
\subsection{FAST and eFAST} \label{Sec:FAST}
Introduced by Cukier et al. \cite{Cukier1973}, the {\it Fourier Amplitude Sensitivity Test} (FAST) is another variance-based method. The FAST method uses sinusoidal functions and the orthogonality property of the Fourier series to give an approximation of the total model variance in terms of the real and imaginary coefficients of the Fourier series. Then, the first-order index of factor $X_i$ is given by the proportion of this total variance attributable to the Fourier series harmonics caused by $X_i$. One of the first numerical implementations of this was developed in \cite{McRae1982}.
However, in this form, the FAST method can calculate only the first order indices of each factor. Saltelli et al. \cite{Saltelli1999} extended the method to include the computation of the total indices as well, giving rise to the {\it extended FAST} (eFAST).
Being a variance-based method, FAST/eFAST gives quantitative information, contained in the first and total-order sensitivity indices. The eFAST is also more efficient than the Sobol method as the former calculates all indices in one set of model evaluations [10]. However, all these methods suffer from being more computationally expensive than the derivative-based methods as well as the correlation and regression methods of the next section.
The FAST methods have been commonly applied to analyse models in engineering and science: a set of three papers by Cukier et al. \cite{Cukier1973,Cukier1975} and Schaiby et al. \cite{Schaibly1973} investigating chemical kinetic systems introduced the FAST method and, since then, using eFAST, researchers have expanded its areas of application to include, for instance, SA of reliability/risk models including hydrological models assessing flooding risk \cite{Crosetto2000}, modelling of atopic dermatitis \cite{Tanaka2011} and thermodynamic models for gene transcription \cite{Dresch2010}.
\medskip
\begin{example}\upshape
The results of the FAST/eFAST method on model \eqref{ToyModel} are given in Table \ref{VarianceBasedTable}. Note, as expected, the similarities between the results of Sobol and FAST/eFAST.
\end{example}
\subsection{DGSM} \label{Sec:DGSM}
Derivative-based global sensitivity measures (DGSM) can be thought of as an extension of the local sensitivity and Morris methods, as it involves taking the average of the partial derivative of the model with respect to the input factor across factor space \cite{Sobol1995, Kucherenko2009, Sobol2010}. Consider a differentiable function $f(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$ defined in the unit hypercube $H^n = [0,1]^n$. It has been shown \cite{Sobol2009} that the modified Morris measure $\mu^*$ (see equation \eqref{MorrisMethodMuStar}) is an approximation of the functional $\int_{H^n}|{\partial f}/{\partial x_i}|dx$. The DGSM measures are defined as
\begin{equation}
v_i = \int_{H^n}\Big(\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_i}\Big)^2 dx.
\end{equation}
The calculation of DGSM indices is typically performed using Monte Carlo, quasi-Monte Carlo or Latin hypercube sampling \cite{Touzani2014}. The use of Sobol sequences or other low-discrepancy number generators may improve the computational efficiency \cite{Kucherenko2009}.
An improvement to the method's numerical efficiency using automatic differentiation has also been considered \cite{KiparissidesKucherenko2009}.
Also found was a link between the DGSM and the total-order sensitivity index, $S_{T_i}$, of the Sobol method. In the cases of uniformly and normally distributed factors, it can be shown that $S_{T_i}\leq {v_i}/{\pi^2\, {\rm V}(Y)}$, where $ {\rm V}(Y)$ is the total model variance \cite{Sobol2010}.
The method can be extended for use on both single and groups of inputs \cite{Sobol2010a}. The DGSM indices give similar rankings to those based on the Sobol method if the model is linear or quasilinear but for highly nonlinear models the rankings given by the two methods may no longer agree \cite{Kucherenko2009}.
Applications of DGSM in the fields of hydrology \cite{Touzani2014} and biochemistry \cite{Kiparissides2009} are available, as well as a survey article investigating its link to Sobol sensitivity indices in \cite{KucherenkoIoos2015}.
\medskip
\begin{example}\upshape
We applied the DGSM methods to model \eqref{ToyModel}, obtaining the results shown in Table \ref{TableDGSMToy}. Note that rescaling the indices by the factor $\pi^2 {\rm V}(Y)=2.18$ produces an upper bound for the Sobol indices (Tables \ref{VarianceBasedTable} and \ref{TableDGSMToy}) as shown in \cite{Sobol2010}. The factor rankings remain the same as those given by the Sobol method (Table \ref{VarianceBasedTable}).
\end{example}
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabu}{lcc}
\tabucline[1pt] {-}
\hline
Factor & $v_i$ & $v_i/(\pi^2 {\rm V}(Y))$ \\
\hline
$X_1$ & 1.33 & 0.61 \\
$X_2$ & 0.33 & 0.15 \\
$X_3$ & 0.33 & 0.15 \\
$X_4$ & 1.00 & 0.46 \\
\hline
\tabucline[1pt] {-}
\end{tabu}
\caption{The results of the DGSM index $v_i$ analysis and the rescaled version $v_i/(\pi^2 {\rm V}(Y))$ on model \eqref{ToyModel}.}
\label{TableDGSMToy}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\subsection{Sensitivity index} \label{Sec:SI}
The {\it sensitivity index} (${\rm SI}_i$) computes the percentage difference when varying one factor within its typical range (e.g. from maximum to minimum value):
\begin{equation}
\label{SenseIndex}
{\rm SI}_i=\frac{D_{i,\max}-D_{i,\min}}{D_{i,\max}},
\end{equation}
where $D_{i,\max}$ and $D_{i,\min}$ are the maximum and minimum values of the output, respectively, when varying the independent variable $X_i$ and keeping the other variables, constant typically set to their baseline values \cite{Helton1993}.
\medskip
\begin{example}\upshape
Calculation of the sensitivity index for each factor of the model \eqref{ToyModel}, assuming all factors are initially set to 0.5, gives
${\rm SI}_1=0.57$, ${\rm SI}_2={\rm SI}_3=0.4$ and ${\rm SI}_4=0.67$. The most sensitive parameter here is $X_4$, however, the ranking depends on the initial factor values, just as is the case with other local methods.
\end{example}
\subsection{Importance index} \label{Sec:Importance}
The {\it importance index} ($I_i$) computes the ratio between the variances of a factor $X_i$ and output $Y$ \cite{Hamby1994}:
\begin{equation}
\label{ImportanceInd}
{\rm I}_i=\frac{\sigma^2_{X_i}}{\sigma^2_{Y}}.
\end{equation}
This is a simple sensitivity technique that can be thought of as a measure of a fractional contribution to the total variability of the model. Since $\sigma^2_{X_i}$ is a measure that takes into account the entire range of the $i$th input, we consider the $I_i$ to be a global method.
\medskip
\begin{example}\upshape
The importance indices computed for model \eqref{ToyModel} are the samea ${\rm I}_1={\rm I}_2={\rm I}_3={\rm I}_4={1}/{14}$ as each factor follows a uniform distribution between 0 to 1.
\end{example}
\subsection{Correlation and regression methods} \label{corregress}
The underlying principle of the correlation and regression methods is to obtain measures of a factor's sensitivity based on the extent of its correlation with the output. There are several closely-related methods here, each of which can be calculated with a set of input data points and the associated output. The distribution of each factor is first determined, before samples are generated using one of several potential sampling methods. Of these, simple random sampling (see Section \ref{samplingsection}) works well for computationally cheap models, where many samples can be generated. As the computational cost to evaluate the model increases, however, the Latin hypercube method (see Section \ref{samplingsection}) becomes a more viable choice \cite{Helton2006}. Other methods can also be used situationally. For instance, Importance Sampling takes into account regions of factor space that have {low probability but high consequence} \cite{Helton2006}.
The model output is then evaluated using these samples, before the correlation methods discussed below give sensitivity measures for each factor \cite{Helton2006}.
We introduce five such methods, the first three of which give a measure of the linear correlation between the input and output, whereas the remaining two examine any monotonic relationship between them. All methods give a measure of the factor's importance and so can be used for factor ranking \cite{Kleijnen1999}. Note that one must first verify that the input and output relationship is, in fact, linear or monotonic before applying these methods \cite{Schober2018}. Failure to do so may lead to a misleading analysis, as the model may not satisfy these conditions.
\medskip
\noindent
{\bf Pearson's correlation coefficient.}
The {\it Pearson's correlation coefficients} (${\rm CC}_i$), is a measure of the linear relationship between the input factor $X_i$ and output $Y$ and is computed as follows
\begin{equation}
\label{CCindex}
{\rm CC}_i=\frac{\sum_{j=1}^{n}(X_{ij}-\bar{X_i})(Y_j-\bar{Y})}{{[ \sum_{j=1}^{n} (X_{ij}-\bar{X_i})^2 \sum_{j=1}^{n}(Y_j-\bar{Y})^2]}^{\frac{1}{2}}},
\end{equation}
where $\bar{X_i}$ and $\bar{Y}$ are the corresponding sample means; $X_{ij}$ and $Y_j$ are the $j$th sample point of the input $X_i$ and the output $Y$, respectively, and $n$ is the sample size.
The coefficients ${\rm CC}_i$ take values between $-1$ and $1$, with both values denoting a perfectly linear relationship between input $X_i$ and output $Y$; a value of $0$ implies that there is no linear correlation between the input and output data.
\medskip
\noindent
{\bf Standardised regression coefficient.} There is a class of methods for computing the sensitivity of linear models for which the input and output can be modelled as
\begin{equation}\label{SRCinout}
\hat Y=b_0+\sum_{i=1}^{k}b_iX_i,
\end{equation}
where $b_0, b_1,\ldots, b_k$ are the coefficients determine through the process of model calibration {\cite{Rao1998,Seber2003,Myers1990,Bland2015}}.
To remove the influence of units in which the factors are measured, we normalise the variables. Instead of regressing $Y$ on $X_i$'s, we regress $(\hat Y-\bar Y)/\hat\sigma_{Y}$ on ${(X_i-\bar{X}_i})/{\hat\sigma_{X_i}}$, where $\bar{X_i}$ and $\bar{Y}$ are the sample means and $\hat\sigma_{X_i}$ and $\hat\sigma_{Y}$ are the sample standard deviation of the corresponding variables.
The {\it standardised regression coefficients} (${\rm SRC}_i$) are the resulting normalised linear regression coefficients
\begin{equation}
\label{SRC}
{\rm SRC}_i=b_i \frac{\hat\sigma_{X_i}}{\hat\sigma_{Y}}.
\end{equation}
The ordering of the absolute values of these unit-free coefficients can be used to rank the relative importance of the factors $X_i$.
\medskip
\noindent
{\bf Partial correlation coefficient.} If the correlation between independent variables exists, it may strongly bias the values of the Pearson's correlation coefficients. The {\it partial correlation coefficient} (${\rm PCC}_i$) accounts for this by measuring the strength of linear relationship between $X_i$ and $Y$ after both variables have been adjusted for all the remaining independent variables. It is computed as
\begin{equation}\label{SRC}
{\rm PCC}_i={\rm SRC}_i \sqrt{\frac{1-R^2_{X_i}}{1-R^2}},
\end{equation}
where $R^2$ is the coefficient of determination and $R_{X_i}^2$ is the coefficient of determination obtained from regressing $X_i$ on $Y$ and $X_{\sim i}$ (a vector of independent variables or factors except $X_i$).
${\rm PCC}_i$ can be interpreted as a measure of the new information gained from introducing the $i$th factor to the model \cite{Rao1998}. If all input factors and the output have been standardised to mean of 0 and variance of 1, then the ${\rm SRC}_i$ is equivalent to ${\rm PCC}_i$ \cite{Kleijnen1999}. The ${\rm PCC}_i$ can also be calculated using two other methods. The first involves finding the Pearson's correlation of the residuals for the two models found by regressing, first, $X_{\sim i}$ on $Y$ and, second, $X_{\sim i}$ on $X_i$. The other method requires the calculation of the inverse of the correlation matrix, as shown in \cite{Iman1984}.
\begin{table}[]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabu}{lccccc}
\tabucline[0.7pt] {-}
Factor & \multicolumn{1}{c}{${\rm CC}_i$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{${\rm SRC}_i$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{${\rm PCC}_i$} & ${\rm SRCC}_i$ & ${\rm PRCC}_i$ \\ \hline
$X_1$ & 0.61 & 0.49 & 0.93 & 0.60 & 0.91 \\
$X_2$ & 0.30 & 0.19 & 0.79 & 0.29 & 0.73 \\
$X_3$ & 0.31 & 0.19 & 0.79 & 0.29 & 0.72 \\
$X_4$ & 0.62 & 0.50 & 0.93 & 0.62 & 0.91 \\
\tabucline[0.7pt] {-}
\end{tabu}
\caption{This table shows the sensitivity indices of each factor in model \eqref{ToyModel}, calculated using various regression methods.}
\label{RegressTable}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\medskip
\noindent
{\bf Spearman and partial rank correlation coefficients.} While both the Pearson's and partial correlation coefficients quantify the extent of linearities in the data, the Spearman (${\rm SRCC}_i$) and partial rank correlation coefficients (${\rm PRCC}_i$) are their respective counterparts for nonlinear models. These indices quantify the monotonicity inherent in the data by linearising them, using their numerical ranking \cite{Kleijnen1999}.
Specifically, ${\rm SRCC}_i$ and ${\rm PRCC}_i$ are calculated using the formulae for ${\rm CC}_i$ and ${\rm PCC}_i$, respectively, but replacing $X_i$ and $Y$ with the rank values of those variables. Hence ${\rm SRCC}_i$ can be seen as a measure of the linearity of each factor's ranked data points, while ${\rm PRCC}_i$ accounts for any correlations between the factors \cite{Kleijnen1999}. An index of $1$ or $-1$ indicates a monotonically increasing or decreasing function, respectively, whereas an index of $0$ occurs if successive data points increase then decrease alternately. The ${\rm PRCC}_i$ has been applied, for instance, to models of HIV transmission \cite{Blower1994}.
\medskip
\begin{example}\upshape
Table \ref{RegressTable} shows the results when the five regression methods mentioned above are implemented on model \eqref{ToyModel}. As is consistent with other sensitivity methods, all the results here suggest that the most influential parameters are $X_1$ and $X_4$. It is noticeable that the values of the Pearson ${\rm CC}_i$ and Spearman ${\rm SRCC}_i$ are similar, as well as those of the partial ${\rm PCC}_i$ and partial ranked ${\rm PRCC}_i$ correlation coefficients. This is not generally the case. In our model, the four input variables form three terms which are added together to make a monotonic function.
However, the Spearman coefficients are not $1$ because of the presence of the other terms. Each variable must `compete' with the others for impact on the output, $Y$, and this competition reduces the impact of an increase in any individual variable alone. This is particularly the case for $X_2$ and $X_3$, where an increase in one variable may not even produce an increase in the $X_2X_3$ term, if the other variable is sufficiently decreased; this is reflected in the lower Spearman coefficients of these two variables. If we were to increase the $X_1^2$ term by a factor of $10$, for instance, then ${\rm PCC}_1$ and ${\rm SRCC}_1$ increase to around $0.96$ and $1.00$, respectively, as now $10X_1^2$ is the term dominating the others, with respect to the output.
Although Pearson's correlation is a measure of linearity, when the input values are positive, as they are here, the nonlinear term, $X_1^2$, nonetheless has some resemblance to a linearly increasing function, such that ${\rm CC}_1$ is still relatively high. What is interesting is that ${\rm CC}_1$ and ${\rm PCC}_1$ decrease almost to zero when the first term of the model, $X_1^2$, is modified to $(X_1-0.5)^2$. After this shifting of $X_1$, the quadratic term is no longer monotonic between 0 and 1; indeed, about half the points should sit on either side of the arms of the parabola, leading to the large decrease in both correlation coefficients. Such an example shows a possible limitation in both these methods for sensitivity analysis: they require model linearity (Pearson) or monotonicity (Spearman), and even a slight change to the model that negates these conditions will result in very different correlation scores.
Similar arguments can be applied to explain the partial correlation coefficients.
\end{example}
\subsection{Sensitivities in the ODE setting}
Models in biomedical sciences often appear in the form of Ordinary Differential Equations (ODEs), which can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{d x}{dt}&=&f(t,x,\theta) \label{ode:mod},\qquad x(t_0)=x_0,
\end{eqnarray}
where $x=[x_1,\ldots,x_n]\in\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^n$ denotes the state vector, $t$ is time and $\theta=[\theta_1,\theta_2,\ldots,\theta_p]\in\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^p$ the parameter vector.
Here the factors are taken to be the parameters $\theta$, as we aim to quantify how much they influence the variability of the model output $x(t)$ \cite{Banks2007, Banks2007a}. Therefore the {\it sensitivity functions}, which describe the time evolution of the dependence of model output on model parameters, are defined as
\begin{equation}\label{ode:sens}
S_{\theta_j}^{x_i}(t) = \frac{\partial x_i(t)}{\partial \theta_j},
\end{equation}
where $j=1,\ldots,p$ are the parameter indices and $i=1,\ldots,n$ are the state variable indices. We note that for an ODE model with $p$ parameters and $n$ state variables there will be $n\times p$ sensitivity functions.
A SA of time-dependent ODE models can be conducted in two different ways. The first possibility is to calculate the sensitivity at specific time-points, if we are interested only in those particular instances \cite{Laranjeira2017, Laranjeira2018, Tanaka2011}. The second possibility is to calculate the sensitivity over the entire interval on which the model is defined \cite{Wainwright2014a,Wu2013,Bianca2012}.
The methods reviewed in Section 3 can be applied to ODE models by first solving the model equations and then calculating the sensitivity at specific time points. There are also methods designed specifically for ODE models; these are reviewed below.
\medskip
\noindent{\bf Finite difference method.} The finite difference method \cite{Iott1985,Haftka1989,Pope2009} for calculating the sensitivities \eqref{ode:sens} approximates them using the forward differences
\[
\frac{\partial x}{\partial \theta_j} \approx \frac{x(t,\theta+he_j)-x(t,\theta)}{h}, \qquad
e_i = \Big[0 . . . 0 \, \overset{j}{\widehat{1}} \, 0 . . . 0\Big],
\]
where $e_j$ is the unit vector in the $j$th component direction. To compute the sensitivities \eqref{ode:sens} for each of $p$ parameters, we require one solution of the model with baseline values of parameters $\bar\theta_j$ and $p$ solutions of the model with perturbed parameters $\bar\theta_j+\Delta \bar \theta_j$ for $j=1,\ldots,p$. We note here that this is an OAT method, where one parameter is perturbed at a time while the rest are kept constant at the nominal value (see Section \ref{sec:OATMAT}).
\medskip
\noindent{\bf Direct method.}
The direct method \cite{Atherton1975,Dickinson1976} relies on deriving the {\it sensitivity equations} obtained by differentiating model \eqref{ode:mod} with respect to the parameter $\theta_j$, i.e.
\begin{equation}\label{ode:seneq}
\frac{d}{dt} \Big(\frac{\partial x}{\partial \theta_j}\Big)=\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}\frac{\partial x}{\partial \theta_j}+\frac{\partial f}{\partial \theta_j},
\end{equation}
where ${\partial f}/{\partial x}$ is the model's Jacobian matrix (here assumed to be obtained explicitly); and ${\partial f}/{\partial \theta_j}$ is a vector of derivatives with respect to $\theta_j$. Note that to compute the sensitivity $S^x_{\theta_j}(t) = \partial f(t,x,\theta)/\partial\theta_j$ from the sensitivity equation \eqref{ode:seneq}, we need knowledge of $x(t)$ at each point. Thus we obtain $S^{x}_{\theta_j}$ by simultaneously solving model equation \eqref{ode:mod} and the sensitivity equations \eqref{ode:seneq} with the initial $S^x_{\theta_j}(0) = 0_{n\times p}$, here $0_{n\times p}$ is the $n\times p$ zero matrix (obtained by differentiation with respect to $\theta$, with the initial condition $x(0)=x_0$). This approach has been found to be unstable for certain stiff kinetic problems. The sensitivities are computed by solving a large system of ODEs resulting from coupling the model with an auxiliary sensitivity equations and therefore the method is computationally suboptimal.
\medskip
\noindent{\bf Green function method}.
The Green function method for solving ODEs applied to SA is considered in \cite{Hwang1978}. It calculates the Green function for the auxiliary equations and produces the sensitivity coefficients from integrals over the Green function, which is the integral kernel of the solution of ODEs. There are a variety of these methods, including the popular {\it Analytically Integrated Magnus} (AIM) method \cite{Kramer1981}.
\medskip
\noindent{\bf Automatic differentiation method.}
The automatic differentiation method also has been applied to compute model sensitivities \cite{Hwang1997}. It allows us to compute the derivatives of any arbitrary order by applying the chain rule \cite{Griewank1989}. Computer routines have been developed for this purpose in different programming languages, as well as packages such as ACADO \cite{Hwang1997} and CasADi \cite{Andersson2012}.
\noindent{\bf Parameter estimation of biological models.}
As part of model validation one needs to estimate model parameters from some data measurements.
However, biomedical data are often either difficult to obtain (e.g. invasive methods may be necessary) or costly. Therefore, it might be desirable to optimise the data collection process (e.g. by minimising the intervention while preserving the level of information). In particular, it is important to determine at which time points the measurements are most informative for estimating a given model parameter and how the process depends on the number of sampled data points \cite{Capaldi2012}. SA is one way to address this problem and has been performed in the context of asymptotic statistical theory \cite{Seber1989, Davidian1996}. Example applications of this theory to epidemiological models are available \cite{Banks2009a, Banks2009, Cintron-Arias2009}.
Since the sensitivities of a time-dependent system provide temporal information on how the states of a system vary to changes in the parameters, they can be used to determine the time intervals during which the system is the most sensitive to such changes. The key link here is that the asymptotic statistical theory allows us to calculate standard errors of parameter estimates through the use of sensitivity functions which, in turn, provide information about the time periods during which the data points carry the most information about the estimation process \cite{Banks2007a, Banks2007}. Therefore, if the sensitivity function $S^{x_i}_{\theta_j}(t)$ is close to zero, in some time interval, changes in the parameter $\theta_j$ will have little effect on the state variable $x_i(t)$.
\section{Visual methods} \label{GraphicalSection}
SA methods can also be categorised by how the results are presented. Visual methods are known as {\it qualitative}, while those that give numerical values representing the sensitivity indices are {\it quantitative}. Though qualitative, visual tools can enable an intuitive understanding of the important factors.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig_all_sa5.png}
\caption{Visualisation methods for input-output (top row) and SA indices (middle and bottom rows).}\label{fig:all_sa}
\end{figure}
\smallskip
\noindent
{\bf Scatterplot.} The most common way to visualise the input-output relationship is by plotting the model output against a specific input \cite{Kleijnen1999, Saltelli2000}. Scatterplots can be useful for a general understanding of the magnitude of the underlying sensitivities as well as detecting some functional relation between model input and output including nonlinearities, albeit in a subjective manner. The inspection of scatterplots is usually a good starting point for performing sensitivity analysis \cite{Helton1993}. The scatterplot in Figure\,\ref{fig:all_sa}a shows the relationship between the variable $X_4$ and $Y$ for the example model \eqref{ToyModel}.
\smallskip
\noindent
{\bf Cobweb plot.} Another way to visualise the input-output relationship is by plotting the distribution of all the input samples: these are known as either cobwebs or parallel coordinate plots \cite{Saltelli2000, Iooss2015, Pianosi2016}. Here, the range of each of the $n$ input factors is represented by a vertical line, or axis. Then, taking the first set of input samples, each of the $n$ points of the set is plotted on its appropriate axis, before successive points are connected by lines.
The process is repeated for the remaining sets of input samples, creating a plot resembling a cobweb. We can also impose certain properties on a specific input factor to find the values the other factors should take \cite{Saltelli2000}. For instance, we may be interested in keeping one variable over some threshold value and so require information on the values of the remaining factors. In this case, we discard the lines where the threshold is not exceeded and examine the resultant graph, known as a {conditional cobweb plot} \cite{Saltelli2000}. Figure\,\ref{fig:all_sa}b shows a cobweb plot with the distribution of all samples of the four input variables for the example model \eqref{ToyModel}.
\bigskip
While the scatterplot and cobweb are tools for input-output visualisation, the following four methods are commonly used to visualise sensitivity indices.
\smallskip
\noindent
{\bf Tornado plot.} This is a bar graph that is typically used to illustrate one-way sensitivities (see Section\,\ref{Sec:oneway}). A tornado plot shows percentage change in the output after one factor is increased or decreased by a certain percentage (e.g. 10\%) when all others are fixed to that nominal value \cite{Howard1988, Saltelli2000}. The tornado plot in Figure\,\ref{fig:all_sa}c shows the one-way sensitivities of the four input variables in the example model \eqref{ToyModel} when we increase and decrease their values by 10\% from their baseline.
\smallskip
\noindent
{\bf Morris plot.} The Morris method (see Section\,\ref{Sec:morris}) has its own graphical representation. The mean of absolute value of the elementary effects $\mu^*$ is plotted against the standard deviation of the elementary effects $\sigma$. This gives a visual representation of the factor ranking ($\mu$ axis) and their interactions with other variables ($\sigma$ axis). The bottom-left corner of the graph indicates little effect on the output ($\mu^*$ small) and few interactions with other factors ($\sigma^*$ small). The top-right corner indicates greater effect on model output ($\mu^*$ big) and existence of interactions with other factors ($\sigma^*$ large) \cite{Saltelli2008}. The Morris plot in Figure\,\ref{fig:all_sa}d illustrates the $\mu^*$ and $\sigma$ sensitivity values for the four factors of the example model \eqref{ToyModel}.
\smallskip
\noindent
{\bf Bar plots}. This is a common way to graphically represent different sensitivity indices, where each measure is plotted as a separate bar. Figure\,\ref{fig:all_sa}e shows a double barplot for the first-order ($S_i$) and total-order Sobol sensitivity indices ($S_{T_i}$) corresponding to four input variables in the example model \eqref{ToyModel}. Note that the barplot is a convenient way to illustrate the results of the sentivity analysis, but these can also be presented in a table (Table\,\ref{VarianceBasedTable}).
\smallskip
\noindent
{\bf Pie chart}. This is another popular way to present the results of a variance-based SA \cite{Marino2008a}. Each index is represented by a slice of the pie proportional to its magnitude. Figure\,\ref{fig:all_sa}f shows a pie chart illustrating how the sensitivity indices of the example model \eqref{ToyModel} can be broken down into its constituent Sobol indices.
\smallskip
\noindent
{\bf Radar graphs}. These are generally less common in biomedical applications but can portray the same information \cite{Saltelli2000}. The advantage a radar graph has over tornado and bar plots is the ability to concisely summarise information from models with a large number of variables (see \cite[Figure 11.17]{Saltelli2000}). As shown in that example, a radar graph represents each factor as a ray extending from the origin. Each factor's sensitivity is plotted at the appropriate point on the ray and connected to its two adjacent sensitivities by a straight line.
\smallskip
\noindent
{\bf Circular diagram}. Also known as {\it radial convergence plot}, these can be used for variance-based methods illustrating the first and total-order sensitivities of each factor as smaller and larger circles, respectively. The size of these circles is proportional to the magnitude of the sensitivity. A line between two factors indicates an interaction; the width of the line is proportional to the extent of this interaction, see \cite{Butler2014}.
\smallskip
\noindent
{\bf Matrix plots}. These plots extend the concept of the scatterplot to multivariate models by presenting a grid of scatterplots. Each variable is found along both the horizontal and vertical axes, such that the scatterplot located in the first row and $n$th column shows the relationship between the first and $n$th variable \cite{VanWerkhoven2008}. Such a visual representation faciliates the observation of trends such as the correlation between two variables as well as any outliers.
The sensitivities of the parameters in an ODE model can be calculated at any point in time at which the model is defined. While often the sensitivities are required only at a certain point in time (e.g. the steady-state), it may be more informative to understand how the importance of model parameters changes across time. This necessitates visual tools to display this information.
\smallskip
\noindent
{\bf Sensitivity functions.} For time-dependent models defined, e.g. an ODEs, the sensitivities can be displayed on a plot showing the value of an index plotted against time \cite{Olsen2019}.
\smallskip
\noindent
{\bf Phase portrait plots.} This is another way to visualise the sensitivities of time-dependent ODE models. For example, after using the Morris method, we can produce a plot showing $\mu^*$ against $\sigma$ at different time-points, drawing arrows to indicate the direction of evolution (see \cite[Figure 4]{Wainwright2014a}). Also, for the Sobol method we can plot $S_{T_i}-S_i$ against $S_i$ for different time-points, identifying the ratio between the first-order and the interaction effects between parameters. (see \cite[Figure 5]{Wainwright2014a}). Recall that all the parameters for which $S_{T_i}-S_{i}$ is greater than zero show interaction effects.
\section{Software for performing SA}
Software packages for performing SA are available in several programming languages.
\medskip
\noindent
{\bf Dakota} \cite{Dakota2019}. Dakota is a software package that performs, among other applications, global sensitivity analysis using methods such as the Morris and Sobol. The software has been applied, for instance, to conduct SA on models in immunology \cite{Salim2016}.
\medskip
\noindent
{\bf Data2Dynamics} \cite{Raue2015}. A MATLAB package, based on a previous toolbox known as SBToolbox2, which performs parameter estimation of ODE models as well as uncertainty analysis and local sensitivity analysis. It is especially suitable for models of biochemical reaction networks.
\medskip
\noindent
{\bf DyGloSA} \cite{Baumuratova2013}. A MATLAB toolbox that performs global SA of models defined as differential equations, particularly focusing on detecting the critical transitions that occur in dynamical models with bifurcations.
\medskip
\noindent
{\bf GUI-HDMR} \cite{Ziehn2009}. A MATLAB-based software that includes a set of tools to construct a metamodel and calculate variance based SA. It comes with a GUI, but can also be used as a script. The software has been applied to cyclohexane oxidation \cite{Ziehn2009a} and genetic transcription \cite{Dresch2010}.
\medskip
\noindent
{\bf PeTTSy} \cite{Domijan2016}. A MATLAB toolbox which implements different techniques for the perturbation theory and SA aimed at large and complex ODE models.
\medskip
\noindent
{\bf PSUADE} \cite{Gan2014}. A C++ package for, among other application, global SA and includes techniques such as the Morris and FAST methods. It was originally developed for models in hydrology \cite{Zhan2013}.
\medskip
\noindent
{\bf R Packages.} A number of packages for computing SA indices can be found for users of R, including {\it sensitivity} \cite{Pujol2014} and {\it ODEsensitivity} \cite{ODEsens2018}. The package {\it sensitivity} implements global SA methods such as the Morris, FAST and Sobol methods, using different schemes for numerical computation such as the Jansen and Saltelli implementations, for instance (see Table 2) \cite{Pujol2014}. The Sobol and Morris methods also support models with multivariable outputs. {\it ODEsensitivity} allows users to conduct sensitivity analyses on ODE models using the Morris and Sobol methods.
\medskip
\noindent
{\bf SAFE} \cite{Pianosi2015b}. A MATLAB/Octave toolbox for global SA including Morris, Sobol and FAST as well as visualisation tools such as scatterplots and parallel coordinate plots. The toolbox has been applied to hydrological and climate models \cite{Pianosi2016, Almeida2017}.
\medskip
\noindent
{\bf SaLib} \cite{Herman2017}. A Python library for performing SA. It contains a number of methods including Sobol, Morris, FAST, Moment-Independent Measure, DGSM and Fractional Factorial Sensitivity Measure.
\medskip
\noindent
{\bf SaSAT} \cite{Hoare2008}. A package for sampling and SA tools. While built using MATLAB, it can be run as a standalone program. The package contains the Sobol and regression methods for the purpose of factor ranking.
\medskip
\noindent
{\bf SBToolbox2} \cite{Schmidt2006}. A GUI-based MATLAB toolbox allowsing users to implement and simulate models, as well as to conduct bifurcation and identifiability analyses, parameter tuning and SA using local as well as global methods such as the Sobol, eFAST and the partial rank correlation coefficients. The toolbox has been used for SA of models in systems biology \cite{Williamson2012, Yi2007, Mack2014}.
\medskip
\noindent
{\bf SensSB} \cite{Rodriguez-Fernandez2010}. A MATLAB toolbox aimed at covering main steps involved during the modelling process including sensitivity and identifiability analysis, sensitivity-based optimal design and parameter estimation. The toolbox offers three global SA methods: the Sobol and Morris methods and DGSM \cite{Kucherenko2009}.
\medskip
\noindent
{\bf SIMLAB} \cite{Tarantola2017}. A GUI-based MATLAB and Fortran software incorporating global and regression SA techniques, including the Morris, Sobol, FAST and eFAST methods for the former, as well as the Pearson correlation coefficient, Spearman rank coefficient and standard and partial regression coefficients for the latter. The model factors can also be specified to take common distributions such as the uniform, normal and exponential. The software has been used by researchers examining, for instance, building performance \cite{Hopfe2011}, and environmental policy \cite{Tarantola2002}.
\medskip
\noindent
{\bf SobolGSA} \cite{SobolGSA}. A GUI-based MATLAB package that implements global SA techniques for factor identifiability, including the Morris, Sobol and eFAST methods for factor ranking. The package has been used to implement SA on models investigating, for example, the management of water systems \cite{Koleva2018, Guerra2018}.
\section{Framework for applying SA}
SA is a part of model analysis (see Figure\,\ref{FlowChart}) and thus can be used to modify the model and generate new hypotheses about the phenomenon being modelled. The objective is to implement the SA carefully, bearing in mind the aim of the analysis. To do this requires the selection of the appropriate SA method(s), as well as implementation and interpretation of the analysis. With this in mind, we provide here a brief guide discussing the issues to consider and pitfalls to avoid.
\subsection{A step-by-step application of SA}
From a top-down point of view, the selection of appropriate SA methods can be seen as a step-by-step process. We describe each of these steps below.
\medskip
\noindent
{\bf Step 1: Define the purpose of the SA.}
The first step in choosing an appropriate SA method is to clearly define the purpose of the SA (e.g. factor ranking or screening).
While most approaches reviewed here can be used for factor ranking, relatively few are suitable for screening.
Additionally, the SA practitioner should consider the type of output measures to be investigated. For example, while it is common to use the output value at the final time \cite{Laranjeira2017, Laranjeira2018, Tanaka2011} or over time \cite{Wainwright2014a,Wu2013,Bianca2012}, features such as the ratios of multiple outputs, peak concentration time or the number of oscillations in a period may provide more insight for biological applications.
\noindent
{\bf Step 2: Choose input factors, their ranges and distributions.}
When applying a concrete sensitivity method to a concrete model, the SA practitioner must select a group of parameters and their ranges (i.e. the parameter or fact space) within which the SA is to be performed. For the local SA methods this will be around a point of special interest, e.g. a steady-state of an ODE model, while for global methods a region of the parameter space, typically a neighbourhood of the nominal value. For models in physics, this value could be a measured quantity (e.g. mass, temperature). However, when the model has a biomedical focus, determining the nominal values or regions is usually non-trivial. In practice, many of the values can be determined by measuring the physical quantities by field experts through consensus or by preliminary parameter estimation (the inverse problem). Also to be considered is the distribution of the input ranges. Again, this is harder to discern for biomedical models but, if unclear, a uniform distribution is usually assumed. Care must also be taken when defining the parameter space under SA consideration as its size may influence the final ranking of the factors, which is one of the known pitfalls in applying SA.
\smallskip
\noindent
{\bf Step 3: Select SA method(s).}
The selection of the appropriate SA method(s) constitutes the next step. Two points are to be considered here: the model structure and computational cost of each method. At the heart of the first point is whether or not the input-output relationship of the model is linear. Whereas all SA methods can handle linear and near-linear models, only a few - all of which are global - are suitable for analysing nonlinear models, or those with interactions between factors. The computational cost of using each method is the other point to consider. In general, when applying SA, the number of model evaluations increases with the number of model factors. The exact tread-off depends on the approach and the model itself \cite{Pianosi2016}. Although variance-based methods (e.g. Sobol) are the preferred method for many SA applications, their use may be limited by the model's complexity. This relationship between computational cost and quantitative detail of the SA method applies to all other methods too. For instance, local methods are computationally cheaper than global ones, but provide less information away from the operating point.
\smallskip
Table \ref{MethodsSummary} provides a summary of the SA methods examined in this review and their properties. It is intended to be used as a guide to the selection of appropriate SA methods.
\smallskip
If possible, it may also be useful to compare the results of more than one SA method and, if appropriate and computationally feasible, to use variance-based approaches. Some examples in the literature of combining SA methods are available \cite{Jarrett2017,Wainwright2014a,Link2018}. However, as is common in biomedical sciences, models in this field tend to involve large number of equations and input parameters and therefore the application of SA methods such as the Sobol to the full model is computationally prohibitive. In this case, one option would be to start with computationally efficient screening methods such as the Morris and subsequently apply more intensive variance-based methods to a selected set of parameters. However, if this is not possible, settling with even one simple sensitivity method may still be revealing for the problem at hand \cite{Laranjeira2017, Laranjeira2018}.
\noindent
{\bf Step 4: Visualisation and interpretation}.
The message to be conveyed through the application of SA can be emphasised by visualisation of the results. There is a large range of graphical tools available to the SA practitioner; these are discussed in Section \ref{GraphicalSection}. Finally, the results of the SA are interpreted according to the specificity of the biomedical and biological application. Typical points to consider may include model selection, model reduction and practical identifiability.
\subsection{Pitfalls in the application of SA} \label{OATLimitationsSection}
Although SA is an important part of model analysis, the inferences we derive may be misleading or even incorrect if the SA is perfunctory. Some common errors are outlined in this section.
\smallskip
\noindent
{\bf Indiscriminate use of OAT methods.} Although popular, OAT methods explore only a small fraction of the possible set of parameter values (the parameter space), especially when the number of model parameters is high \cite{Saltelli2019b}. For example, in the case of a 12 parameter model, an OAT method will explore less than one-thousandth of the parameter space \cite{Saltelli2010a}. Hence, the simplicity of these methods comes at the cost of a more thorough understanding of the parameter space.
Also, because only a small proportion of inputs has an influential role on the output \cite{Saltelli2008}, no matter how large the model, OAT approaches are also considered to be inefficient when compared with their MAT counterparts. Hence, the use of OAT approaches results in most model evaluations adding little further information. Also, by varying only one input, it is difficult to ascertain the effect interactions have on the output uncertainty \cite{Saltelli2008}. While some OAT techniques, such as the Morris method, do tell us whether or not input interactions exist, this information is only semi-quantitative. We are given only an index showing the importance of the input's interactions but no information about, for instance, with which particular inputs these interactions are formed \cite{Saltelli2008}.
\smallskip
\noindent
{\bf Insufficient sampling size.} The number of samples, $N$, in sampling-based approaches may affect the convergence of the sensitivity indicies \cite{Wang2013, Tarantola2012}. The larger the sample size, the more accurate the results will be but this involves a trade-off with the computational cost required to run the method on these extra samples. The error inherent in the Sobol method, for example, is proportional to $1/ \sqrt{N}$ \cite{Homma1996}. Moreover, if the sample size is too small, we may obtain inaccurate results. For instance, the occurrence of negative Sobol indices (which should not arise in an ideal setting) suggest large approximation errors during the estimation of the indices and these can only be reduced by increasing the sample size.
\smallskip
\noindent
{\bf Use of correlation methods for inappropriate input-output relationships.} Another pitfall involves the use of correlation methods for models with inappropriate input-output relationships. As noted in Section \ref{corregress} and in \cite{Schober2018}, the correlation measures ${\rm CC}_i$, ${\rm SRC}_i$ and ${\rm PCC}_i$ require a linear relationship between the model input and output, while monotonicity is neccesary for the use of ${\rm SRCC}_i$ and ${\rm PRCC}_i$. If the appropriate conditions are not satisfied, then the results of the correlation analysis will be unreliable.
\smallskip
\noindent
{\bf Non-biological parameter ranges.} As discussed earlier, global SA techniques (e.g. Morris and Sobol) require the parameter ranges to be defined. Changing the ranges may affect significantly the sensitivity indices and potentially lead to insensitive parameters becoming sensitive, or vice versa.
Another common occurrence in ODE models in the biomedical field is the qualitative change in model dynamics when crossing certain regions of the parameter space (i.e. bifurcations). This can include the formation of new steady states (as seen, for instance, in infectious disease models, where each equilibrium represents a healthy or weakened immune response to the disease \cite{Stan2008}), changes in a model's stability \cite{Swat2004} and creation of periodic orbits (e.g. calcium ions in a human cell \cite{Domijan2006}). SA methods do not differentiate between these different regions of the parameter space and so will return some average of these qualitatively different dynamics \cite{VanVoorn2017}.
For biomedical models, it is important that the ranges are biologically feasible so that the sensitivity indices are not biased by implausible model realisations \cite{Shin2013}.
\noindent
{\bf Using local methods for nonlinear models.}
A frequently-encountered pitfall arises when we use local methods for nonlinear models. To illustrate this, we apply derivative-based local sensitivities to model \eqref{ToyModel}, but this time at a different point, namely where all factors take a value of $0.9$ (instead of $0.1$). We show that when the model is nonlinear, then the rankings produced by these methods may depend on the point in the parameter space. Table \ref{TableLocalPoint9} displays the results of the derivative-based local SA when all factors are set to $0.9$. We can observe the swapping of the order of importance of factors $X_1$ and $X_4$, compared with Table \ref{TableLocal}, where all factors are set to $0.1$. This reinforces our statement that, while a local SA provides a simple glimpse into the importance of a model's factors, the results are meaningful only at the point at which the sensitivities are calculated.
\begin{table}[t!]
\centering
\begin{tabu}{lccc}
\tabucline[0.7pt] {-}
Factor & $S_i^{\rm abs}$ & $S_i^{\rm rel}$ &$S_i^{\rm var}$ \\
\hline
$X_1$ & 1.8 & 0.64 & 0.130 \\
$X_2$ & 0.9 & 0.32 & 0.064 \\
$X_3$ & 0.9 & 0.32 & 0.064 \\
$X_4$ & 1.0 & 0.35 & 0.071
\\
\tabucline[0.7pt] {-}
\end{tabu}
\caption{This table shows the results of a local derivative-based sensitivity applied to model \eqref{ToyModel}. We present, here, the absolute, relative and variance-based sensitivity indices, measured when all factors have values of 0.9. For the relative sensitivity measures, we choose $X_i^0=0.9$ and $Y_i^0=2.52$. For the variance-based sensitivity, we calculate that $\sigma_{X_i}^2=1/12$ and $\sigma_Y^2=14/12$.}
\label{TableLocalPoint9}
\end{table}
\subsection{Robustness of SA estimates}
All SA methods are subject to uncertainty. Robustness analysis assesses the dependence of sensitivity indices with respect to the quantities chosen during the computation, such as the distribution of the model parameters (factors), their correlation structure or the choice of a specific sample and its size.
The robustness of Sobol indices to changes in the distributional uncertainty has been a focal point of several recent studies \cite{Paleari2016, Hart2018, Hart2018a}. This may have important consequences since it has been shown that changes in the marginal distributions may change the ordering of the Sobol indices in \cite{Cousin2019}.
In sampling based methods, the most basic question is to understand how many samples do we need for the given SA index to achieve the convergence \cite{Iman1982, Iman1990}. A popular qualitative assessment is to plot sensitivity against the number of evaluations \cite{Nossent2011}, as shown in Figure\,\ref{fig:all_rel}. Convergence and uncertainty analysis based on the Central Limit Theorem has been discussed in \cite{Yang2011}. However, this is only computationally feasible for relatively simple models. For complex models, methods based on bootstrap techniques may be more suitable \cite{Efron1994, Archer1997}.
The popular visual methods for robustness include the boxplot, confidence interval and convergence plot. The {\it boxplot}, also known as a {\it box-and-whisker plot}, displays the medium, upper and lower quartiles of the model's sensitivity indices across several bootstrap resamples. Figure\,\ref{fig:all_rel}a shows a boxplot illustrating these quartiles for the Sobol sensitivity indices of the example model \eqref{ToyModel}. {\it Confidence interval plots} can be used to illustrate the uncertainty of the sensitivity measures using, e.g. bootstrap resamples and preselected confidence intervals \cite{Hoare2008}. In \cite{Archer1997} the authors introduced a method to calculate the symmetric 95\% bootstrapped confidence intervals of the Sobol indices. Figure\,\ref{fig:all_rel}b shows a confidence interval plot created using this method to illustrate the relevant confidence intervals for the Sobol indices of the example model \eqref{ToyModel}. Figure\,\ref{fig:all_rel}c shows a {\it convergence plot} illustrating the number of model evaluations required for the Sobol indices calculated for the example model \eqref{ToyModel} to converge to their true values. Here, we compare the convergence of the Sobol indices computed using two sampling sequences: pseudorandom and quasi-random (specifically, a Sobol sequence). Upon comparison, we can see that using quasi-random sequences enables faster convergence. Notice, also, that the Sobol indices tend incorrectly to give negative values if insufficient model evaluations are computed.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig_all_rel3.png}
\caption{Graphical methods for robustness of SA indices.}\label{fig:all_rel}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Correlated input factors}
It is common in practical applications that the input factors will be, at least to some extent, correlated. A number of challenges arise in performing sensitivity analysis for correlated inputs \cite{Jacques2006, Xu2008, DaVeiga2009, BI2012, Gromping2007, Strobl2008}. The first-order and higher-order Sobol indices (see Section \ref{sobol}), are related through the variance decomposition \cite{Sobol1993}, which holds only if the input factors are independent \cite{Oakley2004}. The case of dependent factors has been considered separately in \cite{Saltelli2002c}. Unexpected results may arise if factors are correlated. One may find that the first-order indices are higher than the total-order indices, which may depend on the level of correlation; or total-order indices tending to zero as the correlations approach one \cite{Kucherenko2012}. In the context of regression methods (Section \ref{corregress}), collinearity may produce large variances of some estimated regression coefficients \cite{Wei2013}, which obscures our ability to interpret the results of the analysis.
\section{Application of SA in biomedical sciences}
\subsection{Algebraic model: cancer prediction}
In this section, we will illustrate two commonly-used global SA techniques the Morris and Sobol methods by applying them to a model of colorectal cancer \cite{Calabrese2010}. The colon, or large intestine, forms the final stage of the digestive tract. The lining of this colon is frequently replaced by cells in a gland known as the colonic crypt but occasionally mistakes are made during this process. If such a mistake leads to the new, mutant cells growing and dividing abnormally, the growth may become cancerous.
The authors of \cite{Calabrese2010} present a simple model by assuming that only five factors cause cancer. The model is as follows
\begin{equation}\label{Cancer:algmodel}
p = 1-\big(1-(1-(1-u)^d)^k\big)^{nm},
\end{equation}
where $p$ is the probability that an individual is affected by cancer, $u$ the mutation rate of the cells per division, $d$ the number of divisions, $k$ the number of rate-limiting mutations required for cancer to occur, $n$ the number of stem cells per crypt and $m$ the number of crypts in the colon. Table \ref{CancerPrediction} shows the factors and their maximum and minimum values. Here, we assume that the individual is 70 years old, giving the appropriate values of the factor $d$.
In \cite{Calabrese2010}, two sets of parameter values are given. The first corresponds to the theory that mutations due to cancer tend to occur in specific sets of susceptible genes. Another school of thought suggests that, in contrast, functional or regulatory pathways are more susceptible to cancer \cite{Sjoblom2006, Wood2007, Jones2008, Parsons2008}; the second set of parameter values reflects this.
We will assume that these two parameter sets correspond to, respectively, the minimum and maximum values of the parameter range, and that all the resultant parameter ranges follow a uniform distribution.
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabu}{llll}
\tabucline[0.7pt] {-}
Factor & Physiological Representation & Min Value & Max Value \\
\hline
$u$ & Mutation rate & $10^{-6}$ & $ 3 \times 10^{-6} $ \\
$d$ & Divisions per cell during lifetime & $6 \times 10^{3} $ & $2 \times 10^4$ \\
$k$ & Rate-limiting mutations & 5 & 6 \\
$n$ & Number of stem cells per crypt & 8 & 40 \\
$m$ & Number of crypts in colon & $10^7$ & $2 \times 10^{7}$ \\
\tabucline[0.7pt] {-}
\end{tabu}
\caption {The factors involved in the cancer prediction model. The minimum values given here correspond to the case with specific gene targets, and the maximum values to the pathway gene targets - values for both cases are taken from \cite{Calabrese2010}.}
\label{CancerPrediction}
\end{table}
We investigate the impact each of the five factors has on the variation in the output by applying the Morris and Sobol methods to the model. Figure \ref{fig:CancerPredictionFigs} shows the results of the respective methods.
Both SA methods show that factors $d$ and $u$, which represent the number of cell divisions and mutation rate respectively, have the greatest effect on the output variance and are greatly involved in interactions with other factors; $k$ has moderate effect on the output but is still heavily involved in interactions. Factors $m$ and $n$, however, are deemed to have low output influence and their interactive effects are small, compared with the other factors. The intuitive mathematical explanation for this is that the factors $u$ and $d$ sit `deep' within model equation \eqref{Cancer:algmodel} and so any variations in their values will be compounded by the exponents (namely, $k$ and $n\times m$) encountered later in the equation.
From a physiological viewpoint, these results seem sensible. Bowel cancer is caused by multiple genetic mutations in stem cells \cite{Lee2010} and the two factors that most directly correspond to the number of mutations are $d$ and $u$. An important study by Tomasetti and Vogelstein \cite{Tomasetti2015} showed that the number of cell divisions over a person's lifetime was the most influential factor for explaining the difference in cancer rates between different body tissues. Hence, the authors concluded that this was the major contributing factor in cancer development. Our SA of such a simple algebraic model reaches the same conclusion; a reflection of its power and importance.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=140mm]{fig_cancer11png.png}
\caption{(a) The $\mu^*$-$\sigma$ plot showing the influence of the 5 model factors on the output $p$ using the Morris method. (b) Results after running the Sobol method on the cancer prediction model \eqref{Cancer:algmodel}. Displayed are the first-order $S_i$ and total-order $S_{T_i }$ indices for each of the five model factors.}
\label{fig:CancerPredictionFigs}
\end{figure}
\subsection{ODE model: cell differentiation in the colon}
\label{ODECellDiffModel}
This section involves the application of the Morris and Sobol methods to an ODE model describing the differentiation of stem cells in the colon, introduced in \cite{Johnston2007a}. As cell division occurs frequently in the bowels, the chances of carcinogenesis occurring there are abnormally high \cite{Brittan2004}. The model of Johnston et al., \cite{Johnston2007a}, attempts to understand how cell differentiation and homeostasis occurs in both healthy bowels and cases where carcinogenesis occurs.
In this model, three types of cells reside in the colon: stem cells, semi-differentiated and fully differentiated cells. Stem cells, found at the bottom of colonic crypts \cite{Preston2003}, have the ability to differentiate into specialised cells, such as Goblet cells and colonocytes for purposes such as tissue regeneration \cite{Brittan2004}. Once these stem cells have been given the signal to differentiate, they travel up along the crypt. During this phase, they are known as semi-differentiated or transit-amplifying cells. Having completed the migration up the crypt, the cells become fully differentiated into their specialisations. During the first two stages, cells are lost due to cell death, regenerated through proliferation or undergo differentiation to the next stage. Fully differentiated cells cannot proliferate (their generation comes only from differentiation of transit cells) but are still lost from their death and/or removal. In healthy individuals, all cell populations are kept in homeostasis; during carcinogenesis, however, cell differentiation is left unchecked.
The model of Johnston et al. \cite{Johnston2007a} portrays these cell dynamics. The authors propose the following feedback model to enable the different cell populations to remain in homeostasis. The model with saturating feedback has the form:
\begin{align}
\label{eqn1Stem}
\ \frac{dN_0}{dt} &= (\alpha_3-\alpha_1-\alpha_2)N_0-\frac{k_0N^2_0}{1+m_0N_0}\\
\label{eqn2Stem}
\ \frac{dN_1}{dt} &= (\beta_3-\beta_1-\beta_2)N_1+N\alpha_2N_0-\frac{k_1N^2_1}{1+m_1N_1}+\frac{k_0N^2_0}{1+m_0N_0}\\
\label{eqn3Stem}
\ \frac{dN_2}{dt} &= -\gamma N_2 + \beta_2N_1+\frac{k_1N_1}{1+m_1N^2_1},
\end{align}
where the state variables $N_0$, $N_1$ and $N_2$ represent the populations of stem cells, semi-differentiated and fully differentiated cells, respectively (see Table \ref{StemCell}). The initial conditions are chosen to be $N_0=1$, $N_1=100$ and $N_2=100$. These values are a reflection of the cell populations seen in the colon, where there are far fewer stem cells than their differentiated counterparts.
\begin{table}[]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabu}{lll}
\tabucline[0.7pt] {-}
Factor & Physiological Representation & Suggested Value \\
\hline
$\alpha_1$ & Rate of Stem Cell Death & $0.1$ \\
$\alpha_2$ & Rate of Stem Cell Differentiation & $0.3$ \\
$\alpha_3$ & Rate of Stem Cell Proliferation & $0.69$ \\
$\beta_1$ & Rate of Semi-Differentiated Cell Death & $0.1$ \\
$\beta_2$ & Rate of Semi-Differentiated Cell Differentiation & $0.3$ \\
$\beta_3$ & Rate of Semi-Differentiated Cell Proliferation & $0.397$ \\
$\gamma$ & Rate of Removal of Fully Differentiated Cells & $0.139$ \\
$k_0$ & Feedback Constant & $0.1$ \\
$m_0$ & Feedback Constant & $0.1$ \\
$k_1$ & Feedback Constant & $0.0003$ \\
$m_1$ & Feedback Constant & $0.0004$ \\
\tabucline[0.7pt] {-}
\end{tabu}
\caption{This table summarises the parameters of the cell differentiation model. Values given here are empirical and reproduced from \cite{Johnston2007}}.
\label{StemCell}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{fig_stem_sol5.eps}
\caption{Time-course simulations of the cell differentiation model \eqref{eqn1Stem}-\eqref{eqn3Stem}.}\label{fig:TimeCourse}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:TimeCourse} shows the time-course plot acquired after running the model from these initial conditions. The model eventually reaches the steady-state $N_0^*=4$, $N_1^*=86$, $N_2^*=201$. This is the only equilibrium point for this particular set of parameter values \cite{Johnston2007a}.
We now conduct SA on both these models using the Morris and Sobol methods. We aim to determine which parameters and, therefore, which cell processes may be of importance to the model and for cell homeostasis. The results presented in the next two sections refer only to sensitivities with respect to the population of stem cells. We will leave a discussion on how the results change when the output of interest switches to $N_1$ and $N_2$ in the appendix.
Finally, just as with the cancer prediction model, we note that the range of parameter values is influential to the SA. As only one nominal value for every parameter is given in \cite{Johnston2007a}, we will define each parameter's range to be a uniform distribution spanning $\pm 10\%$ of its given value. Different parameter ranges, however, will alter the analysis and so we emphasise the importance of determining these ranges accurately.
\subsubsection*{Cell Differentiation Model: Morris method}
As we have seen, the Morris method outputs the mean of the absolute values of the elementary effects associated with each parameter ($\mu^*$), as well as the standard deviations of these elementary effects ($\sigma$). Applying the Morris Method to ODE models allows us to track $\mu^*$ and $\sigma$ for each parameter as time (or whatever the independent variable happens to be) progresses. For ODEs with $n$ state variables, we obtain $n$ sets of $\mu^*$ and $\sigma$ curves. Hence, both cell differentiation models will have three sets of $\mu^*$ and $\sigma$ values, each corresponding to their influence on $N_0$, $N_1$ and $N_2$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{ODEMorrisN0V10.eps}
\caption{The average of the absolute values of the elementary effects, $\mu^*$, (a), and standard deviation of the values of the elementary effects $\sigma$, (b), associated with each of the parameters in the model (equations \ref{eqn1Stem}-\ref{eqn3Stem}) using the Morris method as functions of time.}
\label{fig:MorrisODEFigs}
\end{figure}
The $\mu^*$ and $\sigma$ values, as functions of time, of the cell differentiation model, with respect to state variable $N_0$, are shown in Figures \ref{fig:MorrisODEFigs}a and \ref{fig:MorrisODEFigs}b. The Morris method predicts that only five of the eleven model parameters have any non-negligible effect on the output variation of $N_0$ (positive $\mu^*$) and interact with other parameters (positive $\sigma$).
Inspecting the $\mu^*$ values in Figure \ref{fig:MorrisODEFigs}a, the parameter that most affects the output variance is $\alpha_3$, which represents stem cell proliferation. Two more parameters, $\alpha_2$ and $k_0$, representing stem cell differentiation in the presence of feedback, also have moderate effects on the output, while the only other parameters with non-negligible influence on $N_0$ are $\alpha_1$ and $m_0$. All other parameters are deemed not to influence $N_0$. Figure \ref{fig:MorrisODEFigs}b shows the $\sigma$ values of the eleven parameters. Again, $\alpha_3$ and $k_0$ are the parameters that participate most in interactions with parameters. $\alpha_2$, $m_0$ and $\alpha_1$, too, have non-negligible $\sigma$ values but the remaining parameters have few interactions with one another. The values of $\mu^*$ and $\sigma$ for all parameters reaches peaks at around 10-20 days.
We can understand why only five parameters affect the output $N_0$ by simply inspecting equation \eqref{eqn1Stem} and noticing that it can be decoupled from the rest of the model. Hence, only the parameters found in this equation can affect the output; since $N_0 (t)$ changes whenever the parameters change, the mean of the elementary effects absolute values ($\mu^*$) must be positive for each parameter.
The standard deviation of the elementary effects caused by each of the 5 parameters must also be greater than zero. As noted previously, this implies that the parameters must interact with each other or participate in nonlinear effects and yet this is not immediately clear from equation \eqref{eqn1Stem}: from this perspective, it appears that $\alpha_1$, $\alpha_2$ and $\alpha_3$ are linear terms that do not interact with one another. However, what we must remember is that we are not interested in parameter interactions in the differential equation {\it per se}, but, rather, their nonlinearities or interactions with each other in the integral of equation \eqref{eqn1Stem}, i.e. in the solution $N_0 (t)$. One way to think about this is to take only the linear part of the equation:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{dN_0}{dt}=(\alpha_3 - \alpha_1 - \alpha_2 ) N_0,
\end{aligned}
\label{eqn:solutioneqn}
\end{equation}
which has the solution $N_0 (t)= A \exp (\alpha_3 - \alpha_1 - \alpha_2) t$, for some constant $A$. Hence, incrementing any of the three parameters here, even though they appear in a linear differential equation, has a nonlinear effect on the solution due to the exponential function.
\subsubsection*{Cell Differentiation Model: Sobol method}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{ODESobolN0V12a.eps}
\caption{The first-order Sobol indices, (a), and total-order Sobol indices, (b), associated with each of the parameters in the model (equations \ref{eqn1Stem}-\ref{eqn3Stem}) as functions of time}
\label{fig:SobolODEFigs}
\end{figure}
Here, the Sobol method is applied to the ODE model to obtain Sobol's first-order indices $S_i$ as well as the total-order sensitivity indices $S_{T_i}$ as a function of time. Just as in the case of the Morris, applying the Sobol method to ODEs with $n$ state variables returns $n$ sets of $S_i$ and a further $n$ sets of $S_{T_i}$ values. Hence, both cell differentiation models will have three sets of $S_i$ and $S_{T_i}$, each corresponding to their influence on $N_0$, $N_1$ and $N_2$. Here, we concentrate on the influence of the parameters on state variable $N_0$. Figures \ref{fig:SobolODEFigs}a and \ref{fig:SobolODEFigs}b show the results, with respect to this variable, after applying the Sobol method to the cell differentiation model.
According to the total-order sensitivity indices, parameter $\alpha_3$ is the most influential. $\alpha_2$ and $k_0$ also contribute to the output variance of the saturating feedback model, but to a much lesser extent, while $\alpha_1$ and $m_0$ have a very small, though positive. We notice that the rankings produced by the total-order sensitivity indices matches those predicted by the Morris methods $\mu^*$, as should be the case \cite{Campolongo, Campolongo2011}. What the total-order Sobol indices do add, however, is that they quantify exactly each parameters contribution of the output variance; the $\mu^*$ of the Morris method, being a semi-quantitative method, can only display a ranking of parameter importance, though it is particularly effective at identifying unidentifiable parameters.
We can gain even more information by using both the Morris and Sobol methods in conjunction. While the $\sigma$ values from the Morris method provide an indication of both the nonlinearities caused by a parameter as well as the interactions it is involved in, the difference between its total and first-order Sobol indices quantifies only the effects of the parameter's interactions \cite{Wainwright2014a}. We can, therefore, separate a parameter's nonlinear and interaction effects. Inspecting this example, we observe that the $\sigma$ values of many parameters are non-zero (Figure \ref{fig:MorrisODEFigs}) and so they must produce nonlinear and/or interaction effects. Now, we combine this knowledge with our observations from Figure \ref{fig:SobolODEFigs}, which shows little difference between the first and total-order Sobol indices of each of the 11 parameters. Hence, we conclude that the vast majority of the $\sigma$ values of these parameters can be attributed to their nonlinear effects, rather than their interactions with other parameters. This can be explained, again, by inspecting \eqref{eqn:solutioneqn} and noting that the relevant parameters affect the solution through nonlinearities rather than interactions.
\subsubsection*{Cell Differentiation Model: physiological interpretation}
Having explained the results of the sensitivity analyses from a mathematical perspective, we now discuss their physiological implications. We consider the stem cell population, $N_0$. As discussed previously, only five parameters have any effect on this population, by far the most influential being the rate of proliferation, $\alpha_3$. Smaller influences come from cell differentiation, $\alpha_2$ and the feedback term $k_0$. This signifies that changing the proliferation rate alters the stem cell population more than changes in the rates of death $\alpha_1$ and differentiation $\alpha_2$ combined an interesting observation.
Also of interest is the fact that stem cell proliferation continues to have some, albeit much smaller, effect on the variance of the semi and fully differentiated cell populations. The rate at which the semi-differentiated cells proliferate $\beta_3$ is the most influential parameter not only for variations in the semi-differentiated cells but even for the fully-differentiated population as well. This is counter-intuitive. One might initially suppose, from the physiology, that any variance in the numbers of fully-differentiated cells would come predominantly from their removal ($\gamma$) or the transformation of semi-differentiated cells ($\beta_2$). Yet, the SA shows otherwise. The variance of the proliferation rate of transit cells and, thus, the population of these cells, affect the variance of the fully differentiated cells even more than those two parameters.
Such an example illustrates, again the power of conducting a SA. To conclude, we mention yet another benefit. The results of a SA on ODE models give us a good indicator of which parameters we can make suitable estimates, as well as when to make these. If we consider Figure \ref{fig:MorrisODEFigs}, for instance, we can see that we can estimate the value of $\alpha_3$ by measuring $N_0$, as the latters sensitivity to the former is high. To a lesser extent, this is also true of the parameters $\alpha_2$, $k_0$, $\alpha_1$ and $m_0$, though it would be harder to estimate these values as $N_0$ is less sensitive to them. In addition, the figure informs us to take these measurements when the model has reached steady-state, as the sensitivities are highest then. To estimate all other model parameter values, we must take measurements from $N_1$ and $N_2$, as they are unidentifiable from $N_0$.
\section{Conclusions}
This paper reviews SA methods, current software for performing SA and provides a framework for the analysis with the focus on biomedical sciences and biology. We also perform global sensitivity analysis on two models (an algebraic and also an ODE model) in the area of cancer biology. The intended audience for this paper is the mathematical modeller working on biomedical applications. The paper emphasises the particular importance of SA for models in biology and medicine, stemming from the stochastic nature of biological processes, uncertainty in acquired data and the need to fit models to these data.
Although straightforward, local SA techniques consider the sensitivities at only a small region of parameter space and the conclusions derived from such an analysis are, therefore, meaningful only for linear models. Since nonlinear models are prevalent in systems biology, the use of global SA methods is usually more appropriate. The purpose of the SA must also be taken into consideration when choosing an appropriate method. Two common aims are factor ranking and screening. Having performed the analysis, we must consider both how best to visualise the results and interpret them. These include robustness of the SA estimates as well as whether or not the results have been influenced by bifurcations, such as changes in model stability and the appearance of periodic orbits; such phenomena frequently arise in the biomedical field and so must be accounted for. Finally, it is necessary to provide a biological interpretation of these SA results.
It is widely acknowledged that SA is an essential part of the mathematical modelling process \cite{Saltelli2008,Saltelli2000,Rabitz1989}. Even so, there appears to be a lack of `good practice' involved in many such analyses \cite{Saltelli2019b}. This guide is intended to inform the reader of the importance of SA and provide a proper framework for its application.
\section{Acknowledgements}
We thank Dr Adam Szmul (University College London) for his insightful comments.
\smallskip
\noindent
In memory of Jane Yu.
|
\section*{Acknowledgements}
\vspace*{-7pt}
This work is partially supported by the EU Horizon 2020 E2Data 780245 grant.
We would like to thank Foivos Zakkak and Konstantinos Papangelou for their feedback.
\vspace*{-\baselineskip}
\bibliographystyle{splncs04}
\section{Deep Learning Overview}
Deep learning relies on an \texttt{artificial neural network (ANN)} which comprises multiple layers of artificial neurons. This structure is first trained using some application-dependent data and then uses the learned model to make intelligent decisions or accurate predictions.
The main core in an ANN is the artificial neuron historically known as \texttt{perceptron}. An artificial neuron performs three main tasks:
\begin{itemize}
\item It accepts some input values either from the data or from the outputs of neurons, depending on the layer in which this neuron belongs to.
\item It applies some weights and biases to produce an intermediate value known as the \texttt{net input} value. These parameters are learned during the training of the network so as to increase the accuracy.
\item The \textit{net input} value is forwarded in the \texttt{activation function}, which performs a non-linear transformation.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}[!b]
\vspace{-1em}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{figures/fully_connected_network.pdf}
\caption{An artificial neural network with fully connected perceptrons.}
\label{label::ann_fully_connected}
\vspace{-1.5em}
\end{figure}
The most widely used model of ANNs consists of multiple artificial neurons grouped in three types of layers: \textit{input layer}, the \textit{hidden layers}, and the \textit{output layer}, as shown in Figure~\ref{label::ann_fully_connected}.
The input layer accepts as input the features from the dataset, and each neuron in this layer can be connected with one or more neurons in the next hidden layer, the outputs of which are connected with the next hidden layer and so on, until the connections reach the output layer. Then, the output layer uses a cost/loss function as a metric to assess the accuracy of the model.
If the accuracy is not satisfactory, then the back propagation process is performed to update the parameters in each layer so that the average loss decreases.
This ANN is also called as \texttt{feed forward neural network} as the flow of the information beyond the layers of the network flows forward.
Other types of neural networks are the \texttt{convolutional} and the \texttt{recurrent} neural networks.
For the rest of this paper we will focus on the feed forward neural network model, which is applicable to a wide range of domains.
\subsection{Deep Netts Deep Learning Engine}
Deep Netts~\cite{sevarac} is a deep learning development platform that focuses on deep learning development in Java. It provides tools for Java developers such as a deep learning library and an integrated development tool, and it enables Java developers to apply deep learning in their applications more easily.
Currently, Deep Netts supports dominant supervised learning algorithms, including linear regression, logistic regression and feed-forward neural networks.
The supported types of neural network layers are: \textit{fully connected} layer, \textit{convolutional} layer, \textit{maximum pooling} layer and the \textit{softmax output} layer.
The key features and advantages of Deep Netts include:
\begin{itemize}
\item Ease of use, thanks to beginner and Java developer friendly API.
\item The integration of the state-of-the-art models of neural networks, such as the feed forward network and the convolutional network. These types of networks are provided out-of-box and require less understanding of background theory and library internals in order to be effectively used.
\item The provision of advanced visualization and logging for understanding, debugging and solving data-based, architecture-based, or training-based, issues~\cite{sevarac}.
\item Portability, ease of integration, distribution and maintenance (thanks to pure Java implementation), which are features of great importance for large scale deployments.
\item Deep Netts is a base for reference implementation of standard Java API for visual recognition and machine learning JSR 381~\cite{jsr381}, which is being developed within the official Java technology standardization organization.
\end{itemize}
Nonetheless, one of the main disadvantages of Deep Netts compared to other libraries, is that it lacks support of GPU/FPGA acceleration, so training with large amounts of images, or big images can take a long time. However, the pure Java implementation, along with the clean design and readable code make it suitable for experiments and evolving Java platform towards better support for deep learning and machine learning in general.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{figures/deepnetts_workflow.pdf}
\caption{The work-flow of Artificial Neural Networks in Deep Netts.}
\label{label::deepnetts_flow}
\vspace{-1.5em}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{The Deep Netts Work-flow}
Figure~\ref{label::deepnetts_flow} illustrates the main work-flow in Deep Netts framework for building neural networks, and training them to run various algorithms, such as linear regression, neural networks, and logistic regression. The current neural networks in Deep Netts include four types of hidden layers apart from the input and output layers: the \textit{fully connected} layer, the \textit{convolutional} layer, the \textit{maximum pooling} layer and the \textit{softmax} layer.
As shown in Figure~\ref{label::deepnetts_flow}, Deep Netts accepts as input the data set upon which the training will be based along with various configuration parameters for the network. These parameters can be the type and the number of layers, and the maximum error rate that the algorithm can tolerate.
Once the inputs are set, the next step is to build the artificial neural networks and initialize the values of weights and biases in each neuron of every layer. Figure~\ref{label::training_flow}a presents a simplistic view of a fully connected built neural network. The next process in the workflow is the training which comprises three parts:
the feed forward, the loss error assessment, and the back propagation.
\begin{enumerate}
\item The \textbf{feed forward} triggers the activation functions of each neuron in each layer and creates an activation value which is forwarded to the next layer, until it reaches the output layer. This process is presented in Figure~\ref{label::training_flow}b with the green arrows. The complexity of the feed forward process can be significant, as it is in accordance to the structure of the neural network.
\item The \textbf{loss error assessment} checks the emerged output from the previous part and makes a comparison with the configured maximum error value. In case the network has not met the accuracy that is required, the back propagation step is performed.
\item The \textbf{back propagation} traverses all the layers in the reversed order going backwards. This process is responsible for updating the weights and biases in each neuron of the layers in order to increase the overall performance of the model. Figure~\ref{label::training_flow}c represents this process with arrows depicted in red. This part of the training is considered as computationally expensive and can merit to be executed in parallel~\cite{Patterson:2017:DLP:3169957}. Section ~\ref{sec_implementation} will discuss in detail how we parallelized this step for two types of layers: the \textit{fully connected} layer and the \textit{softmax output} layer.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{figures/training_steps.pdf}
\caption{The primary steps of training in Deep Netts. The left figure (a) depicts a fully connected artifical neural network that contains two hidden layers, each of which encloses two neurons. The middle figure (b) shows the feed forward process which includes all activations values from each neuron in the network. The right figure (c) performs the backward propagation that adjusts the configuration of each neuron in order to obtain a highly effective training.}
\label{label::training_flow}
\vspace{-1.5em}
\end{figure}
\section{Summary}
In conclusion, this paper presents our work in progress towards accelerating deep learning engines written in Java on heterogeneous systems.
Initially we studied Deep Netts, a deep learning engine fully implemented in Java that lacks of acceleration on heterogenous devices, such as GPUs and FPGAs.
Then we employed TornadoVM, a state-of-the-art heterogeneous programming framework that enables software developers to target OpenCL-compatible devices for accelerating various Java workloads, without requiring any significant knowledge about hardware.
Subsequently, we identified that the most expensive part of the framework occurred during the training of the model; and in particular during the backpropagation stage.
The next step was the implementation of the Tornado-Deepnetts framework, by employing the TornadoVM API to accelerate the backpropagation stage in two of the available layers of the Deep Netts neural networks: the fully connected layer and the softmax output layer.
We evaluated the performance of the accelerated part in the implemented Tornado-Deepnetts framework against the original Deep Netts code.
Our preliminary results showed that the selected methods can outperform the original Java methods by up to 2.63x and 8x for small and large datasets, respectively.
As future work, we plan to: accelerate the remaining layers; conduct experiments with FPGA-based acceleration; share task schedules among the layer that could optimize any redundant copies of the current implementation; and investigate the Tornado-DeepNetts framework on distributed CPUs and GPUs.
\section{How Deep Netts is parallelized with TornadoVM?}
\label{sec_implementation}
We extended Deep Netts to use TornadoVM for the training phase of the back-propagation stage for two particular layers: a \textit{fully connected} layer, and a \textit{softmax output} layer.
The two functions were modified in a similar way.
\begin{figure}[!b]
\centering
\vspace{-1.5em}
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{figures/DeepnettsSoft.pdf}
\caption{The softmax output layer code transformation that expresses the backward computation with TornadoVM.}
\label{figure::soft}
\vspace{-1.5em}
\end{figure}
In this paper we demonstrate the process of accelerating the method \texttt{backward} for one layer, the \textit{softmax output} layer due to space constraints.
Figure~\ref{figure::soft} shows the transformations that were applied to the method \texttt{backward}.
The top part of Figure~\ref{figure::soft} shows the original version, while the bottom part shows the same Java snippet by using the TornadoVM.
At first, we needed to convert Java object types to primitive arrays.
We used those primitive arrays to pass as method parameters to the TornadoVM's version.
The second transformation was the usage of the \hcode{@Parallel} annotation, as discussed in Section~\ref{section::tornadovm}.
This annotation is used as a hint by the TornadoVM compiler to parallelize those loops with OpenCL.
In this case, we annotated two loops, which potentially can use 2D parallel-indexing in the OpenCL side.
Additionally, we needed to indicate to TornadoVM that we want to accelerate the annotated method.
Thus, we instantiated the \texttt{TaskSchedule} object as shown in Listing~\ref{code:soft}.
We first declared the set of variables to copy into the target device and passed them as input to the \texttt{streamIn} method (line 2).
Then we declared a task (line 3), which points to the method annotated with TornadoVM.
Finally we specified as input to the \texttt{streamOut} method (line 6) the variables that should be synchronized with the host (the main CPU) after the execution, and then we called the \texttt{execute} method (line 7).
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{lstlisting}[label=code:soft, caption={TaskSchedule that builds the backward task from the SoftmaxOutputLayer class with TornadoVM.}, xleftmargin=0.03\textwidth]
TaskSchedule ts = new TaskSchedule("SoftwareOutputLayer");
ts.streamIn(tornadoDeltas, tornadoGradients, tornadoDeltaWeights, deltaBiases)
.task("backward", SoftmaxOutputLayer::computeBackwardTornado, tornadoDeltas,
tornadoInputs, tornadoGradients, tornadoDeltaWeights, deltaBiases,
colsOut, colsInput, learningRate)
.streamOut(tornadoGradients, tornadoDeltaWeights, deltaBiases)
.execute();
\end{lstlisting}
\vspace{-2em}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Benefits of Our Approach}
The main benefits of our approach against the state-of-the-art deep learning frameworks are as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The heterogeneous execution of any part of the frameworks that is required by the user, while other works (e.g., TensorFlow~\cite{199317}) support precompiled binaries of particular functions.
\item The ability to transparently compile and execute any part of the framework code gives the freedom to the developers to execute on any supported device such as a CPU, a GPU or an FPGA. On the contrary, other works (e.g., TensorFlow~\cite{199317}) are bounded to run various software versions on the specific GPU architectures that are supported.
\item The execution of a deep learning framework that follows our approach can be migrated from a GPU to an FPGA, or even another GPU at runtime. This is a key feature for dealing with trade-offs regarding performance and power dissipation, or other runtime factors, such as device availability; that many of the existing frameworks lack of.
\end{enumerate}
\section{Introduction}
In recent years artificial intelligence is gaining more and more popularity, with its main objective being to enable computers to make decisions that are normally made by domain experts.
This domain is a superset of Machine Learning and Deep Learning, which both rely on training a mathematical model to perform various tasks using historical data related to the application of interest.
Deep learning is a field that emerged recently and uses the structure of an artificial neural network to train a model to autonomously perform a task, such as computer vision, pattern recognition, speech recognition, etc~\cite{Patterson:2017:DLP:3169957}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{figures/trend_languages.pdf}
\caption{Trend on programming languages. Source: www.tiobe.com.}
\label{label::trend_languages}
\vspace{-2em}
\end{figure}
To program machine learning and deep learning applications, developers tend to use high-level abstractions and interpreted programming languages, such as Java, Python, R and Ruby. This is due to the fact that applications written in the aforementioned programming languages are much easier to understand and maintain.
Figure~\ref{label::trend_languages} presents a ranking graph with all programming languages based on the popularity in the ``TIOBE Index for May 2019''.
As shown in Figure~\ref{label::trend_languages}, Java has been the most popular language among all programming languages since 2002; with a small interpolation with the C language during the period 2012-2015.
However, the mainstream of the above-mentioned programming languages has been compiled for CPU execution.
To cope with the advent of heterogeneous systems, multiple programming frameworks have been introduced.
The vast majority of them supports C and C++ programming languages and compiles them for: a) GPU execution via CUDA or OpenCL, and b) FPGA execution via High Level Synthesis (HLS), and lately OpenCL.
The execution of Java programs (and managed languages in general) on heterogeneous accelerators is an active research topic with many challenges associated with the compilation, the memory management and the runtime system, which all lie on the core of the managed languages.
Current approaches such as~TensorFlow~\cite{199317} for Python or Deeplearning4j~\cite{deeplearning4j} for Java rely on existing pre-compiled code that is optimized for the target architecture.
However, this approach requires the user to familiarize with a new library, and be attached to a particular accelerator, such as a GPU.
A different approach could be to automatically accelerate various parts of the deep learning frameworks by transparently using all the available hardware resources in contemporary computers, such as a GPU, an FPGA and a multi-core CPU.
In this case, a runtime system (e.g., the Java Virtual Machine -JVM-) can make use of the hardware resources without the developers' intervention, in order to facilitate applications to comply with the traditional philosophy of Java: \emph{write once, run everywhere} from a heterogeneous perspective.
The state-of-the-art frameworks for automatically accelerating Java code on heterogeneous hardware are Aparapi~\cite{aparapi_citation}, JaBEE~\cite{Zaremba:2012:JFO:2159430.2159439}, IBM GPU J9~\cite{7429325} and TornadoVM~\cite{Fumero:DARHH:VEE:2019}.
In this paper we show our work in progress towards mitigating the gap in programmability, while enabling users to accelerate the deep learning frameworks directly from Java.
Therefore, we have employed TornadoVM~\cite{Fumero:DARHH:VEE:2019} to accelerate a Java-based deep learning engine such as Deep Netts~\cite{sevarac}.
In detail this paper makes the following contributions:
\begin{itemize}
\item It overviews the Deep Netts work-flow in order to identify the main parts that can merit by hardware acceleration.
\item It presents the modifications in the official source code to integrate the TornadoVM API so as to parallelize parts of the vanilla Deep Netts source code.
\item It evaluates the performance of original Deep Netts against the proposed Tornado-Deepnetts implementation, showing performance speedups up to 2.63x and 8x for small and large datasets, respectively.
\end{itemize}
\section{Experimental Evaluation}
To evaluate the Tornado-Deepnetts framework against the original Deepnetts (Original Deep Netts) implementation, we followed the following principles.
We used the same hardware device and the same software operating system and heap size, as presented in Table~\ref{label::platform_characteristics}.
We run the benchmark application as presented in Section~\ref{benchmarks}.
We performed the warm-up process which included 10000 executions prior to the actual timing of both systems, in order to provide fair results. The reported results in Section~\ref{performance_results} are the arithmetic average of 10 iterations of each measurement with respect to the JVM variance.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\vspace{-2.5em}
\caption{The experimental hardware and software characteristics of our testbed.}
\label{label::platform_characteristics}
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|}
\hline
\textbf{CPU} & Intel Core i7-8700K CPU @ 3.70GHz (Hyper-threading x12) \\ \hline
\textbf{Memory} & 64 GB \\ \hline
\textbf{JVM Heap Size} & 16 GB \\ \hline
\textbf{GPU} & AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 GPU \\ \hline
\textbf{Operating System} & Ubuntu 18.04.01 (kernel 4.15.0-47-generic) \\ \hline
\textbf{Cmake} & v3.10.2 \\ \hline
\textbf{Gcc} & v7.4.0 \\ \hline
\textbf{Python} & v2.7.15 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace{-2.5em}
\end{table}
\subsection{Benchmark Application}
\label{benchmarks}
In our experiment we evaluated the performance of the two backward methods presented in Section~\ref{sec_implementation} for the IrisClassification algorithm. For both systems we used the \textit{softmax} as the activation function in the output layer and the \textit{Cross Entropy} as the loss function. The size of the initial dataset that provided in the original Deep Nett framework is 6922 Bytes.
At first, the IrisClassification algorithm loads the data set\footnote{The data set file is named ``iris\_data\_normalised.txt''.}.
Then it uses the \texttt{dataSet.split()} method to split the data to 0.9 and 0.1. This means that 90\% of the data are used for training, and the remaining 10\% are used for testing. In the first step, the feed forward network is created and configured using the builder() method.
The number of input features used in our experiment is 340, while the number of neurons in the \textit{fully connected} layer is 100000, and the number of possible categories in the output layer is 10. In addition the activation function of the \textit{fully connected} layer is configured to be \textit{Tanh}.
Unlike the \textit{fully connected} layer, the activation function of the output layers is \textit{softmax}. Then the loss function of the algorithm is cross entropy. Afterwards, the algorithm creates and configures an instance of the back propagation trainer, which is the point that the two accelerated methods are called.
At the end of the algorithm, the \texttt{neuralNet.train()} method is used for training, while the \texttt{neuralNet.test()} method is used for testing.
\subsection{Performance Analysis}
\label{performance_results}
The initial evaluation over the given dataset demonstrated that the computation was not sufficient to benefit from hardware acceleration. Figures~\ref{fig:softmax-small} and~\ref{fig:fullyconnected-small} show the performance on both evaluated systems (Original Deep Netts/Tornado-Deepnetts) for the dataset from Deep Netts. As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:softmax-small}, the backward method in the \textit{softmax output} layer performs up to four times slower on the GPU than the sequential JIT-compiled methods on the CPU, while the backward method in the \textit{fully connected} layer has almost identical performance on both systems. The main reason is that the dataset is small (7 Kilobytes) and the computation is not sufficient to overcome the cost of the data transfer from the host to the GPU and backwards.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/softmax_small.pdf}
\caption{The softmax output performance.}
\label{fig:softmax-small}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/fullyconnected_small.pdf}
\caption{The fully connected performance.}
\label{fig:fullyconnected-small}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Comparison of two layers (i.e., (a) the softmax output layer and (b) the fully connected layer) in the backpropagation stage for small dataset, running through the Original Deep Netts and the Tornado-Deepnetts systems.}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/softmax_large.pdf}
\caption{The softmax output performance.}
\label{fig:softmax-large}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/fullyconnected_large.pdf}
\caption{The fully connected performance.}
\label{fig:fullyconnected-large}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Comparison of two layers (i.e., (a) the softmax output layer and (b) the fully connected layer) in the backpropagation stage for large dataset, running through the Original Deep Netts and the Tornado-Deepnetts systems.}
\vspace{-1.5em}
\end{figure}
To validate this case we populated the dataset randomly to increase the size to 743424 Bytes, which is 107 times larger than the original dataset; and performed the same experiment a second time. Figures~\ref{fig:softmax-large} and \ref{fig:fullyconnected-large} present the execution time of the two offloaded methods on both systems for the large dataset. Both times are reported in milliseconds. This time the Tornado-Deepnetts system outperforms the Original Deep Netts system, by 8x and 2.63x for the \textit{softmax output} layer and the \textit{fully connected} layer backward methods, respectively. In particular, the Tornado-Deepnetts reduces the execution time of the method from 1075 ms to 134 ms. Accordingly, the second method is reduced from 1126 ms to 427 ms.
\section{TornadoVM Programming Framework}
\label{section::tornadovm}
TornadoVM is defined as a plugin to OpenJDK that allows Java programmers to automatically execute their applications on heterogeneous hardware.
Currently, TornadoVM can run on multi-core CPUs, GPUs and FPGAs.
Additionally, TornadoVM can migrate, at runtime, execution from one device to another~\cite{Fumero:DARHH:VEE:2019} (e.g., from a multi-core CPU to a GPU).
Figure~\ref{label::tornado_workflow} shows the three main TornadoVM components (i.e., API, Runtime, Compiler), along with the execution engine which is responsible for the Just In Time (JIT) compilation of the bytecodes and the memory management.
TornadoVM exposes a lightweight API that developers use to indicate which Java methods they would like TornadoVM to accelerate on heterogeneous devices.
Once the user identifies the methods, TornadoVM compiles, at run-time, Java bytecodes to OpenCL C as follows:
a) first, TornadoVM builds a data-flow graph with the aim to optimize the data dependencies between tasks, and subsequently reduce the required data transfers and buffer allocation time;
b) second, TornadoVM generates new bytecodes (TornadoVM Bytecodes) on top of the Java bytecodes, which are used for pure orchestration on the heterogeneous devices;
c) finally, TornadoVM executes the whole application by using the TornadoVM bytecode, and it compiles at runtime, the input Java methods to OpenCL C code.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{figures/TornadoVM}
\caption{The TornadoVM work-flow.}
\label{label::tornado_workflow}
\vspace{-2em}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{TornadoVM API:}
Since this work uses the TornadoVM API to execute the Deep Netts framework on heterogeneous devices, we present in this section an example of how TornadoVM is programmed.
TornadoVM exposes an API that expresses the task-based parallelism, in which each task is a reference to an existing Java method.
Additionally, the TornadoVM API can create a group of tasks that can be compiled together in the same \textit{compilation unit}, and subsequently run on the same target device (e.g., the same GPU).
This group of tasks is called a \texttt{TaskSchedule}.
Developers programming with TornadoVM can also annotate the code by using the \hcode{@Parallel} annotation that informs the TornadoVM JIT compiler that a loop is a candidate for parallel execution.
Moreover, there is the \hcode{@Reduce} annotation that informs the compiler for a reduction operation, in which an input array is reduced to a scalar value computed with an associative and commutative operator.
The basic characteristic of the TornadoVM API is that it allows Java programmers to exploit hardware parallelism without requiring the knowledge of OpenCL or hardware architecture.
As part of the fall-back execution feature, the annotated code is adapted based on the characteristics of the device, and in case of a single-threaded CPU execution it can be ignored.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{lstlisting}[label=code:java, caption={Java code-snippet to run matrix multiplication by using TornadoVM.}, xleftmargin=.03\textwidth]
public class Compute {
private static void mxm(Matrix2DFloat A, Matrix2DFloat B, Matrix2DFloat C) {
for (@Parallel int i = 0; i < SIZE; i++) {
for (@Parallel int j = 0; j < SIZE; j++) {
float sum = 0.0f;
for (int k = 0; k < SIZE; k++)
sum += A.get(i, k) * B.get(k, j);
C.set(i, j, sum);
}
}}
public void run(Matrix2DFloat A, Matrix2DFloat B, Matrix2DFloat C) {
TaskSchedule t = new TaskSchedule("s0")
.task("t0", Compute::mxm, matrixA, matrixB, matrixC)
.streamOut(matrixC);
.execute();
}}
\end{lstlisting}
\vspace{-2.5em}
\end{figure}
Listing~\ref{code:java} shows an example for computing a matrix multiplication by using the TornadoVM API.
Lines 2-10 show the code of the method that encompasses the sequential implementation of the matrix multiplication.
Lines 3 and 4 have been enhanced by using the \hcode{@Parallel} annotation in order to hint the TornadoVM compiler that these loops can be parallelized.
Then, the method \texttt{run} (line 11) instantiates a \texttt{TaskSchedule} object with a single task, pointing to the \texttt{mxm} method.
Finally, the code is executed in line 15.
Note that the Java code is totally agnostic about the hardware device on which the program will be executed.
Once the program is annotated, the TornadoVM compiler and runtime compile and execute all tasks enclosed within the \texttt{TaskSchedule}.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
One of the basic questions of high energy physics is whether the neutrinos, and/or their more exotic fermionic relatives if they exist, are Majorana or Dirac particles. The question of the existence of Majorana neutrinos is closely related with the question of whether the lepton number violating (LNV) processes exist. At present, the most powerful probe of LNV processes is the neutrinoless double beta ($0\nu\beta\beta$) decay (cf.~\cite{0nubb1,DHP} for recent reviews), i.e., the process where two $d$ quarks of a nucleus transform into two $u$ quarks with the simultaneous production of two low-energy electrons. Such processes have not (yet) been observed, and one of the best lower bounds on the half-life for $0\nu\beta\beta$ is from the KamLAND-Zen experiment \cite{KamLAND} for the decay of $^{136}{\rm Xe}$
\begin{equation}
T^{0\nu}_{1/2}(^{136}{\rm Xe}) > 1.07 \times 10^{26} \ {\rm yr} \; (90\% \; {\rm CL}).
\label{T12}
\end{equation}
This decay could originate in an exchange of a Majorana neutrino in the $t$-channel topology as presented in Fig.~\ref{Fig0nu}.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering\includegraphics[width=40mm]{Fig0nu.pdf}
\vspace{-0.4cm}
\caption{\footnotesize The decay $0\nu\beta\beta$ with the exchange of a Majorana neutrino $N$. If $M_N \gg 0.1$ GeV, then the propagators of $N$ and the off-shell $W$'s reduce together to an effective point.}
\label{Fig0nu}
\end{figure}
Since the typical energy scales $\mu$ in the nucleus are of the order of the Fermi motion scale, $\mu \sim \mu_{\rm f} \sim 0.1$ GeV, the decay process can be regarded as a low-energy spacelike process. This means that the half-life $T^{0\nu}_{1/2} \equiv {\cal D}(Q^2)$ can be regarded as a spacelike observable with positive $Q^2 (\equiv - q^2) \sim \mu_{\rm f}^2 \sim 10^{-2} \ {\rm GeV}^2$. Furthermore, if the mass of the exchanged neutrino $N$ is heavy ($M_N \gg 0.1$ GeV), the process can be regarded as an effective pointlike process $dd \to uuee$. It can be called a short-range process, due to the high masses of the exchanged particles involved. On the other hand, such short-range (pointlike) process $dd \to uuee$ can originate also from an exotic physics \cite{Bonnet} which can be described effectively in terms of dimension-9 operators
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal O}_{D=9} \sim \frac{1}{\Lambda^2_{\rm LNV}} {\bar u} {\bar u} d d {\bar e} {\bar e},
\label{OD9}
\end{equation}
where the scale of the new LNV-physics is expected to be $\Lambda_{\rm LNV} \gtrsim 10^2$ GeV. There are five classes of such effective (pointlike) operators (see the next Section). Since there is a very large difference between the new physics scale $\Lambda_{\rm LNV}$ and the $0\nu\beta\beta$ decay scale $\mu_{\rm f}$, the effects of the QCD corrections on the corresponding Wilson coefficients (which appear in the half-life quantity $T^{0\nu}_{1/2}$) for the process can be large. The other reason why these effects can be large lies in the color-mismatch contributions of the operators, this mismatch leads to the mixing of the operators at lower scales where the corresponding Wilson coefficients are multiplied with nuclear matrix elements (NMEs) which can have very different sizes. These short-range QCD effects can be explored by considering solutions of the renormalization group equations (RGEs) for the Wilson coefficients, and evolving them from the scales $\Lambda^2_{\rm LNV}$ of the new physics down to the Fermi motion scales $Q^2 \sim 0.01 \ {\rm GeV}^2$.
One important practical problem in such a calculation is that the mentioned RGEs, being (one- or two-loop) perturbative, are considered to involve the usual perturbative QCD coupling $a(Q^2)$ [$\equiv \alpha_s(Q^2)/\pi$] which, in turn, has the so called Landau singularities at low positive $Q^2 \lesssim 0.1 \ {\rm GeV^2}$. These singularities do not reflect the holomorphic behavior of the QCD spacelike observables ${\cal D}(Q^2)$ which must be holomorphic (i.e., analytic) functions of $Q^2$ in the $Q^2$-complex plane with the exception of a part of the negative axis: $Q^2 \in \mathbb{C} \backslash (-\infty, -M_{\rm thr}^2]$ (where $M_{\rm thr} \sim 0.1$ GeV is a threshold scale) \cite{BS,Oehme}. The Landau singularities of perturbative QCD (pQCD) can therefore be considered as artificial, and they have their origin formally in the fact that the beta-function $\beta(a) \equiv d a(Q^2)/d \ln Q^2$ is assumed, as a function of $a$, to be a Taylor-expandable function around $a=0$ (such as a polynomial function, in the case of the $\overline{\rm MS}$ scheme). This problem was addressed systematically, via Dispersion Relations (DR) for the coupling, for the first time by Shirkov and others in the nineties \cite{ShS,MS,Sh1Sh2,BMS} where a minimal analytic coupling [(F)APT: (fractional) analytic perturbation theory coupling] was constructed, $a(Q^2) \mapsto {\mathcal{A}}^{\rm (APT)}(Q^2)$, whose spectral function $\rho_{{\mathcal{A}}}(\sigma) \equiv {\rm Im} {\mathcal{A}}(Q^2=-\sigma - i \epsilon)$ was equal to the pQCD coupling spectral function for all positive $\sigma$ (i.e., negative $Q^2$), but without the Landau cut along the positive $Q^2$-axis, $\rho_{{\mathcal{A}}}(\sigma)=0$ for $\sigma < 0$. Several other holomorphic couplings $a(Q^2)$ have been constructed since then, in general modifying the discontinuity function $\rho_{{\mathcal{A}}}(\sigma)$ in the unknown nonperturbative regime of low positive $\sigma \lesssim 1 \ {\rm GeV}^2$. The couplings ${\mathcal{A}}(Q^2)$ in these approaches are in general expressed as a dispersive integral along its cut and involving the spectral function $\rho_{{\mathcal{A}}}(\sigma)$. Some of such couplings ${\mathcal{A}}(Q^2)$ attain a positive finite value at $Q^2 \to 0$ \cite{Nest2,Webber,Alekseev,CV12,1dAQCD,2dAQCD,2dCPC,Brod,Shirkovmass,KKS,Luna,Luna2,DSEdecoupFreez,PTBMF,Pelaez,Siringo,NestBook},\footnote{The holomorphic coupling of Refs.~\cite{Nest1} is infinite at $Q^2=0$.} and others attain the zero value ${\mathcal{A}}(0)=0$ \cite{Luna2,ArbZaits,Boucaud,mes2,FRGBraun,3dAQCD,Pelaez2}. All such holomorphic couplings,\footnote{For reviews of (F)APT, cf.~Refs.~\cite{Bakulev,reviews}; for additional applications of (F)APT and other ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD variants in the QCD phenomenology, see \cite{APTappl1,APTappl2,APTappl3}. Further, there exist related approaches where the dispersive method is applied directly to spacelike QCD quantities \cite{MSS1,MSS2,MagrGl,mes2,DeRafael,MagrTau,Nest3a,Nest3b,NestBook}.} i.e., couplings which are holomorphic functions of $Q^2$ for $Q^2 \in \mathbb{C} \backslash (-\infty, -M_{\rm thr}^2]$, are thus IR-safe and can be used in the mentioned solutions of the RGEs for the Wilson coefficients $C_j(Q^2)$, where $0 < Q^2 \sim {\mu}_{\rm f}^2 \sim 0.01 \ {\rm GeV}^2$.
In this endeavor, it is important to take into account that the analogs ${\mathcal{A}}_{\nu}(Q^2)$ of the powers $a(Q^2)^{\nu}$ (where $\nu$ is a power index with a real number value, $-1 < \nu$) are not simple powers ${\mathcal{A}}(Q^2)^{\nu}$, as already pointed out in \cite{CV12} for integer $\nu$ and later in \cite{GCAK} for general real $\nu$; in those references, the power analogs ${\mathcal{A}}_{\nu}$ were constructed in the general QCD framework (${\mathcal{A}}$QCD) with holomorphic coupling\footnote{In the case of the minimal analytic QCD (FAPT), the existence of such analogs ${\mathcal{A}}_{\nu}$ ($\not= {\mathcal{A}}^{\nu}$) was pointed out and their construction presented in \cite{Sh1Sh2}, and an explicit FAPT construction was performed in \cite{BMS,Bakulev}.} ${\mathcal{A}}(Q^2)$.
In this work, we present in Sec.~\ref{sec:EFT} the effective Lagrangian made up of short-range dimension-9 operators, and the expression for the $0\nu\beta\beta$ half-life in terms of the Wilson coefficients of these operators at (low) Fermi motion scales and in terms of the NMEs. In Sec.~\ref{sec:RGE} we then describe the RGEs governing the evolution of the mentioned Wilson operators, and we gather the hitherto known explicit expressions of the one-loop and two-loop anomalous dimensions in Appendix \ref{app:AD}. In Sec.~\ref{sec:AQCD} we then describe the general solution of the corresponding one-loop and two-loop RGEs in the IR-safe ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD frameworks. In Appendix \ref{app:AQCD} we provide more details of the ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD formalism and a brief description of the specific ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD frameworks used in this work. In Appendix \ref{app:RGEWils} we write down the solution of the coupled system of RGEs in the case of mixing of operators. In particular, we present there the solution for the case of the degenerate mixing which, to our knowledge, has not been considered in the literature and appears in the case of the operator mixing of ${\mathcal O}_3^{LR}$-${\mathcal O}_1^{LR}$ at two-loops at low scales ($n_f=3$). In Sec.~\ref{sec:num} we present our numerical results for the RGE evolution matrices at low (sub-GeV) scales in various ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD frameworks. In addition, we present there the resulting upper bounds on the various ``bare'' LNV Wilson coefficients $C_j(\Lambda_{\rm LNV})$ (we took $\Lambda_{\rm LNV}=M_W$), where these bounds originate from the experimental lower bound on the half-life (\ref{T12}). Section \ref{sec:conc} is a summary of our conclusions.
\section{Effective Lagrangian in $0\nu\beta\beta$ decay}
\label{sec:EFT}
The effective Lagrangian within the Operator Product Expansion (OPE) formalism for the dimension-9 operators, which originate from short-range new physics and contribute to $0\nu\beta\beta$ decay, have the generic structure \cite{Pas:2000vn}
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{eff}}^{0, \nu \beta \beta}=\frac{G_{F}^{2}}{2 m_{p}} \sum_{i=1}^5 \sum_{X Y} C_{i}^{X Y}(\mu) \ \mathcal{O}_{i}^{X Y}(\mu)\ ,
\label{Lagr}
\end{equation}
where $G_{F}=1.166 \times 10^{-5} \ {\rm GeV}^{-2}$ is the Fermi constant, $m_{p}$ is the proton mass. The expansion (\ref{Lagr}) contains five types of dimension-9 operators; the indices ${X,Y}={L,R}$ indicate the chirality. The dimension-9 operators $\mathcal{O}_{i}^{X Y}$ can be shown in the compact notation \cite{GHK2016,GHK2018}
\begin{subequations}
\label{ops}
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{O}_{1}^{X Y}&=&4\left(\bar{u} P_{X} d\right)\left(\bar{u} P_{Y} d\right) j\ ,
\label{ssOp}
\\
\mathcal{O}_{2}^{X X}&=&4\left(\bar{u} \sigma^{\mu \nu} P_{X} d\right)\left(\bar{u} \sigma_{\mu \nu} P_{X} d\right) j\ ,
\label{ttOp}
\\
\mathcal{O}_{3}^{X Y}&=&4\left(\bar{u} \gamma^{\mu} P_{X} d\right)\left(\bar{u} \gamma_{\mu} P_{Y} d\right) j\ ,
\label{vvOp}
\\
\mathcal{O}_{4}^{X Y}&=&4\left(\bar{u} \gamma_{\nu} P_{X} d\right)\left(\bar{u} \sigma^{\nu \mu} P_{Y} d\right) j_{\mu} = \mathcal{O}_{4}^{X Y \mu} j_{\mu},
\label{vtOp}
\\ \mathcal{O}_{5}^{X Y}&=&4\left(\bar{u} \gamma^{\mu} P_{X} d\right)\left(\bar{u} P_{Y} d\right) j_{\mu}\ = \mathcal{O}_{5}^{X Y \mu} j_{\mu},
\label{vsOp}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
where $j=\bar{e}\left(1 \pm \gamma_{5}\right) e^{c}, j_{\mu}=\bar{e} \gamma_{\mu} \gamma_{5} e^{c}$ are the lepton currents. In Eqs.~(\ref{ttOp}) and (\ref{vtOp}) we use the convention $\sigma^{\mu \nu} = (i/2) [\gamma^{\mu},\gamma^{\nu}]$.
In general, these operators mix under renormalization through QCD when we express them in terms of a color singlet structure. In this procedure, the following property is used:
\begin{equation}
\left(\lambda^{a}\right)_{\alpha \beta} \left(\lambda^{a}\right)_{\eta \xi} =-\frac{2}{N} \delta_{\alpha \beta} \delta_{\eta \xi} +2 \delta_{\alpha \xi} \delta_{\eta \beta},
\label{FierzColor}
\end{equation}
where $\lambda^a = 2 t^a$ are the Gell-Mann matrices.
This leads to the original operator [the first term on the RHS of Eq.(\ref{FierzColor})] plus a color mismatch part [the second term on the RHS of Eq.(\ref{FierzColor})].
Note that $\mathcal{O}_{2}^{X Y}=0$ for $X\neq Y$.
The effective Lagrangian (\ref{Lagr}) at high physics scales $\mu=\Lambda_{\rm LNV}$ ($\sim 10^2$-$10^3$ GeV) represents the new short-range physics. When these contributions are evolved to lower scales $\mu$, the QCD effects are the dominant contributions to the RGE evolution. The effective Lagrangian (\ref{Lagr}) must be evaluated down to a spacelike scale $\mu^2=Q^2 (\equiv -q^2)$ that enters in the $0\nu\beta\beta$ process (and in the corresponding NMEs), typically of the order of the Fermi motion scale $\mu \sim \mu_{\rm f} \sim 0.1$ GeV. In practice, when we use the Lagrangian (\ref{Lagr}) in the perturbation theory within pQCD, it is applicable only down to $\mu\sim 1$ GeV in the best scenario. This RGE-running for $0\nu\beta\beta$ decay was performed in pQCD, at one-loop level of anomalous dimensions, in \cite{Mahajan} for the set of operators ${\mathcal O}_1$-${\mathcal O}_3$, and in \cite{GHK2016} for the set ${\mathcal O}_1$-${\mathcal O}_5$. The restriction $\mu \gtrsim 1$ GeV is due to unphysical singularities, known as Landau singularities, in the pQCD running coupling at $\mu^2\sim\Lambda_{QCD}^2\approx 10^{-1}$ GeV$^2$ for $n_f=3$ active flavors. In the vicinity of these singularities our physical predictions are jeopardized. The experience shows that if we do not include some nonperturbative effects, the applicability of this series extends only down to $\mu \approx 1-2$ GeV.
Based on the Lagrangian (\ref{Lagr}), we can calculate the amplitude and then the $0\nu\beta\beta$ half-life as \cite{Doi:1985dx}
\begin{equation}
\left[T_{1 / 2}^{0 \nu \beta \beta}\right]^{-1}=G_1 \left| \sum_{j=1}^{3} C_{j}(Q^2_{\rm f}) \mathcal{M}_{j} \right|^{2} + G_4 \left| \sum_{j=4}^{5} C_{j}(Q^2_{\rm f}) \mathcal{M}_{j} \right|^{2}
\label{halflife}
\end{equation}
Here, $Q^2_{\rm f} \sim 0.01 \ {\rm GeV}^2$ is the squared energy of the (spacelike) process of $0 \nu \beta \beta$ decay, $G_j$ are the phase space factors ($G_1=G_2=G_3$, and $G_4=G_5$) \cite{GDIK}, and $\mathcal{M}_{j}$ is the Nuclear Matrix element (NME) of the operator ${\mathcal O}_j$ Eqs.~(\ref{ssOp})-(\ref{vsOp}) at an effective squared energy $Q^2_{\rm f}$, $\mathcal{M}_j = \langle A_{\rm fin} | \mathcal{O}_j(Q^2_{\rm f}) | A_{\rm in} \rangle$. These constant parameters depend on the isotopes we are considering. For the considered isotope $^{136}{\rm Xe}$, the values of NMEs are given in Table \ref{tabNMEs}.
\begin{table}
\caption{The values of the nuclear matrix elements for $^{136}{\rm Xe}$, from Ref.~\cite{DHP} (cf.~also \cite{GHK2016}), at effective Fermi motion scales $Q^2_{\rm f} = \mu^2_{\rm f} \sim 0.01 \ {\rm GeV}^2$.}
\label{tabNMEs}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{llllll}
${\cal M}_1$ & ${\cal M}_2$ & ${\cal M}_3^{(+)}$ & ${\cal M}_3^{(-)}$ & $|{\cal M}_4|$ & $|{\cal M}_5|$
\\
\hline
$4.5$ & $-8.5 \times 10^2$ & $6.9 \times 10^1$ & $1.1 \times 10^2$ & $9.6 \times 10^1$ & $9.3$
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{table}
The Wilson coefficient $C_{j}(Q^2_{\rm f})$ depends on the typical scale of the $0\nu\beta\beta$ process, and as we mentioned above, this spacelike scale is quite low and some extension of the usual QCD should be taken into account. In Ref.\cite{GHK2018} the authors considered a freezing of the QCD running coupling based on the inclusion of an effective glueball mass $M$, where $M^2 \in (0.4, 5.0) \ {\rm GeV}^2$. This inclusion was made by the shift $Q^2 \rightarrow Q^2+M^2$ in the one-loop pQCD coupling, cf.~Eq.~(\ref{AMPT}). In Ref.~\cite{Ciretal} the authors cut the effective theory of QCD at a reasonable scale (see the argumentation above) $Q=2$ GeV, and below it down to $\mu=0.1$ GeV they considered a new effective theory without quarks called Chiral Perturbation Theory (ChiPT) and many-body methods (cf.~also \cite{Prez,Grae}). Finally, in Ref.\cite{AGK} the pion mechanism is considered, where the hadronization of quarks and gluons is produced within the effective vertices given by operators (\ref{ssOp})-(\ref{vsOp}).
In the present work, we propose an alternative method to deal with this low-energy problem. We propose to extend the applicability of QCD through the Dispersion Relations, which are integrals in the complex $Q^2$-plane, which allow us to avoid the appearance of the Landau singularities in a natural way. For details on the construction of such models, we refer to Appendix \ref{app:AQCD}.
\section{Renormalization Group Equations within QCD}
\label{sec:RGE}
The renormalized effective operators (\ref{ssOp})-(\ref{vsOp}) are scale independent. Then the Renormalization Group Equation (RGE) will define the anomalous dimension matrix ${\hat \gamma}$ in the form
\begin{equation}
\frac{d \overrightarrow{\mathcal{O}}(Q^2)}{d \ln Q^2}= \frac{d \ln \boldsymbol{Z}(Q^2)}{d \ln Q^2}\equiv-\frac{1}{2} {\hat \gamma}(Q^2) \overrightarrow{\mathcal{O}}(Q^2),
\label{RGEO}
\end{equation}
where the renormalization constant matrices $\boldsymbol{Z}$ of the effective operators imply that we will have in general some mixing between them. The scale $Q^2$ is considered to be spacelike, i.e., $Q^2 \equiv - q^2$ is regarded to be nonnegative.
Now, the RGE for the Wilson coefficient follows from the fact that the Lagrangian in (\ref{Lagr}) is independent of the (spacelike) renormalization scale $\mu^2 \equiv Q^2$. As a consequence, we obtain the RGE in the matrix form
\begin{equation}
\frac{d \vec{C}(Q^2)_{\rm pt}}{d \ln Q^2}=\frac{1}{2} {\hat \gamma}^{T}(Q)_{\rm pt} \vec{C}(Q^2)_{\rm pt}.
\label{RGEw}
\end{equation}
The anomalous dimension matrix ${\hat \gamma}(Q^2)$ is extracted from the renormalization of the composite operators (\ref{ssOp})-(\ref{vsOp}). The corresponding available anomalous dimension factors and matrices are collected in Appendix \ref{app:AD}: for the operators $\mathcal{O}_1$-$\mathcal{O}_3$ from Ref.~\cite{Buras:2000if} (at the one-loop and two-loop level); for the operators $\mathcal{O}_4$-$\mathcal{O}_5$ from Refs.~\cite{LMW,Ciretal} (at the one-loop level).
If we rewrite Eq.~(\ref{RGEw}) in terms of the pQCD running coupling $a(Q^2) \equiv \alpha_s(Q^2)/\pi$, the RGE can be solved at the two-loop level explicitly, and it is given in the form (for the case of no mixing, i.e., ignoring the problems of diagonalization)
\begin{subequations}
\label{RGEwCoeff}
\begin{eqnarray}
C(a)_{\rm pt} &=& \left( \frac{a}{a_0} \right)^{\nu} \left( \frac{1 + c_1 a}{1 + c_1 a_0} \right)^{k^{(1)}/c_1} C(a_0),
\label{RGEwCoeffa}
\\
& = & \frac{\left[ a^{\nu} + k^{(1)} a^{\nu+1} + {\cal O}(a^{\nu+2}) \right]}{\left[ a_0^{\nu} + k^{(1)} a_0^{\nu+1} + {\cal O}(a_0^{\nu+2}) \right]} C(a_0),
\label{RGEwCoeffb}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
where $a \equiv a(Q^2)$ and $a_0 \equiv a(Q^2_0)$; for $\beta(a)$ which appears in the renormalization group equation (RGE) Eq.~(\ref{RGE}) for the running coupling $a(Q^2)$, we took the two-loop truncated form $\beta(a) = - \beta_0 a^2 (1 + c_1 a)$. The constants $\nu$ and $k^{(1)}$ appearing in Eqs.~(\ref{RGEwCoeff}) are
\begin{equation}
\nu= - \frac{1}{8 \beta_0} \gamma^{(0)}, \quad
k^{(1)} = - \frac{1}{32 \beta_0} \gamma^{(1)} - c_1 \nu,
\label{nuk1}
\end{equation}
where $\gamma^{(j)}$ ($j=0,1$) are the one-loop and two-loop coefficients, respectively, in the anomalous dimension matrix ${\hat \gamma}$
\begin{equation}
{\hat \gamma}(a) = {\hat \gamma}^{(0)} \frac{a(Q^2)}{4} + {\hat \gamma}^{(1)} \left( \frac{a(Q^2)}{4} \right)^2 + \ldots
\label{hatgammaexp}
\end{equation}
For more details and for different cases of mixing, we refer to Appendix \ref{app:RGEWils}. We note that in the expansion in Eq.~(\ref{RGEwCoeffb}) the terms ${\cal O}(a^{\nu+2})$ are not known if the three-loop anomalous dimension coefficient ${\hat \gamma}^{(2)}$ is not known.
In the case of mixing, the analogous formulas for pQCD are obtained in Appendices \ref{app:mixnondeg} and \ref{app:mixdeg} for the nondegenerate ($\nu_1 - \nu_2 \not=1$) and degenerate case ($\nu_1 - \nu_2 =1$): cf.~Eqs.~(\ref{hatgamma0}), (\ref{katk1}), and (\ref{vCres})-(\ref{hatU1}) for the nondegenerate case, and additionally Eq.~(\ref{hatU1deg}) for the degenerate case. According to our knowledge, the solution of the two-loop RGE for Wilson coefficients in the degenerate case [which occurs in the $n_f=3$ regime for the (31)$^{XY}$ mixing of operators ${\mathcal O}_3^{XY}$ and ${\mathcal O}_1^{XY}$ ($X \not= Y$)] has not been addressed in the literature hitherto.
Within the evolution procedure, the heavy quark thresholds should be taken into account. For this purpose, the evolution matrix $U(Q^2_{\rm f}, {\Lambda}^2_{\rm LNV})$, which connects the ``bare'' ${\vec C} \equiv {\vec C}({\Lambda}^2_{\rm LNV})$ at high momenta with the physical ${\vec C}(Q^2_{\rm f})$ at Fermi-motion monenta
\begin{equation}
{\vec C}(Q_{\rm f}^2) = U(Q^2_{\rm f}, {\Lambda}^2_{\rm LNV}) {\vec C},
\label{Uevoldef}
\end{equation}
can be written in the following way:
\begin{subequations}
\label{Uevol}
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{U}\left(Q^2_{\rm f}, {\Lambda}^2_{\rm LNV}=M^2_{W}\right) &=&\hat{U}^{(n_f=3)}\left(Q^2_{\rm f}, Q^2_{c}\right) \hat{U}^{(n_f=4)}\left(Q^2_{c}, Q^2_{b}\right) \hat{U}^{(n_f=5)}\left(Q^2_{b}, M^2_{W}\right),
\label{Uevola}
\\
\hat{U}\left(Q^2_{\rm f}, {\Lambda}^2_{\rm LNV} > {\overline m}^2_{t}\right) &=&\hat{U}^{(n_f=3)}\left(Q^2_{\rm f}, Q^2_{c}\right) \hat{U}^{(n_f=4)}\left(Q^2_{c}, Q^2_{b}\right) \hat{U}^{(n_f=5)}\left(Q^2_{b}, Q^2_{t}\right) \hat{U}^{(n_f=6)}\left(Q^2_{t}, {\Lambda}^2_{\rm LNV} \right),
\label{Uevolb}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
where the first equality is given for matching scale of the order of W-boson mass $M_W=80.379$ GeV \cite{PDG18}, and the second equality for large scales, where the theories beyond the standard model play a crucial role. In Eqs.~(\ref{Uevol}), the heavy quark thresholds are at $Q_t=\kappa\overline{m}_t=163\kappa$ GeV; $Q_b=\kappa\overline{m}_b=4.20\kappa$ GeV; and $Q_c=\kappa\overline{m}_c=1.27\kappa$ GeV \cite{PDG18}, where we will choose $\kappa=2$ (in general, $\kappa \sim 1$). Note that the variation of the threshold parameter $\kappa$ is numerically not important in comparison with variation of other parameters.
We will use Eq.~(\ref{Uevola}), i.e., we will take $\Lambda_{\rm LNV}=M_W$ throughout.\footnote{If taking $\Lambda^2_{\rm LNV} =1$ TeV, the numerical results for the extracted upper bounds on the ``bare'' Wilson coefficients in general change by significantly less than 50 percent, cf.~\cite{GHK2016}.} In the $n_f=3$ regime, we will use ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD, because the realistic Fermi motion scale $Q^2_{\rm f} \approx 0.01 \ {\rm GeV}^2$ in this regime is quite low and the deviation of the ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD couplings from the underlying pQCD couplings is significant. In the regimes $n_f \geq 4$ we use the underlying pQCD in $3 \delta$ ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD because there the ${\mathcal{A}}(Q^2)$ coupling practically coincides with the underlying pQCD coupling $a(Q^2)$ [Eq.~(\ref{diffAaN}) has ${\cal N}=5$]. In two other cases ($2 \delta$ ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD, FAPT) we use at $n_f \geq 4$ the corresponding ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD couplings out of convenience (because those coupling are available for all $n_f$). In the one-loop massive QCD (Massive Perturbation Theory: MPT) we used for $n_f \geq 4$ the underlying pQCD, for simplicity.\footnote{
In FAPT and massive one-loop QCD (MPT), we have ${\cal N}=1$ in Eq.~(\ref{diffAaN}); in $2 \delta$ ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD we have ${\cal N}=5$, so it is practically equivalent to use ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD or the underlying pQCD couplings in the $n_f \geq 4$ regimes. Furthermore, on the basis of construction of ${\mathcal{A}}_{\nu}$ as explained in \cite{GCAK}, it is possible to show that from Eq.~(\ref{diffAaN}) we obtain ${\mathcal{A}}_{\nu}(Q^2) - a(Q^2)^{\nu} \sim (\Lambda^2/Q^2)^{\cal N}$ for all $-1 < \nu$.}
\section{Evaluation of RGE with IR-safe couplings}
\label{sec:AQCD}
As mentioned in the Introduction, in ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD the coupling $a(Q^2)=\alpha_s(Q^2)/\pi$ gets replaced by a coupling ${\mathcal{A}}(Q^2)$ where the latter reflects correctly the holomorphic (analytic) behavior of the spacelike QCD physical quantities ${\cal D}(Q^2)$. This means that ${\mathcal{A}}(Q^2)$, in contrast to $a(Q^2)$, has no Landau singularities in the complex $Q^2$-plane, or equivalently, ${\mathcal{A}}(Q^2)$ is a holomorphic function for $Q^2 \in \mathbb{C} \backslash (-\infty, -M_{\rm thr}^2]$ where $M_{\rm thr}^2$ is a positive threshold scale, $M_{\rm thr} \sim 0.1 \ {\rm GeV}^2$.\footnote{
Usually the Landau singularities of a pQCD coupling $a(Q^2)$ are cuts on the positive $Q^2$ axis, $Q^2 \in (0, \Lambda^2_{\rm Lan.})$ where $\Lambda^2_{\rm Lan.} \sim 0.1$-$1 \ {\rm GeV}^2$. The details of these singularities depend on the chosen (pQCD) renormalization scheme.}
Here we refer to Appendix \ref{app:AQCD} for various ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD variants. Usually they are constructed with the dispersion relation approach, i.e., starting with a specific form of the discontinuity function $\rho_{{\mathcal{A}}}(\sigma) = {\rm Im} {\mathcal{A}}(Q^2= \sigma \exp(- i \pi))$ for positive $\sigma$, and the holomorphic coupling ${\mathcal{A}}(Q^2)$ is a dispersion integral involving $\rho_{{\mathcal{A}}}(\sigma)$, cf.~Eq.~(\ref{dispA}). Due to the asymptotic freedom, $\rho_{{\mathcal{A}}}(\sigma)$ at large $\sigma > 1 \ {\rm GeV}^2$ (practically) coincides with the discontinuity function $\rho_a(\sigma)$ of the underlying pQCD coupling $a(Q^2)$ (the latter is defined in a specific chosen renormalization scheme). At low positive $\sigma \lesssim 1 \ {\rm GeV}^2$, the discontinuity function $\rho_{{\mathcal{A}}}(\sigma)$ is in principle unknown and can be parametrized with Dirac-delta functions, cf.~Eqs.~(\ref{rhoAnd}) for $n=2,3$ ($2 \delta$ and $3 \delta$ ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD), Eq.~(\ref{rhoMPT}) for one-loop ``massive'' coupling (MPT). In (Fractional) Analytic Perturbation Theory [(F)APT], the discontinuity function $\rho_{{\mathcal{A}}}(\sigma)$ is considered to coincide with its pQCD analog $\rho_a(\sigma)$ for all $\sigma$ values (all the way down to $\sigma=0$), cf.~Eq.~(\ref{dispAAPT}).
In ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD, the powers $a(Q^2)^{\nu +m}$ ($m=0,1,\ldots$) get replaced by their analogs as explained in Eqs.~(\ref{Anugen}), (\ref{tAn11l})
\begin{eqnarray}
a(Q^2) & \mapsto & {\mathcal{A}}(Q^2); \; a(Q^2)^{\nu} \mapsto {\mathcal{A}}_{\nu}(Q^2) \; \left[ \not= {\mathcal{A}}(Q^2)^{\nu} \right].
\label{analyt}
\end{eqnarray}
Various ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD variants [$n \delta$ ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD ($n=2,3$), FAPT, and massive one-loop ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD (MPT)] are summarized in Appendix \ref{app:AQCD}. In the following we will argue that in ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD the result for the Wilson coefficient $C(Q^2)$ is really obtained from the pQCD result (\ref{RGEwCoeffb}) by the replacements (\ref{analyt}). We will show this in the case of no mixing, while the extension to the case of mixing of operators is given in Appendix \ref{app:RGEWils}.
The renormalization group equation (RGE) for a Wilson coefficient $C(Q^2)$ as a function of the effective spacelike scale $Q^2$ in pQCD has the form\footnote{
We use the conventions of \cite{Buras:2000if} (see also Appendix \ref{app:AD}), and our notations $a(Q^2) \equiv \alpha_s(Q^2)/\pi$.}
\begin{equation}
\frac{d C(Q^2)_{\rm pt}}{d \ln Q^2} = \frac{1}{2} \left[ \sum_{n \geq 0} \left(\frac{a(Q^2)}{4} \right)^{n+1} \gamma^{(n)} \right] C(Q^2)_{\rm pt},
\label{pRGEWils}
\end{equation}
where $\gamma^{(n)}$ are the ($n+1$-loop) coefficients of the anomalous dimension, and the pQCD expansion of $C(Q^2)$ in terms of $a(Q^2)$ has the form [cf.~Eq.~(\ref{RGEwCoeffb})]
\begin{equation}
C(Q^2)_{\rm pt} = {\cal C} \left[ a(Q^2)^{\nu} + \sum_{j \geq 0} k^{(j)} a(Q^2)^{\nu +j} \right],
\label{Cpt}
\end{equation}
where ${\cal C}$ is a $Q^2$-independent quantity.
Using this expansion in the RGE (\ref{pRGEWils}), and the RGE running of the pQCD coupling $a(Q^2)$ according to Eq.~(\ref{RGE}), it is straghtforward to see that the index $\nu$ and the expansion coefficients $k^{(j)}$ are [cf.~Eq.~(\ref{nuk1}) for the two-loop case]
\begin{subequations}
\label{nukjpQ}
\begin{eqnarray}
\nu & = & -\frac{1}{8 \beta_0} \gamma^{(0)},
\label{nu}
\\
k^{(1)} & = & - \frac{1}{32 \beta_0} \gamma^{(1)} - c_1 \nu,
\label{k1}
\\
k^{(2)} & = & -\frac{1}{2} \left( \frac{1}{128 \beta_0} \gamma^{(2)} + c_2 \nu \right) + \frac{1}{2} k^{(1)} (k^{(1)} - c_1),
\label{k2}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
etc. The RGE in ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD is obtained by making analytic the LHS and the RHS of the RGE (\ref{pRGEWils}) where the expansion of $C(Q^2)$ has the form (\ref{Cpt}). This is performed with the replacements $a^{\nu} \mapsto {\mathcal{A}}_{\nu}$ as explained in Appendix \ref{app:AQCD}
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn {
{\cal C} \frac{d}{d \ln Q^2} \left[ {\mathcal{A}}_{\nu}(Q^2) + k^{(1)} {\mathcal{A}}_{\nu+1}(Q^2) + k^{(2)} {\mathcal{A}}_{\nu+2}(Q^2) + \cdots \right] =
}
\nonumber\\ &&
{\cal C} \frac{1}{2} {\Bigg \{} \left[ \frac{a(Q^2)}{4} \gamma^{(0)} + \left( \frac{a(Q^2)}{4} \right)^2 \gamma^{(1)} + \left( \frac{a(Q^2)}{4} \right)^3 \gamma^{(2)} + \ldots \right] \left[ a(Q^2)^{\nu} + k^{(1)} a(Q^2)^{\nu +1} + k^{(2)} a(Q^2)^{\nu +2} + \ldots \right] {\Bigg \}}_{\rm an.} =
\nonumber\\ &&
{\cal C} \frac{1}{8} {\Bigg \{} {\mathcal{A}}_{\nu+1}(Q^2) \gamma^{(0)} + {\mathcal{A}}_{\nu+2}(Q^2) \left( \frac{1}{4} \gamma^{(1)} + k^{(1)} \gamma^{(0)} \right) + {\mathcal{A}}_{\nu+3}(Q^2) \left( \frac{1}{4^2} \gamma^{(2)} + \frac{1}{4} k^{(1)} \gamma^{(1)} + k^{(2)} \gamma^{(0)} \right) + {\cal O}({\mathcal{A}}_{\nu+4}) {\Bigg \}}.
\label{RGEWils1}
\end{eqnarray}
One may wonder whether in ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD the index $\nu$ and coefficients $k^{(j)}$ ($j=1,2,\ldots$) are the same as in pQCD Eq.~(\ref{nukjpQ}); they turn out to be the same. Namely,
the LHS of the above RGE (i.e., the first line), when using the ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD relations (\ref{AnuRGE})-(\ref{anuRGE}), can be shown be equal to
\begin{equation}
{\rm LHS} \equiv {\cal C} (- \beta_0) {\Big \{} {\mathcal{A}}_{\nu+1}(Q^2) \nu + {\mathcal{A}}_{\nu+2}(Q^2) \left[ (\nu+1) k^{(1)} + \nu c_1 \right] + {\mathcal{A}}_{\nu+3}(Q^2) \left[(\nu+2) k^{(2)} + (\nu+1) c_1 k^{(1)} + \nu c_2 \right] + {\cal O}({\mathcal{A}}_{\nu+4}) {\Big \}}.
\label{LHSRGEWils1}
\end{equation}
When we equate this expression with the RHS [i.e., the last line in Eq.~(\ref{RGEWils1}), we obtain for $\nu$ and $k^{(j)}$ ($j=1,2$) the same expressions Eqs.~(\ref{nukjpQ}) as obtained by the pQCD approach.
The conclusion of this exercise is that the solution of the RGE for Wilson coefficients $C(Q^2)$ in ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD is the same as in pQCD, with the replacements $a(Q^2)^{\nu+m} \mapsto {\mathcal{A}}_{\nu+m}(Q^2)$ in the pQCD expansion (\ref{Cpt}).
Therefore, the relation (\ref{RGEwCoeffb}) in ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD obtains the form
\begin{subequations}
\label{C2lA}
\begin{eqnarray}
C(Q^2)_{({\mathcal{A}})} & = & \left[{\mathcal{A}}_{\nu}(Q^2) + k^{(1)} {\mathcal{A}}_{\nu+1}(Q^2) + {\cal O}({\mathcal{A}}_{\nu+2}) \right] {\cal C},
\label{C2lAa}
\\
&=& \frac{\left[ {\mathcal{A}}_{\nu}(Q^2) + k^{(1)} {\mathcal{A}}_{\nu+1}(Q^2) + {\cal O}({\mathcal{A}}_{\nu+2}) \right]}{\left[ {\mathcal{A}}_{\nu}(Q_0^2) + k^{(1)} {\mathcal{A}}_{\nu+1}(Q_0^2) + {\cal O}({\mathcal{A}}_{\nu+2}) \right]} C(Q_0^2)_{({\mathcal{A}})} \equiv U(Q^2;Q_0^2)_{({\mathcal{A}})} C(Q_0^2)_{({\mathcal{A}})},
\label{C2lAb}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
where the above expression $U(Q^2; Q_0^2)_{({\mathcal{A}})}$ is the RGE-evolution matrix in ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD for the Wilson coefficient from an effective (higher) scale $Q_0^2$ to an effective (lower) scale $Q^2$.
In the case of mixing, the analogous formulas for ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD are obtained in Appendices \ref{app:mixnondeg} and \ref{app:mixdeg} for the nondegenerate ($\nu_1 - \nu_2 \not=1$) and degenerate case ($\nu_1 - \nu_2 =1$): cf.~Eqs.~(\ref{hatgamma0}), (\ref{katk1}), and (\ref{AQCDresmix})-(\ref{AvCres}) for the nondegenerate case, and additionally Eqs.~(\ref{AQCDhatU1deg})-(\ref{AQCDvCresdeg2}) for the degenerate case.
In the general approach, applied in $n \delta$ ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD ($n=2,3$) and in one-loop ``massive'' ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD (MPT), where the general power analogs ${\mathcal{A}}_{\nu}$ are constructed via the generalized logarithmic-derivative analogs ${\widetilde {\mathcal{A}}}_{\nu+m}$, Eqs.~(\ref{Anugen}), it is important to apply the truncations in the evaluation of ${\mathcal{A}}_{\nu}$ in Eq.~(\ref{AnutAnu}) consistent with the loop-level in the expression for the Wilson coefficients. When the anomalous dimension $\gamma(a)$ is known only at one-loop level, then we have
\begin{equation}
C(Q^2)_{({\mathcal{A}})} = {\mathcal{A}}_{\nu}(Q^2) \; {\cal C} = \frac{{\mathcal{A}}_{\nu}(Q^2)}{{\mathcal{A}}_{\nu}(Q_0^2)} C(Q_0^2)_{({\mathcal{A}})},
\label{C1lS}
\end{equation}
and the expression in Eq.~(\ref{AnutAnu}) has only one term
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal{A}}_{\nu}(Q^2) = {\widetilde {\mathcal{A}}}_{\nu}(Q^2).
\label{Anu1l}
\end{equation}
On the other hand, when the anomalous dimension is known at the two-loop level, Eq.~(\ref{C2lA}), then the expression in Eq.~(\ref{AnutAnu}) has two terms\footnote{According to Ref.~\cite{GCAK}, ${\widetilde k}_1(\nu)=-k_1(\nu)= - c_1 \nu ( H(\nu)-1)$ where $H(\nu)$ is the Harmonic Number function.}
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal{A}}_{\nu}(Q^2) = {\widetilde {\mathcal{A}}}_{\nu}(Q^2) + {\widetilde k}_1(\nu) {\widetilde {\mathcal{A}}}_{\nu+1}(Q^2).
\label{Anu2l}
\end{equation}
In practice, this implies that the (two-loop) expression (\ref{C2lA}) obtains the form
\begin{subequations}
\label{C2ltA}
\begin{eqnarray}
C(Q^2)_{({\mathcal{A}})} & = & \left[ {\widetilde {\mathcal{A}}}_{\nu}(Q^2) + \left( k^{(1)} + {\widetilde k}_1(\nu) \right) {\widetilde {\mathcal{A}}}_{\nu+1}(Q^2) + {\cal O}({\widetilde {\mathcal{A}}}_{\nu+2}) \right] \; {\cal C}
\label{C2ltAa}
\\
&=& \frac{\left[ {\widetilde {\mathcal{A}}}_{\nu}(Q^2) + \left( k^{(1)} + {\widetilde k}_1(\nu) \right) {\widetilde {\mathcal{A}}}_{\nu+1}(Q^2) + {\cal O}({\widetilde {\mathcal{A}}}_{\nu+2}) \right]}{\left[ {\widetilde {\mathcal{A}}}_{\nu}(Q_0^2) + \left( k^{(1)} + {\widetilde k}_1(\nu) \right) {\widetilde {\mathcal{A}}}_{\nu+1}(Q_0^2) + {\cal O}({\widetilde {\mathcal{A}}}_{\nu+2}) \right]} \; C(Q_0^2)_{({\mathcal{A}})} ,
\label{C2ltAb}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
where we consistently ignore the terms $~\sim {\widetilde {\mathcal{A}}}_{\nu+2}$.
It turns out that with such evaluation we get, even at low $|Q^2| < 1 \ {\rm GeV}^2$, reasonable convergence behavor for the Wilson coefficient $C(Q^2)$ when going from the one-loop to the two-loop case, see Sec.~\ref{sec:num}. This is probably related with the fact that in ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD the numerical hierarchy $|{\widetilde {\mathcal{A}}}_{\nu}(Q^2)| \gtrsim |{\widetilde {\mathcal{A}}}_{\nu+1}(Q^2)| \gtrsim |{\widetilde {\mathcal{A}}}_{\nu+2}(Q^2)| \gtrsim \ldots$ is valid in general not just for high $|Q^2|$ but even for low $|Q^2| \lesssim 1 \ {\rm GeV}^2$. There is no such hierarchy in pQCD, because of the Landau singularities at or close to $|Q^2| \lesssim 1 \ {\rm GeV}^2$. In the case of mixing, analogous approach is applied for $\nu=\nu_1$ and $\nu=\nu_2$, and we refer to Appendix \ref{app:RGEWils} for more details.
In the case of FAPT, although the use of Eqs.~(\ref{Anu1l})-(\ref{Anu2l}) is an entirely acceptable option, we will follow the more special FAPT-type approach as described in Eqs.~(\ref{FAPT1})-(\ref{FAPT2}). In the case of FAPT, this is equivalent to the evaluation of ${\mathcal{A}}_{\nu}^{\rm (FAPT)}$ as a nontruncated (resummed) sum of ${\widetilde {\mathcal{A}}}_{\nu+m}^{\rm (FAPT)}$ ($m=0,1,\ldots$), i.e., Eq.~(\ref{AnutAnu}) with $N \to \infty$.
As mentioned at the end of Sec.~\ref{sec:RGE}, ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD will be applied here always in the $n_f=3$ (low-$Q^2$) regime. In the regimes $n_f \geq 4$ in general the underlying pQCD approach will be applied; in FAPT and $2 \delta$ ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD, the ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD approach will be applied also in the regimes $n_f \geq 4$ for the aformentioned reasons of conveniency.
In the cases where the anomalous dimension ${\hat \gamma}$ is known up to two-loop level, we have the mixing '(12)$^{XX}$' (of ${\mathcal O}_1^{XX}$ and ${\mathcal O}_2^{XX}$) and '(31)$^{XY}$' (of ${\mathcal O}_3^{XY}$ and ${\mathcal O}_1^{XY}$; $X \not= Y$). It turns out that in the $n_f=3$ regime we have the degeneracy $\nu_1-\nu_2=1$ in the case of mixing '(31)$^{XY}$', i.e., formulas of Appendix \ref{app:mixdeg} apply ($\nu_1=8/9$ and $\nu_2=-1/9$). The case of the mixing '(12)$^{XX}$', on the other hand, is nondegenerate, and the formulas of Appendix \ref{app:mixnondeg} apply ($\nu_1=-0.6120$ and $\nu_2=0.5379$, when $n_f=3$).
\section{Numerical results}
\label{sec:num}
\subsection{Evolution matrix elements for Wilson coefficients}
\label{subsec:evol}
For evaluation of QCD correction to the $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay, we need the physical observable, i.e., the half-life quantity based on OPE. The first question is how the evolution factors or matrices $U(Q^2_{\rm f};\Lambda^2_{\rm LNV})$ [cf.~Eqs.~(\ref{Uevoldef}) and (\ref{Uevola})] behave when the Fermi motion scale $Q^2_{\rm f}$ varies downwards towards the realistic values $Q^2_{\rm f} \sim 0.01 \ {\rm GeV}^2$. We will apply a variety of ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD frameworks: $3 \delta$ ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD \cite{3dAQCD,MathPrgs} which has the zero limit in deep IR regime, ${\mathcal{A}}(0)=0$; $2 \delta$ ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD \cite{2dAQCD,2dCPC,MathPrgs} and the one-loop ``massive'' ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD (MPT) Eq.~(\ref{AMPT}), all these having finite positive IR limit ${\mathcal{A}}(0) > 0$; and FAPT in the $\overline{\rm MS}$ scheme, cf.~Eq.~(\ref{FAPT2}), which gives a nonholomorphic ${\mathcal{A}}(Q^2)$ in the point $Q^2=0$ [but has also ${\mathcal{A}}(0) >0$].
The MPT coupling (\ref{AMPT}) used is taken in two variants:
(I) The first one is with $M=1.5$ GeV (for $n_f=3$) and with the scale $\Lambda_{3}$ (i.e., at $n_f=3$) fixed in such a way that the underlying one-loop pQCD coupling achieves at $Q^2=M_Z^2$ the value $a(M_Z^2;n_f=5)=0.1181/\pi$, resulting in $\Lambda_{3}=0.1588$ GeV.\footnote{As explained in the previous Section, the quark thresholds are taken at $Q^2 = (\kappa \overline{m}_q)^2$ with $\kappa=2$. The threshold condition for the one-loop pQCD coupling is simply continuity.}. This variant will be denoted as MPT(1.5).
(II) The second variant is with $M=0.3$ GeV (for $n_f=3$) and $\Lambda_{3}=0.234$ GeV, which is suggested by the works of Refs.~\cite{Rayaetal}.\footnote{This coupling is parametrized so that it describes in the infrared an effective charge appearing in the DGLAP equation for the parton distribution functions in the pion, and in the ultraviolet it behaves as a (one-loop) pQCD coupling. The underlying pQCD coupling at $Q^2=M_Z^2$ is then $a(M_Z^2;n_f=5)=0.1264/\pi$.} This variant will be denoted MPT(0.3). Most of the variants of MPT used in the literature have $0.3 \ {\rm GeV} \leq M \leq 1.5 \ {\rm GeV}$ (cf.~also \cite{GHK2018}).
In all other cases, the couplings are normalized in such a way that, at the high scale $Q^2=M_Z^2$ (and $n_f=5$) their underlying pQCD coupling (when tranformed to the $\overline{\rm MS}$ scheme, if needed) achieves the value $\alpha_s(M_Z^2; \overline{\rm MS})=0.1181$ which is the central value of the present world average \cite{PDG18}.
In Fig.~\ref{FigU12} we present, for illustration, the four elements of the evolution matrix $U(Q^2; \Lambda^2_{\rm LNV})_{(12)}$ as a function of the Fermi motion scale $Q^2$ ($0 < Q^2 < 5 \ {\rm GeV}^2$), for the case of the mixing of the operators ${\mathcal O}_1^{XX}$ and ${\mathcal O}_2^{XX}$ ($X=L$, or $R$), i.e., (12)$^{XX}$. We recall that the values of the indices $\nu_j$ are in this case $\nu_1=-0.6120$ and $\nu_2=0.5379$ (when $n_f=3$). The results are given for the $3\delta$ ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD and MPT(1.5), for the cases of one-loop and two-loop anomalous dimension matrices.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{minipage}[b]{.49\linewidth}
\centering\includegraphics[width=85mm]{U1211conv.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[b]{.49\linewidth}
\centering\includegraphics[width=85mm]{U1212conv.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[b]{.49\linewidth}
\centering\includegraphics[width=85mm]{U1221conv.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[b]{.49\linewidth}
\centering\includegraphics[width=85mm]{U1222conv.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\caption{\footnotesize Evolution matrix elements $U(Q^2; \Lambda^2_{\rm LNV})_{(12)ij}$ ($\Lambda_{\rm LNV}=M_W$) for the (12)$^{XX}$ mixing ($\Lambda_{\rm LNV}=M_W$), for $3 \delta$ ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD and MPT(1.5), at one-loop (leading order) and two-loop level (next-to-leading order) of the anomalous dimension.}
\label{FigU12}
\end{figure}
In Figs.~\ref{FigU31} we present similarly the elements of the evolution matrix $U(Q^2; \Lambda^2_{\rm LNV})_{(31)}$ for the case of the mixing of the operators ${\mathcal O}_3^{XY}$ and ${\mathcal O}_1^{XY}$, i.e., (31)$^{XY}$ ($X \not= Y$). Finally, in Fig.~\ref{FigU3} we present similarly the evolution factor $U(Q^2; \Lambda^2_{\rm LNV})_{(3)}$ for the operator ${\mathcal O}_3^{XX}$.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{minipage}[b]{.49\linewidth}
\centering\includegraphics[width=85mm]{U3111conv.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[b]{.49\linewidth}
\centering\includegraphics[width=85mm]{U3112conv.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[b]{.49\linewidth}
\centering\includegraphics[width=85mm]{U3121conv.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[b]{.49\linewidth}
\centering\includegraphics[width=85mm]{U3122conv.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\caption{\footnotesize The same as in Fig.~\ref{FigU12}, but now for the evolution matrix elements $U(Q^2; \Lambda^2_{\rm LNV})_{(31)ij}$ ($\Lambda_{\rm LNV}=M_W$) for the (31)$^{XY}$ mixing.}
\label{FigU31}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering\includegraphics[width=90mm]{U3conv.pdf}
\caption{\footnotesize The same as in Fig.~\ref{FigU12}, but now for the evolution factor $U(Q^2; \Lambda^2_{\rm LNV})_{(3)}$ ($\Lambda_{\rm LNV}=M_W$) for the operator ${\mathcal O}_3^{XX}$.}
\label{FigU3}
\end{figure}
At relatively large (unrealistic) values $Q^2 \approx 5 \ {\rm GeV}^2$, the matrix elements approximately coincide, as they should (asymptotic freedom). However, at more realistic Fermi motion scale values $Q^2 < 1 \ {\rm GeV}^2$, the $3\delta$ ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD and MPT(1.5) predictions in general differ significantly, especially for the two-loop (i.e., NLO) anomalous dimension case. The other interesting feature is that the predictions with two-loop (NLO) and one-loop (LO) anomalous dimension do not differ much for $3 \delta$ ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD model, and even less so for MPT(1.5) model.\footnote{
The values of $U_{(12)22}$ may at first sight suggest otherwise, but in this case we should keep in mind that all these values are all not far from zero.} This apparent convergence suggests that the IR-safe versions of QCD (${\mathcal{A}}$QCD), once specified, will in general give us definite quantitative predictions for the evolution matrices $U(Q^2;\Lambda^2_{\rm LNV})$ even for very low (realistic) Fermi motion scales $Q^2 \sim 0.01 \ {\rm GeV}^2$, starting at least at the two-loop level of the anomalous dimension; and at the one-loop level the predictions can be taken at least as first qualitatively correct estimates. On the other hand, the specific details of the applied ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD in the deep IR regime can affect quite significantly the values of the evolution matrices (for $Q^2 < 1 \ {\rm GeV}^2$); for example, if the ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD has zero value of the coupling ${\mathcal{A}}(Q^2)$ at $Q^2 \to 0$ (such as $3 \delta$ ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD) or a finite nonzero value [such as MPT(1.5), and even more so MPT(0.3) and $2 \delta$ ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD].
In Table \ref{tabUall} we present the values of the elements of the evolution matrix $U(Q_{\rm f}^2;\Lambda^2_{\rm LNV})$ for $Q_{\rm f}^2=0.01 \ {\rm GeV}^2$, for the various operators (\ref{ops}) or operator mixings, for the described ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD frameworks.
We included in the Table also the values of the coupling $\pi {\mathcal{A}}(Q^2)$ at low scales $Q^2=0.01 \ {\rm GeV}^2$ and $Q^2=0$. The results for (one-loop) pQCD are not included, because the pQCD coupling has Landau singularity at $Q^2 \approx 0.025 \ {\rm GeV}^2$ which is larger than the Fermi motion scale $Q_{\rm f}^2=0.01 \ {\rm GeV}^2$.
\begin{table}
\caption{The values of the elements of the evolution matrix $U(Q_{\rm f}^2;\Lambda^2_{\rm LNV})$ ($\Lambda_{\rm LNV}=M_W$), for the Fermi motion scale $Q_{\rm f}^2=0.01 \ {\rm GeV}^2$, for various ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD frameworks. The main entries are for the case of two-loop anomalous dimension matrix; in parentheses are included the values for the cases of the one-loop anomalous dimension matrix. In the cases of operators (45)$^{XX}$, only the one-loop anomalous dimension is known. The results for (45)$^{XY}$ ($X \not= Y$) are complex conjugate of (45)$^{XX}$.}
\label{tabUall}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{l|lllll}
& $2\delta {\mathcal{A}}$QCD & $3 \delta {\mathcal{A}}$QCD & FAPT & MPT(1.5) & MPT(0.3)
\\
\hline
$\pi {\mathcal{A}}(0)$ & 2.692 & 0.000 & 1.396 & 0.3109 & 2.810
\\
$\pi {\mathcal{A}}(Q_{\rm f}^2)$ & 2.273 & 0.295 & 0.726 & 0.3106 & 2.318
\\
\hline
$U^{XX}_{(12)11}$ & 9.373 (7.790) & 2.845 (3.477) & 3.943 (3.709)& 2.327 (2.333) & 8.784 (7.432)
\\
$U^{XX}_{(12)12}$ & -17.620 (-14.782) & -6.038 (-6.508) & -7.569 (-7.315) & -4.961 (-4.278) & -17.954 (-14.613)
\\
$U^{XX}_{(12)21}$ & 0.0456 (0.0616) & 0.0319 (0.0271) & 0.0253 (0.0305) & 0.0198 (0.0178) & 0.0510 (0.0609)
\\
$U^{XX}_{(12)22}$ & -0.846 (-0.0934) & -0.423 ( 0.00653) & -0.331 (-0.192) & -0.402 (0.0514) & -1.931 (-0.361)
\\
\hline
$U^{XY}_{(31)11}$ & 0.473 (0.533) & 0.407 (0.648) & 0.651 (0.665) & 0.723 (0.768) & 0.389 (0.488)
\\
$U^{XY}_{(31)12}$ & -0.549 (0.000) & 0.272 (0.000) &-0.122 (0.000) & -0.007 (0.000) & -0.521 (0.000)
\\
$U^{XY}_{(31)21}$ & -12.504 (-11.714) & -1.006 (-1.926) & -3.819 (-3.700) & -1.387 (-1.432) & -11.301 (-10.575)
\\
$U^{XY}_{(31)22}$ & 19.640 (18.103) & 2.110 (3.537) & 6.493 (6.215) & 2.870 (2.916) & 17.764 (16.350)
\\
\hline
$U^{XX}_{(3)}$ & 0.200 (0.242) & 0.387 (0.387) & 0.469 (0.395) & 0.569 (0.564) & 0.102 (0.145)
\\
\hline
$U^{XX}_{(45)11}$ & (0.0632) & (0.217) & (0.201) & (0.411) & (-0.0763)
\\
$U^{XX}_{(45)12}$ & ($-0.0998 i$) & ($-0.0621 i$) & ($-0.0605 i$) & $(-0.0390 i)$ & ($-0.104 i$)
\\
$U^{XX}_{(45)21}$ & ($-1.497 i$) & ($-0.932 i$) & ($-0.907 i$) & $(-0.586 i)$ & ($-1.562 i$)
\\
$U^{XX}_{(45)22}$ & (3.257) & (2.205) & (2.136) & (1.660) & (3.256)
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{table}
In Table \ref{tabUall} we can see that the ``strength'' of ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD in the deep infrared regime (i.e., the values of coupling ${\mathcal{A}}$ at very low $Q^2$) significantly affect the values of the evolution matrix elements $U_{ij}$. For example, the results for $U_{ij}$ in $2 \delta$ ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD and in MPT(0.3) are similar, and appear to be influenced largely by the high values of their coupling ${\mathcal{A}}(Q^2)$ in the deep IR regime. On the other hand, however, we see that the results for $U_{i j}$ in $3 \delta$ ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD and MPT(1.5) do differ significantly (but not drastically) although the values of ${\mathcal{A}}(Q^2)$ in the deep IR regime in both of these frameworks are low.\footnote{At first sight, one notable exception are the values of $U^{XY}_{(31)12}$ which are $0.272$ and $-0.007$, respectively, representing a large relative difference. However, since the reference values of the elements of $U$ matrices are $\sim 1$, we see that both values ( $0.272$ and $-0.007$) can be considered close to zero and thus similar.} This probably has to do with the fact that $3 \delta$ ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD has significantly more complicated behavior of ${\mathcal{A}}(Q^2)$ in the deep IR than MPT(1.5) has.\footnote{
MPT(1.5), due to the high value $M=1.5$ GeV, has the coupling ${\mathcal{A}}(Q^2)$ almost ``frozen'' in a wide IR region $0 \leq Q^2 \lesssim 1 \ {\rm GeV}^2$, while $3 \delta$ ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD achieves a maximum at relatively low $Q^2 \approx 0.135 \ {\rm GeV}^2$, cf.~Fig.~\ref{FigAtA2}(a) in Appendix \ref{app:AQCD}.}
The case of FAPT appears to be intermediate between $3 \delta$ and MPT(1.5) on one hand and $2 \delta$ and MPT(0.3) on the other hand.
Another interesting aspect which can be inferred from Table \ref{tabUall} is that all ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD frameworks give a reasonable convergence of the results when going from the one-loop to the two-loop anomalous dimension case, despite the very low (nonperturbative) Fermi motion scale $Q_{\rm f}^2=0.01 \ {\rm GeV}^2$; see also Figs.~\ref{FigU12}-\ref{FigU3}. This is connected with the holomorphic nature of ${\mathcal{A}}(Q^2)$.
In Fig.~\ref{FigA1various} we present the running couplings $\pi {\mathcal{A}}(Q^2)$ for low positive $Q^2$ for the mentioned ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD frameworks. In addition, the large-volume lattice results \cite{LattcoupNf0} are included (rescaled to the usual $\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}$-scaling convention) on which the low-$Q^2$ behaviour of the $3 \delta$ ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD is motivated (see Appendix \ref{app:AQCD} for more details). Included is also the one-loop pQCD running which is the underlying coupling for MPT(1.5). All curves are for $N_f=3$. As mentioned, the high-energy reference strength for the underlying couplings is in all cases except MPT(0.3): $\alpha_s(M_Z^2;\overline{\rm MS};N_f=5)=0.1181$. The large-volume lattice results are not reliable for $Q^2 \gtrsim 1 \ {\rm GeV}^2$. The couplings have the same scaling convention ($\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}$), but are in general in different renormalization schemes: lattice and $3 \delta$ ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD in the Lambert MiniMOM (LMM) scheme; $2 \delta$ ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD in the $c_2=-4.9$ Lambert scheme; (F)APT in the $\overline{\rm MS}$ scheme; cf.~Appendix \ref{app:AQCD} for more details.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering\includegraphics[width=90mm]{FigCombAvarious.pdf}
\caption{\footnotesize The couplings $\pi {\mathcal{A}}(Q^2)$, i.e., the analogs of $\alpha_s(Q^2)$, in the various considered ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD frameworks, at low positive $Q^2$. Included are the lattice results \cite{LattcoupNf0} and the one-loop pQCD coupling. See the text and Appendix \ref{app:AQCD} for more details.}
\label{FigA1various}
\end{figure}
The results of Table \ref{tabUall}, in conjunction with the curves of Fig.~\ref{FigA1various}, reflect the fact that the conclusions on the QCD effects in $0\nu\beta\beta$ decay from short-range physics significantly depend on the specific behavior of the ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD coupling in the deep IR regime. The variation of these QCD efects, when different IR-safe ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD frameworks are used, can at the moment be regarded as an estimate of the uncertainty of these effects. On the other hand, one could adopt the view that those ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD frameworks which incorporate more physically motivated information in the IR regime than the others should be preferred in these considerations. $3 \delta$ ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD would then definitely fit into this category, because it takes into account in a natural way the additional information provided by the large-volume lattice calculations \cite{LattcoupNf0,LattcoupNf0b,LattcoupNf2,LattcoupNf4} in the deep-IR regime (see also Appendix \ref{app:AQCD}).
\begin{table}
\caption{Comparison of the values of the elements of the evolution matrix $U(Q_{\rm f}^2;\Lambda^2_{\rm LNV})$ ($\Lambda_{\rm LNV}=M_W$), for the Fermi motion scale $Q_{\rm f}^2=0.01 \ {\rm GeV}^2$, when the power analogs ${\mathcal{A}}_{\nu}$ in MPT with $M=1.5$ GeV and $M=0.3$ GeV are treated correctly [MPT(1.5) and MPT(0.3)] on the one hand, and naively [nMPT(1.5) and nMPT(0.3)] as ${\mathcal{A}}^{\nu}$ on the other hand. Other conventions are as in Table \ref{tabUall}.}
\label{tabUMPT}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{l|ll|ll}
& MPT(1.5) & nMPT(1.5) & MPT(0.3) & nMPT(0.3)
\\ \hline
$U^{XX}_{(12)11}$ & 2.327 (2.333) & 1.943 (1.825) & 8.784 (7.432) & 8.370 (5.094)
\\
$U^{XX}_{(12)12}$ & -4.961 (-4.278) & -2.660 (-2.501)& -17.954 (-14.613) & -13.805 (-9.392)
\\
$U^{XX}_{(12)21}$ & 0.0198 (0.0178) & 0.00809 (0.0104) & 0.0510 (0.0609) & -0.0169 (0.0391)
\\
$U^{XX}_{(12)22}$ & -0.402 (0.0514) & 0.439 (0.491) & -1.931 (-0.361) & -0.00693 (0.0850)
\\
\hline
$U^{XY}_{(31)11}$ & 0.723 (0.768) & 0.901 (0.885) & 0.389 (0.488) & 2.664 (0.717)
\\
$U^{XY}_{(31)12}$ & -0.007 (0.000) & -0.078 (0.000) & -0.521 (0.000) & -3.514 (0.000)
\\
$U^{XY}_{(31)21}$ & -1.387 (-1.432) & -1.314 (-1.179) & -11.301 (-10.575) & -17.583 (-9.111)
\\
$U^{XY}_{(31)22}$ & 2.870 (2.916) & 2.911 (2.654) & 17.764 (16.350) & 28.275 (14.383)
\\
\hline
$U^{XX}_{(3)}$ & 0.569 (0.564) & 0.806 (0.783) & 0.102 (0.145) & 0.678 (0.514)
\\
\hline
$U^{XX}_{(45)11}$ & (0.411) & (0.705) & (-0.0763) & (0.371)
\\
$U^{XX}_{(45)12}$ & $(-0.0390 i)$ & ($-0.0203 i$) & ($-0.104 i$) & ($-0.0593 i$)
\\
$U^{XX}_{(45)21}$ & $(-0.586 i)$ & ($-0.304 i$) & ($-1.562 i$) & ($-0.889 i$)
\\
$U^{XX}_{(45)22}$ & (1.660) & (1.353) & (3.256) & (2.269)
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{table}
In Table \ref{tabUMPT} we compare the values of the evolution factors and matrix elements $U(Q_{\rm f}^2;\Lambda^2_{\rm LNV})$ ($\Lambda_{\rm LNV}=M_W$), for the Fermi motion scale $Q_{\rm f}^2=0.01 \ {\rm GeV}^2$, in the case of ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD MPT(1.5) and MPT(0.3), with the corresponding naive versions [nMPT(1.5) and nMPT(0.3)]. The naive versions are obtained when, instead of the correct power analogs ${\mathcal{A}}_{\nu}$ we apply in the IR regime ($n_f=3$) the naive powers ${\mathcal{A}}^{\nu}$. We can see that the results change when going to the naive version. This change is especially strong in the case of nMPT(0.3), the reason for this being the strong variation of the coupling ${\mathcal{A}}$ in the deep IR regime for MPT(0.3) (cf.~the corresponding entries in the first two lines of Table \ref{tabUall}). We point out that the naive powers ${\mathcal{A}}^{\nu}$ do not treat the nonperturbative contributions correctly, in contrast to the power analogs ${\mathcal{A}}_{\nu}$, as argued in Appendix \ref{app:AQCD}. The nMPT(1.5) is close to the approach taken in Ref.~\cite{GHK2018} where one-loop anomalous dimensions were used.
The nMPT(1.5) and nMPT(0.3) are difficult to compare with any of the ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD frameworks. Further, the values of $U_{ij}$ in nMPT(1.5) almost do not vary when $Q_{\rm f}^2$ increases from $0.01 \ {\rm GeV}^2$ upwards to $1 \ {\rm GeV}^2$, in contrast with the ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD frameworks.\footnote{This is not seen in Table \ref{tabUall} where $Q_{\rm f}^2$ is kept fixed, $Q_{\rm f}^2=0.01 \ {\rm GeV}^2$.}
\subsection{Bounds on Wilson coefficients}
\label{subsec:Wils}
The upper bounds on the Wilson coefficients can now be obtained by requiring that the expression on the RHS of Eq.~(\ref{halflife}) is larger than the lower bound on the half-life $T_{1/2}^{0\nu}(^{136}{\rm Xe})$ Eq.~(\ref{T12}). The RHS of Eq.~(\ref{halflife}) involves the NMEs (Table \ref{tabNMEs}), the space factors $G_1= 2.92 \times 10^{-14} {\rm yr}^{-1}$ and $G_4= 1.57 \times 10^{-14} {\rm yr}^{-1}$ \cite{GDIK}, and the Wilson coefficients at the Fermi motion scale
\begin{equation}
C_j(Q_{\rm f}^2) = U(Q_{\rm f}^2; \Lambda^2_{\rm LNV})_{jk} C_k(\Lambda^2_{\rm LNV}).
\label{CjQf}
\end{equation}
We recall that we use throughout this work $\Lambda^2_{\rm LNV} = M_W^2$.
When using the expansion (\ref{CjQf}) on the RHS of Eq.~(\ref{halflife}), the following expression for the half-life in terms of the ``bare'' Wilson coefficients $C_k \equiv C_k(\Lambda^2_{\rm LNV})$ is obtained (cf.~also \cite{GHK2016})
\begin{eqnarray}
\left[T_{1 / 2}^{0 \nu \beta \beta}\right]^{-1} &= &
G_1 {\big |} \beta_1^{XX} \left( C_1^{LL} + C_1^{RR} \right) +
\beta_1^{LR} 2 C_1^{LR} + \beta_2^{XX} \left( C_2^{LL} + C_2^{RR} \right)
\nonumber\\ &&
+ \beta_3^{XX} \left( C_3^{LL} + C_3^{RR} \right) + \beta_3^{LR} 2 C_3^{LR} {\big |}^2
\nonumber\\ &&
+ G_4 {\big |} \beta_4^{XX} \left( C_4^{LL} + C_4^{RR} \right) + \beta_4^{XY} \left( C_4^{LR} + C_4^{RL} \right)
\nonumber\\ &&
+ \beta_5^{XX} \left( C_5^{LL} + C_5^{RR} \right) +
\beta_5^{XY} \left( C_5^{LR} + C_5^{RL} \right) {\big |}^{2} ,
\label{HLf}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{subequations}
\label{betas}
\begin{eqnarray}
\beta_1^{XX} &= & \mathcal{M}_{1} U^{XX}_{(12)11} + \mathcal{M}_{2} U^{XX}_{(12)21},
\qquad
\beta_1^{LR} = \mathcal{M}_{3}^{(+)} U^{LR}_{(31)12} + \mathcal{M}_{1} U^{LR}_{(31)22},
\label{beta1}
\\
\beta_2^{XX} &= & \mathcal{M}_{1} U^{XX}_{(12)12} + \mathcal{M}_{2} U^{XX}_{(12)22},
\label{beta2XX}
\\
\beta_3^{XX} &= & \mathcal{M}_{3}^{(-)} U^{XX}_{(3)}, \quad
\beta_3^{LR} = \mathcal{M}_{1} U^{LR}_{(31)21} + \mathcal{M}_{3}^{(+)} U^{LR}_{(31)11},
\label{beta3}
\\
\beta_4^{XX} &= & - |\mathcal{M}_{4}| U^{XX}_{(45)11} + |\mathcal{M}_{5}| U^{XX}_{(45)21},
\label{beta4XX}
\\
\beta_4^{XY} &= & |\mathcal{M}_{4}| U^{XY}_{(45)11} + |\mathcal{M}_{5}| U^{XY}_{(45)21} \qquad (X \not= Y),
\label{beta4LR}
\\
\beta_5^{XX} &= & - |\mathcal{M}_{4}| U^{XX}_{(45)12} + |\mathcal{M}_{5}| U^{XX}_{(45)22},
\label{beta5XX}
\\
\beta_5^{XY} &= & |\mathcal{M}_{4}| U^{XY}_{(45)12} + |\mathcal{M}_{5}| U^{XY}_{(45)22} \qquad (X \not= Y).
\label{beta5LR}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
We used here the simplified notation $U \equiv U(Q^2_{\rm f}; \Lambda^2_{\rm LNV})$.
The mixing coefficient $U^{XY}_{(31)12}$ [appearing in Eq.~(\ref{beta1})] is zero at one-loop and nonzero at two-loop level of anomalous dimension, cf.~Table \ref{tabUall}.
We mention that factor $2$ appears in the terms with $C_j^{XY}$ ($j=1,3$); this is so because the operators ${\mathcal{O}_j^{XY}}$ ($j=1,3$) for $XY=LR$ and $RL$, Eqs.~(\ref{ops}), are symmetric under the interchange of $L$ and $R$, and hence: $C_j^{RL}=C_j^{LR}$ and $(C_j^{LR}+C_j^{RL})$ $ = 2 C_j^{XY}$ (cf.~also \cite{GHK2016}). Further, we recall that the values of NMEs are given in Table \ref{tabNMEs}.
In the two-loop running of the evolution factors or matrices $U \equiv U(Q^2_{\rm f}; \Lambda^2_{\rm LNV})$, we used the two-loop anomalous dimension ${\hat \gamma}$ of Ref.~\cite{Buras:2000if} in the naive dimensional regularization $\overline{\rm MS}$ (NDR-$\overline{\rm MS}$) scheme. On the other hand, the NMEs are often evaluated in a different, Regularization-Independent (RI, also named MOM) scheme. Since the values of NMEs $\mathcal{M}_j$ have large uncertainties (by about a factor of 2), we used the NDR-$\overline{\rm MS}$ expressions for the anomalous dimensions, which have the attractive feature of being independent of the gauge-fixing parameter (in contrast to the case of IR scheme).
We can now obtain the upper bounds on the values of the ``bare'' (new physics) Wilson coefficients $|C_j|$ ($\equiv |C_j(\Lambda^2_{\rm LNV})|$ by assuming that only one operator contributes dominantly to the half-life. This then gives us the upper bounds for various values of the Fermi motion scale $Q_{\rm f}^2 = 1.0, 0.1$ and $0.01 \ {\rm GeV}^2$ as given in Tables \ref{table:1llim} and \ref{table:2llim}, for the cases of one-loop and two-loop anomalous dimension matrices, respectively, for various ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD frameworks. In these Tables we included, for comparison, the results of pure pQCD approach (only for $Q_f^2 = 1 \ {\rm GeV}^2$ and $0.1 \ {\rm GeV}^2$),\footnote{
We recall that the values $Q_f^2 < 1 \ {\rm GeV}^2$ in pQCD become very unreliable or impossible to obtain, due to the Landau singularities.} and for the ``bare'' case when there are no QCD effects (the evolutions factors or matrices are unity).
\begin{table}[htb]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|ccccc|ccc|c}
\hline
\hline
& $2\delta {\mathcal{A}}$QCD & $3\delta {\mathcal{A}}$QCD & FAPT & MPT(1.5) & MPT(0.3) & nMPT(1.5) & nMPT(0.3) &pQCD & $C_i^{(0)}$ \\
\hline
\hline
{$|C^{XX}_1|_{0.01}$} & $3.27$ & $7.64$ & $6.14$ & $12.2$ & $3.09$ & $87.5$ & $5.47$ & --&\multirow{3}{*}{$12.6$}\\
{$|C^{XX}_1|_{0.10}$} & $9.48$ & $8.89$ & $11.3$ & $20.1$ & $7.84$ & $92.8$ & $9.36$ & $9.74$&\\
{$|C^{XX}_1|_{1.00}$} & $57.3$ & $25.5$ & $32.0$ & $58.8$ & $28.1$ & $182$ & $29.2$ & $44.0$&\\
\hline
{$|C^{XY}_1|_{0.01}$} & $0.35$ & $1.78$ & $1.01$ & $2.16$ & $0.38$ & $2.37$ & $0.44$ &--&\multirow{3}{*}{$6.3$}\\
{$|C^{XY}_1|_{0.10}$} & $0.75$ & $0.96$ & $1.41$ & $2.24$ & $0.81$ & $2.39$ & $0.83$ & $0.87$&\\
{$|C^{XY}_1|_{1.00}$} & $1.88$ & $1.55$ & $2.10$ & $2.48$ & $1.81$ & $2.54$ & $1.82$ & $2.08$ &\\
\hline
{$|C^{XX}_2|_{0.01}$} & $4.40$ & $1.62$ & $0.43$ & $0.90$ & $0.23$ & $0.13$ & $0.49$ & --&\multirow{3}{*}{$0.07$}\\
{$|C^{XX}_2|_{0.10}$} & $0.20$ & $0.26$ & $0.41$ & $0.24$ & $0.43$ & $0.13$ & $0.29$ & $0.28$&\\
{$|C^{XX}_2|_{1.00}$} & $0.12$ & $0.15$ & $0.17$ & $0.14$ & $0.16$ & $0.13$ & $0.16$ &$0.14$&\\
\hline
{$|C^{XX}_3|_{0.01}$} & $2.13$ & $ 1.33$ & $1.30$ & $0.91$ & $3.55$ & $0.66$ & $1.00$ & --&\multirow{3}{*}{$0.51$}\\
{$|C^{XX}_3|_{0.10}$} & $0.84$ & $ 0.91$ & $0.87$ & $0.77$ & $0.94$ & $0.66$ & $0.85$ & $0.84$&\\
{$|C^{XX}_3|_{1.00}$} & $0.67$ & $ 0.71$ & $0.70$ & $0.67$ & $0.71$ & $0.65$ & $0.70$ &$0.68$&\\
\hline
{$|C^{XY}_3|_{0.01}$} & $1.77$ & $0.78$ & $0.97$ & $0.61$ & $2.04$ & $0.51$ & $3.35$ & --&\multirow{3}{*}{$0.41$}\\
{$|C^{XY}_3|_{0.10}$} & $0.92$ & $0.83$ & $0.66$ & $0.56$ & $0.94$ & $0.51$ & $0.85$ & $0.82$&\\
{$|C^{XY}_3|_{1.00}$} & $0.54$ & $0.58$ & $0.54$ & $0.51$ & $0.55$ & $0.50$ & $0.55$ &$0.53$&\\
\hline
{$|C^{XX}_4|_{0.01}$} & $5.08$ & $3.42$ & $3.66$ & $1.94$ & $4.74$ & $1.14$ & $2.11$ &--&\multirow{3}{*}{$0.80$}\\
{$|C^{XX}_4|_{0.10}$} & $1.59$ & $1.81$ & $1.75$ & $1.45$ & $1.93$ & $1.14$ & $1.67$ & $1.64$& \\
{$|C^{XX}_4|_{1.00}$} & $1.17$ & $1.26$ & $1.26$ & $1.18$ & $1.26$ & $1.11$ & $1.25$ & $1.19$&\\
\hline
{$|C^{XX}_5|_{0.01}$} & $2.43$ & $3.61$ & $3.73$ & $4.86$ & $2.42$ & $6.06$ & $3.53$ &--&\multirow{3}{*}{$8.30$}\\
{$|C^{XX}_5|_{0.10}$} & $4.17$ & $4.00$ & $4.66$ & $5.33$ & $4.03$ & $6.07$ & $4.33$ & $4.38$&\\
{$|C^{XX}_5|_{1.00}$} & $5.73$ & $5.36$ & $5.66$ & $5.95$ & $5.53$ & $6.20$ & $5.56$ &$5.81$&\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Upper bounds on the bare Wilson coefficients $C_j \equiv C_j(\Lambda^2_{\rm LNV})$, multiplied by $10^{8}$, for various QCD variants, where the lower (Fermi motion) scales used are $Q^2=0.01 \ \text{GeV}^2$, $0.1 \ \text{GeV}^2$ and $1 \ \text{GeV}^2$, for the isotope ${}^{136}\text{Xe}$, with one-loop anomalous dimension in the RGE, and $\Lambda_{\rm LNV} = M_W$. The chirality superscripts are: $XX=LL$ or $RR$; $XY=LR$ or $RL$. In the case of $C_4$ and $C_5$, the results are the same for $XX$ and $XY$.}
\label{table:1llim}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[htb]
\begin{tabular}{c|ccccc|ccc|c}
\hline
\hline
& $2\delta {\mathcal{A}}$QCD & $3\delta {\mathcal{A}}$QCD & FAPT & MPT(1.5) & MPT(0.3) & nMPT(1.5) & nMPT(0.3) &pQCD & $C_i^{(0)}$ \\
\hline
\hline
{$|C^{XX}_1|_{0.01}$} & $16.7$ & $3.95$ & $15.1$ & $8.90$ & $14.9$ & $30.3$ & $1.09$ & -- & \multirow{3}{*}{$12.6$}\\
{$|C^{XX}_1|_{0.10}$} & $6.39$ & $18.6$ & $78.6$ & $17.2$ & $14.7$ & $30.3$ & $4.06$ & $4.80$ &\\
{$|C^{XX}_1|_{1.00}$} & $24.6$ & $17.4$ & $68.1$ & $616$ & $41.5$ & $30.4$ & $20.5$ & $26.7$ &\\
\hline
{$|C^{XY}_1|_{0.01}$} & $0.56$ & $1.00$ & $1.36$ & $2.27$ & $0.64$ & $3.67$ & $0.25$ &-- &\multirow{3}{*}{$6.3$}\\
{$|C^{XY}_1|_{0.10}$} & $5.55$ & $0.97$ & $2.04$ & $2.42$ & $3.39$ & $3.68$ & $2.35$ & $3.83$ &\\
{$|C^{XY}_1|_{1.00}$} & $3.92$ & $3.64$ & $2.98$ & $2.97$ & $3.62$ & $3.75$ & $3.99$ & $3.68$ &\\
\hline
{$|C^{XX}_2|_{0.01}$} & $0.09$ & $0.17$ & $0.23$ & $0.18$ & $0.04$ & $0.15$ & $1.01$ &--&\multirow{3}{*}{$0.07$}\\
{$|C^{XX}_2|_{0.10}$} & $9.11$ & $1.10$ & $0.98$ & $3.27$ & $0.14$ & $0.15$ & $0.47$ & $0.43$ &\\
{$|C^{XX}_2|_{1.00}$} & $0.19$ & $0.22$ & $0.19$ & $0.21$ & $0.37$ & $0.14$ & $0.19$ &$0.17$ &\\
\hline
{$|C^{XX}_3|_{0.01}$} & $2.57$ & $1.33$ & $1.10$ & $0.90$ & $5.02$ & $0.64$ & $0.76$ &-- &\multirow{3}{*}{ $0.51$}\\
{$|C^{XX}_3|_{0.10}$} & $0.86$ & $0.91$ & $0.80$ & $0.76$ & $0.95$ & $0.64$ & $0.74$ & $0.75$ &\\
{$|C^{XX}_3|_{1.00}$} & $0.68$ & $0.69$ & $0.68$ & $0.66$ & $0.69$ & $0.63$ & $0.67$ & $0.65$ &\\
\hline
{$|C^{XY}_3|_{0.01}$} & $1.20$ & $1.20$ & $1.02$ & $0.65$ & $1.18$ & $0.50$ & $0.27$ &-- &\multirow{3}{*}{$0.41$}\\
{$|C^{XY}_3|_{0.10}$} & $0.72$ & $1.11$ & $0.67$ & $0.58$ & $0.82$ & $0.50$ & $0.52$ & $0.54$ &\\
{$|C^{XY}_3|_{1.00}$} & $0.53$ & $0.55$ & $0.54$ & $0.52$ & $0.55$ & $0.49$ & $0.53$ & $0.52$ &\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Same as Table \ref{table:1llim}, but with two-loop anomalous dimension used in the RGE.}.
\label{table:2llim}
\end{table}
In Figs.~\ref{FigC4C5}-\ref{FigC3} we present the upper bounds as a function of $Q_{\rm f}^2$ in an extended interval $0.01 \ {\rm GeV}^2 \leq Q_{\rm f}^2 < 5.0 \ {\rm GeV}^2$. At (artificially) large values of the (Fermi motion) scales $Q^2 \approx 5 \ {\rm GeV}^2$, we can see in these Figures that the upper bounds for various ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD variants approximately coincide, as it should be due to the asymtotic freedom.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{minipage}[b]{.49\linewidth}
\centering\includegraphics[width=85mm]{PlotC4XX.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[b]{.49\linewidth}
\centering\includegraphics[width=85mm]{PlotC5XX.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\caption{\footnotesize The upper bounds for the ``bare'' Wilson coefficients $|C_j^{XX}(\Lambda^2_{\rm LNV})|$ for $j=4,5$ ($\Lambda_{\rm LNV}=M_W$), for various ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD frameworks. Note that only the one-loop ('LO') anomalous dimension is available for these calculations. MPT and naive MPT (nMPT) are for the mass $M=1.5$ GeV [MPT(1.5), nMPT(1.5)]. The results for the case $XY$ ($X \not= Y$) are the same as those for $XX$.}
\label{FigC4C5}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering\includegraphics[width=90mm]{PlotC2XX.pdf}
\caption{\footnotesize As Fig.~\ref{FigC4C5}, but for the values of $|C_2^{XX}(\Lambda^2_{\rm LNV})|$; the available two-loop (NLO) anomalous dimension was used.}
\label{FigC2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{minipage}[b]{.49\linewidth}
\centering\includegraphics[width=85mm]{PlotC1XX.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[b]{.49\linewidth}
\centering\includegraphics[width=85mm]{PlotC1XY.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\caption{\footnotesize As Fig.~\ref{FigC4C5}, but for the values of $|C_1^{XX}(\Lambda^2_{\rm LNV})|$ and $|C_1^{LR}(\Lambda^2_{\rm LNV})|$; the available two-loop (NLO) anomalous dimension was used.}
\label{FigC1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{minipage}[b]{.49\linewidth}
\centering\includegraphics[width=85mm]{PlotC3XX.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[b]{.49\linewidth}
\centering\includegraphics[width=85mm]{PlotC3XY.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\caption{\footnotesize As Fig.~\ref{FigC4C5}, but for the values of $|C_3^{XX}(\Lambda^2_{\rm LNV})|$ and $|C_3^{LR}(\Lambda^2_{\rm LNV})|$; the available two-loop (NLO) anomalous dimension was used.}
\label{FigC3}
\end{figure}
We wish to point out that, when the upper bounds for the bare coefficients in the (${\mathcal{A}}$)QCD cases are large ($10^8 |C_j^{XY}| > 10$), the upper bounds are probably not very useful (i.e., no strong restrictions). This, of course, does not imply that the (${\mathcal{A}}$)QCD effects in such a channel are not important, but rather that these effects imply that no useful upper bound can be deduced for the corresponding Wilson coefficient.
The values of NMEs, table \ref{tabNMEs}, have relatively large uncertainties, by roughly a factor of $2$. If the coefficients are (simultaneously) multiplied by a factor of $2$, the corresponding upper bounds of the bare Wilson coefficients get reduced by this factor of $2$. Therefore, in order to discern whether the (${\mathcal{A}}$)QCD effects for the upper bound of a Wilson coefficient $C_j(M_W^2)$ are more important than the uncertainties of the values of NMEs, we will consider that
\begin{equation}
\frac{|C_j|}{|C_j^{(0)}|} < \frac{1}{2}, \qquad {\rm or} \; \frac{|C_j|}{|C_j^{(0)}|} > 2,
\label{Cjrel}
\end{equation}
where $C_j^{(0)}(M_W^2)$ is the corresponding upper bound value when there are no QCD effects ($U$ is unity then). The first inequality in Eq.~(\ref{Cjrel}) gives a more stringent upper bound on $|C_j|$ (by at least a factor of 2) than when QCD is ignored, and the second one gives a less stringent upper bound (by at least a factor of 2).
With these naive criteriums, we can infer from Table \ref{table:2llim} our main conclusions: for the realistic Fermi motion scale value $Q_{\rm f}^2=0.01 \ {\rm GeV}^2$, the QCD effects become important for $C_1^{XY}$ in all ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD variants; for $C_2^{XX}$ and $C_3^{XX}$ in most of the ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD variants; and for $C_1^{XX}$ in $3 \delta$ ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD. In all these cases, the upper bounds become more stringent for $C_1^{XY}$ and $C_1^{XX}$, and less stringent for $C_2^{XX}$ and $C_3^{XX}$. It is interesting that most (but not all) of these qualitative conclusions for the mentioned Wilson coefficients are also valid when regarding the upper bounds obtained with the use of the one-loop anomalous dimensions, cf.~Table \ref{table:1llim}; $C_1^{XX}$ is here a notable exception.
For the coefficients $C_4$ and $C_5$, only the one-loop anomalous dimensions are available. If we regard the upper bounds for them obtained in this way as indicative, then we conclude that in all ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD variants and for almost all these coefficients the QCD effects are important, where for $C_4$ the upper bounds become less restrictive and for $C_5$ more restrictive, cf.~Table \ref{table:1llim}.
Some of the upper bounds obtained in the described analysis are quite high, at least in certain specific ranges of values of (Fermi motion scale) $Q^2$, as seen in some of Figs.~\ref{FigC4C5}-\ref{FigC3}, and in some cases in Tables \ref{table:1llim}-\ref{table:2llim}. This is so because in such cases in the corresponding coefficients $\beta_j^{XY}$ Eq.~(\ref{betas}), which consist mostly of a sum of two terms of the type $U(Q^2)_k {\mathcal{M}_j}$, partial cancellations can occur between these two terms and thus a large value of the corresponding Wilson coefficients are allowed.
We can also note from Tables \ref{table:1llim}-\ref{table:2llim} that the incorrect, i.e., naive approaches [nMPT(1.5) and nMPT(0.3)] give different values of the upper bounds than the correct approaches [MTP(1.5) and MPT(0.3)]. The naive approach differs quite strongly in the case of nMPT(0.3) from the corresponding correct approach MPT(0.3) (when $Q^2=0.01 \ {\rm GeV}^2$); this is so because when $M=0.3$ GeV, the coupling ${\mathcal{A}}(Q^2)$ changes quite strongly in the deep IR regime, as seen also from the corresponding entries in the first two lines of Table \ref{tabUall} (cf.~also Table \ref{tabUMPT}).
\section{Nonperturbative contributions in the sub-GeV regime}
\label{sec:NPsubG}
In this work, we used for NMEs the results of the works \cite{DHP,Pas:2000vn} (cf.~also \cite{GHK2016}), which were derived by a different method than those of Ref.~\cite{Ciretal}. The NMEs are calculated in Refs.~\cite{DHP,Pas:2000vn} by using the nucleon-nucleon ($NN$) interactions in the Quasi Particle Random Phase Approximation (pn-QRPA), at effective momenta of the Fermi motion scale $Q_{\rm f} \sim 0.1$ GeV.
On the other hand, in Ref.~\cite{Ciretal}, $NN$, $\pi\pi$ and $\pi N$ interactions are used. In addition, in \cite{Ciretal} the effective Standard Model with QCD is matched to Chiral Perturbation Theory (ChiPT) already at scales $Q = \Lambda_{\chi} \sim 1$ GeV, and ChiPT couplings ($g_j^{NN}$, $g_j^{\pi \pi}$ and $g_j^{\pi N}$) are then evolved to the Fermi motion scales $Q=Q_{\rm f} \sim 0.1$ GeV by nonperturbative renormalization, where they are used in the calculation of NMEs\footnote{This approach was used also in earlier works \cite{CiretalD57}, but with operators with dimension $D < 9$ ($D=5, 7$).} by many-body methods. In a simplified notation, NMEs of Ref.~\cite{Ciretal} [without the Wilson coefficients at the scale $\Lambda^2_{\chi}$, $C_k^{XY}(\Lambda^2_{\chi})$], \textcolor{black}{here denoted as ${\mathcal M}_{(\chi)}$,}
can then be represented schematically as ${\mathcal M}_{(\chi)} = g_j^{\alpha \beta}(Q_{\rm f}^2) {\mathcal M}_{\rm red}$, where $g_j^{\alpha \beta}(Q_{\rm f}^2)$ are the RGE-evolved ChiPT couplings ($\alpha, \beta=N, \pi$) and ${\cal M}_{\rm red}$ are ``reduced'' NMEs. As argued in \cite{Ciretal}, the $NN$ ChiPT couplings $g^{NN}_{j}$ with $j=2,3,4,5$ have significant effect of the running, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
g^{NN}_{j}(Q_{\rm f}^2) \approx \frac{g^{\pi \pi}_{j}}{m_{\pi}^2} \sim \frac{g^{\pi \pi}_{j}}{Q_{\rm f}^2} \sim 10^2 \left( \sim \frac{\Lambda_{\chi}^2}{Q_{\rm f}^2} \right) \qquad (j=2,3,4,5),
\label{gNNQf} \end{equation}
\textcolor{black}{where we took into account that $m_{\pi} \sim Q_{\rm f} \sim 0.1$ GeV, and $g^{\pi \pi}_{j} \sim 1 \ {\rm GeV}^2$ as determined by lattice calculations \cite{gjpp}. On the other hand,} the estimate $g^{NN}_{j}(\Lambda_{\chi}^2) \sim 1$ is obtained by the naive dimensional analysis (NDA).\footnote{Refs.~\cite{Prez,Grae} represent similar approaches, but without the enhancements Eq.~(\ref{gNNQf}).}
\textcolor{black}{The enhancement Eq.~(\ref{gNNQf}) comes from contributions of $g_j^{\pi\pi}$ couplings, i.e., from pion exchanges.} These important effects increase those NMEs which, in the expression for the inverse half-life $(T_{1/2}^{0\nu\beta\beta})^{-1}$, appear (in our notation) at the Wilson coefficients of the sectors (12)$^{XX}$ and (31)$^{XY}$ ($X \not= Y$). In our approach, where we evolve the Wilson coefficients down to the scales $Q_{\rm f} \sim 0.1$ GeV, the ChiPT effects Eq.~(\ref{gNNQf}) of the approach of \cite{Ciretal} can be reformulated in the (12)$^{XX}$ sector by adding to the evolution matrix ${\hat U}^{(1)}(Q^2)_{{\mathcal{A}}}$, cf.~Eq.~(\ref{AQCDhatU1}), a higher-twist ($D=2$) OPE term
\begin{eqnarray}
{\hat U}^{(1)}(Q^2)_{{\mathcal{A}}, {\rm OPE}} & = & \left[ {\mathcal{A}}_{\hat \nu}(Q^2) + \left( {\hat k}^{(1)}_D + \frac{1}{4} {\hat J}^{(1)} \right) A_{\hat \nu + 1} + {\cal O}({\mathcal{A}}_{\hat \nu + 2}) \right] + \frac{ {\hat \mu}_{2}}{Q^2} + {\cal O} \left( \frac{{\hat \mu}_{4}}{Q^4} \right),
\label{hatU1OPE} \end{eqnarray}
where ${\hat \mu}_2$ is a $D=2$ matrix condensate. \textcolor{black}{Such a nonperturbative term $\sim {\hat \mu}_2/Q^2$ would appear also in the brackets on the right-hand side of RGE (\ref{pRGEWils}). The condensate ${\hat \mu}_2$ is expected to be the expectation value of certain operators, with quark structure, in the nucleon. The ascertain the explicit structure of this operator would require a special treatment which goes beyond the scope of this work.} At $Q^2 = Q^2_{\rm f} \sim 0.01 \ {\rm GeV}^2$, the contribution $D=2$ is expected to dominate [cf.~Eq.~(\ref{AQCDvCres})]\footnote{It is expected that $D > 0$ terms are IR-regularized. A plausible scenario is that ${\hat \mu}_2/Q^2$ gets replaced by ${\hat \mu}_2/(Q^2+ M_2^2)$ where $M_2 \sim 0.1$ GeV ($\sim m_{\pi}$); \textcolor{black}{${\hat \mu}_4/Q^4$ gets replaced by ${\hat \mu}_4/(Q^2+M_4^2)^2$ where $M_4 \sim 0.01$ GeV; etc. In such case, $D=2,4,\ldots$ contributions are all suppressed at $Q \sim 1$ GeV; when $Q$ decreases, $D=2$ contribution freezes at $Q \sim 0.1$ GeV to its maximal value and $D=4$ term is still suppressed; $D=4$ contribution freezes to its maximal value at $Q \sim 0.01$ GeV; etc. In such a scenario, $D=2$ term is dominant for $Q \sim 0.1$ GeV, if we assume that the values of the dimensionless quantities ${\hat \mu}_2/M_2^2$, ${\hat \mu}_4/M_4^2$, etc., are mutually comparable.}}
\begin{equation}
\frac{C_k(Q^2_{\rm f})_{({\mathcal{A}}), {\rm OPE}}}{C_k(\Lambda^2_{\chi})_{({\mathcal{A}}), {\rm OPE}}} \approx \frac{\Lambda^2_{\chi}}{Q^2_{\rm f}} \frac{({\hat V}^{(0)} {\hat \mu}_2 {\vec {\cal C}})_k}{({\hat V}^{(0)} {\hat \mu}_2 {\vec {\cal C}})_k} = \frac{\Lambda^2_{\chi}}{Q^2_{\rm f}} \sim 10^2.
\label{CQfCL} \end{equation}
This implies that in this formulation, the Wilson coefficients (\ref{AQCDvCres}) get amplified by a factor of $\sim 10^2$ in the running from $Q=\Lambda_{\chi}$ down to $Q=Q_{\rm f}$. \textcolor{black}{Stated otherwise, the effect of RGE-running (enhancement) of the ChiPT coefficients $g_j^{NN}$ in the decay amplitude in the formulation of Ref.~\cite{Ciretal} is reflected in our formulation by the enhancement of the corresponding Wilson coefficients Eq.~(\ref{CQfCL}).}
Schematically, $(T_{1/2}^{0\nu\beta\beta})^{-1} \sim G_1 |C_k^{XY}(Q^2_{\rm f}) g_j^{NN}(\Lambda^2_{\chi}) {\cal M}_{\rm red}|^2 \sim G_1 |C_k^{XY}(Q^2_{\rm f}){\cal M}_{\rm red}|^2$.
The leading-twist ($D=0$) term alone in the expresson (\ref{hatU1OPE}) cannot account for the behavior (\ref{CQfCL}) [$\Leftrightarrow$ (\ref{gNNQf})]. For example, the ratio of the (full evolution) matrix elements $U_{(12)11}^{XX}(Q_{\rm f}^2;M_W^2)/U_{(12)11}^{XX}(\Lambda^2_{\chi};M_W^2)$, with only $D=0$ contribution, is $\approx 1.1$ and $1.2$ for $3 \delta$ ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD and MPT(1.5), respectively; and $\approx 4.0$ and $3.6$ for $2 \delta$ ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD and MPT(0.3), respectively.
It turns out that a rough estimate can be made for the values of $D=2$ matrix condensate of the expression (\ref{hatU1OPE}). Namely, for $Q^2 > 1 \ {\rm GeV}^2$ the leading-twist ($D=0$) contribution is assumed to be dominant, and at $Q^2 \sim 1 \ {\rm GeV}^2$ the two contributions ($D=0, 2$) are assumed to start competing (i.e., become comparable). This implies
\begin{equation}
{\hat \mu}_{2} \sim Q^2 {\hat U}^{(1)}(Q^2)_{{\mathcal{A}}, D=0} {\big |}_{Q=1 \ {\rm GeV}} \ .
\label{hatmu2e} \end{equation}
This then gives, for both $3 \delta$ ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD and $2 \delta$ ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD, the values: $({\hat \mu}_2)_{11} \approx ({\hat \mu}_{2})_{21} \approx 2.4$-$2.8 \ {\rm GeV}^2$; $({\hat \mu}_{2})_{22} \approx 0.4 \ {\rm GeV}^2$; and $({\hat \mu}_{2})_{12} \sim 10^{-3} \ {\rm GeV}^2$.
These arguments were made for the sector (12)$^{XX}$. However, very similar arguments can be made for the sector (31)$^{XY}$ ($X \not= Y$).
As mentioned, the sectors (3)$^{XX}$ and (45)$^{XY}$ are apparently not affected by the possible enhancements mentioned above, i.e., $D=0$ contribution appears to be the dominant one in these sectors. This suggests that our results in these sectors, including the upper bounds on the Wilson coefficients $C_k \equiv C_k(\Lambda^2_{\rm LNV})$, are more complete in the sense that the values of NMEs in these sectors would eventually become comparable in the various approaches \cite{DHP,Prez,Grae,Ciretal}.\footnote{The contributions from $g_j^{\pi \pi}$ and $g_j^{\pi N}$ are not present in Ref.~\cite{DHP}, but are present in Refs.~\cite{Prez,Grae,Ciretal}. They give contributions to NMEs comparable with those of the ChiPT-enhanced $g_j^{NN}(Q^2_{\rm f})$. However, $g_j^{\pi \pi}$ and $g_j^{\pi N}$ are not ChiPT-enhanced, \textcolor{black}{and we do not include them in the present discussion}.}
Therefore, the results in these sectors may allow us to decide in the future which of the ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD frameworks is better.
More detailed analysis of the consequences of different methods of the calculation of NMEs for our results goes beyond the scope of the present work.
We wish to add a further comment on the mentioned problem of the large theoretical uncertainties of the NMEs $\mathcal{M}_j = \langle A_{\rm fin} | \mathcal{O}_j(Q^2_{\rm f}) | A_{\rm in} \rangle$. No specific regulator or scheme is involved in the approaches which calculate NMEs. On the other hand, the anomalous dimension matrices we used in RGEs for the Wilson coefficients were in the aforementioned NDR $\overline{\rm MS}$ scheme \cite{Buras:2000if}. Therefore, this aspect can be regarded as part of the uncertainty of NMEs used in this work.
The present work is presented in such a way that the possible future improved results for NMEs $\mathcal{M}_j = \langle A_{\rm fin} | \mathcal{O}_j(Q^2_{\rm f}) | A_{\rm in} \rangle$ at $Q_{\rm f} \sim 0.1$ GeV (and preferably in the NDR $\overline{\rm MS}$ scheme) can be readily used to generate the updated upper bounds on the Wilson coefficients, for various ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD frameworks, at least in the mentioned sectors (3)$^{XX}$ and (45)$^{XY}$ where $D=2$ contributions do not appear. Namely, the values of the evolution matrix elements, at $Q = Q_{\rm f} = 0.1$ GeV, are given in Table \ref{tabUall}, which means that they can be reused with the future new values of NMEs in Eqs.~(\ref{betas}) to obtain $\beta_j^{XY}$'s, and the new upper bounds for $|C_j(\Lambda^2_{\rm LNV})|$ can be obtained by the simple manipulation described in this Section.
\textcolor{black}{We recall that we used in our calculations the values of NMEs of Refs.~\cite{DHP,Pas:2000vn}, which were obtained in the factorization approximation and using many-body calculations with interactions between nucleons. These quantities correspond to the reduced NMEs ${\mathcal M}_{\rm red}$ (at $Q \sim 0.1$ GeV) mentioned in this Section.\footnote{\textcolor{black}{They do include, though, specific factors which can be interpreted as $g_j^{NN} \sim 1$, cf.~Eq.~(F.2) of Ref.~\cite{Ciretal}.}} On the other hand, in the discussion in this Section we referred to the NMEs of Ref.~\cite{Ciretal} which have, due to the intermediate use of ChiPT ($\chi$), the structure ${\mathcal M} = g_j^{\alpha \beta}(Q_{\rm f}^2) {\mathcal M}_{\rm red}$, and suggested that at least some of the effects of the running of the ChiPT couplings $g_j^{\alpha \beta}(Q^2)$ from $Q \sim 1$ GeV down to $Q \sim 0.1$ GeV may be contained in the $D=2$ term ${\hat \mu}_2/Q^2$ of the corresponding Wilson coefficients, Eq.~(\ref{hatU1OPE}). This then raises yet another question, namely how can ${\mathcal M}$ and ${\mathcal M}_{\rm red}$ (both at $Q \sim 0.1$ GeV) be related in principle in our approach which has no ChiPT involved. One possibility is that in our approach the use of ${\mathcal M}_{\rm red}$ is made for NMEs (i.e., ${\mathcal M} \mapsto {\mathcal M}_{\rm red}$, as we did it in this work) and that all other effects of physics from the regime $Q > 0.1$ GeV are contained in the (OPE) expansions (\ref{hatU1OPE}); in particular, that the nonperturbative physics from the regime $0.1 \ {\rm GeV} < Q < 1$ GeV is contained in some sectors dominantly (though not exclusively) in the condensate matrix\footnote{\textcolor{black}{The sectors (12)$^{XX}$ and (31)$^{XY}$ ($X \not= Y$) are expected to give two different condensate matrices ${\hat \mu}_2$.}} ${\hat \mu}_2$. This is, of course, only a conjecture, as these difficult aspects go beyond the scope of the present work.}
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conc}
In this work we investigated possible QCD effects in $0\nu\beta\beta$ decays $dd \to uuee$ within the scenarios of new LNV physics which are parametrized as short-range dimension-9 operators $\mathcal{O}_j$, cf.~Eqs.~(\ref{Lagr})-(\ref{ops}). These QCD effects are reflected in the running of the Wilson coefficients $C_j$ of such operators, from the new physics scales $\Lambda^2_{\rm LNV}$ (taken here as $M_W^2 \sim 10^4 \ {\rm GeV}^2$) to the typical $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay (sub-GeV) spacelike scales $Q^2_{\rm f} \sim 0.01 \ {\rm GeV}^2$. For some of these operators their anomalous dimension factors or matrices, which govern the RGE-evolution of the corresponding Wilson coefficients, are known up to two-loops (for $\mathcal{O}_1$-$\mathcal{O}_3$, cf.~Ref.~\cite{Buras:2000if}); for other operators they are known only up to one-loop (for $\mathcal{O}_4$-$\mathcal{O}_5$, cf.~Ref.~\cite{GHK2016,Ciretal,LMW}). The pure pQCD treatment of these RGEs is applicable only down to the (spacelike) scales $Q^2 \sim 1 \ {\rm GeV}^2$, because below such scales the pQCD coupling $a(Q^2)$ ($\equiv \alpha_s(Q^2)/\pi$) is significantly influenced by the artificial Landau singularities which are situated at $0 <Q^2 < \Lambda^2_{\rm Lan.} \sim 0.1 \ {\rm GeV}^2$. In order to achieve the running of the Wilson coefficients $C_j(Q^2)$ down to Fermi motion scales $Q^2 \sim 0.01 \ {\rm GeV}^2$, we employed various variants of QCD where the running coupling ${\mathcal{A}}(Q^2)$ [the analog of the pQCD coupling $a(Q^2)$] has no such Landau singularities, i.e., various frameworks of ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD: $3 \delta$, $2 \delta$, MPT($M$) and FAPT. We point out that in such evaluations, in order to evaluate correctly the low-momentum nonperturbative effects, it was important not to treat the analogs of the powers $a(Q^2)^{\nu}$ as naive powers ${\mathcal{A}}(Q^2)^{\nu}$, but rather as ${\mathcal{A}}_{\nu}(Q^2)$ ($\not= {\mathcal{A}}(Q^2)^{\nu}$) which are linear combinations of the (generalized) logarithmic derivatives ${\widetilde {\mathcal{A}}}_{\nu + m}(Q^2)$ ($m=0,1,\ldots$).\footnote{Appendix \ref{app:AQCD} is a summary of various ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD frameworks and of the evaluation of ${\mathcal{A}}_{\nu}$, all this information being available in the literature.}
The mentioned evolution of the Wilson coefficients, down to the Fermi motion scales, allowed us then in Sec.~\ref{sec:num} to evaluate the $0\nu\beta\beta$ half-life of $^{136}{\rm Xe}$ in terms of these coefficients $C_j(Q_{\rm f}^2)$ and of the corresponding nuclear matrix elements (NMEs) of the operators $\mathcal{O}_j$. Comparison of this expression with the presently available lower bound on the mentioned half-life then allowed us to extract the upper bounds for the Wilson coefficients $C_j(\Lambda^2_{\rm LNV})$ at the new physics scale.
Our main conclusions are the following. The values of the evolution factors or matrices $U(Q_{\rm f}^2,\Lambda^2_{\rm LNV})$ of Wilson coefficients, when the two-loop anomalous dimensions were used, were in all ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD frameworks not far from (and often close to) the values obtained for $U(Q^2,\Lambda^2_{\rm LNV})$ when one-loop anomalous dimensions were used. This conclusion holds even when the values of the Fermi motion scales are realistic, i.e., very low, $Q_{\rm f}^2 \sim 0.01 \ {\rm GeV}^2$. As a consequence, similar conclusion can be made for the extracted values of the upper bounds of $|C_j(\Lambda^2_{\rm LNV})|$. Further, as could be expected, the numerical results for different ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD frameworks depend largely on the behavior of the coupling ${\mathcal{A}}(Q^2)$ in the IR regime $Q^2 \lesssim 0.1 \ {\rm GeV}^2$. Therefore, for example, the results of $2 \delta$ and MPT(0.3) ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD variants were mutually comparable. The results of $3 \delta$ ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD are not easily comparable with those of other ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD frameworks, principally because the coupling ${\mathcal{A}}(Q^2)$ in $3 \delta$ ${\mathcal{A}}$QCD goes to zero in the deep IR-regime (as suggested by large-volume lattice results). Yet another conclusion of this work is that the described QCD effects are important (more than the present uncertainty of the NMEs) in most of the cases of the considered Wilson coefficients: these effects affect in such cases the upper bounds for $|C_j(Q^2)|$ (when $Q^2 = 0.01 \ {\rm GeV}^2$) by more than a factor of two.
Finally, we point out that at present there is a major uncertainty in the NMEs associated with Wilson coefficients of the operator sectors ${\mathcal O}_1^{XX}$-${\mathcal O}_2^{XX}$ and ${\mathcal O}_3^{XY}$-${\mathcal O}_1^{XY}$ ($X \not= Y$). Namely, according to Ref.~\cite{Ciretal} such NMEs may involve an enhancement effect of $\sim 10^2$ in comparison to other approaches \cite{DHP,Pas:2000vn,Prez,Grae,GDIK}. This effect may require, in our approach in the mentioned operator sectors, introduction of additional, $D=2$ contributions $\sim 1/Q^2$ in the evolution matrices.
\medskip
\begin{acknowledgments}
This work was supported in part by the Chilean FONDECYT Regular Grants No.~1200189 (C.A.) and No.~1180344 (G.C.). The work of L.G. was supported by CONICYT Chile Grant No.~21160645 and DGIIP of UTFSM.
We are grateful to M.~Gonz\'alez and S.G.~Kovalenko for helpful discussions.
\end{acknowledgments}
\begin{appendix}
|
\section{Introduction}
Economic theories are often developed in a stationary context. However, the real world does not always correspond to stationarity. This potential mismatch creates a challenge when attempting to relate theory to historical data.
This is a well-known problem in empirical macroeconomics, where structural parameters of business cycle models are often estimated on data that have been filtered in order to remove variation at frequencies that the model is not intended to explain, such as low-frequency trend variations and seasonal fluctuations \citep{deJong2007,sala2015dsge}. For an overview of alternatives to the use of pre-filtered data in order to address this general problem, see \citet{canova2014bridging}.
In the competitive storage model for commodity prices introduced by \citet{gustafson1958carryover}, the situation is similar to that of business cycle models.
The rational expectations equilibrium implied by the solution of this model is only known to exist in a stationary market.
Accordingly, it is a model for describing dynamic price adjustments towards an exogenously given fixed
steady-state equilibrium.
However, it cannot explain low-frequency price movements due to persistent shocks.
This is problematic when attempting to estimate the structural parameters of the model using commodity price data,
since time series of commodity prices typically display a strongly persistent behavior in the price level, so that non-stationarity cannot be rejected when using conventional statistical tests
(\citealp{wang2007commodity,Gouel2017}). As a result, the estimates for the structural parameters, which determine quantities like the price elasticity of demand and storage costs, are likely to be biased. This issue was recognized
by \citet{Deaton1995} in one of the earliest attempts to directly
estimate the structural parameters of the storage model.
This paper proposes an approach to estimate the structural parameters of the competitive commodity storage model using a state-space model (SSM) for commodity prices, which decomposes the observed price into a stationary component which is due to the storage model and a stochastic trend component included to capture low-frequency price variations the storage model is unable to explain.
Using a stochastic trend specification to account for non-stationary price data, our empirical approach aims at fitting into the economic rationality of the stationary storage model so that it preserves theoretical coherence, promising meaningful estimates of the structural parameters.
Such a fit results from the fact that a stochastic trend that scales equilibrium prices can be isolated in the storage model by assuming that the innovations to the trend do not interfere with the agents' equilibrium storage decisions.
In the baseline storage model, unrestricted equilibrium storage decisions lead to an intertemporal pricing restriction of the form $P_{t}=\beta E_{t}\left(P_{t+1}\right)$, where $E_{t}(P_{t+1})$ is the rational period-$t$ expectation of the commodity price $P_{t+1}$ and $\beta$ represents some discount factor. Thus, a stochastic price scaling $K_t$ will not impair the equilibrium storage decisions if $K_{t}P_{t}=\beta E_{t}\left(K_{t+1}P_{t+1}\right)$. This generically identifies stochastic trends as shifts in the price levels that do not interfere with intertemporal stock allocations, allowing a coherent integration of the stationary rational expectations equilibrium into a non-stationary environment, thus providing the theoretical basis of our empirical SSM approach.
The corresponding SSM, that jointly identifies the trend parameters and the structural parameters of the storage model, is non-linear in the latent states so that its likelihood function is not available in closed form.
To overcome this difficulty, we propose to use a Bayesian posterior analysis based on a particle Markov chain Monte Carlo (PMCMC) procedure \citep{andrieu_particle_2010}.
With our proposed approach we contribute to the literature concerned with the general problem of adapting stationary economic models to non-stationary data, and more specifically to the
problem of estimating the structural parameters of the competitive storage model on non-stationary commodity price data. \citet{legrandempirical}
identifies reliable estimation as one of the main issues of structural models for commodity prices. Early attempts of estimating the structural parameters revealed that fitted competitive storage models are not able to satisfactorily approximate the observed strong serial dependence in commodity price data, indicating misspecification of the empirical model and casting doubt on the reliability of the parameter estimates \citep{Deaton1995}.
Suggested solutions to this problem include ad-hoc enrichments of the dynamic structure of the storage model by including weakly dependent supply shocks \citep{Deaton1996, kleppe_estimating_2017}, or the tuning of the grid for the commodity stock state variable, used for approximating the policy function \citep{cafiero2011empirical}. Other approaches replace the estimation techniques applied in early empirical implementations of the storage model, like the pseudo maximum likelihood (ML) procedure of \cite{Deaton1996}, by more sophisticated ones, such as the ML technique developed by \citet{cafiero2015maximum} or the particle filtering
methods proposed in \citet{kleppe_estimating_2017}.
Empirical approaches that, like ours, decompose the observed price into a component to be explained by the storage model and a trend component are those of \citet{cafiero2011storage}, \citet{bobenrieth2013stocks}, \citet{guerra2015empirical} and \citet{Gouel2017}. The first three of these studies propose to account for the strong persistence in the price data that the storage model is not able to approximate, by detrending the prices using a deterministic log-linear trend prior to the estimation of the structural parameters. \citet{Gouel2017} improves upon this procedure by jointly estimating the structural and deterministic trend parameters using the ML-estimator of \citet{cafiero2015maximum}. The trend specifications \citet{Gouel2017} consider in their empirical application include log-linear trends as well as more flexible trends specified as restricted cubic splines. One of their main findings is that empirical models accounting for a properly specified trend component in the observed commodity price yield more plausible estimates of the structural parameters than models without a trend.
However, the deterministic trends used in those studies inherently imply well predictable capital gains in the storage model, and so question the economic logic of separating the trend from structural economic pricing components.
Moreover, the appropriate functional form of the deterministic trend needs to be tailored to the specific commodity market and the sampling frequency for which the storage models are applied. In contrast, the stochastic trend as used in our SSM approach represents, in Bayesian terms, a hierarchical prior for the low-frequency price component, which is not only consistent with the rationality of the economic model, but also flexible in its design to account for variation that the storage model is not intended to explain. This makes our approach applicable to a broad range of commodity markets and different sampling frequencies. The strategy of scaling prices to address non-stationarity was also done
by \citet{Routledge2000} in their equilibrium term structure model
of crude oil futures. However, they did not do so in a rigorous estimation framework.
A stochastic trend as used in our storage SSM allows a potentially large fraction of the observed variation
in commodity prices to be accounted for by the trend component. This
risks miss-assigning price variation due to speculative storage to
the trend component. Thus, if considered as an evaluation of the empirical
relevance of the storage model, the use of a stochastic trend can be considered as a conservative
test. To explore this issue further we perform a simulation experiment.
The simulation results suggest that our proposed approach is able to
accurately assign price variation to trend and model components.
We further apply our storage SSM to monthly observations of nominal coffee,
cotton, aluminum and natural gas prices. The results show, not surprisingly,
that most of the observed price variation is due to the stochastic
trend component. In order to assess the empirical relevance of the competitive storage model, we compare the storage SSM to the nested model that results in the absence of storage.
The comparison reveals that the storage model predicting non-linear price dynamics with episodes of isolated price spikes and increased volatility adds significantly
to explaining the observed commodity price behavior.
We also compare the stochastic
trend SSM to the deterministic trend models of \citet{Gouel2017} by using the Bayes factor and a model residual analysis. Results
show that the SSM with stochastic trend fits the price data much better than models with deterministic trends. The estimates for the price elasticity
of demand obtained from the stochastic trend SSM are substantially larger than for the deterministic trend models. Also, the estimated storage costs vary considerably depending on the commodity.
This highlights the importance of properly accounting
for the trend behavior when evaluating the role of speculative storage
in commodity markets.
The rest of this paper is structured as follows. In the next section,
we present the storage model used in the paper and the assumed price
representation. We then present the estimation methodology (Section 3), simulation
results (Section 4) and empirical results for historical data (Section 5). We discuss the findings
before we offer some concluding remarks (Section 6).
\section{Storage Model}
\subsection{State-Space Formulation with Stochastic Trend}
Our approach relies upon the commodity storage model of \citet{oglend_behavior_2017}. It extends the \citet{deaton_behaviour_1992} model by including
an upper limit of storage capacity, $C\geq0$, in addition to the conventional non-negativity constraint for stocks, so that the storage space is completely bounded. This upper limit takes into account possible congestion of the storage infrastructure, which can lead to negative price spikes in the event of substantial oversupply in the market. In addition, the assumption of a completely bounded storage space allows numerical solutions of the model that are more robust over a wider parameter range than those for a model without this assumption \citep{oglend_behavior_2017}. This, in turn, simplifies estimation of the model parameters.
The economic model of commodity storage is a canonical dynamic stochastic partial equilibrium model in discrete time for a commodity market with risk neural storage
agents and rational expectations. The rational expectations equilibrium is characterized by a price function, denoted by $f(x)$, which maps the stocks $x$ to commodity prices.
For empirical implementation, we assume that the observed commodity price can be decomposed into a component to be explained by the commodity storage model and a stochastic trend component. The corresponding time series model that we propose for the commodity log-price $p_{t}$, observed at time $t$ ($t=1,\ldots, T$), has the form
\begin{align}
p_{t} & =k_{t}+\log f(x_{t}), \label{eq:Storagemodel}\\
k_{t} & =k_{t-1}+\varepsilon_{t},\qquad\varepsilon_{t}\sim\text{iid }N(0,v^{2}), \label{eq:Storagemodel-2}\\
x_{t} & =(1-\delta)\sigma(x_{t-1})+z_{t},\qquad z_{t}\sim\text{iid }N(0,1)\label{eq:Storagemodel-3},
\end{align}
where the available quantity of commodity stocks $x_t$ is treated as a latent state variable.
Its dynamics are linear in the equilibrium storage policy $\sigma(\cdot)$,
with stock depreciation rate $\delta$ and Gaussian supply shocks $z_t$. The
latent trend component of the log-price $k_t$ is specified as
a driftless Gaussian random walk, so that it is allowed to vary gradually over time. The innovations of this stochastic trend $\varepsilon_{t}$ and the supply shocks $z_{t}$ are assumed to be serially and mutually independent.
The rational expectations equilibrium price function $f(x)$ satisfies for all $x$
\begin{align}
f(x) & =\min\left\lbrace P(x-C),\max\left[ \bar{f}(x),P(x)\right] \right\rbrace ,\label{eq:fx}\\
\bar{f}(x) & =\beta\int f\Big(\left(1-\delta\right)\sigma(x)+z\Big)\phi(z)dz,\\
\sigma(x) & =x-D(f(x)),\label{eq:sig_f_rel}
\end{align}
where $D(p)$ represents a continuous and monotonically decreasing aggregate
demand function in the market, $P(x)$ is the corresponding inverse demand, and $\phi(z)$ is the probability density function of the supply shock $z$.
The storage cost discount factor is given by $\beta=(1-\delta)/(1+r)$, where $r$ is a relevant
interest rate. According to Equation (\ref{eq:fx}), the equilibrium pricing function exhibits three different pricing regimes: (i)
a stock-out pricing regime, where $f(x)=P(x) \Leftrightarrow \sigma(x)=0$, (ii)
a no-arbitrage pricing regime, i.e.~$f(x)=\bar{f}(x) \Leftrightarrow C>\sigma(x)>0$,
where $\bar{f}(x)$ is the expected next period commodity price, and
(iii) a full capacity pricing regime, where $f(x)=P(x-C)\Leftrightarrow\sigma(x)=C$.
The stock-out regime is characterized by positive price spiking and
high price volatility due to reduced shock buffering capabilities in
the market. Under the no-arbitrage regime, prices evolve smoothly with
a relatively low volatility. Full capacity pricing mirrors the stock-out
regime but with negative price spikes. As the market transitions between
regimes, prices move between periods of quiet and turmoil, generating non-linear dynamics in the price process. The rational
expectations equilibrium $f(x)$ is stationary, having an associated globally
stationary price density \citep{oglend_behavior_2017}.
Using $k_{t}=p_{t-1}-\log f(x_{t-1})+\varepsilon_{t}$ in the price equation, the model as given in Equations (\ref{eq:Storagemodel})-(\ref{eq:Storagemodel-3}) can be written as
\begin{align}
p_{t} & =p_{t-1}+\log\left(\frac{f(x_{t})}{f(x_{t-1})}\right)+\varepsilon_{t},\qquad\varepsilon_{t}\sim\text{iid }N(0,v^{2}),\label{eq:p_p}\\
x_{t} & =(1-\delta)\sigma(x_{t-1})+z_{t},\qquad z_{t}\sim\text{iid }N(0,1).\label{eq:p_x}
\end{align}
This defines a non-linear Gaussian state-space model, with
measurement equation~(\ref{eq:p_p}) for the observed price and state-transition equation~(\ref{eq:p_x}) for the latent stocks.
\subsection{Stochastic Trends and Storage Decisions}
Separating the trend from the storage model pricing component in a
consistent way that does not compromise the rationality of storage
agents in the market requires that the trend does not interfere with
intertemporal allocation incentives.
The martingale property of a trend component specified as a stochastic trend with innovations that are independent of supply shocks ensures that this requirement is met.
By using a separable stochastic trend
we are assuming that storage agents do not alter their storage decisions
based on trend innovations. In other words, trend innovations are
assumed perceived by agents as permanent scalings of price levels
that do not warrant adjustments to storage allocations.
As an example, consider permanent shocks $K$ to the inverse aggregate
demand in the market, $P^*=KP$. The aggregate demand implied by $P^*$ is $D^*$, and
the resulting
rational expectations equilibrium is given by
\begin{align}\label{eq:equilibrium_eq-1}
f^*(x)=\min\left\{ P^*(x-C),\max\left[ \beta\int f^*\Big(\left(1-\delta\right)\left(x-D^*\left(f^*(x)\right)\right)+z\Big)\phi(z)dz,P^*(x)\right] \right\} .
\end{align}
Assume the scaling process is given by $K'=\gamma K+\epsilon$, where
$\epsilon$ is a random variable with density $\phi_{\epsilon}$ which is independent of the supply shock $z$.
This scaling does not affect the optimal storage policy if $f^*(x)=Kf(x)$
solves the functional equation problem in Equation (\ref{eq:equilibrium_eq-1}), where $f(x)$ is the
rational expectations equilibrium for the original non-scaled prices.
Substituting the proposed solution for $f^*(x)$, we get
\begin{align}
&Kf(x) = \min \Bigg\{ KP(x-C),\Bigg.\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad \left. \max\left[ \beta\int\left(\gamma K+\epsilon\right)\int f\Big((1-\delta)(x-D^*(Kf(x)))+z\Big)\phi(z)\phi_{\epsilon}(\epsilon)dzd\epsilon,KP(x)\right] \right\}.\nonumber
\end{align}
Note that $D^*(Kf(x))=D(f(x))$ by the definition of $D^*$
as the inverse of the scaled inverse demand function $P^*=KP$,
where $P=f(x)$. And so,
\begin{align}
&Kf(x)=\min \Bigg\{ KP(x-C),\Bigg.\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad \left. \max\left[ \beta\int\left(\gamma K+\epsilon\right)\int f\Big((1-\delta)(x-D(f(x)))+z\Big)\phi(z)\phi_{\epsilon}(\epsilon)dzd\epsilon,KP(x)\right] \right\}\nonumber.
\end{align}
If $\int\left(\gamma K+\epsilon\right)\phi_{\epsilon}(\epsilon)d\epsilon=K$ implying that $E(K')=K$,
we obtain
\begin{align}
Kf(x)=K\min\left\{ P(x-C),\max\left[ \beta\int f\Big((1-\delta)(x-D(f(x)))+z\Big)\phi(z)dz,P(x)\right] \right\},
\end{align}
which establishes $f^*(x)=Kf(x)$ as the solution to the inverse
demand scaled rational expectations equilibrium. Consequently, any
observed commodity price can be represented as $P=Kf(x)$. Formally,
the rational expectations equilibrium is linear homogeneous to the
proportional scaling $K$ of the inverse aggregate demand function
when $E(K')=K$ and innovations to the trend are orthogonal to supply
shocks.
Note that in our econometric model as given by Equations (\ref{eq:Storagemodel})-(\ref{eq:Storagemodel-3}), it is the logarithm of the scaling process for the price levels $k=\log(K)$ and not $K$, for which we assume a
stochastic trend. Hence, the martingale property for the scaling term process $K$ will not apply exactly, and the assumed Gaussian process for $\log(K)$ implies that $E(K')=K\exp\left(v^{2}/2\right)>K$.
By ignoring this bias in our econometric model we make the behavioral assumption
that agents do not alter storage decision based on the capital gain due to the expected mark-up factor
$\exp\left(v^{2}/2\right)>1$.
We consider this a reasonable trade-off to allow us to empirically analyze the storage model within a log-linear
state and measurement space, which is comparatively convenient for statistical inference.
In addition, the bias is small when $v^{2}$ is small, that is, when the trend is fairly smooth. In fact, the estimates we obtain for $v$ in our empirical application discussed below imply that the factor $\exp\left(v^{2}/2\right)$ varies in a range between 1.001 and 1.004 so that it is essentially negligible. Ignoring this factor is
essentially equivalent to transforming the probability
space to a setting where agents ignore information from trend innovations,
similar to a risk-neutral valuation setting where $v^{2}$ defines
a required risk premium term or a nominal inflation term.\\
\section{Statistical Inference}
\subsection{Preliminaries}
In our empirical application of the storage model with stochastic trend based on its state-space representation as given in Equations (\ref{eq:p_p}) and (\ref{eq:p_x}), we use monthly commodity spot prices and rely on a Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) posterior analysis. For this application, we follow \citet{kleppe_estimating_2017} and use $P(x)=\exp(-bx)$ as the inverse demand function, where the parameter $b$ measures the semi-elasticity of the demand price. In line with \cite{Gouel2017}, we fix the yearly interest rate at 5\%, so that the monthly storage cost discount factor is given by $\beta=(1-\delta)/(1+r)$, with $r=1.05^{1/12}-1$. The set of parameters then consists of the structural parameters $(\delta,b,C)$ and the trend parameter $v$.
In initial experiments to estimate the parameters, we found that the capacity limit $C$ is empirically not well identified separately from the remaining parameters. This appears to be mainly due to the fairly small sample size of our data, ranging from 264 to 360 monthly spot price observations. Therefore, we decided to fix $C$ at a positive predetermined value. Since $C$ determines the full capacity threshold for equilibrium storage, it bounds the space for the unit-free latent state variable $x$, and by fixing its value (together with normalizing the mean of $z$ to zero) we pin down the range of this space. The values of the remaining parameters $(\delta, b,v)$ and their implications for the price dynamics are then to be interpreted relative to this scale of $x$. In our empirical application below we set the capacity limit $C=10$. This ensures that it is a fairly rare event for the market to be in the full-capacity regime. Suppose, for example, that all realizations of the supply shocks $z$ for a sequence of periods are equal to one standard deviation and that nothing is consumed in those periods, so that $x_{t+1}=(1-\delta)x_t+1$. Then a storage infrastructure with $C=10$ and a notable depreciation rate of $\delta=0.01$ can store those unconsumed supplies for about 10 months before reaching the capacity limit\footnote{Our selection of $C=10$ also corresponds to the lowest upper limit, which \citet[Table I]{Deaton1995} use for their grids of $x$-values in the interpolation scheme to compute the equilibrium price function for a set of various yearly commodity prices. The upper grid boundaries for the different commodities have been chosen by the authors so that the calculations never generate $x$-values that exceed these maximum values for the grid.}.
In order to solve the functional equation for the equilibrium price function $f(x)$ as defined by Equations (\ref{eq:fx})-(\ref{eq:sig_f_rel}), we use a numerical algorithm which is based on the method of \citet{oglend2019}, detailed in Appendix \ref{subsec:Price-function}.
This algorithm takes advantage of the fact that the storage space is completely bounded by the non-negative constraint and the capacity limit $C$, thus providing numerically robust and computationally fast solutions. This is critical for a Bayesian MCMC posterior analysis because it requires a significant number of reruns of the algorithm to obtain a solution to the pricing function for each new parameter value.
\subsection{Bayesian Inference Using Particle Markov Chain Monte Carlo}
In the SSM model as given by Equations (\ref{eq:p_p}) and (\ref{eq:p_x}) the vector of parameters to be estimated is given by $\theta=(v,\delta,b)$ and the vector of latent state variables is $x_{1:T}$, where the notation $a_{s:s'}$ is used to denote $(a_s,a_{s+1},\ldots,a_{s'})$. The posterior of the parameters is $\pi(\theta|p_{1:T})\propto \pi_\theta(p_{1:T}) \pi(\theta)$,
where $\pi(\theta)$ denotes the prior density assigned to $\theta$ and $\pi_\theta(p_{1:T})$ represents the likelihood function, given by
\begin{equation}
\pi_\theta(p_{1:T})=\int\left[\prod_{t=2}^T \pi_\theta(p_t|p_{t-1},x_{t-1:t})\pi_\theta(x_t|x_{t-1}) \right]\pi_\theta(p_1,x_1) dx_{1:T} ,\label{eq:likelihood}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{align}
\pi_\theta(p_t|p_{t-1},x_{t-1:t})={\cal N}\left(p_t|p_{t-1}+\log\left(\frac{f(x_t)}{f(x_{t-1})}\right),v^2\right),\quad
\pi_\theta(x_t|x_{t-1})= {\cal N}\left(x_t| (1-\delta)\sigma(x_{t-1}),1\right),\label{eq:p_px}
\end{align}
where ${\cal N}(\cdot|\mu,\sigma^2)$ denotes a normal density function with mean $\mu$ and variance $\sigma^2$. For the joint density of the price and state in the initial period $\pi_\theta(p_1,x_1)$ we assume that it factorizes into a uniform density on $(-2,C+2)$ for the state $x_1$, denoted by ${\cal U}(x_1|-2,C+2)$, and a dirac measure for the price $p_1$ located at its actually observed value (effectively conditioning the likelihood on the first price observation).
Due to the non-linear nature of the pricing function $f(x)$ and the storage function $\sigma(x)$ entering the measurement and state transition density as given in Equation (\ref{eq:p_px}), the likelihood (and hence the resulting posterior for $\theta$) are not available in closed form, so that a Bayesian and likelihood-based inference requires approximation techniques.
Several Monte Carlo (MC) approximation approaches have been developed for statistical inference in non-linear SSMs with analytically intractable likelihood functions.
However, only a few of them are suited to the model considered here due to the discontinuous derivatives of $f(x)$. In particular, methods using MC estimators for the likelihood $\pi_\theta(p_{1:T})$ based on approximations to the conditional posterior of the states $\pi(x_{1:T}|\theta, p_{1:T})$, including second order/Laplace approximations \citep{shepard_pitt97,durbin_koopman_2ed} or global approximations as used by the efficient importance sampler \citep{liesenfeld_richard_03,richardetal07}, perform poorly in such a context.
The same applies to the Gibbs approach targeting the joint posterior distribution of the states and parameters $\pi(x_{1:T},\theta|p_{1:T})$ and alternately simulating from the conditional posteriors $\pi(x_{1:T}|\theta,p_{1:T})$ and $\pi(\theta |x_{1:T},p_{1:T})$. It is known that such a Gibbs procedure typically has problems in efficiently approximating the targeted joint posterior in non-linear SSMs due to a fairly slow mixing \citep{BosShephard2006}.
Moreover, the Gibbs procedure is also not very computationally attractive in the present context, since both the (joint) conditional posterior of all the states $\pi(x_{1:T}|\theta, p_{1:T})$ and the single-site conditional posterior of the individual states $\pi(x_{t}|x_{1:t-1}, x_{t+1:T} ,\theta, p_{1:T})$ are non-standard distributions.
Here, we propose to use the particle marginal Metropolis-Hastings (PMMH) approach as developed by \cite{andrieu_particle_2010}, which is well suited for a posterior analysis of our proposed storage SSM as it can cope with the discontinuity of the gradients of $f(x)$ and is very easy to implement. The PMMH uses unbiased MC estimates of the likelihood $\pi_\theta(p_{1:T})$ inside a standard Metropolis-Hastings (MH) algorithm targeting the posterior of the parameters $\pi(\theta|p_{1:T})$.
The MC estimation error of the likelihood estimate does not affect the invariant distribution of the MH so that the PMMH allows for exact inference. The PMMH produces an MCMC sample $\{ \theta_i\}_{i=1}^S$ from the target distribution by the following MH updating scheme: Given the previously sampled $\theta_{i-1}$ and the corresponding likelihood estimate $\hat \pi_{\theta_{i-1}}(p_{1:T})$, a candidate value $\theta_{*}$ is drawn from a proposal density $Q(\theta|\theta_{i-1})$, and the estimate of the associated likelihood $\hat \pi_{\theta_{*}}(p_{1:T})$ is computed.
Then the candidate $\theta_{*}$ is accepted as the next simulated $\theta_i$ with probability
\begin{equation}
\alpha(\theta_{*},\theta_{i-1})=\min\left\{ 1,\frac{\hat{\pi}_{\theta_{*}}(p_{1:T})\pi(\theta_{*})}{\hat{\pi}_{\theta_{i-1}}(p_{1:T})\pi(\theta_{i-1})}\frac{Q(\theta_{i-1}|\theta_{*})}{Q(\theta_{*}|\theta_{i-1})}\right\},\label{eq:MHacc}
\end{equation}
otherwise $\theta_i$ is set equal to $\theta_{i-1}$. Under weak regularity conditions, the resulting sequence $\{ \theta_i\}_{i=1}^S$ converges to samples from the target density $\pi(\theta|p_{1:T})$ as $S\to\infty$
\citep[][Theorem 4]{andrieu_particle_2010}.
For the PMMH, we use a Gaussian random walk proposal density $Q(\theta|\theta_{i-1})={\cal N}(\theta|\theta_{i-1},\Sigma)$ and follow the
approach of \cite{haario_adaptive_2001} to adaptively set the proposal covariance matrix $\Sigma$ during the burn-in period of the MCMC iterations.
After dropping the draws from the burn-in period, we use the $\theta$ draws from the next $M$ PMMH iterations to represent the posterior $\pi(\theta|x_{1:T})$. The posterior mean of the parameters, used as point estimates, is approximated by the sample mean over the $M$ PMMH draws.
For numerical stability of the PMMH computations, we reparameterize the likelihood function using the transformed parameters $\theta=\big(\log(v),\text{arctanh}(2\delta-1), \log(b)\big)$ so that the resulting parameter space is unconstrained.
The prior densities for the parameters are selected as follows: For $\log(b)$ we assume a $N(0,1)$ prior, and for $v^2$ an inverted chi-squared prior with $v^2\sim 0.1/\chi_{(10)}^2$, where $\chi_{(10)}^2$ denotes a chi-squared distribution with 10 degrees of freedom. Under this prior for $v^2$, the mean is given by 0.01 and the standard deviation by 0.007.
The prior density assigned to $\delta$ is a Beta with $\delta\sim {\cal B}(2,20)$ so that the mean and standard deviation are given by 0.09 and 0.05, respectively.
\subsection{Particle Filter Likelihood Evaluation}\label{sec:BPF}
In order to obtain unbiased MC estimates for the likelihood in Equation (\ref{eq:likelihood}), required as an input of the PMMH, we follow \cite{andrieu_particle_2010} and \cite{flury_shephart_2011} and use a simple sampling importance resampling
(SIR) particle filter (PF). For given values of the parameters $\theta$, it produces MC estimates for the sequence of period-$t$ likelihood contributions $\pi_\theta(p_t|p_{1:t-1})$ by sequentially sampling and resampling using an importance sampling (IS) density $q(x_t|x_{1:t-1})$ for the states $x_t$ \citep[see,][for a detailed treatment of PFs]{doucet_tutorial_2009,Cappe2007}. For the implementation of the PF we use the state-transition density $\pi_\theta(x_t|x_{t-1})$ as IS density \citep{Gordon1993}, and rely on a dynamic resampling scheme in which the particles are resampled only when their effective sample size falls below one half of the number of particles \citep{doucet_tutorial_2009}. This simple version of the PF (also known as the bootstrap PF, BPF) for approximating the likelihood as given by Equations (\ref{eq:likelihood}) and (\ref{eq:p_px}) consists of the following steps:
{\it For period $t=1$ (initialization)}: Sample $x_1^k\sim\pi_1(x_1)={\cal U}(x_1|-2,C+2)$ for $k=1,\ldots,N$ and set the corresponding (normalized) IS weights to $W_1^k=1/N$.
For initialization set $\bar x_1^k= x_1^k$.
{\it For periods $t=2,\ldots, T$}: Sample $x_t^k\sim\pi_\theta(x_t| \bar x_{t-1}^k)={\cal N}\big(x_t| (1-\delta)\sigma(\bar x_{t-1}^k),1\big)$ for $k=1,\ldots,N$ and set $x^k_{1:t}=(x_t^k,\bar x_{1:t-1}^k)$. Compute the IS weights as
\begin{align}
w_t^k = W^k_{t-1}\pi_\theta(p_t|p_{t-1},x_{t-1:t}^k),
\end{align}
and their normalized versions $W_t^k=w_t^k/(\sum_{\ell=1}^N w_t^\ell)$. Then use the IS weights to obtain the period-$t$ likelihood contribution as $\hat\pi_\theta(p_t|p_{1:t-1})= (\sum_{k=1}^N w_t^k)/N$, and compute the effective particle sample size defined by $N^e_t=[\sum_{k=1}^N (W_t^k)^2]^{-1}$. If $N^e_t<N/2$, resample from the particles $\{x_{1:t}^k\}_{k=1}^N$ with replacement according to their IS weights $W_t^k$ to obtain the resampled particles $\{\bar x_{1:t}^k\}_{k=1}^N$, and set their weights to $W_t^k=1/N$. Otherwise, set $\bar x_{1:t}^k=x_{1:t}^k$.
The resulting BPF estimate for the likelihood (conditional on the first price observation) is given by $\hat \pi_\theta(p_{1:T})=[\prod_{t=2}^T \hat\pi_\theta(p_t|p_{1:t-1})]$.
The measurement density $\pi_\theta(p_t|p_{t-1},x_{t-1:t})$ is not very informative about the states $x_t$ for empirically relevant parameter values, resulting in a low signal-to-noise ratio. Thus, the simple BPF yields fairly precise MC estimates of the likelihood with a modest number of particles $N$ \citep{Cappe2007}. High precision likelihood estimates are a critical requirement for the PMMH to produce a well mixing MCMC sample from the posterior of the parameters $\pi(\theta|x_{1:T})$ \citep{flury_shephart_2011}.
In our applications below, we use $N=10,000$ particles. For a time series with
$T=360$, one BPF likelihood estimate requires approximately 2.5 seconds (on a computer
with an Intel Core i5-6500 processor running at 3.20 GHz). The MC numerical standard deviation of the log-likelihood estimate $\log\hat{\pi}_\theta(p_{1:T})$, computed from reruns of the BPF for a fixed $\theta$ value under different seeds, is about 0.1 percent of the absolute value of the log-likelihood, illustrating the high accuracy of the BPF.
\subsection{State Prediction and Diagnostics}
The BPF outlined in the previous section, and used for the PMMH implementation, can also be used to produce MC estimates for the predicted values of the latent state vector $x_{1:t+1}$ and functions thereof, given the prices observed up to period $t$, $p_{1:t}$. MC estimates of such predictions can serve as the basis for diagnostic checks. Let $h(x_{1:t+1})$ be a function of interest in $x_{1:t+1}$. Its conditional mean given $p_{1:t}$ can be expressed as
\begin{align}\label{eq:h_mean}
E\big(h(x_{1:t+1})|p_{1:t}\big)=\int h(x_{1:t+1})\pi_\theta(x_{t+1}|x_t) \pi_\theta(x_{1:t}|p_{1:t})dx_{1:t+1},
\end{align}
where $\pi_\theta(x_{t+1}|x_t)$ is the state-transition density as given by Equation (\ref{eq:p_px}) and $ \pi_\theta(x_{1:t}|p_{1:t})$ is the filtering density for $x_{1:t}$. Since the particles and IS-weights $\{x_{1:t}^k,W_t^k\}_{k=1}^N$ produced by the BPF provide an MC approximation to this filtering density, the conditional mean in Equation (\ref{eq:h_mean}) for a given value of $\theta$ can be easily estimated by
\begin{align}\label{eq:h_mean_est}
\hat E(h(x_{1:t+1})|p_{1:t})=\sum_{k=1}^N h(x_{1:t+1}^k)W_t^k,
\end{align}
with $x_{1:t+1}^k=(x_{1:t}^k,x_{t+1}^k)$, where $x_{t+1}^k$ is obtained by propagating the BPF particle $x_{1:t}^k$ via the state-transition density, i.e. $x_{t+1}^k\sim \pi_\theta(x_{t+1}|x_t^k)$. In practice, the parameters $\theta$ are set equal to their estimates.
This MC approximation of a predicted mean like that in Equation (\ref{eq:h_mean}) enables us to compute several useful statistics, such as the filtered mean for the price function of the storage model $E(\log f(x_t)|p_{1:t})$ and the stochastic trend component $E(k_t|p_{1:t})=p_t-E(\log f(x_t)|p_{1:t})$, for which the function $h$ to be used is $h(x_{1:t+1})=\log f(x_t)$.
State predictions can also be used to compute standardized Pearson residuals defined as
\begin{align}\label{eq:Pearson}
\eta_{t+1}=[p_{t+1}-E(p_{t+1}|p_{1:t}) ]/\text{Var}(p_{t+1}|p_{1:t})^{1/2}.
\end{align}
If the model is correctly specified, then $\eta_{t+1}$ and $\eta_{t+1}^2$ are serially uncorrelated so that they can be used for diagnostic checking of the assumed dynamic structure. The conditional moments of $p_{t+1}$ for the storage SSM are given by $E(p_{t+1}|p_{1:t})=p_t+E(\log[f(x_{t+1})/f(x_{t})]|p_{1:t})$ and $\text{Var}(p_{t+1}|p_{1:t})=\text{Var}(\log[f(x_{t+1})/f(x_{t})]|p_{1:t})+v^2$, which can be evaluated by Equation (\ref{eq:h_mean_est}), using the functions
$h(x_{1:t+1})=\log[f(x_{t+1})/f(x_{t})]$ and $h(x_{1:t+1})=\{\log[f(x_{t+1})/f(x_{t})]- \hat E(\log[f(x_{t+1})/f(x_{t})]|p_{1:t})\}^2$.
In order to check the capability of the storage SSM to approximate the distributional properties of the observed prices we use the probability integral transformed (PIT) residuals defined as
\begin{align}\label{eq:PIT}
\xi_{t+1}=\Phi^{-1}(u_{t+1}),\qquad u_{t+1}=\mbox{Pr}(p_{t+1}\leq p_{t+1}^{o}|p_{1:t}),
\end{align}
where $\mbox{Pr}(p_{t+1}\leq p_{t+1}^{o}|p_{1:t})$ is the predicted probability that $p_{t+1}$ is less or equal to the actually ex-post observed price $p_{t+1}^{o}$, and $\Phi$ denotes the cdf of a $N(0,1)$-distribution \citep{KimShephardChib1998}. The PIT residuals $\xi_{t+1}$ follow a $N(0,1)$-distribution if the model is valid. For the storage SSM, the probability $u_{t+1}$ can be calculated by setting the function $h(x_{1:t+1})$ equal to
$\Phi( \{p_{t+1}^{o}- p_t - \log[f(x_{t+1})/f(x_{t})]\}/v)$.
\subsection{Marginal Likelihood for Model Comparison}
Marginal likelihood is used to compare the storage SSM with alternative models and assess the empirical relevance of the structural storage model component in the SSM. In order to evaluate the marginal likelihood for the storage SSM we rely upon the procedure proposed by \cite{ChibJeliazkov2001}, which is specifically customized for Bayesian analyses implemented using MH algorithms targeting the posterior of the parameters. This procedure takes advantage of the fact that the marginal likelihood can be expressed as
\begin{align}\label{eq:marg_lik}
\pi(p_{1:T})=\frac{\pi_{\bar\theta}(p_{1:T})\pi(\bar\theta) }{\pi(\bar\theta|p_{1:T})},
\end{align}
where $\pi_{\bar\theta}(p_{1:T})$ is the likelihood function for the observed prices evaluated at some value of the parameters $\bar\theta$, and $\pi(\bar\theta) $ and $\pi(\bar\theta|p_{1:T})$ are the corresponding ordinates of the prior and posterior of the parameters. Then it exploits that the posterior ordinate $\pi(\bar\theta|p_{1:T})$ can be expressed in terms of the MH acceptance probability $\alpha(\cdot,\cdot)$ and the proposal density $Q(\cdot|\cdot)$. Namely,
as the ratio of the expectation of $\alpha(\bar\theta,\theta)Q(\bar\theta|\theta)$ under the posterior $\pi(\theta|p_{1:T})$ relative to the expectation of $\alpha(\theta,\bar \theta)$ under the proposal density $Q(\theta|\bar\theta)$. This implies that a consistent MC estimate for $\pi(\bar\theta|p_{1:T})$ based on the MH acceptance probability defined in Equation (\ref{eq:MHacc}) is given by
\begin{align}
\hat\pi(\bar\theta|p_{1:T})=\frac{M^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{M} \alpha(\bar\theta,\theta_i)Q(\bar\theta|\theta_i)}{L^{-1}\sum_{l=1}^{L} \alpha(\theta_l,\bar \theta)},
\end{align}
where $\{\theta_i\}_{i=1}^{M}$ are the $M$ simulated draws from the posterior distribution $\pi(\theta|p_{1:T})$ and $\{\theta_l\}_{l=1}^{L}$ are draws from the proposal distribution $Q(\theta|\bar\theta)$. For evaluating the likelihood $\pi_{\bar\theta}(p_{1:T})$ in Equation (\ref{eq:marg_lik}) we use the same BPF algorithm as applied for the computation of the MH acceptance probabilities in Equation (\ref{eq:MHacc}) (and outlined in Section \ref{sec:BPF}). The value of the point $\bar \theta$ is set equal to the posterior mean of $\theta$.
\section{Ability to Isolate the Trend and Storage Model Component}
In order to illustrate the capability of our Bayesian storage SSM approach to empirically separate the variation in the observed prices into the variation generated by the structural storage model component and that of the stochastic trend, we conduct a simulation experiment. Prices are simulated from the storage SSM for parameters that are set equal to their posterior mean values found for the empirical application to natural gas prices, discussed further below (see Table \ref{tab:pars}). Prices are simulated for 800 periods, with the first 500 discarded as burn-in, so that the size of the simulated sample is $T=300$.
The storage SSM is then fitted to the time series of simulated prices by using the PMMH procedure, and the BPF is applied to produce estimates of the filtered mean for the storage model price component $E(f(x_t)|p_{1:t})$ and the stochastic trend $E(k_t|p_{1:t})$, evaluated at the posterior mean of the parameters.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{fig/k_particle_sim}
\par\end{centering}
\caption{Filtered price components for simulated data. Upper panel: time series plot of the simulated log price $\log p_t$ (blue line), the actual stochastic trend component $k_t$ (green line), and its estimated filtered mean $E(k_t|p_{1:t})$ (red line). Lower panel: time series plot of the actual storage model component $\log f(x_t)$ (green line) and its estimated filtered mean $E(\log f(x_t)|p_{1:t})$ (red line). The gray shaded areas indicate the 95\%
credible intervals under the filtering densities for $k_t$ and $\log f(x_t)$, and the dashed lines in the lower panel mark the boundaries of the storage regimes. The prices are simulated using parameters set at $(v,\delta,b)=(0.097,0.011, 0.420)$. The posterior mean of the parameters obtained by fitting the model to the simulated price data are $(\hat v,\hat \delta,\hat b)=(0.101,0.013, 0.436)$. }
\label{fig:Simulation-experiment}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:Simulation-experiment} shows the results of the simulation experiment. The upper panel displays the time series of the simulated log price $\log p_t$ and the actual simulated stochastic trend component $k_t$ together with the estimate of its filtered mean,
and the lower panel shows the time series of the actual price component which is generated by the competitive storage model $\log f(x_t)$ together with its estimated filtered mean.
Also plotted are the boundaries of the storage regimes. Values of the price component
above the upper boundary correspond to the stock-out pricing regime, and values below the
lower boundary correspond to the full storage capacity pricing regime.
The plotted time series show that the estimated filtered means of the two price components track the time evolution of the true components quite well. We also observe that the estimated filtered means predict most of the stock-out events, which is critically important for identifying the structural parameters of the storage model.
These simulation results illustrate that our approach appears to be well capable to empirically identify - from observed commodity prices - the fraction of the price variation which is due competitive storage decisions and to separate it from stochastic trend variation.
\section{Empirical Application}
In this section, we apply our Bayesian storage SSM approach to historical monthly price data for the following four commodities: Coffee ({\sl Coffee, Other Mild Arabicas, New York
cash price, ex-dock New York, US cents per pound}), cotton ({\sl Average
Spot Price in US cents per Pound for Upland cotton -- color 41, leaf
4, staple 34}), aluminum ({\sl Aluminum (LME) London Metal Exchange, unalloyed
primary ingots, high grade, minimum 99.7\% purity, USD per Metric
Ton}), and natural gas ({\sl Natural Gas (U.S.), spot price at Henry Hub, Louisiana, USD per MBtu}). The respective sample periods range from Jan 1989 until Dec 2018 ($T=360$) for coffee, cotton and aluminum, and from Jan 1997 until Dec 2018 ($T=264$) for natural gas. All prices are in nominal
terms. We use monthly instead of annual prices to allow for more information about short-term price movements, as well as to avoid
potentially spurious averaging effects of annual prices \citep{guerra2015empirical}.
\subsection{Estimation Results for the Storage SSM with Stochastic Trend}
\begin{table}
\include{tab/partab}
\caption{MCMC posterior analysis of the storage SSM with stochastic trend. The reported numbers are the posterior mean, posterior standard deviation and effective sample size (ESS) for the parameters. The results are based on $12,000$ PMMH iterations, discarding the first 2000 burn-in iterations.}
\label{tab:pars}
\end{table}
For the Bayesian posterior analysis of the storage SSM, we run the PMMH algorithm for 12,000 iterations and discard the first 2,000 as burn-in. In order to evaluate the sampling efficiency of the PMMH for estimating the parameters, we compute the effective sample size (ESS) of their posterior PMMH samples \citep{geyer1992}. The ESS measures the size of a hypothetical independent sample directly drawn from the posterior of the parameters which delivers the same numerical precision as the actual sample of $M$ correlated PMMH parameter draws, so that large ESS values are to be preferred.
For each of the four commodities, the estimated posterior mean, standard deviation and ESS for the parameters are found in Table \ref{tab:pars}. The ESS values range from 376 to 1,028, indicating a satisfactory sampling efficiency with a fairly fast mixing rate of the PMMH algorithm. The estimates for the standard deviation of the trend innovations $v$ imply that the stochastic trend accounts for 53\% of the variation observed in the monthly price changes for natural gas, 66\% for coffee, 71\% for cotton, and 81\% for aluminum. As for the estimates of the depreciation rate $\delta$, we observe that they are fully in line with the actual storage costs to be expected for the different types of commodities: For natural gas we find the largest estimated depreciation rate (1.1\%), which implies that the monthly cost of storage amounts to 1.5\% of the price.
This relatively large estimated storage cost is in accordance with the fairly expensive storage technology for US natural gas, which is typically stored in underground salt caves and similar facilities. The second largest storage cost is found for coffee, with a monthly depreciation rate of 0.2\% leading to estimated monthly costs of 0.6\% of the price. The lowest storage costs are predicted for the non-food and non-energy products cotton and aluminum, for which the estimated depreciation rate is 0.1\% resulting in storage costs of 0.5\%. We also observe that the larger the estimated storage cost for a commodity, the larger the fraction of observed price variation which is captured by the storage decision behavior. This is in agreement with the rationality of the competitive storage model, where higher storage costs are associated with more frequent stock-out events, which in turn implies greater price volatility.
The posterior mean values for the slope parameter $b$ of the inverse demand function imply that a reduction in supply on the market by one standard deviation of production leads to a price increase of 42\% for natural gas, 38\% for coffee, 32\% for cotton and 20\% for aluminum. The size of these estimated price elasticities roughly corresponds to the size of the price peaks observed in these markets.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{fig/k_particle}
\par\end{centering}
\caption{Commodity prices and filtered price components. Upper panels: time series plot of the log price $\log p_t$ (blue line) and the estimated filtered mean of the stochastic trend component $E(k_t|p_{1:t})$ (red line). Lower panels: time series plot of the estimated filtered mean of the storage model component $E(\log f(x_t)|p_{1:t})$ (red line). The gray shaded areas indicate the 95\% credible intervals under the filtering densities for $k_t$ and $\log f(x_t)$, and the dashed lines in the lower panels mark the boundaries of the storage regimes.
The parameters are set to their posterior mean as given in Table \ref{tab:pars}.\label{fig:filteredPriceComponents}}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:filteredPriceComponents} displays the time series of the log-prices for each of the four commodities, together with the filtered mean for their stochastic trend component $k_t$ and their price component associated with the competitive storage model $f(x_t)$. We observe that the temporal evolution of the filtered estimates of the stochastic trend variable closely follows that of the observed prices. The filtered estimates for the storage model price component reveal that it predominantly captures periodically recurring price fluctuations with large price peaks and drops. Beyond the periods with elevated price volatility, the contribution of this component to the price variation appears small. This reflects that when equilibrium storage is an inner solution (so that $0<\sigma(x_t)<C$), the resulting price is subject to an intertemporal price restriction leading to prices which behave as a stationary Markov process.
Accordingly, in this no-arbitrage pricing regime, the economic storage model provides little additional information about the price evolution that goes beyond the stochastic trend.
However, storage becomes empirically relevant with a significant impact on the price behavior when the normal no-arbitrage pricing mechanism collapses in the stock-out and full-capacity regime, which occurs in the storage model in periods of severe and prolonged commodity shortages or oversupply.
The limits-to-arbitrage regimes (stock-out or full-capacity) detected by the fitted storage model tend to coincide with known historical market events.
For example, the time periods with peaks in the filtered storage price component for natural gas usually correspond to periods when the historical level of natural gas storage in the market was very low \citep{kleppe_estimating_2017}.
The sharp drop in the storage price component for coffee in 1989 coincides with the collapse of the International Coffee Agreement (a cartel of coffee-producing countries) and oversupply in the market due to World Bank subsidies, while the 1994 peak is consistent with a negative supply shock triggered by significant frost damage in much of the coffee-growing areas of Brazil.
The cotton price peak detected by the storage model in 2011 was arguably due to the severe global shortages, which were caused, inter alia, by the tightening of Indian export restrictions on cotton. The early nineties
spike in aluminum prices coincides with the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the 2008-2009 price drop is consistent with the sharp decline in global aluminum demand that created a large stock overhang during this period after the subprime crisis.
\subsection{Model Comparisons}
In this section, we assess the empirical relevance of the price component related to the competitive storage model for explaining the observed price variation, and compare the storage SSM model with stochastic trend to that with deterministic trend specifications. For this assessment, we rely on the marginal likelihood as well as diagnostic checks on Pearson and PIT residuals.
\subsubsection{Alternative Models}
For assessing the relevance of the storage model price component, we compare our SSM model to the restricted SSM that results in the absence of storage. The latter is obtained by letting $\delta \to 1$, making storage prohibitively costly, so that the stock process $x_t$ collapses to that of the supply shocks $z_t$. In this case the SSM in Equations (\ref{eq:Storagemodel})-(\ref{eq:Storagemodel-3}) with the assumed demand function $P(x)=\exp(-bx)$ reduces to
\begin{align*}
p_{t} & =k_{t}-bz_{t},\qquad z_{t}\sim\mbox{iid} N(0,1),\\
k_{t} & =k_{t-1}+\varepsilon_{t},\qquad\varepsilon_{t}\sim \mbox{iid} N(0,v^{2}).
\end{align*}
This represents a standard linear Gaussian local level (LGLL) SSM \citep{durbin_koopman_2ed} so that the Kalman filter can be applied for likelihood evaluation.
As the Kalman filter provides exact values for the likelihood, the PMMH used for simulating from the posterior of the parameters for the unrestricted storage SSM can be replaced by a standard MH algorithm. The priors assigned to the two parameters $(b,v)$ are the same as those we assume for the unrestricted storage SSM.
\begin{table}
\include{tab/table_margloglike}
\caption{Log marginal likelihood values with the log Bayes factor of the storage SSM relative to the alternative models in parentheses.}
\label{tab:marglik}
\end{table}
As deterministic trend specifications to be compared with the stochastic trend in the storage SSM, we consider those used in the study of \cite{Gouel2017}. They use a linear time trend, for which $k_t$ in Equation (\ref{eq:Storagemodel-2}) is replaced by $k_t=\alpha+\beta t$. In addition, they consider restricted cubic spline trend specifications of the form $k_t=\sum_{g=1}^G=\gamma_g B_g(t)$, where $B_g(\cdot)$ are the basis functions of B-splines, $G$ is the degree of freedom, and $\gamma_g$ are the corresponding trend parameters to be estimated. For our comparison we consider restricted cubic splines with 3 knots (RSC3) and 5 trend parameters as well as 7 knots (RSC7) and 9 trend parameters\footnote{The knots for the RSC3 specification are located at the 25\%, 50\% and 75\% quantiles of the time index and for the RSC7 at the 12.5\%, 25\%, 37.5\%, 50\%, 67.5\%, 75\% and 87.5\% quantiles.}. For these deterministic trends the SSM in Equations (\ref{eq:Storagemodel})-(\ref{eq:Storagemodel-3}) reduces to a univariate, non-linear autoregression for the log-price:
\begin{align}\label{eq:Determin-trend-models}
p_{t}=k_{t}+\log f\left[(1-\delta)\sigma(x_{t-1})+z_{t}\right],\qquad x_{t-1}=f^{-1}\left[\exp(p_{t-1}-k_{t-1})\right],\qquad z_t\sim \mbox{iid} N(0,1).
\end{align}
Analogously to the LGLL SSM, we can simulate from the posterior for the parameters of the deterministic trend models by using a standard MH algorithm.
For the structural parameters $(\delta,b)$ we assume the same priors as used in the storage SSM, and to the deterministic trend parameters $(\alpha,\beta,\gamma_g)$ we assign independent $N(0,20^2)$ priors. For details on the computation and derivation of the Pearson and PIT residuals of the deterministic trend models, see Appendix \ref{subsec:residuals}.
\subsubsection{Marginal Likelihood Model Comparisons and Diagnostics Checks}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{fig/k_parametric}
\par\end{centering}
\caption{Fitted stochastic and deterministic trends. Smoothed stochastic trend (purple solid line), linear trend (red dashed line), RSC3 trend (blue number sign), RCS7 trend (green square).\label{fig:smoothed_trends}}
\end{figure}
Table \ref{tab:marglik} provides the log marginal likelihood values $\log \pi(p_{1:T}|\mbox{model}_s)$ for the storage SSM together with those of the LGLL SSM and the storage model combined with the deterministic trend specifications. Also reported are the resulting values for the log Bayes factor of the storage SSM relative to the four alternative models $\log[\pi(p_{1:T}|\mbox{storage SSM})/\pi(p_{1:T}|\mbox{model}_\ell)]$.
The results reveal that the storage SSM is strongly preferred over the LGLL SSM for all commodities, which suggests that the structural storage component in the SSM substantially contributes to the model fit. Hence, the non-linear price dynamics with periodically recurring increases in price volatility and price spiking, as predicted by the competitive storage model, adds significantly to explaining the price behavior.
For all commodities, we also observe that the storage SSM is clearly favored over all deterministic trend specifications. Thus, the storage SSM has a trend component that is not only consistent with the rationality of the economic model, but is also much more supported by the data than the deterministic trends, such as those used by \cite{Gouel2017} for the estimation of the structural parameters of the competitive storage model.
Our estimates of the structural parameters for the deterministic trend models are found in Appendix \ref{subsec:Additional_results}. Figure \ref{fig:smoothed_trends} shows the time series plots of the fitted deterministic trends $\hat k_t$ and the smoothed mean of the stochastic trend $E(k_t|p_{1:T})$, all computed by setting the parameters to their posterior mean values\footnote{The smoothed mean $E(k_t|p_{1:T})=p_t-E(\log f(x_t)|p_{1:T})$ is computed using the particle smoothing algorithm, which adds to the BPF as outlined in Section \ref{sec:BPF} a backward sampling step \citep[][Section 5]{doucet_tutorial_2009}.}. Unsurprisingly, we find that the stochastic trend captures a substantially larger fraction of the observed price variations than the deterministic trends.
\begin{table}[t]
\begin{small}
\include{tab/table_residuals}
\caption{Diagnostics on the PIT and Pearson residuals. Skewness, Kurtosis, and $p$-value of the Jarque-Bera test (JB) for the PIT residuals. Lag-1 autocorrelation ($\rho_1$) and $p$-value of the Ljung-Box test (LB) for the Pearson residuals and their squared values, including 12 lags.}
\label{tab:diagnostics}
\end{small}
\end{table}
Table~\ref{tab:diagnostics} provides the results of diagnostic checks on the PIT residuals $\xi_t$ and the Pearson residuals $\eta_t$ for the storage SSM and the four alternative models considered. The PIT residuals of the storage SSM suggest that this model accounts well for the observed distributional properties of the prices for all commodities. The skewness and kurtosis of its PIT residuals are close to their benchmark values for a normal distribution and they all pass the Jarque-Bera normality test at the 5\% significance level. In contrast, the LGLL SSM as well as the storage models with deterministic trends have difficulties approximating the distributional properties of the prices. Only the PIT residuals of the storage model with an RSC7 trend for aluminum pass the Jarque-Bera normality test at a conventional significance level.
The first-order serial correlation of the Pearson residuals $\eta_t$ and the $p$-values of the Ljung-Box test for $\eta_t$ and $\eta_t^2$ including 12 lags reported in Table~\ref{tab:diagnostics} show that the storage SSM successfully accounts for the observed autocorrelation in the level and volatility of the gas price, while they point towards significant residual correlation in price level and volatility for coffee, cotton and aluminum.
However, all competing models cannot fully capture the serial correlation in the price levels of those three commodities either.
Only the volatility dynamics for coffee is better approximated by the linear and RSC7 trend model than by the storage SSM.
Clearly, based on these results, we can not identify whether the failure of the storage SSM and the deterministic trend models to explain all of the observed dynamics in the coffee, cotton and aluminum prices is due to a potential misspecification of the trend or the competitive storage model itself, since the diagnostic tests are, as any specification test in this context, joint tests for the validity of both price components.
In sum, the results show that the storage SSM outperforms the deterministic trend models in explaining the observed distributional properties of commodity prices, and that its ability to account for the dynamics in the price levels is not worse. Only in the approximation of the volatility dynamics, the deterministic trend specifications appear to have a slight advantage.
\subsubsection{Structural Parameter Estimates Under Stochastic and Deterministic Trends}
As it is evident from Figure 6, the dynamic and distributional characteristics of the de-trended prices substantially differ depending on whether a stochastic or deterministic trend is assumed. Therefore, it can be expected that the nature of the trend has a critical impact on the estimates of the parameters that determine the storage costs ($\delta$) and the price elasticity of demand ($b$), since these parameters are identified by the strength of the serial correlation and the size of the spikes in the trend-adjusted prices.
The lower the storage costs in the competitive storage model are, the stronger the predicted serial correlation, while the more inelastic the demand is, the larger the resulting price spikes.
As larger price spikes also imply more speculative storage activity, an inelastic demand also contributes to the strength of the predicted serial correlation in the prices.
Table~\ref{tab:elacost} summarizes the estimates for the annualized storage costs (net of interest costs) in percent of the average price, and the price elasticities of demand obtained from the fitted storage SSM and the deterministic RCS trend models. The annual storage costs are computed as $-[(1-\delta)^{12}-1]$ and the price elasticity is given by $[-(b\bar x)^{-1}]$, where $\bar x$ is the mean supply.
We observe that the SSM with stochastic trend predicts substantially larger elasticities (in absolute values) than the deterministic trend models for all commodities and, except for natural gas, lower storage costs.
The larger elasticities found under the storage SSM reflect that the stochastic trend produces, due to its greater flexibility to track the observed price, trend-adjusted prices that have spikes that are smaller than those obtained under a deterministic trend. Hence, in contrast to the deterministic trend specifications, the stochastic trend SSM is not forced to match the large spikes observed in the actual prices by small estimated values for the elasticity.
For natural gas, the residual serial correlation in the prices adjusted by the stochastic trend component also appears to be relatively low, which indicates relatively high storage costs. However, for the other commodities, this residual serial correlation is larger leading to substantially lower estimated storage costs.
\begin{table}
\begin{small}
\include{tab/table_ela_costs}
\caption{Estimates for the annual storage costs (net of interest costs) in percent of the average price and price elasticities of demand.}
\label{tab:elacost}
\end{small}
\end{table}
\cite{Gouel2017} provide estimates of storage costs and price elasticities of demand based on deterministic trend models used for annual data on various commodities, including coffee and cotton. This allows for some comparisons with our results for those two commodities.
The annual storage costs estimates they report for their preferred trend model for coffee and cotton are, respectively, 1.4\% and 0.3\% of the average price. These estimates based on annual data are much lower than those we found for the storage SSM as well as the deterministic trend models fitted to monthly data.
However, they argue that their estimated annual costs are possibly too small - an assessment that is consistent with our estimates for the storage costs. For the annual price elasticity of demand, the estimates of \cite{Gouel2017} are -0.04\% for coffee and -0.03\% for cotton. These estimates imply a demand for those commodities which is substantially more inelastic than that implied from our estimates. One can argue which elasticities better reflect the markets. \cite{mehta2008responding} assume a range of plausible values for the annual elasticity of demand for coffee between -0.2\% and -0.4\%, while \cite{duffy1990elasticity} argue that the annual export demand for cotton is likely fairly elastic. Hence, our elasticity estimates are more in line with these assessments than those found by \cite{Gouel2017}.
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we have proposed a stochastic trend competitive storage model for commodity prices, which defines a non-linear state-space model (SSM). For the Bayesian posterior analysis of the proposed stochastic trend SSM, we use an efficient MCMC procedure. This adds to existing empirical commodity storage models based on deterministic trend specifications. Our stochastic trend approach fits into the economic rationality of the competitive storage model and is also sufficiently flexible to account for the variation in the observed prices that the competitive storage model is not intended to explain. The obvious benefit is that it makes the storage model applicable to markets with highly persistent unit root-like prices, which appears relevant for many commodity markets. Our approach aims at increasing the empirical relevance and applicability of the competitive storage model.
The MCMC procedure we propose for jointly estimating the structural and trend parameters in the SSM is a particle marginal Metropolis-Hastings algorithm based on the bootstrap particle filter. A Monte Carlo simulation experiment shows that this approach is able to disentangle the stochastic trend from the price variation due to speculative storage. The SSM is applied to monthly price data for natural gas, cotton, coffee and aluminum. Not surprisingly, the stochastic trend explains a large part of the observed variation in the commodity prices. More importantly, the competitive storage component adds short-run price volatility and price spiking, and becomes periodically relevant to explain non-linear pricing behavior related to states of market turmoil. A formal empirical comparison of the SSM to the corresponding model that results in the absence of storage suggests that the speculative storage price component significantly contributes to commodity price variation.
Which trend to apply will depend on the specific market under consideration.
If a stochastic trend is not appropriate, fitting a highly flexible stochastic trend model risks
overfitting the price variation and downplaying the contribution of
the storage model. Consequently, the price elasticity of demand will tend to be overestimated and the estimates of the storage costs can be expected to be correspondingly biased.
On the other hand, failing to account for a stochastic trend when it is appropriate will tend
to underestimate the elasticity of demand. Our empirical results
show that the stochastic trend model consistently estimates a
higher elasticity of demand and a different amount of storage costs than existing deterministic
trend models for the commodity markets investigated in this paper.
Pre-testing of price characteristics can guide trend choice. For instance,
unit root tests can be applied to evaluate whether a stochastic trend
specification is suitable.
The empirical comparison of the stochastic trend SSM to existing deterministic trend models using the Bayes factor and model residual analysis shows that the stochastic trend fits the price data for the investigated commodity markets much better than the deterministic trends. In particular, in contrast to the deterministic trend specifications, the stochastic trend SSM captures the observed distributional properties of the prices, such as their skewness and kurtosis, quite well.
While the stochastic trend SSM also accounts for the price dynamics in the observed prices on the natural gas market it is not able to fully capture all the serial dependence of the coffee, cotton and aluminum prices.
This is similar to the results of financial approaches on modeling commodity term structures, showing the relevance of additional pricing factors beyond the traditional ones for the spot price and the convenience yield
(\citealt{miltersen1998pricing,schwartz1997stochastic,tang2012time}). The stochastic trend SSM is essentially a two-factor model with one reduced-form random walk component orthogonally appended to a factor restricted by economic constraints. Increasing the flexibility in the economic model will arguably improve the explanatory power of the model, although with additional statistical challenges in separately identifying the trend behavior from the price component related to the competitive storage model.
\bibliographystyle{chicago}
|
\section{Introduction}
The nature of baryonic states (nuclear fragments) with very unusual properties,
in particular, with heavy flavors - charm and/or beauty, is of interest not only for the nuclear physics itself, but in cosmology
and astrophysics as well, because production and subsequent decay
of such states could play an important role at the early stages of the Universe evolution, which are not well
understood so far.
Studies of charmed nuclei are the unique tool to understand the low-energy
interactions of charmed particles. Generally speaking, the Nature
arrangement is based on 6 quark flavors obeying unitary SU(6)
symmetry, though strongly violated. On the other hand, our
knowledge of baryonic interactions is drastically asymmetric in
this sense and mainly corresponds only to the SU(2) subgroup
(nucleons). Strange hypernuclei are known to give the
unique possibility of extension our knowledge to the strange
sector (for reviews, see \cite{HypRev} and other references). Then, studies of charmed and beautiful nuclei is the way to extend the picture of
the low-energy hadronic interactions to the SU(4) and the SU(5) world.
The earlier theoretical treatment of the heavy flavored hypernuclei properties can be found
in \cite{tyap} - \cite{c-triton} mostly within various potential approaches.
The chiral (topological) soliton models provide conceptionally different approach to this problem
which has both some advantages and certain disadvantages. The attempt to estimate the total binding energies
of heavy flavored hypernuclei within the chiral soliton approach (CSA) was made in \cite{kop-1} where the total binding energies of states with
flavor up to $|F|=2$ have been roughly estimated for baryon numbers up to $B=4$, and somewhat later in \cite{kopzak}
where estimates have been extended up to $B=8$ using the rational map ansatz by Houghton, Manton and Sutcliffe \cite{hms}.
The tendency of some increase of the binding energy with increasing mass of the flavor and baryon number has been
noted in \cite{kop-1,kopzak}.
Here we study the influence of the change of the scale of the whole skyrmion on the energy of the quantized states with
heavy flavors. The squeezing of the skyrmion leads to considerable decrease of the energy (mass) of the quantized state,
which is especially important for the charm or beauty quantum numbers. In several cases we obtained the decrease of
the binding energies.
In the next section the historical background of the heavy flavored nuclei studies is overviewed.
In section 3 we describe briefly the chiral soliton model and the quantization procedure.
The static characteristics of multiskyrmions, necessary for the quantization procedure and the spectrum of states
calculations are presented here. Section 4 contains description of the squeezing procedure which leads to considerable
decrease of the energy of quantized states. Other states are evident enough.
\section{Historical background}
A possibility of existence of the $\Lambda _c$ nuclei was first
discussed in \cite{tyap} soon after the discovery of charm.
Then a number of theoretical papers appeared \cite{Dk}-\cite{Ya} studying properties of charmed
nuclei. Mostly, meson-exchange $\Lambda _cN$ interactions or schematic approaches adopting some model
$\Lambda _cA$ potentials were utilized. This stage of investigations was summarized in
\cite{Star}. Then the theoretical activity becomes poor, probably
due to lack of empirical information. In the more recent years, few
studies were published \cite{Tsush,Tan,Julia,c-triton}.
So far, charmed nuclei have not been observed confidently. Some candidate events were proposed in
the emulsion experiment \cite{Exp}. On the other hand, negative results were reported by three other experimental
groups \cite{Exp2,Exp3,Exp4}, which used nuclear emulsions too. Other ways to produce charmed and bottomed nuclei were discussed
in \cite{Star,Bres,Fel}.
Theoretical studies of $\Lambda _c$ nuclei naturally use the rich experience achieved in the field of strange hypernuclei. On the other hand,
$\Lambda _c$-nucleus dynamics differs from the $\Lambda _s$ one in some substantial points. Below, we briefly
discuss main qualitative features of charmed
hypernuclei, following Ref. \cite{Star} to some extent,
emphasizing mostly properties, which are different from those of
strange hypernuclei.
Of course, quantitative predictions unlikely can be reliable in this stage.
\begin{enumerate}
{\item Seemingly all theoretical considerations predict attraction
between $\Lambda _c$ and nuclei. The intensity of this attraction
varies, however, in
different approaches. When coupling constants $\Lambda _s\Lambda _sm$ and
\Lambda _c\Lambda _cm$ for nonstrange (and noncharmed) mesons $m$
(or nonrelativistic $\Lambda _sN$ and $\Lambda _cN$ potentials)
are supposed to be equal to each other (e.g., \cite{Dk,Kol}),
$\Lambda _c$ in light systems appears to be bound deeper by the strong interaction
than $\Lambda _s$ due to the greater mass and corresponding reduction
of the kinetic energy (but see discussion of the Coulomb potential
below). On the other hand, it is possible that the $\Lambda _cN$
interaction is weaker than the $\Lambda _sN$ one (\cite{Star} and
references therein). In this case, the nuclear well for
$\Lambda _c$ is shallower and its depth can be, for instance, only a half
of that for $\Lambda _s$. In the first case (comparable $\Lambda_s N$ and $\Lambda_c N$ interaction), the charmed deuterons are
probably unbound, but the charmed tritons can exist \cite{Dk,Gib,c-triton}.
In the second case (a shallow well) charmed nuclei become bound
only at relatively large $A$ (maybe, at $A>10 $ \cite{Star,Tan}).}
{\item The important role in the $\Lambda _sN$ interaction is
played by kaonic exchange, which leads to Majorana
(space-exchange) interaction. This implies the strong orbital moment
dependence of the interaction: The considerable attraction in the $s$ wave
and relatively weak interaction (maybe even slight repulsion) in
the $p$ wave \cite{LY}. For $\Lambda _c$ hyperon, $D$ meson exchange is
extremely short-range and probably negligible. So one may expect
comparable $s$ and $p$ wave attractions \cite{BN,Ya}. The
situation is similar to that for the double-strange $\Xi $ hypernuclei, where the
well depth probably grows substantially with $A$ \cite{Yam}. Probably, the nuclear potential for $\Lambda _c$ also deepens with $A$. Some
dependence of the well depth on $A$ is seen in \cite{BN}, but this
dependence was not studied so far.}
{\item The important role of Coulomb $\Lambda^+_cA$ repulsion was
shown first in \cite{Kol}. It appears that, contrary to strange
hypernuclei, $\Lambda_c$ binding energy $B_{\Lambda
_c}$ does not saturate, but rather reaches a maximum in the vicinity of Ca
$A\sim 40$) and then falls. In the case of a deep well, charmed
nuclei remain bound up to heaviest ones. But for a shallow
well, they exist only in the finite range of $A$ (island, in terms
of \cite{Star}). Even for a relatively deep well, 20 MeV, bound
states exist only at $A<100$ \cite{Tan}. However, the $A$
dependence was studied only with constant well depths. If the well
deepens with $A$, it can provide a competitive effect.}
{\item In the early stage of strange hypernuclear physics, production and decay
of $\Lambda_s$ hypernuclei were investigated in emulsion experiments \cite{DP}.
Identification of hypernuclei was performed by their weak decay.
A hypernucleus can be produced in the ground or some excited state.
But a discrete excited state deexcites by $\gamma$ emission (nonobserved in emulsions) well before the weak decay.
Therefore, only hypernuclear ground states were available for study. Kolesnikov et al. pointed out \cite{Kol} that discrete excited states of
$\Lambda _c$ hypernuclei probably decay weekly rather than
electromagnetically since the $\Lambda_c$ lifetime is by few orders of magnitude smaller than that of $\Lambda_s$.
So, one may expect that not only ground state
can be observed in an emulsion experiment. To our knowledge,
nobody calculated so far rates of electromagnetic transitions
between $\Lambda _c$ hypernuclear levels (they depend strongly on
unknown excitation energies), but evidently the
electromagnetic lifetimes are greater than the $\Lambda _c$ lifetime (2
\cdot 10^{-13}$ s) often, if not always. }
{\item As for heavier charmed hyperons, $\Sigma _c$ can convert ($\Sigma _cN\to\Lambda _cN$)
quickly in a nucleus similarly to $\Sigma _s$.
However, $\Xi _c$ ($C=+1$, $S=-1$, $usc$ or $dsc$) hypernuclei can
be interesting. The key point \cite{Star} is that the energy
release from the conversion $\Xi _c+N\rightarrow \Lambda
_c+\Lambda $ is very small, namely, 5--6 MeV \cite{PDG}. It is possible even that
\Xi _c$ hypernuclei are stable with respect to the strong
interaction ($\Xi _c$ cannot convert) due to nuclear binding. Even if this is not the
case, the widths are expectedly rather small. Strange charmed nuclei have
been considered only very briefly \cite {Dk,Star} without taking into account $\Xi _cN-\Lambda
_c\Lambda $ mixing. In view of
current studies of double-strangeness hypernuclei \cite{Myint,LY2}, one can say that
there exists very strong baryonic mixing in strange charmed
nuclei. To our knowledge, nobody studied the mixing of baryonic states in $C=+1$, $S=-1$ nuclei, which are possibly not pure $\Xi _c$ states, but rather superpositions of $\Xi _cN$ and $\Lambda
_c\Lambda $} states.
{\item $\Lambda_b$ nuclei were considered \cite{Kol,Star,Tsush,Tan} in similar lines. Differences between $\Lambda_c$
and $\Lambda_b$ nuclei originate evidently from the greater mass and zero electric charge of $\Lambda_b$.}
\end{enumerate}
\section{Features of the CSA; advantages and disadvantages}
The starting point of the CSA, as well as of the chiral perturbation theory, is the effective chiral lagrangian
written in terms of the chiral fields incorporated into the unitary matrix $U \in SU(2)$ in the original variant of
the model \cite{skyrme1,witten}, $U=cos\,f + isin\,f\; \vec\tau \vec n$, $n_z=cos\alpha,\,n_x=sin\alpha\,cos\beta,\,n_y=sin\alpha\sin\beta$,
where functions $f$ (the profile of the skyrmion), and angular functions $\alpha,;\beta$ in general case are
the functions of 3 coordinates $x,y,z$.
To get the states with flavor $S,\; c$ or $b$ we make extension of the basic $U\in SU(2)$ to $U\in SU(3)$
with $(u,d,s)$, $(u,d,c)$ or $((u,d,b)$.
It is convenient to write the lagrangian density of the model in terms of left (or right) chiral derivative
$$ l_\mu = \partial_\mu U U^\dagger = - U\partial_\mu U^\dagger \eqno (3.1) $$
$$ {\cal L} = -{F_\pi^2\over 16}l_\rho l_\rho +{1\over e^2} \left[l_\rho l_\tau\right]^2+
{F_\pi^2 m_\pi^2\over 16} Tr (U + U^\dagger - 2 ) \eqno (3.2) $$
Mass splittings $\delta M$ are due to the term in the lagrangian
$$ {\cal L}_M \simeq - \tilde m_D^2 \Gamma {s_\nu^2\over 2} \lambda_8, \eqno (3.3)$$
$s_\nu = sin (\nu)$, $\nu$ is the angle of rotation into "strange" direction,
$\tilde m_K^2 = F_D^2m_D^2/F_\pi^2 -m_\pi^2$ includes the $SU(3)$-symmetry violation in
flavor decay constants, the quantity $\Gamma$, proportional to the sigma - term
$$ \Gamma (\lambda)\simeq {F_\pi ^2\over 2} \int (1-c_f) \lambda^3d^3r. \eqno (3.4) $$
Numerically, for the baryon number $B=1$ configuration, $\Gamma \sim 6\, Gev^{-1} $ \footnote{The contribution of the chiral and flavor symmetry
breaking mass terms into the baryon mass equals to
$$\delta M^{SB} = {m_\pi^2\over 2} \Gamma + \tilde m_K^2 C_S \Gamma, $$
where the first part may be interpreted as sigma-term, $\Sigma = m_\pi^2\Gamma/2$. For $\Gamma= 6\,Gev^{-1}$
we get $\Sigma \simeq 57 MeV$.}
moments of inertia $\Theta_\pi \sim (5 - 6)Gev^{-1},\;\Theta_K \sim (2 - 3)Gev^{-1}$,
see \cite{vkpent,kopshun} and references here. All moments of inertia $\Theta \sim N_c$.
The advantage of the CSA consists in the possibility to consider baryonic states with different flavors -
strange, charmed or beautiful - and with different atomic (baryon) numbers from unique point of view, using
one and the same set of the model parameters. The properties of the system are evaluated as a function
of external quantum numbers which characterize the system as a whole, whereas the hadronic content of the state
plays a secondary role. This is in close correspondence with standard experimental situation where e.g.
in the missing mass experiments the spectrum of states is measured at fixed external quantum numbers
- strangeness or other flavor, isospin, etc. The so called deeply bound antikaon-nuclei states have been
considered from this point of view in \cite{koppot} not in condratiction with data (this is probably one of
most striking examples).
Remarkably that the moments of inertia of multiskyrmions carry information about their interactions.
Probably, the first example how it works are the moments of inertia of the toroidal $B=2$ biskyrmion.
The orbital moment of inertia $\theta_J$ is greater than the isotopic moment of inertia $\theta_I$,
as a result, the quantized state with the isospin $I=0$ and spin $J=1$ (analogue of the deuteron) has smaller
energy than the state with $I=1,\;J=0$ (quasi-deuteron, or nucleon-nucleon scattering state), in qualitative
agreement with experimental observation that deuteron is bound stronger \cite{kopax, bracar}.
The total binding energies of strangeness $S=-1$ hypernuclei have been estimated in \cite{kop-2}
in qualitative agreement with data.
Much more successful was the description of the so called symmetry energy of nuclei with atomic numbers up to
$\sim 32$ and isospin up to $\sim 4 \,-\,5$ (i.e neutron excess up to $\sim 10$) \cite{ksm}.
The variant of the model with the 6-th order term in chiral derivatives in the lagrangian density has been
included, but flavors strangeness, charm or beauty have not been involved in this consideration.
Recently a variant of the model with the 6-th order stabilizing term in the lagrangian attracted much
attention \cite{marl1} - \cite{adam2}, and it has been noted that the binding energies of heavy nuclei
are described better in this variant than in the original variant with the Skyrme stabilizing term.
In view of this moderate success we can hope that further studies of baryonic states with different quantum
numbers in framework of the CSA, including states with unusual properties, may be of interest and useful.
Previously estimates of the flavor excitation energies were made mostly in perturbation theory,
i.e. the flavor excitation energy has been simply added to the skyrmion energy. This is not justified,
however, when the flavor excitation energy is large. Here we include this energy into simplified minimization
procedure which is made by means of the change of the soliton dimension (rescaling of the soliton).
This procedure takes into account the main degree of freedom of skyrmions given by the rational map anzatz \cite{hms}
and leads to considerable decrease of the energy of states.
This modification of the skyrmion was made, in particular, by B.Schwesinger et al \cite{kss} to improve
the description of strange dibaryon configurations.
\section{Static properties of multiskyrmions}
In this section we present some static properties of multiskyrmions which are
necessary to perform the procedure of the $SU(3)$ quantization and to obtain the spectrum of states with
definite quantum numbers.
The flavored moment of inertia equals within the rational map approximation for the original variant of the model
with the 4-th order in chiral derivatives term as the soliton stabilizer (the $SK4$ variant,
we added the rescaling factor - some power of the parameter $\lambda $ to make evident the behaviour
under the rescaling procedure $r\to r\lambda$)
$$ \Theta_F^{SK4} = \lambda f_1 + \lambda^3 f_3^{(0)} {F_D^2 \over F_\pi^2} =
\theta_F^{(0)} + \lambda^3 f_3^{(0)} \left({F_D^2 \over F_\pi^2} -1\right) \eqno (4.1) $$
with
$$ f_1 ={\pi\over 2 e^2} \int (1-c_F)\biggl(f'^2 +2B {s_f^2\over r^2}\biggr) r^2 dr; \qquad
f_3^{(0)} ={\pi \over 2} F_\pi^2 \int (1- c_F) r^2 dr. \eqno (4.2)$$
Here we show explicitly the dependence of different parts of the inertia on the rescaling parameter $\lambda$.
In Table 1 we present numerical values for $f_1$ and $f_3$.
There is simple connection between total moment of inertia in the $SK4$ variant of the model, the
$\theta_F^{SK4} $ and the sigma-term:
$$ \theta_F^{tot,SK4} = {F_D^2\over 4F_\pi^2}\Gamma + \theta_F^{SK4} = {F_D^2\over F_\pi^2}f_3^{(0)} + f_1. \eqno(4.3) $$
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l||l|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
$B$& $t_1(SK4)$&$f_1(SK4)$&$t_3(SK4)$&$f_3(SK4)$&$\Gamma(SK4)$&$t_1^*(SK4)$&$f_1^*(SK4)$&$t_3^*(SK4)$&$f_3^*(SK4)$&\\
\hline
$1 $ & $2.64$ & $0.85$ &$2.92$ &$1.20$ & $4.80$ & $6.67$ & $2.14$ &$6.13$ & $2.52$ & \\ \hline
$2 $ & $6.69$ & $1.84$ &$4.81$ &$2.34$ & $9.35$ & $13.57$ & $4.64$ &$10.73$& $5.22$ &\\ \hline
$3 $ & $8.14$ & $2.84$ &$6.26$ &$3.50$ & $14.0$ & $20.53$ & $7.18$ &$14.17$& $7.92$ & \\ \hline
$4 $ & $9.37$ & $3.77$ &$7.43$ &$4.50$ & $18.0$ & $26.35$ & $9.38$ &$16.55$& $10.02$ & \\ \hline
$5 $ & $14.67$ & $4.85$ &$8.83$ &$5.95$ & $23.8$ & $33.76$ & $12.1$ &$19.74$& $13.3$ &\\ \hline
$6 $ & $15.39$ & $5.85$ &$10.01$ &$7.25$ & $29.0$ & $40.27$ & $14.5$ &$22.33$& $16.18$ & \\ \hline
$7 $ & $18.19$ & $6.62$ &$10.71$ &$8.08$ & $32.3$ & $45.57$ & $16.8$ &$24.03$& $18.12$ &\\ \hline
$8 $ & $21.41$ & $7.68$ &$11.99$ &$9.72$ & $38.9$ & $52.96$ & $19.4$ &$26.94$& $21.85$ &\\ \hline
$9 $ & $24.28$ & $9.02$ &$13.52$ &$11.58$ & $46.3$ & $59.41$ & $21.8$ &$31.61$& $25.25 $ &\\ \hline
$10$ & $26.85 $& $10.0$ &$14.55$ &$13.0 $ & $52.0$ & $65.79$ & $24.4$ &$33.74$& $28.25$ &\\ \hline
$11$ & $29.54$ & $10.98$ &$15.66$ & $14.62 $ & $58.5$ & $72.26$ & $27.0$ &$33.74$&31.5 & \\ \hline
$12$ & $31.91$ & $11.98$ &$16.59$ & $16.02$ & $64.1$ & $78.28$ & $29.3$ &$35.72$&34.5 & \\ \hline
$13$ & $34.54$ & $12.95$ &$17.56$ & $17.55$ & $70.2$ & $84.23$ & $31.8$ &$37.77$&37.75 &\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
{\bf Table 1.}
The Skyrme term contribution to the isotopic moment of inertia of multiskyrmions $\Theta_I({\rm SK4})$,
the "flavor" inertia $\Theta_F({\rm SK4})$
and the sigma term $\Gamma$ in the SK4 variant of 2
the model with $e=4.12$ and in the rescaled variant with $e=3$ (columns 7 --- 10), in ${\rm GeV}^{-1}$. \\
Similarly, the isotopic moment of inertia $\theta_I$ within the rational map aproximation can be written as
$$ \Theta_I^{SK4} = \lambda \,t_1 + \lambda^3 \,t_3 \eqno (4.4) $$
with
$$ t_1 ={4\pi\over 3} \int {2\,s_F^2 \over e^2}\left(F'^2 +B{s_F^2\over r^2}\right) r^2 dr, \qquad t_3 =
{2\pi\over 3} F_\pi^2 \int s_F^2 r^2 dr. \eqno (4.5) $$
In the $SK6$ variant of the model the skyrmion stabilization takes place due to the 6-th order term (in chiral derivatives) in the lagrangian density,
which is proportional to the baryon number density squared \cite{kjp}.
In Table 2 we present numerical values for the contributions to the moments of inertia, which scale differently under change of the soliton scale;
$$ \Theta_F (SK6) = f_3 \lambda^3 + f_6/\lambda, \eqno (4.6) $$
$$\Theta_I (SK6) = t_3 \lambda^3 + t_6/\lambda, \eqno(4.7) $$
$$ t_6 = {1\over 8} \int (1-c_f)2 c_6s_f^2\biggl(2Bf'^2 + {\cal I}{s_f^2\over r^2}\biggr) dr. \eqno (4.8) $$
The relation takes place in the $SK6$-model, analogous to previous one:
$$ \theta_F^{tot,SK6} = {F_D^2\over 4F_\pi^2}\Gamma + \theta_F^{SK6}. \eqno (4.9) $$
$$\theta_F (\lambda) ={\pi\over 2} \int (1-c_f)\Biggl[\lambda^3 F_D^2 + {\lambda \over e^2}\biggl(f'^2 +2B {s_f^2\over r^2}\biggr)+
2 {c_6\over \lambda} {s_f^2\over r^2}\biggl(2Bf'^2 +{\cal I} {s_f^2\over \,r^2}\biggr)\Biggr]r^2 dr \eqno (4.10) $$
To calculate the part of the isotopic inertia proportional to $F_\pi^2$ we used
analytical approach developed in \cite{kjp}.
Under scale transformation we have $\theta_F^{SK6} \sim \lambda^{-1} $.
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
$B$& $\Theta_I({\rm SK6})$&$\Theta_F({\rm SK6})$&$\Gamma({\rm SK6})$&$\Theta_I({\rm SK6*})$&
$\Theta_F({\rm SK6*})^*$&$\Gamma({\rm SK6*})^*$\\
\hline
$1 $ & $5.13$ & $0.76$ & $6.08$ & $14.2$ & $2.38$ & $15.3$ \\ \hline
$2 $ & $9.26$ & $1.44$ & $14.0$ & $25.7$ & $4.62$ & $35.9$ \\ \hline
$3 $ & $12.7$ & $2.18$ & $20.7$ & $35.5$ & $6.92$ & $53.9$ \\ \hline
$4 $ & $15.2$ & $2.80$ & $24.5$ & $43.2$ & $8.85$ & $64.6$ \\ \hline
$5 $ & $18.7$ & $3.60$ & $32.8$ & $52.9$ & $11.35$ & $86.2$ \\ \hline
$6 $ & $21.7$ & $4.28$ & $39.3$ & $61.4$ & $13.65$ & $103 $ \\ \hline
$7 $ & $23.9$ & $4.88$ & $42.5$ & $68.0$ & $15.3$ & $112 $ \\ \hline
$8 $ & $27.2$ & $5.60$ & $51.6$ & $77.3$ & $17.9$ & $135 $ \\ \hline
$9 $ & $30.2$ & $6.32$ & $59.1$ & $85.7$ & $20.4$ & $154 $ \\ \hline
$10$ & $32.9$ & $7.05$ & $65.8$ & $93.5$ & $22.6$ & $171 $ \\ \hline
$11$ & $35.8$ & $7.70$ & $73.6$ & $102 $ & $24.8$ & $191 $ \\ \hline
$12$ & $38.4$ & $8.32$ & $79.9$ & $109 $ & $27.0$ & $207 $ \\ \hline
$13$ & $41.2$ & $9.02$ & $87.1$ & $117 $ & $29.2$ & $225 $ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
{\bf Table 2.} Same as in Table 1, for the SK6 variant of the model.
$e' =4.11$ and the rescaled variant of the model, $e' =2.84$ . \\
Here $\theta_F^{SK6}$ scales like $1/\lambda$.
\section{Flavor excitation energies and the total binding energies estimates}
The total binding energies are estimated using the double subtraction procedure.
We shall use the following mass formula for the quantized state which allowed to
estimate the binding energies of hypernuclei in \cite{kop-2}
$$M(B,F,I,J) = M_{cl}+ |F|\omega_{F,B} +{1\over 2\theta_{F,B}}
\left[c_FI_r(I_r+1)+(1-c_F)I(I+1)+(\bar c_F-c_F)I_F(I_F+1)\right]+ $$
$$ +{J(J+1)\over 2\theta_J}, \eqno (5.1)$$
where index B has been omitted for the sake of brevity.
For $|F|=1$ we have in present paper $I_F=1/2$.
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
$B$& $\omega_c({\rm SK4})$&$\omega_b({\rm SK4})$&$\omega_C({\rm SK4*})$&
$\omega_b({\rm SK4*})$&$\omega_c({\rm SK6})$&$\omega_b({\rm SK6})$
&$\omega_c({\rm SK6*})$&$\omega_b({\rm SK6*})$\\
\hline
$1 $ & $1.54$ & $4.80$ & $1.55$ & $4.77$ & $1.61$ & $4.93$ & $1.62$ &$4.89$ \\ \hline
$2 $ & $1.52$ & $4.77$ & $1.54$ & $4.75$ & $1.64$ & $4.98$ & $1.66$ & $4.95$ \\ \hline
$3 $ & $1.51$ & $4.76$ & $1.54$ & $4.74$ & $1.64$ & $4.98$ &$1.66$ & $4.95$ \\ \hline
$4 $ & $1.50$ & $4.74$ & $1.52$ & $4.72$ & $1.62$ & $4.92$ &$1.64$ &$4.93$ \\ \hline
$5 $ & $1.51$ & $4.75$ & $1.53$ & $4.74$ & $1.63$ & $4.96$ &$1.65$ &$4.94$ \\ \hline
$6 $ & $1.51$ & $4.76$ & $1.54$ & $4.74$ & $1.634$ &$4.96 $&$1.65$ &$4.94$ \\ \hline
$7 $ & $1.50$ & $4.74$ & $1.53$ & $4.73$ & $1.623$ &$4.95 $&$1.64$ &$4.93$ \\ \hline
$8 $ & $1.51$ & $4.76$ & $1.54$ & $4.75$ & $1.63$ & $4.96 $&$1.65$ &$4.94$ \\ \hline
$9 $ & $1.52$ & $4.77$ & $1.54$ & $4.76$ & $1.63$ & $4.97 $&$1.65$ &$4.94$ \\ \hline
$10$ & $1.52$ & $4.78$ & $1.558$ &$4.76$ & $1.63$ & $4.97 $&$1.65$ &$4.94$ \\ \hline
$11$ & $1.53$ & $4.79$ & $1.55$ & $4.77$ & $1.63$ & $4.97$ &$1.65$& $4.95$\\ \hline
$12$ & $1.53$ & $4.79$ & $1.55$ & $4.77$ & $1.63$ & $4.97 $&$1.65$ & $4.95$\\ \hline
$13$ & $1.53$ & $4.79$ & $1.55$ & $4.77 $ &$1.63$ & $4.98 $&$1.65$ & $4.95$\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
{\bf Table 3.} Flavor excitation energies for charm and beauty, for the
$SK4$ and $SK6$ variants of the model. Calculations are made using the ratios
$F_D/F_\pi = 1.576$ and $F_B/F\pi \simeq 1.44$ according to \cite{na}.\\
The flavor excitation energy is
$$\omega_{F,B} = {3B\over 8\theta_{F,B}} (\mu_{F,B} -1 ) \eqno (5.2) $$
with
$$\mu_{F,B} = \left[1+{16 \bar m_D^2\Gamma_B\theta_{F,B}\over 9B^2}\right]^{1/2}$$
At large enough $m_D$ the expansion can be made
$$\mu_{F,B} \simeq {4\bar m_D(\Gamma_B \theta_{F,B})^{1/2}\over 3B}+
{3B\over 8\bar m_D\Gamma_B \theta_{F,B}}, \eqno (5.3)$$
therefore
$$\omega_{F,B} \simeq {1\over 2}\bar m_D
\left({\Gamma_B\over \theta_{F,B}}\right)^{1/2}
-{3B\over 8\theta_{F,B}}. \eqno (5.4) $$
\section{Hyperfine splitting correction to the energy of the state}
The correction to the energy of states which is formally of the $1/N_c$ order
in the number of flavors has been obtained previously in \cite{kw,ks}
$$\Delta E_{1/N_c} ={1\over 2\theta_I}\left[c_FI_r(I_r+1) +(1-c_F) I(I+1) +
(\bar c_F-c_F) I_F(I_F+1)\right] \eqno (6.1) $$
where index $B$ is omitted for the sake of brevity, $I$ is the isospin of the state,
$I_F$ is the isospin carried by flavored meson $(K,\,D,$ or $B-$meson, for unit
flavor $I_F=1/2$, $I_r$ can be
interpreted as "right" isospin, or isospin of basic non-flavored configuration.
The hyperfine splitting constants
$$c_F= 1 - {\theta_I(\mu_F - 1) \over 2\theta_F\mu_F}, \quad
\bar c_F= 1 - {\theta_I(\mu_F - 1) \over \theta_F\mu_F^2}, \eqno (6.2) $$
This correction is considered usually as small one, but in some cases it can be
included into the minimization procedure, e.g. when isospin $I$ is large.
In our previous calculations we used also the following expression for
the difference of energies between the state with flavor $|F|$ isospin $I$ and
the state with zero flavor $F$, isospi $I_r$ which belongs to same $SU(3)$
multiplet $(p,q)$:
$$\Delta E(B,F) = |F|\omega_F +{\mu_F -1\over 4\mu_F\theta_F}[I(I+1)-I_r(I_r+1)]
+{(\mu_F-1)(\mu_F-2)\over 4\mu_F^2\theta_F} I_F(I_F+1) \eqno (6.3) $$
and we considered the flavor excitation energy as small perturbation which
makes no influence on the skyrmion itself. Such approach may be justified only
for strangeness (but should be checked in this case as well), not for charm or
beauty quantum numbers where this energy is large.
\section{Rescaling procedure}
The flavor excitation energy and hyperfine splitting correction have been
considered previously as small corrections to the energy of the state.
Such an approach can be, however, not justified when the flavor excitation is
not so small, as for heavy flavors, charm and beauty.
In these cases it is reasonable to include into consideration the
overall scale of the soliton and to perform further minimization of
the energy as a function of this scaling parameter.
Let us consider several examples of interest.
\subsection{Even $B$-number, $|F| = 1$}
For the case of even baryon number, not very large, the ground state of the nucleus
has zero isospin, and it belongs to the $SU(3)$ multiplet $(p,q) = (0,\,3B/2)$.
So, in the above formula we have
$$I=0,\quad I_r = 0,\quad I_F = 0. \eqno (7.1) $$
The energy of this state coincides with the classical mass of the skyrmion:
$$ E(B,0,0,0,0) = M_B^{cl}. \eqno (7.2) $$
For the flavored state with $|F|= 1$ we should take
$$I_r=0,\quad I=I_F= {1\over 2} \eqno (7.3) $$
and the energy of this state is
$$E(B,|F|=1,I_F=1/2, I_r=0, I=1/2) = M_B^{cl} + \omega_F +{3(\mu_F -1)^2 \over 4\theta_F \mu_F^2}. \eqno (7.4) $$
As a next step we should write this energy as function of rescaling parameter $x$ and
to find minimal energy $E^{min}(x_{min}$.
The next step is to estimate the change of the binding energy of state, when substitution
of the nucleon by the $\Lambda-$hyperon was made.
\subsection{Odd $B$-numbers, $|F|=1$}
In this case for the ground state we have $I_F=0,\; I=I_r=1/2$.
The energy of these states
$$ E(B, 0,0,1/2,1/2) = M_B^{cl} + {3\over 8\theta_I}. \eqno (7.5) $$
For flavored states with $|F|=1,\, I_F=1/2, I_r=1/2,\,I=0$ its energy is
$$E(B,1, 1/2, 1/2, 0) = M_B^{cl} +\omega_F +{3\over 8\theta_I} - {3(\mu_F-1) \over 8\theta_F \mu_F^2} \eqno (7.6) $$
and these energies should be minimized as functions of rescaling parameters.
The $B=1$ case should be considered in similar way.
The nucleon mass, $I=I_r=1/2, \; I_F=0$:
$$M_N = M_1^{cl} + {3\over 8\theta_{I,1}} \eqno (7.7) $$
The $\Lambda-$hyperon mass
$$M_\Lambda = M_1^{cl} + \omega_{F,1} + {3\bar c_{F,1}\over 8\theta_{I,1}} =
M_1^{cl} + \omega_{F,1} + {3\over 8\theta_{I,1}} - {3(\mu_{F,1}-1)\over 8\mu_{F,1}\theta_{F,1}}. \eqno (7.8) $$
Both $M_N$ and $M_\Lambda$ should be minimized separately with own scaling parameter $x$.
We do not pretend to calculate the binding energies, but we can estimate the changes in binding energies
of baryonic systems with flavor (hypernuclei) in comparison with nonflavored baryonic system:
$$ \Delta_\epsilon (B,F) = - E_{B,F} + M_B + M_\Lambda - M_N . \eqno (7.9) $$
The numerical results are presented here.
\section{Conclusions and prospects}
We have estimated the total binding energies of baryonic states (hypernuclei)
with quantum numbers charm or beauty, and some neutron excess, or high isotopic spin.
The rescaling procedure is important for several values of baryon number,
and with increasing B-numbers it becomes less important.
We thank Yura Ivanov for important help in numerical computations.
\section{Appendix 1. Analytical treatment of multiskyrmions properties in the rational map approximation}
The rational map approximation for multiskyrmions, proposed in \cite{hms}, allows to get analytical expressions describing
characteristics of multiskyrmions (masses, moments of inertia, sigma term) \cite{kjp},
valid with an acuracy of several percents.
Starting point of the anlytical treatment is parametrization of the multiskyrmion profile function in the form
$$\phi = cos\,F = \frac{(r/r_0)^b - 1}{(r/r_0))^b + 1}, \eqno(A1.1) $$
which has correct boundary conditions $cos\,f(0) = -1$, $cos\,f(\infty) = 1$, and the constants $r_0(B)$ - dimension of
the skyrmion, $ b(B)$ - the effective power, depending on the baryon number of multiskyrmion, can be found by the
static mass minimization procedure \cite{kjp}.
The integrals over 3-dimensional space which appear in calculation of the skyrmion mass, as well as other skyrmions
properties are the Euler-type integrals which can be evaluated in general enough form
$$ \int_0^\infty \frac{(r/r_0)^c dr}{\beta+(r/r_0)^b} = \beta^{(1+c)/b-1}\frac{\pi\,r_0}{b\, sin[\pi(1+c)/b]}. \eqno(A1.2) $$
The values of $r_0^{min}$ and $b^{min}$ were found for the $SU(2)$ model
with the Skyrme term as the skyrmion stabilizer to be \cite{kjp}
$$ r_0^{min} \simeq [2 \sqrt{\cal I}/3]^{1/2}, \qquad b_0^{min}\simeq 2 {\cal I}^{1/4}. \eqno(A1.3) $$
The mass term (or sigma-term) is proportional to
$$ \Sigma = \int (1 - cos\,F) d^3 r = {8\pi^2 r_0^3\over b\,sin (3\pi/b)}. \eqno (A1.4) $$
The contribution to the flavor moment of inertia due to the second order (kinetic) term in the lagrangian equals to
$$ \Theta_F^{(2)} = \int sin^2F d^3r = {48 \pi^2 r_0^3 \over b^2 sin (3\pi/b)}, \eqno (A1.5) $$
see Eq. (42) of \cite{kjp}.
Using analytical approach, we obtain simple relations between different quantities of interest.
\section{Appendix 2. The classical mass of the skyrmion, and corrections}
The classical mass of the soliton can be written in form (original $SK4$ variant of the model)
$$ M^{cl} = \lambda m_1 + m_2/ \lambda + \lambda^3\,m_3. \eqno (A2.1) $$
The quantum correction depends on moments of inertia which can be expanded in similar way.
The flavor moment of inertia
$$\theta_F =\lambda\, f_1 + \lambda^3\,f_3 , \eqno(A2.2) $$
and isotopic moment of inertia
$$ \theta_I = t = \lambda\,t_1 + \lambda^3 t_3 .\eqno (A2.3) $$
These expressions should be substituted to the expression for the energy of the state, and the
minimum should be found.
For the ground states with odd baryon numbers we should find the minimum of the
energy $(F=o, I_F=0, I=I_r = 1/2)$as function of scale parameter $\lambda$;
$$ E_{gr}(odd) = M_{cl} + {3\over 8 \Theta_I} = \lambda m_1 + m_2/ \lambda +\lambda^3\,m_3 + {3\over \lambda t_1 + \lambda^3 t_3 } \eqno (A2.4) $$
The energy of the state with unit flavor $(|F|=1, I_F=1/2, I=0)$ can be eathearly written.
\newpage
{\bf References}
\baselineskip=12pt
|
\section{Conclusions}
In this work, we show how we decreased time to convergence of the
\tool{\SLISEtext{}}{} optimization framework by using in it the minimization
algorithm \tool{L-BFGS-B}{}. When computing a box-constrained \tool{\SLISEtext{}}{}
filter, only hundreds of function evaluations are needed instead of
millions. We exploit the improved performance by introducing a second
optimization process for the numerical minimization of the Worst-case
Convergence Rate of the \tool{\SLISEtext{}}{} rational filters. The byproduct of
such minimization is the elimination of the dependence of the filter
from the weight functions used in the non-linear least squares
functional.
The new WiSe{} filters outperform \textsc{Gauss-Legendre} and
\textsc{Zolotarev} filters both in terms of execution time, number of
subspace iterations, and FLOPs count necessary to reach
convergence by the eigensolver.
Increasing the performance of the optimization of rational filters and
eliminating their dependence from a number of adjustable parameters
has an additional indirect and important impact on the eigensolver
using the rational filters as spectral projectors. This class of
solvers lend themselves to multiple levels of parallelism: At the
highest level each interval $[a,b]$ can be split in subintervals
$[a_j,b_j]$, each of which constitutes a trivially separate eigenproblem; at a
mid-level the spectral solver requires the solution of a linear system
for each pole $z_i$; at the lowest level each linear system has to be
solved for multiple RHS. While such a general scheme makes this class
of eigensolver attractive, it complicates substantially the problem of
balancing the computational load. One of the main contributor to the
uncertainty of a well-balanced computation is the ability of the
spectral filter in determining the number of subspace iterations
needed to converge the full subspace corresponding to each
$[a_j,b_j]$.
Our WiSe{} filters overcome this uncertainty by: 1) decoupling the rate
of convergence from the size of the active search subspace, 2) drastically
reducing the dependence of the number of poles which can be safely set
to a standard value (e.g. $m=4$ in FEAST).
The net result is that the spectral filter has the same effectiveness
for any sub-interval selected: For a given linear system solver the
number of iterations required to reach convergence is minimized and
independent from the eigenvalues distribution. Load balancing is then
achieved by choosing sub-intervals with approximately the same
eigenvalue count. Since obtaining a good estimate for the eigenvalue
count and the eigenvalue distribution is a solved
problem~\cite{eigencount, linlin}, the result presented
in this paper eliminates the influence of the spectral filter on load
balancing for all practical purposes. The remaining challenge is
balancing the load when solving for distinct linear system with
multiple RHS. This is the focus of further ongoing work.
\section{Experiments}
\label{sec:experiments}
In this section, we compare the \textsc{Zolotarev} and generalized
\textsc{Gauss-Legendre} filters to the WiSe{} filters from the
previous section in two different scenarios. First, in order to
inspect the worst-case performance, we compute the \tool{\WCRtext{}}{} values for
different gap parameters $G$ and poles per quadrant $m$. Second, we
use the filters in the \tool{FEAST}{} package and assess their performance
on two eigenproblems used in past literature \cite{feast,jan,guettel}.
We provide the \texttt{Julia}
library
\href{https://github.com/SimLabQuantumMaterials/SLiSeFilters.jl}{SLiSeFilters.jl}
to obtain WiSe{} filters and the generalized
\textsc{Gauss-Legendre} filters. For \textsc{Zolotarev} filters, we
use the \href{http://guettel.com/rktoolbox/}{\tool{RKToolbox}} by
Güttel et al. We will not consider other prominent examples of
rational filters, notably Trapezoid or former \tool{\SLISEtext{}}{} filters, as
they are not as competitive.
Trapezoid filters offer a strictly monotonous decay in function value
for $\abbs{x} > 1$, which is not as sharp as for
\textsc{Gauss-Legendre} and \textsc{Zolotarev} filters leading to
significantly larger \tool{\WCRtext{}}{} values~\cite{guettel}. As for \tool{\SLISEtext{}}{}
filters, Figure~\ref{fig:its_1.1} provides clear evidence that
WiSe{} filters are superior when it comes to number of iterations
to convergence.
\subsection{Comparison of \tool{\WCRtext{}}{} values}
\input{figures/convergence_rates}
In Table~\ref{tab:convergence_rates}, we list \tool{\WCRtext{}}{} values for
\textsc{Gauss-Legendre}, \textsc{Zolotarev}, and WiSe{} filters for
different gap parameters $G$ and poles per quadrant
$m$. As $m$ increases, \textsc{Zolotarev} filters feature a reliable, gradual decrease
in \tool{\WCRtext{}}{}; by construction, they do not offer a decay
in function value as $\abbs{x} \rightarrow \infty$, unlike
\textsc{Gauss-Legendre} and WiSe{}. Hence, \textsc{Gauss-Legendre}
and WiSe{} filters lead to quicker convergence for some \tool{FEAST}{}
instances, even if their \tool{\WCRtext{}}{} is larger. \textsc{Gauss-Legendre}
filters show the largest \tool{\WCRtext{}}{}s and are not competitive with regards
to worst-case performance. WiSe{} exhibit a significant reduction
of \tool{\WCRtext{}}{} compared to previous filters, especially for the default
choice of $m=4$ within the \tool{FEAST}{} eigensolver. Yet, the improvement
over \textsc{Zolotarev} filters diminishes as $m$ increases, because
the dimension of the underlying minimization increases with $m$. Large
numbers of poles per quadrant $m > 7$ correspond to high-degree
rational functions and are not taken into consideration. It is
important to notice that WiSe{} filters seem to perform
particularly well for large $G$ and $m$, making them especially
competitive in the presence of eigenvalue clusters near the
interval boundaries.
The numbers in bold in Table~\ref{tab:convergence_rates} show that,
for almost all pairs $(G,m)$, WiSe{} filters have the lowest \tool{\WCRtext{}}{}
value. Based on Theorem~\ref{th:wcr}, the best worst-case performance
is offered by the filter with smallest \tool{\WCRtext{}}{}. As we will see in the
following sections, this claim is confirmed by our numerical results.
\subsection{Experiments with \tool{FEAST}{}}
\label{sec:feastexperiments}
For our numerical experiments, we used \tool{FEAST}{} in the
version \tool{3.0},
compiled with the \tool{Intel Compiler 17.0.0},
and run on an \tool{Intel Core i7-6900K}. We selected the default \tool{FEAST}{}
parameters, with the exception of disabling\footnote{This behavior
can be achieved through the \tool{FEAST}{} parameter
$\mathtt{fpm(10)=1}$. For details, consult the \tool{FEAST}{}
documentation \cite{feastsolver}.} the repeated factorization of
the underlying linear systems. This substantially reduces runtime,
but requires sufficient \tool{RAM}.
A required argument of \tool{FEAST}{} is an upper bound $M_0$ on the number
of eigenvalues $M$ in the search interval; $M_0$ indicates the
size of the reduced eigenvalue problem, that is solved in every
\tool{FEAST}{} iteration. As already mentioned in Sec.~\ref{sec:method},
the convergence rate of \tool{FEAST}{} substantially depends on this
subspace size $M_0$. Let us denote with $I \supset [-1,1]$ the interval
centered around $0$ that contains $M_0 > M$ eigenvalues;
then, FEAST{}'s convergence rate
is proportional to
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:convrate}
\frac{\abs{r(\lambda_{\rm out})}}{\abs{r(\lambda_{\rm in})}},
\end{equation}
where $\abs{r(\lambda_{\rm in})} = \min_{\lambda\in [-1,1]\cap
\sigma(A)} \abs{r(\lambda)}$, and $\abs{r(\lambda_{\rm out})} = \max_{\lambda\notin I\cap
\sigma(A)} \abs{r(\lambda)}$.
A smaller subspace size $M_0$ yields faster \tool{FEAST}{} iterations, but
decreases the convergence rate and thus increases the number of
iterations. As a compromise, the original \tool{FEAST}{} publication
\cite{feast} suggested a subspace size of
$M_0=\lceil C\times M \rceil$, for $C=1.5$. This provides reliable
convergence within \tool{FEAST}{}, but not necessarily fastest convergence
as we see in the following. Because only estimates of the actual
eigencounts are available in advance, we assess different scenarios by
studying a number of eigencount multipliers $C$.
It is important to notice that in all our comparison we change only
the rational filter and maintain all other part of \tool{FEAST}{}
unchanged. In particular we let \tool{FEAST}{} use the same default linear
system solves to tackle \eqref{eq:linsys} and direct eigensolver in
the Rayleigh-Ritz step. Since the level of accuracy of \tool{FEAST}{} is for
all practical purposes determined by these two tasks~\cite{feast_conv,
feast_conv_2}, we consider the accuracy of the determined eigenpairs
across distinct filters comparable. In other words, since FEAST
reaches convergence with all filters using the same procedures, then
the solution are considered to be equally accurate.
\subsubsection{Experiment I}
\label{sec:exp-1}
\input{figures/cnt}
In Figure~\ref{fig:cnt_its_residuals}, we compare the convergence of
\tool{FEAST}{} for different eigencount multipliers $C>1$ on a specific
interval of the so-called \tool{CNT} eigenproblem. The matrices,
corresponding to this generalized eigenproblem, represent the
discretized Hamiltonian and Overlap operators of a physical system
studied in the context of a specific Density Functional Theory method
and have been used to analyze the worst-case performance of \tool{FEAST}{}
in previous publications \cite{feast,guettel}. These sparse \tool{CNT}
matrices $A,B \in \mathbb{R}^{12450\times12450}$, with $\num{86808}$ non-zero
entries, define the interior eigenproblem $Ax=\lambda B x$, where one
is interested in obtaining the $M=100$ eigenvalues in the interval
$[-65.0,4.96]$. The figure is divided into three quadrants, each
corresponding to one of three increasing eigencount multipliers
$C=1.02, 1.1, 1.5$. On the x-axis of each quadrant, the convergence
time (in seconds) of the \tool{FEAST}{} eigensolver, equipped with three distinct
filters, is plotted against increasing numbers of poles per quadrant
$m$ for each of these filters.
The value of the parameter $G$ is kept
fixed for all filters across the entire figure.
The result of this experiment demonstrates that best worst-case
convergence of the \tool{FEAST}{} eigensolver correlates strongly with the
\tool{\WCRtext{}}{} value of the filter that is used to project onto the active
subspace. On the other hand, the size of the active subspace $M_0$
also contributes to the convergence time and can be a confounding factor in
interpreting the numerical results. In order to minimize the influence
of the latter on our interpretation of \tool{\WCRtext{}}{}, we consider first
the quadrant for $C=1.02$. From Table~\ref{tab:convergence_rates}, we
expect that best convergence time is achieved by \tool{FEAST}{} when equipped with WiSe{} filters, followed by \textsc{Zolotarev} and \textsc{Gauss-Legendre} filters, respectively. This is indeed the
case; the performance of the three filters is clearly separated by a
gap, which reflects the differences in \tool{\WCRtext{}}{} between the filters for all $m$.
The influence of $m$ on filter performance
is less pronounced. This is not surprising. For instance, the
\textsc{Zolotarev} filter enables \tool{FEAST}{} to converge with a very slow
decrease of convergence rate as the number of poles increases, for
all considered $C$. The only consequence of increasing $C$ is a growth in
convergence time, since the size of the subspace increases with $C$ and
more operations with vectors must be performed by the linear system solver. This
behavior is due to the so-called equi-oscillation of
\textsc{Zolotarev} filters: These filters are optimal in approximating
the ideal filter in $\infty$-norm, but do not
decay away from the filtered interval. WiSe{} filters behave
similarly: While they decay (moderately) away from the interval, their
effectiveness is not determined by their value away from it but rather their
behavior very close to its boundary (see
Figure~\ref{fig:filters_log}). This is reflected by the very slight
decrease in time-to-convergence as $m$ increases although the
corresponding \tool{\WCRtext{}}{} value decreases substantially as shown in Table~\ref{tab:convergence_rates}.
As the size of the active subspace increases, its influence on
convergence time becomes ever more pronounced. This is because the
difference between the convergence rate of \tool{FEAST}{} in
\eqref{eqn:convrate} may become increasingly larger than the \tool{\WCRtext{}}{} of
the used filter as $C\gg 1.02$ \cite{guettel}. In other words, larger
active subspaces dilute the correlation between worst-case convergence
rate of the filter and convergence rate of the eigensolver. This is clearly
visible, if one traverses the quadrants in
Figure~\ref{fig:cnt_its_residuals} from left to right, and is best
illustrated by the \textsc{Gauss-Legendre} filters. These suffer from
slow convergence for small $C$, but can compensate for their large
\tool{\WCRtext{}}{} for large subspace sizes because they decay rapidly in function
value away from the search interval. In other words, for
\textsc{Gauss-Legendre}, the size of the active subspace is much more
relevant than the \tool{\WCRtext{}}{} of the filter.
This simple analysis, based on a very specific interior eigenvalue
problem, seems to suggest that WiSe{} filters should always be
preferred over \textsc{Zolotarev} filters in those cases in which the
WiSe{} \tool{\WCRtext{}}{} is smaller than \textsc{Zolotarev} (compare Table~\ref{tab:convergence_rates}).
When comparing the performance of WiSe{} and
\textsc{Gauss-Legendre} filters, it seems that the size of the active
subspace plays a major role in identifying the point
at which one filter outperforms the other. In order to address this
question, we examine the convergence rate of \tool{FEAST}{} in the next
section, both in terms of number of FLOPs and number of subspace
iterations, using a large set of representative eigenproblems.
\subsubsection{Experiment II}
\label{sec:experiments_benchmarkset}
\input{figures/benchmark_set_0.95}
We consider a moderate gap parameter of $G=0.95$ and
a set of $\num{2117}$ interior eigenproblems.
These eigenproblems were obtained from \tool{Si2}, a sparse and symmetric
matrix from the University of Florida Matrix Collection
\cite{Si2}, by selecting $2117$ different search intervals
$[a,b]$\footnote{The code to obtain such benchmark sets from arbitrary
matrices is freely available at
\url{https://github.com/SimLabQuantumMaterials/SpectrumSlicingTestSuite.jl}.}
as described in \cite[Appendix B]{jan}. Each search interval uniquely
identifies an interior eigenproblem with its unique eigenvalue
distribution and eigenvalue count. As such, it is quite general
and statistically relevant, since it reflects the large variations
that are possible in distributing and clustering eigenvalues inside,
outside, and in the vicinity of the search interval ends.
We initially solved for each of the $\num{2117}$ benchmark problems
with a fixed value of $m=4$ poles per quadrant, the default
in the \tool{FEAST}{} eigensolver. As in the previous section, we repeated this test for all
three filters for increasing values of
the eigencount multiplier $C$. The results of these tests are
graphically reported in Figure~\ref{fig:benchmark_set_0.95}, which
plots the number of subspace iterations and the total number of
FLOPs performed by \tool{FEAST}{}. These results confirm the analysis of
Section~\ref{sec:exp-1}. The \textsc{Zolotarev} and WiSe{} filters
maintain a linear behavior as a function of increasing dimension of
the active subspace as soon as $C\ge1.1$. In other words, the \tool{\WCRtext{}}{}
of these filters influences the convergence of the eigensolver only for
active subspaces that closely match the true number of eigenvalues in
the interval $[a,b]$. As soon as the size of the active subspace gets
larger, the convergence of the eigensolver is dictated by
\eqref{eqn:convrate}. This interpretation is made even clearer when
one looks at the linear increase in FLOPs for \tool{FEAST}{}, equipped with
these two filters: While the average number of iterations remains
constant, the total number of floating-point operations increases due
to the linear increase in the total number of right-hand-side vectors
$Y$ for which \eqref{eq:linsys} must be solved.
As $C$ grows, the rate of convergence of \tool{FEAST}{}, equipped with the
\textsc{Gauss-Legendre} filter, equals the one of WiSe{}---which is
dictated by the \tool{\WCRtext{}}{} at smaller values of $C$. For subspace
multipliers $C > 1.3$, the \textsc{Gauss-Legendre} starts competing,
on average, with the WiSe{}. It must be noted that this comes at a
cost: Using \textsc{Gauss-Legendre} for a relatively large active
subspace, such as the default value of $C=1.5$ suggested by \tool{FEAST}{},
has on average a higher FLOP count than the WiSe{} filters for
eigenvalue counts $C<1.3$.
This observation is fairly independent from the number of
poles per quadrant used, as shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:benchmark_set_morepoles}. \textsc{Gauss-Legendre}
filters have a slight advantage with respect to FLOP count for large
subspace sizes ($C=1.5$), but they behave worse than the WiSe{} for
any number of poles and small subspace sizes ($C=1.1$). Due to the
decay in value of the filter function, the WiSe{} filter even
outperforms \textsc{Zolotarev} for $m=7$, despite its larger
\tool{\WCRtext{}}{}. For larger $m$, overall FLOP count increases, while the
differences in FLOP count across the filters shrinks.
In conclusion, \tool{FEAST}{}, equipped with WiSe{} filters, offers a
competitive advantage over the use of \textsc{Gauss-Legendre} and
\textsc{Zolotarev} filters. WiSe{} filters are quite stable with
respect to the convergence rate of the eigensolver, irrespective of the
active subspace or the degree of the filter function. Their use seems
to almost always minimize the total FLOP count required by \tool{FEAST}{} to
reach convergence. In addition, their effectiveness for small
eigencount multipliers suggests that WiSe{} filters should be
preferred in all those cases where it is necessary to contain the
subspace size, either because the \tool{RAM} is limited or the
underlying spectrum distribution is unknown.
\input{figures/benchmark_set_morepoles}
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
For the Hermitian eigenproblem $Ax = \lambda x$ with $\lambda \in [a,b] \subset \mathbb{R}$,
the last decade has seen the emergence of a new class of eigensolvers
based on spectral projectors. Such eigensolvers are typically expressed as
integrals of the spectral resolvent $(A - zI)^{-1}$ over a contour in the complex
plane that encloses the interval $[a,b]$
\cite{sakurai,sakurai_cirr,feast,ifeast,slicing_library}.
Numerical quadrature transforms the contour integral into a
matrix-valued rational function with complex coefficients $\beta_i$
and poles $z_i$. In this form, the problem of finding an efficient
spectral projector is mapped to that of finding a rational function---often
referred to as rational filter---that approximates the indicator function
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:indicator}
\indi{a,b}(x) = \begin{cases} 1, & \text{if } x \in [a,b], \\
0, & \text{otherwise.}\end{cases}
\end{equation}
This is a discontinuous function, often termed the ``ideal filter'',
because it exactly maps the desired eigenvalues in the interval to $1$ and the
rest of the spectrum to $0$.
The algorithmic structure of eigensolvers based on rational filters
has the advantage of lending itself to parallel implementations with
multiple levels of nested parallelism~\cite{zparsesolver,feastsolver}. On the other hand, several
factors make load balancing for these parallel eigensolvers a potential
nightmare~\cite{goeddeke,guettel}. Among them the design of the filter is an important element
that influences the convergence of the eigensolver with direct
consequences on the load balancing of any parallel implementation
based on slicing $[a, b]$ in subintervals.
In this paper, we focus on the design of filters with the aim of
resolving this open issue.
We build upon the results presented in \cite{jan} and introduce an
optimization framework that is versatile and fast, eliminates
parameter dependencies, and ultimately produces highly accurate
rational filters with respect to a metric tightly bound to the quality
of the ideal filter. Numerical tests show that an eigensolver equipped
with our spectral projector converges with a rate that is practically
independent from the search space size, the number of poles of the rational
filter and the number of iterations required.
When $A$ is a Hermitian matrix, the corresponding rational filter is
real-valued and symmetric with respect to the mapping
$(x - x_0) \leftrightarrow (x_0 -x)$, where $x_0$ is the center point
of the interval $[a,b]$. Taking into consideration the complex
conjugation and parity symmetries, Winkelmann et al.\xspace\ write $r$
as a rational function of order $(4m-1,4m)$,
\begin{equation}
\label{def:filters}
r(x) := \ratcp{r}{\beta,z}(x) := \sum_{i=1}^{m} \frac{\beta_i}{x - z_i} +
\frac{\conj{\beta_i}}{x - \conj{z_i}} - \frac{\beta_i}{x + z_i} -
\frac{\conj{\beta_i}}{x + \conj{z_i}}, \quad x \in \mathbb{R},
\end{equation}
where $m \in \mathbb{N}$, $\beta=(\beta_1,\dots,\beta_m) \in \mathbb{C}^m$, and
$z=(z_1,\dots,z_m) \in (\mathbb{H}^{+R})^m$, with $\mathbb{H}^{+R}$ being the right quadrant of the upper
half of $(\mathbb{C} \setminus \mathbb{R})$ with origin in $x_0$
With this setup, the
problem to be addressed is how to select, for a fixed degree
$m$\footnote{Strictly speaking the degree of $r$ is $4m$. In the rest
of the paper we will stick to a more intuitive notion of
degree which refers to the number of poles in $\mathbb{H}^{+R}$
corresponding to the range of the index $i$ in
\eqref{def:filters}}, the
coefficients $\beta_i$ and the poles $z_i$ such that the corresponding
rational function $r(x)$ approximates the ideal filter $\indi{a,b}$
according to a predetermined metric. Our aim is to build an
optimization framework and select an appropriate metric such that the
outcome is a filter $r$ stabilizing the convergence of the eigensolver.
Due to the discontinuity of the indicator function $\indi{a,b}$,
the problem of determining the best coefficients and
poles for $r(x)$ is tackled
using a non-linear weighted least-squares approach. For a given
interval $[a, b]$, one aims to minimize the objective function
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:SLISE}
f_{\omega}(\beta, z) := \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \! \omega (x)
\, (\indi{a,b}(x) - \ratcp{r}{\beta,z}(x))^2 \ \mathrm{d}x, \quad \text{where} \
\beta \in \mathbb{C}^m, z \in (\mathbb{H}^{+R})^m
\end{equation}
over $\beta$ and $z$ for some fixed $m\in\mathbb{N}$ and a weight function
$\omega (x): \mathbb{R} \rightarrow [0,\infty)$, which is even and piecewise
constant. This optimization framework, termed \tool{\SLISEtext{}}{} in \cite{jan},
provides a comprehensive parameterization of rational filters. The
resulting \tool{\SLISEtext{}}{} filters have proven to be competitive with previous
rational filters, such as \textsc{Gauss-Legendre}~\cite{feast} and
\textsc{Zolotarev}~\cite{guettel}.
The \tool{\SLISEtext{}}{} framework is independent of the specific eigensolver in
which the function $r$ is plugged in and used as a spectral filter.
At glance, a filter optimized through this framework should
perform well independently from the target eigenproblem. In practice,
the effectiveness of a filter depends indirectly from the eigenvalue
distribution around the interval $[a, b]$ through the choice of the
weight function $\omega$.
In other words, despite its versatility, the \tool{\SLISEtext{}}{
framework outputs filters whose quality is sensitive to the ad-hoc choice
of weight functions and the piece-wise intervals defining them: small
changes in the choice of $\omega (x)$ greatly influence the
effectiveness of the resulting filter.
\paragraph{Contributions}
Building on top of the \tool{\SLISEtext{}}{} framework, this work addresses
problematic aspects of such optimization and ultimately provides a
solution to the open issue of how a spectral filters influence load
balancing. In detail, we identify a number of main contributions. We
improve the performance of the unconstrained minimization process by
substituting the \textsc{Levenberg-Marquardt} with the
\textsc{Broyden-Fletcher-Goldfarb-Shanno} (\tool{BFGS}{}) algorithm
\cite[Chapter 6]{numericaloptmization}. Likewise, when \tool{\SLISEtext{}}{} is
used in combination with box-constraints, it comes natural to extend
\tool{BFGS}{} to the \tool{L-BFGS-B}{} algorithm \cite{lbfgs1,lbfgs2,lbfgs3}. Using
the \tool{BFGS}{} family of algorithms results in a substantial reduction of
time-to-solution, which in turn is a necessary requirement to reduce
the objective function residual and, at the same time, increases the
accuracy of the \tool{\SLISEtext{}}{} filters. We increase the accuracy by
casting the problem of selecting $\beta_i$s and $z_i$s in terms of
finding the corresponding rational function $r(x)$
that
minimizes the Worse-case Convergence Rate (\tool{\WCRtext{}}{})\footnote{This
metric is defined in the next section.}. The relevance of this
metric resides in the fact that the ideal filter $\indi{a,b}$ has the
lowest possible value for \tool{\WCRtext{}}{}, which is $0$.
In order to use the \tool{\WCRtext{}}{} metric effectively, we embed the \tool{\SLISEtext{}}{}
framework, equipped with the \tool{BFGS}{} algorithm, within a second
minimization process. This process has the explicit goal of minimizing
the \tool{\WCRtext{}}{} metric with respect to the weight function $\omega$. We
attain this target by using the derivative-free \textsc{Nelder-Mead}
algorithm. The by-product of this process is eliminating the
dependence on the arbitrary choice of $\omega$ in the definition of the
objective function $f_\omega(\beta,z)$. The net result is a
parameter-free minimization framework with an enhanced usability and
productivity. When used in interior eigensolvers based on subspace
iteration, we observe that the rational filters obtained with the new
minimization framework outperform state-of-the-art filters. The
convergence rate of the eigensolver becomes almost independent from
the size of the search subspace and the number of poles
used. Consequently, the eigensolver is more robust in terms of
convergence rate and does not require tweaking of the parameters
associated with the spectral projection. In turn, this enhanced
behavior of the eigensolver facilitates the load balancing when
executed on parallel platforms. We termed this enhanced minimization
framework, and the corresponding rational filters it produces,
WiSe{}.
\paragraph{Related work}
The interpretation of spectral projectors as rational (filter)
functions of matrices was discussed
in~\cite{feast_subspace} for FEAST, and
in~\cite{Ikegami20101927,ikegami2010contour} for Sakurai-Sugiura-type
eigensolvers. Rational filters were also proposed early on for signal
processing by
Murakami~\cite{weko_67773_1,weko_69671_1,weko_28810_1,weko_28690_1,weko_18206_1}.
In recent years, filters have been treated as a parameter that can be
designed via optimization methods. Van Barel~\cite{VanBarel2016346}
suggested a non-linear Least-Squares approach for non-Hermitian
filters to be used in the Sakurai-Sugiura framework, while Xi and
Saad~\cite{saad16LeastSquares} described linear Least-Squares
optimized filters for the Hermitian FEAST eigensolver. Van Barel's approach
is based on the discrete $\ell_2$ norm, not a functional approximation
approach, and does not support constraints optimization. Xi and Saad
present a linear Least-Squares minimization method where only the
coefficients of the rational function are optimized. For FEAST,
G\"uttel et al.~presented a first approach to minimizing the \tool{\WCRtext{}}{} in
\eqref{eqn:minwcr}. They derived a set of \textit{generalized}
\textsc{Gauss-Legendre} filters, parameterized by one variable only,
with respect to which they minimized the \tool{\WCRtext{}}{} functional. The
resulting \tool{\WCRtext{}}{} values were smaller than for unparameterized
\textsc{Gauss-Legendre} filters, but not as small as for
\textsc{Zolotarev} filters
\cite{feast,guettel,guettel_correction,selfadjoint} which offered the best
\tool{\WCRtext{}}{} so far. This observation motivated a more rigorous
parameterization of a subset of rational filters, that is, \tool{\SLISEtext{}}{}
filters~\cite{jan}, so as to benefit from a reduced number of parameters within
\tool{\WCRtext{}}{} minimization.
\paragraph{Organization} The remainder of this paper is organized as follows.
In Sec.~\ref{sec:method} we introduce the reader to spectral filters and the
general mathematical setup. In Sec.~\ref{sec:slise}, we review the
\tool{\SLISEtext{}}{} framework and introduce efficient imposition of
box-constraints on rational filters through \tool{L-BFGS-B}{}. In
Sec.~\ref{sec:min_wcr}, we illustrate the minimization scheme to
reduce the \tool{\WCRtext{}}{} of \tool{\SLISEtext{}}{} filters, which in turns eliminates the
dependence on weight functions. In Sec.~\ref{sec:experiments}, we
present a set of numerical experiments comparing our new filters to
the state-of-the-art and illustrate their numerical properties and
advantages. The last section summarizes our results and provides a
perspective on their impact on the load balancing of parallel interior
eigenvalue solvers.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We thank Jan Winkelmann for having provided support to the first
author in developing the bulk of the work that contributed to this
paper and Sebastian Achilles for useful discussions.
\bibliographystyle{siamplain}
\section{Methodology}
\label{sec:method}
\input{figures/its_1.1}
Contour-based eigensolvers were originally conceived for the
solution of the generalized interior eigenvalue problem
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:eigenprob}
A v = \lambda B v, \quad \lambda \in [a,b],
\end{equation}
where $A,B\in \mathbb{C}^{n \times n}$ are Hermitian and $B$ is
positive definite, $v \in \mathbb{C}^{n}\setminus\set{0}$, $a<b$ and
$n \in \mathbb{N}$.
A spectral projector can be defined as the integral of the matrix
resolvent $(A - zB)^{-1}$ along a contour $\Gamma$ in the complex
plane $\mathbb{C}$ enclosing the interval $[a,b] \subset \mathbb{R}$.
Without loss of generality, one can linearly map $[a,b]$ to the
standard interval $[-1,1]$ and select an integration contour around
it.
It is standard practice to compute the contour
integral via numerical quadrature (e.g. \textsc{Gauss-Legendre})
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:countour}
r(A,B) := \sum_{i} \beta_i (A - Bz_i)^{-1} B\approx \frac{1}{2\pi i}
\oint_\Gamma \frac{\text{d}z}{A - Bz}B,
\end{equation}
with $\beta_i,\ z_i \in \mathbb{C}$.
When used in combination with a subspace iteration scheme, $r(A,B)$
projects a given set of vectors $Y$ onto an invariant subspace of the
spectrum corresponding to the eigenvalues within the interval $[-1,1]$
\cite{feast_conv}. In practice, spectral projection exchanges the
direct solution of the eigenproblem for that of many independent
linear systems with multiple right-hand-sides
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:linsys}
(A - Bz_i) V = \beta_iB Y
\end{equation}
Because each linear system can be solved independently from the
others, this class of eigensolvers naturally lends itself to
multiple layers of parallelism, making contour-based eigensolvers
especially well suited for today's increasingly parallel computer
architectures. As shown in several recent publications, the
performance of the eigensolver depends on the effectiveness of the
spectral filter $r(A,B)$
\cite{feast_conv,feast_subspace,guettel,guettel_correction,eigencount,ifeast}.
Recently, the authors of \cite{jan} proposed a numerical optimization approach alternative to the standard quadrature rules. By minimizing the objective function of
\eqref{eqn:SLISE}, they propose a new class of rational filters,
termed \tool{\SLISEtext{}}{}, which perform better than the filters currently in
use, on a large number of representative eigenproblems. Despite such an
advance, the \tool{\SLISEtext{}}{} framework showed a few shortcomings, such as
slow convergence and lack of efficient support for
box-constraints.
These box-constraints---defined as upper and lower bounds on the
imaginary parts of each $z_i$---can substantially influence the
time-to-solution in iterative linear system solvers. Having a
time-to-solution comparable across all linear systems is a crucial element to
load-balance a parallel eigensolver based on spectral projection.
\paragraph{The \tool{\SLISEtext{}}{} filters}
The \tool{\SLISEtext{}}{} minimization framework aims to approximate the
indicator function $\mathds{1}_{(-1,1)}$ by rational filters $r(x)$ of a fixed degree
$m$. This approximation is obtained by minimizing the
objective function $f_\omega(\beta,z)$ from \eqref{eqn:SLISE}. In the \tool{\SLISEtext{}}{} framework, a new filter is obtained as follows: Given
a fixed weight function $\omega$ and an $m\in\mathbb{N}$, \tool{\SLISEtext{}}{} takes an
existing rational filter $\ratcp{r}{\bar{\beta},\bar{z}}$, where
$\bar{\beta} \in \mathbb{C}^m $ and $\bar{z} \in (\mathbb{H}^{+R})^m$, and derives a
new rational filter $\ratcp{r}{\hat{\beta},\hat{z}}$, such that
$(\hat{\beta},\hat{z})$ solves the minimization problem
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:minslise}
\argmin{\beta \in \mathbb{C}^m, z \in (\mathbb{H}^{+R})^m}{f_{\omega}(\beta,
z)}.
\end{equation}
This minimization problem is non-linear and non-convex and therefore
difficult to solve due to the non-existence of closed-form solutions.
Yet, the objective function $f_{\omega}$, as well as its gradient
\begin{equation}
\nabla f_{\omega} =
(\nabla_{\beta_1} f_{\omega}, \dots, \nabla_{\beta_m} f_{\omega},
\nabla_{z_1} f_{\omega}, \dots, \nabla_{z_m} f_{\omega})^\top,
\end{equation}
are differentiable and can be computed through a small number of matrix
operations \cite{jan}. In this setup, one can make use of a wide range of existing
numerical minimization methods. Winkelmann et al.\xspace obtain \tool{\SLISEtext{}}{}
filters by employing two such minimization methods, gradient descent
and \textsc{Levenberg-Marquardt} (LM).
While LM makes for an effective minimization scheme, it may require
up to thousands of iterations to converge to a satisfactory value for
the residual level of $f_{\omega}$. Executing an efficient minimization
becomes a pressing problem in the case of box-constrained
optimization, when the LM algorithm cannot be used and gradient
descent requires up to millions of iterations to converge, which
translates in a significantly larger amount of computing time over the
unconstrained case.
In addition, and most importantly, the quality of
a resulting filter depends on the choice of weight function
$\omega$, which is not automatic and requires an experienced user to
follow a set of guidelines. In the following, we illustrate
a minimization scheme that ensures speed of convergence,
supports box-constraints, and eliminates the dependence on the custom
choice of weight functions $\omega$.
\paragraph{The new minimization scheme}
In the rest of the paper, we refer to $r$ as a rational
filter, and, without loss of generality, consider only the case
$r(A,B=I)=r(A)$. As seen in the previous section, if $A$ is a
Hermitian matrix, the corresponding rational function $r(x)$ is forced
to be real and symmetric and can be expressed with a subset of
poles and coefficients as in \eqref{def:filters}. Since the
minimization of the objective function in \eqref{eqn:SLISE} is
completely general, the resulting filter is independent of the
specific subspace iteration eigensolver and can be plugged in any eigensolver of
this type.
Nonetheless, for practical purposes, we use the
\tool{FEAST}{} eigensolver \cite{feastsolver} as a reference
algorithm. Given and exact value
$\lambda_j\in[-1,1]$, \tool{FEAST}{} computes an approximate
eigenpair $(\boldsymbol{q}_j,\hat{\lambda}_j)$ with a residual vector
norm equal to
$\norm{A \boldsymbol{q}_j - \hat{\lambda}_j \boldsymbol{q}_j}$. Such
residual converges linearly with a convergence rate given by
$\abbs{\gamma_{\rm out}/\gamma_{\rm in}}$, where $\gamma_{\rm out}$
($\gamma_{\rm in}$) is related to the maximum (minimum) value of
the filter outside (inside) a neighborhood enclosing the $[-1,1]$
interva
~\cite[Theorem 5.2]{feast_subspace}. Consequently, the convergence rate
depends both on the spectrum of the given matrix $A$ and the
spectral filter of choice.
Although the actual
convergence rate will vary for different spectra, a filter-dependent
upper bound is given by the Worst-case Convergence Rate
(\tool{\WCRtext{}}{}). The \tool{\WCRtext{}}{} applies to a variety of other
eigensolvers based on spectral projection such as the block Sakurai-Sugiura-Rayleigh-Ritz
method \cite{sakurai_cirr} and its non-iterative variant
\cite{block_ss_rr_accuracy}. As defined in \cite{guettel}, the
worst-case convergence rate satisfies the following theorem
\begin{theorem}[{\cite[Th.2.2]{guettel}}]
\label{th:wcr}
Given a rational filter $r$ and a fixed \textit{gap parameter} $G \in
(0,1)$, the \tool{FEAST}{} method converges linearly, with probability one,
at a convergence rate no larger than
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:worst}
w_G(r) = \frac{\max_{x \in [-\infty,-G^{-1}] \cup [G^{-1},\infty]}\abs{r(x)}}{\min_{x \in [-G,G]}\abs{r(x)}},
\end{equation}
as long as no
eigenvalues lie within $[-G^{-1},-G]\cup[G, G^{-1}]$.
The occurring probability stems from choosing the initial subspace within
the \tool{FEAST}{} method at random.
\end{theorem}
Since Theorem~\ref{th:wcr} implies that
$\abbs{\gamma_{\rm out}/\gamma_{\rm in}} \le w_G(r)$, for an appropriate
$G$, a smaller \tool{\WCRtext{}}{} value $w_G(r)$ implies faster worst-case convergence. As we
already mentioned in the introduction, minimizing \tool{\WCRtext{}}{} for the
\tool{\SLISEtext{}}{} filters points out to which filters
best approximate the ideal filter $\mathds{1}_{(-1,1)}$ (that has indeed the optimal
bound $w_G(\mathds{1}_{(-1,1)}) = 0$). Based on the considerations above, we can now
define the following optimization problem.
\begin{definition}
Given $G \in(0,1)$, $m\in\mathbb{N}$, and $\ratcp{r}{\beta,z}$ a rational
filter as defined in \eqref{def:filters}, an \textit{optimal rational filter} is one
solving the minimization problem
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:minwcr}
\argmin{\beta \in \mathbb{C}^m, z \in (\mathbb{H}^{+R})^m}{w_G(\ratcp{r}{\beta,z})}.
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
In general, the \tool{\WCRtext{}}{} is a non-linear, derivative-free function. Its
formulation makes it difficult to determine further mathematical
properties, such as convexity or continuity. Conventional methods,
like steepest descent, cannot be applied. Additionally, in
derivative-free minimization, the number of $w_G$ function evaluations
may become intractable very quickly, even for a modest increase of the
rational filter degree $m$. These observations cause this
minimization problem to be especially challenging. Instead of solving
the problem as formulated in \eqref{eqn:minwcr}, we propose a modified
minimization problem that combines the existing \tool{\SLISEtext{}}{} framework,
solving for $(\beta,z)$ while $\omega$ is fixed, as in
\eqref{eqn:minslise}, with minimization of the \tool{\WCRtext{}}{} with respect to
$\omega$, seeking a better $\omega$ while $(\beta,z)$ is fixed.
These two minimization problems
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqn:minWCR}
\left\{
\begin{array}[l]{l l l}
\beta, z & \leftarrow \argmin{\beta, z}{f_{\omega}(\beta,
z)} & \textrm{for a fixed $\omega$} \\
\omega & \leftarrow
\argmin{\omega}{w_G(\ratslise{r}{\beta}{z}{\omega})}
& \textrm{for a fixed pair $(\beta,z)$}
\end{array}
\right.
\end{eqnarray}
are clearly not independent.
The \tool{\WCRtext{}}{} it is minimized solely with respect to the weight function
$\omega$---where we have indicated explicitly the dependence of the
rational filter on the weight function in \eqref{eqn:minWCR}---but it
is a non-linear, derivative-free function. As such, the WCR{} depends
on the whole $r$ which, in turn, depends on the minimization of the
objective function $f_\omega$. In other words, we now have to solve
two non-linearly dependent minimization problems, which need to be
solved self-consistently. We will see in Section \ref{sec:min_wcr} how
we implement this process in a nested loop fashion, where the \tool{\SLISEtext{}}{}
process is executed within the \tool{\WCRtext{}}{} minimization and convergence is
reached self-consistently by continuously swapping between the two
minimizations. Solving \eqref{eqn:minWCR} is now a tractable problem,
even if it calls for sophisticated algorithms, and is computationally
very intensive, requiring many repeated invocations of the \tool{\SLISEtext{}}{}
minimization.
\input{figures/filters_log}
In order to increase the performance of the self-consistent
minimization, we introduce the \tool{BFGS}{} algorithm \cite[Chapter
6]{numericaloptmization} within the unconstrained \tool{\SLISEtext{}}{}
minimization process. Similarly, for box-constraints, we present an
embedding of the \tool{L-BFGS-B}{} minimization method
\cite{lbfgs1,lbfgs2,lbfgs3} into \tool{\SLISEtext{}}{}. By formulating the \tool{\WCRtext{}}{}
minimization as a nested process, we additionally solve the issue of
weight function selection, which is one of the open issues of
\tool{\SLISEtext{}}{}. The net result is an extension of the \tool{\SLISEtext{}}{} framework
toward rational filters for faster convergence, without the need to
select the weight functions by hand. Our new rational filters, termed
WiSe{}, outperform state-of-the-art filters (see
Figure~\ref{fig:its_1.1} for experimental results and
Figure~\ref{fig:filters_log} for filter plots). In particular, we prove
that \textsc{Zolotarev} filters do not provide best worst-case
convergence, despite their optimality in approximating the indicator
function with respect to the $\infty$-norm.
\section{Efficient computation of WiSe{} filters}
\label{sec:slise}
In this section, we introduce the use the \tool{BFGS}{} algorithm, which
yields faster convergence and better box-constrained rational filters
than previous implementations. Moreover, the extended \tool{L-BFGS-B}{}
successfully addresses open issues that appear in box-constrained
filters~\cite{guettel,jan,ifeast}.
\subsection{Accelerating \tool{\SLISEtext{}}{}}
\label{sec:bfgs}
When using the
\tool{BFGS}{} algorithm
to solve the minimization problem in \eqref{eqn:minslise}, we end up
reducing substantially the number of function evaluations needed to
reach convergence. Seemingly minor, this improvement is actually
essential for an effective embedding of \tool{\SLISEtext{}}{} into a scheme that is
based on the minimization of the \tool{\WCRtext{}}{}. The \tool{BFGS}{} algorithm belongs
to the class of quasi-\textsc{Newton} methods. It approximates a local
minimizer iteratively, in a manner similar to the popular
\textsc{Gauss-Newton} algorithm, which is
Hessian-based. However, unlike \textsc{Gauss-Newton}, \tool{BFGS}{} does not
require the exact Hessian $\nabla^2 f$, and uses an
approximation instead. The minimum requirement for the algorithm to
work is that the function $f$ has a quadratic expansion in
Taylor series near the minimum. Thanks to this weaker
condition, \tool{BFGS}{} guarantees convergence also for non-smooth and
non-convex functions.
The standard implementation of the \tool{BFGS}{}-variant in Algorithm~\ref{algo:bfgs}
does not offer support for real-valued objective functions of complex
arguments, such as our $f_{\omega}$ from \eqref{eqn:SLISE}.
This problem can be overcome by a conversion of $f_{\omega}$ and $\nabla
f_{\omega}$ to real arguments. In the
case of a generic function of a complex variable $g:\mathbb{C}^n \rightarrow
\mathbb{R}$, one can
separate the real from the imaginary parts \cite{complexoptimization}
and instead minimize the function $\tilde{g}:\mathbb{R}^{2n} \rightarrow\mathbb{R}$, defined as
\begin{subequations}
\label{eqn:transformation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:complex_transform}
\tilde{g}(\colvecalt{a}{b}) := g(a + {i\mkern1mu} b), \quad \text{for} \ a,b\in
\mathbb{R}^n,
\end{equation}
by computing descent directions from its gradient
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:complex_transform2}
\nabla \tilde{g} (\colvecalt{a}{b}) =
\colvecalt{\operatorname{Re}\nabla g (a + {i\mkern1mu}
b)}{\operatorname{Im}\nabla g (a + {i\mkern1mu} b)},
\quad \text{for} \ a,b\in
\mathbb{R}^n.
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
The same mapping can be applied to the \tool{\SLISEtext{}}{} functional
$f_{\omega}: \mathbb{C}^m \times (\mathbb{H}^{+R})^m \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ because it operates on a
subset of $\mathbb{C}^{2m}$, where $m\in\mathbb{N}$ is the degree of the rational
filter. In this case, one can think of the complex vectors $\beta$
and $z$ as being part of a vector $v = (\beta\ z) ^\top$ and define
$\tilde{f}:\mathbb{R}^{4m} \rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:complex_transform3}
\tilde{f}\colvecalt{\colvecalt{\Re(\beta^\top)}{\Re(z^\top)}}{\colvecalt{\Im(\beta^\top)}{\Im(z^\top)}}
:= f(\Re(\beta) + {i\mkern1mu} \Im(\beta), \Re(z) + {i\mkern1mu} \Im(z) ).
\end{equation}
Starting at an initial point $x_0 = \left(\Re(\beta)\ \Re(z)\ \Im(\beta)\
\Im(z)\right)^\top$,
\tool{BFGS}{} computes iterates $x_k$ that converge to a local minimizer of
$\tilde{f}$ as $k \in \mathbb{N}$ increases, employing the descent directions
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:descent}
p_k := - H_k \ \nabla \tilde{f}(x_k),
\end{equation}
and a line search which guarantees that the secant
condition is satisfied (see {\tt line \ref{algo:bfgs_linesearch}} of Algorithm
\ref{algo:bfgs}). $H_k$ is an approximation to the inverse
Hessian of $\tilde{f}$ and is recursively defined as
\begin{equation}
H_0 := I_{4m}, \quad H_{k+1} := (I_{4m} - \frac{s_k y_k^{T}}{y_k^T
s_k}) \ H_k \ (I_{4m} - \frac{y_k
s_k^{T}}{y_k^T s_k}) + \frac{s_k s_k^{T}}{y_k^T s_k},
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
s_k := x_{k+1} - x_{k}, \quad y_k := \nabla \tilde{f}(x_{k+1}) -
\nabla
\tilde{f}(x_{k}),
\end{equation}
where $x_k, s_k, y_k, p_k \in \mathbb{R}^{4m}$ and $H_k \in \mathbb{R}^{4m \times 4m}$ for
some $m\in\mathbb{N}$.
\end{subequations}
The formulation through the \tool{BFGS}{} algorithm converges
faster than the previous minimization algorithms used by the \tool{\SLISEtext{}}{}
framework (see Figure~\ref{fig:residuals} for the box-constrained case
that is discussed in the following subsection).
The conversion of the minimization functional to real-arguments
allows one to use not only the \tool{BFGS}{} scheme, but also various other minimization
algorithms (such as those in the minimization algorithm collection
\tool{NLOpt} \cite{nlopt}). Despite such an advantage, most
alternatives do not yield any substantial improvements over \tool{BFGS}{}.
\input{figures/bfgs}
\subsection{Imposing box-constraints efficiently}
As described at the beginning of Section \ref{sec:method}, the
spectral projection at the base of the \tool{FEAST} eigensolver leads to the
solution of several independent linear systems with multiple RHS (see
\eqref{eq:linsys}).
In the case of very large and sparse systems, the use of direct
solvers is not feasible due to memory requirements. In this case,
iterative solvers, such as \tool{GMRES} or \tool{CG}, are the natural
choice. For these
methods, time-to-solution and accuracy depend substantially on the
condition number of the resolvent matrices $(A - z_iI)$. When $A$ is
Hermitian, such condition number is, up to a constant factor, equal to
\begin{equation}
\kappa(A- z_iI) = \frac{\max_{\lambda_a \in \sigma(A)}\abbs{\lambda_a - z_i}}{\min_{\lambda_b \in \sigma(A)}\abbs{\lambda_b
- z_i}}.
\end{equation}
Since the filter is built to approximate the indicator function
$\mathds{1}_{(-1,1)}$, the numerator of this equation is bound from above by
$(\max_{\lambda_a \in \sigma(A)}\abbs{\lambda_a} + 1)$, while the denominator is bound from below by
$\abbs{\Im(z_i)}$. Consequently, if the poles of the rational function
$\ratcp{r}{\beta,z}$ are close to the real axis, the condition number of some of the
resolvent matrices can be quite high. This
consideration motivated the introduction of the box-constraints
$\abbs{\Im(z_i)} \geq {\tt lb} > 0$ ($i=1, \ldots, m$) to the \tool{\SLISEtext{}}{}
minimization process, where ${\tt lb}$ is a positive constant
representing the minimum distance of any pole from the real axis.
In the \tool{BFGS}{} algorithm, box-constraints can be included by projecting
the search direction onto the constraints. This is accomplished through the simple gradient projection
$\mathcal{P}(x - t \nabla\tilde{f}(x))$, where $t>0$, followed by a \tool{BFGS}{}
update treating the bounded components of $x$ as equality
constraints. In our case, the operator $\mathcal{P}: \mathbb{R}^{4m}
\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{4m}$ projects only the imaginary
part of the poles $\abbs{\Im(z_i)}$ and takes consequently the following
form when acting on a vector $y\in\mathbb{R}^{4m}$
\begin{equation}
\mathcal P(y)_j \coloneqq
\begin{cases}
\sign(y_j) \cdot \text{\texttt{lb}}, &
\textrm{if}\ \abbs{y_j} >
\text{\texttt{lb}} \ \text{and} \ j \in \set{ 3m+1,\ldots,4m },\\
y_j & \text{otherwise, }
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
for $j=1,\dots,4m$.
This approach is encoded in the \tool{L-BFGS-B}{} algorithm, which extends
projected gradient descent to the Hessian approximations
from \tool{BFGS}{}, and can be used to realize box-constrained
minimization efficiently in \tool{\SLISEtext{}}{}, similarly to what is done in Algorithm
\ref{algo:bfgs}.
The \tool{L-BFGS-B}{} algorithm
has shown to converge quickly in our experiments, when compared with projected
gradient descent.
In terms of both speed and accuracy, the use of \tool{L-BFGS-B}{} places the
constrained \tool{\SLISEtext{}}{} method on par with the unconstrained \tool{BFGS}{} algorithm.
To illustrate the increase in performance caused by \tool{L-BFGS-B}{}, we
compare box-constrained minimization through our \tool{L-BFGS-B}{}
implementation against the projected gradient descent implemented in
the original \tool{\SLISEtext{}}{}
framework. Figures~\ref{fig:projected_descent_residuals} and
\ref{fig:lbfgsb_residuals} show the number of function evaluations
carried out by the projected gradient descent and the \tool{L-BFGS-B}{}
algorithms, respectively. \tool{L-BFGS-B}{} requires four order of magnitudes
fewer evaluations than projected gradient descent, and converges to a
smaller residual
So far, the procedure used to obtain the \tool{\SLISEtext{}}{} filters depends on
the specific form of a given weight function $\omega$. For some of
such weight functions, the outputted filters were shown to outperform
state-of-the-art rational filters. Yet, the only criterion known to
determine suitable weight functions is by comparing hand-crafted weight
functions on a large set of representative interior eigenproblems.
While guidelines for the construction of $\omega$ have been devised,
the choice of weight functions remains a complex issue. In
the following section, we propose an algorithm to obtain weight
functions, which yield \tool{\SLISEtext{}}{} filters with reduced \tool{\WCRtext{}}{}, and
overcome the necessity of selecting weight functions manually.
\input{figures/box_residuals}
\section{\tool{\SLISEtext{}}{} filters with reduced \tool{\WCRtext{}}{}}
\label{sec:min_wcr}
In this section, we illustrate how to reduce the \tool{\WCRtext{}}{} of a given
\tool{\SLISEtext{}}{} filter by improving on the choice of weight function $\omega$.
We achieve this by minimizing a new objective function, closely related to
the \tool{\WCRtext{}}{} of rational filters.
\subsection{Parameterization of weight functions}
\label{sec:param_weights}
Weight functions are even, non-negative, piecewise constant functions
that are used in the definition of the \tool{\SLISEtext{}}{} functional $f_{\omega}$
in \eqref{eqn:SLISE}. This means that a weight function can be
characterized in terms of $n\in\mathbb{N}$ intervals
$[x_i, x_{i+1}) \subseteq [0,\infty]$ and corresponding function
values $\omega(x\in [x_i, x_{i+1}))=\omega_i$, called weights,
where $\omega_i \in [0,\infty)$ for $i = 1,2,\dots,n$. In their original
contribution, Winkelmann et al.\xspace{} obtained weight functions for the \tool{\SLISEtext{}}{}
framework by following three guiding principles, derived from
experience: (i) gradual decrease in weights outside the search
interval $[-1,1]$, (ii) sufficient magnitude of weights inside
$[-1,1]$, and (iii) symmetry in weights about the interval endpoints
of $[-1,1]$. While \tool{\SLISEtext{}}{} filters following these guidelines could
outperform state-of-the-art \textsc{Gauss-Legendre} and
\textsc{Zolotarev} filters, some manual adjustment based on experience
remained necessary.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabularx}{\linewidth}{ X D D D D D}
\toprule
$|x|\in$ & $[0, 0.95)$ & $[0.95, 1.05)$ &
$[1.05, 1.4)$ & $[1.4, 5)$ & $[5, \infty)$\\
\midrule
$\wgtf_{\gamma\text{-\SLISE{}}}(x)$ & 1 & 0.01 & 10 & 20 &
0 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabularx}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\caption{The $\wgtf_{\gamma\text{-\SLISE{}}}$ weight functio
}
\label{tb:cuswei}
\end{table}
An example of a weight function $\wgtf_{\gamma\text{-\SLISE{}}}$, which yields \tool{\SLISEtext{}}{}
filters outperforming \textsc{Gauss-Legendre} filters, is given in
Table~\ref{tb:cuswei}. This choice of weights suggests a natural way
of parameterizing weights and interval boundaries, so they can be
treated without distinction. For this purpose, we introduce a set
$V_s$ of parameter vectors $v=(v_1, \dots, v_{2s-3})$, where $s \ge 2$
equals the number of intervals to the right
of $0$
\begin{equation}
V_s = \set{v \in [0,\infty)^{2s-3} \mid G < v_1 < 1 < G^{-1} <
v_2 < v_3< \ldots < v_{s-1}},
\end{equation}
for some gap parameter $G \in (0,1)$.
A generic set of $v_i\in V_s$ induces a weight function
$\wgtfsearch{j}$ with $j = 1,2,\dots,s$.
Following this parameterization,
Table~\ref{tb:cuswei} is rewritten as Table~\ref{tb:genwei}. The
parameters $v_1, v_2$ enclose $\pm 1$, but do not necessarily match
the endpoints of the gap $[G, G^{-1}]$. The parameters $v_3,v_4$
reflect some more intervals of the weight function. The remaining
parameters $v_5, \dots, v_7$ denote non-negative weights. The weight
for the interval $[0,v_1)$ is fixed to $1$, as weight functions are
invariant under scaling within \tool{\SLISEtext{}}{}. In this notation, the
$\wgtf_{\gamma\text{-\SLISE{}}}$ weight function from Table~\ref{tb:cuswei} translates
into the vector $(0.95, 1.05, 1.4, 5, 0.01, 10, 20) \in V_5$. As we
are going to illustrate in the next section, this parameterization
scheme allows for a systematic improvement of weight functions,
alongside a choice of weights and interval
endings
\begin{table}
\begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{ X D D D D D}
\toprule
$|x|\in$ & $[0, v_1)$ & $[v_1, v_2)$ & $[v_2, v_3)$
& $[v_3, v_4)$ & $[v_4, \infty)$ \\
\midrule
$\wgtfsearch{j}(x)$ & $1$ & $v_5$ &
$v_6$ & $v_7$ & 0 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabularx}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\caption{Parameterized weight function $\omega$, for
$s=5$.}
\label{tb:genwei}
\end{table}
\subsection{Minimization of parameterized weight functions}
In order to compare the influence of distinct weight functions
$\wgtfsearch{j} \in V_s$ on the minimization of
\tool{\WCRtext{}}{}, we introduce a new objective
function
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:weightmetric}
h := h_{\beta,z}(v) :=
w_G(\ratslise{r}{\beta}{z}{v}), \quad \text{for}
\ v\in V_s,
\end{equation}
where $\ratslise{r}{\beta}{z}{v}$ is computed by the
Algorithm~\ref{algo:bfgs}.
$h_{\beta,z}(v)$ is a functional of a given filter
$\ratcp{r} {\beta,z}$,
and it associates the vector of parameters $v$ with the \tool{\WCRtext{}}{} of the corresponding
filter. As such, $h$ establishes a meaningful
metric to quantify the performance of a weight function
$\omega
. The minimization
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:minweight}
\argmin{v \in V_s}{h_{\beta,z}(v)},
\end{equation}
facilitates a systematic search for better weight functions and,
consequently, rational filters with smaller worst-case convergence.
For a given $\ratcp{r}{\beta,z}$, this is a non-linear,
derivative-free minimization problem, depending on only ($2s-3$)
variables.
However, for each optimization step
involving changes of $v$, the rational filter
$\ratslise{r}{\beta}{z}{v}$ has to be computed again by executing a
call to the Algorithm~\ref{algo:bfgs}. The end result is a nested
optimization problem \eqref{eqn:minWCR} with, possibly, thousands of
calls to Algorithm~\ref{algo:bfgs}.
\input{figures/alg_minwwcr}
Since the WCR functional cannot be expressed as a continuous function
of $v$, to solve \eqref{eqn:minweight}, we resort to using the
\textsc{Nelder-Mead} algorithm, a
prominent local,
derivative-free minimization schemes.\footnote{Local means that the algorithm starts at an
existing point, at best, close to the sought after minimum.}
In our case,
\textsc{Nelder-Mead} generates competitive solutions quickly, but
suffers from stagnation at non-optimal points
\cite{neldermead_nonoptimal1,neldermead_nonoptimal2}. To overcome
stagnation, we follow Carl Kelley's suggestion of restarting
\textsc{Nelder-Mead} at the current iterate with adjusted parameters
\cite{neldermead_nonoptimal}. An explicit such parameter choice
exists only for the case of smooth functions, introduced as
\textit{oriented restart}. Since our functional $h$ is non-smooth, we
obtain a new parameter choice by perturbing the current iterate
carefully through \textit{coordinate descent}. Coordinate descent is a
simple, local, derivative-free minimization method, that performs
subsequent line searches along the coordinate directions, given some
starting point $v\in V_s$. Independently of having detected
stagnation, we use coordinate descent systematically to obtain a new
starting point for each \textsc{Nelder-Mead} call
The general scheme outlined above is described in
Algorithm~\ref{alg:min_weight_worst} and implemented using the
\tool{Julia} programming language.\footnote{The code is freely available at
\url{https://github.com/SimLabQuantumMaterials/SLiSeFilters.jl}}
Given a weight function
$v \in V_s$ and a filter $\ratcp{r}{\beta,z}$, the algorithm
chooses better weight functions from $V_s$
iteratively.
At each iteration of the {\bf while} loop, the weights of the current
filter are updated to reduce the \tool{\WCRtext{}}{}, and from these, a new filter
is computed.
When the residual of the $h$ function $\textrm{Res}(h)$ (i.e. the relative difference of two subsequent $h$ values) falls below an established threshold
tolerance (see {\tt line \ref{alg:minww_res}} of
Algorithm~\ref{alg:min_weight_worst}), the algorithm returns the \tool{\SLISEtext{}}{}
filter of the last iteration, which minimizes the \tool{\WCRtext{}}{} among the
weight functions in the search space $V_s$.
Each {\bf while} loop iteration follows three consecutive steps: (i) coordinate
descent, (ii) \textsc{Nelder-Mead}, (iii) computation of new \tool{\SLISEtext{}}{}
filter and convergence check.
\paragraph{Coordinate descent} This is performed in
{\tt Lines~\ref{lln:restart1}~-~\ref{lln:restart2}}, improving the
coordinates of the parameter vector $v \in V_s$ through a
separate minimization problem for each variable
$v_i$ and $i \leq 2s-3$,
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:nelder_restart}
\argmin{c\in I_i }{h_{\beta,z}(v(c))}, \quad
\text{where} \
v(c) := (v_1, \dots v_{i-1}, \, c \, , v_{i+1}
\dots, v_{2s-3}) \in V_s,
\end{equation}
while restricting the search space to a neighborhood $I_i$ of
$v_i$. For instance, for $s \ge 5$ the intervals $I_i$
used are
\begin{equation}
I_i := \left\{\begin{alignedat}{3}
&\ [ G, && 1], && \quad \text{if } i=1, \\
&\ [ 1, && G^{-1}], && \quad \text{if } i=2 \\
&\ [ G^{-1}, && v_{i+1}], && \quad \text{if } i=3, \\
&\ [ v_{i-1}, && v_{i+1}], && \quad \text{if } 4 \le
i
<s-1, \\
&\ [\, v_{i-1}, && 3 \, v_i], && \quad \text{if }
i=s-1,
\\
&\ [ 0.1 \, v_i, && 10 \, v_i], && \quad \text{if }
s
\le
i \le
2s-3.
\end{alignedat}\right.
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
We implement the coordinate descent minimization through the global,
derivative-free minimization scheme Adaptive Differential
Evolution from the \tool{Julia} library \href{https://github.com/robertfeldt/BlackBoxOptim.jl}{BlackBoxOptim.jl}
\cite{blackboxoptim}. Global minimization algorithms aim to
find the global minimizer within a region $I_i$, instead of converging
to a local minimizer starting from a given point. If the value of
\tool{\WCRtext{}}{} has decreased, the solution of the coordinate descent
minimization $\hat{v}_i$ is used instead of $v_i$ for the successive
steps of the {\bf while} loop iteration. This step is executed to
prevent stagnation in the execution of the \textsc{Neldear-Mead}
minimization.
\paragraph{Nelder-Mead} In {\tt Line~\ref{lln:neldermead}},
\textsc{Nelder-Mead} is applied to a slightly modified version of the
minimization problem formulated in \eqref{eqn:minweight}: We keep
$v_1$, $v_2$ fixed at the values obtained from the coordinate descent
step. This choice is motivated by the high sensitivity of the
functional $h$ to changes in these variables, being
close to the endpoints of the gap $[G,G^{-1}]$. In practice,
\textsc{Nelder-Mead} is used to solve the
minimization problem
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:neldermead_minimize}
\argmin{ b_1, \dots, b_{r} \in \mathbb{R} }{h_{\beta,z}(v(b_1,
\dots, b_{r}))},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
v(b_1, \dots, b_{r}) := (v_1, v_2, b_1, \dots,
b_{r}) \quad {\rm and} \quad r=2s-5.
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
Because the classical \textsc{Nelder-Mead} algorithm performs
unconstrained minimization only, we also
have to ensure that the minimizer $v'$
lies within the admissible intervals defined by $V_s$.
A straightforward approach would be to use a modified objective
function within \textsc{Nelder-Mead}, defined as
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:penalty}
\hat{h}(v) := \begin{cases}
h(v), & \text{if } v\in
V_s, \\
\infty, & \text{otherwise,}\end{cases}
\end{equation}
to penalize invalid weight functions $v \notin V_s$. We verified
that this approach works, but our experiments have shown that it slows
down the convergence to the minimum. Based on our tests, we observed
that, in practice, most of the violations $v \notin V_s$
stem from the selection of slightly negative weights by \textsc{Nelder-Mead}. This is likely caused by rounding errors, which may lead to a slight decrease of the \tool{\WCRtext{}}{}
value for very small but negative $\wgtfsearch{j}$. Every other
violation of constraints seems to cause the opposite
of a reduction in \tool{\WCRtext{}}{} value and is thus not chosen by
\textsc{Nelder-Mead}. To overcome this problem, we adopted a very
simple solution:
We map the resulting minimizer of a \textsc{Nelder-Mead} into
$V_s$ explicitly, by taking the absolute values
$(\abbs{v_1^{(k+1)}}, \dots, \abbs{v_{2s-3}^{(k+1)}})$ instead of a possible
negative (invalid) iterate $v^{(k+1)}$ (see \texttt{line}~\ref{lln:fixconstraints}).
While this approach only avoids violations of constraints caused by
the choice of negative
weights, we did not
experience other violations of constraints
in the minimizers returned by \textsc{Nelder-Mead}. For the sake of
completeness, we have experimented with other
derivative-free minimization algorithms (those from the minimization
algorithm collection \tool{NLOpt} \cite{nlopt}, including a
constrained version of \textsc{Nelder-Mead}), none of which led to a
more competitive reduction of \tool{\WCRtext{}}{} value in the same standard
setups.
\paragraph{\tool{\SLISEtext{}}{} filter and convergence} As already mentioned, the \tool{\SLISEtext{}}{} procedure is called multiple times within both
the \textsc{Nelder-Mead} and the
\textsc{AdaptiveDifferentialEvolution} procedures. The last call of
\tool{\SLISEtext{}}{} is executed so as to calculate the residual of the \tool{\WCRtext{}}{}
functional and check for convergence. If convergence is reached, the
algorithm returns values for the \tool{\WCRtext{}}{}, the poles $z$ and the
coefficients $\beta$. The latter are rescaled, as it is explained in
the following Subsection~\ref{sec:shifting}, by introducing a
linear scaling transformation to improve the behavior of the resulting
filters at the interval $[-1,1]$ boundaries.
\subsection{Scaling the filter}
\label{sec:shifting}
\input{figures/filters_shifting_problem}
Compared to previous filters such as \textsc{Gauss-Legendre} or
\textsc{Zolotarev}, our new \tool{\SLISEtext{}}{} filters obtained from the
minimization problem \eqref{eqn:minweight} reduce the \tool{\WCRtext{}}{} by up to
multiple orders of magnitude. So far, we assumed to know the
appropriate gap parameter $G$ in advance and minimized our filters
accordingly. This assumption may be too optimistic for some
eigenproblems: For a given $G$, we assume that no eigenvalues lie
within the interval $[-G^{-1},-G] \cup [G, G^{-1}]$. Since, in
practice, this assumption may be violated, a rational filter with
small function value within $[G,1]$ may lead a slower convergence rate
than the \tool{\WCRtext{}}{}, or no convergence at all. An illustration of this
problem is given in Figure~\ref{fig:filters_shifting_problem}, and its
caption. Eigenvalues within $[1,G^{-1}]$ are less problematic because
they are not sought after by the eigensolver (for an in-depth
discussion, see Section~\ref{sec:feastexperiments}). While
maintaining a competitive \tool{\WCRtext{}}{} value, the issue described above can
be overcome by solving the slightly modified minimization problem
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:newwcr}
\argmin{\beta \in \mathbb{C}^m, z \in (\mathbb{C}
\setminus \mathbb{R})^m}{\frac{\max_{x \in [-\infty,-G^{-1}] \cup
[G^{-1},\infty]}\abs{\ratcp{r}{\beta,z}(x)}}{\min_{x \in
[-1,1]}\abs{\ratcp{r}{\beta,z}(x)}}}
\end{equation}
instead of minimizing $w_G$ as in \eqref{eqn:minwcr}. For any
solution $(\beta,z)$ of this modified problem, the rational filter
$\ratcp{r}{\beta,z}$ offers a larger function value inside the entire
search interval $[-1,1]$ than outside in
$[-\infty,-G^{-1}] \cup[G^{-1},\infty]$. When our filters are used in
iterative eigensolvers based on spectral projection, this behavior
ensures reliable and fast convergence.
Instead of modifying the \tool{\WCRtext{}}{} minimization procedure,
we solve for the modified \tool{\WCRtext{}}{} in \eqref{eqn:newwcr} by
introducing a linear scaling transformation $u(x) := \sqrt{G} \, x$.
We have
\begin{align*}
\label{eqn:minwcr_old}
\argmin{\beta \in \mathbb{C}^m, z \in (\mathbb{H}^{+R})^m}{w_{\sqrt{G}}(\ratcp{r}{\beta,z})}
= &\argmin{\beta \in \mathbb{C}^m, z \in (\mathbb{H}^{+R})^m}{\frac{\max_{x
\in [-\infty,-G^{-1}] \cup
[G^{-1},\infty]}\abs{\ratcp{r}{\beta,z}(u(x))}}{\min_{x \in
[-1,1]}\abs{\ratcp{r}{\beta,z}(u(x))}}}.
\end{align*}
Since the function composition $\ratcp{r}{\beta,z} \circ u$ is a rational
filter itself, if $\ratcp{r}{\beta,z}$ solves
\eqref{eqn:minwcr_old}, then
$\ratcp{r}{\beta,z} \circ u$ solves
\eqref{eqn:newwcr}.
Additionally, it follows from the
definition of rational filters in \eqref{def:filters} that $\ratcp{r}{\beta,z} \circ u =
\ratcp{r}{\sqrt{G^{-1}}\,\beta,\sqrt{G^{-1}}\,z}$ which characterizes
the parameters of the resulting filter.
This scaling of rational filters through linear transformation
is
incorporated in Algorithm~\ref{alg:min_weight_worst} in
\texttt{lines~\ref{lln:shifting1}} and \texttt{\ref{lln:shifting2}}.
In our implementation of Algorithm~\ref{alg:min_weight_worst},
we used as initial parameters the weight functions
$\wgtf_{\gamma\text{-\SLISE{}}}$ used in \cite{jan} opportunely rescaled. For instance, for
$s=5$, we selected
\begin{equation*}
v^{(0)}=({\sqrt{G}},{\sqrt{G^{-1}}},1.4,5,.01,10,20)
\end{equation*}
as the initial parameters characterizing the weight function,
for some gap parameter $G \in (0,1)$.
Accordingly, we chose both \textsc{Zolotarev} and \textsc{Gauss-Legendre}
filters as initial conditions for \tool{\WCRtext{}}{} minimization.
We obtained a number of new spectral filters, to which we refer as
\textbf{W}orst-Case Opt\textbf{i}mized Least-\textbf{S}quar\textbf{e}s
(WiSe{}). In the following section, we provide a number of
experimental tests illustrating the performance of these WiSe{}
filters.
|
\section{Introduction}
Given a non-elementary discrete group, $\Ga$, acting properly by isometries on a proper roughly geodesic hyperbolic space $(X,d)$, two main classes of measures can be constructed on the Gromov boundary $\dd X$ of $(X,d)$: the \textit{harmonic measures} and \textit{quasiconformal measures}.
Let us briefly recall these constructions.\\
A measure $\nu$ on $\dd X$ is called $\Ga$-quasiconformal if $\Ga$ preserves the class of $\nu$ and one can find $C\ge1$, for all $g\in\Ga$ and $\nu$-almost every $\xi\in\dd X$:
$$C^{-1}e^{\delta_\Ga\beta(o,g^{-1}.o;\xi)}\le\frac{dg_*\nu}{d\nu}(\xi)\le Ce^{\delta_\Ga\beta(o,g^{-1}.o;\xi)}$$
where $\beta$ denote the Buseman cocycle on $\dd X$.\\%for all $g\in\Ga$ and $\nu$-almost every $\xi\in\dd X$.\\
Given a point $o\in X$ in $(X,d)$, the critical exponent of $\Ga$ is defined as:
$$\delta_\Ga=\limsup_r\frac{1}{r}\ln|B_X(o,r)\cap \Ga.o|$$
It is strictly positive when $\Ga$ is non-elementary.
The Patterson-Sullivan procedure consists to take a weak limit in $\tprob(X\cup\dd X)$ when $s$ goes to $\delta_\Ga$ of the sequence of probabilities:
$$\frac{1}{H(s)}\sum_{g\in\Ga}e^{-sd(g.o,o)}\delta_{g.o}$$
for $s>\delta_\Ga$ and $H(s)=\sum_{g\in\Ga}e^{-sd(g.o,o)}$.
These Patterson-Sullivan measures are quasiconformal.
Moreover these are Hausdorff measures for a visual distance on $\dd X$ when $\Ga$ acts cocompactly on $(X,d)$ \cite{MR1214072}.\\
One the other hand given a probability measure, $\mu$, with 1st moment and support not contained in a elementary group.
If $(X_n)_n$ denote the random walk on $\Ga$ starting at the identity $e\in\Ga$, the sequence of $X$-valued random variables $(X_n.o)_n$ converges almost surely to a random variable $Z$ with values in $\dd X$.
The law of $Z$ is by definition the harmonic measure on $\dd X$ for the random walk generated by $\mu$.\\
The dynamical systems associated to these measures was extensively investigated these last years.
Initiated by U. Bader and R. Muchnik in \cite{MR2035655} a particular interest grown around the quasi-regular representations associated to these systems called \textit{boundary representations}.
These representations generalized the well known parabolic inductions $L^2(G/P)$ for semisimple Lie groups $G$ and $P$ minimal parabolic subgroups of $G$.
In their work the authors proved the irreducibility of boundary representations arising from Patterson-Sullivan measures and conjectured the following:\\
{\bf Conjecture [Bader-Muchnik]}
\textit{Let $G$ be a locally compact group and $\mu$ a admissible probability measure on $G$, the boundary representation of $G$ on the Poisson boundary $P(G,\mu)$ is irreducible.
}\\
Using the interplay between quasiconformal and harmonic measures in negative curvature \cite{MR2919980} \cite{MR2346273} we propose another approach of these questions that morally attempt to understand boundary dynamics in terms of spectral properties instead of geometric ones.
This led us to investigate probabilistic analogues of certain geometric phenomenons.
\subsection{Harmonic equidistribution and its consequences.}
Let $\mu$ be a symmetric probability measure on $\Ga$.
The Markov operator $P_\mu$ associated to a continuous action $\alpha:\Ga\times K\rightarrow K$ of $\Ga$ on a compact space $K$ is the positive contraction defined on the space of continuous functions $(C^0(K),\|.\|_\infty)$ given by:
$$P_\mu\varphi(\xi)=\sum_{g\in\Ga}\mu(g)\varphi(g\xi)$$
for $\varphi\in C^0(K)$.
A probability measure, $\nu$, on $K$ is $\mu$-stationary if $\mu*\nu=\alpha_*(\mu\otimes\nu)=\nu$.
Moreover the measure $\mu$ is called $\nu$-ergodic if $\nu$ is stationary and every $P_\mu$-invariant function is $\nu$-almost everywhere constant.\\
The principal result of this paper is the following probabilistic version of the Margulis Roblin equidistribution theorem's \cite{MR2057305} \cite{MR2035655} for stationary measures on the Gromov boundary of $(X,d)$:\\
{\bf Theorem \ref{thm:equi}}
\textit{
Let $\nu$ be a probability measure on the Gromov boundary, $\dd X$, of $(X,d)$.
Assume $\mu\in\tprob(\Ga)$ is a 1st moment, non-elementary $\nu$-ergodic probability measure on $\Ga$.\\
Then the following equidistribution holds:
$${\mathbb{E}}^\mu[\varphi(X_n.\xi)\psi(X_n^{-1}.\eta)]=\sum_{g\in\Ga}\varphi(g\xi)\psi(g^{-1}\eta)\mu^{*n}(g)\xrightarrow{n\rightarrow+\infty} \int_{\dd X}\varphi d\nu\int_{\dd X}\psi d\nu$$
for all $\varphi,\psi\in C^0(\dd X)$ continuous functions and $\xi,\eta\in\dd X$.
}\\
Let $X$ be a Hadamard manifold with pinched curvature.
This means that $X$ is a complete simply connected Riemannian manifold of dimension greater than $2$ and curvature, $K_X$, which satisfies: $-b^2\le K_X\le -a^2$. %
The Brownian motion $(B_t)_t$ on $X$, that is the diffusion process generated by the Laplace-Beltrami operator on $X$, converges almost surely to a random variable $B_\infty$ with values in the geometric boundary $\dd X$.
When the action $\Ga$ on $X$ has finite covolume W. Ballman and F. Ledrappier in \cite{MR1427756} refined the discretization procedure introduced by T. Lyons and D. Sullivan in \cite{MR755228} and earlier discussed by H. Furstenberg in \cite{MR0284569} which allows to interpret the distribution of $B_\infty$, also called harmonic, has a stationary measure for a random walk performed on $\Ga$:\\
{\bf Theorem [Ballman, Ledrappier \cite{MR1427756}]}
\textit{There exists a admissible symmetric probability measure on $\Ga$ with 1st moment such that the harmonic measure of the random walk generated by $\mu$ and the distribution of the limit random variable $B_\infty$ coincide.
}\\
This result guarantees the ergodicity of the measure $\mu$ and as a direct consequence of Theorem \ref{thm:equi} one has:\\
{\bf Corollary}
\textit{Let $X$ be a Hadamard manifold with pinched negative curvature and $\Ga$ a discrete group of isometries with finite covolume.
Let $\nu$ be the unique harmonic measure on the visual boundary $\dd X$ of $X$ for the Brownian motion $(B_t)_t$.\\
Then $\Ga$ carries a admissible probability measure with 1st moment, $\mu$, such that:
$${\mathbb{E}}^\mu[\varphi(X_n.\xi)\psi(X_n^{-1}.\eta)]=\sum_{g\in\Ga}\varphi(g\xi)\psi(g^{-1}\eta)\mu^{*n}(g)\xrightarrow{n\rightarrow+\infty} \int_{\dd X}\varphi d\nu\int_{\dd X}\psi d\nu$$
for all continuous functions $\varphi,\psi\in C^0(\dd X)$ and $\xi,\eta\in\dd X$.
}\\
Back to a more general situation where $(X,d)$ is a proper roughly geodesic hyperbolic space.
Assuming the action of $\Ga$ on $(X,d)$ is cocompact and $\mu$ is finitely supported symmetric and admissible it was proved in \cite{MR2919980} that the harmonic measure, $\nu$, can be interpreted as a quasiconformal measure coming for the Green distance on $\Ga$ that satisfies hyperbolic properties.
Conversely when $(X,d)$ is a CAT($-1$) space \cite{MR1744486} every quasiconformal measure for $\Ga$ can be interpreted as a stationary measure for a symmetric probability measure with 1st moment on $\Ga$ \cite{MR2346273}.
This interplay motivate the investigation on quasiconformal measures that can be regarded as stationary measures.
A measure $\nu$ on a compact metric space $(K,d)$ is called Ahlfors-regular if there exist $\alpha>0$ and $C\ge1$ such that:
$$C^{-1}r^\alpha\le\nu(B(x,r))\le Cr^\alpha$$
for $0<r<\text{Diam}(K)$.\\% where $\text{Diam}(K)$ stands for the diameter of $K$.
Examples of such measures in our setting are given by quasiconformal measures on $\dd X$ associated to discrete groups which act geometrically on $(X,d)$.\\
Considering Ahlfors-regular quasiconformal measures on $\dd X$ for the action of $\Ga$ on $(X,d)$, Theorem \ref{thm:equi} together with techniques inspired by \cite{MR2346273} \cite{MR2787597} led us to the following von Neumann type result for measure class preserving actions:\\
{\bf Theorem \ref{thm:flipap}
\textit{
Let $\mu\in\tprob(\Ga)$ be a admissible finitely supported symmetric probability on $\Ga$ and $\nu$ its harmonic measure on $\dd X$.\\
Denote $\mathcal{P}_n$, with $n\ge0$, the operator defined as:
$$\mathcal{P}_n={\mathbb{E}}^\mu[\frac{\pi_o(X_n)}{\Xi_o(X_n)}]=\sum_{g\in\Ga}\frac{\pi_o(g)}{\Xi_o(g)}\mu^{*n}(g)$$
where $\Xi_o=(\pi_o{\bf 1}_{\dd X}|{\bf 1}_{\dd X})_{L^2}$ denotes the Harish-Chandra function of the boundary representation $\pi_o$ on $\Ga$.\\
Then for all $\varphi,\psi\in L^2[\dd X,\nu]$, square integrable functions on $\dd X$, the following von Neumann type convergence holds:
$$(\mathcal{P}_n \varphi|\psi)_{L^2}\xrightarrow[n\rightarrow\infty]{} \int_{\dd X}\varphi d\nu\int_{\dd X}\psi d\nu$$
}\\
In other words if $\mathcal{P}_{{\bf1}_{\dd X}}$ denote the one dimensional projector on the constant function ${\bf1}_{\dd X}$ given by:
$$\mathcal{P}_{{\bf1}_{\dd X}}(\varphi)=(\varphi|{\bf1}_{\dd X}){\bf1}_{\dd X}$$
for $\varphi\in L^2[\dd X,\nu]$.
The Theorem \ref{thm:flipap} corresponds to the weak convergence of the sequence of operators $(\mathcal{P}_n)_n$ to $\mathcal{P}_{{\bf1}_{\dd X}}$.
In opposite to the measure preserving situation, the vector ${\bf1}_{\dd X}$ appears to be cyclic for the boundary representation $(\Ga, \pi_o,L^2[\dd X,\nu])$ and a standard argument leads to the following:\\
{\bf Corollary \ref{cor:irr}
\textit{
Let $\mu\in\tprob(\Ga)$ be a admissible finitely supported symmetric probability on $\Ga$ and $\nu$ its harmonic measure on $\dd X$.
Then the associated boundary representation $(\Ga,\pi_o,L^2[\dd X,\nu])$ is irreducible.
}\\
\subsection{Outlines}
$ $\\
In Section \ref{sec:prelim}, we remind the reader standard facts about random walk on groups as well as some part of the theory of Patterson-Sullivan on quasiconformal measures.
Assuming no prior familiarity with this topic we propose a relatively self-contained account of the relevant ingredients needed for the understanding of the rest.
In Section \ref{sec:equi} we prove Theorem \ref{thm:equi}.\
The Section \ref{sec:main} is devoted to the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:flipap} which is splitted in two parts: the first part is a reduction from matrix coefficients analysis to equidistribution, cf. Proposition \ref{prop:coef}, and the second part is dedicated to the uniform boundedness of the sequence of operators $(\mathcal{P}_n)_n$ introduced in Theorem \ref{thm:flipap} statement.
\subsection{Notations and terminologies}
$ $\\
Usually $(X,d)$ stands for a locally finite Gromov hyperbolic space pointed at $o\in X$ upon which a discrete group $\Ga$ acts geometrically.
An action of $\Ga$ on $(X,d)$ is called \textit{geometric} if it is properly discontinuous and cocompact.
Except mention groups considered are assumed to be non elementary, i.e. non-virtually cyclic.
A probability measure $\mu\in\tprob(\Ga)$ on a group $\Ga$ is called admissible if its support generates $\Ga$ as a semi-group and symmetric if $\mu(g)=\mu(g^{-1})$ for all $g\in\Ga$.
Except mention in the rest every measures considered on $\Ga$ are assumed to have a 1st moment, i.e. the quantity $\sum_{g\in\Ga}d(g.o,o)\mu(g)$ is finite.\\
We will use the notations: $|x|_z=d(x,z)$ and $|g|_z=d(gz,z)$ for $x,z\in X$ and $g\in\Ga$.
In order to avoid the escalation of constants coming from estimates up to controlled additive or multiplication error terms we will use the following conventions.
Given two real valued functions, $a,b$, of a set $Z$, we write $a\preceq b$ if there exists $C>0$ such that $a(z)\le Cb(z)$ for all $z\in Z$ and $a\asymp b$ if $a\preceq b$ and $b\preceq a$.
Analogously we write $a\lesssim b$ if there exists $c$ such that $a(z)\le b(z)+c$ and $a\approx b$ if $a\lesssim b$ and $b\lesssim a$.\\
\section{Preliminaries}\label{sec:prelim}
\subsection{Hyperbolic spaces and compactifications.}
$ $\\
Given $(X,d)$ a discrete locally finite metric space, the \textit{Gromov product} on $X$ at the basepoint $o\in X$ is defined as:
$$(x|y)_o=\frac{1}{2}(|x|_o+|y|_o-d(x,y))$$
for $x,y\in X$.
The space $(X,d)$ is called $(\delta)$-hyperbolic, with $\delta\ge0$, if it satisfies:
$$(x|y)_w\ge\min\{(x|z)_w,(z|y)_w\}-\delta$$
for all $x,y,z,w\in X$.\\
\begin{defn}
A discrete metric space $(X,d)$ is called roughly geodesic if there exists a constant $C$ such that for all pair of points $x,y\in X$, there exists a map $p:[0,T]\rightarrow X$ such that $p(0)=x$, $p(T)=y$ and
$$|t-t'|-C\le d(p(t),p(t'))\le|t-t'|+C$$
for all $t,t'\in[0,T]$.
\end{defn}
Note that hyperbolicity is preserved by quasi-isometries between proper roughly geodesic spaces \cite{Bonk2011}.\\
Given such a metric space, $(X,d)$, one can associate a compact space, $\dd X$, called Gromov boundary.
Let us recall briefly a construction of this object and its properties.
\subsubsection{Hyperbolic boundaries viewed as equivalence classes of sequences}
$ $\\
A sequence $(x_n)_n$ in $X$ \textit{goes to infinity} if $\lim_{n,m}(x_n|x_m)_o\rightarrow+\infty$.\\
The boundary $\dd X$ of $X$ can be defined as the equivalence classes on the set of sequences which go to infinity, $X^\infty\subset X^{\mathbb{N}}$, endowed with the equivalence relation:
$$(a_n)\sim(b_n)\quad \text{if and only if}\quad \lim_{n,m}(a_n|b_m)_o\rightarrow\infty$$
with $(a_n)_n,(b_n)_n\in X^\infty$.\\
This construction does not depend on the choice of the basepoint $o$.
The class of the sequence $(x_n)_n$ is denoted $\lim_nx_n=\xi$.\\
Identifying stationary sequences with elements of $X$ the Gromov product extends to $\ol{X}=X\cup\dd X$ by the formula:
$$(x|y)_o=\sup_{(x_n),\,(y_m)}\liminf_{n,m}(x_n|y_m)_o$$
where the $\sup$ is taken over all sequences $(x_n)_n$ and $(y_m)_m$ that represent respectively $x$ and $y$ in $\ol{X}$.\\
This extended product satisfies the following properties \cite{MR1744486}:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $(x|y)_o=\infty$ if and only if $x,y\in\dd X$ and $x=y$;
\item $(x|y)_o\ge\min\{(x|z)_o,(z|y)_o\}-2\delta$ for all $x,y,z\in \ol{X}$;
\item for all $\xi,\eta\in\dd X$ and $(x_n)_n,\, (y_m)_m$ with $\lim_nx_n=\xi$ and $\lim_my_m=\eta$ one has:
$$(\xi|\eta)_o-2\delta\le\liminf_{n,m}(x_n|y_m)_o\le (\xi|\eta)_o.$$
\end{enumerate}
Let $\varepsilon>0$ and define the kernel:
$$\rho_{\varepsilon,o}:\ol{X}\times \ol{X}\to{\mathbb{R}}_+,\quad \rho_\varepsilon(x,y)=
\begin{cases}
e^{-\varepsilon(x|y)_o}&\text{$(x,y)\in \ol{X}^{\times 2}\setminus \Delta_X$}\\
0&\text{otherwise}
\end{cases}$$
where $\Delta_X=\{(x,x)\,|\,x\in X\}$ is the diagonal points that belong to $X$.\\
Using the Gromov product properties observe that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\rho_{\varepsilon,o}(x,y)=\rho_{\varepsilon,o}(y,x)$ for all $x,\,y\in \ol{X}$;
\item $\rho_{\varepsilon,o}(x,y)=0$ if and only if $x=y$;
\item for all $x,y,z\in\ol{X}$:
$$\rho_{\varepsilon,o}(x,y)\le(1+\varepsilon')\max\{\rho_{\varepsilon,o}(x,y),\rho_{\varepsilon,o}(y,z)\}$$
with $\varepsilon'=e^{2\delta\varepsilon}-1$.
\end{enumerate}
The \textit{chains-pseudo-distance} associated is defined as:
$$\theta_{\varepsilon,o}(x,y)=\inf\{\sum_{i=1}^n\rho_{\varepsilon,o}(x_i,x_{i+1})\mid x_1=x,\dots,x_{n+1}=y\}$$
and for $\varepsilon'<\sqrt{2}-1$ satisfies:
$$(1-2\varepsilon')\rho_{\varepsilon,o}(x,y)\le\theta_{\varepsilon,o}(x,y)\le\rho_{\varepsilon,o}(x,y)$$
for all $(x,y)\in \ol{X}^{\times 2}\setminus \Delta_X$.\\
In particular for such choice of $\varepsilon$, $\theta_{\varepsilon,o}$ is a distance on $\ol{X}$.
In the rest $\varepsilon'$ is assumed to be strictly lower than $\sqrt{2}-1$.\\
Since $e^{\varepsilon|x|_o}\le\rho_{\varepsilon,o}(x,y)$ for all $x\neq y$ in $X$ and the induced topology on $X$ by $\theta_{\varepsilon,o}$ is discrete.
\begin{defn}
Let $(X,d)$ be a proper roughly geodesic hyperbolic space.
A distance $d'$ on boundary $\dd X$ is called visual if there exist $\varepsilon>0$, $\lambda\ge1$ and $o\in X$ such that:
$$\lambda^{-1}\rho_{\varepsilon,o}(\xi,\eta)\le d'(\xi,\eta)\le \lambda\rho_{\varepsilon,o}(\xi,\eta)$$
for all $\xi,\eta\in \dd X$.
\end{defn}
\noindent Note that the restriction of $\theta_{\varepsilon,o}$ to $\dd X$ is a visual metric. Its restriction is denoted $d_{o,\varepsilon}$ or simply $d_{o}$ in the rest .\\
A proper sequence $(x_n)_n$ in $X$ is a Cauchy sequence for $\theta_{\varepsilon,o}$ if and only if
$$\lim_{n,m}(x_n|x_m)_o=+\infty$$
and another proper sequence converges to the same boundary point for $\theta_{\varepsilon,o}$ if and only if
$$\lim_{n,m}(x_n|y_m)_o=+\infty$$
In other words the metric space $(\ol{X},\theta_{\varepsilon,o})$ can be seen as the completion of $(X,\theta_{\varepsilon,o}|_X)$.\\
Endowed with this topology $\ol{X}=X\cup\dd X$ satisfies the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The topological space $\ol{X}$ is compact;
\item The embedding $X\hookrightarrow\ol{X}$ is a homeomorphism on his image, in particular $X$ is open in $\ol{X}$;
\item for all sequence $(\xi_n)_n$ in $\dd X$ one has $\xi_n\rightarrow \xi\in\dd X$ if and only if $(\xi_n|\xi)_o\rightarrow\infty$.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Busemann compactification and strongly hyperbolic metric spaces
\begin{defn}
A proper roughly geodesic metric space $(X,d)$ is strongly hyperbolic if there exists $\varepsilon>0$ such that
$$\exp(-\varepsilon(x|y)_w)\le \exp(-\varepsilon(x|z)_w)+\exp(-\varepsilon(z|y)_w)$$
for all $x,y,z,w\in X$.
\end{defn}
Some remarkable consequences of the strong hyperbolicity \cite{MR3551185} are:
\begin{enumerate}
\item the Gromov product $(.|.)_w$ extends continuously to $\ol{X}=X\cup\dd X$ for all $w\in X$;
\item the kernel $\rho_{\varepsilon,o}$, introduced above, is an actual metric on $\dd X$ for $\varepsilon$ small enough.
\end{enumerate}
These facts guarantee sharper conformal properties on the boundary $\dd X$.\\
Given a strongly hyperbolic space $(X,d)$, the Busemann function at $\xi\in\dd X$ is well defined as:
$$\beta_\xi(x,y)=2(\xi|y)_x-|y|_x=\lim_{z\rightarrow\xi}d(z,x)-d(z,y)$$
for all $x,y\in X$. In particular the Busemann boundary $\dd_\infty X$ and the Gromov boundary $\dd X$ coincide \cite{BusemannHerbert1955Tgog}.\\
In the rest $\beta_\xi(o,x)$ is denoted $\beta_\xi(x)$ for all $\xi\in\dd X$ and $x\in X$.\\
Another important feature of the strong hyperbolicity is the \textit{metric conformality} for the action of the group of isometries of $X$ on $\dd X$:
$$d_{o,\varepsilon}(g\xi,g\eta)=\exp(\frac{\varepsilon}{2}\beta_\xi(g^{-1}o))\exp(\frac{\varepsilon}{2}\beta_\eta(g^{-1}o))d_{o,\varepsilon}(\xi,\eta)$$
for all $\xi,\eta\in\dd X$ and $g\in\text{Isom}(X,d)$, where $d_{o,\varepsilon}=\rho_{\varepsilon,o}$.\\
As a consequence if $\nu$ denote the Hausdorff measure of dimension $D_\varepsilon$ on $(\dd X,d_{o,\varepsilon})$ \cite{MR3551185}, the following \textit{measure conformal} relation holds:
$$\frac{dg_*\nu}{d\nu}(\xi)=\exp(\varepsilon D_\varepsilon \beta_\xi(g^{-1}o))=\exp(\delta_\Ga \beta_\xi(g^{-1}o))$$
for all $\xi\in\dd X$ and $g\in\text{Isom}(X,d)$.\\
\begin{rem}
The measure $\nu$ is independent of the parameter $\varepsilon$ chosen.\\
Examples of strongly hyperbolic space are given by Hadamard manifolds with pinched negative curvatures more generally CAT($-1$) metric spaces \cite{MR3551185} and, as exposed in subsection \ref{sub:green}, Green metric structures on hyperbolic groups.
\end{rem}
\subsection{Boundary retractions}
$ $\\
As above $(X,d)$ is a proper roughly geodesic hyperbolic space.\\
A \textit{boundary retraction} is defined as a continuous map $f:\ol{X}\to\dd X$ such that $f|_{\dd X}=id_{\dd X}$.
Such a retraction induces an isometric operator:
$$E_f:(C^0(\dd X),\|.\|_\infty)\rightarrow (C^0(\ol{X}),\|.\|_\infty),\quad \varphi\mapsto\varphi\circ f$$
,i.e. $\|\varphi\circ f\|_\infty=\|\varphi\|_\infty$ for all $\varphi\in C^0(\dd X)$, called \textit{boundary extension}.
\subsubsection{Existence of boundary retractions}
$ $\\
The \textit{shadow} of a ball centered at $x\in X$ with radius $R$ viewed at the basepoint $o\in X$ is defined as:
$$O_o(x,R)=\{\xi\in\dd X|\text{$\exists c$ s.t $c(0)=o$, $c(\infty)=\xi$, $c({\mathbb{R}}_+)\cap B(x,R)\neq\emptyset$}\}$$
where $c$ denote a rough geodesic in $X$.\\
A shadow can equivalently be described in terms of the Gromov product as:
$$O_o(x,R)=\{\xi\in\dd X|\,\text{$(\xi|x)_o\ge |x|_o-R$}\}$$
Note that there exists $R_0>0$ which does not depend on $x\in X$ such that for all $R\ge R_0$, $O_o(x,R)\neq\emptyset$ \cite{MR1214072}.\\
An example of a boundary retraction can be obtained as follows:
\begin{lem}
Let $R>0$ be a large positive constant and $f:X\rightarrow \dd X$ such that $f(x)\in O_o(x,R)$ for all $x\in X$.
Then $f$ is well defined and extends to a boundary retraction on $\ol{X}$ called linear boundary retraction.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Since $X$ is discrete it is enough to prove for every sequence $(x_n)_n$ in $X$ converging to a point $\xi\in \dd X$, $(f(x_n))_n$ converges to $\xi$.\\
The definition of $f$ implies $(f(x)|x)_o\ge |x|_o-R$ for all $x\in X$.
On the other hand $\theta_{\varepsilon,o}(y_n,\eta)\rightarrow 0$ if and only if $(y_n|\eta)_o\rightarrow +\infty$ for any $(y_n)_n$ in $\ol{X}$ and $\eta\in\dd X$.\\
Thus given $(x_n)_n$ with $x_n\rightarrow \xi$ since:
$$(f(x_n)|\xi)_o\ge\min\{(f(x_n)|x_n)_o,(x_n|\xi)_o\}-\delta$$
one has $\theta_{\varepsilon,o}(f(x_n),\xi)\rightarrow 0$, in other words $f$ can be extended to $\ol{X}$ by $f(\xi)=\xi$ for all $\xi\in\dd X$.
\end{proof}
In some sense every boundary retraction is of this form:
\begin{lem}
Let $f$ be a boundary retraction of $X$.
Then there exists a proper function $\varphi:{\mathbb{R}}_+\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}_+$ such that:
$$(f(x)|x)_o\ge\varphi(|x|_o)$$
for all $x\in X$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $R>0$ be a positive constant and $f'$ a linear boundary retraction such that $(f'(x)|x)_o\ge|x|_o-R$ for $x\in X$.\\
Observe that:
$$(f(x)|x)_o\ge\min\{(f'(x)|x)_o,(f(x)|f'(x))_o\}-\delta\ge\varphi(|x|_o)$$
with
$$\varphi(t)=\inf_{\lfloor t\rfloor \le|x|<\lfloor t\rfloor +1}[\min\{\lfloor t\rfloor-R,(f(x)|f'(x))_o\}-\delta]$$
Therefore $\varphi$ is proper iff the map $x\mapsto (f(x)|f'(x))_o$ on $X$ is proper.\\
A similar argument than the one used in the proof of the next lemma, based on compactness of $\dd X$, the continuity of $f$ and $f'$ together with the fact that these two functions are identical on the boundary guarantees the properness of the last map.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Boundary retraction and sequence of measures with accumulation at infinity}
$ $\\
A sequence of probabilities on $\ol{X}$ has \textit{accumulation at infinity} if for all compact $K\subset X$ one has $\mu_n(K)\rightarrow 0$.
In other words any limit of a $(\mu_n)_n$ subsequence is supported in $\dd X$.
\begin{lem}
Let $f$ be a boundary retractions and $(\mu_n)_n$ a sequence of probabilities on $\ol{X}$ with accumulation at infinity.\\
If $f_*\mu_n$ converges weakly to $\mu\in\tprob(\dd X)$, then for every other boundary retraction $f'$, $f'_*\mu_n$ converges weakly to $\mu$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $f'$ be another boundary retraction.
Since $E_{f}(\varphi)$ and $E_{f'}(\varphi)$ are continuous functions on the compact space $\ol{X}$ and thus uniformly continuous.
Moreover $E_{f}(\varphi)|_{\dd X}=E_{f'}(\varphi)|_{\dd X}=\varphi$.\\
Therefore given $\varepsilon>0$, there exists $\alpha>0$ such that for all $\xi\in\dd X$ and $x\in B_{\theta_{\varepsilon,o}}(\xi,\alpha)\subset\ol{X}$, $|E_{f}(\varphi)(x)-\varphi(\xi)|,\,|E_{f^{\prime}}(\varphi)(x)-\varphi(\xi)|\le\frac{\varepsilon}{4}$.\\
Because $\dd X$ is compact one can find a finite number, $n$, of $\xi_i\in\dd X$, $i=1,\dots, n$ such that $\dd X\subset \cup_{i=1}^nB_{\theta_{\varepsilon,o}}(\xi_i,\alpha)=U$.\\
By construction of $U\subset\ol{X}$, $|E_{f^{\prime}}(\varphi)(x)-E_{f}(\varphi)(x)|\le\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon$ for all $x\in U$.\\
Let $K=U^c\subset X$ be the compact complement of $U$ in $\ol{X}$.
Since $\mu_n$ has accumulation at infinity, there exists $n_0$, for all $n\ge n_0$, $\mu_n(K)\le\frac{\varepsilon}{4\|\varphi\|_\infty}$.
Together these estimates lead to:
\begin{align*}
|\int_{\dd X}\varphi\, f_*\mu_n-\int_{\dd X}\varphi\, f'_*\mu_n|&\le |\int_KE_{f}(\varphi)-E_{f^{\prime}}(\varphi)\,d\mu_n|+|\int_UE_{f}(\varphi)-E_{f^{\prime}}(\varphi)\,d\mu_n|\\
&\le \mu_n(K)(\|E_{f^{\prime}}(\varphi)\|_\infty+\|E_{f}(\varphi)\|_\infty)+\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon\mu_n(U)\\
&\le 2\mu_n(K)\|\varphi\|_\infty+\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon\le \varepsilon
\end{align*}
which concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
In the rest a boundary retraction, $f$, is fixed and for all $x\in X$ we denote $\hat{x}=f(x)\in\dd X$.
Moreover we extend this notation for $m\in\tprob(\ol{X})$ (respectively, $\varphi\in C^0(\dd X)$) by $\hat{m}=f_*m\in\tprob(\dd X)$ (respectively, $\hat{\varphi}=E_f(\varphi)\in C^0(\ol{X})$).\\
Note that for all $\varphi\in C^0(\dd X)$, $x\in \ol{X}$ and $m\in\tprob(\ol{X})$ the following identities hold:
$$\hat{\varphi}(x)=\varphi(\hat{x}),\quad \hat{m}(\varphi)=m(\hat{\varphi}).$$
\subsection{Random walks and hyperbolic groups.}\label{sub:green}
$ $\\
In the first part of this subsection $\Ga$ is a general discrete group .\\
Given a probability $\mu\in\tprob(\Ga)$ on $\Ga$ a (left) $\mu$-random walk on $\Ga$ is a Markov chain with states space $\Ga$ and transition probabilities $p_\mu(g,h)=\mu(g^{-1}h)$.\\
We call \textit{$\mu$-random walk starting at $g\in\Ga$} the unique Markov chain (up to equivalence) with initial law $\delta_g$ and transition probabilities $p_\mu$.\\
\subsubsection{Standard models of random walks}
$ $\\
Let $(\Ga^{{\mathbb{N}}^{*}},\mathcal{B},\mu^{{\mathbb{N}}^{*}})$ be the probability space obtained as infinite product of $(\Ga,\mathcal{P}(\Ga),\mu)$, where $\mathcal{B}$ is the $\sigma$-algebra generated by cylinders.
The coordinate projectors
$$H_k:\Ga^{{\mathbb{N}}^{*}} \rightarrow\Ga,\quad H_k((\omega_i)_i)=\omega_k$$
form a sequence of $\mu$ distributed independent random variables and a model for random walk starting at $g_0$ is given by
$X_0=g_0$ and $X_n=H_1\dots H_n$ for $n\ge 1$.
In other words:
$${\mathbb{P}}(X_{n+1}=h|X_0=h_0,\dots,X_n=g)=
\begin{cases}
0&\text{if $h_0\neq g_0$}\\
p_\mu(g,h)&\text{if $h_0=g_0$}
\end{cases}$$
The canonical model for the random walk starting at $g\in\Ga$ is defined as the image of $(\Ga^{{\mathbb{N}}^{*}},\mu^{{\mathbb{N}}^{*}})$ by:
$$\mathcal{R}_g:\Ga^{{\mathbb{N}}{*}}\rightarrow \Ga^{{\mathbb{N}}},\quad \mathcal{R}_g((\omega_i)_i)=
\begin{cases}
g&\text{for $n=0$}\\
gH_1\dots H_n((\omega_i)_i)&\text{$n\ge1$}
\end{cases}
$$
where the random position at time $n$, $X_n$, is given by the $n$-th coordinate projection on $\Ga$.\\
In the rest we denote $\Omega=\Ga^{{\mathbb{N}}}$ endowed with $\gs$-algebra generated by cylinders and the probability:
$${\mathbb{P}}={\mathcal{R}_e}_*\mu^{{\mathbb{N}}_+}=\delta_e\otimes\bigotimes_{n=1}^\infty\mu^{*n}$$
or ${\mathbb{P}}^\mu$ to insist on the $\mu$ dependence.
\begin{rem}
If $(X_n)_n$ is a $\mu$-random walk starting at $e\in\Ga$, then $(gX_n)_n$ gives a $\mu$-random walk starting at $g\in\Ga$.
Moreover the corresponding law on $\Omega$ is given by ${\mathbb{P}}_g=g_*{\mathbb{P}}={\mathcal{R}_g}_*\mu^{{\mathbb{N}}_+}=\delta_g\otimes\bigotimes_{n=1}^\infty g_*\mu^{*n}$ where $\Ga$ acts on $\Omega$ by the left-diagonal translation.
\end{rem}
\subsubsection{Filtrations and stopping times}\label{subsec:filt}
$ $\\
A filtration on a measurable space $(\Omega,\mathcal{B})$ is an increasing sequence of sub-$\gs$-algebra of $\mathcal{B}$, $({\mathcal{F}}_n)_n$.\\
In our case the \textit{canonical filtration} is defined by ${\mathcal{F}}_n=\gs(X_0,\dots,X_n)$ for $n\ge0$ where $(X_n)_n$ is a $\mu$-random walk.\\
Given $(\Omega,\mathcal{B},({\mathcal{F}}_n)_n)$ a measurable map $T:\Omega\rightarrow {\mathbb{N}}\cup\{\infty\}$ is called \textit{stopping time} with respect to the filtration $({\mathcal{F}}_n)_n$ if $\{T=n\}\in\mathcal{F}_n$ for all $n$.
Together with this stopping time $T$ is associated the \textit{stopping time $\gs$-algebra}, ${\mathcal{F}}_T$, defined as:
$${\mathcal{F}}_T=\{B\in\mathcal{B}\,|\,\text{$B\cap\{T=n\}\in{\mathcal{F}}_n$ for all $n\ge0$}\}.$$
Assuming $T$ is almost surely finite the \textit{$\mu$-random position at time $T$} is the ${\mathcal{F}}_T$-measurable random variable given by:
$$X_T: \Omega\rightarrow\Ga,\quad X_T(\omega)=
\begin{cases}
X_n(\omega)&\text{if $T(\omega)=n$}\\
e&\text{if $T(\omega)=+\infty$}
\end{cases}$$
\subsubsection{Fundamental transformations associated to random walks}\label{subsub:transf}
$ $\\
Given $g\in\Ga$ the map $\mathcal{R}_g$ defined above is an isomorphism of measured spaces with inverse $\mathcal{R}_g^{-1}((\omega_n)_n)=(X_{i-1}^{-1}X_i((\omega_n)_n))_{i\ge1}$.\\
The shift, $T$, on $(\Ga^{{\mathbb{N}}^{*}},\mu^{{\mathbb{N}}^{*}})$ given by $T((\omega_i)_i)=(\omega_{i+1})_i$ is a measure preserving transformation that is mixing and thus ergodic.
Moreover $T$ is intertwined by $\mathcal{R}_g$ with the Bernoulli shift $U_g$ on $(\Omega,{\mathbb{P}}_g)$ given by $U_g((\omega_n)_n)=(g\omega^{-1}\omega_{n+1})_n$.
Since $\mathcal{R}_g$ is an $(T,U_g)$-equivariant isomorphism of measured spaces it preserves spectral properties and thus $U_g$ is also ergodic and mixing on $(\Omega,{\mathbb{P}}_g)$.\\
Another transformation associated to a Markov chains is the \textit{Markov shift}:
$$\Theta:(\Omega,{\mathbb{P}}_g)\rightarrow (\Omega,{\mathbb{P}}_g),\quad \Theta((\omega_n)_n)\rightarrow (\omega_{n+1})_n.$$
More generally, given a stopping time $T$ one can define on $\{T<+\infty\}\subset\Omega$ the Markov shift at time $T$ by:
$$\Theta_T:\{T<+\infty\}\subset\Omega\rightarrow \Omega,\quad, \Theta_T(\omega)=(\omega_{T(\omega)+n})_n$$
Note that unlike the Bernoulli shift these Markov transformations are not measure preserving.\\
Nevertheless the so called strong Markov property holds:
\begin{prop*}[Strong Markov]
Let $(\Omega,\mathcal{B},({\mathcal{F}}_n)_n,{\mathbb{P}})$ be filtered space and $\varphi$ a positive measurable function.
Then the following relation between random variables holds:
$${\mathbb{E}}(\mathbbm{1}_{\{T<+\infty\}}\varphi\circ\Theta_T|{\mathcal{F}}_T)=\mathbbm{1}_{\{T<+\infty\}}{\mathbb{E}}_{X_T}(\varphi)$$
\end{prop*}
\subsubsection{Random walks and metric structures on hyperbolic groups}
$ $\\
A discrete group $\Ga$ is called Gromov hyperbolic if it acts geometrically on a proper roughly geodesic $\delta$-hyperbolic space $(X,d)$.\\
Let ${\mathcal{D}}(\Ga)$ be the collection of left-invariant pseudo-metrics on $\Ga$ which are quasi-isometric to a locally finite word distance.\\
Since $\Ga$ acts geometrically on $(X,d)$, the Milnor lemma guarantees that for any locally finite word distance, $d_\Ga$, on $\Ga$ and $w\in X$ the map:
$$\varphi:(\Ga,d_\Ga)\rightarrow (O(w),d_X|_{O(w)})\subset (X,d_X),\quad g\mapsto g.w$$
is a $\Ga$-equivariant quasi-isometry.
In particular the distance $d_X|_{O(w)}$ on $O(w)\simeq_{\text{q.i}}\Ga$ is hyperbolic and belongs to ${\mathcal{D}}(\Ga)$.
Therefore we will assume in the rest that $X=\Ga$ endowed with a distance $d\in\mathcal{D}(\Ga)$ upon which $\Ga$ acts by left-translations.\\
In order to make a distinction between $\Ga$ as a group acting on a space and $\Ga$ as metric space we denote the last one $(X,d)$ and fixe the basepoint $o=e\in X$.\\
Let us introduce an important example of strong hyperbolic distances on $\Ga=X$ which arise from random walks called \textit{Green distance}.\\
Let $\mu\in\tprob(\Ga)$ be a admissible symmetric probability measure on $\Ga$ and let us consider the stopping time:
$$\tau_g:\Omega\rightarrow {\mathbb{N}}\cup\{\infty\},\quad \tau_g((\omega)_n)=\inf\{n|\omega_n=g\}.$$
The probability that a $\mu$-random walk starting at $g$ ever hits $g'$ is given by:
$$F_\mu(g,g')={\mathbb{P}}_g(\tau_{g'}<+\infty)$$
and the associated Green distance is defined as $d_\mu(g,g')=-\log F_\mu(g,g')$.\\
It is enough for $\Ga$ to be finitely generated non-amenable to guarantee that $d_\mu$ is a left-invariant distance quasi-isometric to locally finite word distances \cite{MR2278460}.
Nevertheless the rough geodesic structure which is needed to deduce the hyperbolicity uses the Ancona criterion \cite{MR1100282} which holds when $\mu$ is finitely supported and $\Ga$ is hyperbolic:
\begin{thm*}[Ancona \cite{MR1100282}]
Given a non-elementary hyperbolic group $\Ga$, the Green distance induced by a admissible finitely supported symmetric probability on $\Ga$ is hyperbolic.
\end{thm*}
The strong hyperbolic property of such metrics was established in \cite{MR3551185}:
\begin{thm*}[Bogdan, Spakula \cite{MR3551185}]
Given a non-elementary hyperbolic group $\Ga$, the Green distance induced by a admissible finitely supported symmetric probability on $\Ga$ is strongly hyperbolic.
\end{thm*}
The strong hyperbolicity of these type of distances together with the Patterson-Sullivan theory guarantee the conformal properties of stationary measures associated Theorem 1.5 \cite{MR2919980}:
$$\frac{dg_*\nu}{d\nu}(\xi)=\exp(\delta_\Ga\beta_\xi(g^{-1}o))$$
for $\xi\in\dd X$ and $g\in\text{Isom}(X,d)$, where $\delta_\Ga$ is the critical exponent of $\Ga$.
\subsubsection{Spectral gaps and random walks}\label{subsub:drift}
$ $\\
A symmetric probability measure on $\Ga$ is called non-elementary if the semigroup generated by its support in $\Ga$ is non-elementary.
Given an symmetric non-elementary probability measure, $\mu$, on $\Ga$, the spectral radius, $\rho(\mu)$, is defined as:
$$\rho(\mu)=\limsup_n\mu^{*n}(e)^{\frac{1}{n}}.$$
It is related to the amenability of the subgroup generated its support by the following theorem:
\begin{thm*}[Kersten \cite{MR109367}]
Let $\Ga$ be a finitely generated group and $\mu$ a symmetric probability on $\Ga$.\\
Then $\mu$ has a spectral gap, i.e. $\rho(\mu)<1$ if and only if $\mu$ is non-elementary.
\end{thm*}
Given a $\mu$-random walk starting at $e\in\Ga$, $(X_n)_n$, for all $n,m\ge0$ the following subadditive inequality holds:
$$|X_{n+m}|_o\le|X_n|_o+|X_m\circ U^n|_o$$
Using the ergodicity of the Bernoulli shift, $U$, the Kingman subadditive \cite{MR704553} theorem guarantees the convergence almost surely and in $L^1(\Omega,{\mathbb{P}})$ of $(\frac{|X_n|_o}{n})_n$ to a constant $\ell$ called the \textit{drift of escape}, with $\ell>0$ whenever $\mu$ is non-elementary \cite{MR1743100}.\\
Let us prove the following useful estimate:
\begin{lem}
Let $\mu\in\tprob(\Ga)$ be a probability measure on a group $\Ga$.
Then for all $n$ one has:
$$\mu^{*n}(g)\le \max\{\mu^{*{n-1}}(e),\mu^{*n}(e)\}$$
for all $g\in\Ga$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Observe that:
\begin{align*}
\mu^{*2n}(x)&=\sum_{g\in\Ga}\mu^{*n}(g^{-1}g')\mu^{*n}(g')\\
&\le\sqrt{\sum_{g\in\Ga}\mu^{*n}(g^{-1}g')^2}\sqrt{\sum_{g\in\Ga}\mu^{*n}(g')^2}\\
&\le\sum_{g\in\Ga}\mu^{*n}(g')^2=\mu^{*2n}(e)
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
\mu^{*2n+1}(x)&=\sum_{g\in\Ga}\mu^{*2n}(g^{-1}g')\mu(g')\\
&\le\sum_{g\in\Ga}\mu^{*2n}(e)\mu(g')=\mu^{2n}(e)\\
\end{align*}
which imply the lemma.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Random walks on Hyperbolic groups}
$ $\\
In addition to recalling basics about the asymptotic behavior of random walks over hyperbolic spaces we insist on ideas present in Theorem \ref{thm:equi} proof.
Assume $\Ga$ is a non-elementary group that acts properly by isometries on $(X,d)$ and $\mu\in\tprob(\Ga)$ an symmetric non-elementary probability on $\Ga$.
\begin{prop}\label{lem:asconv}
For ${\mathbb{P}}$-almost every $\omega\in\Omega$ the sequence $(X_n(\omega).o)_n$ in $(X,d)$ converges to $Z(\omega)\in\dd X$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
It is enough to prove that for ${\mathbb{P}}$-almost every $\omega\in\Omega$, $(X_n(\omega).o)_n$ is a $\theta_{\varepsilon,o}$-Cauchy sequence.\\
Let us consider the random variables $Y_n=d(X_{n-1}.o,X_n.o)=|H_n|_o$ for $n\ge1$.
These are real independent variables with distribution $\gs\in\tprob({\mathbb{R}}_+)$ given by cumulative function $f_\gs(t)=\gs((-\infty,t])={\mathbb{P}}(|X_1|_o\le t)$ for $t\in {\mathbb{R}}$.\\
Since $\mu$ has a first moment observe that:
\begin{align*}
{\mathbb{E}}(Y_n)&=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}_+}t\,d\gs(t)\\
&=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}_+}\gs(t\ge a)\,d\lambda(a)=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}_+}{\mathbb{P}}(|H_1|_o\ge a)\,d\lambda(a)\\
&=\int_{\Omega}|H_1|_o(\omega)\,{\mathbb{P}}(\omega)=\sum_{g\in\Ga}\mu(g)|g.o|_o
\end{align*}
is finite and non-zero because $\mu$ is admissible.\\
The law of large numbers implies that for ${\mathbb{P}}$-almost all $\omega\in\Omega$, $S_n(\omega)=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{k=1}^nY_k(\omega)\rightarrow {\mathbb{E}}(|X_1|_o)$ and therefore $\frac{1}{n}Y_n\rightarrow 0$ ${\mathbb{P}}$-almost surely.\\
On the other hand, since $\mu$ is non-elementary, $\frac{1}{n}|X_n|_o$ converges ${\mathbb{P}}$-almost surely to $\ell>0$ and thus $\lim\frac{1}{n}(X_n|X_{n+1})_o(\omega)=\ell$.
It follows for all $m\le n$ large enough:
\begin{align*}
\theta_{\varepsilon,o}(X_m(\omega),X_n(\omega))&\le\sum_{k=m}^\infty\rho_{\varepsilon,o}(X_k(\omega),X_{k+1}(\omega))\\
&\le\sum_{k=m}^\infty e^{-\frac{1}{2}\ell k}\rightarrow 0, \quad \text{when $n,m$ go to infinity}
\end{align*}
for ${\mathbb{P}}$-almost all $\omega\in\Omega$.
\end{proof}
Let us investigate the properties of the hitting random variable $Z$ and make some observations that will be useful in Theorem \ref{thm:equi} proof.
\begin{rem}\label{rem:invmarkov}
For all $k\ge 0$ fixed, $\Theta^k$ preserves essentially the set upon which $(X_n)_n$ converges to $Z$ and as a consequence $X_n\circ\Theta^k(\omega)\rightarrow Z\circ\Theta^k(\omega)$.
On the other hand
$$(X_n\circ\Theta^k(\omega)|X_n(\omega))_o\ge\frac{1}{2}(|X_n|_o(\omega)-|H_{n+1}\dots H_{n+k}|_o(\omega))$$
for all $\omega\in\Omega$ and
$$\frac{1}{n}|H_{n+1}\dots H_{n+k}|_o(\omega)\le\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^k|H_{n+i}|_o(\omega)$$
converges to 0 when $n$ goes to infinity and $k$ is fixed ${\mathbb{P}}$-almost surely by the law of large numbers.
It follows that $(X_n\circ\Theta^k)_n$ and $(X_n)_n$ converge to the same limit:
$$Z\circ\Theta^k(\omega)=Z(\omega)$$
for ${\mathbb{P}}$-almost all $\omega\in\Omega$. In other words the random variable $Z$ is Markov shift invariant.
Moreover for all $\omega\in\Omega$ one has $X_n\circ\Theta^k(\omega)=X_{n+k}(\omega)=X_k(\omega).X'_{n}(\omega)$ where $X'_n=X_k^{-1}X_{n+k}$ is a $\mu$-distributed random walk starting at $e$ independent of $X_{k'}$ for all $k'\le k$.\\
Therefore ${\mathbb{P}}$-almost surely:
$$Z(\omega)=\lim_n X_n\circ\Theta^k(\omega)=X_k(\omega).\lim_{n'} X_n'(\omega)=X_k(\omega).Z_k(\omega)$$
where $Z_k$ is independent of $X_{k'}$ for all $k'\le k$.
If $U$ denotes the Bernoulli shift at $e$ on $\Omega$ for $k\ge0$ one has:
$$X_n\circ U^k=X_k^{-1}X_n\circ\Theta^k\rightarrow Z_k$$
and since $U$ is ${\mathbb{P}}$-measure preserving one deduce that the sequence of random variables: $(Z_k)_{k\ge0}$ have the same law.
As a consequence if $\nu$ is the law of $Z$ on $\dd X$ the above relation implies
\begin{align*}
\nu(A)={\mathbb{P}}(Z\in A)&={\mathbb{P}}(X_kZ_k\in A)\\
&=\int_\Omega\mathbbm{1}_A(X_kZ_k)(\omega)\,{\mathbb{P}}(\omega)\\
&=\sum_g\mu^{*k}(g)\int_\Omega\mathbbm{1}_A(gZ_k(\omega))\,{\mathbb{P}}(\omega)\\
&=\sum_g\mu^{*k}(g)\nu(g^{-1}A)
\end{align*}
for all measurable set $A\subset \dd X$.
In other words $\nu$ is $\mu$-stationary.
\end{rem}
\begin{lem}\label{lem:proximal}
Let $\nu$ be a diffuse probability on $\dd X$ and $(g_n)_n$ a proper sequence of elements of $\Ga$.
Assume ${g_n}_*\nu$ converges to $\nu'$, then $\nu'$ is a Dirac mass.
Moreover if the limit probability satisfies $\nu'=\delta_\xi$ then $\lim_n g_n.o=\xi$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Since $(g_n)_n$ is proper, after extraction of a subsequence, one may assume that there exist $\xi_\pm\in\dd\Ga$ such that $g_n^{\pm1}.o\rightarrow\xi_\pm$.\\
Let $\eta\neq\xi_-$ be a boundary point distinct from $\xi_-$.
Then $(\eta|g_n^{-1}.o)_o$ is a bounded sequence and since $|g^{-1}_n|_o-(\eta|o)_{g^{-1}_n.o}\approx(\eta|g_n^{-1}.o)_o$, it follows that $(\eta|o)_{g^{-1}_n.o}=(g_n\eta|g_n.o)_o\rightarrow+\infty$.
In other words $g_n\eta\rightarrow \xi_+$.
Because $\nu$ is diffuse for all $\varphi\in C^0(\dd X)$ the dominated convergence theorem implies:
$$\int_{\dd\Ga}\varphi(\eta)\,d{g_n}_*\nu=\int_{\dd\Ga\setminus\xi_-}\varphi(g_n\eta)\,d\nu\rightarrow \int_{\dd\Ga\setminus\xi_-}\varphi(\xi_+)\,d\nu=\varphi(\xi_+)$$
Conversely if $\nu'$ is Dirac mass at $\xi$ then $\xi$ is the only possible cluster value of $(g_n)_n$ by the previous argument.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}\label{prop:hitting}
Let $Z$ be the random limit of a $\mu$-random walk $(X_n)_n$ on $\Ga$.
The law of $Z$, $\nu$, called hitting measure on $\dd X$ given by:
$$\nu=\int_{\dd X}\delta_{Z(\omega)}{\mathbb{P}}(\omega)$$
has no atoms and is the unique $\mu$-stationary probability on $\dd X$.\\
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Assume $\nu$ is a $\mu$-stationary probability on $\dd X$ with an atom at $\xi\in\dd X$.
Let $\varphi_n\in\ell^1(\Ga)$ for $n\ge0$ be the sequence of positive functions on $\Ga$ given by $\varphi_n(g)=\mu^{*n}(g)\nu(g^{-1}\xi)$.
Since $\nu$ is $\mu$-harmonic one has:
$$\sum_{g\in\Ga}\varphi_n(g)=\nu(\xi)>0$$
for all $n\ge 0$.\\
On the other hand the support of $\mu$ generates an non-amenable subgroup of $\Ga$.
This implies that $\mu^{*n}(g)\lesssim \rho(\mu)^n$ with $\rho(\mu)<1$ by Kersten theorem and therefore $(\varphi_n)_n$ converges pointwise to $0$.\\
Since $\varphi_n(g)\le u(g)=\nu(g^{-1}\xi)$ with $u\in\ell^1(\Ga)$, the dominated convergence theorem implies that $\sum_g\varphi_n(g)\rightarrow 0$ but $\sum_g\varphi_n(g)=\nu(\xi)>0$ for all $n\ge0$. This is a contradiction and $\nu$ is necessarily diffuse on $\dd X$.\\
Since $\nu$ is diffuse Lemma \ref{lem:proximal} implies that $X_n(.)_*\nu$ converges ${\mathbb{P}}$-almost surely to $\delta_{Z(.)}$.
The martingale convergence theorem implies:
$$\int_\Omega X_n(\omega)_*\nu {\mathbb{P}}(\omega)\rightarrow \int_\Omega \delta_{Z(\omega)}{\mathbb{P}}(\omega)$$
Indeed for $\varphi\in C^0(\dd X)$, $\varphi_n(\omega)=\int_{\dd X}\varphi(X_n(\omega)\xi)d\nu(\xi)$ with $\omega\in\Omega$ is a bounded martingale on $\Omega$ and thus converges in $L^1(\Omega,{\mathbb{P}})$.\\
One the other hand $\nu$ is $\mu$-stationary and thus:
$$\int_\Omega X_n(\omega)_*\nu {\mathbb{P}}(\omega)=\mu^{*n}*\nu=\nu$$
\end{proof}
\section {Probabilistic Margulis-Roblin equidistribution}\label{sec:equi}
The next theorem is a probabilistic analogue of Roblin equidistribution Theorem 4.1.1 of \cite{MR2057305} (see also \cite{MR2035655}).
In this section $\mu$ denote an arbitrary symmetric non-elementary probability measure on $\Ga$ with 1st moment.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:equi}
Let $\varphi_1,\varphi_2\in C^0(\dd X)$ be two continuous functions on $\dd X$, $(X_n)_n$ a $\mu$-random walk starting at $o\in X$ with $\mu$ as above and $\nu$ the unique $\mu$-stationary measure on $\dd X$.\\
Then the following equidistribution holds:
$${\mathbb{E}}^\mu[\varphi_1(\hat{X_n.o})\varphi_2(\hat{X_n^{-1}.o})]=\sum\varphi_1(\hat{g.o})\varphi_2(\hat{g^{-1}.o})\mu^{*n}(g)\xrightarrow{n\rightarrow+\infty} \int_{\dd X}\varphi_1\,d\nu.\int_{\dd X}\varphi_2\,d\nu.$$
Moreover the boundary retraction might be chosen differently for $\varphi_1$ and $\varphi_2$.
\end{thm}
\begin{cor}\label{cor:markov}
Given $\varphi\in C^0(\dd X\times\dd X)$ a continuous function on $\dd X\times\dd X$, the following equidistribution holds:
$${\mathbb{E}}^\mu[\Phi(X_n\xi,X_n^{-1}\eta)]=\sum_{g\in\Ga}\Phi(g\xi,g^{-1}\eta)\mu^{*n}(g)\xrightarrow{n\rightarrow+\infty} \int_{\dd X\times\dd X}\Phi\,d\nu\otimes\nu.$$
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Observe that:
$$C^0(\dd X)\otimes_{\text{alg}} C^0(\dd X)\subset C^0(\dd X)\hat{\otimes}_\varepsilon C^0(\dd X)=C^0(\dd X\times\dd X)$$
where $\otimes_{\text{alg}}$ and $\hat{\otimes}_\varepsilon$ stand respectively for the algebraic tensor product and the injective one \cite{MR1888309}.
If $J:C^0(\dd X\times\dd X)\rightarrow C^0(\dd X\times\dd X)^{**}$ denote the topological bidual injection one has:
$$\ol{J[C^0(\dd X)\otimes_{\text{alg}} C^0(\dd X)]}^{\text{w}}=C^0(\dd X\times\dd X)^{**}$$
where $\ol{*}^{\text{w}}$ stands for the weak closer on $C^0(\dd X\times\dd X)^{**}$.
Using the fact that probability measures on $C^0(\dd X\times\dd X)$ are contractions one deduce the extension of Theorem \ref{thm:equi} for arbitrary function on $\dd X\times\dd X$ and choice of boundary retractions.
Take $B:\Ga=X\to\dd X$ given by $B(g)=g.\xi_0$ for some fixed $\xi_0\in\dd X$.
Since $\Ga$ acts geometrically on $X$, $B$ extends to a boundary retraction on $\ol{X}$.
The corollary follows from Theorem \ref{thm:equi} applied to boundary retractions of this type.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:equi}]
Let us denote $I_n={\mathbb{E}}^\mu[\varphi_1(\hat{X_n^{-1}.o})\varphi_2(\hat{X_n.o})]$ for $n\ge0$ and $I_+=\limsup_n I_n$, which is bounded above by $\|\varphi_1\|_\infty\|\varphi_2\|_\infty$.\\
It is enough to prove:
$$I_+\le \int_{\dd X}\varphi_1\,d\nu.\int_{\dd X}\varphi_2\,d\nu$$
Indeed, exchanging $\varphi_1$ for $-\varphi_1$ leads to:
$$\int_{\dd X} \varphi_1d\nu.\int_{\dd X} \varphi_2d\nu\le \liminf_n I_n$$
and concludes the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:equi}.\\
Let us start by introducing the maps:
$$F_{n,k}:\Omega\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}_+,\quad \omega\mapsto (X_n(\omega).o|X_n\circ\Theta^k(\omega).o)_{o}$$
and
$$F'_{n,k}:\Omega\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}_+,\quad \omega\mapsto (X^{-1}_n\circ U^k(\omega).o|X_n^{-1}\circ\Theta^k(\omega).o)_{o}$$
for $n,k\ge0$ where $U$ and $\Theta$ denote respectively the Bernoulli and the Markov shift on $\Omega$.\\
Observe that:
\begin{align*}
&|F_{n,k}-\ell.n|\\
&=\frac{1}{2}|(|X_n.{o}|_{o}-\ell.n)+(|X_{n+k}.{o}|_{o}-\ell.(n+k))-(|H_{n+1}\dots H_{n+k}.{o}|_{o}-\ell.k)|;\\
&|F'_{n,k}-\ell.n|\\
&=\frac{1}{2}|(|H_{n+k}^{-1}\dots H_{k+1}^{-1}.{o}|_{o}-\ell.n)+(|X_{n+k}^{-1}.{o}|_{o}-\ell.(n+k))-(|H_{k}^{-1}\dots H_{1}^{-1}.{o}|_{o}-\ell.k)|
\end{align*}
for all $n,k\ge0$.
The subadditive ergodic theorem \cite{MR704553} guarantees that $\frac{|X_n|_o}{n}\rightarrow \ell$ pointwise and in $L^1(\Omega,{\mathbb{P}})$ where $\ell>0$ denotes the drift of $\mu$, that is non-zero since the support of $\mu$ generates a non-amenable subgroup in $\Ga$.
Moreover following Remark \ref{rem:invmarkov} the 1st moment assumption implies that $\frac{F_{n,k}}{n},\frac{F_{n,k}'}{n}\rightarrow\ell$ pointwise and in $L^1(\Omega,{\mathbb{P}})$, when $k$ is fixed and $n$ goes to infinity.
On the other hand since $(\varphi_2(\hat{X_n^{-1}.o}))_n$ defines a bounded sequence in $L^\infty(\Omega,{\mathbb{P}})=L^1(\Omega,{\mathbb{P}})^*$ one can assume that $\varphi_2(\hat{X_n^{-1}.o})$ converges to some function $\varphi_{-\infty}\in L^\infty(\Omega,{\mathbb{P}})$ for the weak-$*$ topology $\gs(L^\infty,L^1)$.\\
We are going to prove the following inequality:
$$I_+\le \int_\Omega\varphi_1(Z\circ U^{k}(\omega))\varphi_{-\infty}(\omega){\mathbb{P}}(\omega)$$
Let us fixe $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$ and $\varepsilon>0$.
Using Egoroff theorem one can find $B\subset\Omega$ with ${\mathbb{P}}(B)\le \varepsilon$ such that $(\frac{F_{n,k}}{n})_n$ and $(\frac{F'_{n,k}}{n})_n$ converge uniformly to $\ell$ on $A=\Omega\setminus B$.\,
Because $\hat{\varphi_i}$, $i=1,2$, are uniformly continuous on the compact $\overline{X}$ there exists $\eta\le\varepsilon$ such that for all $x,y\in\ol{X}$ with $\theta_{o,\varepsilon}(x,y)\le\eta$, $|\hat{\varphi_i}(x)-\hat{\varphi_i}(y)|\le\varepsilon$.\\
Take $n_0$ large enough such that $e^{-\frac{1}{2}\ell n_0}\le\eta$ and for all $n\ge n_0$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:dist}
|\frac{F_{n,k}(\omega)}{n}-\ell|+|\frac{F'_{n,k}(\omega)}{n}-\ell|\le \frac{1}{2}\ell
\end{equation}
for all $\omega\in\Omega\setminus B$,
$$|{\mathbb{E}}^\mu[\varphi_1(Z\circ U^{k})\hat{\varphi}_2(X^{-1}_{n}.{o})]-\int_{\Omega} \varphi_1(Z\circ U^{k}(\omega))\varphi_{-\infty}(\omega){\mathbb{P}}(\omega)|\le \varepsilon$$
and
$$\int_\Omega|\varphi_1(Z(\omega))-\hat{\varphi}_1(X_{n}(\omega).{o})|{\mathbb{P}}(\omega)\le\varepsilon.$$
In particular Equation \ref{eq:dist} implies:
$$\theta_{o,\varepsilon}(X_n(\omega).{o},X_n\circ\Theta^k(\omega).{o}),\,\theta_{o,\varepsilon}(X^{-1}_n\circ U^k(\omega).{o},X_n^{-1}\circ\Theta^k(\omega).{o})\le \eta$$
for $n\ge n_0$ and $\omega\in\Omega\setminus B$.\\
For $n\ge n_0$ one has:
$$I_+-\varepsilon\le{\mathbb{E}}^\mu[\hat{\varphi}_1(X_{n+{k}}^{-1}.{o})\hat{\varphi}_2(X_{n+{k}}.{o})]={\mathbb{E}}^\mu[\hat{\varphi}_1(X_{n}^{-1}\circ\Theta^{k}(\omega).{o})\hat{\varphi}_2(X_{n}\circ\Theta^{k}(\omega).{o})]$$
Observe that:
\begin{align*}
&\int_\Omega\hat{\varphi}_1(X_{n}^{-1}\circ\Theta^{k}(\omega).{o})\hat{\varphi}_2(X_{n}\circ\Theta^{k}(\omega).{o}){\mathbb{P}}(\omega)=\int_\Omega\hat{\varphi}_1(X_{n}^{-1}\circ U^{k}(\omega).{o})\hat{\varphi}_2(X_{n}(\omega).{o}){\mathbb{P}}(\omega)\\
&+\int_{\Omega=\Omega\setminus B\cup B}(\hat{\varphi}_1(X_{n}^{-1}\circ\Theta^{k}(\omega).{o})-\hat{\varphi}_1(X_{n}^{-1}\circ U^{k}(\omega).{o}))\hat{\varphi}_2(X_{n}\circ\Theta^{k}(\omega).{o}){\mathbb{P}}(\omega)\\
&+\int_{\Omega=\Omega\setminus B\cup B}\hat{\varphi}_1(X_{n}^{-1}\circ U^{k}(\omega).{o})(\hat{\varphi}_2(X_{n}\circ\Theta^{k}(\omega).{o})-\hat{\varphi}_2(X_{n}(\omega).{o})){\mathbb{P}}(\omega)\\
&\le\int_\Omega\hat{\varphi}_1(X_{n}^{-1}\circ U^{k}(\omega).{o})\hat{\varphi}_2(X_{n}(\omega).{o}){\mathbb{P}}(\omega)+4{\mathbb{P}}(B)\|\varphi_1\|_\infty\|\varphi_2\|_\infty+2\varepsilon\max_{i=1,2}\|\varphi_i\|_\infty
\end{align*}
In other words:
$$I_++O(\varepsilon)\le \int_\Omega\hat{\varphi}_1(X_{n}\circ U^{k}(\omega).{o})\hat{\varphi}_2(X_{n}^{-1}(\omega).{o}){\mathbb{P}}(\omega)$$
On the other hand, using the inequality $\|\varphi_{-\infty}\|_\infty\le\|\varphi_2\|_\infty$ one obtain:
\begin{align*}
&|\int_\Omega\hat{\varphi}_1(X_{n}\circ U^{k}(\omega).{o})\hat{\varphi}_2(X_{n}^{-1}(\omega).{o}){\mathbb{P}}(\omega)-\int_\Omega\varphi_1(Z\circ U^{k}(\omega))\varphi_{-\infty}(\omega){\mathbb{P}}(\omega)|\\
&\le|\int_\Omega\hat{\varphi}_1(X_{n}\circ U^{k}(\omega).{o})[\hat{\varphi}_2(X_{n}^{-1}(\omega).{o})-\varphi_{-\infty}(\omega)]{\mathbb{P}}(\omega)|\\
&+|\int_\Omega[\varphi_1(Z\circ U^{k}(\omega))-\hat{\varphi}_1(X_{n}\circ U^{k}(\omega).{o})]\varphi_{-\infty}(\omega){\mathbb{P}}(\omega)|\\
&\le|\int_\Omega\hat{\varphi}_1(X_{n}\circ U^{k}(\omega).{o})[\hat{\varphi}_2(X_{n}^{-1}(\omega).{o})-\varphi_{-\infty}(\omega)]{\mathbb{P}}(\omega)|\\
&+\|\varphi_2\|_\infty\int_\Omega|\varphi_1(Z(\omega))-\hat{\varphi}_1(X_{n}(\omega).{o})|{\mathbb{P}}(\omega)\le \varepsilon(1+\|\varphi_2\|_\infty)\\
\end{align*}
and since $\varepsilon$ can be chosen arbitrary small it follows that:
$$I_+\le \int_\Omega\varphi_1(Z\circ U^{k}(\omega))\varphi_{-\infty}(\omega){\mathbb{P}}(\omega)$$
for all $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$.\\
Eventually observe that the weak convergence of $(\varphi_2(X_n^{-1}.o))_n$ to $\varphi_{-\infty}$ implies:
$${\mathbb{E}}^\mu(\varphi_2(X_n^{-1}.o))\rightarrow \int_\Omega\varphi_{-\infty}(\omega){\mathbb{P}}(\omega)$$
and the symmetry of $\mu$ gives:
$${\mathbb{E}}^\mu(\varphi_2(X_n^{-1}.o))={\mathbb{E}}^\mu(\varphi_2(X_n.o))\rightarrow \int_{\dd X}\varphi_{2}d\nu$$
This imposes:
$$\int_\Omega\varphi_{-\infty}(\omega){\mathbb{P}}(\omega)=\int_{\dd X}\varphi_{2}d\nu$$
Since the Bernouilli shift $U$ is mixing one deduce:
\begin{align*}
I_+\le \int_\Omega\varphi_1(Z\circ U^{k}(\omega))\varphi_{-\infty}(\omega){\mathbb{P}}(\omega)\xrightarrow{k\rightarrow+\infty}&\int_{\dd X}\varphi_1d\nu\int_\Omega\varphi_{-\infty}(\omega){\mathbb{P}}(\omega)\\
&=\int_{\dd X}\varphi_1d\nu\int_{\dd X}\varphi_2d\nu
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\section{A probabilistic approach of the irreducibility}\label{sec:main
Let $\nu$ be a Ahlfors-regular quasiconformal measure on $\dd X$ for the action of $\Ga$ on $(X,d)$.
The principal example in our framework are stationary measures on $\dd X$ for finitely supported symmetric admissible probabilities on $\Ga$.
The associated \textit{boundary representation} of $\Ga$ is defined as:
$$\pi_o:\Ga\rightarrow \mathcal{U}[L^2[\dd X,\nu]],\quad \pi_o(g)\varphi(\gx)=\sqrt{r_{o}(g^{-1},\xi)}\varphi(g^{-1}\gx)$$
where $r_{o}$ denotes the Radon-Nikodym derivative cocycle given by the formula:
$$r_{\nu}(g,\xi)=\frac{dg^{-1}_*\nu}{d\nu}(\xi)\asymp e^{\varepsilon D_\varepsilon\beta_\xi(g^{-1}.o)}$$
with $g\in\Ga$, $\xi\in\dd X$.\\
The \textit{Harish-Chandra function} on $\Ga$ is defined as the matrix coefficient given by:
$$\Xi_o(g)=(\pi_o(g){\bf 1}_{\dd\Ga}|{\bf 1}_{\dd\Ga})=\|\sqrt{r_{o}(g^{-1},.)}\|_{L^1(\dd X,\nu)}=\Xi_o(g^{-1})$$
for $g\in \Ga$.\\
In the rest one denote:
$$\ti{\pi}_o(g)=\frac{\pi_o(g)}{\Xi_o(g)}$$
the renormalization of the representation $\pi_o$ by the Harish-Chandra function $\Xi_o$.
Let $\mathcal{P}_{{\bf1}_{\dd X}}$ be the one dimensional projector on $L^2[\dd X,\nu]$ given by:
$$\mathcal{P}_{{\bf1}_{\dd X}}(\varphi)=(\varphi|{\bf1}_{\dd X}){\bf1}_{\dd X}$$
for $\varphi\in L^2[\dd X,\nu]$.
The principal result of this section is:
\begin{thm}\label{thm:flipap}
Let $\mu\in \tprob(\Ga)$ be a finitely supported, symmetric probability on $\Ga$ and $\nu$ its associated stationary measure on $\dd X$.\\
Denote $\mathcal{P}_n\in \mathcal{B}(L^2[\dd X,\nu])$ the operator defined as:
$$\mathcal{P}_n={\mathbb{E}}^\mu[\widetilde{\pi}_o(X_n)]=\sum_{g\in\Ga}\frac{\pi_o(g)}{\Xi_o(g)}\mu^{*n}(g).$$
Then $(\mathcal{P}_n)_n$ defines an uniformly bounded sequence of operators which converges to the one dimensional projector $\mathcal{P}_{{\bf1}_{\dd X}}$ for the weak-* operator topology, in other words:
$$\sum_{g\in\Ga}\frac{(\pi_o(g)\varphi|\psi)}{\Xi_o(g)}\mu^{*n}(g)\xrightarrow{n\rightarrow+\infty}\int_{\dd X}\varphi d\nu\int_{\dd X}\psi d\nu$$
for all $\varphi,\psi\in L^2[\dd X,\nu]$.
\end{thm}
Before we go to the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:flipap} let us give a direct consequence:
\begin{cor}\label{cor:irr}
Let $\mu\in \tprob(\Ga)$ be a finitely supported, symmetric probability on $\Ga$ and $\nu$ its associated stationary measure on $\dd X$.\\
Then the associated boundary representation $(\Ga,\pi_o,L^2[\dd X,\nu])$ is irreducible.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
We start by proving that the vector ${\bf1}_{\dd X}$ is cyclic for $(\Ga,\pi_o,L^2[\dd X,\nu])$.
Indeed assume $\psi\in L^2[\dd X,\nu]\ominus \ol{\text{span}\{\pi(g){\bf1}_{\dd X}|\,g\in\Ga\}}$, then Proposition \ref{prop:coef} implies:
\begin{align*}
{\mathbb{E}}^\mu&[\hat{w}(X_n)(\tilde{\pi}_o(X_n){\bf1}_{\dd X}|\psi)_{L^2}]\\
&=\sum_{g\in\Ga}\hat{w}(g)(\tilde{\pi}_o(g){\bf1}_{\dd X}|\psi)_{L^2}\xrightarrow{n\rightarrow+\infty} \int_{\dd X}\psi(\xi)w(\xi)d\nu(\xi)
\end{align*}
for all $w\in \lips(\dd X,d_{o,\varepsilon})$.
Using the density of Lipschitz functions together with the fact that ${\mathbb{E}}^\mu[\hat{w}(X_n)(\tilde{\pi}_o(X_n){\bf1}_{\dd X}|\psi)_{L^2}]=0$ for all $n$ it follows that $\psi=0$.\\
Let $V_0$ be a non-trivial subrepresentation of $(\Ga,\pi_o,L^2[\dd X,\nu])$.
Then there exists $\psi\in V_0$ such that $({\bf1}_{\dd X}|\psi_0)_{L^2}\neq0$.
Otherwise using the invariance of this subrepresentation we would have that $V_0$ is orthogonal to $\ol{\text{span}\{\pi(g){\bf1}_{\dd X}|\,g\in\Ga\}}=L^2[\dd X,\nu]$.
Finally since $\mathcal{P}_{{\bf1}_{\dd X}}$ belongs to the von Neumann algebra of $\pi_o$ it follows that $\mathcal{P}_{{\bf1}_{\dd X}}(\psi_0)=\lambda_0{{\bf1}_{\dd X}}\in V_0$ with $\lambda_0\neq0$ and therefore $V_0=L^2[\dd X,\nu]$.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Proximal phenomenon in $L^2$ and boundary representations.}
$ $\\
A fundamental estimate of the Harish-Chandra is given by the following lemma:
\begin{lem}[\cite{MR3622235} \cite{Garncarek:aa}]\label{lem:est}
Let $\Xi_o$ be the Harish-Chandra function on $\Ga$ associated to its geometric action on $(X,d)$.
Then for all $g\in\Ga$:
$$\Xi_o(g)\asymp(1+|g.o|_o)e^{-\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon D_\varepsilon|g.o|_o}.$$
where $D_\varepsilon$ is the Hausdorff dimension of $\nu$
\end{lem}
As explained in the following lemma the sequence of absolutely continuous probabilities with respect to $\nu$ given by:
$$u_gd\nu=\frac{\sqrt{r_{o}(g^{-1},.)}}{\Xi_o(g)}d\nu\asymp\frac{e^{\varepsilon D_\varepsilon(g.o|\cdot)_o}}{(1+|g.o|_o)}d\nu$$
on $(\dd X,\nu)$ gives an approximation of the Dirac mass in the sense:
$$(\varphi|u_g)_{L^2}=\int\varphi(\gx)\frac{e^{\varepsilon D_\varepsilon(g.o|\gx)_o}}{(1+|g.o|_o)}\,d\nu(\gx)\rightarrow \varphi(\xi_0)$$
when $g$ goes to $\xi_0$.\\
Moreover this convergence is controlled by the length of $g$:
\begin{lem}\cite{Garncarek:aa}\label{lem:l2proximal}
Let $\Psi\in\lips(\dd X\times \dd X,d)$ be a Lipschitz function on $\dd X\times \dd X$ for the $\ell^1$-product distance:
$d((\xi,\eta),(\xi',\eta'))=d_{o,\varepsilon}(\xi,\xi')+d_{o,\varepsilon}(\eta,\eta')$ for $\xi,\xi',\eta,\eta'\in\dd X$.
Assume $\varepsilon>0$ small enough such that the Hausdorff dimension, $D_\varepsilon$, of $(\dd X,d_{o,\varepsilon})$ is strictly greater than $1$.
Then:
$$|(\Psi|u_g\otimes u_{g^{-1}})_{L^2}-\Psi(\hat{g},\widecheck{g})|\le\frac{2\lambda(\Psi)}{(1+|g.o|_o)^{1/{D_\varepsilon}}}$$
for all $g\in\Ga$, where $\lambda(\Psi)$ is the Lipschitz constant of $\Psi$ and $\widecheck{g}=\hat{g^{-1}.o}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Using the fact :
$$\beta(o,g.o;\xi)=2(\xi|g.o)_o-|g.o|_o\preceq2(\xi|\hat{g.o})_o-|g.o|_o$$
for all $g\in\Ga$, $\xi\in \dd X$ together with Lemma \ref{lem:est} we deduce for any $0<r<\text{Diam($\dd X$)}$:
\begin{align*}
&|(\Psi|u_g\otimes u_{g^{-1}})_{L^2}-\Psi(\hat{g},\widecheck{g})|=|(\Psi-\Psi(\hat{g},\widecheck{g})|u_g\otimes u_{g^{-1}})_{L^2}|\\
&\le\lambda(\Psi)|\int_{\dd X}[d_{o,\varepsilon}(\hat{g},\xi)+d_{o,\varepsilon}(\widecheck{g},\eta)]u_g(\xi)u_{g^{-1}}(\eta)d\nu(\xi)d\nu(\eta)|\\
&\preceq\lambda(\Psi)[2r+|\int_{B^c_{\dd X}(\hat{g};r)}\frac{d_{o,\varepsilon}(\hat{g},\xi)^{1-D_\varepsilon}}{1+|g.o|_o}d\nu(\xi)|+|\int_{B^c_{\dd X}(\widecheck{g};r)}\frac{d_{o,\varepsilon}(\widecheck{g},\eta)^{1-D_\varepsilon}}{1+|g.o|_o}d\nu(\eta)|]\\
&\le2\lambda(\Psi)[r+\frac{r^{1-D_\varepsilon}}{1+|g.o|_o}]\\
\end{align*}
where the second inequality is obtained by the decomposition $\dd X=B_{\dd X}((\hat{g},\widecheck{g});r)\cup B^c_{\dd X}((\hat{g},\widecheck{g});r)$.
The lemma follows by taking $r=(1+|g.o|_o)^{-1/{D_\varepsilon}}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
Since $\nu$ is Ahlfors-regular and the Lebesgue differentiation theorem guarantees the density of Lipschitz functions in $L^2[\dd X,\nu]$.
\end{rem}
\begin{prop}\label{prop:coef}
Given $w,\varphi,\psi\in\lips(\dd X,d_{o,\varepsilon})$, three Lipschitz functions on $\dd X$, the following holds:
$${\mathbb{E}}^\mu[|w(\hat{X_n.o})(\ti{\pi}_o(X_n)\varphi|\psi)-w(\hat{X_n.o})\varphi(\hat{X_n^{-1}.o}).\psi(\hat{X_n.o})|]\xrightarrow{n\rightarrow+\infty} 0$$
\end{prop}
This Proposition \ref{prop:coef} together with Theorem \ref{thm:equi} implies:
\begin{cor}
Given any Lipschitz functions $w,\varphi, \psi\in\lips(\dd X,d_{o,\varepsilon})$ one has:
$${\mathbb{E}}^\mu[w(\hat{X_n.o})(\ti{\pi}_o(X_n)\varphi|\psi)]\rightarrow \int_{\dd X}\varphi\,d{\nu}.\int_{\dd X}w.\psi\,d{\nu}$$
when $n$ goes to infinity.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}[Proof Proposition \ref{prop:coef}]
Let $w,\varphi,\psi\in\lips(\dd X,d_{o,\varepsilon})$ be three Lipschitz functions.
Take $0<s<1$ such that $\rho_\mu\delta_\Ga^s<1$, where $\rho_\mu<1$ is the spectral radius of $\mu$ and $\delta_\Ga$ the growth rate of $\Ga$.\
Observe that:
\begin{align*}
{\mathbb{P}}(|X_n|_o\le sn)&=\mu^{*n}(B_X(o,sn))\\
&\le \max\{\mu^{*n}(e),\mu^{*(n-1)}(e)\}|B_X(o,sn)\cap\Ga.o|\\
&\preceq \rho_\mu^n\delta_\Ga^{sn}=(\rho_\mu\delta_\Ga^s)^n
\end{align*}
for all $n$.\\
On the other hand:
\begin{align*}
&\sum_{g;\,|g.o|_o\ge sn}|w(\hat{g.o})(\ti{\pi}_o(g)\varphi|\psi)-w(\hat{g.o})\varphi(\hat{g^{-1}.o}).\psi(\hat{g.o})|\mu^{*n}(g)\\
&=\sum_{g;\,|g.o|_o\ge sn}|w(\hat{g.o})(\ti{\pi}_o(g)\varphi|\psi-\psi(\hat{g.o}){\bf1}_{\dd X})\\
&\quad-w(\hat{g.o})(\varphi(\hat{g^{-1}.o}){\bf1}_{\dd X}-\varphi|\ti{\pi}(g^{-1}){\bf1}_{\dd X}).\psi(\hat{g.o})|.\mu^{*n}(g)\\
&\le \|w\|_\infty\|\varphi\|_\infty\sum_{g;\,|g.o|_o\ge sn}|(\psi-\psi(\hat{g.o}){\bf1}_{\dd X}|u_g)|.\mu^{*n}(g)\\
&+\|w\|_\infty\|\psi\|_\infty\sum_{g;\,|g.o|_o\ge sn}|(\varphi(\hat{g^{-1}.o}){\bf1}_{\dd X}-\varphi|u_{g^{-1}})|.\mu^{*n}(g)\\
&\le \|w\|_\infty\frac{\|\varphi\|_\infty\lambda(\psi)+\|\psi\|_\infty\lambda(\varphi)}{(1+ sn)^{1/D_\varepsilon}}
\end{align*}
The last inequality is a consequence of Lemma \ref{lem:l2proximal}.
It follows that:
\begin{align*}
&{\mathbb{E}}^\mu[|w(\hat{X_n.o})(\ti{\pi}_o(X_n)\varphi|\psi)-w(\hat{X_n.o})\varphi(\hat{X_n^{-1}.o}).\psi(\hat{X_n.o})|]\\
&=\sum_{g\in\Ga}|w(\hat{g.o})(\ti{\pi}_o(g)\varphi|\psi)-w(\hat{g.o})\varphi(\hat{g^{-1}.o}).\psi(\hat{g.o})|\mu^{*n}(g)\\
&\le\sum_{g;\,|g.o|_o\ge sn}|w(\hat{g.o})(\ti{\pi}_o(g)\varphi|\psi)-w(\hat{g.o})\varphi(\hat{g^{-1}.o}).\psi(\hat{g.o})|\mu^{*n}(g)\\
&+{\mathbb{P}}(|X_n|_o\le sn).\|w(\hat{g.o})(\ti{\pi}_o(g)\varphi|\psi)-w(\hat{g.o})\varphi(\hat{g^{-1}.o}).\psi(\hat{g.o})\|_{\ell^\infty(\Ga)}\\
&\preceq\|w\|_\infty\frac{\|\varphi\|_\infty\lambda(\psi)+\|\psi\|_\infty\lambda(\varphi)}{(1+sn)^{1/D_\varepsilon}}+(\rho\delta_\Ga^s)^n\|w\|_\infty\|\varphi\|_\infty\|\psi\|_\infty
\end{align*}
which converges to $0$ when $n$ goes to infinity.
\end{proof}
The last ingredient of Theorem \ref{thm:flipap} proof and thus Corollary \ref{cor:irr} is the uniform boundedness of the family of operators $\{\mathcal{P}_n\mid n\ge0\}$ introduced in its statement.
This is subject of the next subsection.
Assuming this fact let us conclude the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:flipap}:
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:flipap}]
Since $(\mathcal{P}_n)_n$ are uniformly bounded it is enough to prove Theorem \ref{thm:flipap} for $\varphi,\psi\in\lips(\dd X,d_{o,\varepsilon})$ which span a dense subspace in $L^2[\dd X,\nu]$.\\
Observe that:
\begin{align*}
&|(\mathcal{P}_n\varphi|\psi)-\int\varphi d\nu\int\psi d\nu|=|{\mathbb{E}}^\mu[(\tilde{\pi}_o(X_n)\varphi|\psi)]-\int_{\dd X}\varphi\,d\nu\int_{\dd X}\psi\,d\nu|\\
&\le |{\mathbb{E}}^\mu[(\tilde{\pi}_o(X_n)\varphi|\psi)]-{\mathbb{E}}^\mu[\varphi(\hat{X_n.o}).\psi(\hat{X_n^{-1}.o})]|\\
&+|{\mathbb{E}}^\mu[\varphi(\hat{X_n.o}).\psi(\hat{X_n^{-1}.o})]-\int_{\dd X}\varphi\,d\nu\int_{\dd X}\psi\,d\nu|\\
\end{align*}
On one hand Theorem \ref{thm:equi} guarantee that:
$${\mathbb{E}}^\mu[\varphi(\hat{X_n.o}).\psi(\hat{X_n^{-1}.o})]\xrightarrow{n\rightarrow+\infty}\int_{\dd X}\varphi\,d\nu\int_{\dd X}\psi\,d\nu.$$
On the other hand Proposition \ref{prop:coef} guarantees:
$${\mathbb{E}}^\mu[(\tilde{\pi}_o(X_n)\varphi|\psi)]\xrightarrow{n\rightarrow+\infty}{\mathbb{E}}^\mu[\varphi(\hat{X_n.o}).\psi(\hat{X_n^{-1}.o})]|$$
This concludes the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:flipap}.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Uniform boundedness of the average sequence $(\mathcal{P}_n)_n$.}
We start this section with several technical preliminary results and conclude the uniform boundedness in Proposition \ref{prop:corb} and Corollary \ref{cor:corb}
\begin{lem}\label{lem:intcomp}
Let $(\dd X,d_{o,\varepsilon},\nu)$ be the Gromov boundary of $(X,d)$ together with $\nu$ a $D_\varepsilon$-Ahlfors regular probability measure.
Then
$$\int_{\{\eta|\,(\eta|\xi)\le k\}} d_{o,\varepsilon}^{-D_\varepsilon}(\xi,\eta)d{\nu}(\eta)\asymp1+\varepsilon D_\varepsilon.k$$
for any $k\ge0$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Using the $D_\varepsilon$-Ahlfors-regularity of $\nu$ observe that:
\begin{align*}
\int_{\{\eta|\,(\eta|\xi)\le k\}} &d_{o,\varepsilon}^{-D_\varepsilon}(\xi,\eta)d{\nu}(\eta)\\
&=1+\varepsilon D_\varepsilon\int_{0}^{k} e^{\varepsilon D_\varepsilon t}.\nu_0(\{(\xi|.)>t\})dt\\
&=1+\varepsilon D_\varepsilon\int_{0}^{k}e^{\varepsilon D_\varepsilon t}.\nu_0(\{d_{o,\varepsilon}(\xi,.)<e^{-\varepsilon t }\})dt\\
&\asymp1+\varepsilon D_\varepsilon\int_{0}^{k}e^{\varepsilon D_\varepsilon t}.e^{-\varepsilon D_\varepsilon t }dt=1+\varepsilon D_\varepsilon k.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{lem:ctrinf}
Let $C\ge \delta+2$ be a positive constant.\\
There exists $C'>0$, for any pair of distinct points, $\eta_0\neq\eta'_0$, in the boundary $\dd X$ of $X$ with $C\ge(\eta_0|\eta'_0)_o+\delta+1$ the two neighborhoods of $\eta_0$ and $\eta'_0$ given respectively by:
$$U(\eta_0,C)=U=\{x\in \ol{X}\mid (x|\eta_0)_o\ge C\}$$ and $$U(\eta'_0,C)=U'=\{x\in \ol{X}\mid (x|\eta'_0)_o\ge C\}$$
satisfy $U\cap U'=\emptyset$ and for any $\eta\in \dd X\cap U$, $\eta'\in \dd X\cap U'$ the following inequality holds:
$$(g.o|\xi)_o\le \max\{(g.\eta|\xi)_o,(g.\eta'|\xi)_o\}+C'$$
for all $g\in \Ga$ and $\xi\in\dd X$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Assume there exists $x\in U\cap U'$.
Then one has:
$$(\eta_0|\eta'_0)_o\ge\min\{(x|\eta_0)_o,(x|\eta'_0)_o\}-\delta\ge C-\delta\ge(\eta_0|\eta'_0)_o+1$$
which is a contradiction, thus $U\cap U'=\emptyset$ and in particular $\ol{X}=U^c\cup {U'}^c$.\\
Let $g\in\Ga$ and assume $g^{-1}.o\in {U'}^c$.
One might also assume that $(g.o|\xi)_o\ge (g.\eta|g.o)_o$, otherwise the inequality:
$$(g.\eta|\xi)_o\ge\min\{(g.\eta|g.o)_o,(g.o|\xi)_o\}-\delta=(g.o|\xi)_o-\delta$$
guarantees the second part of the lemma with $C'=\delta$.\\
Since $d(o,g^{-1}.o)-(o|\eta)_{g^{-1}.o}\approx(g^{-1}.o|\eta)_o$ and $g^{-1}.o\in {U'}^c$ which implies that $(g^{-1}.o|\eta)_o\le C$, one has:
\begin{align*}
(g.o|\xi)_o-C&\le |g.o|_o-C\le d(o,g^{-1}.o)-(g^{-1}.o|\eta)_o\\
&\approx(o|\eta)_{g^{-1}.o}=(g.o|g.\eta)_o\le (g.\eta|\xi)_o+\delta
\end{align*}
where the last inequality is a consequence of the hyperbolic inequality:
$$(g.\eta|\xi)_o\ge\min\{(g.o|g.\eta)_o,\,(g.o|\xi)_o\}-\delta$$
together with our assumptions.
Eventually the lemma follows by taking $C+\delta\preceq C'$ where the extra additive constant in the choice of $C'$ only depend on the geometry on $(X,d)$
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}\label{cor:ctrinf}
Let $C\ge\delta+2$ be a fixed constant.
Following Lemma \ref{lem:ctrinf} notations, let $C'$ and $\eta\neq \eta'$ two distinct boundary points that belong respectively to $U$ and $U'$.\\
There exists $\lambda>0$ which only depends on $C$ such that:
\begin{align*}
{\mathbb{E}}^\mu[\tilde{\pi}_o(X_n)]&{\bf 1}_{\dd X}(\xi)\asymp\sum_{g\in\Ga}\frac{e^{\varepsilon D_\varepsilon(g.o|\xi)_o}}{1+|g.o|_o}\mu^{*n}(g)\\
&\le \lambda\sum_{g\in\Ga}[f(g\eta,\xi)+f(g\eta',\xi)]\mu^{*n}(g)\\
\end{align*}
for all $\xi\in\dd X$ and $n\ge0$ with
$$f:\Ga\times\dd X\times\dd X\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}_+;\quad (g,\eta,\xi)\mapsto \frac{d^{-D_\varepsilon}(\eta,\xi)}{1+|g.o|_o}$$
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Using Lemma \ref{lem:ctrinf} one has:
\begin{align*}
e^{\varepsilon D_\varepsilon(g.o|\xi)_o}&\le e^{\varepsilon D_\varepsilon[\max\{(g.\eta|\xi)_o,(g.\eta'|\xi)_o\}+C']}\\
&\le e^{\varepsilon D_\varepsilon C'}.[e^{\varepsilon D_\varepsilon(g.\eta|\xi)}+e^{\varepsilon D_\varepsilon(g.\eta'|\xi)}]\\
&\asymp e^{\varepsilon D_\varepsilon C'}.[d^{-D_\varepsilon}(g.\eta,\xi)+d^{-D_\varepsilon}(g.\eta',\xi)]
\end{align*}
for all $g\in\Ga$.
It follows that:
\begin{align*}
\frac{e^{\varepsilon D_\varepsilon(g.o|\xi)_o}}{1+|g.o|_o}&\le e^{\varepsilon D_\varepsilon C'}.[\frac{d^{-D_\varepsilon}(g.\eta,\xi)}{1+|g.o|_o}+\frac{d^{-D_\varepsilon}(g.\eta',\xi)}{1+|g.o|_o}]\\
\end{align*}
Averaging with respect to $\mu^{*n}$ proves the corollary with $\lambda=e^{2\delta_\Ga C'}$.
\end{proof}
We can prove the principal ingredient of the uniform boundedness of the sequence of operators $(\mathcal{P}_n)_n$:
\begin{prop}\label{prop:corb}
The sequence of functions $({\mathbb{E}}^\mu[\tilde{\pi}_o(X_n)]{\bf1}_{\dd X})_n$ is uniformly bounded in $L^\infty(\dd X,\nu)$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $\lambda>\delta_\Ga$ and $\frac{\ln E}{[\lambda-\delta]}\le a$ where $\delta_\Ga=\varepsilon D_\varepsilon$ denote the critical exponent of $\Ga$ and $E={\mathbb{E}}^\mu[e^{\lambda |X_1|_o}]$, that is finite since $\mu$ is finitely supported.
Using exponential Chebyshev inequality:
\begin{align*}
e^{\lambda a(n+k)}{\mathbb{P}}(|X_n|_o\ge a(n+k))&\le {\mathbb{E}}[e^{\lambda |X_n|_o}]\\
&\le {\mathbb{E}}[e^{\lambda |X_1|_o}]^n=E^n\\
\end{align*}
and therefore:
\begin{align*}
e^{\delta a(n+k)}{\mathbb{P}}(|X_n|_o\ge a(n+k))&\le e^{\delta a(n+k)}e^{-\lambda a(n+k)}E^n\\
&=e^{[\delta-\lambda]ak+[\ln E+a\delta-a\lambda]n}
\end{align*}
It follows
\begin{align*}
{\mathbb{E}}[\tilde{\pi}_o(X_n){\bf 1}_{|X_n|_o\ge an}]{\bf 1}_{\dd X}(\xi)&\preceq\sum_{k=0}^{+\infty}\sum_{g\in \Ga,\,a(n+k)\le|g|_o\le a(n+k+1)}\mu^{*n}(g)\frac{e^{\varepsilon D_\varepsilon(g.o|\xi)_o}}{1+|g|_o}\\
&\le\sum_{k=0}^{+\infty}{\mathbb{P}}(|X_n|\ge a(n+k))e^{\varepsilon D_\varepsilon a(n+k+1)}\\
&\le e^{[\ln E+a\varepsilon D_\varepsilon-a\lambda]n}\sum_k e^{[\delta-\lambda]ak}=\frac{e^{[\ln E+a\varepsilon D_\varepsilon-a\lambda]n}}{1-e^{[\varepsilon D_\varepsilon-\lambda]a}}
\end{align*}
On the other hand:
\begin{align*}
{\mathbb{E}}[\tilde{\pi}_o(X_n){\bf 1}_{|X_n|_o\le a'n}]{\bf 1}_{\dd X}(\xi)&=\sum_{g\in \Ga,\,|g|_o\le a'n}\mu^{*n}(g)\frac{e^{\varepsilon D_\varepsilon(g.o|\xi)_o}}{1+|g|_o}\\
&\le\mu^{*n}(e)\sum_{g\in \Ga,\,|g|_o\le a'n}\frac{e^{\varepsilon D_\varepsilon(g.o|\xi)_o}}{1+|g|_o}+\\
&=\rho^ne^{\delta a'n}=e^{[\ln\rho+\varepsilon D_\varepsilon a']n}
\end{align*}
with $\frac{-\ln\rho}{\varepsilon D_\varepsilon}\le a'$.
Let us denote:
$$f_k:\dd X\times\dd X\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}_+;\quad (\eta,\xi)\mapsto
\begin{cases}
\frac{d^{-D_\varepsilon}(\eta,\xi)}{1+\delta_\Ga k}&\text{for $(\xi|\eta)_o\le k$}\\
\frac{\exp({\delta_\Ga k})}{1+\delta_\Ga k}&\text{otherwise}
\end{cases}$$
for $k\ge1$.
Note that Lemma \ref{lem:intcomp} implies that $\|f_k(.,\xi)\|_1\preceq1$ for all $\xi\in\dd X$ and $k\ge1$.
Take $\eta,\eta'\in\dd X$ and $U,U'\subset \dd X$ as in Lemma \ref{lem:ctrinf} and observe that:
\begin{align*}
&{\mathbb{E}}[\tilde{\pi}_o(X_n){\bf 1}_{a'n\le|X_n|_o\le an}]{\bf 1}_{\dd X}(\xi)=\sum_{g\in \Ga,\,a'n\le|g|_o\le an}\mu^{*n}(g)\frac{e^{\varepsilon D_\varepsilon(g.o|\xi)_o}}{1+|g|_o}\\
&\le\frac{1}{1+a'n}\sum_{g\in \Ga,\,a'n\le|g|_o\le an}\mu^{*n}(g)f_n(g\eta,\xi)\\
&+\frac{1}{1+a'n}\sum_{g\in \Ga,\,a'n\le|g|_o\le an}\mu^{*n}(g)f_n(g\eta',\xi)\\
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
&\le\frac{1}{(1+a'n)\nu(U)}\sum_{g\in \Ga}\mu^{*n}(g)\int_{\dd X}f_n(g\eta,\xi)d\eta\\
&+\frac{1}{(1+a'n)\nu(U')}\sum_{g\in \Ga}\mu^{*n}(g)\int_{\dd X}f_n(g\eta',\xi)d\eta'\\
&\le2\frac{\|f_n(.,\xi)\|_1}{(1+a'n)\min\{\nu(U),\nu(U')\}}\\
&=2\frac{1+an}{(1+a'n)\min\{\nu(U),\nu(U')\}}=2\frac{1+a}{a'\min\{\nu(U),\nu(U')\}}
\end{align*}
The proposition follows from the uniform bounds on each of these quantities.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}\label{cor:corb}
Let $\varphi,\psi\in L^2[\dd X,\nu]$ be two square integrable functions on $(\dd X,\nu)$.
Then one has:
$$|({\mathbb{E}}^\mu[\tilde{\pi}_o(X_n)]\varphi|\psi)|\preceq \|\varphi\|_2\|\psi\|_2$$
uniformly on $n$.
In particular the sequence of operator averages $(\mathcal{P}_n)_n$ is uniformly bounded.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Take $\varphi,\psi\in L^4(\dd X,\nu)$ and observe that:
\begin{align*}
|({\mathbb{E}}^\mu[\tilde{\pi}_o(X_n)]\varphi|\psi)|^2&=|\int \varphi(g^{-1}\xi)\psi(\xi)u_g(\xi)d\xi d\mu^{*n}(g)|^2\\
&\le|\int |\varphi(g^{-1}\xi)|^2u_g(\xi)d\xi d\mu^{*n}(g)\int |\psi(\xi)|^2u_g(\xi)d\xi d\mu^{*n}(g)|^2\\
&=({\mathbb{E}}^\mu[\tilde{\pi}_o(X_n)]{\bf1}_{\dd X}||\psi|^2)(|\varphi|^2|{\mathbb{E}}^\mu[\tilde{\pi}_o(X_n)]{\bf1}_{\dd X})\\
&\le\|{\mathbb{E}}^\mu[\tilde{\pi}_o(X_n)]{\bf1}_{\dd X}\|_\infty^2\|\varphi\|_2^2\|\psi\|_2^2
\end{align*}
The corollary follows by density of $L^4(\dd X,\nu)$ inside of $L^2[\dd X,\nu]$.
\end{proof}
\nocite{*}
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}
\subsection{Iterative Voting}
In any voting system, the choice of ballot by any voter is guided by her preferences between the candidates and the expected effect of each ballot she can cast.
To estimate the effect of any ballot, one needs to know the ballots cast by other voters, or at least to have some information on them. Assuming perfect information is neither realistic nor theoretically useful: in most cases, changing one's ballot will not change the outcome of the election (hence, as is well-known, the notion of Nash equilibrium is ineffectively broad in the context of elections \cite{Laslier2009leader}). One thus often considers situations where information is imperfect, so that the ballot to be chosen by any given voter might change the outcome, with a tiny but non-zero probability. Another point of view is to consider the possibility for voters of aligned interests to form coalitions and decide together which ballots to cast. A third point of view, taking from both of the first two, is to consider that some (or all) information about voters' intents is common knowledge, and that voters choose their ballot under the assumption that other voters that have the same preferences as theirs will make the same reasoning as they will -- thus overcoming the insufficient weight of one ballot to change the outcome.
In any case, these considerations introduce a \emph{dynamical} component to voting: after all voters adjusted their intentions, the information under which this adjustment was made is outdated; the new intents result in new information that could be shared, and itself result in new strategic adjustments of voters' intents, etc. Natural questions are thus whether there is some dynamical equilibrium, i.e. intents of all voters that are preserved when all shared publicly; whether such equilibrium is unique; what properties equilibriums have, in particular what candidate can be elected at equilibrium; and whether any other set of intent converges to an equilibrium after successive adjustments. The field of \emph{iterative voting} is the study of these question, under various modeling assumptions. One shall distinguish between \emph{synchronized} and \emph{asynchronous} iterative voting. In synchronized iterative voting, all voters are given the information at time $t$, and simultaneously adjust their intents to build the new situation at time $t+1$.\footnote{Note that what is important is not that the voters' intents change exactly at the same time, but that all voters have the opportunity to adjust their preferences before information is updated.} In asynchronous iterative voting, some voters adjust their intents given the available information, and information is updated before some other voters make their adjustments, etc.
\paragraph*{Setting and motivation.}
This article is about synchronized iterative voting, in the context of Approval Voting -- the voting system in which a ballot can contain the names of any subset of candidates, and the candidate whose name is present in the most ballots is elected.
We shall exhibit examples showing the possibility of cycles with strong negative properties (in particular, non election of an existing Condorcet winner, or possible election of a candidate strongly rejected by a majority of the electorate).
These new issues with the Approval Voting system complement in particular the examples provided in \cite{Sinopoli2006examples}. We also introduce a continuous-space model in which finer voter behavior can be encoded; the most stricking outcome is that simple behaviors restricted to sincere ballots can in some situation result in chaotic dynamics.\\
Note that Approval Voting is especially interesting in this context because several sincere ballot coexist for each order of preference, so that there exist strategies that are both sincere, simple, and non-trivial (we discuss this in more detail below); but it is likely that bad cycles and chaotic dynamics exist in other voting systems.
Considering synchronized iterative voting is interesting from a theoretical perspective, when trying to define a ``best'' ballot for each voter: to be efficient in her choice, a voter should not only vote strategically, but also anticipate that other voters will also do so, who will themselves try to anticipate all voters' strategies, etc. A model for this situation is to replace instantaneous anticipations by iterations: each voter is given a fixed strategy, which dictates for each possible expected outcome which ballot to cast, and we inductively apply these strategies and update the expected outcome. Reaching a dynamical equilibrium thus means that inductively anticipating each other's strategy result in a stable state. Conversely, the existence of a cycle means that in some circumstances there is no meaningful way for voters to inductively anticipate other's strategies. Note that even when limiting the number of steps of counter-strategies, the game-theoretic analysis of voting rules can be quite deep, see \cite{grandi2019GSgames}.
Synchronized iterative voting is also a model for political elections, which are usually preceded by polls informing the voters of others' intents; we will thus name our dynamical model \emph{Polling Dynamics} (but note that of course this model is imperfect, and that understanding the effect of actual polls on strategic voters is not the sole intent of our work). This point of view has been notably taken in \cite{chopra2004knowledge}, and \cite{reijngoud2012response} where the emphasis is on the effect of the amount of information given by the polls (ranks, or scores, etc.)
Note also that while asynchronous voting is broader, it makes room for very many parameters and is thus more flexible; in consequence, producing examples in synchronous iterative voting is made in principle more difficult by its constraints.
We shall consider \emph{myopic strategies}, where the behavior of voters only depend on the last poll (however, we will allow at some point voter's choices to also depend upon the previous ballot they cast, in order to model change aversion). It would be interesting to explore strategies taking into account all past polls, but this is beyond the scope of the present article; let us simply conjecture that if voters compute an expected outcome based on a (possibly weighted) average of previous polls, convergence should be much more likely.
\subsection{On sincerity, strategic voting and straightforwardness}
In Approval Voting, one can say that a ballot is \emph{sincere} whenever any candidate preferred to another whose name present on the ballot, must also be on the ballot -- or in other words, if all candidates present on the ballot are preferred to all candidates not present on it \cite{Brams2007approval}. Note that by design of this voting system, there are no reasons not to vote sincerely in this sense (at least when there is a known tie-breaking rule, otherwise see \cite{endriss2013sincerity}).
Durand notes in \cite{Durand2015manipulables} that in general the meaning of ``sincerity'' is open to interpretation, and that this word has often been used to argue against strategic voting. He makes a compelling point that strategic voting is to be expected, and even advised to voters, and that what causes a democratic problem is the \emph{necessity} of resorting to strategies to get the best outcome rather than the fact that voters embrace this necessity (``\emph{Manipuler c'est bien, la manipulabilité c'est mal}'': ``Manipulation is good, manipulability is bad''). Indeed strategies that either need a lot of information on other's plans or that are too contrived cannot be applied uniformly, creating asymmetries among voters. Even in the absence of manipulation or strategic voting, ballots deemed sincere can be cast but afterward regretted in view of the outcome of the election, thus lowering trust and confidence in the democratic system. A most important property of voters' behavior is thus \emph {straightforwardness} \cite{gibbard1973manipulation}.
Gibbard defines a game form to be \emph{straightforward} if for every player $v$ and every order of preference on the outcomes, $v$ has a strategy $b$ that is dominant for these preferences, i.e. for all strategies of other player, no other strategy of $v$ would yield a better outcome than $b$. We know that as soon as there are at least $3$ candidates, no non-dictatorial voting system can be straightforward for all voters individually \cite{gibbard1973manipulation,satterthwaite1975strategy}. Since single voters often have little weight to an election, we can extend this definition: let us say that a situation is straightforward for a given voter or set of voters when they have a choice of ballots which, whatever the ballots cast by other voters are, yields an outcome at least as good (from all of their points of view simultaneously) than any other possible choice. Here ``situation'' refers to a given method of vote for a given set of candidates, a given set of voters, a given coalition with their possibilities of coordination, and possibly to additional restriction on the allowed strategy. For example, one can impose that ballots cast be sincere; in most voting systems, this leaves each voter with only one allowed strategy and thus trivially implies straightforwardness. Let us give another example: in an election using Plurality or Approval Voting, if a candidate $\alpha$ is the top-preferred of a majority of voters able to cooperate fully, then the situation is straightforward for this set of voters: they can all vote for $\alpha$ and get her elected. In a straightforward situation, a voter or coalition of voters can safely choose how to vote by considering only their preferences, in a way that they will not regret whatever the others choose to vote; in particular they can disregard any poll and any other information to make their choice. Since straightforwardness cannot be hoped in general, one can try to determine whether certain systems often offer weak forms of straightforwardness (see again \cite{Durand2015manipulables}).
In approval Voting, as soon as there are more than two candidates each voter has several sincere ballots, corresponding to the various point in her order of preference where she can draw the line between acceptance and rejection. In particular, strategic voting (i.e. choosing one's ballot depending on the ballots expected to be cast by the other voters) can occur even when restricting to sincere votes. In other words, sincerity in the above sense does not imply straightforwardness. Our examples will in particular show how very far from straightforward Approval Voting can be in some circumstances.
\subsection{Is Approval Voting a Condorcet system ``in practice''?}
While Approval Voting is known not to be a Condorcet system, several arguments have been raised that could seem to indicate it might be close to Condorcet ``in practice''. Brams and Sanver \cite{Brams2003sovereignty} showed that when a Condorcet winner exists, her election is a strong Nash equilibrium, i.e no coalition of voters can organize a strategical vote so as to improve the outcome for each and every one of the members of the coalition; this was improved in \cite{sertel2004strong} where it is shown (for Approval Voting as well as other voting rules such as Plurality or Instant Runoff Voting) that only Condorcet Winners are elected at strong Nash equlibriums. Strong Nash equilibrium are said by Brams and Sanver to be ``globally stable'', but one point not considered in either works above is whether they are ``attractive'' equilibrium (in a sense to be made precise below), which has a strong bearing to the question whether they should be expected to be reached in practice.
Laslier \cite{Laslier2009leader} proved that under a large-electorate model with uncertainty in the recording of votes and perfect common information, the best course of action for voters results in a particular strategy, the ``Leader Rule''. Additionally, he proved that if there is a Condorcet winner and all voters apply the Leader Rule, then there is at least one equilibrium, and any equilibrium elects the Condorcet winner.\footnote{A similar argument has been raised by Warren D. Smith and is used by advocates of Approval Voting and Range Voting, see https://www.rangevoting.org/AppCW.html. The argument of Smith is much less rigorous than Laslier's, since the equilibrium assumption is kept implicit.} Let us give more detail on these results, explained in the framework we shall use here.
To be applied, the Leader Rule (LR) needs voters to have a conception about which candidate is likely to win the election (the expected winner), and which candidate is likely to turn second (the expected runner-up). The LR then consists, given the preferences of the voter, in voting for all candidates preferred to the expected winner, to no candidate the expected winner is preferred to, and to vote for the expected winner if and only if she is preferred to the expected runner-up; in particular, this strategic voting selects one particular case of the various sincere ways to vote.
Laslier shows that under a certain small uncertainty on the recording of votes, this strategy maximizes the odds of improving the outcome of the election.
Assume that a perfectly accurate poll has been conducted (in particular voters answer the poll with the ballot they actually intend to cast); given the collection of initial ballot the voters intend to cast, assuming that after the poll is made public each voter applies the LR to adjust her ballot, we get a new set of intended ballots to be cast. This creates a dynamical system which we call the \emph{polling dynamics} (PD). An equilibrium (or ``dynamical equilibrium'', distinct from a Nash equilibrium) is then a fixed point of this dynamics, i.e. a state where if all voters would adjust their ballots according the announced results, the adjusted ballots would produce the same result. Laslier second important result can be phrased as follows: whenever there is a Condorcet winner, under PD there exist at least one dynamical equilibrium and any dynamical equilibrium elects the Condorcet winner. Again, the question of the ``attractivity'' of the equilibrium is not addressed.
\subsection{Description of the main results}
The goal of this article is to construct examples showing that in Approval Voting, the PD can exhibit a ``bad cycle'' even in the presence of a Condorcet winner (the main point shall not be the mere existence of cycles, a rather unsurprizing phenomenon, but rather that such cycles can result in the election of a suboptimal candidate). As noted by Laslier, previous examples of cycles (notably in \cite{Brams2007approval}) needed some voters to change their strategy at some iteration of the process; in our example the assumed strategic behaviors is consistent, i.e. constant in time; they are also sincere, and simple.
In Section \ref{s:example1}, we assume all voters apply the Leader Rule, thus additionally implying a rather strong form of rationality under Laslier's uncertainty model. We show an example in which PD exhibits a cycle where the Condorcet winner cannot be elected. Moreover the \emph{basin of attraction} of the cycle, i.e. the set of initial states leading to the cycle under PD, is quite larger than the basin of attraction of the Condorcet-winner-electing equilibrium: in practice, it seems quite likely to get caught in a such cycle instead of converging to the stable equilibrium.
In a second example (Section \ref{s:example2}), we assume a slight modification of the Leader Rule: some voters have several candidates they decide never to approve; the strategy is kept simple, sincere, and consistent. In this example, there is a Condorcet winner and a \emph{consensual loser}, ranked last by a majority of the electorate (actually almost two-third of it). We get two equilibriums, one electing the Condorcet winner the other electing another candidate, and a cycle of order $2$ which attracts two-third of the possible states in the PD and where one of the state elects the consensual loser.
These examples, while specific, are quite stable: the polls creating transition from one expected order of candidates to another are not too close calls, so that their parameters can easily be changed in a range without changing the PD.
These examples show that Approval Voting exhibits strong issues with respect to polling effects on election outcome (but we do not claim that this flaw does not appear in many other voting systems). They mitigate the impression possibly given by previous works that Approval Voting is a Condorcet-in-practice method:
\begin{itemize}
\item a slight modification of the Leader Rule can create equilibriums not electing a Condorcet winner, even when one exists,
\item Condorcet-electing equilibriums can fail to attract most possible states, i.e. most initial expections on the outcome of the election could lead to cycle not ensuring the election of the Condorcet winner, even when applying the Leader Rule,
\item polling can have an extreme impact on the election outcome: rigging \emph{any one} poll can prevent the election of the Condorcet winner even if \emph{all} subsequent polls are perfectly conducted and reported; and in fact, even if all polls are perfect but in the first one voters respond according to a pre-established expectation of the outcome of the election, this expectation can determine the outcome of the election even after arbitrary many polls: polling induces neither synchronization nor loss of memory,
\item even with perfect unrigged polls, the sheer \emph{number} of polls (e.g. its parity) can decide the outcome of the election,
\item the PD can get a majority of first poll results to lead after iteration to a cycle, some states of which elect a candidate fully disapproved by a large majority of voters,
\item combining the last two items, the parity of the number of polls conducted can lead to elect a candidate always disapproved by a large majority of voters.
\end{itemize}
It could be expected that such bad cycles are in practice rare. In section \ref{s:experimental} we explore numerically this question under various cultures modeling the construction of random voters' preferences. The main take-away is that bad cycles are rare when voters apply the LR, but can be more common, appearing in more than $15\%$ of electorates, in its modification where voters give themselves a limit to the candidates they may approve of. Even more striking is that the culture where bad cycles are rarest for the LR is the one where they are most common for its modification.
We also consider more general behavior of voters by introducing in Section \ref{s:continuous} \emph{Continuous Polling Dynamics} (CPD), a continuous-space variation of the PD into which the latter can be embedded. We first show that the above discrete bad cycle are stable under perturbation of the discrete model; the considered perturbations model situations where:
\begin{itemize}
\item at each iteration only a given fraction of voters adjust their ballots strategically (e.g. the other not being aware of the poll, or being reluctant to change their minds), and
\item a fixed strategy is assumed for each voter type only when the candidates scores are sufficiently far apart, without making any assumption on the voters behavior in case of almost equality between any two candidates.
\end{itemize}
Last, in Section \ref{s:chaos} we consider another kind of voter's behavior, where voters are reluctant to approve of a candidate who is ranked low in their preference order. The arbitration between a strategy such as the LR and this reluctance can, surprisingly, make the CPD a \emph{chaotic dynamical system}, making the prediction of the next winners from the observation of a sequence of previous expected winners practically impossible. We introduce some tools from dynamical systems to quantify the amount of chaos in the CPD.
\subsection{Brief overview of the literature}\label{s:Plurality}
Let us end this section by describing some more previous works; with no pretense to exhaustivity, the aim is to describe some directions previously explored in iterative voting.
In the case of Plurality Voting, discussed in slightly more details below, very general convergence results have been obtained by Meir and co-authors \cite{Meir2014dominance,Meir2015uncertainty,Meir2017iterative}. Many other voting rules --not Approval-- have been considered by Lev and co-authors \cite{Lev2016convergence,Koolyk2017convergence}. Their theoretical results are negative (no guaranteed convergence) but empirical tests seem to indicate that cycles are rare. Restricted strategies, where voters may be constrained are assumed not to use best or better responses, have been studied in \cite{obraztsova2015restrictive} and \cite{grandi2013restricted}.
Non-myopic strategies have been considered for example in \cite{bowman2014separability} and \cite{airiau2017learning}. Note that there voters change their ballots a random or fixed number of times, and the focus is on the quality of the last result: the dynamical aspect of iterative voting is not considered. Both articles show that voters learning from past information produce relatively good outcomes.
Note that in most of these results (the exceptions concerning Plurality), voters are assumed to adjust their ballot one by one (a specific case of asynchronous iterative voting). Other interesting results can be found in \cite{Obraztsova2015farsighted,Rabinovich2015equilibria}.
Considering Plurality Voting, the situation is complicated by the rigidity of the single-name ballot, which forces voters to choose a trade-off between preferences and probability to improve the outcome of the election. The works \cite{Meir2014dominance} and \cite{Meir2015uncertainty} have studied in depth models taking into account the scores of the candidates and a level of uncertainty to define the possible voters' strategies. They obtained several results proving under some assumptions convergence to equilibrium (the result closest to our present setting is Theorem 5 in \cite{Meir2015uncertainty}, where at each iteration an arbitrary subset of voters adjust their votes according to the current poll results, thus including the case studied here where all voters adjust their votes at each iteration). In the case when strategies are restricted, \cite{obraztsova2015restrictive} gives sufficient conditions for convergence in many voting systems.
The question of the quality of equilibriums have been considered for Plurality, Veto and Borda in \cite{branzei2013selfish}, where the voters can adjust their votes one at a time, and starting from the state where each voter casts her sincere ballot (which is unique in these voting systems). Concerning Plurality, they find that Nash equilibriums that can be attained in this way are all very good; but in their model, the individual updates are made greedily and any candidate that would start with two or more votes less than the starting winner will never receive any new vote. One could expect real voters to vote not for immediate improvement of the winner, but in order to give a better position to a contender that might receive more support from others.
Note that if we tried to design a very simple strategical model inspired by Leader Rule for Plurality voting, we could consider the case when every voter votes for either the expected winner or the expected runner-up, whoever comes first in her order of preference (the rationale is that when the electorate is large, a vote to any other candidate is orders of magnitude less likely to change the outcome of the election); this corresponds to the ``$2$-pragmatist'' strategy mentioned e.g. in \cite{reijngoud2012response}, and in \cite{grandi2013restricted} which studies restricted strategic voting in asynchronous iterated voting. If we assume that all voters apply a $2$-pragmatist strategy, then of course the first poll is decisive in the Polling Dynamics and the outcome of the election, since the expected winner and expected runner-up are the only ones staying in competitions. Then there is always convergence to an equilibrium, and a very fast one at that (the polls are constant after the second iteration!) However there are very many equilibriums: every candidate that is not a Condorcet loser could be elected, depending on the results of the first poll. In a sense, this strategy reduces the PD to a two-rounds voting system where the first two candidates in the first round make it to the second one, which is decided by majority.\footnote{In some sense, multiple-round voting systems could be thought of as a way to counter the reluctance of some voters to vote strategically.} At least a Condorcet loser cannot be elected, since if she makes it to the second poll she is defeated in each poll after the first. Note that this reasoning shows that any system with an ultimate two-candidates round (e.g. Instant Runoff Voting) will avoid electing a candidate ranked last by a majority of voters, including after successive polling; this is a very weak but positive feature that Approval Voting lacks.
\paragraph*{Acknowledgments.}
I am indebted to Adrien Fauré \texttt{@AdrienGazouille} for \href{https://twitter.com/AdrienGazouille/status/1181494450826014727}{a long debate on twitter} (in French) that lead me to seek and design the examples presented here, and to François Durand for introducing me to the Social choice theory and for many discussions on Voting Systems. This article benefited from relevant comments provided by Adrien Fauré, Jean-François Laslier, Reshef Meir and anonymous referees who I warmly thank.
\section{Formalism and notations}\label{s:notations}
Let us set up some notations for our discrete model and formalize the Polling Dynamics (PD).
\subsection{Candidates, electorate, preferences and strategies.}
We consider a finite set of \emph{candidates}, named by lower-case letters from the beginning of the alphabet, $\mathscr{C}=\{a,b,c,\dots\}$. An \emph{outcome}, the set of which is denoted by $\mathscr{O}$, is a result of an election (or poll, or anticipation of result by a voter) and can be of different nature depending on the setting: it can for example give the number of votes received by each candidate, or only their rankings (supposed to be a linear order: a tie-breaking rule is assumed, e.g. alphabetic order), or only the identity of the winner and the runner-up. A linear order on the set of candidates is written as a word in the candidates names (so that for three candidates, the possible linear orders are $abc, acb, bac, bca, cab, cba$), the first-ranked on the left. We assume that at least the winner and runner-up can be deduced from the outcome; if the outcome is $o$, we denote them by $w(o)$ and $r(o)$, respectively. We denote $\alpha\succ_o\beta$ to say that in the outcome $o$, $\alpha$ is ranked before $\beta$ (so that for example $w(o)\succ_o r(o)$). Using this notation implicitly assumes that the information given by the outcome is sufficient to deduce the order between $\alpha$ and $\beta$. \\
The \emph{preferences} of a voter is a linear order on $\mathscr{C}$, but with the anti-symmetric property relaxed to allow ties (this will play a role in our second example); we denote $\alpha>_\pi\beta$ to say that $\alpha$ is strictly preferred to $\beta$ in the preferences $\pi$, and $\alpha\ge_\pi\beta$ to say that $\alpha$ is preferred to $\beta$ or tied with her. A set of preferences is denoted in the same way than a linear order, with parentheses to group the tied candidates: $a(bc)d$ means $a$ is the favorite candidate, $d$ is the least preferred, and $b$ and $c$ are tied, both ranked between $a$ and $d$. The set of possible preferences is denoted by $\mathscr{P}$.
We assume Approval Voting is used, so that a \emph{ballot} is an arbitrary subset of $\mathscr{C}$ ; the set of ballots is denoted by $\mathscr{B}$. For a voter with preferences $\pi\in\mathscr{P}$, a ballot $B$ is said to be \emph{sincere} whenever for all $\alpha\in B$ and all $\beta\notin B$, $\alpha>_\pi\beta$.\footnote{Sincerity is often defined with respect to a linear order, i.e. without ties. When ties are allowed, there are two possible ways to extend the definition, ours or only asking $\alpha\ge_\pi \beta$ instead of $\alpha>_\pi \beta$. Choosing strict comparison makes the sincerity a stronger condition, and thus our results are made stronger.} For example, if there are $4$ candidates and $\pi=a(bc)d$, the possible sincere ballots are $\varnothing$ (the empty ballot, aka blank vote, which we will mostly ignore in this article), $\{a\}$, $\{a,b,c\}$, $\{a,b,c,d\}$ (which is in practice equivalent to a blank vote, and which we will therefore also ignore). A sincere ballot is simply determined by a limit of acceptance, all names above this limit being written in the ballot. For each $\pi\in\mathscr{P}$, there are thus at most $\lvert \mathscr{C}\rvert-1$ sincere ballots that are meaningful (in the sense that they are neither blank nor do they contain all names), and this bound is attained exactly when there are no ties in $\pi$.\\
A \emph{consistent strategy} is a mapping $f:\mathscr{O}\to \mathscr{B}$; we shall often call them simply \emph{strategies}. We say that a voter applies strategy $f$ if whenever she expects the outcome $o\in \mathscr{O}$, she casts the ballot $f(o)$ (in either an election or in a poll). An \emph{inconsistent} strategy would be given by a sequence $(f_n)_{n\ge 1}$ of such maps, with $f_n$ applied in the $n$-th iteration.
A strategy $f$ is said to be \emph{sincere} if for all $o\in\mathscr{O}$, $f(o)$ is a sincere ballot. Here, we will say that $f$ is a \emph{simple} strategy whenever $f(o)$ only depends on the ranking between the candidates.
A particular example of consistent, simple and sincere strategy, associated with preferences $\pi$ without ties, is the \emph{Leader Rule} $f^{\mathrm{LR}}_\pi$ introduced by Laslier \cite{Laslier2009leader}, defined as follows: for all $o\in\mathscr{O}$ and all $\alpha\in\mathscr{C}$, $\alpha\in f^{\mathrm{LR}}_\pi(o)$ if and only if either $\alpha >_\pi w(o)$ or $\alpha=w(o) >_\pi r(o)$. In other words, applying the Leader Rule consists in approving all candidates preferred to the expected winner, and to vote for the expected winner if and only if she is preferred to the runner-up.
We assume a finite set of \emph{voter types}, named by upper-case letters from the end of the alphabet $\mathscr{T}=\{Z,Y,X,\dots\}$, with all voters of a given type applying the same strategy (this condition will be somewhat relaxed later in this article). The \emph{electorate} is the data for each voter type $\Omega$ of preferences $\pi_\Omega$, a strategy $f_\Omega$ and a number of voters $n_\Omega$.
\subsection{Elections and Successive Polling Dynamics.}
An \emph{election} (also modelling polls) is a tuple of non-negative integers $(n_{B})_{B\in\mathscr{B}}$ giving the number of each possible ballot cast. The set of all possible elections is denoted by $\mathscr{E}$. A map $F:\mathscr{O} \to \mathscr{E}$ is defined by applying the strategies of each voter type given an expected outcome $o$ and compounding the resulting ballots:
\[F(o) = \left(\sum_{\Omega \text{ s.t. } f_\Omega(o) = B} n_\Omega \right)_{B\in\mathscr{B}.}\]
Meanwhile, the use of Approval Voting yields a fixed mapping $\mathrm{AV}: \mathscr{E}\to\mathscr{O}$, which depending on the choice of outcomes gives the number of votes received by each candidate, or their ranking (ties broken by alphabetic order), or the winner and runner-up.
These data together determine the \emph{Polling dynamics} (PD), which is the mapping taking as argument an outcome assumed by all voters, and returning the outcome from Approval Voting when each voter casts a ballot following her strategy:
\begin{align*}
\operatorname{PD}: \mathscr{O} &\to\mathscr{O}\\
o &\mapsto \mathrm{AV}(F(o)).
\end{align*}
This model in particular assumes \emph{consistent strategies} (strategies do not vary in time). Since $\mathscr{O}$ is the space where $\operatorname{PD}$ operates, outcomes are also called \emph{states}.
$\operatorname{PD}$ models the situation where before the election a certain number $k$ of perfect polls are conducted (perfect meaning that they are answered sincerely, i.e. each voter tells the ballot he or she would cast given the current expected outcome, they are made publicly available, and all voters are polled). Then, if we assume initial intended ballots $b_0(\Omega)$ for each voter type $\Omega$, the first poll result is
\[o_0 = \mathrm{AV}\left(\Bigg(\sum_{\Omega \text{ s.t. } b_0(\Omega) = B} n_\Omega \Bigg)_{B\in\mathscr{B}} \right)\]
and the final outcome of the election is $\operatorname{PD}^{k}(o_0)$.
We are thus interested in the dynamical properties of PD, i.e. of the behavior of its iterates $\operatorname{PD}^k$ and especially in its orbits (i.e. the families $(\operatorname{PD}^k(o))_{k\in\mathbb{Z}_+}$ where $o\in\mathscr{O}$). A \emph{periodic orbit} (also named \emph{cycle}) is a family of distinct states $o_1,\dots,o_p$ such that $\operatorname{PD}(o_i)=o_{i+1}$ for all $i\in\{1,\dots, p-1\}$ and $\operatorname{PD}(o_p)=o_1$. The number $p$ is called the \emph{period} of the periodic orbit, which is also called a \emph{cycle}, or $p$-cycle to precise the period. A \emph{fixed point} (also named \emph{dynamical equilibrium}) is a $1$-cycle, i.e. a state $o$ such that $\operatorname{PD}(o)=o$. A cycle is said to be \emph{trivial} if all its states have the same winner; otherwise it is said to be \emph{non-trivial} (non-triviality implies that the cycle has period at least $2$).
When $\mathscr{O}$ is finite (e.g. when outcomes are the ranking of candidates), we can represent $\operatorname{PD}$ by the oriented graph with $\mathscr{O}$ as set of vertices, and with exactly one outgoing edge for each $o\in \mathscr{O}$, with endpoint $\operatorname{PD}(o)$. Cycles are then cycles of the oriented graph, and fixed points are states with a loop (to increase readability, we will omit loops in our representation of graphs of Polling Dynamics; fixed points are thus represented without an outgoing edge). In this case, the \emph{basin of attraction} of a cycle $o_1,\dots,o_p$ is the set of all states $o'$ such that there exist $k\in\mathbb{Z_+}$ and $i\in\{1,\dots, p\}$ such that $\operatorname{PD}^k(o')= o_i$.
\begin{rema}
This model is restrictive as it assumes all voters adjust their ballots simultaneously; see Section \ref{s:continuous} for a generalization. While it feels unrealistic that all voters are informed of a poll and adjust their strategies before the next poll, for political elections it stays more realistic than voters adjusting their votes one by one, and the information being updated at each of these tiny steps.
\end{rema}
\subsection{Remarkable Candidates and the Polling Dynamics.}\label{s:candidates}
Note that the preferences play no role in $\operatorname{PD}$; their importance is that they enable to define a sincere strategy (and not all strategies have a preference $\pi$ for which they are sincere, so the sincerity assumption is a restriction even if the preferences are unrestricted), and they enable to define particular candidates with particular significance with respect to a given electorate.
When a cycle occurs, an important point is whether the elected candidates in the various states of the cycle are the same, and whether they have a particular quality. Given an electorate, a candidate $\alpha$ is said to \emph{dominate} a candidate $\beta$ (sometimes written $\alpha >\beta$, but beware that this is not a transitive relation) whenever there are strictly more voters that strictly prefer $\alpha$ to $\beta$ than voters that strictly prefer $\beta$ to $\alpha$ (i.e. in the \emph{majority graph}, assuming indifferent voters abstain, there is an arrow from $\alpha$ to $\beta$).
A candidate $\alpha$ is then said to be a \emph{Condorcet winner} whenever she dominates every other candidate; a Condorcet winner may or may not exist, but if it exist it is unique. When preferences have no ties, this is the usual definition of a Strong Condorcet Winner; when there are ties, a stronger definition could be possible: to dominate, one could ask for a majority of all voters, including abstainers. When ties are allowed, we shall mention whenever our results still hold with this stronger definition.
A candidate $\beta$ is said to be a \emph{Condorcet loser} whenever she is dominated by every other candidate; again, a Condorcet loser may or may not exist and is unique if she exist. Similarly, one says that a linear order $\tau$ on the candidates is a \emph{Condorcet order} whenever each candidate dominates all candidates ranked below them in $\tau$. Last, we will use a stronger notion than Condorcet loser: a candidate is said to be a \emph{consensual loser} whenever there is a strict majority of the electorate that ranks her last (possibly tied with others) in their preferences. A consensual loser rarely exist, and when she does she is a Condorcet loser.
Given a set of candidates and an electorate, there are many questions of interest: are there equilibrium or trivial cycles, and which candidate do they elect? are there non-trivial cycles, and which candidates are elected in the various states of the cycles? when there are several cycles, how big are their respective basin of attraction? which cycle has a particular state, e.g. the state where each voter votes only for her favorite candidate, in its basin of attraction, and which candidates can be elected in this cycle? how do the answers to all these questions depend on the electorate?
\section{Discrete examples of bad cycles}
\subsection{Non-convergence of the Leader Rule}
\label{s:example1}
The main goal of this Section is to prove the following.
\begin{theomain}\label{t:LR}
Using Approval Voting, there exists an electorate on a set of $4$ candidates such that:
\begin{itemize}
\item there is a Condorcet winner,
\item each voter has preferences without ties and follows as strategy the Leader Rule,
\item $\operatorname{PD}$ has a cycle, whose basin of attraction contains a majority (actually two-third) of the states, and none of whose states elects the Condorcet winner.
\end{itemize}
\end{theomain}
\begin{proof}
We set $\mathscr{C}=\{a,b,c,d\}$ and consider an electorate with $7$ types of voters, with the following preferences and numbers (strategies are given by the Leader Rule):
\begin{align*}
T &: abcd \quad 100 & U &: bacd \quad 1000 & X &: bcad \quad 1004 \\
&& V &: cadb \quad 1001 & Y &: cdab \quad 1008 \\
&& W &: dabc \quad 1002 & Z &: dbac \quad 1016
\end{align*}
The voters in classes $U,V,W$ like $a$ but each prefers one of $b,c,d$ better, while the voters in classes $X,Y,Z$ do not like $a$ too much but distaste one of $b,c,d$ even more, creating a cycle in the majority graph $b > c > d > b$ with $a$ close to tie with each of $b,c,d$. Meanwhile, voters in $T$ prefers $a$ to any other player, and their moderate number suffice to make $a$ a Condorcet winner, while maintaining the cycle $b,c,d$ in the majority graph. The precise numbers of classes $U$ to $Z$ are chosen, for the sake of fanciness, to exclude any perfect tie (different sums of distinct powers of $2$ never agree).
To define the Leader Rule, the outcomes need only give the winner and runner-up, and they are denoted by ordered pairs $wr$ or $w, r$. Consider the outcome $o_1=ba$. Under the Leader Rule, it leads to the following ballots and results:
\begin{align*}
T &: \{a\} & U &: \{b\} & X &: \{b\} & a &:3111 & b &:3020\\
&& V &: \{c,a,d\} & Y &: \{c,d,a\} & & & c &:2009\\
&& W &: \{d,a\} & Z &: \{d,b\} & & & d &:4027
\end{align*}
so that $o_2 := \operatorname{PD}(o_1)=da$ -- i.e. $a$ stays second, while the previously unthreatening $d$ comes in first position. The strategic adjustments triggered by $o_2$ are as follows:
\begin{align*}
T &: \{a,b,c\} & U &: \{b,a,c\} & X &: \{b,c,a\} & a &:3105 & b &: 2104\\
&& V &: \{c,a\} & Y &: \{c,d\} & & & c &: 4113\\
&& W &: \{d\} & Z &: \{d\} & & & d &: 3026
\end{align*}
so that $o_3:= \operatorname{PD}(o_2) = ca$. The corresponding strategic adjustments are then:
\begin{align*}
T &: \{ab\} & U &: \{b,a\} & X &: \{b,c\} & a &:3118 & b &: 4122 \\
&& V &: \{c\} & Y &: \{c\} & & & c &: 3013\\
&& W &: \{d,a,b\} & Z &: \{d,b,a\} & & & d &: 2018
\end{align*}
so that $\mathrm{PD}(o_3)=o_1$.
Similar computations gives the graph of $\operatorname{PD}$, represented in Figure \ref{f:diagram}.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{diagram.png}
\caption{The PD of the first example. States where the Condorcet winner is elected are shown in green, light green for the dynamical equilibrium. The periodic states not electing the Condorcet winner are shown in orange.}\label{f:diagram}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{rema}
It is worthwhile to observe (although but a bit tedious to check) that in this example, \emph{all} states can be obtained from a certain choice of a sincere ballots for each voter type. For example, $dc$ is obtained if all voters cast the ballot with only their preferred candidates. That all states are covered is hardly surprising: there are only $12$ states, but $3^7=2187$ combinations of sincere ballots.
\end{rema}
\begin{rema}
In the cases of $n>4$ candidates, we can take the above example and add $n-4$ dummy candidates that appear at the end of all voters preferences. The only property that may not be preserved in this operation is the size of the basin of attraction of the $3$-cycle: for example the states starting with one of the dummy candidates will all be sent by $\operatorname{PD}$ to a state starting with $a$, since voters would vote for all of $a, b, c, d$. However this is easily fixed by adding a voter type, for example in the case of a fifth candidate $e$ one could take $S : becda, 50$. Indeed, this voters will break the tie between $a, b, c, d$ whenever $e$ is the expected winner, in favor of $b$, thus leading to the basin of attraction of the $3$-cycle.
\end{rema}
\begin{rema}
As pointed out by one of the anonymous referees, Theorem \ref{t:LR} does not hold for $3$ candidates. Assume there is a Condorcet Winner $a$ and two other candidates $b,c$. Assuming preferences have no ties (an implicit assumption for the LR), there are $6$ possible voter types; let $T_{\alpha\beta}$ denotes the voters ranking $\alpha$ first and $\beta$ second, and let it also denotes the proportion of such voters. We assume there is no equality in any partition into two groups of three voter types, which is a generic condition, to avoid dealing with ties. Since $a$ is a Condorcet winner,
\begin{align*}
T_{ab} + T_{ac} + T_{ca} &> \frac12 > T_{bc} + T_{ba} + T_{cb} \\
T_{ab} + T_{ac} + T_{ba} &> \frac12 > T_{bc} + T_{ca} + T_{cb}
\end{align*}
One of $b$ and $c$ would win a duel against the other, and without loss of generality we assume $b$ does, i.e.
\[T_{ba} + T_{bc} + T_{ab} > \frac12 > T_{ca} + T_{cb} + T_{ac}.\]
We assume that all voters follow the Leader Rule and prove that the Polling Dynamic converges to one of the outcomes $abc$ or $acb$.
First, whatever the expected outcome is, $a$ receives either $T_{ab} + T_{ac} + T_{ca}$ or $T_{ab} + T_{ac} + T_{ba}$ votes, depending on whether $b$ is above $c$ or not, in any case more than half.
When $a$ is expected winner, $b$ and $c$ receives $T_{bc} + T_{ba} + T_{cb}<\frac12$ and $T_{bc} + T_{ca} + T_{cb}<\frac12$ votes respectively, so that $a$ stays ahead and either $abc$ or $acb$ is an equilibrium, attracting the other one of these two states.
Whenever $a$ is second, none of the voters for $a$ vote for the expected winner, and it follows that in the next round, the contender will be behind $a$. The third candidate will receive the votes of voters preferring her to the expected winner; in the case of $c$, it means either $T_{ca}+T_{cb}+T_{ac}$ or $T_{ca}+T_{cb}+T_{bc}$ votes, according to whether $b$ or $a$ is expected to win, and both are less than $\frac12$. It remains to consider the outcome $cab$, where $b$ receives the votes $T_{ba}+T_{bc}+T_{ab}$. In this case, we can have a sequence of outcomes $cab,bac$ but then $a$ wins in the next outcome. Whenever $a$ gets at least second, she will therefore become first and stay first ever after.
Now, in every case where $a$ is third, she will receive more than half the votes and $c$ will receive less than half, so that $a$ will get at least the second position in the next round, after which she will take the lead. This ends the proof of convergence to equilibrium.
\end{rema}
\subsection{Second example: the possible election of a consensual loser}\label{s:example2}
This second example, at the small cost of introducing a modification of the LR accounting for ties, improves on the previous one on two accounts: it necessitates only $3$ candidate, and it exhibits a cycle where a consensual loser could get elected.
\begin{theomain}\label{t:example2}
Using Approval Voting, there exists an electorate on $3$ candidates, with ties in preferences allowed, such that:
\begin{itemize}
\item there are a Condorcet winner and a consensual loser,
\item each voter follows a consistent, sincere and simple strategy,
\item $\operatorname{PD}$ has a $2$-cycle, whose basin of attraction contains a majority (actually two-third) of the states, and one of whose state elects the consensual loser,
\item there is an equilibrium not electing the Condorcet winner.
\end{itemize}
\end{theomain}
\begin{proof}
We consider the following types of voters:
\begin{align*}
Z &: abc \quad 101 & Y &: a(bc) \quad 2 & X &: bac \quad 100 & W &: c(ab) \quad 104
\end{align*}
with as strategy the Leader Rule as it was introduced above: for all $\alpha\in\mathscr{C}$, $\alpha\in f^{\mathrm{LR}}_\pi(o)$ if and only if $\alpha >_\pi w(o)$ or $\alpha=w(o) >_\pi r(o)$; we call this the \emph{modified} Leader Rule to emphasize the presence of ties since as shown by this example they prevent Laslier's Theorem \cite{Laslier2009leader} to hold. With the ties some new situations appear: voters of type $W$ will not choose between $a$ and $b$, thus always casting the ballot $\{c\}$, no matter which outcome is expected. Similarly, voters of type $Y$ always cast the ballot ${a}$ (this last type is only introduced here for tie-breaking).
Note that $a$ is a Condorcet winner, beating $b$ with a score of $103$ to $100$ (voters of type $C$ abstaining) and $c$ with a score of $203$ to $104$. Moreover $c$ is a Condorcet loser, loosing to $b$ by another landslide $104$ to $201$: about two-third of the electorate would \emph{never} vote for $c$, making it a consensual loser (by quite a margin).
Assume as starting expected outcome the result obtained if each voter votes for every candidates she does not rank last:
\begin{align*}
Z &: \{a,b\}& Y &: \{a\} & X &: \{b,a\} & W &: \{c\} & \\
&&&&&&&& a &: 203 & b &: 201 & c &: 104
\end{align*}
leading to $a$ being expected winner and $b$ expected runner-up (corresponding to the Condorcet order). This leads voters of type $Z$ and $X$ to adjust their votes: their favorite candidate is either threatened by their second-favorite (for $Z$) or have a shot at winning the election from a current runner-up position (for $X$). Consistently with their strategies they choose to vote only for their favorite candidate:
\begin{align*}
Z &: \{ a \} & Y &: \{a\} & X &: \{b\} & W &: \{c\} & \\
&&&&&&&& a &: 103 & b &: 100 & c &: 104.
\end{align*}
The second poll thus results in a close-call win of $c$ with $a$ as runner-up. This result induces voters of type $Z$ and $X$ to resume approving both $a$ and $b$, in order not to let $c$ be elected (again, this is a consistent application of the modified Leader Rule). This results in the the same ballots being cast as in the first poll, so we get a $2$-cycle, one of the states electing the worse candidate.
Drawing the full graph of $\operatorname{PD}$ in this case (Figure \ref{f:diagram2}), we see that of $6$ states, $4$ lead to the cycle that can elect either the Condorcet winner $a$ or the consensual loser $c$ depending on whether the number of polls conducted before the election is odd or even, while the other $2$ are equilibriums, one electing the Condorcet winner $a$ the other the Condorcet runner-up $b$.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{diagram2.png}
\caption{The PD map of the second example. Grey states cannot occur after a certain number of iterations (here, $1$ iteration). Light green states are accessible after an arbitrary large number of iterations and elect the Condorcet winner; orange (periodic) and red (fixed point) states are accessible after an arbitrarily large number of iterations but do not elect the Condorcet winner. The orange state is arguably the most problematic, as it elects the consensual loser $c$.}\label{f:diagram2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{rema}\label{r:strongCW}
If we accept to depart further from the LR, we could avoid ties in preferences and preserve the features of the examples by splitting $W$ into two types of voters of equal size, with respective preferences $cab$ and $cba$ and strategy to always vote $\{c\}$ (with the interpretation that these voters prefer $c$ to the other two by far, but still have a slight preference between $a$ and $b$). This shows that Theorem \ref{t:example2} also holds with the stronger definition of Condorcet winner (see Section \ref{s:candidates}).
\end{rema}
\begin{rema}
It could be argued that in a real-life situation, some of the electors would fail to adjust their votes and the close-call situation where $c$ receive $104$ votes and $a$ only $103$ might not happen. However, we made these choice of numbers to make $c$ the worst possible candidate we could; we can preserve the essence of the example by taking $\lvert W\rvert$ anywhere between $103$ and $200$, trading stability of the $2$-cycle against unpopularity of $c$.
\end{rema}
\begin{rema}
Another argument that could be raised against this example is that it needs that a large proportion of voters having $c$ as favorite candidate would never vote for any other candidate. While this is indeed a crucial feature of the voters preferences in this example, there are two counter-arguments. First, this situation seems not all that unlikely: far-right candidates with a strong anti-establishment discourse can have many supporters who would consider all other candidates (or at least those with a chance of being elected) as part of the very same ``establishment'' and thus would only approve $c$. Second, this can be a textbook case of manipulation by a coalition: if the minority of all voters who prefer $c$ (with preferences $cb$ or $ca$ say) gather in a coalition and decide to vote only for $c$, they get a good chance to have $c$ elected against the will of a two-third majority! Actually, these counter-arguments feed on each other: an anti-establishment discourse can serve the purpose of forming a coalition-in-practice of voters who will not express their preferences between $a$ and $b$ in order to favor $c$.
\end{rema}
\section{Experimental exploration of bad cycles}\label{s:experimental}
The examples of the previous section are interesting from a theoretical point of view, showing that the existence of equilibriums and the quality of candidates they elect, do not by themselves suffice to ensure a good outcome. But from a practical point of view, it could be that the bad cycles we exhibited are so rare that they do not matter too much.
In this section, we present experimental estimates of the frequency of bad cycle in electorate where a Condorcet winner exists. We continue to follow the setup of Section \ref{s:notations}, using either the Leader Rule or the modified Leader Rule used in Section \ref{s:example2}. This leaves us to model the electorate, and for this we compare several ``cultures''.
\subsection{Description of the experimental setup}
We fix the number of candidates to $6$, $\mathscr{C} =\{a,b,c,d,e,f\}$ and the number of voter types to $20$ (to be realistic, the number of voters type should be quite larger than the number of candidates so that many preferences are represented, but we kept the number limited for computational power reasons). The influence of these numbers is tested at the end of the section.
Each voter type is assigned a number of voters (pseudo-)uniformly drawn in $[0,1]$ (since we use floats, this is equivalent to using very large integers; using smaller, more realistic integers would only increase the use of the tie-breaking rule, which would still be rare anyway). Each voter type is assigned a preference, which is modeled by a linear order on $\overline{\mathscr{C}} = \mathscr{C}\cup\{\mathsf{limit}\}$; if we use the Leader Rule, $\mathsf{limit}$ is simply ignored, but if we use its modified version, the candidates ranked beyond $\mathsf{limit}$ are considered tied and all ranked last (and thus never put on this voters' ballots). For example, the order $a>b>\mathsf{limit}>c>d>e>f$ corresponds to the preference $abcdef$ when the LR is used, and to $ab(cdef)$ when its modified version is used. This choice enables us to completely decouple the assumed strategies from the culture, i.e. the construction of the preferences.
We first consider the Impartial Culture: each voter type draws uniformly a linear order on $\overline{\mathscr{C}}$. This is the most commonly studied culture and often serves as a benchmark.
We also consider more structured political cultures where various independent axes are assumed to represent various criteria on which the position of each candidate is evaluated by each voter. The dimension $d$, representing the number of those axes, parametrizes this family of cultures. The ``political landscape'' is then represented by the hypercube $[0,1]^d$, equipped with the $\ell^1$ distance
\[ d((x_1,\dots, x_d),(y_1,\dots,y_d)) = \sum_{i=1}^d \lvert x_i-y_i\rvert.\]
This choice of distance corresponds to summing disagreements along each axis, seems at least as good as any other, and is slightly less demanding than the Euclidean distance for computations. Assuming a \emph{$d$-dimensional culture} means we draw uniformly a position in $[0,1]^d$ for each candidate and for each voter type. The preferences of a voter type is obtained by sorting the candidates by increasing distance to the voter type; $\mathsf{limit}$ is inserted by drawing a random ``distance'' to the voter type, with the same law than the distance between two uniform points in $[0,1]^d$ (it would make no sense to assign a position for $\mathsf{limit}$ common to all voters, and various voter types should be allowed to be more or less inclusive in their preferences). This choice ensures that $\mathsf{limit}$ is on average in the middle of the preferences, independently of $d$ and similarly to the Impartial Culture.
\subsection{Experimental results}
We ran extensive experiments for each combination of a set of strategies (Leader Rule or its modification) and each political culture among the Impartial Culture and the $d$-dimensional cultures with $d\in\{1,2,3,400\}$. In each case, we generated $100\,000$ independent electorates and recorded whether a Condorcet winner exists, and if yes whether the Polling Dynamic has a ``bad cycle'' (or bad equilibrium), some of whose states do not elect the Condorcet winner. Each run took a couple of hours on a single core of a modern CPU. The results are provided in Table \ref{tab:experiments}.
\begin{table}[ht]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|l||p{1.7cm}|p{1.7cm}|p{1.7cm}|p{1.7cm}|p{1.7cm}|}
\hline
\diagbox{Strategy}{Culture} & Impartial& $d=1$ & $d=2$ & $d=3$ & $d=400$ \\
\hline
\hline
Leader Rule & {\scriptsize($70\%$)} $1.3\%$ & {\scriptsize($100\%$)} $0.0\%$ & {\scriptsize($90\%$)} $0.2\%$ & {\scriptsize($87\%$)} $0.2\%$ & {\scriptsize($85\%$)} $0.3\%$ \\
\hline
modified Leader Rule & {\scriptsize($75\%$)} $6.3\%$ &{\scriptsize($92\%$)} \hspace{1ex} $15\%$ & {\scriptsize($89\%$)} $7.8\%$ & {\scriptsize($88\%$)} $6.0\%$ & {\scriptsize($87\%$)} $3.0\%$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Experimental results with $6$ candidates and $20$ voter types. In small, the proportion of electorates where a Condorcet winner exists; in normal size, the proportion of electorates with a bad cycle or equilibrium, among electorates having a Condorcet winner (both rounded). The $95\%$ confidence Wilson score interval gives a deviation of less than $0.23$ percentage point for the $15\%$ value and less than $0.2$ percentage point for the other values; the deviation is less than $0.04$ percentage point for the value $0.3\%$ and below.}\label{tab:experiments}
\end{center}
\end{table}
We see that the Leader Rule is very effective in electing the Condorcet winner in practice, with only the Impartial Culture witnessing slightly larger odds of not electing her. Structured landscape very rarely produce bad cycles, with the linear ($d=1$) landscape having produced none in $100\,000$ attempts (this is no accident, see Section \ref{s:1d}).
On the contrary, when voters apply the relaxed rule and, thus, refuse to vote to candidate below their personal threshold no matter what, bad cycles are more common. They never dominate, but they culminate \emph{precisely} in the case of a linear landscape, with $15\%$ of electorates leading to a bad cycle in the Polling Dynamic. The situation that is most favorable to the Leader Rule, is also the worst one for its modification! This means that when some voters expect a candidate they do not like to be a Condorcet winner, their best interest can be not to apply the Leader Rule. At first sight, this may seem difficult to reconcile with the optimality of the Leader Rule proven by Laslier \cite{Laslier2009leader}. The point is that Laslier assumes a voter thinking she will be the only one to change her mind, and trying to optimize the expected outcome. Our experimental result show that, as soon as a voter anticipates that other voters may also change their votes in view of a poll, the Leader Rule may not be their optimal course of action anymore.
This experiment also gave the opportunity to find various kind of problematic Polling Dynamics, presented in Figures \ref{f:experiments-LR-1}, \ref{f:experiments-LR-2}, \ref{f:experiments-relaxed-1}, \ref{f:experiments-relaxed-2}.
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{example-LR-d400-5cycle.png}
\caption{A bad cycle of period $5$ under the Leader Rule, produced with the $d=400$ landscape.}\label{f:experiments-LR-1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{example-LR-uniform-7cycle.png}
\caption{A very exceptional bad cycle of period 7 under the Leader Rule, produced with the Impartial Culture.}\label{f:experiments-LR-2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{example-relaxed-uniform-badeq.png}
\caption{Both a bad cycle and an equilibrium not electing the Condorcet winner under the modified Leader Rule, produced with the Impartial Culture.}\label{f:experiments-relaxed-1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{example-relaxed-uniform-2badeqs.png}
\caption{A bad cycle and two equilibriums not electing the Condorcet winner under the modified Leader Rule, produced with the Impartial Culture. Note two remarkable features of this example: the equilibrium that does elect the Condorcet winner has a very small basin of attraction, only $3$ states out of $30$; and there are states where the Condorcet winner is elected, but that lie in the basin of attraction of the bad cycle (this never happens with the Leader Rule).}\label{f:experiments-relaxed-2}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Effect of the numbers of candidates and voter types}
We report in Table \ref{tab:experiments2} more modest numerical experiment to assert the influence of the number of candidates and the number of voters. Here we only draw $6\,250$ electorates in each condition, yielding typically $4$ times larger confidence intervals than samples of size $100,000$, leaving the expected deviations under the percentage point.
\begin{table}[ht]
\begin{center}{\small
\begin{tabular}{|l||p{1.3cm}|p{1.3cm}|p{1.3cm}|p{1.3cm}|p{1.3cm}|p{1.3cm}|}
\hline
\diagbox{Cul. \\\& Strat.}{$\lvert\mathscr{C}\rvert$ \& $\lvert\mathscr{T}\rvert$} & $3$, $10$ & $4$, $10$ & $6$, $10$ & $\boldsymbol{6}$, $\boldsymbol{20}$ & $6$, $30$ & $8$, $20$ \\
\hline
\hline
Impartial, LR & {\scriptsize ($92\%$)} $0\phantom{\%}$ & {\scriptsize ($84\%$)} $0.3\%$ & {\scriptsize ($71\%$)} $1.0\%$ & {\scriptsize ($\boldsymbol{70\%}$)} $\boldsymbol{1.3\%}$ & {\scriptsize ($69\%$)} $1.3\%$ & {\scriptsize ($60\%$)} $2.0\%$ \\
\hline
$1$-dim., LR &{\scriptsize ($100\%$)} $0\phantom{\%}$ &{\scriptsize ($100\%$)} $0\phantom{\%}$ & {\scriptsize ($100\%$)} $0\phantom{\%}$ & {\scriptsize ($\boldsymbol{100\%}$)} $\boldsymbol{0}$ & {\scriptsize ($100\%$)} $0\phantom{\%}$ & {\scriptsize ($100\%$)} $0\phantom{\%}$\\
\hline
$2$-dim., LR &{\scriptsize ($97\%$)} $0\phantom{\%}$ &{\scriptsize ($94\%$)} $0.05\%$ & {\scriptsize ($90\%$)} $0.3\%$ & {\scriptsize ($\boldsymbol{90\%}$)} $\boldsymbol{0.2\%}$ & {\scriptsize ($91\%$)} $0.05\%$ & {\scriptsize ($87\%$)} $0.5\%$\\
\hline
$3$-dim., LR &{\scriptsize ($96\%$)} $0\phantom{\%}$ &{\scriptsize ($92\%$)} $0.1\%$ & {\scriptsize ($85\%$)} $0.4\%$ & {\scriptsize ($\boldsymbol{87\%}$)} $\boldsymbol{0.2}\%$ & {\scriptsize ($89\%$)} $0.1\%$ & {\scriptsize ($84\%$)} $0.4\%$\\
\hline
$400$-dim., LR &{\scriptsize ($95\%$)} $0\phantom{\%}$ &{\scriptsize ($90\%$)} $0.1\%$ & {\scriptsize ($81\%$)} $0.3\%$ & {\scriptsize ($\boldsymbol{85\%}$)} $\boldsymbol{0.3\%}$ & {\scriptsize ($89\%$)} $0.3\%$ & {\scriptsize ($81\%$)} $0.6\%$\\
\hline
Impartial, modified LR &{\scriptsize ($94\%$)} $2,1\%$ &{\scriptsize ($88\%$)} $3.5\%$ & {\scriptsize ($77\%$)} $5,9\%$ & {\scriptsize ($\boldsymbol{75\%}$)} $\boldsymbol{6.3\%}$ & {\scriptsize ($75\%$)} $6.4\%$ & {\scriptsize ($66\%$)} $8.0\%$\\
\hline
$1$-dim., modified LR &{\scriptsize ($98\%$)} $2.6\%$ &{\scriptsize ($96\%$)} $5.4\%$ & {\scriptsize ($90\%$)} $10\%$ & {\scriptsize ($\boldsymbol{92\%}$)} $\boldsymbol{15\%}$ & {\scriptsize ($92\%$)} $19\%$ & {\scriptsize ($88\%$)} $20\%$\\
\hline
$2$-dim., modified LR &{\scriptsize ($97\%$)} $1.5\%$ &{\scriptsize ($95\%$)} $3.4\%$ & {\scriptsize ($89\%$)} $6.2\%$ & {\scriptsize ($\boldsymbol{89\%}$)} $\boldsymbol{7.8\%}$ & {\scriptsize ($91\%$)} $7.8\%$ & {\scriptsize ($84\%$)} $11\%$\\
\hline
$3$-dim., modified LR &{\scriptsize ($97\%$)} $1.4\%$ &{\scriptsize ($93\%$)} $2.7\%$ & {\scriptsize ($86\%$)} $5.3\%$ & {\scriptsize ($\boldsymbol{88\%}$)} $\boldsymbol{6\%}$ & {\scriptsize ($90\%$)} $5.9\%$ & {\scriptsize ($84\%$)} $8.2\%$\\
\hline
$400$-dim., modified LR &{\scriptsize ($96\%$)} $0.9\%$ &{\scriptsize ($92\%$)} $2.1\%$ & {\scriptsize ($84\%$)} $3.4\%$ & {\scriptsize ($\boldsymbol{87\%}$)} $\boldsymbol{3.0\%}$ & {\scriptsize ($89\%$)} $2.6\%$ & {\scriptsize ($82\%$)} $4.1\%$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\caption{Complementary experimental results to check robustness. Samples have $6\,250$ pseudo-random electorates (except for $6$ candidates and $20$ voter types, where we reported the previous results with larger samples). In small, the proportion of electorates where a Condorcet winner exists; in normal size, the proportion of electorates with a bad cycle or equilibrium, among electorates having a Condorcet winner (both rounded). We observe that the number of candidates influences results, more candidates making bad cycles more likely. The number of voter types seems to have little influence in most conditions.}\label{tab:experiments2}
\end{center}
\end{table}
We see that the number of voter types has relatively small influence, at least in the range tested, with the exception of the $1$-dimensional culture with the modified LR, where a larger voter type makes bad cycles and equilibriums more likely. The main take away, valid in all considered conditions except the $1$-dimensional culture with the LR, is that:
\begin{center}
\begin{minipage}{.8\linewidth}
\textit{A larger number of candidates seems to make bad cycles and equilibriums more common among situations where a Condorcet Winner exists.}
\end{minipage}
\end{center}
Computational power prevented us to explore larger number of candidates with samples large enough to draw conclusions.
\section{Convergence of the Leader Rule in one-dimensional cultures}\label{s:1d}
In view of the above experiments, it seems that the one-dimensional culture combines well with the Leader Rule. Black's Median Voter Theorem \cite{black1958theory} implies the existence of a Condorcet winner, and from \cite{Laslier2009leader} it follows that there exist equilibriums and that all equilibriums elect $\omega$. Here we prove that in this particular culture, we moreover have convergence of the Polling Dynamics.
\begin{defi}
We say that an electorate \emph{can be modeled by a one-dimensional culture}
when there exist a \emph{positional mapping}
\[ x : \mathscr{C}\cup\mathscr{T} \to \mathbb{R} \]
with the following property: the preferences $\pi$ of any voter type $\Omega\in\mathscr{T}$ is given by
\[\forall \alpha\neq\beta\in\mathscr{C},\qquad \alpha >_\pi \beta \quad\text{if and only if}\quad \lvert x(\alpha) - x(\Omega)\rvert < \lvert x(\beta) - x(\Omega)\rvert.\]
For simplicity, we assume further that $\lvert x(\alpha) - x(\Omega)\rvert \neq \lvert x(\beta) - x(\Omega)\rvert$ for all $\alpha\neq\beta$ and all $\Omega$, so that all preferences are linear orders (without ties); and we assume that there is no partition of the voter types in two groups that have equal total number of voters, so that no duel between two candidates would end up in a tie (these are \emph{generic} conditions: they are stable under small perturbation of the data and any data can be approximated arbitrarily close by data satisfying those conditions).
\end{defi}
The goal of this section is to prove the following result.
\begin{theo}\label{t:1d-convergence}
If the electorate can be modeled by a one-dimensional culture and applies the Leader Rule, then the Polling Dynamic converges to an equilibrium (which elects the Condorcet winner, as prescribed by Laslier's Theorem).
\end{theo}
The end of the section is dedicated to the proof of Theorem \ref{t:1d-convergence}. We use outcomes reduced to the winner and runner-up, we assume that the electorate can be modeled by a one-dimensional culture and we fix a positional mapping $x$. Denoting by $N= \sum_{\Omega\in\mathscr{T}} n_\Omega$ the total number of voters, a \emph{median} is a value $m\in\mathbb{R}$ such that
\[ \sum_{\Omega\colon x(\Omega)\le m} n_\Omega \ge \frac N2 \qquad\text{and}\qquad \sum_{\Omega\colon x(\Omega)\ge m} n_\Omega \ge \frac N2\]
i.e., at least half the voters have a position on the left of $m$, and at least half have position on the right of $m$. The assumption that there is no partition of voter types in two groups of equal size ensures that there is a unique median $m$, coinciding with the position of some voter type: $m=x(X_m)$, where the voter type $X_m$ is called the \emph{median type}. By assumption, there is a single candidate $\mu$ whose position is closest to $x(X_m)$.
We start with the following particular instance of Black's Median Voter Theorem, which we prove for the sake of completeness.
\begin{lemm}\label{l:1d-winner}
The candidate $\mu$ is a Condorcet winner.
\end{lemm}
\begin{proof}
Let $\alpha$ be any other candidate. Voters preferring $\mu$ to $\alpha$ are those positioned on the half line $L$ of endpoint $\frac12(x(\alpha)+x(\mu))$ and containing $x(\mu)$. Since $x(\mu)$ is closer from $x(X_m)$ than $x(\alpha)$, $L$ contains $x(X_m)$ and thus contains at least half the voters. Since there are no possible ties, $\mu$ dominates $\alpha$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemm}
Let $\alpha\beta$ be an outcome such that $\alpha\neq\mu$ and let $\alpha'\beta'=\operatorname{PD}(\alpha\beta)$. Then either $\lvert x(\alpha')-x(\mu)\rvert < \lvert x(\alpha)-x(\mu)\rvert$, or $\alpha' = \alpha$ and $\lvert x(\beta')-x(\mu)\rvert < \lvert x(\beta)-x(\mu)\rvert$.
\end{lemm}
\begin{proof}
The positions $x(\alpha)$ and $x(\beta)$ divide the real line in three component: the open bounded interval $I$ between them, the open half-line $A$ with extremity $x(\alpha)$ avoiding $I$, and the open half-line $B$ with extremity $x(\beta)$ avoiding $I$.
If $x(\mu)\in A$, $\alpha$ will receive the votes of all voters positioned in a half line starting at $(x(\alpha)+x(\beta))/2$ and containing $x(\mu)$, while other candidates receive votes only from voters positioned in $A$ or in $I\cup B$. It follows that $\alpha' = \alpha$ and $\beta'$ is the candidate positioned next to $\alpha$, in the direction of $x(\mu)$ (possibly $\beta'=\mu$). In this case, we thus have $\alpha' = \alpha$ and $\lvert x(\beta')-x(\mu)\rvert < \lvert x(\beta)-x(\mu)\rvert$.
In all other cases, $\alpha'$ is the candidate positioned next to $\alpha$, in the direction of $\mu$ (possibly $\alpha'=\mu$), therefore $\lvert x(\alpha')-x(\mu)\rvert < \lvert x(\alpha)-x(\mu)\rvert$.
\end{proof}
Let $\prec$ be the ``lexicographic'' order on outcomes, defined by
$\alpha\beta\succ\alpha'\beta'$ whenever
\[\lvert x(\alpha')-x(\mu)\rvert < \lvert x(\alpha)-x(\mu)\rvert, \text{ or }\alpha' = \alpha \text{ and }\lvert x(\beta')-x(\mu)\rvert < \lvert x(\beta)-x(\mu)\rvert.\]
The previous lemma shows that along an orbit of $\operatorname{PD}$, the outcome can only decrease in this order until $\mu$ becomes winner. Since there cannot be an infinite decreasing sequence of outcome, eventually $\mu$ becomes winner. Now, as is well-known, this is a stable situation: for all $\beta$, $\operatorname{PD}(\mu\beta)=\mu\beta_0$ where $\beta_0$ is the candidate getting the better score in a duel against $\mu$. Therefore, every state converges under $\operatorname{PD}$ to the state $\mu\beta_0$, and the proof of Theorem \ref{t:1d-convergence} is complete.
\section{A continuous-state model}\label{s:continuous}
The above discrete-time, discrete space model is quite crude and thus can fail to convince that cycles could appear in practice. Discreteness of time is relevant, since polls occur at precise times, triggering some ballot adjustments: completely asynchronous dynamics, where voters have the opportunity to change their vote one by one and the information is shared immediately after each vote change, is unrealistic whenever voters are numerous, in particular for political election in a large population.
Discreteness of space is more of a weakness of our model; more precisely, the assumptions that \emph{all} voters of a given type adjust their ballots at each poll, and that the strategies depend only on the expected outcome without taking into account almost ties are unrealistic. In this section, we introduce a discrete-time, continuous-space setting and show that the cycles in the above examples are stable: they persist even when we assume only a (large enough) fraction of voters to adjust their ballot at each poll, and whatever the voter's strategies are in case of an almost tie. Moreover, in this continuous model the cycle are attractive: all states close enough to the cycle are attracted to it. In the next section, we will take advantage of this continuous setting to consider other possible models of voters' reactions to polls.
\subsection{Continuous Polling Dynamics}
\subsubsection*{A continuous state-space}
We expand the setting of Section \ref{s:notations} to a continuous-space model. To each voter type $\Omega$ is associated a set $\mathscr{B}_\Omega\subset \mathscr{B}$ of \emph{admissible ballots}, representing the ballots that could be cast by voters of this type. It could be the set of sincere ballots according to their preferences $\pi_\Omega$, thus assuming mere sincerity; or if we are embedding a discrete example as we will, it could be the image set $f_\Omega(\mathscr{O})$ of the strategy $f_\Omega$ of this type. This restriction is meant to reduce the dimension of the space of states.
Given a finite set $\mathscr{X}$, we consider the simplex of vertex set $\mathscr{X}$:
\[\Delta(\mathscr{X}) := \big\{P=(p_x)_{x\in \mathscr{X}} \in [0,1]^{\mathscr{X}} \,\big|\, \sum_{x\in\mathscr{X}} p_x=1 \big\}.\]
An element of of $\Delta(\mathscr{X})$ can be interpreted as a probability vector on $\mathscr{X}$ or simply as a the proportions of a distribution of some quantity over the elements of $\mathscr{X}$.
A \emph{state} is now an element of
\[ \mathscr{S} := \prod_{\Omega\in \mathscr{T}} \Delta(\mathscr{B}_\Omega) \]
i.e. a state $s\in\mathscr{S}$ gives for each voter type and each admissible ballot the proportion of the voters of that type planning to cast this ballot. The use of a continuous model assumes voters are sufficiently numerous that we can consider each type arbitrarily finely divisible; the voters' counts $n_\Omega$ now only represent their respective proportion of all voters, rather than absolute numbers. A state $s=(s^\Omega)_{\Omega\in\mathscr{T}}$ is said to be \emph{extreme} when for each $\Omega$, in $P=s^\Omega$ exactly one of the proportion is $1$ and the others are $0$ (i.e., all voters in any given voter type will cast the same ballot).
If $B\in\mathscr{B}_\Omega$, we will denote by $\boldsymbol{1}_B$ the element of $\Delta(\mathscr{B}_\Omega)$ that gives weight $1$ to $B$ and $0$ to the other ballots. The set of extreme states is finite and can be identified with $\prod_{\Omega\in\mathscr{T}} \mathscr{B}_\Omega$, the element $(\boldsymbol{1}_{B_\Omega})_{\Omega\in \mathscr{T}}\in\mathscr{S}$ representing the situation where for each $\Omega$, all voters of this type cast the ballot $B_\Omega$.
\subsubsection*{Generalized strategies and Continuous Polling Dynamics}
There is a natural mapping which associates to each state the election that would result from the casting of the planned ballots:
\begin{align*}
v : \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad \mathscr{S} \qquad &\to \qquad \mathscr{E}\\
s=\big(s^\Omega=(s^\Omega_B)_{B\in\mathscr{B}_\Omega}\big)_{\Omega\in\mathscr{T}} &\mapsto \big(\sum_\Omega n_\Omega\cdot s^\Omega_B\big)_{B\in\mathscr{B}}
\end{align*}
where $s^\Omega_B$ is considered zero whenever $B\notin \mathscr{B}_\Omega$. The mapping $\mathrm{AV}\circ v : \mathscr{S}\to\mathscr{O}$ thus sends a state to the outcome that would result from it. Here, we will consider as set of outcomes $\mathscr{O}$ the set of all detailed vote results; an outcome thus takes the form $(V_\alpha)_{\alpha\in\mathscr{C}}$ where $V_\alpha$ is the proportion of votes in favor of candidate $\alpha$. Recall that we assumed a tie-breaking rule, e.g. by alphabetical order, so that from such an outcome the total ranking of all candidates, in particular the winner and runner-up, can be deduced. These extended outcomes enable voters decision to depend on the scores of the different candidates.
A \emph{generalized strategy} for a voter type $\Omega$ is a map $g_\Omega: \Delta(\mathscr{B}_\Omega)\times \mathscr{O}\to \Delta(\mathscr{B}_\Omega)$ recording the respective proportions of voters of type $\Omega$ casting each admissible ballot in reaction to an outcome. With this definition, we allow that not all voters of a given type react in the same way to an outcome; some may for example be more reluctant to change their ballot (hence the $\Delta(\mathscr{B}_\Omega)$ factor on the starting set, serving as memory of the previously planned ballots by this type of voters). We do not permit the decisions of voters to depend on the ballots previously cast by other types than theirs: this information is considered unavailable. As in Section \ref{s:notations} we introduce a relation between preferences and strategy: a generalized strategy is \emph{sincere} if it only gives positive proportion to sincere ballots for this type's preferences.
An \emph{continuous electorate} is now the data of $\mathscr{T}$ and for each voter type $\Omega$ of: a set of admissible ballots $\mathscr{B}_\Omega$, a number of voters $n_\Omega$, and a generalized strategy $g_\Omega$.
The \emph{continuous polling dynamics} (CPD) associated with a continuous electorate is the map $\Phi : \mathscr{S} \to \mathscr{S}$ defined by
\[\Phi(s) = \Big( g_{\Omega}\big(s^\Omega ; \mathrm{AV}\circ v(s)\big) \Big)_{\Omega\in\mathscr{T}.} \]
In other words, from a state $s$ and for each voter type $\Omega$ we extract the information $s^\Omega$ on ballots previously cast by the voters of this type, we compute the expected outcome $\mathrm{AV}\circ v(s)$, and then apply the generalized strategies to build the next state.
Note that we shifted where in the cycle
\[\dots \rightarrow \text{outcome}\rightarrow \text{voters' choice} \rightarrow \text{outcome} \rightarrow \dots\]
we record information: in the discrete setting, we recorded the successive outcomes; here we record the successive choices of voters, which usually provides richer information.
\subsubsection*{Embedding and perturbation of the Polling Dynamics}
Given an electorate (in the sense of Section \ref{s:notations}), we choose as suggested above $\mathscr{B}_\Omega=f_\Omega(\mathscr{O})$ and consider as generalized strategies the translation of the strategies in the continuous model, i.e. $g_\Omega(P,o)=\boldsymbol{1}_{f_\Omega(o)}$ -- in other words, all voters apply the strategy of their type given the expected outcome, irrespective of the information $P$ on their previously cast ballots. This yields the following CPD:
\[ \Phi_0(s) = \big(\boldsymbol{1}_{f_\Omega\circ \mathrm{AV}\circ v(s)}\big)_{\Omega\in\mathscr{T}.} \]
To compute $\Phi_0(s)$, one thus first applies $v$ to $s$ to obtain the expected election, then applies $\mathrm{AV}$ to the result to obtain the expected outcome, then applies to this the strategies $f_\Omega$ to obtain the voters new choice of ballots.
The mapping $\Phi_0$ takes its values in the set of extreme states, and after the first iteration does not convey any more information than the (discrete) polling dynamics given by the electorate. In this section our goal is to study the dynamics of CPDs which are \emph{close} to $\Phi_0$ in a sense we now define.
We consider the supremum norm $\lvert\cdot\rvert$ on $\mathscr{S}$, i.e. given two states $s=(s^\Omega_B)$ and $\bar s=(\bar s^\Omega_B)$ we set
\[ \lVert s-\bar s\rVert = \sup_{\Omega\in \mathscr{T}, B\in \mathscr{B}_\Omega} \big\lvert s^\Omega_B - \bar s^\Omega_B \big\rvert \]
Given two CPDs $\Phi, \Psi$ and a set of states $A\in \mathscr{S}$, we consider
\[D_A(\Phi,\Psi) := \sup_{s\in A} \big\lVert \Phi(s)-\Psi(s) \big\rVert.\]
We use $D$ as a shortcut for $D_{\mathscr{S}}$, which is a metric on the set of all CPDs. More generally, $D_A(\Phi,\Psi)$ quantifies how close $\Phi$ and $\Psi$ are on $A$; a smaller $A$ makes upper bounds on $D_A$ more lenient.
\subsection{A continuous-state example with a cycle}
Using a slight modification of our second example above, we get the following result where choices have been made to make all constants explicit (but they are not optimal).
\begin{theomain}\label{t:continuous}
There exists an electorate on three candidates such that:
\begin{itemize}
\item there are a Condorcet winner and a consensual loser,
\item each voter type is assigned a consistent, sincere and simple strategy,
\item for any CPD $\Phi$ where a proportion $p\ge 85\%$ of the voters of each type adjust their ballot according to their type's strategy whenever the expected election gives an outcome with at least $4$ percentage points of margin between candidates (the reminding voters keeping their previous ballot and the CPD being arbitrary when margins are lower than $4\%$), $\Phi$ has an attractive $2$-cycle one of whose states elects the consensual loser.
\end{itemize}
\end{theomain}
An example is presented in Figure \ref{f:continuous-numeric}.
\begin{figure}[htp]\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.32\linewidth]{iteration0.png}
\includegraphics[width=.32\linewidth]{iteration1.png}
\includegraphics[width=.32\linewidth]{iteration2.png}\\
\includegraphics[width=.32\linewidth]{iteration3.png}
\includegraphics[width=.32\linewidth]{iteration4.png}
\includegraphics[width=.32\linewidth]{iteration5.png}
\caption{An example of a CPD verifying the hypotheses of Theorem \ref{t:continuous}. Top-left: initial points of the plane; then from left to right then top to bottom, the first five iterations of a continuous CPD where, whenever margins are above $4\,\%$, $85\,\%$ of voters apply the Leader Rule and $15\,\%$ keep their ballot unchanged. Points are drawn with the color corresponding to initial position (darker above for better readability). After the first iteration, already most points are attracted to the periodic points near the four corners. The top-left and bottom-right corners are attracting fixed points, and there is an attractive orbit of period $2$ near the other corners.}
\label{f:continuous-numeric}
\end{center}\end{figure}
\begin{proof}
We consider the following four-types electorate
\begin{align*}
Z &: abc \quad 3 & Y &: a(bc) \quad 1 & X &: bac \quad 3 & W &: c(ab) \quad 5
\end{align*}
with the modified Leader Rule as in Section \ref{s:example2} and the corresponding sets of admissible ballots. Again, $a$ is a Condorcet winner and $c$ a consensual loser (now refused by $7/12$th of the electorate: we traded some badness of $c$ for more stability). Note that we can make $a$ a Condorcet Winner in the strongest sense (see Section \ref{s:candidates}) by using the trick mentioned in Remark \ref{r:strongCW}.
Observe that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\Delta(\mathscr{B}_Y)=\Delta(\big\{\{a\}\big\})$ and $\Delta(\mathscr{B}_W)$ are both singletons and can be ignored in the product,
\item $\Delta(\mathscr{B}_X)=\Delta(\big\{\{b\},\{a,b\}\big\})$ can be identified with $[0,1]$, denoting by $x$ the proportion of voters of type $X$ that cast the ballot $\{a,b\}$,
\item $\Delta(\mathscr{B}_Z)=\Delta(\big\{\{a\},\{a,b\}\big\})$ can be identified with $[0,1]$ by representing a probability vector by the proportion $z$ of voters of type $Z$ that cast the ballot $\{a,b\}$.
\end{itemize}
In the notation above, we thus have \[s^Z_{\{a,b\}} = z \quad s^Z_{\{a\}}= 1-z \quad s^X_{\{a,b\}} = x \quad s^X_{\{b\}}= 1-x. \]
We can thus identify $\mathscr{S}$ and $[0,1]^2$ with coordinates $(x,z)$, see Figure \ref{f:continuous}, which contains the end of proof and which we now explain.
The three lines corresponding to ties (of equation $(z=x+\frac13)$ for $a$ and $b$; $(x=\frac13)$ for $a$ and $c$; $(z=\frac23)$ for $b$ and $c$) are concurrent at the point where all three candidates are tied, and define six regions in $\mathscr{S}$ corresponding to the six possible outcomes (the lines themselves are attributed to one outcome according to the tie-breaking rule).
\begin{figure}[htp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=1]{continuous.pdf}
\,\includegraphics[scale=1]{continuous2.pdf}
\caption{A continuous-space example. \emph{Left:} the state space $\mathscr{S}$. Coordinates $x,z$ represent respectively the proportion of voters of type $X$ casting the ballot $\{a,b\}$ (the others casting $\{b\}$) and the proportion of voters of type $Z$ casting the ballot $\{a,b\}$ (the others casting $\{a\}$). Regions are drawn showing how the outcome depends on $x,z$. The corners are the extreme states, corresponding to the four outcomes that are possible under the CDP $\Phi_0$: if all voters adjust their ballot after a poll, the whole $abc$ and $bac$ regions are sent to the bottom-left corner, the $cab$ and $cba$ regions to the upper-right corner, the $bca$ region to the upper-left corner and the $acb$ region to the lower-right corner.
\emph{Right:} on the same state space, any CPD where $85\%$ of voters adjust their ballot according to the modified Leader Rule when candidates are separated by $4\%$ margins will send the light-grey regions $A_1$ and $A_2$ into each other (images shown in dark grey), thus ensuring a $2$-cycle with one state near the upper-rigth corner, one near the lower-left corner.}\label{f:continuous}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The region $A_1$ delimited by the lines of equations $(z<x+\frac16)$ and $(z>\frac56)$ results in the outcome $abc$ with margins of $\frac{1}{24}$th of the electorate, i.e. slightly over $4\%$. Similarly, the region $A_2$ delimited by the lines of equations $(z<x+\frac16)$ and $(x<\frac16)$ result in the outcome $cab$ with the same margins.
Assuming $\Phi$ is a CPD with the property assumed in the third item, we have $\Phi(x,z)=((1-p) x, (1-p) z)$ whenever $(x,z)\in A_1$ and $\Phi(x,z)=(p+(1-p) x, p+(1-p) z)$ whenever $(x,z)\in A_2$. One easily checks that $\Phi(A_1)\subset A_2$ and $\Phi(A_2)\subset A_1$. It follows that $\Phi^2(A_1)\subset A_1$, and since $\Phi^2$ is a contraction on $A_1$ (of ratio $(1-p)^2$), the Contraction Mapping Theorem ensures it has a fixed point $(x_1,z_1)\in A_1$. Then the orbit of $(x_1,z_1)$ is a $2$-cycle with one state inducing the outcome $abc$ and the other inducing $cab$. Moreover any element of the open set $A_1\cup A_2$ is attracted to this cycle exponentially fast: e.g. if $(x,z)\in A_1$, for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$ we have $\lvert \Phi^{2n}(x,z)-(x_1,z_1) \rvert \le (1-p)^{2n} \lvert (x,z)-(x_1,z_1)\rvert$ and $\lvert \Phi^{2n+1}(x,z)-\Phi(x_1,z_1) \rvert \le (1-p)^{2n+1} \lvert (x,z)-(x_1,z_1)\rvert$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{A general stability result}
The above example was meant to be tangible and explicit, but the underlying phenomenon is quite general.
Consider an electorate on a given set $\mathscr{C}$ of candidates, such that the PD has a cycle $o_1,\dots,o_k$. We denote by $B_i= (f_\Omega(o_{i-1}))_{\Omega\in\mathscr{T}}$ the $k$ vectors of the ballots cast by the different types along this cycle.
Consider first the continuous electorate corresponding to the CPD $\Phi_0$, i.e. assume temporarily that all voters apply their type's strategy at each poll. For each poll $i$ along the cycle, the ballots $B_i$ gives the candidates some scores $S_i(a), S_i(b), \dots $ expressed in percentage of votes received; we set
\[\varepsilon_0 = \min_{1\le i\le k} \min_{\alpha\neq\beta\in\mathscr{C}} \lvert S_i(\alpha)-S_i(\beta)\rvert\]
the least margin separating two candidates according to any ballot vector $B_i$.
When $\varepsilon_0>0$ (i.e. when the tie-breaking rule is not needed in the considered cycle), $(0,\varepsilon_0]$ is non-empty and for all $\varepsilon\in(0,\varepsilon_0]$ we denote by $A_i^\varepsilon$ the sub region, in the part of $\mathscr{S}$ corresponding to $B_i$, where all candidates are separated by a fraction of the electorate at least $\varepsilon$. Then $A_i^\varepsilon$ has non-empty interior (it is neither empty nor reduced to e.g. a subspace of dimension less than the dimension of $\mathscr{S}$).
\begin{theomain}
Assume the above setting, in particular that the Polling Dynamics has a cycle $o_1,\dots,o_k$, with each $o_i$ surrounded by a region $A_i^{\varepsilon_0}$ in which $o_i$ is the outcome with margins at least $\varepsilon_0$ between the candidates.
If $\varepsilon_0>0$, for all $\varepsilon\in(0,\varepsilon_0)$ there is a $\delta>0$ with the following property. Every CPD $\Phi$ such that, for each $i$:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\Phi$ is continuous on each $A^\varepsilon_i$, and
\item $D_{A^\varepsilon_i}(\Phi,\Phi_0)<\delta$
\end{itemize}
has a $k$-cycle whose elements are in the $A^\varepsilon_i$, in particular with corresponding outcomes $o_1,\dots, o_k$.
\end{theomain}
This result means that any cycle of the discrete-space model that does not rely on the tie-breaking rule is stable: any CPD that is close enough to $\Phi_0$ near the cycle exhibits a similar cycle. In particular, if we only assume a large enough fraction of each voter's type adjust their ballot at each polls, and if we only assume the prescribed strategies away from almost-ties, we still have a cycle.
\begin{proof}
By definition of $\varepsilon_0$, each $A^\varepsilon_i$ is the intersection of $\mathscr{S}$ with a polyhedron containing in its interior the extreme point corresponding to $B_i$, and $\Phi_0$ maps $A^\varepsilon_i$ entirely to the extreme point $B_{i+1}$. In particular, $\Phi_0^k$ sends the whole of $A^\varepsilon_1$ to the extreme point $B_1$. If $\delta$ is small enough and $D_{A^\varepsilon_i}(\Phi,\Phi_0)<\delta$ for all $i$, then $\Phi^k$ is close enough to $\Phi_0^k$ to map $A^\varepsilon_1$ into itself. By assumption, $\Phi^k$ is continuous on $A^\varepsilon_1$ which is homeomorphic to a closed ball. By Brouwer's fixed point theorem, $\Phi^k$ has a fixed point in $A^\varepsilon_1$, leading to the desired cycle of $\Phi$.
\end{proof}
Observe that without the continuity hypothesis, we would still get a cycle of outcomes $o_1,\dots, o_k$, but possibly not a cycle of states nor of elections. The cycle of states is attracting as soon as $\Phi$ is contracting on each $A^\varepsilon_i$; this is for example the case when $\Phi$ is a variant of a Polling Dynamics, where only a fraction of voters adjust their ballots upon receiving the result of the last poll, such as in Theorem \ref{t:continuous}. More generally, $\Phi$ is contracting on each $A^\varepsilon_i$ when in the absence of almost ties, voters of any given type tend to agree more on their next choice than they did on the previous one. In particular the discrete Polling Dynamics, where all voters of a type make the same choice given an expected outcome, exhibits a very extreme form of contractivity.
\section{Reluctance to cooperate and chaos}\label{s:chaos}
Now we turn to other generalized strategies, motivated by the reluctance a voter is expected to have to approve of candidates that are low on her preferences; such an approbation can be seen as a \emph{cooperation} with other voters sharing a strong dislike for the expected winner. Consider a voter driven by a strategy, say the Leader Rule, and planning to cast a certain ballot. When the information of a poll becomes available, if adding one or several names on her ballot could improve the outcome, there is a competition between the strategic reasoning and the impetus not to approve of these disliked candidates. It can also be tempting to remove names from the ballot if they seem not to be needed anymore to prevent a worse candidate to be elected.
We shall make the following assumptions:
\begin{description}
\item[Continuity:] \emph{all generalized strategies are continuous: a small change in the outcome $o$ or the planned ballots $s^\Omega$ results in a small change in $g_\Omega(s^\Omega,o)$.}
\item[Opportunity-driven strategies:] \emph{voters are less likely to include in (and more likely to exclude from) their ballot a name that is low in their preferences when the probability that this inclusion (or exclusion) would influence the outcome is small.}
\item[Political weight of full outcomes:] \emph{voters aim primarily to elect a highly preferred candidate, but also try that candidates they dislike much have fewer votes and candidates they like much have more votes.}
\end{description}
The first assumption is meant to depart from the unrealistic discontinuities implied by a perfect application of strategies such as the Leader Rule: when two candidates are very close one to the other, which one is first should not change completely the choices of voters.
The second assumption, which is at the heart of this section, is to be understood as a trade-off between a reluctance to approve of a low candidate in one's preferences and the potential gain in the outcome. This trade-off can be estimated differently from voter to voter, even inside a given type --this is typically what the continuous model is designed to model. It is to be noted that the ``opportunity-driven strategies'' assumption is very different from the models above: far from almost ties, voters will be more numerous to restrict to ballots with few names, while near almost-ties they will be more numerous to instead apply a strategy such as the Leader Rule.
The last assumption backs the second and reflects that, to a certain extent, the final number of votes received will have political effects to be taken into account, e.g. a disliked candidate may look legitimate if ranked high, even if not elected, and could be more likely to be a threat in next elections. In some countries, votes can also have consequences on party funding, and voters could thus be careful not to fund unnecessarily a candidate they dislike. This assumption is flexible, as one can put more or less weight to these considerations.
Let us now consider a simple, piecewise linear model following these requirements and have a look at its CPD.
\subsection{A simple model based on the example of Theorem \ref{t:continuous}}
\label{s:chaos-example}
We consider again the following four-types electorate
\begin{align*}
Z &: abc \quad 3 & Y &: a(bc) \quad 1 & X &: bac \quad 3 & W &: c(ab) \quad 5
\end{align*}
(recall that $a$ is a Condorcet winner and $c$ a consensual loser).
As above, the corresponding sets of admissible ballots makes $\mathscr{S}$ a square with coordinates $(x,z)$ where $x$, $z$ are the proportions of voters of type $X$ , $Z$ respectively that ``cooperate'' by voting $\{a,b\}$.
We recall an outcome is a triple $o=(V_a,V_b,V_c)$, and we choose here the following generalized strategies (where we do not use the possibility of dependency on $s^\Omega$ $=x$ or $z$):
\[g_Z(z,(V_a,V_b,V_c)) = C\circ S(V_a,V_b,V_c) \qquad g_X(x,(V_a,V_b,V_c))= C\circ S(V_b,V_a,V_c) \]
where $C$, $S$ will be defined below, to be interpreted as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item $S$ is a ``safety function'', quantifying how unlikely it seems that cooperating would be useful to counter a threat by $c$ (notice how $V_a, V_b$ are exchanged in $g_X$, to take into account the preferences of this type). $S$ will be in particular very small when both $c$ is expected winner or close to be expected winner, \emph{and} collaborating has a good chance to prevent her to win,
\item $C$ is a ``collaboration function'', translating a level of safety into a proportion of collaborations (high safety resulting in low collaboration).
\end{itemize}
We take here a very simple safety function:
\[S(V_1,V_2,V_3) = \begin{cases}
\lvert V_2-V_3\rvert &\text{when } V_2 > V_1 \\
\frac12 \lvert V_2-V_3\rvert + \frac12 \lvert V_1 - V_3\rvert &\text{otherwise.}
\end{cases} \]
i.e. when the second-preferred candidates is ranked higher than the preferred one, the safety is the margin in her race with the least-preferred one; otherwise, safety is an average of the margins in races of the two preferred candidates against the last one. For example, if $V_1\gg V_3\simeq V_2$ then the safety is not too small (the least preferred candidate has little chance of winning) but not maximal, since there is an opportunity to ensure $c$ finishes at the last rank. When $V_1\simeq V_2$, the safety is close to both $\lvert V_1-V_3\rvert$ and $\lvert V_2-V_3\rvert$ (in particular, $S$ is continuous).
Finally, we choose a simple collaboration function extrapolating linearly between the value $1$ (all voters collaborate) when the safety vanishes, and the value $0$ (no voter collaborates) when the safety is large enough:
\[C(t) = (1-5t)_+ := \max(0,1-5t)\]
where as indicated $(\cdot)_+$ is the positive part, and where the coefficient $5$ is quantifies the reluctance to collaborate: the higher, the less likely $X$ and $Z$ voters will collaborate. $5$ is rather moderate: $1-5t$ reaches $0$ only at $t=0.2$, i.e. when the safety margins reaches a staggeringly high $20\%$ of voters.
Since a state $(x,z)$ results in the outcome $(V_a,V_b,V_c)=(3x+4, 3z+x, 5)$, these choices yield the CPD $\Phi$ defined by:
\[\Phi(x,z) = \big(\big(1-5\lvert 3x-1\rvert\big)_+, \big(1-2.5\lvert 3x-1\rvert - 2.5\lvert 3z+x-5\rvert\big)_+ \big)\]
when $2x+4\ge 3z$ and
\[\Phi(x,z) = \big( \big(1-2.5\lvert 3z+x-5\rvert - 2.5 \lvert 3x-1\rvert\big)_+, \big(1-5\lvert 3z+x-5\rvert\big)_+ \big)\]
when $2x+4\le 3z$. While $\Phi$ may look like an innocent map, drawing an orbit of this map reveals an interesting pattern (Figure \ref{f:chaos}). It turns out \emph{all} orbits yield pretty much the same image.
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\begin{minipage}{.6\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{attractor.png}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.38\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{attractor-zoom.png}
\end{minipage}
\caption{One orbit of the CPD $\Phi$. Left: full picture. Right: a zoom to the upper-right part showing a linear/fractal struture.}\label{f:chaos}
\end{figure}
In the next section, we will introduce tools (well known in the mathematical community) to assert the chaotic nature of this dynamics, and more importantly of the sequence of elected candidates along any orbit. While we will not \emph{prove} chaos here, we will show compelling numerical evidence. We will also construct a simpler example where chaos follows from well-known results in the dynamical system literature. This is to be understood as a rather theoretical study; in practice there is very little difference between a bad cycle and a chaotic attractor. However it is worthwhile to realize that in a continuous-state model, orbits can have much more varied behavior than converging to an equilibrium or a periodic orbit.
\subsection{Asserting chaos: a primer on entropy}
In dynamical systems, \emph{chaos} is not a formally defined word, but refers to a number of properties all seeking to translate the idea that orbits behave in an unpredictable fashion. The most prominent one is \emph{entropy}, which comes in a number of versions. We start by giving a brief overview of entropies for maps, before introducing the variant that will be most relevant to us.
The \emph{topological entropy} $h_\mathrm{top}(f)$ of a map $f$ is a non-negative number, defined in brief as the exponential rate of growth with $n\in\mathbb{N}$ of the number of length $n$ orbit segments $(x, f(x), f^2(x), \dots, f^{n-1}(x))$, after identifying orbit segments that stay ``close'' one to another. A precise definition is for example given in \cite{katok1995modern}, together with proofs of the claims stated below. The frontier of chaos is usually drawn between exponential and sub-exponential growth; with respect to entropy, one thus says that a map is chaotic whenever its topological entropy is non-zero.
When the map moreover has a invariant probability measure $\mu$, i.e. a law of random variable $X$ such that $f(X)$ has the same law as $X$, one can define the \emph{Kolmogorov-Sinai} entropy\footnote{Also called \emph{metric entropy} or \emph{measure-theoretic entropy}.} $h_\mathrm{KS}(f,\mu)$ of the pair $(f,\mu)$. It is similar to the topological entropy, except that orbit segments are in a way weighted using $\mu$: if many distinguishable orbit segments exist, but very few occur most of the time when we choose $x$ randomly with law $\mu$, then the Kolmogorov-Sinai entropy is rather small. When $f$ is continuous and acts on a compact space, these two entropies are related by the \emph{variational principle}:
\[ h_\mathrm{top}(f) = \sup_\mu h_\mathrm{KS}(f,\mu) \]
where the least upper bound is taken over all $f$-invariant probability measures. What is most important to us is that for every invariant probability measure, $h_\mathrm{top}(f) \ge h_\mathrm{KS}(f,\mu)$, so that proving $h_\mathrm{KS}(f,\mu)>0$ is stronger than proving $h_\mathrm{top}(f)>0$.
Now, when $f=\Phi$ is a CPD, it may happen that the topological entropy is positive while the winner of the election is constant, or ultimately constant, on each orbit. In this case, the chaos of the map is irrelevant to the core feature of the election. To extract this feature from orbits, we introduce some notation. For each candidate $\alpha$, let $W_\alpha \subset\mathscr{S}$ be the set of states leading to the election of $\alpha$, formally
\[ W_\alpha = \{s\in\mathscr{S} \mid \alpha \text{ wins in } \mathrm{AV}\circ v(s) \}. \]
The set $\{W_\alpha \colon \alpha\in\mathscr{C}\}$ is a partition of $\mathscr{S}$, and given $s\in\mathscr{S}$ we denote by $w_s\in \mathscr{C}$ the winner of $s$, i.e.
the candidate such that $s\in W_{w_s}$.
The set $\mathscr{C}$ of candidates will serve as an alphabet, and sequence of winners will be written as words. Formally a \emph{finite word} of length $n$ is an expression $\alpha_1\alpha_2\cdots \alpha_n$, i.e. a $n$-tuple written without coma and parentheses. The set of words of length $n$ is thus denoted by $\mathscr{C}^n$, and the set of finite words is $\mathscr{C}^* := \cup_{n\in\mathbb{N}} \mathscr{C}^n$. An \emph{infinite word} $\omega$ is an infinite expression $\alpha_1\alpha_2\cdots$ (i.e. a sequence, written without comma and parentheses) and the set of infinite words is denoted by $\mathscr{C}^\mathbb{N}$. For all $k<m\in\mathbb{N}$ we set $\omega_{k: m} = \alpha_k \alpha_{k+1}\alpha_{k+2}\cdots \alpha_{m}$; each $\omega_{k: m}$ is called a \emph{subword} of $\omega$ (of length $m-k+1$).
Given any state $s$, its \emph{winners word} is the word $\omega(s) = w_s w_{\Phi(s)} w_{\Phi^2(s)} \cdots$.
What we want to address is how difficult it would be to guess a length $\ell$ segment of winners
\[\omega(s)_{k+1: k+\ell} = w_{\Phi^{k+1}(s)} w_{\Phi^{k+2}(s)} \cdots w_{\Phi^{k+\ell}(s)}.\]
We shall measure this with a variant of entropy for words. As above, two versions (topological and Kolmogorov-Sinai) can be defined.
\begin{defi}\label{d:entropy}
Let $\omega=\alpha_1\alpha_2\cdots$ be an infinite word.
For all $\ell\in\mathbb{N}$, let $S^\ell(\omega)$ be the number of distinct subwords of length $\ell$ of $\omega$. We define the \emph{topological entropy} of the word $\omega$ as
\[h_\mathrm{top}(\omega) = \lim_{\ell\to\infty} \frac1\ell \log S^\ell(\omega).\]
For all $n,\ell\in\mathbb{N}$ with $\ell\le n$ and all finite word $\theta$ of length $\ell$, we denote by $S_n^\theta(\omega)$ the number of times the subword $\theta$ appears in $\omega_{1: n}$, we set
\[P_n^\theta(\omega) := \frac{S_n^\theta(\omega)}{n-\ell+1}\]
the proportion of length $\ell$ subwords of $\omega_{1: n}$ equal to $\theta$, and by $P_n^\ell(\omega)$ the ``probability vector'' $(P_n^\theta(\omega))_{\theta\in\mathscr{C}^\ell}$. Finally we define the \emph{Kolmogorov-Sinai entropy} of the word $\omega$ as
\[h_\mathrm{KS}(\omega) = \lim_{\ell\to\infty} \frac1\ell \limsup_{n\to\infty} H(P^\ell_n(\omega))\]
where
\[H(p_1,p_2,\dots,p_k) = \sum_{i=1}^k -p_i \log p_i \qquad \text{with the convention } 0\log 0= 0. \]
\end{defi}
Let us point out a few observations to explain these definitions.
The limit in the definition of $h_\mathrm{top}(\omega)$ exists by Fekete's lemma since the sequence $(\log S^\ell)_\ell$ is subadditive (a subword of length $\ell+k$ is the concatenation of a subword of length $\ell$ and a subword of length $k$, so that $S^{\ell+k}\le S^\ell\times S^k$). The topological entropy of a word corresponds to the topological entropy of a particular dynamical system constructed from $\omega$ called a ``subshift'', but we will not use this. Observe that $h_\mathrm{top}(\omega) \in [0,\log \lvert\mathscr{C}\rvert]$ since there are in total only $\lvert\mathscr{C}\rvert^\ell$ words of length $\ell$. The interpretation of $h_\mathrm{top}(\omega)$ is that it takes the value $h$ when the number of subwords of length $\ell$ in $\omega$ is roughly of the order of $e^{h\ell}$ (or subexponential if $h=0$).
In the definition of $h_\mathrm{KS}(\omega)$ the limit exists again by subadditivity, which is more subtle than above and one of the reasons to choose the function $H$. When $(p_i)_{1\le i\le N}$ runs over all ``probability vectors''of dimension $N$ (i.e. $p_i\in [0,1]$ and $\sum_i p_i =1$), the expression $H(p_1,\dots,p_N)$ runs over $[0,\log N]$, and it attains its maximum $\log N$ at a single point, namely $(\frac1N,\frac1N,\dots\frac1N)$ (this is a simple application of the concavity of $x\mapsto -x\log x$). Moreover $H(p_1,\dots,p_N,0,0,\dots,0) = H(p_1,\dots,p_N)$, and it follows that $h_\mathrm{KS}(\omega) \in [0,h_\mathrm{top}(\omega)]$, with equality when all subwords of a given length $\ell$ that appear in $\omega$ do so with asymptotically the same abundance. When some subwords appear much more often than others, the Kolmogorov-Sinai entropy is lower.
The value of an entropy is to be interpreted as the ``uncertainty'' of a random guess, with the case an object drawn among $N$ uniformly having uncertainty $\log N$; this makes uncertainty linear in the number of objects to be guessed in the sense that guessing $\ell$ independent objects each uniformly drawn among $N$ has uncertainty $\ell\log N$. More generally, one defines the uncertainty of a choice made according to a probability vector $(p_1,\dots, p_N)$ as $H(p_1,\dots, p_N)$, and this definition enjoys many natural properties (see e.g. \cite{walters1982ergodic} Theorem 4.1).
To guess a segment $\omega_{k+1: k+\ell}$, one can take all subwords of $\omega$ of length $\ell$ and choose one randomly. If this choice is made uniformly, the uncertainty is of the order of $\ell\cdot h_\mathrm{top}(\omega)$. If this choice is made with each subword given a probability proportional to its abundance in $\omega_{1: n}$ for large $n$, uncertainty is down to approximately $\ell \cdot h_\mathrm{KS}(\omega)$.
If one knows $\omega_{k:m}$ and wants to guess the next letters $\alpha_{m+1}\cdots\alpha_{m+\ell}$, one would rather consider all subwords of $\omega$ of length $m-k+1+\ell$ starting with $\omega_{k:m}$, and guess among the words obtained by removing this $\omega_{k:m}$ prefix from them. If this choice is made uniformly, the uncertainty is
\[\log \frac{S^{m-k+1+\ell}(\omega)}{S^{m-k+1}(\omega)} \sim \ell\cdot h_\mathrm{top}(\omega) \qquad \text{when }\ell\to\infty.\]
If the choice is weighted by the respective abundance of the subwords of length $m-k+1+\ell$, then the uncertainty is asymptotically $\ell\cdot h$ where $h$ depends on $\omega_{k:m}$: some cases may give much more information on the sequel than others. Then $h_\mathrm{KS}(\omega)$ is an average of these values $h$, weighted according to the abundance of $\omega_{k:m}$ (rare subwords weight less in this average).
Definition \ref{d:entropy} has two features that matter in our situation. First, its relevance: the entropy (either topological or, better, Kolmogorov-Sinai) of a winners word $\omega(s)$ gives a quantification of the chaos, as an uncertainty akin to randomness, in the sequence of winners starting from the state $s$. While $\omega(s)$ depends on $s$, in some situations we will observe that $h_\mathrm{KS}(\omega(s))$ is independent of $s$. In any case, the existence of a state with $h_\mathrm{KS}(\omega(s))>0$ means that at least in some starting intents of the voters, the Continuous Polling Dynamics results in an unpredictable result. Also note that for all $s$, we have $h_\mathrm{top}(\Phi)\ge h_\mathrm{KS}(\omega(s))$, and the CPD $\Phi$ is chaotic as soon as there is one starting state with positive entropy. Second, it is easy to estimate numerically these quantities. For $h_\mathrm{KS}$, one simply plots the sequence $\ell\mapsto H(P^\ell_n(\omega))$ for a fixed large $n$. If for $\ell$ large enough the points are well-aligned, the slope of the interpolating line can be taken as an estimation of the Kolmogorov-Sinai entropy of $\omega(s)$ (see eg. Figure \ref{f:entropy}). Taking various $s$ then adds robustness to the analysis. With this tool at hand, let us return to the Example of Section \ref{s:chaos-example}.
\subsection{Exploration of chaos for some CPD}
If we take the example of Section \ref{s:chaos-example}, the word of the successive winners starting from the center of the space $\mathscr{S}$ is ($32$ first letters shown, capital $c$ for better readability):
\[\omega(.5,.5) = aaaCaCaaaCaCaCaaaCaCaCaCaCaaaCaC\cdots\]
There is some visible structure in this word, for example there are never two successive $c$ no four $a$ in a row; apart from the first three letters, the word seems constructed only with the blocs $\beta=ca$ and $\gamma=caaa$. However, the succession of these blocks looks somewhat random:
\[\omega(.5,.5) = aaa\gamma\beta\gamma\gamma\beta\gamma\gamma\gamma\gamma\beta\gamma\gamma\beta\gamma\gamma\gamma\gamma\beta\beta\beta\beta\gamma\dots \]
To quantify the randomness of $\omega(.5,.5)$, we proceed as explained in the previous section and plot the sequence $\ell\mapsto H(P^\ell_{2^{20}}(\omega))$, obtaining the graph shown in Figure \ref{f:entropy}. We observe an extremely good alignment from $\ell=4$ onward, with slope $\simeq 0.229$. Every starting state $s$ yields very similar results, a strong numerical indication that the map $\Phi$ is chaotic, with chaotic sequences of winners. To check whether all states have orbits accumulating on the attractor pictured in Figure \ref{f:continuous-numeric}, we have drawn the first iterates of $\Phi$ in Figure \ref{f:iterations}. All orbits seem to accumulate to the attractor, which appears in fact connected (a fact that can be confirmed by topological arguments), made of a very thin curve between two arrow-shaped parts, which are exchanged by $\Phi$.
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.6\linewidth]{entropy.png}
\caption{Plot of the entropy-estimating sequence $\ell\mapsto H(P^\ell_{2^{20}}(\omega))$. The slope of the marked line is $\simeq 0.2291$}\label{f:entropy}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.31\linewidth]{iteration-0.png}
\includegraphics[width=.31\linewidth]{iteration-1.png}
\includegraphics[width=.31\linewidth]{iteration-2.png}
\includegraphics[width=.31\linewidth]{iteration-3.png}
\includegraphics[width=.31\linewidth]{iteration-4.png}
\includegraphics[width=.31\linewidth]{iteration-5.png}
\includegraphics[width=.31\linewidth]{iteration-6.png}
\includegraphics[width=.31\linewidth]{iteration-7.png}
\includegraphics[width=.31\linewidth]{iteration-8.png}
\caption{From left to right then top to bottom, $200\times 200$ points of the state space regularly spaced and their $8$ first iterates by $\Phi$ (colors preserved along each orbit).}\label{f:iterations}
\end{figure}
While this is only a specific example, it was not difficult to construct: every addition made to the example of Theorem \ref{t:continuous} has been chosen as the simplest I could think of satisfying the hypotheses of Continuity, Opportunity-driven strategies, and Political weight of full outcomes. To dispel the possible feeling that this is an accidental discovery, let us first look at the same example but with randomly chosen populations for all four voter types. The following examples complements the previous one to form a representative sample of what a quick experimental exploration revealed.
\begin{exem}
Take
\[n_X=0.05, \quad n_Y=0.02, \quad n_Z=0.8, \quad n_W=0.8 \]
Then $a$ is constantly elected. Observe that it always gets at least $.82$ votes while $c$ receives only $.8$, so the only possible contender would be $b$, but she would need almost all of $Z$ voters to cooperate and most $X$ voters not to cooperate, a behavior prevented in our model. This is a non-chaotic, actually very stable example.
\end{exem}
\begin{exem}\label{e:intermittent}
Take now
\[n_X=0.6, \quad n_Y=0.08, \quad n_Z=0.56, \quad n_W=0.82 \]
Then applying the same method as above, we get a higher entropy estimation:
\[h_\mathrm{KS}(\omega(.5,.5)) \simeq 0.36\]
but the word itself looks a bit different, with long sequences of consecutive $a$:
\[\omega(.5,.5) = aaaCaaaCaCaaaaaCaCaaaaaaaaaCaaaaaaaaaaaaaCaCaCaCaCa\cdots\]
This could be example of an ``intermittent'' behavior, with slow regions where $\Phi$ is relatively tame but from which all orbits eventually escape to enter strongly chaotic regions, constantly alternating between two behaviors: predictable and chaotic. See one orbit in Figure \ref{f:examples} (left); other orbits produce very similar pictures.
\end{exem}
\begin{exem}\label{e:no-entropy}
Changing only slightly the previous example,
\[n_X=0.6, \quad n_Y=0.08, \quad n_Z=0.56, \quad n_W=0.81 \]
a radical change in behavior appears: entropy seems to vanish, with $H(P^\ell_{2^{20}})$ plateauing abruptly from $\ell=10$ onward. When looking at subwords of $\omega(.5,.5)$ of length $10$ and more, one observes that there are exactly $22$ of them, no matter the length. Closer observation then reveals that $\omega(.5,.5)$ is the concatenation of copies of the lecgth $22$ word $aaacacaaacacacacaaaaaa$. Other starting states yield similar results, indicating that $\Phi$ has here an attracting periodic orbit, of period $22$ (see Figure \ref{f:examples}, right). At the time scale of an election, it would appear chaotic, but in the longer run it is not.
This examples incites us to plot very long orbits on top of our entropy estimation, to rule out an attracting periodic orbit of length significantly larger than the maximal length of subwords used in the entropy estimation. Rigorously proving positive entropy would need more sophisticated mathematical tools (one would search for a ``horseshoe'').
\end{exem}
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.48\linewidth]{intermittent.png}
\includegraphics[width=.48\linewidth]{no-entropy.png}
\caption{Comparison of the orbits of $s=(.5,.5)$ for two close populations: example \ref{e:intermittent} on the left, example \ref{e:no-entropy} on the right, with colors of period $22$. Both runs have $5000$ points (larger points are used on the right for readability).}\label{f:examples}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.8\linewidth]{no-entropy-estimate.png}
\caption{Plot of the entropy-estimating sequence $\ell\mapsto H(P^\ell_{2^{20}}(\omega))$ for example \ref{e:no-entropy}}\label{f:no-entropy}
\end{figure}
Last, one can wonder what happens if we change the model. Let us give only one example, far from exhausting the possibilities.
\begin{exem}
We consider the case studied in Section \ref{s:chaos-example} with as single change a different collaboration function
\[ C(t) = \frac{1}{1+45 t} \]
which is decreasing convex, takes the value $.1$ at $t=0.2$ where the previous reached $0$, and has much stronger slope at $0$ thus yielding less collaboration when safety is small and more collaboration when safety is large. We see again a chaotic behavior (entropy of $\omega(s)$ estimated at $0.42$), but with a quite different attractor, see Figure \ref{f:alternateC}.
\end{exem}
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.6\linewidth]{alternateC.png}
\caption{Orbit of $s=(.5,.5)$ for an alternative collaboration function (other starting states yield a very close picture).}\label{f:alternateC}
\end{figure}
\subsection{A provably chaotic example}
To conclude this section, let us give a very simple example where chaos can be rigorously proven without effort, only relying on the existing mathematical literature.
We consider again three candidates $\mathscr{C} = \{a,b,c\}$ and three voter types:
\begin{align*}
Z &: abc \quad 2 & Y &: b(ac) \quad 3.5 & X &: c(ab) \quad 4.5
\end{align*}
Voters of type $Y$ always cast the ballot $\{b\}$, and voters of type $X$ always cast the ballot $\{c\}$. Here $b$ is a Condorcet winner, while $c$ and $a$ are consensual losers. Let $z$ be the proportion of voters of type $Z$ ``collaborating'', i.e. casting the ballot $\{a,b\}$, the $1-z$ remaining fraction casting the ballot $\{a\}$. The state space is reduced to an interval, $\mathscr{S}=[0,1]$ with coordinate $z$.
We take the same model as in Section \ref{s:chaos-example} for the behavior of voters of type $Z$, but with a higher reluctance to cooperate:
\[g_Z(z,(V_a,V_b,V_c)) = C\circ S(V_a,V_b,V_c) \quad C(t) = (1+10t)_+,
\quad S(V_a,V_b,V_c) = \lvert V_b-V_c\rvert\]
where $S$ is written that way to simplify, since candidate $a$ will be last for all values of $(V_a,V_b,V_c)$ that can be obtained for any $z$. Given $z$, the outcome is given by $V_b=(3.5+2z)/10$ and $V_c=0.45$, so that $\lvert V_b-V_c\rvert = \frac{1}{10}\lvert 2z-1\rvert$; this yields the following CPD:
\[\Phi(z) = \begin{cases}
2z &\text{when }z\le\frac12 \\
2-2z &\text{when }z\ge\frac12
\end{cases}\]
This is the well-known \emph{tent map}, which is an archetype of chaotic map. In particular, it has entropy $h_\mathrm{top}(\Phi) = \log 2$ (see e.g. \cite{katok1995modern} page 499); moreover, the \emph{Lebesgue measure} $\mathrm{Leb}$ is invariant for $\Phi$, ergodic and of maximal entropy: $h_\mathrm{KS}(\Phi,\mathrm{Leb}) = \log 2$. As a consequence, for almost all $z$ (in the sense of Lebesgue measure), the winners word also have $h_\mathrm{KS}(\omega(z))=\log 2$, and the orbit of $z$ is everywhere dense in $[0,1]$. Using other invariant measures, for example ``Bernoulli measures'', one can show that for any value $h\in[0,2]$ there are uncountably many $z$ such that $h_\mathrm{KS}(\omega(z))=h$, but all these $z$ form together a negligible set (let us recall that a subset of $\mathbb{R}$ is \emph{negligible} when for all $\varepsilon$, there exist a countable family of intervals whose union contains the subset, and whose sum of lengths is lesser than $\varepsilon$; this is to be interpreted as any continuous random variable taking value outside the subset with probability $1$).
\section{Conclusion}\label{s:conclusion}
We have considered the synchronized iterated Approval Voting, assuming voters apply \emph{simple, consistent, sincere} strategies. This ``Polling Dynamics'' can be thought of as a model of strategic voting, when voters try to anticipate the outcome of the election to decide their votes, or as a (crude) model of actual polls before an election.
In this context, we exhibited two examples showing that Approval Voting is far less of a Condorcet-in-practice voting system than could have been expected; specifically, we showed that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item assuming voters apply Laslier's Leader Rule, successive polls can lead from a majority of initial expected outcomes to a cycle failing to elect an existing Condorcet winner,
\item letting voters have only slightly more general strategies, successive polls can lead to the election of a consensual loser,
\item these bad cycles are quite uncommon under the Leader Rule, but can represent up to $15\,\%$ (or more with enough candidates) of simulated electorate having a Condorcet Winner when ties in preferences are allowed, in particular showing that in certain circumstances some voters' best course of action is \emph{not} to follow the Leader Rule.
\end{enumerate}
This shows that under Approval Voting, not only convergence to equilibrium may not happen, but cycles can turn individually sound strategies into sub-optimal collective strategies, possibly leading to the worst possible outcome.
We proved that these cycles are stable under natural perturbations: even assuming only a proportion of voters adjust their ballots at each iteration, and assuming different strategies in case of almost ties, similar cycles persist. To define these perturbations, we introduced the notion of \emph{Continuous Polling Dynamics} (CPD), which opens new directions of study. We illustrated the possibilities of CPD by looking at the tip of the iceberg of more general models for voters' response to polls, and observed that even simple, innocent-looking models easily produce chaotic dynamics.
There are many directions in which these results can be extended. First, one would be interested in studying other voting methods; the sincerity hypothesis will have to be relaxed in situation where it excludes strategic voting. One could also deepen the analysis of prevalence of bad cycle to more ``cultures'', i.e. models of voter's preferences. Then, the Continuous Polling Dynamics can be studied for various models of Voter's strategies, trying to better understand what features of a model lead to predictable dynamics, and which lead to chaos.
It would be interesting to see if in actual elections, some light could be cast by the Continuous Polling Dynamics formalism on the sequences of poll results; a particular difficulty would be to distinguish the effect of poll's broadcasting from the other events that may have influenced voters. A recent possible example of poll's effect is the first round of the 2017 French presidential election where two candidates, Benoît Hamon and Jean-Luc Mélenchon, competed for similar parts of the electorates and a positive reinforcement could explain part of the decline of Hamon in favor of Mélenchon.
Similar dynamics could be used in other many-players games beyond the study of voting systems. The Continuous Polling Dynamics could be adapted to model generalized strategies, taking for example into account psychological factors in Voter's response to new information.
\bibliographystyle{smfalpha}
|
\section{Introduction}
It is well-known that the Sobolev's embedding theorems play the important roles in the analysis, geometry, partial differential equations, etc. Let $m\geq 1$, we we traditionally use the notation
\[
\na^m = \begin{cases}
\Delta^{\frac m2} &\mbox{if $m$ is even,}\\
\na \Delta^{\frac{m-1}2} &\mbox{if $m$ is odd}
\end{cases}
\]
to denote the $m-$th derivatives. For a bounded domain $\Om\subset \R^n, n\geq 2$ and $1\leq p \leqs \infty$, we denote by $W^{m,p}_0(\Om)$ the usual Sobolev spaces which is the completion of $C_0^\infty(\Om)$ under the Dirichlet norm $\|\na^m u\|_{L^p(\Om)} = \Big(\int_\Om |\na^m u|^p dx \Big)^{\frac1p}$. The Sobolev inequality asserts that $W^{m,p}_0(\Om) \hookrightarrow L^q(\Om)$ for any $q \leq \frac{np}{n-mp}$ provided $mp \leqs n$. However, in the limits case $mp = n$ the embedding $W^{m,\frac nm}_0(\Om) \hookrightarrow L^\infty(\Om)$ fails. In this situation, the Moser--Trudinger inequality and Adams inequality are perfect replacements. The Moser--Trudinger inequality was proved independently by Yudovic \cite{Yudovic1961}, Pohozaev \cite{Pohozaev1965} and Trudinger \cite{Trudinger67}. This inequality was then sharpened by Moser \cite{Moser70} in the following form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Moserineq}
\sup_{u\in W^{1,n}_0(\Om), \|\nabla u\|_{L^n(\Om)} \leq 1} \int_\Om e^{\alpha |u|^{\frac n{n-1}}} dx \leqs \infty
\end{equation}
for any $\al \leq \al_{n}: = n \om_{n-1}^{\frac 1{n-1}}$ where $\om_{n-1}$ denotes the surface area of the unit sphere in $\R^n$. Furthermore, the inequality \eqref{eq:Moserineq} is sharp in the sense that the supremum in \eqref{eq:Moserineq} will be infinite if $\al \geqs \al_n$. The inequality \eqref{eq:Moserineq} was generalized to higher order Sobolev spaces $W^{m,\frac nm}_0(\Om)$ by Adams \cite{Adams} in the following form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:AMT}
\sup_{u \in W^{m,n}_0(\Om), \, \int_\Om |\na^m u|^{\frac nm} dx \leq 1} \int_\Om e^{\al |u|^{\frac n{n-m}}} dx \leqs \infty,
\end{equation}
for any
\[
\al \leq \al_{n,m}: = \begin{cases}
\frac 1{\si_n}\Big(\frac{\pi^{n/2} 2^m \Gamma(\frac m2)}{\Gamma(\frac{n-m}2)}\Big)^{\frac n{n-m}} &\mbox{if $m$ is even},\\
\frac 1{\si_n}\Big(\frac{\pi^{n/2} 2^m \Gamma(\frac {m+1}2)}{\Gamma(\frac{n-m+1}2)}\Big)^{\frac n{n-m}} &\mbox{if $m$ is odd},
\end{cases}
\]
where $\si_n = \om_{n-1}/n$ is the volume of the unit ball in $\R^n$. Moreover, if $\al \geqs \al_{n,m}$ then the supremum in \eqref{eq:AMT} becomes infinite though all integrals are still finite.
The Moser-Trudinger inequality \eqref{eq:Moserineq} and Adams inequality \eqref{eq:AMT} play the role of the Sobolev embedding theorems in the limiting case $mp = n$. They have many applications to study the problems in analysis, geometry, partial differential equations, etc such as the Yamabe's equation, the $Q-$curvature equations, especially the problems in partial differential equations with exponential nonlinearity, etc. There have been many generalizations of the Moser--Trudinger inequality and Adams inequality in literature. For examples, the Moser--Trudinger inequality and Adams inequality were established in the Riemannian manifolds in \cite{YangSuKong,ManciniSandeep2010,AdimurthiTintarev2010,ManciniSandeepTintarev2013,Bertrand,Karmakar,LuTang2013,DongYang} and were established in the subRiemannian manifolds in \cite{CohnLu,CohnLu1,Balogh}. The singular version of the Moser--Trudinger inequality and Adams inequality was proved in \cite{AdimurthiSandeep2007,LamLusingular}. The Moser--Trudinger inequality and Adams inequality were extended to unbounded domains and whole spaces in \cite{Ruf2005,LiRuf2008,RufSani,AdimurthiYang2010,LamLuHei,Adachi00,LamLuAdams,LamLunew}, and to fractional order Sobolev spaces in \cite{Martinazzi,FM1,FM2}. The improved version of the Moser--Trudinger inequality and Adams inequality were given in \cite{AdimurthiDruet2004,Tintarev2014,WangYe2012,Nguyenimproved,LuYangAiM,Nguyen4,delaTorre,Mancini,Yangjfa,DOO,NguyenCCM,LuZhu,LuYangHA,LiLuYang}. An interesting question concerning to the Moser--Trudinger inequality and Adams inequality is whether or not the extremal functions exist. For this interesting topic, the reader may consult the papers \cite{Carleson86,Flucher92,Lin96,Ruf2005,LiRuf2008,Chen,LiYang,LuZhu,NguyenCCM,LuYangAiM,Nguyen4} and many other papers.
Another generalization of the Moser--Trudinger inequality and Adams inequality is to establish the inequalities of same type in the Lorentz--Sobolev spaces. The Moser--Trudinger inequality and the Adams inequality in the Lorentz spaces was established by Alvino, Ferone and Trombetti \cite{Alvino1996} and Alberico \cite{Alberico} in the following form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:AMTLorentz}
\sup_{u\in W^m L^{\frac nm,q}(\Om), \, \|\na^m u\|_{\frac nm,q} \leq 1} \int_{\Om} e^{\al |u|^{\frac q{q-1}}} dx < \infty
\end{equation}
for any $\al \leq \beta_{n,m}^{\frac q{q-1}}$ with
\begin{equation*
\beta_{n,m} =
\begin{cases}
\frac{\pi^{n/2} 2^m \Gamma(\frac m2)}{\si_n^{(n-m)/n} \Gamma(\frac{n-m}2)}&\mbox{if $m$ is even,}\\
\frac{\pi^{n/2} 2^m \Gamma(\frac {m+1}2)}{\si_n^{(n-m)/n} \Gamma(\frac{n-m+1}n)}&\mbox{if $m$ is odd.}
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
The constant $\beta_{n,m}$ is sharp in \eqref{eq:AMTLorentz} in the sense that the supremum will become infinite if $\al > \beta_{n,m}^{\frac q{q-1}}$. For unbounded domains in $\R^n$, the Moser--Trudinger inequality was proved by Cassani and Tarsi \cite{CassaniTarsi2009} (see Theorem $1$ and Theorem $2$ in \cite{CassaniTarsi2009}). In \cite{LuTang2016}, Lu and Tang proved several sharp singular Moser--Trudinger inequalities in the Lorentz--Sobolev spaces which generalize the results in \cite{Alvino1996,CassaniTarsi2009} to the singular weights. The singular Adams type inequalities in the Lorentz--Sobolev spaces were studied by the author in \cite{NguyenLorentz}.
The motivation of this paper is to study the Adams inequalities in the hyperbolic spaces under the Lorentz--Sobolev norm. For $n\geq 2$, let us denote by $\H^n$ the hyperbolic space of dimension $n$, i.e., a complete, simply connected, $n-$dimensional Riemmanian manifold having constant sectional curvature $-1$. The aim in this paper is to generalize the main results obtained by the author in \cite{Nguyen2020a} to the higher order Lorentz--Sobolev spaces in $\H^n$. Before stating our results, let us fix some notation. Let $V_g, \na_g$ and $\Delta_g$ denote the volume element, the hyperbolic gradient and the Laplace--Beltrami operator in $\H^n$ with respect to the metric $g$ respectively. For higher order derivatives, we shall adopt the following convention
\[
\na_g^m \cdot = \begin{cases}
\Delta_g^{\frac m2} \cdot &\mbox{if $m$ is even,}\\
\na_g (\Delta_g^{\frac{m-1}2} \cdot) &\mbox{if $m$ is odd.}
\end{cases}
\]
Furthermore, for simplicity, we write $|\na^m_g \cdot|$ instead of $|\na_g^m \cdot|_g$ when $m$ is odd if no confusion occurs. For $1\leq p, q\leqs \infty$, we denote by $L^{p,q}(\H^n)$ the Lorentz space in $\H^n$ and by $\|\cdot\|_{p,q}$ the Lorentz quasi-norm in $L^{p,q}(\H^n)$. When $p=q$, $\|\cdot\|_{p,p}$ is replaced by $\|\cdot\|_p$ the Lebesgue $L_p-$norm in $\H^n$, i.e., $\|f\|_p = (\int_{\H^n} |f|^p dV_g)^{\frac1p}$ for a measurable function $f$ on $\H^n$. The Lorentz--Sobolev space $W^m L^{p,q}(\H^n)$ is defined as the completion of $C_0^\infty(\H^n)$ under the Lorentz quasi-norm $\|\na_g^m u\|_{p,q}:=\| |\na_g^m u| \|_{p,q}$. In \cite{Nguyen2020a,Nguyen2020b}, the author proved the following Poincar\'e inequality in $W^1 L^{p,q}(\H^n)$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Poincare}
\|\na_g^m u\|_{p,q}^q \geq C(n,m,p)^q \|u\|_{p,q}^q,\quad\forall\, u\in W^m L^{p,q}(\H^n).
\end{equation}
provided $1\leqs q \leq p$ if $m$ is odd and for any $1\leqs q \leqs \infty$ if $m$ is even, where
\begin{equation*}
C(n,m,p) = \begin{cases}
(\frac{(n-1)^2}{pp'})^{\frac m2} &\mbox{if $m$ is even,}\\
\frac {n-1}p (\frac{(n-1)^2}{pp'})^{\frac {m-1}2}&\mbox{if $m$ is odd,}
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
with $p' = p/(p-1)$. Furthermore, the constant $C(n,m,p)^q$ in \eqref{eq:Poincare} is the best possible and is never attained. The inequality \eqref{eq:Poincare} generalizes the result in \cite{NgoNguyenAMV} to the setting of Lorentz--Sobolev space.
The Moser--Trudinger inequality in the hyperbolic spaces was firstly proved by Mancini and Sandeep \cite{ManciniSandeep2010} in the dimension $n =2$ (another proof of this result was given by Adimurthi and Tintarev \cite{AdimurthiTintarev2010}) and by Mancini, Sandeep and Tintarev \cite{ManciniSandeepTintarev2013} in higher dimension $n\geq 3$ (see \cite{FontanaMorpurgo2020} for an alternative proof)
\begin{equation}\label{eq:MThyperbolic}
\sup_{u\in W^{1,n}(\H^n),\, \int_{\H^n} |\na_g u|_g^n dV_g \leq 1} \int_{\H^n} \Phi(\al_n |u|^{\frac n{n-1}}) dV_g < \infty,
\end{equation}
where $\Phi(t) = e^t -\sum_{j=0}^{n-2} \frac{t^j}{j!}$. Lu and Tang \cite{LuTang2013} also established the sharp singular Moser--Trudinger inequality under the conditions $\|\na u\|_{L^n(\H^n)}^n + \tau \|u\|_{L^n(\H^n)}^n \leq 1$ for any $\tau >0$ (see Theorem $1.4$ in \cite{LuTang2013}). In \cite{NguyenMT2018}, the author improves the inequality \eqref{eq:MThyperbolic} by proving the following inequality
\begin{equation}\label{eq:NguyenMT}
\sup_{u\in W^{1,n}(\H^n),\, \int_{\H^n} |\na_g u|_g^n dV_g - \lam \int_{\H^n} |u|^n dV_g \leq 1} \int_{\H^n} \Phi(\al_n |u|^{\frac n{n-1}}) dV_g < \infty,
\end{equation}
for any $\lambda < (\frac{n-1}n)^n$. The Adams inequality in the hyperbolic spaces were proved by Karmakar and Sandeep \cite{Karmakar} in the following form
\begin{equation*
\sup_{u\in C_0^\infty(\H^{2n} \int_{\H^{2n}} P_nu \cdot u dV_g \leq 1} \int_{\H^{2n}} \Big(e^{ \al_{2n,n} u^2} -1\Big) dV_g < \infty.
\end{equation*}
where $P_k$ is the GJMS operator on the hyperbolic spaces $\H^{2n}$, i.e., $P_1 = -\Delta_g -n(n-1)$ and
\[
P_k = P_1(P_1+2)\cdots (P_1 + k(k-1)),\quad k\geq 2.
\]
In recent paper, Fontana and Morpurgo \cite{FM2} established the following Adams inequality in the hyperbolic spaces $\H^n$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:FM}
\sup_{u\in W^{m,\frac nm}(\H^n), \int_{\H^n} |\na_g^m u|^{\frac nm} dV_g \leq 1} \int_{\H^n} \Phi_{\frac nm}(\al_{n,m} |u|^{\frac n{n-m}}) dV_g < \infty
\end{equation}
where
\[
\Phi_{\frac nm}(t) = e^{t} -\sum_{j=0}^{j_{\frac nm} -2} \frac{t^j}{j!}, \quad\text{\rm and }\quad j_{\frac nm} = \min\{j\, :\, j \geq \frac nm\} \geq \frac nm.
\]
In \cite{NgoNguyenRMI}, Ngo and the author proved several Adams type inequalities in the hyperbolic spaces.
To our knowledge, much less is known about the Trudinger--Moser inequality and Adams inequality under the Lorentz--Sobolev norm on complete noncompact Riemannian manifolds except Euclidean spaces. Recently, Yang and Li \cite{YangLi2019} proves a sharp Moser--Trudinger inequality in the Lorentz--Sobolev spaces defined in the hyperbolic spaces. More precisely, their result (\cite[Theorem $1.6$]{YangLi2019}) states that for $1\leqs q \leqs \infty$ it holds
\begin{equation*
\sup_{u\in W^1L^{n,q}(\H^n),\, \|\na_g u\|_{n,q} \leq 1} \int_{\H^n} \Phi_{n,q}(\al_{n,q} |u|^{\frac q{q-1}}) dV_g \leqs \infty,
\end{equation*}
where
\[
\Phi_{a,q}(t) =e^t - \sum_{j=0}^{j_{a,q} -2} \frac{t^j}{j!},\quad \text{\rm where}\,\, j_{a,q} = \min\{j\in \N\, :\, j \geqs 1+ a(q-1)/q\},
\]
with $a \geqs 1$.
The first aim in this paper is to establish the sharp Adams inequality in the hyperbolic spaces under the Lorentz--Sobolev norm which generalize the result of Yang and Li to higher order derivatives. Our fist result in this paper reads as follows.
\begin{theorem}\label{MAINI}
Let $n\geqs m \geq 2$ and $q \in (1,\infty)$. Then it holds
\begin{equation}\label{eq:AdamsLorentz}
\sup_{u\in W^mL^{\frac nm,q}(\H^n),\, \|\na_g^m u\|_{\frac nm,q}\leq 1} \int_{\H^n} \Phi_{\frac nm,q}\big(\beta_{n,m}^{\frac q{q-1}} |u|^{\frac q{q-1}}\big) dV_g \leqs \infty,
\end{equation}
for any $q \in (1,\infty)$ if $m$ is even, or $1\leqs q \leq \frac nm$ if $m$ is odd. Futhermore, the constant $\beta_{n,m}^{\frac q{q-1}}$ is sharp in the sense that the supremum in \eqref{eq:AdamsLorentz} will become infinite if $\beta_{n,m}^{\frac q{q-1}}$ is replaced by any larger constant.
\end{theorem}
Let us make some comments on Theorem \ref{MAINI}. When $q =\frac nm$, we obtain the inequality \eqref{eq:FM} of Fontana and Morpurgo from Theorem \ref{MAINI}. However, our approach is completely different with the one of Fontana and Morpurgo. Notice that in the case that $m$ is odd, we need an extra assumption Notice $q \leq \frac nm$ comparing with case that $m$ is even. This extra condition is a technical condition in our approach for which we can apply the P\'olya--Szeg\"o principle in the hyperbolic space (see Theorem \ref{PS} below). This principle was proved by the author in \cite{Nguyen2020a} which generalizes the classical P\'olya--Szeg\"o principle in Euclidean space to the hyperbolic space. Note that when $m=1$, the extra condition is not need by the result of Yang and Li \cite{YangLi2019}. The approach of Yang and Li is based on an representation formula for function via Green's function of the Laplace-Beltrami $-\Delta_g$ (similar with the one of Fontana and Morpurgo \cite{FM2}). Hence, we believe that the extra condition $q \leq \frac nm$ is superfluous when $m > 1$ is odd. One reasonable approach is to follow the one of Fontana and Morpurgo by using the representation formulas and estimates in \cite[Section $5$]{FM2}. This problem is left for interesting reader.
Next, we aim to improve the Lorentz--Adams inequality in Theorem \ref{MAINI} in spirit of \eqref{eq:NguyenMT}. In the case $m=1$, an analogue of \eqref{eq:NguyenMT} under Lorentz--Sobolev norm was obtained by the author in \cite[Theorem $1.3$]{Nguyen2020a}. The result for $m > 1$ is given in the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}\label{MAINII}
Let $n > m\geq 2$ and $q \geq \frac{2n}{n-1}$. Suppose in addition that $q \leq \frac nm$ if $m$ is odd. Then we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:improvedAL}
\sup_{u\in W^mL^{\frac nm,q}(\H^n),\, \|\na_g^m u\|_{\frac nm,q}^q -\lam \|u\|_{\frac nm,q}^q \leq 1} \int_{\H^n} \Phi_{\frac nm,q}\big(\beta_{n,m}^{\frac q{q-1}} |u|^{\frac q{q-1}}\big) dV_g \leqs \infty.
\end{equation}
for any $ \lam \leqs C(n,m,\frac nm)^q$.
\end{theorem}
Obviously, Theorem \ref{MAINII} is stronger than Theorem \ref{MAINI}. The extra condition $q \geq \frac{2n}{n-1}$ in Theorem \ref{MAINII} is to apply a crucial point-wise estimate in \cite[Lemma $2.1$]{NguyenPS2018}. Theorem \ref{MAINII} is proved by using iteration method and some estimates in \cite{Nguyen2020b} which we will recall in Section \S2 below.
The Hardy--Moser--Trudinger inequality was proved by Wang and Ye (see \cite{WangYe2012}) in dimension $2$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:WangYe}
\sup_{u \in W^{1,2}_0(\B^2), \int_{\B^2} |\na u|^2 dx - \int_{\B^2} \frac{u^2}{(1-|x|^2)^2} dx \leq 1} \int_{\B^2} e^{4\pi u^2} dx < \infty.
\end{equation}
The inequality \eqref{eq:WangYe} is stronger than the classical Moser--Trudinger inequality in $\B^2$. It connects both the sharp Moser--Trudinger inequality in $\B^2$ and the sharp Hardy inequality in $\B^2$
\[
\int_{\B^2} |\na u|^2 dx \geq \int_{\B^2} \frac{u^2}{(1-|x|^2)^2} dx, \quad u \in W^{1,2}_0(\B^2).
\]
The higher dimensional version of \eqref{eq:WangYe} was recently established by the author \cite{NguyenHMT}
\[
\sup_{u \in W^{1,n}_0(\B^n), \int_{\B^n} |\na u|^n dx - \lt(\frac{2(n-1)}n\rt)^n\int_{\B^n} \frac{|u|^n}{(1-|x|^2)^n} dx \leq 1} \int_{\B^2} e^{\al_n |u|^{\frac n{n-1}}} dx < \infty.
\]
For higher order derivatives, the sharp Hardy--Adams inequality was proved by Lu and Yang \cite{LuYangHA} in dimension $4$ and by Li, Lu and Yang \cite{LiLuYang} in any even dimension. The approach in \cite{LuYangHA,LiLuYang} relies heavily on the Hilbertian structure of the space $W^{\frac n2,2}_0(\B^n)$ with $n$ even for which the Fourier analysis in the hyperbolic spaces can be applied. Our next motivation in this paper is to establish the sharp Hardy--Adams inequality in any dimension. Our next result reads as follows.
\begin{theorem}\label{HARDYADAMS}
Let $m \geq 3$, $n \geq 2m+1$ and $q \geq \frac{2n}{n-1}$. Suppose in addition that $q \leq \frac nm$ if $m$ is odd. Then it holds
\begin{equation}\label{eq:HAineq}
\sup_{u\in W^mL^{\frac nm,q}(\H^n),\, \|\na_g^m u\|_{\frac nm,q}^q -C(n,m,\frac nm)^q \|u\|_{\frac nm,q}^q \leq 1} \int_{\B^n} \exp\big(\beta_{n,m}^{\frac q{q-1}} |u|^{\frac q{q-1}}\big) dx \leqs \infty.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
Notice that the condition $m \geq 3$ is crucial in our approach. Indeed, under this condition we can make some estimates for $\|\na_g^m u\|_{\frac nm,q}^q -C(n,m,\frac nm)^q \|u\|_{\frac nm,q}^q$ for which we can apply the results from Theorem \ref{MAINI} and Theorem \ref{MAINII}. We do not know an analogue of \eqref{eq:HAineq} when $m=2$. When $q = \frac nm$, we obtain the following Hardy--Adams inequality
\begin{equation*
\sup_{u\in W^{m,\frac nm}_0(\H^n),\, \int_{\H^n} |\na_g^m u|^{\frac nm} dV_g -C(n,m,\frac nm)^{\frac nm} \int_{\H^n} |u|^{\frac nm} dV_g \leq 1} \int_{\B^n} \exp\big(\al_{n,m} |u|^{\frac n{n-m}}\big) dx \leqs \infty.
\end{equation*}
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section \S2, we recall some facts on the hyperbolic spaces, the non-increasing rearrangement argument in the hyperbolic spaces and some important results from \cite{Nguyen2020b} which are used in the proof of Theorem \ref{MAINII} and Theorem \ref{HARDYADAMS}. The proof of Theorem \ref{MAINI} is given in Section \S3. Section \S4 is devoted to prove Theorem \ref{MAINII}. Finally, in Section \S5 we provide the proof of Theorem \ref{HARDYADAMS}.
\section{Preliminaries}
We start this section by briefly recalling some basis facts on the hyperbolic spaces and the Lorentz--Sobolev space defined in the hyperbolic spaces. Let $n\geq 2$, a hyperbolic space of dimension $n$ (denoted by $\H^n$) is a complete , simply connected Riemannian manifold having constant sectional curvature $-1$. There are several models for the hyperbolic space $\H^n$ such as the half-space model, the hyperboloid (or Lorentz) model and the Poincar\'e ball model. Notice that all these models are Riemannian isometry. In this paper, we are interested in the Poincar\'e ball model of the hyperbolic space since this model is very useful for questions involving rotational symmetry. In the Poincar\'e ball model, the hyperbolic space $\H^n$ is the open unit ball $B_n\subset \R^n$ equipped with the Riemannian metric
\[
g(x) = \Big(\frac2{1- |x|^2}\Big)^2 dx \otimes dx.
\]
The volume element of $\H^n$ with respect to the metric $g$ is given by
\[
dV_g(x) = \Big(\frac 2{1 -|x|^2}\Big)^n dx,
\]
where $dx$ is the usual Lebesgue measure in $\R^n$. For $x \in B_n$, let $d(0,x)$ denote the geodesic distance between $x$ and the origin, then we have $d(0,x) = \ln (1+|x|)/(1 -|x|)$. For $\rho \geqs 0$, $B(0,\rho)$ denote the geodesic ball with center at origin and radius $\rho$. If we denote by $\na$ and $\Delta$ the Euclidean gradient and Euclidean Laplacian, respectively as well as $\la \cdot, \cdot\ra$ the standard scalar product in $\R^n$, then the hyperbolic gradient $\na_g$ and the Laplace--Beltrami operator $\Delta_g$ in $\H^n$ with respect to metric $g$ are given by
\[
\na_g = \Big(\frac{1 -|x|^2}2\Big)^2 \na,\quad \Delta_g = \Big(\frac{1 -|x|^2}2\Big)^2 \Delta + (n-2) \Big(\frac{1 -|x|^2}2\Big)\la x, \na \ra,
\]
respectively. For a function $u$, we shall denote $\sqrt{g(\na_g u, \na_g u)}$ by $|\na_g u|_g$ for simplifying the notation. Finally, for a radial function $u$ (i.e., the function depends only on $d(0,x)$) we have the following polar coordinate formula
\begin{equation*}
\int_{\H^n} u(x) dx = n \sigma_n \int_0^\infty u(\rho) \sinh^{n-1}(\rho)\, d\rho.
\end{equation*}
It is now known that the symmetrization argument works well in the setting of the hyperbolic. It is the key tool in the proof of several important inequalities such as the Poincar\'e inequality, the Sobolev inequality, the Moser--Trudinger inequality in $\H^n$. We shall see that this argument is also the key tool to establish the main results in the present paper. Let us recall some facts about the rearrangement argument in the hyperbolic space $\H^n$. A measurable function $u:\H^n \to \R$ is called vanishing at the infinity if for any $t >0$ the set $\{|u| > t\}$ has finite $V_g-$measure, i.e.,
\[
V_g(\{|u|> t\}) = \int_{\{|u|> t\}} dV_g < \infty.
\]
For such a function $u$, its distribution function is defined by
\[
\mu_u(t) = V_g( \{|u|> t\}).
\]
Notice that $t \to \mu_u(t)$ is non-increasing and right-continuous. The non-increasing rearrangement function $u^*$ of $u$ is defined by
\[
u^*(t) = \sup\{s > 0\, :\, \mu_u(s) > t\}.
\]
The non-increasing, spherical symmetry, rearrangement function $u^\sharp$ of $u$ is defined by
\[
u^\sharp(x) = u^*(V_g(B(0,d(0,x)))),\quad x \in \H^n.
\]
It is well-known that $u$ and $u^\sharp$ have the same non-increasing rearrangement function (which is $u^*$). Finally, the maximal function $u^{**}$ of $u^*$ is defined by
\[
u^{**}(t) = \frac1t \int_0^t u^*(s) ds.
\]
Evidently, $u^*(t) \leq u^{**}(t)$.
For $1\leq p, q < \infty$, the Lorentz space $L^{p,q}(\H^n)$ is defined as the set of all measurable function $u: \H^n \to \R$ satisfying
\[
\|u\|_{L^{p,q}(\H^n)}: = \lt(\int_0^\infty \lt(t^{\frac1p} u^*(t)\rt)^q \frac{dt}t\rt)^{\frac1q} < \infty.
\]
It is clear that $L^{p,p}(\H^n) = L^p(\H^n)$. Moreover, the Lorentz spaces are monotone with respect to second exponent, namely
\[
L^{p,q_1}(\H^n) \subsetneq L^{p,q_2}(\H^n),\quad 1\leq q_1 < q_2 < \infty.
\]
The functional $ u\to \|u\|_{L^{p,q}(\H^n)}$ is not a norm in $L^{p,q}(\H^n)$ except the case $q \leq p$ (see \cite[Chapter $4$, Theorem $4.3$]{Bennett}). In general, it is a quasi-norm which turns out to be equivalent to the norm obtained replacing $u^*$ by its maximal function $u^{**}$ in the definition of $\|\cdot\|_{L^{p,q}(\H^n)}$. Moreover, as a consequence of Hardy inequality, we have
\begin{proposition
Given $p\in (1,\infty)$ and $q \in [1,\infty)$. Then for any function $u \in L^{p,q}(\H^n)$ it holds
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Hardy}
\lt(\int_0^\infty \lt(t^{\frac1p} u^{**}(t)\rt)^q \frac{dt}t\rt)^{\frac1q} \leq \frac p{p-1} \lt(\int_0^\infty \lt(t^{\frac1p} u^*(t)\rt)^q \frac{dt}t\rt)^{\frac1q} = \frac p{p-1} \|u\|_{L^{p,q}(\H^n)}.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
For $1\leq p, q \leqs \infty$ and an integer $m\geq 1$, we define the $m-$th order Lorentz--Sobolev space $W^mL^{p,q}(\H^n)$ by taking the completion of $C_0^\infty(\H^n)$ under the quasi-norm
\[
\|\na_g^m u\|_{p,q} := \| |\na_g^m u|\|_{p,q}.
\]
It is obvious that $W^mL^{p,p}(\H^n) = W^{m,p}(\H^n)$ the $m-$th order Sobolev space in $\H^n$. In \cite{Nguyen2020a}, the author established the following P\'olya--Szeg\"o principle in the first order Lorenz--Sobolev spaces $W^1L^{p,q}(\H^n)$ which generalizes the classical P\'olya--Szeg\"o principle in the hyperbolic space.
\begin{theorem}\label{PS}
Let $n\geq 2$, $1\leq q \leq p \leqs \infty$ and $u\in W^{1}L^{p,q}(\H^n)$. Then $u^\sharp \in W^{1}L^{p,q}(\H^n)$ and
$$\|\na_g u^\sharp\|_{p,q} \leq \|\na_g u\|_{p,q}.$$
\end{theorem}
For $r \geq 0$, define
\[
\Phi(r) = n \int_0^r \sinh^{n-1}(s) ds, \quad r\geq 0,
\]
and let $F$ be the function such that
\[
r = n \si_n \int_0^{F(r)} \sinh^{n-1}(s) ds, \quad r\geq 0,
\]
i.e., $F(r) = \Phi^{-1}(r/\si_n)$.
The following results was proved in \cite{Nguyen2020b} (see the Section \S2).
\begin{proposition
Let $n \geq 2$. Then it holds
\begin{equation}\label{eq:keyyeu}
\sinh^{n}(F(t)) \geqs \frac t{\si_n},\quad t\geqs 0.
\end{equation}
Furthermore, the function
\[
\vphi(t) =\frac{t}{\sinh^{n-1}(F(t))}
\]
is strictly increasing on $(0,\infty)$, and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:keyyeu*}
\lim_{t\to \infty} \varphi(t) = \frac{n \si_n}{n-1} > \frac{t}{\sinh^{n-1}(F(t))},\quad t >0.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
It should be remark that under an extra condition $q \geq \frac{2n}{n-1}$, a stronger estimate which combines both \eqref{eq:keyyeu} and \eqref{eq:keyyeu*} was established by the author in \cite[Lemma $2.1$]{Nguyen2020a} that
\begin{equation*
\sinh^{q(n-1)}(F(t)) \geq \lt(\frac t{\si_n}\rt)^{q \frac{n-1}n} + \lt(\frac{n-1}n\rt)^q \lt(\frac t{\si_n}\rt)^q,\quad t \geqs 0.
\end{equation*}
Let $u \in C_0^\infty(\H^n)$ and $f = -\Delta_g u$. It was proved by Ngo and the author (see \cite[Proposition $2.2$]{NgoNguyenAMV}) that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:NgoNguyen}
u^*(t) \leq v(t):= \int_t^\infty \frac{s f^{**}(s)}{(n \si_n \sinh^{n-1}(F(s)))^2} ds,\quad t\geqs 0.
\end{equation}
The following results which were proved in \cite{Nguyen2020b,Nguyen2020a} play the important role in the proof of our main results,
\begin{proposition}\label{L1}
Let $p\in (1,n)$ and $\frac{2n}{n-1} \leq q \leq p$. Then we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:improvedLS1a}
\|\na_g u\|_{p,q}^q - \lt(\frac{n-1}p\rt)^q \|u\|_{p,q}^q \geq \lt(\frac{n-p}p \si_n^{\frac1n}\rt)^q \|u\|_{p^*,q}^q,\quad u\in C_0^\infty(\H^n)
\end{equation}
where $p' = p/(p-1)$,
\end{proposition}
and
\begin{proposition}\label{L2}
Let $n\geq 2$, $p \in (1,n)$ and $q \in (1,\infty)$.
If $p \in (1,\frac n2)$ then it holds
\begin{equation}\label{eq:LSorder2}
\|\Delta_g u\|_{p,q}^q \geq \lt(\frac{n(n-2p)}{p p'} \si_n^{\frac 2n}\rt)^q \|u\|_{p_2^*,q}^q.
\end{equation}
If $p\in (1,n)$ and $q \geq \frac{2n}{n-1}$ then we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:improvedLS2}
\|\Delta_g u\|_{p,q}^q - C(n,2,p)^q \|u\|_{p,q}^q \geq \lt(\frac{n^2 \si_n^{\frac2n}}{p'}\rt)^q \int_0^\infty |v'(t)|^q t^{q(\frac1p -\frac2n) + q -1} dt.
\end{equation}
Furthermore, if $p\in (1,\frac n2)$ and $q \geq \frac{2n}{n-1}$ and $\frac{2n}{n-1} \leq q \leq p$ then we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:improvedLS2a}
\|\Delta_g u\|_{p,q}^q - C(n,2,p)^q \|u\|_{p,q}^q \geq \lt(\frac{n(n-2p)}{p p'} \si_n^{\frac 2n}\rt)^q \|u\|_{p_2^*,q}^q,\quad u \in C_0^\infty(\H^n).
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
Proposition \ref{L1} follows from \cite[Theorem $1.2$]{Nguyen2020a} while Proposition \ref{L2} follows from Theorem $2.8$ in \cite{Nguyen2020b}.
\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{MAINI}}
In this section, we prove Theorem \ref{MAINI}. The main point is the proof of the case $m=2$. For the case $m\geq 3$, the proof is based on the iteration argument by using the inequalities \eqref{eq:LSorder2} and \eqref{eq:Sob} below.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{MAINI}]
We divide the proof of \eqref{eq:AdamsLorentz} into three following cases:\\
\emph{Case 1: $m =2$.} It is enough to consider $u \in C_0^\infty(\H^n)$ with $\|\Delta_g u\|_{\frac n2,q} \leq 1$. Denote $f = -\Delta_g u$ and define $v$ by \eqref{eq:NgoNguyen}, then we have $u^* \leq v$. By \cite[Theorem $1.1$]{Nguyen2020b} , we have $\|u\|_{\frac n2,q}^q \leq C$. Here and in the sequel, we denote by $C$ a generic constant which does not depend on $u$ and whose value maybe changes on each line. For any $t\geqs 0$, we have
\[
\frac n{2q} u^*(t)^q t^{\frac{2q}n} \leq \int_0^t u^*(s)^q s^{\frac{2q}n-1} ds \leq \|u\|_{p,q}^q \leq C,
\]
which yields $u^*(t) \leq C t^{-\frac 2n}$, $t\geqs 0$. Therefore, it is not hard to see that
\[
\Phi_{\frac n2,q}(\beta_{n,2}^{\frac q{q-1}} u^*(t)^{\frac q{q-1}}) \leq C u^*(t)^{\frac{q}{q-1} (j_{\frac n2,q} -1)} \leq C t^{-\frac 2n \frac{q}{q-1} (j_{\frac n2,q} -1)},\quad \forall\, t\geq 1.
\]
By the choice of $j_{\frac n2,q}$, we then have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:tach12}
\int_1^\infty \Phi_{\frac n2,q}(\beta_{n,2}^{\frac q{q-1}} u^*(t)^{\frac q{q-1}}) dt \leq C.
\end{equation}
On the other hand, we have
\begin{align}\label{eq:on01}
\int_0^1 \Phi_{\frac n2,q}(\beta_{n,2}^{\frac q{q-1}} u^*(t)^{\frac q{q-1}}) dt &\leq \int_0^1 \exp\Big(\beta_{n,2}^{\frac q{q-1}} u^*(t)^{\frac q{q-1}}\Big) dt \notag\\
&\leq \int_0^1 \exp\Big(\beta_{n,2}^{\frac q{q-1}} v(t)^{\frac q{q-1}}\Big) dt \notag\\
&= \int_0^\infty \exp\Big(-t + \beta_{n,2}^{\frac q{q-1}} v(e^{-t})^{\frac q{q-1}}) dt.
\end{align}
Notice that
\[
v(e^{-t}) =\int_{e^{-t}}^\infty \frac{r}{(n\si_n \sinh^{n-1}(F(r)))^2} f^{**}(r) dr = \int_{-\infty}^t \frac{e^{-2(1-\frac1n)s}}{(n\si_n \sinh^{n-1}(F(e^{-s})))^2} e^{-\frac{2}ns}f^{**}(e^{-s}) ds.
\]
Denote
\[
\phi(s) = \frac{n-2}{n} e^{-\frac 2n s} f^{**}(e^{-s}),
\]
we then have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:boundnormorder2}
\int_{\R}\phi(s)^q ds = \lt(\frac{n-2}n\rt)^q \int_0^\infty (f^{**}(t) t^{\frac2n})^q \frac{dt}t \leq 1,
\end{equation}
here we used the Hardy inequality \eqref{eq:Hardy} and $\|\Delta_g u\|_{L^{\frac n2,q}(\H^n)} \leq 1$. Define the function
\[
a(s,t) =
\begin{cases}
\be_{n,2} \frac{n}{n-2} \frac{e^{-2(1-\frac1n)s}}{(n\si_n \sinh^{n-1}(F(e^{-s})))^2} &\mbox{if $s \leq t$,}\\
0&\mbox{if $s > t$.}
\end{cases}
\]
Using the inequality $\si_n \sinh^n(F(r)) \geq r$, we have for $0 \leq s \leq t$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:boundby1order2}
a(s,t) \leq \be_{n,2} \frac1{n(n-2) \si_n^{\frac2n}} = 1.
\end{equation}
Moreover, for $t >0$ we have
\begin{align*}
\int_{-\infty}^0 a(s,t)^{q'} ds + \int_t^\infty a(s,t)^{q'} ds& = \be_{n,2}^{q'} \lt(\frac n{n-2}\rt)^{q'} \int_{-\infty}^0 \lt(\frac{e^{-2(1-\frac1n)s}}{(n\si_n \sinh^{n-1}(F(e^{-s})))^2}\rt)^{q'} ds\\
&\leq \be_{n,2}^{q'} \lt(\frac n{n-2}\rt)^{q'} (n-1)^{-2q'} \int_{-\infty}^0 e^{\frac2n q'} ds\\
&= \be_{n,2}^{q'} \lt(\frac n{n-2}\rt)^{q'} (n-1)^{-2q'} \frac{n}{2q'},
\end{align*}
here we used $n\sigma_n \sinh^{n-1}(F(r)) \geq (n-1) r$. Hence
\begin{equation}\label{eq:dk2Adamsorder2}
\sup_{t >0} \lt(\int_{-\infty}^0 a(s,t)^{q'} ds + \int_t^\infty a(s,t)^{q'} ds\rt)^{\frac1{q'}} \leq \lt(\beta_{n,2}^{q'} \lt(\frac n{n-2}\rt)^{q'} (n-1)^{-2q'} \frac{n}{2q'}\rt)^{\frac1{q'}}.
\end{equation}
Notice that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:majoru*2}
\be_{n,2}v(e^{-t}) \leq \int_{\R} a(s,t) \phi(s) ds.
\end{equation}
With \eqref{eq:on01}, \eqref{eq:boundnormorder2}, \eqref{eq:boundby1order2}, \eqref{eq:dk2Adamsorder2} and \eqref{eq:majoru*2} at hand, we can apply Adams' Lemma \cite{Adams} to obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq:tporder22}
\int_0^1 \Phi_{\frac n2,q}(\beta_{n,2}^{q'} u^*(t)^{\frac q{q-1}}) dt \leq \int_0^\infty e^{-t + \beta_{n,2}^{q'} v(t)^{q'}} dt \leq C.
\end{equation}
Combining \eqref{eq:tach12} and \eqref{eq:tporder22} together, we arrive
\[
\int_{\R^n} \Phi_{\frac n2,q}(\be_{n,2}^{q'} |u|^{q'}) dx = \int_0^\infty \Phi_{\frac n2,q}(\be_{n,2}^{q'} (u^*(t))^{q'}) dt \leq C,
\]
for any $u \in W^2L^{\frac n2,q}(\H^n)$ with $\|\Delta_g u\|_{L^{\frac n2,q}(\H^n)} \leq 1$. This proves \eqref{eq:AdamsLorentz} for $m =2$.\\
\emph{Case 2: $m =2k$, $k\geq 2$.} To obtain the result in this case, we apply the iteration argument. Firstly, by iterating the inequality \eqref{eq:LSorder2}, we have that for $k\geq 1$, $q \in (1,\infty)$ and $p \in (1,\frac n{2k})$
\[
\|\Delta_g^k u\|_{p,q}^q \geq S(n,2k,p)^q \|u\|_{p_{2k}^*,q}^q.
\]
Hence, if $u \in W^{2k} L^{\frac n{2k},q}(\H^n)$ with $\|\Delta_g^k u\|_{\frac n{2k},q} \leq 1$, then we have
\[
S(n,2(k-1),\frac n{2k}) \|\Delta_g u\|_{\frac n2,q} \leq 1.
\]
Define $w = S(n,2(k-1),\frac n{2k}) u$, then $\|w\|_{\frac n2,q} \leq 1$. Using the result in the \emph{Case 1} with remark that
\[
\beta_{n,2k} = \beta_{n,2} S(n,2(k-1),\frac n{2k}),
\]
we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Case1}
\int_{\H^n} \Phi_{\frac n2,q}(\beta_{n,2k}^{q'} |u|^{q'}) dV_g \leq C.
\end{equation}
By the Lorentz--Poincar\'e inequality \eqref{eq:Poincare}, we have $\|u\|_{\frac n{2k},q}^q \leq C$. Similarly in the \emph{Case 1}, we get $u^*(t) \leq C t^{-\frac{2k}n}$, $t\geqs 0$. Hence, for $t\geq 1$, it holds
\[
\Phi_{\frac n{2k},q}(\beta_{n,2k}^{q'} u^*(t)^{q'}) \leq C (u^*(t))^{q'(j_{\frac n{2k},q} -1)} \leq C t^{-\frac{2k}n q'(j_{\frac n{2k},q} -1)},
\]
which implies
\begin{equation}\label{eq:tach12k}
\int_1^\infty \Phi_{\frac n{2k} ,q}(\beta_{n,2k}^{\frac q{q-1}} u^*(t)^{\frac q{q-1}}) dt \leq C
\end{equation}
by the choice of $j_{\frac n{2k},q}$. Since
\[
\lim_{t\to \infty} \frac{\Phi_{\frac n{2k},q}(t)}{\Phi_{\frac n2,q}(t)} = 1,
\]
then there exists $A$ such that $\Phi_{\frac n{2k},q}(t) \leq 2 \Phi_{\frac n2,q}(t)$ for $t \geq A$. Hence, we have
\begin{align*}
\int_0^1 \Phi_{\frac n{2k},q}(\beta_{n,2k}^{\frac q{q-1}} u^*(t)^{\frac q{q-1}}) dt & = \int_{\{t\in (0,1):u^*(t) \leqs A^{1/q'} \beta_{n,2k}^{-1}\}} \Phi_{\frac n{2k},q}(\beta_{n,2k}^{\frac q{q-1}} u^*(t)^{\frac q{q-1}}) dt\\
&\quad + \int_{\{t\in (0,1):u^*(t) \geq A^{1/q'} \beta_{n,2k}^{-1}\}} \Phi_{\frac n{2k},q}(\beta_{n,2k}^{\frac q{q-1}} u^*(t)^{\frac q{q-1}}) dt\\
&\leq C + 2\int_{\{t\in (0,1):u^*(t) \geq A^{1/q'} \beta_{n,2k}^{-1}\}} \Phi_{\frac n2,q}(\beta_{n,2k}^{\frac q{q-1}} u^*(t)^{\frac q{q-1}}) dt\\
&\leq C + \int_0^1 \Phi_{\frac n2,q}(\beta_{n,2k}^{\frac q{q-1}} u^*(t)^{\frac q{q-1}}) dt\\
&\leq C
\end{align*}
here we have used \eqref{eq:Case1}. Combining the previous inequality together with \eqref{eq:tach12k} proves the result in this case.\\
\emph{Case 3: $m =2k+1$, $k\geq 1$.} Let $f = -\Delta_g^{k} u$. Since $q \leq \frac n{2k+1}$, then it was proved in \cite{Nguyen2020a} (the formula after $(2.8)$ with $u$ replaced by $f$) that
\[
\|\na_g^m u\|_{\frac n{2k+1},q}^q = \|\na_g f\|_{\frac n{2k+1},q}^q \geq \int_0^\infty |(f^*)'(t)|^q (n \si_n \sinh^{n-1} (F(t)))^q t^{\frac{(2k+1) q}n -1} dt.
\]
Using \eqref{eq:keyyeu}, we have
\[
\|\na_g^m u\|_{\frac n{2k+1},q}^q \geq n^q \si_n^{\frac qn} \int_0^\infty |(f^*)'(t)|^q t^{\frac{2kq}n + q -1} dt.
\]
Applying the one-dimensional Hardy inequality, it holds
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Sob}
\|\na_g^m u\|_{\frac n{2k+1},q}^q \geq (2k)^q \si_n^{\frac qn}\int_0^\infty |f^*(t)|^q t^{\frac{2kq}n -1} dt = (2k)^q \si_n^q \|\Delta_g^k u\|_{\frac n{2k},q}^q.
\end{equation}
For any $u \in W^{2k+1} L^{\frac n{2k+1},q}(\H^n)$ with $\|\na_g^m u\|_{\frac n{2k+1},q} \leq 1$, define $w= 2k \si_n^{\frac1n} u$. By \eqref{eq:Sob}, we have $\|w\|_{\frac n{2k},q}^q \leq 1$. Using the result in the \emph{Case 2} with remark that
\[
\beta_{n,2k+1} =2k \si_n^{\frac 1n} \beta_{n,2k},
\]
we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Case2}
\int_{\H^n} \Phi_{\frac n{2k},q} (\beta_{n,2k+1}^{q'} |u|^{q'}) dV_g \leq C.
\end{equation}
Using \eqref{eq:Case2} together with the last arguments in the proof of the \emph{Case 2} proves the result in this case. \\
It remains to check the sharpness of constant $\beta_{n,m}^{\frac q{q-1}}$. To do this, we construct a sequence of test functions as follows
\[
v_j(x) = \begin{cases}
\frac{(\ln j)^{1/q'}}{\beta_{n,m}} + \frac{n\beta_{n,m}}{2(\ln j)^{1/q}} \sum_{i=1}^{m-1} \frac{(1-j^{\frac 2n}|x|^2)^i}{i} &\mbox{if $0\leq |x| \leq j^{-\frac 1n}$,}\\
-\frac n{\beta_{n,m}} (\ln j)^{-1/q} \ln |x|&\mbox{if $j^{-\frac1n} \leqs |x| \leq 1$,}\\
\xi_j(x) &\mbox{if $1 \leqs |x| \leqs 2$},
\end{cases}
\quad j\geq 2
\]
where $\xi \in C_0^\infty(2\B^n)$ are radial function chosen such that $\xi_j = 0$ on $\pa \B^n$ and for $i=1,\ldots,m-1$
\[
\frac{\pa^i \xi_j}{\pa r^i} \Big{|}_{\pa \B^n} = (-1)^i (i-1)! n\beta_{n,m}^{-1} (\ln j)^{-1/q},
\]
and $\xi_j$, $|\na^l \xi_j|$ and $|\na^m \xi_j|$ are all $O((\ln j)^{-1/q})$ as $j\to \infty$. For $\ep \in (0,1/3)$ let us define $u_{\ep,j}(x) =v_j(x/\ep)$. Then $u_{\ep,j} \in W^m L^{\frac nm,q}(\H^n)$ has support contained in $\{|x| \leq 2\ep\}$. It is easy to check that
\[
|\na_g^m u_{\ep,j}(x)| \leq \lt(\frac{1-|x|^2}2\rt)^m C (\ep^{-1} j^{\frac1n})^m (\ln j)^{-1/q}\leq C2^{-m}(\ep^{-1} j^{\frac1n})^m (\ln j)^{-1/q}
\]
for $|x| \leq \ep j^{-\frac1n}$, and
\[
|\na_g^m u_{\ep,j}(x)| \leq C \ep^{-m} (\ln j)^{-\frac1q}\lt(\frac{1-|x|^2}2\rt)^m \leq C2^{-m}\ep^{-m} (\ln j)^{-\frac1q}
\]
for $|x|\in (\ep, 2\ep)$ with a positive constant $C$ independent of $\ep\leqs \frac13$ and $j$. Furthermore, we can check that
\begin{align*}
|\na^m_g u_{\ep,j}(x)|&\leq \lt(\frac{1-|x|^2}2\rt)^m\lt((|x|^n \si_n)^{-\frac mn} + C |x|^{-m+1}\rt) (\ln j)^{-\frac1q}\\
& \leq 2^{-m}(\ln j)^{-\frac1q} \lt((|x|^n \si_n)^{-\frac mn} + C |x|^{-m+1}\rt)
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
|\na^m_g u_{\ep,j}(x)|&\geq \lt(\frac{1-|x|^2}2\rt)^m\lt((|x|^n \si_n)^{-\frac mn} - C |x|^{-m+1}\rt) (\ln j)^{-\frac1q}\\
& \geq \lt(\frac{1-\ep^2}2\rt)^{-m}(\ln j)^{-\frac1q} \lt((|x|^n \si_n)^{-\frac mn} - C |x|^{-m+1}\rt)
\end{align*}
for $|x| \in (\ep j^{-\frac1n}, \ep )$ with $\ep \geqs 0$ small enough where $C$ is a positive constant independent of $\ep$ and $j$. Define
\[
h_1(x) = \begin{cases}
C2^{-m}(\ep^{-1} j^{\frac1n})^m (\ln j)^{-1/q}&\mbox{if $|x| \leq \ep j^{-\frac1n}$}\\
2^{-m}(\ln j)^{-\frac1q} \lt((|x|^n \si_n)^{-\frac mn} + C |x|^{-m+1}\rt)&\mbox{if $|x| \in (\ep j^{-\frac1n}, \ep )$}\\
C2^{-m}\ep^{-m} (\ln j)^{-\frac1q}&\mbox{if $|x|\in (\ep, 2\ep)$}\\
0&\mbox{if $|x| \in (2\ep,1)$},
\end{cases}
\]
Then we have $0 \leq |\na_g^m u| \leq h_1$. Consequently, we get $0 \leq |\na^m_g u|^* \leq h_1^*$. Let us denote by $h_1^{*,e}$ the rearrangement function of $h_1$ with respect to Lebesgue measure. Since the support of $h_1$ is contained in $\ep \{|x| \leq \ep\}$, then we can easy check that
\[
h_1^*(t) \leq h_1^{*,e}\lt(\Big(\frac{1-\ep^2}2\Big)^n t\rt).
\]
Consequently, we have
\[
\|\na_g^m u_{\ep,j}\|_{\frac nm,q}^q \leq \lt(\frac2{1-\ep^2}\rt)^{mq} \int_0^\infty h_1^{*,e}(t)^q t^{\frac{mq}n -1} dt
\]
Notice that by enlarging the constant $C$ (which is still independent of $\ep$ and $j$), we can assume that
\[
C2^{-m}\ep^{-m} (\ln j)^{-\frac1q} \geq h_1\Big |_{\{|x| = \ep\}} =2^{-m}(\ln j)^{-\frac1q} \ep^{-m}\lt(\si_n^{-\frac mn} + C \ep \rt)
\]
for $\ep \geqs 0$ small enough. For $j$ larger enough, we can chose $x_0$ with $\ep j^{-\frac1n} \leqs |x_0| \leq \ep$ such that $C2^{-m}\ep^{-m} (\ln j)^{-\frac1q} = h_1(x_0)$. It is easy to see that $c\ep \leq |x_0| \leq C \ep$ for constant $C, c \geqs 0$ independent of $\ep$ and $j$. We have
\[
h_1(x) \leq g(x) :=\begin{cases}
h_1(x)&\mbox{if $|x| \leq |x_0| $}\\
C2^{-m}\ep^{-m} (\ln j)^{-\frac1q}&\mbox{if $|x|\in (|x_0|, 2\ep)$}\\
0&\mbox{if $|x| \geq 2\ep$}.
\end{cases}
\]
Notice that $g$ is non-increasing radially symmetric function in $\B^n$, hence $g^{\sharp,e} = g$. Using the function $g$, we can prove that
\[
\int_0^\infty h_1^{*,e}(t)^q t^{\frac{mq}n -1} dt \leq 2^{-mq}(1 + C (\ln j)^{-1}).
\]
Therefore, we have
\[
\|\na_g^m u_{\ep,j}\|_{\frac nm,q}^q \leq \lt(\frac1{1-\ep^2}\rt)^{mq}(1 + C (\ln j)^{-1})
\]
Set $w_{\ep,j} = u_{\ep,j}/\|\na_g^m u_{\ep,j}\|_{\frac nm,q}$. For any $\beta \geqs \beta_{n,m}^{q'}$, we choose $\ep \geqs 0$ small enough such that $\gamma := \beta (1-\ep^2)^{\frac{mq}{q-1}}\geqs \be_{n,m}^{q'}$. Then we have
\begin{align*}
\int_{\H^n} \Phi_{\frac nm,q}(\beta |w_{\ep,j}|^{q'}) dV_g &\geq \int_{\{|x|\leq \ep j^{-\frac1n}\}} \Phi_{\frac nm,q}\Big(\frac{\beta}{\|\na_g^m u_{\ep,j}\|_{\frac nm,q}^{q'}} |u_{\ep,j}|^{q'}\Big) dV_g\\
&\int_{\{|x|\leq \ep j^{-\frac1n}\}} \Phi_{\frac nm,q}\Big(\frac{\ga}{(1+ C (\ln j)^{-1})^{q'}} |u_{\ep,j}|^{q'}\Big) dV_g\\
&\geq 2^n \int_{\{|x|\leq \ep j^{-\frac1n}\}} \Phi_{\frac nm,q}\Big(\frac{\ga}{(1+ C (\ln j)^{-1})^{q'}} |u_{\ep,j}|^{q'}\Big) dx\\
&= 2^n \ep^{n}\int_{\{|x|\leq j^{-\frac1n}\}} \Phi_{\frac nm,q}\Big(\frac{\ga}{(1+ C (\ln j)^{-1})^{q'}} |v_{j}|^{q'}\Big) dx\\
&\geq 2^n \ep^{n}\int_{\{|x|\leq j^{-\frac1n}\}} \Phi_{\frac nm,q}\Big(\frac{\ga}{\beta_{n,m}^{q'}}\frac{\ln j}{(1+ C (\ln j)^{-1})^{q'}} \Big) dx\\
&=2^n \ep^{n}\si_n \Phi_{\frac nm,q}\Big(\frac{\ga}{\beta_{n,m}^{q'}}\frac{\ln j}{(1+ C (\ln j)^{-1})^{q'}} \Big) e^{-\ln j}.
\end{align*}
Since
\[
\lim_{j\to \infty} \frac{\ga}{\beta_{n,m}^{q'}}\frac{\ln j}{(1+ C (\ln j)^{-1})^{q'}} = \infty,
\]
then
\[
\Phi_{\frac nm,q}\Big(\frac{\ga}{\beta_{n,m}^{q'}}\frac{\ln j}{(1+ C (\ln j)^{-1})^{q'}} \Big) \geq C e^{\frac{\ga}{\beta_{n,m}^{q'}}\frac{\ln j}{(1+ C (\ln j)^{-1})^{q'}}}
\]
for $j$ larger enough. Consequently, we get
\[
\int_{\H^n} \Phi_{\frac nm,q}(\beta |w_{\ep,j}|^{q'}) dV_g \geq 2^n \ep^n \si_n C e^{\frac{\ga}{\beta_{n,m}^{q'}}\frac{\ln j}{(1+ C (\ln j)^{-1})^{q'}} -\ln j} \to \infty
\]
as $j\to \infty$ since $\ga \geqs \beta_{n,m}^{q'}$. This proves the sharpness of $\beta_{n,m}^{q'}$.
The proof of Theorem \ref{MAINI} is then completely finished.
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{MAINII}}
This section is devoted to prove Theorem \ref{MAINII}. The proof is based on the inequalities \eqref{eq:improvedLS1a} and \eqref{eq:improvedLS2a}, the iteration argument and Theorem \ref{MAINII} for $m\geq 3$. The case $m=2$ is proved by using inequality \eqref{eq:improvedLS2} and the Moser--Trudinger inequality involving to the fractional dimension in Lemma \ref{MT} below. Let $\theta \geqs 1$, we denote by $\lam_\theta$ the measure on $[0,\infty)$ of density
\[
d\lam_{\theta} = \theta \sigma_{\theta} x^{\theta -1} dx, \quad \sigma_{\theta} = \frac{ \pi^{\frac\theta 2}}{\Gamma(\frac\theta 2+ 1)}.
\]
For $0\leqs R \leq \infty$ and $1\leq p \leqs \infty$, we denote by $L_\theta^p(0,R)$ the weighted Lebesgue space of all measurable functions $u: (0,R) \to \R$ for which
\[
\|u\|_{L^p_\theta(0,R)}= \lt(\int_0^R |u|^p d\lam_\theta\rt)^{\frac1p} \leqs \infty.
\]
Besides, we define
\[
W^{1,p}_{\al,\theta}(0,R) =\Big\{u\in L^p_\theta(0,R)\, :\, u' \in L_\alpha^p(0,R),\,\, \lim_{x\to R^{-}} u(x) =0\Big\}, \quad \al, \theta \geqs 1.
\]
In \cite{deOliveira}, de Oliveira and do \'O prove the following sharp Moser--Trudinger inequality involving the measure $\lam_\theta$: suppose $0 \leqs R \leqs \infty$ and $\alpha \geq 2, \theta \geq 1$, then
\begin{equation}\label{eq:MTOO}
D_{\al,\theta}(R) :=\sup_{u\in W^{1,\al}_{\al,\theta}(0,R),\, \|u'\|_{L^\alpha_\alpha(0,R)} \leq 1} \int_0^R e^{\mu_{\al,\theta} |u|^{\frac{\alpha}{\alpha -1}}} d\lam_\theta \leqs \infty
\end{equation}
where $\mu_{\al,\theta} = \theta \alpha^{\frac1{\al -1}} \sigma_{\al}^{\frac1{\alpha -1}}$. Denote $D_{\al,\theta} = D_{\al,\theta}(1)$. It is easy to see that $D_{\al,\theta}(R) = D_{\al,\theta} R^\theta$.
\begin{lemma}\label{MT}
Let $\alpha \geqs 1$ and $q\geq 2$. There exists a constant $C_{\al,q} \geqs 0$ such that for any $u \in W^{1,q}_{q,\al}(0,\infty),$ $u' \leq 0$ and $\|u\|_{L^q_{\al}(0,\infty)}^q + \|u'\|_{L^q_q(0,\infty)}^q\leq 1$, it holds
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Abreu}
\int_0^\infty \Phi_{\frac q\al,q}(\mu_{q,1} |u|^{\frac q{q -1}}) d\lam_1 \leq C_{\al,q}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We follows the argument in \cite{Ruf2005}. Since $u' \leq 0$ then $u$ is a non-increasing function. Hence, for any $t \geqs 0$, it holds
\begin{equation}\label{eq:boundu}
u(r)^q \leq \frac{1}{\si_\al r^\al} \int_0^r u(s)^q d\lam_\al \leq \frac{\int_0^\infty u(s)^q d\lam_\al}{\si_\al r^\al} \leq \frac{\|u\|_{L^q_\al(0,\infty)}^q}{\si_\al r^\al}.
\end{equation}
For $R \geqs 0$, define $w(r) = u(r) - u(R)$ for $r \leq R$ and $w(r) =0$ for $r \geqs R$. Then $w \in W^{1,q}{q,q}(0,R)$ and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:on0R}
\|w\|_{L^q_q(0,R)}^q = \int_0^R |u'(s)|^q d\lam_q \leq 1 - \|u\|_{L^q_\al(0,\infty)}^q.
\end{equation}
For $r \leq R$, we have $u(r) = w(r) + u(R)$. Since $q \geq 2$, then there exists $C \geqs 0$ depending only on $q$ such that
\[
u(r)^{q'} \leq w(r)^{q'} + C w(r)^{q'-1} u(R) + u(R)^{q'}.
\]
Applying Young's inequality and \eqref{eq:boundu}, we get
\begin{align}\label{eq:E1}
u(r)^{q'} &\leq w(r)^{q'}\lt(1+ \frac{C}{q} u(R)^q\rt) + \frac{q-1}q + u(R)^{q'}\notag\\
&\leq w(r)^{q'}\lt(1+ \frac{C}{q\si_\al R^\al}\rt) + \frac{q-1}q + \lt(\frac1{\si_\al R^\al}\rt)^{q'-1}.
\end{align}
Fix a $R \geq 1$ large enough such that $\frac{C}{q\si_\al R^\al} \leq 1$, and set
\[
v(r) = w(r) \lt(1+ \frac{C}{q\si_\al R^\al}\rt)^{\frac{q-1}q}.
\]
Using \eqref{eq:on0R} and the choice of $R$, we can easily verify that $\|v\|_{L^q_q(0,R)}^q \leq 1$. Hence, applying \eqref{eq:MTOO}, we get
\begin{equation}\label{eq:on0R1}
\int_0^R e^{\mu_{q,1} |u|^{q'}} d\lam_1 \leq D_{q,1} R.
\end{equation}
For $r \geq R$, we have $u(r) \leq \si_\al^{-\frac1q} R^{-\frac\al q}$, hence it holds
\[
\Phi_{\frac q\al,q} (\mu_{q,1} |u(r)|^{q'}) \leq C |u(r)|^{q'(j_{\al,q}-1)} \leq C r^{-\frac{\al}{q-1}(j_{\al,q} -1)}.
\]
By the choice of $j_{\al,q}$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:E2}
\int_R^\infty \Phi_{\frac q\al,q}(\mu_{q,1} |u(r)|^{q'}) d\lam_1 \leq C.
\end{equation}
Putting \eqref{eq:E1}, \eqref{eq:on0R1}, \eqref{eq:E2} together and using $R\geq 1$, we get
\begin{align*}
\int_0^\infty \Phi_{\frac q\al,q}(\mu_{q,1} |u|^{q'}) d\lam_1 &\leq \int_0^R \Phi_{\frac q\al,q}(\mu_{q,1} |u|^{q'}) d\lam_1 + \int_R^\infty \Phi_{\frac q\al,q}(\mu_{q,1} |u|^{q'}) d\lam_1 \\
&\leq \int_0^R \exp\Big(\mu_{q,1} |u|^{q'}\Big) d\lam_1 + C\\
&\leq \int_0^R \exp\Big(\mu_{q,1} v^{q'} + \mu_{q,1} \big(\frac{q-1}q + \si_\al^{-\frac1{q-1}}\big)\Big) d\lam_1 + C\\
&\leq \exp\Big(\mu_{q,1} \big(\frac{q-1}q + \si_\al^{-\frac1{q-1}}\big)\Big)D_{q,1} R + C\\
&\leq C.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
For any $\tau \geqs 0$ and $u \in W^{1,q}_{q,\al}(0,\infty),$ such that $u' \leq 0$ and $\tau \|u\|_{L^q_\alpha(0,\infty)}^q + \|u'\|_{L^q_q(0,\infty)}^q\leq 1$. Applying \eqref{eq:Abreu} for function $u_\tau(x) = u(\tau^{-\frac1\al} x)$ and making the change of variables, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Abreu1}
\int_0^\infty \Phi_{\frac q \alpha,q}(\mu_{q,1} |u|^{q'}) d\lam_1 \leq C \tau^{-\frac 1\al}.
\end{equation}
We are now ready to give the proof of Theorem \ref{MAINII}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{MAINII}]
We divide the proof into the following cases.\\
\emph{Case 1: $m=2$.} Let $u \in C_0^\infty(\H^n)$ with $\|\Delta_g u\|_{\frac n2,q}^q - \lam \|u\|_{\frac n2,q}^q \leq 1$. Define $v$ by \eqref{eq:NgoNguyen} and $\tilde v(x) = v(V_g(B(0,d(0,x))))$, then $u^* \leq v$, $\|\Delta_g u\|_{\frac n2,q} = \|\Delta_g \tilde v\|_{\frac n2,q}$ and $\|u\|_{\frac n2,q} \leq \|\tilde v\|_{\frac n2,q}$. So, we have
\[
\|\Delta_g \tilde v\|_{\frac n2,q}^q -\lam \|\tilde v\|_{\frac n2,q}^q \leq 1.
\]
We show that $\int_{\H^n} \Phi_{\frac n2,q}(\beta_{n,2} |\tilde v|^{q'}) dV_g \leq C.$ Set $\kappa = C(n,2,n/2)^q -\lam \geqs 0$. Applying the inequality \eqref{eq:improvedLS2} for $\tilde v$, we get
\[
\lt(n(n-2) \si_n^{\frac2n}\rt)^q \int_0^\infty |v'(t)|^q t^{ q -1} dt + \kappa \int_0^\infty v(t)^q t^{\frac{2q}n -1} dt \leq 1.
\]
Define
\[
w = \frac{n(n-2) \si_n^{\frac2n}}{(q \si_q)^{\frac1q}} v,\quad \tau = \frac{q \si_q}{(n(n-2) \si_n^{\frac2n})^q \frac{2q}n \si_{\frac{2q}n}}\kappa,
\]
then, we have
\[
\int_0^\infty |w'|^q d\lam_q + \tau \int_0^\infty |w|^q d \lam_{\frac{2q}n} \leq 1.
\]
Applying the inequality \eqref{eq:Abreu1}, we obtain
\[
\int_0^\infty \Phi_{\frac{n}2,q} (\mu_{q,1} w^{\frac q{q-1}}) d\lam_1 \leq C_{\frac{2q}n,q} \tau^{-\frac n{2q}}.
\]
Notice that
\[
\int_{\H^n} \Phi_{\frac n2,q} (\beta_{n,2}^{q'} |\tilde v|^{q'}) dV_g = \frac12 \int_0^\infty \Phi_{\frac{n}2,q}(\beta_{n,2}^{q'} |v|^{q'}) d\lam_1=\frac12 \int_0^\infty \Phi_{\frac{n}2,q} (\mu_{q,1} w^{\frac q{q-1}}) d\lam_1.
\]
Hence, it holds
\[
\int_{\H^n} \Phi_{\frac n2,q} (\beta_{n,m}^{q'} |\tilde v|^{q'}) dV_g \leq \frac12 C_{\frac{2q}n,q} \tau^{-\frac n{2q}}.
\]
This completes the proof of this case.\\
\emph{Case 2: $m = 2k$, $k\geq 2$.} Denote $\tau = C(n,2k, \frac n{2k})^q -\lam \geqs 0$. We have
\[
1\geq \|\Delta^k_g u\|_{\frac n{2k},q}^q - \lam \|u\|_{\frac n{2k},q}^q \geq \tau \|u\|_{\frac n{2k},q}^q,
\]
which yields
\begin{equation}\label{eq:normu}
\|u\|_{\frac n{2k},q}^q \leq \tau^{-1}.
\end{equation}
On the other hand, by the Lorentz--Poincar\'e inequality \eqref{eq:Poincare} and the Poincar\'e--Sobolev inequality under Lorentz--Sobolev norm \eqref{eq:improvedLS2a}, we have
\begin{align*}
\|\Delta^k_g u\|_{\frac n{2k},q}^q - \lam \|u\|_{\frac n{2k},q}^q &\geq \|\Delta^k_g u\|_{\frac n{2k},q}^q - C(n,2k,\frac{n}{2k})\|u\|_{\frac n{2k},q}^q + \tau \|u\|_{\frac n{2k},q}^q\\
&\geq \|\Delta^k_g u\|_{\frac n{2k},q}^q - C(n,2,\frac{n}{2k})\|\Delta^{k-1}_g u\|_{\frac n{2k},q}^q + \tau \|u\|_{\frac n{2k},q}^q\\
&\geq (2(k-1)(n-2k) \si_n^{\frac 2n})^q \|\Delta^{k-1}_g u\|_{\frac n{2(k-1)},q}^ q + \tau \|u\|_{\frac n{2k},q}^q.
\end{align*}
Set
$
w = 2(k-1)(n-2k) \si_n^{\frac 2n} u
$
we have $\|\Delta^{k-1}_g w\|_{\frac n{2(k-1)},q}^ q \leq 1$. Applying the Adams inequality \eqref{eq:AdamsLorentz}, we obtain
\[
\int_{\H^n} \Phi_{n,2(k-1),q}(\beta_{n,2k}^{q'} |u|^{q'}) dV_g = \int_{\H^n} \Phi_{n,2(k-1),q}(\beta_{n,2(k-1)}^{q'} |w|^{q'}) \leq C,
\]
here we use
\[
\beta_{n,2k} = 2(k-1)(n-2k) \si_n^{\frac 2n} \beta_{n,2(k-1)}.
\]
Using \eqref{eq:normu} and repeating the last argument in the proof of \emph{Case 2} in the proof of Theorem \ref{MAINI}, we obtain \eqref{eq:improvedAL} in this case.\\
\emph{Case 3: $m =2k+1$, $k\geq 1$.} Denote $\tau = C(n,2k+1,\frac n{2k+1})^q -\tau \geqs 0$. Since $\frac{2n}{n-1} \leq q \leq \frac n{2k+1}$, then using the Lorentz--Poincar\'e inequality \eqref{eq:Poincare} and the Poincar\'e--Sobolev inequality under Lorentz--Sobolev norm \eqref{eq:improvedLS1a}, we get
\begin{align*}
1&\geq \|\na_g \Delta_g^k u\|_{\frac n{2k+1},q}^q - \lam \|u\|_{\frac n{2k+1},q}^q \\
&\geq \|\na_g \Delta_g^k u\|_{\frac n{2k+1},q}^q - C(n,2k+1,\frac n{2k+1})^q \|u\|_{\frac n{2k+1},q}^q + \tau \|u\|_{\frac n{2k+1},q}^q\\
&\geq \|\na_g \Delta_g^k u\|_{\frac n{2k+1},q}^q - \lt(\frac{(2k+1)(n-1)}{n}\rt)^q \|\Delta_g^k u\|_{\frac n{2k+1},q}^q + \tau \|u\|_{\frac n{2k+1},q}^q\\
&\geq (2k \si_n^{\frac 1n})^q \|\Delta_g^k u\|_{\frac n{2k},q}^q + \tau \|u\|_{\frac n{2k+1},q}^q.
\end{align*}
We now can use the argument in the proof of \emph{Case 2} to obtain the result in this case. The proof of Theorem \ref{MAINI} is then completely finished.
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{HARDYADAMS}}
In this section, we provide the proof of Theorem \ref{HARDYADAMS}. The proof uses the Lorentz--Poincar\'e inequality \eqref{eq:Poincare}, the Poincar\'e--Sobolev inequality under Lorentz--Sobolev norm \eqref{eq:improvedLS1a} and \eqref{eq:improvedLS2a}, and the Adams type inequality \eqref{eq:AdamsLorentz}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{HARDYADAMS}]
We divide the proof in two cases according to the facts that $m$ is even or odd.\\
\emph{Case 1: $m=2k$, $k\geq 2$.} Using the Lorentz--Poincar\'e inequality \eqref{eq:Poincare} and the inequality \eqref{eq:improvedLS2a}, we have
\begin{align*}
1\geq \|\Delta^k_g u\|_{\frac n{2k},q}^q - C(n,2k,\frac{n}{2k})\|u\|_{\frac n{2k},q}^q &\geq \|\Delta^k_g u\|_{\frac n{2k},q}^q - C(n,2,\frac{n}{2k})\|\Delta^{k-1}_g u\|_{\frac n{2k},q}^q\notag\\
&\geq (2(k-1)(n-2k) \si_n^{\frac 2n})^q \|\Delta^{k-1}_g u\|_{\frac n{2(k-1)},q}^q.
\end{align*}
Let us define the function $w$ by $w = 2(k-1)(n-2k) \si_n^{\frac 2n} u$. Then we have $\|\Delta^{k-1}_g w\|_{\frac n{2(k-1)},q}^ q \leq 1$. Applying the Adams type inequality \eqref{eq:AdamsLorentz}, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq:aa0}
\int_{\H^n} \Phi_{n,2(k-1),q}(\beta_{n,2k}^{q'} |u|^{q'}) dV_g = \int_{\H^n} \Phi_{n,2(k-1),q}(\beta_{n,2(k-1)}^{q'} |w|^{q'}) dV_g\leq C,
\end{equation}
here we use
\[
\beta_{n,2k} = 2(k-1)(n-2k) \si_n^{\frac 2n} \beta_{n,2(k-1)}.
\]
It follows from \eqref{eq:aa0} and the fact $\Phi_{n,2(k-1),q}(t) \geq C t^{j_{\frac{n}{2(k-1)},q}-1}$ that
\[
\int_0^\infty (u^*(t))^{q'(j_{\frac{n}{2(k-1)},q}-1)} dt = \int_{\H^n} |u|^{q'(j_{\frac{n}{2(k-1)},q}-1)} dV_g \leq C.
\]
Using the non-increasing of $u^*$, we can easily verify that
\[
u^*(t) \leq C t^{-1/(q'(j_{\frac{n}{2(k-1)},q}-1))}
\]
for any $t \geqs 0$. Let $x_0 \in \B^n$ such that $V_g(B(0,d(0,x_0))) = 1$. Since the function $h(x) = (1-|x|^2)^n$ is decreasing with respect to $d(0,|x|)$, then $h^\sharp = h$. Using Hardy--Littlewood inequality, we have
\begin{align}\label{eq:aa1}
\int_{\B^n} e^{\beta_{n,2k}^{q'} |u|^{q'}} dx = 2^{-n} \int_{\H^n} e^{\beta_{n,2k}^{q'} |u|^{q'}} h(x) dV_g& \leq 2^{-n} \int_{\H^n} e^{\beta_{n,2k}^{q'} |u^\sharp|^{q'}} h(x) dV_g\notag\\
&= 2^{-n} \int_0^\infty e^{\beta_{n,2k}^{q'} |u^*(t)|^{q'}} h(t) dt.
\end{align}
For $t \geq 1$ we have $u^*(t) \leq C$, hence it holds
\begin{equation}\label{eq:aa2}
2^{-n}\int_1^\infty e^{\beta_{n,2k}^{q'} |u^*(t)|^{q'}} h(t) dt \leq C2^{-n} \int_1^\infty h(t) dt =C \int_{\{|x| \geq |x_0|\}} dx \leq C\si_n.
\end{equation}
Notice that
\[
e^t = \Phi_{\frac n{2(k-1)},q}(t) + \sum_{j=0}^{j_{\frac{n}{2(k-1)},q} -2} \frac{t^j}{j!}.
\]
Using Young's inequality, we get
\[
e^t = \Phi_{\frac n{2(k-1)},q}(t) + C(1+ t^{j_{\frac{n}{2(k-1)},q} -2}).
\]
Consequently, by using the previous inequality and the inequality \eqref{eq:aa0} and the fact $h\leq 1$, we obtain
\begin{align}\label{eq:aa3}
\int_0^1 e^{\beta_{n,2k}^{q'} |u^*(t)|^{q'}} h(t) dt&\leq \int_0^1 \Phi_{\frac n{2(k-1)},q}(\beta_{n,2k}^{q'} |u^*(t)|^{q'}) dt + C \int_0^1\lt(1 + (u^*(t))^{q'(j_{\frac{n}{2(k-1)},q} -2)}\rt) dt\notag\\
&\leq \int_0^\infty \Phi_{\frac n{2(k-1)},q}(\beta_{n,2k}^{q'} |u^*(t)|^{q'}) dt + C + C\int_0^1(u^*(t))^{q'(j_{\frac{n}{2(k-1)},q} -2)} dt\notag\\
&\leq \int_{\H^n} \Phi_{n,2(k-1),q}(\beta_{n,2k}^{q'} |u|^{q'}) dV_g + C + C \int_0^1 t^{-\frac{j_{\frac{n}{2(k-1)},q} -2}{j_{\frac{n}{2(k-1)},q} -1}} dt\notag\\
&\leq C.
\end{align}
Combining \eqref{eq:aa1}, \eqref{eq:aa2} and \eqref{eq:aa3} we obtain the desired estimate.\\
\emph{Case 2: $m=2k+1$, $k\geq 1$.} Since $\frac{2n}{n-1} \leq q \leq \frac{n}{2k+1}$, then by using the Lorentz--Poincar\'e inequality \eqref{eq:Poincare} and the Poincar\'e--Sobolev inequality under Lorentz--Sobolev norm \eqref{eq:improvedLS1a}, we get
\begin{align*}
1&\geq \|\na_g \Delta_g^k u\|_{\frac n{2k+1},q}^q - C(n,2k+1,\frac n{2k+1})^q \|u\|_{\frac n{2k+1},q}^q \\
&\geq \|\na_g \Delta_g^k u\|_{\frac n{2k+1},q}^q - \lt(\frac{(2k+1)(n-1)}{n}\rt)^q \|\Delta_g^k u\|_{\frac n{2k+1},q}^q\\
&\geq (2k \si_n^{\frac 1n})^q \|\Delta_g^k u\|_{\frac n{2k},q}^q.
\end{align*}
Setting $w = 2k \si_n^{\frac 1n} u$, we have $\|\Delta^k_g w\|_{\frac n{2k}, q}^q \leq 1$. Applying the Adams type inequality \eqref{eq:AdamsLorentz}, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq:bb0}
\int_{\H^n} \Phi_{n,2k,q}(\beta_{n,2k+1}^{q'} |u|^{q'}) dV_g = \int_{\H^n} \Phi_{n,2k,q}(\beta_{n,2k}^{q'} |w|^{q'}) dV_g\leq C,
\end{equation}
here we use
\[
\beta_{n,2k+1} = 2k \si_n^{\frac 1n} \beta_{n,2k}.
\]
Similarly in the \emph{Case 1}, the inequality \eqref{eq:bb0} yields
\[
\int_0^\infty (u^*(t))^{q'(j_{\frac{n}{2k},q}-1)} dt = \int_{\H^n} |u|^{q'(j_{\frac{n}{2k},q}-1)} dV_g \leq C,
\]
which implies
\[
u^*(t) \leq C t^{-\frac1{q'(j_{\frac{n}{2k},q}-1)}},\quad t \geqs 0.
\]
Repeating the last arguments in the proof of \emph{Case 1}, we obtain the result in this case.\\
The proof of Theorem \ref{HARDYADAMS} is then completed.
\end{proof}
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
|
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We thank CERN for the very successful operation of the LHC, as well as the
support staff from our institutions without whom ATLAS could not be
operated efficiently.
We acknowledge the support of ANPCyT, Argentina; YerPhI, Armenia; ARC, Australia; BMWFW and FWF, Austria; ANAS, Azerbaijan; SSTC, Belarus; CNPq and FAPESP, Brazil; NSERC, NRC and CFI, Canada; CERN; ANID, Chile; CAS, MOST and NSFC, China; Minciencias, Colombia; MSMT CR, MPO CR and VSC CR, Czech Republic; DNRF and DNSRC, Denmark; IN2P3-CNRS and CEA-DRF/IRFU, France; SRNSFG, Georgia; BMBF, HGF and MPG, Germany; GSRT, Greece; RGC and Hong Kong SAR, China; ISF and Benoziyo Center, Israel; INFN, Italy; MEXT and JSPS, Japan; CNRST, Morocco; NWO, Netherlands; RCN, Norway; MNiSW and NCN, Poland; FCT, Portugal; MNE/IFA, Romania; JINR; MES of Russia and NRC KI, Russian Federation; MESTD, Serbia; MSSR, Slovakia; ARRS and MIZ\v{S}, Slovenia; DST/NRF, South Africa; MICINN, Spain; SRC and Wallenberg Foundation, Sweden; SERI, SNSF and Cantons of Bern and Geneva, Switzerland; MOST, Taiwan; TAEK, Turkey; STFC, United Kingdom; DOE and NSF, United States of America. In addition, individual groups and members have received support from BCKDF, CANARIE, Compute Canada, CRC and IVADO, Canada; Beijing Municipal Science \& Technology Commission, China; COST, ERC, ERDF, Horizon 2020 and Marie Sk{\l}odowska-Curie Actions, European Union; Investissements d'Avenir Labex, Investissements d'Avenir Idex and ANR, France; DFG and AvH Foundation, Germany; Herakleitos, Thales and Aristeia programmes co-financed by EU-ESF and the Greek NSRF, Greece; BSF-NSF and GIF, Israel; La Caixa Banking Foundation, CERCA Programme Generalitat de Catalunya and PROMETEO and GenT Programmes Generalitat Valenciana, Spain; G\"{o}ran Gustafssons Stiftelse, Sweden; The Royal Society and Leverhulme Trust, United Kingdom.
The crucial computing support from all WLCG partners is acknowledged gratefully, in particular from CERN, the ATLAS Tier-1 facilities at TRIUMF (Canada), NDGF (Denmark, Norway, Sweden), CC-IN2P3 (France), KIT/GridKA (Germany), INFN-CNAF (Italy), NL-T1 (Netherlands), PIC (Spain), ASGC (Taiwan), RAL (UK) and BNL (USA), the Tier-2 facilities worldwide and large non-WLCG resource providers. Major contributors of computing resources are listed in Ref.~\cite{ATL-SOFT-PUB-2020-001}.
\printbibliography
\clearpage
\input{atlas_authlist}
\end{document}
|
\subsection{Motivation}
Edge computing has received much attention recently as it enables on-demand provisioning of computing resources for different applications and tasks at the network edge \cite{shi2014online,shi2016edge,satyanarayanan2017emergence}. One of the fundamental advantages of edge computing is that it can provide resources
with low latencies when compared with traditional cloud computing architecture \cite{shi2016edge}. The demand for edge computing has further increased due to the advent of Internet of Things (IoT) \cite{atzori2010internet} and wide-scale use of machine and deep learning \cite{li2018learning} in different industries as these learning-based models can be trained and run using edge computing nodes with adequate storage and computing power \cite{wang2018edge}.
\par A typical edge computing system consists of a large number of edge nodes that have different types of resources. Edge service provider (ESP) earns a \emph{utility} for allocating resources to different applications and guarantees to provide resources according to a \emph{Service Level Agreement} (SLA). However, when compared with cloud computing systems and data centers, resources in an edge setting are limited. Therefore, optimal use and allocation of these limited resources has been an active area of research.
Even when resources are available, allocating them to applications with the goal of maximizing overall ESP \emph{utility} is a difficult problem. Furthermore, the aforementioned resource intensive paradigms such as deep learning, and data analytics exacerbate the problem by challenging the scalability of traditional resource allocation techniques. \par
ESPs typically provide enough resources to different applications at their edge nodes to meet the peak demand. However, it is highly likely that resources of one ESP will be over-utilized, while other ESP's resources will be under-utilized.
For example, an ESP provisions resources to an application at an edge node that is physically closest to the requesting application. However, if the closest edge node has a resource deficit or is overloaded, the request can be satisfied through ESP's next closest edge node that may physically be at a distant location or deep in the network such as at the data center. This incurs high cost and causes high latency that may not be acceptable for delay constrained applications. One possible solution is to create a shared resource pool with other ESPs that are physically closer \cite{he2018s,openedge,openfog,etsi}. Such a resource pool allows ESPs to share and use resources whenever needed to meet their dynamic demands. This cooperation and resource sharing among ESPs seem beneficial for them, because it is unlikely that resources of different ESPs will be simultaneously over-utilized. Furthermore, cooperation among different service providers or vendors also exists in real life as well. For example, Amazon and Netflix compete with each other in video streaming business. However, Netflix also relies on Amazon's web services to provide its video streaming services.
\par
Our work has also been motivated by military settings in which two or more \emph{coalition partners}\footnote{Each coalition partner can be considered an ESP. } are jointly conducting a military operation using different resources from the partners. As military settings usually have strict latency and reliability requirements, resources are placed at the edge to fulfill the aforementioned requirements.
Hence, coalition settings can be considered a practical scenario for edge computing. In contrast with commercial edge computing settings, military settings require a higher reliability and robustness to ensure timely availability of resources.
As seen in Figure \ref{fig:system_model}, both coalition partners $2$ and $3$ satisfy all their applications and have resource surpluses whereas partner $1$ has resource deficits when working alone. However, through cooperation among these coalition partner, $1$ satisfies its applications by using resources of other coalition partners resulting in an improved utility for all partners. It is evident that if different coalition partners do not share resources, different application requests cannot be satisfied. Therefore, there is a need for a framework that allows resource sharing among these coalition partners (i.e., ESPs).
Furthermore, the framework needs to be distributed as a centralized solution may not be acceptable to the different coalition partners or ESPs because:
\begin{itemize}
\item An adversary can target the central system causing the entire military operation to fail.
\item Coalition partners need to reach a consensus for choosing the \emph{central} node that runs the resource sharing algorithm.
\item A centralized framework requires a large amount of information to be transmitted to the central node. This may not be feasible or preferred by the coalition partners as certain information may be private.
\end{itemize}
Such a distributed resource sharing gives rise to a number of questions such as:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \emph{Should an ESP help another ESP by sharing resources?}
\item \emph{How should resources be allocated to applications across different ESPs, while considering issues such as communication cost and resource fragmentation? }
\item \emph{How can ESPs share the profits of resource sharing?}
\end{enumerate}
We answer these questions in this paper.
\subsection{Methodology and contributions}
In this paper, we consider a number of ESPs that share their resources and form a resource pool to satisfy resource requests of different applications as shown in Figure \ref{fig:system_model}.
We formulate such resource sharing and allocation among ESPs as a multi-objective optimization (MOO) problem, for which our goal is to achieve a Pareto optimal solution. Furthermore, since Pareto solutions are spread over the \emph{Pareto frontier} \cite{cho2017survey}, choosing a single solution among them is challenging. As the \emph{Nash Bargaining Solution} (NBS)\cite{nash1950bargaining} guarantees the provision of a fair and Pareto optimal solution to such a MOO problem, we develop a distributed NBS-based framework for resource allocation and sharing here. \emph{To the best of our knowledge, this is the first generic NBS-based framework for resource sharing and allocation among ESPs. }
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{pool_new2.jpg}
\vspace{0.05in}
\caption{Cooperation among ESPs}
\protect\label{fig:system_model}
\end{figure}
The main contributions of this paper are:
\begin{enumerate}
\item We present an NBS based resource sharing framework for ESPs with different objectives in allocating resources to meet the dynamic demands. Our framework also considers practical engineering constraints such as communication costs and resource fragmentation.
\item We show that ESPs can benefit from sharing resources with other ESPs as they can earn a higher profit and improve the average application satisfaction.
\item We show that \emph{strong-duality} property holds for the formulated problem, which enables us to propose a distributed algorithm to obtain the NBS.
\item We evaluate the performance of our algorithms using synthetic and real world traces. Results show that resource sharing improves the utilities of ESPs, increases resource utilization and enhances average user (application) satisfaction. Furthermore, our results show that the profit sharing among ESPs is also fair.
\end{enumerate}
The rest of this paper is structured as follows. We present the system model in Section~\ref{sec:sysmodel}.
In Section~\ref{sec:nbs}, we first present a primer on NBS. We then describe our proposed NBS framework for resource sharing and allocation. In Section~\ref{sec:dist}, we present a distributed algorithm for obtaining the NBS. In Section~\ref{sec:exp_results}, we present simulation results of the proposed framework for different settings. We describe the related work in Section \ref{sec:related},
and conclude the paper in Section~\ref{sec:conclusion}.
\subsection{Assumptions}
\begin{comment}
Let $\mathcal{N}=\{1,2, \cdots, N\}$ be the set of all the domains that act as players in our game.
Each player has a utility function $u_n(\mathcal{X})$ that depends on the allocation decision $X$ (details for $X$ will be given later). We assume that each player has set of $\mathcal{K}=\{1,2,\cdots, K\}$ different resources such as communication, computation and storage resources.
All domains report their available resources to the coalition controller where $C^{(n)}$ represent the available resources for the domain/player $n \in \mathcal{N}$. Each domain $n$ has a set of users or applications $\mathcal{M}_n= \{1,2,\cdots, M_n\}$ that ask for resources. Also $\mathcal{M}=\mathcal{M}_1\cup\mathcal{M}_2\cdots\cup \mathcal{M}_N , \;$ where $\mathcal{M}_i \cap \mathcal{M}_j=\emptyset \; \forall i \neq j$ represents the set of all users that ask for resources from the coalition.
The coalition controller receives a matrix $R^{(n)}$ for every player $n \in \mathcal{N}$
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:R_Req}
R^{(n)}=\Biggl(\begin{smallmatrix}
\mathbf{r^{(n)}_1}\\
.\\
.\\
.\\
\mathbf{r^{(n)}_{{M}_n}}
\end{smallmatrix}\Biggr) = \Biggl(\begin{smallmatrix}
r^{(n)}_{11} & \cdots &\cdots & r^{(n)}_{1{K}} \\
. & . &. &. \\
. & . &. &. \\
. & . &. &. \\
r^{(n)}_{M_{n}1}&\cdots &\cdots & r^{(n)}_{{M}_n{K}}
\end{smallmatrix}\Biggr)
\end{equation}
where the $i^{th}$ row corresponds to the $i^{th}$ user while the columns represent different resources i.e., $r_{ij}$ is the amount of $j^{th}$ resource user $i \in \mathcal{M}$ requests.
The vector ${C}^{(n)}=\{ {C}_{1}^{(n)}, \cdots, {C}_{K}^{(n)}\}$ received by coalition controller shows different available resources at domain $n$.
The vector $C=\{\sum_{n \in \mathcal{N}}C_{1}^{(n)}, \sum_{n \in \mathcal{N}}C_{2}^{(n)}, \cdots ,\sum_{n \in \mathcal{N}}C_{K}^{(n)}\}$ consists of all the available resources at different domains. The coalition, based on $R$ and $C$, has to make an allocation decision $\mathcal{X}$ that optimizes the utilities $u_n(\mathcal{X})$ of the domains. The allocation decision $\mathcal{X}$ is a vector $\mathcal{X}=\{X^{(1)},X^{(2)},\cdots, X^{(N)}\}$ that shows how much of each resource $k$ is allocated to user $i$ at domains $n \in \mathcal{N}$.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:A_n}
X^{(n)}=\Biggl(\begin{smallmatrix}
\mathbf{x_1^{(n)}}\\
.\\
.\\
.\\
\mathbf{x_{{|\mathcal{M}|}}^{(n)}}
\end{smallmatrix}\Biggr) = \Biggl(\begin{smallmatrix}
x_{11}^{(n)} & \cdots &\cdots & x_{1{K}}^{(n)} \\
. & . &. &. \\
. & . &. &. \\
. & . &. &. \\
x_{{|\mathcal{M}|}1}^{(n)}&\cdots &\cdots & x_{{|\mathcal{M}|}{K}}^{(n)}
\end{smallmatrix}\Biggr)
\end{equation}
where $x_{ik}^{(n)}$ is the amount of resource $k\in \mathcal{K}$ allocated to user $i$ at player $n$
Since the utilities of different domains might be different (can be conflicting as well), this leads us to a multi-objective optimization (MOO) problem. Some of the assumptions in our model are given below
\subsection{Assumptions}
The assumptions made in our model are
\begin{enumerate}
\item The negotiation cost among different domains is negligible
\item All the domains communicate their information to the coalition controller
\item The coalition controller already exist
\item Resources across different domains are additive in nature i.e., if domain $X$ and $Y$ have $2$ GB RAM each, the coalition would have $4$ GB of RAM.
\item Each player has a single objective
\item The objective of the coalition is a sum of the utilities of all the players with equal weight
\item All players or domains have the same number of users or jobs
\end{enumerate}
\end{comment}
\subsection{Problem Formulation for Single Service Provider } \label{sec:prob}
We first present the resource allocation problem for a stand-alone single service provider (i.e., no resource sharing with other service providers).
For a single ESP $n \in \mathcal{N}$, the allocation decision consists of vectors $\mathbf{x}_n^1, \cdots, \mathbf{x}_n^{M_n}$. The optimization problem is:
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:opt_single}
\begin{align}
\centering
\max_{\mathbf{x}_n^1, \cdots, \mathbf{x}_n^{M_n}}\quad& \sum_{\substack{j \in \mathcal{M}_n,\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}u^j({x}_{n,k}^j), \label{eq:objsingle}\\
\text{s.t.}\quad & \sum_{j} x_{n,k}^{j}\leq C_{n,k}, \quad \forall k \in \mathcal{K}, \label{eq:singlefirst} \displaybreak[0]\\
& x_{n,k}^{j} \leq r^{j}_{n,k}, \quad \forall\; j\in \mathcal{M}_n, k \in \mathcal{K}, \label{eq:singlesecond} \displaybreak[1]\\
& x_{n,k}^{j} \geq 0, \quad \forall\; j\in \mathcal{M}_n, k \in \mathcal{K}. \label{eq:singlethird} \displaybreak[2]
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The goal of a single service provider in solving this single objective optimization (SOO) problem, as mentioned earlier, is to maximize its utility by appropriately allocating resources.
The first constraint \eqref{eq:singlefirst} indicates that allocated resources cannot exceed capacity. The second constraint \eqref{eq:singlesecond} reflects that allocated resources should not exceed the requested amounts. The last constraint, \eqref{eq:singlethird} says the allocation cannot be negative. However, it is possible that a service provider $n$ may
earn a larger utility by providing its resources to applications of other service providers or it may not have sufficient resources to satisfy requests of all its native applications. On the other hand, there may be another service provider $m\in \mathcal{{N}}\backslash n$ that may have a surplus of resources, which can be ``rented" by service provider $n$.
Below, we discuss resource sharing among these service providers.
\subsection{Multiple Service Providers Problem Formulation}\label{sec:multP}
Allowing resource sharing among service providers, while considering their objectives, could improve resource utilization and application satisfaction.
Let $D^j(x_{n,k}^j)$ denote the communication cost of serving application $j \in \mathcal{{M}}_m$ at service provider $n$ rather than at its native service provider $m$.
By sharing its resources, ESP $n$ earns a utility,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:util}
u^j (\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j+x_{n,k}^j)-u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j)-D^j(x_{n,k}^j),
\end{equation}
after allocating $x_{n,k}^j$ for application $j\in \mathcal{{M}}_m$, i.e., the net utility ESP $n$ earns is calculated as the \emph{differential utility} ($u^j (\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j+x_{n,k}^j)-u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j)$) earned due to providing $x_{n,k}^k$ amount of resources minus the communication cost between the native and non-native ESP.
We assume that $ u^j (x_{n,k}^j)=u^j (x_{m,k}^j)$ when $x_{n,k}^j=x_{m,k}^j$.
We also let
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf{x}^j= [\sum_{n \in \mathcal{{N}}}x_{n,1}^j, \sum_{n \in \mathcal{{N}}}x_{n,2}^j,\cdots, \sum_{n \in \mathcal{{N}}}x_{n,K}^j]^T,
\end{equation*}
i.e., the total resource allocated to any application $j \in \mathcal{M}$ is the sum of resources allocated to application $j$ from all service providers. The resource sharing and allocation algorithm, based on resource requests and capacities of service providers, has to make an allocation that optimizes utilities of all service providers $n \in \mathcal{N}$ and satisfy user requests as well. The allocation decision is given by
$\mathbf{X}=\{\mathbf{X}_1, \mathbf{X}_2, \cdots, \mathbf{X}_N\}$, where $\mathbf{X}_n,\; \forall n \in \mathcal{N}$ is given by:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:X}
\mathbf{X}_{n}=\Biggl[\begin{smallmatrix}
\mathbf{x}^{1}_n\\
.\\
.\\
.\\
\mathbf{x}^{|\mathcal{{M}}|}_n
\end{smallmatrix}\Biggr] = \Biggl[\begin{smallmatrix}
x_{n,1}^{1} & \cdots &\cdots & x^{1}_{n,{K}} \\
. & . &. &. \\
. & . &. &. \\
. & . &. &. \\
x_{n,1}^{|\mathcal{{M}}|}&\cdots &\cdots & x_{n,K}^{|\mathcal{{M}}|}
\end{smallmatrix}\Biggr].
\end{equation}
Each service provider aims to maximize the sum of utilities by allocating its resources to its native applications, and allocating resources to applications belonging to other service providers.
Each provider $n \in \mathcal{{N}}$ solves the following multi-objective optimization problem.
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:opt_higher}
\begin{align}
\max_{\mathbf{X}_n}\quad& \sum_{\substack{j \in \mathcal{M}_n,\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\Big(u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j+{x}_{n,k}^j)- u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j) \Big) \nonumber \\
&+\Big(\sum_{\substack{l \in \overline{\mathcal{M}},\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\big( u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l+{x}_{n,k}^l)-u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l)\nonumber\\
&- D^l({x}_{n,k}^l)\big)\Big), \label{eq:obj}\\
\text{s.t.}\quad
& \sum_{j} x_{n,k}^{j}\leq C_{n,k}, \quad \forall\; k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in \mathcal{N}, \label{eq:obj1} \displaybreak[0]\\
& \sum_{m \in \mathcal{N}}x_{m,k}^{j} \leq r_{n,k}^{j}, \quad \forall\; j\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in \mathcal{N}, \label{eq:obj2}\displaybreak[1]\\
& x_{n,k}^{j} \geq 0, \quad \forall\; j\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in \mathcal{N}, \label{eq:obj3} \displaybreak[2]\\
& u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l+{x}_{n,k}^l)-
u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l)- \nonumber \\
& D^l({x}_{n,k}^l)\geq0, \forall l \in \mathcal{M}\backslash\mathcal{M}_n, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in \mathcal{N}\label{eq:obj4} .
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The first summation term in \eqref{eq:obj} represents the utility earned by an ESP providing resources to the native applications, whereas the second summation term describes the utility earned by providing resources to non-native applications.
Note that constraint \eqref{eq:obj1} indicates that the total allocated resources cannot exceed the resource capacity of the service providers. \eqref{eq:obj2} states that the total amount of resources allocated to any application using the resource-sharing framework cannot exceed the amount of requested resources. \eqref{eq:obj3} says that the resource allocation cannot be negative whereas \eqref{eq:obj4} indicates that the incremental increase in utility earned by providing resources to non-native applications should be non-negative.
\subsection{Assumptions}\label{sec:assumption}
In our model, we assume that each utility is a concave injective function for which the inverse of the first derivative exists, such as $(1-e^{-x})$.
Strictly speaking, our centralized NBS framework requires only concave injective utility functions\cite{yaiche2000game}. However, the existence of the inverse of the first derivative is required for the distributed NBS (see details in Section \ref{sec:nbs}). The communication cost is a convex function, hence the objective function in \eqref{eq:opt_higher} is concave.
All resources are fully utilized in the optimal solution. However, there are enough resources to provide a positive utility to all service providers when sharing resources. This is a realistic assumption as the demand for resources is usually more than the supply.
Furthermore, we assume that when ESPs share resources, there exist solutions that are better than when they are all working alone. This assumption can be relaxed, that is, if certain ESPs cannot improve their utility using the bargaining solution, they will not participate in the resource sharing framework. However, the framework can still be used for the remaining ESPs.
\subsection{Choice of utility function}
While our framework works with any utility that satisfies the conditions in Section \ref{sec:assumption}, choosing a suitable utility function along with the communication cost can minimize \emph{resource fragmentation}\footnote{We define resource fragmentation as the process in which resources provided to an application $j$ are split across multiple ESPs rather than a single ESP. }.
Generally, a concave utility has a steeper slope at start that becomes flatter as more resources are allocated, i.e., the rate of increase in the payoff for allocating resources reduces with increase in the amount of allocated resources. This results in an ESP providing a fraction of originally requested resources to an application and keeping the remaining resources for other applications. Hence, the application does not get all the resources it needed, and has to ask another ESP for more resources, resulting in resource fragmentation.
For example, assume that two applications require $4$ units of a particular resource from ESP $n$ that only has $3$ units available. Due to the nature of many concave utilities, ESP $n$ for maximizing its utility will provide part of its resources to one application and the remaining resources to the other application rather than providing all $3$ available units to one application and borrowing resources for the other application. This causes resource fragmentation, i.e., both applications received only a part of the required resources and they will need to obtain the remaining amount from other ESP(s). To avoid such problems, we propose that the utility function should consider:
\begin{itemize}
\item Minimum acceptable amount of resources: The ESPs should earn either zero utility or a negative utility if the resources provided are not within $\delta$ units of the requested resource $r_{n,k}^j$. Rather than using a utility function such as $1-e^{-(x_{n,k}^j)}$ that pays the ESP even when a small amount of resources are provided, it is better to use $1-e^{-(x_{n,k}^j-r_{n,k}^j +\delta)}$ that becomes positive only when the allocation $x_{n,k}^j$ is within $\delta_t$ units of the requested resource $r_{n,k}^j$. Such a utility along with the communication cost helps minimize the aforementioned fragmentation problem.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Assumptions}\label{sec:assumption}
In our model, we assume that utilities are concave injective functions for which the inverse of first derivative exists, such as $(1-e^{-x})$. While our centralized NBS framework requires only concave injective utility function, the existence of first derivative's inverse is required for the distributed NBS (details in Section \ref{sec:nbs}).
We also assume that resources required by different applications are more than the capacity of domains. Hence, all resources are fully utilized at the optimal solution. The single objective optimization problem in \eqref{eq:opt_single} is feasible for all the players $n \in \mathcal{N}$. Furthermore, we assume that there exists solutions that are better than the disagreement point for all the players.
\begin{comment}
Before we get into the details of solving the problem, we present an example to understand this
\begin{example}
Let's say we have two different data centers owned by service provider $A$ and $B$ respectively ($A$ and $B$ are game players). Resources available at domain $A$ and $B$ are represented by $C^{A}$ and $C^{B}$ respectively. Users in sets $\mathcal{M}_{A}$ and $\mathcal{M}_{B}$ ask for resources and pay a certain price (profit for data centers) $u_A(\mathcal{X})$ and $u_B(\mathcal{X})$. However, let's say $A$ has scarce resources while $B$ has excess resources. So by forming a coalition, users in $\mathcal{M}_s \subset\mathcal{M}_{A}$ that can't be satisfied by $A$ will be provided resources by $B$ without the users realizing who are providing the resources (since the coalition will make everything appear as one to the user). The profit that $B$ will earn for providing its resources will be equivalent to the profit $A$ would have earned (as $A$ has agreed upon a certain contract with its users $\mathcal{M}_{A}$) had it satisfied the user's request itself. So for $B$, it will earn utility $u_B(X)$ for satisfying its own users plus $u_A^B(X^{\mathcal{M}_s})$ (slight abuse of notation where $X^{\mathcal{M}_s}$ represents the allocation decision for users ${\mathcal{M}_s}$ in domain $B$) for satisfying the users $\mathcal{M}_s \subset\mathcal{M}_{A}$. So this added utility $u_A^B(X^{\mathcal{M}_s})$ is the pay-off for $B$ to share resources. This coalition clearly helps both. $A$ increases its customer satisfaction (as per the contract $A$ had agreed to provide resources to all the users $\mathcal{M}_{A}$), while $B$ earns extra using its excess resources. So it is a stable coalition.
\end{example}
\begin{example}[Utility Example]
For any two players \{1,2\}, $u_1 (\mathcal{X})$ will be given by
\begin{equation}
u_1(\mathcal{X})=\sum_{i \in \mathcal{M}_1}\bigg(\prod_{k=1}^{{K}}\frac{1}{1+e^{-m(x_{ik}^{(1)}-R^{(1)}_{req,ik})}}\bigg)
\end{equation}
$u_2 (\mathcal{X})$ will be given by
\begin{equation}
u_2(\mathcal{X})=\sum_{i \in \mathcal{M}_2}\bigg(\prod_{k=1}^{|\mathcal{K}|}(1-e^{-(\frac{1}{R^{(2)}_{req,ik}})x_{ik}^{(2)}})\bigg)
\end{equation}
$u_2^{\mathcal{X}} (\mathcal{X})$ will be given by
\begin{equation}
u_2^{1}(\mathcal{X})=\sum_{i \in \mathcal{M}_2}\bigg(\prod_{k=1}^{|\mathcal{K}|}(1-e^{-(\frac{1}{R^{(2)}_{req,ik}})x_{ik}^{(1)}})\bigg)
\end{equation}
$u_1^{\mathcal{X}} (\mathcal{X})$ will be given by
\begin{equation}
u_1^{2}(\mathcal{X})=\sum_{i \in \mathcal{M}_1}\bigg(\prod_{k=1}^{{K}}\frac{1}{1+e^{-m(x_{ik}^{(2)}-R^{(1)}_{req,ik})}}\bigg)
\end{equation}
\end{example}
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
\subsection{Game Theoretic Solution}
We first define the characteristic function $v$ for our game that can solve problem in~\eqref{eq:opt_higher}
\begin{align} \label{eq:payoff_function}
v(\mathcal{N})=\sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in \mathcal{N}$} \\ \text{$C_{k}= \sum_{n \in \mathcal{N}}C_{k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} x_{ik}^{(n)}\leq C_{k}^{(n)} \; \forall k \in \mathcal{K}, \; \forall n \in \mathcal{N}$}\\ \text{$\sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}}x_{ik}^{(j)} \leq R^{(n)}_{ik} \; \forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in \mathcal{N}$}}}\bigg(w_n u_n(\mathcal{X})+ \zeta_{n}\sum_{j \in \mathcal{N},j\neq n} u^{n}_j(\mathcal{X})\bigg)
\end{align}
\begin{remark}
The characteristic function in Equation~\eqref{eq:payoff_function} is for the grand coalition $\mathcal{N}$. For any $S \subseteq \mathcal{N}$, the characteristic function will be
\end{remark}
\begin{align} \label{eq:payoff_s_function}
v({S})=\sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in {S}$} \\ \text{$C_{k}= \sum_{n \in {S}}C_{k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} x_{ik}^{(n)}\leq C_{k}^{(n)} \;\forall k \in \mathcal{K}, \; \forall n \in {S}$}\\ \text{$\sum_{j \in {S}}x_{ik}^{(j)} \leq R^{(n)}_{ik} \; \forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in {S}$}}} \bigg(w_n u_n(\mathcal{X})+ \zeta_{n}\sum_{j \in S,j\neq n} u^{n}_j(\mathcal{X})\bigg)
\end{align}
\begin{theorem}
Resource allocation and sharing problem (with multiple objectives) in aforementioned settings can be modeled as a canonical cooperative game with TU.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
To prove this, we need to show that the characteristic function of resource sharing and allocation problem satisfies the following two conditions
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Characteristic form of payoff:} As the utility function in a resource sharing and allocation problem only relies on the domains that are part of the coalition, the game or payoff function is of characteristic form
\item \textbf{Superadditivity:} Super-additivity for TU games requires $v(S_1 \cup S_2 )\geq v(S_1)+V(S_2) \; \forall S_1 \subset \mathcal{N}, S_2 \subset \mathcal{N}, s.t. S_1\cap S_2 =\emptyset$ i.e. we have to prove that the pay-off or utility for a domain in the coalition is as good as domain working alone or in a smaller coalition. Due to monotonicity property of the utility functions used, for all players/domains $n \in \mathcal{N}$, $u_n(X_n^{NC})\leq u_n(X_n^{C})$ as $X_n^{NC}\subset {X_n^{C}}$ \footnote{because $X_n^{C}$ can contain much more elements due to the increase in $C$ in the coalition} where $X_n^{C}$ and $X_n^{NC}$ are the allocation decisions in a cooperative game and independent setting respectively for domain $n$.
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:MOOGame}
A canonical cooperative game $(\mathcal{N}, v)$ with TU can be used to obtain the Pareto-optimal solutions for the multi-objective optimization problem given in \eqref{eq:opt_higher}
\end{lemma}
To prove Lemma \ref{lemma:MOOGame}, we must show that the core is non-empty for our canonical game. To do this, we first show that our game is convex.
\begin{definition}[Convex Games]
A coalition game is said to be convex if and only if for every player $n \in \mathcal{N}$, the marginal contribution of the player is non-decreasing W.R.T set inclusion. Mathematically, for $S_1\subseteq S_2 \subseteq \mathcal{N}\backslash \{n\}$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:convexgames}
v(S_1 \cup \{n\})-v(S_1) \leq v(S_2 \cup \{n\})-v(S_2)
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
\begin{theorem}
Our canonical game is convex
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let us consider two coalition $S_1$ and $S_2$, where $S_1\subseteq S_2 \subseteq \mathcal{N}\backslash\{j\}$ where $j \in \mathcal{N}$. Then we first calculate $v(S_2 \cup \{j\})-v(S_1 \cup \{j\})$
\begin{align}\label{eq:convexityProof}
& \sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in {S_2}$},\; \text{$C_{k}= \sum_{n \in {S_2}}C_{k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} x_{ik}^{(n)}\leq C_{k}^{(n)} \; \forall k \in \mathcal{K},\; \forall n \in {S_2}$}\\ \text{$\sum_{j \in {S_2}}x_{ik}^{(j)} \leq R^{(n)}_{ik} \;\forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in {S_2}$}}}\bigg(w_n u_n(\mathcal{X})+ w'_{n}\sum_{k \in {S_2}, k\neq n} u^{j}_k(\mathcal{X})\bigg) + w_j u_j ^{(S_2)}(\mathcal{X}) + \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_2, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{X}) - \nonumber \\
& \Bigg(\sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in {S_1}$},\; \text{$C_{k}= \sum_{n \in {S_1}}C_{k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} x_{ik}^{(n)}\leq C_{k}^{(n)} \; \forall k \in \mathcal{K}, \; \forall n \in {S_1}$} \\ \text{$\sum_{j \in {S_1}}x_{ik}^{(j)} \leq R^{(n)}_{ik} \quad \forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in {S_1}$}}}\bigg(w_n u_n(\mathcal{X})+ w'_{n}\sum_{k \in {S_1}, k \neq n} u^{j}_k(\mathcal{X})\bigg) + w_j u_j ^{(S_1)}(\mathcal{X}) + \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_1, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{X})\nonumber \Bigg)\\
&= \sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in {S_2}\backslash S_1$}, \text{$C_{k}= \sum_{n \in {S_2}\backslash S_1}C_{k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} x_{ik}^{(n)}\leq C_{k}^{(n)} \; \forall k \in \mathcal{K},\; \forall n \in {S_2}\backslash S_1$} \\ \text{$\sum_{j \in {S_2 \backslash S_1}}x_{ik}^{(j)} \leq R^{(n)}_{ik} \quad \forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in {S_2 \backslash S_1}$}}}\bigg(w_n u_n(\mathcal{X})+ w'_{n}\sum_{k \in {\{S_2 \backslash S_1\}}, k \neq n} u^{j}_k(\mathcal{X})\bigg) + w_j u_j ^{(S_2)}(\mathcal{X}) \nonumber \\
& + \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_2, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{X}) - w_j u_j ^{(S_1)}(\mathcal{X}) - \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_1, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{X}) \nonumber \\
& = v(S_2)- v(S_1)+ w_j u_j ^{(S_2)}(\mathcal{X}) + \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_2, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{X}) - w_j u_j ^{(S_1)}(\mathcal{X}) - \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_1, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{X}) \nonumber \\
& \geq v(S_2)- v(S_1)
\end{align}
where the last inequality follows from the fact that $ w_j u_j ^{(S_2)}(\mathcal{X}) + \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_2, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{X}) - w_j u_j ^{(S_1)}(\mathcal{X}) - \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_1, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{X})\geq 0$ (monotonicity of the utility)
\end{proof}
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Is the core non-empty?
\item If the core is non-empty and consists of different pay-off allocations, how do we choose any particular pay-off allocation vector?
\end{enumerate}
Below we attempt to answer these questions
\begin{definition}[Balanced Collection] Let $\Omega$ be a collection of different coalitions. $\Omega$ is considered to be a \emph{balanced collection} if we can find non-negative weights $w_S$ for each $S \in \Omega$ such that for every player $n$
\begin{align}\label{eq:balancedcollection}
\sum_{S \in \Omega, S \ni n}w_S =1
\end{align}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[Balanced Game] A game is called balanced if for every balanced collection $\Omega$, the payoff vector $\mathbf{x}$ will be in $V_{\mathcal{N}}$ if $\mathbf{x}_S \in V_S\; \forall S \in \Omega$
\end{definition}
\begin{theorem}[Bondareva-Shapley Theorem]\label{thm:BST}
The core of a game is non-empty if and only if the game is balanced
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}
The core for canonical game with our characteristic function(in Equation~\eqref{eq:payoff_function}) is non-empty
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
From the definition of characteristic functions for TU games (see \cite{han2012game} for details), $v: 2^{\mathcal{N}}$ \textrightarrow $\mathbb{R}$ with $v(\emptyset)=\emptyset$. This means that the total number of coalitions possible for $\mathcal{N}$ players is $2^{|\mathcal{N}|}-1$ (we ignore the empty set). For $\Omega$, the non-negative weights $w_S$ which satisfy the condition for balanced collection in Equation~\eqref{eq:balancedcollection} are given by $\frac{1}{2^{|\mathcal{N}|-1}}$. Hence $\Omega$ is a balanced collection. We also know that $v(S)\subseteq v(\mathcal{N})$ as $v(\mathcal{N})$ is defined over a larger feasible set due to increased amount of available resources. Leveraging the monotonicity property of the utility functions used, we know that any payoff vector $\mathbf{x}$ will be in $V_{\mathcal{N}}$ if $\mathbf{x}_S$\footnote{$\mathbf{x}_S$ is the projection of $\mathbf{x}$ onto the vector space $\mathbb{R}^{|S|}$} $\in V_S\; \forall S \in \Omega$. Hence our canonical game with characteristic function $v$ in Equation~\eqref{eq:payoff_function} is balanced and its core is non-empty (from Theorem \ref{thm:BST})
\end{proof}
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
\begin{theorem}
The core of any convex game $(\mathcal{N},v)$ is non-empty and large.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Available in \cite{sharkey1982cooperative}
\end{proof}
While the existence of core i.e., core being non-empty, guarantees the grand coalition is stable, finding a suitable allocation from the core is challenging particularly when the core is large (our game). Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, fairness is also a shortcoming of core based solutions. Shapley value can be used to obtain a fair allocation, however, we first need to show that the Shapley value lies in the core to guarantee that the Shapley value based allocation is stable for the grand coalition.
\begin{theorem}
The Shapley value in Equation~\eqref{eq:shapleyvalue} lies in the core of our canonical game
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Since our canonical game is convex, the Shapley value lies in the core \cite{han2012game} (see \cite{roger1991game} for details)
\end{proof}
We summarize this in the remark below.
\begin{remark}
If a TU game $(\mathcal{N}, v)$ is convex, then the core is non-empty and the Shapley Value lies in the core \cite{garg2013novel}.
\end{remark}
Calculation of Shapley value given in Equation~\eqref{eq:shapleyvalue} is challenging \cite{han2012game}. Since our game is convex, calculating its Shapley value is slightly easier as given below.
\subsubsection{Shapley Value for a Convex Game}
Let $\pi$ denote the permutation of players in our game. Then for any permutation $p$ from the total possible permutations $|\mathcal{N}|!$, one can obtain the initial segments of ordering by \cite{garg2013novel}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:initialsegment}
O_{\pi, r}=\{ n \in \mathcal{N} : \pi(n) \leq r \}, \; r \in \{1, \cdots, N\}
\end{equation}
where $O_{\pi, 0}=\{\}$ and $O_{\pi, |\mathcal{N}|} =\mathcal{N}$. $\pi(n)$ refers to the position of the player $n$ in the permutation $\pi$. The core of any particular ordering $\pi$ can be obtained by solving equations
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:x_i_pi_sol}
x_n^{\pi}(O_{\pi, r}) = v(O_{\pi, r}), \; r \in \{ 1, \cdots, N\}
\end{equation}
The solution to above Equations~\eqref{eq:x_i_pi_sol} will result in a payoff vector $x^{\pi}$ where the elements of the vector are given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:vectorelements}
x_n^{\pi}=v(O_{\pi, \pi(n)})- v(O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1}), \quad \forall n \in \mathcal{N}
\end{equation}
The payoff vectors $x^{\pi}$ represent the extreme points of the core in convex games \cite{garg2013novel}. So if $\prod$ represents the set of all possible permutations of $\mathcal{N}$, the Shapley value of any player $n$ can be calculated as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:shapleyconvex}
\phi_n=\frac{1}{|\mathcal{N}|!}\sum_{\pi \in \prod} x_n^{\pi}
\end{equation}
\begin{comment}
So for our coalition game $(\mathcal{N},v)$, the Shapley value is
\begin{align}
\label{eq:ourshapleyconvex}
\phi_n&=\frac{1}{|\mathcal{N}|!}\sum_{\pi \in \prod} \bigg( \sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)}}$} \\ \text{$R_{av,k}= \sum_{n \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)}}}R_{av,k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} a_{ik}^{(n)}\leq R_{av,k}^{(n)} \;\forall k \in \mathcal{K}, \; \forall n \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)}}$} \\ \text{$$}\text{$\sum_{j \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)}}}a_{ik}^{(j)} \leq R^{(n)}_{req,ik} \;\forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in O_{\pi, \pi(n)}$}}}\bigg(w_n u_n^{(\pi)}(\mathcal{A})+ w'_{n}\sum_{j \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)}}, j \neq n} u^{n,(\pi)}_j(\mathcal{A})\bigg)- \nonumber \\
&\Bigg(\sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1}}$} \\ \text{$R_{av,k}= \sum_{n \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1}}}R_{av,k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} a_{ik}^{(n)}\leq R_{av,k}^{(n)} \; \forall k \in \mathcal{K}, \; \forall n \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1}}$}}}\bigg(w_n u^{(\pi)}_n(\mathcal{A})+ w'_{n}\sum_{j \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1}}, j \neq n} u^{n,(\pi)}_j(\mathcal{A})\bigg)\Bigg) \nonumber \\
&=\frac{1}{|\mathcal{N}|!}\sum_{\pi \in \prod} \bigg( \sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)}\backslash O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1} }$} \\ \text{$R_{av,k}= \sum_{n \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)}\backslash O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1}}}R_{av,k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} a_{ik}^{(n)}\leq R_{av,k}^{(n)} \;\forall k \in \mathcal{K}, \; \forall n \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)}\backslash O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1}}$} \\ \text{$\sum_{j \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)}\backslash O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1}}}a_{ik}^{(j)} \leq R^{(n)}_{req,ik} \;\forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in O_{\pi, \pi(n)}\backslash O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1}$} }}\bigg(w_n u^{(\pi)}_n(\mathcal{A})+ \nonumber \\
& w'_{n}\sum_{j \in \{{O_{\pi, \pi(n)}} \}, j \neq n} u^{n,(\pi)}_j(\mathcal{A}) + w'_{n}\sum_{j \in \{{O_{\pi, \pi(n)}} \}, j \neq n} u^{j,(\pi)}_n(\mathcal{A}) \bigg)\bigg) \nonumber \\
&=\frac{1}{|\mathcal{N}|!}\sum_{\pi \in \prod}\bigg(w_nu^{(\pi)}_n(\mathcal{A})+ w'_{n}\sum_{j \in \{{O_{\pi, \pi(n)}} \}, j \neq n} u^{n,(\pi)}_j(\mathcal{A}) +w'_{n}\sum_{j \in \{{O_{\pi, \pi(n)}} \}, j \neq n} u^{j,(\pi)}_n(\mathcal{A}) \bigg)
\end{align}
where Equation~\eqref{eq:ourshapleyconvex} provides the Shapley value for our convex game. It is evident that our Shapley value depends on the utility of the player $n$, the utility player $n$ achieves by allocating resources to players in $j \in O_{\pi, \pi(n)}, j \neq n $ and the utility player $j \neq n, j \in O_{\pi, \pi(n)}$ achieves by allocating resources to player $n$ in every possible permutation.
\begin{comment}
\begin{algorithm}
\begin{algorithmic}[]
\State \textbf{Input}: $tt$
\State \textbf{Output}: The optimal hit probabilities
\State \textbf{Step $1$:} $t \leftarrow$0, $\boldsymbol{\lambda^{(t)}\leftarrow\lambda_0}$, $\boldsymbol{\mu^{(t)}\leftarrow\mu_0}$
\While{Equation \eqref{eq:gradient1} $\neq$ 0
\State \textbf{Step $2$}:$\boldsymbol{h_{il}^{(p)}[t]} \leftarrow \frac{w_i\beta^{|p|-l}}{\lambda_{l}[t-1]\Bigg(\prod_{\substack{q \neq p,\\ q:l\in\{1,\cdots,|q|\}}}(1-h_{il}^{(q)}[t-1])\Bigg)+\mu_{ip}[t-1]}. $
\State \textbf{Step $3$:} Update $\lambda$ and $\mu$ using \eqref{eq:update}, t $\leftarrow t+1$
\EndWhile
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{Iterative Distributed Algorithm}
\label{algo:alg}
\end{algorithm}
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
\begin{remark}
Shapley value calculation for our convex game requires solving at least $2^{N}-1$ optimization problems
\end{remark}
Algorithm \ref{algo:alg1} provides an overview of our proposed approach. We obtain $R, C$ and the utility of all players as $\mathbf{u}$. We initialize each player's utility value ($\mathbf{u}(R,\mathcal{X})$), Shapley value ($\boldsymbol{\phi} $) and resource allocation decision $\mathcal{X}$ to $0$. Then we calculate the Shapley value for the players and assign it to $\mathbf{u}(R,\mathcal{X})$. Finally to obtain $\mathcal{X}$, we take the inverse function of $\mathbf{u}$. As we are using monotone utilities, we know that the inverse of the utilities exist.
\begin{algorithm}
\begin{algorithmic}[]
\State \textbf{Input}: $R, C,$ and vector of utility functions of all players $\mathbf{u}$
\State \textbf{Output}: $\mathcal{X}$
\State \textbf{Step $1$:} $ \mathbf{u}(R,\mathcal{X}) \leftarrow$0, $ \mathcal{X} \leftarrow$0, $ \boldsymbol{\phi} \leftarrow$0,
\State \textbf{Step $1$:} Calculate Shapley Value $\phi_n$ using Equation \eqref{eq:shapleyconvex} $\forall n \in \mathcal{N}$
\State \textbf{Step $2$:} $ \mathbf{u}(R,\mathcal{X}) \leftarrow \boldsymbol{\phi}$
\State \textbf{Step $3$:} $\mathcal{X}\leftarrow \mathbf{u}^{-1}$
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{Shapley Value based Resource Allocation}
\label{algo:alg1}
\end{algorithm}
\subsubsection{Reducing the Computational Complexity}
As mentioned earlier, that the calculation of Shapley value for our convex game requires at solving at least $2^{N}-1$ optimization problems that is computationally expensive. To reduce the complexity, we propose a computationally efficient approach in Algorithm 2 that requires solving $2N$ optimization problems i.e. $\mathcal{O}(N)$. The input into the algorithm consists of available resources/capacities, user requirements and the utilities of all game players. The output of the algorithm is $\mathcal{X}$. In Step 1, the utility values of the players, the allocation decision, and two vectors $\boldsymbol{O_1}$ and $\boldsymbol{O_2}$. In Step 2, every player's utility is calculated without any resource sharing i.e. single optimization and the values are stored in the vector $\boldsymbol{O_1}$. Then $C, R$ are updated and we move to Step 4, where we calculated the utilities $u_j^n$'s for all the players with updated $C, R$ and store them in $\boldsymbol{O_2}$.
\begin{algorithm}
\begin{algorithmic}[]
\State \textbf{Input}: $R, C,$ and vector of utility functions of all players $\mathbf{u}$
\State \textbf{Output}: $\mathcal{X}$
\State \textbf{Step $1$:} $ \mathbf{u}(R,\mathcal{X}) \leftarrow$0, $ \mathcal{X} \leftarrow$0, $ \boldsymbol{\phi} \leftarrow$0, $ \boldsymbol{O_1} \leftarrow$0, $ \boldsymbol{O_2} \leftarrow$0,
\State \textbf{Step $2$:}
\For{\texttt{$n \in \mathcal{N}$}}
\State $ {O_1^n} \leftarrow$ \texttt{Solution of the optimization problem in Equation \eqref{eq:opt_single}}
\EndFor
\State \textbf{Step $3$:} Update $C$ and $R$ based on Step 2
\State \textbf{Step $4$:}
\For{\texttt{$n \in \mathcal{N}$}}
\State $ {O_2^n} \leftarrow$ \texttt{Solution of the optimization problem in Equation \eqref{eq:opt_single_j}}
\State Update $C$ and $R$
\EndFor
\State \textbf{Step $5$:} $u_n(R,\mathcal{X})\leftarrow O_1^n+O_2^n$ $\forall n \in \mathcal{N}$
\State \textbf{Step $6$:} $\mathcal{X}\leftarrow \mathbf{u}^{-1}$
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{$\mathcal{O}$($N$) algorithm for obtaining Core's allocation}
\label{algo:alg2}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:opt_single_j}
\begin{align}
\max_{\mathcal{X}}\quad& \sum_{j\neq n}u_j^n(\mathcal{X}) \quad \forall n \in \mathcal{N} \label{eq:objsinglej}\\
\text{s.t.}\quad & \sum_{i} x_{ik}^{(n)}\leq C_{k}^{(n)} \quad \forall k \in \mathcal{K}, \quad \forall i \in \mathcal{M}\backslash\mathcal{M}_n, \label{eq:singlefirstj} \displaybreak[0]\\
& x_{ik}^{(n)} \leq R^{(n)}_{ik} \quad \forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}\backslash\mathcal{M}_n, k \in \mathcal{K}, \label{eq:singlesecondj} \displaybreak[1]\\
& x_{ik}^{(n)} \geq 0 \quad \forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}\backslash\mathcal{M}_n, k \in \mathcal{K}, \label{eq:singlethirdj} \displaybreak[2]
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\begin{theorem}
The solution obtained from Algorithm \ref{algo:alg2} lies in the \emph{core}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
To prove the theorem, we need to show that the utilities obtained in Step $5$ of Algorithm \ref{algo:alg2}; a) are individually rational; b) are group rational and c) no players have the incentive to leave the grand coalition and form another another coalition $S \subset \mathcal{N}$.
\paragraph{Individual Rationality} For each player $n \in \mathcal{N}$, the solution $O_1^n$ obtained by solving the optimization problem in Equation \eqref{eq:opt_single} is the utility a player will obtain by working alone i.e. it is $v\{n\}$. The value $O_2^n$ in Step 4 is either zero or positive but cannot be negative due to the nature of utility used i.e.
\begin{align}
u_n(R,\mathcal{X})&=O_1^n+O_2^n \quad \forall n \in \mathcal{N} \nonumber \\
u_n(R,\mathcal{X})&\geq O_1^n \quad \forall n \in \mathcal{N}\nonumber
\end{align}
Hence the solution obtained as a result of Algorithm \ref{algo:alg2} is individually rational.
\paragraph{Group Rationality} The value of the grand coalition $v\{\mathcal{N}\}$ as per Equation \eqref{eq:payoff_function} is the sum of utilities $u_n$'s and $u_j^n$'s. Steps 2, 4 and 5 of Algorithm \ref{algo:alg2} obtain the sum of the utilities as well. Hence the solution obtained as a result of Algorithm \ref{algo:alg2} is group rational rational.
\par Furthermore, due to super-additivity of the game and monotonic non-decreasing nature of the utilities, no players have the incentive to form a smaller coalition. Hence Algorithm \ref{algo:alg2} provides a solution from the core.
\end{proof}
\end{comment}
\subsection{Simulations results for synthetic data}
\subsubsection{{Evaluation of the distributed algorithm}}
To validate our results related to strong duality and our proposed distributed algorithm, we obtain the solution for Setting $1$ in Table \ref{tab:settings} using both the central and distributed algorithm as shown in Figure \ref{fig:dist}. It is evident that both the algorithms converge to the same solution, hence the duality gap is zero and our proposed distributed algorithm converges to the global optimal.
\subsubsection{Utility, resource utilization, request satisfaction and fairness}
To highlight the efficacy of our framework, we compare its performance with a setting where ESPs work alone (i.e., no resource sharing among ESPs).
In particular, we compare ESP utility, the average resource utilization (averaged across all $k$ resources) and the average request satisfaction (averaged across requests of all ESPs applications) in Figures \ref{fig:withNBS1} and \ref{fig:withNBS2} for $3$ and $20$ applications per ESP, respectively.
When ESP $1$ works alone, it has a resource deficit (evident from $100\%$ average resource utilization and average request satisfaction of less than 60\% and 80\% in Figures \ref{fig:withNBS1} and \ref{fig:withNBS2}, respectively) whereas ESPs $2$ and $3$ have resource surpluses as indicated by less than $100\%$ resource utilization and $100\%$ request satisfaction. The resource deficit results in a lower utility and request satisfaction for ESP $1$.
On the other hand, both ESPs $2$ and $3$ achieve higher utilities by satisfying all their applications when working alone. However, by using our resource sharing framework, the utilities of all ESPs improve as the framework provides optimal resource sharing.
For the case with three applications, average request satisfaction improves from $86.11\%$ (working alone) to $94.5\%$ (resource sharing) whereas it improves from $90.9\%$ to $99\%$ for the $20$ application case. It is worth noting that request satisfaction for native applications of ESPs $2$ and $3$ reduce as these ESPs allocate their resources to applications of ESP $1$ for a higher utility.
Furthermore, resource utilizations also increase for the ESPs with resource surpluses as they share their resources with the ESP with a resource deficit. To measure the degree of fairness of the proposed sharing framework, we calculate \emph{Jain}'s index\footnote{$\frac{1}{|N|}\leq$Jain's index$\leq 1$ where $1$ is the highest value of fairness.} \cite{jain1999throughput,jain1984aquantitative} that is $0.95$ and $0.99$ for the cases with $3$ and $20$ applications.
Especially for scenarios with a large number of applications, these results reveal that our framework enables fair sharing and allocation of resources among ESPs, as one would expect from the product-based fairness as offered by the NBS.
\subsection{Results for the data traces}
We use trace files from \emph{fastStorage}, \emph{Rnd} \cite{shen2015statistical}, and \emph{materna} \cite{kohne2014federatedcloudsim,kohne2016evaluation}.
We simulate a setting with three different ESPs and randomly extract the normalized resource request information related to the number of CPU cores, the amount of CPU and memory (RAM) for 20 different resource requests from \emph{fastStorage}, \emph{Rnd} and \emph{materna} dataset. Since the datasets do not provide the capacities of these service providers, we assign capacities in such a way that fastStorage serves as the ESP with resource deficit while the other two have resource surplus. Figure \ref{fig:withNBS6} shows ESP utilities, request satisfaction and resource utilization based on the data traces. It is evident that ESP utilities improve and resource utilizations increase to satisfy more applications by use of the proposed NBS framework. The average request satisfaction also increases from $83.3\%$ to $92.05\%$ whereas the Jain index is $0.98$.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=1.00\textwidth]{figures/tr1.eps
\caption{Utility, average request satisfaction and average resource utilization for Setting $3$ when ESPs are working alone and using our proposed NBS framework.}
\protect\label{fig:withNBS6}
\end{figure*}
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{figures/three20tr.eps
\vspace{-0.1in}
\caption{Utility of CSPs with trace files.}
\vspace{-0.2in}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\subfloat[Utility function\label{fig:withNBS3}]{\includegraphics[width=0.255\textwidth]{figures/three20tr_1.eps}}
\hspace{-0.2in}
\subfloat[Resource utilization \label{fig:withNBS4}]{\includegraphics[width=0.255\textwidth]{figures/three20tr2_1.eps}}
\caption{Utility and resource utilization for the trace files (Setting $3$) using our proposed framework. }%
\protect\label{fig:withNBS6}
\vspace{-0.25in}
\end{figure}
\end{comment}
We evaluate the performance of the proposed NBS framework for resource sharing and allocation across several settings in Table \ref{tab:settings}.
Each SP has three different resources, i.e., storage, communication and computation. The model can be extended to include other resources/parameters.
We study the proposed framework using both synthetic and real-world data traces \cite{shen2015statistical,kohne2014federatedcloudsim,kohne2016evaluation}.
For the study with synthetic and real-world data traces, request matrices and capacity vectors, $\forall n \in \mathcal{N}$ are randomly generated for each setting.
To show the advantage of resource sharing for both synthetic and data trace, we set large resource capacities at certain SPs so that they can improve their utilities by sharing available resources with other SPs for meeting the demand of latter SPs.
\begin{comment}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\vspace{-1.4in}
\includegraphics[width=0.53\textwidth]{chapter4/dist
\vspace{-1.4in}
\caption{Comparison of centralized and distributed algorithms.}
\protect\label{fig:dist}
\end{figure}
\end{comment}
Simulations were run in \texttt{Matlab R2019a} on a \texttt{Core-i7} processor with \texttt{16 GB RAM}. To solve the optimization problems in \eqref{eq:opt_single} and \eqref{eq:objmain2}, we use the \texttt{OPTI-toolbox}\cite{currie2012opti}.
We evaluate our proposed algorithms from the perspective of service providers that are interested in maximizing their utilities and evaluate the impact of our framework on the applications.
We define application \emph{request satisfaction} (RS) as the ratio of allocated resources to requested resources.
Mathematically, average RS for an SP $n$ in the resource sharing case is defined as:
\begin{align}\label{eq:requestsatisfaction}
\centering
RS_{n}= \frac{\sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}_n}\sum_{k \in \mathcal{K}}\big(\frac{\sum_{m \in \mathcal{{N}}}x_{m,k}^{j}}{r_{n,k}^{j}}\big)}{M_nK} \times 100,
\end{align}
The utility and communication cost functions used in simulation are given in \eqref{eq:utility}.
\begin{align}\label{eq:utility}
\centering
u^j(x_{n,k}^j) & = 1-e^{-(x_{n,k}^j-r_{n,k}^j+\delta)}, \nonumber \\
D^j(x_{n,k}^j) &= \frac{x_{n,k}^j}{w},
\end{align}
Here $\delta$ is set to $1$ and weight $w$ is randomly chosen.
\begin{comment}
Furthermore, the utility each CSP earned by satisfying requests for resources by application $j$ in the simulations is given in \eqref{eq:util}.
\begin{align}\label{eq:util}
\centering
u_n^j(x_{n,k}^j+\sum_{m \in \mathcal{{N}}\backslash n}x_{m,k}^j)= 1-e^{-(x_{n,k}^j+\sum_{m \in \mathcal{{N}}\backslash n}x_{m,k}^j-r_{n,k}^j +\delta t)}
\end{align}
where $\delta_t$ was set to be $1$ and the communication cost $C_n^l(\boldsymbol{.})$ was a weighted linear function of the resource allocated at the remote CSP.
\end{comment}
\begin{table}[]
\centering
\caption{Simulation network settings for NBS based resource sharing
framework.}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|}
\hline
\textbf{Setting} & \textbf{Parameters} \\ \hline
\textbf{1} & $N=3, M_n=3,\forall n \in \mathcal{N}, K=3$ \\ \hline
\textbf{2} & $N=3, M_n=20,\forall n \in \mathcal{N}, K=3$ \\ \hline
\textbf{3 (data traces)} & $N=3, M_n=20,\forall n \in \mathcal{N}, K=3$ \\ \hline
\textbf{4} & $N=6, M_n=6,\forall n \in \mathcal{N}, K=3$ \\ \hline
\textbf{5} & $N=6, M_n=20,\forall n \in \mathcal{N}, K=3$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:settings}
\end{table}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{three3.pdf
\caption{Utility, average request satisfaction and average resource utilization for Setting $1$ when SPs are working alone and using our proposed NBS framework.}
\protect\label{fig:withNBS1}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{three20.pdf
\caption{Utility, average request satisfaction and average resource utilization for Setting $2$ when SPs are working alone and using our proposed NBS framework.}
\protect\label{fig:withNBS2}
\end{figure*}
\begin{comment}
\begin{sidewaysfigure}
\includegraphics[width=1.02\textwidth]{chapter4/three20.pdf
\caption{Utility, average request satisfaction and average resource utilization for Setting $2$ when ESPs are working alone and using our proposed NBS framework.}
\protect\label{fig:withNBS2}
\end{sidewaysfigure}
\end{comment}
\subsection{Simulations results for synthetic data}
\begin{comment}
\subsubsection{{Evaluation of the distributed algorithm}}
To validate our results related to strong duality and our proposed distributed algorithm, we obtain the solution for Setting $1$ in Table \ref{tab:settings} using both the central and distributed algorithm as shown in Figure \ref{fig:dist}. It is evident that both the algorithms converge to the same solution, hence the duality gap is zero and our proposed distributed algorithm converges to the global optimal.
\end{comment}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{6p6a.pdf
\caption{Utility, average request satisfaction and average resource utilization for Setting $4$ when SPs are working alone and using our proposed NBS framework.}
\protect\label{fig:withNBS66}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.00\textwidth]{6p20a.pdf
\caption{Utility, average request satisfaction and average resource utilization for Setting $5$ when SPs are working alone and using our proposed NBS framework.}
\protect\label{fig:withNBS7}
\end{figure*}
To highlight the efficacy of our framework, we compare its performance with a setting where SPs work alone (i.e., no resource sharing among edge SPs).
In particular, we compare SP utility, the average resource utilization (averaged across all $k$ resources) and the average request satisfaction (averaged across requests of all SPs applications) in Figures \ref{fig:withNBS1}, \ref{fig:withNBS2}, \ref{fig:withNBS66}, \ref{fig:withNBS7} for settings 1, 2, 4 and 5, respectively.
For the 3 SP settings, when SP $1$ works alone, it has a resource deficit (evident from $100\%$ average resource utilization and average request satisfaction of less than 60\% and 80\% in Figures \ref{fig:withNBS1} and \ref{fig:withNBS2}, respectively) whereas SPs $2$ and $3$ have resource surpluses as indicated by less than $100\%$ resource utilization and $100\%$ request satisfaction. The resource deficit results in a lower utility and request satisfaction for SP $1$.
On the other hand, both SPs $2$ and $3$ achieve higher utilities by satisfying all their applications when working alone. However, by using our resource sharing framework, the utilities of all SPs improve as the framework provides optimal resource sharing.
For the case with three applications, average request satisfaction improves from $86.11\%$ (working alone) to $94.5\%$ (resource sharing) whereas it improves from $90.9\%$ to $99\%$ for the $20$ application case. It is worth noting that request satisfaction for native applications of SPs $2$ and $3$ reduce as these SPs allocate their resources to applications of SP $1$ for a higher utility.
Furthermore, resource utilizations also increase for the SPs with resource surpluses as they share their resources with the SP with a resource deficit. Similar results are obtained for settings $4$ and $5$ given in Table \ref{tab:settings}. For setting $4$, the request satisfaction improves from 82.96\% to 92.94\% using our proposed NBS framework, whereas request satisfaction improves in setting $5$ from 84.85\% to 88.94\% using our proposed resource sharing framework. Table \ref{tab:summreqres} summarizes request satisfactions and resource utilization in different settings using our framework and when working alone.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.00\textwidth]{tr1.pdf
\caption{Utility, average request satisfaction and average resource utilization for Setting $3$ when SPs are working alone and using our proposed NBS framework.}
\protect\label{fig:withNBS6}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table}[]
\centering
\caption{Summary of average request satisfaction and resource utilization in different settings with and without the proposed NBS sharing framework.}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Setting}} & \multicolumn{2}{l|}{\textbf{Request Satisfaction(\%)}} & \multicolumn{2}{l|}{\textbf{Resource Utilization(\%)}} \\ \cline{2-5}
& \textbf{Alone} & \textbf{NBS} & \textbf{Alone} & \textbf{NBS} \\ \hline
\textbf{1} & 91.39 & 96.90 & 93.37 & 100 \\ \hline
\textbf{2} & 90.93 & 99.04 & 94.01 & 100 \\ \hline
\textbf{3} & 83.30 & 92.44 & 96.76 & 100 \\ \hline
\textbf{4} & 82.96 & 92.94 & 87.54 & 100 \\ \hline
\textbf{5} & 84.85 & 88.94 & 96.13 & 100 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:summreqres}
\end{table}
\subsection{Results for the data traces}
We use trace files from \emph{fastStorage}, \emph{Rnd} \cite{shen2015statistical}, and \emph{materna} \cite{kohne2014federatedcloudsim,kohne2016evaluation}.
We simulate a setting with three different SPs and randomly extract the normalized resource request information related to the number of CPU cores, the amount of CPU and memory (RAM) for 20 different resource requests from \emph{fastStorage}, \emph{Rnd} and \emph{materna} dataset. Since the datasets do not provide the capacities of these service providers, we assign capacities in such a way that fastStorage serves as the SP with resource deficit while the other two have resource surplus. Figure \ref{fig:withNBS6} shows SP utilities, request satisfaction and resource utilization based on the data traces. It is evident that SP utilities improve and resource utilizations increase to satisfy more applications by use of the proposed NBS framework. The average request satisfaction also increases from $83.3\%$ to $92.05\%$.
\subsection{Measure of Fairness}
NBS is known for its fairness property \cite{han2012game}. In this section, we show the fairness of our proposed NBS based resource sharing framework for different settings given in Table \ref{tab:settings}. In particular, to measure the degree of fairness of the proposed sharing framework, we calculate \emph{Jain}'s index\footnote{$\frac{1}{|N|}\leq$Jain's index$\leq 1$ where $1$ is the highest value of fairness.} \cite{jain1999throughput,jain1984aquantitative}. Figure \ref{fig:nbsfairness} shows Jain's index for different settings given in Table \ref{tab:settings}. The value of Jain's index is larger than 0.95 in all the settings.
Especially for scenarios with a large number of applications, these results reveal that our framework enables fair sharing and allocation of resources among SPs, as one would expect from the product-based fairness as offered by the NBS.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.54\textwidth]{fairness.pdf
\caption{Jain's Index in different settings using our proposed NBS based resource sharing framework.}
\protect\label{fig:nbsfairness}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Motivation}
Edge computing has received much attention recently as it enables on-demand provisioning of computing resources for different applications and tasks at the network edge \cite{shi2014online,shi2016edge,satyanarayanan2017emergence}. One of the fundamental advantages of edge computing is that it can provide resources
with low latencies when compared with traditional cloud computing architecture \cite{shi2016edge}. The demand for edge computing has further increased due to the advent of Internet of Things (IoT) \cite{atzori2010internet} and wide-scale use of machine and deep learning \cite{li2018learning} in different industries as these learning-based models can be trained and run using edge computing nodes with adequate storage and computing power \cite{wang2018edge}.
\par A typical edge computing system consists of a large number of edge nodes that have different types of resources. Edge service provider (ESP) earns a \emph{utility} for allocating resources to different applications and guarantees to provide resources according to a \emph{Service Level Agreement} (SLA). However, when compared with cloud computing systems and data centers, resources in an edge setting are limited. Therefore, optimal use and allocation of these limited resources has been an active area of research.
Even when resources are available, allocating them to applications with the goal of maximizing overall ESP \emph{utility} is a difficult problem. Furthermore, the aforementioned resource intensive paradigms such as deep learning, and data analytics exacerbate the problem by challenging the scalability of traditional resource allocation techniques. \par
ESPs typically provide enough resources to different applications at their edge nodes to meet the peak demand. However, it is highly likely that resources of one ESP will be over-utilized, while other ESP's resources will be under-utilized.
For example, an ESP provisions resources to an application at an edge node that is physically closest to the requesting application. However, if the closest edge node has a resource deficit or is overloaded, the request can be satisfied through ESP's next closest edge node that may physically be at a distant location or deep in the network such as at the data center. This incurs high cost and causes high latency that may not be acceptable for delay constrained applications. One possible solution is to create a shared resource pool with other ESPs that are physically closer \cite{he2018s,openedge,openfog,etsi}. Such a resource pool allows ESPs to share and use resources whenever needed to meet their dynamic demands. This cooperation and resource sharing among ESPs seem beneficial for them, because it is unlikely that resources of different ESPs will be simultaneously over-utilized.
\par
Our work has also been motivated by military settings in which two or more \emph{coalition partners}\footnote{Each coalition partner can be considered an ESP. } are jointly conducting a military operation using different resources from the partners. As military settings usually have strict latency and reliability requirements, resources are placed at the edge to fulfill the aforementioned requirements.
Hence, coalition settings can be considered a practical scenario for edge computing. In contrast with commercial edge computing settings, military settings require a higher reliability and robustness to ensure timely availability of resources.
As seen in Figure \ref{fig:system_model}, both coalition partners $2$ and $3$ satisfy all their applications and have resource surpluses whereas partner $1$ has resource deficits when working alone. However, through cooperation among these coalition partner, $1$ satisfies its applications by using resources of other coalition partners resulting in an improved utility for all partners. It is evident that if different coalition partners do not share resources, different application requests cannot be satisfied. Therefore, there is a need for a framework that allows resource sharing among these coalition partners (i.e., ESPs).
Furthermore, the framework needs to be distributed as a centralized solution may not be acceptable to the different coalition partners or ESPs because:
\begin{itemize}
\item An adversary can target the central system causing the entire military operation to fail.
\item Coalition partners need to reach a consensus for choosing the \emph{central} node that runs the resource sharing algorithm.
\item A centralized framework requires a large amount of information to be transmitted to the central node. This may not be feasible or preferred by the coalition partners as certain information may be private.
\end{itemize}
Such a distributed resource sharing gives rise to a number of questions such as:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \emph{Should an ESP help another ESP by sharing resources?}
\item \emph{How should resources be allocated to applications across different ESPs, while considering issues such as communication cost and resource fragmentation? }
\item \emph{How can ESPs share the profits of resource sharing?}
\end{enumerate}
We answer these questions in this paper.
\subsection{Methodology and contributions}
In this paper, we consider a number of ESPs that share their resources and form a resource pool to satisfy resource requests of different applications as shown in Figure \ref{fig:system_model}.
We formulate such resource sharing and allocation among ESPs as a multi-objective optimization (MOO) problem, for which our goal is to achieve a Pareto optimal solution. Furthermore, since Pareto solutions are spread over the \emph{Pareto frontier} \cite{cho2017survey}, choosing a single solution among them is challenging. As the \emph{Nash Bargaining Solution} (NBS)\cite{nash1950bargaining} guarantees the provision of a fair and Pareto optimal solution to such a MOO problem, we develop a distributed NBS-based framework for resource allocation and sharing here. \emph{To the best of our knowledge, this is the first generic NBS-based framework for resource sharing and allocation among ESPs. }
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{figures/pool_new2.jpg}
\vspace{0.05in}
\caption{Cooperation among ESPs}
\protect\label{fig:system_model}
\end{figure}
The main contributions of this paper are:
\begin{enumerate}
\item We present an NBS based resource sharing framework for ESPs with different objectives in allocating resources to meet the dynamic demands. Our framework also considers practical engineering constraints such as communication costs and resource fragmentation.
\item We show that ESPs can benefit from sharing resources with other ESPs as they can earn a higher profit and improve the average application satisfaction.
\item We show that \emph{strong-duality} property holds for the formulated problem, which enables us to propose a distributed algorithm to obtain the NBS.
\item We evaluate the performance of our algorithms using synthetic and real world traces. Results show that resource sharing improves the utilities of ESPs, increases resource utilization and enhances average user (application) satisfaction. Furthermore, our results show that the profit sharing among ESPs is also fair.
\end{enumerate}
The rest of this paper is structured as follows. We present the system model in Section~\ref{sec:sysmodel}.
In Section~\ref{sec:nbs}, we first present a primer on NBS. We then describe our proposed NBS framework for resource sharing and allocation. In Section~\ref{sec:dist}, we present a distributed algorithm for obtaining the NBS. In Section~\ref{sec:exp_results}, we present simulation results of the proposed framework for different settings. We describe the related work in Section \ref{sec:related},
and conclude the paper in Section~\ref{sec:conclusion}.
\subsection{Assumptions}
\begin{comment}
Let $\mathcal{N}=\{1,2, \cdots, N\}$ be the set of all the domains that act as players in our game.
Each player has a utility function $u_n(\mathcal{X})$ that depends on the allocation decision $X$ (details for $X$ will be given later). We assume that each player has set of $\mathcal{K}=\{1,2,\cdots, K\}$ different resources such as communication, computation and storage resources.
All domains report their available resources to the coalition controller where $C^{(n)}$ represent the available resources for the domain/player $n \in \mathcal{N}$. Each domain $n$ has a set of users or applications $\mathcal{M}_n= \{1,2,\cdots, M_n\}$ that ask for resources. Also $\mathcal{M}=\mathcal{M}_1\cup\mathcal{M}_2\cdots\cup \mathcal{M}_N , \;$ where $\mathcal{M}_i \cap \mathcal{M}_j=\emptyset \; \forall i \neq j$ represents the set of all users that ask for resources from the coalition.
The coalition controller receives a matrix $R^{(n)}$ for every player $n \in \mathcal{N}$
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:R_Req}
R^{(n)}=\Biggl(\begin{smallmatrix}
\mathbf{r^{(n)}_1}\\
.\\
.\\
.\\
\mathbf{r^{(n)}_{{M}_n}}
\end{smallmatrix}\Biggr) = \Biggl(\begin{smallmatrix}
r^{(n)}_{11} & \cdots &\cdots & r^{(n)}_{1{K}} \\
. & . &. &. \\
. & . &. &. \\
. & . &. &. \\
r^{(n)}_{M_{n}1}&\cdots &\cdots & r^{(n)}_{{M}_n{K}}
\end{smallmatrix}\Biggr)
\end{equation}
where the $i^{th}$ row corresponds to the $i^{th}$ user while the columns represent different resources i.e., $r_{ij}$ is the amount of $j^{th}$ resource user $i \in \mathcal{M}$ requests.
The vector ${C}^{(n)}=\{ {C}_{1}^{(n)}, \cdots, {C}_{K}^{(n)}\}$ received by coalition controller shows different available resources at domain $n$.
The vector $C=\{\sum_{n \in \mathcal{N}}C_{1}^{(n)}, \sum_{n \in \mathcal{N}}C_{2}^{(n)}, \cdots ,\sum_{n \in \mathcal{N}}C_{K}^{(n)}\}$ consists of all the available resources at different domains. The coalition, based on $R$ and $C$, has to make an allocation decision $\mathcal{X}$ that optimizes the utilities $u_n(\mathcal{X})$ of the domains. The allocation decision $\mathcal{X}$ is a vector $\mathcal{X}=\{X^{(1)},X^{(2)},\cdots, X^{(N)}\}$ that shows how much of each resource $k$ is allocated to user $i$ at domains $n \in \mathcal{N}$.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:A_n}
X^{(n)}=\Biggl(\begin{smallmatrix}
\mathbf{x_1^{(n)}}\\
.\\
.\\
.\\
\mathbf{x_{{|\mathcal{M}|}}^{(n)}}
\end{smallmatrix}\Biggr) = \Biggl(\begin{smallmatrix}
x_{11}^{(n)} & \cdots &\cdots & x_{1{K}}^{(n)} \\
. & . &. &. \\
. & . &. &. \\
. & . &. &. \\
x_{{|\mathcal{M}|}1}^{(n)}&\cdots &\cdots & x_{{|\mathcal{M}|}{K}}^{(n)}
\end{smallmatrix}\Biggr)
\end{equation}
where $x_{ik}^{(n)}$ is the amount of resource $k\in \mathcal{K}$ allocated to user $i$ at player $n$
Since the utilities of different domains might be different (can be conflicting as well), this leads us to a multi-objective optimization (MOO) problem. Some of the assumptions in our model are given below
\subsection{Assumptions}
The assumptions made in our model are
\begin{enumerate}
\item The negotiation cost among different domains is negligible
\item All the domains communicate their information to the coalition controller
\item The coalition controller already exist
\item Resources across different domains are additive in nature i.e., if domain $X$ and $Y$ have $2$ GB RAM each, the coalition would have $4$ GB of RAM.
\item Each player has a single objective
\item The objective of the coalition is a sum of the utilities of all the players with equal weight
\item All players or domains have the same number of users or jobs
\end{enumerate}
\end{comment}
\subsection{Problem Formulation for Single Service Provider } \label{sec:prob}
We first present the resource allocation problem for a stand-alone single service provider (i.e., no resource sharing with other service providers).
For a single ESP $n \in \mathcal{N}$, the allocation decision consists of vectors $\mathbf{x}_n^1, \cdots, \mathbf{x}_n^{M_n}$. The optimization problem is:
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:opt_single}
\begin{align}
\centering
\max_{\mathbf{x}_n^1, \cdots, \mathbf{x}_n^{M_n}}\quad& \sum_{\substack{j \in \mathcal{M}_n,\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}u^j({x}_{n,k}^j), \label{eq:objsingle}\\
\text{s.t.}\quad & \sum_{j} x_{n,k}^{j}\leq C_{n,k}, \quad \forall k \in \mathcal{K}, \label{eq:singlefirst} \displaybreak[0]\\
& x_{n,k}^{j} \leq r^{j}_{n,k}, \quad \forall\; j\in \mathcal{M}_n, k \in \mathcal{K}, \label{eq:singlesecond} \displaybreak[1]\\
& x_{n,k}^{j} \geq 0, \quad \forall\; j\in \mathcal{M}_n, k \in \mathcal{K}. \label{eq:singlethird} \displaybreak[2]
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The goal of a single service provider in solving this single objective optimization (SOO) problem, as mentioned earlier, is to maximize its utility by appropriately allocating resources.
The first constraint \eqref{eq:singlefirst} indicates that allocated resources cannot exceed capacity. The second constraint \eqref{eq:singlesecond} reflects that allocated resources should not exceed the requested amounts. The last constraint, \eqref{eq:singlethird} says the allocation cannot be negative. However, it is possible that a service provider $n$ may
earn a larger utility by providing its resources to applications of other service providers or it may not have sufficient resources to satisfy requests of all its native applications. On the other hand, there may be another service provider $m\in \mathcal{{N}}\backslash n$ that may have a surplus of resources, which can be ``rented" by service provider $n$.
Below, we discuss resource sharing among these service providers.
\subsection{Multiple Service Providers Problem Formulation}\label{sec:multP}
Allowing resource sharing among service providers, while considering their objectives, could improve resource utilization and application satisfaction.
Let $D^j(x_{n,k}^j)$ denote the communication cost of serving application $j \in \mathcal{{M}}_m$ at service provider $n$ rather than at its native service provider $m$.
By sharing its resources, ESP $n$ earns a utility,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:util}
u^j (\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j+x_{n,k}^j)-u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j)-D^j(x_{n,k}^j),
\end{equation}
after allocating $x_{n,k}^j$ for application $j\in \mathcal{{M}}_m$, i.e., the net utility ESP $n$ earns is calculated as the \emph{differential utility} ($u^j (\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j+x_{n,k}^j)-u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j)$) earned due to providing $x_{n,k}^k$ amount of resources minus the communication cost between the native and non-native ESP.
We assume that $ u^j (x_{n,k}^j)=u^j (x_{m,k}^j)$ when $x_{n,k}^j=x_{m,k}^j$.
We also let
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf{x}^j= [\sum_{n \in \mathcal{{N}}}x_{n,1}^j, \sum_{n \in \mathcal{{N}}}x_{n,2}^j,\cdots, \sum_{n \in \mathcal{{N}}}x_{n,K}^j]^T,
\end{equation*}
i.e., the total resource allocated to any application $j \in \mathcal{M}$ is the sum of resources allocated to application $j$ from all service providers. The resource sharing and allocation algorithm, based on resource requests and capacities of service providers, has to make an allocation that optimizes utilities of all service providers $n \in \mathcal{N}$ and satisfy user requests as well. The allocation decision is given by
$\mathbf{X}=\{\mathbf{X}_1, \mathbf{X}_2, \cdots, \mathbf{X}_N\}$, where $\mathbf{X}_n,\; \forall n \in \mathcal{N}$ is given by:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:X}
\mathbf{X}_{n}=\Biggl[\begin{smallmatrix}
\mathbf{x}^{1}_n\\
.\\
.\\
.\\
\mathbf{x}^{|\mathcal{{M}}|}_n
\end{smallmatrix}\Biggr] = \Biggl[\begin{smallmatrix}
x_{n,1}^{1} & \cdots &\cdots & x^{1}_{n,{K}} \\
. & . &. &. \\
. & . &. &. \\
. & . &. &. \\
x_{n,1}^{|\mathcal{{M}}|}&\cdots &\cdots & x_{n,K}^{|\mathcal{{M}}|}
\end{smallmatrix}\Biggr].
\end{equation}
Each service provider aims to maximize the sum of utilities by allocating its resources to its native applications, and allocating resources to applications belonging to other service providers.
Each provider $n \in \mathcal{{N}}$ solves the following multi-objective optimization problem.
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:opt_higher}
\begin{align}
\max_{\mathbf{X}_n}\quad& \sum_{\substack{j \in \mathcal{M}_n,\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\Big(u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j+{x}_{n,k}^j)- u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j) \Big) \nonumber \\
&+\Big(\sum_{\substack{l \in \overline{\mathcal{M}},\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\big( u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l+{x}_{n,k}^l)-u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l)\nonumber\\
&- D^l({x}_{n,k}^l)\big)\Big), \label{eq:obj}\\
\text{s.t.}\quad
& \sum_{j} x_{n,k}^{j}\leq C_{n,k}, \quad \forall\; k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in \mathcal{N}, \label{eq:obj1} \displaybreak[0]\\
& \sum_{m \in \mathcal{N}}x_{m,k}^{j} \leq r_{n,k}^{j}, \quad \forall\; j\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in \mathcal{N}, \label{eq:obj2}\displaybreak[1]\\
& x_{n,k}^{j} \geq 0, \quad \forall\; j\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in \mathcal{N}, \label{eq:obj3} \displaybreak[2]\\
& u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l+{x}_{n,k}^l)-
u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l)- \nonumber \\
& D^l({x}_{n,k}^l)\geq0, \forall l \in \mathcal{M}\backslash\mathcal{M}_n, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in \mathcal{N}\label{eq:obj4} .
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The first summation term in \eqref{eq:obj} represents the utility earned by an ESP providing resources to the native applications, whereas the second summation term describes the utility earned by providing resources to non-native applications.
Note that constraint \eqref{eq:obj1} indicates that the total allocated resources cannot exceed the resource capacity of the service providers. \eqref{eq:obj2} states that the total amount of resources allocated to any application using the resource-sharing framework cannot exceed the amount of requested resources. \eqref{eq:obj3} says that the resource allocation cannot be negative whereas \eqref{eq:obj4} indicates that the incremental increase in utility earned by providing resources to non-native applications should be non-negative.
\subsection{Assumptions}\label{sec:assumption}
In our model, we assume that each utility is a concave injective function for which the inverse of the first derivative exists, such as $(1-e^{-x})$.
Strictly speaking, our centralized NBS framework requires only concave injective utility functions\cite{yaiche2000game}. However, the existence of the inverse of the first derivative is required for the distributed NBS (see details in Section \ref{sec:nbs}). The communication cost is a convex function, hence the objective function in \eqref{eq:opt_higher} is concave.
All resources are fully utilized in the optimal solution. However, there are enough resources to provide a positive utility to all service providers when sharing resources. This is a realistic assumption as the demand for resources is usually more than the supply.
Furthermore, we assume that when ESPs share resources, there exist solutions that are better than when they are all working alone. This assumption can be relaxed, that is, if certain ESPs cannot improve their utility using the bargaining solution, they will not participate in the resource sharing framework. However, the framework can still be used for the remaining ESPs.
\subsection{Choice of utility function}
While our framework works with any utility that satisfies the conditions in Section \ref{sec:assumption}, choosing a suitable utility function along with the communication cost can minimize \emph{resource fragmentation}\footnote{We define resource fragmentation as the process in which resources provided to an application $j$ are split across multiple ESPs rather than a single ESP. }.
Generally, a concave utility has a steeper slope at start that becomes flatter as more resources are allocated, i.e., the rate of increase in the payoff for allocating resources reduces with increase in the amount of allocated resources. This results in an ESP providing a fraction of originally requested resources to an application and keeping the remaining resources for other applications. Hence, the application does not get all the resources it needed, and has to ask another ESP for more resources, resulting in resource fragmentation.
For example, assume that two applications require $4$ units of a particular resource from ESP $n$ that only has $3$ units available. Due to the nature of many concave utilities, ESP $n$ for maximizing its utility will provide part of its resources to one application and the remaining resources to the other application rather than providing all $3$ available units to one application and borrowing resources for the other application. This causes resource fragmentation, i.e., both applications received only a part of the required resources and they will need to obtain the remaining amount from other ESP(s). To avoid such problems, we propose that the utility function should consider:
\begin{itemize}
\item Minimum acceptable amount of resources: The ESPs should earn either zero utility or a negative utility if the resources provided are not within $\delta$ units of the requested resource $r_{n,k}^j$. Rather than using a utility function such as $1-e^{-(x_{n,k}^j)}$ that pays the ESP even when a small amount of resources are provided, it is better to use $1-e^{-(x_{n,k}^j-r_{n,k}^j +\delta)}$ that becomes positive only when the allocation $x_{n,k}^j$ is within $\delta_t$ units of the requested resource $r_{n,k}^j$. Such a utility along with the communication cost helps minimize the aforementioned fragmentation problem.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Assumptions}\label{sec:assumption}
In our model, we assume that utilities are concave injective functions for which the inverse of first derivative exists, such as $(1-e^{-x})$. While our centralized NBS framework requires only concave injective utility function, the existence of first derivative's inverse is required for the distributed NBS (details in Section \ref{sec:nbs}).
We also assume that resources required by different applications are more than the capacity of domains. Hence, all resources are fully utilized at the optimal solution. The single objective optimization problem in \eqref{eq:opt_single} is feasible for all the players $n \in \mathcal{N}$. Furthermore, we assume that there exists solutions that are better than the disagreement point for all the players.
\begin{comment}
Before we get into the details of solving the problem, we present an example to understand this
\begin{example}
Let's say we have two different data centers owned by service provider $A$ and $B$ respectively ($A$ and $B$ are game players). Resources available at domain $A$ and $B$ are represented by $C^{A}$ and $C^{B}$ respectively. Users in sets $\mathcal{M}_{A}$ and $\mathcal{M}_{B}$ ask for resources and pay a certain price (profit for data centers) $u_A(\mathcal{X})$ and $u_B(\mathcal{X})$. However, let's say $A$ has scarce resources while $B$ has excess resources. So by forming a coalition, users in $\mathcal{M}_s \subset\mathcal{M}_{A}$ that can't be satisfied by $A$ will be provided resources by $B$ without the users realizing who are providing the resources (since the coalition will make everything appear as one to the user). The profit that $B$ will earn for providing its resources will be equivalent to the profit $A$ would have earned (as $A$ has agreed upon a certain contract with its users $\mathcal{M}_{A}$) had it satisfied the user's request itself. So for $B$, it will earn utility $u_B(X)$ for satisfying its own users plus $u_A^B(X^{\mathcal{M}_s})$ (slight abuse of notation where $X^{\mathcal{M}_s}$ represents the allocation decision for users ${\mathcal{M}_s}$ in domain $B$) for satisfying the users $\mathcal{M}_s \subset\mathcal{M}_{A}$. So this added utility $u_A^B(X^{\mathcal{M}_s})$ is the pay-off for $B$ to share resources. This coalition clearly helps both. $A$ increases its customer satisfaction (as per the contract $A$ had agreed to provide resources to all the users $\mathcal{M}_{A}$), while $B$ earns extra using its excess resources. So it is a stable coalition.
\end{example}
\begin{example}[Utility Example]
For any two players \{1,2\}, $u_1 (\mathcal{X})$ will be given by
\begin{equation}
u_1(\mathcal{X})=\sum_{i \in \mathcal{M}_1}\bigg(\prod_{k=1}^{{K}}\frac{1}{1+e^{-m(x_{ik}^{(1)}-R^{(1)}_{req,ik})}}\bigg)
\end{equation}
$u_2 (\mathcal{X})$ will be given by
\begin{equation}
u_2(\mathcal{X})=\sum_{i \in \mathcal{M}_2}\bigg(\prod_{k=1}^{|\mathcal{K}|}(1-e^{-(\frac{1}{R^{(2)}_{req,ik}})x_{ik}^{(2)}})\bigg)
\end{equation}
$u_2^{\mathcal{X}} (\mathcal{X})$ will be given by
\begin{equation}
u_2^{1}(\mathcal{X})=\sum_{i \in \mathcal{M}_2}\bigg(\prod_{k=1}^{|\mathcal{K}|}(1-e^{-(\frac{1}{R^{(2)}_{req,ik}})x_{ik}^{(1)}})\bigg)
\end{equation}
$u_1^{\mathcal{X}} (\mathcal{X})$ will be given by
\begin{equation}
u_1^{2}(\mathcal{X})=\sum_{i \in \mathcal{M}_1}\bigg(\prod_{k=1}^{{K}}\frac{1}{1+e^{-m(x_{ik}^{(2)}-R^{(1)}_{req,ik})}}\bigg)
\end{equation}
\end{example}
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
\subsection{Game Theoretic Solution}
We first define the characteristic function $v$ for our game that can solve problem in~\eqref{eq:opt_higher}
\begin{align} \label{eq:payoff_function}
v(\mathcal{N})=\sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in \mathcal{N}$} \\ \text{$C_{k}= \sum_{n \in \mathcal{N}}C_{k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} x_{ik}^{(n)}\leq C_{k}^{(n)} \; \forall k \in \mathcal{K}, \; \forall n \in \mathcal{N}$}\\ \text{$\sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}}x_{ik}^{(j)} \leq R^{(n)}_{ik} \; \forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in \mathcal{N}$}}}\bigg(w_n u_n(\mathcal{X})+ \zeta_{n}\sum_{j \in \mathcal{N},j\neq n} u^{n}_j(\mathcal{X})\bigg)
\end{align}
\begin{remark}
The characteristic function in Equation~\eqref{eq:payoff_function} is for the grand coalition $\mathcal{N}$. For any $S \subseteq \mathcal{N}$, the characteristic function will be
\end{remark}
\begin{align} \label{eq:payoff_s_function}
v({S})=\sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in {S}$} \\ \text{$C_{k}= \sum_{n \in {S}}C_{k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} x_{ik}^{(n)}\leq C_{k}^{(n)} \;\forall k \in \mathcal{K}, \; \forall n \in {S}$}\\ \text{$\sum_{j \in {S}}x_{ik}^{(j)} \leq R^{(n)}_{ik} \; \forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in {S}$}}} \bigg(w_n u_n(\mathcal{X})+ \zeta_{n}\sum_{j \in S,j\neq n} u^{n}_j(\mathcal{X})\bigg)
\end{align}
\begin{theorem}
Resource allocation and sharing problem (with multiple objectives) in aforementioned settings can be modeled as a canonical cooperative game with TU.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
To prove this, we need to show that the characteristic function of resource sharing and allocation problem satisfies the following two conditions
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Characteristic form of payoff:} As the utility function in a resource sharing and allocation problem only relies on the domains that are part of the coalition, the game or payoff function is of characteristic form
\item \textbf{Superadditivity:} Super-additivity for TU games requires $v(S_1 \cup S_2 )\geq v(S_1)+V(S_2) \; \forall S_1 \subset \mathcal{N}, S_2 \subset \mathcal{N}, s.t. S_1\cap S_2 =\emptyset$ i.e. we have to prove that the pay-off or utility for a domain in the coalition is as good as domain working alone or in a smaller coalition. Due to monotonicity property of the utility functions used, for all players/domains $n \in \mathcal{N}$, $u_n(X_n^{NC})\leq u_n(X_n^{C})$ as $X_n^{NC}\subset {X_n^{C}}$ \footnote{because $X_n^{C}$ can contain much more elements due to the increase in $C$ in the coalition} where $X_n^{C}$ and $X_n^{NC}$ are the allocation decisions in a cooperative game and independent setting respectively for domain $n$.
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:MOOGame}
A canonical cooperative game $(\mathcal{N}, v)$ with TU can be used to obtain the Pareto-optimal solutions for the multi-objective optimization problem given in \eqref{eq:opt_higher}
\end{lemma}
To prove Lemma \ref{lemma:MOOGame}, we must show that the core is non-empty for our canonical game. To do this, we first show that our game is convex.
\begin{definition}[Convex Games]
A coalition game is said to be convex if and only if for every player $n \in \mathcal{N}$, the marginal contribution of the player is non-decreasing W.R.T set inclusion. Mathematically, for $S_1\subseteq S_2 \subseteq \mathcal{N}\backslash \{n\}$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:convexgames}
v(S_1 \cup \{n\})-v(S_1) \leq v(S_2 \cup \{n\})-v(S_2)
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
\begin{theorem}
Our canonical game is convex
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let us consider two coalition $S_1$ and $S_2$, where $S_1\subseteq S_2 \subseteq \mathcal{N}\backslash\{j\}$ where $j \in \mathcal{N}$. Then we first calculate $v(S_2 \cup \{j\})-v(S_1 \cup \{j\})$
\begin{align}\label{eq:convexityProof}
& \sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in {S_2}$},\; \text{$C_{k}= \sum_{n \in {S_2}}C_{k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} x_{ik}^{(n)}\leq C_{k}^{(n)} \; \forall k \in \mathcal{K},\; \forall n \in {S_2}$}\\ \text{$\sum_{j \in {S_2}}x_{ik}^{(j)} \leq R^{(n)}_{ik} \;\forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in {S_2}$}}}\bigg(w_n u_n(\mathcal{X})+ w'_{n}\sum_{k \in {S_2}, k\neq n} u^{j}_k(\mathcal{X})\bigg) + w_j u_j ^{(S_2)}(\mathcal{X}) + \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_2, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{X}) - \nonumber \\
& \Bigg(\sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in {S_1}$},\; \text{$C_{k}= \sum_{n \in {S_1}}C_{k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} x_{ik}^{(n)}\leq C_{k}^{(n)} \; \forall k \in \mathcal{K}, \; \forall n \in {S_1}$} \\ \text{$\sum_{j \in {S_1}}x_{ik}^{(j)} \leq R^{(n)}_{ik} \quad \forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in {S_1}$}}}\bigg(w_n u_n(\mathcal{X})+ w'_{n}\sum_{k \in {S_1}, k \neq n} u^{j}_k(\mathcal{X})\bigg) + w_j u_j ^{(S_1)}(\mathcal{X}) + \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_1, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{X})\nonumber \Bigg)\\
&= \sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in {S_2}\backslash S_1$}, \text{$C_{k}= \sum_{n \in {S_2}\backslash S_1}C_{k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} x_{ik}^{(n)}\leq C_{k}^{(n)} \; \forall k \in \mathcal{K},\; \forall n \in {S_2}\backslash S_1$} \\ \text{$\sum_{j \in {S_2 \backslash S_1}}x_{ik}^{(j)} \leq R^{(n)}_{ik} \quad \forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in {S_2 \backslash S_1}$}}}\bigg(w_n u_n(\mathcal{X})+ w'_{n}\sum_{k \in {\{S_2 \backslash S_1\}}, k \neq n} u^{j}_k(\mathcal{X})\bigg) + w_j u_j ^{(S_2)}(\mathcal{X}) \nonumber \\
& + \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_2, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{X}) - w_j u_j ^{(S_1)}(\mathcal{X}) - \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_1, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{X}) \nonumber \\
& = v(S_2)- v(S_1)+ w_j u_j ^{(S_2)}(\mathcal{X}) + \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_2, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{X}) - w_j u_j ^{(S_1)}(\mathcal{X}) - \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_1, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{X}) \nonumber \\
& \geq v(S_2)- v(S_1)
\end{align}
where the last inequality follows from the fact that $ w_j u_j ^{(S_2)}(\mathcal{X}) + \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_2, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{X}) - w_j u_j ^{(S_1)}(\mathcal{X}) - \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_1, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{X})\geq 0$ (monotonicity of the utility)
\end{proof}
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Is the core non-empty?
\item If the core is non-empty and consists of different pay-off allocations, how do we choose any particular pay-off allocation vector?
\end{enumerate}
Below we attempt to answer these questions
\begin{definition}[Balanced Collection] Let $\Omega$ be a collection of different coalitions. $\Omega$ is considered to be a \emph{balanced collection} if we can find non-negative weights $w_S$ for each $S \in \Omega$ such that for every player $n$
\begin{align}\label{eq:balancedcollection}
\sum_{S \in \Omega, S \ni n}w_S =1
\end{align}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[Balanced Game] A game is called balanced if for every balanced collection $\Omega$, the payoff vector $\mathbf{x}$ will be in $V_{\mathcal{N}}$ if $\mathbf{x}_S \in V_S\; \forall S \in \Omega$
\end{definition}
\begin{theorem}[Bondareva-Shapley Theorem]\label{thm:BST}
The core of a game is non-empty if and only if the game is balanced
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}
The core for canonical game with our characteristic function(in Equation~\eqref{eq:payoff_function}) is non-empty
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
From the definition of characteristic functions for TU games (see \cite{han2012game} for details), $v: 2^{\mathcal{N}}$ \textrightarrow $\mathbb{R}$ with $v(\emptyset)=\emptyset$. This means that the total number of coalitions possible for $\mathcal{N}$ players is $2^{|\mathcal{N}|}-1$ (we ignore the empty set). For $\Omega$, the non-negative weights $w_S$ which satisfy the condition for balanced collection in Equation~\eqref{eq:balancedcollection} are given by $\frac{1}{2^{|\mathcal{N}|-1}}$. Hence $\Omega$ is a balanced collection. We also know that $v(S)\subseteq v(\mathcal{N})$ as $v(\mathcal{N})$ is defined over a larger feasible set due to increased amount of available resources. Leveraging the monotonicity property of the utility functions used, we know that any payoff vector $\mathbf{x}$ will be in $V_{\mathcal{N}}$ if $\mathbf{x}_S$\footnote{$\mathbf{x}_S$ is the projection of $\mathbf{x}$ onto the vector space $\mathbb{R}^{|S|}$} $\in V_S\; \forall S \in \Omega$. Hence our canonical game with characteristic function $v$ in Equation~\eqref{eq:payoff_function} is balanced and its core is non-empty (from Theorem \ref{thm:BST})
\end{proof}
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
\begin{theorem}
The core of any convex game $(\mathcal{N},v)$ is non-empty and large.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Available in \cite{sharkey1982cooperative}
\end{proof}
While the existence of core i.e., core being non-empty, guarantees the grand coalition is stable, finding a suitable allocation from the core is challenging particularly when the core is large (our game). Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, fairness is also a shortcoming of core based solutions. Shapley value can be used to obtain a fair allocation, however, we first need to show that the Shapley value lies in the core to guarantee that the Shapley value based allocation is stable for the grand coalition.
\begin{theorem}
The Shapley value in Equation~\eqref{eq:shapleyvalue} lies in the core of our canonical game
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Since our canonical game is convex, the Shapley value lies in the core \cite{han2012game} (see \cite{roger1991game} for details)
\end{proof}
We summarize this in the remark below.
\begin{remark}
If a TU game $(\mathcal{N}, v)$ is convex, then the core is non-empty and the Shapley Value lies in the core \cite{garg2013novel}.
\end{remark}
Calculation of Shapley value given in Equation~\eqref{eq:shapleyvalue} is challenging \cite{han2012game}. Since our game is convex, calculating its Shapley value is slightly easier as given below.
\subsubsection{Shapley Value for a Convex Game}
Let $\pi$ denote the permutation of players in our game. Then for any permutation $p$ from the total possible permutations $|\mathcal{N}|!$, one can obtain the initial segments of ordering by \cite{garg2013novel}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:initialsegment}
O_{\pi, r}=\{ n \in \mathcal{N} : \pi(n) \leq r \}, \; r \in \{1, \cdots, N\}
\end{equation}
where $O_{\pi, 0}=\{\}$ and $O_{\pi, |\mathcal{N}|} =\mathcal{N}$. $\pi(n)$ refers to the position of the player $n$ in the permutation $\pi$. The core of any particular ordering $\pi$ can be obtained by solving equations
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:x_i_pi_sol}
x_n^{\pi}(O_{\pi, r}) = v(O_{\pi, r}), \; r \in \{ 1, \cdots, N\}
\end{equation}
The solution to above Equations~\eqref{eq:x_i_pi_sol} will result in a payoff vector $x^{\pi}$ where the elements of the vector are given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:vectorelements}
x_n^{\pi}=v(O_{\pi, \pi(n)})- v(O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1}), \quad \forall n \in \mathcal{N}
\end{equation}
The payoff vectors $x^{\pi}$ represent the extreme points of the core in convex games \cite{garg2013novel}. So if $\prod$ represents the set of all possible permutations of $\mathcal{N}$, the Shapley value of any player $n$ can be calculated as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:shapleyconvex}
\phi_n=\frac{1}{|\mathcal{N}|!}\sum_{\pi \in \prod} x_n^{\pi}
\end{equation}
\begin{comment}
So for our coalition game $(\mathcal{N},v)$, the Shapley value is
\begin{align}
\label{eq:ourshapleyconvex}
\phi_n&=\frac{1}{|\mathcal{N}|!}\sum_{\pi \in \prod} \bigg( \sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)}}$} \\ \text{$R_{av,k}= \sum_{n \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)}}}R_{av,k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} a_{ik}^{(n)}\leq R_{av,k}^{(n)} \;\forall k \in \mathcal{K}, \; \forall n \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)}}$} \\ \text{$$}\text{$\sum_{j \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)}}}a_{ik}^{(j)} \leq R^{(n)}_{req,ik} \;\forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in O_{\pi, \pi(n)}$}}}\bigg(w_n u_n^{(\pi)}(\mathcal{A})+ w'_{n}\sum_{j \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)}}, j \neq n} u^{n,(\pi)}_j(\mathcal{A})\bigg)- \nonumber \\
&\Bigg(\sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1}}$} \\ \text{$R_{av,k}= \sum_{n \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1}}}R_{av,k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} a_{ik}^{(n)}\leq R_{av,k}^{(n)} \; \forall k \in \mathcal{K}, \; \forall n \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1}}$}}}\bigg(w_n u^{(\pi)}_n(\mathcal{A})+ w'_{n}\sum_{j \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1}}, j \neq n} u^{n,(\pi)}_j(\mathcal{A})\bigg)\Bigg) \nonumber \\
&=\frac{1}{|\mathcal{N}|!}\sum_{\pi \in \prod} \bigg( \sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)}\backslash O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1} }$} \\ \text{$R_{av,k}= \sum_{n \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)}\backslash O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1}}}R_{av,k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} a_{ik}^{(n)}\leq R_{av,k}^{(n)} \;\forall k \in \mathcal{K}, \; \forall n \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)}\backslash O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1}}$} \\ \text{$\sum_{j \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)}\backslash O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1}}}a_{ik}^{(j)} \leq R^{(n)}_{req,ik} \;\forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in O_{\pi, \pi(n)}\backslash O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1}$} }}\bigg(w_n u^{(\pi)}_n(\mathcal{A})+ \nonumber \\
& w'_{n}\sum_{j \in \{{O_{\pi, \pi(n)}} \}, j \neq n} u^{n,(\pi)}_j(\mathcal{A}) + w'_{n}\sum_{j \in \{{O_{\pi, \pi(n)}} \}, j \neq n} u^{j,(\pi)}_n(\mathcal{A}) \bigg)\bigg) \nonumber \\
&=\frac{1}{|\mathcal{N}|!}\sum_{\pi \in \prod}\bigg(w_nu^{(\pi)}_n(\mathcal{A})+ w'_{n}\sum_{j \in \{{O_{\pi, \pi(n)}} \}, j \neq n} u^{n,(\pi)}_j(\mathcal{A}) +w'_{n}\sum_{j \in \{{O_{\pi, \pi(n)}} \}, j \neq n} u^{j,(\pi)}_n(\mathcal{A}) \bigg)
\end{align}
where Equation~\eqref{eq:ourshapleyconvex} provides the Shapley value for our convex game. It is evident that our Shapley value depends on the utility of the player $n$, the utility player $n$ achieves by allocating resources to players in $j \in O_{\pi, \pi(n)}, j \neq n $ and the utility player $j \neq n, j \in O_{\pi, \pi(n)}$ achieves by allocating resources to player $n$ in every possible permutation.
\begin{comment}
\begin{algorithm}
\begin{algorithmic}[]
\State \textbf{Input}: $tt$
\State \textbf{Output}: The optimal hit probabilities
\State \textbf{Step $1$:} $t \leftarrow$0, $\boldsymbol{\lambda^{(t)}\leftarrow\lambda_0}$, $\boldsymbol{\mu^{(t)}\leftarrow\mu_0}$
\While{Equation \eqref{eq:gradient1} $\neq$ 0
\State \textbf{Step $2$}:$\boldsymbol{h_{il}^{(p)}[t]} \leftarrow \frac{w_i\beta^{|p|-l}}{\lambda_{l}[t-1]\Bigg(\prod_{\substack{q \neq p,\\ q:l\in\{1,\cdots,|q|\}}}(1-h_{il}^{(q)}[t-1])\Bigg)+\mu_{ip}[t-1]}. $
\State \textbf{Step $3$:} Update $\lambda$ and $\mu$ using \eqref{eq:update}, t $\leftarrow t+1$
\EndWhile
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{Iterative Distributed Algorithm}
\label{algo:alg}
\end{algorithm}
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
\begin{remark}
Shapley value calculation for our convex game requires solving at least $2^{N}-1$ optimization problems
\end{remark}
Algorithm \ref{algo:alg1} provides an overview of our proposed approach. We obtain $R, C$ and the utility of all players as $\mathbf{u}$. We initialize each player's utility value ($\mathbf{u}(R,\mathcal{X})$), Shapley value ($\boldsymbol{\phi} $) and resource allocation decision $\mathcal{X}$ to $0$. Then we calculate the Shapley value for the players and assign it to $\mathbf{u}(R,\mathcal{X})$. Finally to obtain $\mathcal{X}$, we take the inverse function of $\mathbf{u}$. As we are using monotone utilities, we know that the inverse of the utilities exist.
\begin{algorithm}
\begin{algorithmic}[]
\State \textbf{Input}: $R, C,$ and vector of utility functions of all players $\mathbf{u}$
\State \textbf{Output}: $\mathcal{X}$
\State \textbf{Step $1$:} $ \mathbf{u}(R,\mathcal{X}) \leftarrow$0, $ \mathcal{X} \leftarrow$0, $ \boldsymbol{\phi} \leftarrow$0,
\State \textbf{Step $1$:} Calculate Shapley Value $\phi_n$ using Equation \eqref{eq:shapleyconvex} $\forall n \in \mathcal{N}$
\State \textbf{Step $2$:} $ \mathbf{u}(R,\mathcal{X}) \leftarrow \boldsymbol{\phi}$
\State \textbf{Step $3$:} $\mathcal{X}\leftarrow \mathbf{u}^{-1}$
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{Shapley Value based Resource Allocation}
\label{algo:alg1}
\end{algorithm}
\subsubsection{Reducing the Computational Complexity}
As mentioned earlier, that the calculation of Shapley value for our convex game requires at solving at least $2^{N}-1$ optimization problems that is computationally expensive. To reduce the complexity, we propose a computationally efficient approach in Algorithm 2 that requires solving $2N$ optimization problems i.e. $\mathcal{O}(N)$. The input into the algorithm consists of available resources/capacities, user requirements and the utilities of all game players. The output of the algorithm is $\mathcal{X}$. In Step 1, the utility values of the players, the allocation decision, and two vectors $\boldsymbol{O_1}$ and $\boldsymbol{O_2}$. In Step 2, every player's utility is calculated without any resource sharing i.e. single optimization and the values are stored in the vector $\boldsymbol{O_1}$. Then $C, R$ are updated and we move to Step 4, where we calculated the utilities $u_j^n$'s for all the players with updated $C, R$ and store them in $\boldsymbol{O_2}$.
\begin{algorithm}
\begin{algorithmic}[]
\State \textbf{Input}: $R, C,$ and vector of utility functions of all players $\mathbf{u}$
\State \textbf{Output}: $\mathcal{X}$
\State \textbf{Step $1$:} $ \mathbf{u}(R,\mathcal{X}) \leftarrow$0, $ \mathcal{X} \leftarrow$0, $ \boldsymbol{\phi} \leftarrow$0, $ \boldsymbol{O_1} \leftarrow$0, $ \boldsymbol{O_2} \leftarrow$0,
\State \textbf{Step $2$:}
\For{\texttt{$n \in \mathcal{N}$}}
\State $ {O_1^n} \leftarrow$ \texttt{Solution of the optimization problem in Equation \eqref{eq:opt_single}}
\EndFor
\State \textbf{Step $3$:} Update $C$ and $R$ based on Step 2
\State \textbf{Step $4$:}
\For{\texttt{$n \in \mathcal{N}$}}
\State $ {O_2^n} \leftarrow$ \texttt{Solution of the optimization problem in Equation \eqref{eq:opt_single_j}}
\State Update $C$ and $R$
\EndFor
\State \textbf{Step $5$:} $u_n(R,\mathcal{X})\leftarrow O_1^n+O_2^n$ $\forall n \in \mathcal{N}$
\State \textbf{Step $6$:} $\mathcal{X}\leftarrow \mathbf{u}^{-1}$
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{$\mathcal{O}$($N$) algorithm for obtaining Core's allocation}
\label{algo:alg2}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:opt_single_j}
\begin{align}
\max_{\mathcal{X}}\quad& \sum_{j\neq n}u_j^n(\mathcal{X}) \quad \forall n \in \mathcal{N} \label{eq:objsinglej}\\
\text{s.t.}\quad & \sum_{i} x_{ik}^{(n)}\leq C_{k}^{(n)} \quad \forall k \in \mathcal{K}, \quad \forall i \in \mathcal{M}\backslash\mathcal{M}_n, \label{eq:singlefirstj} \displaybreak[0]\\
& x_{ik}^{(n)} \leq R^{(n)}_{ik} \quad \forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}\backslash\mathcal{M}_n, k \in \mathcal{K}, \label{eq:singlesecondj} \displaybreak[1]\\
& x_{ik}^{(n)} \geq 0 \quad \forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}\backslash\mathcal{M}_n, k \in \mathcal{K}, \label{eq:singlethirdj} \displaybreak[2]
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\begin{theorem}
The solution obtained from Algorithm \ref{algo:alg2} lies in the \emph{core}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
To prove the theorem, we need to show that the utilities obtained in Step $5$ of Algorithm \ref{algo:alg2}; a) are individually rational; b) are group rational and c) no players have the incentive to leave the grand coalition and form another another coalition $S \subset \mathcal{N}$.
\paragraph{Individual Rationality} For each player $n \in \mathcal{N}$, the solution $O_1^n$ obtained by solving the optimization problem in Equation \eqref{eq:opt_single} is the utility a player will obtain by working alone i.e. it is $v\{n\}$. The value $O_2^n$ in Step 4 is either zero or positive but cannot be negative due to the nature of utility used i.e.
\begin{align}
u_n(R,\mathcal{X})&=O_1^n+O_2^n \quad \forall n \in \mathcal{N} \nonumber \\
u_n(R,\mathcal{X})&\geq O_1^n \quad \forall n \in \mathcal{N}\nonumber
\end{align}
Hence the solution obtained as a result of Algorithm \ref{algo:alg2} is individually rational.
\paragraph{Group Rationality} The value of the grand coalition $v\{\mathcal{N}\}$ as per Equation \eqref{eq:payoff_function} is the sum of utilities $u_n$'s and $u_j^n$'s. Steps 2, 4 and 5 of Algorithm \ref{algo:alg2} obtain the sum of the utilities as well. Hence the solution obtained as a result of Algorithm \ref{algo:alg2} is group rational rational.
\par Furthermore, due to super-additivity of the game and monotonic non-decreasing nature of the utilities, no players have the incentive to form a smaller coalition. Hence Algorithm \ref{algo:alg2} provides a solution from the core.
\end{proof}
\end{comment}
\subsection{Simulations results for synthetic data}
\subsubsection{{Evaluation of the distributed algorithm}}
To validate our results related to strong duality and our proposed distributed algorithm, we obtain the solution for Setting $1$ in Table \ref{tab:settings} using both the central and distributed algorithm as shown in Figure \ref{fig:dist}. It is evident that both the algorithms converge to the same solution, hence the duality gap is zero and our proposed distributed algorithm converges to the global optimal.
\subsubsection{Utility, resource utilization, request satisfaction and fairness}
To highlight the efficacy of our framework, we compare its performance with a setting where ESPs work alone (i.e., no resource sharing among ESPs).
In particular, we compare ESP utility, the average resource utilization (averaged across all $k$ resources) and the average request satisfaction (averaged across requests of all ESPs applications) in Figures \ref{fig:withNBS1} and \ref{fig:withNBS2} for $3$ and $20$ applications per ESP, respectively.
When ESP $1$ works alone, it has a resource deficit (evident from $100\%$ average resource utilization and average request satisfaction of less than 60\% and 80\% in Figures \ref{fig:withNBS1} and \ref{fig:withNBS2}, respectively) whereas ESPs $2$ and $3$ have resource surpluses as indicated by less than $100\%$ resource utilization and $100\%$ request satisfaction. The resource deficit results in a lower utility and request satisfaction for ESP $1$.
On the other hand, both ESPs $2$ and $3$ achieve higher utilities by satisfying all their applications when working alone. However, by using our resource sharing framework, the utilities of all ESPs improve as the framework provides optimal resource sharing.
For the case with three applications, average request satisfaction improves from $86.11\%$ (working alone) to $94.5\%$ (resource sharing) whereas it improves from $90.9\%$ to $99\%$ for the $20$ application case. It is worth noting that request satisfaction for native applications of ESPs $2$ and $3$ reduce as these ESPs allocate their resources to applications of ESP $1$ for a higher utility.
Furthermore, resource utilizations also increase for the ESPs with resource surpluses as they share their resources with the ESP with a resource deficit. To measure the degree of fairness of the proposed sharing framework, we calculate \emph{Jain}'s index\footnote{$\frac{1}{|N|}\leq$Jain's index$\leq 1$ where $1$ is the highest value of fairness.} \cite{jain1999throughput,jain1984aquantitative} that is $0.95$ and $0.99$ for the cases with $3$ and $20$ applications.
Especially for scenarios with a large number of applications, these results reveal that our framework enables fair sharing and allocation of resources among ESPs, as one would expect from the product-based fairness as offered by the NBS.
\subsection{Results for the data traces}
We use trace files from \emph{fastStorage}, \emph{Rnd} \cite{shen2015statistical}, and \emph{materna} \cite{kohne2014federatedcloudsim,kohne2016evaluation}.
We simulate a setting with three different ESPs and randomly extract the normalized resource request information related to the number of CPU cores, the amount of CPU and memory (RAM) for 20 different resource requests from \emph{fastStorage}, \emph{Rnd} and \emph{materna} dataset. Since the datasets do not provide the capacities of these service providers, we assign capacities in such a way that fastStorage serves as the ESP with resource deficit while the other two have resource surplus. Figure \ref{fig:withNBS6} shows ESP utilities, request satisfaction and resource utilization based on the data traces. It is evident that ESP utilities improve and resource utilizations increase to satisfy more applications by use of the proposed NBS framework. The average request satisfaction also increases from $83.3\%$ to $92.05\%$ whereas the Jain index is $0.98$.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=1.00\textwidth]{figures/tr1
\caption{Utility, average request satisfaction and average resource utilization for Setting $3$ when ESPs are working alone and using our proposed NBS framework.}
\protect\label{fig:withNBS6}
\end{figure*}
\begin{comment}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{figures/three20tr.eps
\vspace{-0.1in}
\caption{Utility of CSPs with trace files.}
\vspace{-0.2in}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\subfloat[Utility function\label{fig:withNBS3}]{\includegraphics[width=0.255\textwidth]{figures/three20tr_1.eps}}
\hspace{-0.2in}
\subfloat[Resource utilization \label{fig:withNBS4}]{\includegraphics[width=0.255\textwidth]{figures/three20tr2_1.eps}}
\caption{Utility and resource utilization for the trace files (Setting $3$) using our proposed framework. }%
\protect\label{fig:withNBS6}
\vspace{-0.25in}
\end{figure}
\end{comment}
\begin{table*}[]
\centering
\caption{Comparison of our NBS based resource sharing and allocation framework with other NBS based solutions.}
\begin{tabular}{|c|p{1.0cm}|p{2.0cm}|c|p{5.5cm}|}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Reference}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Objective}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Resource Sharing}} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textbf{Distributed Algorithm}} \\ \cline{4-5}
& & & \textbf{Proposed?} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Technique}} \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{\cite{yaiche2000game}} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{Fair Bandwidth allocation} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\times$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\checkmark$} & Gradient Projection \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{\cite{xu2012general}} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{Fairness} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\times$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\checkmark$} & Dual decomposition and sub-gradient method are used.
\\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{\cite{hassan2014virtual}} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{Cost and Resource Utilization} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\times$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\times$} & N/A \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{\cite{he2013toward}} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{Cost and User Experience} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\times$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\times$} & N/A \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{\cite{feng2012bargaining}} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{Resource utilization} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\times$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\times$} & N/A \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{\cite{guo2013cooperative}} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{Bandwidth allocation} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\times$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\checkmark$} & Gradient Projection \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{Our Approach} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{Service provider utility and user satisfaction} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\checkmark$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\checkmark$} & Gradient descent based algorithm that works for the class of utilities described in \ref{sec:assumption}. \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:comparison}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Game Theoretic Solution}
We first define the characteristic function $v$ for our game that can solve problem in~\eqref{eq:opt_higher}
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\normalsize
\begin{align} \label{eq:payoff_function}
v(\mathcal{N})=\sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in \mathcal{N}$},\;\text{$C_{k}= \sum_{n \in \mathcal{N}}C_{k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} x_{ik}^{(n)}\leq C_{k}^{(n)} \; \forall k \in \mathcal{K}, \; \forall n \in \mathcal{N}$}\\ \text{$\sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}}x_{ik}^{(j)} \leq R^{(n)}_{ik} \; \forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in \mathcal{N}$}}}\bigg(w_n u_n(\mathcal{X})+ \zeta_{n}\sum_{j \in \mathcal{N},j\neq n} u^{n}_j(\mathcal{X})\bigg)
\end{align}
\hrulefill
\vspace*{-4pt}
\end{figure*}
\begin{remark}
The characteristic function in Equation~\eqref{eq:payoff_function} is for the grand coalition $\mathcal{N}$. For any $S \subseteq \mathcal{N}$, the characteristic function will be given by Equation~\eqref{eq:payoff_s_function}
\end{remark}
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\normalsize
\begin{align} \label{eq:payoff_s_function}
v({S})=\sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in {S}$},\; \text{$C_{k}= \sum_{n \in {S}}C_{k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} x_{ik}^{(n)}\leq C_{k}^{(n)} \;\forall k \in \mathcal{K}, \; \forall n \in {S}$}\\ \text{$\sum_{j \in {S}}x_{ik}^{(j)} \leq R^{(n)}_{ik} \; \forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in {S}$}}} \bigg(w_n u_n(\mathcal{X})+\zeta_{n}\sum_{j \in S,j\neq n} u^{n}_j(\mathcal{X})\bigg)
\end{align}
\hrulefill
\vspace*{-4pt}
\end{figure*}
\begin{theorem}
Resource allocation and sharing problem (with multiple objectives) in aforementioned settings can be modeled as a canonical cooperative game with TU.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
To prove this, we need to show that the characteristic function of resource sharing and allocation problem satisfies the following two conditions
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Characteristic form of payoff:} As the utility function in a resource sharing and allocation problem only relies on the domains that are part of the coalition, the game or payoff function is of characteristic form
\item \textbf{Superadditivity:} Super-additivity for TU games requires $v(S_1 \cup S_2 )\geq v(S_1)+V(S_2) \; \forall S_1 \subset \mathcal{N}, S_2 \subset \mathcal{N}, s.t. S_1\cap S_2 =\emptyset$ i.e. we have to prove that the pay-off or utility for a domain in the coalition is as good as domain working alone or in a smaller coalition. Due to monotonicity property of the utility functions used, for all players/domains $n \in \mathcal{N}$, $u_n(X_n^{NC})\leq u_n(X_n^{C})$ as $X_n^{NC}\subset {X_n^{C}}$ \footnote{because $X_n^{C}$ can contain much more elements due to the increase in $C$ in the coalition} where $X_n^{C}$ and $X_n^{NC}$ are the allocation decisions in a cooperative game and independent setting respectively for domain $n$.
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:MOOGame}
A canonical cooperative game $(\mathcal{N}, v)$ with TU can be used to obtain the Pareto-optimal solutions for the multi-objective optimization problem given in \eqref{eq:opt_higher}
\end{lemma}
To prove Lemma \ref{lemma:MOOGame}, we must show that the core is non-empty for our canonical game. To do this, we first show that our game is convex.
\begin{definition}[Convex Games]
A coalition game is said to be convex if and only if for every player $n \in \mathcal{N}$, the marginal contribution of the player is non-decreasing W.R.T set inclusion. Mathematically, for $S_1\subseteq S_2 \subseteq \mathcal{N}\backslash \{n\}$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:convexgames}
v(S_1 \cup \{n\})-v(S_1) \leq v(S_2 \cup \{n\})-v(S_2)
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
\begin{theorem}
Our canonical game is convex
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let us consider two coalition $S_1$ and $S_2$, where $S_1\subseteq S_2 \subseteq \mathcal{N}\backslash\{j\}$ where $j \in \mathcal{N}$. Then we first calculate $v(S_2 \cup \{j\})-v(S_1 \cup \{j\})$ in Equation \eqref{eq:convexityProof}.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\normalsize
\begin{align}\label{eq:convexityProof}
& \sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in {S_2}$},\; \text{$C_{k}= \sum_{n \in {S_2}}C_{k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} x_{ik}^{(n)}\leq C_{k}^{(n)} \; \forall k \in \mathcal{K},\; \forall n \in {S_2}$}\\ \text{$\sum_{j \in {S_2}}x_{ik}^{(j)} \leq R^{(n)}_{ik} \;\forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in {S_2}$}}}\bigg(w_n u_n(\mathcal{X})+ w'_{n}\sum_{k \in {S_2}, k\neq n} u^{j}_k(\mathcal{X})\bigg) + w_j u_j ^{(S_2)}(\mathcal{X}) + \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_2, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{X}) - \nonumber \\
& \Bigg(\sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in {S_1}$},\; \text{$C_{k}= \sum_{n \in {S_1}}C_{k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} x_{ik}^{(n)}\leq C_{k}^{(n)} \; \forall k \in \mathcal{K}, \; \forall n \in {S_1}$} \\ \text{$\sum_{j \in {S_1}}x_{ik}^{(j)} \leq R^{(n)}_{ik} \quad \forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in {S_1}$}}}\bigg(w_n u_n(\mathcal{X})+ w'_{n}\sum_{k \in {S_1}, k \neq n} u^{j}_k(\mathcal{X})\bigg) + w_j u_j ^{(S_1)}(\mathcal{X}) + \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_1, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{X})\nonumber \Bigg)\\
&= \sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in {S_2}\backslash S_1$}, \text{$C_{k}= \sum_{n \in {S_2}\backslash S_1}C_{k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} x_{ik}^{(n)}\leq C_{k}^{(n)} \; \forall k \in \mathcal{K},\; \forall n \in {S_2}\backslash S_1$} \\ \text{$\sum_{j \in {S_2 \backslash S_1}}x_{ik}^{(j)} \leq R^{(n)}_{ik} \quad \forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in {S_2 \backslash S_1}$}}}\bigg(w_n u_n(\mathcal{X})+ w'_{n}\sum_{k \in {\{S_2 \backslash S_1\}}, k \neq n} u^{j}_k(\mathcal{X})\bigg) + w_j u_j ^{(S_2)}(\mathcal{X}) \nonumber \\
& + \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_2, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{X}) - w_j u_j ^{(S_1)}(\mathcal{X}) - \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_1, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{X}) \nonumber \\
& = v(S_2)- v(S_1)+ w_j u_j ^{(S_2)}(\mathcal{X}) + \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_2, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{X}) - w_j u_j ^{(S_1)}(\mathcal{X}) - \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_1, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{X}) \nonumber \\
& \geq v(S_2)- v(S_1)
\end{align}
\hrulefill
\vspace*{4pt}
\end{figure*}
\begin{comment}
\begin{align}\label{eq:convexityProof}
& \sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in {S_2}$} \\ \text{$R_{av,k}= \sum_{n \in {S_2}}R_{av,k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} a_{ik}^{(n)}\leq R_{av,k}^{(n)} \; \forall k \in \mathcal{K},\; \forall n \in {S_2}$}\\ \text{$\sum_{j \in {S_2}}a_{ik}^{(j)} \leq R^{(n)}_{req,ik} \;\forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in {S_2}$}}}\bigg(w_n u_n(\mathcal{A})+ w'_{n}\sum_{k \in {S_2}, k\neq n} u^{j}_k(\mathcal{A})\bigg) + w_j u_j ^{(S_2)}(\mathcal{A}) + \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_2, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{A}) - \nonumber \\
& \Bigg(\sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in {S_1}$} \\ \text{$R_{av,k}= \sum_{n \in {S_1}}R_{av,k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} a_{ik}^{(n)}\leq R_{av,k}^{(n)} \; \forall k \in \mathcal{K}, \; \forall n \in {S_1}$} \\ \text{$\sum_{j \in {S_1}}a_{ik}^{(j)} \leq R^{(n)}_{req,ik} \quad \forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in {S_1}$}}}\bigg(w_n u_n(\mathcal{A})+ w'_{n}\sum_{k \in {S_1}, k \neq n} u^{j}_k(\mathcal{A})\bigg) + w_j u_j ^{(S_1)}(\mathcal{A}) + \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_1, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{A})\nonumber \Bigg)\\
&= \sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in {S_2}\backslash S_1$} \\ \text{$R_{av,k}= \sum_{n \in {S_2}\backslash S_1}R_{av,k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} a_{ik}^{(n)}\leq R_{av,k}^{(n)} \; \forall k \in \mathcal{K},\; \forall n \in {S_2}\backslash S_1$} \\ \text{$\sum_{j \in {S_2 \backslash S_1}}a_{ik}^{(j)} \leq R^{(n)}_{req,ik} \quad \forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in {S_2 \backslash S_1}$}}}\bigg(w_n u_n(\mathcal{A})+ w'_{n}\sum_{k \in {\{S_2 \backslash S_1\}}, k \neq n} u^{j}_k(\mathcal{A})\bigg) + w_j u_j ^{(S_2)}(\mathcal{A}) \nonumber \\
& + \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_2, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{A}) - w_j u_j ^{(S_1)}(\mathcal{A}) - \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_1, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{A}) \nonumber \\
& = v(S_2)- v(S_1)+ w_j u_j ^{(S_2)}(\mathcal{A}) + \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_2, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{A}) - w_j u_j ^{(S_1)}(\mathcal{A}) - \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_1, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{A}) \nonumber \\
& \geq v(S_2)- v(S_1)
\end{align}
\end{comment}
The last inequality in Equation \eqref{eq:convexityProof} follows from the fact that $ w_j u_j ^{(S_2)}(\mathcal{X}) + \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_2, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{X}) - w_j u_j ^{(S_1)}(\mathcal{X}) - \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_1, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{X})\geq 0$ (monotonicity of the utility)
\end{proof}
\begin{comment}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Is the core non-empty?
\item If the core is non-empty and consists of different pay-off allocations, how do we choose any particular pay-off allocation vector?
\end{enumerate}
Below we attempt to answer these questions
\begin{definition}[Balanced Collection] Let $\Omega$ be a collection of different coalitions. $\Omega$ is considered to be a \emph{balanced collection} if we can find non-negative weights $w_S$ for each $S \in \Omega$ such that for every player $n$
\begin{align}\label{eq:balancedcollection}
\sum_{S \in \Omega, S \ni n}w_S =1
\end{align}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[Balanced Game] A game is called balanced if for every balanced collection $\Omega$, the payoff vector $\mathbf{x}$ will be in $V_{\mathcal{N}}$ if $\mathbf{x}_S \in V_S\; \forall S \in \Omega$
\end{definition}
\begin{theorem}[Bondareva-Shapley Theorem]\label{thm:BST}
The core of a game is non-empty if and only if the game is balanced
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}
The core for canonical game with our characteristic function(in Equation~\eqref{eq:payoff_function}) is non-empty
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
From the definition of characteristic functions for TU games (see \cite{han2012game} for details), $v: 2^{\mathcal{N}}$ \textrightarrow $\mathbb{R}$ with $v(\emptyset)=\emptyset$. This means that the total number of coalitions possible for $\mathcal{N}$ players is $2^{|\mathcal{N}|}-1$ (we ignore the empty set). For $\Omega$, the non-negative weights $w_S$ which satisfy the condition for balanced collection in Equation~\eqref{eq:balancedcollection} are given by $\frac{1}{2^{|\mathcal{N}|-1}}$. Hence $\Omega$ is a balanced collection. We also know that $v(S)\subseteq v(\mathcal{N})$ as $v(\mathcal{N})$ is defined over a larger feasible set due to increased amount of available resources. Leveraging the monotonicity property of the utility functions used, we know that any payoff vector $\mathbf{x}$ will be in $V_{\mathcal{N}}$ if $\mathbf{x}_S$\footnote{$\mathbf{x}_S$ is the projection of $\mathbf{x}$ onto the vector space $\mathbb{R}^{|S|}$} $\in V_S\; \forall S \in \Omega$. Hence our canonical game with characteristic function $v$ in Equation~\eqref{eq:payoff_function} is balanced and its core is non-empty (from Theorem \ref{thm:BST})
\end{proof}
\end{comment}
\begin{theorem}
The core of any convex game $(\mathcal{N},v)$ is non-empty and large.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Available in \cite{sharkey1982cooperative}
\end{proof}
While the existence of core i.e., core being non-empty, guarantees the grand coalition is stable, finding a suitable allocation from the core is challenging particularly when the core is large (our game). Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, fairness is also a shortcoming of core based solutions. Shapley value can be used to obtain a fair allocation, however, we first need to show that the Shapley value lies in the core to guarantee that the Shapley value based allocation is stable for the grand coalition.
\begin{theorem}
The Shapley value in Equation~\eqref{eq:shapleyvalue} lies in the core of our canonical game
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Since our canonical game is convex, the Shapley value lies in the core \cite{han2012game} (see \cite{roger1991game} for details)
\end{proof}
We summarize this in the remark below.
\begin{remark}
If a TU game $(\mathcal{N}, v)$ is convex, then the core is non-empty and the Shapley Value lies in the core \cite{garg2013novel}.
\end{remark}
Calculation of Shapley value given in Equation~\eqref{eq:shapleyvalue} is challenging \cite{han2012game}. Since our game is convex, calculating its Shapley value is slightly easier as given below.
\subsubsection{Shapley Value for a Convex Game}
Let $\pi$ denote the permutation of players in our game. Then for any permutation $p$ from the total possible permutations $|\mathcal{N}|!$, one can obtain the initial segments of ordering by \cite{garg2013novel}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:initialsegment}
O_{\pi, r}=\{ n \in \mathcal{N} : \pi(n) \leq r \}, \; r \in \{1, \cdots, N\}
\end{equation}
where $O_{\pi, 0}=\{\}$ and $O_{\pi, |\mathcal{N}|} =\mathcal{N}$. $\pi(n)$ refers to the position of the player $n$ in the permutation $\pi$. The core of any particular ordering $\pi$ can be obtained by solving equations
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:x_i_pi_sol}
x_n^{\pi}(O_{\pi, r}) = v(O_{\pi, r}), \; r \in \{ 1, \cdots, N\}
\end{equation}
The solution to above Equations~\eqref{eq:x_i_pi_sol} will result in a payoff vector $x^{\pi}$ where the elements of the vector are given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:vectorelements}
x_n^{\pi}=v(O_{\pi, \pi(n)})- v(O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1}), \quad \forall n \in \mathcal{N}
\end{equation}
The payoff vectors $x^{\pi}$ represent the extreme points of the core in convex games \cite{garg2013novel}. So if $\prod$ represents the set of all possible permutations of $\mathcal{N}$, the Shapley value of any player $n$ can be calculated as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:shapleyconvex}
\phi_n=\frac{1}{|\mathcal{N}|!}\sum_{\pi \in \prod} x_n^{\pi}
\end{equation}
\begin{comment}
So for our coalition game $(\mathcal{N},v)$, the Shapley value is
\begin{align}
\label{eq:ourshapleyconvex}
\phi_n&=\frac{1}{|\mathcal{N}|!}\sum_{\pi \in \prod} \bigg( \sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)}}$} \\ \text{$R_{av,k}= \sum_{n \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)}}}R_{av,k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} a_{ik}^{(n)}\leq R_{av,k}^{(n)} \;\forall k \in \mathcal{K}, \; \forall n \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)}}$} \\ \text{$$}\text{$\sum_{j \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)}}}a_{ik}^{(j)} \leq R^{(n)}_{req,ik} \;\forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in O_{\pi, \pi(n)}$}}}\bigg(w_n u_n^{(\pi)}(\mathcal{A})+ w'_{n}\sum_{j \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)}}, j \neq n} u^{n,(\pi)}_j(\mathcal{A})\bigg)- \nonumber \\
&\Bigg(\sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1}}$} \\ \text{$R_{av,k}= \sum_{n \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1}}}R_{av,k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} a_{ik}^{(n)}\leq R_{av,k}^{(n)} \; \forall k \in \mathcal{K}, \; \forall n \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1}}$}}}\bigg(w_n u^{(\pi)}_n(\mathcal{A})+ w'_{n}\sum_{j \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1}}, j \neq n} u^{n,(\pi)}_j(\mathcal{A})\bigg)\Bigg) \nonumber \\
&=\frac{1}{|\mathcal{N}|!}\sum_{\pi \in \prod} \bigg( \sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)}\backslash O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1} }$} \\ \text{$R_{av,k}= \sum_{n \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)}\backslash O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1}}}R_{av,k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} a_{ik}^{(n)}\leq R_{av,k}^{(n)} \;\forall k \in \mathcal{K}, \; \forall n \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)}\backslash O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1}}$} \\ \text{$\sum_{j \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)}\backslash O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1}}}a_{ik}^{(j)} \leq R^{(n)}_{req,ik} \;\forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in O_{\pi, \pi(n)}\backslash O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1}$} }}\bigg(w_n u^{(\pi)}_n(\mathcal{A})+ \nonumber \\
& w'_{n}\sum_{j \in \{{O_{\pi, \pi(n)}} \}, j \neq n} u^{n,(\pi)}_j(\mathcal{A}) + w'_{n}\sum_{j \in \{{O_{\pi, \pi(n)}} \}, j \neq n} u^{j,(\pi)}_n(\mathcal{A}) \bigg)\bigg) \nonumber \\
&=\frac{1}{|\mathcal{N}|!}\sum_{\pi \in \prod}\bigg(w_nu^{(\pi)}_n(\mathcal{A})+ w'_{n}\sum_{j \in \{{O_{\pi, \pi(n)}} \}, j \neq n} u^{n,(\pi)}_j(\mathcal{A}) +w'_{n}\sum_{j \in \{{O_{\pi, \pi(n)}} \}, j \neq n} u^{j,(\pi)}_n(\mathcal{A}) \bigg)
\end{align}
where Equation~\eqref{eq:ourshapleyconvex} provides the Shapley value for our convex game. It is evident that our Shapley value depends on the utility of the player $n$, the utility player $n$ achieves by allocating resources to players in $j \in O_{\pi, \pi(n)}, j \neq n $ and the utility player $j \neq n, j \in O_{\pi, \pi(n)}$ achieves by allocating resources to player $n$ in every possible permutation.
\begin{comment}
\begin{algorithm}
\begin{algorithmic}[]
\State \textbf{Input}: $tt$
\State \textbf{Output}: The optimal hit probabilities
\State \textbf{Step $1$:} $t \leftarrow$0, $\boldsymbol{\lambda^{(t)}\leftarrow\lambda_0}$, $\boldsymbol{\mu^{(t)}\leftarrow\mu_0}$
\While{Equation \eqref{eq:gradient1} $\neq$ 0
\State \textbf{Step $2$}:$\boldsymbol{h_{il}^{(p)}[t]} \leftarrow \frac{w_i\beta^{|p|-l}}{\lambda_{l}[t-1]\Bigg(\prod_{\substack{q \neq p,\\ q:l\in\{1,\cdots,|q|\}}}(1-h_{il}^{(q)}[t-1])\Bigg)+\mu_{ip}[t-1]}. $
\State \textbf{Step $3$:} Update $\lambda$ and $\mu$ using \eqref{eq:update}, t $\leftarrow t+1$
\EndWhile
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{Iterative Distributed Algorithm}
\label{algo:alg}
\end{algorithm}
\end{comment}
\begin{remark}\label{rem:shap}
Shapley value calculation for our convex game requires solving at least $2^{N}-1$ optimization problems
\end{remark}
Algorithm \ref{algo:alg1} provides an overview of our proposed approach. We obtain $R, C$ and the utility of all players as $\mathbf{u}$. We initialize each player's utility value ($\mathbf{u}(R,\mathcal{X})$), Shapley value ($\boldsymbol{\phi} $) and resource allocation decision $\mathcal{X}$ to $0$. Then we calculate the Shapley value for the players and assign it to $\mathbf{u}(R,\mathcal{X})$. Finally to obtain $\mathcal{X}$, we take the inverse function of $\mathbf{u}$. As we are using monotone utilities, we know that the inverse of the utilities exist.
\par A fundamental issue with Shapley value is its complexity. As mentioned in Remark \ref{rem:shap}, Shapley value calculation requires solving a large number of optimization problems that is not suitable for a game with larger number of players. Therefore, reducing the complexity of obtaining an allocation from the core is always favorable.
\begin{algorithm}
\begin{algorithmic}[]
\State \textbf{Input}: $R, C,$ and vector of utility functions of all players $\mathbf{u}$
\State \textbf{Output}: $\mathcal{X}$
\State \textbf{Step $1$:} $ \mathbf{u}(R,\mathcal{X}) \leftarrow$0, $ \mathcal{X} \leftarrow$0, $ \boldsymbol{\phi} \leftarrow$0,
\State \textbf{Step $1$:} Calculate Shapley Value $\phi_n$ using Equation \eqref{eq:shapleyconvex} $\forall n \in \mathcal{N}$
\State \textbf{Step $2$:} $ \mathbf{u}(R,\mathcal{X}) \leftarrow \boldsymbol{\phi}$
\State \textbf{Step $3$:} $\mathcal{X}\leftarrow \mathbf{u}^{-1}$
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{Shapley Value based Resource Allocation}
\label{algo:alg1}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{Reducing the Computational Complexity}
To reduce the complexity, we propose a computationally efficient approach in Algorithm 2 that requires solving $2N$ optimization problems i.e. $\mathcal{O}(N)$. The input into the algorithm consists of available resources/capacities, user requirements and the utilities of all game players. The output of the algorithm is $\mathcal{X}$. In Step 1, the utility values of the players, the allocation decision, and two vectors $\boldsymbol{O_1}$ and $\boldsymbol{O_2}$. In Step 2, every player's utility is calculated without any resource sharing i.e. single optimization and the values are stored in the vector $\boldsymbol{O_1}$. Then $C, R$ are updated and we move to Step 4, where we calculated the utilities $u_j^n$'s for all the players with updated $C, R$ and store them in $\boldsymbol{O_2}$.
\begin{algorithm}
\begin{algorithmic}[]
\State \textbf{Input}: $R, C,$ and vector of utility functions of all players $\mathbf{u}$
\State \textbf{Output}: $\mathcal{X}$
\State \textbf{Step $1$:} $ \mathbf{u}(R,\mathcal{X}) \leftarrow$0, $ \mathcal{X} \leftarrow$0, $ \boldsymbol{O_1} \leftarrow$0, $ \boldsymbol{O_2} \leftarrow$0,
\State \textbf{Step $2$:}
\For{\texttt{$n \in \mathcal{N}$}}
\State $ {O_1^n} \leftarrow$ \texttt{Solution of the optimization problem in Equation \eqref{eq:opt_single}}
\EndFor
\State \textbf{Step $3$:} Update $R, C$ based on Step 2
\State \textbf{Step $4$:}
\For{\texttt{$n \in \mathcal{N}$}}
\State $ {O_2^n} \leftarrow$ \texttt{Solution of the optimization problem in Equation \eqref{eq:opt_single_j} with updated C and R}
\State Update C and R
\EndFor
\State \textbf{Step $5$:} $u_n(R,\mathcal{X})\leftarrow O_1^n+O_2^n$ $\forall n \in \mathcal{N}$
\State \textbf{Step $6$:} $\mathcal{X}\leftarrow \mathbf{u}^{-1}$
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{$\mathcal{O}$($N$) algorithm for obtaining Core's allocation}
\label{algo:alg2}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:opt_single_j}
\begin{align}
\max_{\mathcal{X}}\quad& \sum_{j\neq n}u_j^n(\mathcal{X}) \quad \forall n \in \mathcal{N} \label{eq:objsinglej}\\
\text{s.t.}\quad & \sum_{i} x_{ik}^{(n)}\leq C_{k}^{(n)} \quad \forall k \in \mathcal{K}, \quad \forall i \in \mathcal{M}\backslash\mathcal{M}_n, \label{eq:singlefirstj} \displaybreak[0]\\
& x_{ik}^{(n)} \leq R^{(n)}_{ik} \quad \forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}\backslash\mathcal{M}_n, k \in \mathcal{K}, \label{eq:singlesecondj} \displaybreak[1]\\
& x_{ik}^{(n)} \geq 0 \quad \forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}\backslash\mathcal{M}_n, k \in \mathcal{K}, \label{eq:singlethirdj} \displaybreak[2]
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\begin{theorem}
The solution obtained from Algorithm \ref{algo:alg2} lies in the \emph{core}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
To prove the theorem, we need to show that the utilities obtained in Step $5$ of Algorithm \ref{algo:alg2}; a) are individually rational; b) are group rational and c) no players have the incentive to leave the grand coalition and form another another coalition $S \subset \mathcal{N}$.
\paragraph{Individual Rationality} For each player $n \in \mathcal{N}$, the solution $O_1^n$ obtained by solving the optimization problem in Equation \eqref{eq:opt_single} is the utility a player will obtain by working alone i.e. it is $v\{n\}$. The value $O_2^n$ in Step 4 is either zero or positive but cannot be negative due to the nature of utility used i.e.
\begin{align}
u_n(R,\mathcal{X})&=O_1^n+O_2^n \quad \forall n \in \mathcal{N} \nonumber \\
u_n(R,\mathcal{X})&\geq O_1^n \quad \forall n \in \mathcal{N}\nonumber
\end{align}
Hence the solution obtained as a result of Algorithm \ref{algo:alg2} is individually rational.
\paragraph{Group Rationality} The value of the grand coalition $v\{\mathcal{N}\}$ as per Equation \eqref{eq:payoff_function} is the sum of utilities $u_n$'s and $u_j^n$'s. Steps 2, 4 and 5 of Algorithm \ref{algo:alg2} obtain the sum of the utilities as well. Hence the solution obtained as a result of Algorithm \ref{algo:alg2} is group rational rational.
\par Furthermore, due to super-additivity of the game and monotonic non-decreasing nature of the utilities, no players have the incentive to form a smaller coalition. Hence Algorithm \ref{algo:alg2} provides a solution from the core.
\end{proof}
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
\input{01-intro}
\section{System Model}\label{sec:sysmodel}
\input{02-sysmodel2}
\section{NBS for Resource Sharing among CSPs}\label{sec:nbs}
\input{nbs}
\section{Simulation Results}\label{sec:exp_results}
\input{04-exp-results}
\section{Related Work}\label{sec:related}
\input{related}
\section{Conclusions}\label{sec:conclusion}
\input{05-conclusions}
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This work was supported by the U.S. Army Research Laboratory and the U.K. Ministry of Defence under Agreement Number W911NF-16-3-0001. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. Army Research Laboratory, the U.S. Government, the U.K. Ministry of Defence or the U.K. Government. The U.S. and U.K. Governments are authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Government purposes notwithstanding any copy-right notation hereon. Faheem Zafari also acknowledges the financial support by EPSRC Centre for Doctoral Training in High Performance Embedded and Distributed Systems (HiPEDS, Grant Reference EP/L016796/1), and Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Imperial College London.
\bibliographystyle{IEEETran}
\subsection{Primer on Nash Bargaining Solution (NBS)}\label{sec:prelim}
\input{preli}
\subsection{Proposed Framework}
As mentioned earlier, NBS is a Pareto optimal and fair solution in settings that involve different players (ESPs in our case) where each player has an objective to optimize. Therefore, it can be used to solve our MOO problem in \eqref{eq:opt_higher} as we have different ESPs that need to optimize their objectives and improve their utilities over what they would receive working alone.
We first specify the disagreement point for our bargaining problem. If the ESPs cannot come to an agreement, they can all start working alone. Hence the disagreement point is the solution to the SOO problem given in \eqref{eq:opt_single} for all ESPs. Let us denote the solution to the SOO problem by $d_n^0, \forall\; n \in \mathcal{N}$. In the cooperative setting\footnote{Service providers share resources among each other.}, the utility (represented by $s_n$ in \eqref{eq:nashProbNplayer}) for an ESP $n \in \mathcal{N}$ is given by:
\begin{align}
U= &\sum_{\substack{j \in \mathcal{M}_n,\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\Big(u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j+{x}_{n,k}^j)- u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j) \Big) \nonumber \displaybreak[0] \\
&\hspace*{-0.2in}+\Big(\sum_{\substack{l \in \overline{\mathcal{M}},\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\big( u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l+{x}_{n,k}^l)-u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l)- \displaybreak[1]\nonumber\\
&\hspace*{-0.1in} D^l({x}_{n,k}^l)\big)\Big). \nonumber
\end{align}
Below, we present the centralized NBS algorithm.
\subsubsection{Centralized NBS}
We first present the optimization problem to obtain NBS for our $N-$ESP bargaining game \cite{harsanyi1963simplified} and then present its equivalent problem \cite{yaiche2000game} that is computationally efficient to solve.
\begin{theorem} The NBS for the MOO optimization problem in \eqref{eq:opt_higher} can be obtained by solving the following optimization problem
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:nashProbNplayermod}
\begin{align}
\max_{\mathbf{X}}\;& \prod_{n=1}^{N}\hspace*{-0.05in}\bigg(\sum_{\substack{j \in \mathcal{M}_n,\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\Big(u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j+{x}_{n,k}^j)-u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j) \Big) \nonumber \\
&+\Big(\sum_{\substack{l \in \overline{\mathcal{M}},\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\big( u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l+{x}_{n,k}^l)-u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l)\nonumber\\
&- D^l({x}_{n,k}^l)\big)\Big)-d_n^0
\bigg),\label{eq:objmain} \\
\text{s.t.}\quad & Constraints \; in \; \eqref{eq:obj1}-\eqref{eq:obj4}, \nonumber \\
&\sum_{\substack{j \in \mathcal{M}_n,\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\Big(u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j+{x}_{n,k}^j)-u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j) \Big) \nonumber \\
&+\Big(\sum_{\substack{l \in \overline{\mathcal{M}},\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\big( u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l+{x}_{n,k}^l)-u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l)\nonumber\\
&- D^l({x}_{n,k}^l)\big)\Big)> d_n^0, \quad \forall \; n \in \mathcal{N}.\label{eq:disagreemt}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\end{theorem
\begin{proof}
The feasible set for the above optimization problem is convex and compact, since all constraints are convex and intersection of convex sets is a convex set. Furthermore, based on our assumptions, there exist solutions (allocation and sharing decisions) that provide better utility than the disagreement point $d_n^0, \forall\; n \in \mathcal{N}$. Hence, the solution of the optimization problem in \eqref{eq:nashProbNplayermod} is the NBS.
\end{proof
However, solving \eqref{eq:nashProbNplayermod} is computationally complex and the problem is not always convex. Therefore, there is a need for an efficient method to obtain the NBS.
Toward this goal, we transform the problem \eqref{eq:nashProbNplayermod} into an equivalent problem as proposed in \cite{yaiche2000game}.
\begin{comment}
\begin{theorem}[Problem transformation\cite{yaiche2000game}]
\label{thm:transformation}
Suppose for every player $n \in \mathcal{N}$, $s_n \in \mathcal{S}$ is injective function in the feasible set $\mathcal{F}$ (satisfying all the constraints). Under the assumptions of NBS, let us consider the following
\begin{align}
\label{eq:nashProbN}
\max_{s_1,\cdots,s_N}\;\prod_{n=1}^{N}(s_n-d_n),\; s.t.\; s_n \in \mathcal{F},\; \forall n \in \mathcal{N}
\end{align}\vspace{-0.15in}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:nashProbN2}
\max_{s_1,\cdots,s_N}\;\sum_{n=1}^{N}\ln(s_n-d_n),\; s.t.\; s_n \in \mathcal{F},\; \forall n \in \mathcal{N}
\end{align}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Equation \eqref{eq:nashProbN} has a unique solution and the bargaining solution is just a single point, where as Equation \eqref{eq:nashProbN2} is a convex optimization problem with a unique solution.
\item The optimization problems in Equations \eqref{eq:nashProbN} and \eqref{eq:nashProbN2} are equivalent. Hence, the unique solution of Equation \eqref{eq:nashProbN2} is the NBS.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
The above transformation reduces the complexity and always guarantees an NBS \cite{khan2009cooperative}.
\end{comment}
\begin{corollary
The NBS for \eqref{eq:opt_higher} is obtained by solving the following optimization problem:
\begin{align}\label{eq:objmain2}
\max_{\mathbf{X}}\;& \sum_{n=1}^{N}\ln\bigg(\sum_{\substack{j \in \mathcal{M}_n,\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\Big(u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j+{x}_{n,k}^j)- \nonumber \\
&u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j) \Big) +\Big(\sum_{\substack{l \in \overline{\mathcal{M}},\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\big( u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l+{x}_{n,k}^l)\nonumber\\
&-u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l)- D^l({x}_{n,k}^l)\big)\Big)-d_n^0
\bigg),\\
\text{s.t.}\quad & Constraints \; in \; \eqref{eq:obj1}-\eqref{eq:obj4}, \; \eqref{eq:disagreemt}. \nonumber
\end{align}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
ESP utilities are concave and bounded above. Furthermore, the feasible set along with the set of achievable utilities ($\mathcal{S}$) is convex and compact (due to the nature of utilities and constraints).
Utilities of ESPs are also injective functions of the allocation decision. Hence \eqref{eq:objmain2} is equivalent to \eqref{eq:nashProbNplayermod} \cite{yaiche2000game}. Since the logarithm of any positive real number is concave\cite{boyd2004convex}, \eqref{eq:objmain2} is a convex optimization problem with a unique solution, which is the NBS.
\end{proof}
The centralized Algorithm \ref{algo:centralnbs} provides the allocation decision using NBS.
\begin{algorithm}
\begin{algorithmic}[]
\State \textbf{Input}: $C, R$, and vector of utility functions of all ESPs $\boldsymbol{u}$
\State \textbf{Output}: The optimal resource allocation $\mathbf{X}$ and payoffs of all ESPs
\State \textbf{Step $1$:}
\For{\texttt{$n \in \mathcal{N}$}}
\State $ {d_n^0} \leftarrow$ \texttt{Objective function at optimal point in Equation \eqref{eq:opt_single}}
\EndFor
\State \textbf{Step $2$:} $\mathbf{X} \leftarrow$ \texttt{Solution of the optimization problem in Equation \eqref{eq:objmain2}}
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{Centralized Algorithm for NBS}
\label{algo:centralnbs}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{comment}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:centralsolution}
The solution to the optimization problem in \eqref{eq:objmain2}, provided that the inverse of the first derivative of $u_{n}^j(x_{n,k}^j)$ and $f_n^l=(u_{n}^l(x_{n,k}^l)-C_n^l(x_{n,k}^l))$ exist, is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:solcentral}
x_{n,k}^{*j}= u_n^{'-j}(\alpha_{n,k}, \beta_{k}^j,\zeta_{n},\gamma_{n,k}^{j},\Lambda_{n,k}^{j}), \quad \quad \quad \forall j \in \mathcal{M},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:solcentral2}
x_{n,k}^{*l}= f_n^{'-l}(\alpha_{n,k}, \beta_{k}^l,\zeta_{n},\gamma_{n,k}^{l},\Lambda_{n,k}^{l}), \quad \forall l \in \{\mathcal{M}\backslash\mathcal{{M}}_n\}
\end{equation}
where $u_n^{'-j}(\alpha_{n,k}, \beta_{k}^j,\zeta_{n},\gamma_{n,k}^{j},\Lambda_{n,k}^{j})$ and $f_n^{'-l}(\alpha_{n,k}, \beta_{k}^l,\zeta_{n},\gamma_{n,k}^{l},\Lambda_{n,k}^{l})$ are
the inverse of the first derivative of $u_{n}^j$ and $(u_{n}^l(x_{n,k}^l)-C_n^l(x_{n,k}^l))$, respectively.
$\alpha_{n,k}$, $\beta_{k}^j$, $\zeta_{n}$, and $\gamma_{n,k}^{j}$ are the \emph{Lagrange} multipliers and $\Lambda_{n,k}^{j}=\bigg(\sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}_n}u_n^j(\mathbf{x}_n^j)+ \big(\sum_{l \in \{\mathcal{M}\backslash \mathcal{M}_n\}} u_n^l(\mathbf{x}_n^l)-C_n^l(\mathbf{x}_n^l)\big)-d_n^0\bigg)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The Lagrangian function for \eqref{eq:objmain2} is given in \eqref{eq:lagrangian} on the next page.
Since the Lagrangian function consists of differentiable and continuous functions, we can use gradients to obtain the optimal allocation decision and Lagrangian multipliers.
Depending on the application $j$, we have two cases:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textbf{$j \in \mathcal{M}_n$:}$\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial x_{n,k}^{j}}=0$
\begin{align}
\label{eq:gradLagObj}
u_n^{'j}(x_{n,k}^{j})(1+\Lambda_{n,k}^{j}\zeta_{n})-\Lambda_{n,k}^{j}(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^j-\gamma_{n,k}^{j})=0,\nonumber \\
\implies u_n^{'j}(x_{n,k}^{j})=\frac{\Lambda_{n,k}^{j}(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^j- \gamma_{n,k}^{j})}{1+\Lambda_{n,k}^{j}\zeta_{n}}, \nonumber \\
\implies \quad x_{n,k}^{*j}= u_n^{'-j}(\alpha_{n,k}, \beta_{k}^j, \zeta_{n},\gamma_{n,k}^{j},\Lambda_{n,k}^{j}).
\end{align}
\item \textbf{$l \in \{\mathcal{M}\backslash\mathcal{M}_n\}$:} $\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial x_{n,k}^{l}}=0$
\begin{align}
\label{eq:gradLagObjcase2}
f^{'l}_n(x_{n,k}^{l})(1+\Lambda_{n,k}^{l}\zeta_{n})-\Lambda_{n,k}^{l}(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^l-\gamma_{n,k}^{l})=0,\nonumber \\
\implies f^{'l}_n(x_{n,k}^{l})=\frac{\Lambda_{n,k}^{l}(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^l-\gamma_{n,k}^{l})}{1+\Lambda_{n,k}^{l}\zeta_{n}}, \nonumber \\
\implies \quad x_{n,k}^{*l}= f_{n}^{'-l}(\alpha_{n,k}, \beta_{k}^l,\zeta_{n},\gamma_{n,k}^{l},\Lambda_{n,k}^{l}).
\end{align}
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
In cases where $u_n^{'-j}(\boldsymbol{.})$ and $f_{n}^{'-l}(\boldsymbol{.}) $ do not exist, one should use alternate methods such as {gradient based iterative equation}\cite{tychogiorgos2013non}:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:gradientbasediterative}
x_{n,k}^{j}(t+1)=x_{n,k}^{j}(t)+\epsilon_{n,k}^{j}\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial x_{n,k}^{j}}
\end{align}
where $\epsilon_{n,k}^{j}$ is a positive step size.
\end{comment}
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\normalsize
\begin{align}
\label{eq:lagrangian}
\mathcal{L}(\mathbf{X}, \boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta, \zeta,\gamma,\pi})&=
\sum_{n=1}^{N}\ln\bigg(\sum_{\substack{j \in \mathcal{M}_n,\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\Big(u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j+{x}_{n,k}^j)- u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j) \Big)+\Big(\sum_{\substack{l \in \overline{\mathcal{M}},\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\big( u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l+{x}_{n,k}^l)-\nonumber\\
&\hspace*{-1.3in}\quad u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l)- D^l({x}_{n,k}^l)\big)\Big)-d^0_n\bigg) + \quad \sum_{\substack{n \in \mathcal{N},\\j \in \mathcal{M},\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\gamma_{n,k}^{j}x_{n,k}^{j} +\sum_{\substack{n \in \mathcal{N},\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\alpha_{n,k} (C_{n,k}-\sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}}x_{n,k}^{j}) +\sum_{\substack{j \in \mathcal{M},\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\beta_{k}^j (r_{k}^{j}-\sum_{n \in \mathcal{N}}x_{n,k}^{j}) + \sum_{n \in \mathcal{N}} \zeta_{n} \nonumber \\
& \hspace*{-1.3in}\quad \bigg(\sum_{\substack{j \in \mathcal{M}_n,\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\Big(u_n^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j+{x}_{n,k}^j)- u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j) \Big)+ \quad \Big(\sum_{\substack{l \in \overline{\mathcal{M}},\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\big( u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l+{x}_{n,k}^l)-u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l)-\nonumber\\
&\hspace*{-1.3in}\quad D^l({x}_{n,k}^l)\big)\Big)-d_n^0
\bigg)+\sum_{\substack{n\in \mathcal{{N}},\\l\in \overline{\mathcal{M}},\\k\in\mathcal{K}}}\pi_{n,k}^l \Big(u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l+{x}_{n,k}^l)-
u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l)- D^l({x}_{n,k}^l)\Big).
\end{align}
\hrulefill
\end{figure*}
\section{Distributed algorithm for NBS}\label{sec:dist}
While resource allocation and sharing using a central algorithm is feasible, it is desirable to develop low overhead distributed algorithms.
To obtain a distributed algorithm, we rely on \emph{Duality Theory} and use the \emph{Lagrangian} function in \eqref{eq:lagrangian}.
The dual optimization problem is given by
\begin{align}\label{eq:dualopt}
\min_{\boldsymbol{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\beta},\boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma,\pi}} D(\boldsymbol{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\beta},\boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma,\pi})&= \mathcal{L}\big(\mathbf{X}^{*}(\boldsymbol{\alpha,\beta},\boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma,\pi}),\nonumber \\& \boldsymbol{\alpha,\beta,\zeta,\gamma,\pi} \big), \nonumber \\
\; s.t. \; \boldsymbol{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\beta},\boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma,\pi}\geq 0.
\end{align}
\begin{align}\label{eq:supLag}
\mathbf{X}^{*}(\boldsymbol{\alpha,\beta},\boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma,\pi})= \arg \max_{\mathbf{X}} \mathcal{L}(\mathbf{X},\boldsymbol{\alpha,\beta},\boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma,\pi} ).
\end{align}
The dual problem can be solved iteratively using gradient descent (since the dual problem is a minimization problem) as below:
\begin{align}\label{eq:iterativeDual}
\alpha_{n,k}[t+1] &= \alpha_{n,k}[t]- \phi_{n,k} \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}(\mathbf{X}, \boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta},\boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma,\pi}) }{\partial \alpha_{n,k}}, \nonumber \displaybreak[0] \\
\beta_{k}^j[t+1] &= \beta_{k}^j[t]- \eta_{k}^j \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}(\mathbf{X}, \boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta},\boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma,\pi}) }{\partial \beta_{k}^j}, \nonumber \\
\zeta_{n}[t+1] &= \zeta_{n}[t]- \omega_{n} \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}(\mathbf{X}, \boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta},\boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma,\pi}) }{\partial \zeta_{n}}, \nonumber \displaybreak[0]\\
\gamma_{n,k}^{j}[t+1] &= \gamma_{n,k}^{j}[t]- \theta_{n,k}^{j} \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}(\mathbf{X}, \boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta},\boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma,\pi}) }{\partial \gamma_{n,k}^{j}},\nonumber \\
\pi_{n,k}^{l}[t+1]&=\pi_{n,k}^{l}[t]-\psi_{n,k}^l \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}(\mathbf{X}, \boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta},\boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma,\pi}) }{\partial \pi_{n,k}^{l}},
\end{align}
where $\phi_{n,k}$, $\eta_{k}^j$, $\omega_{n}$, $\theta_{n,k}^{j}$ and $\psi_{n,k}^l$ are positive step sizes. Furthermore, the gradients in \eqref{eq:iterativeDual} are given below
\begin{comment}
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\normalsize
\begin{align}
\label{eq:lagrangian2}
\mathcal{L}(\mathbf{X}_n, \boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta, \zeta,\gamma})&=
\prod_{n=1}^{N}\bigg(\sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}_n}u_n^j(\mathbf{x}_n^j)+ \big(\sum_{l \in \{\mathcal{M}\backslash \mathcal{M}_n\}} u_n^l(\mathbf{x}_n^l)-C_n^l(\mathbf{x}_n^l)\big)-d_n^0\bigg) + \quad \sum_{n \in \mathcal{N}}\sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}}\sum_{k \in \mathcal{K}}\gamma_{n,k}^{j}x_{n,k}^{j} +\nonumber \\
& \quad\sum_{n \in \mathcal{N}}\sum_{k \in \mathcal{K}}\alpha_{n,k} (C_{n,k}-\sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}}x_{n,k}^{j}) + \sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}}\sum_{k \in \mathcal{K}}\beta_{k}^j (r_{k}^{j}-\sum_{n \in \mathcal{N}}x_{n,k}^{j}) + \sum_{n \in \mathcal{N}} \zeta_{n} \bigg(\sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}_n}u_n^j(\mathbf{x}_n^j)+ \nonumber \\
& \big(\sum_{l \in \{\mathcal{M}\backslash \mathcal{M}_n\}} u_n^l(\mathbf{x}_n^l)- C_n^l(\mathbf{x}_n^l)\big)-d_n^0\bigg).
\end{align}
\hrulefill
\end{figure*}
\end{comment}
\begin{align}\label{eq:gradforLagrangieMultipliers}
\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}(\mathbf{X}, \boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta}, \boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma,\pi}) }{\partial \alpha_{n,k}}&= (C_{n,k}-\sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}}x_{n,k}^{j}),\nonumber \\
\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}(\mathbf{X}, \boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta}, \boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma,\pi}) }{\partial \beta_{k}^j} &= (r_{k}^{j}-\sum_{n \in \mathcal{N}}x_{n,k}^{j}),\nonumber \\
\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}(\mathbf{X}, \boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta},\boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma,\pi}) }{\partial \zeta_{n}} &=\bigg(\sum_{\substack{j \in \mathcal{M}_n,\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\Big(u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j+{x}_{n,k}^j)- \nonumber \\
&\hspace*{-1.2in}u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j) \Big)+\Big(\sum_{\substack{l \in \overline{\mathcal{M}},\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\big( u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l+{x}_{n,k}^l)-\nonumber\\
&\hspace*{-1.2in}u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l)- D^l({x}_{n,k}^l)\big)\Big)-d_n^0
\bigg)
, \nonumber \\
\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}(\mathbf{X}, \boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta},\boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma,\pi}) }{\partial \gamma_{n,k}^{j}} &= x_{n,k}^{j},\nonumber\\
\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}(\mathbf{X}, \boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta},\boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma,\pi}) }{\partial \pi_{n,k}^{l}} &=\Big(u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l+{x}_{n,k}^l)-\nonumber \\
&\hspace*{-1.2in}
u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l)- D^l({x}_{n,k}^l)\Big).
\end{align}
Unless certain conditions such as Slater's constraint qualification are satisfied, \emph{strong duality}\footnote{Strong duality implies that there is no duality gap between the primal and dual problem.} is not guaranteed to hold for our primal and dual problems \cite{boyd2004convex}. However, we rely on the following theorems to show that strong duality holds.
\begin{theorem}[Sufficient Condition\cite{tychogiorgos2013non}]\label{thm:georgesufficient}
If the price based function $\mathbf{X}^*(\boldsymbol{\alpha,\beta},\boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma,\pi})$ is continuous at one or more of the optimal Lagrange multipliers, the iterative algorithm consisting of \eqref{eq:supLag} and \eqref{eq:iterativeDual} will converge to the global optimal solution.
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}[Necessary Condition\cite{tychogiorgos2013non}]\label{thm:georgenecessary}
The condition in Theorem \ref{thm:georgesufficient} is also necessary if at least one of the constraints in \eqref{eq:objmain2} is active (binding) at the optimal solution.
\end{theorem}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:constraintsactive}
At the optimal solution, the optimal Lagrange multiplier vector corresponding to the capacity constraint is non-zero, i.e., $\boldsymbol{\alpha_k^{*}}>0$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
At the optimal point, all resources are fully utilized, i.e., capacity constraints are active. From \emph{complementary slackness}\cite{boyd2004convex}, we know that
\begin{align}\label{eq:compslackness}
\alpha^*_{n,k}\bigg(\sum_{j\in \mathcal{M}} x_{n,k}^{*j}- C_{n,k}\bigg)=0, \forall n \in \mathcal{N}.
\end{align}
Since $\sum_{j\in \mathcal{M}} x_{n,k}^{*j}= C_{n,k}$, i.e., the constraint is active, which implies that $\boldsymbol{\alpha_k^{*}} >0$.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:duality}
For any concave injective utility function for which the inverse of the first derivative exists, the iterative distributed algorithm consisting of \eqref{eq:supLag} and \eqref{eq:iterativeDual} converges to the global optimal solution
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We show that the price function obtained by $\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}(\mathbf{X}, \boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta},\boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma,\pi})}{\partial x_{n,k}^{j}}=0$ is continuous at one or more of the optimal Lagrange multipliers for \eqref{eq:lagrangian}.
Let $u^{'-j}(\boldsymbol{.})$
and $f^{'-l}(\boldsymbol{.})$
represent
the inverses of the first derivative of $u^j$ and $\big(u^l(\sum_{m\in\overline{\mathcal{N}}} x_{m,k}^l+x_{n,k}^l)-u^l(\sum_{m\in\overline{\mathcal{N}}} x_{m,k}^l) -D^l(x_{n,k}^l)\big)$, respectively.
$\alpha_{n,k}$, $\beta_{k}^j$, $\zeta_{n}$, $\gamma_{n,k}^{j}$ and $\pi_{n,k}^l$ are the \emph{Lagrange} multipliers whereas:
\begin{align}
\Delta_{n}&=\sum_{\substack{j \in \mathcal{M}_n,\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\Big(u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j+{x}_{n,k}^j)- u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j) \Big)+ \nonumber \\
&\Big(\sum_{\substack{l \in \overline{\mathcal{M}},\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\big( u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l+{x}_{n,k}^l)-u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l)- \nonumber\\
&D^l({x}_{n,k}^l)\big)\Big)-d_n^0
\end{align}
We consider two different cases
\subsubsection{ \textbf{$j \in \mathcal{M}_n$:}$\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial x_{n,k}^{j}}=0$}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:gradLagObj22}
&u^{'j}(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j+x_{n,k}^{j})(1+\Delta_{n}^{}\zeta_{n})-\Delta_{n}^{}(\alpha_{n,k}+\nonumber \\
&\beta_{k}^j-\gamma_{n,k}^{j})=0,\nonumber \\
&\implies u^{'j}(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j+x_{n,k}^{j})=\frac{\Delta_{n}^{}(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^j- \gamma_{n,k}^{j})}{1+\Delta_{n}^{}\zeta_{n}}, \nonumber \\
& x_{n,k}^{j}=u^{'-j}\Bigg(\frac{\Delta_{n}^{}(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^j- \gamma_{n,k}^{j})}{1+\Delta_{n}^{}\zeta_{n}}\Bigg)-\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j.
\end{align}
We prove that \eqref{eq:gradLagObj22} is continuous at the optimal point by showing that the numerator $\Delta_{n}^{}(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^j- \gamma_{n,k}^{j})$ and denominator $1+\Delta_{n}^{}\zeta_{n} $ are positive\footnote{Positive numerator and denominator are required if $u^{'-j}$ is $\log$. For other cases, it will suffice to prove that the denominator is non-zero. }. At the optimal point, the denominator $(1+\Delta_{n}^{*}\zeta^*_{n})$ is positive as $\Delta_{n}^{*}>0$ (from Section \ref{sec:assumption}) and $\zeta^*_{n}=0$ (from complementary slackness). Similarly, in the numerator,
$(\alpha^*_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^{*j}-\gamma_{n,k}^{*j})>0$, as $\alpha_{n,k}^{*}>0$ (from Lemma \ref{lem:constraintsactive}) and $\alpha_{n,k}^{*}+\beta_{k}^{*j}> \gamma_{n,k}^{*j}$ (from \emph{sensitivity analysis} \cite{boyd2004convex}). Hence, \eqref{eq:gradLagObj22} is continuous at the optimal point.
\begin{comment}
As an example, we set
For sake of the proof, we set \\ $u_n^j=1-e^{-(x_{n,k}^j+\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j-r_{n,k}^j+\delta t)}$ where $\bar{r}_{k}^j=r_{k}^j+\delta t$.
\eqref{eq:gradLagObj22} can then be rewritten as:
\begin{align}\label{eq:proof1}
e^{-(x_{n,k}^j+\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j-\bar{r}_{k}^j)}= \frac{\Delta_{n,k}^{j}(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^j- \gamma_{n,k}^{j})}{1+\Delta_{n,k}^{j}\zeta_{n}},\quad\nonumber \\
e^{x_{n,k}^j}= \frac{1+\Delta_{n,k}^{j}\zeta_{n}}{\Delta_{n,k}^{j}(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^j- \gamma_{n,k}^{j}) e^{(\sum_{m \in \mathcal{N}\backslash n}{x}_{m,k}^j-\bar{r}_{k}^j)}},\quad\quad\nonumber \\
x_{n,k}^j=\ln\bigg(\frac{1+\Delta_{n,k}^{j}\zeta_{n}}{\Delta_{n,k}^{j}(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^j- \gamma_{n,k}^{j}) e^{(\sum_{m \in \mathcal{N}\backslash n}{x}_{m,k}^j-\bar{r}_{k}^j)}}\bigg).
\end{align}
where \eqref{eq:proof1} is continuous at the optimal point.
For \eqref{eq:gradLagObj22} to be continuous at the optimal point,
we need
For sake of the proof, we set \\ $u_n^j=1-e^{-(x_{n,k}^j+\sum_{m \in \mathcal{N}\backslash n}{x}_{m,k}^j-r_{n,k}^j+\delta t)}$ where $\bar{r}_{k}^j=r_{k}^j+\delta t$. However, the results hold for any concave injective utility function for which the inverse of the first derivative exists. \eqref{eq:gradLagObj22} can then be rewritten as:
\begin{align}\label{eq:proof1}
e^{-(x_{n,k}^j+\sum_{m \in \mathcal{N}\backslash n}{x}_{m,k}^j-\bar{r}_{k}^j)}= \frac{\Delta_{n,k}^{j}(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^j- \gamma_{n,k}^{j})}{1+\Delta_{n,k}^{j}\zeta_{n}},\quad\nonumber \\
e^{x_{n,k}^j}= \frac{1+\Delta_{n,k}^{j}\zeta_{n}}{\Delta_{n,k}^{j}(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^j- \gamma_{n,k}^{j}) e^{(\sum_{m \in \mathcal{N}\backslash n}{x}_{m,k}^j-\bar{r}_{k}^j)}},\quad\quad\nonumber \\
x_{n,k}^j=\ln\bigg(\frac{1+\Delta_{n,k}^{j}\zeta_{n}}{\Delta_{n,k}^{j}(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^j- \gamma_{n,k}^{j}) e^{(\sum_{m \in \mathcal{N}\backslash n}{x}_{m,k}^j-\bar{r}_{k}^j)}}\bigg).
\end{align}
For continuity, we need both the numerator and denominator inside the $\ln(\boldsymbol{.})$ function of \eqref{eq:proof1} to be positive.
At the optimal point, the numerator $(1+\Delta_{n,k}^{*j}\zeta^*_{n})$ is positive as $\Delta_{n,k}^{*j}>0$ (from Section \ref{sec:assumption}) and $\zeta^*_{n}=0$ (from complementary slackness). Similarly, in the denominator, $\Delta_{n,k}^j$ (from Section \ref{sec:assumption}) and $e^{(\sum_{m \in \mathcal{N}\backslash n}{x}_{m,k}^j-\bar{r}_{n,k}^j)}$ are positive. $(\alpha^*_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^{*j}-\gamma_{n,k}^{*j})>0$, as $\alpha_{n,k}^{*}>0$ (from Lemma \ref{lem:constraintsactive}) and $\alpha_{n,k}^{*}+\beta_{k}^{*j}> \gamma_{n,k}^{*j}$ (from \emph{sensitivity analysis} \cite{boyd2004convex}).
Hence, the price based function in \eqref{eq:proof1} is continuous in at least one optimal Lagrange multiplier vector.
\end{comment}
\\
\subsubsection{\textbf{$l \in \{\mathcal{M}\backslash\mathcal{M}_n\}$:} $\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial x_{n,k}^{l}}=0$}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:gradLagObjcase22}
&f^{'l}(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l+x_{n,k}^{l})(1+\Delta_{n}^{}\zeta_{n}+\Delta_{n}^{}\pi_{n,k}^l)-\Delta_{n}^{}(\alpha_{n,k}+\nonumber \\
&\beta_{k}^l-\gamma_{n,k}^{l})=0,\nonumber \\
&\implies f^{'l}(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l+x_{n,k}^{l})=\frac{\Delta_{n}^{}(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^l-\gamma_{n,k}^{l})}{1+\Delta_{n}^{}\zeta_{n}+\Delta_{n}^{}\pi_{n,k}^j}. \nonumber \\
& x_{n,k}^{l}=f^{'-l}\Bigg(\frac{\Delta_{n}^{}(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^l-\gamma_{n,k}^{l})}{1+\Delta_{n}^{}\zeta_{n}+\Delta_{n}^{}\pi_{n,k}^l}\Bigg)-\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l. \nonumber \\
\end{align}
\begin{comment}
As done earlier, we set $u_n^l=1-e^{-(x_{n,k}^l+\sum_{m \in \mathcal{N}\backslash n}{x}_{m,k}^l-\bar{r}_{k}^l)}$, \\ and $C_n^l=x_{n,k}^l/w_k^l$, where $w_k^l$ is a positive weighting factor to capture the communication cost. Then $ f^{'l}_n(\sum_{m \in \mathcal{N}\backslash n}{x}_{m,k}^l+x_{n,k}^{l})$ can be rewritten as
\begin{align}
\label{eq:fnl}
f^{'l}_n(\boldsymbol{.})= e^{-(x_{n,k}^l+\sum_{m \in \mathcal{N}\backslash n}{x}_{m,k}^l-\bar{r}_{k}^l)}-\frac{1}{w_k^l}
\end{align}
Plugging \eqref{eq:fnl} in \eqref{eq:gradLagObj22} and solving for $x_{n,k}^l$, we obtain
\begin{align}
\label{eq:fnl2}
x_{n,k}^l=\ln \Bigg(\frac{w_k^l(1+\Delta_{n,k}^{l}\zeta_{n})e^{-(\sum_{m \in \mathcal{N}\backslash n}x_{m,k}^l-\bar{r}_{k}^l)}}{w_k^l\Delta_{n,k}^l(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^l-\gamma_{n,k}^{l})+1+\Delta_{n,k}^{l}\zeta_{n}}\Bigg).
\end{align}
\end{comment}
The continuity at optimal point can be established using arguments similar to that for $j \in \mathcal{{M}}_n$ case. The proof of zero-duality gap follows from Theorem \ref{thm:georgesufficient}. Hence, strong duality holds and our proposed distributed algorithm converges to the NBS.
\end{proof}
\begin{comment}
\begin{proof}
We show that the price function obtained by $\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}(\mathbf{X}, \boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta},\boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma})}{\partial x_{n,k}^{j}}=0$ is continuous at one or more of the optimal Lagrange multipliers for \eqref{eq:lagrangian2}. Let $\Delta_{n,k}^{j}=\prod_{t\in \{\mathcal{N}\backslash n\}}\bigg(\sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}_t}u_t^j(\mathbf{x}_t^j)+ \big(\sum_{l \in \{\mathcal{M}\backslash \mathcal{M}_t\}} u_t^l(\mathbf{x}_t^l)-C_n^l(\mathbf{x}_t^l)\big)-d_t^0\bigg)$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textbf{$j \in \mathcal{M}_n$:}$\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial x_{n,k}^{j}}=0$
\begin{align}
\label{eq:gradLagObj22}
u_n^{'j}(x_{n,k}^{j})(\Delta_{n,k}^{j}+\zeta_{n})-(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^j-\gamma_{n,k}^{j})=0,\nonumber \\
\implies u_n^{'j}(x_{n,k}^{j})=\frac{(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^j- \gamma_{n,k}^{j})}{\Delta_{n,k}^{j}+\zeta_{n}}, \nonumber \\
\implies \quad x_{n,k}^{*j}= u_n^{'-j}(\alpha_{n,k}, \beta_{k}^j, \zeta_{n},\gamma_{n,k}^{j},\Delta_{n,k}^{j}).
\end{align}
\item \textbf{$l \in \{\mathcal{M}\backslash\mathcal{M}_n\}$:} $\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial x_{n,k}^{l}}=0$
\begin{align}
\label{eq:gradLagObjcase22}
f^{'l}_n(x_{n,k}^{l})(\Delta_{n,k}^{l}+\zeta_{n})-(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^l-\gamma_{n,k}^{l})=0,\nonumber \\
\implies f^{'l}_n(x_{n,k}^{l})=\frac{(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^l-\gamma_{n,k}^{l})}{\Delta_{n,k}^{l}+\zeta_{n}}, \nonumber \\
\implies \quad x_{n,k}^{*l}= f_{n}^{'-l}(\alpha_{n,k}, \beta_{k}^l,\zeta_{n},\gamma_{n,k}^{l},\Delta_{n,k}^{l}).
\end{align}
\end{enumerate}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:gradLagObj2}
u_n^{'j}(x_{n,k}^{j})(1+\Lambda_{n,k}^{j}\zeta_{n})-\Lambda_{n,k}^{j}(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^j- \gamma_{n,k}^{j})=0,\nonumber \\
\implies u_n^{'j}(x_{n,k}^{j})=\frac{\Lambda_{n,k}^{j}(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^j- \gamma_{n,k}^{j})}{1+\Lambda_{n,k}^{j}\zeta_{n}}, \nonumber \\
\implies \quad x_{n,k}^{*j}= u_n^{'-j}(\alpha_{n,k}, \beta_{k}^j, \zeta_{n},\gamma_{n,k}^{j},\Lambda_{n,k}^{j}).
\end{align}
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
To simplify the proof, we only consider the case in which $j \in \mathcal{M}_n$ below. The proof for the case when $i \in \mathcal{M}\backslash\mathcal{M}_n$ is similar. For illustrative purpose, we use $\bigg(1-e^{-{x_{n,k}^{j}}}\bigg)$
as the utility. However, the results hold true for any concave injective utility function for which inverse of the first derivative exists. \eqref{eq:gradLagObj} is rewritten as:
\begin{align}\label{eq:priceLog}
e^{-{x_{n,k}^{j}}}&=\frac{(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^j- \gamma_{n,k}^{j})}{\Delta_{n,k}^{j}+\zeta_{n}},\nonumber \\
\implies x_{n,k}^{j}&=\ln\bigg(\frac{\Delta_{n,k}^{j}+\zeta_{n}}{(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^j- \gamma_{n,k}^{j})}\bigg).
\end{align}
At the optimal point, the numerator $(\Delta_{n,k}^{*j}+\zeta^*_{n})$ is positive as $\Delta_{n,k}^{*j}>0$ (from Section \ref{sec:assumption}) and $\zeta^*_{n}=0$ (from complementary slackness).
Similarly, $(\alpha^*_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^{*j}-\gamma_{n,k}^{*j})>0$, as $\alpha_{n,k}^{*}>0$ (from Lemma \ref{lem:constraintsactive}) and $\alpha_{n,k}^{*}+\beta_{k}^{*j}> \gamma_{n,k}^{*j}$ (from \emph{sensitivity analysis} \cite{boyd2004convex}).
Hence, the price based function in \eqref{eq:priceLog} is continuous in at least one optimal Lagrange multiplier vector. The proof follows from Theorem \ref{thm:georgesufficient}.
\end{proof}
\end{comment}
For calculating $x_{n,k}^{j}$ at time $t$, we use $\Delta_{n}^{}$ calculated at $t-1$.
Algorithm \ref{algo:primal-dual-alg} is a distributed algorithm that provides the global optimal solution to \eqref{eq:nashProbNplayermod}.
\paragraph{Protocol for Distributed Execution}
All ESPs first broadcast information regarding resource requests from their native applications. Then any randomly chosen ESP starts allocating resources as specified in Step $2$ of Algorithm \ref{algo:primal-dual-alg} and updates the corresponding Lagrangian multipliers. This ESP then passes on the information about its allocation and updated request matrix to the next ESP (that has not yet allocated resources in the current round\footnote{A single round consists of all the ESPs executing Step $2$ of Algorithm \ref{algo:primal-dual-alg} once.}) that repeats the same procedure until all the ESPs allocate their resources. This process continues until the first order conditions given in \cite{ktlagrangian} are met.
\begin{algorithm}
\begin{algorithmic}[]
\State \textbf{Input}: $\forall\; \boldsymbol{\alpha_0,\; \beta_0,\zeta_0,\gamma_0,\pi_0}$, $C, R$, vector of utility function of all ESPs $\boldsymbol{u}$ and $\mathbf{X}_0$
\State \textbf{Output}: The optimal resource allocation $\mathbf{X} $ and payoffs of all ESPs
\State \textbf{Step $0$:} $t=0$, $\boldsymbol \alpha[t]\leftarrow\boldsymbol \alpha_0$, $\boldsymbol\beta[t]\leftarrow\boldsymbol\beta_0$, $\boldsymbol\zeta[t]\leftarrow\boldsymbol\zeta_0$, $\boldsymbol\gamma[t]\leftarrow\boldsymbol\gamma_0$,$\boldsymbol\pi[t]\leftarrow\boldsymbol\pi_0$$, \mathbf{X}[t]\leftarrow \mathbf{X}_0$
\State \textbf{Step $1$:}
\For{\texttt{$n \in \mathcal{N}$}}
\State $ {d_n^0} \leftarrow$ \texttt{Objective function at optimal point in Equation \eqref{eq:opt_single}}
\EndFor
\State \textbf{Step 2: $t\geq 1$}
\While{{First order conditions\cite{ktlagrangian}$\neq$true }
\State Compute $ x_{n,k}^{j}[t+1]$ for $j\in\mathcal{M},$ $k\in\mathcal{K}$ and $n\in\mathcal{N}$ through \eqref{eq:gradLagObj22} and \eqref{eq:gradLagObjcase22};
\State Compute $\boldsymbol\alpha[t+1]$, $\boldsymbol\beta[t+1]$, $\boldsymbol\zeta[t+1]$, $\boldsymbol\gamma[t+1]$ and $\boldsymbol\pi[t+1]$ through~(\ref{eq:iterativeDual}) given $\mathbf{X}[t+1],$ $\boldsymbol\alpha[t]$, $\boldsymbol \beta[t]$, $\boldsymbol \zeta[t]$, $\boldsymbol\gamma[t]$ and $\boldsymbol\pi[t]
\EndWhile
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{Distributed Algorithm for NBS}
\label{algo:primal-dual-alg}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{Multi-Objective Optimization}
For $m$ inequality constraints and $p$ equality constraints, the MOO problem is to identify a vector $\boldsymbol{x}^*=[x_1^*,x_2^*,\cdots ,x_t^*]^T$ that maximizes a vector function
\begin{equation}\label{eq:vectorobjective}
\centering
\bar{f}(\boldsymbol{x})=[f_1(\boldsymbol{x}),f_2(\boldsymbol{x}),\cdots,f_N(\boldsymbol{x})]^T
\end{equation}
subject to
\begin{align}\label{eq:constraints}
\centering
& g_i(\boldsymbol{x})\geq 0, \; i=1,2,\cdots,m, \\
&h_i(\boldsymbol{x})=0\;\; i=1,2,\cdots,p, \nonumber
\end{align}
where $N$ is the total number of objectives, $\boldsymbol{x}=[x_1,x_2,\cdots ,x_t]^T$ is a vector of $t$ decision variables and the feasible set is denoted by $F$.
The fundamental difference from single objective optimization (SOO) is that MOO involves a vector of objective functions rather than a single objective function. This indicates that the solution is not a single point but a \emph{frontier} of solutions known as \emph{Pareto frontier} or \emph{Pareto boundary} (see \cite{cho2017survey} for details). Some basic definitions related to MOO are:
\begin{definition}{Strongly Pareto non-dominated solution\cite{cho2017survey}:}
A feasible solution $x$ is strongly Pareto non-dominated if there is no $y\in F$ such that $f_n(y)\geq f_n(x)$ $\forall n=1,2,\cdots,N$ and $f_n(y)>f_n(x)$ for at least one $n$\footnote{This means that there is no other feasible solution that can improve an objective without worsening at least one other objective.}.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}{Weakly Pareto non-dominated solution\cite{cho2017survey}:}
A feasible solution $x$ is weakly Pareto non-dominated if there is no $y\in F$ such that $f_n(y)>f_n(x)$ $\forall n=1,2,\cdots,N.$
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}{Pareto Optimality\cite{cho2017survey}:}
For any maximization problem, $\boldsymbol{x}^*$ is $Pareto\; optimal$ if the following holds for every $\boldsymbol{x} \in F$
\begin{align}\label{eq:paretoptimality}
\bar{f}(\boldsymbol{x}^*)\geq\bar{f}(\boldsymbol{x})
\end{align}
where $\bar{f}(\boldsymbol{x})=[f_1(\boldsymbol{x}),f_2(\boldsymbol{x}),\cdots,f_k(\boldsymbol{x})]^T$ and
$\bar{f}(\boldsymbol{x}^*)=[f_1(\boldsymbol{x}^*),f_2(\boldsymbol{x}^*),\cdots,f_k(\boldsymbol{x}^*)]^T$.
\end{definition}
\subsection{Bargaining Theory}
In a \emph{bargaining situation}, two or more players (service providers) can benefit by reaching an agreement. However, players can have conflicting interests regarding the terms of the agreement. \emph{Bargaining theory} deals with studying such bargaining situations arising in a number of problems. In resource allocation problem, resource providers are interested in maximizing their utility (pay-off) by satisfying the requests of different applications.
Below we discuss one of the most widely used bargaining solutions, i.e., \emph{Nash Bargaining Solution} as it guarantees the Pareto optimality \cite{khan2009cooperative}.
\end{comment}
We use a two-player game as a toy example to introduce NBS. Consider two players $1,$ and $2$ that need to reach an agreement (e.g., resource allocation decision) in an outcome space $\mathcal{A}\subseteq \mathbb{R}^2$ \cite{han2012game}. Both players have a utility given by $u_1$ and $u_2$ over the space $\mathcal{A} \cup \{D\}$ where $D$ specifies a \emph{disagreement outcome} for players in the event of a disagreement, i.e., when two players cannot reach an agreement. Let $\mathcal{S}$ be the set of all possible utilities that both players can achieve:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:possibleut}
\mathcal{S}= \{(u_1(a_1),u_2(a_2)) | (a_1,a_2) \in \mathcal{A} \}
\end{align}
We also define $d=(d_1, d_2)$, where $d_1=u_1(D)$ and $d_2=u_2(D)$, as the payoff each player receives at the disagreement point. We define the bargaining problem as the pair $(\mathcal{S},d)$ where $\mathcal{S} \subset \mathbb{R}^2$ and $d \in \mathcal{S}$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathcal{S}$ is a convex and compact set;
\item There exists $s \in \mathcal{S}$ such that $s > d$.
\end{itemize}
In NBS, the goal is to obtain a function $f(\mathcal{S},d)$ that provides a unique outcome in $ \mathcal{S}$ for every bargaining problem $(\mathcal{S},d)$. Nash studied the possible outcomes (agreements) that players can reach whereas the agreements, along with the Pareto optimality, must also satisfy the following set of axioms (also called \emph{fairness} axioms) \cite{han2012game}:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textbf{Symmetry:} The bargaining solution will not discriminate among players if players are indistinguishable, i.e., players have identical utilities.
\item \textbf{Invariance to equivalent utility representation:} If a bargaining problem $(\mathcal{S},d)$ is transformed into another bargaining problem $(\mathcal{S}',d')$ where $s_i'=\gamma_is_i+\zeta_i$ and $d_i'=\gamma_id_i+\zeta_i$, $\gamma_i >0$, then $f( \mathcal{S}',d')=\gamma_if(\mathcal{S},d)+\zeta_i$
\item \textbf{Independence of irrelevant alternatives:} For any two bargaining problems $(\mathcal{S},d)$ and $(\mathcal{S}',d)$ where $\mathcal{S}'\subseteq \mathcal{S}$, if $f(\mathcal{S},d) \in \mathcal{S}'$, then $f(\mathcal{S}',d)=f(\mathcal{S},d)$.
\end{enumerate}
\cite{nash1950bargaining} shows that there is a unique bargaining solution that satisfies above axioms. We present it in the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}{\cite{han2012game}}
There exists a unique solution satisfying the aforementioned axioms and this solution is the pair of utilities $(s_1^*,s_2^*) \in \mathcal{S}$ that solves the following optimization problem:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:nashProb}
\max_{s_1,s_2}\;(s_1-d_1)(s_2-d_2),\; s.t. (s_1,s_2)\in \mathcal{S}, \; (s_1,s_2)\geq (d_1,d_2).
\end{align}\
\end{theorem}
The solution of \eqref{eq:nashProb} is the NBS.
The above framework can be extended to $N$ players by allowing $\mathcal{S}$ to be an $N$-dimensional space \cite{harsanyi1963simplified}. For this case, the bargaining problem $(\mathcal{S},d)$, with $d=(d_1,d_2,\cdots, d_N)$ as the disagreement point, becomes the unique solution of the optimization problem below.
\begin{align}\vspace{-0.1in}
\label{eq:nashProbNplayer}
\max_{s_1,\cdots,s_N}&\;\prod_{n=1}^{N}(s_n-d_n),\; \nonumber \\
s.t.\quad &(s_1,\cdots,s_N)\in \mathcal{S}, \nonumber \\
& (s_1,\cdots,s_N)\geq (d_1,\cdots, d_N).
\end{align}
Solving \eqref{eq:nashProb} is easier compared to the $N-$player bargaining problem in \eqref{eq:nashProbNplayer}\cite{han2012game}.
In this paper, we transform our problem into an equivalent convex problem that is comparatively easier to solve.
\begin{remark}
As each player in an $N$-player bargaining game has a particular objective to optimize, the resulting problem is multi-objective, where the goal is to obtain a Pareto optimal solution. NBS is a fair and Pareto optimal solution for such MOO problems, provided that the fairness axioms are satisfied.
\end{remark
\begin{comment}
\subsection{Cooperative Game Theory}
Cooperative game theory is the set of analytical tools that assists in understanding the behavior of rational players in a cooperative setting \cite{han2012game}. Players can have agreements among themselves that affects the strategies as well as obtained utilities of the players. Cooperative games are primarily of two types: bargaining theory and coalition games. Bargaining theory deals with the bargaining process that arise among the players while joining an agreement while coalition games deals with the formation of the coalitions among cooperating players. Formally
\begin{definition}{Coalition Games \cite{han2012game}:}
Any coalition game can be represented by the pair $(\mathcal{N},v)$ where $\mathcal{N}$ is the set of players that play the game, while $v$ is the mapping function that determines the utilities or payoffs the players in $\mathcal{N}$ receive.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}{Characteristic form Coalition Games: \cite{han2012game}:}
Any coalition game is said to be of \emph{characteristic} form where the value of coalition $S \subseteq \mathcal{N}$ depends only on the members of coalition.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}{Transferable Utility (TU):}
If the total utility of any coalition can be divided in any manner among the game players, then the game has a \emph{transferable} utility.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}{Characteristic function:}
The characteristic function for any coalitional game with TU is a mapping $v: 2^{\mathcal{N}} \mapsto \mathbb{R}$ with $v(\emptyset)=0$
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}{Superadditivity of TU games:}
A canonical game with TU is said to be superadditive if the following property is satisfied.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:superadditivity}
v(S_1 \cup S_2 )\geq v(S_1)+V(S_2) \; \forall S_1 \subset \mathcal{N}, S_2 \subset \mathcal{N}, s.t. S_1\cap S_2 =\emptyset
\end{equation}
i.e., formation of large coalitions is always desired and the players do not lose any utility by joining the coalition.
\end{definition}
\subsubsection{Canonical Game}
A coalition game is canonical if
\begin{itemize}
\item It is in characteristic form
\item It is superadditive
\end{itemize}
The \emph{core} and Shapley value are widely used concepts for dealing with Canonical games as discussed below.
\subsection{Core}
Before we present details of core, we first define some terms \cite{han2012game}
\begin{definition}[Group Rational]
A payoff vector $\textbf{x}\in \mathbb{R}^\mathcal{N}$ for dividing $v(\mathcal{N})$ is group-rational if $\sum_{n \in \mathcal{N}}x_n=v(\mathcal{N})$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[Individual Rational]
A payoff vector $\textbf{x}\in \mathbb{R}^\mathcal{N}$ is individually-rational if every player can obtain a benefit no less than acting alone, i.e., $x_n \geq v(\{n\}), \forall n\in \mathcal{N}$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[Imputation]
A payoff vector that is both individual and group rational is known as an imputation.
\end{definition}
Based on the above definitions, we can now define the core of a TU canonical coalition game
\begin{definition}[Core]
For any TU canonical game $(\mathcal{N},v)$, the core is the set of imputations in which no coalition $S\subset\mathcal{N}$ has any incentive to reject the proposed payoff allocation and deviate from the grand coalition to form a coalition $S$ instead. This can be mathematically expressed as
\begin{align}\label{eq:coreTU}
\mathcal{C}_{TU}=\bigg \{ \mathbf{x}: \sum_{n \in \mathcal{N}}x_n=v(\mathcal{N}) \; and \; \sum_{i \in S} x_i \geq v(S)\; \forall\; S\subseteq \mathcal{N}\bigg\}
\end{align}
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
Any payoff allocation from the core is Pareto-optimal as evident from definition of the core. Furthermore, the grand coalition formed is stable
\end{remark}
However, the core is not always guaranteed to exist. Even if the core exists, it might be too large so finding a suitable allocation from the core is not easy. Furthermore, as seen from the definition, the allocation from the core might not always be fair to all the players.
\subsection{Shapley Value}
\emph{Shapley value} \cite{shapley1988value} can be used to address the aforementioned shortcomings of the core. For the characteristic function $v$ (the characteristic function is also called the game \cite{han2012game}), Shapley proposed an allocation $\phi_n(v)$ that satisfies the following axioms \cite{la2004game}:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \emph{Efficiency Axiom}: $\sum_{n \in \mathcal{N}}\phi_n(v)=v(\mathcal{N})$. This axiom in essence is the group rationality.
\item \emph{Symmetry Axiom}: If any two players $m$ and $n$ are such that $v(S \cup \{n\})=v(S \cup \{m\})$, then for every coalition $S\backslash(m,n)$, $\phi_n(v)=\phi_m(v)$. This axiom indicates that if any two players/domains have similar contributions in a coalition then their assigned payoffs must be same as well.
\item \emph{Dummy Axion}: If any player $n$ is such that $v(S)=v(S \cup \{n\})$, then for every coalition $S\backslash n$, $\phi_n (v)=0$. Dummy axiom indicates that players that do not contribute to the value of coalition will not get any payoff.
\item \emph{Additivity Axion}: If $j$ and $k$ are any two games, then $\phi(j+k)=\phi(j)+\phi(k)$. This axiom indicates that $\phi$ is a unique mapping over the space of the coalitional games.
\end{enumerate}
Based on the above axioms, Shapley showed that there exists a unique function $\phi$ defined on all games that satisfies the aforementioned axioms \cite{la2004game}. The function is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:shapleyvalue}
\phi_n(v)=\sum_{S\subseteq \mathcal{N}\backslash n}\frac{|S|! (|\mathcal{N}|-|S|-1)!}{|\mathcal{N}|!}\bigg[ v(S \cup \{n\}) -v(S) \bigg]
\end{equation}
\end{comment}
\subsection{Resource allocation in Edge Computing}
Jiao et al. \cite{jiao2018social} propose an auction-based resource allocation scheme for edge service providers that provide resources for blockchains. The proposed mechanism maximizes the social welfare and guarantees truthfulness, computational efficiency and individual rationality. He et al. \cite{he2018s} analyze the optimal provisioning of shareable and non-shareable edge resources to different applications.
Plachy et al. \cite{plachy2016dynamic} consider the mobility problem in mobile edge clouds and propose a novel algorithm for selecting communication path and VM placement. The proposed approach relies on predicting user movement that helps in VM placement and accordingly selecting the communication path. Nishio et al. \cite{nishio2013service} propose a resource sharing architecture for mobile clouds that relies on service-oriented utility functions and is closest to our work. However, they primarily consider service latency and rely on a centralized framework whereas we present a distributed framework that requires a specific utility function that can be used to model different metrics such as latency, delay, and numerous other objectives. In \cite{zafari2020let}, we modeled resource sharing among mobile edge clouds as a cooperative game. However, the MOO problem in \cite{zafari2020let} is non-convex that is hard to solve compared to the convex problem solved here. Furthermore, the cooperative game based framework lacks the fairness guaranteed by NBS.
Furthermore, in contrast with \cite{jiao2018social,plachy2016dynamic} and \cite{he2018s} that primarily consider resource allocation, our proposed framework deals with resource sharing among ESPs with different objectives.
\subsection{NBS based Resource Allocation}
Yaiche et al. \cite{yaiche2000game} use NBS to allocate bandwidth for elastic services in high speed networks.
Xu et al. \cite{xu2012general} consider the fairness criteria when allocating resources to different cloud users and make use of the NBS to guarantee fairness. Using dual composition and sub-gradient method, the authors also develop a distributed algorithm. Hassan et al. \cite{hassan2014virtual} propose an NBS-based model for cost-effective and dynamic VM allocation with multimedia traffic, and show that it can reduce the cost of running different servers along with maximizing resource utilization and satisfying the QoS requirements. He et al. \cite{he2013toward} study the optimal deployment of content in a cloud assisted video distribution system.
Feng et al. \cite{feng2012bargaining} use NBS for Virtual Machine (VM) migration to maximize the resource utilization in a video streaming data center.
\par
In contrast with \cite{yaiche2000game, feng2012bargaining, guo2013cooperative,he2013toward,hassan2014virtual}, to the best of our knowledge, our framework is first of its kind that uses NBS for resource sharing among ESPs with different utilities (objective functions). We show that resource sharing can improve utilities of ESPs and enhance application satisfaction.
Furthermore, for a particular class of utilities, we have proved that distributed algorithm exists for obtaining NBS for the resource sharing and allocation problem. Table \ref{tab:comparison} summarizes some other solutions proposed in the literature that use NBS for resource allocation in different systems. Other distributed algorithms proposed in literature either rely on dual decomposition \cite{xu2012general} or gradient projection \cite{yaiche2000game,guo2013cooperative}. However, most of the functions are not dual decomposable and gradient projection is a computationally expensive approach \cite{bertsekas1997nonlinear}, whereas gradient descent is widely used particularly in machine and deep learning.
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
\input{01-intro}
\section{System Model}\label{sec:sysmodel}
\input{02-sysmodel2}
\section{NBS for Resource Sharing among CSPs}\label{sec:nbs}
\input{nbs}
\section{Simulation Results}\label{sec:exp_results}
\input{04-exp-results}
\section{Related Work}\label{sec:related}
\input{related}
\section{Conclusions}\label{sec:conclusion}
\input{05-conclusions}
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This work was supported by the U.S. Army Research Laboratory and the U.K. Ministry of Defence under Agreement Number W911NF-16-3-0001. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. Army Research Laboratory, the U.S. Government, the U.K. Ministry of Defence or the U.K. Government. The U.S. and U.K. Governments are authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Government purposes notwithstanding any copy-right notation hereon. Faheem Zafari also acknowledges the financial support by EPSRC Centre for Doctoral Training in High Performance Embedded and Distributed Systems (HiPEDS, Grant Reference EP/L016796/1), and Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Imperial College London.
\bibliographystyle{IEEETran}
\subsection{Motivation}
Edge computing has received much attention recently as it enables on-demand provisioning of computing resources for different applications and tasks at the network edge \cite{shi2014online,shi2016edge,satyanarayanan2017emergence}. One of the fundamental advantages of edge computing is that it can provide resources
with low latencies when compared with traditional cloud computing architecture \cite{shi2016edge}. The demand for edge computing has further increased due to the advent of Internet of Things (IoT) \cite{atzori2010internet} and wide-scale use of machine and deep learning \cite{li2018learning} in different industries as these learning-based models can be trained and run using edge computing nodes with adequate storage and computing power \cite{wang2018edge}.
\par A typical edge computing system consists of a large number of edge nodes that have different types of resources. Edge service provider (ESP) earns a \emph{utility} for allocating resources to different applications and guarantees to provide resources according to a \emph{Service Level Agreement} (SLA). However, when compared with cloud computing systems and data centers, resources in an edge setting are limited. Therefore, optimal use and allocation of these limited resources has been an active area of research.
Even when resources are available, allocating them to applications with the goal of maximizing overall ESP \emph{utility} is a difficult problem. Furthermore, the aforementioned resource intensive paradigms such as deep learning, and data analytics exacerbate the problem by challenging the scalability of traditional resource allocation techniques. \par
ESPs typically provide enough resources to different applications at their edge nodes to meet the peak demand. However, it is highly likely that resources of one ESP will be over-utilized, while other ESP's resources will be under-utilized.
For example, an ESP provisions resources to an application at an edge node that is physically closest to the requesting application. However, if the closest edge node has a resource deficit or is overloaded, the request can be satisfied through ESP's next closest edge node that may physically be at a distant location or deep in the network such as at the data center. This incurs high cost and causes high latency that may not be acceptable for delay constrained applications. One possible solution is to create a shared resource pool with other ESPs that are physically closer \cite{he2018s,openedge,openfog,etsi}. Such a resource pool allows ESPs to share and use resources whenever needed to meet their dynamic demands. This cooperation and resource sharing among ESPs seem beneficial for them, because it is unlikely that resources of different ESPs will be simultaneously over-utilized.
\par
Our work has also been motivated by military settings in which two or more \emph{coalition partners}\footnote{Each coalition partner can be considered an ESP. } are jointly conducting a military operation using different resources from the partners. As military settings usually have strict latency and reliability requirements, resources are placed at the edge to fulfill the aforementioned requirements.
Hence, coalition settings can be considered a practical scenario for edge computing. In contrast with commercial edge computing settings, military settings require a higher reliability and robustness to ensure timely availability of resources.
As seen in Figure \ref{fig:system_model}, both coalition partners $2$ and $3$ satisfy all their applications and have resource surpluses whereas partner $1$ has resource deficits when working alone. However, through cooperation among these coalition partner, $1$ satisfies its applications by using resources of other coalition partners resulting in an improved utility for all partners. It is evident that if different coalition partners do not share resources, different application requests cannot be satisfied. Therefore, there is a need for a framework that allows resource sharing among these coalition partners (i.e., ESPs).
Furthermore, the framework needs to be distributed as a centralized solution may not be acceptable to the different coalition partners or ESPs because:
\begin{itemize}
\item An adversary can target the central system causing the entire military operation to fail.
\item Coalition partners need to reach a consensus for choosing the \emph{central} node that runs the resource sharing algorithm.
\item A centralized framework requires a large amount of information to be transmitted to the central node. This may not be feasible or preferred by the coalition partners as certain information may be private.
\end{itemize}
Such a distributed resource sharing gives rise to a number of questions such as:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \emph{Should an ESP help another ESP by sharing resources?}
\item \emph{How should resources be allocated to applications across different ESPs, while considering issues such as communication cost and resource fragmentation? }
\item \emph{How can ESPs share the profits of resource sharing?}
\end{enumerate}
We answer these questions in this paper.
\subsection{Methodology and contributions}
In this paper, we consider a number of ESPs that share their resources and form a resource pool to satisfy resource requests of different applications as shown in Figure \ref{fig:system_model}.
We formulate such resource sharing and allocation among ESPs as a multi-objective optimization (MOO) problem, for which our goal is to achieve a Pareto optimal solution. Furthermore, since Pareto solutions are spread over the \emph{Pareto frontier} \cite{cho2017survey}, choosing a single solution among them is challenging. As the \emph{Nash Bargaining Solution} (NBS)\cite{nash1950bargaining} guarantees the provision of a fair and Pareto optimal solution to such a MOO problem, we develop a distributed NBS-based framework for resource allocation and sharing here. \emph{To the best of our knowledge, this is the first generic NBS-based framework for resource sharing and allocation among ESPs. }
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{figures/pool_new2.jpg}
\vspace{0.05in}
\caption{Cooperation among ESPs}
\protect\label{fig:system_model}
\end{figure}
The main contributions of this paper are:
\begin{enumerate}
\item We present an NBS based resource sharing framework for ESPs with different objectives in allocating resources to meet the dynamic demands. Our framework also considers practical engineering constraints such as communication costs and resource fragmentation.
\item We show that ESPs can benefit from sharing resources with other ESPs as they can earn a higher profit and improve the average application satisfaction.
\item We show that \emph{strong-duality} property holds for the formulated problem, which enables us to propose a distributed algorithm to obtain the NBS.
\item We evaluate the performance of our algorithms using synthetic and real world traces. Results show that resource sharing improves the utilities of ESPs, increases resource utilization and enhances average user (application) satisfaction. Furthermore, our results show that the profit sharing among ESPs is also fair.
\end{enumerate}
The rest of this paper is structured as follows. We present the system model in Section~\ref{sec:sysmodel}.
In Section~\ref{sec:nbs}, we first present a primer on NBS. We then describe our proposed NBS framework for resource sharing and allocation. In Section~\ref{sec:dist}, we present a distributed algorithm for obtaining the NBS. In Section~\ref{sec:exp_results}, we present simulation results of the proposed framework for different settings. We describe the related work in Section \ref{sec:related},
and conclude the paper in Section~\ref{sec:conclusion}.
\subsection{Assumptions}
\begin{comment}
Let $\mathcal{N}=\{1,2, \cdots, N\}$ be the set of all the domains that act as players in our game.
Each player has a utility function $u_n(\mathcal{X})$ that depends on the allocation decision $X$ (details for $X$ will be given later). We assume that each player has set of $\mathcal{K}=\{1,2,\cdots, K\}$ different resources such as communication, computation and storage resources.
All domains report their available resources to the coalition controller where $C^{(n)}$ represent the available resources for the domain/player $n \in \mathcal{N}$. Each domain $n$ has a set of users or applications $\mathcal{M}_n= \{1,2,\cdots, M_n\}$ that ask for resources. Also $\mathcal{M}=\mathcal{M}_1\cup\mathcal{M}_2\cdots\cup \mathcal{M}_N , \;$ where $\mathcal{M}_i \cap \mathcal{M}_j=\emptyset \; \forall i \neq j$ represents the set of all users that ask for resources from the coalition.
The coalition controller receives a matrix $R^{(n)}$ for every player $n \in \mathcal{N}$
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:R_Req}
R^{(n)}=\Biggl(\begin{smallmatrix}
\mathbf{r^{(n)}_1}\\
.\\
.\\
.\\
\mathbf{r^{(n)}_{{M}_n}}
\end{smallmatrix}\Biggr) = \Biggl(\begin{smallmatrix}
r^{(n)}_{11} & \cdots &\cdots & r^{(n)}_{1{K}} \\
. & . &. &. \\
. & . &. &. \\
. & . &. &. \\
r^{(n)}_{M_{n}1}&\cdots &\cdots & r^{(n)}_{{M}_n{K}}
\end{smallmatrix}\Biggr)
\end{equation}
where the $i^{th}$ row corresponds to the $i^{th}$ user while the columns represent different resources i.e., $r_{ij}$ is the amount of $j^{th}$ resource user $i \in \mathcal{M}$ requests.
The vector ${C}^{(n)}=\{ {C}_{1}^{(n)}, \cdots, {C}_{K}^{(n)}\}$ received by coalition controller shows different available resources at domain $n$.
The vector $C=\{\sum_{n \in \mathcal{N}}C_{1}^{(n)}, \sum_{n \in \mathcal{N}}C_{2}^{(n)}, \cdots ,\sum_{n \in \mathcal{N}}C_{K}^{(n)}\}$ consists of all the available resources at different domains. The coalition, based on $R$ and $C$, has to make an allocation decision $\mathcal{X}$ that optimizes the utilities $u_n(\mathcal{X})$ of the domains. The allocation decision $\mathcal{X}$ is a vector $\mathcal{X}=\{X^{(1)},X^{(2)},\cdots, X^{(N)}\}$ that shows how much of each resource $k$ is allocated to user $i$ at domains $n \in \mathcal{N}$.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:A_n}
X^{(n)}=\Biggl(\begin{smallmatrix}
\mathbf{x_1^{(n)}}\\
.\\
.\\
.\\
\mathbf{x_{{|\mathcal{M}|}}^{(n)}}
\end{smallmatrix}\Biggr) = \Biggl(\begin{smallmatrix}
x_{11}^{(n)} & \cdots &\cdots & x_{1{K}}^{(n)} \\
. & . &. &. \\
. & . &. &. \\
. & . &. &. \\
x_{{|\mathcal{M}|}1}^{(n)}&\cdots &\cdots & x_{{|\mathcal{M}|}{K}}^{(n)}
\end{smallmatrix}\Biggr)
\end{equation}
where $x_{ik}^{(n)}$ is the amount of resource $k\in \mathcal{K}$ allocated to user $i$ at player $n$
Since the utilities of different domains might be different (can be conflicting as well), this leads us to a multi-objective optimization (MOO) problem. Some of the assumptions in our model are given below
\subsection{Assumptions}
The assumptions made in our model are
\begin{enumerate}
\item The negotiation cost among different domains is negligible
\item All the domains communicate their information to the coalition controller
\item The coalition controller already exist
\item Resources across different domains are additive in nature i.e., if domain $X$ and $Y$ have $2$ GB RAM each, the coalition would have $4$ GB of RAM.
\item Each player has a single objective
\item The objective of the coalition is a sum of the utilities of all the players with equal weight
\item All players or domains have the same number of users or jobs
\end{enumerate}
\end{comment}
\subsection{Problem Formulation for Single Service Provider } \label{sec:prob}
We first present the resource allocation problem for a stand-alone single service provider (i.e., no resource sharing with other service providers).
For a single ESP $n \in \mathcal{N}$, the allocation decision consists of vectors $\mathbf{x}_n^1, \cdots, \mathbf{x}_n^{M_n}$. The optimization problem is:
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:opt_single}
\begin{align}
\centering
\max_{\mathbf{x}_n^1, \cdots, \mathbf{x}_n^{M_n}}\quad& \sum_{\substack{j \in \mathcal{M}_n,\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}u^j({x}_{n,k}^j), \label{eq:objsingle}\\
\text{s.t.}\quad & \sum_{j} x_{n,k}^{j}\leq C_{n,k}, \quad \forall k \in \mathcal{K}, \label{eq:singlefirst} \displaybreak[0]\\
& x_{n,k}^{j} \leq r^{j}_{n,k}, \quad \forall\; j\in \mathcal{M}_n, k \in \mathcal{K}, \label{eq:singlesecond} \displaybreak[1]\\
& x_{n,k}^{j} \geq 0, \quad \forall\; j\in \mathcal{M}_n, k \in \mathcal{K}. \label{eq:singlethird} \displaybreak[2]
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The goal of a single service provider in solving this single objective optimization (SOO) problem, as mentioned earlier, is to maximize its utility by appropriately allocating resources.
The first constraint \eqref{eq:singlefirst} indicates that allocated resources cannot exceed capacity. The second constraint \eqref{eq:singlesecond} reflects that allocated resources should not exceed the requested amounts. The last constraint, \eqref{eq:singlethird} says the allocation cannot be negative. However, it is possible that a service provider $n$ may
earn a larger utility by providing its resources to applications of other service providers or it may not have sufficient resources to satisfy requests of all its native applications. On the other hand, there may be another service provider $m\in \mathcal{{N}}\backslash n$ that may have a surplus of resources, which can be ``rented" by service provider $n$.
Below, we discuss resource sharing among these service providers.
\subsection{Multiple Service Providers Problem Formulation}\label{sec:multP}
Allowing resource sharing among service providers, while considering their objectives, could improve resource utilization and application satisfaction.
Let $D^j(x_{n,k}^j)$ denote the communication cost of serving application $j \in \mathcal{{M}}_m$ at service provider $n$ rather than at its native service provider $m$.
By sharing its resources, ESP $n$ earns a utility,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:util}
u^j (\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j+x_{n,k}^j)-u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j)-D^j(x_{n,k}^j),
\end{equation}
after allocating $x_{n,k}^j$ for application $j\in \mathcal{{M}}_m$, i.e., the net utility ESP $n$ earns is calculated as the \emph{differential utility} ($u^j (\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j+x_{n,k}^j)-u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j)$) earned due to providing $x_{n,k}^k$ amount of resources minus the communication cost between the native and non-native ESP.
We assume that $ u^j (x_{n,k}^j)=u^j (x_{m,k}^j)$ when $x_{n,k}^j=x_{m,k}^j$.
We also let
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf{x}^j= [\sum_{n \in \mathcal{{N}}}x_{n,1}^j, \sum_{n \in \mathcal{{N}}}x_{n,2}^j,\cdots, \sum_{n \in \mathcal{{N}}}x_{n,K}^j]^T,
\end{equation*}
i.e., the total resource allocated to any application $j \in \mathcal{M}$ is the sum of resources allocated to application $j$ from all service providers. The resource sharing and allocation algorithm, based on resource requests and capacities of service providers, has to make an allocation that optimizes utilities of all service providers $n \in \mathcal{N}$ and satisfy user requests as well. The allocation decision is given by
$\mathbf{X}=\{\mathbf{X}_1, \mathbf{X}_2, \cdots, \mathbf{X}_N\}$, where $\mathbf{X}_n,\; \forall n \in \mathcal{N}$ is given by:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:X}
\mathbf{X}_{n}=\Biggl[\begin{smallmatrix}
\mathbf{x}^{1}_n\\
.\\
.\\
.\\
\mathbf{x}^{|\mathcal{{M}}|}_n
\end{smallmatrix}\Biggr] = \Biggl[\begin{smallmatrix}
x_{n,1}^{1} & \cdots &\cdots & x^{1}_{n,{K}} \\
. & . &. &. \\
. & . &. &. \\
. & . &. &. \\
x_{n,1}^{|\mathcal{{M}}|}&\cdots &\cdots & x_{n,K}^{|\mathcal{{M}}|}
\end{smallmatrix}\Biggr].
\end{equation}
Each service provider aims to maximize the sum of utilities by allocating its resources to its native applications, and allocating resources to applications belonging to other service providers.
Each provider $n \in \mathcal{{N}}$ solves the following multi-objective optimization problem.
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:opt_higher}
\begin{align}
\max_{\mathbf{X}_n}\quad& \sum_{\substack{j \in \mathcal{M}_n,\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\Big(u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j+{x}_{n,k}^j)- u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j) \Big) \nonumber \\
&+\Big(\sum_{\substack{l \in \overline{\mathcal{M}},\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\big( u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l+{x}_{n,k}^l)-u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l)\nonumber\\
&- D^l({x}_{n,k}^l)\big)\Big), \label{eq:obj}\\
\text{s.t.}\quad
& \sum_{j} x_{n,k}^{j}\leq C_{n,k}, \quad \forall\; k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in \mathcal{N}, \label{eq:obj1} \displaybreak[0]\\
& \sum_{m \in \mathcal{N}}x_{m,k}^{j} \leq r_{n,k}^{j}, \quad \forall\; j\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in \mathcal{N}, \label{eq:obj2}\displaybreak[1]\\
& x_{n,k}^{j} \geq 0, \quad \forall\; j\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in \mathcal{N}, \label{eq:obj3} \displaybreak[2]\\
& u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l+{x}_{n,k}^l)-
u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l)- \nonumber \\
& D^l({x}_{n,k}^l)\geq0, \forall l \in \mathcal{M}\backslash\mathcal{M}_n, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in \mathcal{N}\label{eq:obj4} .
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The first summation term in \eqref{eq:obj} represents the utility earned by an ESP providing resources to the native applications, whereas the second summation term describes the utility earned by providing resources to non-native applications.
Note that constraint \eqref{eq:obj1} indicates that the total allocated resources cannot exceed the resource capacity of the service providers. \eqref{eq:obj2} states that the total amount of resources allocated to any application using the resource-sharing framework cannot exceed the amount of requested resources. \eqref{eq:obj3} says that the resource allocation cannot be negative whereas \eqref{eq:obj4} indicates that the incremental increase in utility earned by providing resources to non-native applications should be non-negative.
\subsection{Assumptions}\label{sec:assumption}
In our model, we assume that each utility is a concave injective function for which the inverse of the first derivative exists, such as $(1-e^{-x})$.
Strictly speaking, our centralized NBS framework requires only concave injective utility functions\cite{yaiche2000game}. However, the existence of the inverse of the first derivative is required for the distributed NBS (see details in Section \ref{sec:nbs}). The communication cost is a convex function, hence the objective function in \eqref{eq:opt_higher} is concave.
All resources are fully utilized in the optimal solution. However, there are enough resources to provide a positive utility to all service providers when sharing resources. This is a realistic assumption as the demand for resources is usually more than the supply.
Furthermore, we assume that when ESPs share resources, there exist solutions that are better than when they are all working alone. This assumption can be relaxed, that is, if certain ESPs cannot improve their utility using the bargaining solution, they will not participate in the resource sharing framework. However, the framework can still be used for the remaining ESPs.
\subsection{Choice of utility function}
While our framework works with any utility that satisfies the conditions in Section \ref{sec:assumption}, choosing a suitable utility function along with the communication cost can minimize \emph{resource fragmentation}\footnote{We define resource fragmentation as the process in which resources provided to an application $j$ are split across multiple ESPs rather than a single ESP. }.
Generally, a concave utility has a steeper slope at start that becomes flatter as more resources are allocated, i.e., the rate of increase in the payoff for allocating resources reduces with increase in the amount of allocated resources. This results in an ESP providing a fraction of originally requested resources to an application and keeping the remaining resources for other applications. Hence, the application does not get all the resources it needed, and has to ask another ESP for more resources, resulting in resource fragmentation.
For example, assume that two applications require $4$ units of a particular resource from ESP $n$ that only has $3$ units available. Due to the nature of many concave utilities, ESP $n$ for maximizing its utility will provide part of its resources to one application and the remaining resources to the other application rather than providing all $3$ available units to one application and borrowing resources for the other application. This causes resource fragmentation, i.e., both applications received only a part of the required resources and they will need to obtain the remaining amount from other ESP(s). To avoid such problems, we propose that the utility function should consider:
\begin{itemize}
\item Minimum acceptable amount of resources: The ESPs should earn either zero utility or a negative utility if the resources provided are not within $\delta$ units of the requested resource $r_{n,k}^j$. Rather than using a utility function such as $1-e^{-(x_{n,k}^j)}$ that pays the ESP even when a small amount of resources are provided, it is better to use $1-e^{-(x_{n,k}^j-r_{n,k}^j +\delta)}$ that becomes positive only when the allocation $x_{n,k}^j$ is within $\delta_t$ units of the requested resource $r_{n,k}^j$. Such a utility along with the communication cost helps minimize the aforementioned fragmentation problem.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Assumptions}\label{sec:assumption}
In our model, we assume that utilities are concave injective functions for which the inverse of first derivative exists, such as $(1-e^{-x})$. While our centralized NBS framework requires only concave injective utility function, the existence of first derivative's inverse is required for the distributed NBS (details in Section \ref{sec:nbs}).
We also assume that resources required by different applications are more than the capacity of domains. Hence, all resources are fully utilized at the optimal solution. The single objective optimization problem in \eqref{eq:opt_single} is feasible for all the players $n \in \mathcal{N}$. Furthermore, we assume that there exists solutions that are better than the disagreement point for all the players.
\begin{comment}
Before we get into the details of solving the problem, we present an example to understand this
\begin{example}
Let's say we have two different data centers owned by service provider $A$ and $B$ respectively ($A$ and $B$ are game players). Resources available at domain $A$ and $B$ are represented by $C^{A}$ and $C^{B}$ respectively. Users in sets $\mathcal{M}_{A}$ and $\mathcal{M}_{B}$ ask for resources and pay a certain price (profit for data centers) $u_A(\mathcal{X})$ and $u_B(\mathcal{X})$. However, let's say $A$ has scarce resources while $B$ has excess resources. So by forming a coalition, users in $\mathcal{M}_s \subset\mathcal{M}_{A}$ that can't be satisfied by $A$ will be provided resources by $B$ without the users realizing who are providing the resources (since the coalition will make everything appear as one to the user). The profit that $B$ will earn for providing its resources will be equivalent to the profit $A$ would have earned (as $A$ has agreed upon a certain contract with its users $\mathcal{M}_{A}$) had it satisfied the user's request itself. So for $B$, it will earn utility $u_B(X)$ for satisfying its own users plus $u_A^B(X^{\mathcal{M}_s})$ (slight abuse of notation where $X^{\mathcal{M}_s}$ represents the allocation decision for users ${\mathcal{M}_s}$ in domain $B$) for satisfying the users $\mathcal{M}_s \subset\mathcal{M}_{A}$. So this added utility $u_A^B(X^{\mathcal{M}_s})$ is the pay-off for $B$ to share resources. This coalition clearly helps both. $A$ increases its customer satisfaction (as per the contract $A$ had agreed to provide resources to all the users $\mathcal{M}_{A}$), while $B$ earns extra using its excess resources. So it is a stable coalition.
\end{example}
\begin{example}[Utility Example]
For any two players \{1,2\}, $u_1 (\mathcal{X})$ will be given by
\begin{equation}
u_1(\mathcal{X})=\sum_{i \in \mathcal{M}_1}\bigg(\prod_{k=1}^{{K}}\frac{1}{1+e^{-m(x_{ik}^{(1)}-R^{(1)}_{req,ik})}}\bigg)
\end{equation}
$u_2 (\mathcal{X})$ will be given by
\begin{equation}
u_2(\mathcal{X})=\sum_{i \in \mathcal{M}_2}\bigg(\prod_{k=1}^{|\mathcal{K}|}(1-e^{-(\frac{1}{R^{(2)}_{req,ik}})x_{ik}^{(2)}})\bigg)
\end{equation}
$u_2^{\mathcal{X}} (\mathcal{X})$ will be given by
\begin{equation}
u_2^{1}(\mathcal{X})=\sum_{i \in \mathcal{M}_2}\bigg(\prod_{k=1}^{|\mathcal{K}|}(1-e^{-(\frac{1}{R^{(2)}_{req,ik}})x_{ik}^{(1)}})\bigg)
\end{equation}
$u_1^{\mathcal{X}} (\mathcal{X})$ will be given by
\begin{equation}
u_1^{2}(\mathcal{X})=\sum_{i \in \mathcal{M}_1}\bigg(\prod_{k=1}^{{K}}\frac{1}{1+e^{-m(x_{ik}^{(2)}-R^{(1)}_{req,ik})}}\bigg)
\end{equation}
\end{example}
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
\subsection{Game Theoretic Solution}
We first define the characteristic function $v$ for our game that can solve problem in~\eqref{eq:opt_higher}
\begin{align} \label{eq:payoff_function}
v(\mathcal{N})=\sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in \mathcal{N}$} \\ \text{$C_{k}= \sum_{n \in \mathcal{N}}C_{k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} x_{ik}^{(n)}\leq C_{k}^{(n)} \; \forall k \in \mathcal{K}, \; \forall n \in \mathcal{N}$}\\ \text{$\sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}}x_{ik}^{(j)} \leq R^{(n)}_{ik} \; \forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in \mathcal{N}$}}}\bigg(w_n u_n(\mathcal{X})+ \zeta_{n}\sum_{j \in \mathcal{N},j\neq n} u^{n}_j(\mathcal{X})\bigg)
\end{align}
\begin{remark}
The characteristic function in Equation~\eqref{eq:payoff_function} is for the grand coalition $\mathcal{N}$. For any $S \subseteq \mathcal{N}$, the characteristic function will be
\end{remark}
\begin{align} \label{eq:payoff_s_function}
v({S})=\sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in {S}$} \\ \text{$C_{k}= \sum_{n \in {S}}C_{k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} x_{ik}^{(n)}\leq C_{k}^{(n)} \;\forall k \in \mathcal{K}, \; \forall n \in {S}$}\\ \text{$\sum_{j \in {S}}x_{ik}^{(j)} \leq R^{(n)}_{ik} \; \forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in {S}$}}} \bigg(w_n u_n(\mathcal{X})+ \zeta_{n}\sum_{j \in S,j\neq n} u^{n}_j(\mathcal{X})\bigg)
\end{align}
\begin{theorem}
Resource allocation and sharing problem (with multiple objectives) in aforementioned settings can be modeled as a canonical cooperative game with TU.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
To prove this, we need to show that the characteristic function of resource sharing and allocation problem satisfies the following two conditions
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Characteristic form of payoff:} As the utility function in a resource sharing and allocation problem only relies on the domains that are part of the coalition, the game or payoff function is of characteristic form
\item \textbf{Superadditivity:} Super-additivity for TU games requires $v(S_1 \cup S_2 )\geq v(S_1)+V(S_2) \; \forall S_1 \subset \mathcal{N}, S_2 \subset \mathcal{N}, s.t. S_1\cap S_2 =\emptyset$ i.e. we have to prove that the pay-off or utility for a domain in the coalition is as good as domain working alone or in a smaller coalition. Due to monotonicity property of the utility functions used, for all players/domains $n \in \mathcal{N}$, $u_n(X_n^{NC})\leq u_n(X_n^{C})$ as $X_n^{NC}\subset {X_n^{C}}$ \footnote{because $X_n^{C}$ can contain much more elements due to the increase in $C$ in the coalition} where $X_n^{C}$ and $X_n^{NC}$ are the allocation decisions in a cooperative game and independent setting respectively for domain $n$.
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:MOOGame}
A canonical cooperative game $(\mathcal{N}, v)$ with TU can be used to obtain the Pareto-optimal solutions for the multi-objective optimization problem given in \eqref{eq:opt_higher}
\end{lemma}
To prove Lemma \ref{lemma:MOOGame}, we must show that the core is non-empty for our canonical game. To do this, we first show that our game is convex.
\begin{definition}[Convex Games]
A coalition game is said to be convex if and only if for every player $n \in \mathcal{N}$, the marginal contribution of the player is non-decreasing W.R.T set inclusion. Mathematically, for $S_1\subseteq S_2 \subseteq \mathcal{N}\backslash \{n\}$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:convexgames}
v(S_1 \cup \{n\})-v(S_1) \leq v(S_2 \cup \{n\})-v(S_2)
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
\begin{theorem}
Our canonical game is convex
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let us consider two coalition $S_1$ and $S_2$, where $S_1\subseteq S_2 \subseteq \mathcal{N}\backslash\{j\}$ where $j \in \mathcal{N}$. Then we first calculate $v(S_2 \cup \{j\})-v(S_1 \cup \{j\})$
\begin{align}\label{eq:convexityProof}
& \sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in {S_2}$},\; \text{$C_{k}= \sum_{n \in {S_2}}C_{k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} x_{ik}^{(n)}\leq C_{k}^{(n)} \; \forall k \in \mathcal{K},\; \forall n \in {S_2}$}\\ \text{$\sum_{j \in {S_2}}x_{ik}^{(j)} \leq R^{(n)}_{ik} \;\forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in {S_2}$}}}\bigg(w_n u_n(\mathcal{X})+ w'_{n}\sum_{k \in {S_2}, k\neq n} u^{j}_k(\mathcal{X})\bigg) + w_j u_j ^{(S_2)}(\mathcal{X}) + \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_2, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{X}) - \nonumber \\
& \Bigg(\sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in {S_1}$},\; \text{$C_{k}= \sum_{n \in {S_1}}C_{k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} x_{ik}^{(n)}\leq C_{k}^{(n)} \; \forall k \in \mathcal{K}, \; \forall n \in {S_1}$} \\ \text{$\sum_{j \in {S_1}}x_{ik}^{(j)} \leq R^{(n)}_{ik} \quad \forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in {S_1}$}}}\bigg(w_n u_n(\mathcal{X})+ w'_{n}\sum_{k \in {S_1}, k \neq n} u^{j}_k(\mathcal{X})\bigg) + w_j u_j ^{(S_1)}(\mathcal{X}) + \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_1, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{X})\nonumber \Bigg)\\
&= \sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in {S_2}\backslash S_1$}, \text{$C_{k}= \sum_{n \in {S_2}\backslash S_1}C_{k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} x_{ik}^{(n)}\leq C_{k}^{(n)} \; \forall k \in \mathcal{K},\; \forall n \in {S_2}\backslash S_1$} \\ \text{$\sum_{j \in {S_2 \backslash S_1}}x_{ik}^{(j)} \leq R^{(n)}_{ik} \quad \forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in {S_2 \backslash S_1}$}}}\bigg(w_n u_n(\mathcal{X})+ w'_{n}\sum_{k \in {\{S_2 \backslash S_1\}}, k \neq n} u^{j}_k(\mathcal{X})\bigg) + w_j u_j ^{(S_2)}(\mathcal{X}) \nonumber \\
& + \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_2, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{X}) - w_j u_j ^{(S_1)}(\mathcal{X}) - \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_1, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{X}) \nonumber \\
& = v(S_2)- v(S_1)+ w_j u_j ^{(S_2)}(\mathcal{X}) + \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_2, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{X}) - w_j u_j ^{(S_1)}(\mathcal{X}) - \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_1, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{X}) \nonumber \\
& \geq v(S_2)- v(S_1)
\end{align}
where the last inequality follows from the fact that $ w_j u_j ^{(S_2)}(\mathcal{X}) + \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_2, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{X}) - w_j u_j ^{(S_1)}(\mathcal{X}) - \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_1, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{X})\geq 0$ (monotonicity of the utility)
\end{proof}
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Is the core non-empty?
\item If the core is non-empty and consists of different pay-off allocations, how do we choose any particular pay-off allocation vector?
\end{enumerate}
Below we attempt to answer these questions
\begin{definition}[Balanced Collection] Let $\Omega$ be a collection of different coalitions. $\Omega$ is considered to be a \emph{balanced collection} if we can find non-negative weights $w_S$ for each $S \in \Omega$ such that for every player $n$
\begin{align}\label{eq:balancedcollection}
\sum_{S \in \Omega, S \ni n}w_S =1
\end{align}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[Balanced Game] A game is called balanced if for every balanced collection $\Omega$, the payoff vector $\mathbf{x}$ will be in $V_{\mathcal{N}}$ if $\mathbf{x}_S \in V_S\; \forall S \in \Omega$
\end{definition}
\begin{theorem}[Bondareva-Shapley Theorem]\label{thm:BST}
The core of a game is non-empty if and only if the game is balanced
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}
The core for canonical game with our characteristic function(in Equation~\eqref{eq:payoff_function}) is non-empty
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
From the definition of characteristic functions for TU games (see \cite{han2012game} for details), $v: 2^{\mathcal{N}}$ \textrightarrow $\mathbb{R}$ with $v(\emptyset)=\emptyset$. This means that the total number of coalitions possible for $\mathcal{N}$ players is $2^{|\mathcal{N}|}-1$ (we ignore the empty set). For $\Omega$, the non-negative weights $w_S$ which satisfy the condition for balanced collection in Equation~\eqref{eq:balancedcollection} are given by $\frac{1}{2^{|\mathcal{N}|-1}}$. Hence $\Omega$ is a balanced collection. We also know that $v(S)\subseteq v(\mathcal{N})$ as $v(\mathcal{N})$ is defined over a larger feasible set due to increased amount of available resources. Leveraging the monotonicity property of the utility functions used, we know that any payoff vector $\mathbf{x}$ will be in $V_{\mathcal{N}}$ if $\mathbf{x}_S$\footnote{$\mathbf{x}_S$ is the projection of $\mathbf{x}$ onto the vector space $\mathbb{R}^{|S|}$} $\in V_S\; \forall S \in \Omega$. Hence our canonical game with characteristic function $v$ in Equation~\eqref{eq:payoff_function} is balanced and its core is non-empty (from Theorem \ref{thm:BST})
\end{proof}
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
\begin{theorem}
The core of any convex game $(\mathcal{N},v)$ is non-empty and large.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Available in \cite{sharkey1982cooperative}
\end{proof}
While the existence of core i.e., core being non-empty, guarantees the grand coalition is stable, finding a suitable allocation from the core is challenging particularly when the core is large (our game). Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, fairness is also a shortcoming of core based solutions. Shapley value can be used to obtain a fair allocation, however, we first need to show that the Shapley value lies in the core to guarantee that the Shapley value based allocation is stable for the grand coalition.
\begin{theorem}
The Shapley value in Equation~\eqref{eq:shapleyvalue} lies in the core of our canonical game
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Since our canonical game is convex, the Shapley value lies in the core \cite{han2012game} (see \cite{roger1991game} for details)
\end{proof}
We summarize this in the remark below.
\begin{remark}
If a TU game $(\mathcal{N}, v)$ is convex, then the core is non-empty and the Shapley Value lies in the core \cite{garg2013novel}.
\end{remark}
Calculation of Shapley value given in Equation~\eqref{eq:shapleyvalue} is challenging \cite{han2012game}. Since our game is convex, calculating its Shapley value is slightly easier as given below.
\subsubsection{Shapley Value for a Convex Game}
Let $\pi$ denote the permutation of players in our game. Then for any permutation $p$ from the total possible permutations $|\mathcal{N}|!$, one can obtain the initial segments of ordering by \cite{garg2013novel}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:initialsegment}
O_{\pi, r}=\{ n \in \mathcal{N} : \pi(n) \leq r \}, \; r \in \{1, \cdots, N\}
\end{equation}
where $O_{\pi, 0}=\{\}$ and $O_{\pi, |\mathcal{N}|} =\mathcal{N}$. $\pi(n)$ refers to the position of the player $n$ in the permutation $\pi$. The core of any particular ordering $\pi$ can be obtained by solving equations
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:x_i_pi_sol}
x_n^{\pi}(O_{\pi, r}) = v(O_{\pi, r}), \; r \in \{ 1, \cdots, N\}
\end{equation}
The solution to above Equations~\eqref{eq:x_i_pi_sol} will result in a payoff vector $x^{\pi}$ where the elements of the vector are given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:vectorelements}
x_n^{\pi}=v(O_{\pi, \pi(n)})- v(O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1}), \quad \forall n \in \mathcal{N}
\end{equation}
The payoff vectors $x^{\pi}$ represent the extreme points of the core in convex games \cite{garg2013novel}. So if $\prod$ represents the set of all possible permutations of $\mathcal{N}$, the Shapley value of any player $n$ can be calculated as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:shapleyconvex}
\phi_n=\frac{1}{|\mathcal{N}|!}\sum_{\pi \in \prod} x_n^{\pi}
\end{equation}
\begin{comment}
So for our coalition game $(\mathcal{N},v)$, the Shapley value is
\begin{align}
\label{eq:ourshapleyconvex}
\phi_n&=\frac{1}{|\mathcal{N}|!}\sum_{\pi \in \prod} \bigg( \sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)}}$} \\ \text{$R_{av,k}= \sum_{n \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)}}}R_{av,k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} a_{ik}^{(n)}\leq R_{av,k}^{(n)} \;\forall k \in \mathcal{K}, \; \forall n \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)}}$} \\ \text{$$}\text{$\sum_{j \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)}}}a_{ik}^{(j)} \leq R^{(n)}_{req,ik} \;\forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in O_{\pi, \pi(n)}$}}}\bigg(w_n u_n^{(\pi)}(\mathcal{A})+ w'_{n}\sum_{j \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)}}, j \neq n} u^{n,(\pi)}_j(\mathcal{A})\bigg)- \nonumber \\
&\Bigg(\sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1}}$} \\ \text{$R_{av,k}= \sum_{n \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1}}}R_{av,k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} a_{ik}^{(n)}\leq R_{av,k}^{(n)} \; \forall k \in \mathcal{K}, \; \forall n \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1}}$}}}\bigg(w_n u^{(\pi)}_n(\mathcal{A})+ w'_{n}\sum_{j \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1}}, j \neq n} u^{n,(\pi)}_j(\mathcal{A})\bigg)\Bigg) \nonumber \\
&=\frac{1}{|\mathcal{N}|!}\sum_{\pi \in \prod} \bigg( \sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)}\backslash O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1} }$} \\ \text{$R_{av,k}= \sum_{n \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)}\backslash O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1}}}R_{av,k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} a_{ik}^{(n)}\leq R_{av,k}^{(n)} \;\forall k \in \mathcal{K}, \; \forall n \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)}\backslash O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1}}$} \\ \text{$\sum_{j \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)}\backslash O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1}}}a_{ik}^{(j)} \leq R^{(n)}_{req,ik} \;\forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in O_{\pi, \pi(n)}\backslash O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1}$} }}\bigg(w_n u^{(\pi)}_n(\mathcal{A})+ \nonumber \\
& w'_{n}\sum_{j \in \{{O_{\pi, \pi(n)}} \}, j \neq n} u^{n,(\pi)}_j(\mathcal{A}) + w'_{n}\sum_{j \in \{{O_{\pi, \pi(n)}} \}, j \neq n} u^{j,(\pi)}_n(\mathcal{A}) \bigg)\bigg) \nonumber \\
&=\frac{1}{|\mathcal{N}|!}\sum_{\pi \in \prod}\bigg(w_nu^{(\pi)}_n(\mathcal{A})+ w'_{n}\sum_{j \in \{{O_{\pi, \pi(n)}} \}, j \neq n} u^{n,(\pi)}_j(\mathcal{A}) +w'_{n}\sum_{j \in \{{O_{\pi, \pi(n)}} \}, j \neq n} u^{j,(\pi)}_n(\mathcal{A}) \bigg)
\end{align}
where Equation~\eqref{eq:ourshapleyconvex} provides the Shapley value for our convex game. It is evident that our Shapley value depends on the utility of the player $n$, the utility player $n$ achieves by allocating resources to players in $j \in O_{\pi, \pi(n)}, j \neq n $ and the utility player $j \neq n, j \in O_{\pi, \pi(n)}$ achieves by allocating resources to player $n$ in every possible permutation.
\begin{comment}
\begin{algorithm}
\begin{algorithmic}[]
\State \textbf{Input}: $tt$
\State \textbf{Output}: The optimal hit probabilities
\State \textbf{Step $1$:} $t \leftarrow$0, $\boldsymbol{\lambda^{(t)}\leftarrow\lambda_0}$, $\boldsymbol{\mu^{(t)}\leftarrow\mu_0}$
\While{Equation \eqref{eq:gradient1} $\neq$ 0
\State \textbf{Step $2$}:$\boldsymbol{h_{il}^{(p)}[t]} \leftarrow \frac{w_i\beta^{|p|-l}}{\lambda_{l}[t-1]\Bigg(\prod_{\substack{q \neq p,\\ q:l\in\{1,\cdots,|q|\}}}(1-h_{il}^{(q)}[t-1])\Bigg)+\mu_{ip}[t-1]}. $
\State \textbf{Step $3$:} Update $\lambda$ and $\mu$ using \eqref{eq:update}, t $\leftarrow t+1$
\EndWhile
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{Iterative Distributed Algorithm}
\label{algo:alg}
\end{algorithm}
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
\begin{remark}
Shapley value calculation for our convex game requires solving at least $2^{N}-1$ optimization problems
\end{remark}
Algorithm \ref{algo:alg1} provides an overview of our proposed approach. We obtain $R, C$ and the utility of all players as $\mathbf{u}$. We initialize each player's utility value ($\mathbf{u}(R,\mathcal{X})$), Shapley value ($\boldsymbol{\phi} $) and resource allocation decision $\mathcal{X}$ to $0$. Then we calculate the Shapley value for the players and assign it to $\mathbf{u}(R,\mathcal{X})$. Finally to obtain $\mathcal{X}$, we take the inverse function of $\mathbf{u}$. As we are using monotone utilities, we know that the inverse of the utilities exist.
\begin{algorithm}
\begin{algorithmic}[]
\State \textbf{Input}: $R, C,$ and vector of utility functions of all players $\mathbf{u}$
\State \textbf{Output}: $\mathcal{X}$
\State \textbf{Step $1$:} $ \mathbf{u}(R,\mathcal{X}) \leftarrow$0, $ \mathcal{X} \leftarrow$0, $ \boldsymbol{\phi} \leftarrow$0,
\State \textbf{Step $1$:} Calculate Shapley Value $\phi_n$ using Equation \eqref{eq:shapleyconvex} $\forall n \in \mathcal{N}$
\State \textbf{Step $2$:} $ \mathbf{u}(R,\mathcal{X}) \leftarrow \boldsymbol{\phi}$
\State \textbf{Step $3$:} $\mathcal{X}\leftarrow \mathbf{u}^{-1}$
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{Shapley Value based Resource Allocation}
\label{algo:alg1}
\end{algorithm}
\subsubsection{Reducing the Computational Complexity}
As mentioned earlier, that the calculation of Shapley value for our convex game requires at solving at least $2^{N}-1$ optimization problems that is computationally expensive. To reduce the complexity, we propose a computationally efficient approach in Algorithm 2 that requires solving $2N$ optimization problems i.e. $\mathcal{O}(N)$. The input into the algorithm consists of available resources/capacities, user requirements and the utilities of all game players. The output of the algorithm is $\mathcal{X}$. In Step 1, the utility values of the players, the allocation decision, and two vectors $\boldsymbol{O_1}$ and $\boldsymbol{O_2}$. In Step 2, every player's utility is calculated without any resource sharing i.e. single optimization and the values are stored in the vector $\boldsymbol{O_1}$. Then $C, R$ are updated and we move to Step 4, where we calculated the utilities $u_j^n$'s for all the players with updated $C, R$ and store them in $\boldsymbol{O_2}$.
\begin{algorithm}
\begin{algorithmic}[]
\State \textbf{Input}: $R, C,$ and vector of utility functions of all players $\mathbf{u}$
\State \textbf{Output}: $\mathcal{X}$
\State \textbf{Step $1$:} $ \mathbf{u}(R,\mathcal{X}) \leftarrow$0, $ \mathcal{X} \leftarrow$0, $ \boldsymbol{\phi} \leftarrow$0, $ \boldsymbol{O_1} \leftarrow$0, $ \boldsymbol{O_2} \leftarrow$0,
\State \textbf{Step $2$:}
\For{\texttt{$n \in \mathcal{N}$}}
\State $ {O_1^n} \leftarrow$ \texttt{Solution of the optimization problem in Equation \eqref{eq:opt_single}}
\EndFor
\State \textbf{Step $3$:} Update $C$ and $R$ based on Step 2
\State \textbf{Step $4$:}
\For{\texttt{$n \in \mathcal{N}$}}
\State $ {O_2^n} \leftarrow$ \texttt{Solution of the optimization problem in Equation \eqref{eq:opt_single_j}}
\State Update $C$ and $R$
\EndFor
\State \textbf{Step $5$:} $u_n(R,\mathcal{X})\leftarrow O_1^n+O_2^n$ $\forall n \in \mathcal{N}$
\State \textbf{Step $6$:} $\mathcal{X}\leftarrow \mathbf{u}^{-1}$
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{$\mathcal{O}$($N$) algorithm for obtaining Core's allocation}
\label{algo:alg2}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:opt_single_j}
\begin{align}
\max_{\mathcal{X}}\quad& \sum_{j\neq n}u_j^n(\mathcal{X}) \quad \forall n \in \mathcal{N} \label{eq:objsinglej}\\
\text{s.t.}\quad & \sum_{i} x_{ik}^{(n)}\leq C_{k}^{(n)} \quad \forall k \in \mathcal{K}, \quad \forall i \in \mathcal{M}\backslash\mathcal{M}_n, \label{eq:singlefirstj} \displaybreak[0]\\
& x_{ik}^{(n)} \leq R^{(n)}_{ik} \quad \forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}\backslash\mathcal{M}_n, k \in \mathcal{K}, \label{eq:singlesecondj} \displaybreak[1]\\
& x_{ik}^{(n)} \geq 0 \quad \forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}\backslash\mathcal{M}_n, k \in \mathcal{K}, \label{eq:singlethirdj} \displaybreak[2]
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\begin{theorem}
The solution obtained from Algorithm \ref{algo:alg2} lies in the \emph{core}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
To prove the theorem, we need to show that the utilities obtained in Step $5$ of Algorithm \ref{algo:alg2}; a) are individually rational; b) are group rational and c) no players have the incentive to leave the grand coalition and form another another coalition $S \subset \mathcal{N}$.
\paragraph{Individual Rationality} For each player $n \in \mathcal{N}$, the solution $O_1^n$ obtained by solving the optimization problem in Equation \eqref{eq:opt_single} is the utility a player will obtain by working alone i.e. it is $v\{n\}$. The value $O_2^n$ in Step 4 is either zero or positive but cannot be negative due to the nature of utility used i.e.
\begin{align}
u_n(R,\mathcal{X})&=O_1^n+O_2^n \quad \forall n \in \mathcal{N} \nonumber \\
u_n(R,\mathcal{X})&\geq O_1^n \quad \forall n \in \mathcal{N}\nonumber
\end{align}
Hence the solution obtained as a result of Algorithm \ref{algo:alg2} is individually rational.
\paragraph{Group Rationality} The value of the grand coalition $v\{\mathcal{N}\}$ as per Equation \eqref{eq:payoff_function} is the sum of utilities $u_n$'s and $u_j^n$'s. Steps 2, 4 and 5 of Algorithm \ref{algo:alg2} obtain the sum of the utilities as well. Hence the solution obtained as a result of Algorithm \ref{algo:alg2} is group rational rational.
\par Furthermore, due to super-additivity of the game and monotonic non-decreasing nature of the utilities, no players have the incentive to form a smaller coalition. Hence Algorithm \ref{algo:alg2} provides a solution from the core.
\end{proof}
\end{comment}
\subsection{Simulations results for synthetic data}
\subsubsection{{Evaluation of the distributed algorithm}}
To validate our results related to strong duality and our proposed distributed algorithm, we obtain the solution for Setting $1$ in Table \ref{tab:settings} using both the central and distributed algorithm as shown in Figure \ref{fig:dist}. It is evident that both the algorithms converge to the same solution, hence the duality gap is zero and our proposed distributed algorithm converges to the global optimal.
\subsubsection{Utility, resource utilization, request satisfaction and fairness}
To highlight the efficacy of our framework, we compare its performance with a setting where ESPs work alone (i.e., no resource sharing among ESPs).
In particular, we compare ESP utility, the average resource utilization (averaged across all $k$ resources) and the average request satisfaction (averaged across requests of all ESPs applications) in Figures \ref{fig:withNBS1} and \ref{fig:withNBS2} for $3$ and $20$ applications per ESP, respectively.
When ESP $1$ works alone, it has a resource deficit (evident from $100\%$ average resource utilization and average request satisfaction of less than 60\% and 80\% in Figures \ref{fig:withNBS1} and \ref{fig:withNBS2}, respectively) whereas ESPs $2$ and $3$ have resource surpluses as indicated by less than $100\%$ resource utilization and $100\%$ request satisfaction. The resource deficit results in a lower utility and request satisfaction for ESP $1$.
On the other hand, both ESPs $2$ and $3$ achieve higher utilities by satisfying all their applications when working alone. However, by using our resource sharing framework, the utilities of all ESPs improve as the framework provides optimal resource sharing.
For the case with three applications, average request satisfaction improves from $86.11\%$ (working alone) to $94.5\%$ (resource sharing) whereas it improves from $90.9\%$ to $99\%$ for the $20$ application case. It is worth noting that request satisfaction for native applications of ESPs $2$ and $3$ reduce as these ESPs allocate their resources to applications of ESP $1$ for a higher utility.
Furthermore, resource utilizations also increase for the ESPs with resource surpluses as they share their resources with the ESP with a resource deficit. To measure the degree of fairness of the proposed sharing framework, we calculate \emph{Jain}'s index\footnote{$\frac{1}{|N|}\leq$Jain's index$\leq 1$ where $1$ is the highest value of fairness.} \cite{jain1999throughput,jain1984aquantitative} that is $0.95$ and $0.99$ for the cases with $3$ and $20$ applications.
Especially for scenarios with a large number of applications, these results reveal that our framework enables fair sharing and allocation of resources among ESPs, as one would expect from the product-based fairness as offered by the NBS.
\subsection{Results for the data traces}
We use trace files from \emph{fastStorage}, \emph{Rnd} \cite{shen2015statistical}, and \emph{materna} \cite{kohne2014federatedcloudsim,kohne2016evaluation}.
We simulate a setting with three different ESPs and randomly extract the normalized resource request information related to the number of CPU cores, the amount of CPU and memory (RAM) for 20 different resource requests from \emph{fastStorage}, \emph{Rnd} and \emph{materna} dataset. Since the datasets do not provide the capacities of these service providers, we assign capacities in such a way that fastStorage serves as the ESP with resource deficit while the other two have resource surplus. Figure \ref{fig:withNBS6} shows ESP utilities, request satisfaction and resource utilization based on the data traces. It is evident that ESP utilities improve and resource utilizations increase to satisfy more applications by use of the proposed NBS framework. The average request satisfaction also increases from $83.3\%$ to $92.05\%$ whereas the Jain index is $0.98$.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=1.00\textwidth]{figures/tr1
\caption{Utility, average request satisfaction and average resource utilization for Setting $3$ when ESPs are working alone and using our proposed NBS framework.}
\protect\label{fig:withNBS6}
\end{figure*}
\begin{comment}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{figures/three20tr.eps
\vspace{-0.1in}
\caption{Utility of CSPs with trace files.}
\vspace{-0.2in}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\subfloat[Utility function\label{fig:withNBS3}]{\includegraphics[width=0.255\textwidth]{figures/three20tr_1.eps}}
\hspace{-0.2in}
\subfloat[Resource utilization \label{fig:withNBS4}]{\includegraphics[width=0.255\textwidth]{figures/three20tr2_1.eps}}
\caption{Utility and resource utilization for the trace files (Setting $3$) using our proposed framework. }%
\protect\label{fig:withNBS6}
\vspace{-0.25in}
\end{figure}
\end{comment}
\begin{table*}[]
\centering
\caption{Comparison of our NBS based resource sharing and allocation framework with other NBS based solutions.}
\begin{tabular}{|c|p{1.0cm}|p{2.0cm}|c|p{5.5cm}|}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Reference}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Objective}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Resource Sharing}} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textbf{Distributed Algorithm}} \\ \cline{4-5}
& & & \textbf{Proposed?} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Technique}} \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{\cite{yaiche2000game}} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{Fair Bandwidth allocation} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\times$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\checkmark$} & Gradient Projection \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{\cite{xu2012general}} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{Fairness} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\times$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\checkmark$} & Dual decomposition and sub-gradient method are used.
\\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{\cite{hassan2014virtual}} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{Cost and Resource Utilization} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\times$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\times$} & N/A \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{\cite{he2013toward}} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{Cost and User Experience} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\times$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\times$} & N/A \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{\cite{feng2012bargaining}} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{Resource utilization} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\times$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\times$} & N/A \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{\cite{guo2013cooperative}} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{Bandwidth allocation} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\times$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\checkmark$} & Gradient Projection \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{Our Approach} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{Service provider utility and user satisfaction} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\checkmark$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\checkmark$} & Gradient descent based algorithm that works for the class of utilities described in \ref{sec:assumption}. \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:comparison}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Game Theoretic Solution}
We first define the characteristic function $v$ for our game that can solve problem in~\eqref{eq:opt_higher}
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\normalsize
\begin{align} \label{eq:payoff_function}
v(\mathcal{N})=\sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in \mathcal{N}$},\;\text{$C_{k}= \sum_{n \in \mathcal{N}}C_{k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} x_{ik}^{(n)}\leq C_{k}^{(n)} \; \forall k \in \mathcal{K}, \; \forall n \in \mathcal{N}$}\\ \text{$\sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}}x_{ik}^{(j)} \leq R^{(n)}_{ik} \; \forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in \mathcal{N}$}}}\bigg(w_n u_n(\mathcal{X})+ \zeta_{n}\sum_{j \in \mathcal{N},j\neq n} u^{n}_j(\mathcal{X})\bigg)
\end{align}
\hrulefill
\vspace*{-4pt}
\end{figure*}
\begin{remark}
The characteristic function in Equation~\eqref{eq:payoff_function} is for the grand coalition $\mathcal{N}$. For any $S \subseteq \mathcal{N}$, the characteristic function will be given by Equation~\eqref{eq:payoff_s_function}
\end{remark}
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\normalsize
\begin{align} \label{eq:payoff_s_function}
v({S})=\sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in {S}$},\; \text{$C_{k}= \sum_{n \in {S}}C_{k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} x_{ik}^{(n)}\leq C_{k}^{(n)} \;\forall k \in \mathcal{K}, \; \forall n \in {S}$}\\ \text{$\sum_{j \in {S}}x_{ik}^{(j)} \leq R^{(n)}_{ik} \; \forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in {S}$}}} \bigg(w_n u_n(\mathcal{X})+\zeta_{n}\sum_{j \in S,j\neq n} u^{n}_j(\mathcal{X})\bigg)
\end{align}
\hrulefill
\vspace*{-4pt}
\end{figure*}
\begin{theorem}
Resource allocation and sharing problem (with multiple objectives) in aforementioned settings can be modeled as a canonical cooperative game with TU.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
To prove this, we need to show that the characteristic function of resource sharing and allocation problem satisfies the following two conditions
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Characteristic form of payoff:} As the utility function in a resource sharing and allocation problem only relies on the domains that are part of the coalition, the game or payoff function is of characteristic form
\item \textbf{Superadditivity:} Super-additivity for TU games requires $v(S_1 \cup S_2 )\geq v(S_1)+V(S_2) \; \forall S_1 \subset \mathcal{N}, S_2 \subset \mathcal{N}, s.t. S_1\cap S_2 =\emptyset$ i.e. we have to prove that the pay-off or utility for a domain in the coalition is as good as domain working alone or in a smaller coalition. Due to monotonicity property of the utility functions used, for all players/domains $n \in \mathcal{N}$, $u_n(X_n^{NC})\leq u_n(X_n^{C})$ as $X_n^{NC}\subset {X_n^{C}}$ \footnote{because $X_n^{C}$ can contain much more elements due to the increase in $C$ in the coalition} where $X_n^{C}$ and $X_n^{NC}$ are the allocation decisions in a cooperative game and independent setting respectively for domain $n$.
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:MOOGame}
A canonical cooperative game $(\mathcal{N}, v)$ with TU can be used to obtain the Pareto-optimal solutions for the multi-objective optimization problem given in \eqref{eq:opt_higher}
\end{lemma}
To prove Lemma \ref{lemma:MOOGame}, we must show that the core is non-empty for our canonical game. To do this, we first show that our game is convex.
\begin{definition}[Convex Games]
A coalition game is said to be convex if and only if for every player $n \in \mathcal{N}$, the marginal contribution of the player is non-decreasing W.R.T set inclusion. Mathematically, for $S_1\subseteq S_2 \subseteq \mathcal{N}\backslash \{n\}$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:convexgames}
v(S_1 \cup \{n\})-v(S_1) \leq v(S_2 \cup \{n\})-v(S_2)
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
\begin{theorem}
Our canonical game is convex
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let us consider two coalition $S_1$ and $S_2$, where $S_1\subseteq S_2 \subseteq \mathcal{N}\backslash\{j\}$ where $j \in \mathcal{N}$. Then we first calculate $v(S_2 \cup \{j\})-v(S_1 \cup \{j\})$ in Equation \eqref{eq:convexityProof}.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\normalsize
\begin{align}\label{eq:convexityProof}
& \sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in {S_2}$},\; \text{$C_{k}= \sum_{n \in {S_2}}C_{k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} x_{ik}^{(n)}\leq C_{k}^{(n)} \; \forall k \in \mathcal{K},\; \forall n \in {S_2}$}\\ \text{$\sum_{j \in {S_2}}x_{ik}^{(j)} \leq R^{(n)}_{ik} \;\forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in {S_2}$}}}\bigg(w_n u_n(\mathcal{X})+ w'_{n}\sum_{k \in {S_2}, k\neq n} u^{j}_k(\mathcal{X})\bigg) + w_j u_j ^{(S_2)}(\mathcal{X}) + \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_2, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{X}) - \nonumber \\
& \Bigg(\sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in {S_1}$},\; \text{$C_{k}= \sum_{n \in {S_1}}C_{k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} x_{ik}^{(n)}\leq C_{k}^{(n)} \; \forall k \in \mathcal{K}, \; \forall n \in {S_1}$} \\ \text{$\sum_{j \in {S_1}}x_{ik}^{(j)} \leq R^{(n)}_{ik} \quad \forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in {S_1}$}}}\bigg(w_n u_n(\mathcal{X})+ w'_{n}\sum_{k \in {S_1}, k \neq n} u^{j}_k(\mathcal{X})\bigg) + w_j u_j ^{(S_1)}(\mathcal{X}) + \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_1, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{X})\nonumber \Bigg)\\
&= \sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in {S_2}\backslash S_1$}, \text{$C_{k}= \sum_{n \in {S_2}\backslash S_1}C_{k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} x_{ik}^{(n)}\leq C_{k}^{(n)} \; \forall k \in \mathcal{K},\; \forall n \in {S_2}\backslash S_1$} \\ \text{$\sum_{j \in {S_2 \backslash S_1}}x_{ik}^{(j)} \leq R^{(n)}_{ik} \quad \forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in {S_2 \backslash S_1}$}}}\bigg(w_n u_n(\mathcal{X})+ w'_{n}\sum_{k \in {\{S_2 \backslash S_1\}}, k \neq n} u^{j}_k(\mathcal{X})\bigg) + w_j u_j ^{(S_2)}(\mathcal{X}) \nonumber \\
& + \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_2, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{X}) - w_j u_j ^{(S_1)}(\mathcal{X}) - \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_1, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{X}) \nonumber \\
& = v(S_2)- v(S_1)+ w_j u_j ^{(S_2)}(\mathcal{X}) + \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_2, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{X}) - w_j u_j ^{(S_1)}(\mathcal{X}) - \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_1, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{X}) \nonumber \\
& \geq v(S_2)- v(S_1)
\end{align}
\hrulefill
\vspace*{4pt}
\end{figure*}
\begin{comment}
\begin{align}\label{eq:convexityProof}
& \sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in {S_2}$} \\ \text{$R_{av,k}= \sum_{n \in {S_2}}R_{av,k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} a_{ik}^{(n)}\leq R_{av,k}^{(n)} \; \forall k \in \mathcal{K},\; \forall n \in {S_2}$}\\ \text{$\sum_{j \in {S_2}}a_{ik}^{(j)} \leq R^{(n)}_{req,ik} \;\forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in {S_2}$}}}\bigg(w_n u_n(\mathcal{A})+ w'_{n}\sum_{k \in {S_2}, k\neq n} u^{j}_k(\mathcal{A})\bigg) + w_j u_j ^{(S_2)}(\mathcal{A}) + \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_2, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{A}) - \nonumber \\
& \Bigg(\sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in {S_1}$} \\ \text{$R_{av,k}= \sum_{n \in {S_1}}R_{av,k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} a_{ik}^{(n)}\leq R_{av,k}^{(n)} \; \forall k \in \mathcal{K}, \; \forall n \in {S_1}$} \\ \text{$\sum_{j \in {S_1}}a_{ik}^{(j)} \leq R^{(n)}_{req,ik} \quad \forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in {S_1}$}}}\bigg(w_n u_n(\mathcal{A})+ w'_{n}\sum_{k \in {S_1}, k \neq n} u^{j}_k(\mathcal{A})\bigg) + w_j u_j ^{(S_1)}(\mathcal{A}) + \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_1, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{A})\nonumber \Bigg)\\
&= \sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in {S_2}\backslash S_1$} \\ \text{$R_{av,k}= \sum_{n \in {S_2}\backslash S_1}R_{av,k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} a_{ik}^{(n)}\leq R_{av,k}^{(n)} \; \forall k \in \mathcal{K},\; \forall n \in {S_2}\backslash S_1$} \\ \text{$\sum_{j \in {S_2 \backslash S_1}}a_{ik}^{(j)} \leq R^{(n)}_{req,ik} \quad \forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in {S_2 \backslash S_1}$}}}\bigg(w_n u_n(\mathcal{A})+ w'_{n}\sum_{k \in {\{S_2 \backslash S_1\}}, k \neq n} u^{j}_k(\mathcal{A})\bigg) + w_j u_j ^{(S_2)}(\mathcal{A}) \nonumber \\
& + \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_2, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{A}) - w_j u_j ^{(S_1)}(\mathcal{A}) - \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_1, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{A}) \nonumber \\
& = v(S_2)- v(S_1)+ w_j u_j ^{(S_2)}(\mathcal{A}) + \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_2, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{A}) - w_j u_j ^{(S_1)}(\mathcal{A}) - \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_1, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{A}) \nonumber \\
& \geq v(S_2)- v(S_1)
\end{align}
\end{comment}
The last inequality in Equation \eqref{eq:convexityProof} follows from the fact that $ w_j u_j ^{(S_2)}(\mathcal{X}) + \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_2, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{X}) - w_j u_j ^{(S_1)}(\mathcal{X}) - \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_1, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{X})\geq 0$ (monotonicity of the utility)
\end{proof}
\begin{comment}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Is the core non-empty?
\item If the core is non-empty and consists of different pay-off allocations, how do we choose any particular pay-off allocation vector?
\end{enumerate}
Below we attempt to answer these questions
\begin{definition}[Balanced Collection] Let $\Omega$ be a collection of different coalitions. $\Omega$ is considered to be a \emph{balanced collection} if we can find non-negative weights $w_S$ for each $S \in \Omega$ such that for every player $n$
\begin{align}\label{eq:balancedcollection}
\sum_{S \in \Omega, S \ni n}w_S =1
\end{align}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[Balanced Game] A game is called balanced if for every balanced collection $\Omega$, the payoff vector $\mathbf{x}$ will be in $V_{\mathcal{N}}$ if $\mathbf{x}_S \in V_S\; \forall S \in \Omega$
\end{definition}
\begin{theorem}[Bondareva-Shapley Theorem]\label{thm:BST}
The core of a game is non-empty if and only if the game is balanced
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}
The core for canonical game with our characteristic function(in Equation~\eqref{eq:payoff_function}) is non-empty
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
From the definition of characteristic functions for TU games (see \cite{han2012game} for details), $v: 2^{\mathcal{N}}$ \textrightarrow $\mathbb{R}$ with $v(\emptyset)=\emptyset$. This means that the total number of coalitions possible for $\mathcal{N}$ players is $2^{|\mathcal{N}|}-1$ (we ignore the empty set). For $\Omega$, the non-negative weights $w_S$ which satisfy the condition for balanced collection in Equation~\eqref{eq:balancedcollection} are given by $\frac{1}{2^{|\mathcal{N}|-1}}$. Hence $\Omega$ is a balanced collection. We also know that $v(S)\subseteq v(\mathcal{N})$ as $v(\mathcal{N})$ is defined over a larger feasible set due to increased amount of available resources. Leveraging the monotonicity property of the utility functions used, we know that any payoff vector $\mathbf{x}$ will be in $V_{\mathcal{N}}$ if $\mathbf{x}_S$\footnote{$\mathbf{x}_S$ is the projection of $\mathbf{x}$ onto the vector space $\mathbb{R}^{|S|}$} $\in V_S\; \forall S \in \Omega$. Hence our canonical game with characteristic function $v$ in Equation~\eqref{eq:payoff_function} is balanced and its core is non-empty (from Theorem \ref{thm:BST})
\end{proof}
\end{comment}
\begin{theorem}
The core of any convex game $(\mathcal{N},v)$ is non-empty and large.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Available in \cite{sharkey1982cooperative}
\end{proof}
While the existence of core i.e., core being non-empty, guarantees the grand coalition is stable, finding a suitable allocation from the core is challenging particularly when the core is large (our game). Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, fairness is also a shortcoming of core based solutions. Shapley value can be used to obtain a fair allocation, however, we first need to show that the Shapley value lies in the core to guarantee that the Shapley value based allocation is stable for the grand coalition.
\begin{theorem}
The Shapley value in Equation~\eqref{eq:shapleyvalue} lies in the core of our canonical game
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Since our canonical game is convex, the Shapley value lies in the core \cite{han2012game} (see \cite{roger1991game} for details)
\end{proof}
We summarize this in the remark below.
\begin{remark}
If a TU game $(\mathcal{N}, v)$ is convex, then the core is non-empty and the Shapley Value lies in the core \cite{garg2013novel}.
\end{remark}
Calculation of Shapley value given in Equation~\eqref{eq:shapleyvalue} is challenging \cite{han2012game}. Since our game is convex, calculating its Shapley value is slightly easier as given below.
\subsubsection{Shapley Value for a Convex Game}
Let $\pi$ denote the permutation of players in our game. Then for any permutation $p$ from the total possible permutations $|\mathcal{N}|!$, one can obtain the initial segments of ordering by \cite{garg2013novel}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:initialsegment}
O_{\pi, r}=\{ n \in \mathcal{N} : \pi(n) \leq r \}, \; r \in \{1, \cdots, N\}
\end{equation}
where $O_{\pi, 0}=\{\}$ and $O_{\pi, |\mathcal{N}|} =\mathcal{N}$. $\pi(n)$ refers to the position of the player $n$ in the permutation $\pi$. The core of any particular ordering $\pi$ can be obtained by solving equations
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:x_i_pi_sol}
x_n^{\pi}(O_{\pi, r}) = v(O_{\pi, r}), \; r \in \{ 1, \cdots, N\}
\end{equation}
The solution to above Equations~\eqref{eq:x_i_pi_sol} will result in a payoff vector $x^{\pi}$ where the elements of the vector are given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:vectorelements}
x_n^{\pi}=v(O_{\pi, \pi(n)})- v(O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1}), \quad \forall n \in \mathcal{N}
\end{equation}
The payoff vectors $x^{\pi}$ represent the extreme points of the core in convex games \cite{garg2013novel}. So if $\prod$ represents the set of all possible permutations of $\mathcal{N}$, the Shapley value of any player $n$ can be calculated as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:shapleyconvex}
\phi_n=\frac{1}{|\mathcal{N}|!}\sum_{\pi \in \prod} x_n^{\pi}
\end{equation}
\begin{comment}
So for our coalition game $(\mathcal{N},v)$, the Shapley value is
\begin{align}
\label{eq:ourshapleyconvex}
\phi_n&=\frac{1}{|\mathcal{N}|!}\sum_{\pi \in \prod} \bigg( \sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)}}$} \\ \text{$R_{av,k}= \sum_{n \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)}}}R_{av,k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} a_{ik}^{(n)}\leq R_{av,k}^{(n)} \;\forall k \in \mathcal{K}, \; \forall n \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)}}$} \\ \text{$$}\text{$\sum_{j \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)}}}a_{ik}^{(j)} \leq R^{(n)}_{req,ik} \;\forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in O_{\pi, \pi(n)}$}}}\bigg(w_n u_n^{(\pi)}(\mathcal{A})+ w'_{n}\sum_{j \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)}}, j \neq n} u^{n,(\pi)}_j(\mathcal{A})\bigg)- \nonumber \\
&\Bigg(\sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1}}$} \\ \text{$R_{av,k}= \sum_{n \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1}}}R_{av,k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} a_{ik}^{(n)}\leq R_{av,k}^{(n)} \; \forall k \in \mathcal{K}, \; \forall n \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1}}$}}}\bigg(w_n u^{(\pi)}_n(\mathcal{A})+ w'_{n}\sum_{j \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1}}, j \neq n} u^{n,(\pi)}_j(\mathcal{A})\bigg)\Bigg) \nonumber \\
&=\frac{1}{|\mathcal{N}|!}\sum_{\pi \in \prod} \bigg( \sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)}\backslash O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1} }$} \\ \text{$R_{av,k}= \sum_{n \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)}\backslash O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1}}}R_{av,k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} a_{ik}^{(n)}\leq R_{av,k}^{(n)} \;\forall k \in \mathcal{K}, \; \forall n \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)}\backslash O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1}}$} \\ \text{$\sum_{j \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)}\backslash O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1}}}a_{ik}^{(j)} \leq R^{(n)}_{req,ik} \;\forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in O_{\pi, \pi(n)}\backslash O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1}$} }}\bigg(w_n u^{(\pi)}_n(\mathcal{A})+ \nonumber \\
& w'_{n}\sum_{j \in \{{O_{\pi, \pi(n)}} \}, j \neq n} u^{n,(\pi)}_j(\mathcal{A}) + w'_{n}\sum_{j \in \{{O_{\pi, \pi(n)}} \}, j \neq n} u^{j,(\pi)}_n(\mathcal{A}) \bigg)\bigg) \nonumber \\
&=\frac{1}{|\mathcal{N}|!}\sum_{\pi \in \prod}\bigg(w_nu^{(\pi)}_n(\mathcal{A})+ w'_{n}\sum_{j \in \{{O_{\pi, \pi(n)}} \}, j \neq n} u^{n,(\pi)}_j(\mathcal{A}) +w'_{n}\sum_{j \in \{{O_{\pi, \pi(n)}} \}, j \neq n} u^{j,(\pi)}_n(\mathcal{A}) \bigg)
\end{align}
where Equation~\eqref{eq:ourshapleyconvex} provides the Shapley value for our convex game. It is evident that our Shapley value depends on the utility of the player $n$, the utility player $n$ achieves by allocating resources to players in $j \in O_{\pi, \pi(n)}, j \neq n $ and the utility player $j \neq n, j \in O_{\pi, \pi(n)}$ achieves by allocating resources to player $n$ in every possible permutation.
\begin{comment}
\begin{algorithm}
\begin{algorithmic}[]
\State \textbf{Input}: $tt$
\State \textbf{Output}: The optimal hit probabilities
\State \textbf{Step $1$:} $t \leftarrow$0, $\boldsymbol{\lambda^{(t)}\leftarrow\lambda_0}$, $\boldsymbol{\mu^{(t)}\leftarrow\mu_0}$
\While{Equation \eqref{eq:gradient1} $\neq$ 0
\State \textbf{Step $2$}:$\boldsymbol{h_{il}^{(p)}[t]} \leftarrow \frac{w_i\beta^{|p|-l}}{\lambda_{l}[t-1]\Bigg(\prod_{\substack{q \neq p,\\ q:l\in\{1,\cdots,|q|\}}}(1-h_{il}^{(q)}[t-1])\Bigg)+\mu_{ip}[t-1]}. $
\State \textbf{Step $3$:} Update $\lambda$ and $\mu$ using \eqref{eq:update}, t $\leftarrow t+1$
\EndWhile
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{Iterative Distributed Algorithm}
\label{algo:alg}
\end{algorithm}
\end{comment}
\begin{remark}\label{rem:shap}
Shapley value calculation for our convex game requires solving at least $2^{N}-1$ optimization problems
\end{remark}
Algorithm \ref{algo:alg1} provides an overview of our proposed approach. We obtain $R, C$ and the utility of all players as $\mathbf{u}$. We initialize each player's utility value ($\mathbf{u}(R,\mathcal{X})$), Shapley value ($\boldsymbol{\phi} $) and resource allocation decision $\mathcal{X}$ to $0$. Then we calculate the Shapley value for the players and assign it to $\mathbf{u}(R,\mathcal{X})$. Finally to obtain $\mathcal{X}$, we take the inverse function of $\mathbf{u}$. As we are using monotone utilities, we know that the inverse of the utilities exist.
\par A fundamental issue with Shapley value is its complexity. As mentioned in Remark \ref{rem:shap}, Shapley value calculation requires solving a large number of optimization problems that is not suitable for a game with larger number of players. Therefore, reducing the complexity of obtaining an allocation from the core is always favorable.
\begin{algorithm}
\begin{algorithmic}[]
\State \textbf{Input}: $R, C,$ and vector of utility functions of all players $\mathbf{u}$
\State \textbf{Output}: $\mathcal{X}$
\State \textbf{Step $1$:} $ \mathbf{u}(R,\mathcal{X}) \leftarrow$0, $ \mathcal{X} \leftarrow$0, $ \boldsymbol{\phi} \leftarrow$0,
\State \textbf{Step $1$:} Calculate Shapley Value $\phi_n$ using Equation \eqref{eq:shapleyconvex} $\forall n \in \mathcal{N}$
\State \textbf{Step $2$:} $ \mathbf{u}(R,\mathcal{X}) \leftarrow \boldsymbol{\phi}$
\State \textbf{Step $3$:} $\mathcal{X}\leftarrow \mathbf{u}^{-1}$
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{Shapley Value based Resource Allocation}
\label{algo:alg1}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{Reducing the Computational Complexity}
To reduce the complexity, we propose a computationally efficient approach in Algorithm 2 that requires solving $2N$ optimization problems i.e. $\mathcal{O}(N)$. The input into the algorithm consists of available resources/capacities, user requirements and the utilities of all game players. The output of the algorithm is $\mathcal{X}$. In Step 1, the utility values of the players, the allocation decision, and two vectors $\boldsymbol{O_1}$ and $\boldsymbol{O_2}$. In Step 2, every player's utility is calculated without any resource sharing i.e. single optimization and the values are stored in the vector $\boldsymbol{O_1}$. Then $C, R$ are updated and we move to Step 4, where we calculated the utilities $u_j^n$'s for all the players with updated $C, R$ and store them in $\boldsymbol{O_2}$.
\begin{algorithm}
\begin{algorithmic}[]
\State \textbf{Input}: $R, C,$ and vector of utility functions of all players $\mathbf{u}$
\State \textbf{Output}: $\mathcal{X}$
\State \textbf{Step $1$:} $ \mathbf{u}(R,\mathcal{X}) \leftarrow$0, $ \mathcal{X} \leftarrow$0, $ \boldsymbol{O_1} \leftarrow$0, $ \boldsymbol{O_2} \leftarrow$0,
\State \textbf{Step $2$:}
\For{\texttt{$n \in \mathcal{N}$}}
\State $ {O_1^n} \leftarrow$ \texttt{Solution of the optimization problem in Equation \eqref{eq:opt_single}}
\EndFor
\State \textbf{Step $3$:} Update $R, C$ based on Step 2
\State \textbf{Step $4$:}
\For{\texttt{$n \in \mathcal{N}$}}
\State $ {O_2^n} \leftarrow$ \texttt{Solution of the optimization problem in Equation \eqref{eq:opt_single_j} with updated C and R}
\State Update C and R
\EndFor
\State \textbf{Step $5$:} $u_n(R,\mathcal{X})\leftarrow O_1^n+O_2^n$ $\forall n \in \mathcal{N}$
\State \textbf{Step $6$:} $\mathcal{X}\leftarrow \mathbf{u}^{-1}$
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{$\mathcal{O}$($N$) algorithm for obtaining Core's allocation}
\label{algo:alg2}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:opt_single_j}
\begin{align}
\max_{\mathcal{X}}\quad& \sum_{j\neq n}u_j^n(\mathcal{X}) \quad \forall n \in \mathcal{N} \label{eq:objsinglej}\\
\text{s.t.}\quad & \sum_{i} x_{ik}^{(n)}\leq C_{k}^{(n)} \quad \forall k \in \mathcal{K}, \quad \forall i \in \mathcal{M}\backslash\mathcal{M}_n, \label{eq:singlefirstj} \displaybreak[0]\\
& x_{ik}^{(n)} \leq R^{(n)}_{ik} \quad \forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}\backslash\mathcal{M}_n, k \in \mathcal{K}, \label{eq:singlesecondj} \displaybreak[1]\\
& x_{ik}^{(n)} \geq 0 \quad \forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}\backslash\mathcal{M}_n, k \in \mathcal{K}, \label{eq:singlethirdj} \displaybreak[2]
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\begin{theorem}
The solution obtained from Algorithm \ref{algo:alg2} lies in the \emph{core}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
To prove the theorem, we need to show that the utilities obtained in Step $5$ of Algorithm \ref{algo:alg2}; a) are individually rational; b) are group rational and c) no players have the incentive to leave the grand coalition and form another another coalition $S \subset \mathcal{N}$.
\paragraph{Individual Rationality} For each player $n \in \mathcal{N}$, the solution $O_1^n$ obtained by solving the optimization problem in Equation \eqref{eq:opt_single} is the utility a player will obtain by working alone i.e. it is $v\{n\}$. The value $O_2^n$ in Step 4 is either zero or positive but cannot be negative due to the nature of utility used i.e.
\begin{align}
u_n(R,\mathcal{X})&=O_1^n+O_2^n \quad \forall n \in \mathcal{N} \nonumber \\
u_n(R,\mathcal{X})&\geq O_1^n \quad \forall n \in \mathcal{N}\nonumber
\end{align}
Hence the solution obtained as a result of Algorithm \ref{algo:alg2} is individually rational.
\paragraph{Group Rationality} The value of the grand coalition $v\{\mathcal{N}\}$ as per Equation \eqref{eq:payoff_function} is the sum of utilities $u_n$'s and $u_j^n$'s. Steps 2, 4 and 5 of Algorithm \ref{algo:alg2} obtain the sum of the utilities as well. Hence the solution obtained as a result of Algorithm \ref{algo:alg2} is group rational rational.
\par Furthermore, due to super-additivity of the game and monotonic non-decreasing nature of the utilities, no players have the incentive to form a smaller coalition. Hence Algorithm \ref{algo:alg2} provides a solution from the core.
\end{proof}
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
\input{01-intro}
\section{System Model}\label{sec:sysmodel}
\input{02-sysmodel2}
\section{NBS for Resource Sharing among CSPs}\label{sec:nbs}
\input{nbs}
\section{Simulation Results}\label{sec:exp_results}
\input{04-exp-results}
\section{Related Work}\label{sec:related}
\input{related}
\section{Conclusions}\label{sec:conclusion}
\input{05-conclusions}
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This work was supported by the U.S. Army Research Laboratory and the U.K. Ministry of Defence under Agreement Number W911NF-16-3-0001. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. Army Research Laboratory, the U.S. Government, the U.K. Ministry of Defence or the U.K. Government. The U.S. and U.K. Governments are authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Government purposes notwithstanding any copy-right notation hereon. Faheem Zafari also acknowledges the financial support by EPSRC Centre for Doctoral Training in High Performance Embedded and Distributed Systems (HiPEDS, Grant Reference EP/L016796/1), and Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Imperial College London.
\bibliographystyle{IEEETran}
\subsection{Primer on Nash Bargaining Solution (NBS)}\label{sec:prelim}
\input{preli}
\subsection{Proposed Framework}
As mentioned earlier, NBS is a Pareto optimal and fair solution in settings that involve different players (ESPs in our case) where each player has an objective to optimize. Therefore, it can be used to solve our MOO problem in \eqref{eq:opt_higher} as we have different ESPs that need to optimize their objectives and improve their utilities over what they would receive working alone.
We first specify the disagreement point for our bargaining problem. If the ESPs cannot come to an agreement, they can all start working alone. Hence the disagreement point is the solution to the SOO problem given in \eqref{eq:opt_single} for all ESPs. Let us denote the solution to the SOO problem by $d_n^0, \forall\; n \in \mathcal{N}$. In the cooperative setting\footnote{Service providers share resources among each other.}, the utility (represented by $s_n$ in \eqref{eq:nashProbNplayer}) for an ESP $n \in \mathcal{N}$ is given by:
\begin{align}
U= &\sum_{\substack{j \in \mathcal{M}_n,\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\Big(u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j+{x}_{n,k}^j)- u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j) \Big) \nonumber \displaybreak[0] \\
&\hspace*{-0.2in}+\Big(\sum_{\substack{l \in \overline{\mathcal{M}},\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\big( u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l+{x}_{n,k}^l)-u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l)- \displaybreak[1]\nonumber\\
&\hspace*{-0.1in} D^l({x}_{n,k}^l)\big)\Big). \nonumber
\end{align}
Below, we present the centralized NBS algorithm.
\subsubsection{Centralized NBS}
We first present the optimization problem to obtain NBS for our $N-$ESP bargaining game \cite{harsanyi1963simplified} and then present its equivalent problem \cite{yaiche2000game} that is computationally efficient to solve.
\begin{theorem} The NBS for the MOO optimization problem in \eqref{eq:opt_higher} can be obtained by solving the following optimization problem
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:nashProbNplayermod}
\begin{align}
\max_{\mathbf{X}}\;& \prod_{n=1}^{N}\hspace*{-0.05in}\bigg(\sum_{\substack{j \in \mathcal{M}_n,\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\Big(u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j+{x}_{n,k}^j)-u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j) \Big) \nonumber \\
&+\Big(\sum_{\substack{l \in \overline{\mathcal{M}},\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\big( u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l+{x}_{n,k}^l)-u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l)\nonumber\\
&- D^l({x}_{n,k}^l)\big)\Big)-d_n^0
\bigg),\label{eq:objmain} \\
\text{s.t.}\quad & Constraints \; in \; \eqref{eq:obj1}-\eqref{eq:obj4}, \nonumber \\
&\sum_{\substack{j \in \mathcal{M}_n,\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\Big(u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j+{x}_{n,k}^j)-u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j) \Big) \nonumber \\
&+\Big(\sum_{\substack{l \in \overline{\mathcal{M}},\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\big( u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l+{x}_{n,k}^l)-u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l)\nonumber\\
&- D^l({x}_{n,k}^l)\big)\Big)> d_n^0, \quad \forall \; n \in \mathcal{N}.\label{eq:disagreemt}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\end{theorem
\begin{proof}
The feasible set for the above optimization problem is convex and compact, since all constraints are convex and intersection of convex sets is a convex set. Furthermore, based on our assumptions, there exist solutions (allocation and sharing decisions) that provide better utility than the disagreement point $d_n^0, \forall\; n \in \mathcal{N}$. Hence, the solution of the optimization problem in \eqref{eq:nashProbNplayermod} is the NBS.
\end{proof
However, solving \eqref{eq:nashProbNplayermod} is computationally complex and the problem is not always convex. Therefore, there is a need for an efficient method to obtain the NBS.
Toward this goal, we transform the problem \eqref{eq:nashProbNplayermod} into an equivalent problem as proposed in \cite{yaiche2000game}.
\begin{comment}
\begin{theorem}[Problem transformation\cite{yaiche2000game}]
\label{thm:transformation}
Suppose for every player $n \in \mathcal{N}$, $s_n \in \mathcal{S}$ is injective function in the feasible set $\mathcal{F}$ (satisfying all the constraints). Under the assumptions of NBS, let us consider the following
\begin{align}
\label{eq:nashProbN}
\max_{s_1,\cdots,s_N}\;\prod_{n=1}^{N}(s_n-d_n),\; s.t.\; s_n \in \mathcal{F},\; \forall n \in \mathcal{N}
\end{align}\vspace{-0.15in}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:nashProbN2}
\max_{s_1,\cdots,s_N}\;\sum_{n=1}^{N}\ln(s_n-d_n),\; s.t.\; s_n \in \mathcal{F},\; \forall n \in \mathcal{N}
\end{align}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Equation \eqref{eq:nashProbN} has a unique solution and the bargaining solution is just a single point, where as Equation \eqref{eq:nashProbN2} is a convex optimization problem with a unique solution.
\item The optimization problems in Equations \eqref{eq:nashProbN} and \eqref{eq:nashProbN2} are equivalent. Hence, the unique solution of Equation \eqref{eq:nashProbN2} is the NBS.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
The above transformation reduces the complexity and always guarantees an NBS \cite{khan2009cooperative}.
\end{comment}
\begin{corollary
The NBS for \eqref{eq:opt_higher} is obtained by solving the following optimization problem:
\begin{align}\label{eq:objmain2}
\max_{\mathbf{X}}\;& \sum_{n=1}^{N}\ln\bigg(\sum_{\substack{j \in \mathcal{M}_n,\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\Big(u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j+{x}_{n,k}^j)- \nonumber \\
&u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j) \Big) +\Big(\sum_{\substack{l \in \overline{\mathcal{M}},\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\big( u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l+{x}_{n,k}^l)\nonumber\\
&-u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l)- D^l({x}_{n,k}^l)\big)\Big)-d_n^0
\bigg),\\
\text{s.t.}\quad & Constraints \; in \; \eqref{eq:obj1}-\eqref{eq:obj4}, \; \eqref{eq:disagreemt}. \nonumber
\end{align}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
ESP utilities are concave and bounded above. Furthermore, the feasible set along with the set of achievable utilities ($\mathcal{S}$) is convex and compact (due to the nature of utilities and constraints).
Utilities of ESPs are also injective functions of the allocation decision. Hence \eqref{eq:objmain2} is equivalent to \eqref{eq:nashProbNplayermod} \cite{yaiche2000game}. Since the logarithm of any positive real number is concave\cite{boyd2004convex}, \eqref{eq:objmain2} is a convex optimization problem with a unique solution, which is the NBS.
\end{proof}
The centralized Algorithm \ref{algo:centralnbs} provides the allocation decision using NBS.
\begin{algorithm}
\begin{algorithmic}[]
\State \textbf{Input}: $C, R$, and vector of utility functions of all ESPs $\boldsymbol{u}$
\State \textbf{Output}: The optimal resource allocation $\mathbf{X}$ and payoffs of all ESPs
\State \textbf{Step $1$:}
\For{\texttt{$n \in \mathcal{N}$}}
\State $ {d_n^0} \leftarrow$ \texttt{Objective function at optimal point in Equation \eqref{eq:opt_single}}
\EndFor
\State \textbf{Step $2$:} $\mathbf{X} \leftarrow$ \texttt{Solution of the optimization problem in Equation \eqref{eq:objmain2}}
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{Centralized Algorithm for NBS}
\label{algo:centralnbs}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{comment}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:centralsolution}
The solution to the optimization problem in \eqref{eq:objmain2}, provided that the inverse of the first derivative of $u_{n}^j(x_{n,k}^j)$ and $f_n^l=(u_{n}^l(x_{n,k}^l)-C_n^l(x_{n,k}^l))$ exist, is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:solcentral}
x_{n,k}^{*j}= u_n^{'-j}(\alpha_{n,k}, \beta_{k}^j,\zeta_{n},\gamma_{n,k}^{j},\Lambda_{n,k}^{j}), \quad \quad \quad \forall j \in \mathcal{M},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:solcentral2}
x_{n,k}^{*l}= f_n^{'-l}(\alpha_{n,k}, \beta_{k}^l,\zeta_{n},\gamma_{n,k}^{l},\Lambda_{n,k}^{l}), \quad \forall l \in \{\mathcal{M}\backslash\mathcal{{M}}_n\}
\end{equation}
where $u_n^{'-j}(\alpha_{n,k}, \beta_{k}^j,\zeta_{n},\gamma_{n,k}^{j},\Lambda_{n,k}^{j})$ and $f_n^{'-l}(\alpha_{n,k}, \beta_{k}^l,\zeta_{n},\gamma_{n,k}^{l},\Lambda_{n,k}^{l})$ are
the inverse of the first derivative of $u_{n}^j$ and $(u_{n}^l(x_{n,k}^l)-C_n^l(x_{n,k}^l))$, respectively.
$\alpha_{n,k}$, $\beta_{k}^j$, $\zeta_{n}$, and $\gamma_{n,k}^{j}$ are the \emph{Lagrange} multipliers and $\Lambda_{n,k}^{j}=\bigg(\sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}_n}u_n^j(\mathbf{x}_n^j)+ \big(\sum_{l \in \{\mathcal{M}\backslash \mathcal{M}_n\}} u_n^l(\mathbf{x}_n^l)-C_n^l(\mathbf{x}_n^l)\big)-d_n^0\bigg)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The Lagrangian function for \eqref{eq:objmain2} is given in \eqref{eq:lagrangian} on the next page.
Since the Lagrangian function consists of differentiable and continuous functions, we can use gradients to obtain the optimal allocation decision and Lagrangian multipliers.
Depending on the application $j$, we have two cases:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textbf{$j \in \mathcal{M}_n$:}$\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial x_{n,k}^{j}}=0$
\begin{align}
\label{eq:gradLagObj}
u_n^{'j}(x_{n,k}^{j})(1+\Lambda_{n,k}^{j}\zeta_{n})-\Lambda_{n,k}^{j}(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^j-\gamma_{n,k}^{j})=0,\nonumber \\
\implies u_n^{'j}(x_{n,k}^{j})=\frac{\Lambda_{n,k}^{j}(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^j- \gamma_{n,k}^{j})}{1+\Lambda_{n,k}^{j}\zeta_{n}}, \nonumber \\
\implies \quad x_{n,k}^{*j}= u_n^{'-j}(\alpha_{n,k}, \beta_{k}^j, \zeta_{n},\gamma_{n,k}^{j},\Lambda_{n,k}^{j}).
\end{align}
\item \textbf{$l \in \{\mathcal{M}\backslash\mathcal{M}_n\}$:} $\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial x_{n,k}^{l}}=0$
\begin{align}
\label{eq:gradLagObjcase2}
f^{'l}_n(x_{n,k}^{l})(1+\Lambda_{n,k}^{l}\zeta_{n})-\Lambda_{n,k}^{l}(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^l-\gamma_{n,k}^{l})=0,\nonumber \\
\implies f^{'l}_n(x_{n,k}^{l})=\frac{\Lambda_{n,k}^{l}(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^l-\gamma_{n,k}^{l})}{1+\Lambda_{n,k}^{l}\zeta_{n}}, \nonumber \\
\implies \quad x_{n,k}^{*l}= f_{n}^{'-l}(\alpha_{n,k}, \beta_{k}^l,\zeta_{n},\gamma_{n,k}^{l},\Lambda_{n,k}^{l}).
\end{align}
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
In cases where $u_n^{'-j}(\boldsymbol{.})$ and $f_{n}^{'-l}(\boldsymbol{.}) $ do not exist, one should use alternate methods such as {gradient based iterative equation}\cite{tychogiorgos2013non}:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:gradientbasediterative}
x_{n,k}^{j}(t+1)=x_{n,k}^{j}(t)+\epsilon_{n,k}^{j}\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial x_{n,k}^{j}}
\end{align}
where $\epsilon_{n,k}^{j}$ is a positive step size.
\end{comment}
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\normalsize
\begin{align}
\label{eq:lagrangian}
\mathcal{L}(\mathbf{X}, \boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta, \zeta,\gamma,\pi})&=
\sum_{n=1}^{N}\ln\bigg(\sum_{\substack{j \in \mathcal{M}_n,\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\Big(u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j+{x}_{n,k}^j)- u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j) \Big)+\Big(\sum_{\substack{l \in \overline{\mathcal{M}},\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\big( u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l+{x}_{n,k}^l)-\nonumber\\
&\hspace*{-1.3in}\quad u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l)- D^l({x}_{n,k}^l)\big)\Big)-d^0_n\bigg) + \quad \sum_{\substack{n \in \mathcal{N},\\j \in \mathcal{M},\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\gamma_{n,k}^{j}x_{n,k}^{j} +\sum_{\substack{n \in \mathcal{N},\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\alpha_{n,k} (C_{n,k}-\sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}}x_{n,k}^{j}) +\sum_{\substack{j \in \mathcal{M},\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\beta_{k}^j (r_{k}^{j}-\sum_{n \in \mathcal{N}}x_{n,k}^{j}) + \sum_{n \in \mathcal{N}} \zeta_{n} \nonumber \\
& \hspace*{-1.3in}\quad \bigg(\sum_{\substack{j \in \mathcal{M}_n,\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\Big(u_n^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j+{x}_{n,k}^j)- u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j) \Big)+ \quad \Big(\sum_{\substack{l \in \overline{\mathcal{M}},\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\big( u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l+{x}_{n,k}^l)-u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l)-\nonumber\\
&\hspace*{-1.3in}\quad D^l({x}_{n,k}^l)\big)\Big)-d_n^0
\bigg)+\sum_{\substack{n\in \mathcal{{N}},\\l\in \overline{\mathcal{M}},\\k\in\mathcal{K}}}\pi_{n,k}^l \Big(u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l+{x}_{n,k}^l)-
u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l)- D^l({x}_{n,k}^l)\Big).
\end{align}
\hrulefill
\end{figure*}
\section{Distributed algorithm for NBS}\label{sec:dist}
While resource allocation and sharing using a central algorithm is feasible, it is desirable to develop low overhead distributed algorithms.
To obtain a distributed algorithm, we rely on \emph{Duality Theory} and use the \emph{Lagrangian} function in \eqref{eq:lagrangian}.
The dual optimization problem is given by
\begin{align}\label{eq:dualopt}
\min_{\boldsymbol{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\beta},\boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma,\pi}} D(\boldsymbol{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\beta},\boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma,\pi})&= \mathcal{L}\big(\mathbf{X}^{*}(\boldsymbol{\alpha,\beta},\boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma,\pi}),\nonumber \\& \boldsymbol{\alpha,\beta,\zeta,\gamma,\pi} \big), \nonumber \\
\; s.t. \; \boldsymbol{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\beta},\boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma,\pi}\geq 0.
\end{align}
\begin{align}\label{eq:supLag}
\mathbf{X}^{*}(\boldsymbol{\alpha,\beta},\boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma,\pi})= \arg \max_{\mathbf{X}} \mathcal{L}(\mathbf{X},\boldsymbol{\alpha,\beta},\boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma,\pi} ).
\end{align}
The dual problem can be solved iteratively using gradient descent (since the dual problem is a minimization problem) as below:
\begin{align}\label{eq:iterativeDual}
\alpha_{n,k}[t+1] &= \alpha_{n,k}[t]- \phi_{n,k} \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}(\mathbf{X}, \boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta},\boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma,\pi}) }{\partial \alpha_{n,k}}, \nonumber \displaybreak[0] \\
\beta_{k}^j[t+1] &= \beta_{k}^j[t]- \eta_{k}^j \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}(\mathbf{X}, \boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta},\boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma,\pi}) }{\partial \beta_{k}^j}, \nonumber \\
\zeta_{n}[t+1] &= \zeta_{n}[t]- \omega_{n} \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}(\mathbf{X}, \boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta},\boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma,\pi}) }{\partial \zeta_{n}}, \nonumber \displaybreak[0]\\
\gamma_{n,k}^{j}[t+1] &= \gamma_{n,k}^{j}[t]- \theta_{n,k}^{j} \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}(\mathbf{X}, \boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta},\boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma,\pi}) }{\partial \gamma_{n,k}^{j}},\nonumber \\
\pi_{n,k}^{l}[t+1]&=\pi_{n,k}^{l}[t]-\psi_{n,k}^l \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}(\mathbf{X}, \boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta},\boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma,\pi}) }{\partial \pi_{n,k}^{l}},
\end{align}
where $\phi_{n,k}$, $\eta_{k}^j$, $\omega_{n}$, $\theta_{n,k}^{j}$ and $\psi_{n,k}^l$ are positive step sizes. Furthermore, the gradients in \eqref{eq:iterativeDual} are given below
\begin{comment}
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\normalsize
\begin{align}
\label{eq:lagrangian2}
\mathcal{L}(\mathbf{X}_n, \boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta, \zeta,\gamma})&=
\prod_{n=1}^{N}\bigg(\sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}_n}u_n^j(\mathbf{x}_n^j)+ \big(\sum_{l \in \{\mathcal{M}\backslash \mathcal{M}_n\}} u_n^l(\mathbf{x}_n^l)-C_n^l(\mathbf{x}_n^l)\big)-d_n^0\bigg) + \quad \sum_{n \in \mathcal{N}}\sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}}\sum_{k \in \mathcal{K}}\gamma_{n,k}^{j}x_{n,k}^{j} +\nonumber \\
& \quad\sum_{n \in \mathcal{N}}\sum_{k \in \mathcal{K}}\alpha_{n,k} (C_{n,k}-\sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}}x_{n,k}^{j}) + \sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}}\sum_{k \in \mathcal{K}}\beta_{k}^j (r_{k}^{j}-\sum_{n \in \mathcal{N}}x_{n,k}^{j}) + \sum_{n \in \mathcal{N}} \zeta_{n} \bigg(\sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}_n}u_n^j(\mathbf{x}_n^j)+ \nonumber \\
& \big(\sum_{l \in \{\mathcal{M}\backslash \mathcal{M}_n\}} u_n^l(\mathbf{x}_n^l)- C_n^l(\mathbf{x}_n^l)\big)-d_n^0\bigg).
\end{align}
\hrulefill
\end{figure*}
\end{comment}
\begin{align}\label{eq:gradforLagrangieMultipliers}
\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}(\mathbf{X}, \boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta}, \boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma,\pi}) }{\partial \alpha_{n,k}}&= (C_{n,k}-\sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}}x_{n,k}^{j}),\nonumber \\
\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}(\mathbf{X}, \boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta}, \boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma,\pi}) }{\partial \beta_{k}^j} &= (r_{k}^{j}-\sum_{n \in \mathcal{N}}x_{n,k}^{j}),\nonumber \\
\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}(\mathbf{X}, \boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta},\boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma,\pi}) }{\partial \zeta_{n}} &=\bigg(\sum_{\substack{j \in \mathcal{M}_n,\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\Big(u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j+{x}_{n,k}^j)- \nonumber \\
&\hspace*{-1.2in}u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j) \Big)+\Big(\sum_{\substack{l \in \overline{\mathcal{M}},\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\big( u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l+{x}_{n,k}^l)-\nonumber\\
&\hspace*{-1.2in}u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l)- D^l({x}_{n,k}^l)\big)\Big)-d_n^0
\bigg)
, \nonumber \\
\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}(\mathbf{X}, \boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta},\boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma,\pi}) }{\partial \gamma_{n,k}^{j}} &= x_{n,k}^{j},\nonumber\\
\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}(\mathbf{X}, \boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta},\boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma,\pi}) }{\partial \pi_{n,k}^{l}} &=\Big(u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l+{x}_{n,k}^l)-\nonumber \\
&\hspace*{-1.2in}
u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l)- D^l({x}_{n,k}^l)\Big).
\end{align}
Unless certain conditions such as Slater's constraint qualification are satisfied, \emph{strong duality}\footnote{Strong duality implies that there is no duality gap between the primal and dual problem.} is not guaranteed to hold for our primal and dual problems \cite{boyd2004convex}. However, we rely on the following theorems to show that strong duality holds.
\begin{theorem}[Sufficient Condition\cite{tychogiorgos2013non}]\label{thm:georgesufficient}
If the price based function $\mathbf{X}^*(\boldsymbol{\alpha,\beta},\boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma,\pi})$ is continuous at one or more of the optimal Lagrange multipliers, the iterative algorithm consisting of \eqref{eq:supLag} and \eqref{eq:iterativeDual} will converge to the global optimal solution.
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}[Necessary Condition\cite{tychogiorgos2013non}]\label{thm:georgenecessary}
The condition in Theorem \ref{thm:georgesufficient} is also necessary if at least one of the constraints in \eqref{eq:objmain2} is active (binding) at the optimal solution.
\end{theorem}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:constraintsactive}
At the optimal solution, the optimal Lagrange multiplier vector corresponding to the capacity constraint is non-zero, i.e., $\boldsymbol{\alpha_k^{*}}>0$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
At the optimal point, all resources are fully utilized, i.e., capacity constraints are active. From \emph{complementary slackness}\cite{boyd2004convex}, we know that
\begin{align}\label{eq:compslackness}
\alpha^*_{n,k}\bigg(\sum_{j\in \mathcal{M}} x_{n,k}^{*j}- C_{n,k}\bigg)=0, \forall n \in \mathcal{N}.
\end{align}
Since $\sum_{j\in \mathcal{M}} x_{n,k}^{*j}= C_{n,k}$, i.e., the constraint is active, which implies that $\boldsymbol{\alpha_k^{*}} >0$.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:duality}
For any concave injective utility function for which the inverse of the first derivative exists, the iterative distributed algorithm consisting of \eqref{eq:supLag} and \eqref{eq:iterativeDual} converges to the global optimal solution
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We show that the price function obtained by $\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}(\mathbf{X}, \boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta},\boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma,\pi})}{\partial x_{n,k}^{j}}=0$ is continuous at one or more of the optimal Lagrange multipliers for \eqref{eq:lagrangian}.
Let $u^{'-j}(\boldsymbol{.})$
and $f^{'-l}(\boldsymbol{.})$
represent
the inverses of the first derivative of $u^j$ and $\big(u^l(\sum_{m\in\overline{\mathcal{N}}} x_{m,k}^l+x_{n,k}^l)-u^l(\sum_{m\in\overline{\mathcal{N}}} x_{m,k}^l) -D^l(x_{n,k}^l)\big)$, respectively.
$\alpha_{n,k}$, $\beta_{k}^j$, $\zeta_{n}$, $\gamma_{n,k}^{j}$ and $\pi_{n,k}^l$ are the \emph{Lagrange} multipliers whereas:
\begin{align}
\Delta_{n}&=\sum_{\substack{j \in \mathcal{M}_n,\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\Big(u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j+{x}_{n,k}^j)- u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j) \Big)+ \nonumber \\
&\Big(\sum_{\substack{l \in \overline{\mathcal{M}},\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\big( u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l+{x}_{n,k}^l)-u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l)- \nonumber\\
&D^l({x}_{n,k}^l)\big)\Big)-d_n^0
\end{align}
We consider two different cases
\subsubsection{ \textbf{$j \in \mathcal{M}_n$:}$\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial x_{n,k}^{j}}=0$}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:gradLagObj22}
&u^{'j}(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j+x_{n,k}^{j})(1+\Delta_{n}^{}\zeta_{n})-\Delta_{n}^{}(\alpha_{n,k}+\nonumber \\
&\beta_{k}^j-\gamma_{n,k}^{j})=0,\nonumber \\
&\implies u^{'j}(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j+x_{n,k}^{j})=\frac{\Delta_{n}^{}(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^j- \gamma_{n,k}^{j})}{1+\Delta_{n}^{}\zeta_{n}}, \nonumber \\
& x_{n,k}^{j}=u^{'-j}\Bigg(\frac{\Delta_{n}^{}(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^j- \gamma_{n,k}^{j})}{1+\Delta_{n}^{}\zeta_{n}}\Bigg)-\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j.
\end{align}
We prove that \eqref{eq:gradLagObj22} is continuous at the optimal point by showing that the numerator $\Delta_{n}^{}(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^j- \gamma_{n,k}^{j})$ and denominator $1+\Delta_{n}^{}\zeta_{n} $ are positive\footnote{Positive numerator and denominator are required if $u^{'-j}$ is $\log$. For other cases, it will suffice to prove that the denominator is non-zero. }. At the optimal point, the denominator $(1+\Delta_{n}^{*}\zeta^*_{n})$ is positive as $\Delta_{n}^{*}>0$ (from Section \ref{sec:assumption}) and $\zeta^*_{n}=0$ (from complementary slackness). Similarly, in the numerator,
$(\alpha^*_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^{*j}-\gamma_{n,k}^{*j})>0$, as $\alpha_{n,k}^{*}>0$ (from Lemma \ref{lem:constraintsactive}) and $\alpha_{n,k}^{*}+\beta_{k}^{*j}> \gamma_{n,k}^{*j}$ (from \emph{sensitivity analysis} \cite{boyd2004convex}). Hence, \eqref{eq:gradLagObj22} is continuous at the optimal point.
\begin{comment}
As an example, we set
For sake of the proof, we set \\ $u_n^j=1-e^{-(x_{n,k}^j+\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j-r_{n,k}^j+\delta t)}$ where $\bar{r}_{k}^j=r_{k}^j+\delta t$.
\eqref{eq:gradLagObj22} can then be rewritten as:
\begin{align}\label{eq:proof1}
e^{-(x_{n,k}^j+\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j-\bar{r}_{k}^j)}= \frac{\Delta_{n,k}^{j}(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^j- \gamma_{n,k}^{j})}{1+\Delta_{n,k}^{j}\zeta_{n}},\quad\nonumber \\
e^{x_{n,k}^j}= \frac{1+\Delta_{n,k}^{j}\zeta_{n}}{\Delta_{n,k}^{j}(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^j- \gamma_{n,k}^{j}) e^{(\sum_{m \in \mathcal{N}\backslash n}{x}_{m,k}^j-\bar{r}_{k}^j)}},\quad\quad\nonumber \\
x_{n,k}^j=\ln\bigg(\frac{1+\Delta_{n,k}^{j}\zeta_{n}}{\Delta_{n,k}^{j}(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^j- \gamma_{n,k}^{j}) e^{(\sum_{m \in \mathcal{N}\backslash n}{x}_{m,k}^j-\bar{r}_{k}^j)}}\bigg).
\end{align}
where \eqref{eq:proof1} is continuous at the optimal point.
For \eqref{eq:gradLagObj22} to be continuous at the optimal point,
we need
For sake of the proof, we set \\ $u_n^j=1-e^{-(x_{n,k}^j+\sum_{m \in \mathcal{N}\backslash n}{x}_{m,k}^j-r_{n,k}^j+\delta t)}$ where $\bar{r}_{k}^j=r_{k}^j+\delta t$. However, the results hold for any concave injective utility function for which the inverse of the first derivative exists. \eqref{eq:gradLagObj22} can then be rewritten as:
\begin{align}\label{eq:proof1}
e^{-(x_{n,k}^j+\sum_{m \in \mathcal{N}\backslash n}{x}_{m,k}^j-\bar{r}_{k}^j)}= \frac{\Delta_{n,k}^{j}(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^j- \gamma_{n,k}^{j})}{1+\Delta_{n,k}^{j}\zeta_{n}},\quad\nonumber \\
e^{x_{n,k}^j}= \frac{1+\Delta_{n,k}^{j}\zeta_{n}}{\Delta_{n,k}^{j}(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^j- \gamma_{n,k}^{j}) e^{(\sum_{m \in \mathcal{N}\backslash n}{x}_{m,k}^j-\bar{r}_{k}^j)}},\quad\quad\nonumber \\
x_{n,k}^j=\ln\bigg(\frac{1+\Delta_{n,k}^{j}\zeta_{n}}{\Delta_{n,k}^{j}(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^j- \gamma_{n,k}^{j}) e^{(\sum_{m \in \mathcal{N}\backslash n}{x}_{m,k}^j-\bar{r}_{k}^j)}}\bigg).
\end{align}
For continuity, we need both the numerator and denominator inside the $\ln(\boldsymbol{.})$ function of \eqref{eq:proof1} to be positive.
At the optimal point, the numerator $(1+\Delta_{n,k}^{*j}\zeta^*_{n})$ is positive as $\Delta_{n,k}^{*j}>0$ (from Section \ref{sec:assumption}) and $\zeta^*_{n}=0$ (from complementary slackness). Similarly, in the denominator, $\Delta_{n,k}^j$ (from Section \ref{sec:assumption}) and $e^{(\sum_{m \in \mathcal{N}\backslash n}{x}_{m,k}^j-\bar{r}_{n,k}^j)}$ are positive. $(\alpha^*_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^{*j}-\gamma_{n,k}^{*j})>0$, as $\alpha_{n,k}^{*}>0$ (from Lemma \ref{lem:constraintsactive}) and $\alpha_{n,k}^{*}+\beta_{k}^{*j}> \gamma_{n,k}^{*j}$ (from \emph{sensitivity analysis} \cite{boyd2004convex}).
Hence, the price based function in \eqref{eq:proof1} is continuous in at least one optimal Lagrange multiplier vector.
\end{comment}
\\
\subsubsection{\textbf{$l \in \{\mathcal{M}\backslash\mathcal{M}_n\}$:} $\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial x_{n,k}^{l}}=0$}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:gradLagObjcase22}
&f^{'l}(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l+x_{n,k}^{l})(1+\Delta_{n}^{}\zeta_{n}+\Delta_{n}^{}\pi_{n,k}^l)-\Delta_{n}^{}(\alpha_{n,k}+\nonumber \\
&\beta_{k}^l-\gamma_{n,k}^{l})=0,\nonumber \\
&\implies f^{'l}(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l+x_{n,k}^{l})=\frac{\Delta_{n}^{}(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^l-\gamma_{n,k}^{l})}{1+\Delta_{n}^{}\zeta_{n}+\Delta_{n}^{}\pi_{n,k}^j}. \nonumber \\
& x_{n,k}^{l}=f^{'-l}\Bigg(\frac{\Delta_{n}^{}(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^l-\gamma_{n,k}^{l})}{1+\Delta_{n}^{}\zeta_{n}+\Delta_{n}^{}\pi_{n,k}^l}\Bigg)-\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l. \nonumber \\
\end{align}
\begin{comment}
As done earlier, we set $u_n^l=1-e^{-(x_{n,k}^l+\sum_{m \in \mathcal{N}\backslash n}{x}_{m,k}^l-\bar{r}_{k}^l)}$, \\ and $C_n^l=x_{n,k}^l/w_k^l$, where $w_k^l$ is a positive weighting factor to capture the communication cost. Then $ f^{'l}_n(\sum_{m \in \mathcal{N}\backslash n}{x}_{m,k}^l+x_{n,k}^{l})$ can be rewritten as
\begin{align}
\label{eq:fnl}
f^{'l}_n(\boldsymbol{.})= e^{-(x_{n,k}^l+\sum_{m \in \mathcal{N}\backslash n}{x}_{m,k}^l-\bar{r}_{k}^l)}-\frac{1}{w_k^l}
\end{align}
Plugging \eqref{eq:fnl} in \eqref{eq:gradLagObj22} and solving for $x_{n,k}^l$, we obtain
\begin{align}
\label{eq:fnl2}
x_{n,k}^l=\ln \Bigg(\frac{w_k^l(1+\Delta_{n,k}^{l}\zeta_{n})e^{-(\sum_{m \in \mathcal{N}\backslash n}x_{m,k}^l-\bar{r}_{k}^l)}}{w_k^l\Delta_{n,k}^l(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^l-\gamma_{n,k}^{l})+1+\Delta_{n,k}^{l}\zeta_{n}}\Bigg).
\end{align}
\end{comment}
The continuity at optimal point can be established using arguments similar to that for $j \in \mathcal{{M}}_n$ case. The proof of zero-duality gap follows from Theorem \ref{thm:georgesufficient}. Hence, strong duality holds and our proposed distributed algorithm converges to the NBS.
\end{proof}
\begin{comment}
\begin{proof}
We show that the price function obtained by $\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}(\mathbf{X}, \boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta},\boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma})}{\partial x_{n,k}^{j}}=0$ is continuous at one or more of the optimal Lagrange multipliers for \eqref{eq:lagrangian2}. Let $\Delta_{n,k}^{j}=\prod_{t\in \{\mathcal{N}\backslash n\}}\bigg(\sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}_t}u_t^j(\mathbf{x}_t^j)+ \big(\sum_{l \in \{\mathcal{M}\backslash \mathcal{M}_t\}} u_t^l(\mathbf{x}_t^l)-C_n^l(\mathbf{x}_t^l)\big)-d_t^0\bigg)$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textbf{$j \in \mathcal{M}_n$:}$\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial x_{n,k}^{j}}=0$
\begin{align}
\label{eq:gradLagObj22}
u_n^{'j}(x_{n,k}^{j})(\Delta_{n,k}^{j}+\zeta_{n})-(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^j-\gamma_{n,k}^{j})=0,\nonumber \\
\implies u_n^{'j}(x_{n,k}^{j})=\frac{(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^j- \gamma_{n,k}^{j})}{\Delta_{n,k}^{j}+\zeta_{n}}, \nonumber \\
\implies \quad x_{n,k}^{*j}= u_n^{'-j}(\alpha_{n,k}, \beta_{k}^j, \zeta_{n},\gamma_{n,k}^{j},\Delta_{n,k}^{j}).
\end{align}
\item \textbf{$l \in \{\mathcal{M}\backslash\mathcal{M}_n\}$:} $\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial x_{n,k}^{l}}=0$
\begin{align}
\label{eq:gradLagObjcase22}
f^{'l}_n(x_{n,k}^{l})(\Delta_{n,k}^{l}+\zeta_{n})-(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^l-\gamma_{n,k}^{l})=0,\nonumber \\
\implies f^{'l}_n(x_{n,k}^{l})=\frac{(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^l-\gamma_{n,k}^{l})}{\Delta_{n,k}^{l}+\zeta_{n}}, \nonumber \\
\implies \quad x_{n,k}^{*l}= f_{n}^{'-l}(\alpha_{n,k}, \beta_{k}^l,\zeta_{n},\gamma_{n,k}^{l},\Delta_{n,k}^{l}).
\end{align}
\end{enumerate}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:gradLagObj2}
u_n^{'j}(x_{n,k}^{j})(1+\Lambda_{n,k}^{j}\zeta_{n})-\Lambda_{n,k}^{j}(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^j- \gamma_{n,k}^{j})=0,\nonumber \\
\implies u_n^{'j}(x_{n,k}^{j})=\frac{\Lambda_{n,k}^{j}(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^j- \gamma_{n,k}^{j})}{1+\Lambda_{n,k}^{j}\zeta_{n}}, \nonumber \\
\implies \quad x_{n,k}^{*j}= u_n^{'-j}(\alpha_{n,k}, \beta_{k}^j, \zeta_{n},\gamma_{n,k}^{j},\Lambda_{n,k}^{j}).
\end{align}
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
To simplify the proof, we only consider the case in which $j \in \mathcal{M}_n$ below. The proof for the case when $i \in \mathcal{M}\backslash\mathcal{M}_n$ is similar. For illustrative purpose, we use $\bigg(1-e^{-{x_{n,k}^{j}}}\bigg)$
as the utility. However, the results hold true for any concave injective utility function for which inverse of the first derivative exists. \eqref{eq:gradLagObj} is rewritten as:
\begin{align}\label{eq:priceLog}
e^{-{x_{n,k}^{j}}}&=\frac{(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^j- \gamma_{n,k}^{j})}{\Delta_{n,k}^{j}+\zeta_{n}},\nonumber \\
\implies x_{n,k}^{j}&=\ln\bigg(\frac{\Delta_{n,k}^{j}+\zeta_{n}}{(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^j- \gamma_{n,k}^{j})}\bigg).
\end{align}
At the optimal point, the numerator $(\Delta_{n,k}^{*j}+\zeta^*_{n})$ is positive as $\Delta_{n,k}^{*j}>0$ (from Section \ref{sec:assumption}) and $\zeta^*_{n}=0$ (from complementary slackness).
Similarly, $(\alpha^*_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^{*j}-\gamma_{n,k}^{*j})>0$, as $\alpha_{n,k}^{*}>0$ (from Lemma \ref{lem:constraintsactive}) and $\alpha_{n,k}^{*}+\beta_{k}^{*j}> \gamma_{n,k}^{*j}$ (from \emph{sensitivity analysis} \cite{boyd2004convex}).
Hence, the price based function in \eqref{eq:priceLog} is continuous in at least one optimal Lagrange multiplier vector. The proof follows from Theorem \ref{thm:georgesufficient}.
\end{proof}
\end{comment}
For calculating $x_{n,k}^{j}$ at time $t$, we use $\Delta_{n}^{}$ calculated at $t-1$.
Algorithm \ref{algo:primal-dual-alg} is a distributed algorithm that provides the global optimal solution to \eqref{eq:nashProbNplayermod}.
\paragraph{Protocol for Distributed Execution}
All ESPs first broadcast information regarding resource requests from their native applications. Then any randomly chosen ESP starts allocating resources as specified in Step $2$ of Algorithm \ref{algo:primal-dual-alg} and updates the corresponding Lagrangian multipliers. This ESP then passes on the information about its allocation and updated request matrix to the next ESP (that has not yet allocated resources in the current round\footnote{A single round consists of all the ESPs executing Step $2$ of Algorithm \ref{algo:primal-dual-alg} once.}) that repeats the same procedure until all the ESPs allocate their resources. This process continues until the first order conditions given in \cite{ktlagrangian} are met.
\begin{algorithm}
\begin{algorithmic}[]
\State \textbf{Input}: $\forall\; \boldsymbol{\alpha_0,\; \beta_0,\zeta_0,\gamma_0,\pi_0}$, $C, R$, vector of utility function of all ESPs $\boldsymbol{u}$ and $\mathbf{X}_0$
\State \textbf{Output}: The optimal resource allocation $\mathbf{X} $ and payoffs of all ESPs
\State \textbf{Step $0$:} $t=0$, $\boldsymbol \alpha[t]\leftarrow\boldsymbol \alpha_0$, $\boldsymbol\beta[t]\leftarrow\boldsymbol\beta_0$, $\boldsymbol\zeta[t]\leftarrow\boldsymbol\zeta_0$, $\boldsymbol\gamma[t]\leftarrow\boldsymbol\gamma_0$,$\boldsymbol\pi[t]\leftarrow\boldsymbol\pi_0$$, \mathbf{X}[t]\leftarrow \mathbf{X}_0$
\State \textbf{Step $1$:}
\For{\texttt{$n \in \mathcal{N}$}}
\State $ {d_n^0} \leftarrow$ \texttt{Objective function at optimal point in Equation \eqref{eq:opt_single}}
\EndFor
\State \textbf{Step 2: $t\geq 1$}
\While{{First order conditions\cite{ktlagrangian}$\neq$true }
\State Compute $ x_{n,k}^{j}[t+1]$ for $j\in\mathcal{M},$ $k\in\mathcal{K}$ and $n\in\mathcal{N}$ through \eqref{eq:gradLagObj22} and \eqref{eq:gradLagObjcase22};
\State Compute $\boldsymbol\alpha[t+1]$, $\boldsymbol\beta[t+1]$, $\boldsymbol\zeta[t+1]$, $\boldsymbol\gamma[t+1]$ and $\boldsymbol\pi[t+1]$ through~(\ref{eq:iterativeDual}) given $\mathbf{X}[t+1],$ $\boldsymbol\alpha[t]$, $\boldsymbol \beta[t]$, $\boldsymbol \zeta[t]$, $\boldsymbol\gamma[t]$ and $\boldsymbol\pi[t]
\EndWhile
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{Distributed Algorithm for NBS}
\label{algo:primal-dual-alg}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{Multi-Objective Optimization}
For $m$ inequality constraints and $p$ equality constraints, the MOO problem is to identify a vector $\boldsymbol{x}^*=[x_1^*,x_2^*,\cdots ,x_t^*]^T$ that maximizes a vector function
\begin{equation}\label{eq:vectorobjective}
\centering
\bar{f}(\boldsymbol{x})=[f_1(\boldsymbol{x}),f_2(\boldsymbol{x}),\cdots,f_N(\boldsymbol{x})]^T
\end{equation}
subject to
\begin{align}\label{eq:constraints}
\centering
& g_i(\boldsymbol{x})\geq 0, \; i=1,2,\cdots,m, \\
&h_i(\boldsymbol{x})=0\;\; i=1,2,\cdots,p, \nonumber
\end{align}
where $N$ is the total number of objectives, $\boldsymbol{x}=[x_1,x_2,\cdots ,x_t]^T$ is a vector of $t$ decision variables and the feasible set is denoted by $F$.
The fundamental difference from single objective optimization (SOO) is that MOO involves a vector of objective functions rather than a single objective function. This indicates that the solution is not a single point but a \emph{frontier} of solutions known as \emph{Pareto frontier} or \emph{Pareto boundary} (see \cite{cho2017survey} for details). Some basic definitions related to MOO are:
\begin{definition}{Strongly Pareto non-dominated solution\cite{cho2017survey}:}
A feasible solution $x$ is strongly Pareto non-dominated if there is no $y\in F$ such that $f_n(y)\geq f_n(x)$ $\forall n=1,2,\cdots,N$ and $f_n(y)>f_n(x)$ for at least one $n$\footnote{This means that there is no other feasible solution that can improve an objective without worsening at least one other objective.}.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}{Weakly Pareto non-dominated solution\cite{cho2017survey}:}
A feasible solution $x$ is weakly Pareto non-dominated if there is no $y\in F$ such that $f_n(y)>f_n(x)$ $\forall n=1,2,\cdots,N.$
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}{Pareto Optimality\cite{cho2017survey}:}
For any maximization problem, $\boldsymbol{x}^*$ is $Pareto\; optimal$ if the following holds for every $\boldsymbol{x} \in F$
\begin{align}\label{eq:paretoptimality}
\bar{f}(\boldsymbol{x}^*)\geq\bar{f}(\boldsymbol{x})
\end{align}
where $\bar{f}(\boldsymbol{x})=[f_1(\boldsymbol{x}),f_2(\boldsymbol{x}),\cdots,f_k(\boldsymbol{x})]^T$ and
$\bar{f}(\boldsymbol{x}^*)=[f_1(\boldsymbol{x}^*),f_2(\boldsymbol{x}^*),\cdots,f_k(\boldsymbol{x}^*)]^T$.
\end{definition}
\subsection{Bargaining Theory}
In a \emph{bargaining situation}, two or more players (service providers) can benefit by reaching an agreement. However, players can have conflicting interests regarding the terms of the agreement. \emph{Bargaining theory} deals with studying such bargaining situations arising in a number of problems. In resource allocation problem, resource providers are interested in maximizing their utility (pay-off) by satisfying the requests of different applications.
Below we discuss one of the most widely used bargaining solutions, i.e., \emph{Nash Bargaining Solution} as it guarantees the Pareto optimality \cite{khan2009cooperative}.
\end{comment}
We use a two-player game as a toy example to introduce NBS. Consider two players $1,$ and $2$ that need to reach an agreement (e.g., resource allocation decision) in an outcome space $\mathcal{A}\subseteq \mathbb{R}^2$ \cite{han2012game}. Both players have a utility given by $u_1$ and $u_2$ over the space $\mathcal{A} \cup \{D\}$ where $D$ specifies a \emph{disagreement outcome} for players in the event of a disagreement, i.e., when two players cannot reach an agreement. Let $\mathcal{S}$ be the set of all possible utilities that both players can achieve:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:possibleut}
\mathcal{S}= \{(u_1(a_1),u_2(a_2)) | (a_1,a_2) \in \mathcal{A} \}
\end{align}
We also define $d=(d_1, d_2)$, where $d_1=u_1(D)$ and $d_2=u_2(D)$, as the payoff each player receives at the disagreement point. We define the bargaining problem as the pair $(\mathcal{S},d)$ where $\mathcal{S} \subset \mathbb{R}^2$ and $d \in \mathcal{S}$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathcal{S}$ is a convex and compact set;
\item There exists $s \in \mathcal{S}$ such that $s > d$.
\end{itemize}
In NBS, the goal is to obtain a function $f(\mathcal{S},d)$ that provides a unique outcome in $ \mathcal{S}$ for every bargaining problem $(\mathcal{S},d)$. Nash studied the possible outcomes (agreements) that players can reach whereas the agreements, along with the Pareto optimality, must also satisfy the following set of axioms (also called \emph{fairness} axioms) \cite{han2012game}:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textbf{Symmetry:} The bargaining solution will not discriminate among players if players are indistinguishable, i.e., players have identical utilities.
\item \textbf{Invariance to equivalent utility representation:} If a bargaining problem $(\mathcal{S},d)$ is transformed into another bargaining problem $(\mathcal{S}',d')$ where $s_i'=\gamma_is_i+\zeta_i$ and $d_i'=\gamma_id_i+\zeta_i$, $\gamma_i >0$, then $f( \mathcal{S}',d')=\gamma_if(\mathcal{S},d)+\zeta_i$
\item \textbf{Independence of irrelevant alternatives:} For any two bargaining problems $(\mathcal{S},d)$ and $(\mathcal{S}',d)$ where $\mathcal{S}'\subseteq \mathcal{S}$, if $f(\mathcal{S},d) \in \mathcal{S}'$, then $f(\mathcal{S}',d)=f(\mathcal{S},d)$.
\end{enumerate}
\cite{nash1950bargaining} shows that there is a unique bargaining solution that satisfies above axioms. We present it in the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}{\cite{han2012game}}
There exists a unique solution satisfying the aforementioned axioms and this solution is the pair of utilities $(s_1^*,s_2^*) \in \mathcal{S}$ that solves the following optimization problem:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:nashProb}
\max_{s_1,s_2}\;(s_1-d_1)(s_2-d_2),\; s.t. (s_1,s_2)\in \mathcal{S}, \; (s_1,s_2)\geq (d_1,d_2).
\end{align}\
\end{theorem}
The solution of \eqref{eq:nashProb} is the NBS.
The above framework can be extended to $N$ players by allowing $\mathcal{S}$ to be an $N$-dimensional space \cite{harsanyi1963simplified}. For this case, the bargaining problem $(\mathcal{S},d)$, with $d=(d_1,d_2,\cdots, d_N)$ as the disagreement point, becomes the unique solution of the optimization problem below.
\begin{align}\vspace{-0.1in}
\label{eq:nashProbNplayer}
\max_{s_1,\cdots,s_N}&\;\prod_{n=1}^{N}(s_n-d_n),\; \nonumber \\
s.t.\quad &(s_1,\cdots,s_N)\in \mathcal{S}, \nonumber \\
& (s_1,\cdots,s_N)\geq (d_1,\cdots, d_N).
\end{align}
Solving \eqref{eq:nashProb} is easier compared to the $N-$player bargaining problem in \eqref{eq:nashProbNplayer}\cite{han2012game}.
In this paper, we transform our problem into an equivalent convex problem that is comparatively easier to solve.
\begin{remark}
As each player in an $N$-player bargaining game has a particular objective to optimize, the resulting problem is multi-objective, where the goal is to obtain a Pareto optimal solution. NBS is a fair and Pareto optimal solution for such MOO problems, provided that the fairness axioms are satisfied.
\end{remark
\begin{comment}
\subsection{Cooperative Game Theory}
Cooperative game theory is the set of analytical tools that assists in understanding the behavior of rational players in a cooperative setting \cite{han2012game}. Players can have agreements among themselves that affects the strategies as well as obtained utilities of the players. Cooperative games are primarily of two types: bargaining theory and coalition games. Bargaining theory deals with the bargaining process that arise among the players while joining an agreement while coalition games deals with the formation of the coalitions among cooperating players. Formally
\begin{definition}{Coalition Games \cite{han2012game}:}
Any coalition game can be represented by the pair $(\mathcal{N},v)$ where $\mathcal{N}$ is the set of players that play the game, while $v$ is the mapping function that determines the utilities or payoffs the players in $\mathcal{N}$ receive.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}{Characteristic form Coalition Games: \cite{han2012game}:}
Any coalition game is said to be of \emph{characteristic} form where the value of coalition $S \subseteq \mathcal{N}$ depends only on the members of coalition.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}{Transferable Utility (TU):}
If the total utility of any coalition can be divided in any manner among the game players, then the game has a \emph{transferable} utility.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}{Characteristic function:}
The characteristic function for any coalitional game with TU is a mapping $v: 2^{\mathcal{N}} \mapsto \mathbb{R}$ with $v(\emptyset)=0$
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}{Superadditivity of TU games:}
A canonical game with TU is said to be superadditive if the following property is satisfied.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:superadditivity}
v(S_1 \cup S_2 )\geq v(S_1)+V(S_2) \; \forall S_1 \subset \mathcal{N}, S_2 \subset \mathcal{N}, s.t. S_1\cap S_2 =\emptyset
\end{equation}
i.e., formation of large coalitions is always desired and the players do not lose any utility by joining the coalition.
\end{definition}
\subsubsection{Canonical Game}
A coalition game is canonical if
\begin{itemize}
\item It is in characteristic form
\item It is superadditive
\end{itemize}
The \emph{core} and Shapley value are widely used concepts for dealing with Canonical games as discussed below.
\subsection{Core}
Before we present details of core, we first define some terms \cite{han2012game}
\begin{definition}[Group Rational]
A payoff vector $\textbf{x}\in \mathbb{R}^\mathcal{N}$ for dividing $v(\mathcal{N})$ is group-rational if $\sum_{n \in \mathcal{N}}x_n=v(\mathcal{N})$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[Individual Rational]
A payoff vector $\textbf{x}\in \mathbb{R}^\mathcal{N}$ is individually-rational if every player can obtain a benefit no less than acting alone, i.e., $x_n \geq v(\{n\}), \forall n\in \mathcal{N}$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[Imputation]
A payoff vector that is both individual and group rational is known as an imputation.
\end{definition}
Based on the above definitions, we can now define the core of a TU canonical coalition game
\begin{definition}[Core]
For any TU canonical game $(\mathcal{N},v)$, the core is the set of imputations in which no coalition $S\subset\mathcal{N}$ has any incentive to reject the proposed payoff allocation and deviate from the grand coalition to form a coalition $S$ instead. This can be mathematically expressed as
\begin{align}\label{eq:coreTU}
\mathcal{C}_{TU}=\bigg \{ \mathbf{x}: \sum_{n \in \mathcal{N}}x_n=v(\mathcal{N}) \; and \; \sum_{i \in S} x_i \geq v(S)\; \forall\; S\subseteq \mathcal{N}\bigg\}
\end{align}
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
Any payoff allocation from the core is Pareto-optimal as evident from definition of the core. Furthermore, the grand coalition formed is stable
\end{remark}
However, the core is not always guaranteed to exist. Even if the core exists, it might be too large so finding a suitable allocation from the core is not easy. Furthermore, as seen from the definition, the allocation from the core might not always be fair to all the players.
\subsection{Shapley Value}
\emph{Shapley value} \cite{shapley1988value} can be used to address the aforementioned shortcomings of the core. For the characteristic function $v$ (the characteristic function is also called the game \cite{han2012game}), Shapley proposed an allocation $\phi_n(v)$ that satisfies the following axioms \cite{la2004game}:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \emph{Efficiency Axiom}: $\sum_{n \in \mathcal{N}}\phi_n(v)=v(\mathcal{N})$. This axiom in essence is the group rationality.
\item \emph{Symmetry Axiom}: If any two players $m$ and $n$ are such that $v(S \cup \{n\})=v(S \cup \{m\})$, then for every coalition $S\backslash(m,n)$, $\phi_n(v)=\phi_m(v)$. This axiom indicates that if any two players/domains have similar contributions in a coalition then their assigned payoffs must be same as well.
\item \emph{Dummy Axion}: If any player $n$ is such that $v(S)=v(S \cup \{n\})$, then for every coalition $S\backslash n$, $\phi_n (v)=0$. Dummy axiom indicates that players that do not contribute to the value of coalition will not get any payoff.
\item \emph{Additivity Axion}: If $j$ and $k$ are any two games, then $\phi(j+k)=\phi(j)+\phi(k)$. This axiom indicates that $\phi$ is a unique mapping over the space of the coalitional games.
\end{enumerate}
Based on the above axioms, Shapley showed that there exists a unique function $\phi$ defined on all games that satisfies the aforementioned axioms \cite{la2004game}. The function is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:shapleyvalue}
\phi_n(v)=\sum_{S\subseteq \mathcal{N}\backslash n}\frac{|S|! (|\mathcal{N}|-|S|-1)!}{|\mathcal{N}|!}\bigg[ v(S \cup \{n\}) -v(S) \bigg]
\end{equation}
\end{comment}
\subsection{Resource allocation in Edge Computing}
Jiao et al. \cite{jiao2018social} propose an auction-based resource allocation scheme for edge service providers that provide resources for blockchains. The proposed mechanism maximizes the social welfare and guarantees truthfulness, computational efficiency and individual rationality. He et al. \cite{he2018s} analyze the optimal provisioning of shareable and non-shareable edge resources to different applications.
Plachy et al. \cite{plachy2016dynamic} consider the mobility problem in mobile edge clouds and propose a novel algorithm for selecting communication path and VM placement. The proposed approach relies on predicting user movement that helps in VM placement and accordingly selecting the communication path. Nishio et al. \cite{nishio2013service} propose a resource sharing architecture for mobile clouds that relies on service-oriented utility functions and is closest to our work. However, they primarily consider service latency and rely on a centralized framework whereas we present a distributed framework that requires a specific utility function that can be used to model different metrics such as latency, delay, and numerous other objectives. In \cite{zafari2020let}, we modeled resource sharing among mobile edge clouds as a cooperative game. However, the MOO problem in \cite{zafari2020let} is non-convex that is hard to solve compared to the convex problem solved here. Furthermore, the cooperative game based framework lacks the fairness guaranteed by NBS.
Furthermore, in contrast with \cite{jiao2018social,plachy2016dynamic} and \cite{he2018s} that primarily consider resource allocation, our proposed framework deals with resource sharing among ESPs with different objectives.
\subsection{NBS based Resource Allocation}
Yaiche et al. \cite{yaiche2000game} use NBS to allocate bandwidth for elastic services in high speed networks.
Xu et al. \cite{xu2012general} consider the fairness criteria when allocating resources to different cloud users and make use of the NBS to guarantee fairness. Using dual composition and sub-gradient method, the authors also develop a distributed algorithm. Hassan et al. \cite{hassan2014virtual} propose an NBS-based model for cost-effective and dynamic VM allocation with multimedia traffic, and show that it can reduce the cost of running different servers along with maximizing resource utilization and satisfying the QoS requirements. He et al. \cite{he2013toward} study the optimal deployment of content in a cloud assisted video distribution system.
Feng et al. \cite{feng2012bargaining} use NBS for Virtual Machine (VM) migration to maximize the resource utilization in a video streaming data center.
\par
In contrast with \cite{yaiche2000game, feng2012bargaining, guo2013cooperative,he2013toward,hassan2014virtual}, to the best of our knowledge, our framework is first of its kind that uses NBS for resource sharing among ESPs with different utilities (objective functions). We show that resource sharing can improve utilities of ESPs and enhance application satisfaction.
Furthermore, for a particular class of utilities, we have proved that distributed algorithm exists for obtaining NBS for the resource sharing and allocation problem. Table \ref{tab:comparison} summarizes some other solutions proposed in the literature that use NBS for resource allocation in different systems. Other distributed algorithms proposed in literature either rely on dual decomposition \cite{xu2012general} or gradient projection \cite{yaiche2000game,guo2013cooperative}. However, most of the functions are not dual decomposable and gradient projection is a computationally expensive approach \cite{bertsekas1997nonlinear}, whereas gradient descent is widely used particularly in machine and deep learning.
\subsection{Game Theoretic Solution}
We first define the characteristic function $v$ for our game that can solve problem in~\eqref{eq:opt_higher}
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\normalsize
\begin{align} \label{eq:payoff_function}
v(\mathcal{N})=\sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in \mathcal{N}$},\;\text{$C_{k}= \sum_{n \in \mathcal{N}}C_{k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} x_{ik}^{(n)}\leq C_{k}^{(n)} \; \forall k \in \mathcal{K}, \; \forall n \in \mathcal{N}$}\\ \text{$\sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}}x_{ik}^{(j)} \leq R^{(n)}_{ik} \; \forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in \mathcal{N}$}}}\bigg(w_n u_n(\mathcal{X})+ \zeta_{n}\sum_{j \in \mathcal{N},j\neq n} u^{n}_j(\mathcal{X})\bigg)
\end{align}
\hrulefill
\vspace*{-4pt}
\end{figure*}
\begin{remark}
The characteristic function in Equation~\eqref{eq:payoff_function} is for the grand coalition $\mathcal{N}$. For any $S \subseteq \mathcal{N}$, the characteristic function will be given by Equation~\eqref{eq:payoff_s_function}
\end{remark}
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\normalsize
\begin{align} \label{eq:payoff_s_function}
v({S})=\sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in {S}$},\; \text{$C_{k}= \sum_{n \in {S}}C_{k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} x_{ik}^{(n)}\leq C_{k}^{(n)} \;\forall k \in \mathcal{K}, \; \forall n \in {S}$}\\ \text{$\sum_{j \in {S}}x_{ik}^{(j)} \leq R^{(n)}_{ik} \; \forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in {S}$}}} \bigg(w_n u_n(\mathcal{X})+\zeta_{n}\sum_{j \in S,j\neq n} u^{n}_j(\mathcal{X})\bigg)
\end{align}
\hrulefill
\vspace*{-4pt}
\end{figure*}
\begin{theorem}
Resource allocation and sharing problem (with multiple objectives) in aforementioned settings can be modeled as a canonical cooperative game with TU.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
To prove this, we need to show that the characteristic function of resource sharing and allocation problem satisfies the following two conditions
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Characteristic form of payoff:} As the utility function in a resource sharing and allocation problem only relies on the domains that are part of the coalition, the game or payoff function is of characteristic form
\item \textbf{Superadditivity:} Super-additivity for TU games requires $v(S_1 \cup S_2 )\geq v(S_1)+V(S_2) \; \forall S_1 \subset \mathcal{N}, S_2 \subset \mathcal{N}, s.t. S_1\cap S_2 =\emptyset$ i.e. we have to prove that the pay-off or utility for a domain in the coalition is as good as domain working alone or in a smaller coalition. Due to monotonicity property of the utility functions used, for all players/domains $n \in \mathcal{N}$, $u_n(X_n^{NC})\leq u_n(X_n^{C})$ as $X_n^{NC}\subset {X_n^{C}}$ \footnote{because $X_n^{C}$ can contain much more elements due to the increase in $C$ in the coalition} where $X_n^{C}$ and $X_n^{NC}$ are the allocation decisions in a cooperative game and independent setting respectively for domain $n$.
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:MOOGame}
A canonical cooperative game $(\mathcal{N}, v)$ with TU can be used to obtain the Pareto-optimal solutions for the multi-objective optimization problem given in \eqref{eq:opt_higher}
\end{lemma}
To prove Lemma \ref{lemma:MOOGame}, we must show that the core is non-empty for our canonical game. To do this, we first show that our game is convex.
\begin{definition}[Convex Games]
A coalition game is said to be convex if and only if for every player $n \in \mathcal{N}$, the marginal contribution of the player is non-decreasing W.R.T set inclusion. Mathematically, for $S_1\subseteq S_2 \subseteq \mathcal{N}\backslash \{n\}$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:convexgames}
v(S_1 \cup \{n\})-v(S_1) \leq v(S_2 \cup \{n\})-v(S_2)
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
\begin{theorem}
Our canonical game is convex
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let us consider two coalition $S_1$ and $S_2$, where $S_1\subseteq S_2 \subseteq \mathcal{N}\backslash\{j\}$ where $j \in \mathcal{N}$. Then we first calculate $v(S_2 \cup \{j\})-v(S_1 \cup \{j\})$ in Equation \eqref{eq:convexityProof}.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\normalsize
\begin{align}\label{eq:convexityProof}
& \sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in {S_2}$},\; \text{$C_{k}= \sum_{n \in {S_2}}C_{k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} x_{ik}^{(n)}\leq C_{k}^{(n)} \; \forall k \in \mathcal{K},\; \forall n \in {S_2}$}\\ \text{$\sum_{j \in {S_2}}x_{ik}^{(j)} \leq R^{(n)}_{ik} \;\forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in {S_2}$}}}\bigg(w_n u_n(\mathcal{X})+ w'_{n}\sum_{k \in {S_2}, k\neq n} u^{j}_k(\mathcal{X})\bigg) + w_j u_j ^{(S_2)}(\mathcal{X}) + \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_2, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{X}) - \nonumber \\
& \Bigg(\sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in {S_1}$},\; \text{$C_{k}= \sum_{n \in {S_1}}C_{k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} x_{ik}^{(n)}\leq C_{k}^{(n)} \; \forall k \in \mathcal{K}, \; \forall n \in {S_1}$} \\ \text{$\sum_{j \in {S_1}}x_{ik}^{(j)} \leq R^{(n)}_{ik} \quad \forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in {S_1}$}}}\bigg(w_n u_n(\mathcal{X})+ w'_{n}\sum_{k \in {S_1}, k \neq n} u^{j}_k(\mathcal{X})\bigg) + w_j u_j ^{(S_1)}(\mathcal{X}) + \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_1, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{X})\nonumber \Bigg)\\
&= \sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in {S_2}\backslash S_1$}, \text{$C_{k}= \sum_{n \in {S_2}\backslash S_1}C_{k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} x_{ik}^{(n)}\leq C_{k}^{(n)} \; \forall k \in \mathcal{K},\; \forall n \in {S_2}\backslash S_1$} \\ \text{$\sum_{j \in {S_2 \backslash S_1}}x_{ik}^{(j)} \leq R^{(n)}_{ik} \quad \forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in {S_2 \backslash S_1}$}}}\bigg(w_n u_n(\mathcal{X})+ w'_{n}\sum_{k \in {\{S_2 \backslash S_1\}}, k \neq n} u^{j}_k(\mathcal{X})\bigg) + w_j u_j ^{(S_2)}(\mathcal{X}) \nonumber \\
& + \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_2, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{X}) - w_j u_j ^{(S_1)}(\mathcal{X}) - \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_1, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{X}) \nonumber \\
& = v(S_2)- v(S_1)+ w_j u_j ^{(S_2)}(\mathcal{X}) + \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_2, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{X}) - w_j u_j ^{(S_1)}(\mathcal{X}) - \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_1, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{X}) \nonumber \\
& \geq v(S_2)- v(S_1)
\end{align}
\hrulefill
\vspace*{4pt}
\end{figure*}
\begin{comment}
\begin{align}\label{eq:convexityProof}
& \sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in {S_2}$} \\ \text{$R_{av,k}= \sum_{n \in {S_2}}R_{av,k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} a_{ik}^{(n)}\leq R_{av,k}^{(n)} \; \forall k \in \mathcal{K},\; \forall n \in {S_2}$}\\ \text{$\sum_{j \in {S_2}}a_{ik}^{(j)} \leq R^{(n)}_{req,ik} \;\forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in {S_2}$}}}\bigg(w_n u_n(\mathcal{A})+ w'_{n}\sum_{k \in {S_2}, k\neq n} u^{j}_k(\mathcal{A})\bigg) + w_j u_j ^{(S_2)}(\mathcal{A}) + \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_2, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{A}) - \nonumber \\
& \Bigg(\sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in {S_1}$} \\ \text{$R_{av,k}= \sum_{n \in {S_1}}R_{av,k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} a_{ik}^{(n)}\leq R_{av,k}^{(n)} \; \forall k \in \mathcal{K}, \; \forall n \in {S_1}$} \\ \text{$\sum_{j \in {S_1}}a_{ik}^{(j)} \leq R^{(n)}_{req,ik} \quad \forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in {S_1}$}}}\bigg(w_n u_n(\mathcal{A})+ w'_{n}\sum_{k \in {S_1}, k \neq n} u^{j}_k(\mathcal{A})\bigg) + w_j u_j ^{(S_1)}(\mathcal{A}) + \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_1, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{A})\nonumber \Bigg)\\
&= \sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in {S_2}\backslash S_1$} \\ \text{$R_{av,k}= \sum_{n \in {S_2}\backslash S_1}R_{av,k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} a_{ik}^{(n)}\leq R_{av,k}^{(n)} \; \forall k \in \mathcal{K},\; \forall n \in {S_2}\backslash S_1$} \\ \text{$\sum_{j \in {S_2 \backslash S_1}}a_{ik}^{(j)} \leq R^{(n)}_{req,ik} \quad \forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in {S_2 \backslash S_1}$}}}\bigg(w_n u_n(\mathcal{A})+ w'_{n}\sum_{k \in {\{S_2 \backslash S_1\}}, k \neq n} u^{j}_k(\mathcal{A})\bigg) + w_j u_j ^{(S_2)}(\mathcal{A}) \nonumber \\
& + \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_2, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{A}) - w_j u_j ^{(S_1)}(\mathcal{A}) - \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_1, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{A}) \nonumber \\
& = v(S_2)- v(S_1)+ w_j u_j ^{(S_2)}(\mathcal{A}) + \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_2, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{A}) - w_j u_j ^{(S_1)}(\mathcal{A}) - \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_1, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{A}) \nonumber \\
& \geq v(S_2)- v(S_1)
\end{align}
\end{comment}
The last inequality in Equation \eqref{eq:convexityProof} follows from the fact that $ w_j u_j ^{(S_2)}(\mathcal{X}) + \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_2, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{X}) - w_j u_j ^{(S_1)}(\mathcal{X}) - \zeta_j\sum_{l \in S_1, l \neq j} u^{j}_{l}(\mathcal{X})\geq 0$ (monotonicity of the utility)
\end{proof}
\begin{comment}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Is the core non-empty?
\item If the core is non-empty and consists of different pay-off allocations, how do we choose any particular pay-off allocation vector?
\end{enumerate}
Below we attempt to answer these questions
\begin{definition}[Balanced Collection] Let $\Omega$ be a collection of different coalitions. $\Omega$ is considered to be a \emph{balanced collection} if we can find non-negative weights $w_S$ for each $S \in \Omega$ such that for every player $n$
\begin{align}\label{eq:balancedcollection}
\sum_{S \in \Omega, S \ni n}w_S =1
\end{align}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[Balanced Game] A game is called balanced if for every balanced collection $\Omega$, the payoff vector $\mathbf{x}$ will be in $V_{\mathcal{N}}$ if $\mathbf{x}_S \in V_S\; \forall S \in \Omega$
\end{definition}
\begin{theorem}[Bondareva-Shapley Theorem]\label{thm:BST}
The core of a game is non-empty if and only if the game is balanced
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}
The core for canonical game with our characteristic function(in Equation~\eqref{eq:payoff_function}) is non-empty
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
From the definition of characteristic functions for TU games (see \cite{han2012game} for details), $v: 2^{\mathcal{N}}$ \textrightarrow $\mathbb{R}$ with $v(\emptyset)=\emptyset$. This means that the total number of coalitions possible for $\mathcal{N}$ players is $2^{|\mathcal{N}|}-1$ (we ignore the empty set). For $\Omega$, the non-negative weights $w_S$ which satisfy the condition for balanced collection in Equation~\eqref{eq:balancedcollection} are given by $\frac{1}{2^{|\mathcal{N}|-1}}$. Hence $\Omega$ is a balanced collection. We also know that $v(S)\subseteq v(\mathcal{N})$ as $v(\mathcal{N})$ is defined over a larger feasible set due to increased amount of available resources. Leveraging the monotonicity property of the utility functions used, we know that any payoff vector $\mathbf{x}$ will be in $V_{\mathcal{N}}$ if $\mathbf{x}_S$\footnote{$\mathbf{x}_S$ is the projection of $\mathbf{x}$ onto the vector space $\mathbb{R}^{|S|}$} $\in V_S\; \forall S \in \Omega$. Hence our canonical game with characteristic function $v$ in Equation~\eqref{eq:payoff_function} is balanced and its core is non-empty (from Theorem \ref{thm:BST})
\end{proof}
\end{comment}
\begin{theorem}
The core of any convex game $(\mathcal{N},v)$ is non-empty and large.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Available in \cite{sharkey1982cooperative}
\end{proof}
While the existence of core i.e., core being non-empty, guarantees the grand coalition is stable, finding a suitable allocation from the core is challenging particularly when the core is large (our game). Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, fairness is also a shortcoming of core based solutions. Shapley value can be used to obtain a fair allocation, however, we first need to show that the Shapley value lies in the core to guarantee that the Shapley value based allocation is stable for the grand coalition.
\begin{theorem}
The Shapley value in Equation~\eqref{eq:shapleyvalue} lies in the core of our canonical game
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Since our canonical game is convex, the Shapley value lies in the core \cite{han2012game} (see \cite{roger1991game} for details)
\end{proof}
We summarize this in the remark below.
\begin{remark}
If a TU game $(\mathcal{N}, v)$ is convex, then the core is non-empty and the Shapley Value lies in the core \cite{garg2013novel}.
\end{remark}
Calculation of Shapley value given in Equation~\eqref{eq:shapleyvalue} is challenging \cite{han2012game}. Since our game is convex, calculating its Shapley value is slightly easier as given below.
\subsubsection{Shapley Value for a Convex Game}
Let $\pi$ denote the permutation of players in our game. Then for any permutation $p$ from the total possible permutations $|\mathcal{N}|!$, one can obtain the initial segments of ordering by \cite{garg2013novel}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:initialsegment}
O_{\pi, r}=\{ n \in \mathcal{N} : \pi(n) \leq r \}, \; r \in \{1, \cdots, N\}
\end{equation}
where $O_{\pi, 0}=\{\}$ and $O_{\pi, |\mathcal{N}|} =\mathcal{N}$. $\pi(n)$ refers to the position of the player $n$ in the permutation $\pi$. The core of any particular ordering $\pi$ can be obtained by solving equations
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:x_i_pi_sol}
x_n^{\pi}(O_{\pi, r}) = v(O_{\pi, r}), \; r \in \{ 1, \cdots, N\}
\end{equation}
The solution to above Equations~\eqref{eq:x_i_pi_sol} will result in a payoff vector $x^{\pi}$ where the elements of the vector are given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:vectorelements}
x_n^{\pi}=v(O_{\pi, \pi(n)})- v(O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1}), \quad \forall n \in \mathcal{N}
\end{equation}
The payoff vectors $x^{\pi}$ represent the extreme points of the core in convex games \cite{garg2013novel}. So if $\prod$ represents the set of all possible permutations of $\mathcal{N}$, the Shapley value of any player $n$ can be calculated as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:shapleyconvex}
\phi_n=\frac{1}{|\mathcal{N}|!}\sum_{\pi \in \prod} x_n^{\pi}
\end{equation}
\begin{comment}
So for our coalition game $(\mathcal{N},v)$, the Shapley value is
\begin{align}
\label{eq:ourshapleyconvex}
\phi_n&=\frac{1}{|\mathcal{N}|!}\sum_{\pi \in \prod} \bigg( \sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)}}$} \\ \text{$R_{av,k}= \sum_{n \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)}}}R_{av,k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} a_{ik}^{(n)}\leq R_{av,k}^{(n)} \;\forall k \in \mathcal{K}, \; \forall n \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)}}$} \\ \text{$$}\text{$\sum_{j \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)}}}a_{ik}^{(j)} \leq R^{(n)}_{req,ik} \;\forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in O_{\pi, \pi(n)}$}}}\bigg(w_n u_n^{(\pi)}(\mathcal{A})+ w'_{n}\sum_{j \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)}}, j \neq n} u^{n,(\pi)}_j(\mathcal{A})\bigg)- \nonumber \\
&\Bigg(\sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1}}$} \\ \text{$R_{av,k}= \sum_{n \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1}}}R_{av,k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} a_{ik}^{(n)}\leq R_{av,k}^{(n)} \; \forall k \in \mathcal{K}, \; \forall n \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1}}$}}}\bigg(w_n u^{(\pi)}_n(\mathcal{A})+ w'_{n}\sum_{j \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1}}, j \neq n} u^{n,(\pi)}_j(\mathcal{A})\bigg)\Bigg) \nonumber \\
&=\frac{1}{|\mathcal{N}|!}\sum_{\pi \in \prod} \bigg( \sum_{\substack{\text{$n \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)}\backslash O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1} }$} \\ \text{$R_{av,k}= \sum_{n \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)}\backslash O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1}}}R_{av,k}^{(n)} $} \\ \text{$\sum_{i} a_{ik}^{(n)}\leq R_{av,k}^{(n)} \;\forall k \in \mathcal{K}, \; \forall n \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)}\backslash O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1}}$} \\ \text{$\sum_{j \in {O_{\pi, \pi(n)}\backslash O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1}}}a_{ik}^{(j)} \leq R^{(n)}_{req,ik} \;\forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}, k \in \mathcal{K}, n \in O_{\pi, \pi(n)}\backslash O_{\pi, \pi(n)-1}$} }}\bigg(w_n u^{(\pi)}_n(\mathcal{A})+ \nonumber \\
& w'_{n}\sum_{j \in \{{O_{\pi, \pi(n)}} \}, j \neq n} u^{n,(\pi)}_j(\mathcal{A}) + w'_{n}\sum_{j \in \{{O_{\pi, \pi(n)}} \}, j \neq n} u^{j,(\pi)}_n(\mathcal{A}) \bigg)\bigg) \nonumber \\
&=\frac{1}{|\mathcal{N}|!}\sum_{\pi \in \prod}\bigg(w_nu^{(\pi)}_n(\mathcal{A})+ w'_{n}\sum_{j \in \{{O_{\pi, \pi(n)}} \}, j \neq n} u^{n,(\pi)}_j(\mathcal{A}) +w'_{n}\sum_{j \in \{{O_{\pi, \pi(n)}} \}, j \neq n} u^{j,(\pi)}_n(\mathcal{A}) \bigg)
\end{align}
where Equation~\eqref{eq:ourshapleyconvex} provides the Shapley value for our convex game. It is evident that our Shapley value depends on the utility of the player $n$, the utility player $n$ achieves by allocating resources to players in $j \in O_{\pi, \pi(n)}, j \neq n $ and the utility player $j \neq n, j \in O_{\pi, \pi(n)}$ achieves by allocating resources to player $n$ in every possible permutation.
\begin{comment}
\begin{algorithm}
\begin{algorithmic}[]
\State \textbf{Input}: $tt$
\State \textbf{Output}: The optimal hit probabilities
\State \textbf{Step $1$:} $t \leftarrow$0, $\boldsymbol{\lambda^{(t)}\leftarrow\lambda_0}$, $\boldsymbol{\mu^{(t)}\leftarrow\mu_0}$
\While{Equation \eqref{eq:gradient1} $\neq$ 0
\State \textbf{Step $2$}:$\boldsymbol{h_{il}^{(p)}[t]} \leftarrow \frac{w_i\beta^{|p|-l}}{\lambda_{l}[t-1]\Bigg(\prod_{\substack{q \neq p,\\ q:l\in\{1,\cdots,|q|\}}}(1-h_{il}^{(q)}[t-1])\Bigg)+\mu_{ip}[t-1]}. $
\State \textbf{Step $3$:} Update $\lambda$ and $\mu$ using \eqref{eq:update}, t $\leftarrow t+1$
\EndWhile
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{Iterative Distributed Algorithm}
\label{algo:alg}
\end{algorithm}
\end{comment}
\begin{remark}\label{rem:shap}
Shapley value calculation for our convex game requires solving at least $2^{N}-1$ optimization problems
\end{remark}
Algorithm \ref{algo:alg1} provides an overview of our proposed approach. We obtain $R, C$ and the utility of all players as $\mathbf{u}$. We initialize each player's utility value ($\mathbf{u}(R,\mathcal{X})$), Shapley value ($\boldsymbol{\phi} $) and resource allocation decision $\mathcal{X}$ to $0$. Then we calculate the Shapley value for the players and assign it to $\mathbf{u}(R,\mathcal{X})$. Finally to obtain $\mathcal{X}$, we take the inverse function of $\mathbf{u}$. As we are using monotone utilities, we know that the inverse of the utilities exist.
\par A fundamental issue with Shapley value is its complexity. As mentioned in Remark \ref{rem:shap}, Shapley value calculation requires solving a large number of optimization problems that is not suitable for a game with larger number of players. Therefore, reducing the complexity of obtaining an allocation from the core is always favorable.
\begin{algorithm}
\begin{algorithmic}[]
\State \textbf{Input}: $R, C,$ and vector of utility functions of all players $\mathbf{u}$
\State \textbf{Output}: $\mathcal{X}$
\State \textbf{Step $1$:} $ \mathbf{u}(R,\mathcal{X}) \leftarrow$0, $ \mathcal{X} \leftarrow$0, $ \boldsymbol{\phi} \leftarrow$0,
\State \textbf{Step $1$:} Calculate Shapley Value $\phi_n$ using Equation \eqref{eq:shapleyconvex} $\forall n \in \mathcal{N}$
\State \textbf{Step $2$:} $ \mathbf{u}(R,\mathcal{X}) \leftarrow \boldsymbol{\phi}$
\State \textbf{Step $3$:} $\mathcal{X}\leftarrow \mathbf{u}^{-1}$
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{Shapley Value based Resource Allocation}
\label{algo:alg1}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{Reducing the Computational Complexity}
To reduce the complexity, we propose a computationally efficient approach in Algorithm 2 that requires solving $2N$ optimization problems i.e. $\mathcal{O}(N)$. The input into the algorithm consists of available resources/capacities, user requirements and the utilities of all game players. The output of the algorithm is $\mathcal{X}$. In Step 1, the utility values of the players, the allocation decision, and two vectors $\boldsymbol{O_1}$ and $\boldsymbol{O_2}$. In Step 2, every player's utility is calculated without any resource sharing i.e. single optimization and the values are stored in the vector $\boldsymbol{O_1}$. Then $C, R$ are updated and we move to Step 4, where we calculated the utilities $u_j^n$'s for all the players with updated $C, R$ and store them in $\boldsymbol{O_2}$.
\begin{algorithm}
\begin{algorithmic}[]
\State \textbf{Input}: $R, C,$ and vector of utility functions of all players $\mathbf{u}$
\State \textbf{Output}: $\mathcal{X}$
\State \textbf{Step $1$:} $ \mathbf{u}(R,\mathcal{X}) \leftarrow$0, $ \mathcal{X} \leftarrow$0, $ \boldsymbol{O_1} \leftarrow$0, $ \boldsymbol{O_2} \leftarrow$0,
\State \textbf{Step $2$:}
\For{\texttt{$n \in \mathcal{N}$}}
\State $ {O_1^n} \leftarrow$ \texttt{Solution of the optimization problem in Equation \eqref{eq:opt_single}}
\EndFor
\State \textbf{Step $3$:} Update $R, C$ based on Step 2
\State \textbf{Step $4$:}
\For{\texttt{$n \in \mathcal{N}$}}
\State $ {O_2^n} \leftarrow$ \texttt{Solution of the optimization problem in Equation \eqref{eq:opt_single_j} with updated C and R}
\State Update C and R
\EndFor
\State \textbf{Step $5$:} $u_n(R,\mathcal{X})\leftarrow O_1^n+O_2^n$ $\forall n \in \mathcal{N}$
\State \textbf{Step $6$:} $\mathcal{X}\leftarrow \mathbf{u}^{-1}$
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{$\mathcal{O}$($N$) algorithm for obtaining Core's allocation}
\label{algo:alg2}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:opt_single_j}
\begin{align}
\max_{\mathcal{X}}\quad& \sum_{j\neq n}u_j^n(\mathcal{X}) \quad \forall n \in \mathcal{N} \label{eq:objsinglej}\\
\text{s.t.}\quad & \sum_{i} x_{ik}^{(n)}\leq C_{k}^{(n)} \quad \forall k \in \mathcal{K}, \quad \forall i \in \mathcal{M}\backslash\mathcal{M}_n, \label{eq:singlefirstj} \displaybreak[0]\\
& x_{ik}^{(n)} \leq R^{(n)}_{ik} \quad \forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}\backslash\mathcal{M}_n, k \in \mathcal{K}, \label{eq:singlesecondj} \displaybreak[1]\\
& x_{ik}^{(n)} \geq 0 \quad \forall\; i\in \mathcal{M}\backslash\mathcal{M}_n, k \in \mathcal{K}, \label{eq:singlethirdj} \displaybreak[2]
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\begin{theorem}
The solution obtained from Algorithm \ref{algo:alg2} lies in the \emph{core}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
To prove the theorem, we need to show that the utilities obtained in Step $5$ of Algorithm \ref{algo:alg2}; a) are individually rational; b) are group rational and c) no players have the incentive to leave the grand coalition and form another another coalition $S \subset \mathcal{N}$.
\paragraph{Individual Rationality} For each player $n \in \mathcal{N}$, the solution $O_1^n$ obtained by solving the optimization problem in Equation \eqref{eq:opt_single} is the utility a player will obtain by working alone i.e. it is $v\{n\}$. The value $O_2^n$ in Step 4 is either zero or positive but cannot be negative due to the nature of utility used i.e.
\begin{align}
u_n(R,\mathcal{X})&=O_1^n+O_2^n \quad \forall n \in \mathcal{N} \nonumber \\
u_n(R,\mathcal{X})&\geq O_1^n \quad \forall n \in \mathcal{N}\nonumber
\end{align}
Hence the solution obtained as a result of Algorithm \ref{algo:alg2} is individually rational.
\paragraph{Group Rationality} The value of the grand coalition $v\{\mathcal{N}\}$ as per Equation \eqref{eq:payoff_function} is the sum of utilities $u_n$'s and $u_j^n$'s. Steps 2, 4 and 5 of Algorithm \ref{algo:alg2} obtain the sum of the utilities as well. Hence the solution obtained as a result of Algorithm \ref{algo:alg2} is group rational rational.
\par Furthermore, due to super-additivity of the game and monotonic non-decreasing nature of the utilities, no players have the incentive to form a smaller coalition. Hence Algorithm \ref{algo:alg2} provides a solution from the core.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Primer on Nash Bargaining Solution (NBS)}\label{sec:prelim}
\input{preli}
\subsection{Proposed Framework}
As mentioned earlier, NBS is a Pareto optimal and fair solution in settings that involve different players (ESPs in our case) where each player has an objective to optimize. Therefore, it can be used to solve our MOO problem in \eqref{eq:opt_higher} as we have different ESPs that need to optimize their objectives and improve their utilities over what they would receive working alone.
We first specify the disagreement point for our bargaining problem. If the ESPs cannot come to an agreement, they can all start working alone. Hence the disagreement point is the solution to the SOO problem given in \eqref{eq:opt_single} for all ESPs. Let us denote the solution to the SOO problem by $d_n^0, \forall\; n \in \mathcal{N}$. In the cooperative setting\footnote{Service providers share resources among each other.}, the utility (represented by $s_n$ in \eqref{eq:nashProbNplayer}) for an ESP $n \in \mathcal{N}$ is given by:
\begin{align}
U= &\sum_{\substack{j \in \mathcal{M}_n,\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\Big(u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j+{x}_{n,k}^j)- u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j) \Big) \nonumber \displaybreak[0] \\
&\hspace*{-0.2in}+\Big(\sum_{\substack{l \in \overline{\mathcal{M}},\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\big( u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l+{x}_{n,k}^l)-u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l)- \displaybreak[1]\nonumber\\
&\hspace*{-0.1in} D^l({x}_{n,k}^l)\big)\Big). \nonumber
\end{align}
Below, we present the centralized NBS algorithm.
\subsubsection{Centralized NBS}
We first present the optimization problem to obtain NBS for our $N-$ESP bargaining game \cite{harsanyi1963simplified} and then present its equivalent problem \cite{yaiche2000game} that is computationally efficient to solve.
\begin{theorem} The NBS for the MOO optimization problem in \eqref{eq:opt_higher} can be obtained by solving the following optimization problem
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:nashProbNplayermod}
\begin{align}
\max_{\mathbf{X}}\;& \prod_{n=1}^{N}\hspace*{-0.05in}\bigg(\sum_{\substack{j \in \mathcal{M}_n,\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\Big(u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j+{x}_{n,k}^j)-u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j) \Big) \nonumber \\
&+\Big(\sum_{\substack{l \in \overline{\mathcal{M}},\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\big( u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l+{x}_{n,k}^l)-u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l)\nonumber\\
&- D^l({x}_{n,k}^l)\big)\Big)-d_n^0
\bigg),\label{eq:objmain} \\
\text{s.t.}\quad & Constraints \; in \; \eqref{eq:obj1}-\eqref{eq:obj4}, \nonumber \\
&\sum_{\substack{j \in \mathcal{M}_n,\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\Big(u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j+{x}_{n,k}^j)-u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j) \Big) \nonumber \\
&+\Big(\sum_{\substack{l \in \overline{\mathcal{M}},\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\big( u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l+{x}_{n,k}^l)-u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l)\nonumber\\
&- D^l({x}_{n,k}^l)\big)\Big)> d_n^0, \quad \forall \; n \in \mathcal{N}.\label{eq:disagreemt}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\end{theorem
\begin{proof}
The feasible set for the above optimization problem is convex and compact, since all constraints are convex and intersection of convex sets is a convex set. Furthermore, based on our assumptions, there exist solutions (allocation and sharing decisions) that provide better utility than the disagreement point $d_n^0, \forall\; n \in \mathcal{N}$. Hence, the solution of the optimization problem in \eqref{eq:nashProbNplayermod} is the NBS.
\end{proof
However, solving \eqref{eq:nashProbNplayermod} is computationally complex and the problem is not always convex. Therefore, there is a need for an efficient method to obtain the NBS.
Toward this goal, we transform the problem \eqref{eq:nashProbNplayermod} into an equivalent problem as proposed in \cite{yaiche2000game}.
\begin{comment}
\begin{theorem}[Problem transformation\cite{yaiche2000game}]
\label{thm:transformation}
Suppose for every player $n \in \mathcal{N}$, $s_n \in \mathcal{S}$ is injective function in the feasible set $\mathcal{F}$ (satisfying all the constraints). Under the assumptions of NBS, let us consider the following
\begin{align}
\label{eq:nashProbN}
\max_{s_1,\cdots,s_N}\;\prod_{n=1}^{N}(s_n-d_n),\; s.t.\; s_n \in \mathcal{F},\; \forall n \in \mathcal{N}
\end{align}\vspace{-0.15in}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:nashProbN2}
\max_{s_1,\cdots,s_N}\;\sum_{n=1}^{N}\ln(s_n-d_n),\; s.t.\; s_n \in \mathcal{F},\; \forall n \in \mathcal{N}
\end{align}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Equation \eqref{eq:nashProbN} has a unique solution and the bargaining solution is just a single point, where as Equation \eqref{eq:nashProbN2} is a convex optimization problem with a unique solution.
\item The optimization problems in Equations \eqref{eq:nashProbN} and \eqref{eq:nashProbN2} are equivalent. Hence, the unique solution of Equation \eqref{eq:nashProbN2} is the NBS.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
The above transformation reduces the complexity and always guarantees an NBS \cite{khan2009cooperative}.
\end{comment}
\begin{corollary
The NBS for \eqref{eq:opt_higher} is obtained by solving the following optimization problem:
\begin{align}\label{eq:objmain2}
\max_{\mathbf{X}}\;& \sum_{n=1}^{N}\ln\bigg(\sum_{\substack{j \in \mathcal{M}_n,\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\Big(u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j+{x}_{n,k}^j)- \nonumber \\
&u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j) \Big) +\Big(\sum_{\substack{l \in \overline{\mathcal{M}},\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\big( u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l+{x}_{n,k}^l)\nonumber\\
&-u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l)- D^l({x}_{n,k}^l)\big)\Big)-d_n^0
\bigg),\\
\text{s.t.}\quad & Constraints \; in \; \eqref{eq:obj1}-\eqref{eq:obj4}, \; \eqref{eq:disagreemt}. \nonumber
\end{align}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
ESP utilities are concave and bounded above. Furthermore, the feasible set along with the set of achievable utilities ($\mathcal{S}$) is convex and compact (due to the nature of utilities and constraints).
Utilities of ESPs are also injective functions of the allocation decision. Hence \eqref{eq:objmain2} is equivalent to \eqref{eq:nashProbNplayermod} \cite{yaiche2000game}. Since the logarithm of any positive real number is concave\cite{boyd2004convex}, \eqref{eq:objmain2} is a convex optimization problem with a unique solution, which is the NBS.
\end{proof}
The centralized Algorithm \ref{algo:centralnbs} provides the allocation decision using NBS.
\begin{algorithm}
\begin{algorithmic}[]
\State \textbf{Input}: $C, R$, and vector of utility functions of all ESPs $\boldsymbol{u}$
\State \textbf{Output}: The optimal resource allocation $\mathbf{X}$ and payoffs of all ESPs
\State \textbf{Step $1$:}
\For{\texttt{$n \in \mathcal{N}$}}
\State $ {d_n^0} \leftarrow$ \texttt{Objective function at optimal point in Equation \eqref{eq:opt_single}}
\EndFor
\State \textbf{Step $2$:} $\mathbf{X} \leftarrow$ \texttt{Solution of the optimization problem in Equation \eqref{eq:objmain2}}
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{Centralized Algorithm for NBS}
\label{algo:centralnbs}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{comment}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:centralsolution}
The solution to the optimization problem in \eqref{eq:objmain2}, provided that the inverse of the first derivative of $u_{n}^j(x_{n,k}^j)$ and $f_n^l=(u_{n}^l(x_{n,k}^l)-C_n^l(x_{n,k}^l))$ exist, is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:solcentral}
x_{n,k}^{*j}= u_n^{'-j}(\alpha_{n,k}, \beta_{k}^j,\zeta_{n},\gamma_{n,k}^{j},\Lambda_{n,k}^{j}), \quad \quad \quad \forall j \in \mathcal{M},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:solcentral2}
x_{n,k}^{*l}= f_n^{'-l}(\alpha_{n,k}, \beta_{k}^l,\zeta_{n},\gamma_{n,k}^{l},\Lambda_{n,k}^{l}), \quad \forall l \in \{\mathcal{M}\backslash\mathcal{{M}}_n\}
\end{equation}
where $u_n^{'-j}(\alpha_{n,k}, \beta_{k}^j,\zeta_{n},\gamma_{n,k}^{j},\Lambda_{n,k}^{j})$ and $f_n^{'-l}(\alpha_{n,k}, \beta_{k}^l,\zeta_{n},\gamma_{n,k}^{l},\Lambda_{n,k}^{l})$ are
the inverse of the first derivative of $u_{n}^j$ and $(u_{n}^l(x_{n,k}^l)-C_n^l(x_{n,k}^l))$, respectively.
$\alpha_{n,k}$, $\beta_{k}^j$, $\zeta_{n}$, and $\gamma_{n,k}^{j}$ are the \emph{Lagrange} multipliers and $\Lambda_{n,k}^{j}=\bigg(\sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}_n}u_n^j(\mathbf{x}_n^j)+ \big(\sum_{l \in \{\mathcal{M}\backslash \mathcal{M}_n\}} u_n^l(\mathbf{x}_n^l)-C_n^l(\mathbf{x}_n^l)\big)-d_n^0\bigg)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The Lagrangian function for \eqref{eq:objmain2} is given in \eqref{eq:lagrangian} on the next page.
Since the Lagrangian function consists of differentiable and continuous functions, we can use gradients to obtain the optimal allocation decision and Lagrangian multipliers.
Depending on the application $j$, we have two cases:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textbf{$j \in \mathcal{M}_n$:}$\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial x_{n,k}^{j}}=0$
\begin{align}
\label{eq:gradLagObj}
u_n^{'j}(x_{n,k}^{j})(1+\Lambda_{n,k}^{j}\zeta_{n})-\Lambda_{n,k}^{j}(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^j-\gamma_{n,k}^{j})=0,\nonumber \\
\implies u_n^{'j}(x_{n,k}^{j})=\frac{\Lambda_{n,k}^{j}(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^j- \gamma_{n,k}^{j})}{1+\Lambda_{n,k}^{j}\zeta_{n}}, \nonumber \\
\implies \quad x_{n,k}^{*j}= u_n^{'-j}(\alpha_{n,k}, \beta_{k}^j, \zeta_{n},\gamma_{n,k}^{j},\Lambda_{n,k}^{j}).
\end{align}
\item \textbf{$l \in \{\mathcal{M}\backslash\mathcal{M}_n\}$:} $\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial x_{n,k}^{l}}=0$
\begin{align}
\label{eq:gradLagObjcase2}
f^{'l}_n(x_{n,k}^{l})(1+\Lambda_{n,k}^{l}\zeta_{n})-\Lambda_{n,k}^{l}(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^l-\gamma_{n,k}^{l})=0,\nonumber \\
\implies f^{'l}_n(x_{n,k}^{l})=\frac{\Lambda_{n,k}^{l}(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^l-\gamma_{n,k}^{l})}{1+\Lambda_{n,k}^{l}\zeta_{n}}, \nonumber \\
\implies \quad x_{n,k}^{*l}= f_{n}^{'-l}(\alpha_{n,k}, \beta_{k}^l,\zeta_{n},\gamma_{n,k}^{l},\Lambda_{n,k}^{l}).
\end{align}
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
In cases where $u_n^{'-j}(\boldsymbol{.})$ and $f_{n}^{'-l}(\boldsymbol{.}) $ do not exist, one should use alternate methods such as {gradient based iterative equation}\cite{tychogiorgos2013non}:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:gradientbasediterative}
x_{n,k}^{j}(t+1)=x_{n,k}^{j}(t)+\epsilon_{n,k}^{j}\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial x_{n,k}^{j}}
\end{align}
where $\epsilon_{n,k}^{j}$ is a positive step size.
\end{comment}
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\normalsize
\begin{align}
\label{eq:lagrangian}
\mathcal{L}(\mathbf{X}, \boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta, \zeta,\gamma,\pi})&=
\sum_{n=1}^{N}\ln\bigg(\sum_{\substack{j \in \mathcal{M}_n,\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\Big(u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j+{x}_{n,k}^j)- u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j) \Big)+\Big(\sum_{\substack{l \in \overline{\mathcal{M}},\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\big( u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l+{x}_{n,k}^l)-\nonumber\\
&\hspace*{-1.3in}\quad u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l)- D^l({x}_{n,k}^l)\big)\Big)-d^0_n\bigg) + \quad \sum_{\substack{n \in \mathcal{N},\\j \in \mathcal{M},\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\gamma_{n,k}^{j}x_{n,k}^{j} +\sum_{\substack{n \in \mathcal{N},\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\alpha_{n,k} (C_{n,k}-\sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}}x_{n,k}^{j}) +\sum_{\substack{j \in \mathcal{M},\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\beta_{k}^j (r_{k}^{j}-\sum_{n \in \mathcal{N}}x_{n,k}^{j}) + \sum_{n \in \mathcal{N}} \zeta_{n} \nonumber \\
& \hspace*{-1.3in}\quad \bigg(\sum_{\substack{j \in \mathcal{M}_n,\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\Big(u_n^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j+{x}_{n,k}^j)- u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j) \Big)+ \quad \Big(\sum_{\substack{l \in \overline{\mathcal{M}},\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\big( u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l+{x}_{n,k}^l)-u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l)-\nonumber\\
&\hspace*{-1.3in}\quad D^l({x}_{n,k}^l)\big)\Big)-d_n^0
\bigg)+\sum_{\substack{n\in \mathcal{{N}},\\l\in \overline{\mathcal{M}},\\k\in\mathcal{K}}}\pi_{n,k}^l \Big(u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l+{x}_{n,k}^l)-
u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l)- D^l({x}_{n,k}^l)\Big).
\end{align}
\hrulefill
\end{figure*}
\section{Distributed algorithm for NBS}\label{sec:dist}
While resource allocation and sharing using a central algorithm is feasible, it is desirable to develop low overhead distributed algorithms.
To obtain a distributed algorithm, we rely on \emph{Duality Theory} and use the \emph{Lagrangian} function in \eqref{eq:lagrangian}.
The dual optimization problem is given by
\begin{align}\label{eq:dualopt}
\min_{\boldsymbol{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\beta},\boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma,\pi}} D(\boldsymbol{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\beta},\boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma,\pi})&= \mathcal{L}\big(\mathbf{X}^{*}(\boldsymbol{\alpha,\beta},\boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma,\pi}),\nonumber \\& \boldsymbol{\alpha,\beta,\zeta,\gamma,\pi} \big), \nonumber \\
\; s.t. \; \boldsymbol{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\beta},\boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma,\pi}\geq 0.
\end{align}
\begin{align}\label{eq:supLag}
\mathbf{X}^{*}(\boldsymbol{\alpha,\beta},\boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma,\pi})= \arg \max_{\mathbf{X}} \mathcal{L}(\mathbf{X},\boldsymbol{\alpha,\beta},\boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma,\pi} ).
\end{align}
The dual problem can be solved iteratively using gradient descent (since the dual problem is a minimization problem) as below:
\begin{align}\label{eq:iterativeDual}
\alpha_{n,k}[t+1] &= \alpha_{n,k}[t]- \phi_{n,k} \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}(\mathbf{X}, \boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta},\boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma,\pi}) }{\partial \alpha_{n,k}}, \nonumber \displaybreak[0] \\
\beta_{k}^j[t+1] &= \beta_{k}^j[t]- \eta_{k}^j \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}(\mathbf{X}, \boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta},\boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma,\pi}) }{\partial \beta_{k}^j}, \nonumber \\
\zeta_{n}[t+1] &= \zeta_{n}[t]- \omega_{n} \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}(\mathbf{X}, \boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta},\boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma,\pi}) }{\partial \zeta_{n}}, \nonumber \displaybreak[0]\\
\gamma_{n,k}^{j}[t+1] &= \gamma_{n,k}^{j}[t]- \theta_{n,k}^{j} \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}(\mathbf{X}, \boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta},\boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma,\pi}) }{\partial \gamma_{n,k}^{j}},\nonumber \\
\pi_{n,k}^{l}[t+1]&=\pi_{n,k}^{l}[t]-\psi_{n,k}^l \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}(\mathbf{X}, \boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta},\boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma,\pi}) }{\partial \pi_{n,k}^{l}},
\end{align}
where $\phi_{n,k}$, $\eta_{k}^j$, $\omega_{n}$, $\theta_{n,k}^{j}$ and $\psi_{n,k}^l$ are positive step sizes. Furthermore, the gradients in \eqref{eq:iterativeDual} are given below
\begin{comment}
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\normalsize
\begin{align}
\label{eq:lagrangian2}
\mathcal{L}(\mathbf{X}_n, \boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta, \zeta,\gamma})&=
\prod_{n=1}^{N}\bigg(\sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}_n}u_n^j(\mathbf{x}_n^j)+ \big(\sum_{l \in \{\mathcal{M}\backslash \mathcal{M}_n\}} u_n^l(\mathbf{x}_n^l)-C_n^l(\mathbf{x}_n^l)\big)-d_n^0\bigg) + \quad \sum_{n \in \mathcal{N}}\sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}}\sum_{k \in \mathcal{K}}\gamma_{n,k}^{j}x_{n,k}^{j} +\nonumber \\
& \quad\sum_{n \in \mathcal{N}}\sum_{k \in \mathcal{K}}\alpha_{n,k} (C_{n,k}-\sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}}x_{n,k}^{j}) + \sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}}\sum_{k \in \mathcal{K}}\beta_{k}^j (r_{k}^{j}-\sum_{n \in \mathcal{N}}x_{n,k}^{j}) + \sum_{n \in \mathcal{N}} \zeta_{n} \bigg(\sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}_n}u_n^j(\mathbf{x}_n^j)+ \nonumber \\
& \big(\sum_{l \in \{\mathcal{M}\backslash \mathcal{M}_n\}} u_n^l(\mathbf{x}_n^l)- C_n^l(\mathbf{x}_n^l)\big)-d_n^0\bigg).
\end{align}
\hrulefill
\end{figure*}
\end{comment}
\begin{align}\label{eq:gradforLagrangieMultipliers}
\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}(\mathbf{X}, \boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta}, \boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma,\pi}) }{\partial \alpha_{n,k}}&= (C_{n,k}-\sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}}x_{n,k}^{j}),\nonumber \\
\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}(\mathbf{X}, \boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta}, \boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma,\pi}) }{\partial \beta_{k}^j} &= (r_{k}^{j}-\sum_{n \in \mathcal{N}}x_{n,k}^{j}),\nonumber \\
\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}(\mathbf{X}, \boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta},\boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma,\pi}) }{\partial \zeta_{n}} &=\bigg(\sum_{\substack{j \in \mathcal{M}_n,\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\Big(u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j+{x}_{n,k}^j)- \nonumber \\
&\hspace*{-1.2in}u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j) \Big)+\Big(\sum_{\substack{l \in \overline{\mathcal{M}},\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\big( u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l+{x}_{n,k}^l)-\nonumber\\
&\hspace*{-1.2in}u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l)- D^l({x}_{n,k}^l)\big)\Big)-d_n^0
\bigg)
, \nonumber \\
\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}(\mathbf{X}, \boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta},\boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma,\pi}) }{\partial \gamma_{n,k}^{j}} &= x_{n,k}^{j},\nonumber\\
\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}(\mathbf{X}, \boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta},\boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma,\pi}) }{\partial \pi_{n,k}^{l}} &=\Big(u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l+{x}_{n,k}^l)-\nonumber \\
&\hspace*{-1.2in}
u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l)- D^l({x}_{n,k}^l)\Big).
\end{align}
Unless certain conditions such as Slater's constraint qualification are satisfied, \emph{strong duality}\footnote{Strong duality implies that there is no duality gap between the primal and dual problem.} is not guaranteed to hold for our primal and dual problems \cite{boyd2004convex}. However, we rely on the following theorems to show that strong duality holds.
\begin{theorem}[Sufficient Condition\cite{tychogiorgos2013non}]\label{thm:georgesufficient}
If the price based function $\mathbf{X}^*(\boldsymbol{\alpha,\beta},\boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma,\pi})$ is continuous at one or more of the optimal Lagrange multipliers, the iterative algorithm consisting of \eqref{eq:supLag} and \eqref{eq:iterativeDual} will converge to the global optimal solution.
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}[Necessary Condition\cite{tychogiorgos2013non}]\label{thm:georgenecessary}
The condition in Theorem \ref{thm:georgesufficient} is also necessary if at least one of the constraints in \eqref{eq:objmain2} is active (binding) at the optimal solution.
\end{theorem}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:constraintsactive}
At the optimal solution, the optimal Lagrange multiplier vector corresponding to the capacity constraint is non-zero, i.e., $\boldsymbol{\alpha_k^{*}}>0$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
At the optimal point, all resources are fully utilized, i.e., capacity constraints are active. From \emph{complementary slackness}\cite{boyd2004convex}, we know that
\begin{align}\label{eq:compslackness}
\alpha^*_{n,k}\bigg(\sum_{j\in \mathcal{M}} x_{n,k}^{*j}- C_{n,k}\bigg)=0, \forall n \in \mathcal{N}.
\end{align}
Since $\sum_{j\in \mathcal{M}} x_{n,k}^{*j}= C_{n,k}$, i.e., the constraint is active, which implies that $\boldsymbol{\alpha_k^{*}} >0$.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:duality}
For any concave injective utility function for which the inverse of the first derivative exists, the iterative distributed algorithm consisting of \eqref{eq:supLag} and \eqref{eq:iterativeDual} converges to the global optimal solution
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We show that the price function obtained by $\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}(\mathbf{X}, \boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta},\boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma,\pi})}{\partial x_{n,k}^{j}}=0$ is continuous at one or more of the optimal Lagrange multipliers for \eqref{eq:lagrangian}.
Let $u^{'-j}(\boldsymbol{.})$
and $f^{'-l}(\boldsymbol{.})$
represent
the inverses of the first derivative of $u^j$ and $\big(u^l(\sum_{m\in\overline{\mathcal{N}}} x_{m,k}^l+x_{n,k}^l)-u^l(\sum_{m\in\overline{\mathcal{N}}} x_{m,k}^l) -D^l(x_{n,k}^l)\big)$, respectively.
$\alpha_{n,k}$, $\beta_{k}^j$, $\zeta_{n}$, $\gamma_{n,k}^{j}$ and $\pi_{n,k}^l$ are the \emph{Lagrange} multipliers whereas:
\begin{align}
\Delta_{n}&=\sum_{\substack{j \in \mathcal{M}_n,\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\Big(u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j+{x}_{n,k}^j)- u^j(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j) \Big)+ \nonumber \\
&\Big(\sum_{\substack{l \in \overline{\mathcal{M}},\\k \in \mathcal{K}}}\big( u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l+{x}_{n,k}^l)-u^l(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l)- \nonumber\\
&D^l({x}_{n,k}^l)\big)\Big)-d_n^0
\end{align}
We consider two different cases
\subsubsection{ \textbf{$j \in \mathcal{M}_n$:}$\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial x_{n,k}^{j}}=0$}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:gradLagObj22}
&u^{'j}(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j+x_{n,k}^{j})(1+\Delta_{n}^{}\zeta_{n})-\Delta_{n}^{}(\alpha_{n,k}+\nonumber \\
&\beta_{k}^j-\gamma_{n,k}^{j})=0,\nonumber \\
&\implies u^{'j}(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j+x_{n,k}^{j})=\frac{\Delta_{n}^{}(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^j- \gamma_{n,k}^{j})}{1+\Delta_{n}^{}\zeta_{n}}, \nonumber \\
& x_{n,k}^{j}=u^{'-j}\Bigg(\frac{\Delta_{n}^{}(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^j- \gamma_{n,k}^{j})}{1+\Delta_{n}^{}\zeta_{n}}\Bigg)-\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j.
\end{align}
We prove that \eqref{eq:gradLagObj22} is continuous at the optimal point by showing that the numerator $\Delta_{n}^{}(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^j- \gamma_{n,k}^{j})$ and denominator $1+\Delta_{n}^{}\zeta_{n} $ are positive\footnote{Positive numerator and denominator are required if $u^{'-j}$ is $\log$. For other cases, it will suffice to prove that the denominator is non-zero. }. At the optimal point, the denominator $(1+\Delta_{n}^{*}\zeta^*_{n})$ is positive as $\Delta_{n}^{*}>0$ (from Section \ref{sec:assumption}) and $\zeta^*_{n}=0$ (from complementary slackness). Similarly, in the numerator,
$(\alpha^*_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^{*j}-\gamma_{n,k}^{*j})>0$, as $\alpha_{n,k}^{*}>0$ (from Lemma \ref{lem:constraintsactive}) and $\alpha_{n,k}^{*}+\beta_{k}^{*j}> \gamma_{n,k}^{*j}$ (from \emph{sensitivity analysis} \cite{boyd2004convex}). Hence, \eqref{eq:gradLagObj22} is continuous at the optimal point.
\begin{comment}
As an example, we set
For sake of the proof, we set \\ $u_n^j=1-e^{-(x_{n,k}^j+\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j-r_{n,k}^j+\delta t)}$ where $\bar{r}_{k}^j=r_{k}^j+\delta t$.
\eqref{eq:gradLagObj22} can then be rewritten as:
\begin{align}\label{eq:proof1}
e^{-(x_{n,k}^j+\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^j-\bar{r}_{k}^j)}= \frac{\Delta_{n,k}^{j}(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^j- \gamma_{n,k}^{j})}{1+\Delta_{n,k}^{j}\zeta_{n}},\quad\nonumber \\
e^{x_{n,k}^j}= \frac{1+\Delta_{n,k}^{j}\zeta_{n}}{\Delta_{n,k}^{j}(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^j- \gamma_{n,k}^{j}) e^{(\sum_{m \in \mathcal{N}\backslash n}{x}_{m,k}^j-\bar{r}_{k}^j)}},\quad\quad\nonumber \\
x_{n,k}^j=\ln\bigg(\frac{1+\Delta_{n,k}^{j}\zeta_{n}}{\Delta_{n,k}^{j}(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^j- \gamma_{n,k}^{j}) e^{(\sum_{m \in \mathcal{N}\backslash n}{x}_{m,k}^j-\bar{r}_{k}^j)}}\bigg).
\end{align}
where \eqref{eq:proof1} is continuous at the optimal point.
For \eqref{eq:gradLagObj22} to be continuous at the optimal point,
we need
For sake of the proof, we set \\ $u_n^j=1-e^{-(x_{n,k}^j+\sum_{m \in \mathcal{N}\backslash n}{x}_{m,k}^j-r_{n,k}^j+\delta t)}$ where $\bar{r}_{k}^j=r_{k}^j+\delta t$. However, the results hold for any concave injective utility function for which the inverse of the first derivative exists. \eqref{eq:gradLagObj22} can then be rewritten as:
\begin{align}\label{eq:proof1}
e^{-(x_{n,k}^j+\sum_{m \in \mathcal{N}\backslash n}{x}_{m,k}^j-\bar{r}_{k}^j)}= \frac{\Delta_{n,k}^{j}(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^j- \gamma_{n,k}^{j})}{1+\Delta_{n,k}^{j}\zeta_{n}},\quad\nonumber \\
e^{x_{n,k}^j}= \frac{1+\Delta_{n,k}^{j}\zeta_{n}}{\Delta_{n,k}^{j}(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^j- \gamma_{n,k}^{j}) e^{(\sum_{m \in \mathcal{N}\backslash n}{x}_{m,k}^j-\bar{r}_{k}^j)}},\quad\quad\nonumber \\
x_{n,k}^j=\ln\bigg(\frac{1+\Delta_{n,k}^{j}\zeta_{n}}{\Delta_{n,k}^{j}(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^j- \gamma_{n,k}^{j}) e^{(\sum_{m \in \mathcal{N}\backslash n}{x}_{m,k}^j-\bar{r}_{k}^j)}}\bigg).
\end{align}
For continuity, we need both the numerator and denominator inside the $\ln(\boldsymbol{.})$ function of \eqref{eq:proof1} to be positive.
At the optimal point, the numerator $(1+\Delta_{n,k}^{*j}\zeta^*_{n})$ is positive as $\Delta_{n,k}^{*j}>0$ (from Section \ref{sec:assumption}) and $\zeta^*_{n}=0$ (from complementary slackness). Similarly, in the denominator, $\Delta_{n,k}^j$ (from Section \ref{sec:assumption}) and $e^{(\sum_{m \in \mathcal{N}\backslash n}{x}_{m,k}^j-\bar{r}_{n,k}^j)}$ are positive. $(\alpha^*_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^{*j}-\gamma_{n,k}^{*j})>0$, as $\alpha_{n,k}^{*}>0$ (from Lemma \ref{lem:constraintsactive}) and $\alpha_{n,k}^{*}+\beta_{k}^{*j}> \gamma_{n,k}^{*j}$ (from \emph{sensitivity analysis} \cite{boyd2004convex}).
Hence, the price based function in \eqref{eq:proof1} is continuous in at least one optimal Lagrange multiplier vector.
\end{comment}
\\
\subsubsection{\textbf{$l \in \{\mathcal{M}\backslash\mathcal{M}_n\}$:} $\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial x_{n,k}^{l}}=0$}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:gradLagObjcase22}
&f^{'l}(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l+x_{n,k}^{l})(1+\Delta_{n}^{}\zeta_{n}+\Delta_{n}^{}\pi_{n,k}^l)-\Delta_{n}^{}(\alpha_{n,k}+\nonumber \\
&\beta_{k}^l-\gamma_{n,k}^{l})=0,\nonumber \\
&\implies f^{'l}(\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l+x_{n,k}^{l})=\frac{\Delta_{n}^{}(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^l-\gamma_{n,k}^{l})}{1+\Delta_{n}^{}\zeta_{n}+\Delta_{n}^{}\pi_{n,k}^j}. \nonumber \\
& x_{n,k}^{l}=f^{'-l}\Bigg(\frac{\Delta_{n}^{}(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^l-\gamma_{n,k}^{l})}{1+\Delta_{n}^{}\zeta_{n}+\Delta_{n}^{}\pi_{n,k}^l}\Bigg)-\sum_{m \in \overline{\mathcal{N}}}{x}_{m,k}^l. \nonumber \\
\end{align}
\begin{comment}
As done earlier, we set $u_n^l=1-e^{-(x_{n,k}^l+\sum_{m \in \mathcal{N}\backslash n}{x}_{m,k}^l-\bar{r}_{k}^l)}$, \\ and $C_n^l=x_{n,k}^l/w_k^l$, where $w_k^l$ is a positive weighting factor to capture the communication cost. Then $ f^{'l}_n(\sum_{m \in \mathcal{N}\backslash n}{x}_{m,k}^l+x_{n,k}^{l})$ can be rewritten as
\begin{align}
\label{eq:fnl}
f^{'l}_n(\boldsymbol{.})= e^{-(x_{n,k}^l+\sum_{m \in \mathcal{N}\backslash n}{x}_{m,k}^l-\bar{r}_{k}^l)}-\frac{1}{w_k^l}
\end{align}
Plugging \eqref{eq:fnl} in \eqref{eq:gradLagObj22} and solving for $x_{n,k}^l$, we obtain
\begin{align}
\label{eq:fnl2}
x_{n,k}^l=\ln \Bigg(\frac{w_k^l(1+\Delta_{n,k}^{l}\zeta_{n})e^{-(\sum_{m \in \mathcal{N}\backslash n}x_{m,k}^l-\bar{r}_{k}^l)}}{w_k^l\Delta_{n,k}^l(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^l-\gamma_{n,k}^{l})+1+\Delta_{n,k}^{l}\zeta_{n}}\Bigg).
\end{align}
\end{comment}
The continuity at optimal point can be established using arguments similar to that for $j \in \mathcal{{M}}_n$ case. The proof of zero-duality gap follows from Theorem \ref{thm:georgesufficient}. Hence, strong duality holds and our proposed distributed algorithm converges to the NBS.
\end{proof}
\begin{comment}
\begin{proof}
We show that the price function obtained by $\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}(\mathbf{X}, \boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta},\boldsymbol{\zeta,\gamma})}{\partial x_{n,k}^{j}}=0$ is continuous at one or more of the optimal Lagrange multipliers for \eqref{eq:lagrangian2}. Let $\Delta_{n,k}^{j}=\prod_{t\in \{\mathcal{N}\backslash n\}}\bigg(\sum_{j \in \mathcal{M}_t}u_t^j(\mathbf{x}_t^j)+ \big(\sum_{l \in \{\mathcal{M}\backslash \mathcal{M}_t\}} u_t^l(\mathbf{x}_t^l)-C_n^l(\mathbf{x}_t^l)\big)-d_t^0\bigg)$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textbf{$j \in \mathcal{M}_n$:}$\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial x_{n,k}^{j}}=0$
\begin{align}
\label{eq:gradLagObj22}
u_n^{'j}(x_{n,k}^{j})(\Delta_{n,k}^{j}+\zeta_{n})-(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^j-\gamma_{n,k}^{j})=0,\nonumber \\
\implies u_n^{'j}(x_{n,k}^{j})=\frac{(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^j- \gamma_{n,k}^{j})}{\Delta_{n,k}^{j}+\zeta_{n}}, \nonumber \\
\implies \quad x_{n,k}^{*j}= u_n^{'-j}(\alpha_{n,k}, \beta_{k}^j, \zeta_{n},\gamma_{n,k}^{j},\Delta_{n,k}^{j}).
\end{align}
\item \textbf{$l \in \{\mathcal{M}\backslash\mathcal{M}_n\}$:} $\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial x_{n,k}^{l}}=0$
\begin{align}
\label{eq:gradLagObjcase22}
f^{'l}_n(x_{n,k}^{l})(\Delta_{n,k}^{l}+\zeta_{n})-(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^l-\gamma_{n,k}^{l})=0,\nonumber \\
\implies f^{'l}_n(x_{n,k}^{l})=\frac{(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^l-\gamma_{n,k}^{l})}{\Delta_{n,k}^{l}+\zeta_{n}}, \nonumber \\
\implies \quad x_{n,k}^{*l}= f_{n}^{'-l}(\alpha_{n,k}, \beta_{k}^l,\zeta_{n},\gamma_{n,k}^{l},\Delta_{n,k}^{l}).
\end{align}
\end{enumerate}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:gradLagObj2}
u_n^{'j}(x_{n,k}^{j})(1+\Lambda_{n,k}^{j}\zeta_{n})-\Lambda_{n,k}^{j}(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^j- \gamma_{n,k}^{j})=0,\nonumber \\
\implies u_n^{'j}(x_{n,k}^{j})=\frac{\Lambda_{n,k}^{j}(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^j- \gamma_{n,k}^{j})}{1+\Lambda_{n,k}^{j}\zeta_{n}}, \nonumber \\
\implies \quad x_{n,k}^{*j}= u_n^{'-j}(\alpha_{n,k}, \beta_{k}^j, \zeta_{n},\gamma_{n,k}^{j},\Lambda_{n,k}^{j}).
\end{align}
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
To simplify the proof, we only consider the case in which $j \in \mathcal{M}_n$ below. The proof for the case when $i \in \mathcal{M}\backslash\mathcal{M}_n$ is similar. For illustrative purpose, we use $\bigg(1-e^{-{x_{n,k}^{j}}}\bigg)$
as the utility. However, the results hold true for any concave injective utility function for which inverse of the first derivative exists. \eqref{eq:gradLagObj} is rewritten as:
\begin{align}\label{eq:priceLog}
e^{-{x_{n,k}^{j}}}&=\frac{(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^j- \gamma_{n,k}^{j})}{\Delta_{n,k}^{j}+\zeta_{n}},\nonumber \\
\implies x_{n,k}^{j}&=\ln\bigg(\frac{\Delta_{n,k}^{j}+\zeta_{n}}{(\alpha_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^j- \gamma_{n,k}^{j})}\bigg).
\end{align}
At the optimal point, the numerator $(\Delta_{n,k}^{*j}+\zeta^*_{n})$ is positive as $\Delta_{n,k}^{*j}>0$ (from Section \ref{sec:assumption}) and $\zeta^*_{n}=0$ (from complementary slackness).
Similarly, $(\alpha^*_{n,k}+\beta_{k}^{*j}-\gamma_{n,k}^{*j})>0$, as $\alpha_{n,k}^{*}>0$ (from Lemma \ref{lem:constraintsactive}) and $\alpha_{n,k}^{*}+\beta_{k}^{*j}> \gamma_{n,k}^{*j}$ (from \emph{sensitivity analysis} \cite{boyd2004convex}).
Hence, the price based function in \eqref{eq:priceLog} is continuous in at least one optimal Lagrange multiplier vector. The proof follows from Theorem \ref{thm:georgesufficient}.
\end{proof}
\end{comment}
For calculating $x_{n,k}^{j}$ at time $t$, we use $\Delta_{n}^{}$ calculated at $t-1$.
Algorithm \ref{algo:primal-dual-alg} is a distributed algorithm that provides the global optimal solution to \eqref{eq:nashProbNplayermod}.
\paragraph{Protocol for Distributed Execution}
All ESPs first broadcast information regarding resource requests from their native applications. Then any randomly chosen ESP starts allocating resources as specified in Step $2$ of Algorithm \ref{algo:primal-dual-alg} and updates the corresponding Lagrangian multipliers. This ESP then passes on the information about its allocation and updated request matrix to the next ESP (that has not yet allocated resources in the current round\footnote{A single round consists of all the ESPs executing Step $2$ of Algorithm \ref{algo:primal-dual-alg} once.}) that repeats the same procedure until all the ESPs allocate their resources. This process continues until the first order conditions given in \cite{ktlagrangian} are met.
\begin{algorithm}
\begin{algorithmic}[]
\State \textbf{Input}: $\forall\; \boldsymbol{\alpha_0,\; \beta_0,\zeta_0,\gamma_0,\pi_0}$, $C, R$, vector of utility function of all ESPs $\boldsymbol{u}$ and $\mathbf{X}_0$
\State \textbf{Output}: The optimal resource allocation $\mathbf{X} $ and payoffs of all ESPs
\State \textbf{Step $0$:} $t=0$, $\boldsymbol \alpha[t]\leftarrow\boldsymbol \alpha_0$, $\boldsymbol\beta[t]\leftarrow\boldsymbol\beta_0$, $\boldsymbol\zeta[t]\leftarrow\boldsymbol\zeta_0$, $\boldsymbol\gamma[t]\leftarrow\boldsymbol\gamma_0$,$\boldsymbol\pi[t]\leftarrow\boldsymbol\pi_0$$, \mathbf{X}[t]\leftarrow \mathbf{X}_0$
\State \textbf{Step $1$:}
\For{\texttt{$n \in \mathcal{N}$}}
\State $ {d_n^0} \leftarrow$ \texttt{Objective function at optimal point in Equation \eqref{eq:opt_single}}
\EndFor
\State \textbf{Step 2: $t\geq 1$}
\While{{First order conditions\cite{ktlagrangian}$\neq$true }
\State Compute $ x_{n,k}^{j}[t+1]$ for $j\in\mathcal{M},$ $k\in\mathcal{K}$ and $n\in\mathcal{N}$ through \eqref{eq:gradLagObj22} and \eqref{eq:gradLagObjcase22};
\State Compute $\boldsymbol\alpha[t+1]$, $\boldsymbol\beta[t+1]$, $\boldsymbol\zeta[t+1]$, $\boldsymbol\gamma[t+1]$ and $\boldsymbol\pi[t+1]$ through~(\ref{eq:iterativeDual}) given $\mathbf{X}[t+1],$ $\boldsymbol\alpha[t]$, $\boldsymbol \beta[t]$, $\boldsymbol \zeta[t]$, $\boldsymbol\gamma[t]$ and $\boldsymbol\pi[t]
\EndWhile
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{Distributed Algorithm for NBS}
\label{algo:primal-dual-alg}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{Multi-Objective Optimization}
For $m$ inequality constraints and $p$ equality constraints, the MOO problem is to identify a vector $\boldsymbol{x}^*=[x_1^*,x_2^*,\cdots ,x_t^*]^T$ that maximizes a vector function
\begin{equation}\label{eq:vectorobjective}
\centering
\bar{f}(\boldsymbol{x})=[f_1(\boldsymbol{x}),f_2(\boldsymbol{x}),\cdots,f_N(\boldsymbol{x})]^T
\end{equation}
subject to
\begin{align}\label{eq:constraints}
\centering
& g_i(\boldsymbol{x})\geq 0, \; i=1,2,\cdots,m, \\
&h_i(\boldsymbol{x})=0\;\; i=1,2,\cdots,p, \nonumber
\end{align}
where $N$ is the total number of objectives, $\boldsymbol{x}=[x_1,x_2,\cdots ,x_t]^T$ is a vector of $t$ decision variables and the feasible set is denoted by $F$.
The fundamental difference from single objective optimization (SOO) is that MOO involves a vector of objective functions rather than a single objective function. This indicates that the solution is not a single point but a \emph{frontier} of solutions known as \emph{Pareto frontier} or \emph{Pareto boundary} (see \cite{cho2017survey} for details). Some basic definitions related to MOO are:
\begin{definition}{Strongly Pareto non-dominated solution\cite{cho2017survey}:}
A feasible solution $x$ is strongly Pareto non-dominated if there is no $y\in F$ such that $f_n(y)\geq f_n(x)$ $\forall n=1,2,\cdots,N$ and $f_n(y)>f_n(x)$ for at least one $n$\footnote{This means that there is no other feasible solution that can improve an objective without worsening at least one other objective.}.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}{Weakly Pareto non-dominated solution\cite{cho2017survey}:}
A feasible solution $x$ is weakly Pareto non-dominated if there is no $y\in F$ such that $f_n(y)>f_n(x)$ $\forall n=1,2,\cdots,N.$
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}{Pareto Optimality\cite{cho2017survey}:}
For any maximization problem, $\boldsymbol{x}^*$ is $Pareto\; optimal$ if the following holds for every $\boldsymbol{x} \in F$
\begin{align}\label{eq:paretoptimality}
\bar{f}(\boldsymbol{x}^*)\geq\bar{f}(\boldsymbol{x})
\end{align}
where $\bar{f}(\boldsymbol{x})=[f_1(\boldsymbol{x}),f_2(\boldsymbol{x}),\cdots,f_k(\boldsymbol{x})]^T$ and
$\bar{f}(\boldsymbol{x}^*)=[f_1(\boldsymbol{x}^*),f_2(\boldsymbol{x}^*),\cdots,f_k(\boldsymbol{x}^*)]^T$.
\end{definition}
\subsection{Bargaining Theory}
In a \emph{bargaining situation}, two or more players (service providers) can benefit by reaching an agreement. However, players can have conflicting interests regarding the terms of the agreement. \emph{Bargaining theory} deals with studying such bargaining situations arising in a number of problems. In resource allocation problem, resource providers are interested in maximizing their utility (pay-off) by satisfying the requests of different applications.
Below we discuss one of the most widely used bargaining solutions, i.e., \emph{Nash Bargaining Solution} as it guarantees the Pareto optimality \cite{khan2009cooperative}.
\end{comment}
We use a two-player game as a toy example to introduce NBS. Consider two players $1,$ and $2$ that need to reach an agreement (e.g., resource allocation decision) in an outcome space $\mathcal{A}\subseteq \mathbb{R}^2$ \cite{han2012game}. Both players have a utility given by $u_1$ and $u_2$ over the space $\mathcal{A} \cup \{D\}$ where $D$ specifies a \emph{disagreement outcome} for players in the event of a disagreement, i.e., when two players cannot reach an agreement. Let $\mathcal{S}$ be the set of all possible utilities that both players can achieve:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:possibleut}
\mathcal{S}= \{(u_1(a_1),u_2(a_2)) | (a_1,a_2) \in \mathcal{A} \}
\end{align}
We also define $d=(d_1, d_2)$, where $d_1=u_1(D)$ and $d_2=u_2(D)$, as the payoff each player receives at the disagreement point. We define the bargaining problem as the pair $(\mathcal{S},d)$ where $\mathcal{S} \subset \mathbb{R}^2$ and $d \in \mathcal{S}$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathcal{S}$ is a convex and compact set;
\item There exists $s \in \mathcal{S}$ such that $s > d$.
\end{itemize}
In NBS, the goal is to obtain a function $f(\mathcal{S},d)$ that provides a unique outcome in $ \mathcal{S}$ for every bargaining problem $(\mathcal{S},d)$. Nash studied the possible outcomes (agreements) that players can reach whereas the agreements, along with the Pareto optimality, must also satisfy the following set of axioms (also called \emph{fairness} axioms) \cite{han2012game}:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textbf{Symmetry:} The bargaining solution will not discriminate among players if players are indistinguishable, i.e., players have identical utilities.
\item \textbf{Invariance to equivalent utility representation:} If a bargaining problem $(\mathcal{S},d)$ is transformed into another bargaining problem $(\mathcal{S}',d')$ where $s_i'=\gamma_is_i+\zeta_i$ and $d_i'=\gamma_id_i+\zeta_i$, $\gamma_i >0$, then $f( \mathcal{S}',d')=\gamma_if(\mathcal{S},d)+\zeta_i$
\item \textbf{Independence of irrelevant alternatives:} For any two bargaining problems $(\mathcal{S},d)$ and $(\mathcal{S}',d)$ where $\mathcal{S}'\subseteq \mathcal{S}$, if $f(\mathcal{S},d) \in \mathcal{S}'$, then $f(\mathcal{S}',d)=f(\mathcal{S},d)$.
\end{enumerate}
\cite{nash1950bargaining} shows that there is a unique bargaining solution that satisfies above axioms. We present it in the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}{\cite{han2012game}}
There exists a unique solution satisfying the aforementioned axioms and this solution is the pair of utilities $(s_1^*,s_2^*) \in \mathcal{S}$ that solves the following optimization problem:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:nashProb}
\max_{s_1,s_2}\;(s_1-d_1)(s_2-d_2),\; s.t. (s_1,s_2)\in \mathcal{S}, \; (s_1,s_2)\geq (d_1,d_2).
\end{align}\
\end{theorem}
The solution of \eqref{eq:nashProb} is the NBS.
The above framework can be extended to $N$ players by allowing $\mathcal{S}$ to be an $N$-dimensional space \cite{harsanyi1963simplified}. For this case, the bargaining problem $(\mathcal{S},d)$, with $d=(d_1,d_2,\cdots, d_N)$ as the disagreement point, becomes the unique solution of the optimization problem below.
\begin{align}\vspace{-0.1in}
\label{eq:nashProbNplayer}
\max_{s_1,\cdots,s_N}&\;\prod_{n=1}^{N}(s_n-d_n),\; \nonumber \\
s.t.\quad &(s_1,\cdots,s_N)\in \mathcal{S}, \nonumber \\
& (s_1,\cdots,s_N)\geq (d_1,\cdots, d_N).
\end{align}
Solving \eqref{eq:nashProb} is easier compared to the $N-$player bargaining problem in \eqref{eq:nashProbNplayer}\cite{han2012game}.
In this paper, we transform our problem into an equivalent convex problem that is comparatively easier to solve.
\begin{remark}
As each player in an $N$-player bargaining game has a particular objective to optimize, the resulting problem is multi-objective, where the goal is to obtain a Pareto optimal solution. NBS is a fair and Pareto optimal solution for such MOO problems, provided that the fairness axioms are satisfied.
\end{remark
\begin{comment}
\subsection{Cooperative Game Theory}
Cooperative game theory is the set of analytical tools that assists in understanding the behavior of rational players in a cooperative setting \cite{han2012game}. Players can have agreements among themselves that affects the strategies as well as obtained utilities of the players. Cooperative games are primarily of two types: bargaining theory and coalition games. Bargaining theory deals with the bargaining process that arise among the players while joining an agreement while coalition games deals with the formation of the coalitions among cooperating players. Formally
\begin{definition}{Coalition Games \cite{han2012game}:}
Any coalition game can be represented by the pair $(\mathcal{N},v)$ where $\mathcal{N}$ is the set of players that play the game, while $v$ is the mapping function that determines the utilities or payoffs the players in $\mathcal{N}$ receive.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}{Characteristic form Coalition Games: \cite{han2012game}:}
Any coalition game is said to be of \emph{characteristic} form where the value of coalition $S \subseteq \mathcal{N}$ depends only on the members of coalition.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}{Transferable Utility (TU):}
If the total utility of any coalition can be divided in any manner among the game players, then the game has a \emph{transferable} utility.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}{Characteristic function:}
The characteristic function for any coalitional game with TU is a mapping $v: 2^{\mathcal{N}} \mapsto \mathbb{R}$ with $v(\emptyset)=0$
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}{Superadditivity of TU games:}
A canonical game with TU is said to be superadditive if the following property is satisfied.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:superadditivity}
v(S_1 \cup S_2 )\geq v(S_1)+V(S_2) \; \forall S_1 \subset \mathcal{N}, S_2 \subset \mathcal{N}, s.t. S_1\cap S_2 =\emptyset
\end{equation}
i.e., formation of large coalitions is always desired and the players do not lose any utility by joining the coalition.
\end{definition}
\subsubsection{Canonical Game}
A coalition game is canonical if
\begin{itemize}
\item It is in characteristic form
\item It is superadditive
\end{itemize}
The \emph{core} and Shapley value are widely used concepts for dealing with Canonical games as discussed below.
\subsection{Core}
Before we present details of core, we first define some terms \cite{han2012game}
\begin{definition}[Group Rational]
A payoff vector $\textbf{x}\in \mathbb{R}^\mathcal{N}$ for dividing $v(\mathcal{N})$ is group-rational if $\sum_{n \in \mathcal{N}}x_n=v(\mathcal{N})$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[Individual Rational]
A payoff vector $\textbf{x}\in \mathbb{R}^\mathcal{N}$ is individually-rational if every player can obtain a benefit no less than acting alone, i.e., $x_n \geq v(\{n\}), \forall n\in \mathcal{N}$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[Imputation]
A payoff vector that is both individual and group rational is known as an imputation.
\end{definition}
Based on the above definitions, we can now define the core of a TU canonical coalition game
\begin{definition}[Core]
For any TU canonical game $(\mathcal{N},v)$, the core is the set of imputations in which no coalition $S\subset\mathcal{N}$ has any incentive to reject the proposed payoff allocation and deviate from the grand coalition to form a coalition $S$ instead. This can be mathematically expressed as
\begin{align}\label{eq:coreTU}
\mathcal{C}_{TU}=\bigg \{ \mathbf{x}: \sum_{n \in \mathcal{N}}x_n=v(\mathcal{N}) \; and \; \sum_{i \in S} x_i \geq v(S)\; \forall\; S\subseteq \mathcal{N}\bigg\}
\end{align}
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
Any payoff allocation from the core is Pareto-optimal as evident from definition of the core. Furthermore, the grand coalition formed is stable
\end{remark}
However, the core is not always guaranteed to exist. Even if the core exists, it might be too large so finding a suitable allocation from the core is not easy. Furthermore, as seen from the definition, the allocation from the core might not always be fair to all the players.
\subsection{Shapley Value}
\emph{Shapley value} \cite{shapley1988value} can be used to address the aforementioned shortcomings of the core. For the characteristic function $v$ (the characteristic function is also called the game \cite{han2012game}), Shapley proposed an allocation $\phi_n(v)$ that satisfies the following axioms \cite{la2004game}:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \emph{Efficiency Axiom}: $\sum_{n \in \mathcal{N}}\phi_n(v)=v(\mathcal{N})$. This axiom in essence is the group rationality.
\item \emph{Symmetry Axiom}: If any two players $m$ and $n$ are such that $v(S \cup \{n\})=v(S \cup \{m\})$, then for every coalition $S\backslash(m,n)$, $\phi_n(v)=\phi_m(v)$. This axiom indicates that if any two players/domains have similar contributions in a coalition then their assigned payoffs must be same as well.
\item \emph{Dummy Axion}: If any player $n$ is such that $v(S)=v(S \cup \{n\})$, then for every coalition $S\backslash n$, $\phi_n (v)=0$. Dummy axiom indicates that players that do not contribute to the value of coalition will not get any payoff.
\item \emph{Additivity Axion}: If $j$ and $k$ are any two games, then $\phi(j+k)=\phi(j)+\phi(k)$. This axiom indicates that $\phi$ is a unique mapping over the space of the coalitional games.
\end{enumerate}
Based on the above axioms, Shapley showed that there exists a unique function $\phi$ defined on all games that satisfies the aforementioned axioms \cite{la2004game}. The function is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:shapleyvalue}
\phi_n(v)=\sum_{S\subseteq \mathcal{N}\backslash n}\frac{|S|! (|\mathcal{N}|-|S|-1)!}{|\mathcal{N}|!}\bigg[ v(S \cup \{n\}) -v(S) \bigg]
\end{equation}
\end{comment}
\subsection{Resource allocation in Edge Computing}
Jiao et al. \cite{jiao2018social} propose an auction-based resource allocation scheme for edge service providers that provide resources for blockchains. The proposed mechanism maximizes the social welfare and guarantees truthfulness, computational efficiency and individual rationality. He et al. \cite{he2018s} analyze the optimal provisioning of shareable and non-shareable edge resources to different applications.
Plachy et al. \cite{plachy2016dynamic} consider the mobility problem in mobile edge clouds and propose a novel algorithm for selecting communication path and VM placement. The proposed approach relies on predicting user movement that helps in VM placement and accordingly selecting the communication path. Nishio et al. \cite{nishio2013service} propose a resource sharing architecture for mobile clouds that relies on service-oriented utility functions and is closest to our work. However, they primarily consider service latency and rely on a centralized framework whereas we present a distributed framework that requires a specific utility function that can be used to model different metrics such as latency, delay, and numerous other objectives. In \cite{zafari2020let}, we modeled resource sharing among mobile edge clouds as a cooperative game. However, the MOO problem in \cite{zafari2020let} is non-convex that is hard to solve compared to the convex problem solved here. Furthermore, the cooperative game based framework lacks the fairness guaranteed by NBS.
Furthermore, in contrast with \cite{jiao2018social,plachy2016dynamic} and \cite{he2018s} that primarily consider resource allocation, our proposed framework deals with resource sharing among ESPs with different objectives.
\begin{table*}[]
\centering
\caption{Comparison of our NBS based resource sharing and allocation framework with other NBS based solutions.}
\begin{tabular}{|c|p{1.0cm}|p{2.1cm}|c|p{5.5cm}|}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Reference}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Objective}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Resource Sharing}} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textbf{Distributed Algorithm}} \\ \cline{4-5}
& & & \textbf{Proposed?} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Technique}} \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{\cite{yaiche2000game}} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{Fair Bandwidth allocation} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\times$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\checkmark$} & Gradient Projection \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{\cite{xu2012general}} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{Fairness} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\times$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\checkmark$} & Dual decomposition and sub-gradient method are used.
\\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{\cite{hassan2014virtual}} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{Cost and Resource Utilization} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\times$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\times$} & N/A \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{\cite{he2013toward}} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{Cost and User Experience} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\times$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\times$} & N/A \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{\cite{feng2012bargaining}} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{Resource utilization} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\times$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\times$} & N/A \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{\cite{guo2013cooperative}} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{Bandwidth allocation} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\times$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\checkmark$} & Gradient Projection \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{Our Approach} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{Service provider utility and user satisfaction} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\checkmark$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\checkmark$} & Gradient descent based algorithm that works for the class of utilities described in section \ref{sec:assumption}. \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:comparison}
\end{table*}
\subsection{NBS based Resource Allocation}
Yaiche et al. \cite{yaiche2000game} use NBS to allocate bandwidth for elastic services in high speed networks.
Xu et al. \cite{xu2012general} consider the fairness criteria when allocating resources to different cloud users and make use of the NBS to guarantee fairness. Using dual composition and sub-gradient method, the authors also develop a distributed algorithm. Hassan et al. \cite{hassan2014virtual} propose an NBS-based model for cost-effective and dynamic VM allocation with multimedia traffic, and show that it can reduce the cost of running different servers along with maximizing resource utilization and satisfying the QoS requirements. He et al. \cite{he2013toward} study the optimal deployment of content in a cloud assisted video distribution system.
Feng et al. \cite{feng2012bargaining} use NBS for Virtual Machine (VM) migration to maximize the resource utilization in a video streaming data center.
\par
In contrast with \cite{yaiche2000game, feng2012bargaining, guo2013cooperative,he2013toward,hassan2014virtual}, to the best of our knowledge, our framework is first of its kind that uses NBS for resource sharing among ESPs with different utilities (objective functions). We show that resource sharing can improve utilities of ESPs and enhance application satisfaction.
Furthermore, for a particular class of utilities, we have proved that distributed algorithm exists for obtaining NBS for the resource sharing and allocation problem. Table \ref{tab:comparison} summarizes some other solutions proposed in the literature that use NBS for resource allocation in different systems. Other distributed algorithms proposed in literature either rely on dual decomposition \cite{xu2012general} or gradient projection \cite{yaiche2000game,guo2013cooperative}. However, most of the functions are not dual decomposable and gradient projection is a computationally expensive approach \cite{bertsekas1997nonlinear}, whereas gradient descent is widely used particularly in machine and deep learning.
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
\input{01-intro}
\section{System Model}\label{sec:sysmodel}
\input{02-sysmodel2}
\section{NBS for Resource Sharing among CSPs}\label{sec:nbs}
\input{nbs}
\section{Simulation Results}\label{sec:exp_results}
\input{04-exp-results}
\section{Related Work}\label{sec:related}
\input{related}
\section{Conclusions}\label{sec:conclusion}
\input{05-conclusions}
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This work was supported by the U.S. Army Research Laboratory and the U.K. Ministry of Defence under Agreement Number W911NF-16-3-0001. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. Army Research Laboratory, the U.S. Government, the U.K. Ministry of Defence or the U.K. Government. The U.S. and U.K. Governments are authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Government purposes notwithstanding any copy-right notation hereon. Faheem Zafari also acknowledges the financial support by EPSRC Centre for Doctoral Training in High Performance Embedded and Distributed Systems (HiPEDS, Grant Reference EP/L016796/1), and Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Imperial College London.
\bibliographystyle{IEEETran}
|
\section{Background and history}
\label{sctn:background}
One of the most fundamental problems in topology is to determine
the set of homotopy classes $[S^{n+k}, S^n]$
of continuous based maps $f: S^{n+k} \rightarrow S^n$ between spheres.
For $n+k \geq 1$, these sets have a natural group structure,
and they are abelian when $n+k \geq 2$. Despite their
essential topological importance, they are notoriously
difficult to compute. Detailed computations exist only
when $k$ is at most approximately $30$
\cite{Mimura64} \cite{MMO75} \cite{MT63} \cite{Oda77}
\cite{Ravenel86}*{Table A3.6} \cite{Toda62}.
Theorem \ref{thm:intro} summarizes some basic structural results
about $[S^{n+k}, S^n]$.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:intro}
\mbox{}
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$[S^{n+k}, S^n] = 0$ when $k < 0$.
\item
\label{part:0-stem}
$[S^n, S^n] = \Z$.
\item
\label{part:finite}
$[S^{n+k}, S^n]$ is a finite group, except
when $k = 0$, or $n$ is even and $k = n-1$
(Serre finiteness theorem \cite{Serre53}).
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
Unfortunately, Theorem \ref{thm:intro} gives little information
about the groups $[S^{n+k}, S^n]$ when $k > 0$.
The Freudenthal Suspension Theorem \cite{Freudenthal37} provides
a relationship between the groups $[S^{n+k}, S^n]$
for fixed $k$ and varying $n$. The suspension map induces a
sequence
\[
\cdots \rightarrow [S^{n-1+k}, S^{n-1}] \rightarrow [S^{n+k}, S^n] \rightarrow
[S^{n+1+k}, S^{n+1}] \rightarrow \cdots
\]
of group homomorphisms, and these homomorphisms
are in fact isomorphisms when $n > k + 1$.
The ``stable value" $[S^{n+k}, S^n]$ for $n$ sufficiently large
is known as the $k$th stable homotopy group $\pi_k$.
The stable homotopy groups $\pi_k$ enjoy
additional structure that make them more amenable to computation
than the unstable groups $[S^{n+k}, S^n]$.
The rest of this article is entirely concerned with the stable
homotopy groups. While the study of stable homotopy groups gives
much information about the structure of $[S^{n+k}, S^n]$,
it does not give complete information. There are
still plenty of groups for which $n \leq k+1$, and stable homotopy
group information does not tell us much about those groups.
Theorem \ref{thm:intro}
implies that
$\pi_k$ is zero if $k < 0$;
that $\pi_0$ is isomorphic to $\Z$; and that
$\pi_k$ is a finite group for all $k > 0$.
Because each group $\pi_k$ is finite, it makes sense to study the
groups one prime at a time. More specifically, we can
compute the $p$-primary component of the group $\pi_k$
for all primes $p$,
and then reassemble these components into a uniquely
determined finite abelian group.
History has demonstrated the effectiveness of this $p$-primary
approach. For the remainder of this article, we will focus
on the $2$-primary components of $\pi_k$,
except that
we record odd primary information in Table \ref{tab:main}
as a convenience for the reader.
We write $\pi_k^{\wedge}$
for the $2$-primary component of $\pi_k$. There are plenty of interesting
phenomena to study at odd primes, but we leave that discussion
for other work.
See Ravenel's comprehensive book \cite{Ravenel86}
for an extensive source of information on
computations at odd primes.
We will not discuss the long history of stable homotopy group
computations thoroughly.
Some of the key results include
the original definitions of homotopy groups by {\v C}ech and Hurewicz;
the discovery of the Hopf maps \cite{Hopf31};
the connection to framed cobordism due to Pontryagin \cite{Pontryagin50}
\cite{Rohlin51};
Serre's method using fiber sequences and
Eilenberg-Mac Lane spaces \cite{Serre51};
the Adams spectral sequence \cite{Adams58};
the May spectral sequence \cite{May64};
Toda's work involving higher compositions and the EHP sequence
\cite{Toda62}; deeper analysis of the Adams spectral sequence
by Mahowald (with Barratt, Bruner, and Tangora) \cite{BMT70} \cite{Bruner84} \cite{MT67};
the Adams-Novikov spectral sequence \cite{Novikov67};
and Kochman's approach involving
the Atiyah-Hirzebruch spectral sequence for the Brown-Peterson
spectrum $BP$ \cite{Kochman90} \cite{KM93}.
The stable homotopy groups have important applications in the study
of high-dimensional manifolds.
For general values of $n$, Milnor showed that
the topological manifold $S^n$
may possess more than one non-diffeomorphic smooth structure
\cite{Milnor56}.
Kervaire and Milnor reduced
the classification of smooth structures to
a computation of stable homotopy groups
\cite{KM77}. More precisely, this classification
relies on the $v_1$-torsion subgroups of $\pi_k$
defined at the end of Section \ref{sctn:v1},
as well as the
Kervaire invariant. Despite the recent breakthrough
of Hill, Hopkins, and Ravenel \cite{HHR16},
there is still one remaining unknown value of the Kervaire
invariant in dimension $126$.
Previous work of the authors established unique
smooth structures on the spheres $S^{56}$ and $S^{61}$.
See the introduction of \cite{WX17} for a more detailed
discussion of these ideas.
\section{Stable homotopy group computations}
We use the $\C$-motivic homotopy theory of Morel and Voevodsky \cite{MV99},
which has a richer
structure than classical homotopy theory, to deduce new
information about stable homotopy groups.
In practice, our procedure works remarkably well. Already
we have obtained nearly complete information to dimension 90,
extending well beyond the previously known range that
ended at dimension 61.
In the history of stable homotopy group computations,
there are only a few occurrences of breakthroughs of a similar
magnitude, including work of Hopf, Serre, Adams, May, Mahowald,
and others.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:main}
Table \ref{tab:main} describes the stable homotopy groups $\pi_k$
for all values of $k$ up to $90$.
\end{thm}
We adopt the following
notation in Table \ref{tab:main}.
An integer $n$ stands for the cyclic abelian group $\Z/n$;
the expression $n\mathord{\cdot} m$ stands for the direct sum $\Z/n \oplus \Z/m$;
and $n^j$ stands for the direct sum of $j$ copies of $\Z/n$.
The horizontal line after dimension 61 indicates the range
in which our computations are new information.
Table \ref{tab:main} describes each group $\pi_k$ as the direct sum
of three subgroups.
The first and third columns describe the 2-primary component of each group,
while the second and third columns describe the odd primary components of each group.
See Section \ref{sctn:v1} below for a brief explanation of the meaning
of the $v_1$-torsion and $v_1$-periodic subgroups.
There remain some uncertainties in the $v_1$-torsion subgroups at the
prime $2$. The first such uncertainties occur in dimensions $69$ and $70$,
and there are additional uncertainties beyond dimension $80$.
In most cases, these uncertainties mean that the order of $\pi_k$ is
known only up to a factor of $2$. In a few cases, the additive group
structure is also undetermined.
See Section \ref{sctn:unknown} below for more discussion.
\begin{longtable}{l|lll}
\caption{Stable homotopy groups up to dimension $90$
\label{tab:main}
} \\
\toprule
$k$ & $v_1$-torsion & $v_1$-torsion & $v_1$-periodic \\
& at the prime 2 & at odd primes & \\
\midrule \endfirsthead
\caption[]{Stable homotopy groups up to dimension $90$} \\
\toprule
$k$ & $v_1$-torsion & $v_1$-torsion & $v_1$-periodic \\
& at the prime 2 & at odd primes & \\
\midrule \endhead
\bottomrule \endfoot
$1$ & $0$ & $0$ & $2$ \\
$2$ & $0$ & $0$ & $2$ \\
$3$ & $0$ & $0$ & $8\mydot3$ \\
$4$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0$ \\
$5$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0$ \\
$6$ & $2$ & $0$ & $0$ \\
$7$ & $0$ & $0$ & $16\mydot3\mydot5$ \\
$8$ & $2$ & $0$ & $2$\\
$9$ & $2$ & $0$ & $2^2$ \\
$10$ & $0$ & $3$ & $2$ \\
$11$ & $0$ & $0$ & $8\mydot9\mydot7$ \\
$12$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0$ \\
$13$ & $0$ & $3$ & $0$ \\
$14$ & $2^2$ & $0$ & $0$ \\
$15$ & $2$ & $0$ & $32\mydot3\mydot5$ \\
$16$ & $2$ & $0$ & $2$ \\
$17$ & $2^2$ & $0$ & $2^2$ \\
$18$ & $8$ & $0$ & $2$ \\
$19$ & $2$ & $0$ & $8\mydot3\mydot11$ \\
$20$ & $8$ & $3$ & $0$ \\
$21$ & $2^2$ & $0$ & $0$ \\
$22$ & $2^2$ & $0$ & $0$ \\
$23$ & $2\mydot8$ & $3$ & $16\mydot9\mydot5\mydot7\mydot13$ \\
$24$ & $2$ & $0$ & $2$ \\
$25$ & $0$ & $0$ & $2^2$ \\
$26$ & $2$ & $3$ & $2$ \\
$27$ & $0$ & $0$ & $8\mydot3$ \\
$28$ & $2$ & $0$ & $0$ \\
$29$ & $0$ & $3$ & $0$ \\
$30$ & $2$ & $3$ & $0$ \\
$31$ & $2^2$ & $0$ & $64\mydot3\mydot5\mydot17$ \\
$32$ & $2^3$ & $0$ & $2$ \\
$33$ & $2^3$ & $0$ & $2^2$ \\
$34$ & $4\mydot2^2$ & $0$ & $2$ \\
$35$ & $2^2$ & $0$ & $8\mydot27\mydot7\mydot19$ \\
$36$ & $2$ & $3$ & $0$ \\
$37$ & $2^2$ & $3$ & $0$ \\
$38$ & $2\mydot4$ & $3\mydot5$ & $0$ \\
$39$ & $2^5$ & $3$ & $16\mydot3\mydot25\mydot11$ \\
$40$ & $2^3\mydot4$ & $3$ & $2$ \\
$41$ & $2^3$ & $0$ & $2^2$ \\
$42$ & $2\mydot8$ & $3$ & $2$ \\
$43$ & $0$ & $0$ & $8\mydot3\mydot23$ \\
$44$ & $8$ & $0$ & $0$ \\
$45$ & $2^3\mydot16$ & $9\mydot5$ & $0$ \\
$46$ & $2^4$ & $3$ & $0$ \\
$47$ & $2^3\mydot4$ & $3$ & $32\mydot9\mydot5\mydot7\mydot13$ \\
$48$ & $2^3\mydot4$ & $0$ & $2$ \\
$49$ & $0$ & $3$ & $2^2$ \\
$50$ & $2^2$ & $3$ & $2$ \\
$51$ & $2\mydot8$ & $0$ & $8\mydot3$ \\
$52$ & $2^3$ & $3$ & $0$ \\
$53$ & $2^4$ & $0$ & $0$ \\
$54$ & $2\mydot4$ & $0$ & $0$ \\
$55$ & $0$ & $3$ & $16\mydot3\mydot5\mydot29$ \\
$56$ & $0$ & $0$ & $2$ \\
$57$ & $2$ & $0$ & $2^2$ \\
$58$ & $2$ & $0$ & $2$ \\
$59$ & $2^2$ & $0$ & $8\mydot9\mydot7\mydot11\mydot31$ \\
$60$ & $4$ & $0$ & $0$ \\
$61$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0$ \\
\hline
$62$ & $2^4$ & $3$ & $0$ \\
$63$ & $2^2\mydot4$ & $0$ & $128\mydot3\mydot5\mydot17$ \\
$64$ & $2^5\mydot4$ & $0$ & $2$ \\
$65$ & $2^7\mydot4$ & $3$ & $2^2$ \\
$66$ & $2^5\mydot8$ & $0$ & $2$ \\
$67$ & $2^3\mydot4$ & $0$ & $8\mydot3$ \\
$68$ & $2^3$ & $3$ & $0$ \\
$69$ & $2^4$ & $0$ & $0$ \\
$70$ & $2^5\mydot4^2$ or $2^6\mydot4$ & $0$ & $0$ \\
$71$ & $2^6\mydot4\mydot8$ or $2^5\mydot4\mydot8$ & $0$ & $16\mydot27\mydot5\mydot7\mydot13\mydot19\mydot37$ \\
$72$ & $2^7$ & $3$ & $2$ \\
$73$ & $2^5$ & $0$ & $2^2$ \\
$74$ & $4^3$ & $3$ & $2$ \\
$75$ & $2$ & $9$ & $8\mydot3$ \\
$76$ & $2^2\mydot4$ & $5$ & $0$ \\
$77$ & $2^5\mydot4$ & $0$ & $0$ \\
$78$ & $2^3\mydot4^2$ & $3$ & $0$ \\
$79$ & $2^6\mydot4$ & $0$ & $32\mydot3\mydot25\mydot11\mydot41$ \\
$80$ & $2^8$ & $0$ & $2$ \\
$81$ & $2^3\mydot4\mydot8$ & $3^2$ & $2^2$ \\
$82$ & $2^5\mydot8$ or $2^4\mydot8$ or & $3\mydot7$ & $2$ \\
& $2^3\mydot4\mydot8$ \\
$83$ & $2^3\mydot8$ or $2^3\mydot4$ & $5$ & $8\mydot9\mydot49\mydot43$ \\
$84$ & $2^6$ or $2^5$ or $2^4\mydot4$ & $3^2$ & $0$ \\
$85$ & $2^6\mydot4^2$ or $2^5\mydot4^2$ or & $3^2$ & $0$ \\
& $2^4\mydot4^3$ \\
$86$ & $2^5\mydot8^2$ or $2^4\mydot8^2$ or & $3\mydot5$ & $0$ \\
& $2^3\mydot4\mydot8^2$ or $2^2\mydot4\mydot8^2$ \\
$87$ & $2^8$ or $2^7$ or & $0$ & $16\mydot3\mydot5\mydot23$ \\
& $2^6\mydot4$ or $2^5\mydot4$ \\
$88$ & $2^4\mydot4$ & $0$ & $2$ \\
$89$ & $2^3$ & $0$ & $2^2$ \\
$90$ & $2^3\mydot8$ or $2^2\mydot8$ & $3$ & $2$
\end{longtable}
\begin{figure}[b]
\caption{$2$-primary stable homotopy groups
\label{fig:Hatcher}}
\input{Hatcher0-28.tex}
\end{figure}
\input{Hatcher30-60.tex}
\input{Hatcher62-90.tex}
Figure \ref{fig:Hatcher} displays the $2$-primary stable homotopy groups
in a graphical format. Vertical chains of $n$ dots in column $k$
indicate a copy of $\Z/2^n$ in $\pi_k^{\wedge}$. The non-vertical
lines indicate additional multiplicative structure that we will not
discuss here. The blue dots represent the $v_1$-periodic subgroups.
The green dots are associated to the topological modular forms
spectrum $\mathit{tmf}$; the precise relationship is too complicated
to describe here. Finally, the red dots indicate uncertainties.
Allen Hatcher originally promoted this type of graphical description
of stable homotopy groups.
The orders of individual $2$-primary stable homotopy groups do not
follow a clear pattern, with large increases and decreases seemingly
at random. However, an empirically observed pattern emerges
if we consider the cumulative size of the groups, i.e., the product
of the orders of
all $2$-primary stable homotopy groups from dimension $1$ to
dimension $k$.
Our data strongly suggests that asymptotically, there is a linear relationship between $k^2$
and the logarithm of this product of orders.
In other words, the number of dots in Figure \ref{fig:Hatcher} in
stems $1$ through $k$ is linearly proportional to $k^2$.
Thus, in extending from dimension 60 to dimension 90, the overall
size of the computation more than doubles.
\begin{conj}
Let $f(k)$ be the product of the orders of the $2$-primary
stable homotopy groups in dimensions $1$ through $k$.
Then $\log f(k) = O(k^2)$.
\end{conj}
One interpretation of this conjecture is that the expected value of
the logarithm of the order of the 2-primary component of $\pi_k$
grows linearly in $k$.
\section{$v_1$-periodic stable homotopy groups}
\label{sctn:v1}
Adams provided the first
infinite families of elements in the stable homotopy groups \cite{Adams66}.
Within the stable homotopy groups, there is a regular repeating pattern
of subgroups.
These subgroups are
known as the ``$v_1$-periodic stable homotopy
groups", and they are closely related to the ``image of $J$".
In order to describe the $2$-primary component of the
$v_1$-periodic stable homotopy groups precisely,
we will need the following elementary number-theoretic definition.
For any integer $k$, write $k$ as a product $2^a j$, where
$j$ is odd. Define $\nu(k)$ to be $2^a$.
\begin{thm} \cite{Adams66}
\label{thm:v1}
Table \ref{tab:v1} gives the $v_1$-periodic stable homotopy groups
inside of $\pi_k^\wedge$ for all $k \geq 2$.
\end{thm}
\begin{longtable}{l|l}
\caption{$2$-primary $v_1$-periodic stable homotopy groups
\label{tab:v1}
} \\
\toprule
$k$ & $v_1$-periodic \\
& subgroup of $\pi_k^\wedge$ \\
\midrule \endfirsthead
\caption[]{$2$-primary $v_1$-periodic stable homotopy groups} \\
\toprule
$k$ & $v_1$-periodic \\
& subgroup of $\pi_k^\wedge$ \\
\midrule \endhead
\bottomrule \endfoot
$0 \mod 8$ & $2$ \\
$1 \mod 8$ & $2^2$ \\
$2 \mod 8$ & $2$ \\
$3 \mod 8$ & $8$ \\
$7 \mod 8$ & $2 \nu(k+1)$ \\
\end{longtable}
\begin{remark}
For an odd prime $p$,
one can also easily describe the $p$-primary $v_1$-periodic
stable homotopy groups. The groups are zero unless
$k \equiv -1 \mod 2(p-1)$.
If $k + 1 = 2(p-1) a$, then let $\nu_p(a)$ be the largest factor of $a$
that is a power of $p$. The $p$-primary $v_1$-periodic
stable homotopy group is a cyclic group of order $p \cdot \nu_p(a)$.
\end{remark}
The $v_1$-periodic subgroups are direct summands of
the stable homotopy groups. Their complementary
summands are known as the ``$v_1$-torsion subgroups".
The language involving periodicity and torsion derives from
the theory of nilpotence and periodicity due
to Devinatz, Hopkins, Ravenel, Smith, and others
\cite{DHS88} \cite{HS98} \cite{Ravenel92},
which goes beyond the scope of this article.
\section{The Adams spectral sequence}
\label{sctn:Adams}
The most powerful tool for computing $\pi_k^\wedge$ is
the Adams spectral sequence \cite{Adams58}.
Information about
ordinary cohomology, together with its higher structure in the
form of cohomology operations, yields information about the
stable homotopy groups.
See \cite{IWX20b} for a graphical representation of the Adams
spectral sequence.
The Steenrod algebra $A$ is the ring of stable operations on cohomology
with $\F_2$ coefficients \cite{Steenrod62}. It is generated by the
Steenrod squaring operations $\Sq^i$ of degree $i$.
It is convenient to adopt the convention that $\Sq^0 = 1$.
These
operations satisfy the Adem relations
\[
\Sq^a \Sq^ b = \sum_{c = 0}^{a+b} \binom{b-c-1}{a-2c} \Sq^{a+b-c} \Sq^c
\]
whenever $a < 2b$.
The Steenrod algebra also has a ``coproduct" that takes
$\Sq^i$ to $\sum_{c = 0}^i \Sq^{i-c} \otimes \Sq^c$.
The product and coproduct structure on the Steenrod algebra
together form the structure of a Hopf algebra.
Unfortunately, the Adem relations are a bit hard to grasp.
Following ideas of Milnor \cite{Milnor58}, it turns out to be much easier
to work with the $\F_2$-dual. In other words, we consider
$A_* = \Hom_{\F_2} (A, \F_2)$. Then the product and coproduct on
$A$ become a coproduct and a product on $A_*$ respectively,
and $A_*$ is again a Hopf algebra.
The Hopf algebra $A_*$ is much easier to describe.
It is isomorphic to the polynomial ring
$\F_2 [\zeta_1, \zeta_2, \ldots ]$, where the coproduct is given
by the formula
\[
\zeta_i \mapsto \sum_{k = 0}^i \zeta_{i-k}^{2^k} \otimes \zeta_{k}.
\]
By convention, we let $\zeta_0$ equal $1$.
The duality between the structure on $A_*$ and on $A$
is not obvious.
The next step in the Adams spectral sequence program is to consider
the derived groups $\Ext_A(\F_2, \F_2)$ of
$\Hom_A(\F_2, \F_2)$, in the sense of homological algebra.
Roughly speaking, these $\Ext$ groups capture higher information
about the structure of $A$, including generators, relations,
relations among relations, etc.
The groups $\Ext_A(\F_2, \F_2)$ serve as the input to the
Adams spectral sequence. Up to dimension $13$, these algebraic
$\Ext$ groups give complete information about $\pi_k^\wedge$.
However, in higher dimensions, further complications occur.
Specifically, one must compute Adams differentials. These differentials
measure the deviation between algebra and homotopy. In practice,
the computation of these differentials is the limiting factor
in our knowledge of stable homotopy groups.
In higher dimensions, the algebraic groups $\Ext_A(\F_2,\F_2)$
themselves become difficult to compute directly.
The May spectral sequence
is the best way to compute these groups by hand \cite{May64}.
With the aid of this spectral sequence, May extended the
computations of stable homotopy groups to approximately
dimension 30.
Tangora eventually carried out the algebraic computation of
$\Ext_A(\F_2, \F_2)$ via the May spectral sequence to
dimension 70 \cite{Tangora70a}.
In the modern era, the most efficient way to compute $\Ext$ groups
is by machine.
Bruner \cite{Bruner89} \cite{Bruner93} \cite{Bruner97}, Nassau \cite{Nassau}, and the second author
\cite{Wang19} have constructed various
efficient algorithms that provide a wealth of algebraic data,
far surpassing our ability to interpret.
The most extensive
computations extend beyond dimension 200.
For practical purposes, we can take this $\Ext$ data as given.
Computer assisted techniques are likely
to continue to grow in importance in the
computation of stable homotopy groups.
Beyond dimension 30, the analysis of Adams differentials becomes
more difficult \cite{BMT70} \cite{Bruner84} \cite{Isaksen14}
\cite{MT67}.
The stable homotopy groups possess higher structure in the form
of Massey products and Toda brackets, and this higher structure
leads to additional information about differentials.
However, these arguments are notoriously tricky,
and the published literature contains
more than one example of an incorrect computation.
The practical limit of this style of argument occurs at
dimension 61. See \cite{Isaksen14} for a thorough accounting
of the Adams spectral sequence through dimension 59.
The article \cite{WX17} employs strenuous efforts to obtain
just two more stable homotopy groups in dimensions 60 and 61.
Beyond dimension 61, these methods are simply no longer practical.
\section{The motivic Adams spectral sequence}
Morel and Voevodsky \cite{Morel99a} \cite{MV99}
developed motivic homotopy theory
in the mid 1990's as a means of importing homotopical techniques
into algebraic geometry. This program found great success in
Voevodsky's
resolutions of the Milnor Conjecture \cite{Voevodsky03b} and the
Bloch-Kato Conjecture \cite{Voevodsky11}.
For our purposes, we may simplify the theory somewhat by
considering only cellular objects and by taking appropriate completions
at a prime $p$.
Motivic homotopy theory is bigraded, so all invariants,
including cohomology and stable homotopy groups, are bigraded.
There is a bigraded family of spheres $S^{p,q}$ that serve
as the basic building blocks of motivic homotopy theory.
While motivic homotopy theory can be studied over any base field,
we will focus only on the case when the base field is $\C$.
The additional structure contained in
$\C$-motivic homotopy theory provides a new tool for computing
classical stable homotopy groups
\cite{IWX}.
The use of $\C$-motivic homotopy theory suggests that these
stable homotopy groups computations
are logically dependent on deep and difficult algebro-geometric
results of Voevodsky on the motivic cohomology of a point
\cite{Voevodsky03b}
and the structure of the motivic Steenrod algebra
\cite{Voevodsky03a} \cite{Voevodsky10}.
However,
there are now two entirely topological models
for the part of $\C$-motivic homotopy theory that is relevant
to stable homotopy group computations \cite{GIKR18} \cite{Pstragowski18}.
The fundamental inputs are explicit descriptions of
the cohomology of a point and of the Steenrod algebra,
and these inputs can be
derived from first principles in these topological models, using
nothing more than well-known standard classical computations.
Therefore, our new stable homotopy group computations are not
actually
logically dependent on anything algebro-geometric.
The $\C$-motivic cohomology of a point takes the form
$\F_2[\tau]$, where $\tau$ has degree $(0,1)$.
The dual $\C$-motivic Steenrod algebra $A^\C_*$ takes the form
\[
\frac{\F_2[\tau][\tau_0, \tau_1, \ldots, \xi_1, \xi_2, \ldots]}
{\tau_i^2 = \tau \xi_{i+1}},
\]
where the coproduct is given by the formulas
\[
\tau_i \mapsto \tau_i \otimes 1 +
\sum_{k = 0}^i \xi_{i-k}^{2^k} \otimes \tau_{k}
\]
\[
\xi_i \mapsto
\sum_{k = 0}^i \xi_{i-k}^{2^k} \otimes \xi_{k}.
\]
By convention, we let $\xi_0$ equal $1$.
Comparison to the classical dual Steenrod algebra illuminates
the subtleties of the $\C$-motivic dual Steenrod algebra.
After inverting $\tau$, the element $\xi_{i+1}$ becomes decomposable,
so $A^{\C}_*[\tau^{-1}]$ is a polynomial algebra
over $\F_2[\tau^{\pm 1}]$ on generators $\tau_i$.
This recovers the classical dual Steenrod algebra, where
$\tau_i$ and $\xi_{i+1}$ correspond to $\zeta_i$ and $\zeta_i^2$
respectively.
On the other hand, after setting $\tau$ equal to zero,
the result is an exterior algebra on generators $\tau_i$
tensored with a polynomial algebra on generators $\xi_{i+1}$.
This structure is analogous to Milnor's description of the
classical dual Steenrod algebra
at odd primes \cite{Milnor58}.
As in the classical case,
$\Ext_{A^\C}(\F_2[\tau], \F_2[\tau])$ can be computed
by machine in a large range. Then
$\C$-motivic Adams differentials can be determined
by the standard methods.
As in the classical case, dimension 61 seems to be the
practical limit of this approach.
\section{Algebraicity of the cofiber of $\tau$}
There is a map $S^{0,-1} \rightarrow S^{0,0}$ in the
$\C$-motivic stable homotopy category that induces multiplication
by $\tau$ in $\C$-motivic cohomology. Therefore, we use the same
notation $\tau$ for this map between spheres.
Let $S/\tau$ be the mapping cone (or cofiber) of $\tau$.
This object is a stable 2-cell complex that a priori
has no special structure. Surprisingly, the homotopically
defined $S/\tau$ has a remarkably algebraic structure.
Recall that $BP$ is the Brown-Peterson generalized cohomology
theory \cite{BP66}. This cohomology theory
has been of remarkable use in the computation of stable
homotopy groups \cite{Ravenel86}.
The ring
of coefficients for this theory is
$BP_* = \Z_{(2)}[v_1, v_2, \ldots ]$, and
$BP_* BP$ is the dual of the ring of stable operations.
The full structure of the object $BP_* BP$ can be completely
described, although we do not give the details here.
Then
$\Ext_{BP_* BP}(BP_*, BP_*)$ is the $E_2$-page of the
Adams-Novikov spectral sequence, which is another tool
for computing stable homotopy groups that is complementary
to the Adams spectral sequence.
These $\Ext$ groups themselves are quite complicated, but
they can be computed in a range by machine.
Alternatively, they can be computed by the algebraic Novikov
spectral sequence
\cite{Miller75} \cite{Novikov67}.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:S/t}
\cite{GWX18}
The $\C$-motivic Adams spectral sequence that computes the
motivic stable homotopy groups of $S/\tau$ is isomorphic to
the algebraic Novikov spectral sequence.
\end{thm}
In fact, Theorem \ref{thm:S/t} is a computational corollary of
other more structural
results. In particular, Gheorghe demonstrated that
the $\C$-motivic spectrum $S/\tau$ is an $E_\infty$-ring
object in an essentially unique way \cite{Gheorghe17}, and
the homotopy category of cellular $S/\tau$-modules is equivalent
to a derived category of $BP_* BP$-comodules
\cite{GWX18}.
Deformation theory provides a unifying perspective on this circle of ideas.
The key insight is that $\C$-motivic
cellular stable homotopy theory is a deformation of classical stable
homotopy theory \cite{GWX18}, after completing at each prime $p$.
From this perspective, the ``generic fiber" of
$\C$-motivic stable homotopy theory is classical stable homotopy theory,
and the ``special fiber"
has an entirely algebraic description. The special fiber is
the category of $BP_*BP$-comodules, or equivalently,
the category of quasicoherent sheaves on the moduli stack of
1-dimensional formal groups.
Theorem \ref{thm:S/t} is
particularly valuable for computation. It means that
the Adams spectral sequence for $S/\tau$
can be computed in an entirely algebraic manner, i.e.,
can be computed by machine in a large range.
This observation leads to the following innovative
program for computing classical stable homotopy groups.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
\label{item:machine-Adams}
Compute the
$\C$-motivic Adams $E_2$-page by machine in a large range.
\item
\label{item:machine-algNov}
Compute
the algebraic Novikov spectral sequence by machine in a large
range, including
all differentials and multiplicative structure.
\item
Use Theorem \ref{thm:S/t}
to deduce the structure of the
motivic Adams spectral sequence for $S/\tau$.
\item
Use the cofiber sequence
\[
S^{0,-1} \stackrel{\tau}{\to} S^{0,0} \to S/\tau \to
S^{1,-1}
\]
and naturality of Adams spectral sequences
to pull back and push forward Adams differentials for $S/\tau$
to Adams differentials for the motivic sphere.
\item
\label{item:ad-hoc}
Apply a variety of ad hoc arguments to deduce additional Adams differentials
for the motivic sphere.
\item
Use a long exact sequence in homotopy groups to deduce hidden $\tau$
extensions in the motivic Adams spectral sequence for the sphere.
\item
Invert $\tau$ to obtain the classical Adams spectral sequence and the
classical stable homotopy groups.
\end{enumerate}
The machine-generated data that we use in steps (\ref{item:machine-Adams})
and (\ref{item:machine-algNov}) are available at \cite{Wang19}.
As the dimension increases, the ad hoc arguments of step
(\ref{item:ad-hoc}) become more and more complicated.
Eventually, this approach will break down when the ad hoc
arguments become too complicated to resolve.
It is not yet clear when that will occur.
\section{Remaining uncertainties}
\label{sctn:unknown}
Up to dimension 90, there are only four Adams differentials
whose values have not been completely determined.
Each of these unknown differentials leads to uncertainties
in the stable homotopy groups in two adjacent dimensions.
The first such differential affects the orders of
$\pi_{69}^\wedge$ and $\pi_{70}^\wedge$.
In most cases, these uncertainties mean that the order of $\pi_k$ is
known only up to a factor of $2$. In a few cases, the additive group
structure is also undetermined.
These uncertainties are not independent, as described in the following
alternatives.
In dimensions 70 and 71, one of the following two possibilities
occurs:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
the $v_1$-torsion in $\pi_{70}^\wedge$ has order $512$;
and the $v_1$-torsion in $\pi_{71}^\wedge$ has order $2048$.
\item
the $v_1$-torsion in $\pi_{70}^\wedge$ has order $256$;
and the $v_1$-torsion in $\pi_{71}^\wedge$ has order $1024$.
\end{enumerate}
In dimensions 82 and 83, one of the following two possibilities occurs:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
the $v_1$-torsion in $\pi_{82}^\wedge$ has order $256$, and
the $v_1$-torsion in $\pi_{83}^\wedge$ has order $64$.
\item
the $v_1$-torsion in $\pi_{82}^\wedge$ has order $128$, and
the $v_1$-torsion in $\pi_{83}^\wedge$ has order $32$.
\end{enumerate}
In dimensions 84 and 85, one of the following two possibilities
occurs:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
the $v_1$-torsion in $\pi_{84}^\wedge$ has order $64$, and
the $v_1$-torsion in $\pi_{85}^\wedge$ has order $1024$.
\item
the $v_1$-torsion in $\pi_{84}^\wedge$ has order $32$, and
the $v_1$-torsion in $\pi_{85}^\wedge$ has order $512$.
\end{enumerate}
In dimensions $86$ and $87$, one of the following two possibilities
occurs:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
the $v_1$-torsion in $\pi_{86}^\wedge$ has order $2048$, and
the $v_1$-torsion in $\pi_{87}^\wedge$ has order $256$.
\item
the $v_1$-torsion in $\pi_{86}^\wedge$ has order $1024$, and
the $v_1$-torsion in $\pi_{87}^\wedge$ has order $128$.
\end{enumerate}
\bibliographystyle{amsalpha}
\begin{bibdiv}
\begin{biblist}
\bib{Adams58}{article}{
author={Adams, J. F.},
title={On the structure and applications of the Steenrod algebra},
journal={Comment. Math. Helv.},
volume={32},
date={1958},
pages={180--214},
issn={0010-2571},
review={\MR{0096219}},
doi={10.1007/BF02564578},
}
\bib{Adams66}{article}{
author={Adams, J. F.},
title={On the groups $J(X)$. IV},
journal={Topology},
volume={5},
date={1966},
pages={21--71},
issn={0040-9383},
review={\MR{0198470 (33 \#6628)}},
}
\bib{BJM84}{article}{
author={Barratt, M. G.},
author={Jones, J. D. S.},
author={Mahowald, M. E.},
title={Relations amongst Toda brackets and the Kervaire invariant in
dimension $62$},
journal={J. London Math. Soc. (2)},
volume={30},
date={1984},
number={3},
pages={533--550},
issn={0024-6107},
review={\MR{810962 (87g:55025)}},
doi={10.1112/jlms/s2-30.3.533},
}
\bib{BMT70}{article}{
author={Barratt, M. G.},
author={Mahowald, M. E.},
author={Tangora, M. C.},
title={Some differentials in the Adams spectral sequence. II},
journal={Topology},
volume={9},
date={1970},
pages={309--316},
issn={0040-9383},
review={\MR{0266215 (42 \#1122)}},
}
\bib{BP66}{article}{
author={Brown, Edgar H., Jr.},
author={Peterson, Franklin P.},
title={A spectrum whose $Z\sb{p}$ cohomology is the algebra of reduced
$p\sp{th}$ powers},
journal={Topology},
volume={5},
date={1966},
pages={149--154},
issn={0040-9383},
review={\MR{0192494}},
doi={10.1016/0040-9383(66)90015-2},
}
\bib{Bruner84}{article}{
author={Bruner, Robert},
title={A new differential in the Adams spectral sequence},
journal={Topology},
volume={23},
date={1984},
number={3},
pages={271--276},
issn={0040-9383},
review={\MR{770563 (86c:55016)}},
doi={10.1016/0040-9383(84)90010-7},
}
\bib{Bruner89}{article}{
author={Bruner, Robert R.},
title={Calculation of large Ext modules},
conference={
title={Computers in geometry and topology},
address={Chicago, IL},
date={1986},
},
book={
series={Lecture Notes in Pure and Appl. Math.},
volume={114},
publisher={Dekker, New York},
},
date={1989},
pages={79--104},
review={\MR{988692}},
}
\bib{Bruner93}{article}{
author={Bruner, Robert R.},
title={${\rm Ext}$ in the nineties},
conference={
title={Algebraic topology},
address={Oaxtepec},
date={1991},
},
book={
series={Contemp. Math.},
volume={146},
publisher={Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI},
},
date={1993},
pages={71--90},
review={\MR{1224908}},
}
\bib{Bruner97}{article}{
author={Bruner, Robert R.},
title={The cohomology of the mod 2 Steenrod algebra: A computer calculation},
journal={Wayne State University Research Report},
volume={37},
date={1997},
}
\bib{DHS88}{article}{
author={Devinatz, Ethan S.},
author={Hopkins, Michael J.},
author={Smith, Jeffrey H.},
title={Nilpotence and stable homotopy theory. I},
journal={Ann. of Math. (2)},
volume={128},
date={1988},
number={2},
pages={207--241},
issn={0003-486X},
review={\MR{960945}},
doi={10.2307/1971440},
}
\bib{Freudenthal37}{article}{
author={Freudenthal, Hans},
title={\"{U}ber die Klassen der Sph\"{a}renabbildungen I. Gro\ss e Dimensionen},
language={German},
journal={Compositio Math.},
volume={5},
date={1938},
pages={299--314},
issn={0010-437X},
review={\MR{1556999}},
}
\bib{Gheorghe17}{article}{
author={Gheorghe, Bogdan},
title={The motivic cofiber of $\tau$},
journal={Doc. Math.},
volume={23},
date={2018},
pages={1077--1127},
issn={1431-0635},
review={\MR{3874951}},
}
\bib{GIKR18}{article}{
author={Gheorghe, Bogdan},
author={Isaksen, Daniel C.},
author={Krause, Achim},
author={Ricka, Nicolas},
title={$\mathbb{C}$-motivic modular forms},
date={2018},
status={preprint},
eprint={arXiv:1810.11050},
}
\bib{GWX18}{article}{
author={Gheorghe, Bogdan},
author={Wang, Guozhen},
author={Xu, Zhouli},
title={The special fiber of the motivic deformation of the stable homotopy category is algebraic},
date={2018},
status={preprint},
eprint={arXiv:1809.09290},
}
\bib{HHR16}{article}{
author={Hill, M. A.},
author={Hopkins, M. J.},
author={Ravenel, D. C.},
title={On the nonexistence of elements of Kervaire invariant one},
journal={Ann. of Math. (2)},
volume={184},
date={2016},
number={1},
pages={1--262},
issn={0003-486X},
review={\MR{3505179}},
doi={10.4007/annals.2016.184.1.1},
}
\bib{Hopf31}{article}{
author={Hopf, Heinz},
title={\"{U}ber die Abbildungen der dreidimensionalen Sph\"{a}re auf die
Kugelfl\"{a}che},
language={German},
journal={Math. Ann.},
volume={104},
date={1931},
number={1},
pages={637--665},
issn={0025-5831},
review={\MR{1512691}},
doi={10.1007/BF01457962},
}
\bib{HS98}{article}{
author={Hopkins, Michael J.},
author={Smith, Jeffrey H.},
title={Nilpotence and stable homotopy theory. II},
journal={Ann. of Math. (2)},
volume={148},
date={1998},
number={1},
pages={1--49},
issn={0003-486X},
review={\MR{1652975}},
doi={10.2307/120991},
}
\bib{Isaksen14}{article}{
author={Isaksen, Daniel C.},
title={Stable stems},
journal={Mem. Amer. Math. Soc.},
status={to appear},
}
\bib{IWX}{article}{
author={Isaksen, Daniel C.},
author={Wang, Guozhen},
author={Xu, Zhouli},
title={More stable stems},
status={preprint},
date={2020},
}
\bib{IWX20b}{article}{
author={Isaksen, Daniel C.},
author={Wang, Guozhen},
author={Xu, Zhouli},
title={Classical and $\C$-motivic Adams charts},
status={preprint},
date={2020},
eprint={s.wayne.edu/isaksen/adams-charts},
}
\bib{KM77}{article}{
author={Kervaire, Michel A.},
author={Milnor, John W.},
title={Groups of homotopy spheres. I},
journal={Ann. of Math. (2)},
volume={77},
date={1963},
pages={504--537},
issn={0003-486X},
review={\MR{0148075}},
doi={10.2307/1970128},
}
\bib{Kochman90}{book}{
author={Kochman, Stanley O.},
title={Stable homotopy groups of spheres},
series={Lecture Notes in Mathematics},
volume={1423},
note={A computer-assisted approach},
publisher={Springer-Verlag},
place={Berlin},
date={1990},
pages={viii+330},
isbn={3-540-52468-1},
review={\MR{1052407 (91j:55016)}},
}
\bib{KM93}{article}{
author={Kochman, Stanley O.},
author={Mahowald, Mark E.},
title={On the computation of stable stems},
conference={
title={The \v Cech centennial},
address={Boston, MA},
date={1993},
},
book={
series={Contemp. Math.},
volume={181},
publisher={Amer. Math. Soc.},
place={Providence, RI},
},
date={1995},
pages={299--316},
review={\MR{1320997 (96j:55018)}},
doi={10.1090/conm/181/02039},
}
\bib{MT67}{article}{
author={Mahowald, Mark},
author={Tangora, Martin},
title={Some differentials in the Adams spectral sequence},
journal={Topology},
volume={6},
date={1967},
pages={349--369},
issn={0040-9383},
review={\MR{0214072 (35 \#4924)}},
}
\bib{May64}{thesis}{
author={May, J. Peter},
title={The cohomology of restricted Lie algebras and of Hopf algebras;
application to the Steenrod algebra},
type={Ph.D. dissertation},
organization={Princeton Univ.},
date={1964},
}
\bib{Miller75}{book}{
author={Miller, Haynes Robert},
title={Some algebraic aspects of the Adams-Novikov spectral sequence},
note={Thesis (Ph.D.)--Princeton University},
publisher={ProQuest LLC, Ann Arbor, MI},
date={1975},
pages={103},
review={\MR{2625232}},
}
\bib{Milnor56}{article}{
author={Milnor, John},
title={On manifolds homeomorphic to the $7$-sphere},
journal={Ann. of Math. (2)},
volume={64},
date={1956},
pages={399--405},
issn={0003-486X},
review={\MR{0082103}},
doi={10.2307/1969983},
}
\bib{Milnor58}{article}{
author={Milnor, John},
title={The Steenrod algebra and its dual},
journal={Ann. of Math. (2)},
volume={67},
date={1958},
pages={150--171},
issn={0003-486X},
review={\MR{0099653}},
doi={10.2307/1969932},
}
\bib{Mimura64}{article}{
author={Mimura, Mamoru},
title={On the generalized Hopf homomorphism and the higher composition.
I},
journal={J. Math. Kyoto Univ.},
volume={4},
date={1964},
pages={171--190},
issn={0023-608X},
review={\MR{179793}},
doi={10.1215/kjm/1250524712},
}
\bib{MMO75}{article}{
author={Mimura, Mamoru},
author={Mori, Masamitsu},
author={Oda, Nobuyuki},
title={Determination of $2$-components of the $23$- and $24$-stems in
homotopy groups of spheres},
journal={Mem. Fac. Sci. Kyushu Univ. Ser. A},
volume={29},
date={1975},
number={1},
pages={1--42},
issn={0373-6385},
review={\MR{0375300}},
doi={10.2206/kyushumfs.29.1},
}
\bib{MT63}{article}{
author={Mimura, Mamoru},
author={Toda, Hirosi},
title={The $(n+20)$-th homotopy groups of $n$-spheres},
journal={J. Math. Kyoto Univ.},
volume={3},
date={1963},
pages={37--58},
issn={0023-608X},
review={\MR{157384}},
doi={10.1215/kjm/1250524854},
}
\bib{Morel99a}{article}{
author={Morel, Fabien},
title={Th\'{e}orie homotopique des sch\'{e}mas},
language={French, with English and French summaries},
journal={Ast\'{e}risque},
number={256},
date={1999},
pages={vi+119},
issn={0303-1179},
review={\MR{1693330}},
}
\bib{MV99}{article}{
author={Morel, Fabien},
author={Voevodsky, Vladimir},
title={${\bf A}\sp 1$-homotopy theory of schemes},
journal={Inst. Hautes \'Etudes Sci. Publ. Math.},
number={90},
date={1999},
pages={45--143 (2001)},
issn={0073-8301},
review={\MR{1813224 (2002f:14029)}},
}
\bib{Nassau}{article}{
author={Nassau, Christian},
title={\emph{\texttt{www.nullhomotopie.de}}},
}
\bib{Novikov67}{article}{
author={Novikov, S. P.},
title={Methods of algebraic topology from the point of view of cobordism
theory},
language={Russian},
journal={Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat.},
volume={31},
date={1967},
pages={855--951},
issn={0373-2436},
review={\MR{0221509}},
}
\bib{Oda77}{article}{
author={Oda, Nobuyuki},
title={On the $2$-components of the unstable homotopy groups of spheres.
I},
journal={Proc. Japan Acad. Ser. A Math. Sci.},
volume={53},
date={1977},
number={6},
pages={202--205},
issn={0386-2194},
review={\MR{464231}},
}
\bib{Pontryagin50}{article}{
author={Pontryagin, L. S.},
title={Homotopy classification of the mappings of an $(n+2)$-dimensional
sphere on an $n$-dimensional one},
language={Russian},
journal={Doklady Akad. Nauk SSSR (N.S.)},
volume={70},
date={1950},
pages={957--959},
review={\MR{0042121}},
}
\bib{Pstragowski18}{article}{
author={Pstragowski, Piotr},
title={Synthetic spectra and the cellular motivic category},
status={preprint},
eprint={arXiv:1803.01804},
date={2018},
}
\bib{Ravenel86}{book}{
author={Ravenel, Douglas C.},
title={Complex cobordism and stable homotopy groups of spheres},
series={Pure and Applied Mathematics},
volume={121},
publisher={Academic Press, Inc., Orlando, FL},
date={1986},
pages={xx+413},
isbn={0-12-583430-6},
isbn={0-12-583431-4},
review={\MR{860042 (87j:55003)}},
}
\bib{Ravenel92}{book}{
author={Ravenel, Douglas C.},
title={Nilpotence and periodicity in stable homotopy theory},
series={Annals of Mathematics Studies},
volume={128},
note={Appendix C by Jeff Smith},
publisher={Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ},
date={1992},
pages={xiv+209},
isbn={0-691-02572-X},
review={\MR{1192553}},
}
\bib{Rohlin51}{article}{
author={Rohlin, V. A.},
title={On a mapping of the $(n+3)$-dimensional sphere into the
$n$-dimensional sphere},
language={Russian},
journal={Doklady Akad. Nauk SSSR (N.S.)},
volume={80},
date={1951},
pages={541--544},
review={\MR{0046042}},
}
\bib{Serre51}{article}{
author={Serre, Jean-Pierre},
title={Homologie singuli\`ere des espaces fibr\'{e}s. Applications},
language={French},
journal={Ann. of Math. (2)},
volume={54},
date={1951},
pages={425--505},
issn={0003-486X},
review={\MR{0045386}},
doi={10.2307/1969485},
}
\bib{Serre53}{article}{
author={Serre, Jean-Pierre},
title={Groupes d'homotopie et classes de groupes ab\'{e}liens},
language={French},
journal={Ann. of Math. (2)},
volume={58},
date={1953},
pages={258--294},
issn={0003-486X},
review={\MR{0059548}},
doi={10.2307/1969789},
}
\bib{Steenrod62}{book}{
author={Steenrod, N. E.},
title={Cohomology operations},
series={Lectures by N. E. Steenrod written and revised by D. B. A.
Epstein. Annals of Mathematics Studies, No. 50},
publisher={Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.},
date={1962},
pages={vii+139},
review={\MR{0145525}},
}
\bib{Tangora70a}{article}{
author={Tangora, Martin C.},
title={On the cohomology of the Steenrod algebra},
journal={Math. Z.},
volume={116},
date={1970},
pages={18--64},
issn={0025-5874},
review={\MR{0266205 (42 \#1112)}},
}
\bib{Toda62}{book}{
author={Toda, Hirosi},
title={Composition methods in homotopy groups of spheres},
series={Annals of Mathematics Studies, No. 49},
publisher={Princeton University Press},
place={Princeton, N.J.},
date={1962},
pages={v+193},
review={\MR{0143217 (26 \#777)}},
}
\bib{Voevodsky03a}{article}{
author={Voevodsky, Vladimir},
title={Reduced power operations in motivic cohomology},
journal={Publ. Math.~Inst. Hautes \'Etudes Sci.},
number={98},
date={2003},
pages={1--57},
issn={0073-8301},
review={\MR{203\-1198 (2005b: 14038a)}},
doi={10.1007/s10240-003-0009-z},
}
\bib{Voevodsky03b}{article}{
author={Voevodsky, Vladimir},
title={Motivic cohomology with ${\bf Z}/2$-coefficients},
journal={Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes \'Etudes Sci.},
number={98},
date={2003},
pages={59--104},
issn={0073-8301},
review={\MR{2031199 (2005b:14038b)}},
doi={10.1007/s10240-003-0010-6},
}
\bib{Voevodsky10}{article}{
author={Voevodsky, Vladimir},
title={Motivic Eilenberg-Maclane spaces},
journal={Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes \'Etudes Sci.},
number={112},
date={2010},
pages={1--99},
issn={0073-8301},
review={\MR{2737977 (2012f:14041)}},
doi={10.1007/s10240-010-0024-9},
}
\bib{Voevodsky11}{article}{
author={Voevodsky, Vladimir},
title={On motivic cohomology with $\mathbf{Z}/l$-coefficients},
journal={Ann. of Math. (2)},
volume={174},
date={2011},
number={1},
pages={401--438},
issn={0003-486X},
review={\MR{2811603}},
doi={10.4007/annals.2011.174.1.11},
}
\bib{Wang19}{article}{
author={Wang, Guozhen},
title={\emph{\texttt{github.com/pouiyter/morestablestems}}},
}
\bib{WX17}{article}{
author={Wang, Guozhen},
author={Xu, Zhouli},
title={The triviality of the 61-stem in the stable homotopy groups of
spheres},
journal={Ann. of Math. (2)},
volume={186},
date={2017},
number={2},
pages={501--580},
issn={0003-486X},
review={\MR{3702672}},
doi={10.4007/annals.2017.186.2.3},
}
\end{biblist}
\end{bibdiv}
\end{document} |
\section{Introduction}
Large-scale pre-trained language models~\cite{devlin2018bert,radford2019language,yang2019xlnet} and sequence-to-sequence models~\cite{lewis2019bart, song2019mass, raffel2019exploring} have achieved remarkable success in downstream tasks.
Autoregressive (AR) language modeling, which estimates the probability distribution of the text corpus, is widely used for sequence modeling and sequence-to-sequence (Seq2Seq) learning~\cite{sutskever2014sequence}.
Recently, it also becomes one of the successful self-supervised objectives for large-scale pre-training as used in GPT-2~\cite{radford2019language}.
Specifically, given a text sequence $x = (x_1, \dots, x_T)$, AR language modeling factorizes the likelihood into a product $p(x) = \prod^{T}_{t=1} p(x_t | x_{<t})$.
In this manner, language models (LMs) and Seq2Seq models are usually trained by teacher forcing. The models are optimized to predict the next token given all previous context tokens at each time step.
However, as discussed in previous works~\cite{pascanu2013difficulty,gulcehre2017plan,serdyuk2017twin}, AR-based models may prefer to focus on the latest tokens rather than capture long-term dependencies for the next token prediction. The reasons are as follows: (a) Local correlations such as bigram combination are usually stronger than long-term dependencies.
(b) Teacher forcing, where the model focus on one-step-ahead prediction for each time step, has no explicit bias toward future token planning and modeling. As a result, the model may learn a bias for language modeling; that is, the local token combinations' modeling is overfitting, but the global coherence and long-term dependency are underfitting~\cite{krueger2016zoneout,merity2017regularizing,serdyuk2017twin}.
During inference, the generations tend to maintain local coherence but lack meaningful global structure~\cite{li2017learning, serdyuk2017twin}, especially when we use greedy decoding instead of beam search.
In this paper, we present a new large-scale pre-trained Seq2Seq model called \textbf{ProphetNet} with a novel self-supervised objective \textbf{future n-gram prediction}.
In addition to the traditional language model (LM) or Seq2Seq model that optimizes one-step-ahead prediction, the ProphetNet also learns $n$-step ahead predictio
This future n-gram prediction is served as extra guidance that explicitly encourages the model to plan for future tokens and prevents overfitting on strong local correlations.
The hidden states of ProphetNet are forced to contain useful information for the next token and further help predict multiple future tokens.
There are two goals when designing ProphetNet: (a) the model should be able to simultaneously predict the future n-gram at each time step in an efficient way during the training phase, and (b) the model can be easily converted to predict the next token only as original Seq2Seq model for inference or fine-tuning phase.
To achieve that, we extend the two-stream self-attention proposed in XLNet~\cite{yang2019xlnet} to \textbf{n-stream self-attention}.
ProphetNet contains a main stream self-attention, which is the same as the self-attention in the original Transformer.
Besides, we introduce $n$ extra self-attention predicting streams for future n-gram prediction, respectively.
During training, the $i$-th predicting stream attends to the main stream's hidden states to predict the next $i$-th future token, which guarantees every $n$ continuous tokens in the target sequence are trained to predict at one time step.
Since the main stream parameters are shared with every predicting stream, we can disable the n-stream self-attention during inference. Only the next first token is predicted for each time step, which is same as the original Transformer Seq2Seq model.
For experiments, we use the proposed future n-gram prediction with the mask based auto-encoder denoising task~\cite{song2019mass,lewis2019bart} which has been proved to be effective for Seq2Seq pre-training as compared in~\citet{raffel2019exploring} for ProphetNet pre-training.
We use two scale pre-trained datasets to pre-train ProphetNet, respectively: the base scale (16GB) dataset as used in BERT~\cite{devlin2018bert}, and the large scale (160GB) similar to BART~\cite{lewis2019bart}.
The pre-trained ProphetNet is further fine-tuned on several NLG tasks.
Experimental results show that ProphetNet has achieved the best performance on CNN/DailyMail, Gigaword, and SQuAD 1.1 question generation tasks compared to the models using the same base scale pre-training dataset.
For the large scale dataset pre-training experiment, ProphetNet achieves new state-of-the-art results on CNN/DailyMail and Gigaword, using only about 1/3 pre-training epochs of BART and about 1/5 pre-training corpus of T5~\cite{raffel2019exploring} and PEGASUS~\cite{zhang2019pegasus}.
\begin{figure*}[th]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 5.0 in]{2-2.pdf}
\caption{The architecture of ProphetNet. For simplicity, we take bigram ($n=2$) as an example to introduce ProphetNet, whose modeling target is $p(y_{t}, y_{t+1}|y_{<t}, x)$ for each time step. The left part shows the encoder of the ProphetNet which is the same as the original Transformer encoder. The right part presents the decoder of the ProphetNet which incorporates the proposed n-stream self-attention.
For Seq2Seq pre-training, we present the example of inputs and outputs of the mask based auto-encoder denoising task. The token ``\_'' represents the mask symbol [$\mathbb{M}$]. Note that each $x_i$ and $y_i$ are the same in this task. The layer normalization and residual connection are ignored.}\label{fig:overall}
\end{figure*}
\section{ProphetNet}
We propose a new Seq2Seq pre-training model called ProphetNet, which is based on Transformer~\cite{vaswani2017attention} encoder-decoder architecture. Compared to the original Transformer Seq2Seq model, ProphetNet introduces three modifications:
(a) The novel self-supervised objective called future n-gram prediction as described in \S~\ref{sec:m1}.
(b) The n-stream self-attention mechanism as described in \S~\ref{sec:m2}.
(c) The mask based auto-encoder denoising task for Seq2Seq pre-training as described in \S~\ref{sec:m4}.
Figure~\ref{fig:overall} shows the architecture of ProphetNet.
Before we describe our model in detail, we first introduce the notations and sequence-to-sequence learning.
\subsection{Sequence-to-Sequence Learning}
Given a text sequence pair $(x, y)$, $x = (x_1, \dots, x_M)$ is the source sequence with $M$ tokens, and $y = (y_1, \dots, y_T)$ is the target sequence with $T$ tokens.
The Seq2Seq model aims to model the conditional likelihood $p(y | x)$, which can be further factorized into a product $p(y | x) = \prod^{T}_{t=1} p(y_t | y_{<t},
x)$ according to the chain rule, where $y_{<t}$ denotes the proceeding tokens before the position $t$.
In general, the Seq2Seq model employs an encoder that aims to encode the source sequence representations and a decoder that models the conditional likelihood with the source representations and previous target tokens as inputs.
Teacher forcing is usually used for model training. The model is optimized to predict the next target token $y_t$ given the previous golden context tokens $y_{<t}$ and $x$ at each time step.
\subsection{Future N-gram Prediction} \label{sec:m1}
ProphetNet mainly changes the original Seq2Seq optimization of predicting next single token as $p(y_{t}|y_{<t}, x)$ into $p(y_{t:t+n-1}|y_{<t}, x)$ at each time step $t$, where $y_{t:t+n-1}$ denotes the next continuous $n$ future tokens.
In other words, the next $n$ future tokens are predicted simultaneously.
\begin{figure*}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 6.3 in]{nstream.pdf}
\caption{N-stream self-attention mechanism which contains a main stream self-attention and $n$ predicting stream self-attention. For simplicity sake, we take 2-stream self-attention ($n=2$) as an example here. Figure (a) presents the attention process of the main stream self-attention. Figure (b) and Figure (c) show the attention process of 1-st predicting stream and 2-nd predicting stream, respectively. }\label {fig:nstream}
\end{figure*}
Based on Transformer Seq2Seq architecture, ProphetNet contains a multi-layer Transformer encoder with the multi-head self-attention mechanism~\cite{vaswani2017attention} and a multi-layer Transformer decoder with the proposed multi-head n-stream self-attention mechanism.
Given a source sequence $x = (x_1, \dots, x_M)$, ProphetNet encodes the $x$ into a sequence representation, which is the same as the original Transformer encoder:
\begin{equation}
H_{\rm{enc}} = \textbf{Encoder}(x_1, \dots, x_M),
\label{eq:encoder}
\end{equation}
where $H_{\rm{enc}}$ denotes the source sequence representations.
On the decoder side, instead of predicting only the next token at each time step, ProphetNet decoder predicts $n$ future tokens simultaneously as we mentioned above:
\begin{align}
\small
\begin{split}
& p(y_t|y_{<t},x), \dots, p(y_{t+n-1}|y_{<t},x) = \textbf{Decoder}(y_{<t},H_{\rm{enc}}), \\
\end{split}
\label{decoder}
\end{align}
where the decoder outputs $n$ probability at each time step.
The future n-gram prediction objective can be further formalized as
\begin{align}
\mathcal{L} = &- \sum_{j=0}^{n-1} \alpha_j \cdot \left( \sum_{t=1}^{T-j} \log p_\theta(y_{t+j}|y_{<t},x)\right) \notag\\
= &- \underbrace{\alpha_0 \cdot \left( \sum_{t=1}^T \log p_\theta(y_{t}|y_{<t},x)\right)}_{\text{language modeling loss}} \notag\\
&- \underbrace{\sum_{j=1}^{n-1} \alpha_{j} \cdot \left( \sum_{t=1}^{T-j} \log p_\theta(y_{t+j}|y_{<t},x)\right)}_{\text{future n-gram loss}}.
\end{align}
The above future n-gram prediction objective can be seen to consist of two parts: (a) the conditional LM loss which is the same as the original teacher forcing, and (b) the $n-1$ future token prediction losses which force the model to predict the future target tokens.
The future n-gram prediction loss explicitly encourages the model to plan for future token prediction and prevent overfitting on strong local correlations.
$\alpha_j$ is set to balance the weights between the traditional language modeling and future n-gram prediction.
For now we set the $\alpha_j$ with a power attenuation function as:
\begin{align}
\alpha_{j} &= \frac{\gamma^j}{\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\gamma^i},
\end{align}
where the $\gamma$ is the attenuation coefficient.
\subsection{N-Stream Self-Attention}~\label{sec:m2}
Ideally, we want the ProphetNet decoder to meet two requirements described in the introduction: trained to predict future n-grams simultaneously and easily disable them in inference.
In addition to the masked multi-head self-attention~\cite{vaswani2017attention} of the original transformer decoder, which is called main stream self-attention, the n-stream self-attention mechanism incorporates $n$ extra self-attention predicting streams to predict next $n$ continuous future tokens respectively at each time step.
To be concrete, the $i$-th predicting stream is responsible for modeling the probability $p(y_{t+i-1} | y_{<t}, x)$.
The n-stream self-attention mechanism is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:nstream}. In this example, $h$ stream is the main stream, $g$ stream and $s$ stream are the next 1st and 2nd token predicting stream. As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:nstream} (a), the attention mechanism of the main stream is the same as the masked multi-head self-attention in the traditional Transformer decoder, where a lower triangular matrix is set to control that each position can only attend to their previous tokens:
\begin{align}
H^{(k+1)} = \textbf{MultiHead}(H^{(k)}, H^{(k)}, H^{(k)}),
\end{align}
here we use $H^{k}= (h^{(k)}_0, \dots, h^{(k)}_T)$ to denote the sequence of the $k$-th layer hidden state of the main stream. Implement of $\textbf{MultiHead}$ can be referenced to Transformer~\cite{vaswani2017attention}.
The $i$-th predicting stream predicts the next $i$-th token based on the previous main stream hidden states at each time step.
In other words, the $i$-th predicting stream predicts the $y_t$ based on the previous tokens $y_{<t-i+1}$.
In this bigram ($n=2$) example, Figure~\ref{fig:nstream} (b) shows the $1$-st predicting stream and its hidden state is calculated as:
\begin{small}
\begin{align}
g^{(k+1)}_{t-1} = \textbf{MultiHead}(g^{(k)}_{t-1}, H^{(k)}_{<t} \oplus g^{(k)}_{t-1}, H^{(k)}_{<t}\oplus g^{(k)}_{t-1}),
\end{align}
\end{small}
where $g^{(k+1)}_{t-1}$ denotes the $k+1$-th layer hidden state of the $1$-st predicting stream at time step $t-1$, and $\oplus$ denotes concatenation operation. To calculate $g^{(k+1)}_{t-1}$, $g^{(k)}_{t-1}$ is taken as the attention query while the attention value and key are previous $t$ hidden states of the main stream. Besides we take $g^{(k)}_{t-1}$ as attention value and key to make the $g^{(k+1)}_{t-1}$ be position-aware. The $g^{(k+1)}_{t-1}$ is finally used to predict $y_{t}$.
Similarly, the hidden state of the $2$-nd predicting stream is calculated by:
\begin{small}
\begin{align}
s^{(k+1)}_{t-1}= \textbf{MultiHead}(s^{(k)}_{t-1}, H^{(k)}_{<t} \oplus s^{(k)}_{t-1}, H^{(k)}_{<t}\oplus s^{(k)}_{t-1}),
\end{align}
\end{small}
where $s^{(k+1)}_{t-1}$ denotes the $k+1$-th layer hidden state of the $2$-nd predicting stream at time step $t-1$, which will be finally used to predict $y_{t+1}$.
Although the calculations of $g_{t-1}$ for $y_{t}$ prediction and $s_{t-1}$ for $y_{t+1}$ prediction are very similar, they are distinguished by different initialization tokens, absolute position embedding, and relative positional calculations.
We share the parameters of each predicting stream and main stream during training.
Therefore, we can easily convert the ProphetNet decoder to the traditional Transformer decoder by disabling all the predicting streams during inference or fine-tuning. Besides, since each predicting stream is initialized with special tokens rather than the previous token, we combine the absolute positional embedding and T5~\cite{raffel2019exploring} proposed bucket relative positional calculation to enhance the positional information in our decoder.
\subsection{Seq2Seq Pre-training on Denoising Task}~\label{sec:m4}
We pre-train the ProphtNet on the large-scale unlabeled text corpus with the auto-encoder denoising task widely used for Seq2Seq pre-training~\cite{song2019mass, lewis2019bart, raffel2019exploring}.
This paper uses token span masking as our denoising task, which is the same as the MASS~\cite{song2019mass}.
As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:overall}, we mask out some token spans of the original text as the encoder input, and the model learns to recover the masked tokens.
Besides, unlike MASS learns to recover one next token at each time step, ProphetNet learns to recover the next $n$ future tokens within each masked token span.
\section{Experiments and Results}
In this section, we describe the experimental details and results.
We first describe the details of ProphetNet pre-training in \S~\ref{sec:exp1}.
Then we fine-tune the ProphetNet on two downstream NLG tasks, including text summarization as described in \S~\ref{sec:exp2} and question generation as reported in \S~\ref{sec:exp3}.
We report the experiment of large-scale pre-training in \S~\ref{sec:exp4}. Results without pre-training are compared in \S~\ref{sec:exp5}. We set predicting future gram length into 2 according to the analysis in \S~\ref{sec:exp6}.
\subsection{ProphetNet Pre-training}\label{sec:exp1}
\paragraph{Model Configuration}
Our model is based on Transformer~\cite{vaswani2017attention} encoder-decoder structure.
We pre-train the ProphetNet, which contains a 12-layer encoder and 12-layer decoder with 1024 embedding/hidden size and 4096 feed-forward filter size. The batch size and training steps are set to 1024 and 500K, respectively.
We use Adam optimizer~\cite{kingma2014adam} with a learning rate of $3 \times 10^{-4}$ for pre-training.
The implement of ProphetNet is also uploaded in the attachment.
Considering the training cost, we set the $n$ to be 2 for ProphetNet in the following experiments. Further discussions are shown in \S~\ref{sec:exp6}.
\paragraph{Pre-Training Dataset}
Following BERT~\cite{devlin2018bert}, we use BookCorpus~\cite{zhu2015aligning} and English Wikipedia (16GB in total) to pre-train ProphetNet.
We pre-train ProphetNet on this 16GB dataset with $16 \times 32$GB NVIDIA V100 GPUs.
Note that we also pre-train ProphetNet on a larger scale dataset described in \S~\ref{sec:exp4}.
\paragraph{Pre-Training Setting}
The input length of ProphetNet is set to 512.
We randomly mask a continuous span in every 64 tokens.
80\% of the masked tokens are replaced by [$\mathbb{M}$], 10\% replaced by random tokens, and 10\% unchanged.
The masked length is set to 15\% of the total number of tokens. Considering the computational cost, we follow MASS~\cite{song2019mass}, where the decoder only predicts the masked fragment. The attenuation coefficient $\gamma$ is set to 1.0.
\begin{table*}[th]
\small
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\toprule
Method & ROUGE-1 & ROUGE-2 & ROUGE-L \\
\midrule
LEAD-3~\cite{nallapati2017summarunner} &40.42 &17.62 &36.67 \\
PTGEN~\cite{see2017get} & 36.44 & 15.66 & 33.42\\
PTGEN+Coverage~\cite{see2017get} &39.53 &17.28 &36.38\\
S2S-ELMo~\cite{edunov2019pre} & 41.56 & 18.94 & 38.47\\
Bottom-Up~\cite{gehrmann2018bottom} & 41.22 & 18.68 & 38.34\\
BERTSUMABS~\cite{liu2019text} & 41.72 & 19.39 & 38.76\\
BERTSUMEXTABS~\cite{liu2019text} & 42.13 & 19.60 &39.18 \\
MASS~\cite{song2019mass} & 42.12 &19.50& 39.01\\
UniLM~\cite{dong2019unified} & 43.33 &20.21& 40.51\\
\hline
ProphetNet &\textbf{43.68} & \textbf{20.64} & \textbf{40.72}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Results on the CNN/DailyMail test set.}
\label{tab:cnn}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Fine-tuning on Text Summarization}\label{sec:exp2}
As a typical NLG task, abstractive text summarization aims to generate a short and fluent summary of a long text document.
We fine-tune and evaluate ProphetNet on the two widely used text summarization datasets: (a) the non-anonymized version of the CNN/DailyMail dataset~\cite{see2017get}, and (b) Gigaword corpus~\cite{rush2015neural}.
\paragraph{CNN/DailyMail}
We use Adam optimizer~\cite{kingma2014adam} with a peak learning rate $1 \times 10^{-4}$.
The batch size, warmup steps, and the total fine-tune epoch are set to 512, 1000, and 10.
We limit the length of the output to between 45 and 110 tokens with a 1.2 length penalty during inference.
We set beam size to 5 and remove the duplicated trigrams in beam search~\cite{fan2017controllable}.
We compare our ProphetNet against following baselines:
\textbf{LEAD-3}~\cite{nallapati2016abstractive} which takes the first three sentences as the summary;
\textbf{PTGEN}~\cite{see2017get} which is Seq2Seq model incorporated with the pointer-generator network;
\textbf{PTGEN+Coverage}~\cite{see2017get} which introduce a coverage mechanism to PTGEN;
\textbf{Bottom-Up}~\cite{gehrmann2018bottom} which employs a bottom-up content selector based on Seq2Seq model;
\textbf{S2S-ELMo}~\cite{edunov2019pre} which uses the pre-trained ELMo~\cite{peters2018deep} representations.
Besides, we also compare our method with several pre-training based strong baselines: \textbf{BERTSUMABS}~\cite{liu2019text}, \textbf{MASS}~\cite{song2019mass}, and \textbf{UniLM}~\cite{dong2019unified}.
These pre-training-based strong baselines are all pre-trained on the same 16GB BookCorpus + English Wikipedia dataset as ProphetNet.
Following~\citet{see2017get}, we report the F1 scores of ROUGE-1, ROUGE-2 and ROUGE-L~\cite{lin2004rouge}.~\citet{du2017learning}
The results are presented in Table~\ref{tab:cnn}.
From the results, we can see that the ProphetNet achieves the best performances on all metrics.
\begin{table}[th]
\small
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lcccccl}
\toprule
Method & R-1 & R-2 & R-L \\
\midrule
OpenNMT~\cite{klein2017opennmt} & 36.73 & 17.86 & 33.68 \\
Re3Sum~\cite{cao2018retrieve} & 37.04 & 19.03 & 34.46 \\
MASS~\cite{song2019mass} & 38.73 & 19.71 & 35.96 \\
UniLM~\cite{dong2019unified} & 38.45 & 19.45 & 35.75\\
\hline
ProphetNet & \textbf{39.55} & \textbf{20.27} & \textbf{36.57}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Results on Gigaword test set. R is short for ROUGE.}\label{tab:gigaword}
\end{table}
\paragraph{Gigaword}
We use Adam optimizer with a peak learning rate $1 \times 10^{-4}$.
The batch size is set to 128 and warm up steps to 1000. We fine-tune model 10 epochs with future bigram prediction training.
During inference, we set the length penalty to 1.0 and beam size to 4. We set the hyper-parameters according to the performance on the dev set.
We compare our ProphetNet against following baselines:
\textbf{OpenNMT}~\cite{klein2017opennmt} which implements the standard Seq2Seq model with attention mechanism;
\textbf{Re3Sum}~\cite{cao2018retrieve} which employs an extended Seq2Seq model to generate summaries based on the retrieved candidate summaries.
And two pre-training based strong baselines: \textbf{MASS}~\cite{song2019mass}, and \textbf{UniLM}~\cite{dong2019unified}.
The results are presented in Table~\ref{tab:gigaword}.
It can be observed that ProphetNet outperforms previous models on all metrics.
\begin{table}[th]
\small
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lcccccl}
\toprule
Method & B4 & MTR & R-L \\
\midrule
CorefNQG\scriptsize{~\cite{du2018harvesting}} & 15.16 & 19.12 & - \\
SemQG\scriptsize{~\cite{zhang2019addressing}} & 18.37 & 22.65 & 46.68 \\
UniLM\scriptsize{~\cite{dong2019unified}} & 21.63 &25.04& 51.09\\
ProphetNet & \textbf{23.91} & \textbf{26.60} & \textbf{52.26}\\ \hline
MP-GSN\scriptsize{~\cite{zhao2018paragraph}} & 16.38 & 20.25 & 44.48 \\
SemQG\scriptsize{~\cite{zhang2019addressing}} & 20.76 & 24.20 & 48.91 \\
UniLM\scriptsize{~\cite{dong2019unified}} & 23.08 &25.57& 52.03\\
ProphetNet & \textbf{25.80} & \textbf{27.54} & \textbf{53.65}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Results on SQuAD 1.1 test set (with reference of ~\citet{du2017learning} tokenized). B4 is short for BLEU-4, MTR is short for METEOR, and R-L is short for ROUGE-L. The same model is used to evaluate on the two different data splits.} \label{tab:squad-recover}
\end{table}
\subsection{Fine-tuning on Question Generation}\label{sec:exp3}
The answer-aware question generation task~\cite{zhou2017neural} aims to generate a question that asks towards the given answer span based on a given text passage or document.
We conduct experiments on this task to further evaluate the ProphetNet model. Following~\citet{du2017learning}, we split the SQuAD 1.1~\cite{rajpurkar2016squad} dataset into training, development and test sets. We also report the results on the data split as did in~\citet{zhao2018paragraph}, which reverses the development set and test set.
The question generation task is typically formulated as a Seq2Seq problem.
The input passage and the answer are packed as ``answer [SEP] input passage'' as input, and the question is used as the target output sequence.
We fine-tune the ProphetNet model 10 epochs in the training set and report the results of the two kinds of data splits as mentioned above.
The first 512 tokens of the passage are fed to the model.
The peak learning rate is $1 \times 10^{-5}$ and the batch size is set to 28.
We compare ProphetNet against the following models: \textbf{CorefNQG}~\cite{du2018harvesting} which employs a feature-rich encoder based on Seq2Seq model; \textbf{MP-GSN}~\cite{zhao2018paragraph} which incorporates a gated self-attention encoder with maxout pointer; \textbf{SemQG}~\cite{zhang2019addressing} which introduces two semantics-enhanced rewards for Seq2Seq model training.
Besides, we also compare our model with \textbf{UniLM}~\cite{dong2019unified}, which is the previous state-of-the-art on this task.
The results, according to the references provided by ~\citet{du2017learning} is shown in Table~\ref{tab:squad-recover}. The same model and inference hyper-parameters are used for the two different data split with swapped dev and test set. It can be seen that ProphetNet outperforms all previous methods with significant improvement.
\begin{table*}[htbp]
\small
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{clcccl}
\toprule
Dataset & Method & Corpus & R-1 & R-2 & R-L\\
\midrule
\multirow{5}{*}{CNN/DailyMail}
& T5~\cite{raffel2019exploring} & 750GB & 43.52 & \textbf{21.55} & 40.69\\
& PEGASUSLARGE (C4)~\cite{zhang2019pegasus} & 750GB & 43.90 & 21.20 & 40.76\\
& PEGASUSLARGE (HugeNews)~\cite{zhang2019pegasus} & 3800GB & 44.17 &21.47 &41.11\\
& BART~\cite{lewis2019bart}& 160GB & 44.16 & 21.28 & 40.90\\
&ProphetNet & 160GB & \textbf{44.20} & 21.17 & \textbf{41.30}\\
\midrule
\multirow{3}{*}{Gigaword} & PEGASUSLARGE (C4)~\cite{zhang2019pegasus} & 750GB & 38.75 & 19.96 & 36.14\\
&PEGASUSLARGE (HugeNews)~\cite{zhang2019pegasus} & 3800GB & 39.12 & 19.86 & 36.24\\
&ProphetNet & 160GB & \textbf{39.51} & \textbf{20.42} & \textbf{36.69}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Results on the CNN/DailyMail and Gigaword test sets of large-scale pre-training models. R is short for ROUGE, and Corpus denotes the size of the pre-training data.}\label{tab:large}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Large-scale Pre-training}~\label{sec:exp4}
Recent works show that the pre-trained model's performance on the downstream task can be improved when using larger scaled pre-training corpora~\cite{lewis2019bart, raffel2019exploring}.
We also pre-train ProphetNet on the 160GB English language corpora of news, books, stories, and web text, which is similar\footnote{Due to CC-News is not officially released, we use similar public news corpus REALNEWS ~\cite{zellers2019defending}} to the corpus used in BART~\cite{lewis2019bart}.
The model configuration is the same as described in \S~\ref{sec:exp1}.
We fine-tune the ProphetNet on two downstream tasks CNN/DailyMail and Gigaword after pre-training, where the setting is the same as described in \S~\ref{sec:exp2}.
We compare ProphetNet (160GB) against the following strong baselines: \textbf{T5}~\cite{raffel2019exploring} which is pre-trained on the text corpus of 750GB; \textbf{PEGASUS}\textsubscript{LARGE}~\cite{zhang2019pegasus} which is pre-trained on the text corpus of 750GB and 3800GB, respectively; And \textbf{BART}~\cite{lewis2019bart} which is pre-trained on the similar dataset as the ProphetNet (160GB).
We pre-train our model on 16 $\times$ 32GB NVIDIA V100 GPUs with 14 epochs. We can see that the performance increase as ProphetNet pre-trains for more epochs on 160GB large-scale dataset. The results on test set are shown in Table~\ref{tab:large}.
Our model achieves state-of-the-art performance on CNN/DailyMail compared to other baselines.
It can be observed that the ROUGE-1 and ROUGE-L of ProphetNet on CNN/DailyMail are the highest.
Moreover, ProphetNet (160GB) outperforms PEGASUS\textsubscript{LARGE} (C4 750GB) and PEGASUS\textsubscript{LARGE} (HugeNews 3800GB) on Gigaword using only about 1/5 and 1/20 of the pre-training corpus, respectively. To the best of our knowledge, ProphetNet also achieves new state-of-the-art results on the Gigaword.
\subsection{ProphetNet without Pre-training}~\label{sec:exp5}
ProphetNet achieves significant results improvement after pre-training, we also curious about the performance of ProphetNet when directly applied it to downstream tasks without pre-training.
Therefore, we evaluate the ProphetNet model without pre-training on CNN/DailyMail.
The ProphetNet model without pre-training consists of 12-layer encoder and 12-layer decoder with 768 embedding/hidden size and 3072 feed-forward filter size.
We compare the ProphetNet model with the original Seq2Seq Transformer which has the same architecture hyper-parameters of the ProphetNet.
The training and evaluation details are the same as described in \S~\ref{sec:exp2}.
The results are shown in Table~\ref{tab:nopretrain}.
Experimental results show that our method can significantly improve the model performance even without pre-training.
\begin{table}[h]
\small
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lcccccl}
\toprule
Setting & R-1 & R-2 & R-L \\
\midrule
Transformer\scriptsize{~\cite{raffel2019exploring}} & 39.19 &17.60& 36.69\\
ProphetNet\textsubscript{w/o pre-train} & \textbf{40.66} & \textbf{18.05} & \textbf{37.79}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Results on CNN/DailyMail dev set without pre-training}
\label{tab:nopretrain}
\end{table}
\subsection{ProphetNet N-gram Comparison}~\label{sec:exp6}
ProphetNet predicts next contiguous $n$-gram tokens simultaneously for each time step. To explore the effectiveness of predicting $n$ gram, we compare our ProphetNet model with $n$=1, 2, and 3.
We also compare the MASS\textsubscript{base} which is very similar to ProphetNet\textsubscript{base}-1gram. The architecture hyper-parameter of all the models is set to 6-layer encoder, 6-layer decoder, 768 hidden size, and 12 attention heads, which are the same as MASS\textsubscript{base}. These models are also pre-trained on the Wikipedia+BookCorpus dataset with 125k steps. Other hyper-parameters are the same as the description in \S~\ref{sec:exp1}. As we mentioned in \S~\ref{sec:m1}, we set different attenuation coefficient for the power attenuation function. For ProphetNet\textsubscript{base}-2gram, $\gamma$ is set to 1.0. For ProphetNet\textsubscript{base}-3gram model, the attenuation coefficient $\gamma$ is set to 0.5.
The pre-trained models are then fine-tuned on CNN/DailyMail.
We report the F1 scores of ROUGE-1, ROUGE-2 and ROUGE-L. The results are shown in Table~\ref{tab:abngram}. We can see that the performance of ProphetNet\textsubscript{base}-3gram and ProphetNet\textsubscript{base}-2gram is comparable. Both of them perform better than MASS\textsubscript{base} and ProphetNet\textsubscript{base}-1gram. Considering the computational and time cost, we use ProphetNet\textsubscript{base}-2gram in other experiments due to its training speed is 15\% faster than ProphetNet\textsubscript{base}-3gram.
\begin{table}[ht]
\small
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lcccccl}
\toprule
Setting & R-1 & R-2 & R-L \\
\midrule
MASS\textsubscript{base}& 42.12 &19.50& 39.01\\
ProphetNet\textsubscript{base}-1gram & 42.21 & 19.54 &39.06\\
ProphetNet\textsubscript{base}-2gram & 42.52 & 19.78 &39.59\\
ProphetNet\textsubscript{base}-3gram & \textbf{42.61} & \textbf{19.83} & \textbf{39.67}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{n-gram comparison results on CNN/DailyMail test set}
\label{tab:abngram}
\end{table}
\section{Related Work}
Unsupervised pre-training has been successfully applied to various natural language processing tasks.
GPT~\cite{radford2018improving} takes plain text as pre-training data to predict the next tokens with leftward tokens. It is based on the left-to-right language model and can be used to generate stories and continue to write for a given text.
BERT~\cite{devlin2018bert} and SpanBERT~\cite{joshi2019spanbert} use a Bi-directional language model to recover masked tokens/spans for a given sentence. Bi-directional information flow can be used to recover the masked positions, but no left-to-right language model dependency is learned. As a result, BERT and SpanBERT bring significant improvement for NLU tasks but are not suitable for generation tasks. XLNet~\cite{yang2019xlnet} predicts the tokens with given positions and some tokens with their positions in the sentence in an AR manner. Although it uses AR to build a permuted-ordered language model, it is also not suitable for NLG tasks because it brought too much noise for a left-to-right language model.
MASS~\cite{song2019mass} pre-trains the sequence-to-sequence model by dropping a continuous token span to corrupt the original text and learns to recover it.
T5~\cite{raffel2019exploring} investigates different model structures and different pre-training tasks, and is pre-trained on a large scale corpus named C4 which is 750GB.
BART~\cite{lewis2019bart} uses the encoder-decoder structure to generate the original sentence with its spoiled input to denoise. In the BART decoder, the undamaged language model is learned thus brings improvement to NLG tasks.
Natural language generation methods are typically based on the left-to-right or right-to-left language models and generate one token in each time step. These methods can not capture the information of future tokens. Recently, incorporating future information into language generation tasks has attracted the attention of researchers~\cite{li2017learning,serdyuk2017twin,lawrence2019attending,oord2018representation}.~\citet{li2017learning} propose an actor-critic model which designs a value function as a critic to estimate the future success. In their method, they not only consider the MLE-based learning but also incorporate an RL-based value function into the decoder process.~\cite{oord2018representation} do not predict future tokens directly but tried to model a density ratio to preserve the mutual information between context and future token.~\citet{serdyuk2017twin} point out traditional Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs) may prefer to generate each token based on the recent tokens, it is hard to learn the long-term dependencies. To capture the future information and learn the long-term dependencies, they run the forward RNN and backward RNN in parallel.~\citet{lawrence2019attending} concatenates the source and target to train an encoder instead of encoder-decoder architecture. They use special placeholder tokens to replace some tokens of the target for the model training process. At the inference process, they generate the target by replacing each placeholder token.
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we introduce ProphetNet, a sequence-to-sequence pre-training model that learns to predict future n-gram at each time step.
ProphetNet achieves the best performance on both abstractive summarization and question generation tasks. Furthermore, ProphetNet achieves new state-of-the-art results on CNN/DailyMail and Gigaword using only about 1/3 the pre-training epochs of the previous model.
\newpage
\bibliographystyle{acl_natbib}
|
\section{Introduction}
In recent years, the visibility of scientific papers, authors, journals and conferences have been used as an important feature to quantify research relevance and impact~\cite{waltman2016review}. The number of citations has been an important quantity to gauge the visibility and quality, and for this reason, many research impact measurements have been devised based on citation counts~\cite{redner1998popular}. At the author level, for example, the h-index has been widely used as a proxy to scientific relevance~\cite{bornmann2007we}, despite the many criticisms~\cite{egghe2006improvement}.
Citations also plays an important role in evaluating journals research output. The prestige of scientific journals is oftentimes measured via citation counts, among other factors~\cite{glanzel2002journal}. One important citation index for journals is the \emph{impact factor} (IF), which essentially gives the average number of citations received by papers in a journal in the last 2 years. In many cases, researchers use journals impact factor (and other journal attributes) to identify the most relevant venue to disseminate their research. While the impact factor has been a disseminated index to measure visibility and relevance, it has been mostly used at the journal level~\cite{alberts2013impact}. In this sense, the specificities of subfields in journals have been mostly overlooked. This means that in a high impact journal, some subfields might have a lower visibility. Conversely, in a low impact journal, particular subfields might be more visible than the journal as a whole.
In this paper, we investigate the behavior of subfields visibility in scientific journals. We analyze whether there is a significant difference of visibility for different subfields in the same venue. Our analysis was performed in 450,000 Physics papers published by the \emph{American Physical Society}. Some interesting results have been found. First we found that there is a considerable variability in subfields impact in some cases. The variability in the subfields impact factor can reach up to 75\% of the average impact factor of subfields in the \emph{Physical Review Letters} (PRL) journal. In recent years, the variability reached $50\%$ of PRL impact factor. We also found that the difference in the visibility of subfields of the same journal might be higher than difference in the visibility of journals. This results suggests that not only the venue is an important factor to predict papers visibility, but also the subfield inside the journal.
The study of subfields impact is important because it provides a granular view of journals impact. This information could be used by authors to provide a more informed decision on the choice of journals to publish. The analysis of subfields impact might also be useful to understand the dynamics of journals visibility along time. A more refined visibility information in journals could also assist editors in identifying promising subfields or subfields that are no longer representative in terms of visibility.
\section{Related works} \label{sec:related}
Many factors have been found to affect papers visibility. The total number of citations might not be influenced only by the inherent quality and innovation~\cite{bornmann2015does}. The total number of citations received in the recent past might be an indicative of how many citations a paper will receive in the future~\cite{amancio2012three}. This process is referred to as preferential attachment in the network science field~\cite{jeong2003measuring,newman2001clustering}.
The journal in which the scientific paper is published is important to establish the correct audience for the paper, which may affect the future number of citations~\cite{lariviere2010impact,mckiernan2019use,bornmann2015does}. Another important feature that could affect papers visibility is the prestige of the journal. Oftentimes, prestige is gauged by visibility measurements -- such as the impact factor, CiteScore, eigenfactor and influence score~\cite{abramo2010citations}.
Prestige at the author level plays an important role in the success of papers. Renowned authors are naturally more visible and therefore tend to receive more citations~\cite{amjad2017standing}. The preferential attachment is also a relevant factor driving the dynamics of authors' citations. A recent model showed that a more reliable description of the citation curve of authors should take into consideration only the citations accrued by authors in the last 12-24 months~\cite{recency}.
Some additional factors have also been found to have an effect on the visibility of papers. This includes interdisciplinarity of the subject being approached, the number of tables, figures, references and some textual factors, such as the title length~\cite{leydesdorff2007betweenness,rostami2014effect,leydesdorff2011indicators,onodera2015factors,amancio2012using}. While many of these studies focus on the visibility of journals, papers and major fields, here we perform a visibility analysis at the subfield level. More specifically, we analyze the impact of different subfields inside journals.
\section{Methodology}
\subsection{Dataset and PACS classification}
The \emph{Physics and Astronomy Classification Scheme} (PACS) is a hierarchical classification of Physics and Astronomy scientific papers. A PACS code comprises 3 elements: a pair of two digits separated by a dot. The digits are followed by two characters (letters or positive and negative symbols). In the first part of the code, the first digit represents the main category of the paper and the second digit is the subfield inside the field specified by the first digit. The last characters in the code provide an even more specific characterization of subfields. For instance, the PACS code $05.45.-a$ refers to the following classification: ``$0$'' represents the ``\emph{General}'' field, ``$05$'' denotes ``\emph{Statistical physics, thermodynamics, and nonlinear dynamical systems}''. Finally, the last part ``-a'' represents the ``\emph{Nonlinear dynamics and chaos}'' subfield.
In our work we focused our analysis at the third hierarchical level, which corresponds to the code ``$05.45$'' in the previous example. This is an intermediary hierarchical level that allows us to analyze subfields that are neither too general nor too specific. A list of all subfields mentioned in this paper is available in the Supplementary Information.
The dataset we used for the current paper is the dataset provided by the \emph{American Physical Society} (APS). This dataset provides citations for the APS journals: \emph{Physical Review Letters} (PRL), \emph{Review of Modern Physics} (RMP) and \emph{Physical Review A}-\emph{E} (PRA-E). We obtained the citation data for over 450,000 papers published in APS journals between 1983 and 2016. While our analysis used only the citation data, journal name, PACS code and publication date, the APS dataset also provides additional information, such as DOI, title, authors names and affiliations. For each journal and year, we considered a subfield relevant if at least 50 articles were published in that field in the last two years.
\subsection{Comparing groups of papers} \label{sec:sucInd}
In this paper we compare the impact of subfields. The subfields might belong to the same journals or to different journals. The difference in the visibility of subfields was computed using the so-called \emph{citation success index}~\cite{milojevic2017citation}. We decided to use this measurement because it provides a clear interpretation of the differences in the impact factor (and citation distribution) between any two groups of papers. The success index $\mathcal{S}$ is designed to quantitatively compare the success of two journals, but the same concept can be extended to compare any set of papers. Given two set of papers, the reference ($r$) and target ($t$) sets, the success index $\mathcal{S}_{tr}$ is defined as the probability that a randomly drawn article from the target group will receive more citations than an article drawn from the reference group. $\mathcal{S}_{tr}$ can be computed directly from the citation distribution of $t$ and $r$~\cite{milojevic2017citation}:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:suc_ind}
\mathcal{S}_{tr} = \sum_{c=0}^\infty \Bigg{(} {P}_t(c) + \frac{p_t(c)}{2} \Bigg{)} p_r(c),
\end{equation}
where ${P}_t(c)$ is the fraction of papers in $t$ with more than $c$ citations, and $p_r(c)$ is the fraction of papers in $r$ that received $c$ citations.
A relationship between the citation success index and the impact factor can be derived from the definition of impact factor and the definition of the success index in equation \ref{eq:suc_ind}. The following equation can also be used to compute the citation success index:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:siif}
\mathcal{S}_{tr} = \frac{f_0}{2} + \frac{ 1 - f_0/2 }{ 1 + q \rho^{-k} }
\end{equation}
where $\rho = I_t / I_r$, is the ratio between impact factors of sets $t$ and $r$, respectively; $k=1.23$, $q$ is a normalization factor and $f_0$ is the rate of uncited papers in $r$. It has been shown that $f_0$ can be described by the following logistic function~\cite{milojevic2017citation}, which allows us to obtain $q$ from
\begin{equation}
q = \frac{1}{1-f_0}.
\end{equation}
The computation of $\mathcal{S}_{tr}$ from equation \ref{eq:siif} can be simplified whenever $f_0$ is low (which typically occurs when $I_r > 10$) or $I_t > I_r$. In this case,
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{S}_{tr} = \frac{ 1 }{ 1 + \rho^{-k} }.
\end{equation}
\section{Results and Discussion} \label{sec:results}
In Section \ref{sec:st}, we analyze some subfields statistics in journals. In Section \ref{sec:2}, we compare the visibility of subfields in the \emph{same} journal. In Section \ref{sec:3}, subfields of \emph{distinct} journals are compared.
\subsection{Subfields statistics} \label{sec:st}
We start our study by analyzing the evolution in the number of relevant subfields of journals. Overall, in most of the considered journals, the number of subfields increases along the recent years (see blue curve in Figure \ref{fig:prddiversity}). We also measured the number of subfields by considering the heterogeneity in the number of articles published in each subfield. To do so, we computed the diversity of subfields, a measurement that has been used in network science and other fields~\cite{tuomisto2010consistent,correa2017patterns,de2017knowledge,jost2006entropy}.
According to the diversity index, if all fields have the same size, the diversity of subfields corresponds to the total number of subfields. Conversely, if the only a few subfields have most of the published articles, the diversity of subfields will be much smaller than the total number of subfields. In the diversity index, such a heterogeneity is measured via entropy~\cite{correa2017patterns}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
{%
\includegraphics[scale=0.9]{PRD_diversity.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:prddiversity}Evolution in the number of PRD subfields (blue curve). The orange and green curves represent the diversity of subfields considering the number of papers and number of citations in PRD subfields, respectively.}
}
\end{figure}
The diversity of subfields measured in terms of the number of articles published for each subfield is shown in Figure \ref{fig:prddiversity} (orange curve). Note that there is a heterogeneity in the number of papers in each subfield, since the of subfields diversity is much smaller than the total number of fields. In 2015, almost 60 subfields were found; however, the diversity points to \emph{effectively} only 40 subfields. We also computed the diversity of subfields considering the number of citations received by subfields (rather than the number of published papers). For the PRD journal, Figure \ref{fig:prddiversity} shows that both diversity measurements are similar. This suggests that of number of citations received by subfields
follows the number of published papers.
A different scenario can be observed for both PRE and PRL journals in recent years (result not shown). While the diversity curves for the number of papers and citations follow the same behavior, the diversity of subfields considering the number of papers is higher than the diversity measured via citations. For instance, in 2015, 115 subfields were identified in PRL. In this same year, the diversity of subfields in terms of the number of papers was about 90 subfields. Conversely, the diversity of subfields measured in terms of citations was only about 78 subfields. This results suggests that some subfields are more cited than others and this difference cannot be explained only by subfields size in PRL. To further investigate the differences in subfields visibility, in the next section we compare subfields in the same journal using the citation success index.
\subsection{Comparing subfields in the same journal} \label{sec:2}
In order to analyze how the subfields visibility varies along time, we computed the yearly impact factor (IF) of each PACS code. In Figure \ref{fig:prl1}(a), we show the evolution of average impact factor of PRL subfields. We also show the evolution of PRL impact factor. Because we used the APS dataset, we are limited to the citations received by APS journals. As a consequence, impact factors might not be the same reported by \emph{Clarivate Analytics}~\footnote{\url{https://clarivate.com/}}. Similarly to other results in literature, this sampling does not affect the comparison of journals and subfields citation data~\cite{milojevic2017citation,recency}.
The average subfield IF is consistent with the journal IF. This happens for all considered journals. We however observe a variability of subfields impact along time, meaning that different subfields are more (or less) visible than the journal as a whole. Such a variability is evident when analyzing the coefficient of variation of subfields IF. Figure \ref{fig:prl1}(b) reveals that, in the most recent years, the typical deviation is roughly 50\% of the average IF. An even higher heterogeneity of subfields impact occurred in 1990. In that year, a typical deviation of 75\% of the average IF was observed. This result suggests that different subfields being published by PRL might have different visibility. Other APS journals display a similar behavior, however the coefficients of variation of subfields impact are typically below 0.50 (result not shown).
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
{%
\includegraphics[scale=.85]{PRL_pn3.pdf}}
\caption{Evolution of the impact factor for subfields in the PRL journal. In (a), we show both average and standard deviation of subfields impact factor. In (b), we show the coefficient of variation of subfields impact factor.
}
\label{fig:prl1}
\end{figure}
To further investigate how different is the impact of subfields inside a journal, we used the citation success index (see Section \ref{sec:sucInd}). This measurement provides a clearer interpretation regarding the difference of visibility (i.e. impact factor) between two subfields. In other words, given subfields $A$ and $B$, the success index $\mathcal{S}_{AB}$ comparing them gives the probability that a randomly drawn article from $A$ will be more cited than an article drawn $B$ (see Section \ref{sec:sucInd}).
To understand the differences in visibility, for each journal, we measured the
the success index between all pairs of subfields in the same journal. Because $\mathcal{S}_{AB} + \mathcal{S}_{BA}= 100\%$, in our analysis, for each pair $A$ and $B$,
we only considered the maximum between $\mathcal{S}_{AB}$ and $\mathcal{S}_{BA}$. The results obtained for PRB is shown in Figure \ref{fig:fig1}. For this particular journal, we note that the median success index (comparing all pairs of subfields) varies between 55-57\%. This means that typically the impact factor of subfields in PRB are similar. However, in particular cases, some subfields are much more visible than others. The highest values of success index is highlighted in the red curve. For comparison purposes, we also show the success index obtained when comparing PRL and PRB (gray curve). Typically, the difference of visibility between PRL and PRB is more significant than the difference in visibility of PRB subfields. However, for \emph{particular} pairs of subfields, the difference of visibility between subfields is more significant than the difference of impact between journals (PRL and PRB). In 2015, the success index comparing PACS 85.25 and 85.75 reached almost 85\%, while the difference between PRB and PRL was roughly 65\%.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
{%
\includegraphics[scale=1.5]{prb_prbxPRL.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:fig1}Evolution of success index comparing the impact of all pairs of PRB subfields. The red curve represents the highest success index obtained for a given year. The gray curve represent the success index resulting from the comparison of PRL and PRB. Typically, the impact difference between PRL and PRB is more significant than the impact difference between PRB subfields. A list of PACS codes is shown in the Supplementary Information.}
}
\end{figure}
In Figure \ref{fig:figpre}, we show the distribution of success indexes when comparing all pairs of PRE subfields (boxplots). In all considered years, most of the success indexes are below 60\%, revealing that there is no significant impact difference in PRE subfields for most of the considered pairs. However, as observed for PRB (see Figure \ref{fig:fig1}), some pairs of subfields display very distinct impact factors. In 2015, the comparison between PACS 89.20 and 85.75 yielded a success index higher than 85\%. This is much higher
In recent years, we can see that the typical internal impact difference is lower than the impact difference between PRA and PRE (see gray curve). Differently from Figure \ref{fig:fig1}, in terms of visibility, it seems the choice of subfield inside PRE is more important than the choice between PRA and PRE in particular years. This is clear e.g. in 1995 and 1996, when more than 75\% of all pairs of subfields were found to have a visibility difference higher than the one observed between PRA and PRE.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
{%
\includegraphics[scale=1.5]{pre_prexPRA.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:figpre}Evolution of success index comparing the impact of all pairs of PRE subfields. The red curve represents the highest success index obtained for a given year. The gray curve represents the success index resulting from the comparison of PRA and PRE. A list of PACS codes is shown in the Supplementary Information.}
}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:figpra} shows the distribution of success indexes comparing all pairs of PRA subfields. We also show the evolution of the success index comparing PRA and PRB.
This comparison is shown in two different colors: gray; meaning that the impact of PRB is higher then the impact of PRA; and blue, to represent the opposite. Unlike the previous analysis, we observe an interesting behavior after 1997. The difference in impact between PRA and PRB becomes very small, as revealed by success indexes typically below 55\%. At the same time, PRA subfields impact difference are typically larger than 55\%, once again meaning that the internal (subfield) visibility differences might be more important than the visibility differences observed between journals. In extreme cases, the success index comparing two PRA subfields reaches almost 90\%.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
{%
\includegraphics[scale=1.5]{pra_praxPRB.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:figpra}Evolution of success index comparing the impact of all pairs of PRA subfields. The red curve represents the highest success index obtained for a given year. The gray and blue curves represent the success index resulting from the comparison of PRA and PRB impact. A list of PACS codes is shown in the Supplementary Information. }
}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Comparing subfields of different journals} \label{sec:3}
While in Figures \ref{fig:fig1}--\ref{fig:figpra} we focused our analysis on the comparison of subfields in the \emph{same} journal, we now compare the impact factor of subfields in different journals. The comparison between all pairs of PRA and PRE subfields is shown in Figure \ref{fig:figprapre}. One interesting pattern observed here is that the curve of success index comparing both journals follows the same behavior of the median comparing pairs of subfields. Therefore, in general, the visibility comparison of PRA and PRE is compatible with the comparison of the respective subfields visibility. However, particular subfields have very distinct visibility, as revealed by the dynamics of the red curve in Figure \ref{fig:figprapre}. Particularly, in 2015, a very large difference in visibility was found when comparing PACS 05.70 (from PRA) and 47.65 (from PRE). Note that such a difference in visibility is much higher than the typical visibility difference between PRA and PRE.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
{%
\includegraphics[scale=1.5]{PRAvsPRE_new.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:figprapre}Evolution of success index comparing the impact of PRA and PRE subfields. The red curve represents the highest success index obtained for a given year. The gray and blue curves represent the success index resulting from the comparison of PRA and PRE impact. A list of PACS codes is shown in the Supplementary Information.}
}
\end{figure}
The relevance of comparing subfields (rather than journals) can be noted when comparing subfields from PRC and PRB journals, as shown in Figure \ref{fig:figprcprb}. From 1986 to 1994, the success index comparing PRB and PRC is compatible with the median of the success index comparing the respective subfields. However, from 2002 to 2015, it is clear that PRC and PRB have very similar values of impact factor, as revealed by values of success index very close to 50\% (see gray and blue curves). In this same period, however, the typical difference between subfields visibility was close to 60\%. Once again, for particular subfields, the citation success index reached values close to 85\%. While in 2015 the journals have the same impact factor, the subfields represented by PACS 12.38 and 61.46 were found to have a difference in impact yielding a success index close to 80\%.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
{%
\includegraphics[scale=1.5]{PRCvsPRB_new.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:figprcprb}Evolution of success index comparing the impact of PRC and PRB subfields. The red curve represents the highest success index obtained for a given year. The gray and blue curves represent the success index resulting from the comparison of PRA and PRE impact. A list of PAC codes is shown in the Supplementary Information. }
}
\end{figure}
All in all, the results presented in sections \ref{sec:2} and \ref{sec:3} revealed that subfields intra- and inter- journals might have very distinct visibility. This is an important result since it could be used as an additional information in research policies. From scholars' perspective, the quantification of subfields visibility could assist researchers in their career path decisions. Along with other field attributes, it could be of interest to know beforehand the potential visibility of subfields before efforts are made to learn and produce knowledge in the field.
Another interesting conclusion arising from the obtained results concerns the comparison of journals. Our results show that in some cases the direct comparison of journals might not give all the information relevant. Two journals with similar impact factors might have very distinct visibility values when subfields are compared. This information could be used e.g. to improve predictions and evaluations that use the impact factor (in combination with other established research impact indexes).
\section{Conclusion} \label{sec:conc}
The analysis of subfields impact is relevant to provide a more detailed information of the factors affecting journals visibility. In this paper we studied the variability of subfields impact in a subset of Physics journals published by the \emph{American Physical Society}. The identification of subfields was performed using the classification scheme provided by APS. One interesting result arising from our study is that the difference in the visibility of subfields in a same journal might be higher that the difference of visibility between journals.
Altogether, our results suggest that subfields visibility in journals might be not uniform and this information could be used to better understand the components affecting journals impact.
While we focused the subfields visibility analysis via PACS classification, this work could be extended by considering other notions of subfields~\cite{stasanew}. For example, subfields could be identified without any type of classification scheme. In particular, the identification of subfields could be performed via community detection in citation (or co-citation) networks~\cite{silva2016using}. Subfields could also be identified using co-occurrence word networks obtained from title and/or abstract~\cite{castro2019multiplex,amancio2015concentric,stella2019forma}. Collaboration networks could also be used to detect subfields~\cite{viana2013time}. Finally, we also intend to extend this study to analyze the variability of subfields visibility in other major fields.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
\noindent
DRA acknowledges financial support from São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP Grant no. 16/19069-9) and CNPq-Brazil (Grant no. 304026/2018-2). TCS gratefully acknowledges financial support from the CNPq foundation (Grant no. 408546/2018-2). XSQC acknowledges Capes-Brazil for sponsorship.
\newpage
\section*{Supplementary Information: Sublist of PACs}
This Supplementary Information lists the code of the subfields mentioned in this manuscript. The first two digits corresponds to the first hierarchical levels. In this study we analyzed subfields at the third hierarchical level. This hierarchical level comprises 3 digits.
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textbf{Code 05}: statistical physics, thermodynamics, and nonlinear dynamical systems, subfield: thermodynamics (05.70).
\item \textbf{Code 11}: General theory of fields and particles, with subfields: symmetry and conservation laws (11.30).
\item \textbf{Code 12}: specific theories and interaction models; particle systematics, with subfields: quantum electrodynamics (12.20), quantum chromodynamics (12.38).
\item \textbf{Code 21}: nmuclear structure, with subfield: nuclear forces (21.30).
\item \textbf{Code 25}: nuclear reactions: specific reactions, with subfields: relativistic heavy-ion collisions (25.75).
\item \textbf{Code 25}: nuclear astrophysics, with subfields: nuclear matter aspects of neutron stars (26.60).
\item \textbf{Code 37}: mechanical control of atoms, molecules, and ions, with subfields: atoms, molecules, and ions in cavities (37.30).
\item \textbf{Code 47}: fluid dynamics, with subfields: magneto-hydrodynamics and electro-hydrodynamics (47.65).
\item \textbf{Code 67}: quantum fluids and solids, with subfields: ultracold gases, trapped gases (67.85).
\item \textbf{Code 62}: Mechanical and acoustical properties of condensed matter, with subfield: mechanical properties of solids (62.20).
\item \textbf{Code 64}: equations of state, phase equilibria, and phase transitions, with subfields: general studies of phase transitions (64.60), phase equilibria (64.75).
\item \textbf{Code 67}: quantum fluids and solids, subfield: ultracold gases, trapped gases (67.85).
\item \textbf{Code 74}: superconductivity, with subfields: cuprate superconductors (74.72), superconducting films and low-dimensional structures (74.78).
\item \textbf{Code 75}: magnetic properties and materials, with subfields: general theory and models of magnetic ordering (75.10), spin transport effects (75.76).
\item \textbf{Code 85}: electronic and magnetic devices; microelectronics, with subfields: superconducting devices (85.25), magnetoelectronics; spintronics: devices exploiting spin polarized transport or integrated magnetic fields (85.75).
\item \textbf{Code 87}: biological and medical physics, with subfields: biomolecules: types (87.14), subcellular structure and processes (87.16).
\item \textbf{Code 89}: other areas of applied and interdisciplinary physics, subfield: interdisciplinary applications of physics (89.20).
\end{enumerate}
\newpage
\bibliographystyle{ieeetr}
|
\section{Introduction}
This paper is devoted to the study of derived categories of coherent sheaves on homogeneous varieties of semisimple algebraic groups
and the relation to their quantum cohomology.
Recall that Dubrovin's conjecture (see~\cite{Du}) predicts,
that the existence of a full exceptional collection in the bounded derived category ${\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}(X)$ of coherent sheaves
on a smooth projective variety $X$ is equivalent to the generic semisimplicity of its big quantum cohomology ring~$\BQH(X)$
(for background on quantum cohomology we refer to~\cites{Manin, FP}).
The big quantum cohomology ring is usually very hard to compute, in contrast to the small quantum cohomology $\QH(X)$.
Of course, if $\QH(X)$ is generically semisimple, then so is $\BQH(X)$.
Thus, from Dubrovin's conjecture we conclude that generic semisimplicity of~$\QH(X)$ should imply
the existence of a full exceptional collection in~${\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}(X)$.
On the other hand, it was observed that the opposite implication is not true, see~\cites{CMKMPS,GMS,Ke,Pe}.
This observation suggests that on the one hand, some mildly non-simple factors of the general fiber of $\QH(X)$
should not obstruct the existence of a full exceptional collection in ${\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}(X)$,
and on the other hand, generic semisimplicity of $\QH(X)$ should have stronger implications for~${\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}(X)$
than just the existence of a full exceptional collection.
In~\cite{KS2020} we stated for varieties of Picard number~1 a conjecture saying that
the structure of the general fiber of $\QH(X)$ determines the structure of the exceptional collection on~$X$.
In this paper we suggest a more general and precise version of this conjecture and support it by new examples.
To state the conjecture we will need some notation.
First, recall that the {\sf index} of a smooth projective variety~$X$
is the maximal integer~$m$ such that the canonical class~$K_X$ is divisible by~$m$ in~$\Pic(X)$;
we usually assume that~$X$ is a Fano variety over an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero
and write
\begin{equation*}
\omega_X \cong \mathcal{O}_X(-m),
\end{equation*}
where $\mathcal{O}_X(1)$ is a primitive ample line bundle on~$X$.
We will say that an exceptional collection $E_1,\dots,E_k$ in ${\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}(X)$ {\sf extends to a rectangular Lefschetz collection},
if the collection
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:rectangular-collection}
E_1, E_2, \dots, E_k;\
E_1(1), E_2(1), \dots, E_k(1);\ \dots;\
E_1(m-1), E_2(m-1), \dots, E_k(m-1)
\end{equation}
is also exceptional.
The orthogonal complement
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:residual-category}
\mathcal{R} =
\Big\langle
E_1,
\dots, E_k;\
\dots;\
E_1(m-1),
\dots, E_k(m-1)
\Big\rangle^\perp
\subset {\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}(X)
\end{equation}
is called the {\sf residual category} of the above collection.
In~\cite[Theorem~2.8]{KS2020} we checked that~$\mathcal{R}$ is endowed with an autoequivalence $\tau_\mathcal{R} \colon \mathcal{R} \to \mathcal{R}$
(called the {\sf induced polarization} of~$\mathcal{R}$) such that
\begin{equation*}
\tau_\mathcal{R}^m \cong {\mathbb S}_\mathcal{R}^{-1}[\dim X],
\end{equation*}
where ${\mathbb S}_\mathcal{R}$ is the Serre functor of~$\mathcal{R}$.
Thus, $\tau_\mathcal{R}$ plays in~$\mathcal{R}$ the same role as the twist by~$\mathcal{O}(1)$ plays in~${\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}(X)$.
Assume $X$ is a smooth Fano variety and let $r$ be the Picard rank of~$X$, so that $\QH(X)$ is an algebra
over the ring ${\mathbb Q}[q_1,\dots,q_r]$ of functions on the affine space $\Pic(X) \otimes {\mathbb Q}$ over~${\mathbb Q}$.
Let
\begin{equation*}
\QHc(X) := \QH(X) \otimes_{{\mathbb Q}[q_1,\dots,q_r]} {\mathbb C}
\end{equation*}
be the base change of $\QH(X)$ to the point of $\Spec({\mathbb Q}[q_1,\dots,q_r])$ corresponding to the canonical class of~$X$;
this is a ${\mathbb C}$-algebra, whose underlying vector space is canonically isomorphic to $\mathrm{H}^\bullet(X,{\mathbb C})$.
Assume that $\mathrm{H}^{\mathrm{odd}}(X,{\mathbb C}) = 0$ and let $m$ be the index of~$X$.
Then $\QHc(X)$ is commutative, so we consider the finite scheme
\begin{equation*}
\QS_X := \Spec(\QHc(X))
\end{equation*}
and call it the {\sf (canonical) quantum spectrum} of~$X$.
By Dimension Axiom for GW invariants the natural grading of $\mathrm{H}^\bullet(X,{\mathbb C})$ induces a~${\mathbb Z}/m$-grading of $\QHc(X)$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\deg(\mathrm{H}^{2i}(X,{\mathbb Q})) \equiv i \pmod m,
\end{equation*}
which gives rise to an action of the group $\mu_m$ on the quantum spectrum~$\QS_X$.
Furthermore, let
\begin{equation*}
-\mathrm{K}_X \in \mathrm{H}^2(X,{\mathbb C}) \subset \QHc(X)
\end{equation*}
be the anticanonical class.
It defines a morphism of algebras ${\mathbb C}[\kappa] \to \QHc(X)$, $\kappa \mapsto -\mathrm{K}_X$ from a polynomial algebra in the variable~$\kappa$,
which geometrically can be understood as a morphism of schemes
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:kappa}
\kappa \colon \QS_X \to {\mathbb A}^1,
\end{equation}
which is $\mu_m$-equivariant for the action on $\QS_X$ defined above and the standard action on~${\mathbb A}^1$.
\begin{remark}
The notion of quantum spectrum is parallel to that of spectral cover in the theory of Frobenius manifolds (see~\cite{Manin,Hertling}).
The map \eqref{eq:kappa} is analogous to the restriction of a Landau--Ginzburg potential to its critical locus.
\end{remark}
\begin{example}
Let $X = {\mathbb P}^n$, so that~$r = 1$ and $m = n + 1$.
Then
\begin{equation*}
\QH(X) \cong {\mathbb Q}[h,q]/(h^{n+1}-q),
\qquad \text{hence} \qquad
\QHc(X) \cong {\mathbb C}[h]/(h^{n+1} - 1).
\end{equation*}
The quantum spectrum~$\QS_{{\mathbb P}^n}$ is the reduced subscheme of~${\mathbb A}^1$ with points~$\zeta^i$, $0 \le i \le n$,
where~$\zeta$ is a primitive $(n+1)$-st root of unity.
The ${\mathbb Z}/(n+1)$-grading is defined by $\deg(h) = 1$, it induces the natural action of~$\mu_{n+1}$ on~${\mathbb A}^1$
under which~$\QS_{{\mathbb P}^n}$ is invariant.
Finally, we have~$-\mathrm{K}_X = (n+1)h$, and the map~$\kappa$ up to rescaling is the natural inclusion $\QS_{{\mathbb P}^n} \hookrightarrow {\mathbb A}^1$.
\end{example}
Our conjecture is based on an analogy between the~$\mu_m$-action on~$\QS_X$ and the twist by~$\mathcal{O}_X(1)$
on Lefschetz exceptional collections in~${\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}(X)$:
in this analogy the parts of~$\QS_X$ supported over
the complement of the origin and the origin of ${\mathbb A}^1$ (with respect to the map~$\kappa$)
\begin{equation*}
\QS^\times_X := \kappa^{-1}({\mathbb A}^1 \setminus \{0\}),
\qquad
\QS^\circ_X := \QS_X \setminus \QS^\times_X.
\end{equation*}
correspond to the rectangular part and the residual category of the Lefschetz collection.
Note that the $\mu_m$-action on~$\QS^\times_X$ is free (because it is free on~${\mathbb A}^1 \setminus \{0\}$),
hence there exists a finite subscheme $Z \subset \QS^\times_X$ such that the action map $\mu_m \times Z \to \QS^\times_X$ is an isomorphism;
the length of~$Z$ is equal to the length of~$\QS^\times_X$ divided by~$m$,
and we consider it as an analogue of the subcollection~$E_1,\dots,E_k$ in~\eqref{eq:rectangular-collection}.
Note that generic semisimplicity of~$\BQH(X)$ assumed in the following conjecture
implies the vanishing of~$\mathrm{H}^{\mathrm{odd}}(X,{\mathbb C})$ assumed above by~\cite[Theorem 1.3]{HeMaTe}.
\begin{conjecture}
\label{conjecture:main}
Let $X$ be a Fano variety of index~$m$ over an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero and assume that the big quantum cohomology~$\BQH(X)$ is generically semisimple.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
There is an $\Aut(X)$-invariant exceptional collection $E_1,\dots,E_k$ in ${\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}(X)$, where~$k$
is the length of~$\QS^\times_X$ divided by~$m$;
this collection extends to a rectangular Lefschetz collection~\eqref{eq:rectangular-collection} in ${\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}(X)$.
\item
The residual category $\mathcal{R}$ of this collection \textup(defined by~\eqref{eq:residual-category}\textup)
has a completely orthogonal $\Aut(X)$-in\-va\-ri\-ant
decomposition
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{R} = \bigoplus_{\xi \in \QS^\circ_X} \mathcal{R}_\xi
\end{equation*}
with components indexed by closed points $\xi \in \QS^\circ_X$;
moreover, the component~$\mathcal{R}_\xi$ of~$\mathcal{R}$ is generated by an exceptional collection
of length equal to the length of the localization~$(\QS^\circ_X)_\xi$ at~$\xi$.
\item
The induced polarization $\tau_\mathcal{R}$ permutes the components $\mathcal{R}_\xi$; more precisely,
for each point $\xi \in \QS^\circ_X$ it induces an equivalence
\begin{equation*}
\tau_\mathcal{R} \colon \mathcal{R}_\xi \xrightarrow{\ \sim\ } \mathcal{R}_{g(\xi)},
\end{equation*}
where $g$ is a generator of $\mu_m$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{conjecture}
Note that any exceptional object on~$X$ is invariant with respect to any \emph{connected} reductive group acting on~$X$
(see~\cite[Lemma~2.2]{Po}), however, the group $\Aut(X)$ is not connected in general.
Thus, $\Aut(X)$-invariance of the collection is an extra constraint (cf.\ the discussions in~\S\ref{subsection:theorem-an}
and~\S\ref{subsection:theorem-dn}).
Considerations from the introduction of~\cite{KS2020}
provide a Homological Mirror Symmetry justification for Conjecture~\ref{conjecture:main}
(except possibly for the~$\Aut(X)$-invariance statements, and for the action of~$\tau_\mathcal{R}$ on the residual category).
If the Picard rank of~$X$ is~1, so that $\QH(X)$ is a ${\mathbb Q}[q]$-algebra, we have
\begin{equation*}
\QH(X) \otimes_{{\mathbb Q}[q]} {\mathbb Q}(q) \cong (\QH(X) \otimes_{{\mathbb Q}[q]} {\mathbb Q}) \otimes_{\mathbb Q} {\mathbb Q}(q)
\end{equation*}
because $\QH(X)$ is ${\mathbb Z}$-graded with $\deg(q) = m$, hence semisimplicity of $\QHc(X)$ is equivalent to generic semisimplicity of~$\QH(X)$.
Moreover, if $\QH(X)$ is generically semisimple the length of each localization $(\QS^\circ_X)_\xi$ is~1,
thus Conjecture~\ref{conjecture:main} predicts the existence in~${\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}(X)$ of a rectangular Lefschetz collection
whose residual category is generated by a completely orthogonal exceptional collection,
which is equivalent to the prediction of~\cite[Conjecture~1.12]{KS2020}.
In particular, numerous examples listed in the introduction to~\cite{KS2020}
together with the main result of~\cite{KS2020} support both conjectures.
Let us also discuss a couple of simple examples of varieties with higher Picard rank.
\begin{example}
\label{ex:pn-pn}
Let $X = {\mathbb P}^n \times {\mathbb P}^n$, so that~$r = 2$ and~$m = n + 1$.
By the quantum K\"unneth formula (see \cite{Kaufmann, KMK}) we have
\begin{equation*}
\QH(X) \cong \QH({\mathbb P}^n) \otimes_{\mathbb Q} \QH({\mathbb P}^n) \cong {\mathbb Q}[h_1,h_2,q_1,q_2]/(h_1^{n+1} - q_1,\ h_2^{n+1} - q_2).
\end{equation*}
The canonical class direction corresponds to $q_1 = q_2$, so the canonical quantum cohomology ring
can be computed by specializing both~$q_1$ and~$q_2$ to~1:
\begin{equation*}
\QHc(X) \cong {\mathbb C}[h_1,h_2]/(h_1^{n+1} - 1,\ h_2^{n+1} - 1).
\end{equation*}
Its spectrum $\QS_{X}$ is a reduced scheme of length $(n+1)^2$ with points $(\zeta^i,\zeta^j)$, $0 \le i,j \le n$,
where~$\zeta$ is the primitive $(n+1)$-st root of unity.
The function~$\kappa$ (up to rescaling) is given by~$\kappa = h_1 + h_2$, so $\kappa(\zeta^i,\zeta^j) = \zeta^i + \zeta^j$
and
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:quantum-pn-pn}
\QS^\circ_{X} = {}
\begin{cases}
\varnothing, & \text{if $n = 2k$ is even,}\\
\{ (\zeta^i,\zeta^{k+1+i}) \}, & \text{if $n = 2k + 1$ is odd.}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Furthermore, the generator of $\mu_{n+1}$ acts by~$(\zeta^i,\zeta^j) \mapsto (\zeta^{i+1},\zeta^{j+1})$;
in particular the action of~$\mu_{n+1}$ on $\QS^\circ_{X}$ is simply transitive.
The formula~\eqref{eq:quantum-pn-pn} exhibits a difference between the case of even and odd~$n$;
it also appears on the level of derived category.
If~$n = 2k$, the collection of $2k + 1$ line bundles
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:pnpn-block0}
\mathcal{A} = \langle \mathcal{O}, \mathcal{O}(1,0), \mathcal{O}(0,1), \dots, \mathcal{O}(k,0), \mathcal{O}(0,k) \rangle
\end{equation}
extends to an $\Aut(X)$-invariant rectangular Lefschetz collection~${\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}(X) = \langle \mathcal{A},\dots,\mathcal{A}(n)\rangle$
of total length $(n+1)(2k+1) = (n+1)^2$,
whose residual category is zero (this can be easily proved by the argument of Lemma~\ref{lemma:an-even}).
If~$n = 2k + 1$, the collection~\eqref{eq:pnpn-block0} still
extends to an $\Aut(X)$-invariant rectangular Lefschetz collection in~${\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}(X)$, this time of length~$(n+1)n$,
and it can be checked (a similar computation in a more complicated situation can be found in~\S\ref{section:an})
that its residual category is generated by~\mbox{$n + 1 = 2k + 2$} completely orthogonal exceptional vector bundles
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
F_1 &= \mathcal{O}(-1,k),\\
F_2 &= \tau_\mathcal{R}(F_1) &&\cong \hphantom{(1)}\mathcal{O} \boxtimes \Omega^{k+1}(k+1),\\
F_3 &= \tau_\mathcal{R}(F_2) &&\cong \mathcal{O}(1) \boxtimes \Omega^{k+2}(k+2),\\
&\vdots \\
F_{k+2} &= \tau_\mathcal{R}(F_{k+1}) &&\cong \mathcal{O}(k) \boxtimes \Omega^{2k+1}(2k+1) &&\cong \mathcal{O}(k,-1),\\
F_{k+3} &= \tau_\mathcal{R}(F_{k+2}) &&\cong \Omega^{k+1}(k+1) \boxtimes \mathcal{O},\\
F_{k+4} &= \tau_\mathcal{R}(F_{k+3}) &&\cong \Omega^{k+2}(k+2) \boxtimes \mathcal{O}(1),\\
&\vdots \\
F_{2k+2} &= \tau_\mathcal{R}(F_{2k+1}) &&\cong \Omega^{2k}(2k) \boxtimes \mathcal{O}(k-1)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
(where isomorphisms are up to shift).
Note that the action of $\tau_\mathcal{R}$ on this exceptional collection is simply transitive,
analogously to the action of $\mu_{n+1}$ on~$\QS^\circ_{X}$.
\end{example}
\begin{example}
Let $X = ({\mathbb P}^1)^n$, so that~$r = n$ and~$m = 2$.
Applying again the quantum K\"unneth formula one can check that
\begin{equation*}
\QS_{({\mathbb P}^1)^n} = {}
\{ (\pm1, \pm1, \dots, \pm1) \} \subset {\mathbb A}^n
\end{equation*}
is a reduced scheme of length~$2^n$
and the function $\kappa$ is given by the sum of coordinates.
Therefore, $\QS^\circ_{({\mathbb P}^1)^n}$ is empty when $n$ is odd, while for even $n = 2k$ it contains exactly $\binom{2k}{k}$ points,
and the $\mu_2$-action splits this set into $\tfrac12\binom{2k}{k}$ free orbits.
On the level of derived categories the same thing happens.
If $n$ is odd, a rectangular~$\Aut(({\mathbb P}^1)^n)$-invariant Lefschetz collection in~${\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}(({\mathbb P}^1)^n)$
with zero residual category was constructed in~\cite[Theorem~4.1]{Mironov}.
If $n = 2k$ is even, using~\cite[Theorem~4.1]{Mironov} it is easy to show that the residual category
is generated by $\binom{2k}{k}$ exceptional line bundles and the $\tau_\mathcal{R}$-action swaps them (up to shift) pairwise.
\end{example}
Using other results from~\cite{Mironov} one can verify Conjecture~\ref{conjecture:main} for some other products~$({\mathbb P}^n)^k$.
In all these examples, however, the ring~$\QHc(X)$ is semisimple.
Below we discuss more intricate examples with non-semisimple ring~$\QHc(X)$,
provided by homogeneous varieties of simple algebraic groups,
where quite a lot is known both about quantum cohomology and derived categories.
Perhaps, the most interesting case here is that of \emph{adjoint} and \emph{coadjoint} homogeneous varieties.
Recall that an {\sf adjoint} (resp.\ {\sf coadjoint}) homogeneous variety of a simple algebraic group $\mathrm{G}$
is the highest weight vector orbit in the projectivization of the irreducible $\mathrm{G}$-representation,
whose highest weight is the highest \emph{long} (resp.\ \emph{short}) root of~$\mathrm{G}$;
in particular, if the group~$\mathrm{G}$ is simply laced, the adjoint and coadjoint varieties coincide.
For classical Dynkin types adjoint and coadjoint varieties are:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\text{Dynkin type} &
\text{group~$\mathrm{G}$} &
\text{adjoint variety} &
\text{coadjoint variety}
\\
\hline
\mathrm{A}_n & \SL(n+1) & \Fl(1,n;n+1) & \Fl(1,n;n+1)
\\
\hline
\mathrm{B}_n & \Spin(2n+1) & \OG(2,2n+1) & Q^{2n-1}
\\
\hline
\mathrm{C}_n & \Sp(2n) & {\mathbb P}^{2n-1} & \IG(2,2n)
\\
\hline
\mathrm{D}_n & \Spin(2n) & \OG(2,2n) & \OG(2,2n)
\\
\hline
\end{array}
\end{equation*}
Here $\Fl(1,n;n+1)$ is the partial flag variety, $Q^k$ is a (smooth) $k$-dimensional quadric,
while~$\IG(2,2n)$, $\OG(2,2n)$, and~$\OG(2,2n+1)$ are the symplectic and orthogonal isotropic Grassmannians of 2-dimensional subspaces, respectively.
Note that the Picard rank of a (co)adjoint variety is~1, except for the $\mathrm{A}_n$-case, where it is~2.
The small quantum cohomology ring of (co)adjoint varieties was computed in~\cite{BKT09,ChPe,CF99,Kim} in terms of generators and relations.
Using these results, the fiber~$\QS^\circ_X$ of the map~$\kappa$ defined in~\eqref{eq:kappa}
was computed by Nicolas Perrin and the second named author in~\cite{PeSm}.
To state the results of~\cite{PeSm} we will need some notation.
Let $\mathrm{T}(\mathrm{G})$ be the Dynkin diagram of~$\mathrm{G}$, and let $\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{short}}(\mathrm{G})$ be the subdiagram of $\mathrm{T}(\mathrm{G})$
with vertices corresponding to \emph{short} roots.
For reader's convenience we collect the resulting Dynkin types in a table:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\mathrm{T} & \mathrm{A}_n & \mathrm{B}_n & \mathrm{C}_n & \mathrm{D}_n & \mathrm{E}_n & \mathrm{F}_4 & \mathrm{G}_2 \\
\hline
\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{short}} & \mathrm{A}_n & \mathrm{A}_1 & \mathrm{A}_{n-1} & \mathrm{D}_n & \mathrm{E}_n & \mathrm{A}_2 & \mathrm{A}_1 \\
\hline
\end{array}
\end{equation*}
The following theorem describes~$\QS_X^\circ$ for adjoint and coadjoint varieties.
\begin{theorem}[{\cite{PeSm}}]
\label{theorem:coadjoint}
Let $X^\mathrm{ad}$ and $X^\mathrm{coad}$ be the adjoint and coadjoint varieties of a simple algebraic group~$\mathrm{G}$, respectively.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
If $\mathrm{T}(\mathrm{G}) = \mathrm{A}_{2n}$, then $\QS^\circ_{X^\mathrm{ad}} = \QS^\circ_{X^\mathrm{coad}} = \varnothing$.
\item
If $\mathrm{T}(\mathrm{G}) \ne \mathrm{A}_{2n}$, then $\QS^\circ_{X^\mathrm{coad}}$ is a single non-reduced point and the localization of~$\QHc(X^\mathrm{coad})$ at this point
is isomorphic to the Jacobian ring of a simple hypersurface singularity of type~$\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{short}}(\mathrm{G})$.
\item
If $\mathrm{T}(\mathrm{G})$ is simply laced, then we have $X^\mathrm{ad} = X^\mathrm{coad}$ and~$\QS^\circ_{X^\mathrm{ad}} = \QS^\circ_{X^\mathrm{coad}}$.
\item
If $\mathrm{T}(\mathrm{G})$ is not simply laced, then $\QS^\circ_{X^\mathrm{ad}} = \varnothing$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
A combination of Theorem~\ref{theorem:coadjoint} with Conjecture~\ref{conjecture:main}
allows us to make predictions about the structure of derived categories of adjoint and coadjoint varieties.
Our expectation is stated in the following two conjectures.
\begin{conjecture}
\label{conjecture:adjoint}
Let $X$ be the adjoint variety of a simple algebraic group~$\mathrm{G}$ over an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero.
If $\mathrm{T}(\mathrm{G})$ is not simply laced, then ${\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}(X)$ has a full $\Aut(X)$-invariant rectangular Lefschetz exceptional collection.
\end{conjecture}
\begin{conjecture}
\label{conjecture:coadjoint}
Let $X$ be the coadjoint variety of a simple algebraic group~$\mathrm{G}$ over an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero.
Then ${\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}(X)$ has an~$\Aut(X)$-invariant rectangular Lefschetz exceptional collection with residual category~$\mathcal{R}$ and
\begin{enumerate}
\item
if $\mathrm{T}(\mathrm{G}) = \mathrm{A}_n$ and $n$ is even, then $\mathcal{R} = 0$;
\item
otherwise, $\mathcal{R}$ is equivalent to the derived category of representations of a quiver of Dynkin type~$\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{short}}(\mathrm{G})$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{conjecture}
In non-simply laced Dynkin types~$\mathrm{B}_n$, $\mathrm{C}_n$, $\mathrm{F}_4$, and~$\mathrm{G}_2$ these expectations agree with known results about~${\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}(X)$.
Indeed, for adjoint varieties full rectangular Lefschetz decompositions were constructed in~\cite[Theorem~7.1]{Ku08a} for type~$\mathrm{B}_n$,
\cite[Example~1.4]{KS2020} for type~$\mathrm{C}_n$, and~\cite[\S6.4]{K06} for type~$\mathrm{G}_2$.
For coadjoint varieties the residual categories were computed in~\cite[Theorem~9.6]{CMKMPS} for type~$\mathrm{C}_n$,
in~\cite[Example~1.6]{KS2020} for types $\mathrm{B}_n$ and~$\mathrm{G}_2$,
and in~\cite[Theorem~1.4]{BKS} for type~$\mathrm{F}_4$.
So, the only non-simply laced case that is still not known is that of the adjoint variety of type~$\mathrm{F}_4$.
The main result of this paper is the proof of Conjecture~\ref{conjecture:coadjoint} for Dynkin types $\mathrm{A}_n$ and $\mathrm{D}_n$.
Since these Dynkin types are simply laced, the coadjoint and adjoint varieties coincide.
\begin{theorem}
\label{theorem:intro}
Let~$X$ be the \textup(co\textup)adjoint variety of a simple algebraic group~$\mathrm{G}$ of Dynkin type~$\mathrm{A}_n$ or~$\mathrm{D}_n$
over an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero.
Then~${\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}(X)$ has an~$\Aut(X)$-invariant rectangular Lefschetz exceptional collection with residual category~$\mathcal{R}$ and
\begin{enumerate}
\item
\label{theorem:intro:an-even}
if $\mathrm{T}(\mathrm{G}) = \mathrm{A}_n$ and $n$ is even, then $\mathcal{R} = 0$;
\item
\label{theorem:intro:an-odd}
if $\mathrm{T}(\mathrm{G}) = \mathrm{A}_n$ and $n$ is odd, then~$\mathcal{R} \cong {\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}(\mathrm{A}_n)$;
\item
\label{theorem:intro:dn}
if $\mathrm{T}(\mathrm{G}) = \mathrm{D}_n$,
then~$\mathcal{R} \cong {\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}(\mathrm{D}_n)$;
\end{enumerate}
where ${\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}(\mathrm{A}_n)$ and ${\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}(\mathrm{D}_n)$ are the derived categories of representations
of quivers of Dynkin types~$\mathrm{A}_n$ and~$\mathrm{D}_n$, respectively.
\end{theorem}
More precise versions of these results can be found in Theorem~\ref{theorem:an} (for type~$\mathrm{A}_n$)
and Theorem~\ref{theorem:dn} (for type~$\mathrm{D}_n$) in the body of the paper.
We leave the remaining exceptional types $\mathrm{E}_6$, $\mathrm{E}_7$, $\mathrm{E}_8$, and~$\mathrm{F}_4$ for future work.
Note that a part of the statement of this theorem is a construction of a full exceptional collection in~${\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}(\OG(2,2n))$,
which was not known before (see~\cite{KuPo} for a survey of results about exceptional collections on homogeneous varieties).
\begin{remark}
As one can see from Theorem~\ref{theorem:coadjoint} and Conjecture~\ref{conjecture:coadjoint},
the case of Dynkin type~$\mathrm{A}_n$ with even~$n$ is somewhat special.
In this case, the Picard rank is equal to~2, and the canonical quantum cohomology ring $\QHc(X)$ is semisimple,
so a singularity of type~$\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{short}}(\mathrm{G}) = \mathrm{A}_n$ does not show up.
However, one can see this singularity in the \emph{skew-canonical} quantum cohomology ring,
i.e., the ring obtained from $\QH(X)$ by base change to the point of~$\Pic(X) \otimes {\mathbb Q}$ corresponding to the line bundle $\mathcal{O}(1,-1)$. It would be very interesting to find a categorical interpretation of this fact.
\end{remark}
\medskip
\noindent {\bf Acknowledgements.}
We are indebted to Nicolas Perrin for sharing with us his results of quantum cohomology computations and attracting our attention
to the coadjoint varieties of types $\mathrm{A}_n$ and $\mathrm{D}_n$, that eventually led to this paper.
We thank Giordano Cotti, Anton Fonarev, Sergey Galkin, and Anton Mellit for useful discussions
and the anonymous referee for their comments.
Further, we are very grateful to Pieter Belmans for his kind permission to reuse some parts of the code written for \cite{BS},
which was instrumental for this paper, and for his comments on the first draft of this paper.
Finally, M.S. would like to thank ICTP in Trieste, and MPIM in Bonn, where a part of this work was accomplished, for their hospitality.
\section{Type $\mathrm{A}_n$}
\label{section:an}
In this section we prove parts~\eqref{theorem:intro:an-even} and~\eqref{theorem:intro:an-odd} of Theorem~\ref{theorem:intro},
restated in a more precise form in Theorem~\ref{theorem:an} below.
In this section we work over an arbitrary field~$\Bbbk$.
\subsection{Statement of the theorem}
\label{subsection:theorem-an}
Let $V$ be a vector space of dimension~$n + 1$.
Throughout this section we put
\begin{equation*}
X = \Fl(1,n;n+1) = \Fl(1,n;V) \subset {\mathbb P}(V) \times {\mathbb P}(V^\vee);
\end{equation*}
note that in this embedding $X$ is a hypersurface of bidegree $(1,1)$.
The automorphism group of $X$ is the semidirect product
\begin{equation*}
\Aut(X) \cong \PGL(V) \rtimes {\mathbb Z}/2,
\end{equation*}
where the factor ${\mathbb Z}/2$ acts by an outer automorphism (corresponding to the symmetry of the Dynkin diagram $\mathrm{A}_n$)
that is induced by the morphism
\begin{equation*}
\sigma_B \colon {\mathbb P}(V) \times {\mathbb P}(V^\vee) \xrightarrow{\ B \times B^{-1}\ } {\mathbb P}(V^\vee) \times {\mathbb P}(V)
\end{equation*}
given by a choice of non-degenerate bilinear form $B$ on $V$.
It is elementary to construct a rectangular Lefschetz decomposition for ${\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}(X)$
by using the ${\mathbb P}^{n-1}$-fibration structure $X \to {\mathbb P}(V)$ of $X$
(see the proofs of Lemma~\ref{lemma:an-even} and Lemma~\ref{lemma:an-standard-ec}).
This Lefschetz decomposition is automatically $\PGL(V)$-invariant and its residual category is trivial.
However, it is \emph{not} $\Aut(X)$-invariant, since the outer automorphism
takes it to a decomposition associated with the other ${\mathbb P}^{n-1}$-fibration $X \to {\mathbb P}(V^\vee)$,
and so does not preserve the original one.
In this section we construct in ${\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}(X)$ a rectangular $\Aut(X)$-invariant Lefschetz collection
and compute its residual category.
To state the result we need some notation.
Let
\begin{equation*}
0 \hookrightarrow \mathcal{U}_1 \hookrightarrow \mathcal{U}_n \hookrightarrow V \otimes \mathcal{O}
\end{equation*}
be the tautological flag of rank-1 and rank-$n$ subbundles in the trivial vector bundle.
We set
\begin{equation}
\label{def:ce}
\mathcal{E} := \mathcal{U}_n/\mathcal{U}_1
\end{equation}
for the intermediate quotient.
Note that $\sigma_B^*\mathcal{E} \cong \mathcal{E}^\vee$ and $\det(\mathcal{E}) \cong \mathcal{O}(1,-1)$,
where we denote by~$\mathcal{O}(a_1,a_2)$ the restriction to~$X$ of the line bundle $\mathcal{O}(a_1) \boxtimes \mathcal{O}(a_2)$ on ${\mathbb P}(V) \times {\mathbb P}(V^\vee)$.
We prove the following
\begin{theorem}
\label{theorem:an}
Set $k := \lfloor n/2 \rfloor$.
The collection of $2k + 1$ line bundles
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ca-an}
\mathcal{A} := \big\langle \mathcal{O}(0,0), \mathcal{O}(1,0), \mathcal{O}(0,1), \mathcal{O}(2,0), \mathcal{O}(0,2), \dots, \mathcal{O}(k,0), \mathcal{O}(0,k) \big\rangle
\end{equation}
in ${\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}(X)$ is exceptional and extends to an $\Aut(X)$-invariant semiorthogonal decomposition
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:rectangular-an}
{\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}(X) = \langle \mathcal{R}, \mathcal{A}, \mathcal{A} \otimes \mathcal{O}(1,1), \dots, \mathcal{A} \otimes \mathcal{O}(n-1,n-1) \rangle
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{R}$ is the residual category.
$(1)$ If $n = 2k$ the residual category is zero.
$(2)$ If $n = 2k + 1$ the residual category is generated by the $\Aut(X)$-invariant exceptional collection
\begin{multline}
\label{eq:residual-final}
\mathcal{R} = \langle \mathcal{O}(-1,k), \mathcal{O}(k,-1); \mathcal{E}(-1,k-1), \mathcal{E}^\vee(k-1,-1);
\\
\dots;
\Lambda^{k-1}\mathcal{E}(-1,1), \Lambda^{k-1}\mathcal{E}^\vee(1,-1);
\Lambda^k\mathcal{E}(-1,0) \cong \Lambda^k\mathcal{E}^\vee(0,-1) \rangle
\end{multline}
of length $n = 2k + 1$ and is equivalent to the derived category of the Dynkin quiver $\mathrm{A}_n$.
\end{theorem}
In Remark~\ref{remark:an-weights} we provide a description of $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{R}$ in terms of weights of $\SL(n+1)$.
In Corollary~\ref{cor:rectangular-part-an} we check that the collection of line bundles
defining the rectangular part of~\eqref{eq:rectangular-an} is exceptional.
Furthermore, in Lemma~\ref{lemma:an-even} (for even $n$) and Lemma~\ref{lemma:mutation-1} (for odd~$n$)
we extend it to a full exceptional collection of line bundles.
In the construction we use the advantage of already knowing a full exceptional collection on~$X$
(thanks to the ${\mathbb P}^{n-1}$-fibration mentioned above),
so it is enough to rearrange it appropriately by a sequence of mutations
(we refer to~\cite[\S2.3]{IK} for a summary of results we need; Lemma~2.13 of \emph{loc.\ cit.}\/ is especially useful).
Part~(1) of the theorem is proved in Lemma~\ref{lemma:an-even} and part~(2) in Lemma~\ref{lemma:residual-an}.
For verifications of exceptionality we will need the following
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:lb-vanishing}
If either of the following conditions
\begin{equation*}
1 - n \le a \le -1,
\quad\text{or}\quad
1 - n \le b \le -1,
\quad\text{or}\quad
(a,b) = (0,-n),
\quad\text{or}\quad
(a,b) = (-n,0)
\end{equation*}
is satisfied, then the cohomology $H^\bullet(X,\mathcal{O}(a,b))$ vanishes.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Consider the standard exact sequence
\begin{equation*}
0 \to \mathcal{O}_{{\mathbb P}(V) \times {\mathbb P}(V^\vee)}(a-1,b-1) \to \mathcal{O}_{{\mathbb P}(V) \times {\mathbb P}(V^\vee)}(a,b) \to \mathcal{O}(a,b) \to 0.
\end{equation*}
If any of the conditions listed in the lemma is satisfied, then
\begin{equation*}
H^\bullet({\mathbb P}(V) \times {\mathbb P}(V^\vee), \mathcal{O}_{{\mathbb P}(V) \times {\mathbb P}(V^\vee)}(a,b))
\quad\text{and}\quad
H^\bullet({\mathbb P}(V) \times {\mathbb P}(V^\vee), \mathcal{O}_{{\mathbb P}(V) \times {\mathbb P}(V^\vee)}(a-1,b-1))
\end{equation*}
vanish, hence $H^\bullet(X,\mathcal{O}(a,b))$ vanishes as well.
\end{proof}
One of the consequences of this computation is the following
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:rectangular-part-an}
The collection of objects in the right side of~\eqref{eq:ca-an} is an exceptional collection.
Moreover, the components~$\mathcal{A} \otimes \mathcal{O}(t,t)$ in~\eqref{eq:rectangular-an} are semiorthogonal for~$0 \le t \le n-1$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
To prove the corollary we need to show that
\begin{align*}
\Ext^\bullet(\mathcal{O}(j+t,t),\mathcal{O}(i,0)) &= H^\bullet(X,\mathcal{O}(i-j-t,-t))\\
\intertext{and}
\Ext^\bullet(\mathcal{O}(t,j+t),\mathcal{O}(i,0)) &= H^\bullet(X,\mathcal{O}(i-t,-j-t))
\end{align*}
both vanish when $0 \le i,j \le k$ and $1 \le t \le n-1$.
The first vanishing is clear since~$1-n \le -t \le -1$ and Lemma~\ref{lemma:lb-vanishing} applies.
The second vanishing also follows if $-j-t \ge 1-n$.
So, assume $-j-t \le -n$.
Then $t \ge n - j \ge n - k$, hence $i - t \le k - (n - k) = 2k - n \le 0$.
Since also $i - t \ge -t \ge 1 - n$, the vanishing also follows from Lemma~\ref{lemma:lb-vanishing}, unless $i - t = 0$.
But then we must have $i = j = t = k$ and~$n = 2k$, so that the corresponding line bundle is~$\mathcal{O}(0,-n)$,
and its cohomology vanishes, again by Lemma~\ref{lemma:lb-vanishing}.
\end{proof}
We denote the natural projections of~$X$ by
\begin{equation*}
p_1 \colon X \to {\mathbb P}(V)
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
p_2 \colon X \to {\mathbb P}(V^\vee).
\end{equation*}
For any pair of coherent sheaves on ${\mathbb P}(V)$ and ${\mathbb P}(V^\vee)$ we set
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{F}_1 \boxtimes_X \mathcal{F}_2 := p_1^*\mathcal{F}_1 \otimes p_2^*\mathcal{F}_2 \cong (\mathcal{F}_1 \boxtimes \mathcal{F}_2)\vert_X.
\end{equation*}
\subsection{Even $n$}
In this section we prove Theorem~\ref{theorem:an} for even~$n$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:an-even}
If $n = 2k$ then ${\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}(X) = \langle \mathcal{A},\mathcal{A} \otimes \mathcal{O}(1,1), \dots, \mathcal{A} \otimes \mathcal{O}(2k-1,2k-1) \rangle$,
where~$\mathcal{A}$ is defined by~\eqref{eq:ca-an}.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The ${\mathbb P}^{2k-1}$-fibration $p_1$ gives rise to the semiorthogonal decomposition
\begin{equation*}
{\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}(X) = \big\langle p_1^*({\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}({\mathbb P}(V))), p_1^*({\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}({\mathbb P}(V))) \otimes \mathcal{O}(0,1), \dots, p_1^*({\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}({\mathbb P}(V))) \otimes \mathcal{O}(0,2k-1) \big\rangle.
\end{equation*}
Choosing the exceptional collection
\begin{equation*}
{\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}({\mathbb P}(V)) = \langle \mathcal{O}(i-k), \mathcal{O}(i-k+1), \dots, \mathcal{O}(i+k) \rangle,
\end{equation*}
in the $i$-th component, we obtain a full exceptional collection in~${\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}(X)$ that takes the form
\begin{equation}
\addtolength{\jot}{-.5ex}
\label{eq:ec-an-even-1}
\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}(X) = \Big\langle
& \mathcal{O}(-k,0), \mathcal{O}(1-k,0), \dots, \mathcal{O}(k,0), \\
& \quad\mathcal{O}(1-k,1), \mathcal{O}(2-k,1), \dots, \mathcal{O}(k+1,1), \\
& \quad\quad\hspace{8em} \dots \\
& \quad\quad\quad\mathcal{O}(k-1,2k-1), \mathcal{O}(k,2k-1), \dots, \mathcal{O}(3k-1,2k-1)
\Big\rangle.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
The collection is shown in Picture~\ref{table:mutation-an-even}, the objects are represented by black dots.
{\setlength\intextsep{1ex}
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{tikzpicture}[xscale = .5, yscale = .5]
\foreach \i in {0,1,2,3,4,5}
\foreach \j in {0,1,2,3,4,5,6}
\filldraw[black] (\j+\i,\i) circle (.2em);
\foreach \i in {0,1,2,3,4,5}
\draw (\i+3,\i+3) -- (\i+3,\i) -- (\i+6,\i);
\foreach \j in {6,7,8} { \fill[white] (\j,6) circle (.2em); \draw[black] (\j,6) circle (.2em); }
\foreach \j in {7,8} { \fill[white] (\j,7) circle (.2em); \draw[black] (\j,7) circle (.2em); }
\fill[white] (8,8) circle (.2em); \draw[black] (8,8) circle (.2em);
\draw [rounded corners] (0.2,0.5) -- +(2,2) -- +(2,-0.7) -- +(-0.7,-0.7) -- +(0,0);
\draw [dashed, rounded corners] (6.2,6.5) -- +(2,2) -- +(2,-0.7) -- +(-0.7,-0.7) -- +(0,0);
\end{tikzpicture}
\bigskip
\renewcommand{\tablename}{Picture}
\caption{Mutation of~\eqref{eq:ec-an-even-1} to a rectangular Lefschetz collection for $k = 3$.}
\label{table:mutation-an-even}
\end{table}}
Now we perform a mutation:
we consider the subcollection formed by the first $k$ terms of the first line,
the first~\mbox{$k-1$} terms of the second line, and so on, up to the first term of the~$k$-th line of~\eqref{eq:ec-an-even-1}:
\begin{equation}
\addtolength{\jot}{-.5ex}
\label{eq:subcollection}
\begin{aligned}
\{ \mathcal{O}(-k,0), \mathcal{O}(1-k,0), \dots, & \mathcal{O}(-1,0); \\
\mathcal{O}(1-k,1), \dots, & \mathcal{O}(-1,1); \\
\ddots \hphantom{,}& \qquad\vdots \\
& \mathcal{O}(-1,k-1) \};
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
(this subcollection is depicted by the triangle in the left part of Picture~\ref{table:mutation-an-even})
and mutate it to the far right of the exceptional collection.
Using Lemma~\ref{lemma:lb-vanishing} it is easy to see that the objects in~\eqref{eq:subcollection}
are right-orthogonal to the objects in the rest of~\eqref{eq:ec-an-even-1}.
Hence, their mutation to the far right is realized by the anticanonical twist (e.g. see~\cite[Lemma~2.13]{IK}).
As~$\omega_X^{-1} \cong \mathcal{O}(2k,2k)$, this replaces the black dots in the triangle
by the white dots in the dashed triangle in Picture~\ref{table:mutation-an-even}.
It remains to note that the resulting full exceptional collection is precisely
the collection~$\langle \mathcal{A}, \mathcal{A} \otimes \mathcal{O}(1,1), \dots, \mathcal{A} \otimes \mathcal{O}(2k-1,2k-1) \rangle$.
Indeed, the blocks formed by the twists of the subcategory~$\mathcal{A}$ correspond to the L-shaped figures on the picture,
and their semiorthogonality was proved in Corollary~\ref{cor:rectangular-part-an}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Odd $n$: rectangular part}
From now on we set $n = 2k + 1$. First, we use the trick of Lemma~\ref{lemma:an-even} to construct a full exceptional collection
that includes the rectangular part of~\eqref{eq:rectangular-an} as a subcollection.
In this case this is slightly more complicated, so we split the construction in two steps.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:an-standard-ec}
The category ${\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}(X)$ has the following full exceptional collection:
\begin{equation}
\addtolength{\jot}{-.5ex}
\label{eq:ec-an-1}
\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}(X) = \Big\langle
& \mathcal{O}(-k,0), \mathcal{O}(1-k,0), \dots, \mathcal{O}(k+1,0), \\
& \quad\mathcal{O}(1-k,1), \mathcal{O}(2-k,1), \dots, \mathcal{O}(k+2,1), \\
& \quad\quad\hspace{8em} \dots \\
& \quad\quad\quad\mathcal{O}(-1,k-1), \mathcal{O}(0,k-1), \dots, \mathcal{O}(2k,k-1), \\
& \quad\quad\quad\mathcal{O}(-1,k), \mathcal{O}(0,k), \dots, \mathcal{O}(2k,k), \\
& \quad\quad\quad\quad\mathcal{O}(0,k+1), \mathcal{O}(1,k+1), \dots, \mathcal{O}(2k+1,k+1), \\
& \quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\hspace{8em} \dots \\
& \quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\mathcal{O}(k-1,2k), \mathcal{O}(k,2k), \dots, \mathcal{O}(3k,2k)
\Big\rangle.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
A graphical representation for the collection in case $k = 3$ can be found in Picture~\ref{table:mutation-an}.
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{tikzpicture}[xscale = .45, yscale = .45]
\foreach \i in {0,1,2,3,4,5,6}
\foreach \j in {0,1,2,3,4,5,6}
\filldraw[black] (\j+\i,\i) circle (.2em);
\foreach \i in {3,4,5,6}
\filldraw[red] (\i-1,\i) circle (.2em);
\draw[red] (2,3) circle (.5em);
\foreach \i in {0,1,2}
\filldraw[red] (\i+7,\i) circle (.2em);
\foreach \i in {0,1,2,3,4,5,6}
\draw (\i+3,\i+3) -- (\i+3,\i) -- (\i+6,\i);
\foreach \j in {7,8,9} { \fill[white] (\j,7) circle (.2em); \draw[black] (\j,7) circle (.2em); }
\foreach \j in {8,9} { \fill[white] (\j,8) circle (.2em); \draw[black] (\j,8) circle (.2em); }
\fill[white] (9,9) circle (.2em); \draw[black] (9,9) circle (.2em);
\draw [rounded corners] (0.2,0.5) -- +(2,2) -- +(2,-0.7) -- +(-0.7,-0.7) -- +(0,0);
\draw [dashed, rounded corners] (7.2,7.5) -- +(2,2) -- +(2,-0.7) -- +(-0.7,-0.7) -- +(0,0);
\end{tikzpicture}
\bigskip
\renewcommand{\tablename}{Picture}
\caption{Mutation of~\eqref{eq:ec-an-1} to a rectangular Lefschetz collection for $k = 3$.}
\label{table:mutation-an}
\end{table}
The objects depicted by black and red dots form the collection~\eqref{eq:ec-an-1};
the rows of~\eqref{eq:ec-an-1} correspond to rows in the picture (and the shifts of rows match up).
The mutation of Lemma~\ref{lemma:mutation-1} will take the objects corresponding to the black dots in the left triangle
to the objects corresponding to white dots in the dashed triangle at the top.
The L-shaped figures correspond to blocks of the rectangular Lefschetz collection (the first of them is~\eqref{eq:ca-an}).
\begin{proof}
The ${\mathbb P}^{2k}$-fibration $p_1$ gives rise to the semiorthogonal decomposition
\begin{equation*}
{\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}(X) = \big\langle p_1^*({\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}({\mathbb P}(V))), p_1^*({\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}({\mathbb P}(V))) \otimes \mathcal{O}(0,1), \dots, p_1^*({\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}({\mathbb P}(V))) \otimes \mathcal{O}(0,2k) \big\rangle.
\end{equation*}
This time for the first $k$ components (i.e., for $0 \le i \le k-1$) we choose the collection
\begin{equation*}
{\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}({\mathbb P}(V)) = \langle \mathcal{O}(i-k), \mathcal{O}(i-k+1), \dots, \mathcal{O}(i+k+1) \rangle,
\end{equation*}
and for the last $k + 1$ components (i.e., for $k \le i \le 2k$) we choose the collection
\begin{equation*}
{\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}({\mathbb P}(V)) = \langle \mathcal{O}(i-k-1), \mathcal{O}(i-k), \dots, \mathcal{O}(i+k) \rangle.
\end{equation*}
As the result, we obtain~\eqref{eq:ec-an-1}.
\end{proof}
It follows from Lemma~\ref{lemma:lb-vanishing} that the only nontrivial $\Ext$-spaces among the objects in Picture~\ref{table:mutation-an}
are those going in the upper-right direction
and additionally, there is non-trivial $\Ext$-space
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ext-special}
\Ext^{2k}(\mathcal{O}(2k,k-1),\mathcal{O}(-1,k)) = \Bbbk
\end{equation}
from the rightmost red dot to the leftmost one.
Now we consider the same subcollection~\eqref{eq:subcollection} as in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lemma:an-even}
(this subcollection is depicted by the triangle in the left part of Picture~\ref{table:mutation-an})
and mutate it to the far right of the exceptional collection.
It follows from the description of Lemma~\ref{lemma:lb-vanishing} that the objects in~\eqref{eq:subcollection}
are right-orthogonal to the objects in the rest of~\eqref{eq:ec-an-1}.
As in Lemma~\ref{lemma:an-even}, their mutation to the far right is realized by the anticanonical twist.
As~$\omega_X^{-1} \cong \mathcal{O}(2k+1,2k+1)$, we deduce the following
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:mutation-1}
The category ${\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}(X)$ has the following full exceptional collection:
\begin{equation}
\addtolength{\jot}{-.5ex}
\label{eq:ec-an-2}
\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}(X) = \Big\langle
& \quad\mathcal{O}(0,0), \mathcal{O}(1,0), \dots, \mathcal{O}(k+1,0), \\
& \quad\mathcal{O}(0,1), \mathcal{O}(1,1), \dots, \mathcal{O}(k+2,1), \\
& \quad\hspace{8em} \dots \\
& \quad\mathcal{O}(0,k-1), \mathcal{O}(1,k-1), \dots, \mathcal{O}(2k,k-1), \\
& \mathcal{O}(-1,k), \mathcal{O}(0,k), \dots, \mathcal{O}(2k,k), \\
& \quad\mathcal{O}(0,k+1), \mathcal{O}(1,k+1), \dots, \mathcal{O}(2k+1,k+1), \\
& \quad\quad\hspace{8em} \dots \\
& \quad\quad\quad\mathcal{O}(k-1,2k), \mathcal{O}(k,2k), \dots, \mathcal{O}(3k,2k), \\
& \quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\mathcal{O}(k+1,2k+1), \mathcal{O}(k+2,2k+1), \dots, \mathcal{O}(2k,2k+1), \\
& \quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\hphantom{\mathcal{O}(k+1,2k+1),}\, \mathcal{O}(k+2,2k+2), \dots, \mathcal{O}(2k,2k+2). \\
& \quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\hphantom{\mathcal{O}(k+1,2k+1), \mathcal{O}(k+2,2k+1), }\dots \\
& \quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\hphantom{\mathcal{O}(k+1,2k+1), \mathcal{O}(k+2,2k+1), \dots, }\, \mathcal{O}(2k,3k)
\Big\rangle.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
The resulting collection in the case $k = 3$ is shown in Picture~\ref{table:mutation-an}:
the objects corresponding to the black dots in the lower-left triangle are replaced by the white dots in the upper-right triangle;
the rows of~\eqref{eq:ec-an-2} correspond to the rows in the picture (and the shifts of rows match).
\subsection{Odd $n$: residual category}
We note that the resulting exceptional collection~\eqref{eq:ec-an-2} is already quite close to what we need.
For instance, it already contains the rectangular part of~\eqref{eq:rectangular-an}.
Indeed, the blocks $\mathcal{A} \otimes \mathcal{O}(i,i)$ of~\eqref{eq:rectangular-an}
are generated by the objects corresponding to the dots in Picture~\ref{table:mutation-an} joined into L-shaped figures.
However, the objects which are not in the rectangular part
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{O}(k+1,0),\mathcal{O}(k+2,1),\dots,\mathcal{O}(2k,k-1),
\mathcal{O}(-1,k),\mathcal{O}(0,k+1),\mathcal{O}(1,k+2),\dots,\mathcal{O}(k-1,2k)
\end{equation*}
(they are marked with red dots on the picture),
are not yet right-orthogonal to the rectangular part (hence are not yet contained in the residual category).
The next step is to mutate them accordingly.
\begin{proposition}
If $\mathcal{R} \subset {\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}(X)$ is the residual category of the rectangular collection defined by~\eqref{eq:rectangular-an},
then $\mathcal{R}$ is generated by the following exceptional collection
\begin{multline}
\label{eq:cr-preliminary}
\mathcal{R} = \langle
\Omega^{k+1}(k+1) \boxtimes_X \mathcal{O},
\Omega^{k+2}(k+2) \boxtimes_X \mathcal{O}(1), \dots,
\Omega^{2k}(2k) \boxtimes_X \mathcal{O}(k-1)
,\\
\mathcal{O}(-1,k),\\
\mathcal{O} \boxtimes_X \Omega^{k+1}(k+1),
\mathcal{O}(1) \boxtimes_X \Omega^{k+2}(k+2), \dots,
\mathcal{O}(k-1) \boxtimes_X \Omega^{2k}(2k)
\rangle.
\end{multline}
The only non-trivial $\Ext$-spaces between the objects of this exceptional collection are
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:exts-cr-preliminary}
\begin{aligned}
& \Hom(\Omega^{k+i-1}(k+i-1) \boxtimes_X \mathcal{O}(i-2), && \Omega^{k+i}(k+i) \boxtimes_X \mathcal{O}(i-1)) && = \Bbbk, && 2 \le i \le k\\
& \Hom(\Omega^{2k}(2k) \boxtimes_X \mathcal{O}(k-1), && \mathcal{O}(-1,k)) && = \Bbbk,\\
& \Ext^k(\mathcal{O}(-1,k), && \mathcal{O} \boxtimes_X \Omega^{k+1}(k+1)) && = \Bbbk,\\
& \Hom(\mathcal{O}(i-2) \boxtimes_X \Omega^{k+i-1}(k+i-1), && \mathcal{O}(i-1) \boxtimes_X \Omega^{k+i}(k+i)) && = \Bbbk, && 2 \le i \le k.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
In particular, $\mathcal{R}$ is equivalent to the derived category of the Dynkin quiver $\mathrm{A}_{2k+1}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
It follows from Lemma~\ref{lemma:lb-vanishing} that the object $\mathcal{O}(-1,k)$
(corresponding to the circled red dot in Picture~\ref{table:mutation-an}) is already in the residual category,
so it is enough to mutate the other $2k$ objects.
Consider the exact sequences
\begin{multline}
\label{eq:mutation-1}
0 \to \Omega^{k+i}(k+i) \boxtimes_X \mathcal{O}(i-1) \to
\Lambda^{k+i}V^\vee \otimes \mathcal{O}(0,i-1) \to \\
\dots \to
V^\vee \otimes \mathcal{O}(k+i-1,i-1) \to
\mathcal{O}(k+i,i-1) \to 0
\end{multline}
obtained by an appropriate twist of the pullback to $X$ of the truncated Koszul complex on~${\mathbb P}(V)$,
and analogous exact sequences
\begin{multline}
\label{eq:mutation-2}
0 \to \mathcal{O}(i-1) \boxtimes_X \Omega^{k+i}(k+i) \to
\Lambda^{k+i}V \otimes \mathcal{O}(i-1,0) \to \\
\dots \to
V \otimes \mathcal{O}(i-1,k+i-1) \to
\mathcal{O}(i-1,k+i) \to 0.
\end{multline}
If we show that the objects $\Omega^{k+i}(k+i) \boxtimes_X \mathcal{O}(i-1)$ and $\mathcal{O}(i-1) \boxtimes_X \Omega^{k+i}(k+i)$ belong to $\mathcal{R}$,
it will follow that these exact sequences express mutations of $\mathcal{O}(k+i,i-1)$ and $\mathcal{O}(i-1,k+i)$
through the rectangular part of~\eqref{eq:rectangular-an},
and that together with the object $\mathcal{O}(-1,k)$ these objects generate the residual category~$\mathcal{R}$.
So, we need to check that $\Ext^\bullet(\mathcal{O}(a,b),-) = H^\bullet(X, - \otimes \mathcal{O}(-a,-b))$ vanishes on these objects when $\mathcal{O}(a,b)$
run through the set of objects generating the rectangular part of~\eqref{eq:rectangular-an}, i.e., for
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:lefschetz-conditions}
0 \le a \le b \le a + k \le 3k \qquad \text{and} \qquad
0 \le b \le a \le b + k \le 3k.
\end{equation}
We have exact sequences on ${\mathbb P}(V) \times {\mathbb P}(V^\vee)$
\begin{equation*}
0
\to \Omega^{k+i}(k+i-1) \boxtimes \mathcal{O}(i-2)
\to \Omega^{k+i}(k+i) \boxtimes \mathcal{O}(i-1)
\to \Omega^{k+i}(k+i) \boxtimes_X \mathcal{O}(i-1)
\to 0.
\end{equation*}
To compute $H^\bullet(X,\Omega^{k+i}(k+i-a) \boxtimes_X \mathcal{O}(i-1-b))$ we thus need to compute two tensor products
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:cohomology}
H^\bullet({\mathbb P}(V), \Omega^{k+i}(k+i-a)) \otimes H^\bullet({\mathbb P}(V^\vee), \mathcal{O}(i-1-b)), \\
H^\bullet({\mathbb P}(V), \Omega^{k+i}(k+i-1-a)) \otimes H^\bullet({\mathbb P}(V^\vee), \mathcal{O}(i-2-b)).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
By Bott's formula~\cite[Proposition~14.4]{Bott} the first factors in these products are zero, except for
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:a-conditions}
\begin{aligned}
& a \le -1,
&& \text{or}
&& a = k+i,
&& \text{or}
&& a \ge 2k + 2,
\\
& a \le -2,
&& \text{or}
&& a = k+i-1,
&& \text{or}
&& a \ge 2k + 1
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
(the conditions in the first (resp.\ second) line of~\eqref{eq:a-conditions} corresponds to
non-vanishing of the first factors in the first (resp.\ second) line in~\eqref{eq:cohomology}).
Similarly, the second factors vanish except for
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:b-conditions}
\begin{aligned}
& b \le i - 1,
&& \text{or}
&& b \ge 2k + i + 1,
\\
& b \le i - 2,
&& \text{or}
&& b \ge 2k + i
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
(with the same convention about the role of the lines). Clearly, \eqref{eq:lefschetz-conditions} is not compatible with the conditions $a \le -1$ or $a \le -2$ in~\eqref{eq:a-conditions}.
Furthermore, \eqref{eq:lefschetz-conditions} implies that $|a - b| \le k$, which contradicts all conditions in~\eqref{eq:a-conditions} and~\eqref{eq:b-conditions}, except for those in the last columns.
However, in the latter case both $a$ and $b$ are strictly bigger than $2k$ (recall that $1 \le i \le k$),
which also contradicts~\eqref{eq:lefschetz-conditions}.
Thus, we conclude that for all $(a,b)$ satisfying~\eqref{eq:lefschetz-conditions}
either of the factors in the tensor products~\eqref{eq:cohomology} vanishes,
hence the objects $\Omega^{k+i}(k+i) \boxtimes_X \mathcal{O}(i-1)$ belong to the residual category~$\mathcal{R}$.
By symmetry it also follows that the objects $\mathcal{O}(i-1) \boxtimes_X \Omega^{k+i}(k+i)$ belong to~$\mathcal{R}$.
Thus, all the objects in the right side of~\eqref{eq:cr-preliminary} are in~$\mathcal{R}$.
Moreover, as we already pointed out, it also follows that~\eqref{eq:mutation-1} and~\eqref{eq:mutation-2} are mutation sequences.
Therefore, together with the line bundle~$\mathcal{O}(-1,k)$ the objects in the right side of~\eqref{eq:cr-preliminary} generate~$\mathcal{R}$.
Similarly, from Lemma~\ref{lemma:lb-vanishing} and the mutation sequences, orthogonality between the rows of~\eqref{eq:cr-preliminary} follows,
so it remains to compute $\Ext$-spaces between objects in each row as well as
from objects in the first row to $\mathcal{O}(-1,k)$, and from $\mathcal{O}(-1,k)$ to objects in the last~row.
For this we use~\eqref{eq:mutation-1} and~\eqref{eq:mutation-2} as resolutions for the source objects.
Since almost all terms in these sequences are in the rectangular part of~\eqref{eq:rectangular-an},
it follows that it is enough to compute $\Ext$-spaces from the rightmost objects only
(i.e., for the red dots from Picture~\ref{table:mutation-an}).
Thus, we need to describe the tensor products in~\eqref{eq:cohomology} for~$(a,b)$ satisfying
\begin{equation*}
0 \le a \le k - 1,\quad
b = a + k + 1
\qquad\text{or}\qquad
0 \le b \le k - 1,\quad
a = b + k + 1.
\end{equation*}
Clearly, the assumption $0 \le a \le k - 1$ contradicts all conditions in~\eqref{eq:a-conditions}.
On the other hand, if $0 \le b \le k - 1$ and $a = b + k + 1$, then $a \le 2k$, so the only compatible conditions are
\begin{equation*}
(a,b) = (k + i, i - 1)
\qquad\text{or}\qquad
(a,b) = (k + i - 1, i - 2).
\end{equation*}
Furthermore, in the first of these cases the first tensor product in~\eqref{eq:cohomology} is 1-dimensional
(and lives in the cohomological degree~$k+i$),
and in the second of these cases the second tensor product is 1-dimensional
(and lives in the same cohomological degree).
This computation proves that the only $\Ext$-spaces between the objects in the first and the last rows of~\eqref{eq:cr-preliminary}
are those listed in the first and last lines of~\eqref{eq:exts-cr-preliminary}.
Next, we compute $\Ext$-spaces from objects in the first row of~\eqref{eq:cr-preliminary} to~$\mathcal{O}(-1,k)$.
As before we use~\eqref{eq:mutation-1} as resolutions.
The only object that appears in~\eqref{eq:mutation-1}
which is not semiorthogonal to $\mathcal{O}(-1,k)$ is $\mathcal{O}(2k,k-1)$ (see Lemma~\ref{lemma:lb-vanishing} and~\eqref{eq:ext-special}),
from which we have a 1-dimensional $\Ext$-space in degree~$2k$.
Therefore, the only $\Ext$-space from objects of the first row to~$\mathcal{O}(-1,k)$
is given by the second line of~\eqref{eq:exts-cr-preliminary}.
Finally, we compute $\Ext$-spaces from~$\mathcal{O}(-1,k)$ to objects in the last row of~\eqref{eq:cr-preliminary}.
First, we consider the Koszul exact sequence
\begin{equation*}
0 \to \mathcal{O}(-1,k) \to
\Lambda^{2k+1}V^\vee \otimes \mathcal{O}(0,k) \to \\
\dots \to
V^\vee \otimes \mathcal{O}(2k,k) \to
\mathcal{O}(2k+1,k) \to 0.
\end{equation*}
All its terms (except for the leftmost and rightmost) are in the rectangular part of~\eqref{eq:rectangular-an}, hence
\begin{equation*}
\Ext^p(\mathcal{O}(-1,k), \mathcal{O}(i-1) \boxtimes_X \Omega^{k+i}(k+i)) \cong
\Ext^{p + 2k + 1}(\mathcal{O}(2k+1,k), \mathcal{O}(i-1) \boxtimes_X \Omega^{k+i}(k+i)).
\end{equation*}
Now we use~\eqref{eq:mutation-2} as a resolution for $\mathcal{O}(i-1) \boxtimes_X \Omega^{k+i}(k+i)$.
Clearly, the only nontrivial $\Ext$-space from $\mathcal{O}(2k+1,k)$ to its terms is
\begin{equation*}
\Ext^{2k}(\mathcal{O}(2k+1,k),\mathcal{O}(0,k+1)) \cong H^{2k}(X,\mathcal{O}(-2k-1,1)) \cong \Bbbk
\end{equation*}
(which holds for $i = k + 1$). Therefore, the only $\Ext$-space from $\mathcal{O}(-1,k)$ to the last row of~\eqref{eq:rectangular-an}
is given by the third line of~\eqref{eq:exts-cr-preliminary}.
It is clear from the above description of $\Ext$-spaces
that the category $\mathcal{R}$ is equivalent to the derived category of the Dynkin quiver~$\mathrm{A}_{2k+1}$
(with the objects in~\eqref{eq:cr-preliminary} corresponding to simple representations of the quiver, up to shift).
\end{proof}
So far, the description of $\mathcal{R}$ we obtained does not look symmetric with respect to outer automorphisms of $X$,
and also looks different from the description in Theorem~\ref{theorem:an}.
In the next statement we show that the two descriptions agree.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:residual-an}
The category~$\mathcal{R}$ defined by~\eqref{eq:cr-preliminary} is generated by the exceptional collection~\eqref{eq:residual-final}.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The definition~\eqref{def:ce} of the object $\mathcal{E}$ can be rewritten as the exact sequence
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ce-1}
0 \to \mathcal{E} \to \mathrm{T}(-1) \boxtimes_X \mathcal{O} \to \mathcal{O}(0,1) \to 0.
\end{equation}
It follows that $\rk(\mathcal{E}) = 2k$ and $\det(\mathcal{E}) \cong \mathcal{O}(1,-1)$, hence
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:wedge-ce}
\Lambda^i\mathcal{E}^\vee \cong \Lambda^{2k-i}\mathcal{E} \otimes \mathcal{O}(-1,1).
\end{equation}
Dualizing~\eqref{eq:ce-1}, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
0 \to \mathcal{O}(0,-1) \to \Omega(1) \boxtimes_X \mathcal{O} \to \mathcal{E}^\vee \to 0.
\end{equation*}
Taking its $(k+i)$-th exterior power and twisting by $\mathcal{O}(0,i-1)$, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
0 \to \Lambda^{k+i-1}\mathcal{E}^\vee(0,i-2) \to \Omega^{k+i}(k+i) \boxtimes_X \mathcal{O}(i-1) \to \Lambda^{k+i}\mathcal{E}^\vee(0,i-1) \to 0.
\end{equation*}
Using~\eqref{eq:wedge-ce}, we can rewrite this as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ce-om-ce}
0 \to \Lambda^{k-i+1}\mathcal{E}(-1,i-1) \to \Omega^{k+i}(k+i) \boxtimes_X \mathcal{O}(i-1) \to \Lambda^{k-i}\mathcal{E}(-1,i) \to 0.
\end{equation}
Now we interpret these sequences as mutations of~\eqref{eq:cr-preliminary}:
\begin{itemize}
\item
For $i = k$, the second arrow in~\eqref{eq:ce-om-ce} is the unique (by~\eqref{eq:exts-cr-preliminary}) morphism
\begin{equation*}
\Omega^{2k}(2k) \boxtimes_X \mathcal{O}(k-1) \to \mathcal{O}(-1,k),
\end{equation*}
therefore its kernel (up to shift) is the right mutation of $\Omega^{2k}(2k) \boxtimes_X \mathcal{O}(k-1)$ through~$\mathcal{O}(-1,k)$,
and so by~\eqref{eq:ce-om-ce} the result of the mutation is $\mathcal{E}(-1,k-1)$.
\item
For $i = k-1$, the second arrow in~\eqref{eq:ce-om-ce} is the unique morphism
\begin{equation*}
\Omega^{2k-1}(2k-1) \boxtimes_X \mathcal{O}(k-2) \to \mathcal{E}(-1,k-1),
\end{equation*}
therefore its kernel (up to shift) is the right mutation of $\Omega^{2k-1}(2k-1) \boxtimes_X \mathcal{O}(k-2)$ through $\mathcal{E}(-1,k-1)$,
and so the result of the mutation is $\Lambda^2\mathcal{E}(-1,k-2)$.
Note here that the intermediate mutation of $\Omega^{2k-1}(2k-1) \boxtimes_X \mathcal{O}(k-2)$ through $\mathcal{O}(-1,k)$ is trivial,
because these objects are completely orthogonal by~\eqref{eq:exts-cr-preliminary}.
\end{itemize}
Continuing in the same manner, we conclude that the mutation of $\Omega^{2k-j}(2k-j) \boxtimes_X \mathcal{O}(k-j-1)$
through $\langle \Omega^{2k-j+1}(2k-j+1) \boxtimes_X \mathcal{O}(k-j), \dots, \Omega^{2k}(2k) \boxtimes_X \mathcal{O}(k-1), \mathcal{O}(-1,k) \rangle$
is the same as its mutation through $\langle \mathcal{O}(-1,k), \mathcal{E}(-1,k-1), \dots, \Lambda^j\mathcal{E}(-1,k-j) \rangle$,
and is the same as its mutation through the last object $\Lambda^j\mathcal{E}(-1,k-j)$.
Therefore, it is realized by the complex~\eqref{eq:ce-om-ce} with~$i = k - j$,
hence the result of the mutation is $\Lambda^{j+1}\mathcal{E}(-1,k-j-1)$.
Thus, we see that the category $\mathcal{R}$ is generated by the following exceptional collection
\begin{multline}
\label{eq:cr-intermediate}
\mathcal{R} = \langle \mathcal{O}(-1,k), \mathcal{E}(-1,k-1), \dots, \Lambda^{k-1}\mathcal{E}(-1,1), \Lambda^k\mathcal{E}(-1,0),
\\
\mathcal{O} \boxtimes_X \Omega^{k+1}(k+1),
\mathcal{O}(1) \boxtimes_X \Omega^{k+2}(k+2), \dots,
\mathcal{O}(k-1) \boxtimes_X \Omega^{2k}(2k)
\rangle,
\end{multline}
and moreover, the only $\Ext$-spaces between the objects in the first row and the second row of~\eqref{eq:cr-intermediate}, are
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ext-cr-intermediate}
\Ext^\bullet(\Lambda^i\mathcal{E}(-1,k-i),\mathcal{O}(j-1) \boxtimes_X \Omega^{k+j}(k+j)) =
\begin{cases}
\Bbbk[i-k], & \text{if $j = 1$}\\
0, & \text{if $2 \le j \le k$.}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Note also that by~\eqref{eq:wedge-ce} the last term in the first line of~\eqref{eq:cr-intermediate}
is isomorphic to $\Lambda^k\mathcal{E}^\vee(0,-1)$.
For the second half of mutations, we note that applying an outer automorphism of $X$ to~\eqref{eq:ce-om-ce} we obtain exact sequences
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ce-om-ce-2}
0 \to \Lambda^{k-i+1}\mathcal{E}^\vee(i-1,-1) \to \mathcal{O}(i-1) \boxtimes_X \Omega^{k+i}(k+i) \to \Lambda^{k-i}\mathcal{E}^\vee(i,-1) \to 0.
\end{equation}
Now we interpret these sequences as mutations.
Note that~$\Lambda^{k}\mathcal{E}(-1,0) \cong \Lambda^{k}\mathcal{E}^\vee(0,-1)$ by~\eqref{eq:wedge-ce}).
\begin{itemize}
\item
For $i = 1$, the first arrow in~\eqref{eq:ce-om-ce-2} is the unique (by~\eqref{eq:ext-cr-intermediate}) morphism
\begin{equation*}
\Lambda^{k}\mathcal{E}^\vee(0,-1) \to \mathcal{O} \boxtimes_X \Omega^{k+1}(k+1),
\end{equation*}
therefore its cokernel (up to shift) is the left mutation of the object $\mathcal{O} \boxtimes_X \Omega^{k+1}(k+1)$ through~$\Lambda^{k}\mathcal{E}^\vee(0,-1)$,
and so the result of the mutation is $\Lambda^{k-1}\mathcal{E}^\vee(1,-1)$.
\item
For $i = 2$, the first arrow in~\eqref{eq:ce-om-ce-2} is the unique morphism
\begin{equation*}
\Lambda^{k-1}\mathcal{E}^\vee(1,-1) \to \mathcal{O}(1) \boxtimes_X \Omega^{k+2}(k+2),
\end{equation*}
therefore its cokernel (up to shift) is the left mutation of $\mathcal{O}(1) \boxtimes_X \Omega^{k+2}(k+2)$ through~$\Lambda^{k-1}\mathcal{E}^\vee(1,-1)$,
and so the result of the mutation is $\Lambda^{k-2}\mathcal{E}^\vee(2,-1)$.
Note here that the intermediate mutation of $\mathcal{O}(1) \boxtimes_X \Omega^{k+2}(k+2)$ through $\Lambda^{k}\mathcal{E}^\vee(0,-1)$ is trivial,
because these objects are completely orthogonal by~\eqref{eq:ext-cr-intermediate}.
\end{itemize}
Continuing in the same manner, we conclude that the mutation of $\mathcal{O}(i-1) \boxtimes_X \Omega^{k+i}(k+i)$
through $\langle \Lambda^{k}\mathcal{E}^\vee(0,-1), \mathcal{O} \boxtimes_X \Omega^{k+1}(k+1), \dots, \mathcal{O}(i-2) \boxtimes_X \Omega^{k+i-1}(k+i-1) \rangle$
is the same as its mutation through $\langle \Lambda^{k-i+1}\mathcal{E}^\vee(i-1,-1), \dots, \Lambda^{k-1}\mathcal{E}^\vee(1,-1), \Lambda^{k}\mathcal{E}^\vee(0,-1) \rangle$,
and the same as its mutation through the first object $\Lambda^{k-i+1}\mathcal{E}^\vee(i-1,-1)$.
Therefore, it is realized by the complex~\eqref{eq:ce-om-ce-2},
hence the result of the mutation is $\Lambda^{k-i+1}\mathcal{E}^\vee(i-1,-1)$.
Thus, we see that the category $\mathcal{R}$ is generated by~\eqref{eq:residual-final}.
Moreover, we see that the only $\Ext$-spaces between the objects in~\eqref{eq:residual-final} are
\begin{align*}
&\Ext^{j-i}(\Lambda^i\mathcal{E}\hphantom{{}^\vee}(0,k-i), \Lambda^j\mathcal{E}\hphantom{{}^\vee}(0,k-j)) = \Bbbk, && 0 \le i \le j \le k,
\\
&\Ext^{j-i}(\Lambda^i\mathcal{E}^\vee(0,k-i), \Lambda^j\mathcal{E}^\vee(0,k-j)) = \Bbbk, && 0 \le i \le j \le k.
\end{align*}
In other words, the configuration of these exceptional objects is the following:
\begin{equation*}
\xymatrix@C=.8em@R=1ex{
\mathcal{O}(-1,k)[-k] \ar[r] &
\mathcal{E}(-1,k-1)[1-k] \ar[r] &
\dots \ar[r] &
\Lambda^{k-1}\mathcal{E}(-1,1)[-1] \ar[dr]
\\
&&&& \Lambda^k\mathcal{E}(-1,0) \cong \Lambda^k\mathcal{E}^\vee(0,-1)
\\
\mathcal{O}(k,-1)[-k] \ar[r] &
\mathcal{E}^\vee(k-1,-1)[1-k] \ar[r] &
\dots \ar[r] &
\Lambda^{k-1}\mathcal{E}^\vee(1,-1)[-1] \ar[ur]
}
\end{equation*}
So, this exceptional collection corresponds to shifts of projective modules in a quiver of Dynkin type $\mathrm{A}_{2k+1}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
\label{remark:an-weights}
The flag variety $X$ is a homogeneous space for the action of the reductive group~$\SL(n+1) = \SL(V)$.
Using the group-theoretic notation introduced in~\S\ref{section:preliminaries},
and denoting by~$\omega_i$ the highest weight of the fundamental representation~$\Lambda^iV^\vee \cong \Lambda^{n+1-i}V$,
one can rewrite the exceptional collection of Theorem~\ref{theorem:an} as follows.
The first block of the rectangular part~$\mathcal{A}$ of ${\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}(X)$ can be written as
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{A} = \langle \mathcal{O}, \mathcal{U}^{\omega_1}, \mathcal{U}^{\omega_n}, \mathcal{U}^{2\omega_1}, \mathcal{U}^{2\omega_n}, \dots, \mathcal{U}^{k\omega_1}, \mathcal{U}^{k\omega_n} \rangle
\end{equation*}
Furthermore, if $n = 2k + 1$ the residual category $\mathcal{R}$ can be written as
\begin{multline*}
\mathcal{R} = \langle
\mathcal{U}^{-\omega_1 + k\omega_{n} }, \mathcal{U}^{k\omega_1 - \omega_{n}};
\mathcal{U}^{-\omega_1 + \omega_{n-1} + (k-2)\omega_{n}}, \mathcal{U}^{(k-2)\omega_1 + \omega_2 - \omega_{n}}; \dots \\
\dots;
\mathcal{U}^{-\omega_1 + \omega_{n-i} + (k-i-1)\omega_{n}}, \mathcal{U}^{(k-i-1)\omega_1 + \omega_{i+1} - \omega_{n}};
\dots \\
\mathcal{U}^{- \omega_1 + \omega_{k+2} }, \mathcal{U}^{\omega_{k} - \omega_{n}};
\mathcal{U}^{- \omega_1 + \omega_{k+1} - \omega_{n}}
\rangle.
\end{multline*}
\end{remark}
\section{Type $\mathrm{D}_n$}
\label{section:dn}
In this section we prove part~\eqref{theorem:intro:dn} of Theorem~\ref{theorem:intro},
restated in a more precise form in Theorem~\ref{theorem:dn} below.
We work over an algebraically closed field~$\Bbbk$ of characteristic zero.
Let us point out again that, unlike in type~$\mathrm{A}_n$, a full exceptional collection in~${\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}(\OG(2,2n))$ was not known before.
Throughout this section we assume~$n \ge 4$.
\subsection{Equivariant bundles on homogeneous varieties}
\label{section:preliminaries}
We start with a brief reminder about equivariant vector bundles on homogeneous varieties.
For more details see~\cite{KuPo}.
Let $\mathrm{G}$ be a connected simply connected semisimple algebraic group. We fix a Borel subgroup $\mathrm{B} \subset \mathrm{G}$.
Let $\mathrm{P} \subset \mathrm{G}$ be a parabolic subgroup such that $\mathrm{B} \subset \mathrm{P}$. Recall that there is a monoidal equivalence of categories
between the category of~$\mathrm{G}$-equivariant vector bundles on the homogeneous variety~$\mathrm{G}/\mathrm{P}$
and the category~$\Rep(\mathrm{P})$ of representations of the parabolic subgroup $\mathrm{P}$.
Let $\mathrm{P} \twoheadrightarrow \mathrm{L}$ be the Levi quotient.
We identify the category~$\Rep(\mathrm{L})$ of representations of~$\mathrm{L}$ with the subcategory of~$\Rep(\mathrm{P})$ of representations
with the trivial action of the unipotent radical.
This equivalence is compatible with the monoidal structure of the categories.
The image of the Borel subgroup $\mathrm{B} \subset \mathrm{G}$ is a Borel subgroup~$\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{L}$ in~$\mathrm{L}$.
We denote by~\mbox{$\mathbf{P}_\mathrm{L} = \mathbf{P}_\mathrm{G}$} the weight lattices of $\mathrm{L}$ and $\mathrm{G}$ with their natural identification, and by
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf{P}_\mathrm{G}^+ \subset \mathbf{P}_\mathrm{L}^+
\end{equation*}
the cones of dominant weights with respect to~$\mathrm{B}$ and~$\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{L}$, respectively.
For each $\lambda \in \mathbf{P}_\mathrm{L}^+$
we denote by $\mathrm{V}_\mathrm{L}^\lambda$
the corresponding irreducible representation of $\mathrm{L}$
and by $\mathcal{U}^\lambda$ the equivariant vector bundle on $\mathrm{G}/\mathrm{P}$ corresponding to it via the above equivalences.
Similarly, for $\lambda \in \mathbf{P}_\mathrm{G}^+$ we denote by $\mathrm{V}_\mathrm{G}^\lambda$ the corresponding irreducible representation of $\mathrm{G}$.
We denote by~$\mathrm{W}$ the Weyl group of $\mathrm{G}$, by $\mathrm{W}^\mathrm{L} \subset \mathrm{W}$ the Weyl group of $\mathrm{L}$,
and by~$w_0 \in \mathrm{W}$ and~$w_0^\mathrm{L} \in \mathrm{W}^\mathrm{L}$ the longest elements.
\subsection{Statement of the theorem}
\label{subsection:theorem-dn}
Consider the group~\mbox{$\mathrm{G} = \Spin(2n)$}, the simply connected (double) covering
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:double-covering}
\Spin(2n) \to \SO(2n)
\end{equation}
of the special orthogonal group, and its maximal parabolic subgroup $\mathrm{P} \subset \mathrm{G}$ corresponding to the vertex~2 (marked with black) of the Dynkin diagram $\mathrm{D}_n$
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:dn}
\vcenter{\hbox{\begin{picture}(200,30)
\multiput(0,10)(30,0){3}{\circle{4}}
\put(30,10){\circle*{4}}
\put(90,10){\hbox to 0mm{\hss\dots\hss}}
\put(120,10){\circle{4}}
\put(150,10){\circle{4}}
\put(180,20){\circle{4}}
\put(180,0){\circle{4}}
\multiput(2,10)(30,0){2}{\line(1,0){26}}
\put(62,10){\line(1,0){10}}
\put(108,10){\line(1,0){10}}
\put(122,10){\line(1,0){26}}
\put(152,11){\line(3,1){26}}
\put(152,9){\line(3,-1){26}}
\put(-2,15){$\scriptstyle{}1$}
\put(28,15){$\scriptstyle{}2$}
\put(58,15){$\scriptstyle{}3$}
\put(112,15){$\scriptstyle{}n-3$}
\put(142,15){$\scriptstyle{}n-2$}
\put(184,20){$\scriptstyle{}n-1$}
\put(184,0){$\scriptstyle{}n$}
\end{picture}}}
\end{equation}
In this case the corresponding homogeneous variety is
\begin{equation*}
\mathrm{G}/\mathrm{P} \cong \OG(2,2n),
\end{equation*}
the Grassmannian of 2-dimensional isotropic subspaces in a vector space of dimension~$2n$
endowed with a non-degenerate symmetric bilinear form, i.e., the (co)adjoint variety of type~$\mathrm{D}_n$.
Note that $\dim(\OG(2,2n)) = 4n - 7$.
The automorphism group of $\OG(2,2n)$ is the semidirect product
\begin{equation*}
\Aut(\OG(2,2n)) \cong
\begin{cases}
\PSO(2n) \rtimes \mathfrak{S}_2, & \text{if $n \ne 4$}\\
\PSO(2n) \rtimes \mathfrak{S}_3, & \text{if $n = 4$}\\
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
where the factors $\mathfrak{S}_2$ and $\mathfrak{S}_3$ act by outer automorphisms (corresponding to the symmetry of the Dynkin diagram $\mathrm{D}_n$).
The weight lattice of $\SO(2n)$ is the lattice ${\mathbb Z}^n$ with the standard basis~$\{\epsilon_i\}_{1 \le i \le n}$,
and the weight\ lattice of~$\Spin(2n)$ is its overlattice in~${\mathbb Q}^n$ generated by the fundamental weights
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:dn-weights}
\begin{aligned}
\omega_i &= \epsilon_1 + \dots + \epsilon_i, && 1 \le i \le n-2, \\
\omega_{n-1} &= \tfrac12(\epsilon_1 + \dots + \epsilon_{n-1} - \epsilon_n), \\
\omega_{n} &= \tfrac12(\epsilon_1 + \dots + \epsilon_{n-1} + \epsilon_n).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
The Levi group in $\SO(2n)$ corresponding to the second vertex of the Dynkin diagram is isomorphic
to $\GL(2) \times \SO(2(n-2))$,
and the corresponding Levi group in $\Spin(2n)$ is the double covering
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:levi-covering}
\mathrm{L} \to \GL(2) \times \SO(2(n-2))
\end{equation}
induced by~\eqref{eq:double-covering}.
The fundamental weight $\omega_2$ (associated with the parabolic $\mathrm{P}$) corresponds to the ample generator of the Picard group $\Pic(\mathrm{G}/\mathrm{P})$,
so we write
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:dn-o1}
\mathcal{O}(1) := \mathcal{U}^{\omega_2}.
\end{equation}
Note that the canonical line bundle can be written as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:omega-dn}
\omega_{\OG(2,2n)} \cong \mathcal{O}_{\OG(2,2n)}(3 - 2n).
\end{equation}
Furthermore, we use the following notation
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:bundles-dn}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{U} &:= (\mathcal{U}^{\omega_1})^\vee,\\
\mathcal{S}_- &:= \mathcal{U}^{\omega_{n-1}},\\
\mathcal{S}_+ &:= \mathcal{U}^{\omega_{n}}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Thus, $\mathcal{U}$ is the tautological rank-2 bundle of $\OG(2,2n)$, while $\mathcal{S}_\pm$ are the \emph{spinor bundles} (see~\cite[\S6]{Ku08a}).
Consider the following full triangulated subcategories of ${\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}(\OG(2,2n))$
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:a-b-dn}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A} &:= \langle \mathcal{O} , \mathcal{U}^\vee, S^2 \mathcal{U}^\vee, \dots , S^{n-3} \mathcal{U}^\vee, \mathcal{S}_- , \mathcal{S}_+ \rangle, \\
\mathcal{B} &:= \langle \mathcal{O} , \mathcal{U}^\vee, S^2 \mathcal{U}^\vee, \dots , S^{n-3} \mathcal{U}^\vee, S^{n-2} \mathcal{U}^\vee, \mathcal{S}_- , \mathcal{S}_+ \rangle.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Note that $\mathcal{A} \subset \mathcal{B}$ and $\mathcal{A}$ is $\Aut(\OG(2,2n))$-invariant.
Indeed, every object in~$\mathcal{A}$ is $\PSO(2n)$-invariant by~\cite[Lemma~2.2]{Po}.
Moreover, if $n \ne 4$ the outer automorphisms $\mathfrak{S}_2$-action on~$\OG(2,2n)$ swaps the spinor bundles $\mathcal{S}_-$ and~$\mathcal{S}_+$,
while in case $n = 4$ the outer automorphisms $\mathfrak{S}_3$-action permutes $\mathcal{S}_-$, $\mathcal{S}_+$, and~$ \mathcal{U}^\vee$
(and in this case $\mathcal{A} = \langle \mathcal{O} , \mathcal{U}^\vee, \mathcal{S}_- , \mathcal{S}_+ \rangle$).
\begin{theorem}
\label{theorem:dn}
There exists a full exceptional collection
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-collection-OG-even-I}
\begin{split}
{\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}(\OG(2,2n)) = \langle & \mathcal{U}^{2\omega_{n-1}}(-1), \mathcal{U}^{2\omega_{n}}(-1) , \mathcal{A} , \\
& \mathcal{B}(1) , \dots , \mathcal{B}(n-2) , \mathcal{A}(n-1) , \dots ,\mathcal{A}(2n-4) \rangle.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
In particular, the subcategory $\mathcal{A}$ extends to an $\Aut(\OG(2,2n))$-invariant rectangular Lefschetz collection
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:rectangular-dn}
{\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}(\OG(2,2n)) = \langle \mathcal{R}, \mathcal{A}, \mathcal{A}(1), \dots, \mathcal{A}(2n - 4) \rangle.
\end{equation}
Moreover, the residual category $\mathcal{R}$ is generated by an~$\Aut(\OG(2,2n))$-invariant exceptional collection and
is equivalent to the derived category of representations of the Dynkin quiver~$\mathrm{D}_n$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
It is easy to see that the exceptional collection~\eqref{eq-collection-OG-even-I} is mutation equivalent to the full Lefschetz collection with the starting block
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
E_i & = S^{i-1} \mathcal{U}^\vee,\quad 1 \le i \le n-2, \\
E_{n-1} & = \mathcal{S}_-, \\
E_{{n}} & = \mathcal{S}_+, \\
E_{n+1} &= {\mathbb R}_{\langle \mathcal{S}_-, \mathcal{S}_+ \rangle}(S^{n-2}\mathcal{U}^\vee), \\
E_{n+2} &= {\mathbb R}_{\langle \mathcal{A}(-1),\mathcal{B} \rangle} (\mathcal{U}^{2\omega_{n-1}}(-2)), \\
E_{n+3} &= {\mathbb R}_{\langle \mathcal{A}(-1),\mathcal{B} \rangle} (\mathcal{U}^{2\omega_{n}}(-2)),
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
with the next $n-3$ blocks generated by~$E_1\dots,E_{n+1}$, and with the last $n-1$ blocks generated by~$E_1,\dots,E_n$.
Indeed, to prove this we first twist~\eqref{eq-collection-OG-even-I} by~$\mathcal{O}(-1)$,
then mutate the objects~$\mathcal{U}^{2\omega_{n-1}}(-2), \mathcal{U}^{2\omega_{n}}(-2)$ to the right of~$\mathcal{A}(-1)$ and~$\mathcal{B}$,
and finally mutate~$\mathcal{A}(-1)$ to the far right.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
If $n = 3$ we have isomorphisms $\Spin(6) \cong \SL(4)$ and $\OG(2,6) \cong \Fl(1,3;4)$.
Furthermore, under these isomorphisms $\mathcal{S}_- \cong \mathcal{O}(1,0)$ and $\mathcal{S}_+ \cong \mathcal{O}(0,1)$,
so the definitions of the category~$\mathcal{A}$ in~\eqref{eq:ca-an} and~\eqref{eq:a-b-dn} coincide,
hence~\eqref{eq:rectangular-an} coincides with~\eqref{eq:rectangular-dn}.
\end{remark}
We prove Theorem~\ref{theorem:dn} in Sections~\ref{subsection:exceptional-dn}, \ref{subsection:fullness-dn} and~\ref{subsection:residual-dn}
after some preparation.
\subsection{Computational tools}
\label{subsection:computational-dn}
To check that a collection of vector bundles is exceptional, we need some tools to dualize the bundles,
take their tensor products, and compute the cohomology.
We start by reminding the general machinery.
Recall that the Levi group $\mathrm{L}$ is reductive, hence $\Rep(\mathrm{L})$ is a semisimple category;
in particular $\mathrm{V}_\mathrm{L}^\lambda \otimes \mathrm{V}_\mathrm{L}^\mu$ is a direct sum of irreducible representations of~$\mathrm{L}$.
Since the functor $\mathrm{V}_\mathrm{L}^\lambda \mapsto \mathcal{U}^\lambda$
from the category $\Rep(\mathrm{L})$ to the category of equivariant vector bundles on $\mathrm{G}/\mathrm{P}$ is monoidal, we have the following
\begin{lemma}[{\cite[(8)]{KuPo}}]
\label{lemma:tp-general}
If $\mathrm{V}_\mathrm{L}^\lambda \otimes \mathrm{V}_\mathrm{L}^\mu = \bigoplus \mathrm{V}_\mathrm{L}^\nu$, then $\mathcal{U}^\lambda \otimes \mathcal{U}^\mu = \bigoplus \mathcal{U}^\nu$.
\end{lemma}
Thus, knowing tensor products of $\mathrm{L}$-representations, we can control tensor products of the corresponding equivariant bundles.
Similarly, we can control the dualization operation.
Recall that~$w_0^\mathrm{L}$ denotes the longest element in $\mathrm{W}^\mathrm{L}$, the Weyl group of~$\mathrm{L}$.
\begin{lemma}[{\cite[(8)]{KuPo}}]
\label{lemma:duals-general}
We have $(\mathcal{U}^\lambda)^\vee \cong \mathcal{U}^{-w_0^\mathrm{L} \lambda}$.
\end{lemma}
A combination of the last two lemmas shows that $(\mathcal{U}^\lambda)^\vee \otimes \mathcal{U}^\mu$ is a direct sum of some $\mathcal{U}^\nu$.
The summands that show up in this decomposition can be characterised by the following
\begin{lemma}[{\cite[Lemma~2.8 and Lemma~2.9]{KuPo}}]
\label{lemma:prv}
We have
\begin{equation*}
(\mathcal{U}^\lambda)^\vee \otimes \mathcal{U}^\mu =
\bigoplus_{\nu \in \mathbf{P}_\mathrm{L}^+ \cap {} \Conv(\mu - w\lambda)_{w \in \mathrm{W}_\mathrm{L}}} (\mathcal{U}^\nu)^{\oplus m(\lambda,\mu,\nu)},
\end{equation*}
where $\Conv(-)$ stands for the convex hull and $m(\lambda,\mu,\nu) \in {\mathbb Z}_{\ge 0}$
is the multiplicity of $\mathrm{V}^\nu_\mathrm{L}$ in~$(\mathrm{V}_\mathrm{L}^\lambda)^\vee \otimes \mathrm{V}_\mathrm{L}^\mu$.
Moreover, if $\nu = 0$ then $m(\lambda,\mu,\nu) \ne 0$ only when $\lambda = \mu$ and~\mbox{$m(\lambda,\lambda,0) = 1$}.
\end{lemma}
The most efficient way to compute cohomology is provided by the Borel--Bott--Weil theorem.
Let $\ell \colon \mathrm{W} \to {\mathbb Z}$ be the length function
and let $\rho \in \mathbf{P}_\mathrm{G}^+$ be the sum of fundamental weights of~$\mathrm{G}$.
\begin{theorem}[Borel--Bott--Weil]
Let $\lambda \in \mathbf{P}_\mathrm{L}^+$.
If the weight $\lambda + \rho$ lies on a wall of a Weyl chamber for the $\mathrm{W}$-action, then
\begin{equation*}
H^\bullet(\mathrm{G}/\mathrm{P},\mathcal{U}^\lambda) = 0.
\end{equation*}
Otherwise, if $w \in \mathrm{W}$ is the unique element such that the weight $w(\lambda + \rho)$ is dominant, then
\begin{equation*}
H^\bullet(\mathrm{G}/\mathrm{P},\mathcal{U}^\lambda) = \mathrm{V}_\mathrm{G}^{w(\lambda + \rho) - \rho}[-\ell(w)].
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
The Weyl group of $\Spin(2n)$ is the semidirect product
\begin{equation*}
\mathrm{W} = \mathfrak{S}_n \ltimes ({\mathbb Z}/2)^{n-1},
\end{equation*}
where $\mathfrak{S}_n$ acts on $\mathbf{P}_{\Spin(2n)} {} \subset {\mathbb Q}^n$ by permutations
and $({\mathbb Z}/2)^{n-1}$ by changes of signs of even number of coordinates.
The walls of the Weyl chambers are given by the hyperplanes
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:walls-dn}
\lambda_i = \pm \lambda_j,\qquad
1 \le i \ne j \le n.
\end{equation}
The Weyl group of $\mathrm{L}$ is the subgroup
\begin{equation*}
\mathrm{W}^\mathrm{L} = \mathfrak{S}_2 \times (\mathfrak{S}_{n-2} \ltimes ({\mathbb Z}/2)^{n-3}),
\end{equation*}
where $\mathfrak{S}_2$ acts by transposition of the first two coordinates, $\mathfrak{S}_{n-2}$ by permutations of the last $n-2$,
and $({\mathbb Z}/2)^{n-3}$ by changes of signs of even number of the last $n-2$ coordinates.
The longest element $w_0^\mathrm{L} \in \mathrm{W}^\mathrm{L}$ acts by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:w0l-type-d}
w_0^\mathrm{L}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\lambda_3,\dots,\lambda_{n-1},\lambda_n) = (\lambda_2,\lambda_1,-\lambda_3,\dots,-\lambda_{n-1},-(-1)^n\lambda_n).
\end{equation}
Finally, the sum $\rho$ of the fundamental weights in the standard basis takes the form
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:rho-dn}
\rho = (n - 1, n - 2, \dots, 1, 0).
\end{equation}
Applying the general machinery in our situation we obtain the following corollaries.
First, combining Lemma~\ref{lemma:duals-general} with~\eqref{eq:dn-weights}, \eqref{eq:dn-o1}, and~\eqref{eq:w0l-type-d}, we obtain
\begin{corollary}
\label{corollary:duals}
For $a \geq 0$ we have
\begin{equation*}
\big( \mathcal{U}^{a \omega_1} \big)^\vee = \mathcal{U}^{a \omega_1}(-a).
\end{equation*}
For $a \geq 0$ and even $n$ we have
\begin{equation*}
\big(\mathcal{U}^{a\omega_{n-1}} \big)^\vee = \mathcal{U}^{a\omega_{n-1}}(-a) \qquad \text{and} \qquad \big( \mathcal{U}^{a\omega_{n}} \big)^\vee = \mathcal{U}^{a\omega_{n}}(-a).
\end{equation*}
For $a \geq 0$ and odd $n$ we have
\begin{equation*}
\big( \mathcal{U}^{a\omega_{n-1}} \big)^\vee = \mathcal{U}^{a\omega_{n}}(-a) \qquad \text{and} \qquad \big( \mathcal{U}^{a\omega_{n}} \big)^\vee = \mathcal{U}^{a\omega_{n-1}}(-a).
\end{equation*}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
By~\eqref{eq:dn-weights} we have $a\omega_1 = (a,0,0,\dots,0)$.
By Lemma~\ref{lemma:duals-general} and~\eqref{eq:w0l-type-d} the weight corresponding to~$\big( \mathcal{U}^{a \omega_1} \big)^\vee$
is~$(0,-a,0,\dots,0)$, by~\eqref{eq:dn-weights} this is equal to~$a\omega_1 - a\omega_2$, hence the claim.
The other results are proved analogously.
\end{proof}
Similarly, using Lemma~\ref{lemma:tp-general} we deduce the following tensor product decompositions.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma-tensor-products}
We have isomorphisms
\begingroup\allowdisplaybreaks
\begin{align}
\label{tp:a1*b1}
\mathcal{U}^{k \omega_1} \otimes \mathcal{U}^{l \omega_1}
&\cong \bigoplus_{i = 0}^{\min\{k,l\}} \mathcal{U}^{(k+l-2i) \omega_1} (i)
&& \text{for $k,l \ge 0$,}
\\
\label{tp:a1-la}
\mathcal{U}^{k\omega_1} \otimes \mathcal{U}^\lambda
&\cong \mathcal{U}^{k\omega_1 + \lambda}
&& \text{if $\lambda = \sum_{i=2}^n \lambda_i \omega_i$,}
\\
\label{eq:wedge-n-2}
\Lambda^{n-2}(\mathcal{U}^{\omega_3 - \omega_2})
&\cong
\mathcal{U}^{2\omega_{n-1}}(-1) \oplus \mathcal{U}^{2\omega_{n}}(-1).
\end{align}
\endgroup
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First, we note that the bundles $\mathcal{U}^{k\omega_1}$ and~$\mathcal{U}^{l\omega_1}$
correspond to representations of $\mathrm{L}$ pulled back from representations $\mathrm{V}_{\GL_2}^{k,0}$ and $\mathrm{V}_{\GL_2}^{l,0}$
via the map~\eqref{eq:levi-covering}, so~\eqref{tp:a1*b1} follows from the Clebsch--Gordan rule
\begin{equation*}
\mathrm{V}_{\GL_2}^{k_1,k_2} \otimes \mathrm{V}_{\GL_2}^{l_1,l_2} =
\bigoplus_{j = 0}^{\min\{k_1 - k_2,l_1 - l_2\}} \mathrm{V}_{\GL_2}^{k_1 + l_1 - j, k_2 + l_2 + j}.
\end{equation*}
For~\eqref{tp:a1-la} and~\eqref{eq:wedge-n-2} we need a slightly more detailed understanding of the Levi group~$\mathrm{L}$.
Let $\tGL(2) \to \GL(2)$ be the unique connected double covering.
Then there is a double covering
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:levi-covering-2}
\tGL(2) \times \Spin(2(n-2)) \to \mathrm{L}.
\end{equation}
To understand tensor product of representations of~$\mathrm{L}$ it is enough to understand tensor product
of their pullbacks via the map~\eqref{eq:levi-covering-2}.
We will denote by $\omega'_1$, $\omega'_2$ the fundamental weights of $\tGL(2)$
and by $\omega'_i$, $3 \le i \le n$, the fundamental weights of $\Spin(2(n-2))$.
The double covering~\eqref{eq:levi-covering-2} induces an embedding of weight lattices
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf{P}_\mathrm{L} \hookrightarrow \mathbf{P}_{\tGL(2)} \oplus \mathbf{P}_{\Spin(2(n-2))}
\end{equation*}
and identifies the corresponding~${\mathbb Q}$-vector spaces.
Thereofre, the weights~$\omega'_i$
can be thought of as rational weights for $\mathrm{L}$, i.e., as rational weights of $\Spin(2n)$.
It is easy to see that they can be expressed in the basis of fundamental weights $\omega_i$ as follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:omega-prime}
\omega'_1 = \omega_1,\quad
\omega'_2 = \tfrac12\omega_2,\qquad
\omega'_i =
\begin{cases}
\omega_i - \omega_2, & \text{if $3 \le i \le n-2$,}\\
\omega_i - \tfrac12\omega_2, & \text{if $i \in \{n-1,n\}$.}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
By~\eqref{eq:omega-prime} the representation $\mathrm{V}_\mathrm{L}^{k\omega_1}$ pulls back to~$\mathrm{V}_{\tGL_2}^{k,0}$,
while $\mathrm{V}_\mathrm{L}^\lambda$ with $\lambda = \sum_{i=2}^n \lambda_i \omega_i$
pulls back to~$\mathrm{V}_{\tGL(2)}^{c(\lambda),c(\lambda)} \otimes \mathrm{V}_{\Spin(2(n-2))}^{\lambda'}$,
where $\lambda' = \sum_{i=3}^n \lambda_i \omega'_i$ and~$c(\lambda) = 2\sum_{i=2}^{n-2}\lambda_i + \lambda_{n-1} + \lambda_n$.
Clearly,
\begin{equation*}
\mathrm{V}_{\tGL_2}^{k,0} \otimes \Big( \mathrm{V}_{\tGL(2)}^{c(\lambda),c(\lambda)} \otimes V_{\Spin(2(n-2))}^{\lambda'} \Big) \cong
\mathrm{V}_{\tGL(2)}^{k + c(\lambda),c(\lambda)} \otimes \mathrm{V}_{\Spin(2(n-2))}^{\lambda'},
\end{equation*}
and the right side corresponds to $\mathrm{V}_\mathrm{L}^{k\omega_1 + \lambda}$.
This proves~\eqref{tp:a1-la}.
Similarly, $\mathrm{V}_\mathrm{L}^{\omega_3 - \omega_2}$ corresponds to $\mathrm{V}_{\Spin(2(n-2))}^{\omega'_3}$
(which, according to our conventions, is the first fundamental representation of~$\Spin(2(n-2))$).
By~\cite[Table~5]{VO} its middle exterior power
is isomorphic to the direct sum of two irreducible representations with highest weights $2\omega'_n$ and $2\omega'_{n-1}$.
By~\eqref{eq:omega-prime} these weights correspond to the weights $2\omega_n - \omega_2$ and $2\omega_{n-1} - \omega_2$, and the claim follows.
This proves~\eqref{eq:wedge-n-2}.
\end{proof}
Finally, we deduce from Borel--Bott--Weil a vanishing lemma,
on which most of semiorthogonality results for~$\OG(2,2n)$ in the next section rely.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:acyclicity-new}
Let $\lambda = (\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_n)$ be a dominant weight of $\mathrm{L}$.
Assume that one of the following two conditions holds
\begin{align}
\label{acyclicity:1}
|\lambda_i + n - i| & < n - 1 &\text{for all $i$}, \\
\intertext{or}
\label{acyclicity:2}
|\lambda_i + n - i| & < n - 2 &\text{for all but one $i$}.
\end{align}
Then $\mathcal{U}^\lambda$ is acyclic.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
These are special cases of~\cite[Lemma~5.2]{KuPo}; we provide a proof for completeness.
In view of~\eqref{eq:rho-dn}, if~\eqref{acyclicity:1} holds,
then all coordinates of $\lambda + \rho$ have absolute values less than~\mbox{$n - 1$}.
Therefore, at least two of them have the same absolute values.
Similarly, if~\eqref{acyclicity:2} holds, then all but one coordinates of $\lambda + \rho$ have absolute values less than~\mbox{$n - 2$}.
Therefore, again at least two of them have the same absolute values.
In both cases we see that~\mbox{$\lambda + \rho$} lies on one of the walls~\eqref{eq:walls-dn},
and by Borel--Bott--Weil theorem we conclude that~$\mathcal{U}^\lambda$ is acyclic.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Exceptional collection}
\label{subsection:exceptional-dn}
In this section we prove that~\eqref{eq-collection-OG-even-I} is an exceptional collection. Recall from~\eqref{eq:bundles-dn} that $\mathcal{U}$ denotes the dual bundle of $\mathcal{U}^{\omega_1}$. Consequently, $S^k\mathcal{U}^\vee \cong \mathcal{U}^{k\omega_1}$.
First, we discuss the ``tautological'' part of the collection. Recall that an exceptional collection $E_1,\dots,E_k$ of vector bundles is {\sf strong},
if $\Ext^{>0}(E_i,E_j) = 0$ for all $1 \le i,j \le k$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:so1}
The collection of vector bundles $\mathcal{O},\mathcal{U}^\vee,\dots,S^{n-2}\mathcal{U}^\vee$ is a strong exceptional collection. Moreover, for $0 \le k, l \le n-2$ and $1 \le t \le 2n - 4$ we have
\begin{equation*}
\Ext^\bullet(S^k\mathcal{U}^\vee(t), S^l\mathcal{U}^\vee) =
\begin{cases}
\Bbbk[4 - 2n], & \text{if $k = l = n - 2$, $t = n - 2$,}\\
\Bbbk[3 - 2n], & \text{if $k = l = n - 2$, $t = n - 1$,}\\
0, & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We will show that $\Ext^\bullet(S^k\mathcal{U}^\vee(t),S^l\mathcal{U}^\vee)$ is zero for $0 \le k,l \le n-2$ and $0 \le t \le 2n-4$,
except for $t = 0$, $k \le l$ and $t \in \{n - 2, n - 1\}$, $k = l = n-2$.
By~\eqref{eq:omega-dn} and Serre duality we can assume $0 \le t \le n - 2$.
By Corollary~\ref{corollary:duals} and~\eqref{tp:a1*b1} we have
\begin{multline*}
(S^k\mathcal{U}^\vee(t))^\vee \otimes S^l\mathcal{U}^\vee \cong S^k\mathcal{U}^\vee(-k-t) \otimes S^l\mathcal{U}^\vee \\ \cong
\bigoplus_{j = 0}^{\min\{k,l\}} S^{k + l - 2j}\mathcal{U}^\vee(j - k - t) =
\bigoplus_{j = 0}^{\min\{k,l\}} \mathcal{U}^{(l - j - t,j - k - t,0,\dots,0)}.
\end{multline*}
So, it is enough to compute the cohomology of bundles $\mathcal{U}^{\lambda}$
with $\lambda = (l - j - t,j - k - t,0,\dots,0)$, so that
\begin{equation*}
2 - n \le \lambda_1 \le n - 2,\quad
4 - 2n \le \lambda_2 \le 0,\qquad
\lambda_3 = \dots = \lambda_n = 0.
\end{equation*}
It is convenient to distinguish three cases:
\begin{description}
\item[Case 1] If $4 - 2n < \lambda_2 < 0$, then $|\lambda_i + n - i| < n - 2$ for all $i \ge 2$.
Hence,~\eqref{acyclicity:2} holds and~$\mathcal{U}^\lambda$ is acyclic by Lemma~\ref{lemma:acyclicity-new}.
\item[Case 2] If $\lambda_2 = 0$, then we necessarily have $t = 0$ and $j = k$.
Further, since $j \le l$, we obtain~$k \le l$. In particular, the weight $\lambda$ is dominant, hence $H^{>0}(\OG(2,2n),\mathcal{U}^\lambda) = 0$.
Moreover, if $k = l$, then $\lambda = 0$ and in this case the cohomology of~$\mathcal{U}^\lambda$ is isomorphic to $\Bbbk[0]$.
\end{description}
A combination of Case 1 and Case 2 proves that $\mathcal{O}, \mathcal{U}^\vee, \dots, S^{n-2}\mathcal{U}^\vee$ is a strong exceptional collection.
\begin{description}
\item[Case 3] If $\lambda_2 = 4 - 2n$, then we necessarily have $k = t = n - 2$ and $j = 0$.
In this case we have $2 - n \le \lambda_1 \le 0$.
If $\lambda_1 < 0$, then $|\lambda_i + n - i| < n - 1$ for all $i$. Hence~\eqref{acyclicity:1} holds and $\mathcal{U}^\lambda$ is acyclic by Lemma~\ref{lemma:acyclicity-new}.
If $\lambda_1 = 0$, then $l = n - 2$, and we have $\mathcal{U}^\lambda = \mathcal{U}^{(0,4-2n,0,\dots,0)}$.
In this case the Borel--Bott--Weil theorem implies that the cohomology of $\mathcal{U}^\lambda$ is isomorphic to $\Bbbk[4 - 2n]$.
Indeed, $\lambda + \rho = (n-1,2-n,n-3,\dots,0) = w\rho$, where
\begin{equation*}
w = (\mathrm{s}_2 \cdot \ldots \cdot \mathrm{s}_{n-2}) \cdot \mathrm{s}_{n-1} \cdot \mathrm{s}_n \cdot (\mathrm{s}_{n-2} \cdot \ldots \cdot \mathrm{s}_2)
\end{equation*}
and $\mathrm{s}_i$ are the simple reflections.
\end{description}
This completes the proof of the lemma.
\end{proof}
Next, we discuss the ``spinor'' part of the collection.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:so2}
The collection of sheaves $\mathcal{U}^{\omega_{n-1}}, \mathcal{U}^{\omega_{n}}, \mathcal{U}^{2\omega_{n-1}}, \mathcal{U}^{2\omega_{n}},
\{ \mathcal{U}^{\omega_{n-1}}(t), \mathcal{U}^{\omega_{n}}(t) \}_{1 \le t \le 2n - 4}$
is exceptional.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We will compute $\Ext^\bullet(\mathcal{U}^{a\omega_i}(t),\mathcal{U}^{b\omega_j})$ where $i,j \in \{n - 1,n\}$, and
\begin{itemize}
\item
either \mbox{$a,b \in \{1,2\}$} and $(a,b) \ne (2,2)$, and~\mbox{$1 \le t \le 2n - 4$},
\item
or \mbox{$a,b \in \{1,2\}$} and $(a,b) \ne (1,2)$, and $t = 0$.
\end{itemize}
By~\eqref{eq:omega-dn} and Serre duality we can assume $0 \le t \le n - 2$.
We take $\lambda = a\omega_{i} + t\omega_2 = (t+\tfrac{a}2,t+\tfrac{a}2,\tfrac{a}2,\dots,\tfrac{a}2,\pm\tfrac{a}2)$
and $\mu = b\omega_{j} = (\tfrac{b}2,\tfrac{b}2,\tfrac{b}2,\dots,\tfrac{b}2,\pm \tfrac{b}2)$;
the signs of the last coordinate depend on whether~$i$ and~$j$ are~$n-1$ or~$n$.
Since the~$\mathrm{W}_\mathrm{L}$-orbit of~$\lambda$ consists of points $(t+\tfrac{a}2,t+\tfrac{a}2,\pm\tfrac{a}2,\dots,\pm\tfrac{a}2,\pm\tfrac{a}2)$
(with the parity of the number of negative signs depending on~$i$),
by Lemma~\ref{lemma:prv} we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ulm}
(\mathcal{U}^\lambda)^\vee \otimes \mathcal{U}^\mu = \bigoplus_{\nu} (\mathcal{U}^\nu)^{\oplus m(\lambda,\mu,\nu)},
\end{equation}
where $\nu$ runs over the integral or half-integral points satisfying
\begin{equation*}
\nu_1 = \nu_2 = \tfrac{b-a}2 - t,
\qquad \nu_3,\dots,\nu_{n-1} = \tfrac{b \pm a}2 \in [-\tfrac12,2],
\qquad \nu_n = \tfrac{\pm b \pm a}2 \in [-2,2].
\end{equation*}
(in fact we could further restrict the combinations of signs that appear in~$\nu$,
but since we are interested in an upper bound on direct summands of~$(\mathcal{U}^\lambda)^\vee \otimes \mathcal{U}^\mu$, we can neglect this).
It is convenient to distinguish three cases:
\begin{description}
\item[Case 1]
If $1 \le t \le n-2$ and~$(a,b) \ne (2,2)$, then
\begin{equation*}
\nu_1 = \nu_2 \in [\tfrac32 - n, -\tfrac12], \qquad \nu_3,\dots,\nu_{n-1},\nu_n \in [-\tfrac32,\tfrac32],
\end{equation*}
For any such point we have $|\nu_i + n - i| < n - 1$ for all $i$, hence~\eqref{acyclicity:1} holds for~$\nu$ and,
therefore, all summands in~\eqref{eq:ulm} are acyclic by Lemma~\ref{lemma:acyclicity-new}.
\item[Case 2]
If $t = 0$ and $a > b$, then
\begin{equation*}
\nu_1 = \nu_2 = -\tfrac12, \qquad \nu_3,\dots,\nu_{n-1} \in [-\tfrac12,\tfrac32], \qquad \nu_n \in [-\tfrac32, \tfrac32].
\end{equation*}
For any such point we still have $|\nu_i + n - i| < n - 1$ for all $i$, hence again all summands in~\eqref{eq:ulm} are acyclic.
\item[Case 3]
If $t = 0$ and $a = b$, then
\begin{equation*}
\nu_1 = \nu_2 = 0, \qquad \nu_3,\dots,\nu_{n-1} \in [0,2], \qquad \nu_n \in [-2, 2].
\end{equation*}
It is easy to see that the only non-acyclic bundle among $\mathcal{U}^\nu$ is the trivial bundle.
Indeed, if $\tilde\nu = \nu + \rho$ then $(\tilde\nu_1, \tilde\nu_2) = (n-1,n-2)$
and $n - 1 \ge \tilde\nu_3 \ge \dots \ge \tilde\nu_{n-1} \ge 1$,
and the only possibility to satisfy these restriction and avoid the walls~\eqref{eq:walls-dn}
is to have $\tilde\nu_i = n - i$ for~$1 \le i \le n - 1$.
Finally, $0 \le \tilde\nu_n \le 2$, and sine $n \ge 3$, it must be zero to avoid the walls.
By Lemma~\ref{lemma:prv} the trivial bundle is a summand of $(\mathcal{U}^\lambda)^\vee \otimes \mathcal{U}^\mu$
only when $\lambda = \mu$ and then its multiplicity is equal to~1.
Hence, in this case we have~$\Ext^\bullet(\mathcal{U}^\lambda,\mathcal{U}^\mu) = \Bbbk[0]$.
\end{description}
This completes the proof of the lemma.
\end{proof}
In the next two lemmas we show that the ``tautological'' part of the collection can be merged with the ``spinor'' part.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:so3}
We have $\Ext^\bullet(\mathcal{U}^{\omega_j}(t),S^k\mathcal{U}^\vee) = 0$ for all $0 \le k \le n - 2$, $j \in \{n - 1,n\}$, and~$0 \le t \le 2n - 4$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By Corollary~\ref{corollary:duals} and~\eqref{tp:a1-la} we have
\begin{equation*}
(\mathcal{U}^{\omega_j}(t))^\vee \otimes S^k\mathcal{U}^\vee \cong
\mathcal{U}^{\omega_{j'} - (t+1)\omega_2} \otimes \mathcal{U}^{k \omega_1} \cong
\mathcal{U}^{k\omega_1 - (t+1)\omega_2 + \omega_{j'}},
\end{equation*}
where $j' = j$ if $n$ is even and $j' = 2n - 1 - j$ if $n$ is odd.
So, it is enough to compute the cohomology of bundles $\mathcal{U}^\lambda$ with
\begin{equation*}
\lambda = \left(k - t - \tfrac12, - t - \tfrac12, \tfrac12,\dots,\tfrac12,\pm\tfrac12 \right).
\end{equation*}
If $0 \le t \le 2n - 5$, then $|\lambda_i + n - i| < n - 2$ for $i \ge 2$.
Hence~\eqref{acyclicity:2} holds and the bundle $\mathcal{U}^\lambda$ is acyclic by Lemma~\ref{lemma:acyclicity-new}.
Similarly, if~$t = 2n - 4$, then we have $|\lambda_i + n - i| < n - 1$ for all~$i$.
Hence~\eqref{acyclicity:1} holds and the bundle $\mathcal{U}^\lambda$ is acyclic by Lemma~\ref{lemma:acyclicity-new}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:so4}
If $0 \le k \le n - 2$, $j \in \{n - 1,n\}$, and~$1 \le t \le 2n - 2$, then
\begin{equation*}
\Ext^\bullet(S^k\mathcal{U}^\vee(t),\mathcal{U}^{2\omega_j}) =
\begin{cases}
\Bbbk[5 - 3n], & \text{if $k = n - 2$ and $t = n$,}\\
\Bbbk[2 - n], & \text{if $k = n - 2$ and $t = 1$,}\\
0, & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
In fact, using isomorphisms of Corollary~\ref{corollary:duals} and Serre duality
it is possible to identify one non-trivial $\Ext$-space above with the dual of the other.
\begin{proof}
As before, we have
\begin{equation*}
(S^k\mathcal{U}^\vee(t))^\vee \otimes \mathcal{U}^{2\omega_j} \cong
S^k\mathcal{U}^\vee(-k-t) \otimes \mathcal{U}^{2\omega_j} \cong
\mathcal{U}^{k \omega_1 - (k + t)\omega_2 + 2\omega_j}.
\end{equation*}
So, it is enough to compute the cohomology of the bundle $\mathcal{U}^\lambda$ with
\begin{equation*}
\lambda = (1-t,1-k-t,1,\dots,1,\pm1).
\end{equation*}
For this we directly apply the Borel--Bott--Weil theorem.
We have
\begin{equation*}
\lambda + \rho = (n - t, n - 1 - k - t, n - 2, \dots, 2, \pm 1).
\end{equation*}
It is convenient to distinguish several cases:
\begin{description}
\item[Case 1]
If $2 \le t \le 2n - 2$ and $t \ne n$, then the absolute value of the first coordinate of~\mbox{$\lambda + \rho$}
is equal to the absolute value of one of the last $n - 2$ coordinates.
Hence, the bundle~$\mathcal{U}^\lambda$ is acyclic.
\item[Case 2]
If $t = n$ and $0 \le k \le n - 3$, then $n - 1 - k - t = - k - 1$,
and the absolute value of the second coordinate of $\lambda + \rho$ is equal to the absolute value of one of the last $n - 2$ coordinates.
Hence, $\mathcal{U}^\lambda$ is acyclic.
\item[Case 3]
If $t = n$ and~$k = n - 2$, then $\lambda + \rho = (0, 1 - n, n - 2, \dots, 2, \pm 1) = w\rho$, where
\begin{equation*}
w = (\mathrm{s}_{n-1} \cdot \mathrm{s}_{n-2} \cdot \ldots \cdot \mathrm{s}_2) \cdot \mathrm{s}_1 \cdot
(\mathrm{s}_2 \cdot \ldots \cdot \mathrm{s}_{n-2}) \cdot \mathrm{s}_{n-1} \cdot \mathrm{s}_n \cdot (\mathrm{s}_{n-2} \cdot \ldots \cdot \mathrm{s}_2)
\end{equation*}
and $\mathrm{s}_i$ are the simple reflections.
By the Borel--Bott--Weil theorem the cohomology of $\mathcal{U}^\lambda$ equals $\Bbbk[5 - 3n]$.
\item[Case 4]
If $t = 1$ and $0 \le k \le n - 3$, then $n - 1 - k - t = n - 2 - k$,
and the absolute value of the second coordinate of $\lambda + \rho$ is equal to the absolute value of one of the last $n - 2$ coordinates.
Hence, $\mathcal{U}^\lambda$ is acyclic.
\item[Case 5]
If $t = 1$ and $k = n - 2$, then $\lambda + \rho = (n - 1, 0, n - 2, \dots, 2, \pm 1) = w\rho$, where
\begin{equation*}
w = \mathrm{s}_{n-1} \cdot \mathrm{s}_{n-2} \cdot \ldots \cdot \mathrm{s}_2
\end{equation*}
and $\mathrm{s}_i$ are the simple reflections.
By the Borel--Bott--Weil theorem the cohomology of $\mathcal{U}^\lambda$ equals $\Bbbk[2 - n]$.
\end{description}
This completes the proof of the lemma.
\end{proof}
Now we deduce
\begin{proposition}
The collection~\eqref{eq-collection-OG-even-I} is exceptional.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
A combination of Lemmas~\ref{lemma:so1}, \ref{lemma:so2}, \ref{lemma:so3}, \ref{lemma:so4}, and Serre duality proves the proposition.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Some useful complexes}
In this section we construct some exact sequences and complexes that will be used to check that the collection~\eqref{eq-collection-OG-even-I} is full.
Let $V$ be a vector space of dimension~$2n \ge 8$ endowed with a non-degenerate symmetric bilinear form
and let $\OG(2,V) = \OG(2,2n)$ be the corresponding even orthogonal Grassmannian.
We denote $\mathcal{V} = V \otimes \mathcal{O}$ the trivial vector bundle with fiber~$V$.
Note that~$V$ and~$\mathcal{V}$ are canonically self-dual (via the chosen symmetric bilinear form on~$V$).
We have the tautological short exact sequence on $\OG(2,2n)$
\begin{equation*}
0 \to \mathcal{U} \to \mathcal{V} \to \mathcal{V}/\mathcal{U} \to 0
\end{equation*}
and its dual
\begin{equation*}
0 \to \mathcal{U}^\perp \to \mathcal{V} \to \mathcal{U}^\vee \to 0.
\end{equation*}
Taking exterior powers of the above sequences, we obtain the long exact sequences
\begin{multline}
\label{eq-useful-complex}
0 \to S^m\mathcal{U} \to V \otimes S^{m-1} \mathcal{U} \to \Lambda^2 V \otimes S^{m-2} \mathcal{U} \to \dots \\
\dots \to \Lambda^{m-1} V \otimes \mathcal{U} \to \Lambda^m V \otimes \mathcal{O} \to \Lambda^m(\mathcal{V}/\mathcal{U}) \to 0
\end{multline}
and
\begin{multline}
\label{eq-useful-complex-2}
0 \to \Lambda^m\mathcal{U}^\perp \to \Lambda^m V \otimes \mathcal{O} \to \Lambda^{m-1}V \otimes \mathcal{U}^\vee \to \dots \\
\dots \to \Lambda^2V \otimes S^{m-2}\mathcal{U}^\vee \to V \otimes S^{m-1}\mathcal{U}^\vee \to S^m\mathcal{U}^\vee \to 0
\end{multline}
Recall notation~\eqref{eq:bundles-dn} for spinor bundles.
We denote their spaces of global sections by
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf{S}_- := H^0(\OG(2,V),\mathcal{S}_-) = \mathrm{V}_{\Spin(2n)}^{\omega_{n-1}},\qquad
\mathbf{S}_+ := H^0(\OG(2,V),\mathcal{S}_+) = \mathrm{V}_{\Spin(2n)}^{\omega_n}
\end{equation*}
(the {\sf half-spinor representations} of~$\Spin(2n)$).
We set
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:wi}
W_i = \bigoplus_{s = 0}^{\lfloor i/2 \rfloor} \Lambda^{i - 2s} V.
\end{equation}
We will combine~\eqref{eq-useful-complex} and~\eqref{eq-useful-complex-2} to prove the following
\begin{proposition}
On $\OG(2,2n)$ there exists an exact sequence
\begin{multline}
\label{eq-OG-2-2n-exact-sequence-for-Sym}
0 \to S^{n-2} \mathcal{U} \to W_1 \otimes S^{n-3} \mathcal{U} \to W_2 \otimes S^{n-4} \mathcal{U} \to \dots
\\
\dots \to W_{n-2} \otimes \mathcal{O}
\to \mathbf{S}_+ \otimes \mathcal{S}_+ \oplus \mathbf{S}_- \otimes \mathcal{S}_- \to
W_{n-2} \otimes \mathcal{O}(1) \to \dots
\\
\dots \to W_2 \otimes S^{n-4} \mathcal{U}^\vee(1) \to W_1 \otimes S^{n-3} \mathcal{U}^\vee(1) \to S^{n-2} \mathcal{U}^\vee(1) \to 0.
\end{multline}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
If $n$ is even, we apply~\cite[Proposition 6.7]{Ku08a} and conclude that there is a filtration on~\mbox{$\mathbf{S}_+ \otimes \mathcal{S}_+^\vee \oplus \mathbf{S}_- \otimes \mathcal{S}_-^\vee$} with factors of the form $\Lambda^{2s}\mathcal{U}^\perp$, where
$0 \le s \le n - 1$. Tensoring by~$\mathcal{O}(1)$ and taking into account the isomorphisms
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{S}_+^\vee(1) \cong \mathcal{S}_+,
\qquad
\mathcal{S}_-^\vee(1) \cong \mathcal{S}_-
\end{equation*}
(Corollary~\ref{corollary:duals}) we obtain a filtration on $\mathbf{S}_+ \otimes \mathcal{S}_+ \oplus \mathbf{S}_- \otimes \mathcal{S}_-$
with factors of the form $\Lambda^{2s}\mathcal{U}^\perp(1)$, where $0 \le s \le n - 1$.
Similarly, if $n$ is odd, the argument of~\cite[Proposition 6.7]{Ku08a} proves that
there is a filtration on $\mathbf{S}_+ \otimes \mathcal{S}_-^\vee \oplus \mathbf{S}_- \otimes \mathcal{S}_+^\vee$
with factors of the form $\Lambda^{2s+1}\mathcal{U}^\perp$, where $0 \le s \le n - 2$.
Tensoring by~$\mathcal{O}(1)$ and taking into account isomorphisms
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{S}_+^\vee(1) \cong \mathcal{S}_-,
\qquad
\mathcal{S}_-^\vee(1) \cong \mathcal{S}_+,
\end{equation*}
we finally obtain a filtration on $\mathbf{S}_+ \otimes \mathcal{S}_+ \oplus \mathbf{S}_- \otimes \mathcal{S}_-$
with factors of the form $\Lambda^{2s+1}\mathcal{U}^\perp(1)$, where~\mbox{$0 \le s \le n - 2$}.
Thus, in both cases we have a filtration on $\mathbf{S}_+ \otimes \mathcal{S}_+ \oplus \mathbf{S}_- \otimes \mathcal{S}_-$
with factors
\begin{equation*}
\Lambda^{2n - 2 - r}\mathcal{U}^\perp(1),
\Lambda^{2n - 4 - r}\mathcal{U}^\perp(1), \dots,
\Lambda^{n}\mathcal{U}^\perp(1),
\Lambda^{n - 2}\mathcal{U}^\perp(1), \dots,
\Lambda^{2 + r}\mathcal{U}^\perp(1),
\Lambda^{r}\mathcal{U}^\perp(1),
\end{equation*}
where $r = 0$ if $n$ is even and $r = 1$ if $n$ is odd.
Note that the total number of factors $n - r$ is even in both cases.
This means that there is an exact sequence of vector bundles
\begin{equation*}
0 \to F_- \to \mathbf{S}_+ \otimes \mathcal{S}_+ \oplus \mathbf{S}_- \otimes \mathcal{S}_- \to F_+ \to 0,
\end{equation*}
where $F_-$ has a filtration with factors $\Lambda^{2n - 2 - r}\mathcal{U}^\perp(1), \Lambda^{2n - 4 - r}\mathcal{U}^\perp(1), \dots, \Lambda^{n}\mathcal{U}^\perp(1)$
and $F_+$ has a filtration with factors $\Lambda^{n - 2}\mathcal{U}^\perp(1), \dots, \Lambda^{2 + r}\mathcal{U}^\perp(1), \Lambda^{r}\mathcal{U}^\perp(1)$.
So, it is enough to show that~$F_-$ has a left resolution given by the first half of~\eqref{eq-OG-2-2n-exact-sequence-for-Sym},
and that~$F_+$ has a right resolution given by the second half of~\eqref{eq-OG-2-2n-exact-sequence-for-Sym}.
Indeed, each factor of the filtration of $F_-$ can be rewritten as
\begin{equation*}
\Lambda^{n + 2k}\mathcal{U}^\perp(1) \cong \Lambda^{n - 2 - 2k}(\mathcal{V}/\mathcal{U}),
\end{equation*}
where $0 \le k \le (n - 2 - r)/2$,
hence has the resolution~\eqref{eq-useful-complex} with $m = n - 2 - 2k$.
Since by Lemma~\ref{lemma:so1} the exceptional collection $\{ S^i\mathcal{U} \}_{i = 0}^{n-2}$ is \emph{strong},
the extensions of the filtration factors $\Lambda^{n + 2k}\mathcal{U}^\perp(1)$ in $F_-$ can be realized
by a bicomplex with rows given by~\eqref{eq-useful-complex} with~\mbox{$m = n - 2 - 2k$} shifted by $-k$.
The totalization of this bicomplex can be written as
\begin{equation*}
S^{n-2} \mathcal{U} \to W_1 \otimes S^{n-3} \mathcal{U} \to W_2 \otimes S^{n-4} \mathcal{U} \to \dots \to W_{n-2} \otimes \mathcal{O}
\end{equation*}
and thus provides a left resolution for $F_-$.
Similarly, each factor $\Lambda^{n-2-2k}\mathcal{U}^\perp(1)$ of the filtration of $F_+$ has resolution~\eqref{eq-useful-complex-2}
twisted by~$\mathcal{O}(1)$ (where $m = n - 2 - 2k$), and the above argument shows that $F_+$ has the right resolution
\begin{equation*}
W_{n-2} \otimes \mathcal{O}(1) \to \dots \to W_2 \otimes S^{n-4} \mathcal{U}^\vee(1) \to W_1 \otimes S^{n-3} \mathcal{U}^\vee(1) \to S^{n-2} \mathcal{U}^\vee(1).
\end{equation*}
This completes the proof of the proposition.
\end{proof}
Note that the composition of morphisms $\mathcal{U} \to \mathcal{V} \to \mathcal{U}^\vee$ is zero, hence $\mathcal{U} \subset \mathcal{U}^\perp$.
Moreover,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:uperp-u}
\mathcal{U}^\perp/\mathcal{U} \cong \mathcal{U}^{\omega_3 - \omega_2}.
\end{equation}
We will need the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma-double-complex}
For any $m \le 2n - 4$ on $\OG(2,2n)$ there exists a double complex
\begin{equation*}
\begin{small}
\xymatrix@C=1em@R=3ex{
\Lambda^m V \otimes \mathcal{O} \ar[r] & \Lambda^{m-1} V \otimes \mathcal{U}^\vee \ar[r] & \Lambda^{m-2} V \otimes S^2 \mathcal{U}^\vee \ar[r] & \dots \ar[r] & V \otimes S^{m-1} \mathcal{U}^\vee \ar[r] & S^m \mathcal{U}^\vee \\
\Lambda^{m-1} V \otimes \mathcal{U} \ar[r] \ar[u] & \Lambda^{m-2} V \otimes \mathcal{U} \otimes \mathcal{U}^\vee \ar[r] \ar[u] & \Lambda^{m-3} V \otimes \mathcal{U} \otimes S^2 \mathcal{U}^\vee \ar[r] \ar[u] & \dots \ar[r] & \mathcal{U} \otimes S^{m-1} \mathcal{U}^\vee \ar[u] \\
\dots \ar[u] & \dots \ar[u] & \dots \ar[u] & \raisebox{-1.2ex}{\reflectbox{$\ddots$}} \\
\Lambda^2 V \otimes S^{m-2} \mathcal{U} \ar[r] \ar[u] & V \otimes S^{m-2} \mathcal{U} \otimes \mathcal{U}^\vee \ar[r]\ar[u] & S^{m-2} \mathcal{U} \otimes S^2\mathcal{U}^\vee \ar[u] \\
V \otimes S^{m-1} \mathcal{U} \ar[r] \ar[u] & S^{m-1} \mathcal{U} \otimes \mathcal{U}^\vee \ar[u] \\
S^m \mathcal{U} \ar[u]
}
\end{small}
\end{equation*}
whose total complex has only one non-trivial cohomology in the middle term isomorphic to~$\Lambda^m (\mathcal{U}^\perp/\mathcal{U})$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The bicomplex is just the $m$-th exterior power of the complex
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{U} \to \mathcal{V} \to \mathcal{U}^\vee,
\end{equation*}
which is quasiisomorphic to $\mathcal{U}^\perp/\mathcal{U}$, hence the claim (cf.\ the argument of~\cite[Lemma~7.3]{Ku08a}).
\end{proof}
Finally, we will need the following lemma from~\cite{Ku08a}.
\begin{lemma}[\cite{Ku08a}, Proposition 6.3]
\label{lemma:sss}
There exists a complex
\begin{equation*}
0 \to \mathcal{S}_- \to \mathbf{S}_- \otimes \mathcal{O}(1) \to \mathcal{S}_-(1) \to 0,
\end{equation*}
whose only non-trivial cohomology group is in the middle term and is isomorphic to $\mathcal{S}_+ \otimes \mathcal{U}^\vee$.
\end{lemma}
\subsection{Fullness}
\label{subsection:fullness-dn}
The proof of the fullness of the collection~\eqref{eq-collection-OG-even-I} goes
via restriction to odd Grassmannians $\OG(2,2n-1)$, and is similar to the proofs of fullness given in~\cite{Ku08a}.
For technical reasons it is more convenient to work with the collection
\begin{align}
\label{eq-collection-OG-even-II}
\mathcal{A}(2-n) , \dots ,\mathcal{A}(-1), \mathcal{U}^{2\omega_{n-1}}(-1), \mathcal{U}^{2\omega_{n}}(-1) , \mathcal{A} , \mathcal{B}(1) , \dots , \mathcal{B}(n-2).
\end{align}
By Serre duality, exceptionality of~\eqref{eq-collection-OG-even-I} implies exceptionality of~\eqref{eq-collection-OG-even-II}.
Conversely, fullness of~\eqref{eq-collection-OG-even-II} implies fullness of~\eqref{eq-collection-OG-even-I}.
We will deduce fullness of~\eqref{eq-collection-OG-even-II} from the following key lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{key-lemma}
Let $\mathbf{E}$ be the set of bundles appearing in~\eqref{eq-collection-OG-even-II}
and let $\mathbf{E}'$ be its subset defined as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:eprime}
\mathbf{E}' := \{ S^k\mathcal{U}^\vee(t), \mathcal{S}_+(t) \mid 0 \le k \le n-3,\ 2 - n \le t \le n - 3 \} \subset \mathbf{E}.
\end{equation}
Then for any object $E \in \mathbf{E}\,' \,$ we have
\begin{align}
\label{kl:twist}
E \otimes \mathcal{O}(1) & \in \langle \mathbf{E} \rangle,
\\
\label{kl:tensor}
E \otimes \mathcal{U}^\vee & \in \langle \mathbf{E} \rangle.
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The inclusion~\eqref{kl:twist}
follows immediately
from comparison of~\eqref{eq:eprime}, \eqref{eq:a-b-dn} and~\eqref{eq-collection-OG-even-II}.
Thus, we concentrate here on the inclusion~\eqref{kl:tensor}.
We split objects $E \in \mathbf{E}'$ into two classes:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathcal{S}_+(t)$ with $t \in [2-n,n-3]$ (spinor bundles), and
\item $S^k \mathcal{U}^\vee(t)$ with $k \in [0,n-3]$ and $t \in [2-n,n-3]$ (tautological bundles),
\end{itemize}
and treat these separately.
The class of spinor bundles is easy: from Lemma~\ref{lemma:sss} we conclude
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{S}_+(i) \otimes \mathcal{U}^\vee \in \langle \mathcal{S}_-(i), \mathcal{O}(i+1), \mathcal{S}_-(i+1) \rangle.
\end{equation*}
and the inclusion~\eqref{kl:tensor} for $E = {} \mathcal{S}_+(i)$ follows.
The class of tautological bundles is a bit more tedious.
First, note that by~\eqref{tp:a1*b1} we have
\begin{equation*}
S^k \mathcal{U}^\vee \otimes \mathcal{U}^\vee = S^{k+1} \mathcal{U}^\vee \oplus S^{k-1}\mathcal{U}^\vee(1).
\end{equation*}
Thus, the inclusion~\eqref{kl:tensor} would follow from the inclusions
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:inclusions}
S^j\mathcal{U}^\vee(t) \in \langle \mathbf{E} \rangle,
\qquad 0 \le j \le n -2,\quad 2 - n \le t \le n - 2.
\end{equation}
So, proving these inclusions, we will prove the lemma.
For $j \le n - 3$ and for $j = n - 2$, $1 \le t \le n - 2$ the inclusions~\eqref{eq:inclusions}
follow immediately from~\eqref{eq-collection-OG-even-II}. Furthermore, using~\eqref{eq-OG-2-2n-exact-sequence-for-Sym} twisted by $\mathcal{O}(n - 2 + t)$ and isomorphisms
\begin{equation*}
S^l \mathcal{U} \simeq S^l \mathcal{U}^\vee(-l),
\end{equation*}
we deduce~\eqref{eq:inclusions} for $j = n - 2$ and $2 - n \le t \le -1$.
So, it only remains to show that
\begin{equation*}
S^{n-2}\mathcal{U}^\vee \in \langle \mathbf{E} \rangle.
\end{equation*}
For this we consider the double complex of Lemma~\ref{lemma-double-complex} with $m = n-2$.
Using the direct sum decompositions
\begin{equation*}
S^k\mathcal{U}^\vee \otimes S^l\mathcal{U} \cong \bigoplus_{j = 0}^{\min\{k,l\}} S^{k + l - 2j}\mathcal{U}^\vee(j - l)
\end{equation*}
and the cases of the inclusion~\eqref{eq:inclusions} proved above,
we see that all the terms of the double complex with a possible exception for the rightmost term $S^{n-2}\mathcal{U}^\vee$
are contained in the subcategory generated by~$\mathbf{E}$.
By~\eqref{eq:wedge-n-2} and~\eqref{eq:uperp-u} the unique cohomology sheaf
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{U}^{2\omega_{n-1}}(-1) \oplus \mathcal{U}^{2\omega_n}(-1)
\end{equation*}
of the double complex is contained in $\langle \mathbf{E} \rangle$,
therefore the last term $S^{n-2}\mathcal{U}^\vee$ is in the subcategory generated by~$\mathbf{E}$.
\end{proof}
Let
\begin{equation*}
v \in H^0(\OG(2,2n), \mathcal{U}^\vee) = V^\vee \cong V
\end{equation*}
be any non-zero global section and let $v^\perp \subset V$ be the orthogonal complement of $v$.
The restriction of the bilinear form to $v^\perp$ is nondegenerate if and only if $v$ is non-isotropic.
In this case the zero locus of $v$ (considered as a section of~$\mathcal{U}^\vee$)
is the odd orthogonal Grassmannian~$\OG(2,v^\perp) {} \cong \OG(2,2n-1)$ and we have the natural closed embedding
\begin{equation*}
i_v \colon \OG(2,v^\perp) \to \OG(2,V)
\end{equation*}
and the Koszul resolution
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-koszul-resolution}
0 \to \mathcal{O}(-1) \to \mathcal{U} \to \mathcal{O} \to i_{v*} \mathcal{O}_{\OG(2,v^\perp)} \to 0.
\end{equation}
The union of $\OG(2,v^\perp)$ for non-isotropic $v \in V$ sweeps~$\OG(2,V)$, hence we have the following
\begin{lemma}[{\cite[Lemma 4.5]{Ku08a}}]
\label{lemma:restriction}
If for an object $F \in {\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}(\OG(2,2n))$ the restrictions $i_v^* F$ vanish for all non-isotropic $v \in V$, then $F = 0$.
\end{lemma}
Now we are finally ready to prove the fullness of~\eqref{eq-collection-OG-even-II}.
\begin{proposition}
\label{lemma-vanishing-of-the-restriction}
If $F \in {\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}(\OG(2,V))$ is right orthogonal to all the vector bundles $E$ in the collection~\eqref{eq-collection-OG-even-II},
i.e., $\Ext^\bullet(E,F) = 0$, then $F = 0$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The assumption of the proposition can be rewritten as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-orthogonality-to-all-objects-in-E}
\Ext^\bullet(E,F) = H^{\bullet}(\OG(2,V),E^{\vee} \otimes F)=0 \qquad \forall E \in \mathbf{E}.
\end{equation}
Now take any non-isotropic vector~$v$ and any bundle $E \in \mathbf{E}'$, and tensor \eqref{eq-koszul-resolution} by $E^{\vee} \otimes F$.
We obtain an exact sequence
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-koszul-resolution-tensored}
0 \to \mathcal{O}(-1) \otimes E^{\vee} \otimes F \to \mathcal{U} \otimes E^{\vee} \otimes F \to E^{\vee} \otimes F \to i_{v*} i_v^* (E^{\vee} \otimes F) \to 0
\end{equation}
From Lemma~\ref{key-lemma} and~\eqref{eq-orthogonality-to-all-objects-in-E}
it follows that the cohomology groups of the first three terms of this complex vanish.
Hence, also the cohomology of $i_{v*} i_v^* (E^{\vee} \otimes F)$ has to vanish, and we conclude that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:vanishing}
H^{\bullet} (\OG(2,V), i_{v*} i_v^* (E^{\vee} \otimes F)) =
H^{\bullet} (\OG(2,v^\perp), i_v^* (E^{\vee} \otimes F)) = \Ext^\bullet(i_v^* E, i_v^* F) = 0
\end{equation}
for any $E \in \mathbf{E}'$.
In other words, the object $i_v^*F$ is orthogonal to all objects $i_v^*E$ for $E \in \mathbf{E}'$.
Set
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{C} := \langle \mathcal{O}, i_v^*(\mathcal{U}^\vee), \dots, i_v^*(S^{n-3}\mathcal{U}^\vee), i_v^*(\mathcal{S}_+) \rangle \subset {\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}(\OG(2,v^\perp)).
\end{equation*}
Since $i_v^*(\mathcal{U}^\vee)$ is the dual tautological bundle and $i_v^*(\mathcal{S}_+)$ is the spinor bundle
on the odd orthogonal Grassmannian~$\OG(2,v^\perp) \cong \OG(2,2n-1)$,
it follows from~\cite[Theorem 7.1]{Ku08a} that there is a semiorthogonal decomposition
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-collection-OG-odd-I}
{\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}(\OG(2,2n-1)) = \langle \mathcal{C} , \mathcal{C}(1) , \dots , \mathcal{C}(2n-5) \rangle.
\end{equation}
Twisting it by~$\mathcal{O}(2 - n)$ we obtain a semiorthogonal decomposition
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-collection-OG-odd-II}
{\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}(\OG(2,2n-1)) = \langle \mathcal{C}(2-n), \dots, \mathcal{C}(-1), \mathcal{C} , \mathcal{C}(1) , \dots , \mathcal{C}(n-3) \rangle.
\end{equation}
Thus, the definition of the set~$\mathbf{E}'$ implies that the objects $i_v^*E$ for $E \in \mathbf{E}'$ generate the category~${\mathbf D^{\mathrm{b}}}(\OG(2,v^\perp))$,
hence~\eqref{eq:vanishing} implies that $i_v^*F = 0$.
Since this holds for any non-isotropic~$v$, it follows from Lemma~\ref{lemma:restriction} that $F = 0$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Residual category}
\label{subsection:residual-dn}
For $1 \le i \le n - 2$ we define $F_i$ to be the stupid right truncation of complex~\eqref{eq-OG-2-2n-exact-sequence-for-Sym}
after $n-1-i$ terms (counting from the left). In other words, the objects~$F_i$ are defined by the following exact sequences:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-left-complexes-Fi}\begin{split}
0 \to S^{n-2}&\mathcal{U}^\vee(2-n) \to F_{n-2} \to 0 \\
0 \to S^{n-2}&\mathcal{U}^\vee(2-n) \to W_1 \otimes S^{n-3}\mathcal{U}^\vee(3-n) \to F_{n-3} \to 0 \\
& \vdots \\
0 \to S^{n-2}&\mathcal{U}^\vee(2-n) \to W_1 \otimes S^{n-3}\mathcal{U}^\vee(3-n) \to \dots \to W_{n-3} \otimes \mathcal{U}^\vee(-1) \to F_1 \to 0.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Since~\eqref{eq-OG-2-2n-exact-sequence-for-Sym} is exact, the objects $F_i$ are also quasiisomorphic to the stupid left truncations
of~\eqref{eq-OG-2-2n-exact-sequence-for-Sym}; in other words, we also have exact sequences
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-right-complexes-Fi}
\begin{split}
0 \to &F_{n-2} \to W_1 \otimes S^{n-3}\mathcal{U}^\vee(3-n) \to \dots \to W_1 \otimes S^{n-3} \mathcal{U}^\vee(1) \to S^{n-2} \mathcal{U}^\vee(1) \to 0 \\
0 \to &F_{n-3} \to W_2 \otimes S^{n-4}\mathcal{U}^\vee(4-n) \to \dots \to W_1 \otimes S^{n-3} \mathcal{U}^\vee(1) \to S^{n-2} \mathcal{U}^\vee(1) \to 0 \\
& \ \vdots \\
0 \to &F_1 \to W_{n-2} \otimes \mathcal{O} \to \dots \to W_1 \otimes S^{n-3} \mathcal{U}^\vee(1) \to S^{n-2} \mathcal{U}^\vee(1) \to 0.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
We will check that the objects $F_1,\dots,F_{n-2}$ together with the objects $\mathcal{U}^{2\omega_{n-1}}(-1)$, $\mathcal{U}^{2\omega_{n}}(-1)$
form a full exceptional collection in the residual category.
We denote by~${\mathbb L}$ the left mutation functors.
\begin{lemma}
We have
\begin{align*}
{\mathbb L}_{\langle \mathcal{A}, \mathcal{A}(1), \dots , \mathcal{A}(i) \rangle} \big( S^{n-2} \mathcal{U}^\vee(i) \big) \cong F_i (i-1) [n-1+i].
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
To prove the claim it is enough to show the following two facts:
\begin{itemize}
\item
the object $F_i (i-1) [n-1+i]$ is contained in the orthogonal $\langle \mathcal{A}, \mathcal{A}(1), \dots , \mathcal{A}(i) \rangle^\perp$;
\item
there exists a morphism $S^{n-2} \mathcal{U}^\vee(i) \to F_i(i-1)[n-1+i]$,
whose cone lies in the category~\mbox{$\langle \mathcal{A}, \mathcal{A}(1), \dots , \mathcal{A}(i) \rangle$}.
\end{itemize}
Twisting~\eqref{eq-left-complexes-Fi} by $\mathcal{O}(i-1)$ and using semiorthogonality of~\eqref{eq-collection-OG-even-I},
we deduce the first of these facts.
On the other hand, considering~\eqref{eq-right-complexes-Fi} twisted by~$\mathcal{O}(i-1)$
as a Yoneda extension of~$S^{n-2} \mathcal{U}^\vee(i)$ by $F_i(i-1)$ of length $n-1+i$,
i.e., as a morphism $S^{n-2} \mathcal{U}^\vee(i) \to F_i(i-1)[n-1+i]$,
we conclude that its cone is quasiisomorphic to the subcomplex of middle terms,
hence belongs to the subcategory $\langle \mathcal{A}, \mathcal{A}(1), \dots , \mathcal{A}(i) \rangle$.
This proves the second fact.
\end{proof}
Thus, we have the following description for the residual category
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:residual-dn}
\mathcal{R} = \Big\langle \mathcal{U}^{2\omega_{n-1}}(-1), \mathcal{U}^{2\omega_{n}}(-1) , F_1 , F_2(1), \dots , F_{n-2}(n-3) \Big\rangle.
\end{equation}
\begin{remark}
\label{remark:cr-dn-aut}
For $n \ne 4$ the exceptional collection in~\eqref{eq:residual-dn} is $\Aut(\OG(2,2n))$-invariant.
For~$n = 4$ it takes form $S^2\mathcal{S}_-(-1), S^2\mathcal{S}_+(-1), (V \otimes \mathcal{U})/S^2\mathcal{U}, S^2\mathcal{U}^\vee(-1)$.
Mutating the third object to the right we obtain an $\Aut(\OG(2,8))$-invariant exceptional collection
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{R} = \langle S^2\mathcal{S}_-(-1), S^2\mathcal{S}_+(-1), S^2\mathcal{U}^\vee(-1), \tilde{T}(-1) \rangle,
\end{equation*}
where the bundle $\tilde T$ is defined by the exact sequence $0 \to \mathcal{O} \to \tilde T \to T \to 0$ and $T$ is the tangent bundle.
\end{remark}
It remains to compute the $\Ext$-spaces between the objects of~\eqref{eq:residual-dn}.
\begin{lemma}
We have
\begin{equation*}
\Ext^\bullet(F_i(i-1), F_j(j-1)) =
\begin{cases}
\Bbbk, & \text{if $j = i + 1$ or $j = i$,} \\
0 , & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
Furthermore, we have
\begin{equation*}
\Ext^\bullet(\mathcal{U}^{2\omega_{n-1}}(-1), F_j(j-1)) =
\Ext^\bullet(\mathcal{U}^{2\omega_{n}}(-1), F_j(j-1)) =
\begin{cases}
\Bbbk[-1] , & \text{if $j = 1$,} \\
0 , & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We start with the first claim.
Since we already know that~\eqref{eq:residual-dn} is an exceptional collection, we may assume $i < j$.
From~\eqref{eq-right-complexes-Fi} twisted by $\mathcal{O}(i-1)$ we deduce
\begin{equation*}
F_i(i-1) \in \langle \mathcal{A} , \mathcal{A}(1) , \dots , \mathcal{A}(i-1), \mathcal{B}(i) \rangle
\end{equation*}
and from~\eqref{eq-left-complexes-Fi} twisted by $\mathcal{O}(j-1)$ and with $i$ replaced by $j$ we deduce
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:fj-second}
F_j(j-1) \in \langle \mathcal{B}(j-n+1) , \mathcal{A}(j-n+2) , \dots , \mathcal{A}(-1) \rangle.
\end{equation}
Using appropriate twist of \eqref{eq-collection-OG-even-I} one easily sees that non-trivial $\Ext$'s can only come from
\begin{equation*}
\Ext^\bullet(S^{n-2} \mathcal{U}^\vee(i), S^{n-2} \mathcal{U}^\vee(j-n+1)).
\end{equation*}
By Lemma~\ref{lemma:so1} this space is nonzero (and is isomorphic to $\Bbbk[4-2n]$)
only if $j = i + 1$ and the claim follows.
For the second claim, using the inclusion~\eqref{eq:fj-second}, we see that non-trivial $\Ext$'s can only come from
\begin{align*}
\Ext^\bullet(\mathcal{U}^{2\omega_{\varepsilon}}(-1) , S^{n-2} \mathcal{U}^\vee(i-n+1)),
\end{align*}
where $\varepsilon \in \{n-1, n\}$. By Lemma~\ref{lemma:so4} and Serre duality this space is nonzero (and is isomorphic to $\Bbbk[2-n]$) only if $i = 1$, and the claim follows.
\end{proof}
The above lemma shows that the residual category is equivalent to the derived category of representations
of a Dynkin quiver of type~$\mathrm{D}_n$ and Remark~\ref{remark:cr-dn-aut} shows that it is generated by an exceptional
collection invariant under all automorphisms of~$\OG(2,2n)$.
This completes the proof of Theorem~\ref{theorem:dn}.
\begin{bibdiv}
\begin{biblist}
\bib{BS}{article}{
author={Belmans, P.},
author={Smirnov, M.},
title={The {H}ochschild cohomology of generalised {G}rassmannians},
eprint={https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.09414},
}
\bib{BKS}{article}{
author={Belmans, Pieter},
author={Kuznetsov, Alexander},
author={Smirnov, Maxim},
title={Derived categories of the {C}ayley plane and the coadjoint
{G}rassmannian of type~$\mathrm{F}$},
eprint={https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.01989},
}
\bib{Bott}{article}{
author={Bott, Raoul},
title={Homogeneous vector bundles},
date={1957},
journal={Ann. of Math. (2)},
volume={66},
pages={203\ndash 248},
}
\bib{BKT09}{article}{
author={Buch, Anders~Skovsted},
author={Kresch, Andrew},
author={Tamvakis, Harry},
title={Quantum {P}ieri rules for isotropic {G}rassmannians},
date={2009},
journal={Invent. Math.},
volume={178},
number={2},
pages={345\ndash 405},
}
\bib{ChPe}{article}{
author={Chaput, P.~E.},
author={Perrin, N.},
title={On the quantum cohomology of adjoint varieties},
date={2011},
journal={Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. (3)},
volume={103},
number={2},
pages={294\ndash 330},
}
\bib{CF99}{article}{
author={Ciocan-Fontanine, Ionu\c{t}},
title={On quantum cohomology rings of partial flag varieties},
date={1999},
journal={Duke Math. J.},
volume={98},
number={3},
pages={485\ndash 524},
}
\bib{CMKMPS}{article}{
author={Cruz~Morales, J.A.},
author={Kuznetsov, A.},
author={Mellit, A.},
author={Perrin, N.},
author={Smirnov, M.},
title={On quantum cohomology of {Grassmannian}s of isotropic lines,
unfoldings of {$A_n$}-singularities, and {Lefschetz} exceptional
collections},
date={2019},
journal={Annales de l'Institut Fourier},
volume={69},
number={3},
pages={955\ndash 991},
}
\bib{Du}{inproceedings}{
author={Dubrovin, Boris},
title={Geometry and analytic theory of {F}robenius manifolds},
date={1998},
booktitle={Proceedings of the {I}nternational {C}ongress of
{M}athematicians, {V}ol. {II} ({B}erlin, 1998)},
pages={315\ndash 326},
}
\bib{FP}{incollection}{
author={Fulton, W.},
author={Pandharipande, R.},
title={Notes on stable maps and quantum cohomology},
date={1997},
booktitle={Algebraic geometry---{S}anta {C}ruz 1995},
series={Proc. Sympos. Pure Math.},
volume={62},
publisher={Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI},
pages={45\ndash 96},
}
\bib{GMS}{article}{
author={Galkin, S.},
author={Mellit, A.},
author={Smirnov, M.},
title={Dubrovin's conjecture for {$IG(2,6)$}},
date={2015},
journal={Int. Math. Res. Not.},
volume={2015},
number={18},
pages={8847\ndash 8859},
}
\bib{HeMaTe}{article}{
author={Hertling, C.},
author={Manin, Yu.~I.},
author={Teleman, C.},
title={An update on semisimple quantum cohomology and {$F$}-manifolds},
date={2009},
ISSN={0371-9685},
journal={Trudy Matematicheskogo Instituta Imeni V. A. Steklova. Rossi\u\i
skaya Akademiya Nauk},
volume={264},
number={Mnogomernaya Algebraicheskaya Geometriya},
pages={69\ndash 76},
review={\MR{2590836}},
}
\bib{Hertling}{book}{
author={Hertling, Claus},
title={Frobenius manifolds and moduli spaces for singularities},
series={Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics},
publisher={Cambridge University Press, Cambridge},
date={2002},
volume={151},
}
\bib{IK}{article}{
author={Ingalls, Colin},
author={Kuznetsov, Alexander},
title={On nodal {E}nriques surfaces and quartic double solids},
date={2015},
ISSN={0025-5831},
journal={Math. Ann.},
volume={361},
number={1-2},
pages={107\ndash 133},
url={https://doi.org/10.1007/s00208-014-1066-y},
review={\MR{3302614}},
}
\bib{Kaufmann}{article}{
author={Kaufmann, Ralph},
title={The intersection form in {${H}^*(\overline{M}_{0n})$} and the
explicit {K}\"{u}nneth formula in quantum cohomology},
date={1996},
journal={Internat. Math. Res. Notices},
number={19},
pages={929\ndash 952},
}
\bib{Ke}{article}{
author={Ke, Hua-Zhong},
title={On semisimplicity of quantum cohomology of
{$\mathbb{P}^1$}-orbifolds},
date={2019},
journal={J. Geom. Phys.},
volume={144},
pages={1\ndash 14},
}
\bib{Kim}{article}{
author={Kim, Bumsig},
title={Quantum cohomology of partial flag manifolds and a residue
formula for their intersection pairings},
date={1995},
journal={Internat. Math. Res. Notices},
number={1},
pages={1\ndash 15},
}
\bib{KMK}{article}{
author={Kontsevich, M.},
author={Manin, Yu.},
title={Quantum cohomology of a product},
date={1996},
journal={Invent. Math.},
volume={124},
number={1-3},
pages={313\ndash 339},
note={With an appendix by R. Kaufmann},
}
\bib{K06}{article}{
author={Kuznetsov, A.~G.},
title={Hyperplane sections and derived categories},
date={2006},
journal={Izv. Ross. Akad. Nauk Ser. Mat.},
volume={70},
number={3},
pages={23\ndash 128},
}
\bib{Ku08a}{article}{
author={Kuznetsov, Alexander},
title={Exceptional collections for {G}rassmannians of isotropic lines},
date={2008},
journal={Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society. Third Series},
volume={97},
number={1},
pages={155\ndash 182},
}
\bib{KuPo}{article}{
author={Kuznetsov, Alexander},
author={Polishchuk, Alexander},
title={Exceptional collections on isotropic {G}rassmannians},
date={2016},
journal={J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS)},
volume={18},
number={3},
pages={507\ndash 574},
}
\bib{KS2020}{article}{
author={Kuznetsov, Alexander},
author={Smirnov, Maxim},
title={On residual categories for {G}rassmannians},
journal={Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society},
volume={120},
number={5},
pages={617\ndash 641},
}
\bib{Manin}{book}{
author={Manin, Yuri~I.},
title={Frobenius manifolds, quantum cohomology, and moduli spaces},
series={American Mathematical Society Colloquium Publications},
publisher={American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI},
date={1999},
volume={47},
}
\bib{Mironov}{article}{
author={Mironov, Mikhail},
title={Lefschetz exceptional collections in {$S_k$}-equivariant
categories of $(\mathbb{P}^n)^k$},
eprint={https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.01534},
}
\bib{PeSm}{article}{
author={Perrin, N.},
author={Smirnov, M.},
title={On the big quantum cohomology of (co)adjoint varieties},
journal={In preparation},
}
\bib{Pe}{article}{
author={Perrin, Nicolas},
title={Semisimple quantum cohomology of some {F}ano varieties},
eprint={https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.5914},
}
\bib{Po}{article}{
author={Polishchuk, A.},
title={{$K$}-theoretic exceptional collections at roots of unity},
date={2011},
ISSN={1865-2433},
journal={J. K-Theory},
volume={7},
number={1},
pages={169\ndash 201},
}
\bib{VO}{book}{
author={Vinberg, \`E.~B.},
author={Onishchik, A.~L.},
title={{Seminar po gruppam Li i algebraicheskim gruppam}},
edition={Second},
publisher={URSS, Moscow},
date={1995},
}
\end{biblist}
\end{bibdiv}
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}
Driven by the rapid development of advanced multimedia applications, next-generation wireless networks must support massive connectivity.
The connectivity always results in the integer optimization problem, which was solved by conventional {algorithms mostly {operating} in an off-line manner with high computation complexity and {depending} largely on accurate channel state information \cite{di2016sub}.}
Machine learning tools \cite{8755300,8752012,chen2019joint,yang2019energy,wang2019deep,shi2018adaptive} can exploit big data
for wireless network state estimation and find the relationship between the {decision} variables and objective functions in an
online manner so as to reduce the computational complexity.
There are many research attentions of applying machine learning for solving integer optimization problems in wireless communication.
For integer user association problem, the authors in \cite{zappone2018user} investigated the use of deep learning
to perform user-cell association for sum-rate maximization in
massive multiple input multiple output (MIMO) networks.
For integer cache placement problem, the optimization of the caching
locations was {transformed to a grey-scale image-based problem and deep convolutional neural network (CNN) was adopted accordingly \cite{wang2019caching}.}
{Also, the linear sum assignment problems were solved through using the
deep neural networks (DNNs) \cite{lee2018deep}. }
Moreover, in device-to-device (D2D) networks,
a novel graph embedding based method for link
scheduling {was proposed} \cite{lee2019graph}.
Further
reinforcing the generalization ability in D2D networks,
a DNN structure was proposed in \cite{lee2019learning} with a novel loss function to achieve better
dynamic control over optimality and computational complexity.
However, the above contributions \cite{zappone2018user,wang2019caching,lee2018deep,lee2019graph,lee2019learning} all restricted that the number of users is assumed to be the same as wireless {resources}, which cannot meet the massive number of devices in future communication systems. \textcolor{black}{Besides, the machine learning approaches in \cite{zappone2018user,wang2019caching,lee2018deep,lee2019graph,lee2019learning} are all neural networks and have the limitations of prediction performance. To further investigate machine learning methods' capacity and potential in wireless communication domains, {this} letter employs several machine learning algorithms as base learners and {integrates} them by {an} ensemble learning approach. By employing different machine learning methods, we aim to improve the diversity of base models and the final prediction performance as well as the model's generalization capability and robustness when exposed to contaminations. }
\textcolor{black}
The contributions of this letter is summarised as follows:
\vspace{-0.1cm}
\begin{itemize}
\item The channel assignment problem is formulated for the case that the number of users is larger than the number of subchannels. A convex optimization based algorithm is proposed to obtain the globally optimal channel assignment despite of the integer constraints.
\item The convex optimization problem is converted to a regression problem and solved by machine learning frameworks, which yield rigorously optimal and computationally efficient solutions.
\item Ensemble learning is utilized to combine different machine learning models and improve the {prediction} performance. Also, different combinations of optimization algorithms are adopted and compared.
\item The computation time is largely reduced by the proposed machine learning frameworks without much compromising of prediction accuracy.
\end{itemize}}
\vspace{-0.75em}
\section{System Model and Problem Formulation}
Consider {an} uplink single cell network with $M$ users and $N$ subchannels.
Denote $\mathcal M=\{1, 2, \cdots, M\}$ as the set of all users and $\mathcal N=\{1, 2, \cdots, N\}$ as the set of all subchannels.
Let $p_i$ denote the uplink transmission power for user $i$.
Binary variable $x_{ij}$ reflects the association relationship between user $i$ and subchannel $j$, i.e., $x_{ij}=1$ means that user $i$ occupies sbuchannel $j$; otherwise $x_{ij}=0$.
Due to massive number of users and limited number of channels, i.e., $M\geq N$, non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA) scheme is utilized by serving multiple users in each subchannel \cite{7390209}.
With successful interference cancellation in NOMA\footnote{\textcolor{black}{The transmission power of each user is assumed to be fixed, thus the power constraints are not involved in the optimization problem.}}, the sum rate of all users occupying subchannel $j$ is given by \cite{7390209,8125101}:
\vspace{-0.5em}
\begin{equation}
\vspace{-0.5em}
r_{j}=B\log_2\left(1+\frac{\sum_{i=1}^M x_{ij}p_ih_{ij}}{\sigma^2B}
\right),
\end{equation}
where $B$ is the bandwidth of each subchannel,
$h_{ij}$ is the channel gain between user $i$ and the {base station (BS)} on subchannel $j$, and $\sigma^2$ is the power density of Gaussian noise.
The sum rate maximization problem for assigning users with subchannels can be formulated as:
\begin{subequations}\label{sys1min1}\vspace{-0.5em}
\begin{align}
\mathop{\max}_{\boldsymbol x } \quad & \sum_{j=1}^N B\log_2\left(1+\frac{\sum_{i=1}^Mx_{ij}p_ih_{ij}}{\sigma^2B}
\right)\\
\textrm{s.t.}\quad
& \sum_{j=1}^N x_{ij}=1, \quad \forall i \in \mathcal M,\\
& \sum_{i=1}^M x_{ij} = A, \quad \forall j \in \mathcal N,\\
& x_{ij}\in\{0,1\}, \quad \forall i \in\mathcal M,j \in \mathcal N,
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
{where $\boldsymbol x=[x_{11},x_{12},\cdots,x_{MN}]^T$} and $A$ is the allowed number of associated users in one subchannel.
Constraints (\ref{sys1min1}b) ensue that each user only {occupies} one subchannel.
\vspace{-0.5em}
\section{Convex Optimization Based Algorithm}
\vspace{-0.5em}
Due to integer constraints (\ref{sys1min1}d), it is hard to solve linear integer problem.
By temporarily relaxing the integer constraints (\ref{sys1min1}d) with $x_{ij}\in[0,1]$, problem \eqref{sys1min1} is a linear problem, also convex.
For convex problem \eqref{sys1min1} with relaxed constraints, the optimal solution can be effectively obtained by using the dual method \cite{boyd2004convex}.
Let $\lambda_i$
denote the dual variable associated
with constraint $i$ in (\ref{sys1min1}b),
we obtain the dual problem of the problem in (\ref{sys1min1}), which is given by:
\vspace{-0.5em}
\begin{equation}\label{co2eq1}\vspace{-0.5em}
\mathop{\min}_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}\quad D(\boldsymbol{\lambda}),
\end{equation}
where
\vspace{-0.5em}
\begin{equation}\label{co2eq1_2}\vspace{-0.5em}
D(\boldsymbol{\lambda})=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\!\!\!\mathop{\max}\limits_{\boldsymbol x}\;\;
& \mathcal L_1 (\boldsymbol x, \boldsymbol \lambda)
\\
\!\!\rm{s.\;t.}& \sum_{i=1}^M x_{ij}=A, \quad \forall j \in \mathcal N,\\
& x_{ij}\in[0,1], \quad \forall i\in\mathcal M,j \in \mathcal N,
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\begin{align}\label{co2eq2}\vspace{-0.5em}
&\!\!\! \mathcal L_1(\boldsymbol x, \boldsymbol \lambda)\!=\!
\sum_{j=1}^N\! B\log_2\!\left(\!1\!+\!\frac{\sum_{i=1}^M\!x_{ij}p_ih_{ij}}{\sigma^2B}
\!\right)\!
\!+\!\sum_{i=1}^M \!\lambda_i\!\left(\!
\sum_{j=1}^N \! x_{ij} \!-\!1\!\right)\!
\nonumber\\=\!&
\sum_{j=1}^N \!B\log_2\left(\!1+\!\frac{\sum_{i=1}^Mx_{ij}p_ih_{ij}}{\sigma^2B}
\!\right)\!
\!+\!\sum_{j=1}^N \!\left(\!
\sum_{i=1}^M \lambda_i x_{ij} \!-\!\lambda_i\! \right)\!,\!\!\!\!\!
\end{align}
and $\boldsymbol \lambda=[\lambda_1,\cdots, \lambda_N]^T$.
To minimize the objective function in (\ref{co2eq1_2}), the optimal $x_{ij}$ can be calculated via the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT) conditions.
Since both the objective function and constraints can be decoupled into $N$ subchannels, the subproblem of (\ref{co2eq1_2}) in subchannel $j$ can be given by:
\vspace{-0.5em}
\begin{subequations}\label{sys1min1_2}\vspace{-0.3em}
\begin{align}
\mathop{\max}_{\boldsymbol x_j } \quad & B\log_2\left(1+\frac{\sum_{i=1}^Mx_{ij}p_ih_{ij}}{\sigma^2B}
\right) + \sum_{i=1}^M \lambda_i x_{ij}
\\
\textrm{s.t.}\quad
& \sum_{i=1}^M x_{ij}=A, \\
& x_{ij}\in[0,1], \quad \forall i \in \mathcal M,
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $\boldsymbol x_j=[x_{1j},x_{2j},\cdots,x_{Mj}]^T$.
It can be proved that (\ref{sys1min1_2}) is a convex problem,
and the Lagrangian function of problem (\ref{sys1min1_2}) is
\vspace{-0.5em}
\begin{align}\vspace{-0.5em}
\mathcal L_2&(\boldsymbol{x_j}, \alpha,\boldsymbol \beta, \boldsymbol \gamma)=
B\log_2\left(1+\frac{\sum_{i=1}^Mx_{ij}p_ih_{ij}}{\sigma^2B}
\right) + \sum_{i=1}^M \lambda_i x_{ij}
\nonumber\\&
+\alpha\left(\sum_{i=1}^M x_{ij}-A\right)+\sum_{i=1}^M\beta_i x_{ij}
+\sum_{i=1}^M\gamma_i (1-x_{ij}).
\end{align}
The KKT conditions of problem (\ref{sys1min1_2}) are \cite{boyd2004convex}
\begin{subequations}\label{KKT1
\begin{align}
\frac{p_ih_{ij}}
{(\ln2)\left(\sum_{i=1}^Mx_{ij}p_ih_{ij}+\sigma^2B\right)}\!+\! \lambda_i\!+\!\alpha\!+\!\beta_i\!-\!\gamma_i
&=0, \\
\sum_{i=1}^M x_{ij}&=A,\\
\beta_i x_{ij}&=0,\\
\gamma_i (1-x_{ij})&=0.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\textcolor{black}{
In the left hand side of (\ref{KKT1}a), it is founded that the denominator of the first term is the same for every user $i$.
With this finding, we introduce a new variable $\kappa$, which is defined as:
\vspace{-0.5em}
\begin{equation}\label{co2eq3_1}\vspace{-0.5em}
\kappa={(\ln2)\left(\sum_{i=1}^Mx_{ij}p_ih_{ij}+\sigma^2B\right)}.
\end{equation}
With the help of $\kappa$, we can directly obtain the optimal solution of $x_{ij}^*$ according to the following analysis.
Substituting \eqref{co2eq3_1} to (\ref{KKT1}a) yields:
\vspace{-0.5em}
\begin{equation}\label{co2eq3_0}\vspace{-0.5em}
\frac{p_ih_{ij} +\kappa\lambda_i}{\kappa}=\gamma_i-\beta_i-\alpha.
\end{equation}
Based on (\ref{KKT1}c)-(\ref{KKT1}d), we can obtain that (i) $x_{ij}=1$ if and only if $\gamma_i>0$ and $\beta_i=0$ and (ii) $x_{ij}=1$ if and only if $\gamma_i=0$ and $\beta_i\geq0$, which indicates that the right hand side of \eqref{co2eq3_0} should be as large as possible for the case $x_{ij}=1$.
Besides, there are only $A$ users such that $x_{ij}=1$ according to (\ref{KKT1}b).
Thus, the user with $x_{ij}=1$ should has the $A$ highest values of $\frac{p_ih_{ij} +\kappa\lambda_i}{\kappa}$, i.e.,
\vspace{-0.5em}
\begin{equation}\label{co2eq3}\vspace{-0.5em}
x_{ij}^*(\kappa)=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\!\!1, &\text{if}\; i \in \mathcal M_{A}\\
\!\!0, &\text{otherwise},
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
where set $\mathcal M_A$ means the index of $A$ users with the top $A$ highest values in $p_ih_{ij} +\kappa\lambda_i$.
Equation \eqref{co2eq3} indicates that the optimal $x_{ij}^*$ is only a function of $\kappa$.
To calculate the value of $\kappa$, we combine \eqref{co2eq3_1} and \eqref{co2eq3}, which yields:
\vspace{-0.5em}
\begin{equation}\label{co2eq3_2}\vspace{-0.5em}
\kappa={(\ln2)\left(\sum_{i=1}^N x_{ij}^*(\kappa) p_ih_{ij}+\sigma^2B\right)}.
\end{equation}
With the increase of $\kappa$, the user with lower value in $p_ih_{ij}$ can have higher value in $p_ih_{ij} +\kappa\lambda_i$, i.e., the value of $\sum_{i=1}^N x_{ij}^*(\kappa) p_ih_{ij}$ decreases, which indicates that the right hand side of \eqref{co2eq3_2} decreases with $\kappa$.
Since the left hand side of \eqref{co2eq3_2} increases with $\kappa$ and the right hand side of \eqref{co2eq3_2} decreases with $\kappa$,
the unique value of $\kappa$ can be obtained by the bisection method.}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\vspace{-2em}
\includegraphics[width=7in]{overall.jpg}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\caption{Block diagram of the implementation procedure in this letter.}
\vspace{-1.5em}
\label{fig:overall}
\end{figure*}
Given $\boldsymbol x$, the value of $\boldsymbol \lambda$ can be determined by the gradient method \cite{bertsekas2009convex}.
By iteratively optimizing primal variable $\boldsymbol x$ and dual variable $\boldsymbol \lambda$, the optimal subcahnnel allocation is obtained.
The dual method used to obtain the optimal subcahnnel allocation is given in Algorithm 1.
Notice that the optimal $x_{ij}$ is either 0 or 1 according to \eqref{co2eq3}, even though
we {relax $x_{ij}$} as continuous constraint in (\ref{sys1min1}). Therefore, we
can obtain optimal solution to problem (\ref{sys1min1}).
\begin{algorithm}[h]
\caption{ Dual Method for Subchannel Association }
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE Initialize dual variable $\boldsymbol \lambda$.
\REPEAT
\STATE Update subchannel allocation $\boldsymbol x$ according to (\ref{co2eq3}).
\STATE Update dual variable $\boldsymbol\lambda$ by the gradient method
\UNTIL the objective value (\ref{sys1min1}a) converges
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
{The major complexity in Algorithm 1} lies in updating subchannel allocation $\boldsymbol x$.
Based on \eqref{co2eq3}, the complexity of calculating $\boldsymbol x$ is
$\mathcal O\left(NM\log_2(1/\epsilon)\right)$, where $\mathcal O\left(\log_2(1/\epsilon)\right)$ is the complexity of solving \eqref{co2eq3_2} by using the bisection method with accuracy $\epsilon$.
As a result, the total complexity of Algorithm 1 is $\mathcal O\left(LNM\log_2(1/\epsilon) \right)$, where $L$ is the number of iterations in Algorithm 1.
\vspace{-.5em}
\section{Deep Learning Based Approaches}\vspace{-.5em}
\textcolor{black}{In this letter, the machine learning approaches {are also involved to} obtain computational efficient solutions for the optimization problem. The overall implementation procedures are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:overall}. The key of machine learning methods is to learn the relationship between {the constant input parameters $R = \{r_{ij} = p_i h_{ij}\}, i\in\mathcal M,j \in \mathcal N$} and the subchannel arrangements $X = \{x_{ij}\}, i\in\mathcal M,j \in \mathcal N$. To make the problem solvable, we convert the target one-hot matrix $X = \{x_{ij}\}, i\in\mathcal M,j \in \mathcal N$ to vector form $\bar{X} = \{\bar{x}_{i}\in \mathcal N\}, i \in \mathcal M$ so that the problem can be considered as a regression problem. Each column in $X$, i.e., $\{x_{i1},x_{i2},...,x_{iN}\}^{T}, i \in \mathcal M$ is {transformed} to an integer $\bar{x}_{i} \in \mathcal N, i \in \mathcal M$ which denotes the index of non-zero value (i.e., 1) in the each column, meaning the index of user in the $j$-th subchannel, i.e., $x_{i\bar{x}_{i}}=1$.}
After obtaining the input and target, the optimization problem is converted to a regression problem which can be modelled by machine learning frameworks. The adopted methods for regression consist of {CNNs, feed-forward neural networks (FNNs), random forest and gated recurrent unit networks (GRUs)}. In addition, ensemble learning method is utilized to combine different models and further improve the regression performance. After regression, the output of machine learning models are permutated according to the output values, thus, the integer outputs which represent the indices of users are obtained in the end.
\vspace{-.5em}
\subsection{Data Information}\vspace{-.5em}
\subsubsection{Data generation}
We deploy $M$ users uniformly in a square area of size $500$ m $\times$ $500$~m with the BS located at its center.
In each independent run, the channel gains of users on the subcahnnels are determined, i.e., $R$ is obtained. The output $X$ is accordingly calculated by using Algorithm 1. {The total number of generated samples is 1 million.}
\subsubsection{Data splitting}
The generated data are splitted to training, validation and test datasets. 70\% of the data are used for training while 10\% for test. 20\% of data are held out for validation which plays an important role in model ensemble stage, i.e., the stacking procedure.
\vspace{-.5em}
\subsection{Machine Learning Methods}\vspace{-.5em}
\textcolor{black}{Different machine learning methods are employed to solve the regression of the input $R$ and the target $\bar{X}$.} Ensemble learning is then utilized to make different models complement each other and improve the regression performance. \textcolor{black}{Different base learners are used as they can render diversity of the whole structure, which is beneficial for models' prediction accuracy, robustness and generalization capability when exposed to contaminations. The models are selected mainly through referencing published literatures of the successful models on similar datasets and trial and error of existed models. After comparing the performance of existed machine learning models, FNNs, CNNs, random forest and GRUs are employed as the base learners. The configurations of adopted models are shown in Table \ref{tabel:specification}, which are determined mainly through trial and error and taking into consideration of the input size. }
\begin{table*}
\vspace {-1cm}
\textcolor{black}{
\footnotesize
\renewcommand \arraystretch{1.5}
\renewcommand\tabcolsep{2pt}
\caption{\textcolor{black}{{Machine Learning Models' Specifications.} }}
\begin{center}
\begin{threeparttable}\scriptsize
\begin{tabular}{p{0.4\columnwidth}|p{0.4\columnwidth}|p{0.4\columnwidth}|p{0.4\columnwidth}}\hline
\centering{FNNs} & \centering{CNNs} & \centering{GRU} &\quad\quad Random Forest \\ \hline
{Structure: basic FNN structure is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:nn}. Three hidden layers used in this letter are of the size ([10, 10, 10], [10, 10, 10, 10], [20, 20, 20]); Optimizer: LM$^*$; Epoch: 300; Loss function: MSE$^{**}$}. & Structure: basic CNN structure is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:cnn}. Layers' depth and filter size vary according to the input size; Optimizer: Adam + SGD with momentum; Batchsize: 500; Epoch: 40--60; Loss function: MSE. & Structure: Two GRU layers with 50 units each, followed by dropout layer and 4 Dense layers; Optimizer: Adam; Batchsize: 200; Epoch: 40; Loss function: MSE. & The number of trees in forest: 500; Criterion: Gini Impurity; The minimum number of samples required to split an internal node and to be at a leaf node: 2, 1, respectively. \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{tablenotes}
\footnotesize
\item[*]LM: Levenberg-Marquardt method.
\item[**]MSE: mean squared error.
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{center}
\label{tabel:specification}}
\vspace {-0.6cm}
\end{table*}
\subsubsection{Deep Learning Models}
FNNs are widely used in function approximation, pattern recognition and data classification. Due to its superiority in data fitting problems, we adopted FNNs as one of models to solve the regression problem. The general structure of FNNs used in this letter is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:nn}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{nn2.pdf}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\caption{The structure of FNNs.}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\label{fig:nn}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\end{figure}
CNNs have advantages in processing the high-dimensional data, such as images and time-series data due to (a) its convolutional setting in which the hidden units are not fully connected to the input but instead divided into locally connected segments; (b) pooling methods which reduce the dimensionality of the feature space and achieve invariance to small local distortions \cite{langkvist2014review}. One CNN architecture used in this letter is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:cnn}.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\hspace{-0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=15cm]{cnn2.pdf}
\caption{One CNN structure used in this letter.}
\label{fig:cnn}
\vspace{-1.5em}
\end{figure*}
GRU architectures have superiority in capturing dependences of different time scales.
GRUs are similar to {Long Short-Term Memories (LSTMs)} which have gating units to adjust the information flow inside the unit but do not have a seperate memory cells \cite{chung2014empirical} and thus are faster to {be trained} than LSTMs but on a par with LSTMs' performance. When applying GRUs, the input data $R = \{r_{ij}\}, i,j \in \mathcal N$ are reshaped to vectors so as to form {the sequence inputs} for GRU networks. \textcolor{black}{As the correlation of channel model is based on the fact that the channel gain of each user is correlated in time domain \cite{1204012}, the GRU model is selected accordingly as one of the base learners. }
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{Meta.jpg}
\caption{Stacking process.}
\label{fig:meta}
\end{figure}
Stacking is a widely used ensemble method to boost the prediction performance \cite{wolpert1992stacked} of base learners. In this letter, we applied stacking method to a holdout dataset, i.e., the validation dataset, the predictions of base learners fed by validation data are then stacked to form a new dataset for training the top model. The stacking structure used in this letter is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:meta}. \textcolor{black}{The complexity of base learners and top models is no more than $\mathcal{O}(N^2)$ \cite{lee2018deep}.} The details of base models and top models in each case will be illustrated in the following section.
\subsubsection{Training method}
\textcolor{black}{The optimization {algorithm} utilized for CNNs' training in this letter is the combination of Adam and stochastic gradient descent (SGD) with momentum. In implementation, Adam is used first to realize fast gradient decent, then SGD is used for further optimizing the parameters.}
\textcolor{black}{As shown in Fig. \ref{fig:loss}, the conversion from Adam to SGD is implemented in two ways: i) SWATS: adopting the SWATS strategy proposed in \cite{keskar2017improving} which automates the process of switching over by determining both the switchover point and the learning rate of SGD; ii) Customize: using Adam in the first half of training, i.e., the first 20 epochs of the example shown in Fig. \ref{fig:loss}; then use SGD in the second half of training, i.e., the last 20 epochs. From Fig. \ref{fig:loss}, it can be seen that at epoch 20 (the switchover point of the Customize method), there occurs obvious decrease of training loss from Adam to SGD. These two methods are compared in each case and the one having the better performance is employed in this letter.}
\vspace{-0.6em}
\section{Experiment Configuration}\vspace{-.3em}
This section will introduce the experiment procedure, platforms and the methodology for calculating the final accuracy.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{Loss.pdf}
\caption{\textcolor{black}{Training loss of two training methods. SWATS is the method proposed in \cite{keskar2017improving}, Customize refers to the combination of Adam and SGD that the first half of training adopts Adam while the second half uses SGD algorithm.}}
\label{fig:loss}
\end{figure}
The experiments were implemented in Matlab R2019a, Tensorflow 1.13.1 and Nvidia
GPUs. Matlab is for training FNNs with {Levenberg-Marquardt (LM)} algorithm, other classifiers were trained
in Tensorflow and sped up by Nvidia P100/GTX 1050 GPUs.
\vspace{-1em}
\subsection{Experiment Procedures}\vspace{-.3em}
After transforming the optimization problem to a regression problem, the machine learning methods including FNNs, CNNs, {GRUs}, \textcolor{black}{random forest} as well as the stacking method are employed to learn the pattern of channel assignment. \textcolor{black}{Two type of cases were considered in this letter: 1) $M = N,$ meaning the same number of users and subchannels, which is a conventional problem; 2) $M > N$, i.e., different subchannels and users. They are investigated in this letter as the channel resource tends to be limited, which means the number of subchannels could be smaller than the number of users.} The details of each case are as follows.
\subsubsection{$N = M$} \textcolor{black}{We consider three situations for this case, $M = N = 2, M = N = 4$ and $ M = N = 8.$}
When $N = M = 2$, there are two users and two subchannels in the optimization problem. Denote the index of an arbitrary sample by $m$, each input is a matrix with the size of $2 \times 2$: $R^m = \{r_{ij}^m\}, i,j \in {1,2}$ and the target is a vector of the size $1 \times 2: \bar{X}^m = \{x_{1}^m, x_{2}^m\}$. The targets have two kinds of values: $\{1,2\}$ and $\{2,1\}$.
Three FNNs are employed as base models, the top model is also a FNN fed by the stacked outputs of the base learners.
When $N = M = 4$, for each sample $(R^m, \bar{X}^m)$, $R^m$ and $\bar{X}^m$ respectively have the size of $4 \times 4$ and $1 \times 4$.
Three base models are composed of two CNNs and a GRU. The top model is a CNN which is fed by the input with the size $12\times1$ obtained by stacking the outputs of three base models.
When $N = M = 8$, the samples are $(R^m, \bar{X}^m)$ where $R^m$ and $\bar{X}^m$ respectively have the size of $8 \times 8$ and $1 \times 8$.
After comparing the performance of CNNs, GRUs, FNNs and random forest, we chose CNNs as the base and top learners.
The top model is fed by the stacked outputs of three base models, hence the input size of the top model is $1\times24.$
\subsubsection{$M > N$} \textcolor{black}{We also consider three situations for this case: $M = 4, N = 2$; $M = 8, N = 4$ and $M = 10, N = 5$. With the same procedures, the base models include CNNs, NNs, random forest, and the top model (CNN or NN) is used for models' stacking. }
\vspace{-1em}
\subsection{Permutation}\vspace{-.3em}
\textcolor{black}{After regression, machine learning models usually output decimal values, however, integer outputs are needed as we need to know the exact indices of users. Thus, permutation (or sorting) approach is employed in the end to process the outputs of machine learning models so as to obtain outputs in integer form. More specifically, assume that the target of one sample is $\{3,1,4,2\}$ and the real output is $\{2.15, 0.76, 4.43, 1.55\}$, the real output should be change to integers. The intuitive operations here might be floor, ceil and round. However, these operations are not appropriate in implementation, as rounding provides the result $\{2, 1, 4, 2\}$, floor renders $\{2, 0, 4, 1\}$ and ceiling leads to $\{3, 1, 5, 2\}$, all of which are unsatisfied outcomes. Permutation sorts the four values based on their relative size and obtains $\{3, 1, 4, 2\}$ as the final prediction result, which is more reasonable and capable to provide better performance in practical applications.}
\vspace{-1em}
\subsection{Accuracy Calculation}\vspace{-0.3em}
In order to provide comprehensive observations of models' capacity and predictive results,
the proportion of correctly predicted users is defined as the prediction accuracy. More specifically, {assuming} that the number of samples is {$K$}, the accuracy is formulated as follows.
\begin{equation*}\vspace{-.5em}
\text{Accuracy} = \frac{\text{The number of correctly predicted}\ \bar{x}_j^m}{KN}.
\end{equation*}
\begin{table}
\textcolor{black}{
\footnotesize
\renewcommand \arraystretch{1.5}
\renewcommand\tabcolsep{2pt}
\caption{{Test performance of the cases $N = M = 2, 4, 8$.} }
\vspace {-0.2cm}
\begin{center}
\begin{threeparttable}\scriptsize
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c}\hline
{Cases} & Base model 1 & Base model 2 & Base model 3 & Top Model & Training time \\ \hline
N = 2 & 99.97\% & 99.91\% & 99.95\% & 99.99\% & 24.8s \\ \hline
N = 4 & 97.90\% & 98.41\% & 97.90\% & 98.95\% & 604.5s\\ \hline
N = 8 & 89.83\% & 89.83\% & 89.83\% & 90.67\% & 1218.6s\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{center}
\label{tabel:overall1}
\vspace {-1.5em}
}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
{
\footnotesize
\renewcommand \arraystretch{1.5}
\renewcommand\tabcolsep{0.1pt}
\caption{{{Test performance of the cases which have different subchannels and users: $(\text{$M, N$})\!\! = (4, 2), (8, 4), (10, 5)$.} }}
\begin{center}
\begin{threeparttable}\scriptsize
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c}\hline
\centering{Cases} & \centering{Base model 1} & \centering{Base model 2} & \centering{Base model 3} & \centering{Top Model} & Training\ \ time \\ \hline
$M = 4, N = 2$ & \ 99.51\% & \ 99.26\% &\ 95.20\% &\ 99.73\% &\ 87.47 s\\ \hline
$M = 8, N = 4$ &\ 94.59\% &\ 93.09\% &\ 93.40\% &\ 96.13\% & \ 595.06 s\\ \hline
$M = 10, N = 5$ &\ 86.03\% &\ 85.74\% &\ 85.09\% &\ 86.69\% &\ 867.85 s\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{center}
\label{tabel:overall2}
\vspace {-2em}
}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\vspace {-2em}
{
\footnotesize
\renewcommand \arraystretch{1.5}
\renewcommand\tabcolsep{2pt}
\caption{{Time consumed (sec) {of 10000 samples} using Algorithm 1 and machine learning methods for 6 cases discussed in this letter. }}
\begin{center}
\begin{threeparttable}\scriptsize
\begin{tabular}{p{0.21\columnwidth}|p{0.1\columnwidth}|p{0.1\columnwidth}|p{0.1\columnwidth}|p{0.1\columnwidth}|p{0.1\columnwidth}|p{0.12\columnwidth}}\hline
\diagbox{Methods}{Cases} & $M = 2$,\ $N = 2$ & $M = 4$,\ $N = 4$ & $M = 8$,\ $N = 8$ & $M = 4$,\ $N = 2$ & $M = 8$,\ $N = 4$ & $M = 10$,\ $N = 5$\\ \hline
Algorithm 1 &\ 41.85s &\ 48.28s &\ 48.64s &\ 50.12s &\ 52.66s &\ 56.59s \\ \hline
ML methods &\ 0.04s &\ 0.93s &\ 2.85s &\ 0.09s &\ 1.26s &\ 2.69s\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{center}
\label{tabel:time}}
\vspace {-1cm}
\end{table}
\section{Test Results}
{The test results are shown in {Tables} \ref{tabel:overall1} and \ref{tabel:overall2}}. From {these tables}, it can be seen that although the prediction accuracy decreases as $N$ increases, the prediction results are satisfactory and the general relationship between the optimization matrix $R$ and the final assignments $X$ can be learned by {the integration of} base and stacking models. When $N =M = 2; N = M = 4; M = 4, N = 2; M = 8, N = 4$, the prediction accuracy is more than 95\% which is better than the {published} results in {literature \cite{lee2018deep}}. {The test accuracy of the cases $N = 4$ and $N = 8$ in literature \cite{lee2018deep} is respectively 92.76\% and 77.86\% (in both cases the data generation and the training of the deep learning models are done offline in \cite{lee2018deep}), which is lower than the performance of the proposed method about 6\% and 12\%.}
To compare the time efficiency of Algorithms 1 and machine learning methods, we tested the computation time of 10000 samples
{using the same computer (i7-7700 CPU, Nvidia Geforce GTX 1050)}.
The results are shown in Table \ref{tabel:time}, {from which} we can see that the transformation to regression problem which is solved by machine learning techniques largely improves the time efficiency of computation and provides a new perspective of optimization problem solving.
\vspace{-.5em}
\section{Conclusion}\vspace{-.2em}
This letter employs convex optimization based algorithm and machine learning based methods to solve the channel assignment problem. The optimization problem is converted to regression problems for different cases and solved by machine learning methods: CNNs, FNNs, GRUs, random forest and stacking approach. The results demonstrate that machine learning based methods have superiority in improving time efficiency without compromising much prediction accuracy. The future studies may investigate more comprehensive machine learning techniques to achieve higher performance in more complicated scenarios.
\vspace{-.5em}
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{\textsc{Introduction}}
The commutativity property and its \textquotedblleft
breaking\textquotedblright\ are quite obvious and unique for binary algebraic
structures, because the permutation group $S_{2}$ has only one non-identity
element. If the operation is $n$-ary however, then one has $n!-1$ non-identity
permutations from $S_{n}$, and the uniqueness is lost. The standard way to
bring uniqueness to an $n$-ary structure is by restricting to a particular
$n$-ary commutation by fixing one chosen permutation using external (sometimes
artificial) criteria. We introduce a different, canonical approach: to use
another property which would be unique by definition, but which can give
commutativity in special cases. Mediality \cite{mur39} (acting on $n^{2}$
elements) is such a property which can be substituted for commutativity
(acting on $n$ elements) in the generators/relations description of $n$-ary
structures. For $n=2$, any medial magma is a commutative monoid, and moreover
for binary groups commutativity immediately follows from mediality.
In the first part of our paper we consider $n$-ary graded algebras and propose
the following idea: instead of considering the non-unique commutativity
property and its \textquotedblleft breaking\textquotedblright, to investigate
the unique property of mediality and its \textquotedblleft
breaking\textquotedblright. We exploit this \textquotedblleft
commutativity-to-mediality\textquotedblright\ ansatz to introduce and study
almost medial $n$-ary graded algebras by analogy with almost commutative
algebras (generalized or $\varepsilon$-commutative graded algebras)
\cite{rit/wyl,sch79}, and $\beta$-commutative algebras \cite{bah/mon/zai}
(see, also, \cite{bon/pij,cov/mic,mor/ovs10}). We prove an analogue of
Toyoda's theorem, which originally connected medial algebras with abelian
algebras \cite{toy41}, for almost medial $n$-ary graded algebras, which we
introduce. Note that almost co-mediality for polyadic bialgebras was
introduced earlier in \cite{dup2018d}. For other (binary) generalizations of
grading, see, e.g. \cite{dal/sba,eld05,nys05}.
The second part of the paper is devoted to a similar consideration of tensor
categories \cite{maclane1,eti/gel/nik/ost}. We define polyadic tensor
categories by considering an $n$-ary tensor product (which may not be iterated
from binary tensor products) and $n$-ary coherence conditions for the
corresponding associators. The peculiarities of polyadic semigroupal and
monoidal categories are studied and the differences from the corresponding
binary tensor categories are outlined. We introduce a new kind of tensor
categories, polyadic nonunital \textquotedblleft groupal\textquotedblright%
\ categories, which contain a \textquotedblleft querfunctor\textquotedblright%
\ and \textquotedblleft quertors\textquotedblright\ (similar to querelements
in $n$-ary groups \cite{dor3,pos}). We introduce arity-nonreducible $n$-ary
braidings and find the equation for them that in the binary case turns into
the Yang-Baxter equation in the tensor product form. Finally, we apply the
\textquotedblleft commutativity-to-mediality\textquotedblright\ ansatz to
braided tensor categories \cite{joy/str1} and introduce \textquotedblleft
medialing\textquotedblright\ and corresponding \textquotedblleft
medialed\textquotedblright\ tensor categories.
The proposed \textquotedblleft commutativity-to-mediality\textquotedblright%
\ ansatz can lead to medial $n$-ary superalgebras and Lie superalgebras, as
well as to a medial analog of noncommutative geometry.
\section{\textsc{Preliminaries}}
The standard way to generalize the commutativity is using graded vector spaces
and corresponding algebras together with the commutation factor defined on
some abelian grading group (see, e.g. \cite{rit/wyl,sch79} and
\cite{bourbaki98,nas/oys04}). First, recall this concept from a slightly
different viewpoint.
\subsection{Binary gradation}
Let $\mathcal{A}\equiv\mathcal{A}^{\left( 2\right) }=\left\langle A\mid
\mu_{2},\nu_{2};\lambda_{1}\right\rangle $ be an associative (binary) algebra
over a field $\Bbbk$ (having unit $\mathtt{1}\in\Bbbk$ and zero $\mathtt{0}%
\in\Bbbk$) with unit $e$ (i.e. it is a unital $\Bbbk$-algebra) and zero $z\in
A$. Here $A$ is the underling set and $\mu_{2}:A\otimes A\rightarrow A$ is the
(bilinear) binary multiplication (which we write as $\mu_{2}\left[
a,b\right] $, $a,b\in A$), usually in the binary case denoted by dot $\mu
_{2}\equiv\left( \cdot\right) $, and $\nu_{2}:A\otimes A\rightarrow A$ is
the (binary) addition denoted by $\left( +\right) $, and a third (linear)
operation $\lambda_{1}$ is the action $\lambda_{1}:K\otimes A\rightarrow A$
(widely called a \textquotedblleft scalar multiplication\textquotedblright,
but this is not always true, as can be seen from the polyadic case
\cite{dup2019}).
Informally, if $\mathcal{A}$ as a vector space can be decomposed into a direct
sum, then one can introduce the \textit{binary gradation concept}: each
element $a\in A$ is endowed by an additional characteristic, its
\textit{gradation} denoted by a prime $a^{\prime}$ showing to which subspace
it belongs, such that $a^{\prime}$ belongs to a discrete abelian group
(initially $\mathbb{N}$ simply to \textquotedblleft
enumerate\textquotedblright\ the subspaces, and this can be further
generalized to a commutative semigroup). This group is called the
\textit{binary grading group} $\mathcal{G}=\left\langle G,\nu_{2}^{\prime
}\right\rangle $, and usually its operation is written as plus $\nu
_{2}^{\prime}\equiv\left( +^{\prime}\right) $, and the neutral element by
$0^{\prime}$. Denote the subset of \textit{homogeneous elements} of degree
$a^{\prime}\in G$ by $A_{a^{\prime}}$ \cite{sch79,dade80}.
\begin{definition}
An associative algebra $\mathcal{A}$ is called a \textit{binary graded
algebra} over $\Bbbk$ (or $G$-algebra $\mathcal{A}_{G}$), if the algebra
multiplication $\mu_{2}$ respects the gradation i.e.%
\begin{equation}
\mu_{2}\left[ A_{a^{\prime}},A_{b^{\prime}}\right] \equiv A_{a^{\prime}%
}\cdot A_{b^{\prime}}\subseteq A_{a^{\prime}+^{\prime}b^{\prime}%
},\ \ \ \ \ \ \forall a^{\prime},b^{\prime}\in G, \label{maa}%
\end{equation}
where equality corresponds to \textit{ strong gradation}.
\end{definition}
If there exist invertible elements of each degree $a^{\prime}\in G$, then
$\mathcal{A}$ is called a \textit{cross product}, and if all non-zero
homogeneous elements are invertible, $\mathcal{A}$ is a \textit{graded
division algebra} \cite{dade80}. Homogeneous (binary) morphisms $\varphi
:\mathcal{A}_{G}\rightarrow\mathcal{B}_{G}$ preserve the grading
$\varphi\left( A_{a^{\prime}}\right) \subset B_{a^{\prime}},\forall
a^{\prime}\in G$, and the kernel of $\varphi$ is an homogeneous ideal. The
corresponding class of $G$-algebras and the homogeneous morphisms form a
category of $G$-algebras $G$-$\mathtt{Alg}$ (for details, see, e.g.
\cite{bourbaki98,dade80}).
\subsection{Almost commutativity}
The graded algebras have a rich multiplicative structure, because of the
possibility to deform (or twist) the algebra product $\mu_{2}$ by a function
depending on the gradation. Let us consider the \textit{twisting function
}(\textit{twist factor}) $\tau:G\times G\rightarrow\Bbbk$.
\begin{definition}
A \textit{twisted graded product} $\mu_{2}^{\left( \tau\right) }$ is defined
for homogeneous elements by%
\begin{equation}
\mu_{2}^{\left( \tau\right) }\left[ a,b\right] =\tau\left( a^{\prime
},b^{\prime}\right) \mu_{2}\left[ a,b\right] ,\ \ \ a,b\in A;\ \ a^{\prime
},b^{\prime}\in G. \label{mt}%
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
\begin{proposition}
If the twisted algebra $\left\langle A\mid\mu_{2}^{\left( \tau\right)
}\right\rangle $ is associative, then the twisting function becomes a
2-cocycle $\tau\mapsto\sigma:G\times G\rightarrow\Bbbk^{\times}$ on the
abelian group $G$ satisfying%
\begin{equation}
\sigma\left( a^{\prime},b^{\prime}\right) \sigma\left( a^{\prime}%
+b^{\prime},c^{\prime}\right) =\sigma\left( a^{\prime},b^{\prime}+c^{\prime
}\right) \sigma\left( b^{\prime},c^{\prime}\right) ,\ \ \ a^{\prime
},b^{\prime},c^{\prime}\in G. \label{s}%
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The result follows from the binary associativity condition for $\mu
_{2}^{\left( \sigma\right) }$.
\end{proof}
\begin{example}
An example of a solution to the functional equation (\ref{s}) is
$\sigma\left( a^{\prime},b^{\prime}\right) =\left( \exp\left( a^{\prime
}\right) \right) ^{b^{\prime}}$.
\end{example}
The classes of $\sigma$ form the (Schur) multiplier group \cite{sch79}, and
for further properties of $\sigma$ and a connection with the cohomology
classes $H^{2}\left( G,\Bbbk\right) $, see, e.g., \cite{cov/mic}.
In general, the twisted product (\ref{mt}) can be any polynomial in algebra
elements. Nevertheless, the special cases where $\mu_{2}^{\left(
\varepsilon_{0}\right) }\left[ a,b\right] $ becomes a fixed expression for
elements $a,b\in A$ are important.
\begin{definition}
If the twisted product coincides with the opposite product for all $a,b\in A$,
we call the twisting function a \textit{ 0-level} \textit{commutation factor
}$\tau\mapsto\varepsilon_{0}:G\times G\rightarrow\Bbbk^{\times}$, such that%
\begin{equation}
\mu_{2}^{\left( \varepsilon_{0}\right) }\left[ a,b\right] =\mu_{2}\left[
b,a\right] ,\ \ \text{or\ \ }\varepsilon_{0}\left( a^{\prime},b^{\prime
}\right) a\cdot b=b\cdot a,\ \ \ \forall a,b\in A,\ \ \ a^{\prime},b^{\prime
}\in G. \label{e0}%
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
A binary algebra $\mathcal{A}_{2}^{\left( \varepsilon_{0}\right) }$ for
which the twisted product coincides with the opposite product (\ref{e0}), is
called $0$\textit{-level almost commutative} ($\varepsilon_{0}$-commutative).
\end{definition}
\begin{assertion}
If the algebra for which (\ref{e0}) takes place is associative, the 0-level
commutation factor $\varepsilon_{0}$ satisfies the relations%
\begin{align}
\varepsilon_{0}\left( a^{\prime},b^{\prime}\right) \varepsilon_{0}\left(
b^{\prime},a^{\prime}\right) & =\mathtt{1},\label{e01}\\
\varepsilon_{0}\left( a^{\prime}+b^{\prime},c^{\prime}\right) &
=\varepsilon_{0}\left( a^{\prime},c^{\prime}\right) \varepsilon_{0}\left(
b^{\prime},c^{\prime}\right) ,\label{e02}\\
\varepsilon_{0}\left( a^{\prime},b^{\prime}+c^{\prime}\right) &
=\varepsilon_{0}\left( a^{\prime},b^{\prime}\right) \varepsilon_{0}\left(
a^{\prime},c^{\prime}\right) ,\ \ \ a^{\prime},b^{\prime},c^{\prime
},d^{\prime}\in G. \label{e03}%
\end{align}
\end{assertion}
\begin{proof}
The first relation (\ref{e01}) follows from permutation in (\ref{e0}) twice.
The next ones follow from permutation in two ways: for (\ref{e02}) $a\cdot
b\cdot c\mapsto a\cdot c\cdot b\mapsto c\cdot a\cdot b$ and $\left( a\cdot
b\right) \cdot c\mapsto c\cdot\left( a\cdot b\right) $, and for (\ref{e03})
$a\cdot b\cdot c\mapsto b\cdot a\cdot c\mapsto b\cdot c\cdot a$ and
$a\cdot\left( b\cdot c\right) \mapsto\left( b\cdot c\right) \cdot a$,
using (\ref{e0}).
\end{proof}
In a more symmetric form this is%
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon_{0}\left( a^{\prime}+b^{\prime},c^{\prime}+d^{\prime}\right)
=\varepsilon_{0}\left( a^{\prime},c^{\prime}\right) \varepsilon_{0}\left(
b^{\prime},c^{\prime}\right) \varepsilon_{0}\left( a^{\prime},d^{\prime
}\right) \varepsilon_{0}\left( b^{\prime},d^{\prime}\right) . \label{e00}%
\end{equation}
The following general expression%
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon_{0}\left( \sum\limits_{i_{a}=1}^{j_{a}}a_{i_{a}}^{\prime}%
,\sum\limits_{i_{b}=1}^{j_{b}}b_{i_{b}}^{\prime}\right) =\prod\limits_{i_{a}%
=1}^{j_{a}}\prod\limits_{i_{b}=1}^{j_{b}}\varepsilon_{0}\left( a_{i_{a}%
}^{\prime},b_{i_{b}}^{\prime}\right) ,\ \ \ a_{i_{a}}^{\prime},b_{i_{b}%
}^{\prime}\in G,\ \ \ i_{a},i_{b},j_{a},j_{b}\in\mathbb{N},
\end{equation}
can be written. In the case of equal elements we have%
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon_{0}\left( j_{a}a^{\prime},j_{b}b^{\prime}\right) =\left(
\varepsilon_{0}\left( a^{\prime},b^{\prime}\right) \right) ^{j_{a}j_{b}}.
\end{equation}
\begin{remark}
\label{rem-estand}Recall that the standard commutation factor $\varepsilon
:G\times G\rightarrow\Bbbk^{\times}$ of an almost commutative ($\varepsilon
$-commutative or $\varepsilon$-symmetric) associative algebra is defined in a
different way \cite{rit/wyl,sch79}%
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon\left( a^{\prime},b^{\prime}\right) b\cdot a=a\cdot b. \label{e}%
\end{equation}
Comparing with (\ref{e0}) we have%
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon_{0}\left( a^{\prime},b^{\prime}\right) =\varepsilon\left(
b^{\prime},a^{\prime}\right) ,\ \ \ \forall a^{\prime},b^{\prime}\in G.
\label{ee0}%
\end{equation}
\end{remark}
\subsection{Tower of higher level commutation brackets}
Let us now construct the tower of higher level commutation factors and
brackets using the following informal reasoning. We \textquotedblleft
deform\textquotedblright\ the almost commutativity relation (\ref{e0}) by a
function $L_{0}:A\times A\rightarrow A$ as%
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon_{0}\left( a^{\prime},b^{\prime}\right) a\cdot b=b\cdot
a+L_{0}^{\left( \varepsilon_{0}\right) }\left( a,b\right) ,\ \ \ \forall
a,b\in A,\ \ \ a^{\prime},b^{\prime}\in G, \label{L0}%
\end{equation}
where $\varepsilon_{0}\left( a^{\prime},b^{\prime}\right) $ is the $0$-level
commuting factor satisfying (\ref{e01})--(\ref{e03}).
Consider the function (bracket) $L_{0}^{\left( \varepsilon_{0}\right)
}\left( a,b\right) $ as a multiplication of a new algebra%
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{A}_{2}^{L_{0}}=\left\langle A\mid\mu_{2}^{\left( \varepsilon
_{0},L_{0}\right) }=L_{0}^{\left( \varepsilon_{0}\right) }\left(
a,b\right) \right\rangle \label{al}%
\end{equation}
called a $0$\textit{-level bracket algebra}. Then (\ref{L0}) can be treated as
its \textquotedblleft representation\textquotedblright\ by the associative
algebra $\mathcal{A}$.
\begin{proposition}
The algebra $\mathcal{A}_{2}^{L_{0}}$ is almost commutative with the
commutation factor $\left( -\varepsilon_{0}^{-1}\right) $.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Using (\ref{L0}) and (\ref{e01})--(\ref{e03}) we get $\varepsilon_{0}\left(
b^{\prime},a^{\prime}\right) L_{0}^{\left( \varepsilon_{0}\right) }\left(
a,b\right) +L_{0}^{\left( \varepsilon_{0}\right) }\left( b,a\right) =0$,
which can be rewritten in the almost commutativity form (\ref{e0}) as $\left(
-\varepsilon_{0}\left( b^{\prime},a^{\prime}\right) \right) L_{0}^{\left(
\varepsilon_{0}\right) }\left( a,b\right) =L_{0}^{\left( \varepsilon
_{0}\right) }\left( b,a\right) $. It follows from (\ref{e01}) that%
\begin{equation}
\left( -\varepsilon_{0}^{-1}\left( a^{\prime},b^{\prime}\right) \right)
L_{0}^{\left( \varepsilon_{0}\right) }\left( a,b\right) =L_{0}^{\left(
\varepsilon_{0}\right) }\left( b,a\right) . \label{el}%
\end{equation}
\end{proof}
The triple identity for $L_{0}^{\left( \varepsilon_{0}\right) }\left(
a,b\right) $ can be obtained using (\ref{e01})--(\ref{e03}), (\ref{L0})\ and
(\ref{el})%
\begin{align}
& \varepsilon_{0}\left( c^{\prime},a^{\prime}\right) L_{0}^{\left(
\varepsilon_{0}\right) }\left( L_{0}^{\left( \varepsilon_{0}\right)
}\left( a,b\right) ,c\right) +\varepsilon_{0}\left( a^{\prime},b^{\prime
}\right) L_{0}^{\left( \varepsilon_{0}\right) }\left( L_{0}^{\left(
\varepsilon_{0}\right) }\left( b,c\right) ,a\right) \label{j0}\\
& +\varepsilon_{0}\left( b^{\prime},c^{\prime}\right) L_{0}^{\left(
\varepsilon_{0}\right) }\left( L_{0}^{\left( \varepsilon_{0}\right)
}\left( c,a\right) ,b\right) =0,\ \ \ \ \forall a,b,c\in A,\ \ \ a^{\prime
},b^{\prime},c^{\prime}\in G.\nonumber
\end{align}
In the more symmetric form using (\ref{e00}) we have{\tiny
\begin{align}
& \varepsilon_{0}\left( c^{\prime},b^{\prime}\right) \varepsilon_{0}\left(
d^{\prime},a^{\prime}\right) L_{0}^{\left( \varepsilon_{0}\right) }\left(
L_{0}^{\left( \varepsilon_{0}\right) }\left( a,b\right) ,L_{0}^{\left(
\varepsilon_{0}\right) }\left( c,d\right) \right) +\varepsilon_{0}\left(
d^{\prime},c^{\prime}\right) \varepsilon_{0}\left( a^{\prime},b^{\prime
}\right) L_{0}^{\left( \varepsilon_{0}\right) }\left( L_{0}^{\left(
\varepsilon_{0}\right) }\left( b,c\right) ,L_{0}^{\left( \varepsilon
_{0}\right) }\left( d,a\right) \right) \nonumber\\
& \varepsilon_{0}\left( a^{\prime},d^{\prime}\right) \varepsilon_{0}\left(
b^{\prime},c^{\prime}\right) L_{0}^{\left( \varepsilon_{0}\right) }\left(
L_{0}^{\left( \varepsilon_{0}\right) }\left( c,d\right) ,L_{0}^{\left(
\varepsilon_{0}\right) }\left( a,b\right) \right) +\varepsilon_{0}\left(
b^{\prime},a^{\prime}\right) \varepsilon_{0}\left( c^{\prime},d^{\prime
}\right) L_{0}^{\left( \varepsilon_{0}\right) }\left( L_{0}^{\left(
\varepsilon_{0}\right) }\left( d,a\right) ,L_{0}^{\left( \varepsilon
_{0}\right) }\left( b,c\right) \right) =0. \label{j1}%
\end{align}
}By analogy with (\ref{L0}) we successively further \textquotedblleft
deform\textquotedblright\ (\ref{el}) then introduce \textquotedblleft
deforming\textquotedblright\ functions and higher level commutation factors in
the following way.
\begin{definition}
The $k$-level commutation factor $\varepsilon_{k}\left( a^{\prime},b^{\prime
}\right) $ is defined by the following \textquotedblleft
difference-like\textquotedblright\ equations%
\begin{align}
\varepsilon_{1}\left( a^{\prime},b^{\prime}\right) L_{0}^{\left(
\varepsilon_{0}\right) }\left( a,b\right) & =L_{0}^{\left(
\varepsilon_{0}\right) }\left( b,a\right) +L_{1}^{\left( \varepsilon
_{0},\varepsilon_{1}\right) }\left( a,b\right) ,\label{e1}\\
\varepsilon_{2}\left( a^{\prime},b^{\prime}\right) L_{1}^{\left(
\varepsilon_{0},\varepsilon_{1}\right) }\left( a,b\right) &
=L_{1}^{\left( \varepsilon_{0},\varepsilon_{1}\right) }\left( b,a\right)
+L_{2}^{\left( \varepsilon_{0},\varepsilon_{1},\varepsilon_{2}\right)
}\left( a,b\right) ,\\
& \vdots\nonumber\\
\varepsilon_{k}\left( a^{\prime},b^{\prime}\right) L_{k-1}^{\left(
\varepsilon_{0},\varepsilon_{1},\ldots,\varepsilon_{k-1}\right) }\left(
a,b\right) & =L_{k-1}^{\left( \varepsilon_{0},\varepsilon_{1}%
,\ldots,\varepsilon_{k-1}\right) }\left( b,a\right) +L_{k}^{\left(
\varepsilon_{0},\varepsilon_{1},\ldots,\varepsilon_{k}\right) }\left(
a,b\right) . \label{ek}%
\end{align}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
$k$-level almost commutativity is defined by the vanishing of the last
\textquotedblleft deforming\textquotedblright\ function%
\begin{equation}
L_{k}^{\left( \varepsilon_{0},\varepsilon_{1},\ldots,\varepsilon_{k}\right)
}\left( a,b\right) =0,\ \ \ \forall a,b\in A,
\end{equation}
and can be expressed in a form analogous to (\ref{e0})%
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon_{k}\left( a^{\prime},b^{\prime}\right) L_{k-1}^{\left(
\varepsilon_{0},\varepsilon_{1},\ldots,\varepsilon_{k-1}\right) }\left(
a,b\right) =L_{k-1}^{\left( \varepsilon_{0},\varepsilon_{1},\ldots
,\varepsilon_{k-1}\right) }\left( b,a\right) .
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
\begin{proposition}
All higher level \textquotedblleft deforming\textquotedblright\ functions
$L_{i}^{\left( \varepsilon_{0},\varepsilon_{1},\ldots,\varepsilon_{i}\right)
}$, $i=1,\ldots,k$ can be expressed through $L_{0}^{\left( \varepsilon
_{0}\right) }\left( a,b\right) $ from (\ref{L0}) multiplied by a
combination of the lower level commutation factors $\varepsilon_{i}\left(
a^{\prime},b^{\prime}\right) $, $i=1,\ldots,k$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
This follows from the equations (\ref{e1})--(\ref{ek}).
\end{proof}
The first such expressions are%
\begin{align}
L_{1}^{\left( \varepsilon_{0},\varepsilon_{1}\right) }\left( a,b\right)
& =\left[ \varepsilon_{1}\left( a^{\prime},b^{\prime}\right)
+\varepsilon_{0}\left( b^{\prime},a^{\prime}\right) \right] L_{0}^{\left(
\varepsilon_{0}\right) }\left( a,b\right) ,\\
L_{2}^{\left( \varepsilon_{0},\varepsilon_{1},\varepsilon_{2}\right)
}\left( a,b\right) & =\left[ \varepsilon_{2}\left( a^{\prime},b^{\prime
}\right) \left( \varepsilon_{1}\left( a^{\prime},b^{\prime}\right)
+\varepsilon_{0}\left( b^{\prime},a^{\prime}\right) \right) +\varepsilon
_{1}\left( a^{\prime},b^{\prime}\right) \varepsilon_{0}\left( b^{\prime
},a^{\prime}\right) +\mathtt{1}\right] L_{0}^{\left( \varepsilon
_{0}\right) }\left( a,b\right) ,\\
& \vdots\nonumber
\end{align}
Recall the definition of the $\varepsilon$-Lie bracket \cite{sch79}%
\begin{equation}
\left[ a,b\right] _{\varepsilon}=a\cdot b-\varepsilon\left( a^{\prime
},b^{\prime}\right) b\cdot a,\ \ \ \forall a,b\in A,\ \ \ a^{\prime
},b^{\prime}\in G. \label{ab}%
\end{equation}
\begin{assertion}
The $0$-level \textquotedblleft deforming\textquotedblright\ function
$L_{0}^{\left( \varepsilon_{0}\right) }\left( a,b\right) $ is the
$\varepsilon_{0}$-twisted $\varepsilon$-Lie bracket%
\begin{equation}
L_{0}^{\left( \varepsilon_{0}\right) }\left( a,b\right) =\varepsilon
_{0}\left( a^{\prime},b^{\prime}\right) \left[ a,b\right] _{\varepsilon
=\varepsilon_{0}}. \label{ll}%
\end{equation}
\end{assertion}
\begin{proof}
This follows from (\ref{L0}) and (\ref{ab}).
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
The relations (\ref{j0}) and (\ref{j1}) are analogs of the $\varepsilon
$-Jacobi identity of the $\varepsilon$-Lie algebra \cite{sch79}.
\end{remark}
\begin{corollary}
All higher level \textquotedblleft deforming\textquotedblright\ functions
$L_{i}^{\left( \varepsilon_{0},\varepsilon_{1},\ldots,\varepsilon_{i}\right)
}$, $i=1,\ldots,k$ can be expressed through the twisted $\varepsilon$-Lie
bracket (\ref{ab}) with twisting coefficients.
\end{corollary}
In search of a polyadic analog of almost commutativity, we will need some
additional concepts, beyond the permutation of two elements (in the binary
case), called commutativity, and various sums of permutations (of $n$
elements, in $n$-ary case, which are usually non-unique).
Instead we propose to consider a new concept, \textit{polyadic mediality}
(which gives a unique relation between $n^{2}$ elements in $n$-ary case), as a
polyadic inductive generalization of commutativity. We then twist the
multiplication by a gradation (as in the binary case above) to obtain the
polyadic version of almost commutativity as \textit{almost mediality}.
However, let us first recall the binary and polyadic versions of the mediality property.
\subsection{Medial binary magmas and quasigroups}
The mediality property was introduced as a generalization of the associative
law for quasigroups, which are a direct generalization of abelian groups
\cite{mur39}. Other names for mediality are entropicity, bisymmetry,
alternaton and abelianness (see, e.g., \cite{acz48,jez/kep,eva63}).
Let $\mathcal{M}=\left\langle M\mid\mu_{2}\right\rangle $ be a binary
\textit{magma} (a closed set $M$ with one binary operation $\mu_{2}$ without
any additional properties, also called a (Hausmann-Ore) \textit{groupoid}%
\footnote{This should not be confused with the Brandt groupoid or virtual
group.}).
\begin{definition}
A (binary) magma $\mathcal{M}$ is called \textit{medial}, if%
\begin{equation}
\mu_{2}\left[ \mu_{2}\left[ a,b\right] ,\mu_{2}\left[ c,d\right] \right]
=\mu_{2}\left[ \mu_{2}\left[ a,c\right] ,\mu_{2}\left[ b,d\right]
\right] ,\ \ \ \forall a,b,c,d\in M. \label{mm}%
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
We call the product of elements in the r.h.s. of (\ref{mm}) \textit{medially
symmetric} to the l.h.s. product.
\end{definition}
Obviously, if a magma $\mathcal{M}$ contains a neutral element (identity)
$e\in M$, such that $\mu_{2}\left[ a,e\right] =\mu_{2}\left[ e,a\right]
=a$, $\forall a\in M$, then $\mathcal{M}$ is commutative $\mu_{2}\left[
a,b\right] =\mu_{2}\left[ b,a\right] $, $\forall a,b\in M$. Therefore, any
commutative monoid is an example of a medial magma. Numerous different kinds
of magma and their classification are given in \cite{jez/kep}. If a magma
$\mathcal{M}$ is cancellative ($\mu_{2}\left[ a,b\right] =\mu_{2}\left[
a,c\right] \Rightarrow b=c$, $\mu_{2}\left[ a,c\right] =\mu_{2}\left[
b,c\right] \Rightarrow a=b$, $\forall a,b,c\in M$), it is a binary quasigroup
$\mathcal{Q}=\left\langle Q\mid\mu_{2}\right\rangle $ for which the equations
$\mu_{2}\left[ a,x\right] =b$, $\mu_{2}\left[ y,a\right] =b$, $\forall
a,b\in Q$ , have a unique solution \cite{how73}. Moreover \cite{sho49}, every
medial cancellative magma can be embedded in a \textit{medial quasigroup}
(satisfying (\ref{mm})), and the reverse statement is also true
\cite{jez/kep93}. For a recent comprehensive review on quasigroups(including
medial and $n$-ary ones), see, e.g. \cite{shcherbacov}, and references therein.
The structure of medial quasigroups is determined by the
(Bruck-Murdoch-)Toyoda theorem \cite{bru44,mur41,toy41}.
\begin{theorem}
[Toyoda theorem]Any medial quasigroup $\mathcal{Q}_{medial}=\left\langle
Q\mid\mu_{2}\right\rangle $ can be presented in the linear (functional) form%
\begin{equation}
\mu_{2}\left[ a,b\right] =\nu_{2}\left[ \nu_{2}\left[ \varphi\left(
a\right) ,\psi\left( b\right) \right] ,c\right] =\varphi\left( a\right)
+\psi\left( b\right) +c,\ \ \ \forall a,b,c\in Q, \label{ma}%
\end{equation}
where $\left\langle Q\mid\nu_{2}\equiv\left( +\right) \right\rangle $ is an
abelian group and $\varphi,\psi:Q\rightarrow Q$ are commuting automophisms
$\varphi\circ\psi=\psi\circ\varphi$, and $c\in Q$ is fixed.
\end{theorem}
If $\mathcal{Q}_{medial}$ has an idempotent element (denoted by $0$), then%
\begin{equation}
\mu_{2}\left[ a,b\right] =\nu_{2}\left[ \varphi\left( a\right)
,\psi\left( b\right) \right] =\varphi\left( a\right) +\psi\left(
b\right) ,\ \ \ \forall a,b\in Q,
\end{equation}
It follows from the Toyoda theorem, that medial quasigroups are isotopic to
abelian groups, and their structure theories are very close \cite{bru44,mur41}.
The mediality property (\ref{mm}) for binary semigroups leads to various
consequences \cite{chr69,nordahl}. Indeed, every medial semigroup
$\mathcal{S}_{medial}=\left\langle S\mid\mu_{2}\right\rangle $ is a
\textit{Putcha semigroup} ($b\in S^{1}aS^{1}\Rightarrow b^{m}\in S^{1}%
a^{2}S^{1}$, $\forall a,b\in S$, $m\in\mathbb{N}$, $S^{1}=S\cup\left\{
1\right\} $), and therefore $\mathcal{S}_{medial}$ can be decomposed into the
semilattice ($a^{2}=a\wedge ab=ba$, $\forall a,b\in S$) of \textit{Archimedean
semigroups} ($\forall a,b\in S$, $\exists m,k\in\mathbb{N}$, $a^{m}%
=S^{1}bS^{1}\wedge b^{k}=S^{1}aS^{1}\wedge ab=ba$). If a medial semigroup
$\mathcal{S}_{medial}$ is left (right) \textit{cancellative},
$ab=ac\Rightarrow b=c$ ($ba=ca\Rightarrow b=c$), then it is left (right)
\textit{commutative} $abc=bac$ ($abc=acb$), $\forall a,b,c\in S$ and left
(right) \textit{separative}, $ab=a^{2}\wedge ba=b^{2}$, $\forall a,b\in S$
($ab=b^{2}\wedge ba=a^{2}$) (for a review, see, \cite{nagy2001}).
For a binary group $\left\langle G\mid\mu_{2}\right\rangle $ mediality implies
commutativity, because, obviously, $abcd=acbd\Rightarrow bc=cb$, $\forall
a,b,c,d\in G$. This is not the case for polyadic groups, where mediality
implies semicommutativity only (see e.g., \cite{gla/gle82,dog16}).
Let $\mathcal{A}=\left\langle A\mid\mu_{2},\nu_{2};\lambda_{1}\right\rangle $
be a binary $\Bbbk$-algebra, not necessarily unital, cancellative and
associative. Then mediality provides the corresponding behavior which depends
on the properties of the \textquotedblleft vector
multiplication\textquotedblright\ $\mu_{2}$. For instance, for unital
cancellative and associative algebras, mediality implies commutativity, as for
groups \cite{gla/gle82}.
\section{\textsc{Almost medial binary graded algebras}}
Consider an associative binary algebra $\mathcal{A}$ over a field $\Bbbk$. We
introduce a weaker version of gradation than in (\ref{maa}).
\begin{definition}
An associative algebra $\mathcal{A}$ is called a \textit{binary higher graded
algebra} over $\Bbbk$, if the algebra multiplication of four ($=2^{2}$)
elements respects the gradation%
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{\mu}_{4}\left[ A_{a^{\prime}},A_{b^{\prime}},A_{c^{\prime}%
},A_{d^{\prime}}\right] \equiv A_{a^{\prime}}\cdot A_{b^{\prime}}\cdot
A_{c^{\prime}}\cdot A_{d^{\prime}}\subseteq A_{a^{\prime}+^{\prime}b^{\prime}%
},\ \ \ \ \ \ \forall a^{\prime},b^{\prime},c^{\prime},d^{\prime}\in G,
\label{m4a}%
\end{equation}
where equality corresponds to \textit{ strong higher gradation}.
\end{definition}
Instead of (\ref{mt}) let us introduce the \textit{higher twisting function}
(\textit{higher twist factor}) for four ($=2^{2}$) elements $\mathbf{\tau
}:G^{\times4}\rightarrow\Bbbk$.
\begin{definition}
A \textit{twisted (binary) higher graded product} $\mathbf{\mu}_{4}^{\left(
\tau\right) }$ is defined for homogeneous elements by%
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{\mu}_{4}^{\left( \tau\right) }\left[ a,b,c,d\right] =\mathbf{\tau
}\left( a^{\prime},b^{\prime},c^{\prime},d^{\prime}\right) a\cdot b\cdot
c\cdot d,\ \ \ a,b,c,d\in A;\ \ a^{\prime},b^{\prime},c^{\prime},d^{\prime}\in
G. \label{m4}%
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
An analog of (total) associativity for the twisted binary higher graded
product operation $\mathbf{\mu}_{4}^{\left( \tau\right) }$ is the following
condition on seven elements ($7=2\cdot2^{2}-1$) for all $a,b,c,d,t,u,v\in A$%
\begin{align}
& \mathbf{\mu}_{4}^{\left( \tau\right) }\left[ \mathbf{\mu}_{4}^{\left(
\tau\right) }\left[ a,b,c,d\right] ,t,u,v\right] =\mathbf{\mu}%
_{4}^{\left( \tau\right) }\left[ a,\mathbf{\mu}_{4}^{\left( \tau\right)
}\left[ b,c,d,t\right] ,u,v\right] \nonumber\\
& =\mathbf{\mu}_{4}^{\left( \tau\right) }\left[ a,b,\mathbf{\mu}%
_{4}^{\left( \tau\right) }\left[ c,d,t,u\right] ,v\right] =\mathbf{\mu
}_{4}^{\left( \tau\right) }\left[ a,b,c,\mathbf{\mu}_{4}^{\left(
\tau\right) }\left[ d,t,u,v\right] \right] . \label{mm4}%
\end{align}
\begin{proposition}
If the twisted higher graded product satisfies the higher analog of
associativity given by (\ref{mm4}), then the twisting function becomes a
higher analog of the cocycle (\ref{s}) $\mathbf{\tau}\mapsto\mathbf{\sigma
}:G^{\times4}\rightarrow\Bbbk^{\times}$ on the abelian group $G$ satisfying
for all $a^{\prime},b^{\prime},c^{\prime},d^{\prime},t^{\prime},u^{\prime
},v^{\prime}\in G$%
\begin{align}
& \mathbf{\sigma}\left( a^{\prime},b^{\prime},c^{\prime},d^{\prime}\right)
\mathbf{\sigma}\left( a^{\prime}+b^{\prime}+c^{\prime}+d^{\prime},t^{\prime
},u^{\prime},v^{\prime}\right) =\mathbf{\sigma}\left( b^{\prime},c^{\prime
},d^{\prime},t^{\prime}\right) \mathbf{\sigma}\left( a^{\prime},b^{\prime
}+c^{\prime}+d^{\prime}+t^{\prime},u^{\prime},v^{\prime}\right) \label{ss}\\
& =\mathbf{\sigma}\left( c^{\prime},d^{\prime},t^{\prime},u^{\prime}\right)
\mathbf{\sigma}\left( a^{\prime},b^{\prime},c^{\prime}+d^{\prime}+t^{\prime
}+u^{\prime},v^{\prime}\right) =\mathbf{\sigma}\left( d^{\prime},t^{\prime
},u^{\prime},v^{\prime}\right) \mathbf{\sigma}\left( a^{\prime},b^{\prime
},c^{\prime},d^{\prime}+t^{\prime}+u^{\prime}+v^{\prime}\right) .\nonumber
\end{align}
\end{proposition}
Next we propose a medial analog of almost commutativity as follows. Instead of
deforming commutativity by the grading twist factor $\varepsilon_{0}$ as in
(\ref{e0}), we deform the mediality (\ref{mm}) by the higher twisting function
$\mathbf{\tau}$ (\ref{m4}).
\begin{definition}
If the higher twisted product coincides with the medially symmetric product
(see (\ref{mm})) for all $a,b\in A$, we call the twisting function a
$0$-\textit{level mediality factor }$\mathbf{\tau}\mapsto\mathbf{\rho}%
_{0}:G^{\times4}\rightarrow\Bbbk^{\times}$, such that (cf. (\ref{e0}))%
\begin{align}
\mathbf{\mu}_{4}^{\left( \rho_{0}\right) }\left[ a,b,c,d\right] &
=\mathbf{\mu}_{4}\left[ a,c,b,d\right] ,\ \ \text{or}\label{r1}\\
\mathbf{\rho}_{0}\left( a^{\prime},b^{\prime},c^{\prime},d^{\prime}\right)
a\cdot b\cdot c\cdot d & =a\cdot c\cdot b\cdot d,\ \ \ \forall a,b,c,d\in
A,\ \ \ a^{\prime},b^{\prime},c^{\prime},d^{\prime}\in G. \label{r2}%
\end{align}
\end{definition}
From (\ref{r2}) follows the normalization condition for the mediality factor%
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{\rho}_{0}\left( a^{\prime},a^{\prime},a^{\prime},a^{\prime}\right)
=\mathtt{1},\ \ \ \forall a^{\prime}\in G. \label{raa}%
\end{equation}
\begin{definition}
A binary algebra $\mathcal{A}_{2}^{\left( \rho_{0}\right) }=\left\langle
A\mid\mathbf{\mu}_{2},\nu_{2}\right\rangle $ for which the higher twisted
product coincides with the medially symmetric product $\mathbf{\mu}%
_{4}^{\left( \rho_{0}\right) }\left[ a,b,c,d\right] =\mathbf{\mu}%
_{4}\left[ a,c,b,d\right] $ (\ref{r2}), is called a $0$\textit{-level almost
medial} ($\mathbf{\rho}_{0}$-commutative) algebra.
\end{definition}
\begin{proposition}
If the algebra for which (\ref{r2}) holds is associative, the 0-level
mediality factor $\mathbf{\rho}_{0}$ satisfies the relations%
\begin{align}
\mathbf{\rho}_{0}\left( a^{\prime},b^{\prime},c^{\prime},d^{\prime}\right)
\mathbf{\rho}_{0}\left( a^{\prime},c^{\prime},b^{\prime},d^{\prime}\right)
& =\mathtt{1},\ \ \ a^{\prime},b^{\prime},c^{\prime},d^{\prime},f^{\prime
},g^{\prime},h^{\prime}\in G,\ \ \mathtt{1}\in\Bbbk,\label{r01}\\
\mathbf{\rho}_{0}\left( a^{\prime},c^{\prime}+d^{\prime}+f^{\prime}%
+g^{\prime},b^{\prime},h^{\prime}\right) & =\mathbf{\rho}_{0}\left(
a^{\prime},c^{\prime},b^{\prime},d^{\prime}\right) \mathbf{\rho}_{0}\left(
c^{\prime},d^{\prime},b^{\prime},f^{\prime}\right) \mathbf{\rho}_{0}\left(
d^{\prime},f^{\prime},b^{\prime},g^{\prime}\right) \mathbf{\rho}_{0}\left(
f^{\prime},g^{\prime},b^{\prime},h^{\prime}\right) ,\label{r02}\\
\mathbf{\rho}_{0}\left( a^{\prime},g^{\prime},b^{\prime}+c^{\prime}%
+d^{\prime}+f^{\prime},h^{\prime}\right) & =\mathbf{\rho}_{0}\left(
a^{\prime},g^{\prime},b^{\prime}c^{\prime}\right) \mathbf{\rho}_{0}\left(
c^{\prime},g^{\prime},d^{\prime},f^{\prime}\right) \mathbf{\rho}_{0}\left(
d^{\prime},g^{\prime},f^{\prime},h^{\prime}\right) \mathbf{\rho}_{0}\left(
b^{\prime},g^{\prime},c^{\prime},d^{\prime}\right) . \label{r03}%
\end{align}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
As in (\ref{e01}), the relation (\ref{r01}) follows from applying (\ref{r2})
twice. The next ones follow from permutation in two ways using (\ref{r1}): for
(\ref{r02})%
\begin{align}
a\cdot b\cdot\left( c\cdot d\cdot f\cdot g\right) \cdot h & \mapsto
a\cdot\left( c\cdot d\cdot f\cdot g\right) \cdot b\cdot
h,\ \ \ \ a,c,d,f,g,b,h\in A,\\
a\cdot b\cdot c\cdot d\cdot f\cdot g\cdot h & \mapsto a\cdot c\cdot b\cdot
d\cdot f\cdot g\cdot h\mapsto a\cdot c\cdot d\cdot b\cdot f\cdot g\cdot
h\nonumber\\
& \mapsto a\cdot c\cdot d\cdot f\cdot b\cdot g\cdot h\mapsto a\cdot c\cdot
d\cdot f\cdot g\cdot b\cdot h,
\end{align}
and for (\ref{r03})%
\begin{align}
a\cdot\left( b\cdot c\cdot d\cdot f\right) \cdot g\cdot h & \mapsto a\cdot
g\cdot\left( b\cdot c\cdot d\cdot f\right) \cdot h,\\
a\cdot b\cdot c\cdot d\cdot f\cdot g\cdot h & \mapsto a\cdot b\cdot c\cdot
d\cdot g\cdot f\cdot h\mapsto a\cdot b\cdot c\cdot g\cdot d\cdot f\cdot
h\nonumber\\
& \mapsto a\cdot b\cdot g\cdot c\cdot d\cdot f\cdot h\mapsto a\cdot g\cdot
b\cdot c\cdot d\cdot f\cdot h.
\end{align}
\end{proof}
\begin{assertion}
If the $0$-level almost medial algebra $\mathcal{A}_{2}^{\left( \rho
_{0}\right) }$ is cancellative, then it is isomorphic to an almost
commutative algebra.
\end{assertion}
\begin{proof}
After cancellation by $a$ and $d$ in (\ref{r2}), we obtain $\varepsilon
_{0}\left( b^{\prime},c^{\prime}\right) b\cdot c=c\cdot b$, where%
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon_{0}\left( b^{\prime},c^{\prime}\right) =\mathbf{\rho}_{0}\left(
a^{\prime},b^{\prime},c^{\prime},d^{\prime}\right) .
\end{equation}
In case $\mathcal{A}_{2}^{\left( \rho_{0}\right) }$ is unital, one can
choose $\varepsilon_{0}\left( b^{\prime},c^{\prime}\right) =\mathbf{\rho
}_{0}\left( e^{\prime},b^{\prime},c^{\prime},e^{\prime}\right)
\equiv\mathbf{\rho}_{0}\left( 0^{\prime},b^{\prime},c^{\prime},0^{\prime
}\right) $, since the identity $e\in A$ is zero graded.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Tower of higher binary mediality brackets}
By analogy with (\ref{L0}), let us deform the medial twisted product
$\mathbf{\mu}_{4}^{\left( \rho_{0}\right) }$ (\ref{r1}) by the function
$M_{0}^{\left( \rho_{0}\right) }:A\times A\times A\times A\rightarrow A$ as
follows%
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{\rho}_{0}\left( a^{\prime},b^{\prime},c^{\prime},d^{\prime}\right)
a\cdot b\cdot c\cdot d=a\cdot c\cdot b\cdot d+M_{0}^{\left( \rho_{0}\right)
}\left( a,b,c,d\right) ,\ \ \ \forall a,b,c,d\in A,\ \ \ a^{\prime
},b^{\prime},c^{\prime},d^{\prime}\in G, \label{M0}%
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{\rho}_{0}$ is a $0$-level mediality factor (\ref{r1}) which
satisfies (\ref{r01})--(\ref{r03}).
Let us next introduce a $4$-ary multiplication $\mathbf{\mu}_{4}^{\left(
\rho_{0},M_{0}\right) }\left[ a,b,c,d\right] =M_{0}^{\left( \rho
_{0}\right) }\left( a,b,c,d\right) $, $\forall a,b,c,d\in A$.
\begin{definition}
A $4$-ary algebra
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{A}_{4}^{\left( \rho_{0},M_{0}\right) }=\left\langle A\mid
\mathbf{\mu}_{4}^{\left( \rho_{0},M_{0}\right) }\right\rangle
\end{equation}
is called a $0$\textit{-level medial bracket algebra}.
\end{definition}
\begin{proposition}
The $4$-ary algebra $\mathcal{A}_{4}^{\left( \rho_{0},M_{0}\right) }$ is
almost medial with the mediality factor $\left( -\mathbf{\rho}_{0}%
^{-1}\right) $.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Using (\ref{M0}) and (\ref{r01})--(\ref{r03}) we get $\mathbf{\rho}_{0}\left(
a^{\prime},c^{\prime},b^{\prime},d^{\prime}\right) M_{0}^{\left( \rho
_{0}\right) }\left( a,b,c,d\right) +M_{0}^{\left( \rho_{0}\right)
}\left( a,c,b,d\right) =0$, which can be rewritten in the almost medial form
(\ref{r2}) as $\left( -\mathbf{\rho}_{0}\left( a^{\prime},c^{\prime
},b^{\prime},d^{\prime}\right) \right) M_{0}^{\left( \rho_{0}\right)
}\left( a,b,c,d\right) =M_{0}^{\left( \rho_{0}\right) }\left(
a,c,b,d\right) $. From (\ref{r01}) we get%
\begin{equation}
\left( -\mathbf{\rho}_{0}^{-1}\left( a^{\prime},b^{\prime},c^{\prime
},d^{\prime}\right) \right) M_{0}^{\left( \rho_{0}\right) }\left(
a,b,c,d\right) =M_{0}^{\left( \rho_{0}\right) }\left( a,c,b,d\right) .
\end{equation}
\end{proof}
Let us \textquotedblleft deform\textquotedblright\ (\ref{r2}) again
successively by introducing further \textquotedblleft
deforming\textquotedblright\ functions $M_{k}$ and higher level mediality
factors $\mathbf{\rho}_{k}:G\times G\times G\times G\rightarrow\Bbbk$ in the
following way.
\begin{definition}
The $k$\textit{-level mediality factor} $\mathbf{\rho}_{k}\left( a^{\prime
},b^{\prime},c^{\prime},d^{\prime}\right) $ is defined by the following
\textquotedblleft difference-like\textquotedblright\ equations%
\begin{align}
\mathbf{\rho}_{1}\left( a^{\prime},b^{\prime},c^{\prime},d^{\prime}\right)
M_{0}^{\left( \rho_{0}\right) }\left( a,b,c,d\right) & =M_{0}^{\left(
\rho_{0}\right) }\left( a,c,b,d\right) +M_{1}^{\left( \rho_{0},\rho
_{1}\right) }\left( a,b,c,d\right) ,\label{m1}\\
\mathbf{\rho}_{2}\left( a^{\prime},b^{\prime},c^{\prime},d^{\prime}\right)
M_{1}^{\left( \rho_{0}\right) }\left( a,b,c,d\right) & =M_{1}^{\left(
\rho_{0}\right) }\left( a,c,b,d\right) +M_{2}^{\left( \rho_{0},\rho
_{1},\rho_{2}\right) }\left( a,b,c,d\right) ,\\
& \vdots\nonumber\\
\mathbf{\rho}_{k}\left( a^{\prime},b^{\prime},c^{\prime},d^{\prime}\right)
M_{k-1}^{\left( \rho_{0},\rho_{1},\ldots,\rho_{k-1}\right) }\left(
a,b,c,d\right) & =M_{k-1}^{\left( \rho_{0},\rho_{1},\ldots,\rho
_{k-1}\right) }\left( a,c,b,d\right) +M_{k}^{\left( \rho_{0},\rho
_{1},\ldots,\rho_{k}\right) }\left( a,b,c,d\right) ,\label{mk}\\
\forall a,b,c,d & \in A,\ \ \ a^{\prime},b^{\prime},c^{\prime},d^{\prime}\in
G.\nonumber
\end{align}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
$k$\textit{-level almost mediality} is defined by the vanishing of the last
\textquotedblleft deforming\textquotedblright\ medial function%
\begin{equation}
M_{k}^{\left( \rho_{0},\rho_{1},\ldots,\rho_{k}\right) }\left(
a,b,c,d\right) =0,\ \ \ \forall a,b,c,d\in A,
\end{equation}
and can be expressed in a form analogous to (\ref{e0}) and (\ref{r2})%
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{\rho}_{k}\left( a^{\prime},b^{\prime},c^{\prime},d^{\prime}\right)
M_{k-1}^{\left( \rho_{0},\rho_{1},\ldots,\rho_{k-1}\right) }\left(
a,b,c,d\right) =M_{k-1}^{\left( \rho_{0},\rho_{1},\ldots,\rho_{k-1}\right)
}\left( a,c,b,d\right) .
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
\begin{proposition}
The higher level \textquotedblleft deforming\textquotedblright\ functions
$M_{i}^{\left( \rho_{0},\rho_{1},\ldots,\rho_{i}\right) }\left(
a,b,c,d\right) $, $i=1,\ldots,k$ can be expressed through $M_{0}^{\left(
\rho_{0}\right) }\left( a,b,c,d\right) $ from (\ref{M0}) multiplied by a
combination of the lower level mediality factors $\mathbf{\rho}_{i}\left(
a^{\prime},b^{\prime},c^{\prime},d^{\prime}\right) $, $i=1,\ldots,k$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
It follows from the equations (\ref{m1})--(\ref{mk}).
\end{proof}
\section{\textsc{Medial n-ary algebras}}
We now extend the concept of almost mediality from binary to polyadic
($n$-ary) algebras in the unique way which uses the construction from the
previous section.
Let $\mathcal{A}^{\left( n\right) }=\left\langle A\mid\mu_{n},\nu
_{2}\right\rangle $ be an associative $n$-ary algebra (with $n$-ary linear
multiplication $A^{\otimes n}\rightarrow A$) over a field $\Bbbk$ with
(possible) polyadic unit $e$ (then $\mathcal{A}^{\left( n\right) }$ a unital
$\Bbbk$-algebra) defined by $\mu_{n}\left[ e^{n-1},a\right] =a$, $\forall
a\in A$ (where $a$ can be on any place) and (binary) zero $z\in A$. We
restrict ourselves (as in \cite{mil/vin,goz/goz/rem}) by the binary addition
$\nu_{2}:A\otimes A\rightarrow A$ which is denoted by $\left( +\right) $
(for more general cases, see \cite{dup2019}). Now \textit{polyadic (total)
associativity} \cite{goz/goz/rem} can be defined as a kind of invariance
\cite{dup2018a}%
\begin{equation}
\mu_{n}\left[ \mathbf{a},\mu_{n}\left[ \mathbf{b}_{\left( n\right)
}\right] ,\mathbf{c}\right] =invariant, \label{mass}%
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{a,c}$ are (\textit{linear}) \textit{polyads} (sequences of
elements from $A$) of the necessary length \cite{pos}, $\mathbf{b}_{\left(
n\right) }$ is a polyad of the length $n$, and the internal multiplication
can be on any place. To describe the mediality for arbitrary arity $n$ we need
the following matrix generalization of polyads (as was implicitly used in
\cite{dup2018a,dup2019}).
\begin{definition}
\label{def-matr}A \textit{matrix (}$n$-ary) \textit{polyad} $\mathbf{\hat{A}%
}_{\left( n^{2}\right) }\equiv\mathbf{\hat{A}}_{\left( n\times n\right) }$
of size $n\times n$ is the sequence of $n^{2}$ elements $\mathbf{\hat{A}%
}_{\left( n\times n\right) }=\left( a_{ij}\right) \in A^{\otimes n^{2}}$,
$i,j=1,\ldots,n$, and their product $\mathrm{A}_{n^{2}}^{\left( \mu\right)
}:A^{\otimes n^{2}}\rightarrow A$ contains $n+1$ of $n$-ary multiplications
$\mu_{n}$, which can be written as (we use hat for matrices of arguments, even
informally)%
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{A}_{n^{2}}^{\left( \mu\right) }\equiv\left( \mu_{n}\right)
^{\circ\left( n+1\right) }\left[ \mathbf{\hat{A}}_{\left( n^{2}\right)
}\right] =\mu_{n}\left[
\begin{array}
[c]{c}%
\mu_{n}\left[ a_{11},a_{12},\ldots,a_{1n}\right] ,\\
\mu_{n}\left[ a_{21},a_{22},\ldots,a_{2n}\right] ,\\
\vdots\\
\mu_{n}\left[ a_{n1},a_{n2},\ldots,a_{nn}\right]
\end{array}
\right] \in A \label{am}%
\end{equation}
due to the total associativity (\ref{mass}) (by \textquotedblleft omitting
brackets\textquotedblright).
\end{definition}
This construction is the stack reshape of a matrix or row-major order of an array.
\begin{example}
In terms of matrix polyads the (binary) mediality property (\ref{mm}) becomes%
\begin{align}
\left( \mu_{2}\right) ^{\circ3}\left[ \mathbf{\hat{A}}_{\left( 4\right)
}\right] & =\left( \mu_{2}\right) ^{\circ3}\left[ \mathbf{\hat{A}%
}_{\left( 4\right) }^{T}\right] ,\ \ \ or\ \ \ \mathrm{A}_{4}^{\left(
\mu\right) }=\mathrm{A}_{4}^{T\left( \mu\right) }\label{mam}\\
\mathbf{\hat{A}}_{\left( 4\right) } & =\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{cc}%
a_{11} & a_{12}\\
a_{21} & a_{22}%
\end{array}
\right) \Rightarrow\left( a_{11},a_{12},a_{21},a_{22}\right) \in
A^{\otimes4},
\end{align}
where $\mathbf{\hat{A}}_{\left( 4\right) }^{T}$ is the transposed polyad
matrix representing the sequence $\left( a_{11},a_{21},a_{12},a_{22}\right)
\in A^{\otimes4}$, $\mathrm{A}_{4}^{\left( \mu\right) }=\left( \left(
a_{11}\cdot a_{12}\right) \cdot\left( a_{21}\cdot a_{22}\right) \right)
\in A$ and $\mathrm{A}_{4}^{T\left( \mu\right) }=\left( \left( a_{11}\cdot
a_{21}\right) \cdot\left( a_{12}\cdot a_{22}\right) \right) \in A$ with
$\left( \cdot\right) \equiv\mu_{2}$.
\end{example}
\begin{definition}
A \textit{polyadic (}$n$\textit{-ary) mediality} property is defined by the
relation%
\begin{align}
\left( \mu_{n}\right) ^{\circ n+1}\left[ \mathbf{\hat{A}}_{\left(
n^{2}\right) }\right] & =\left( \mu_{n}\right) ^{\circ n+1}\left[
\mathbf{\hat{A}}_{\left( n^{2}\right) }^{T}\right]
,\ \ \ or\ \ \ \mathrm{A}_{n^{2}}^{\left( \mu\right) }=\mathrm{A}_{n^{2}%
}^{T\left( \mu\right) },\label{mna}\\
\mathbf{\hat{A}}_{\left( n^{2}\right) } & =\left( a_{ij}\right) \in
A^{\otimes n^{2}}. \label{an2}%
\end{align}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
A \textit{polyadic medial twist map} $\chi_{medial}^{\left( n^{2}\right) }$
is defined on the matrix polyads as \cite{dup2018d}%
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{\hat{A}}_{\left( n^{2}\right) }\overset{\chi_{medial}^{\left(
n^{2}\right) }}{\mapsto}\mathbf{\hat{A}}_{\left( n^{2}\right) }^{T}.
\label{an}%
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
A $n$-ary algebra $\mathcal{A}^{\left( n\right) }$ is called \textit{medial}%
, if it satisfies the $n$-ary mediality property (\ref{mna}) for all
$a_{ij}\in A$.
\end{definition}
It follows from (\ref{mam}), that \textsf{not all} medial binary algebras are abelian.
\begin{corollary}
If a binary medial algebra $\mathcal{A}^{\left( 2\right) }$ is cancellative,
it is abelian.
\end{corollary}
\begin{assertion}
If a $n$-ary medial algebra $\mathcal{A}^{\left( n\right) }$ is
cancellative, each matrix polyad $\mathbf{\hat{A}}_{\left( n^{2}\right) }$
satisfies $n^{2}-2$ commutativity-like relations.
\end{assertion}
\section{\textsc{Almost medial n-ary graded algebras}}
The gradation for associative $n$-ary algebras was considered in
\cite{mil/vin,gne95}. Here we introduce a weaker version of gradation, because
we need to define the grading twist not for $n$-ary multiplication, i. e. the
polyads of the length $n$, but only for the matrix polyads (\ref{an2}) of the
length $n^{2}$ (for the binary case, see (\ref{m4a})).
\begin{definition}
An associative $n$-ary algebra $\mathcal{A}^{\left( n\right) }$ is called a
\textit{higher graded }$n$\textit{-ary algebra} over $\Bbbk$, if the algebra
multiplication of $n^{2}$ elements respects the gradation i.e.%
\begin{equation}
\left( \mu_{n}\right) ^{\circ n+1}\left[ A_{\left( a_{ij}^{\prime}\right)
}\right] \equiv\mu_{n}\left[
\begin{array}
[c]{c}%
\mu_{n}\left[ A_{a_{11}^{\prime}},A_{a_{12}^{\prime}},\ldots,A_{a_{1n}%
^{\prime}}\right] ,\\
\mu_{n}\left[ A_{a_{21}^{\prime}},A_{a_{22}^{\prime}},\ldots,A_{a_{21}%
^{\prime}}\right] ,\\
\vdots\\
\mu_{n}\left[ A_{a_{n1}^{\prime}},A_{a_{n2}^{\prime}},\ldots,A_{a_{nn}%
^{\prime}}\right]
\end{array}
\right] \subseteq A_{a_{11}^{\prime}+\ldots+a_{nn}^{\prime}},\ \forall
a_{ij}^{\prime}\in G,\ \ i,j=1,\ldots,n
\end{equation}
where equality corresponds to \textit{ strong higher gradation}.
\end{definition}
Let us define the \textit{higher twisting function} (\textit{higher twist
factor}) for $n^{2}$ elements $\mathbf{\tau}_{n^{2}}:G^{\times n^{2}%
}\rightarrow\Bbbk$ by using matrix polyads (for $n=2$ see (\ref{m4})).
\begin{definition}
A\textit{ }$n$\textit{-ary higher graded twisted product} $\mathbf{\mu}%
_{n^{2}}^{\left( \tau\right) }$ is defined for homogeneous elements by%
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{\mu}_{n^{2}}^{\left( \tau\right) }\left[ \mathbf{\hat{A}}_{\left(
n^{2}\right) }\right] =\mathbf{\tau}_{n^{2}}\left( \mathbf{\hat{A}%
}_{\left( n^{2}\right) }^{\prime}\right) \mathrm{A}_{n^{2}}^{\left(
\mu\right) },\ \ \ a_{ij}\in A;\ \ a_{ij}^{\prime}\in G,\ \ i,j=1,\ldots,n,
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{\hat{A}}_{\left( n^{2}\right) }=\left( a_{ij}\right) \in
A^{\otimes n^{2}}$ is the matrix polyad of elements (\ref{an2}), and
$\mathbf{\hat{A}}_{\left( n^{2}\right) }^{\prime}=\left( a_{ij}^{\prime
}\right) \in G^{\otimes n^{2}}$ is the matrix polyad of their gradings .
\end{definition}
A medial analog of $n$-ary almost mediality can be introduced in a way
analogous to the binary case (\ref{r2}).
\begin{definition}
If the higher twisted product coincides with the medially symmetric product
(see (\ref{an})) for all $a_{ij}\in A$, we call the twisting function a
$0$-\textit{level }$n$-\textit{ary mediality factor }$\mathbf{\tau}_{n^{2}%
}\mapsto\mathbf{\rho}_{0}^{\left( n^{2}\right) }:G^{\times n^{2}}%
\rightarrow\Bbbk^{\times}$, such that (cf. (\ref{e0}))%
\begin{align}
\mathbf{\mu}_{n^{2}}^{\left( \rho_{0}\right) }\left[ \mathbf{\hat{A}%
}_{\left( n^{2}\right) }\right] & =\mathrm{A}_{n^{2}}^{T\left(
\mu\right) },\ \ \text{or}\label{rn1}\\
\mathbf{\rho}_{0}^{\left( n^{2}\right) }\left( \mathbf{\hat{A}}_{\left(
n^{2}\right) }^{\prime}\right) \mathrm{A}_{n^{2}}^{\left( \mu\right) } &
=\mathrm{A}_{n^{2}}^{T\left( \mu\right) },\ \ \ a_{ij}\in A;\ \ a_{ij}%
^{\prime}\in G,\ \ i,j=1,\ldots,n. \label{rn2}%
\end{align}
\end{definition}
It follows from (\ref{rn2}) that the normalization condition for the $n$-ary
mediality factor is%
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{\rho}_{0}^{\left( n^{2}\right) }\left( \overset{n^{2}}%
{\overbrace{a^{\prime},\ldots,a^{\prime}}}\right) =\mathtt{1},\ \ \ \forall
a^{\prime}\in G.
\end{equation}
\begin{assertion}
The $0$-level $n$-ary mediality factor $\rho_{0}^{\left( n^{2}\right) }$
satisfies%
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{\rho}_{0}^{\left( n^{2}\right) }\left( \mathbf{\hat{A}}_{\left(
n^{2}\right) }^{\prime}\right) \mathbf{\rho}_{0}^{\left( n^{2}\right)
}\left( \left( \mathbf{\hat{A}}_{\left( n^{2}\right) }^{\prime}\right)
^{T}\right) =\mathtt{1}. \label{rr}%
\end{equation}
\end{assertion}
\begin{proof}
It follows from (\ref{rn2}) and its transpose together with the relation
$\left( B^{T}\right) ^{T}=B$ for any matrix over $\Bbbk$.
\end{proof}
\begin{definition}
An $n$-ary algebra for which the higher twisted product coincides with the
medially symmetric product (\ref{rn2}), is called a $0$\textit{-level almost
medial} ($\mathbf{\rho}_{0}$-commutative) $n$-ary algebra $\mathcal{A}%
_{n}^{\left( \rho_{0}\right) }$.
\end{definition}
Recall \cite{bourbaki98}, that a tensor product of binary algebras can be
naturally endowed with a $\varepsilon_{0}$-graded structure in the following
way (in our notation). Let $\mathcal{A}_{2}^{\left( \varepsilon_{0}\right)
}=\left\langle A\mid\mu_{2}^{\left( a\right) }\right\rangle $ and
$\mathcal{B}_{2}^{\left( \varepsilon_{0}\right) }=\left\langle A\mid\mu
_{2}^{\left( b\right) }\right\rangle $ be binary graded algebras with the
multiplications $\mu_{2}^{\left( a\right) }\equiv\left( \cdot_{a}\right) $
and $\mu_{2}^{\left( b\right) }\equiv\left( \cdot_{b}\right) $ and the
same commutation factor $\varepsilon_{0}$ (see (\ref{e0})), that is the same
$G$-graded structure. Consider the tensor product $\mathcal{A}_{2}^{\left(
\varepsilon_{0}\right) }\otimes\mathcal{B}_{2}^{\left( \varepsilon
_{0}\right) }$, and introduce the \textit{total }$\varepsilon_{0}%
$\textit{-graded multiplication} $\left( \mathcal{A}_{2}^{\left(
\varepsilon_{0}\right) }\otimes\mathcal{B}_{2}^{\left( \varepsilon
_{0}\right) }\right) \star^{\left( \varepsilon_{0}\right) }\left(
\mathcal{A}_{2}^{\left( \varepsilon_{0}\right) }\otimes\mathcal{B}%
_{2}^{\left( \varepsilon_{0}\right) }\right) \longrightarrow\mathcal{A}%
_{2}^{\left( \varepsilon_{0}\right) }\otimes\mathcal{B}_{2}^{\left(
\varepsilon_{0}\right) }$ defined by the deformation (cf. (\ref{mt}))%
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon_{0}\left( b_{1}^{\prime},a_{2}^{\prime}\right) \left(
a_{1}\otimes b_{1}\right) \star^{\left( \varepsilon_{0}\right) }\left(
a_{2}\otimes b_{2}\right) ,\ b_{1}^{\prime},a_{2}^{\prime}\in G,a_{i}\in
A,b_{i}\in B,i=1,2. \label{abe}%
\end{equation}
\begin{proposition}
If the $\varepsilon_{0}$-graded multiplication (\ref{abe}) satisfies (cf.
(\ref{e0}))
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon_{0}\left( b_{1}^{\prime},a_{2}^{\prime}\right) \left(
a_{1}\otimes b_{1}\right) \star^{\left( \varepsilon_{0}\right) }\left(
a_{2}\otimes b_{2}\right) =\left( a_{1}\cdot_{a}a_{2}\right) \otimes\left(
b_{1}\cdot_{b}b_{2}\right) , \label{ab1}%
\end{equation}
then $\mathcal{A}_{2}^{\left( \varepsilon_{0}\right) }\otimes\mathcal{B}%
_{2}^{\left( \varepsilon_{0}\right) }$ is a $\varepsilon_{0}$-graded
commutative algebra.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proposition}
If $\mathcal{A}_{2}^{\left( \varepsilon_{0}\right) }$ and $\mathcal{B}%
_{2}^{\left( \varepsilon_{0}\right) }$ are associative, then $\mathcal{A}%
_{2}^{\left( \varepsilon_{0}\right) }\otimes\mathcal{B}_{2}^{\left(
\varepsilon_{0}\right) }$ is also associative.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
This follows from (\ref{abe}), (\ref{ab1}) and the properties of the
commutation factor $\varepsilon_{0}$ (\ref{e02})--(\ref{e03}).
\end{proof}
In the matrix form (\ref{ab1}) becomes (with $\star^{\left( \varepsilon
_{0}\right) }\equiv\mu_{2}^{\star\left( \varepsilon_{0}\right) }$)
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon_{0}\left( b_{1}^{\prime},a_{2}^{\prime}\right) \mu_{2}%
^{\star\left( \varepsilon_{0}\right) }\left[
\begin{array}
[c]{c}%
\mu_{2}^{\otimes}\left[ a_{1},b_{1}\right] \\
\mu_{2}^{\otimes}\left[ a_{2},b_{2}\right]
\end{array}
\right] =\mu_{2}^{\otimes}\left[
\begin{array}
[c]{c}%
\mu_{2}^{\left( a\right) }\left[ a_{1},a_{2}\right] \\
\mu_{2}^{\left( b\right) }\left[ b_{1},b_{2}\right]
\end{array}
\right] , \label{em}%
\end{equation}
where $\mu_{2}^{\otimes}$ is the standard binary tensor product. For numerous
generalizations (including braidings), see, e.g., \cite{pen/pan/oys}, and
refs. therein.
Now we can extend (\ref{em}) to almost medial algebras.
\begin{definition}
Let $\mathcal{A}_{2}^{\left( \rho_{0}\right) }$ and $\mathcal{B}%
_{2}^{\left( \rho_{0}\right) }$ be two binary medial algebras with the same
mediality factor $\mathbf{\rho}_{0}$. The total $\mathbf{\rho}_{0}$-mediality
graded multiplication $\mu_{2}^{\star\left( \rho_{0}\right) }:\left(
\mathcal{A}_{2}^{\left( \rho_{0}\right) }\otimes\mathcal{B}_{2}^{\left(
\rho_{0}\right) }\right) \star^{\left( \rho_{0}\right) }\left(
\mathcal{A}_{2}^{\left( \rho_{0}\right) }\otimes\mathcal{B}_{2}^{\left(
\rho_{0}\right) }\right) \longrightarrow\mathcal{A}_{2}^{\left( \rho
_{0}\right) }\otimes\mathcal{B}_{2}^{\left( \rho_{0}\right) }$ is defined
by the mediality deformation (cf. (\ref{mt}))%
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{\rho}_{0}\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{cc}%
a_{1}^{\prime} & b_{1}^{\prime}\\
a_{2}^{\prime} & b_{2}^{\prime}%
\end{array}
\right) \left( a_{1}\otimes b_{1}\right) \star^{\left( \rho_{0}\right)
}\left( a_{2}\otimes b_{2}\right) ,\ b_{1}^{\prime},a_{2}^{\prime}\in
G,a_{i}\in A,b_{i}\in B,i=1,2. \label{r0}%
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
\begin{proposition}
If the $\mathbf{\rho}_{0}$-graded multiplication (\ref{r0}) satisfies (cf.
(\ref{e0}))
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{\rho}_{0}\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{cc}%
a_{1}^{\prime} & b_{1}^{\prime}\\
a_{2}^{\prime} & b_{2}^{\prime}%
\end{array}
\right) \mu_{2}^{\star\left( \rho_{0}\right) }\left[
\begin{array}
[c]{c}%
\mu_{2}^{\otimes}\left[ a_{1},b_{1}\right] \\
\mu_{2}^{\otimes}\left[ a_{2},b_{2}\right]
\end{array}
\right] =\mu_{2}^{\otimes}\left[
\begin{array}
[c]{c}%
\mu_{2}^{\left( a\right) }\left[ a_{1},a_{2}\right] \\
\mu_{2}^{\left( b\right) }\left[ b_{1},b_{2}\right]
\end{array}
\right] , \label{rab}%
\end{equation}
then $\mathcal{A}_{2}^{\left( \rho_{0}\right) }\otimes\mathcal{B}%
_{2}^{\left( \rho_{0}\right) }$ is a $\mathbf{\rho}_{0}$-graded binary
(almost medial) algebra.
\end{proposition}
Using the matrix form (\ref{rab}) one can generalize the $\mathbf{\rho}_{0}%
$-graded medial algebras to arbitrary arity.
Let $\mathcal{B}_{n}^{\left( \rho_{0}\right) ,1},\ldots,\mathcal{B}%
_{n}^{\left( \rho_{0}\right) ,n}$ be $n$ $\mathbf{\rho}_{0}$-graded (almost
medial) $n$-ary algebras ($\mathcal{B}_{n}^{\left( \rho_{0}\right)
,i}=\left\langle B_{i}\mid\mu_{n}^{\left( i\right) }\right\rangle $) with
the same mediality factor $\mathbf{\rho}_{0}$ and the same graded structure.
Consider their tensor product $\mathcal{B}_{n}^{\left( \rho_{0}\right)
,1}\otimes\ldots\otimes\mathcal{B}_{n}^{\left( \rho_{0}\right) ,n}$ and the
$\mathbf{\rho}_{0}$-graded $n$-ary multiplication $\mu_{n}^{\star\left(
\rho_{0}\right) }$ on it.
\begin{proposition}
If the $\mathbf{\rho}_{0}$-graded $n$-ary multiplication $\mu_{n}%
^{\star\left( \rho_{0}\right) }$ satisfies (cf. (\ref{e0}))
\begin{align}
\mathbf{\rho}_{0}\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{ccc}%
b_{1}^{1\prime} & \ldots & b_{1}^{n\prime}\\
\vdots & \ldots & \vdots\\
b_{n}^{1\prime} & \ldots & b_{n}^{n\prime}%
\end{array}
\right) \mu_{n}^{\star\left( \rho_{0}\right) }\left[
\begin{array}
[c]{c}%
\mu_{n}^{\otimes}\left[ b_{1}^{1},\ldots,b_{1}^{n}\right] \\
\vdots\\
\mu_{n}^{\otimes}\left[ b_{n}^{1},\ldots,b_{n}^{n}\right]
\end{array}
\right] & =\mu_{n}^{\otimes}\left[
\begin{array}
[c]{c}%
\mu_{n}^{\left( 1\right) }\left[ b_{1}^{1},\ldots,b_{n}^{1}\right] \\
\vdots\\
\mu_{n}^{\left( n\right) }\left[ b_{n}^{1},\ldots,b_{n}^{n}\right]
\end{array}
\right] ,\label{rm}\\
b_{1}^{i},\ldots,b_{n}^{i} & \in\mathcal{A}_{n}^{\left( \rho_{0}\right)
,i},\ b_{n}^{i\prime},\ldots,b_{n}^{i\prime}\in G,\ i=1,\ldots,n.
\end{align}
then the tensor product $\mathcal{B}_{n}^{\left( \rho_{0}\right) ,1}%
\otimes\ldots\otimes\mathcal{B}_{n}^{\left( \rho_{0}\right) ,n}$ is a
$\mathbf{\rho}_{0}$-graded $n$-ary (almost medial) algebra.
\end{proposition}
Symbolically, we can write this in the form, similar to the almost mediality
condition (\ref{rn2})%
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{\rho}_{0}\left( \mathbf{\hat{B}}_{\left( n^{2}\right) }^{\prime
}\right) \mu_{n}^{\star\left( \rho_{0}\right) }\circ\mu_{n^{2}}^{\otimes
}\left[ \mathbf{\hat{B}}_{\left( n^{2}\right) }\right] =\mu_{n}^{\otimes
}\circ\mu_{n}^{\left( 1\right) }\circ\ldots\circ\mu_{n}^{\left( n\right)
}\left[ \mathbf{\hat{B}}_{\left( n^{2}\right) }^{T}\right] , \label{rb}%
\end{equation}
where%
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{\hat{B}}_{\left( n^{2}\right) }^{\prime}=\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{ccc}%
b_{1}^{1\prime} & \ldots & b_{1}^{n\prime}\\
\vdots & \ldots & \vdots\\
b_{n}^{1\prime} & \ldots & b_{n}^{n\prime}%
\end{array}
\right) ,\ \ \ \mathbf{\hat{B}}_{\left( n^{2}\right) }=\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{ccc}%
b_{1}^{1} & \ldots & b_{1}^{n}\\
\vdots & \ldots & \vdots\\
b_{n}^{1} & \ldots & b_{n}^{n}%
\end{array}
\right)
\end{equation}
and $\mathbf{\hat{B}}_{\left( n^{2}\right) }^{T}$ is its transpose.
\begin{example}
In the lowest non-binary example, for 3 ternary $\mathbf{\rho}_{0}$-graded
algebras $\mathcal{A}_{3}^{\left( \rho_{0}\right) }=\left\langle A\mid
\mu_{3}^{\left( a\right) }\right\rangle $, $\mathcal{B}_{3}^{\left(
\rho_{0}\right) }=\left\langle B\mid\mu_{3}^{\left( b\right) }\right\rangle
$, $\mathcal{C}_{3}^{\left( \rho_{0}\right) }=\left\langle C\mid\mu
_{3}^{\left( c\right) }\right\rangle $, from (\ref{rm}) we have the ternary
multiplication $\mu_{3}^{\star\left( \rho_{0}\right) }$ for their ternary
tensor product $\mathcal{A}_{3}^{\left( \rho_{0}\right) }\otimes
\mathcal{B}_{3}^{\left( \rho_{0}\right) }\otimes\mathcal{C}_{3}^{\left(
\rho_{0}\right) }$ given by%
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{\rho}_{0}\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{ccc}%
a_{1}^{\prime} & b_{1}^{\prime} & c_{1}^{\prime}\\
a_{2}^{\prime} & b_{2}^{\prime} & c_{2}^{\prime}\\
a_{3}^{\prime} & b_{3}^{\prime} & c_{3}^{\prime}%
\end{array}
\right) \mu_{3}^{\star\left( \rho_{0}\right) }\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{c}%
\left( a_{1}\otimes b_{1}\otimes c_{1}\right) \\
\left( a_{2}\otimes b_{2}\otimes c_{2}\right) \\
\left( a_{3}\otimes b_{2}\otimes c_{3}\right)
\end{array}
\right) =\left( \mu_{3}^{\left( a\right) }\left[ a_{1},a_{2}%
,a_{3}\right] \otimes\mu_{3}^{\left( a\right) }\left[ b_{1},b_{2}%
,b_{3}\right] \otimes\mu_{3}^{\left( c\right) }\left[ c_{1},c_{2}%
,c_{3}\right] \right) ,
\end{equation}
where $a_{i}\in A,\ \ b_{i}\in B,\ \ c_{i}\in C,\ \ a_{i}^{\prime}%
,b_{i}^{\prime},c_{i}^{\prime}\in G$, $i=1,2,3$.
\end{example}
\subsection{Higher level mediality $n^{2}$-ary brackets}
Binary almost mediality algebras for $n=2$ were considered in (\ref{r2}),
together with the tower of mediality factors (\ref{M0}), (\ref{m1}%
)--(\ref{mk}). Here we generalize this construction to any arity $n$ which can
be done using the matrix polyad construction.
First, we deform the almost mediality condition (\ref{rn2})%
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{\rho}_{0}^{\left( n^{2}\right) }\left( \mathbf{\hat{A}}_{\left(
n^{2}\right) }^{\prime}\right) \mathrm{A}_{n^{2}}^{\left( \mu\right)
}=\mathrm{A}_{n^{2}}^{T\left( \mu\right) }+\mathrm{M}_{0}^{\left( \rho
_{0}\right) }\left( \mathbf{\hat{A}}_{\left( n^{2}\right) }\right)
,\ \ \ a_{ij}\in A;\ \ a_{ij}^{\prime}\in G,\ \ i,j=1,\ldots,n, \label{ra}%
\end{equation}
where $\mathrm{M}_{0}^{\left( \rho_{0}\right) }:A^{\otimes n^{2}}\rightarrow
A$ is the \textit{higher mediality }$n^{2}$\textit{-ary} \textit{bracket of
}$0$\textit{-level}. Consider $\mathrm{M}_{0}^{\left( \rho_{0}\right) }$ as
a new $n^{2}$-ary (bracket) multiplication%
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{\mu}_{n^{2}}^{\left( \rho_{0},M_{0}\right) }\left[ \mathbf{\hat{A}%
}_{\left( n^{2}\right) }\right] :=\mathrm{M}_{0}^{\left( \rho_{0}\right)
}\left( \mathbf{\hat{A}}_{\left( n^{2}\right) }\right) . \label{mm0}%
\end{equation}
\begin{definition}
A $n^{2}$-ary algebra%
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{A}_{n^{2}}^{\left( \rho_{0},M_{0}\right) }=\left\langle
A\mid\mathbf{\mu}_{n^{2}}^{\left( \rho_{0},M_{0}\right) }\right\rangle
\end{equation}
is called a $0$\textit{-level mediality bracket }$n^{2}$\textit{-ary algebra}.
\end{definition}
\begin{proposition}
The $n^{2}$-ary algebra $\mathcal{A}_{n^{2}}^{\left( \rho_{0},M_{0}\right)
}$is almost medial with the mediality factor $\left( -\left( \mathbf{\rho
}_{0}^{\left( n^{2}\right) }\right) ^{-1}\right) $.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We multiply the definition (\ref{ra}) by $\mathbf{\rho}_{0}^{\left(
n^{2}\right) }\left( \left( \mathbf{\hat{A}}_{\left( n^{2}\right)
}^{\prime}\right) ^{T}\right) $ and use (\ref{rr}) to obtain%
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{\rho}_{0}^{\left( n^{2}\right) }\left( \left( \mathbf{\hat{A}%
}_{\left( n^{2}\right) }^{\prime}\right) ^{T}\right) \mathrm{M}%
_{0}^{\left( \rho_{0}\right) }\left( \mathbf{\hat{A}}_{\left(
n^{2}\right) }\right) =\mathrm{A}_{n^{2}}^{\left( \mu\right)
}-\mathbf{\rho}_{0}^{\left( n^{2}\right) }\left( \left( \mathbf{\hat{A}%
}_{\left( n^{2}\right) }^{\prime}\right) ^{T}\right) \mathrm{A}_{n^{2}%
}^{T\left( \mu\right) }.
\end{equation}
Taking into account that the r.h.s. here is exactly $-\mathrm{M}_{0}^{\left(
\rho_{0}\right) }\left( \mathbf{\hat{A}}_{\left( n^{2}\right) }%
^{T}\right) $, we have%
\begin{equation}
-\mathbf{\rho}_{0}^{\left( n^{2}\right) }\left( \left( \mathbf{\hat{A}%
}_{\left( n^{2}\right) }^{\prime}\right) ^{T}\right) \mathrm{M}%
_{0}^{\left( \rho_{0}\right) }\left( \mathbf{\hat{A}}_{\left(
n^{2}\right) }\right) =\mathrm{M}_{0}^{\left( \rho_{0}\right) }\left(
\mathbf{\hat{A}}_{\left( n^{2}\right) }^{T}\right) ,
\end{equation}
and using (\ref{rr}) again, we get%
\begin{equation}
-\mathbf{\rho}_{0}^{\left( n^{2}\right) }\left( \mathbf{\hat{A}}_{\left(
n^{2}\right) }^{\prime}\right) ^{-1}\mathrm{M}_{0}^{\left( \rho_{0}\right)
}\left( \mathbf{\hat{A}}_{\left( n^{2}\right) }\right) =\mathrm{M}%
_{0}^{\left( \rho_{0}\right) }\left( \mathbf{\hat{A}}_{\left(
n^{2}\right) }^{T}\right) ,
\end{equation}
which should be compared with (\ref{rn2}).
\end{proof}
Now we \textquotedblleft deform\textquotedblright\ (\ref{ra}) successively by
defining further $n^{2}$-ary brackets\ $\mathrm{M}_{k}$ and higher level
mediality factors $\mathbf{\rho}_{k}^{\left( n^{2}\right) }:G^{\times n^{2}%
}\rightarrow\Bbbk$ as follows.
\begin{definition}
The $k$\textit{-level mediality }$n^{2}$-ary \textit{brackets and factors are
defined by}%
\begin{align}
\mathbf{\rho}_{1}^{\left( n^{2}\right) }\left( \mathbf{\hat{A}}_{\left(
n^{2}\right) }^{\prime}\right) \mathrm{M}_{0}^{\left( \rho_{0}\right)
}\left( \mathbf{\hat{A}}_{\left( n^{2}\right) }\right) & =\mathrm{M}%
_{0}^{\left( \rho_{0}\right) }\left( \mathbf{\hat{A}}_{\left(
n^{2}\right) }^{T}\right) +\mathrm{M}_{1}^{\left( \rho_{0},\rho_{1}\right)
}\left( \mathbf{\hat{A}}_{\left( n^{2}\right) }\right) ,\label{mm1}\\
\mathbf{\rho}_{2}^{\left( n^{2}\right) }\left( \mathbf{\hat{A}}_{\left(
n^{2}\right) }^{\prime}\right) \mathrm{M}_{1}^{\left( \rho_{0},\rho
_{1}\right) }\left( \mathbf{\hat{A}}_{\left( n^{2}\right) }\right) &
=\mathrm{M}_{1}^{\left( \rho_{0},\rho_{1}\right) }\left( \mathbf{\hat{A}%
}_{\left( n^{2}\right) }^{T}\right) +\mathrm{M}_{2}^{\left( \rho_{0}%
,\rho_{1},\rho_{2}\right) }\left( \mathbf{\hat{A}}_{\left( n^{2}\right)
}\right) ,\\
& \vdots\nonumber\\
\mathbf{\rho}_{k}^{\left( n^{2}\right) }\left( \mathbf{\hat{A}}_{\left(
n^{2}\right) }^{\prime}\right) \mathrm{M}_{k-1}^{\left( \rho_{0},\rho
_{1},\ldots,\rho_{k-1}\right) }\left( \mathbf{\hat{A}}_{\left(
n^{2}\right) }\right) & =\mathrm{M}_{k-1}^{\left( \rho_{0},\rho
_{1},\ldots,\rho_{k-1}\right) }\left( \mathbf{\hat{A}}_{\left(
n^{2}\right) }^{T}\right) +\mathrm{M}_{k}^{\left( \rho_{0},\rho_{1}%
,\ldots,\rho_{k}\right) }\left( \mathbf{\hat{A}}_{\left( n^{2}\right)
}\right) \label{mmk}\\
\forall a_{ij} & \in A;\ \ a_{ij}^{\prime}\in G,\ \ i,j=1,\ldots,n.\nonumber
\end{align}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
$k$\textit{-level }$n^{2}$-ary \textit{almost mediality} is given by the
vanishing of the last \textquotedblleft deforming\textquotedblright\ medial
$n^{2}$-ary bracket%
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{M}_{k}^{\left( \rho_{0},\rho_{1},\ldots,\rho_{k}\right) }\left(
\mathbf{\hat{A}}_{\left( n^{2}\right) }\right) =0,\ \ \ \forall a_{ij}\in
A,
\end{equation}
and has the form%
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{\rho}_{k}^{\left( n^{2}\right) }\left( \mathbf{\hat{A}}_{\left(
n^{2}\right) }^{\prime}\right) \mathrm{M}_{k-1}^{\left( \rho_{0},\rho
_{1},\ldots,\rho_{k-1}\right) }\left( \mathbf{\hat{A}}_{\left(
n^{2}\right) }\right) =\mathrm{M}_{k-1}^{\left( \rho_{0},\rho_{1}%
,\ldots,\rho_{k-1}\right) }\left( \mathbf{\hat{A}}_{\left( n^{2}\right)
}^{T}\right) .
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
\begin{proposition}
The higher level \textquotedblleft deforming\textquotedblright%
\ functions\textit{ (}$n^{2}$-ary brackets) $\mathrm{M}_{i}^{\left( \rho
_{0},\rho_{1},\ldots,\rho_{k}\right) }\left( \mathbf{\hat{A}}_{\left(
n^{2}\right) }\right) $, $i=1,\ldots,k$ can be expressed through
$\mathrm{M}_{0}^{\left( \rho_{0}\right) }\left( \mathbf{\hat{A}}_{\left(
n^{2}\right) }\right) $ from (\ref{ra}) using a combination of the lower
level $n^{2}$-ary mediality factors $\mathbf{\rho}_{k}^{\left( n^{2}\right)
}\left( \mathbf{\hat{A}}_{\left( n^{2}\right) }^{\prime}\right) $,
$i=1,\ldots,k$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
This follows from the equations (\ref{mm1})--(\ref{mmk}).
\end{proof}
\section{\textsc{Toyoda's theorem for almost medial algebras}}
The structure of the almost medial graded algebras (binary and $n$-ary) can be
established by searching for possible analogs of Toyoda's theorem (\ref{ma})
(see, \cite{bru44,mur41,toy41}) which is the main statement for medial
groupoids \cite{jez/kep} and quasigroups \cite{shcherbacov}. As Toyoda's
theorem connects medial algebras with abelian algebras, we can foresee that in
the same way the almost medial algebras can be connected with almost
commutative algebras.
First, let us consider almost medial graded binary algebras, as defined in
(\ref{r2})--(\ref{r03}).
\begin{theorem}
Let $\mathcal{A}_{2}^{\left( \rho\right) }=\left\langle A\mid\mu
_{2}\right\rangle $ be an almost medial ($\mathbf{\rho}$-commutative)
$G$-graded binary algebra, then there exists an almost commutative
($\varepsilon$-commutative $G$-graded binary algebra $\mathcal{\bar{A}}%
_{2}^{\left( \varepsilon\right) }=\left\langle A\mid\bar{\mu}_{2}%
\right\rangle $, two grading preserving automorphisms $\varphi_{1,2}$ and a
fixed element $h\in A$, such that (cf. (\ref{ma}))\footnote{We use the
multiplicative notation for the algebra $\mathcal{\bar{A}}_{2}^{\left(
\varepsilon\right) }$, because it is non-commutative.}%
\begin{align}
\mu_{2}\left[ a,b\right] & =\bar{\mu}_{2}\left[ \bar{\mu}_{2}\left[
\varphi_{1}(a),\varphi_{2}\left( b\right) \right] ,h\right] \ \ \text{or
}\ a\cdot b=\varphi_{1}(a)\varphi_{2}\left( b\right) h,\label{mab}\\
\mathbf{\rho}\left( a^{\prime},b^{\prime},c^{\prime},d^{\prime}\right) &
=\varepsilon\left( b^{\prime},c^{\prime}\right) ,\forall a,b,c,d\in
A,\ \ \ a^{\prime},b^{\prime},c^{\prime},d^{\prime}\in G, \label{re}%
\end{align}
where we denote $\mu_{2}\equiv\left( \cdot\right) $ and $\bar{\mu}%
_{2}\left[ a,b\right] \equiv ab$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We use the \textquotedblleft linear\textquotedblright\ presentation
(\ref{mab}) for the product in $\mathcal{A}_{2}^{\left( \rho\right) }$ and
insert it into the condition of almost mediality (\ref{r2}) to obtain%
\begin{align}
\mathbf{\rho}\left( a^{\prime},b^{\prime},c^{\prime},d^{\prime}\right) &
\left( a\cdot b\right) \cdot\left( c\cdot d\right) =\left( a\cdot
c\right) \cdot\left( b\cdot d\right) \Rightarrow\nonumber\\
\mathbf{\rho}\left( a^{\prime},b^{\prime},c^{\prime},d^{\prime}\right) &
\varphi_{1}\left( \varphi_{1}(a)\varphi_{2}\left( b\right) h\right)
\varphi_{2}\left( \left( \varphi_{1}(c)\varphi_{2}\left( d\right)
h\right) \right) h\nonumber\\
& =\varphi_{1}\left( \varphi_{1}(a)\varphi_{2}\left( c\right) h\right)
\varphi_{2}\left( \left( \varphi_{1}(b)\varphi_{2}\left( d\right)
h\right) \right) \Rightarrow\nonumber\\
\mathbf{\rho}\left( a^{\prime},b^{\prime},c^{\prime},d^{\prime}\right) &
\varphi_{1}\circ\varphi_{1}(a)\varphi_{1}\circ\varphi_{2}\left( b\right)
\varphi_{1}\left( h\right) \varphi_{2}\circ\varphi_{1}(c)\varphi_{2}%
\circ\varphi_{2}\left( d\right) \varphi_{2}\left( h\right) h\nonumber\\
& =\varphi_{1}\circ\varphi_{1}(a)\varphi_{1}\circ\varphi_{2}\left( c\right)
\varphi_{1}\left( h\right) \varphi_{2}\circ\varphi_{1}(b)\varphi_{2}%
\circ\varphi_{2}\left( d\right) \varphi_{2}\left( h\right) h,
\end{align}
where $\left( \circ\right) $ is the composition of automorphisms. Using the
cancellativity of $\mathcal{\bar{A}}_{2}^{\left( \varepsilon\right) }$, we
get%
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{\rho}\left( a^{\prime},b^{\prime},c^{\prime},d^{\prime}\right)
\varphi_{1}\circ\varphi_{2}\left( b\right) \varphi_{2}\circ\varphi
_{1}(c)=\varphi_{1}\circ\varphi_{2}\left( c\right) \varphi_{2}\circ
\varphi_{1}(b). \label{rf}%
\end{equation}
Because the automorphisms $\varphi_{1,2}$ preserve grading, after implementing
almost ($\varepsilon$-) commutativity (\ref{e0}), the r.h.s. of (\ref{rf})
becomes $\varepsilon\left( b^{\prime},c^{\prime}\right) \varphi_{2}%
\circ\varphi_{1}(b)\varphi_{1}\circ\varphi_{2}\left( c\right) $ which gives
(\ref{re}) for commuting automorphisms.
\end{proof}
The higher arity cases are more non-trivial, and very cumbersome. Therefore,
we restrict ourselves by the case $n=3$ only.
\begin{theorem}
Let $\mathcal{A}_{3}^{\left( \rho\right) }=\left\langle A\mid\mu_{3},\nu
_{2}\right\rangle $ be an almost medial ($\mathbf{\rho}$-commutative)
$G$-graded ternary algebra over a field $\Bbbk$. Then there exists an almost
commutative ($\varepsilon$-commutative $G$-graded binary algebra
$\mathcal{\bar{A}}_{2}^{\left( \varepsilon\right) }=\left\langle A\mid
\bar{\mu}_{2}\right\rangle $, three commuting grading preserving automorphisms
$\varphi_{1,2,3}$ and a fixed element $h\in A$, such that (cf. (\ref{ma}))%
\begin{align}
\mu_{3}\left[ a,b,c\right] & =\bar{\mu}_{2}\left[ \bar{\mu}_{2}\left[
\bar{\mu}_{2}\left[ \varphi_{1}(a),\varphi_{2}\left( b\right) \right]
,h\right] ,h\right] \nonumber\\
& \equiv\varphi_{1}(a)\varphi_{2}\left( b\right) \varphi_{3}\left(
c\right) h,\ \forall a,b,c,h\in A\label{m3}\\
\mathbf{\rho}^{\left( 3^{2}\right) }\left( \mathbf{\hat{A}}_{\left(
3^{2}\right) }^{\prime}\right) & =\varepsilon\left( a_{12}^{\prime
},a_{31}^{\prime}\right) \varepsilon\left( a_{12}^{\prime},a_{21}^{\prime
}\right) \varepsilon\left( a_{13}^{\prime},a_{31}^{\prime}\right)
\varepsilon\left( a_{13}^{\prime},a_{32}^{\prime}\right) \varepsilon\left(
a_{23}^{\prime},a_{32}^{\prime}\right) \varepsilon\left( a_{23}^{\prime
},a_{31}^{\prime}\right) ,\label{r3}\\
\mathbf{\hat{A}}_{\left( 3^{2}\right) }^{\prime} & =\left( a_{ij}%
^{\prime}\right) ,\ \ \forall a_{ij}^{\prime}\in G,\ \ \ i,j=1,\ldots
,3,\nonumber
\end{align}
where we denote $\bar{\mu}_{2}\left[ a,b\right] \equiv ab$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Using the matrix form of ternary ($n=3$) almost regularity (\ref{rn2}) and
inserting there the ternary \textquotedblleft linear\textquotedblright%
\ presentation (\ref{m3}) we get (in matrix form), $\forall a_{ij}\in
A,\ \ \ i,j=1,\ldots,3,$%
\begin{align}
\mathbf{\rho}^{\left( 3^{2}\right) }\left( \mathbf{\hat{A}}_{\left(
3^{2}\right) }^{\prime}\right) & \left(
\begin{array}
[c]{ccc}%
\varphi_{1}\circ\varphi_{1}\left( a_{11}\right) & \varphi_{1}\circ
\varphi_{2}\left( a_{12}\right) & \varphi_{1}\circ\varphi_{3}\left(
a_{13}\right) \\
\varphi_{2}\circ\varphi_{1}\left( a_{21}\right) & \varphi_{2}\circ
\varphi_{2}\left( a_{22}\right) & \varphi_{2}\circ\varphi_{3}\left(
a_{23}\right) \\
\varphi_{3}\circ\varphi_{1}\left( a_{31}\right) & \varphi_{3}\circ
\varphi_{2}\left( a_{32}\right) & \varphi_{3}\circ\varphi_{3}\left(
a_{33}\right)
\end{array}
\right) \\
& =\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{ccc}%
\varphi_{1}\circ\varphi_{1}\left( a_{11}\right) & \varphi_{1}\circ
\varphi_{2}\left( a_{21}\right) & \varphi_{1}\circ\varphi_{3}\left(
a_{31}\right) \\
\varphi_{2}\circ\varphi_{1}\left( a_{12}\right) & \varphi_{2}\circ
\varphi_{2}\left( a_{22}\right) & \varphi_{2}\circ\varphi_{3}\left(
a_{32}\right) \\
\varphi_{3}\circ\varphi_{1}\left( a_{13}\right) & \varphi_{3}\circ
\varphi_{2}\left( a_{23}\right) & \varphi_{3}\circ\varphi_{3}\left(
a_{33}\right)
\end{array}
\right) .
\end{align}
Applying the cancellativity of the binary algebra $\mathcal{\bar{A}}%
_{2}^{\left( \varepsilon\right) }$, we have%
\begin{align}
& \mathbf{\rho}^{\left( 3^{2}\right) }\left( \mathbf{\hat{A}}_{\left(
3^{2}\right) }^{\prime}\right) \varphi_{1}\circ\varphi_{2}\left(
a_{12}\right) \varphi_{1}\circ\varphi_{3}\left( a_{13}\right) \varphi
_{2}\circ\varphi_{1}\left( a_{21}\right) \varphi_{2}\circ\varphi_{3}\left(
a_{23}\right) \varphi_{3}\circ\varphi_{1}\left( a_{31}\right) \varphi
_{3}\circ\varphi_{2}\left( a_{32}\right) \nonumber\\
& =\varphi_{1}\circ\varphi_{2}\left( a_{21}\right) \varphi_{1}\circ
\varphi_{3}\left( a_{31}\right) \varphi_{2}\circ\varphi_{1}\left(
a_{12}\right) \varphi_{2}\circ\varphi_{3}\left( a_{32}\right) \varphi
_{3}\circ\varphi_{1}\left( a_{13}\right) \varphi_{3}\circ\varphi_{2}\left(
a_{23}\right) . \label{ra3}%
\end{align}
Implementing almost ($\varepsilon$-) commutativity (\ref{e0}) on the r.h.s. of
(\ref{ra3}), we arrive (for pairwise commuting grading preserving
automorphisms $\varphi_{i}\circ\varphi_{j}=\varphi_{j}\circ\varphi
_{i},\ i,j=1,2,3$) at (\ref{r3}).
\end{proof}
\section{\textsc{Binary tensor categories}}
We now apply the above ideas to construct a special kind of \textit{categories
with multiplication} \cite{ben63,macl63} which appeared already in
\cite{tan39} and later on were called tensor categories and monoidal
categories (as they \textquotedblleft remind\textquotedblright\ us of the
structure of a monoid) \cite{maclane1}. For reviews, see, e.g.
\cite{cal/eti,mue2010}. The monoidal categories can be considered as the
\textit{categorification} \cite{bae/dol98} of a monoid object, and can be
treated as an instance of the \textit{microcosm principle}: \textquotedblleft%
\textsf{certain algebraic structures can be defined in any category equipped
with a categorified version of the same structure}\textquotedblright%
\ \cite{bae/dol98a}. We start from the definitions of categories
\cite{ada/her/str,borceaux1} and binary tensor categories \cite{maclane1} (in
our notation).
Let $\mathcal{C}$ be a category with the class of objects $\operatorname*{Ob}%
\mathcal{C}$ and morphisms $\operatorname*{Mor}\mathcal{C}$, such that the
arrow from the source $X_{1}$ to the target $X_{2}$ is defined by
$\operatorname*{Mor}\mathcal{C}\ni\mathsf{f}_{12}:X_{1}\rightarrow X_{2}$,
$X_{1,2}\in\operatorname*{Ob}\mathcal{C}$, and usually $\operatorname*{Hom}%
_{C}\left( X_{1},X_{2}\right) $ denotes all arrows which do not intersect.
If $\operatorname*{Ob}\mathcal{C}$ and $\operatorname*{Mor}\mathcal{C}$ are
sets, the category is \textit{small}. The composition $\left( \circ\right) $
of three morphisms, their associativity and the identity morphism
($\operatorname*{id}_{X}$) are defined in the standard way \cite{maclane1}.
If $\mathcal{C}$ and $\mathcal{C}^{\prime}$ are two categories, then a mapping
between them is called a \textit{covariant} \textit{functor} $\mathit{F}%
:\mathcal{C}\rightarrow\mathcal{C}^{\prime}$ which consists of two different
components: 1) the $X$-component is a mapping of objects $\mathit{F}%
_{\operatorname*{Ob}}:\operatorname*{Ob}\mathcal{C}\rightarrow
\operatorname*{Ob}\mathcal{C}^{\prime}$; 2) the $\mathsf{f}$-component is a
mapping of morphisms $\mathit{F}_{\operatorname*{Mor}}:\operatorname*{Mor}%
\mathcal{C}\rightarrow\operatorname*{Mor}\mathcal{C}^{\prime}$ such that
$\mathit{F}=\left\{ \mathit{F}_{\operatorname*{Ob}},\mathit{F}%
_{\operatorname*{Mor}}\right\} $. A functor preserves the identity morphism
$\mathit{F}_{\operatorname*{Mor}}\left( \operatorname*{id}_{X}\right)
=\operatorname*{id}_{\mathit{F}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}\left( X\right) }$ and
the composition of morphisms $\mathit{F}_{\operatorname*{Mor}}\left(
\mathsf{f}_{23}\circ\mathsf{f}_{12}\right) =\mathit{F}_{\operatorname*{Mor}%
}\left( \mathsf{f}_{23}\right) \circ^{\prime}\mathit{F}_{\operatorname*{Mor}%
}\left( \mathsf{f}_{12}\right) $ ($=\mathit{F}_{\operatorname*{Mor}}\left(
\mathsf{f}_{12}\right) \circ^{\prime}\mathit{F}_{\operatorname*{Mor}}\left(
\mathsf{f}_{23}\right) $ for a \textit{contravariant functor}), where
$\left( \circ^{\prime}\right) $ is the composition in $\mathcal{C}^{\prime}$.
The (binary) \textit{product category} $\mathcal{C}\times\mathcal{C}^{\prime}$
consists of all pairs of objects $\left( \operatorname*{Ob}\mathcal{C}%
,\operatorname*{Ob}\mathcal{C}^{\prime}\right) $, morphisms $\left(
\operatorname*{Mor}\mathcal{C},\operatorname*{Mor}\mathcal{C}^{\prime}\right)
$ and identities $\left( \operatorname*{id}_{X},\operatorname*{id}%
_{X^{\prime}}\right) $, while the composition $\left( \circ^{\prime\prime
}\right) $ is made component-wise%
\begin{align}
& \left( \mathsf{f}_{23},\mathsf{f}_{23}^{\prime}\right) \circ
^{\prime\prime}\left( \mathsf{f}_{12},\mathsf{f}_{12}^{\prime}\right)
=\left( \mathsf{f}_{23}\circ\mathsf{f}_{12},\mathsf{f}_{23}^{\prime}%
\circ^{\prime}\mathsf{f}_{12}^{\prime}\right) ,\label{ff}\\
& \mathsf{f}_{ij}:X_{i}\rightarrow X_{j},\forall X_{i}\in\operatorname*{Ob}%
\mathcal{C},\mathsf{f}_{ij}^{\prime}:X_{i}^{\prime}\rightarrow X_{j}^{\prime
},\forall X_{i}^{\prime}\in\operatorname*{Ob}\mathcal{C}^{\prime
},i,j=1,2,3,\nonumber
\end{align}
and by analogy this may be extended for more multipliers. A functor on a
binary product category is called a \textit{bifunctor} (\textit{multifunctor}%
). A functor consists of two components\footnote{Usually \cite{maclane1},
which are often denoted by the same letter, but for clarity we will
distinguish them, because their action, arguments and corresponding
commutative diagrams are different.} $\left\{ \mathit{F}_{\operatorname*{Ob}%
},\mathit{F}_{\operatorname*{Mor}}\right\} $, and therefore a mapping between
two functors $\mathit{F}$ and $\mathit{G}$ should also be two-component
$\mathrm{T}^{FG}=\left\{ \mathrm{T}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{FG},\mathrm{T}%
_{\operatorname*{Mor}}^{FG}\right\} $. Without other conditions
$\mathrm{T}^{FG}$ is called an \textit{infra-natural transformation} from
$\mathit{F}$ to $\mathit{G}$. A \textit{natural transformation} (denoted by
the double arrow $\mathrm{T}^{FG}:\mathit{F}\Rightarrow\mathit{G}$) is defined
by the consistency condition of the above mappings in $\mathcal{C}^{\prime}$%
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{T}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{FG}\circ^{\prime}\mathit{F}%
_{\operatorname*{Mor}}=\mathit{G}_{\operatorname*{Mor}}\circ^{\prime
}\mathrm{T}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{FG}. \label{tf}%
\end{equation}
Application to objects gives the following commutative diagram for the natural
transformations (bifunctoriality)\input{diag0.tex}which is the consistency of
the objects in $\mathcal{C}^{\prime}$ transformed by $\mathit{F}$ and
$\mathit{G}$. The the diagonal in (\ref{x-com}) may also be interpreted as the
action of the natural transformation on a morphism $\mathrm{T}%
_{\operatorname*{Mor}}^{FG}\left( \mathsf{f}\right) :\mathit{F}%
_{\operatorname*{Ob}}\left( X_{1}\right) \rightarrow\mathit{G}%
_{\operatorname*{Ob}}\left( X_{2}\right) $, $\mathsf{f}:X_{1}\rightarrow
X_{2}$, $\mathsf{f}\in\operatorname*{Mor}\mathcal{C}$, $X_{1},X_{2}%
\in\operatorname*{Ob}\mathcal{C}$ , such that%
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{T}_{\operatorname*{Mor}}^{FG}\left( \mathsf{f}\right) =\mathrm{T}%
_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{FG}\left( X_{2}\right) \circ^{\prime}\mathit{F}%
_{\operatorname*{Mor}}\left( \mathsf{f}\right) =\mathit{G}%
_{\operatorname*{Mor}}\left( \mathsf{f}\right) \circ^{\prime}\mathrm{T}%
_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{FG}\left( X_{1}\right) ,
\end{equation}
where the second equality holds valid due to the naturality (\ref{tf}).
In a concise form the natural transformations are described by the commutative diagram%
\begin{equation}
\xymatrix{ \mathcal{C} \ar@/^1pc/[rrr]^{\mathit{F}}="0" \ar@/_1pc/[rrr]_{\mathit{G}}="1" &&& \mathcal{C}^{\prime} \\ \ar@{=>}"0"+<0ex,-2ex> ;"1"+<0ex,+2ex>^{\mathrm{T}^{FG}} }
\end{equation}
For a category $\mathcal{C}$, the \textit{identity functor} $\mathit{Id}%
_{\mathcal{C}}=\left( \mathit{Id}_{\mathcal{C},\operatorname*{Ob}%
},\mathit{Id}_{\mathcal{C},\operatorname*{Mor}}\right) $ is defined by
$\mathit{Id}_{\mathcal{C},\operatorname*{Ob}}\left( X\right) =X$,
$\mathit{Id}_{\mathcal{C},\operatorname*{Mor}}\left( \mathsf{f}\right)
=\mathsf{f}$, $\forall X\in\operatorname*{Ob}\mathcal{C}$, $\forall
\mathsf{f}\in\operatorname*{Mor}\mathcal{C}$. Two categories $\mathcal{C}$ and
$\mathcal{C}^{\prime}$ are \textit{equivalent}, if there exist two functors
$\mathit{F}$ and $\mathit{G}$ and two natural transformations $\mathrm{T}%
^{FG}:\mathit{Id}_{\mathcal{C}^{\prime}}\Rightarrow\mathit{F}\circ^{\prime
}\mathit{G}$ and $\mathrm{T}^{GF}:\mathit{G}\circ\mathit{F}\Rightarrow
\mathit{Id}_{\mathcal{C}}$.
For more details and standard properties of categories, see, e.g.
\cite{maclane1,ada/her/str,borceaux1} and refs therein.
The categorification \cite{bae/dol98,cra/yet} of most algebraic structures can
be provided by endowing categories with an additional operation
\cite{ben63,macl63} \textquotedblleft reminding\textquotedblright\ us of the
tensor product \cite{maclane1}.
A binary \textquotedblleft\textit{magmatic}\textquotedblright\ \textit{tensor
category} is $\left( \mathcal{C},\mathit{M}^{\left( 2\otimes\right)
}\right) $, where $\mathit{M}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }\equiv
\otimes:\mathcal{C}\times\mathcal{C}\rightarrow\mathcal{C}$ is a
bifunctor\footnote{We use this notation with brackets $\mathit{M}^{\left(
2\otimes\right) }$ \cite{agu/mah}, because they are convenient for further
consideration of the $n$-ary case \cite{dup2019}.}. In component form the
bifunctor is $\mathit{M}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }=\left\{ \mathit{M}%
_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) },\mathit{M}%
_{\operatorname*{Mor}}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }\right\} $, where
$\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Mor}}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }$ is%
\begin{align}
& \mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Mor}}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }\left[
\mathsf{f}_{11^{\prime}},\mathsf{f}_{22^{\prime}}\right] =\mathit{M}%
_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }\left[ X_{1},X_{2}\right]
\rightarrow\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }\left[
X_{1}^{\prime},X_{2}^{\prime}\right] ,\label{mor}\\
& \mathsf{f}_{ii^{\prime}}:X_{i}\rightarrow X_{i}^{\prime},\mathsf{f}%
_{ii^{\prime}}\in\operatorname*{Mor}\mathcal{C},\forall X_{i},X_{i^{\prime}%
}\in\operatorname*{Ob}\mathcal{C},\ \ \ i=1,2.\nonumber
\end{align}
The composition of the $\mathsf{f}$-components is determined by the binary
mediality property (cf. (\ref{mm}))%
\begin{align}
& \mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Mor}}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }\left[
\mathsf{f}_{23},\mathsf{g}_{23}\right] \circ\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Mor}%
}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }\left[ \mathsf{f}_{12},\mathsf{g}_{12}\right]
=\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Mor}}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }\left[
\mathsf{f}_{23}\circ\mathsf{f}_{12},\mathsf{g}_{23}\circ\mathsf{g}%
_{12}\right] ,\label{m2}\\
& \mathsf{f}_{ij}:X_{i}\rightarrow X_{j},\mathsf{g}_{ij}:Y_{i}\rightarrow
Y_{j},\ \ \ \mathsf{f}_{ij},\mathsf{g}_{ij}\in\operatorname*{Mor}%
\mathcal{C},\forall X_{i},Y_{i}\in\operatorname*{Ob}\mathcal{C}%
,i=1,2,3.\nonumber
\end{align}
The identity of the tensor product satisfies%
\begin{equation}
\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Mor}}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }\left[
\operatorname*{id}\nolimits_{X_{1}},\operatorname*{id}\nolimits_{X_{2}%
}\right] =\operatorname*{id}\nolimits_{\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}%
}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }\left[ X_{1},X_{2}\right] }. \label{id}%
\end{equation}
We call a category $\mathcal{C}$ a \textit{strict} (\textit{binary})
\textit{semigroupal} \cite{yetter,lu/ye/hu}\textit{ }(or \textit{strictly
associative semigroupal category} \cite{boy2007}, also, \textit{semi-monoidal}
\cite{koc2008}), if the bifunctor $\mathit{M}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }$
satisfies \textsf{only} (without unit objects and unitors) the binary
associativity condition $\left( X_{1}\otimes X_{2}\right) \otimes
X_{3}=X_{1}\otimes\left( X_{2}\otimes X_{3}\right) $ and $\left(
\mathsf{f}_{1}\otimes\mathsf{f}_{2}\right) \otimes\mathsf{f}_{3}%
=\mathsf{f}_{1}\otimes\left( \mathsf{f}_{2}\otimes\mathsf{f}_{3}\right) $,
where $X_{i}\in\operatorname*{Ob}\mathcal{C}$, $\mathsf{f}_{i}\in
\operatorname*{Mor}\mathcal{C}$, $i=1,2,3$ (also denoted by $\mathtt{sSGCat}%
$). Strict associativity is the equivalence%
\begin{align}
\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }\left[
\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }\left[ X_{1}%
,X_{2}\right] ,X_{3}\right] & =\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left(
2\otimes\right) }\left[ X_{1},\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left(
2\otimes\right) }\left[ X_{2},X_{3}\right] \right] ,\label{as1}\\
\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Mor}}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }\left[
\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Mor}}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }\left[
\mathsf{f}_{1},\mathsf{f}_{2}\right] ,\mathsf{f}_{3}\right] &
=\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Mor}}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }\left[
\mathsf{f}_{1},\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Mor}}^{\left( 2\otimes\right)
}\left[ \mathsf{f}_{2},\mathsf{f}_{3}\right] \right] . \label{as2}%
\end{align}
\begin{remark}
\label{rem-shape}Usually, only the first equation for the $X$-components is
presented in the definition of associativity (and other properties), while the
equation for the $\mathsf{f}$-components is assumed to be satisfied
\textquotedblleft automatically\textquotedblright\ having the same form
\cite{maclane1,stasheff}. In some cases, the diagrams for $\mathit{M}%
_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }$ and $\mathit{M}%
_{\operatorname*{Mor}}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }$ can fail to coincide and
have different shapes, for instance, in the case of the \textit{dagger
categories} dealing with the \textquotedblleft reverse\textquotedblright%
\ morphisms \cite{abr/coe08}.
\end{remark}
The associativity relations guarantee that in any product of objects or
morphisms different ways of inserting parentheses lead to equivalent results
(as for semigroups).
In the case of a \textit{non-strict semigroupal category }$\mathtt{SGCat}$
(with no unit objects and unitors) \cite{yetter,boy2007} (see, also,
\cite{lu/ye/hu,elg2004,dav2007}) a collection of mappings can be introduced
which are just the isomorphisms (\textit{associators}) $\mathrm{A}^{\left(
3\otimes\right) }=\left\{ \mathrm{A}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left(
3\otimes\right) },\mathrm{A}_{\operatorname*{Mor}}^{\left( 3\otimes\right)
}\right\} $ from the left side functor to the right side functor of
(\ref{as1})--(\ref{as2}) as%
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{A}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 3\otimes\right) }\left( X_{1}%
,X_{2},X_{3}\right) :\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 2\otimes
\right) }\left[ \mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 2\otimes\right)
}\left[ X_{1},X_{2}\right] ,X_{3}\right] \overset{\simeq}{\rightarrow
}\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }\left[
X_{1},\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }\left[
X_{2},X_{3}\right] \right] , \label{a1}%
\end{equation}
where $\mathrm{A}_{\operatorname*{Mor}}^{\left( 3\otimes\right) }$ may be
interpreted similar to the diagonal in (\ref{x-com}), because the associators
are natural transformations \cite{maclane1} or \textit{tri-functorial
isomorphisms} (in the terminology of \cite{boy2007}). Now different ways of
inserting parentheses in a product of $N$ objects give different results in
the absence of conditions on the associator $\mathrm{A}^{\left(
3\otimes\right) }$. However, if the associator $\mathrm{A}^{\left(
3\otimes\right) }$ satisfies some consistency relations, they can give
isomorphic results, such that the corresponding diagrams commute, which is the
statement of the \textit{coherence theorem} \cite{macl63,kel64}. This can also
be applied to $\mathtt{SGCat}$, because it can be proved independently of
existence of units \cite{yetter,boy2007,lu/ye/hu}. It was shown \cite{macl63}
that it is sufficient to consider one commutative diagram using the associator
(the \textit{associativity constraint}) for two different rearrangements of
parentheses for 3 tensor multiplications of 4 objects, giving the following
isomorphism%
\begin{equation}
\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }\left[
\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }\left[
\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }\left[ X_{1}%
,X_{2}\right] ,X_{3}\right] ,X_{4}\right] \overset{\simeq}{\rightarrow
}\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }\left[
X_{1},\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }\left[
X_{2},\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }\left[
X_{3},X_{4}\right] \right] \right] . \label{mob}%
\end{equation}
The associativity constraint is called a \textit{pentagon axiom}
\cite{maclane1}, such that the diagram\footnote{We omit $\mathit{M}%
_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }$ in diagrams by leaving the
square brackets only and use the obvious subscripts in $\mathrm{A}^{\left(
3\otimes\right) }$.} \input{diag1.tex}commutes.
A similar condition for morphisms, but in another context (for $H$-spaces),
was presented in \cite{sta63,stasheff}. Note that there exists a different
(but not alternative) approach to natural associativity without the use of the
pentagon axiom \cite{joy2001}.
The transition from the semigroupal non-strict category $\mathtt{SGCat}$ to
the monoidal non-strict category $\mathtt{MonCat}$ can be done in a way
similar to passing from a semigroup to a monoid: by adding the \textit{unit
object} $E\in\operatorname*{Ob}\mathcal{C}$ and the (\textit{right and
left})\textit{ unitors }$\mathrm{U}_{\left( 1\right) }^{\left(
2\otimes\right) }=\left\{ \mathrm{U}_{\left( 1\right) \operatorname*{Ob}%
}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) },\mathrm{U}_{\left( 1\right)
\operatorname*{Mor}}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }\right\} $ and $\mathrm{U}%
_{\left( 2\right) }^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }=\left\{ \mathrm{U}_{\left(
2\right) \operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) },\mathrm{U}_{\left(
2\right) \operatorname*{Mor}}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }\right\} $
(\textquotedblleft unit morphisms\textquotedblright\ which are functorial
isomorphisms, natural transformations) \cite{maclane1}%
\begin{align}
\mathrm{U}_{\left( 1\right) \operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }
& :\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }\left[
X,E\right] \overset{\simeq}{\rightarrow}X,\label{lr1}\\
\mathrm{U}_{\left( 2\right) \operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }
& :\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }\left[
E,X\right] \overset{\simeq}{\rightarrow}X,\ \ \forall X\in\operatorname*{Ob}%
\mathcal{C}, \label{lr2}%
\end{align}
and $\mathrm{U}_{\left( 1,2\right) \operatorname*{Mor}}^{\left(
2\otimes\right) }$ can be viewed as the diagonal in the diagram of naturality
similar to (\ref{x-com}). The unitors are connected with the associator
$\mathrm{A}^{\left( 3\otimes\right) }$, such that the diagram
(\textit{triangle axiom}) \input{diag2.tex}commutes.
Using the above, the definition of a \textit{binary non-strict monoidal
category} $\mathtt{MonCat}$ can be given as the 6-tuple $\left(
\mathcal{C},\mathit{M}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) },\mathrm{A}^{\left(
3\otimes\right) },E,\mathrm{U}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }\right) $ such
that the pentagon axiom (\ref{diag1}) and the triangle axiom (\ref{diag2}) are
satisfied \cite{macl63,maclane1} (see, also, \cite{kel64,kel65}).
The following \textquotedblleft normalizing\textquotedblright\ relations for
the unitors of a monoidal non-strict category%
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{U}_{\left( 1\right) \operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 2\otimes\right)
}\left( E\right) =\mathrm{U}_{\left( 2\right) \operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left(
2\otimes\right) }\left( E\right) ,\label{uu}%
\end{equation}
can be proven \cite{joy/str1}, as well as that the diagrams \input{diag3.tex}commute.
The \textit{coherence theorem} \cite{ben63,macl63} proves that any diagram in
a non-strict monoidal category, which can be built from an associator
satisfying the pentagon axiom (\ref{diag1}) and unitors satisfying the
triangle axiom (\ref{diag2}), commutes. Another formulation \cite{maclane1}
states that every monoidal non-strict category is (monoidally) equivalent to a
monoidal strict one (see, also, \cite{kassel}).
Thus, it is important to prove analogs of the coherence theorem for various
existing generalizations of categories (having weak modification of units
\cite{koc2008,joy/koc,and2017}, and from the \textquotedblleft periodic
table\textquotedblright\ of higher categories \cite{bae/dol}), as well as for
further generalizations (e.g., $n$-ary ones below).
\section{\label{sec-ntensor}\textsc{Polyadic tensor categories}}
The arity of the additional multiplication in a category (the tensor product)
was previously taken to be binary. Here we introduce categories with tensor
multiplication which \textquotedblleft remind\textquotedblright\ $n$-ary
semigroups, $n$-ary monoids and $n$-ary groups \cite{dor3,pos} (see, also,
\cite{galmak1}), i.e. we provide the categorification \cite{cra/fre,cra/yet}
of \textquotedblleft higher-arity\textquotedblright\ structures according to
the Baez-Dolan microcosm principle \cite{bae/dol98a}. In our considerations we
use the term \textquotedblleft tensor category\textquotedblright\ in a wider
context, because it can include not only binary monoid-like structures and
their combinations, but also $n$-ary-like algebraic structures. It is
important to note that our construction is different from other higher
generalizations of categories\footnote{The terms \textquotedblleft$k$-ary
algebraic category\textquotedblright\ and \textquotedblleft$k$-ary
category\textquotedblright\ appeared in \cite{her71} and \cite{shu2012},
respectively, but they describe different constructions.}, such as
$2$-categories \cite{kel/str} and bicategories \cite{ben67}, $n$-categories
\cite{Bae97,Lei2002} and $n$-categories of $n$-groups \cite{ald/noo},
multicategories \cite{lam69,lei98,cru/shu}, $n$-tuple categories and multiple
categories \cite{grandis}, iterated ($n$-fold) monoidal categories
\cite{bal/fie/sch/vog1}, iterated icons \cite{che/gur}, and obstructed
categories \cite{dup/mar7,dup/mar2018a}. We introduce the categorification of
\textquotedblleft higher-arity\textquotedblright\ structures along
\cite{dup2019} and consider their properties, some of them are different from
the binary case (as in $n$-ary (semi)groups and $n$-ary monoids).
Let $\mathcal{C}$ be a category \cite{maclane1}, and introduce an additional
multiplication as an $n$-ary tensor product as in \cite{dup2018a,dup2019}.
\begin{definition}
An $n$-ary tensor product in a category $\mathcal{C}$ is an $n$-ary functor%
\begin{equation}
\mathit{M}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }:\overset{n}{\overbrace{\mathcal{C}%
\times\ldots\times\mathcal{C}}}\rightarrow\mathcal{C} \label{mc}%
\end{equation}
having the component form $\mathit{M}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }=\left\{
\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( n\otimes\right) },\mathit{M}%
_{\operatorname*{Mor}}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }\right\} $ where the
$\mathsf{f}$-component $\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Mor}}^{\left(
n\otimes\right) }$ is%
\begin{align}
& \mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Mor}}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }\left[
\mathsf{f}_{11^{\prime}},\mathsf{f}_{22^{\prime}},\ldots\mathsf{f}%
_{nn^{\prime}}\right] =\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left(
n\otimes\right) }\left[ X_{1},X_{2},\ldots X_{n}\right] \rightarrow
\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }\left[
X_{1}^{\prime},X_{2}^{\prime},\ldots X_{n}^{\prime}\right] ,\label{mf}\\
& \mathsf{f}_{ii^{\prime}}:X_{i}\rightarrow X_{i}^{\prime},\mathsf{f}%
_{ii^{\prime}}\in\operatorname*{Mor}\mathcal{C},\forall X_{i},X_{i}^{\prime
}\in\operatorname*{Ob}\mathcal{C},i=1,\ldots,n.\nonumber
\end{align}
\end{definition}
The $n$-ary composition of the $\mathsf{f}$-components (morphism products of
length $n$) is determined by the $n$-ary mediality property (cf. (\ref{mna}))%
\begin{align}
& \mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Mor}}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }\left[
\mathsf{f}^{\left( 1,1\right) },\mathsf{f}^{\left( 1,2\right) }%
,\ldots,\mathsf{f}^{\left( 1,n\right) }\right] \circ\ldots\circ
\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Mor}}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }\left[
\mathsf{f}^{\left( n,1\right) },\mathsf{f}^{\left( n,2\right) }%
,\ldots,\mathsf{f}^{\left( n,n\right) }\right] ,\nonumber\\
& =\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Mor}}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }\left[
\mathsf{f}^{\left( 1,1\right) }\circ\mathsf{f}^{\left( 2,1\right) }%
\circ\ldots\circ\mathsf{f}^{\left( n,1\right) },\ldots,\mathsf{f}^{\left(
1,n\right) }\circ\ldots\circ\mathsf{f}^{\left( n,n\right) }\right] ,\\
& \mathsf{f}^{\left( i,j\right) }\in\operatorname*{Mor}\mathcal{C}%
,\ \ \ i,j=1,2\ldots,n.\nonumber
\end{align}
The identity morphism of the $n$-ary tensor product satisfies%
\begin{equation}
\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Mor}}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }\left[
\operatorname*{id}\nolimits_{X_{1}},\operatorname*{id}\nolimits_{X_{2}}%
,\ldots,\operatorname*{id}\nolimits_{X_{n}}\right] =\operatorname*{id}%
\nolimits_{\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }\left[
X_{1},X_{2}\ldots,X_{n}\right] }. \label{idn}%
\end{equation}
\begin{definition}
An $n$-ary tensor product $\mathit{M}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }$ which can
be constructed from a binary tensor product $\mathit{M}^{\prime\left(
2\otimes\right) }$ by successive (iterative) repetitions is called an
\textit{arity-reduced tensor product}\footnote{By analogy with the
\textquotedblleft derived $n$-ary group\textquotedblright\ \cite{dor3,pos}.},
and otherwise it is called an \textit{arity-nonreduced tensor product}.
\end{definition}
Categories containing iterations of the binary tensor product were considered
in \cite{bal/fie/sch/vog1,che/gur}. We will mostly be interested in the
arity-nonreducible tensor products and their corresponding categories.
\begin{definition}
\label{def-magcat}A polyadic ($n$-ary) \textquotedblleft\textit{magmatic}%
\textquotedblright\ \textit{tensor category} is $\left( \mathcal{C}%
,\mathit{M}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }\right) $, where $\mathit{M}^{\left(
n\otimes\right) }$ is an $n$-ary tensor product (functor (\ref{mc})), and it
is called an \textit{arity-reduced category }or \textit{arity-nonreduced
category} depending on its tensor product.
\end{definition}
\subsection{Polyadic semigroupal categories}
We call sequences of objects and morphisms $X$-polyads and $\mathsf{f}%
$-polyads \cite{pos}, and denote them $\mathfrak{X}$ and $\mathfrak{f}$,
respectively (as in (\ref{mass})).
\begin{definition}
\label{def-assoc}The $n$-ary functor $\mathit{M}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }$
is \textit{totally }($n$-ary)\textit{ associative}, if it satisfies the
following $\left( n-1\right) $ pairs of $X$ equivalences%
\begin{equation}
\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }\left[
\mathfrak{X},\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( n\otimes\right)
}\left[ \mathfrak{Y}\right] ,\mathfrak{Z}\right] =equivalent,\label{me1}%
\end{equation}
where $\mathfrak{X},\mathfrak{Y},\mathfrak{Z}$ are $X$-polyads of the
necessary length, and the total length of each $\left( \mathfrak{X}%
,\mathfrak{Y},\mathfrak{Z}\right) $-polyad is $2n-1$, while the internal
tensor products in (\ref{me1}) can be on any of the $n$ places.
\end{definition}
\begin{example}
In the ternary case ($n=3$) the total associativity for the $X$-polyads of the
length $5=2\cdot3-1$ gives $2=3-1$ pairs of equivalences%
\begin{align}
\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 3\otimes\right) }\left[
\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 3\otimes\right) }\left[ X_{1}%
,X_{2},X_{3}\right] ,X_{4},X_{5}\right] & =\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}%
}^{\left( 3\otimes\right) }\left[ X_{1},\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}%
}^{\left( 3\otimes\right) }\left[ X_{2},X_{3},X_{4}\right] ,X_{5}\right]
\nonumber\\
& =\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 3\otimes\right) }\left[
X_{1},X_{2},\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 3\otimes\right) }\left[
X_{3},X_{4},X_{5}\right] \right] ,\\
\forall X_{i} & \in\operatorname*{Ob}\mathcal{C},\ \ \ \forall\mathsf{f}%
_{i}\in\operatorname*{Mor}\mathcal{C},\ \ \ i=1,\ldots,5.\nonumber
\end{align}
\end{example}
\begin{definition}
\label{def-semicat}A category $\left( \mathcal{C},\mathit{M}^{\left(
n\otimes\right) }\right) $ is called a \textit{polyadic }($n$-\textit{ary})
\textit{strict} \textit{semigroupal} \textit{category} $\mathtt{sSGCat}_{n}$,
if the bifunctor $\mathit{M}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }$ satisfies objects
and unitors) the $n$-ary associativity condition (\ref{me1}).
\end{definition}
Thus, in a polyadic strict semigroupal category for any (allowed, i.e. having
the size $k\left( n-1\right) +1$, $\forall k\in\mathbb{N}$, where $k$ is the
number of $n$-ary tensor multiplications) product of objects (or morphisms),
all different ways of inserting parentheses give equivalent results (as for
$n$-ary semigroups).
\subsection{$N$-ary coherence}
As in the binary case (\ref{a1}), the transition to non-strict categories
results in the consideration of \textsf{independent} isomorphisms instead of
the equivalence (\ref{me1}).
\begin{definition}
The $\left( n-1\right) $ pairs of $X$ and $\mathsf{f}$ isomorphisms
$\mathrm{A}^{\left( 2n-1\right) \otimes}=\left\{ \mathrm{A}%
_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 2n-1\right) \otimes},\mathrm{A}%
_{\operatorname*{Mor}}^{\left( 2n-1\right) \otimes}\right\} $ such that%
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{A}_{i,\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 2n-1\right) \otimes}%
:\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }\left[
\mathfrak{X},\mathit{M}_{i,\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( n\otimes\right)
}\left[ \mathfrak{Y}\right] ,\mathfrak{Z}\right] \overset{\simeq
}{\rightarrow}\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( n\otimes\right)
}\left[ \mathfrak{X},\mathit{M}_{i+1,\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left(
n\otimes\right) }\left[ \mathfrak{Y}\right] ,\mathfrak{Z}\right] ,
\end{equation}
are called $n$-\textit{ary associators} being $\left( 2n-1\right) $-place
natural transformations, where $\mathrm{A}_{\operatorname*{Mor}}^{\left(
2n-1\right) \otimes}$ may be viewed as corresponding diagonals as in
(\ref{x-com}). Here $i=1,\ldots,n-1$ is the place of the internal brackets.
\end{definition}
In the ternary case ($n=3$) we have $2=3-1$ pairs of the ternary associators%
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{A}_{1,\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 5\otimes\right) }:\mathit{M}%
_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 3\otimes\right) }\left[ \mathit{M}%
_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 3\otimes\right) }\left[ X_{1},X_{2}%
,X_{3}\right] ,X_{4},X_{5}\right] \overset{\simeq}{\rightarrow}%
\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 3\otimes\right) }\left[
X_{1},\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 3\otimes\right) }\left[
X_{2},X_{3},X_{4}\right] ,X_{5}\right] , \label{a51}%
\end{equation}
and%
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{A}_{2,\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 5\otimes\right) }:\mathit{M}%
_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 3\otimes\right) }\left[ X_{1},\mathit{M}%
_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 3\otimes\right) }\left[ X_{2},X_{3}%
,X_{4}\right] ,X_{5}\right] \overset{\simeq}{\rightarrow}\mathit{M}%
_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 3\otimes\right) }\left[ X_{1},X_{2}%
,\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 3\otimes\right) }\left[
X_{3},X_{4},X_{5}\right] \right] . \label{a52}%
\end{equation}
It is now definite that different ways of inserting parentheses in a product
of $N$ objects will give different results (the same will be true for
morphisms as well), if we do not impose constraints on the associators. We
anticipate that we will need (as in the binary case (\ref{mob})) only one more
(i.e. three) tensor multiplication than appears in the associativity
conditions (\ref{me1}) to make a commutative diagram for the following
isomorphism of $3\cdot\left( n-1\right) +1=3n-2$ objects%
\begin{align}
& \mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }\left[
\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }\left[
\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }\left[
X_{1},\ldots,X_{n}\right] ,X_{n+1},\ldots,X_{2n-1}\right] ,X_{2n}%
,\ldots,X_{3n-2}\right] \nonumber\\
& \overset{\simeq}{\rightarrow}\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left(
n\otimes\right) }\left[ X_{1},\ldots,X_{n-1},\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}%
}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }\left[ X_{n},\ldots,X_{2n-2},\mathit{M}%
_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }\left[ X_{2n-1}%
,\ldots,X_{3n-2}\right] \right] \right] .\label{mobn}%
\end{align}
\begin{conjecture}
[$N$-\textsf{ary coherence}]If the $n$-ary associator $\mathrm{A}^{\left(
2n-1\right) \otimes}$ satisfies such $n$-\textit{ary coherence conditions}
that the isomorphism (\ref{mobn}) takes place, then any diagram containing
$\mathrm{A}^{\left( 2n-1\right) \otimes}$ together with the identities
(\ref{idn}) commutes.
\end{conjecture}
The $n$-ary coherence conditions are described by a \textquotedblleft$\left(
n^{2}+1\right) $-gon\textquotedblright, which is the pentagon (\ref{diag1})
for $n=2$\ (for classification of \textquotedblleft$N$-gons\textquotedblright%
\ see, e.g., \cite{wenninger}).
\begin{definition}
\label{def-nonstrscat}A category $\left( \mathcal{C},\mathit{M}^{\left(
n\otimes\right) }\right) $ is called a \textit{polyadic }($n$-\textit{ary})
\textit{non-strict} \textit{semigroupal} \textit{category} $\mathtt{sSGCat}%
_{n}$, if the bifunctor $\mathit{M}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }$ satisfies the
$n$-ary coherence.
\end{definition}
\begin{example}
\label{exam-deca}In the ternary case $n=3$ we have $2$ pairs of $5$-place
associators (\ref{a51})--(\ref{a52}) $\mathrm{A}_{1}^{\left( 5\otimes\right)
}$ and $\mathrm{A}_{2}^{\left( 5\otimes\right) }$ which act on $7=3\cdot3-2$
objects (\ref{mobn}). We consider the diagram for objects only, then the
associativity constraint for the associators $\mathrm{A}_{1,\operatorname*{Ob}%
}^{\left( 5\otimes\right) }$ and $\mathrm{A}_{2,\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left(
5\otimes\right) }$ will be a \textit{decagon axiom} requiring that the
diagram\input{diag4.tex}commutes (cf. (\ref{diag4}) and the pentagon axiom
(\ref{diag1}) for binary non-strict tensor categories).
\end{example}
\section{$N$\textsc{-ary units, unitors and quertors}}
Introducing $n$-ary analogs of units and unitors is non-trivial, because in
$n$-ary structures there are various possibilities: one unit, many units, all
elements are units or there are no units at all (see, e.g., for $n$-ary groups
\cite{dor3,pos,galmak1}, and for $n$-ary monoids \cite{pop/pop}). A similar
situation is expected in category theory after proper categorification
\cite{cra/fre,cra/yet,bae/dol98} of $n$-ary structures.
\subsection{Polyadic monoidal categories\label{subsec-nmon}}
Let $\left( \mathcal{C},\mathit{M}^{\left( n\otimes\right) },\mathrm{A}%
^{\left( 2n-1\right) \otimes}\right) $ be an $n$-ary non-strict semigroupal
category $\mathtt{SGCat}_{n}$ (see \textbf{Definition \ref{def-semicat}}) with
$n$-ary tensor product $\mathit{M}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }$ and the
associator $\mathrm{A}^{\left( 2n-1\right) \otimes}$ satisfying $n$-ary
coherence. If a category has a \textit{unit neutral sequence} of objects
$\mathfrak{E}_{\left( n-1\right) }=\left( E_{1},\ldots,E_{i}\right) $,
$E_{i}\in\operatorname*{Ob}\mathcal{C},$ $i=1,\ldots,n-1$, we call it a
\textit{unital} category. Note that the unit neutral sequence may not be
unique. If all $E_{i}$ coincide $E_{i}=E\in\operatorname*{Ob}\mathcal{C}$,
then $E$ is called a \textit{unit object} of $\mathcal{C}$. The $n$-ary
\textit{unitors }$\mathrm{U}_{\left( i\right) }^{\left( n\otimes\right) }%
$, $i=1,\ldots,n$ ($n$-ary \textquotedblleft unit morphisms\textquotedblright%
\ being natural transformations) are defined by%
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{U}_{\left( i\right) \operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( n\otimes\right)
}:\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }\left[
E_{1},\ldots E_{i-1},X,E_{i+1},\ldots E_{n}\right] \overset{\simeq
}{\rightarrow}X,\ \ \ \forall X,E_{i}\in\operatorname*{Ob}\mathcal{C}%
,i=1,\ldots,n-1.
\end{equation}
The $n$-ary unitors $\mathrm{U}_{\left( i\right) }^{\left( n\otimes\right)
}$ are compatible with the $n$-ary associators $\mathrm{A}^{\left(
2n-1\right) \otimes}$ by the analog of the triangle axiom (\ref{diag2}). In
the binary case (\ref{lr1})--(\ref{lr2}), we have $\mathrm{U}_{\left(
1\right) }^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }=\mathrm{R}^{\left( 2\otimes\right)
}$, $\mathrm{U}_{\left( 2\right) }^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }%
=\mathrm{L}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }$.
\begin{definition}
\label{def-nmon}A polyadic ($n$\textit{-ary})\textit{ non-strict monoidal
category} $\mathtt{MonCat}_{n}$ is a polyadic ($n$-ary) non-strict semigroupal
category $\mathtt{SGCat}_{n}$ endowed with a unit neutral sequence
$\mathfrak{E}_{\left( n-1\right) }$ and $n$ unitors\textit{ }$\mathrm{U}%
_{\left( i\right) }^{\left( n\otimes\right) }$, $i=1,\ldots,n$, that is a
5-tuple $\left( \mathcal{C},\mathit{M}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }%
,\mathrm{A}^{\left( n\otimes\right) },\mathfrak{E}_{\left( n-1\right)
},\mathrm{U}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }\right) $ satisfying the
\textquotedblleft$\left( n^{2}+1\right) $-gon\textquotedblright\ axiom for
the $\left( n-1\right) $ associators $\mathrm{A}_{\left( i\right)
}^{\left( 2n-1\right) \otimes}$ and the triangle axiom (the analog of
(\ref{diag2})) for the unitors and associators compatibility condition.
\end{definition}
\begin{example}
\label{exam-mon3}If we consider the ternary non-strict monoidal category
$\mathtt{MonCat}_{3}$ with one unit object $E\in\operatorname*{Ob}\mathcal{C}%
$, then we have $2$ associators $\mathrm{A}_{1}^{\left( 5\otimes\right) }$
and $\mathrm{A}_{2}^{\left( 5\otimes\right) }$ satisfying the decagon axiom
(\ref{diag4}) and $3$ unitors%
\begin{align}
\mathrm{U}_{\left( 1\right) \operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 3\otimes\right) }
& :\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 3\otimes\right) }\left[
X,E,E\right] \overset{\simeq}{\rightarrow}X,\\
\mathrm{U}_{\left( 2\right) \operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 3\otimes\right) }
& :\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 3\otimes\right) }\left[
E,X,E\right] \overset{\simeq}{\rightarrow}X,\\
\mathrm{U}_{\left( 3\right) \operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 3\otimes\right) }
& :\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 3\otimes\right) }\left[
E,E,X\right] \overset{\simeq}{\rightarrow}X,\ \ \ \forall X\in
\operatorname*{Ob}\mathcal{C},
\end{align}
which satisfy the \textquotedblleft normalizing\textquotedblright\ conditions
$\mathrm{U}_{\left( i\right) \operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 3\otimes\right)
}\left( E\right) =E$, $i=1,2,3$ and the ternary analog of the triangle axiom
(\ref{diag2}), such that the diagram\input{diag8.tex}commutes.
\end{example}
\subsection{Polyadic nonunital groupal categories\label{subsec-groupal}}
The main result of $n$-ary group theory \cite{dor3,pos} is connected with
units and neutral polyads: if they exist, then such $n$-ary group is reducible
to a binary group. A similar statement can be true in some sense for categories.
\begin{conjecture}
If a polyadic ($n$-ary) tensor category has unit object and unitors, it can be
arity-reducible to a binary category, such that the $n$-ary product can be
obtained by iterations of the binary tensor product.
\end{conjecture}
Therefore, it would be worthwhile to introduce and study non-reducible
polyadic tensor categories which do not possess unit objects and unitors at
all. This can be done by \textquotedblleft categorification\textquotedblright%
\ of the \textit{querelement} concept \cite{dor3}. Recall that, for instance,
in a ternary group $\left\langle G\mid\mu_{3}\right\rangle $ for an element
$g\in G$ a querelement $\bar{g}$ is uniquely defined by $\mu_{3}\left[
g,g,\bar{g}\right] =g$, which can be treated as a generalization of the
inverse element concept to the $n$-ary case. The mapping $g\rightarrow\bar{g}$
can be considered as an additional unary operation (\textit{queroperation}) in
the ternary (and $n$-ary) group, while viewing it as an abstract algebra
\cite{gle/gla} such that the notion of the identity is not used. The (binary)
category of $n$-ary groups and corresponding functors were considered in
\cite{mic1,mic84a,ian91}.
Let $\left( \mathcal{C},\mathit{M}^{\left( n\otimes\right) },\mathrm{A}%
^{\left( 2n-1\right) \otimes}\right) $ be a polyadic ($n$-ary) non-strict
semigroupal category, where $\mathit{M}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }$ is the
$n$-ary tensor product, and $\mathrm{A}^{\left( 2n-1\right) \otimes}$ is the
associator making the \textquotedblleft$\left( n^{2}+1\right) $%
-gon\textquotedblright\ diagram of $n$-ary coherence commutative. We propose a
\textquotedblleft categorification\textquotedblright\ analog of the
queroperation to be a covariant endofunctor of $\mathcal{C}$.
\begin{definition}
\label{def-q}A \textit{querfunctor} $\mathit{Q}:\mathcal{C}\rightarrow
\mathcal{C}$ is an endofunctor of $\mathcal{C}$ sending $\mathit{Q}%
_{\operatorname*{Ob}}\left( X\right) =\bar{X}$ and $\mathit{Q}%
_{\operatorname*{Mor}}\left( \mathsf{f}\right) =\mathsf{\bar{f}}$, where
$\bar{X}$ and $\mathsf{\bar{f}}$ are the \textit{querobject} and the
\textit{quermorphism} of $X$ and $\mathsf{f}$, respectively, such that the $i$
diagrams ($i=1,\ldots,n$) \input{diag6.tex}commute (and analogously for
morphisms), where $\mathrm{Q}_{\left( i\right) }^{\left( n\otimes\right)
}$ are \textit{quertors}%
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{Q}_{\left( i\right) \operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( n\otimes\right)
}:\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }\left[
\overset{i-1}{\overbrace{X,\ldots,X}},\bar{X},\overset{n-i}{\overbrace
{X,\ldots,X}}\right] \overset{\simeq}{\rightarrow}X,\ \ \ \forall
X\in\operatorname*{Ob}\mathcal{C},\ \ i=1,\ldots,n,
\end{equation}
and $\mathit{P}r^{\left( n\otimes\right) }:\mathcal{C}^{n\otimes}%
\rightarrow\mathcal{C}$ is the projection. The action on morphisms
$\mathrm{Q}_{\left( i\right) \operatorname*{Mor}}^{\left( n\otimes\right)
}$ can be found using the diagonal arrow in the corresponding natural
transformation, as in (\ref{x-com}).
\end{definition}
\begin{example}
\label{exam-q}In the ternary case we have (for objects) the querfunctor
$\mathit{Q}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}\left( X\right) =\bar{X}$ and 3 quertor
isomorphisms%
\begin{align}
\mathrm{Q}_{\left( 1\right) \operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 3\otimes\right) }
& :\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 3\otimes\right) }\left[ \bar
{X},X,X\right] \overset{\simeq}{\rightarrow}X,\label{qx1}\\
\mathrm{Q}_{\left( 2\right) \operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 3\otimes\right) }
& :\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 3\otimes\right) }\left[
X,\bar{X},X\right] \overset{\simeq}{\rightarrow}X,\label{qx2}\\
\mathrm{Q}_{\left( 3\right) \operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 3\otimes\right) }
& :\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 3\otimes\right) }\left[
X,X,\bar{X}\right] \overset{\simeq}{\rightarrow}X,\ \ \ \forall
X\in\operatorname*{Ob}\mathcal{C}. \label{qx3}%
\end{align}
The three quertors $\mathrm{Q}_{\left( i\right) \operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left(
3\otimes\right) }$ and the querfunctor $\mathit{Q}$ are connected with two
ternary associators $\mathrm{A}_{1,\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 5\otimes
\right) },\mathrm{A}_{2,\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 5\otimes\right) }$
(\ref{a51})--(\ref{a52}) such that the following
diagram\input{diag7.tex}commutes, where $\mathit{D}iag^{\left( n\otimes
\right) }:\mathcal{C}\rightarrow\mathcal{C}^{n\otimes}$ is the diagonal.
\end{example}
\begin{definition}
\label{def-grcat}A\textit{ nonunital non-strict groupal category
}$\mathtt{GCat}_{n}$ is $\left( \mathcal{C},\mathit{M}^{\left(
n\otimes\right) },\mathrm{A}^{\left( 2n-1\right) \otimes},\mathit{Q}%
,\mathrm{Q}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }\right) $, i.e. a polyadic non-strict
semigroupal category $\mathtt{SGCat}_{n}$ equipped with the querfunctor
$\mathit{Q}$ and the quertors $\mathrm{Q}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }$
satisfying (\ref{diag6}).
\end{definition}
\begin{conjecture}
There exist polyadic nonunital non-strict groupal categories which are
arity-non\-reducible (see \textbf{Definition \ref{def-magcat}}), and so their
$n$-ary tensor product cannot be presented in the form of binary tensor
product iterations.
\end{conjecture}
\section{\textsc{Braided tensor categories}}
The next step in the investigation of binary tensor categories is
consideration of the tensor product \textquotedblleft
commutativity\textquotedblright\ property. The tensor product can be
\textquotedblleft commutative\textquotedblright\ such that for a tensor
category $\mathcal{C}$ there exists the equivalence $X\otimes Y=Y\otimes X$,
$\forall X,Y,\in\operatorname*{Ob}\mathcal{C}$, and such tensor categories are
called \textit{symmetric} \cite{maclane1}. By analogy with associativity, one
can introduce non-strict \textquotedblleft commutativity\textquotedblright,
which leads to the notion of a braided (binary) tensor category and the
corresponding coherence theorems \cite{joy/str1}. Various generalizations of
braiding were considered in \cite{gar/fra,dup/mar7,dup/mar2018c}, and their
higher versions are found, e.g., in \cite{kap/voe94,bat10,webs05}.
\subsection{Braided binary tensor categories}
Let $\left( \mathcal{C},\mathit{M}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) },\mathrm{A}%
^{\left( 3\otimes\right) }\right) $ be a non-strict semigroupal category
with the bifunctor $\mathit{M}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }$ and the associator
$\mathrm{A}^{\left( 3\otimes\right) }$ (\ref{a1}) satisfying the pentagon
axiom (\ref{diag1}) \cite{yetter,boy2007}.
\begin{definition}
A (\textit{binary})\textit{ braiding }$\mathrm{B}^{\left( 2\otimes\right)
}=\left\{ \mathrm{B}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 2\otimes\right)
},\mathrm{B}_{\operatorname*{Mor}}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }\right\} $ of a
semigroupal category $\mathtt{SGCat}_{2}$ is a natural transformation of the
bifunctor $\mathit{M}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }$ (bifunctorial isomorphism)
such that%
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{B}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }:\mathit{M}%
_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }\left[ X_{1},X_{2}\right]
\overset{\simeq}{\rightarrow}\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left(
2\otimes\right) }\left[ X_{2},X_{1}\right] ,\ \ \ \forall X_{i}%
\in\operatorname*{Ob}\mathcal{C},i=1,2, \label{b1}%
\end{equation}
and the action on morphisms $\mathrm{B}_{\operatorname*{Mor}}^{\left(
2\otimes\right) }$ may be interpreted as a diagonal, similarly to
(\ref{x-com}).
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
A non-strict semigroupal category endowed with a binary braiding is called a
(\textit{binary})\textit{ braided semigroupal category} $\mathtt{bSGCat}_{2}$
$\left( \mathcal{C},\mathit{M}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) },\mathrm{A}%
^{\left( 3\otimes\right) },\mathrm{B}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }\right) $.
\end{definition}
The braiding $\mathrm{B}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }$ is connected with the
associator $\mathrm{A}^{\left( 3\otimes\right) }$ by the \textit{hexagon
identity}\input{diag9.tex}for objects, and similarly for the inverse associator.
\begin{definition}
A \textit{symmetric braided semigroupal category} $\mathtt{sbSGCat}_{2}$ has
the \textquotedblleft invertible\textquotedblright\ braiding%
\begin{align}
\mathrm{B}_{\operatorname*{Ob}X_{1},X_{2}}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }%
\circ\mathrm{B}_{\operatorname*{Ob}X_{2},X_{1}}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }
& =\operatorname*{id}\nolimits_{X_{1}\otimes X_{2}}\ \ \ \ \ \text{or}%
\label{bb1}\\
\mathrm{B}_{\operatorname*{Ob}X_{2},X_{1}}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) } &
=\mathrm{B}_{\operatorname*{Ob}X_{1},X_{2}}^{\left( 2\otimes\right)
,-1},\ \ \ \forall X_{i}\in\operatorname*{Ob}\mathcal{C} \label{bb2}%
\end{align}
\end{definition}
A von Neumann regular generalization \cite{neu} (weakening) of (\ref{bb1})
leads to
\begin{definition}
A (\textit{von Neumann}) \textit{regular braided semigroupal category} is
defined by a braiding which satisfies \cite{dup/mar5,dup/mar2018c}%
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{B}_{\operatorname*{Ob}X_{1},X_{2}}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }%
\circ\mathrm{B}_{\operatorname*{Ob}X_{1},X_{2}}^{\ast\left( 2\otimes\right)
}\circ\mathrm{B}_{\operatorname*{Ob}X_{1},X_{2}}^{\left( 2\otimes\right)
}=\mathrm{B}_{\operatorname*{Ob}X_{1},X_{2}}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) },
\end{equation}
where $\mathrm{B}_{\operatorname*{Ob}X_{1},X_{2}}^{\ast\left( 2\otimes
\right) }$ is a generalized inverse \cite{pen1,nashed} of $\mathrm{B}%
_{\operatorname*{Ob}X_{1},X_{2}}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }$, and such that
$\mathrm{B}_{\operatorname*{Ob}X_{1},X_{2}}^{\ast\left( 2\otimes\right)
}\neq\mathrm{B}_{\operatorname*{Ob}X_{1},X_{2}}^{\left( 2\otimes\right)
,-1}$ (cf. (\ref{bb2})).
\end{definition}
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop-b-bin}If the (binary) braided semigroupal category is strict (the
associator becomes the equivalence (\ref{as1})--(\ref{as2}), and we can omit
internal brackets), then the diagram\input{diag11.tex}commutes
\cite{sta63,stasheff}.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The triangles commute due to the hexagon identity (\ref{diag9}) and the
internal rectangle commutes, because the binary braiding $\mathrm{B}^{\left(
2\otimes\right) }$ is a natural transformation (bifunctorial isomorphism).
\end{proof}
Omitting indices (\ref{diag11}) becomes the \textit{Yang-Baxter equation} in
terms of tensor products \cite{dri89} (or the \textit{binary braid group}
relation---for their difference see \cite{str95})%
\begin{equation}
\left( {{\mathrm{B}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }%
\otimes\operatorname*{id}}}\right) \circ\left( \operatorname*{id}%
\otimes\mathrm{B}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }\right)
\circ\left( {{\mathrm{B}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 2\otimes\right)
}\otimes\operatorname*{id}}}\right) =\left( \operatorname*{id}%
\otimes\mathrm{B}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }\right)
\circ\left( {{\mathrm{B}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 2\otimes\right)
}\otimes\operatorname*{id}}}\right) \circ\left( \operatorname*{id}%
\otimes\mathrm{B}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }\right) .
\label{yb2}%
\end{equation}
If the braided semigroupal category $\mathtt{bSGCat}_{2}$ contains a unit
object, then we have
\begin{definition}
A (\textit{binary}) \textit{braided monoidal category} $\mathtt{MonCat}_{2}$
$\left( \mathcal{C},\mathit{M}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) },\mathrm{A}%
^{\left( 3\otimes\right) },E,\mathrm{U}^{\left( 2\otimes\right)
},\mathrm{B}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }\right) $ is $\mathtt{bSGCat}_{2}$
together with a unit object $E\in\operatorname*{Ob}\mathcal{C}$ satisfying the
triangle axiom (\ref{diag2}) and a unitor $\mathrm{U}^{\left( 2\otimes
\right) }$ (\ref{lr1})--(\ref{lr2}) the compatibility condition with the
braiding $\mathrm{B}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }$ such that the diagram (for objects)\input{diag10.tex}commutes.
\end{definition}
For more details on binary braided monoidal categories, see
\cite{fre/yet,joy/str1} and for review, see, e.g.,
\cite{cha/pre,eti/gel/nik/ost,bul/cae/pen/pys}.
\subsection{Braided polyadic tensor categories}
Higher braidings for binary tensor categories were considered (from an
$n$-category viewpoint) in \cite{man/sch,kap/voe94}. We will discuss them for
polyadic categories, defined above in \textbf{Section \ref{sec-ntensor}}. The
difference will be clearer if a polyadic category is not arity-reduced (see
\textbf{Definition \ref{def-magcat}}) and for non-unital groupal categories
(\textbf{Subsection }\ref{subsec-groupal}).
Let $\left( \mathcal{C},\mathit{M}^{\left( n\otimes\right) },\mathrm{A}%
^{\left( 2n-1\right) \otimes}\right) $ be a polyadic non-strict semigroupal
category, where $\mathit{M}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }$ is a (not arity
reduced) $n$-ary tensor product ($n$-ary functor) and $\mathrm{A}^{\left(
2n-1\right) \otimes}$ is an associator, i.e. $n-1$ different $\left(
2n-1\right) $-ary natural transformations (see \textbf{Definition
\ref{def-semicat}}). Now the braiding becomes an $n$-ary natural
transformation, which leads to any of $n$ permutations from the symmetry
(permutation) group $S_{n}$, rather than one possibility only, as for the
binary braiding (\ref{b1}). Note that in the consideration of higher braidings
\cite{man/sch,kap/voe94} one (\textquotedblleft order
reversing\textquotedblright) element of $S_{n}$ was used $\sigma_{n}^{\left(
rev\right) }\equiv\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{cccc}%
1 & 2 & \ldots & n\\
n & n-1 & \ldots & 1
\end{array}
\right) \in S_{n}$. Thus, we arrive at the most general
\begin{definition}
\label{def-n-braid}An $n$-\textit{ary braiding} $\mathrm{B}^{n\otimes
}=\left\{ \mathrm{B}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( n\otimes\right)
},\mathrm{B}_{\operatorname*{Mor}}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }\right\} $ of a
polyadic non-strict semigroupal category is an $n$-ary natural (or
infra-natural) transformation%
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{B}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }:\mathit{M}%
_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }\left[ \mathfrak{X}\right]
\overset{\simeq}{\rightarrow}\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left(
n\otimes\right) }\left[ \sigma_{n}\circ\mathfrak{X}\right] , \label{bmm1}%
\end{equation}
where $\mathfrak{X}$ is an $X$-polyad (see \textbf{Definition \ref{def-assoc}%
}) of the necessary length (which is $n$ here), and $\sigma_{n}\in S_{n}$ are
permutations that may satisfy some consistency conditions. The action on
morphisms $\mathrm{B}_{\operatorname*{Mor}}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }$ may
be found from the corresponding diagonal of the natural transformation square
(cf. (\ref{x-com})).
\end{definition}
The binary non-mixed (standard) braiding (\ref{b1}) has $\sigma_{2}=\sigma
_{2}^{\left( rev\right) }=\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{cc}%
1 & 2\\
2 & 1
\end{array}
\right) \in S_{2}$.
\begin{definition}
A polyadic (non-strict) semigroupal category endowed with the $n$-ary braiding
$\left( \mathcal{C},\mathit{M}^{\left( n\otimes\right) },\mathrm{A}%
^{\left( 2n-1\right) \otimes},\mathrm{B}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }\right)
$ is called a \textit{braided semigroupal polyadic category} $\mathtt{bSGCat}%
_{n}$.
\end{definition}
The $n$-ary braiding $\mathrm{B}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }$ is connected
with the associator $\mathrm{A}^{\left( 2n-1\right) \otimes}$ by a polyadic
analog of the hexagon identity (\ref{diag9}).
\begin{example}
In the case $n=3$, the braided non-strict semigroupal ternary category
$\mathtt{bSGCat}_{3}$ contains two associators $\mathrm{A}_{1}^{\left(
5\otimes\right) }$ and $\mathrm{A}_{2}^{\left( 5\otimes\right) }$ (see
\textit{Example }\ref{exam-deca}) satisfying the decagon axiom (\ref{diag4}).
Let us take for the ternary braiding $\mathrm{B}^{\left( 3\otimes\right) }$
its \textquotedblleft order reversing\textquotedblright\ version%
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{B}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 3\otimes\right) }:\mathit{M}%
_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }\left[ X_{1},X_{2}%
,X_{3}\right] \overset{\simeq}{\rightarrow}\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}%
}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }\left[ X_{3},X_{2},X_{1}\right] ,\ \ \ \forall
X_{i}\in\operatorname*{Ob}\mathcal{C},\ \ i=1,2,3. \label{br1}%
\end{equation}
Then the ternary analog of the hexagon identity is the \textit{decagon
identity} such that the diagram\input{diag12.tex}commutes.
\end{example}
\begin{conjecture}
[\textsf{Braided} $n$-\textsf{ary coherence}]If the $n$-ary associator
$\mathrm{A}^{\left( 2n-1\right) \otimes}$ satisfies such $n$-\textit{ary
coherence conditions} that the isomorphism (\ref{mobn}) takes place, and the
$n$-ary braiding $\mathrm{B}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }$ satisfies the
polyadic analog of the hexagon identity, then any diagram containing
$\mathrm{A}^{\left( 2n-1\right) \otimes}$ and $\mathrm{B}^{\left(
n\otimes\right) }$ commutes.
\end{conjecture}
\begin{proposition}
If the braided semigroupal ternary category $\mathtt{bSGCat}_{3}$ is strict
(the associators becomes equivalences, and we can omit internal brackets),
then the diagram containing only the ternary braidings $\mathrm{B}^{\left(
3\otimes\right) }$\input{diag13.tex}commutes (cf. the binary braiding
(\ref{diag11})).
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
This is analogous to (\ref{diag11}).
\end{proof}
There follows from (\ref{diag13}), omitting indices, the \textit{ternary braid
group relation} in terms of tensor products (cf. the tetrahedron equation
\cite{baz/str,kap/voe94,bae/neu})%
\begin{align}
& \left( {{\mathrm{B}^{\left( 3\otimes\right) }\otimes\operatorname*{id}%
\otimes\operatorname*{id}}}\right) \circ\left( {{{\operatorname*{id}}%
\otimes\mathrm{B}^{\left( 3\otimes\right) }\otimes\operatorname*{id}}%
}\right) \circ\left( {{\operatorname*{id}\otimes\operatorname*{id}%
\otimes\mathrm{B}^{\left( 3\otimes\right) }}}\right) \circ\left(
{{\mathrm{B}^{\left( 3\otimes\right) }\otimes\operatorname*{id}%
\otimes\operatorname*{id}}}\right) \nonumber\\
& =\left( {{\operatorname*{id}\otimes\operatorname*{id}\otimes
\mathrm{B}^{\left( 3\otimes\right) }}}\right) \circ\left( {{\mathrm{B}%
^{\left( 3\otimes\right) }\otimes\operatorname*{id}\otimes\operatorname*{id}%
}}\right) \circ\left( {{{\operatorname*{id}}\otimes\mathrm{B}^{\left(
3\otimes\right) }\otimes\operatorname*{id}}}\right) \circ\left(
{{\operatorname*{id}\otimes\operatorname*{id}\otimes\mathrm{B}^{\left(
3\otimes\right) }}}\right) ,
\end{align}
which was obtained in \cite{dup2018d} using another approach: by the
associative quiver technique from \cite{dup2018a}. For instance, the
$4$\textit{-ary braid group} relation for $4$-ary braiding ${{\mathrm{B}%
^{\left( 4\otimes\right) }}}$ has the form%
\begin{align}
& \left( {{\mathrm{B}^{\left( 4\otimes\right) }\otimes\operatorname*{id}%
\otimes\operatorname*{id}\otimes\operatorname*{id}}}\right) \circ\left(
{{\operatorname*{id}{\otimes\mathrm{B}^{\left( 4\otimes\right) }}%
\otimes{\operatorname*{id}}\otimes\operatorname*{id}}}\right) \circ\left(
{{\operatorname*{id}\otimes{\operatorname*{id}}\otimes\mathrm{B}^{\left(
4\otimes\right) }\otimes\operatorname*{id}}}\right) \circ\left(
{{\operatorname*{id}\otimes\operatorname*{id}\otimes\operatorname*{id}%
\otimes\mathrm{B}^{\left( 4\otimes\right) }}}\right) \nonumber\\
& \circ\left( {{\mathrm{B}^{\left( 4\otimes\right) }\otimes
\operatorname*{id}\otimes\operatorname*{id}\otimes\operatorname*{id}}}\right)
=\left( {{\operatorname*{id}\otimes\operatorname*{id}\otimes
\operatorname*{id}\otimes\mathrm{B}^{\left( 4\otimes\right) }}}\right) \\
& \circ\left( {{\mathrm{B}^{\left( 4\otimes\right) }\otimes
\operatorname*{id}\otimes\operatorname*{id}\otimes\operatorname*{id}}}\right)
\circ\left( {{\operatorname*{id}\otimes{\operatorname*{id}}\otimes
\mathrm{B}^{\left( 4\otimes\right) }\otimes\operatorname*{id}}}\right)
\circ\left( {{\operatorname*{id}{\otimes\mathrm{B}^{\left( 4\otimes\right)
}}\otimes{\operatorname*{id}}\otimes\operatorname*{id}}}\right) \circ\left(
{{\operatorname*{id}\otimes\operatorname*{id}\otimes\operatorname*{id}%
\otimes\mathrm{B}^{\left( 4\otimes\right) }}}\right) .\nonumber
\end{align}
For the non-mixed \textquotedblleft order reversing\textquotedblright\ $n$-ary
braiding (see \textbf{Definition} \ref{def-n-braid}) we have \cite{dup2018d}
\begin{proposition}
The $n$-ary braid equation contains $\left( n+1\right) $ multipliers, and
each one acts on $\left( 2n-1\right) $ tensor products as%
\begin{align}
& \left( {{\mathrm{B}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }\otimes}}\overset
{n-1}{\overbrace{{{\operatorname*{id}\otimes\ldots\otimes\operatorname*{id}}}%
}}\right) \circ\left( {{{\operatorname*{id}\otimes}\mathrm{B}^{\left(
n\otimes\right) }\otimes}}\overset{n-2}{\overbrace{{{\operatorname*{id}%
\otimes\ldots\otimes\operatorname*{id}}}}}\right) \circ\left(
{{{\operatorname*{id}\otimes\operatorname*{id}\otimes}\mathrm{B}^{\left(
n\otimes\right) }\otimes}}\overset{n-3}{\overbrace{{{\operatorname*{id}%
\otimes\ldots\otimes\operatorname*{id}}}}}\right) \circ\ldots\nonumber\\
& \circ\left( \overset{n-2}{\overbrace{{{\operatorname*{id}\otimes
\ldots\otimes\operatorname*{id}}}}}{{{\otimes}\mathrm{B}^{\left(
n\otimes\right) }\otimes{\operatorname*{id}}}}\right) \circ\left(
\overset{n-1}{\overbrace{{{\operatorname*{id}\otimes\ldots\otimes
\operatorname*{id}}}}}{{\otimes\mathrm{B}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }}%
}\right) \circ\left( {{\mathrm{B}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }\otimes}%
}\overset{n-1}{\overbrace{{{\operatorname*{id}\otimes\ldots\otimes
\operatorname*{id}}}}}\right) \nonumber\\
& =\left( \overset{n-1}{\overbrace{{{\operatorname*{id}\otimes\ldots
\otimes\operatorname*{id}}}}}{{\otimes\mathrm{B}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }}%
}\right) \circ\left( {{\mathrm{B}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }\otimes}%
}\overset{n-1}{\overbrace{{{\operatorname*{id}\otimes\ldots\otimes
\operatorname*{id}}}}}\right) \circ\left( {{{\operatorname*{id}\otimes
}\mathrm{B}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }\otimes}}\overset{n-2}{\overbrace
{{{\operatorname*{id}\otimes\ldots\otimes\operatorname*{id}}}}}\right)
\circ\ldots\nonumber\\
& \circ\left( \overset{n-3}{\overbrace{{{\operatorname*{id}\otimes
\ldots\otimes\operatorname*{id}}}}}{{{\otimes}\mathrm{B}^{\left(
n\otimes\right) }\otimes{\operatorname*{id}\otimes\operatorname*{id}}}%
}\right) \circ\left( \overset{n-2}{\overbrace{{{\operatorname*{id}%
\otimes\ldots\otimes\operatorname*{id}}}}}{{{\otimes}\mathrm{B}^{\left(
n\otimes\right) }\otimes{\operatorname*{id}}}}\right) \circ\left(
\overset{n-1}{\overbrace{{{\operatorname*{id}\otimes\ldots\otimes
\operatorname*{id}}}}}{{\otimes\mathrm{B}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }}%
}\right) .
\end{align}
\end{proposition}
\begin{remark}
If a polyadic category is arity-nonreducible, then the higher $n$-ary braid
relations cannot be \textquotedblleft iterated\textquotedblright, i.e.
obtained from the lower $n$ ones.
\end{remark}
Consider a polyadic monoidal category $\mathtt{MonCat}_{n}$ with one unit
object $E$ (see \textbf{Definition} \ref{def-nmon}). Then the $n$-ary braiding
${{\mathrm{B}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }}}$ satisfies the triangle identity
connecting it with the unitors $\mathrm{U}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }$.
\begin{example}
In the case of the ternary monoidal category $\mathtt{MonCat}_{3}$ (see
\textit{Example} \ref{exam-mon3}) the \textquotedblleft order
reversing\textquotedblright\ braiding ${{\mathrm{B}^{\left( 3\otimes\right)
}}}$ (\ref{br1}) satisfies an additional triangle identity analogous to
(\ref{diag10}) such that the diagram\input{diag14.tex}commutes.
\end{example}
For the polyadic non-unital groupal category $\mathtt{GCat}_{n}$ (see
\textbf{Definition} \ref{def-grcat}) the $n$-ary braiding ${{\mathrm{B}%
^{\left( n\otimes\right) }}}$ should be consistent with the quertors
$\mathrm{U}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }$ and the querfunctor $\mathit{Q}$ (see
\textbf{Definition} \ref{def-q}).
\begin{definition}
A \textit{braided polyadic groupal category} $\mathtt{bGCat}_{n}$ is a
polyadic groupal category $\mathtt{GCat}_{n}$ endowed with the $n$-ary
braiding $\left( \mathcal{C},\mathit{M}^{\left( n\otimes\right)
},\mathrm{A}^{\left( 2n-1\right) \otimes},\mathit{Q},\mathrm{Q}^{\left(
n\otimes\right) },{{\mathrm{B}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }}}\right) $.
\end{definition}
\begin{example}
In the ternary groupal category $\mathtt{GCat}_{3}$ (see \textit{Example}
\ref{exam-q}) the \textquotedblleft order reversing\textquotedblright%
\ braiding ${{\mathrm{B}^{\left( 3\otimes\right) }}}$ (\ref{br1}) satisfies
the additional identity of consistency with the querfunctor $\mathit{Q}$ and
quertor $\mathrm{Q}^{\left( 3\otimes\right) }$ such that the diagram\input{diag15.tex}commutes.
\end{example}
The above diagrams ensure that some version of coherence can also be proven
for braided polyadic categories.
\section{\textsc{Medialed polyadic tensor categories}}
Here we consider a medial approach to braiding inspired by the first part of
our paper. As opposed to binary braiding which is defined by one unique
permutation (\ref{b1}), the $n$-ary braiding can be defined by the enormous
number of possible allowed permutations (\ref{bmm1}). Therefore, in most cases
only one permutation, that is the \textquotedblleft order
reversing\textquotedblright, is usually (and artificially) used (see, e.g.,
\cite{man/sch}) ignoring other possible cases. On the other side, for $n$-ary
structures it is natural to use the mediality property (\ref{am}) which is
\textsf{unique} in the $n$-ary case and for binary groups reduces to
commutativity. So we introduce a \textit{medialing} instead of braiding for
the tensor product in categories, and (by analogy with braided categories) we
call them \textit{medialed categories}.
Let $\left( \mathcal{C},\mathit{M}^{\left( n\otimes\right) },\mathrm{A}%
^{\left( 2n-1\right) \otimes}\right) $ be a polyadic non-strict semigroupal
category $\mathtt{SGCat}_{n}$ (see \textbf{Definition \ref{def-semicat}}).
\begin{definition}
\label{def-med}An $n$\textit{-ary medialing} $\mathrm{M}^{\left( n^{2}%
\otimes\right) }$ (or \textquotedblleft medial braiding\textquotedblright) is
a \textit{mediality constraint} which is a natural (or infra-natural)
transformation of two composed $n$-ary tensor product functors $\mathit{M}%
^{\left( n\otimes\right) }$ (or functorial $n^{2}$-isomorphism)%
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( n^{2}\otimes\right) }:\mathit{M}%
_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }\left[
\begin{array}
[c]{c}%
\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }\left[
X_{11},X_{12},\ldots,X_{1n}\right] ,\\
\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }\left[
X_{21},X_{22},\ldots,X_{2n}\right] ,\\
\vdots\\
\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }\left[
X_{n1},X_{n2},\ldots,X_{nn}\right]
\end{array}
\right] \overset{\simeq}{\rightarrow}\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left(
n\otimes\right) }\left[
\begin{array}
[c]{c}%
\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }\left[
X_{11},X_{21},\ldots,X_{n1}\right] ,\\
\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }\left[
X_{12},X_{22},\ldots,X_{n2}\right] ,\\
\vdots\\
\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }\left[
X_{1n},X_{2n},\ldots,X_{nn}\right]
\end{array}
\right] ,\label{mmx1}%
\end{equation}
where the action on morphisms $\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Mor}}^{\left(
n\otimes\right) }$ can be viewed as the corresponding diagonal in the natural
transformation diagram as in (\ref{x-com}).
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
\label{rem-advmed}The advantage of $n$-ary medialing is its
\textit{uniqueness}, because it does not contain a huge number of possible
permutations $\sigma_{n}\in S_{n}$ as does the $n$-ary braiding (\ref{bmm1}).
\end{remark}
\begin{example}
In the binary case $n=2$ we have (using the standard notation $\mathit{M}%
^{\left( 2\otimes\right) }\longrightarrow\otimes$)%
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( 4\otimes\right) }:\left(
X_{1}\otimes X_{2}\right) \otimes\left( X_{3}\otimes X_{4}\right)
\overset{\simeq}{\rightarrow}\left( X_{1}\otimes X_{3}\right) \otimes\left(
X_{2}\otimes X_{4}\right) ,\ \ \forall X_{i}\in\operatorname*{Ob}%
\mathcal{C},\ i=1,\ldots,4,\label{mx1}%
\end{equation}
which is called a \textit{binary medialing} by analogy with binary braiding
(\ref{b1}).
\end{example}
In the compact matrix notation (see \textbf{Definition} \ref{def-matr})
instead of (\ref{mmx1}) we have (symbolically)%
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( n^{2}\otimes\right) }:\left(
\mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }\right)
^{2}\left[ \mathbf{\hat{X}}_{\left( n^{2}\right) }\right] \overset{\simeq
}{\rightarrow}\left( \mathit{M}_{\operatorname*{Ob}}^{\left( n\otimes
\right) }\right) ^{2}\left[ \mathbf{\hat{X}}_{\left( n^{2}\right) }%
^{T}\right] ,
\end{equation}
where the matrix polyads of objects is (cf. (\ref{mna}))%
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{\hat{X}}_{\left( n^{2}\right) }=\left( X_{ij}\right) \in\left(
\operatorname*{Ob}\mathcal{C}\right) ^{\otimes n^{2}},\ \ \ \ \ X_{ij}%
\in\operatorname*{Ob}\mathcal{C},
\end{equation}
and $\left( \ \right) ^{T}$ is matrix transposition.
\begin{definition}
A \textit{medialed polyadic semigroupal category} $\left( \mathcal{C}%
,\mathit{M}^{\left( n\otimes\right) },\mathrm{A}^{\left( 2n-1\right)
\otimes},\mathrm{M}^{\left( n^{2}\otimes\right) }\right) $ $\mathtt{mSGCat}%
_{n}$ is a polyadic non-strict semigroupal category $\mathtt{SGCat}_{n}$ (see
\textbf{Definition} \ref{def-nonstrscat}) endowed with the $n$-ary medialing
$\mathrm{M}^{\left( n^{2}\otimes\right) }$ satisfying the $n$\textit{-ary
medial coherence condition} (a medial analog of the hexagon identity
(\ref{diag9})).
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
A \textit{medialed polyadic monoidal category} $\left( \mathcal{C}%
,\mathit{M}^{\left( n\otimes\right) },\mathrm{A}^{\left( 2n-1\right)
\otimes},E,\mathrm{U}^{\left( n\otimes\right) },\mathrm{M}^{\left(
n^{2}\otimes\right) }\right) $ $\mathtt{mMonCat}_{n}$ is a medialed polyadic
semigroupal category $\mathtt{mSGCat}_{n}$ with the unit object $E\in
\operatorname*{Ob}\mathcal{C}$ and the unitor $\mathrm{U}^{\left(
n\otimes\right) }$ satisfying some compatibility condition.
\end{definition}
Let us consider the polyadic nonunital groupal category $\mathtt{GCat}_{n}$
(see \textbf{Definition} \ref{def-grcat}), then the $n$-ary medialing
$\mathrm{M}^{\left( n^{2}\otimes\right) }$ should be consistent with the
quertors $\mathrm{U}^{\left( n\otimes\right) }$ and the querfunctor
$\mathit{Q}$ (see \textbf{Definition} \ref{def-q} and also the consistency
condition for the ternary braiding (\ref{diag15})) .
\begin{definition}
A \textit{braided polyadic groupal category} $\left( \mathcal{C}%
,\mathit{M}^{\left( n\otimes\right) },\mathrm{A}^{\left( 2n-1\right)
\otimes},\mathit{Q},\mathrm{Q}^{\left( n\otimes\right) },\mathrm{M}%
{{^{\left( n^{2}\otimes\right) }}}\right) $ $\mathtt{mGCat}_{n}$ is a
polyadic groupal category $\mathtt{GCat}_{n}$ endowed with the $n$-ary
medialing $\mathrm{M}^{\left( n^{2}\otimes\right) }$.
\end{definition}
\subsection{Medialed binary and ternary categories}
Due to the complexity of the relevant polyadic diagrams, it is not possible to
draw them in a general case for arbitrary arity $n$. Therefore, it would be
worthwhile to consider first the binary case, and then some of the diagrams
for the ternary case.
\begin{example}
Let $\left( \mathcal{C},\mathit{M}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) },\mathrm{A}%
^{\left( 3\otimes\right) },\mathrm{M}^{\left( 4\otimes\right) }\right) $
be a binary medialed semigroupal category $\mathtt{mSGCat}_{2}$, and the
binary medialing be in (\ref{mx1}). Then the medial analog of the hexagon
identity (\ref{diag9}) is given by the binary medial coherence condition such
that the diagram\input{diag16.tex}commutes.
\end{example}
If a medialed semigroupal category $\mathtt{mSGCat}_{2}$ contains a unit
object and the unitor, then we have
\begin{definition}
A \textit{medialed monoidal category} $\mathtt{mMonCat}_{2}$ $\left(
\mathcal{C},\mathit{M}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) },\mathrm{A}^{\left(
3\otimes\right) },E,\mathrm{U}^{\left( 2\otimes\right) },\mathrm{M}%
^{\left( 4\otimes\right) }\right) $ is a (\textit{binary}) medialed
semigroupal category $\mathtt{mSGCat}_{2}$ together with a unit object
$E\in\operatorname*{Ob}\mathcal{C}$ and a unitor $\mathrm{U}^{\left(
2\otimes\right) }$ (\ref{lr1})--(\ref{lr2}) satisfying the triangle axiom
(\ref{diag2}).
\end{definition}
For $\mathtt{mMonCat}_{2}$ the compatibility condition of the medialing
$\mathrm{M}^{\left( 4\otimes\right) }$ with $E$ and $\mathrm{U}^{\left(
2\otimes\right) }$ is given by the commutative diagram\input{diag18.tex}which
is an analog of the triangle diagram for braiding (\ref{diag10}).
\begin{example}
In the ternary nonunital groupal category $\mathtt{GCat}_{3}$ (see
\textit{Example} \ref{exam-q}) the medialing $\mathrm{M}{{^{\left(
9\otimes\right) }}}$ satisfies the additional identity of consistency with
the querfunctor $\mathit{Q}$ and quertor $\mathrm{Q}^{\left( 3\otimes\right)
}$ such that the diagram\input{diag19.tex}commutes. An analog of the hexagon
identity in $\mathtt{GCat}_{3}$ can be expressed by a diagram which is similar
to (\ref{diag16}).
\end{example}
\newpage
\section{\textsc{Conclusions}}
Commutativity in polyadic algebraic structures is defined non-uniquely, if
consider permutations and their combinations. We proposed a canonical way out:
to substitute the commutativity property by mediality. Following this
\textquotedblleft commutativity-to-mediality\textquotedblright\ ansatz we
first investigated mediality for graded linear $n$-ary algebras and arrived at
the concept of almost mediality, which is an analog of almost commutativity.
We constructed \textquotedblleft deforming\textquotedblright\ medial brackets,
which could be treated as a medial analog of Lie brackets. We then proved
Toyoda's theorem for almost medial $n$-ary algebras. Inspired by the above as
examples, we proposed generalizing tensor and braided categories in a similar
way. We defined polyadic tensor categories with an additional $n$-ary tensor
multiplication for which a polyadic analog of the pentagon axiom was given.
Instead of braiding we introduced $n$-ary \textquotedblleft
medialing\textquotedblright\ which satisfies a medial analog of the hexagon
identity, and constructed the \textquotedblleft medialed\textquotedblright%
\ polyadic version of tensor categories. More details and examples will be
presented in a forthcoming paper.
\bigskip
\noindent \textbf{Acknowledgements}. The author would like to express his deep thankfulness
to Andrew James Bruce, Grigorij Kurinnoj, Mike Hewitt, Richard Kerner, Maurice Kibler,
Dimitry Leites, Yuri Manin, Thomas Nordahl, Valentin Ovsienko, Norbert Poncin,
Vladimir Tkach, Raimund Vogl, Alexander Voronov, and Wend Werner for numerous
fruitful discussions and valuable support.
|
\section{Introduction}
The formulation of a string theory for hadrons has been an attractive proposal since the phenomenological success in explaining Venziano formula~\cite{Veneziano:1968yb} even before the formulation of quantum chromodynamics (QCD). Despite the difficulties encountered in the quantization scheme in a fundamental string theory, the proposal to describe the long-distance dynamics of strong interactions inside the hadrons by a low energy effective string~\cite{Luscherfr,Luscher:2002qv} has remained an alluring conjecture.
String formation~\cite{FUKUGITA1983374, Cea:1993pi, Cea:2015wjd, FLOWER1985128, Otto:1984qr, AM, 10.1143, PhysRevD.36.3297, SOMMER1987673, etde_6934022, DIGIACOMO1990441, Bali:1994de} is realized in many strongly correlated systems and is not an exclusive property of the QCD color tubes~\cite{PhysRevB.36.3583,PhysRevB.78.024510,2007arXiv0709.1042K,Nielsen197345,Lo:2005xt}. The normalization group equations imply that the system flows towards a roughening phase where the transverse string oscillations to the classical world sheet effects becomes measurable and can be verified in numerical simulations of lattice gauge theories (LGT).
In the leading Gaussian approximation of the NG action, the quantum fluctuations of the string bring forth a universal quantum correction to the linearly rising potential well known as the L\"uscher term in the mesonic configurations. In the baryon a geometrical L\"uscher-like terms~\cite{Jahn2004700,deForcrand:2005vv} ought to manifest.
The width due to the quantum delocalizations of the string grows logarithmically~\cite{Luscher:1980iy} as the two color sources are pulled apart. The character of logarithmic broadening is expected for the baryonic junction~\cite{PhysRevD.79.025022} as well.
Precise lattice measurements of the $Q\bar{Q}$ potential in $SU(3)$ gauge model are in consistency with the L\"uscher subleading term for color source separation commencing from distance $R = 0.4$ fm~\cite{Luscher:2002qv}. The effective description is expected to hold over distance scale $1/T_c$~\cite{Caselle:2012rp} where the effects of the intrinsic thickness~\cite{Vyas:2010wg} of the flux tube diminish. Many gauge models have unambiguously identified the L\"uscher correction to the potential with unprecedential accuracy~\cite{Juge:2002br, HariDass2008273, Caselle:2016mqu,caselle-2002,Pennanen:1997qm,Brandt:2016xsp}.
In addition, the string model predictions for the logarithmic broadening~\cite{Luscher:1980iy} of the mean-square width of the string at very low temperatures has been observed in several lattice simulations corresponding to the different gauge groups~\cite{Caselle:1995fh,Bonati:2011nt,HASENBUSCH1994124,Caselle:2006dv,Bringoltz:2008nd,Athenodorou:2008cj,Juge:2002br,HariDass:2006pq,Giudice:2006hw,Luscher:2004ib,Pepe:2010na,Bicudo:2017uyy}
In the high temperature regime of QCD, the overlap of the string's excited states spectrum would lead to a new quantum state with different characteristics. The free string approximation implies a decrease in the slop of the $Q\bar{Q}$ potential or in other-words a temperature-dependent effective string tension~\cite{PhysRevD.85.077501, Kac}. The leading-order correction for the mesonic potential turns into a logarithmic term of the Dedekind $\eta$ function which encompasses the L\"uscher term as a zero temperature $T=0$ limiting term ~\cite{Luscher:2002qv,Gao,Pisarski}. With respect to the string's width the logarithmic broadening turns into a linear pattern before the deconfinement is reached from below~\cite{allais,Gliozzi:2010zv,Caselle:2010zs,Gliozzi:2010jh}.
Nevertheless, this non-interacting model of the bosonic string derived on the basis of the leading order formulation of NG action poorly describes the numerical data in the intermediate distances at high temperatures. For instance, substantial deviations~\cite{PhysRevD.82.094503,Bakry:2010sp,Bakry:2011zz,Bakry:2012eq} from the free string behavior have been found for the lattice data corresponding to temperatures very close to the deconfinement point.
The comparison with the lattice Monte-Carlo data supports the validity of the leading-order approximation at source separations larger than $R>0.9$ fm~\cite{PhysRevD.82.094503,Bakry:2010sp,Bakry:2012eq} for both the $Q\bar{Q}$ potential and the color-tube width profile. The descripancies casts over source separation distances at which the leading-order string model predictions are valid~\cite{Luscher:2002qv} at zero temperature. In the baryon ~\cite{Bakry:2014gea,Bakry:2016uwt,Bakry:2011kga}, taking into account the length of the Y-string between any two quarks, we found a similar behavior~\cite{refId0}.
The fact that the lattice data substantially deviate from the free string description at the intermediate distances and high temperatures has induced many numerical experiments to verify the validity of higher-order model-dependent corrections for the NG action~\cite{Caselle:2004jq,Caselle:2004er} before the string breaks~\cite{Bali:2005bg}.
In the Nambu-Goto (NG) framework it seems that there is no reason to believe that all orders of the power expansion are relevant to the correct behavior of QCD strings~\cite{Giudice:2009di}. For example, a first-order term deviating from the universal behavior has been determined unambiguously in 3D percolation model ~\cite{Giudice:2009di}, no numerical evidence indicating universal features of the corrections beyond the L\"uscher term have been encountered among $Z(2)$, $SU(2)$ and $SU(3)$ confining gauge models~\cite{Caselle:2004jq}. Numerical simulations of different gauge models in different dimensions may culminate in describing both the intermediate and long string behavior with different effective strings~\cite{Caselle:2004jq}.
However, the modeling of QCD flux-tubes beyond the free string approximation may suggest considering other possiblities such as string's resistance to bending. These strings with rigid structure ought to exhibit smooth fluctuations~\cite{POLYAKOV19, Kleinert:1986bk}. The idea that QCD strings may be rigid appeared long ago and been extensively scrutinized by Kleinert and German.
The perturbative two loop potential at $T=0$, the exact potential in the large dimension limit~\cite{Braaten:1987gq,Kleinert:1989re}, the dynamical generation of the string tension~\cite{Kleinert:1988vq} have been studied, for example. The theory has other well-founded thermodynamical characteristics such as the partition function~\cite{Elizalde:1993af}, free energy and string tension at finite temperature~\cite{Viswanathan:1988ad,German:1991tc,Nesterenko:1997ku} and the deconfinement transition point~\cite{Kleinert:1987kv}.
In this effective string theory only the smooth flux-sheets over long distance are favored and the sharply creased surfaces are excluded. This implies peculiar geometrical chracteristics that is being controlled via the extrinsic curvature or shape tensor of the surfaces.
The string's rigidity can intuitively understood in relevance to the vortex line picture of the string which indicates a repulsive~\cite{PhysRevD.51.1842} nature among the flux tubes. This interpretation seems consisent with flux network within baryon~\cite{Bakry:2014gea,Bakry:2016uwt,Bakry:2011kga} which indicates that the sharply-creased flux sheets are energtically unfavorable. The strings appears aligning itself, either via temperature change or the color sources location, such that the angles between the three flux tubes are equally divided into $120^{o}$~\cite{Bakry:2014gea,Bakry:2016uwt,Bakry:2011kga}.
Reviving interests appeared recently to address the rigidity of the QCD flux-tube in the numerical simulations of the confining potential. In fact, both $U(1)$ compact gauge group~\cite{Caselle:2014eka, Caselle:2016mqu} and $SU(N)$ gauge theories in $3D$~\cite{Brandt:2017yzw} has been reported.
The contribution of the boundary action to the open string partition function come into play to recover the symmetry breaking by the cylindrical boundary condition. Two-variant formulas for the Lorentz-invariant boundary corrections to the static $Q\bar{Q}$ potential have been calculated in both the Wilson and the Polyakov-loop correlators cases~\cite{Caselle:2014eka,Aharony:2010cx, Aharony:2009gg, Aharony:2011gb}
These corrections are hoped to reflect some features of the fine structure of the profile of QCD flux-tube~\cite{Bakry:2018kpn,Bakry:2017utr,Brandt:2017yzw, Brandt:2010bw, Battelli:2019lkz,Dubovsky:2013gi} at relatively short distances/low temperatures, larger distances/high temperature~\cite{Juge:2002br} or the excited spectrum of the flux-tubes~\cite{Juge:2002br, Bicudo:2018yhk,Juge1998543}. Indeed, detectable effects for the boundary corrections to the static quark potential have been shown viable on mitigating the deviations from predictions of the effective string and numerical outcomes~\cite{Billo:2011fd,Caselle:2014eka, Brandt:2017yzw}. We report similar findings in regard to the width profile of the QCD flux-tube near the critical point~\cite{}.
One goal of the present paper is to examine the Lorentz-invariant boundary terms in Lüscher-Weisz (LW) effective string action for open string with Dirichlet boundary condition on a cylinder. The analytic estimate laid out for the static potential resulting from two boundary terms at the order of fourth and six derivative could be compatible with the energy fields set up by a static mesonic configurations.
The pure $SU(3)$ Yang-Mills theory in four dimensions is the closest approximation to full QCD. Even though, we are lacking detailed understanding for the string behavior at high temperature and short distance scale. In this region the deviations from the free string behavior occurs on scales that is relevant to full QCD before the string breaks~\cite{Bali:2005bg}. The nature of the QCD strings at finite temperatures can be very relevant to many portrayals involving high energy phenomena~\cite{Caselle:2015tza,GIDDINGS198955} such as mesonic spectroscopy~\cite{Bali:2013fpo,Kalashnikova:2002zz,Grach:2008ij}, glueballs~\cite{Caselle:2013qpa,Johnson:2000qz} and string fireballs~\cite{Kalaydzhyan:2014tfa}, for example. This calls for a discussion of the validity of string effects beyond the free bosonic Nambu-Goto string which is the target of this report.
The map of the paper is as follows: In section(II), we review the most relevant string model to QCD and discuss the lattice data corresponding to the Casimir energy versus different approximation schemes. In section(III), the numerical investigation is focused on the width profile of the energy density and the predictions of the Nambu-Goto (NG) and Polyakov-Kleinert (PK) strings. Concluding remarks and summary are provided in the last section.
\section{String actions and Casmir energy}
The conjecture Yang-Mills (YM) vacuum admits the formation of a very thin string-like object~\cite{Nambu:1974zg, Nambu1979372, Luscherfr} has originated in the context of the linear rise property of the confining potential between color sources. The intuition is in consistency~\cite{Olesen:1985pv} with the dual superconductivity~\cite{Mandelstam76, Bali1996, DiGiacomo:1999a, DiGiacomo:1999b, Carmona:2001ja, Caselle:2016mqu, Pisarski} property of the QCD vacuum. The color fields are squeezed into a confining thin string dual to the Abrikosov line by the virtue of the dual Meissner effect.
The formation of the string condensate spontaneously breakdown the transnational and rotational symmetries of the YM-vacuum and entails the manifestation of (D-2) massless transverse Goldstone modes in addition to their interactions~\cite{goddard, Low:2001bw}.
To establish an effective string description, a string action can be constructed from the derivative expansion of collective string co-ordinates satisfying Poincare and parity invariance. One particular form of this action is the L\"uscher and Weisz ~\cite{Luscherfr,Luscher:2002qv}, in the physical gauge~\cite{Dubovsky:2012sh,Aharony:2011ga}, which encompasses built-in surface/boundary terms to account for the interaction of an open string with boundaries. The L\"uscher and Weisz~\cite{Luscher:2004ib} (LW) effective action up to four-derivative term read
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
S^{\rm{LW}}[X]&=\sigma_{0} A+\dfrac{\sigma_{0}}{2} \int d^2\zeta \Bigg[\left(\dfrac{\partial \bm{X}}{\partial \zeta_{\alpha}} \cdot \dfrac{\partial \bm{X}}{\partial \zeta_{\alpha}}\right)\\
&+ \kappa_2 \left(\dfrac{\partial \bm{X}}{\partial \zeta_{\alpha}} \cdot \dfrac{\partial \bm{X}}{\partial \zeta_{\alpha}}\right)^2 +\kappa_3 \left(\dfrac{\partial \bm{X}}{\partial \zeta_{\alpha}} \cdot \dfrac{\partial \bm{X}}{\partial \zeta_{\beta}}\right)^2\Bigg]\\
&+\gamma \int d^2\zeta \sqrt{g} \mathcal{R} +\alpha_{r} \int d^2 \zeta \sqrt{g} \mathcal{K}^2+S^{b}
\end{split}
\label{LWaction}
\end{equation}
with the physical gauge $X^{1}=\zeta_{0}, X^{4}=\zeta_{1} $ which restricts the string fluctuations to transverse directions ${\cal C}$. The vector $X^{\mu}(\zeta_{0},\zeta_{1})$ maps the region ${\cal C}\subset \mathbb{R}^{2}$ into $\mathbb{R}^{4}$ and couplings $\kappa_1$, $\kappa_2$ are effective low-energy parameters. Invariance under party transform would keep only even number derivative terms.
The open-closed duality~\cite{Luscher:2004ib} imposes constraint on the kinematically-dependent couplings $\kappa_2, \kappa_3$
\begin{equation}
\kappa_2 + \kappa_3 = \dfrac{-1}{8\sigma_{0}}.
\label{couplings2}
\end{equation}
which can be shown~\cite{Billo:2012da,Aharony:2009gg} through a nonlinear realization of Lorentz transform is valid in any dimension $d$.
The above condition Eq.~\eqref{couplings2} implies that all the terms with only first derivatives in the effective string action Eq.~\eqref{LWaction} coincide with the corresponding one of Nambu-Goto action in the derivative expansion. The Nambu-Goto action is the most simple form of string actions proportional to area of the world-sheet
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
S^{\rm{NG}}[X]&=\sigma_{0} \,\int \, d^{2}\zeta \,\sqrt{\left(\,{1+\left(\frac{\partial X}{\partial \zeta_{0}} \right)^{2}+\left(\frac{\partial X}{\partial \zeta_{1}}\right)^{2}} \right) }\\
S^{\rm{NG}}_{\rm{\ell o}}[X]&=\sigma_{0} A+\dfrac{\sigma_{0}}{2} \int d\zeta^{2} \left(\dfrac{\partial \bm{X} }{\partial \zeta_{\alpha} } \cdot \dfrac{\partial \bm{X} }{\partial \zeta_{\alpha}} \right),\\
S^{\rm{NG}}_{\rm{n\ell o}}[X]&=\sigma_{0} \int d\zeta^{2} \left[ \left(\dfrac{\partial \bm{X}}{\partial \zeta_{\alpha}} \cdot \dfrac{\partial \bm{X}}{\partial \zeta_{\alpha}}\right)^2 + \left(\dfrac{\partial \bm{X}}{\partial \zeta_{\alpha}} \cdot \dfrac{\partial \bm{X}}{\partial \zeta_{\beta}}\right)^2\right],
\label{NGpert}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $g$ is the two-dimensional induced metric on the world sheet embedded in the background $\mathbb{R}^{4}$. On the quantum level the Weyl invariance of the NG action is broken in four dimensions; however, the anomaly is known to vanish at large distances \cite{Olesen:1985pv}.\\
The boundary term $S^{b}$ describes the interplay between the effective string with the Polyakov loops~\cite{Luscher:2004ib} at the fixed ends of the string and is given by
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
S^{b}&=\int_{\partial \Sigma} d\zeta_0 \Bigg[b_1 \frac{\partial \bm{X}}{\partial \zeta_1} \cdot \frac{\partial \bm{X}}{\partial \zeta_{1}} + b_2 \frac{\partial \partial \bm{X}}{\partial \zeta_{1} \partial \zeta_{0}} \cdot \frac{\partial \partial \bm{X}}{\partial \zeta_{1} \zeta_{0}}\\
&+b_3 \left( \frac{ \partial \bm{X} } {\partial \zeta_1 } \cdot \frac{\partial \bm{X} }{ \partial \zeta_1} \right)^{2}+b_4 \frac{\partial^{2} \partial \bm{X}}{\partial \zeta_{0}^2 \partial \zeta_{1}} \cdot \frac{\partial^{2} \partial \bm{X}}{\partial \zeta_{0}^2 \partial \zeta_{1}} \Bigg].
\end{split}
\label{boundaryaction}
\end{equation}
where $b_i$ are the couplings of the boundary terms. Consistency with the open-closed string duality~\cite{Luscher:2004ib} which implies a vanishing value of the first boundary coupling $b_{1}=0$, the leading-order correction due to second boundary terms with the coupling $b_2$ appears at higher order than the four derivative term in the bulk.
An interesting generalization of the Nambu-Goto string ~\cite{Arvis:1983fp,Alvarez:1981kc,Olesen:1985pv} has been proposed by Polyakov~\cite{POLYAKOV19} and Kleinert~\cite{kleinert} to stabilize the NG action in the context of fluid membranes. The Polyakov-Kleinert string is a free bosonic string with additional Poincare-invariant term proportional to the extrinsic curvature of the surface as a next order operator after NG action~\cite{kleinert,POLYAKOV19}. That is, the surface representation of the Polyakov-Kleinert (PK) string depends on the geometrical configuration of the embedded sheet in the space-time. The bosonic free string action is equiped with the extrinsic curvature as a next-order operator after NG action~\cite{POLYAKOV19,Kleinert:1986bk}.
The model preserves the fundamental properties of QCD of the ultraviolet (UV) freedom and infrared (IR) confinement properties ~\cite{POLYAKOV19,Kleinert:1986bk}, and is consistent with the formation of the glueballs~\cite{Kleinert:1988hz,Viswanathan:1987et}, and a real ($Q\bar{Q}$) potential~\cite{German:1989vk,Nesterenko1992,Ambjorn:2014rwa} with a possible tachyonic free spectrum~\cite{Kleinert:1996ry} above some critical coupling~\cite{Viswanathan:1987et}.
The action of the Polyakov-Kleinert (PK) string with the extrinsic curvature term reads
\begin{equation}
S^{\rm{PK}}[X]= S_{\rm{\ell o}}^{\rm{NG}}[X]+S^{R}[X],
\label{PKaction}
\end{equation}
with $S^{R}$ defined as
\begin{equation}
S^{\rm{R}}[X]=\alpha_{r} \int d^2\zeta \sqrt{g}\, {\cal K}^2.
\label{Ext}
\end{equation}
The extrinsic curvature ${\cal K}$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
{\cal K}=\triangle(g) \partial_\alpha [\sqrt{g} g^{\alpha\beta}\partial_\beta],
\end{equation}
where $\triangle$ is Laplace operator and $M^{2}=\frac{\sigma_{0}}{2 \alpha_{r}}$ is the rigidity parameter. The term satisfies the Poincare and the parity symmetries and can also be considered~\cite{Caselle:2014eka} in the general class of (LW) actions~\eqref{LWaction}.
The perturbative expansion ~\cite{German:1989vk} of the rigidity term Eq.~\eqref{Ext} reads
\begin{equation}
S^{\rm{R}}[X]=S_{\rm{\ell o}}^{R}[X]+S_{\rm{n \ell o}}^{R}[X]+...,
\end{equation}
has the leading term is given by
\begin{equation}
S_{\rm{\ell o}}^{R}= \alpha_{r} \int_{0}^{L_T} d\zeta_0 \int_{0}^{R} d\zeta_1 \left[\left(\dfrac{\partial^{2} \bm{X}} {\partial \zeta_{1}} \right)^2 + \left(\dfrac{\partial^{2} \bm{X}} {\partial \zeta_{0}^{2}} \right)^2 \right]
\label{S_extlo}
\end{equation}
The rigidity parameter is tuned so as to weigh favorably the smooth surface configuration over the creased worldsheets. In non-abelian gauge theories this ratio is expected to remain constant in the continuum limit~\cite{Caselle:2014eka}.
In the following, prior to drawing a comparison between the numerical Yang-mills lattice data and the various models of the Casimir energy, we review the corresponding confining potential due to each string action in the remaining of this section.
The Casimir energy is extracted from the string partition function as
\begin{equation}
V(R,T)=-\dfrac{1}{L_T} \log(Z(R,T)).
\label{Casmir}
\end{equation}
The partition function of the NG model in the physical gauge is a functional integrals over all the world sheet configurations swept by the string
\begin{equation}
Z(R,T)= \int_{{\cal C}} [D\, \bm{X} ] \,\exp(\,-S( \bm{X} )).
\label{PI}
\end{equation}
For a periodic boundary condition along the time direction such that
\begin{align}
X (\zeta_{0}=0,\zeta_{1})= X (\zeta_{0}=L_T,\zeta_{1}),
\label{bc1}
\end{align}
with an extent equals to the inverse of the temperature $L_{T}=\frac{1}{T}$ and Dirichlet boundary condition at the sources position given by
\begin{align}
X(\zeta_{0},\zeta_{1}=0)= X(\zeta_{0},\zeta_{1}=R)=0,
\label{bc2}
\end{align}
the eigenfunctions are given by
\begin{equation}
\phi_{mn}=e^{2\pi i\left(\frac{m}{R}+\frac{n}{L_{T}} \right)},
\label{7}
\end{equation}
and eigenvalues of $-\triangle$ are given by
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_{nm}=\left(\frac{2\pi n}{L_{T}} \right)^{2}+\left(\frac{2\pi m}{R}\right)^{2}.
\label{8}
\end{equation}
The determinant of the Laplacian after $\zeta$ function regularization~\cite{PhysRevD.27.2944} reads
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\rm{Det}\left(-\triangle\right)&=(q^{\frac{1}{24}} \prod_{n=1}^{\infty}(1-q^{n}))^{2},
\end{split}
\label{15}
\end{equation}
where $q=e^{2\pi\tau}$ and $\tau=\frac{L_{T}}{2 R}$ is the modular parameter of the cylinder. The path integral Eq.~\eqref{PI} and Eq.~\eqref{Casmir} yields the static potential for the leading order contribution of the NG action $S^{NG}_{\ell o}$. The partition function and the static potential are respectively given by
\begin{equation}
Z^{(NG)}_{\ell o}=e^{-\sigma R T-\mu(T)} [\rm{Det}\left(-\triangle\right)]^{-\frac{(d-2)}{2}},\\
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{Pot_NG_LO}
V^{\rm{NG}}_{\rm{\ell o}}(R,T)= \sigma_{0} R+(d-2)T\, \log \eta \left(\tau \right)+\mu T,
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\mu$ is a UV-cutoff and $\eta$ is the Dedekind $\eta$ function defined on the real axis as
\begin{equation}
\eta(\tau)=q^{\frac{1}{24}} \prod_{n=1}^{\infty}(1-q^{n}).
\end{equation}
The second term on the right hand side encompasses the L\"uscher term of the interquark potential. This term signifies a universal quantum effect which is a characteristic of the CFT in the infrared free-string limit and is independent of the interaction terms of the corresponding effective theory. One can extract the string tension dependency on temperature from the slop of the linear terms in $R$. Considering the modular transform of the Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO} $\tau \rightarrow 1/\tau$ and taking the limit of long string, the renormalized string tension to leading order is given by
\begin{equation}
\sigma(T)=\sigma_{0}-\dfrac{\pi(d-2)}{6} T^{2}+O(T^4).
\label{Tension_NG_LO}
\end{equation}
Deitz and Filk ~\cite{PhysRevD.27.2944} extracted the next to leading order term~\cite{PhysRevLett.67.1681} of the Casimir potential from the explicit calculation of the two-loop approximation using the $\zeta$ regularization scheme. The static potential of NG string at second loop order Eq.~\eqref{NGpert} is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{Pot_NG_NLO}
\begin{split}
V^{\rm{NG}}_{\rm{n\ell o}}(R,T)&= \sigma_{0} R+(d-2)T\, \log \eta \left(\tau \right)- T \log \bigg(1-\frac{T}{R^{3}}\\
&\dfrac{(d-2)\pi^{2}}{1152 \sigma_{0}} \left[2 E_4(\tau) +(d-4)E_{2}^{2}(\tau)\right] \bigg)+\mu T,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\noindent with $E_{2}$ and $E_{4}$ are the second and forth-order Eisenstein series defined as
\begin{eqnarray}
E_{2}(\tau)&=&1-\dfrac{1}{24} \sum^{\infty}_{n=1} \dfrac{n\,q^{n}}{1-q^{n}},\\\nonumber
E_{4}(\tau)&=&1+\dfrac{1}{240} \sum^{\infty}_{n=1} \dfrac{n^{3}\,q^{n}}{1-q^{n}},\\
\end{eqnarray}
respectively.
With the modular transform $\tau \rightarrow 1/\tau$ of Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_NLO} and considering the limit of long string, the string tension, which defines the slop of the leading linear term of the potential, as a function of the temperature reads
\begin{equation}
\sigma(T)=\sigma_{0}-\dfrac{\pi(d-2)}{6} T^{2}-\dfrac{\pi^2(d-2)^2}{72 \sigma_{0}}T^{4}+O(T^6).
\label{Tension_NG_NLO}
\end{equation}
where $\sigma_{0}$ denotes the string tension of the string at zero temperature. The coefficient of the next higher-order terms $T^{6}$ can be induced~\cite{Arvis:1983fp,Giudice:2009di} from the expansion of NG action and leads to the exact NG string tension given by
\begin{align}
\sigma(T)=\sigma_{0}\sqrt{1-\frac{\pi (d-2) T^{2}}{3 \sigma_{0}}}.
\label{Tension_NG_Exact}
\end{align}
The boundary term $S^b$ in L\"uscher-Weisz action due to the symmetry breaking by the cylindrical boundary conditions by the Polyakov lines. In Refs.~\cite{Aharony:2010cx,Billo:2012da} the first and second nonvanishing Lorentz-Invariant boundary terms contribution to the potential have been calculated. The modification to the potential received when considering Dirichlet boundary condition are given by
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
V^{B}&=V^{b_{2}}+V^{b_{4}},\\
V^{b_{2}}&=b_2 (d-2) \dfrac{\pi^{3} L_T}{60 R^{4}}E_{4}\left(q\right),\\
\end{split}
\label{Pot_Boundb2}
\end{equation}
The contribution to the partition function coming from the action
\begin{equation}
Z=\int DX e^{-S_{\ell o}^{NG}-S_{b_2}-S_{b_4}}
\end{equation}
Expanding around the free action yields
\begin{equation}
Z=Z^{0} \left( \left(1-\left\langle S_{b_2} \right\rangle-\left\langle S_{b_4} \right\rangle \right)+\frac{1}{2} \left\langle \left(S_{b_2}+S_{b_4}+....\right)^2 \right\rangle \right)+...
\end{equation}
The Lorentzian-Invariance imply $b_1=0,b_3=0$, the next two non-vanishing Lorentzian-Invariant terms come at order four and six derivative terms at coupling $b_2$
\begin{equation}
\left\langle S_{b_2} \right\rangle =b_2 \int_{\partial \Sigma} d\zeta_{0} \left\langle \partial_{0}\partial_{1} X \cdot \partial_{0} \partial_{1} X \ \right\rangle,
\end{equation}
and coupling $b_4$
\begin{equation}
\left\langle S_{b_4} \right\rangle= b_4 \int_{\partial \Sigma} d\zeta_{0} \left\langle \partial_{0}^{2}\partial_{1}X \cdot \partial_{0}^{2} \partial_{1} X \right\rangle,
\end{equation}
respectively.
The spectral Green function corresponding to solution of Laplace equation with Dirichelet boundary conditions on cylinder
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&G(\zeta_1,\zeta_0,\zeta_1',\zeta_0')=\\
&\frac{2}{\pi^{2} R L_{T}} \sum_{m,n}\sum_{m',n'} \sin\left(\frac{n \pi \zeta_1}{R}\right)\sin\left( \frac{n' \pi \zeta_1'}{R} \right) \frac{e^{ \frac{2 \pi i m}{L_{T}} (\zeta_0-\zeta_0')}}{\frac{n^2}{R^2}+\frac{4 m^2}{L_{T}^{2}}}.
\end{split}
\label{SpectralGreen}
\end{equation}
The correlator $\left\langle S_{b_4} \right\rangle$, which is the line integral over each of the Polyakov loops
\begin{equation}
\left\langle S_{b_4} \right\rangle=\int_{\partial \Sigma} \, \partial_{0} \partial_{0} \partial_{1} \partial_{0}^{'}\partial_{0}^{'} \partial_{1}^{'} G(\zeta_1,\zeta_0,\zeta_1',\zeta_0'),
\end{equation}
becomes after substituting the spectral Green function Eq.~\eqref{SpectralGreen},
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\left\langle S_{b_4} \right\rangle&= \frac{32 \pi^{2} }{R^2 L_{T}^{4}}\Bigg[\sum_{m n} \frac{m^2 n}{\frac{n^2}{R^{2}}+\frac{4 m^2}{L_{T}^2}}\sum_{m' n'} \frac{m'^2 n'}{\frac{n'^2}{R^{2}}+\frac{4 m'^2}{L_{T}^2}}\\
& \left\{ \lim_{\zeta_1 \to 0}+\lim_{\zeta_1 \to R} \right\} \int_{\partial \Sigma} d\zeta_{0} \cos\left(\frac{n \pi \zeta_1}{R} \right) \cos \left(\frac{n' \pi \zeta_1}{R} \right) \Bigg].
\end{split}
\label{S4}
\end{equation}
Making use of the $\zeta$ function regularization of the series sum
\begin{equation}
\sum_{m,n}\frac{n^{l} m^{2k}}{\frac{n^2}{R^2}+\frac{4 m^2}{L_{T}^2}}=(-1)^k \pi R^2 \left(\frac{L_{T}}{2 R}\right)^{2k+1}\zeta(1-l-2k) E_{2k+l}(q).
\end{equation}
The correlator Eq.~\eqref{S4} yields the following correction to the static potential from the boundary term at coupling $b_4$,
\begin{equation}
V^{b_{4}}= \dfrac{-b_4 (d-2)\pi^{5}L_{T}}{126 R^{6}} \text{E}_{6}\left(\tau\right).\\
\label{Pot_Boundb4}
\end{equation}
The modular transforms of Eq.\eqref{Pot_Boundb2} and Eq.\eqref{Pot_Boundb4} do not yield a linear term proportional to $R$ which changes the slop of the potential.
The static potential for smooth open strings was evaluated in ~\cite{German:1989vk,German:1991tc,Braaten:1987gq,Nesterenko:1991qp}. Employing $\zeta$ function regularization~\cite{Elizalde:1993af} the finite-temperature contribution is calculated in Ref.~\cite{Viswanathan:1988ad} without subtraction~\cite{Nesterenko:1997ku} to the first loop. Here we show in more detail the calculation of the determinant of the Laplacian to unambiguously show the formulation of the static potential and link between different forms used in the literature.
The partition functions due to the leading order contribution from NG action and rigidity terms
\begin{equation}
Z=Z^{(NG)}_{\ell o} Z^{(R)}_{\ell o},
\label{1}
\end{equation}
are given by
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
Z &=\int DX \exp[-S^{\rm{NG}}_{\rm{\ell 0}}S_{\rm{\ell o}}^{\rm{R}}],\\
&= \int D \bm{X} \exp -\sigma[ 1+\frac{1}{2} \bm{X}(1-\frac{\triangle}{2 M^2})(-\triangle)\bm{X}].
\end{split}
\label{2}
\end{equation}
With the use of the transformation
\begin{equation}
\bm{X}'=\frac{\triangle}{2 M^2}\bm{X},
\label{3}
\end{equation}
the partition function can be decoupled into the leading-order NG partition function Eq.~\eqref{15} multiplied by the corresponding rigidity contribution which appears as the Jacobian of the transformation
\begin{equation}
Z^{(NG)}_{\ell o}=e^{-\sigma R T-\mu(T)} [\rm{Det}\left(-\triangle\right)]^{-\frac{(d-2)}{2}},
\label{4}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
Z^{(R)}=[\rm{Det}\left(1-\frac{\triangle}{M^{2}} \right)]^{-\frac{(d-2)}{2}}.
\label{5}
\end{equation}
The eigenvalues of the trace of the triangle operators can be calculated from the eigenvalue equations corresponding to periodic and Dirichlet boundary condition defined as
\begin{equation}
(-\triangle)\psi_{nm}=\lambda_{nm}\psi_{nm}.
\label{6}
\end{equation}
The eigen functions and eigenvalues are given by
\begin{equation}
\psi_{mn}=e^{2\pi i\left(\frac{m}{R}+\frac{n}{L_{T}} \right)},
\label{7}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\lambda_{nm}=(2\pi n T)^{2}+\left(\frac{2 \pi m}{R}\right)^{2},
\label{8}
\end{equation}
respectively. The traces then read
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&\ln\left(\rm{Det}\left(1-\frac{\triangle}{M^{2}} \right)\right)\\
= & -\lim_{s \rightarrow 0}\frac{d}{ds}\sum_{n,m} \left(\frac{4\pi^{2}}{M^{2}} \left[\frac{m^{2}}{R^2}+\frac{n^2}{L_{T}^{2}} + \frac{M^{2}}{4 \pi^{2}} \right]\right)^s,
\label{9}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $s$ is an auxilary parameter. In the following we illustrate the $\zeta$ function regularization scheme used for the evaluation of the two summations appearing in the above integral.
The sum over $m$ is the Epstein-Hurwitz $\zeta$ function~\cite{PhysRevD.37.974}. Using Sommerfeld-Watson transform~\cite{polchinski1986} the summation over $n$ in the last expression can be presented as a contor integral in the complex plane $t$ as
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\ln(Z^{R})=&\frac{(d-2)}{2} \Bigg(\lim_{s \rightarrow 0}\frac{d}{ds}\sum_{n,m} \Bigg[ \left(\frac{4\pi^{2}}{M^{2}R^2}\right)^{-s}\Bigg( \oint_{ c}dt \sum_{m}\\
&\left(\frac{e^{i\pi t}}{2i \sin(\pi t)}+\frac{1}{2}\right) \left(m^2+t^2+\frac{M^{2}R^2}{4\pi^{2}} \right)^{-s} \Bigg]\Bigg).\\
\label{10}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Solving the above integral with the contor $(+\infty+i\epsilon)$ to $(-\infty+i\epsilon)$ yields the two terms
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\frac{2}{2-d} \log(Z^{R})&=4\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}\log(1-e^{2 \pi (m^2+\frac{M^{2} R^{2}}{\pi^{2}})})\\
& -\lim_{s \rightarrow 0}\frac{d}{ds}\left( \frac{4\pi^{2}}{M^{2}\,R^{2}} \right)^{-s} \frac{\sin(\pi s)}{\cos(\pi s)}(2\tau)^{1-2s}\\
& \frac{\Gamma^{2}(1-s)}{\Gamma(2-2s)} \sum_{m} \frac{1}{(m^2+M^{2}/4\pi^2)^{s-1/2}}.
\label{11}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The second sum over $m$ is also the Epstein-Hurwitz $\zeta$ function. However, we proceed in the regularization using different integral representation~\cite{Nesterenko:1997ku} to bring the final closed form in terms of the standard mathematical functions. Each term in this sum can be transformed into the integral presentation corresponding to Euler-Gamma function~\cite{Lambiase:1995st}.
For general $s$ the Epstein-Hurwitz $\zeta$ function reads
\begin{equation}
\zeta(s,M/4\pi)=\frac{1}{\Gamma(s)}\int_{0}^{\infty} t^{s-1}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} e^{-t(n^2+M^{2}\,R^2)} dt,
\label{12}
\end{equation}
then with the modular transform of $t \longrightarrow 1/t$ of the Jacobi $\vartheta$, $\theta(t)=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} e^{-n^2 t}$ appearing in the above sum, the zeta function turns into the integral presentation
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\zeta(s,M/4\pi)&=\frac{-(M^2 R^2)^{-2s}}{2}+\frac{\sqrt{\pi} \Gamma(s-\frac{1}{2})}{2\Gamma(s)}(M^2 R^2)^{-s+\frac{1}{2}}\\
& +\frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{\Gamma(s)}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \int_{0}^{\infty} t^{s-\frac{3}{2}} \exp\left(-t \frac{M^{2}R^{2}}{\pi^{2}}-\frac{\pi^{2}n^{2}}{t}\right)dt.
\end{split}
\label{13}
\end{equation}
The integral in the last term can be presented in terms of sum over the modified Bessel functions~\cite{pearce_1949} of the second kind $\sum_{n}n^{s-1/2}K_{s-1/2}(2 n M\,R)$. Employing Eq.~\eqref{12} in Eq.~\eqref{13} in the partition function $Z^{R}$ Eq.~\eqref{13} the resultant
expression would read
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
Z^{R} =\exp \Bigg[ \frac{(d-2)M}{2\pi}\sum_{n=1}n^{-1}K_{1}( 2 n M\,R) \Bigg]\\
\times \prod^{\infty}_{n=0}\left( 1-e^{2\pi\tau(n^{2}+M^{2})^{\frac{1}{2}}} \right).
\end{split}
\label{14}
\end{equation}
The potential corresponding to the total partion function $Z^{NG}_{\ell o} Z^{R}_{\ell o}$ is thus
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
V^{R}_{\ell o}(R,T)&=\sigma_{0} R-(d-2)T \log\left(\eta(\tau)\right)-\lambda(T)\\
&+\frac{(d-2)M}{2\pi}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}n^{-1}K_{1}( 2 n M\,R)]\\
&+(d-2) T \sum^{\infty}_{n=0} \Bigg( \log \left( 1-e^{2\pi \tau \sqrt{n^{2} + M^{2}}}\right)\ \\
&.
\end{split}
\label{16}
\end{equation}
The massless limit corresponding to $M^2=\sigma_0/2\alpha_{r}\rightarrow 0$ in the above equation yields the doublet degeneracy of the free bosonic string modes or the well-known doubling of L\"uscher term in the zero temperature limit,
\begin{equation}
V^{R}_{\ell o}(R,T) = \sigma_{0} R- 2(d-2)T \log\left(\eta(\tau)\right)-\nu(T).
\label{17}
\end{equation}
Let us define a string model for the quark-antiquark potential with the leading extrinsic curvature term in conjunction with two subsequent orders of the NG perturbative expansion corresponding to the free and the leading self-interacting components
\begin{equation}
Z=Z^{NG}_{\ell o}\,Z^{NG}_{n\ell o}\, Z^{R}_{\ell o}.
\label{18}
\end{equation}
The potential of the rigid string with the next to leading order NG contribution is
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&V_{n\ell o}^{R_{(\ell o)}}(R,T) = V_{\ell o}^{R_{(\ell o)} }(R,T)\\
&-T \ln \Bigg( 1-\dfrac{(d-2)\pi^{2}T}{1152 \sigma_{o}R^{3}} \left[2 E_4(\tau)+(d-4)E_{2}^{2}(\tau)\right] \Bigg).
\label{StiffNLO}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The string tension form this model can be calculated from the power expansion of $T$ in the large $R$ limit and it turns out to be
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&\lambda =\frac{2 \alpha_r \sigma_{\rm{ren}} T^2}{4 \pi ^2},\\
&S(\alpha_r, \sigma_r, T)=\frac{1}{\lambda}\sum _{n=1}^{\infty} (\sqrt{\lambda +n^2}-\frac{\lambda }{2 n}-n),\\
&\sigma(T)=\sigma_{r}-(d-2)\sigma_{r} \Bigg(\sqrt{\frac{\alpha_r }{\sigma_r}} T+ \frac{\pi }{6 \sigma_{r}} T^2\\
&+ \frac{\alpha_r}{2 \pi } S(\alpha_r, \sigma_r, T)\Bigg).
\end{split}
\label{StringTensionRigid}
\end{equation}
In the limit of high and low temperatures the series sum in Eq.~\eqref{StringTensionRigid} $S$ takes the asymptotic forms
\begin{equation}
S=-\frac{ \zeta (3)}{8}\lambda+\frac{ \zeta(5)}{16}\lambda ^2-\frac{5 \zeta(7)}{128}\lambda ^3+.....;
\label{HT}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
S=-\frac{1}{\pi } \frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda }} \sum _{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{n} K_{1}\left(2 \pi n \sqrt{\lambda } \right).
\label{LT}
\end{equation}
At short distances, renormalization corrections to the zero temperature string tension have to be taken into account $\sigma_{0}$~\cite{German:1989vk,German:1991tc}. The lattice spacing, however, naturally introduces cutoff-scale which affects the value of the returned fit parameters over large source separation distances.
The free NG string is known to reproduce ~\cite{Luscher:2002qv} the subleading aspects of the QCD string over long distances $R \ge 0.5$ but low temperatures. The increase in the temperature may result in the onset of the string self-interactions at all distance scales. Moreover, other potential aspects of the confining strings may come into play. These include the geometrical constraints on the string fluctuations which reflects on its rigidity/stiffness structure; or in otherwords, its resistance to transverse bending and the role of the Lorentzian-invariant ~\cite{Aharony:2010cx, Billo:2012da} boundary terms at short distances in particular.
Considering such models~\cite{Caselle:2014eka}, from the pure formal point of view, would introduce corrections to the static potential on both the linearly rising part in addition to the inverse higher powers in the source separation $R$. The rigidity effects may not be dominant but can not be neglected when discussing static potential of spectrum of excited states~\cite{Juge:2002br}.
In the following, we numerically measure the two point Polyakov-loop correlators and explore to what extent each of the above string actions can be a sufficiently good description for the potential between the two static color sources.
\section{Lattice $Q\bar{Q}$ potential and string phenomenology}
\begin{table}[!hpt]
\begin{center}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccccc}
\multirow{2}{*}{} & &\multirow{2}{*}{$V_{Q\bar{Q}}(R,T)$ $fm^{-1}$} &\multirow{2}{*}{$e(R)$}\\
&$n=R/a$ &&&\\
\hline
\multirow{12}{*}{\begin{turn}{90}$~T/T_{c}=0.9~~~$ \end{turn}}
& 1 &-5.9003 &0.000246\\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &2 &-4.7622&0.000313 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &3 &-3.7976&0.000499 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &4 &-3.1342&0.000657 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &5 &-2.5985&0.000713 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &6 &-2.1313&0.000725 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &7 &-1.7064&0.000758 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &8 &-1.3134&0.000766 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &9 &-0.9475&0.000772 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &10 &-0.6092&0.000827 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &11 &-0.2932&0.000857 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &12 &~0.0000&0.000899 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The quark-antiquark potential at each color source separation $R$ in lattice units, $\beta=6.0$, spatial volume $N_s=36^3$ and $N_t=8$ time slices and temperature scale $T/T_{c}=0.9$.}
\label{T1_Pot_Cor_T09}
\end{table}
\subsection{Simulation setup}
At fixed temperature $T$, the Polyakov loop correlators address the free energy of a system of two static color charges coupled to a heatbath~\cite{polyakov:78}. Within the transfer matrix formalism~\cite{Luscher:2002qv} the two point Polyakov-loop correlators are the partition function of the string.
The Monte-Carlo evaluation of the temperature dependent quark--antiquark potential at each $R$ is calculated through the expectation value of the Polyakov loop correlators
\begin{align}
\mathcal{P}_{\rm{2Q}} =& \int d[U] \,P(0)\,P^{\dagger}(R)\, \mathrm{exp}(-S_{w}), \notag\\
=& \quad\mathrm{exp}(-V(R,T)/T).
\label{PolyakovCorrelators}
\end{align}
with the Polyakov loop defined as
\begin{equation}
P(\vec{r}_{i}) = \frac{1}{3}\mbox{Tr} \left[ \prod^{N_{t}}_{n_{t=1}}U_{\mu=4}(\vec{r}_{i},n_{t}) \right],
\end{equation}
Making use of the space-time symmetries of the torus, the above correlator is evaluated at each point of the lattice and then averaged. We perform simulations on large enough lattice sizes to gain high statistics in a gauge-independent manner ~\cite{Bali} in addition to reduce correlations across the boundaries. The two lattices employed in this investigation are of a typical spatial size of $3.6^3$ $\rm{fm^3}$ with a lattice spacing $a=0.1$ fm.
We choose to perform our analysis with lattices with temporal extents of $N_t = 8$, and $N_t = 10$ slices at a coupling of value $\beta = 6.00$. The two lattices correspond to temperatures $T/T_c =0.9$ just before the deconfinement point, and $T/T_c = 0.8$ near the end of QCD plateau~\cite{Doi2005559}.
\begin{figure*}[!hptb]
\centering
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{QQpotentialT09_Vlo_fixedSigmaFlipErrBars_respad_uncpad_fitResultsR1to11}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{QQpotentialT09_Vnlo_fixedSigmaFlipErrBars_respad_uncpad_fitResultsR1to11}}
\caption{The quark-antiquark $Q\bar{Q}$ potential measured at temperature $T/T_c=0.9$, the left and right plots correspond to the fits to LO and NLO Nambu-Goto string Eq.\eqref{Pot_NG_LO} and Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_NLO} for the depicted values of string tension $\sigma a^{2}$, respectively. The returned fit parameters are inlisted in Table.~\ref{T3_Pot_NG_LO_NLO}}
\label{Fits_Pot_NG_LO_NLO}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table}[!hpt]
\begin{center}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{cc|ccccccccc}
\multirow{2}{*}{$V_{NG}$} &Fit
&\multicolumn{2}{c}{Fit Parameters, $T/T_{c}=0.9$} &\multicolumn{2}{c}{}\\
&Interval
&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\sigma$} &\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\mu$}
&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\chi^{2}$}\\
\hline
\multirow{10}{*}{\begin{turn}{90}\hspace{1cm}$V_{{\ell o}}$ \end{turn}}
&$[R_{m},11]$ & & & \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[2,11] & 0.041865(6) & -0.42355(4) & 111231. \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[3,11] & 0.039894(9) & -0.40838(6) & 17494. \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[4,11] &0.03901(1) &-0.4010(1) & 4903.69 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[5,11] &0.0385(2) &-0.396(2) & 2142.17 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[6,11] &0.0381(2) &-0.393(2) & 1083.57 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[7,11] &0.03766(3) &-0.3889(2) & 487.15 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[8,11] &0.0371(3) &-0.383(3) & 153.693 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[9,11] &0.0366(6) &-0.378(6) & 19.567 \\\hline
\multirow{10}{*}{\begin{turn}{90}\hspace{1cm}$V_{{n\ell o}}$ \end{turn}}
&[2,11] &0.036250(8) &-0.35054(5)&627275. \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[3,11] &0.040406(9) &-0.38757(7)&11136. \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[4,11] &0.04111(1) &-0.3938(1) &1786.73 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[5,11] &0.0410(1) &-0.393(1) &1694.91 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[6,11] &0.0407(2) &-0.390(2) &1093.66 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[7,11] &0.04033(3) &-0.3862(2) &525.181 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[8,11] &0.0398(3) &-0.380(4) &168.203 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[9,11] &0.0392(6) &-0.374(6) &21.832 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The $\chi^{2}$ values and the corresponding fit parameters returned from fits to the leading and the next-to-leading order (NLO) static potential of NG string Eqs.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO} and ~\eqref{Pot_NG_NLO}, respectively.}
\label{T2_Pot_NG_LO_NLO}
\end{table}
The gauge configurations were generated using the standard Wilson gauge-action employing a pseudo-heatbath algorithm~\cite{Fabricius,Kennedy} updating to the corresponding three $SU(2)$ subgroup elements~\cite{1982PhLB..119..387C}. Each update step/sweep consists of one heatbath and 5 micro-canonical reflections. The gauge configurations are thermalized following 2000 sweeps. The measurements are taken on 500 bins. Each bin consists of 4 measurements separated by 70 sweeps of updates.
The correlator Eq.\eqref{COR} is evaluated after averaging the time links~\cite{Parisi} in Eq.\eqref{COR}
\begin{align}
\label{LI}
\bar{U_t}=\frac{\int dU U e^{-Tr(Q\,U^{\dagger}+U\,Q^{\dagger}) }}{\int dU e^{-Tr(Q\,U^{\dagger}+U\,Q^{\dagger}) }}.
\end{align}
The temporal links are integrated out analytically by evaluating the equivalent contor integral of Eq.\eqref{LI} as detailed in Ref.~\cite{1985PhLB15177D}.
The lattice data of the ($Q\bar{Q}$) potential are extracted from the two point Polyakov correlator
\begin{equation}
V_{Q\bar{Q}}(R)=-\dfrac{1}{T} \log \langle P(x)P(x+R)\rangle
\label{COR}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Temperature scale near critical point $T/T_c=0.9$}
Thermal effects become dominant in the SU(3) Yang-Mills model~\cite{PhysRevD.85.077501,Doi2005559} under scrutiny if the temperature is scaled down close enough to the critical point $T/T_{c}=0.9$. The lattice data corresponding to the measured $Q\bar{Q}$ potential Eq.~\eqref{COR} at this temperature are inlisted in Table.~\ref{T1_Pot_Cor_T09}.
In the following, we consider examining three possible ansatz of the string potential and draw comparisons between their possibly interesting combinations. The target is to understand the relevance of each model at the selected source separation intervals for this temperature scale.
\subsubsection{Nambu-Goto string at leading and next-to-leading orders}
The $Q\bar{Q}$ potential data are fitted to theoretical formulas of the NG string potential at the leading and next-to-leading orders Eqs.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO} and Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_NLO}, respectively. We set the string tension $\sigma_{0}\, a^{2}$ and the renormalization constant $\mu(T)$ as a free fitting parameters. The same value of the string tension taken as a fit parameter as in Ref.~\cite{PhysRevD.85.077501} and ~\cite{Kac} is reproduced with the corresponding function of the static potential~\cite{Gao,Luscher:2002qv} and fit domain.
Table~\ref{T2_Pot_NG_LO_NLO} enlists the returned value of the string tension $\sigma_{0}\, a^{2}$ and $\chi_{\rm{dof}}^2$ for various source separations commencing from $R=0.2, 0.5, 0.6$ and $0.7$ fm and extending to $R=1.2$ fm. The point at $R=0.1$ fm is excluded from the fits interval due to the overlap of the heatbath plaquettes which is well-known limitation of the link integration method.
The fit of the numerical data to the leading order approximation Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO} produces similar reduction in the residuals by excluding short distance points. The fits return a minimal of $\chi^{2}$ at $\sigma_{0} a^{2}=0.039$ on $R \in [0.5,1.2]$ fm and $\sigma_{0} a^{2}=0.037$ on $R \in [0.9,1.2]$ fm. However, the values of $\chi^{2}$ are outstandingly higher than the corresponding returned values considering the next-to-leading approximation Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_NLO}.
Higher-order terms in the free energy provide fine corrections for the value of the returned free-parameter $\sigma_{0}\, a^{2}$. This parameter is interpreted as the zero temperature string tension, that is, the value that should be returned at zero or low temperature as in Ref.~\cite{Koma:2017hcm}.
To appreciate the role played by the string tension we disclose the fit behavior of the lattice data at this temperature scale We systematically inspect the returned values of $\chi^{2}$ for an interval of selected values of the string tension $\sigma_{0} a^{2} \in [0.035, 0.045]$. The residuals and normalization constant $\mu(T)$ for the corresponding $\sigma_{0} a^{2}$ are inlisted in Table.~\ref{T2_Pot_NG_LO_NLO} with plots in Fig.~\ref{Fits_Pot_NG_LO_NLO}.
Figure~\ref{ChiNG}-(a) show the stability of the fits and a well-defined global Minimal in the $(\sigma,\mu)$ parameter space. The gradual descend of the string tension parameter from 0.045 to 0.041 reduces dramatically the values of $\chi^{2}$ (as inlisted in Table~\ref{T3_Pot_NG_LO_NLO}) till a minimum is reached at $\sigma_{0} a^{2}=0.041$ for a fit interval from $R=[0.5,1.2]$ fm. The plot of the static potential owing to the (LO) and the (NLO) of the NG string at three selected values of the string tension $\sigma a^{2}$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{Fits_Pot_NG_LO_NLO}.
The two-dimensional version of Fig~\ref{ChiNG}-(b) depicts how excluding points at short distance, e.g, considering a fit interval $R \in [0.9,1.2]$, results in a smaller value of $\chi^{2}$ with a shifted minimal at $\sigma_{0} a^{2}=0.039$ as depicted in Fig.~\ref{Fits_Pot_NG_LO_NLO2}.
Larger residuals $|Theory-data|$ at the (NLO) $V_{n\ell o}$ appear to be stringent at shorter distances $R<0.5$ fm at string tension value $\sigma_{0}a^{2}=0.044$ compared to the LO potential ansatz Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_NLO} of the NG string $V_{\ell o}$. This suggest that the string's self-interactions are more relevant to the string configurations swept over long distance scales.
The effective description based only on Nambu-Goto model does not accurately match the $Q\bar{Q}$ potential data. In spite of the fits beyond the free Gaussian approximation, the inclusion of the NLO terms does not provide an acceptable optimization for the potential data. Poor fits persist at both short distance and intermediate distances. The fitted string potential, at its minimal sum of the residuals $\chi^2$, produces deviation from the value of the measured value of the zero temperature string tension~\cite{Koma:2017hcm}.
The fit to the Casimir energy of the self-interacting string returns a value of the zero temperature string tension $\sigma_{0} a^{2}=0.039$ which deviates at least by $11\%$ of that measured at zero temperature $\sigma_0 a^{2}=0.044$. The pure NG string with its free and next to leading self-interacting pictures does not provide the correct renormalization of the string tension by virtue of the thermal effects.
\begin{figure*}[!hptb]
\centering
\subfigure[~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(b)]{\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{Fig1_QQpotenT09_NGlo_respad_uncpad_fitResults}}
\caption{The fits to the quark-antiquark $Q\bar{Q}$ potential data measured at temperature $T/T_c=0.9$ Table.~\ref{T1_Pot_Cor_T09}, the lines correspond to the potential in accord to the leading Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO} and the next to leading NG Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_NLO} for the depicted fit ranges, the returned values of the string tension is enlisted in Table.\ref{T2_Pot_NG_LO_NLO}.}
\label{Fits_Pot_NG_LO_NLO2}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}[!hptb]
\centering
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[scale=0.80]{PotentialFitT09_NGLO2}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{QQpoten_NGlo_chi2_fitResults}}
\caption{(a) The returned $\chi^{2}_{dof}$ versus the string tension $\sigma_{0} a^2$ and cutoff $\mu$, from the fits of $Q\bar{Q}$ potential to leading order approximation of Nambu-Goto string Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO} at $T/T_c=0.9$. (b)The returned $\chi^{2}_{dof}$ versus the string tension $\sigma_{0} a^2$; however, the fits are for the next-to-leading order approximation Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_NLO}. }
\label{ChiNG}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[!hpt]
\begin{center}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
\multirow{2}{*}{$T/T_{c}$} &
&\multicolumn{2}{c}{$V_{{\ell o}}$} &\multicolumn{2}{c}{$V_{{n\ell o}}$}\\
&&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\sigma_{0} a^{2}$} &\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\chi^{2}$}& \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\sigma_{0}$} &\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\chi^{2}$} \\ \hline
\multirow{10}{*}{\begin{turn}{90} Interval $R\in[9,11]$ \end{turn}}
& &0.035& 612.657 &0.038& 437.806\\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{} &0.0355 & 292.088 &0.0385&168.529\\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{} &0.036 & 94.614&0.039& 36.5551\\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{} &0.0365 & 20.2356&0.0395& 41.4493\\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{} &0.037 & 68.9527&0.04& 182.793\\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{} &0.038 & 535.673&0.0405& 460.185\\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{} &0.0385 & 953.676&0.041& 873.24\\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{} &0.044 & 13676.&0.044& 6180.71\\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{} &0.045 & 17589.4&0.045& 9019.94\\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The values of $\chi^{2}$ returned from the fits for each corresponding value of the string tension, the table compares both values for fits to the leading order (LO) Eq.\eqref{Pot_NG_LO} and next-to-leading order (NLO) Eq.\eqref{Pot_NG_NLO}.}
\label{T3_Pot_NG_LO_NLO}
\end{table}
\begin{figure*}[!hptb]
\centering
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{Fig4a_QQpotenT09_NGnloB2_respad_uncpad_fitResults}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{Fig4b_QQpotenT09_NGnloB2B3_respad_uncpad_fitResults}}
\caption{The quark-antiquark $Q \bar{Q}$ potential at temperature $T/T_c=0.9$, the lines correspond to the next to leading order Nambu-Goto string with two different boundary terms $V^{b2}_{n\ell o}$ and $V^{b4}_{n\ell o}$ Eqs.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Boundb2} and Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Boundb2b3}, respectively, at $T/T_c=0.9$.}
\label{Fits_Pot_T09_NG_NLO_Boundb2_b3}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}[!hptb]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{PotentialFitT09NGNLO_PK_FR711_Sigma_Alpha_Chi2}
\caption{Plot of $\chi^{2}_{dof}$ versus the string tension $\sigma_{0} a^2$ and the rigidity $\alpha$ from the fits of $Q\bar{Q}$ potential data to rigid string ansatz $V^{R}_{n \ell o} $Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Rigid} at $T/T_c=0.9$.}
\label{Chi2AlphaSigma}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[!hptb]
\centering
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[scale=0.37]{Fig7_QQpotenT09_NGnloRigidPK_fitResults}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[scale=0.37]{Fig9_QQpotenT09_NGlo_boundRb2_respad_uncpad_fitResults}}
\caption{(a)The quark-antiquark $Q \bar{Q}$ potential at $T/T_c=0.9$, the lines correspond to the fits (Table~\ref{T7_Pot_T09_NG_NLO_Rigid}) to the static potential of rigid string model $V_{n\ell o}^{R}$ of Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Rigid}. (b) Similar to (a), the lines correspond to the fits (Table~\ref{T7_Pot_T09_NG_NLO_Rigid_Boundb2}) to the rigid string but with the boundary term $b_2$ given by the model $V_{n\ell o}^{R,b2}$ of Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Rigid_Boundb2}.}
\label{Fig6_Fits_Pot_T09_NG_NLO_Rigid_Boundb2}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table}[!hpt]
\begin{center}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{cc|ccccccccc}
\multirow{2}{*}{$V_{{n\ell o}}^{b_2}$} &Fit
&\multicolumn{2}{c}{Fit Parameters, $T/T_{c}$=0.9} &\multicolumn{2}{c}{$$}\\
&Interval
&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\sigma a^{2}$} &\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\mu$}
&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$b2$} &\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\chi^{2}$}\\
\hline
\multirow{10}{*}{\begin{turn}{90} \hspace{1cm} $V_{{n\ell o}} + V^{b_{2}}$ \end{turn}}
&$[R_{m},R_{M}]$ & & & \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[2,11] & 0.0411327(9) & -0.39693(1) & -0.1746(2)&2597.5 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[3,11] & 0.04124(1) & -0.39836(1) & -0.202(2)&2428.1 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[4,11] & 0.04094(2) & -0.3888(4) & 0.20(1)&1572.9 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[5,11] & 0.0405(2) & -0.35(1) & 2.3(8)&852.6 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[6,11] & 0.0401(3) & -0.19(7) & 11(4) &363.1 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[7,11] & 0.03954(5) & 0.47(4) & 52(3)&99.4 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[8,11] & 0.0389(2) & 2.9(8) & 205(50)&9.4 \\\hline
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &$[R_{m},R_{M}]$ & & & \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[2,5] &0.04005(5) & -0.3926(2)& -0.1722(3)& 373.7 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[3,6] &0.04232(5) & -0.4062(4)& -0.278(4) & 0.049 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[3,7] &0.0423(4) & -0.4057(3)& -0.274(3) & 2.2 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[3,9] &0.04189(2) & -0.4032(2)& -0.252(3) &205.2 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[4,9] &0.0417(3) & -0.3994(4)& -0.10(2) &120.5 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[5,10] &0.04102(3) & -0.368(2) & 1.46(9) &268.5 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The $\chi^{2}$ values and the corresponding fit parameters $b2$ and $\mu$ returned from fits to the next to leading order (NLO) static potential with boundary terms $V_{n\ell o}^{b2}$ given by Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Boundb2}.}
\label{T4_Pot_T09_NG_NLO_boundb2}
\end{table}
\begin{table*}[!hpt]
\begin{center}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{cc|cccccccccc}
\multirow{2}{*}{\begin{turn}{90}\hspace{1cm}$ V_{{n\ell o}}^{b_2,b_4} $ \end{turn} } &\tiny{Fit Interval}
&\multicolumn{2}{c}{\tiny{Fit Parameters, $T/T_{c}=0.9$}} &\multicolumn{2}{c}{}\\
&$R\in I$
&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\sigma_0 a^{2}$} &\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\mu $(LU)}
&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$b_2$(LU)} &\multicolumn{1}{c}{$b_4$(LU)}&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\chi^{2}$}\\
\\
\hline
\multirow{10}{*}{\begin{turn}{90}\hspace{1cm}$V_{{n\ell o}}+V^{b_{2}}+V^{b_{4}}$ \end{turn}}
&\tiny{$[R_{m},R_{M}]$} & & & \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[2,11] &0.04123(1)&-0.3991(2)&-0.236(5)&0.023(2)&2452.4\\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[3,11] &0.04091(2)&-0.332(2) &2.61(9)&-1.84(6)&1511.9\\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[4,11] &0.04053(2)&0.97(5) &58.1 (2.1)&-44.7(1.6)&805.8\\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[5,11] &0.0400(3) &27.7 (12.4)&1185.4 (520.8)&-948.9 (417.7)&336.6\\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[6,11] &0.0394(5) &553.3 (334.4)&23246.0 (14037.0)&-18790.0 (11352.0)&89.2\\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &\tiny{$[R_{m},R_{M}]$} & & & & \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[2,7] &0.0423(4) &-0.4090(4) &-0.408(7)& 0.086(3) &4.8\\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[3,8] &0.04198(4)&-0.393(3) & 0.2(1) &-0.31(8) &19.4\\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[4,9] &0.04142(4)&0.12(6) &22.3 (2.5)&-17.2 (1.9)&41.3\\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The $\chi^{2}$ values and the corresponding fit parameters $b_2$, $b_4$ and $\mu$ returned from fits to the next-to-leading order (NLO) static potential with boundary terms $V_{n\ell o}^{b2,b3}$ given by Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Boundb2b3}.}
\label{T5_Pot_T09_NG_NLO_boundb2b4}
\end{table*}
\begin{table}[!hpt]
\begin{center}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{cc|ccccccccc}
\multirow{2}{*}{$V_{{n\ell o}}^{R}$} &\tiny{Fit Interval}
&\multicolumn{2}{c}{\tiny{Fit Parameters, $T/T_{c}=0.9$}} &\multicolumn{2}{c}{}\\
&$R\in I$
&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\sigma_0 a^{2}$} &\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\mu$ (LU)}
&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\alpha$} &\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\chi^{2} $}\\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &$R_{m}$(LU) & & & \\
\hline
\multirow{10}{*}{\begin{turn}{90}\hspace{1cm}$V_{{n\ell o}}+V^{R}$ \end{turn}}
&\tiny{$[R_{m},11]$} & & & \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[2,11] &0.0362498(8) & -0.35054(5)&0(3.6) &627275. \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[3,11] &0.040(4) & -0.39(1) &0(3.7) &11136 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[4,11] &0.04245(3) & -0.3756(7) &0.059(2)&1148.11 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[5,11] &0.0435(2) & -0.34(2) &0.16(5) &319.657 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[6,11] &0.0440(2) & -0.30(4) &0.3(2) &79.2561 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[7,11] &0.0442(3) & -0.2(1) &0.6(7) &11.592 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[8,11] &0.044(2) & -0.2(4) &1(6) &1.80228\\\hline
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &\tiny{$[R_{m},R_{M}]$} & & & \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[2,5] &0.02677(6) &-0.3095(3) & 0.000291 &460013. \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[3,6] &0.038(8) &-0.37(2) & 0.002391 &5774.38 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[3,7] &0.039(5) &-0.38(2) & 0.002434 &8395.19 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[4,10] &0.040(4) &-0.38(1) & 0.002473 &10933.4 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[4,10] &0.04214(5) &-0.3879(8) & 0.033753 &487.035 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[5,10] &0.04344(4) &-0.360(2) & 0.108(5) &119.563\\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The $\chi^{2}$ values and the corresponding fit parameters rigidity $\alpha$ and cutoff $\mu$ returned from fits to the rigid-self-interacting string potential $V_{n\ell o}^{R}$ given by Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Rigid}.}
\label{T7_Pot_T09_NG_NLO_Rigid}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[!hpt]
\begin{center}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{cc|cccccccccc}
\multirow{2}{*}{\begin{turn}{90}\hspace{1cm}$ V_{{n\ell o}}^{R,b_2} $ \end{turn}} &\tiny{Fit Interval}
&\multicolumn{2}{c}{\tiny{Fit Parameters, $T/T_{c}=0.9$}} &\multicolumn{2}{c}{}\\
&$R \in I$
&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$ \sigma_0 a^{2}$} &\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\mu$ (LU)}
&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$b_2$ (LU)} &\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\alpha_r$}&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\chi^{2}$}\\
\\
\hline
\multirow{10}{*}{\begin{turn}{90}\hspace{1cm}$V_{{n\ell o}}+V^{R}+V^{b_2}$ \end{turn}}
&\tiny{$[R_{m},R_{M}]$} & & & \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[2,11] &4.169(4)&-0.3929(5)&0.025(1) &-0.199(2) &2487.2 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[3,11] &4.343(2)&-0.359(1) &0.129(3) &-0.533(6) &501.3 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[4,11] &4.395(2)&-0.337(2) &0.244(9) &-1.1(3) &161.6 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[5,11] &4.42(2) &-0.32(4) &0.5(3) &-3(2) &38.8 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[6,11] &4.42(8) &-0.353(8) &1.0(2) &-9(1) &4.7 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[7,11] &4.39(4) &-0.48(4) &3(2.9) &-25(7) &0.071 \\\hline
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &\tiny{$[R_{m},R_{M}]$} & & & & \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[2,6] &0.041(1) & -0.39(1) & 0.01(5) &-0.18(7) & 752.6\\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[3,7] &0.0428(2) & -0.400(3)& 0.03(1) &-0.31(3) & 0.74\\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[3,9] &0.04327(4) & -0.385(1)& 0.066(3)&-0.40(1) &40.9 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[4,10]&0.04394(3) & -0.355(2)& 0.173(9)&-0.97(4) &58.9 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[5,10]&0.04430(3) & -0.343(4)& 0.31(3) &-2.6(2) &14.7 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The $\chi^{2}$ values and the corresponding fit parameters; rigidity $\alpha_r$, boundary parameter $b_2$ and cutoff $\mu$, returned from fits to the rigid-self-interacting string potential $V_{n\ell o}^{R,b_2}$ given by Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Rigid_Boundb2}.}
\label{T7_Pot_T09_NG_NLO_Rigid_Boundb2}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[!hpt]
\begin{center}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{cc|cccccccccc}
\multirow{2}{*}{\begin{turn}{90}\hspace{1cm}$ V_{{n\ell o}}^{R,b_4} $ \end{turn} } &\tiny{Fit Interval}
&\multicolumn{2}{c}{\tiny{Fit Parameters, $T/T_{c}=0.9$}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{}\\
&$R\in I$
&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\sigma_0 a^{2}$} &\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\mu$(LU)}
&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\alpha_r$} &\multicolumn{1}{c}{$b_4$(LU)}&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\chi^{2}$}\\
\\
\hline
\multirow{10}{*}{\begin{turn}{90}\hspace{1cm}$V_{{n\ell o}}+V^{R}+V^{b_4}$ \end{turn}}
&\tiny{$[R_{m},R_{M}]$} & & & \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[2,11] &0.0409(5) &-0.390(2)&0.01(3) &-0.067(7)&4460.22\\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[3,11] &0.04327(2)&-0.354(1)&0.109(2)&-0.323(4)&558.3\\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[4,11] &0.04393(2)&-0.312(2)&0.23(8) &-0.89(3) &154.9\\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[5,11] &0.04422(2)&-0.248(7)&0.45(3) &-2.6(1) &36.02\\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[6,11] &0.04415(9)&-0.11(3) &1.1(2) &-7.9(9) &4.44\\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &\tiny{$[R_{m},R_{M}]$} & & & & & \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[2,6] & 0.0409(9) & -0.390(4) & 0.01(6) & -0.06(1) &3835.6\\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[3,8] & 0.0427(1) & -0.391(2) & 0.032(5) & -0.205(9) &13.5\\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[4,10] & 0.0439(4) & -0.335(3) & 0.162(8) & -0.71(3) &56.3\\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[5,10] & 0.0443(3) & -0.284(9) & 0.30(3) & -2.0(2) &14.0\\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The $\chi^{2}$ values and the corresponding fit parameters $b_4$(LU) and $\mu$(LU) returned from fits to the next to leading order (NLO) static potential with boundary terms $V_{n\ell o}^{b4}$ given by Eq.\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Rigid_Boundb3}.}
\label{T5_Pot_T09_NG_NLO_boundb3}
\end{table}
\begin{table*}[!hpt]
\begin{center}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{cc|cccccccccc|cccccccccc|}
\multirow{2}{*}{\begin{turn}{90}\hspace{1cm}$ V_{{n\ell o}}^{R,b_2,b_4} $ \end{turn} } &\tiny{Fit Interval}
&\multicolumn{2}{c}{\tiny{Fit Parameters, $T/T_{c}=0.9$}} &\multicolumn{2}{c}{}\\
&$R\in I$
&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\sigma_0 a^{2}$} &\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\mu$(LU)}
&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\alpha_r$} &\multicolumn{1}{c}{$b_2$(LU)}&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$b_4$(LU)}&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\chi^{2}$}\\
\\
\hline
\multirow{10}{*}{\begin{turn}{90}\hspace{1cm}\tiny{$V_{{n\ell o}}+V^{R}+V^{b_2}+V^{b_4}$} \end{turn}}
&\tiny{$[R_{m},R_{M}]$} & & & & & & & \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[2,11]&0.043519, 0.0000183&-0.36374, 0.000937&-0.140876, 0.0032&-0.903213, 0.013&0.222968, 0.00464167&437.185\\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[3,11]&0.0439943, 0.0000204&-0.404129, 0.00240&0.258954, 0.0100&-4.24603, 0.188&2.25785, 0.120102&145.932\\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[4,11]&0.0442363, 0.0000234&-1.36259, 0.0873&0.502746, 0.038&-47.2974, 3.9&34.353, 3.07522&34.16\\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[5,11]&0.0441876, 0.0000808&-13.6639, 2.41&1.03577, 0.206&-568.27, 102.6&689.797, 82.3587&3.96\\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &\tiny{$[R_{m},R_{M}]$} & & & & &&& \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[2,8] &0.0432653, 0.0000787&-0.395082, 0.00194&0.0545925, 0.00554004&-0.569233, 0.0288&0.123925, 0.00867162&5.41\\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[3,8] &0.0437036, 0.000155&-0.401344, 0.00342&-0.0855039, 0.0161917&-1.42324, 0.399&0.628589, 0.23702&0.9\\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[3,9] &0.043877, 0.000071&-0.401914, 0.0030&0.120593, 0.0111493&-2.10003, 0.285&1.02458, 0.173838&7.4\\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[4,9] &0.0442943, 0.000106759&-0.78807, 0.146409&0.198267, 0.0383622&-19.6914, 6.71211&14.3284, 5.07934&0.7\\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[4,10] &0.0443398, 0.0000340&-1.08879, 0.109&0.330004, 0.0378015&-34.0812, 4.99&25.1703, 3.7973&12.5\\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The $\chi^{2}$ values and the corresponding fit parameters; rigidity $\alpha$, boundary parameters $(b_2,b_4)$ and string tension and cutoff $(\sigma,\mu)$, returned from fits to the rigid-self-interacting string potential with two boundary terms $V_{n\ell o}^{R,b_2,b_4}$ given by Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Rigid_Boundb2b3}.}
\label{T8_Pot_T09_NG_NLO_Rigid_Boundb2b3}
\end{table*}
\subsubsection{Boundary terms in L\"uscher-Weisz action}
Effects such as the interaction of the string with the Ployakov lines at the boundaries may be relevant to the discrepancies in the effective string description at the short and intermediate string length. The contribution to the Casmir energy due to the two next-to-leading nonvanshing term $S^b$ in L\"uscher-Weisz action Eq.~\eqref{LWaction} does not not affect the slop of the linearly rising part of the potential. However, the effects are received as inverse powers in $R$ and are given by $V_{n\ell o}^{b_2,b_3}$ of Eq~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Boundb2b3}.
\begin{figure}[!hptb]
\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{Fig10a_QQpotenT09_nloR_fitResults}
\caption{The quark-antiquark $Q \bar{Q}$ potential $T/T_c=0.9$. The lines correspond to the fits to self-interacting NG potential with two boundary terms $V_{n\ell o}^{b_2,b_4}$ given by Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Boundb2b3},in addition the rigidity of the string has been included in the fitting ansatz $V_{n\ell o}^{R,b_2,b_4}$ Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Rigid_Boundb2b3}.}
\label{Fig7_Fits_Pot_T09_NG_NLO_Rigid_Boundb2b3}
\end{figure}
Since the leading nonvanshing boundary terms appear at the order of four derivative term Eq.~\eqref{boundaryaction} in L\"uscher-Weisz action Eq.~\ref{LWaction}, It may be more convenient to discuss the corresponding effects ~\eqref{Pot_Boundb2} in conjunction with the NLO form of the potential of the NG action Eqs.~\ref{Pot_NG_NLO} with the renormalization of the string tension included.
For the purpose of the discussion of the numerical data of the static meson potential, We define the following possible combinations of LO and NLO Nambu-Goto static potential with boundary terms,
\begin{align}
V_{n\ell o}^{b_2}&=V_{n\ell o}+V^{b_2},\label{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Boundb2}\\
V_{\ell o,n\ell o}^{b_4}&=V_{\ell o,n \ell o}+V^{b_4},\label{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Boundb3}\\
V_{n \ell o}^{b_2,b_4}&=V_{n\ell o}+V^{b_2}+V^{b_4},\label{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Boundb2b3}
\end{align}
where subscripted $V_{\ell o, n\ell o}$ denotes either the LO NG static potential or the NLO Eq.~\eqref{NGpert}. The $Q\bar{Q}$ potential data are fitted to the static potential with a two possibly interesting combinations of the boundary terms $V_{n\ell o}^{b_2}$ and $V_{n \ell o}^{b_2,b_4}$ given by Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Boundb2} and Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Boundb2b3}, respectively. The inspection of each boundary term allows for understanding of the relevance of each boundary parameters to the fit arrangement. The corresponding returned values of $\chi^{2}$ and fit parameters are enlisted in Table~\ref{T4_Pot_T09_NG_NLO_boundb2},~\ref{T5_Pot_T09_NG_NLO_boundb3} and ~\ref{T5_Pot_T09_NG_NLO_boundb2b4}, considering various fit intervals.
The fit to the static potential $V_{n\ell o}^{b_2}$ of the model Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Boundb2} returns values for the parameter $b_2$ which appear to vary dramatically with the considered range. The values of $\chi^{2}$ are still high when considering the entire fit-interval $R \in [0.5,1.1]$ fm. Even though, none trivial improvements in the values of $\chi^{2}$ are retrieved as shown in Table.~\ref{T4_Pot_T09_NG_NLO_boundb2} compared to that obtained by merely considering the NG string potential Eqs.~\eqref{Pot_NG_NLO} (Table.~\ref{T3_Pot_NG_LO_NLO}). The fits to the static potential with the boundary term $V_{n\ell o}^{b_2}$ produce acceptable $\chi^{2}_{\rm{dof}}$ value for shorter fit intervals commencing from $R \in [0.7,1.2]$ fm.
With the interchange of the term $V_{n\ell o}^{b_4}$ in place of $V_{n\ell o}^{b_2}$ in the string model Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Boundb2}, the fits are not surprisingly good. However, the interesting observation is that the fits at shorter distances commencing from $R=0.3$ fm upto $R=0.7$ fm, for both models $V_{n\ell o}^{b_2}$ and $V_{n \ell o}^{b_2,b_4}$, are remarkably good with a returned $\sigma_{0}a^{2}=0.042$ (Table~\ref{T5_Pot_T09_NG_NLO_boundb2b4}).
Inspection of Tables~\ref{T4_Pot_T09_NG_NLO_boundb2} and ~\ref{T5_Pot_T09_NG_NLO_boundb2b4} indicates that fits to the NLO form of (NG) string with boundary term $V_{n \ell o}^{b_{2}}$ produce very close value of $\sigma_{0}a^{2}$ as the pure NG string $V_{n \ell o}$. The same observation holds for the fits to $V_{n \ell o}^{b_4}$ and $V_{n \ell o}^{b_2,b_4}$. Acceptable value of $\chi^{2}$ are returned $\sigma_{0}a^{2}=0.0397$ over the fit interval $[0.7,1.2]$ fm.
Despite of the reductions in the minima of $\chi^{2}_{dof}$, the string models with boundary terms have no significantly different behavior with respect to the string tension parameter. This is consistent with the modular transforms where the inverse of the cyliner's modular parameter does not produce terms linear in $R$. Therof, the boundary corrections to the static potential do not contribute to the renormalization of the string tension.
\subsubsection{Rigidity terms in Polyakov-Kleinert action}
Establishing a precise string description of the $Q\bar{Q}$ potential data and a correct thermodynamic behavior for the string tension at high temperature have been a long withstanding issues in many investigated gauge models. The consideration of the boundary terms solely does not provide an optimal fits and other possible string properties may be questioned in this context. The possible rigidity/stiffness/self-repulsion of QCD flux tube; or the resistance to sharp transverse-bending should manifest by the onset of the excited fluctuations at high temperatures.
In order to unambiguously appreciate the changes on the fits when the rigidity of the string is taken into account, we discuss the modified static potential of rigid string in conjunction with both the leading and the next-to-leading approximations to NG action $V_{\ell o}^{R}$ and $V_{n \ell o}^{R}$ Eqs.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Rigid}, separately.
More variants of string models can be attained by including other combinations of the rigid terms such as,
\begin{align}
V_{n\ell o}^{R}&=V_{n\ell o}+V^{R},\label{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Rigid}\\
V_{n\ell o}^{R,b_2}&=V_{n\ell o}+V^{R}+V^{b_2},\label{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Rigid_Boundb2}\\
V_{n\ell o}^{R,b_4}&=V_{n\ell o}+V^{R}+V^{b_4},\label{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Rigid_Boundb3}\\
V_{n \ell o}^{R,b_2,b_4}&=V_{n\ell o}+V^{R}+V^{b_2}+V^{b_4},\label{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Rigid_Boundb2b3}
\end{align}
the above compilations are particular choices of terms from the most general formalism L\"uscher-Weisz action.
We proceed in the fit analysis of the $Q\bar{Q}$ static potential data without fixing the value of the string tension. The rigidity factor, $\alpha_{r}$ which weighs the extrinsic curvature tensor, and the ultraviolet cutoff $\mu$ are taken as a free fit parameters as well. Table.~\ref{T7_Pot_T09_NG_NLO_Rigid} summarizes values of $\chi^{2}$ obtained from fits to $V_{n \ell o}^{R}$ Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Rigid}. We remark the following points:
Figure~\ref{Chi2AlphaSigma} plots the returned $\chi^{2}$ values versus both the string tension and rigidity. The plot indicates the quality of the fit in the parameteric space $(\alpha_{r},\sigma_{0})$, the oscillatory nature of $\chi^{2}_{dof}$ when the rigidity is included and attainment of the global minima of $\chi^{2}$ at $\sigma_0=0.044$.
Drawing comparison between the returned $\chi^{2}$ in Table.~\ref{T2_Pot_NG_LO_NLO} and Table~\ref{T7_Pot_T09_NG_NLO_Rigid} reveals significant improvement in the fit behavior with the rigidity term $V_{n\ell o}^{R}$ of the string model Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Rigid} over the pure NG string potential given by Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO} and \eqref{Pot_NG_NLO}.
The residuals are reduced on the fit interval $R \in [0.7,1.1]$ fm, the returned $\chi^{2}_{dof}$ indicate good values for $R>0.7$ fm. Remarkably, the value of the returned string tension $\sigma a^{2}=0.0442(3)$ on the interval $R\in[0.7,1.1]$ fm and $\sigma a^{2}=0.044(2)$ on the interval $R\in[0.8,1.1]$ fm is shifted above the value obtained from considering fits to merely the static potential of the pure NG string. The fit to Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Rigid} results in a value of the string tension which, within the numerical uncertainities, is equivalent to that reproduced at zero temperature measurements~\cite{Koma:2017hcm}.
The consideration of the two-parameter rigid string model $(\mu,\alpha_{r})$ with the next-to-leading order NG potential $V_{n\ell o}^{R}$ of Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Rigid} results in a smaller $\chi^{2}$ compared to the fit with the two parameter $(\mu,\alpha)$ string models $V_{n\ell o}^{b_2}$ of formula Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Boundb2}. Nevertheless, the fit with boundary action models (Table.~\ref{T5_Pot_T09_NG_NLO_boundb2b4})compares to the rigid string when considering larger parametric space,i.e., the three parameter $(\mu, b_2,b_4)$ model of $V_{n\ell o}^{b_2,b_4}$ Eqs.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Boundb2b3}.
The plot in Fig.~\ref{Fig6_Fits_Pot_T09_NG_NLO_Rigid_Boundb2}(a) is the fit of the static potential of the rigid string for the fit intervals over the given in Table~\ref{T7_Pot_T09_NG_NLO_Rigid}. A descending sequence of the values of rigidity parameter $\alpha_r$ are returned. The values of $\alpha$ decreases from $\alpha=1.0$ to $\alpha=0.16$ as one includes smaller distances into the fit range over intermediate distances $[0.8,11]$ to $[0.5,11]$ fm.
Large uncertainties in the rigidity parameter $\alpha_r$ are returned from the fits with the decrease of minimal source separation $R_{m}$ of the fit range $R\in[R_{m},R_{M}]$. This is perhaps owing to higher-order terms in the perturbative expansion of the extrinsic curvature in the rigid string action.
The renormalization of the string tension has been explicitly given by German~\cite{German:1989cz,German:1991tc} long ago. The misfortune that we are lacking an ansatz for the potential for the two-loop static quark-antiquark~\cite{German:1989vk,German:1989cz,German:1991tc} at finite temperature scales and dimension. We evaluate the thermodynamic properties of this string gas at two-loop orders and examine the effects on the relatively short distance physics in a separate report~\cite{Bakry2020}.
Despite of the outstanding match between the static potential curve with $\alpha_r=0.6$ and the data over the range $R \in [0.7,1.1]$, the plot in Fig.~\ref{Fig6_Fits_Pot_T09_NG_NLO_Rigid_Boundb2}(a) exhibits palpable deviations if short distances $R<0.5$ fm are not included in the fit interval.
Nevertheless, the reduction in the residual from the fits to Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Rigid} and the subsequent retrieve of the correct normalization of the string tension grasp a clue that the rigid properties are nontrivial ingredient in a faithful representation of the physics of the QCD flux-tube.
\begin{figure*}[!hptb]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{Fig11_QQpotenT08_paramaters}
\caption{Parameter chart of returned from the fit of each corresponding string model versus the fit rang lower bound $R_{m}$ of the interval $ R \in [R_{m}, R_{M}]$ whereas the upper $[R_{m}]$ bound is kept fixed at $R_{M}=1.1$ fm. Each point type correspond to the parameter value depicted in the corresponding pure NG string model Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO}, Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_NLO}, the NLO NG model with boundary terms Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Boundb2}, Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Boundb2b3}, and the rigid string models Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Rigid}, Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Rigid_Boundb2} and Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Rigid_Boundb2b3}. The last subfigure on the left shows the $\chi^2$ corresponding to each model.}
\label{ParameterChart}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!hptb]
\centering
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[scale=0.37]{Fig9a_QQpotenT08_NGlonlo}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[scale=0.37]{Fig9b_QQpotenT08_NGlonlo}}
\caption{The quark-antiquark $Q \bar{Q}$ potential data at temperature $T/T_c=0.8$ the lines correspond to the fits to the corresponding string models. The potential data on the Y-axis have been scaled by the square of source separation distance $R^2$ and is given in Lattice units (a) The LO Nambu-Goto string model $V_{\ell o}$ given by Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO} for the depicted fit interval $R \in [R_{m},R_{M}]$ (b) The corresponding fits to the NLO Nambu-Goto string model $V_{n\ell o}$ Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_NLO}.}
\label{Fits_Pot_T08_NG_LO_NLO}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!hptb]
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[scale=0.37]{Fig10a_QQpotenT08_NGlo}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[scale=0.37]{Fig10b_QQpotenT09_beta06_nloB2B4_respad_uncpad_fitResults}}
\caption{The quark-antiquark $Q \bar{Q}$ potential data at temperature $T/T_c=0.8$ the lines correspond to the fits to the corresponding string models. The potential data on the Y-axis have been scaled by the square of source separation distance $R^2$ and is given in Lattice units (a) Compares the fits from both LO and NLO Nambu-Goto string with boundary term $V^{b_2}$, the fitted models are given by $V^{b_2}_{\ell o}$ Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Boundb2} and Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Boundb2} (b) Similar to (a); however, the fits are for both boundary terms $V^{b_2,b_3}$. The fitted models are given by $V^{b_2,b_3}_{\ell o}$ Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Boundb2b3} and $V^{b_2,b_3}_{n\ell o}$ Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Boundb2b3} }
\label{Fits_Pot_T08_NG_LO_NLO_Boundb2b3}
\end{figure*}
As discussed above, the boundary corrections to the static potential are mitigating the short distance mismatch with the data; whereas, the rigidity term evidently returns acceptable values of $\chi^{2}$ and string tension over long distances. An optimization of both models is expected, thereof, to provide a prospect for an extended distance scale of validity.
The models given by Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Rigid_Boundb2}, Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Rigid_Boundb3} and Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Rigid_Boundb2b3} define selected compilations grasping both aspects of the rigidity and boundary effects. Tables.~\ref{T8_Pot_T09_NG_NLO_Rigid_Boundb2b3}, \ref{T5_Pot_T09_NG_NLO_boundb3} and \ref{T7_Pot_T09_NG_NLO_Rigid_Boundb2} enlist the parameters and $\chi^{2}$ returned from the fits of the numerical data of the static potential to these models, respectively.
Inspection of the above mentioned tables reveals that the two models given by the interchanging the two boundary terms $V^{b_2}$ and $V^{b_4}$ in Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Rigid_Boundb2}, Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Rigid_Boundb3} are yielding almost comparable values of $\chi^2$ for each given fit interval.
However, the model encompassing both of the boundary terms Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Rigid_Boundb2} provide the best fit for the targeted distance which is the intermediate distance scale [5,11], $\chi^{2}=3.96$. Interestingly, the fit over short distances interval in the second panel of Table.~\ref{T8_Pot_T09_NG_NLO_Rigid_Boundb2b3} is as well indicating a good $\chi^{2}$ for most fit intervals. The plot of the static potential in Figs.~\ref{Fig6_Fits_Pot_T09_NG_NLO_Rigid_Boundb2}(a), Fig.~\ref{Fig6_Fits_Pot_T09_NG_NLO_Rigid_Boundb2}(b) and Fig.~\ref{Fig7_Fits_Pot_T09_NG_NLO_Rigid_Boundb2b3} respectively illustrates the subsequent diminish of the errors $|Data-Model|$ as the boundary terms are included to rigid model.
The panel of Fig.~\ref{ParameterChart} congregates subfigures each show the variation in the parametric subspace versus the below bound $R_{m}$ of the fit interval $[R_{m},R_{M}]$ whereas the last point has kept fixed at $R_{M}=1.1$ fm.
The returned zero-temperature string tension $\sigma_{0}a^{2}$ unless otherwise the rigidity is considered is decreasing with the increase of lower bound of the fit $R_{M}$ to achieve acceptable reduction of $\chi^{2}$. The remarkable feature is that the contrary of this behavior is observed when we string models with rigidity are considered.
The rigidity parameter $\alpha_r$ appears to assume stable values $\alpha_r \le 1.0$ in the range $R_{m} \in [0.4,0.6]$ fm. At $R=0.3$ fm, the large uncertainities are suppressed owing to the additional of boundary terms of couplings $b_2$ and $b_4$.
The optimal $\chi^{2}$ is attained at $R_{m}=0.5$ fm for the rigid string model with two boundary terms of Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Rigid_Boundb2b3}. The increase in $\chi^{2}$ is almost dramatic for all other models $R \le 0.5$ fm. However, good $\chi^{2}$ indicating the long distance behavior of effective bosonic strings are obtained from distances $R_{m}=0.9$ and decreases according to a certain selection from the extended parametric space $(\alpha_r,b_2,b_4)$ to $R_{m}=0.5$ fm.
\subsection{Temperature scale near the Plateau $T/T_c=0.8$}
The analysis of the pure gluonic configuration near the end of QCD plateau is very interesting since a small change in the temperature could produce essential different effects on the properties of the confining force. It ought to be instructive to extend the above reported analysis to the lower temperature scale $T/T_c=0.8$ where the thermal fluctuations are expected to be milder.
In the following we question the string self-interaction and the rigidity together with the boundary terms at each selected source separation intervals. Our target is to illuminate which terms in the interaction potential which persist to provide a good match with the numerical data regardless of the temperature scale in addition to the fit ansatz which nolonger have palpable effects on the fit behavior with the decrease of the temperature.
\begin{table}[!hpt]
\begin{center}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccccc}
\multirow{2}{*}{} & &\multirow{2}{*}{$V_{Q\bar{Q}}(R,T)$ $fm^{-1}$} &\multirow{2}{*}{$e(R)$}\\
&$n=R/a$ &&&\\
\hline
\multirow{12}{*}{\begin{turn}{90}$~T/T_{c}=0.8~~~$ \end{turn}}
&1 & -5.09326& 0.000697444 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &2&-4.75149& 0.00095430 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &3&-4.26808& 0.00151333 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &4&-3.72477& 0.0025312 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &5&-3.17865& 0.00419748 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &6&-2.65406& 0.0067545 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &7&-2.1536 & 0.0106855 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &8&-1.67372& 0.0169562 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &9&-1.21469& 0.0269818 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &10&-0.781636& 0.0424626 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &11&-0.378375& 0.0654182 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &12&0.0& 0.0986779\\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{center}
\caption{
The quark-antiquark potential color source separation distances $R$ and temperature $T/T_{c}=0.8$, the lattice parameters $\beta=6.0$, $N_t=10$ time slices and spatial volume $N_s=36^3$. The avaraging is taken for two Polyakov lines separated by distance $R$ Eq.~\eqref{PolyakovCorrelators}.}
\label{T9_Pot_Cor_T08}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[!hpt]
\begin{center}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{cc|ccccccccc}
\multirow{2}{*}{$V_{NG}$} &Fit
&\multicolumn{2}{c}{Fit Parameters, $T/T_{c}=0.8$} &\multicolumn{2}{c}{}\\
&Interval
&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\sigma a^{2}$} &\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\mu$}
&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\chi^{2}$}\\
\hline
\multirow{10}{*}{\begin{turn}{90}\hspace{1cm}$V_{{\ell o}}$ \end{turn}}
&$[R_{m},R_{M}]$ & & & \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[2,11] &0.02520(8)& -0.4000(2)&21875.7 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[3,11] &0.0392(1) &-0.4586(5)&795.844\\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[4,11] &0.0435(2) &-0.482(1) &18.6047\\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[5,11] &0.045(3) &-0.49(2) &00\\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[3,6] &0.0373(2) &-0.4523(5)&399.716 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[3,7] &0.0381(1) &-0.4553(5)&566.884\\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[3,10] &0.0391(1) &-0.4583(4)&779.503 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[4,10] &0.0435(2) &-0.4816(9)&18.5844 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The $\chi^{2}$ values and the corresponding fit parameters; string tension and cutoff $(\sigma,\mu)$, returned from fits to the free string potential $V_{\ell o}$ given by Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO}.}
\label{T10_Pot_T08_NG_LO}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[!hpt]
\begin{center}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{cc|ccccccccc}
\multirow{2}{*}{$V_{NG}$} &Fit
&\multicolumn{2}{c}{Fit Parameters, $T/T_{c}=0.8$} &\multicolumn{2}{c}{}\\
&Interval
&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\sigma a^{2}$} &\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\mu$}
&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\chi^{2}$}\\
\hline
\multirow{10}{*}{\begin{turn}{90}\hspace{1cm}$V_{{n\ell o}}$ \end{turn}}
&$[R_{m},R_{M}]$ & & & \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[2,11] &0.0240(2)&-0.3208(8) & 340026 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[3,11] &0.0325(2)&-0.4084(6) & 4609.75 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[4,11] &0.0422(2)&-0.463(1) & 119.701\\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[5,11] &0.0449(3)&-0.481(2) & 2.60999 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The $\chi^{2}$ values and the corresponding fit parameters; string tension and cutoff $(\sigma,\mu)$, returned from fits to the self-interacting string potential at next to leading order $V_{n\ell o}$ given by Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_NLO}.}
\label{T10_Pot_T08_NG_NLO}
\end{table}
\begin{table*}[!hpt]
\begin{center}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{cc|cccccccccc}
\multirow{2}{*}{\begin{turn}{90}\hspace{1cm}$ V_{{n\ell o}}^{b_2,b_4} $ \end{turn} } &\tiny{Fit Interval}
&\multicolumn{2}{c}{\tiny{Fit Parameters, $T/T_{c}=0.8$}} &\multicolumn{2}{c}{}\\
&$R\in I$
&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\sigma_0 a^{2}$} &\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\mu$(LU)}
&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$b_2$(LU)} &\multicolumn{1}{c}{$b_4$(LU)}&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\chi^{2}_{\rm{dof}}$}\\
&&&&\\
\hline
\multirow{10}{*}{\begin{turn}{90}\hspace{2cm}$V_{{\ell o}}^{b_{2}}$ \end{turn}}
&(a)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ & & & \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[2,5] &0.0400(2) &-0.4689(9) &-0.138(1) &0.0 & 50.9115 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[2,11] &0.0422(1) &-0.4767(6) &-0.148(1) &0.0&197.566 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[3,11] &0.0452(2) &-0.489(1) &-0.607(9) &0.0 & 5.91231\\\hline
\multirow{10}{*}{\begin{turn}{90}\hspace{2cm}$V_{{\ell o}}^{b_{4}}$ \end{turn}}
&(b)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ & & & \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[2,5] &0.0376637, 0.000209043&-0.456079, 0.000749928&0.0&-0.0481111,0.000478584 &107.329\\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[3,7] &0.0444179, 0.000296234&-0.486774, 0.00141769&0.0&-0.213006, 0.00896163&1.93\\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[2,11] &0.040609, 0.000129929&-0.466179, 0.000499672&0.0&-0.0536944,0.000366839&451.37\\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[3,11] &0.0445357, 0.000226426&-0.487308, 0.00111589&0.0&-0.215779, 0.00766315&2.96961\\\hline
\multirow{10}{*}{\begin{turn}{90}\hspace{2cm}$V_{{\ell o}}^{b2,b_{4}}$ \end{turn}}
&(c)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ & & & \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[2,11]&0.0451733, 0.00025135&-0.496249, 0.00150301&-0.436979, 0.0205995&0.104738, 0.00747759&1.37428\\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[3,11]&0.0450192, 0.000425963&-0.494044, 0.00514882&-0.327809, 0.24461&0.0244465, 0.17942&1.17367\\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The $\chi^{2}$ values and the corresponding fit parameters; string tension and cutoff $(\sigma,\mu)$ together with the boundary parameters $(b_2,b_4)$ returned from fits three possible combinations of the boundary terms at LO level (a) $V_{\ell o}^{b_2}$, (b) $V_{\ell o}^{b_4}$ and (c) $V_{\ell o}^{b_2,b_4}$ given by Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Boundb2},Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Boundb3} and Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Boundb2b3}, respectively.}
\label{T11_Pot_T08_NG_LO_Boundb2b3}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[!hpt]
\begin{center}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{cc|cccccccccc}
\multirow{2}{*}{\begin{turn}{90}\hspace{1cm}$ V_{{n\ell o}}^{b_2,b_4} $ \end{turn} } &\tiny{Fit Interval}
&\multicolumn{2}{c}{\tiny{Fit Parameters, $T/T_{c}=0.8$}} &\multicolumn{2}{c}{}\\
&$R\in I$
&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\sigma_0 a^{2}$} &\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\mu$(LU)}
&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$b_2$(LU)} &\multicolumn{1}{c}{$b_4$(LU)}&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\chi^{2}_{\rm{dof}}$}\\
&&&& \\
\hline
\multirow{10}{*}{\begin{turn}{90}\hspace{2cm}$V_{{n\ell o}}^{b_{2}}$ \end{turn}}
&(a)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ & & & \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[2,11] & 0.0393(2) &-0.4521(7) &-0.3189(7)&0.0 &1005.75 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[2,5] &0.0332(3) &-0.427(1) &-0.3077(8) &0.0 &259.723 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[3,11] &0.0452(2) &-0.489(1) &-0.607(9) &0.0 &5.91231 \\\hline
\multirow{10}{*}{\begin{turn}{90}\hspace{2cm}$V_{{n\ell o}}^{b_{4}}$ \end{turn}}
&(b)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ & & & \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[2,11]&0.0357542, 0.000149607&-0.427408, 0.000648593&0.0&-0.119262, 0.000259866&2447.1\\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[2,5] &0.0262228, 0.000337028&-0.387406, 0.00151795 &0.0& -0.115406, 0.000226769&688.624\\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[3,6] &0.0429852, 0.00039019 &-0.470346, 0.0019032 &0.0& -0.424624, 0.00898908&6.57496\\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[3,7] &0.0436562, 0.000301773&-0.473489, 0.00150711 &0.0&-0.436586, 0.00787107&13.9662\\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[3,11]&0.0442668, 0.000228102&-0.476414, 0.00117044 &0.0&-0.448646, 0.00685283&23.7994\\\hline
\multirow{10}{*}{\begin{turn}{90}\hspace{2cm}$V_{{n\ell o}}^{b_2,b_{4}}$ \end{turn}}
&(c)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ & & & \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} & & & & & \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[2,11]&0.0456057, 0.000249587&-0.495268, 0.0015125&-0.901874, 0.0186775&0.217754, 0.00695054&1.91735 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[3,11]&0.0459421, 0.000418268&-0.50015, 0.00509954&-1.14027, 0.238561&0.394536, 0.176489&0.912238\\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The $\chi^{2}$ values and the corresponding fit parameters at NLO level in NG action; string tension and cutoff $(\sigma,\mu)$ together with the boundary parameters $(b_2,b_4)$ returned from the fits to three possible combinations of the boundary terms (a) $V_{n\ell o}^{b_2}$, (b) $V_{n\ell o}^{b_4}$ and (c) $V_{n\ell o}^{b_2,b_4}$ given by Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Boundb2}, Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Boundb3} and Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Boundb2b3}, respectively.}
\label{T12_Pot_T08_NG_LO_Boundb2b3}
\end{table*}
\begin{table}[!hpt]
\begin{center}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{cc|cccccccccc}
\multirow{2}{*}{\begin{turn}{90}\hspace{1cm}$ $ \end{turn} } &\tiny{Fit Interval}
&\multicolumn{2}{c}{\tiny{Fit Parameters, $T/T_{c}=0.8$}} &\multicolumn{2}{c}{}\\
&$R\in I$
&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\sigma_0 a^{2}$} &\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\mu$(LU)}
&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\alpha_r$} &\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\chi^{2}$}\\
&&&&\\
\hline
\multirow{10}{*}{\begin{turn}{90}\hspace{1cm}$V^{R}_{{\ell o}}$ \end{turn}}
&\tiny{$[R_{m},R_{M}]$} & & & & \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{}&(a)~~~~~~~~~ & & & & \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[3,11] &0.0392(1) &-0.4586(4) &0.000139251 &795.844;2 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[4,11] &0.0436(2) &-0.4816(9) &0.000190263 &18.6047 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[5,11] &0.045 &-0.5(2) & &0.747119 \\\hline
\multirow{10}{*}{\begin{turn}{90}\hspace{2cm}$V_{{n\ell o}}^{R}$ \end{turn}}
&(b)~~~~~~~~~ & & & \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[3,11] &0.0326(1) & -0.4085(7) & 0.000334052 & 4609.75 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[4,11] &0.0422(2) & -0.464(1) & 0.000259934 & 23.94\\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[5,11] &0.0449(1) & -0.481(2) & 0.00349991 & 2.61\\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &[6,11] &0.0463(6) &-0.46(6) & 0.138479 &0.312231 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The $\chi^{2}$ values and the corresponding fit parameters at both LO and NLO level in NG action; string tension and cutoff $(\sigma,\mu)$ together with the rigidity parameter $\alpha_r$ returned from the fits to (a) $V_{\ell o}^{R}$ and (b) $V_{n\ell o}^{R}$ given by Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Rigid}, respectively.}
\label{T12_Pot_T08_NG_LO_NLO_Rigid}
\end{table}
\begin{figure*}[!hpt]
\centering
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Pot_T08_NG_LO_and_NLO_boundb2_Rigid}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Pot_T08_NG_LO_and_NLO_boundb2b4Rigid}}
\caption{The quark-antiquark $Q \bar{Q}$ potential $T/T_c=0.8$, (a)Compares the rigid string models with the boundary parameter $V_{\ell o}^{R,b_2}$ given by Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Rigid} and Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Rigid_Boundb2} for the depicted fit interval $R \in [R_{m},R_{M}]$ (b) Similar to (a); however, the corresponding fits are considered for two boundary parameters $(b_2,b_4)$ together with the leading order rigid string model $V_{\ell o}^{R,b_2,b_4}$ and the corresponding self-interacting model $V_{n\ell o}^{R,b_2,b_4}$ Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Rigid_Boundb2b3}.}
\label{Fits_Pot_T08_NG_LO_NLO_Boundb2b3_Rigid}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table*}[!hpt]
\begin{center}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{cc|cccccccccc|cccccccccc|}
\multirow{2}{*}{\begin{turn}{90}\hspace{1cm}$ V_{{\ell o}}^{R,b_2} $ \end{turn} } &\tiny{Fit Interval}
&\multicolumn{2}{c}{\tiny{Fit Parameters, $T/T_{c}=0.8$}} &\multicolumn{2}{c}{}\\
&$R\in I$
&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\sigma_0 a^{2}$} &\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\mu$(LU)}
&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\alpha$(LU)} &\multicolumn{1}{c}{$b2$}&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$b_3$}&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\chi^2$}\\
\\
\hline
\multirow{10}{*}{\begin{turn}{90}\hspace{2.5cm}\tiny{$V_{{\ell o}}^{R,b2}$} \end{turn}}
&\tiny{$[R_{m},R_{M}]$} & & & &&&& \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} & &\\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &2-11 &0.0423778, 0.0055167&-0.476726, 0.0409872&-0.0175304, 0.56730& -0.159085, 0.620026&0.0&188.181;\\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &3-11 &0.0452433, 0.000546988&-0.489922, 0.0148488&-0.0415493, 0.0793197&-0.335264, 0.13425&0.0&1.12352;\\\hline
\multirow{10}{*}{\begin{turn}{90}\hspace{2.4cm}\tiny{$V_{{n\ell o}}^{R,b_2}$} \end{turn}}
&2-7 &0.04(1) &-0.44(9)&0.0165(1.0)&-0.326 (1.3)&0.0&707.179\\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &2-11 &0.039(6) &-0.45(4) & 0.0170071 (0.54) &-0.33 (0.6) &0.0&979.948&\\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &3-11 &0.045(6) &-0.48(4)& 0.0192 (0.6)& -0.614308(0.6)&0.0&5.9\\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The $\chi^{2}$ values and the corresponding fit parameters returned from fits to the leading order (NLO) static potential with boundary terms Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Boundb2} and Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Boundb2b3}.}
\label{Tboundary}
\end{table*}
\subsubsection{The pure Nambu-Goto action}
A large value of $\chi^2$ is returned for fits of color sources separations commencing from $R=0.4$. For separations distance $R\leq 0.4$ fm the NG string description is showing increasingly significant deviations from the LGT data due to the short distance physics and the one dimensional idealization of NG string. In Refs.~\cite{Caselle:2012rp,Vyas:2010wg} the intrinsic thickness of the flux-tube has been discussed.
As Table~\ref{T10_Pot_T08_NG_LO} depicts, Excluding the point $R=0.4$ fm dramatically decreases the returned value of $\chi^{2}$ for both the leading order and the next to leading approximation Eqs.\eqref{Pot_NG_LO} and Eqs.~\eqref{Pot_NG_NLO}, respectively. The returned values of the string tension parameter quickly reaches stability even by the exclusion of further points at short distances $R=0.5$ fm and $R=0.6$ fm from the fit range. At this temperature, the string tension settles at a stable value of $\sigma_{0}\, a^{2}=0.0445$ measured in lattice units.
The measured value of $\sigma_{0} a^{2}$ at $T/T_c=0.8$ making use of the fits of LO and NLO approximations are the same within the standard deviation of the measurements. We take this value of the string tension as a reference value for the zero-temperature string tension $\sigma_0=0.0445$ measured also in ~\cite{Koma:2017hcm}. The numerical data for the $Q\bar{Q}$ potential match both the free leading-order NG string and the NLO self-interacting form of Eq.\eqref{Pot_NG_LO}Eq.\eqref{Pot_NG_NLO}. Approximately the same difference in the value of the string tension is retrieved for fit domains involving short to large $Q\bar{Q}$ separation distances.
Considering the fit of the same data of $Q\bar{Q}$ potential to the two-loop expression of the NG string Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_NLO}, the value of $\chi_{\rm{dof}}^2$ does not apprise mismatches for source separation distances commencing from $R>0.5$ fm. As shown in Table.~\ref{T10_Pot_T08_NG_NLO}, for different fit ranges with a fixed end point at $R=1.2$ fm, the fit return acceptable values of $\chi^2$ with subtle changes in the free fit parameter $\sigma_{0} a^{2}$. The absence of the mismatch between Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_NLO} and the numerical data at this temperature scale does not rule out the validity at this temperature scale.
This points out to the minor role of the higher order modes at the end of the QCD plateau $T/T_{c}=0.8$. The pale out of the thermal effects together with a flat plateau region at this temperature is present as well in the string tension measurements~\cite{PhysRevD.85.077501} and the more recent Monte-Carlo measurements ~\cite{Koma:2017hcm} which reproduces the same value of $0.044$ of the zero temperature string tension.
It is worth noting, on the otherhand, that the NLO terms alone esclates the fit on intervals $R .le. 0.5$ apprising an increase in the $\chi^{2}$ values by around 6 times larger. The enclosure of the fourth derivative term of the NLO term in the NG action appears, thereof, neither to alter the poor parameterisation behavior nor to indicate significant changes on the value of the string tension shown in Table.~\ref{T10_Pot_T08_NG_NLO}.
\subsubsection{Boundary terms in L\"uscher-Weisz action}
The values of $\chi^2$ returned from the fits to $V_{\ell o}^{b_2}$ and $V_{n \ell o}^{b_4}$ Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Boundb2} are enlisted in Table~\ref{T12_Pot_T08_NG_LO_Boundb2b3}. The consideration of the boundary terms $V_{\ell o}^{b_2}$ or $V_{n \ell o}^{b_4}$ persist to provide good $\chi^{2}$ values over short distance intervals $R \in [0.3,0.7]$ fm. The same observation holds at the other temperature $T/T_{c}=0.9$. These are well-known deviations from the free bosonic string over short distance even at zero temperature as well. This may suggest a role to the boundary terms for the deviation from the free non-interacting model over short distances $R<0.5$ fm.
However, the possible fit ansatz $V_{n \ell o}^{b_2}$, $V_{n \ell o}^{b_4}$ or $V_{n \ell o}^{b_2,b_4}$ at NLO in NG string and $V_{ \ell o}^{b_2}$, $V_{\ell o}^{b_4}$ or $V_{ \ell o}^{b_2,b_4}$ at leading order does not produce good $\chi^{2}$ for any fit interval involving $R=0.2$ fm. Moreover, the first three fit ansatz involving the string self-interaction seem to escalate the fit over this short distance and temperature. The minimal residuals of the fits over the interval $R \in [0.2,1.1]$ fm is provided by the ansatz $V_{\ell o}^{b_2,b_3}$ which produces $\chi^{2}_{dof}=139.7/(9-5)$.
Figure~\ref{Fits_Pot_T08_NG_LO_NLO_Boundb2b3} illustrates the fitted potential curves and the recieved small residuals over short distances as $R=0.3$ fm when the boundary term included into both LO and NLO NG string potentials. The potential curves are scaled by the square of the separation distance $R^{2}$ to magnify the long distances fits and the corresponding residuals. The plot exhibits the large value of the residuals and deviations over long distances when the point at $R=0.2$ fm is included into the fit intervals. These deviations are much less compared to the deviations over the same fit interval considering the pure NG string without boundary terms.
\subsubsection{Rigidity terms in Polyakov-Kleinert action}
Unlike the relative reduction in the square of the residuals $\chi^{2}$ at $T/T_c=0.9$ over all distances, very small values of the rigidity parameter is returned at this temperature $T/T_c=0.8$. The inclusure of the rigidity terms as well as self-interactions at this temperature do not return any sigficant improvement in the fit behavior at short distances at this temperature scale.
Effects such as the string's rigidity and self-interactions seem to become noticeable at higher temperatures and energies, the question should be posed here is whether these terms with the returned values at higher temperature $T/T_c=0.9$ are consistent at $T/T_c=0.8$.
In Table we inlisted the returned values $\chi^{2}$ at the intermediate distances $0.5 \le R \le 1.1$ fm the self-interactions and rigidity do not escalates the fits. At the temperature $T/T_c=0.8$ and string tension value of $\sigma_{0} a^{2}=0.0445$, Fig(12-a) shows the two solid curves which are the best fits over intervals $R \in [4,11]$ and $R \in [5,11]$ with good values $\chi^{2}$, respectively. The fit parameters are given
\begin{equation}
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
& \text{Estimate} & \text{Standard Error} \\
R_{0} & -0.441441 & 0.000680461 \\
b_2 & -1.03459 & 0.03637 \\
b_4 & 0.0 & 0.0 \\
\end{array}
\right),
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\text{} & \text{Estimate} & \text{Standard Error} \\
R_0 & -0.436602 & 0.0023778 \\
b_2 & -0.579979 & 0.217104 \\
b_4 & 0.0 & 0.0 \\
\end{array}
\right).
\end{equation}
Taking into account the additional degree of freedom endowed by $b_4$, the fits to Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Rigid_Boundb2b3} are returning $\chi^{2}=3.2$ over fit intervals $R \in [5,11]$ the parameter values
\begin{equation}
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\text{} & \text{Estimate} & \text{Standard Error} \\
R_0 & 0.819389 & 0.41822 \\
b_2 & 103.955 & 34.7415 \\
b_4 & -125.381 & 41.8451 \\
\end{array}
\right)
\end{equation}
the rigidity parameter in both cases is $\alpha_{r}=0.21$ which is the same measured at $T/T_{c}=0.9$ (within the numerical uncertainties as shown in Table.~\ref{T12_Pot_T08_NG_LO_NLO_Rigid}).
\subsection{String tension}
A discussion concerning the order of the phase transition and the value of the temperature at the critical point would be out of the scope of the present discussion. However, a correct string tension dependancy on the temperature entails that $\sigma(T) a^{2}$ at higher temperature would fall into the same theoretical curve fixed by the plateau value of $\sigma_0 a^{2}$. This is equivalent to say that that all fits to the $Q\bar{Q}$ potential are returning the same value of $\sigma_{0}a^{2}$ measured at zero temperature.
\begin{figure}[!hptb]
\centering
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[scale=0.42]{NGnlo_panelA_strTension_Lt_fitResults_uncBand}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[scale=0.42]{NGnlo_panelB_strTension_Lt_fitResults_uncBand}}
\caption{The temperature-dependence of the string tension for Nambu-Goto string action at LO, NLO and NNLO perturbative expansion. The dashed lines correspond to $\sigma_{0}a^{2}=0.044$ and solid line corresponds to $\sigma_{0}a^{2}=0.039$.}
\label{TensionT}
\label{NG_String_Tension}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!hptb]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.85]{Rigid_NG_StringTension}
\caption{The solid line shows the temperature-dependence of the string tension for rigid string at NLO in NG perturbative expansionfor two values of the parameter $\alpha=0.3$ and $\alpha=0.6$. The dashed lines correspond to $\sigma_{0}a^{2}=0.0445$ and solid line corresponds to rigid string model at one loop order.}
\label{NG_Rigid_String_Tension}
\end{figure}
In Fig~\ref{NG_String_Tension} each theoretical curve is a plot corresponding to the respective order in the NG power expansion. Each of these curves is well defined by the plateau value of $\sigma_0 a^{2}$ and endows the string tension dependency on the temperature. Usually, this envolves a measurement extracted from the lattice data through the slop of the linearly rising potential at low-enough temperature.
The perturbative string tension up to the fourth power in the temperature is layed out through Eq.\eqref{Tension_NG_LO} and Eq.\eqref{Tension_NG_NLO}. The exact temperature-dependent NG string tension is given by Eq.~\eqref{Tension_NG_Exact}. A probable role of more higher-order terms of the power expansion of NG string action may be discussed in the context of the string tension dependency on the temperature.
At the leading order NG string-tension the lattice data point at $T/T_c=0.8$ produces $\sigma(0.8T_c) a^{2}=0.038$ at the fixed parameter $\sigma_0 a^2=0.045$, which fits well into the LO of NG string Eq.~\eqref{Tension_NG_LO} curve as depicted in Fig.~\ref{NG_String_Tension}. However, at the temperature $T/T_c=0.9$ the string tension yields a value $\sigma_{\ell o}(0.9T_c)a^{2}=0.0245952$ for the same fixed parameter $\sigma_0a^2=0.045$. This value deviates by $15 \%$ from that returned from the fit of LO potential of NG string $\sigma(0.9T_c)a^{2}=0.0192051$ for fits over the largest interval $R \in [0.9,1.1]$ fm.
These deviations at $T/T_c=0.9$ reduce to $\sigma_{n \ell o}(T)a^{2}=0.0234638$ at NLO Eq.~\eqref{Tension_NG_NLO} compared to that retrieved from the fits over the same interval. The data point largly deviates from LO of NG string curve as shown in Fig.~\ref{NG_String_Tension}. Moreover, very small correction are received from the term proportional to the six power in the temperature. At the fourth and sixth order the string tension is $\sigma(T)a^{2}= $ and $\sigma(T)a^{2}=0.0234638$, respectively.
The deviations of the theoretical lines from the plateau value at $\sigma_{0}a^{2}=0.045$ indicate that all orders in NG action do not provide the correct behavior of the temperature-dependent string tension in the present four-dimensional Yang-Mills model. In addition to that, the boundary corrections $(V^{b_2},V^{b_4})$ Eq.~\eqref{Pot_Boundb2} and Eq.~\eqref{Pot_Boundb4} do not contribute to the renormalization of the string tension, since the modular transform of the potential does not produce terms linearly proprtional to the string length $R$.
Nevertheless, the extrinsic curvature terms in PK action do redefine the temperature-dependence of the string tension. The corrections to the NG string tension are uniquely determined by the value of the rigidity parameter.
In Tables~\ref{T7_Pot_T09_NG_NLO_Rigid}, the enlisted parameters of the rigid string model at $T/T_c=0.9$ show returned average value of $\sigma_0 a^{2}=0.044$ for fits over both intervals $R \in [0.7,1.1]$ fm and $R \in [0.8,1.1]$ fm. Similarly, in Table~\ref{T7_Pot_T09_NG_NLO_Rigid_Boundb2} where the rigid string fit ansatz includes boundary correction $V^{b_2}$ Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Rigid_Boundb2} a stable value is returned over $R \in [0.6,1.1]$ fm and $R \in [0.7,1.1]$ fm.
The string tension dependency on the temperature in rigid string model is given by the series expansion Eq.~\ref{StringTensionRigid}, with the asymptotic forms given by Eq.~\eqref{LT} and Eq.~\eqref{HT} at low and high temperatures, respectively.
Figure.~\ref{NG_Rigid_String_Tension} compares the fourth power NG string tension at next to leading order given by Eq.\eqref{Tension_NG_NLO} and the corresponding rigid string-tension given by Eq.~\eqref{HT} versus the temperature for the returned $\alpha=0.3$.
The rigid string is showing a more flat region at the end of the plateau region rather than the pure NG string. This observation has been reported in model independent calculations of Ref.~\cite{PhysRevD.85.077501}. For rigidity parameter $\alpha=0.3$ the string tension at $\sigma_0 a^{2}=0.0445$ at both temperature scale $T/T_c=0.8$ and $T/T_c=0.9$. It would be desirable to include more lattice data~\cite{PhysRevD.85.077501} at lower and higher temperature to well-establish the flatness of QCD transition curve, which we report in the future.
\section{Summary and Concluding Remarks}
In this work, we compared the static quark-antiquark potential of effective bosonic string model of confinement beyond free Nambu-Goto approximation to the Mont-Carlo lattice data~\cite{talk}. The study mainly targets the color source separation $R=0.5$ fm to $R=1.2$ fm, where it is well-known that the free string poorly describe the string tension and quark-antiquark potential in the vicinity of the critical point.
The Nambu-Goto (NG) action at two-loop order have been set into comparison with the corresponding $SU(3)$ Yang-Mills lattice data in four dimensions. The theoretical predictions laid down by the effects of boundary terms in L\"uscher-Weisz (LW) action and extrinsic curvature in Polyakov-Kleinert (PK) action have been also considered.
Both the LO and the NLO approximations of Nambu-Goto string show a good fit behavior for the data corresponding to the $Q\bar{Q}$ potential near the end of the QCD plateau region, namely, at $T/T_{c}=0.8$. The fit returns almost the same parameterization behavior with negligible differences for the measured zero temperature string tension $\sigma_{0}a^{2}$. The returned value of this fit paramter is in agreement with the measurements at zero temperature~\cite{Koma:2017hcm}.
We detect signatures of two boundary terms of the Lüscher-Weisz (LW) string action. The (LW) string with boundary action is yielding a static potential which is in a good agreement with the static potential lattice data as well, however, for color source separation as short as $R=0.3$ fm.
However, at higher temperature near the deconfinement point $T/T_{c}=0.9$ the fits to the Nambu-Goto string model considering either LO or NLO approximation poorly describes the lattice data of the static $Q\bar{Q}$ potential data for the fit region span the distances under scrutiny $R \in [0.5,1.2]$ fm.
Nevertheless, the fits show reduction of the residuals for the next-to-leading order approximation of the NG string on each corresponding fit interval. In both LO and NLO of NG string good $\chi^{2}_{\rm{dof}}$ is attained by the exclusion of the data points at short distances, i.e., $R \in[0.9,1.2]$ fm.
The effective description based only on Nambu-Goto model does not accurately describe the $Q\bar{Q}$ potential data which occur as a deviation from the standard value of the string tension and the static potential data. The fit to the Casimir energy of the self-interacting string returns a value of the zero temperature string tension $\sigma_{0} a^{2}=0.041$ which deviates by $11\%$ of that measured at $T/T_{c}=0.8$ and zero temperature. This motivated discussing other effects such as the interaction with the boundaries and stiffness of the flux-tube.
The inclusion of leading boundary term of L\"uscher-Weisz action in the approximation scheme reduces the residuals of the at all the considered source separations, however, deviations from the value of the zero temperature string tension $\sigma_{0}a^{2}$ do not diminish.
The fit of the static potential considering boundary terms of LW action and contributions from the extrinsic curvature of PK action show a significant improvement compared to that considering merely the ordinary Nambu-Goto string for the intermediate and asymptotic color source separation distances $R \in [0.5,1.2]$. The fits reproduce an acceptable value of $\chi^{2}$ and a zero temperature string tension $\sigma_{0}a^{2}$ measured at $T/T_c=0.8$ or at $T=0$ ~\cite{Koma:2017hcm}, thus, indicating a correct temperature dependence of the string tension.
The following enlists intervals over which the optimal value of $\chi^{2}_{\rm{dof}}$ is returned from the fit of the corresponding string model:
\begin{itemize}
\item The model encompassing one boundary term $V^{b_2}_{n \ell o}$ given by Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Boundb2} return best fit on the interval $R\in[0.8,1.1]$ fm. The rigid string model $V^{R}_{n \ell o}$ of Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Rigid} retrieves best fit over interval $R\in[0.7,1.1]$ fm.
\item Considering both rigidity and boundary term $b_2$ the model $V^{R,b_2}_{n \ell o}$ of Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Rigid_Boundb2} extendsbest fit to the interval $R \in [0.6,1.1]$ fm. Eventually, the next boundary-correction $b_4$ of the model $V^{R,b_2,b_4}_{n \ell o}$ of Eq.~\eqref{Pot_NG_LO_NLO_Rigid_Boundb2b3} reproduces best fit over the interval $R \in [0.5,1.1]$ fm.
\end{itemize}
\begin{acknowledgments}
We are thankful to S. Brandt, C. Bonati, M. Casselle, Ph. de Forcrand and T. Filk for their very useful comments. This work has been funded by the Chinese Academy of Sciences President's International Fellowship Initiative grants No.2015PM062 and No.2016PM043, the Recruitment Program of Foreign Experts, the Polish National Science Centre (NCN) grant 2016/23/B/ST2/00692, NSFC grants (Nos.~11035006,~11175215,~11175220) and the Hundred Talent Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (Y101020BR0).
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
In recent years, there were some efforts to generalize classical results on the bounded $\mathcal{H}^\infty$-calculus (\cite{Denk_et_al_2004,DHP03,Dore_Venni_2002,Duong_1990}) and maximal regularity (\cite{DHP03,DHP07,Denk_Pruess_Zacher_2008,Dore_Venni_1987,Hieber_Pruess_1997}) of elliptic and parabolic equations to cases in which rougher boundary data can be considered. The main tool in order to derive these generalizations are spatial weights, especially power weights of the form
\[
w_r^{\partial\mathcal{O}}(x):=\operatorname{dist}(x,\partial\mathcal{O})^r \quad(x\in\mathcal{O}),
\]
which measure the distance to the boundary of the domain $\mathcal{O}\subset\mathbb R^n$. Including weights which fall outside the $A_p$-range, i.e. weights with $r\notin(-1,p-1)$, provides a huge flexibility concerning the smoothness of the boundary data which can be considered. We refer the reader to \cite{Lindemulder_Veraar_2018} in which the bounded $\mathcal{H}^\infty$-calculus for the shifted Dirichlet Laplacian in $L_p(\mathcal{O},w_r^{\partial\mathcal{O}})$ with $r\in(-1,2p-1)\setminus\{p-1\}$ has been obtained and applications to equations with rough boundary data are given. One even obtains more flexibility if one studies boundary value problems in weighted Besov and Triebel-Lizorkin spaces. Maximal regularity results for the heat equation with inhomogeneous boundary data have been obtained in \cite{Lindemulder_2018}. In \cite{Hummel_Lindemulder_2019} similar results were shown for general elliptic and parabolic boundary value problems.\\
The elliptic and parabolic equations we are interested in are of the form
\begin{align}\label{EllipticBVP}
\begin{aligned}
\lambda u -A(D)u&=f\quad\;\text{in }\mathbb R^n_+,\\
B_j(D)u&=g_j\quad\text{on }\mathbb R^{n-1}\quad(j=1,\ldots,m),\\
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}\label{ParabolicBVP}
\begin{aligned}
\partial_t u -A(D)u&=f\quad\;\text{in }\mathbb R\times\mathbb R^n_+,\\
B_j(D)u&=g_j\quad\text{on }\mathbb R\times \mathbb R^{n-1}\quad(j=1,\ldots,m),
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
where $A,B_1,\ldots,B_m$ is a homogeneous constant-coefficient parameter-elliptic boundary system, $f$ is a given inhomogeneity and the $g_j$ $(j=1,\ldots,m)$ are given boundary data. Of course, $f$ and the $g_j$ in \eqref{ParabolicBVP} may depend on time. We will also study the case in which \eqref{ParabolicBVP} is supplemented by initial conditions, i.e.
\begin{align}\label{ParabolicIBVP}
\begin{aligned}
\partial_t u -A(D)u&=f\quad\;\text{in }(0,T]\times\mathbb R^n_+,\\
B_j(D)u&=g_j\quad\text{on }(0,T]\times \mathbb R^{n-1}\quad(j=1,\ldots,m),\\
u(0,\,\cdot\,)&=u_0
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
for some $T\in\mathbb R_+$. The focus will lie on the systematic treatment of boundary conditions $g_j$ which are only assumed to be tempered distributions. In particular, boundary data of negative regularity will be included. However, we still have some restrictions on the smoothness in time of the boundary data for \eqref{ParabolicIBVP}.\\
One reason for the interest in the treatment of rougher boundary data is that they naturally appear in problems with boundary noise. The fact that white noise terms have negative pathwise regularity (see for example \cite{Aziznejad_Fageot_Unser_2018,Fageot_Fallah_Unser_2017,Veraar_2011}) was one of the main motivations for this work. It was already observed in \cite{DaPrato_Zabczyk_1993} that even in one dimension solutions to equations with Gaussian boundary noise only have negative regularity in an unweighted setting. By introducing weights, this issue was resolved for example in \cite{Alos_Bonaccorsi_2002}. We also refer to \cite{Brzezniak_et_al_2015} in which the singularities at the boundary of solutions of Poisson and heat equation with different kinds of noise are analyzed.\\
One drawback of the methods in \cite{Alos_Bonaccorsi_2002,Brzezniak_et_al_2015,DaPrato_Zabczyk_1993} is that solutions are constructed in a space which is too large for traces to exist, i.e. the operators
\[
\operatorname{tr}_{\partial\mathcal{O}}B_j(D)\quad(j=1,\ldots,m)
\]
are not well-defined as operators from the space in which the solution is constructed to the space of boundary data. This problem is avoided by using a mild solution concept, which is a valid approach in the classical setting and therefore, it seems reasonable to accept mild solutions as good enough, even though $\operatorname{tr}_{\partial\mathcal{O}}B_j(D)u$ does not make sense on its own.\\
In this paper, we propose a point of view which helps us to give a meaning to $\operatorname{tr}_{\partial\mathcal{O}}B_j(D)u$ in a classical sense. We will exploit that solutions to \eqref{EllipticBVP}, \eqref{ParabolicBVP} and \eqref{ParabolicIBVP} are very smooth in normal directions so that taking traces will easily be possible, even if the boundary data is just given by tempered distributions. This can be seen by studying these equations in spaces of the form $\mathscr{B}^k(\mathbb R_{+},\mathscr{A}^s(\mathbb R^{n-1}))$, where $\mathscr{A}$ and $\mathscr{B}$ denote certain scales of function spaces with smoothness parameters $s$ and $k$, respectively. The parameter $k$ corresponds to the smoothness in normal direction and will be taken large enough so that we can take traces and the parameter $s$ corresponds to smoothness in tangential directions and will be taken small enough so that $\mathscr{A}^s$ contains the desired boundary data. This way, we will not only be able to give a meaning to $\operatorname{tr}_{\partial\mathcal{O}}B_j(D)u$, but we will also obtain tools which help us to analyze the singularities of solutions at the boundary. This supplements the quantitative analysis in \cite{Hummel_Lindemulder_2019,Lindemulder_2018,Lindemulder_Veraar_2018}.\\
The idea to use spaces with mixed smoothness is quite essential in this paper, even if one refrains from using mixed scales. We refer to \cite[Chapter 2]{Schmeisser_Triebel_1987} for an introduction to spaces with dominating mixed smoothness. It seems like these spaces have not been used in the theory of partial differential equations so far. Nonetheless, we should mention that they are frequently studied in the theory of function spaces and have various applications. In particular, they are a classical tool in approximation theory in a certain parameter range, see for example \cite[Chapter 11]{Trigub_Bellinsky_2004}.\\ \\
This paper is structured in the following way:
\begin{itemize}
\item Section \ref{Section:Preliminaries} briefly introduces the tools and concepts we use throughout the paper. This includes some notions and results from the geometry of Banach spaces, $\mathcal{R}$-boundedness and weighted function spaces.
\item In Section \ref{Section:Pseudos} we study pseudo-differential operators in mixed scales with mixed smoothness. This will be important for the treatment of Poisson operators, as we will view them as functions in normal direction with values in the space of pseudo-differential operators of certain order in tangential directions.
\item Section \ref{Section:Poisson} is the central part of this paper and the basis for the results in the subsequent sections. Therein, we derive various mapping properties of Poisson operators with values in spaces of mixed scales and mixed smoothness.
\item In Section \ref{Section:Resolvent} we study equation \eqref{EllipticBVP} in spaces of mixed scales and mixed smoothness with homogeneous boundary data, i.e. with $g_j=0$. We derive $\mathcal{R}$-sectoriality of the corresponding operator under the assumption that the smoothness in normal direction is not too high. As a consequence, we also obtain maximal regularity for \eqref{ParabolicIBVP} with $g_j=0$ in the UMD case.
\item Finally, we apply our techniques to the equations \eqref{EllipticBVP}, \eqref{ParabolicBVP} and \eqref{ParabolicIBVP} in Section \ref{Section:BVP}. We will be able to treat \eqref{EllipticBVP} and \eqref{ParabolicBVP} for arbitrary regularity in space and time. However, for the initial boundary value problem \eqref{ParabolicIBVP} we still have some restrictions concerning the regularity in time of the boundary data.
\end{itemize}
\subsection*{Comments on Localizations}
We should emphasize that we do not address questions of localization or perturbation in this work. Thus, we do not yet study what kind of variable coefficients or lower order perturbations of the operators we can allow. We also do not yet study how our results can be transferred to more general geometries than just the half space. Nonetheless, we want to give some ideas on how one can proceed.\\
The usual approach to transfer results for boundary value problems from the model problem on the half-space with constant coefficients to more general domains with compact smooth boundary and operators with non-constant coefficients is quite technical but standard. One takes a cover of the boundary which is fine enough such that in each chart the equation almost looks like the model problem with just a small perturbation on the coefficients and the geometry. In order to formally treat the local problem in a chart as the model problem, one has to find suitable extensions of the coefficients and the geometry such that the parameter-ellipticity is preserved and such that the coefficients are constant up to a small perturbation. One also carries out similar steps in the interior of the domain, where the equation locally looks like an elliptic or parabolic equation in $\mathbb R^n$. The essential step is then to derive perturbation results which justify that these small perturbations do not affect the property which one wants to transfer to the more general situation. Such a localization procedure has been carried out in full detail in \cite{Meyries_PHD-thesis}. We also refer the reader to \cite[Chapter 8]{DHP03}.\\
The localization approach also seems to be reasonable in our situation. However, there is an additional difficulty: As described above we work in spaces of the form $\mathscr{B}^k(\mathbb R_{+},\mathscr{A}^s(\mathbb R^{n-1}))$ which splits the half-space in tangential and normal directions. Since this splitting uses the geometric structure of the half-space, one might wonder what the right generalization of these spaces to a smooth bounded domain would be. In order to answer this question, we think that the notion of a collar of a manifold with boundary should be useful. More precisely, due to Milnor's collar neighborhood theorem (see for example \cite[Corollary 3.5]{Milnor_1965}) there exists an open neighborhood $U$ of the boundary $\partial M$ of a smooth manifold $M$ which is diffeomorphic to $\partial M\times [0,1)$. This neighborhood $U$ is a so-called collar neighborhood. On $\partial M\times [0,1)$ it is straightforward how to generalize our spaces with mixed smoothness: One could just take $\mathscr{B}^k([0,1),\mathscr{A}^s(\partial M))$. Now one could define the space
\[
\mathscr{B}^k(\mathscr{A}^s(U)):=\big\{u\colon U\to \mathbb C \;\vert\; u\circ\Phi^{-1}\in \mathscr{B}^k([0,1),\mathscr{A}^s(\partial M))\big\},
\]
where $\Phi\colon U\to \partial M\times [0,1)$ denotes the diffeomorphism provided by the collar neighborhood theorem. It seems natural to endow $\mathscr{B}^k(\mathscr{A}^s(U))$ with the norm
\[
\|u\|_{\mathscr{B}^k(\mathscr{A}^s(U))}:=\| u\circ\Phi^{-1} \|_{\mathscr{B}^k([0,1),\mathscr{A}^s(\partial M))}.
\]
This definition allows us to give a meaning to the splitting in normal and tangential directions for a neighborhood of the boundary of general domains. It is less clear how to extend this splitting to the interior of the domain. But fortunately, this is also not important in our analysis. Indeed, the solution operators for inhomogeneous boundary data have a strong smoothing effect so that solutions are arbitrarily smooth in the interior of the domain with continuous dependence on the boundary data. Therefore, in the case of smooth coefficients one may work with smooth functions in the interior. To this end, we can take another open set $V\subset \operatorname{int} M$, where $\operatorname{int} M$ denotes the interior of $M$, such that $M=U \cup V$ and $\Phi(U\cap V)\subset\partial M\times[\tfrac{1}{2},1)$. Moreover, we take $\phi,\psi\colon C^{\infty}(M)$ such that $\operatorname{supp} \phi\subset U$, $\operatorname{supp} \psi\subset V$ and $\phi+\psi\equiv 1$. Finally, we think that on bounded domains the right spaces should be given by
\[
\{u\colon M\to \mathbb C \;\vert\; \phi\cdot u\in \mathscr{B}^k(\mathscr{A}^s(U)),\; \psi\cdot u\in C^{\infty}(V) \},
\]
since they preserve the splitting in normal and tangential directions close to the boundary and since they use the smoothing effect of the solution operators where the splitting can not be preserved anymore.
\subsection*{Comparison To Other Works}
There are several other works which study boundary value problems with rough boundary data. The approach which seems to be able to treat the most boundary data is the one by Lions and Magenes, see \cite{Lions_Magenes_1972_a, Lions_Magenes_1972_b, Lions_Magenes_1973}. It also allows for arbitrary regularity at the boundary. One of the main points is that the trace operator is extended to the space $D_A^{-r}$ (see \cite[Theorem 6.5]{Lions_Magenes_1972_a}) where it maps into a boundary space with negative regularity. The space $D_A^{-r}$ contains those distributions $u\in H^{-r}(\Omega)$ such that $Au$ is in the dual of the space
\[
\Xi^{r+2m}:=\big\{u\;\vert\;\operatorname{dist}(\,\cdot\,,\partial\Omega)^{|\alpha|}\partial^{\alpha}u\in L_2(\Omega),\;|\alpha|\leq r+2m\bigg\},
\]
i.e. $\Xi^{r+2m}$ contains functions whose derivatives may have singularities at the boundary with a certain order. This extension of the trace operator was generalized to the scale of H\"ormander spaces in \cite{Anop_Denk_Murach_2020}, where the authors used suitable interpolation techniques. One advantage of our approach compared to \cite{Anop_Denk_Murach_2020,Lions_Magenes_1972_a, Lions_Magenes_1972_b, Lions_Magenes_1973} is that we can give a detailed quantitative analysis of the smoothness and singularities of solutions at the boundary. For example, we show in Theorem~\ref{Thm:MainThm1} that solutions of \eqref{EllipticBVP} are arbitrarily smooth in normal direction if the smoothnes in tangential direction is chosen low enough. Moreover, we describe the singularities at the boundary if the smoothness in tangential direction is too high.\\
Another technique to treat rougher boundary data is to systematically study boundary value problems in weighted spaces. This has for example been carried out in \cite{Hummel_Lindemulder_2019,Lindemulder_2018,Lindemulder_Veraar_2018}. By using power weights in the $A_{\infty}$ range one can push the regularity on the boundary down to almost $0$. However, if one works with $A_{\infty}$ weights, then many Fourier analytic tools are not available anymore in the $L_p$ scale. The situation is better in Besov and Triebel-Lizorkin spaces, where Fourier multiplier techniques can still be applied. This has been used for second order operators with Dirichlet boundary conditions in \cite{Lindemulder_2018} and for general parameter-elliptic and parabolic boundary value problems in \cite{Hummel_Lindemulder_2019}. In both references, maximal regularity with inhomogeneous boundary data has been derived. \cite{Lindemulder_Veraar_2018} derives a bounded $\mathcal{H}^\infty$-calculus for the Dirichlet Laplacian in weighted $L_p$-spaces even for some weights which fall outside the $A_p$ range. The main tool therein to replace Fourier multiplier techniques are variants of Hardy's inequality. The results derived in \cite{Hummel_Lindemulder_2019,Lindemulder_2018, Lindemulder_Veraar_2018} are stronger than the ones we derive here in the sense that we do not derive maximal regularity with inhomogeneous boundary data or a bounded $\mathcal{H}^\infty$-calculus. As in our work, the singularities at the boundary are described by the strength of the weights one has to introduce. However, we can treat much more boundary data since \cite{Hummel_Lindemulder_2019,Lindemulder_2018, Lindemulder_Veraar_2018} are restricted to positive regularity on the boundary.\\
There are also works dealing with rough boundary data for nonlinear equations such as the Navier-Stokes equation, see for example \cite{Amann_2003,Grubb_2001} and references therein. The former reference uses the notion of very weak solutions as well as semigroup and interpolation-extrapolation methods. The latter reference studies the problem in the context of the Boutet de Monvel calculus. Our methods would still have to be extended to nonlinear problems. However, in both of the cited works there are restrictions on the regularity of the boundary data which can be considered.
\subsection*{Notations and Assumptions}
We write $\mathbb N=\{1,2,3,\ldots\}$ for the natural numbers starting from $1$ and $\mathbb N_0=\{0,1,2,\ldots\}$ for the natural numbers starting from $0$. Throughout the paper we take $n\in\mathbb N$ to be the space dimension and write
\[
\mathbb R^n_+:=\{x=(x_1,\ldots,x_n)\in\mathbb R^n: x_n>0\}.
\]
If $n=1$ we also just write $\mathbb R_+:=\mathbb R^1_+$. Given a real number $x\in\mathbb R$, we write
\[
x_+:=[x]_+:=\max\{0,x\}.
\]
We will frequently use the notation with the brackets for sums or differences of real numbers.
Oftentimes, we split $x=(x',x_n)\in\mathbb R^{n-1}\times\mathbb R$ or in the Fourier image $\xi=(\xi',\xi_n)$ where $x',\xi'\in\mathbb R^{n-1}$ refer to the directions tangential to the boundary $\mathbb R^{n-1}=\partial\mathbb R^{n}_+$ and $x_n,\xi_n\in\mathbb R$ refer to the normal directions. Given $x\in\mathbb C^n$ or a multi-index $\alpha\in\mathbb N_0^n$ we write
\[
|x|:=\bigg(\sum_{j=1}^n|x_j|^2\bigg)^{1/2}\quad\text{or}\quad|\alpha|=\sum_{j=1}^n|\alpha_j|
\]
for the Euclidean length of $x$ or the $\ell^1$-norm of the multi-index $\alpha$, respectively. Even though this notation is ambiguous, it is convention in the literature and we therefore stick to it. We write
\[
xy:=x\cdot y:=\sum_{j=1}^n x_j\overline{y}_j\quad(x,y\in\mathbb C^n)
\]
for the usual scalar product. The Bessel potential will be denoted by
\[
\langle x\rangle:=(1+|x|^2)^{1/2}\quad(x\in\mathbb C^n).
\]
Given an angle $\phi\in(0,\pi]$ we write
\[
\Sigma_{\phi}:=\{z\in\mathbb C:|\operatorname{arg} z|<\phi\}.
\]
If $M$ is a set then we use the notation
\[
\operatorname{pr}_j\colon M^n\to M,\; (a_1,\ldots,a_n)\to a_j\quad(j=1,\ldots,n)
\]
for the canonical projection of $M^n$ to the $j$-th component.\\
Throughout the paper $E$ will denote a complex Banach space on which we impose additional conditions at certain places. The topological dual of a Banach space $E_0$ will be denoted by $E_0'$. By $\mathscr{S}(\mathbb R^n;E)$ and $\mathscr{S}'(\mathbb R^n;E)$ we denote the spaces of $E$-valued Schwartz functions and $E$-valued tempered distributions, respectively. Given a domain $\mathcal{O}\subset\mathbb R^n$, we write $\mathscr{D}(\mathcal{O};E)$ and $\mathscr{D}'(\mathcal{O};E)$ for the spaces of $E$-valued test functions and $E$-valued distributions, respectively. If $E=\mathbb C$ in some function space, then we will omit it in the notation. On $\mathscr{S}(\mathbb R^n;E)$ we define the Fourier transform
\[
(\mathscr{F}f)(\xi):=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{n/2}}\int_{\mathbb R^n} e^{-ix\xi} f(x)\,dx\quad(f\in \mathscr{S}(\mathbb R^n;E)).
\]
As usual, we extend it to $\mathscr{S}'(\mathbb R^n;E)$ by $[\mathscr{F}u](f):=u(\mathscr{F}f)$ for $u\in \mathscr{S}'(\mathbb R^n;E)$ and $f\in \mathscr{S}(\mathbb R^n)$. Sometimes, we also use the Fourier transform $\mathscr{F}'$ which only acts on the tangential directions, i.e.
\[
(\mathscr{F}'f)(\xi',x_n):=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{(n-1)/2}}\int_{\mathbb R^n} e^{-ix'\xi'} f(x',x_n)\,dx'\quad(f\in \mathscr{S}(\mathbb R^n;E)).
\]
By $\sigma(T)$ and $\rho(T)$ we denote the spectrum and the resolvent set, respectively, of a linear operator $T\colon E\supset D(T)\to E$ defined on the domain $D(T)$. We write $\mathcal{B}(E_0,E_1)$ for the set of all bounded linear operators from the Banach space $E_0$ to the Banach space $E_1$ and we set $\mathcal{B}(E):=\mathcal{B}(E,E)$.\\
If $f,g\colon M\to \mathbb R$ map some parameter set $M$ to the reals, then we occasionally write $f\lesssim g$ if there is a constant $C>0$ such that $f(x)\leq C g(x)$ for all $x\in M$. If $f\lesssim g$ and $g\lesssim f$, we also write $f\eqsim g$. We mainly use this notation in longer computations.\\
Now we formulate our assumptions on the operators $A(D),B_1(D),\ldots,B_m(D)$: Let
\[
A(D)=\sum_{|\alpha|=2m}a_{\alpha}D^{\alpha},\quad B_j(D)=\sum_{|\beta|=m_j} b^j_{\beta}D^{\beta}\quad(j=1,\ldots,m)
\]
for some $m,m_1,\ldots,m_m\in\mathbb N$ with $m_j<2m$ $(j=1,\ldots,m)$ and $a_{\alpha},b^j_{\beta}\in\mathcal{B}(E)$.
\begin{assumption}[Ellipticity and Lopatinskii-Shapiro condition] \label{Assump:ELS} There is a $\phi'\in(0,\pi]$ such that
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item $\rho(A(\xi))\subset\Sigma_{\phi'}$ for all $\xi\in\mathbb R^n\setminus\{0\}$.
\item The equation
\begin{align*}
\lambda u(x_n)-A(\xi',D_n)u(x_n)&=0\quad\,\,(x_n>0),\\
B_j(\xi',D_n)u(0)&=g_j\quad(j=1,\ldots,m)
\end{align*}
has a unique continuous solution $u$ with $\lim_{x\to\infty} u(x)=0$ for all $(\lambda,\xi')\in\Sigma_{\phi'}\times\mathbb R^{n-1}$ and all $g=(g_1,\ldots,g_m)\in E^m$.
\end{enumerate}
We take $\phi\in(0,\phi')$. If time-dependent equations are considered, we assume that $\phi>\pi/2$.
\end{assumption}
Assumption \ref{Assump:ELS} will be a global assumption which we assume to hold true without explicitly mentioning this every time. As we also consider mixed scales in this paper, there will be a lot of different choices of the precise spaces. Moreover, for the Bessel potential scale we will need different assumptions on the weights and the Banach space $E$ than for the Besov scale, Triebel-Lizorkin scale, or their dual scales. Thus, it will be convenient to introduce a notation which covers all these different cases. Some of the notation and notions in the following assumption will be introduced later in Section \ref{Section:Preliminaries}. For the moment, we just mention that $H$ denotes the Bessel potential scale, $B$ the Besov scale, $\mathcal{B}$ its dual scale, $F$ the Triebel-Lizorkin scale and $\mathcal{F}$ its dual scale.
\begin{assumption}\label{Assump:Spaces} Let $E$ be a Banach space, $s_0,s_1,s_2\in\mathbb R$, $p_0,p_1,p_2\in[1,\infty)$ and $q_0,q_1,q_2\in[1,\infty]$. Let further $w_0,w_1,w_2$ be weights and $I_{x_n},J_{t}\subset\mathbb R$ intervals. In the following $\bullet$ is a placeholder for any suitable choice of parameters. Moreover, by writing $J_{t}$, $I_{x_n}$ and $\mathbb R^{n-1}_{x'}$ we indicate with respect to which variable the spaces should be understood. Here, $t$ denotes the time, $x_n$ the normal direction and $x'$ the tangential directions.
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item\label{SpaceTangential} We take \begin{align*}
\mathscr{A}^\bullet\in\{H^\bullet_{p_0}(\mathbb R^{n-1}_{x'},&w_0;E), B^\bullet_{p_0,q_0}(\mathbb R^{n-1}_{x'},w_0;E),F^\bullet_{p_0,q_0}(\mathbb R^{n-1}_{x'},w_0;E),\\
&\mathcal{B}^\bullet_{p_0,q_0}(\mathbb R^{n-1}_{x'},w_0;E),\mathcal{F}^\bullet_{p_0,q_0}(\mathbb R^{n-1}_{x'},w_0;E)\}.
\end{align*}
If $\mathscr{A}^\bullet$ belongs to the Bessel potential scale, we assume that $p_0\in(1,\infty)$, that $E$ is a UMD space and that $w_0$ is an $A_p(\mathbb R^{n-1})$ weight. If $\mathscr{A}^\bullet$ belongs to the Besov or Triebel-Lizorkin scale, we assume that $w_0$ is an $A_{\infty}(\mathbb R^{n-1})$ weight. If $\mathscr{A}^\bullet$ belongs to the dual scale of Besov or Triebel-Lizorkin scale, we assume that $w_0$ is an $[A_{\infty}(\mathbb R^{n-1})]_p'$ weight, $p_0,q_0\in(1,\infty)$ and that $E$ is a UMD space.
\item We take \begin{align*}
\mathscr{B}^{\bullet}(I_{x_n};\mathscr{A}^\bullet)\in\{H^\bullet_{p_1}(I_{x_n},&w_1;\mathscr{A}^\bullet), B^\bullet_{p_1,q_1}(I_{x_n},w_1;\mathscr{A}^\bullet),F^\bullet_{p_1,q_1}(I_{x_n},w_1;\mathscr{A}^\bullet),\\&\mathcal{B}^\bullet_{p_1,q_1}(I_{x_n},w_1;\mathscr{A}^\bullet),\mathcal{F}^\bullet_{p_1,q_1}(I_{x_n},w_1;\mathscr{A}^\bullet)\}.
\end{align*}
We impose conditions on $w_1,p_1,q_1$ and $E$ which are analogous to the ones for $w_0,p_0,q_0$ and $E$ in part \eqref{SpaceTangential}.
\item We take \begin{align*}
\mathscr{C}^{\bullet}(J_t;\mathscr{A}^\bullet)\in\{H^\bullet_{p_2}(J_t,&w_2;\mathscr{A}^\bullet), B^\bullet_{p_2,q_2}(J_t,w_2;\mathscr{A}^\bullet),F^\bullet_{p_2,q_2}(J_t,w_2;\mathscr{A}^\bullet),\\&\mathcal{B}^\bullet_{p_2,q_2}(J_t,w_2;\mathscr{A}^\bullet),\mathcal{F}^\bullet_{p_2,q_2}(J_t,w_2;\mathscr{A}^\bullet)\}.
\end{align*}
We impose conditions on $w_2,p_2,q_2$ and $E$ which are analogous to the ones for $w_0,p_0,q_0$ and $E$ in part \eqref{SpaceTangential}.
\item We take \begin{align*}
\mathscr{C}^{\bullet}(J_{t};\mathscr{B}^{\bullet}(I_{x_n};\mathscr{A}^\bullet))\in\{H^\bullet_{p_2}(J_{t},w_2&;\mathscr{B}^{\bullet}(I_{x_n};\mathscr{A}^\bullet)), B^\bullet_{p_2,q_2}(J_{t},w_2;\mathscr{B}^{\bullet}(I_{x_n};\mathscr{A}^\bullet)),\\&F^\bullet_{p_2,q_2}(J_{t},w_2;\mathscr{B}^{\bullet}(I_{x_n};\mathscr{A}^\bullet)),
\}.
\end{align*}
We impose conditions on $w_2,p_2,q_2$ and $E$ which are analogous to the ones for $w_0,p_0,q_0$ and $E$ in part \eqref{SpaceTangential}.
\end{enumerate}
Most of the time, we just write $\mathscr{A}^s$, $\mathscr{B}^k(\mathscr{A}^s)$ and $\mathscr{C}^l(\mathscr{B}^k(\mathscr{A}^s))$ instead of $\mathscr{A}^s_{p_0,q_0}(\mathbb R^{n-1}_{x'},w_0;E)$, $\mathscr{B}^k_{p_1,q_1}(I_{x_n},w_1;\mathscr{A}^s(\mathbb R^{n-1}_{x'},w_0;E))$ and $\mathscr{C}^l_{p_2,q_2}(J_t,w_2;\mathscr{B}^k_{p_1,q_1}(I_{x_n},w_1;\mathscr{A}^s(\mathbb R^{n-1}_{x'},w_0;E))$. We mainly do this in order to keep notations shorter. Moreover, most of the time we only work with the smoothness parameter so that adding the other parameters to the notation would be distracting. However, at some places we will still add some of the other parameters if more clarity is needed.
\end{assumption}
Also Assumption \ref{Assump:Spaces} will be global and we use this notation throughout the paper.
\begin{remark}\phantomsection
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item Assumption \ref{Assump:Spaces} is formulated in a way such that we can always apply Mikhlin's theorem, Theorem \ref{Thm:Mikhlin}, and its iterated versions Proposition \ref{Prop:IteratedMikhlin} and Proposition \ref{Prop:IteratedMikhlinRbounded}. If $E$ has to satisfy Pisier's property $(\alpha)$ for some results, we will explicitly mention it.
\item Note that every $f\in\mathscr{S}'(\mathbb R^{n-1})$ is contained in one of the spaces $\mathscr{A}^{\bullet}$ with certain parameters, see for example \cite[Proposition 1]{Kabanava_2008}.
\end{enumerate}
\end{remark}
\section{Preliminaries}\label{Section:Preliminaries}
\subsection{Some Notions from the Geometry of Banach Spaces} If one wants to transfer theorems from a scalar-valued to a vector-valued situation, then this is oftentimes only possible if one imposes additional geometric assumptions on the Banach space. And since the iterated spaces we introduced in Assumption~\ref{Assump:Spaces} are vector-valued even if we take $E=\mathbb R$ or $E=\mathbb C$, it should not come as a surprise that we have to introduce some of these geometric notions. We refer the reader to \cite{HvNVW_2016,HvNVW_2017} for an extensive treatment of the notions in this subsection.
\subsubsection{UMD spaces}
The importance of Banach spaces with the property of unconditional martingale differences (UMD spaces) lies in the fact Mikhlin's Fourier multiplier theorem has only been generalized for operator-valued symbols if the underlying Banach spaces are UMD spaces. Therefore, if one wants to work with Fourier multipliers on vector-valued $L_p$-spaces, one is forced to impose this geometric condition.\\
A Banach space $E$ is called UMD space if for all $p\in(1,\infty)$ there is a constant $C>0$ such that for all probability spaces $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},\mathbb{P})$, all $N\in\mathbb N$, all $\epsilon_1,\ldots,\epsilon_N\in\mathbb C$ with $|\epsilon_1|=\ldots=|\epsilon_N|=1$, all filtrations $(\mathcal{F}_k)_{k=0}^N$ and all martingales $(f_k)_{k=0}^N$ in $L_p(\Omega;E)$ it holds that
\begin{align*}
\bigg\|\sum_{k=1}^N \epsilon_k (f_k-f_{k-1})\bigg\|_{L_p(\Omega;E)}\leq C \bigg\|\sum_{k=1}^N f_k-f_{k-1}\bigg\|_{L_p(\Omega;E)}.
\end{align*}
This is equivalent to $E$ being a Banach space of class $\mathcal{HT}$, which is defined by the boundedness of the Hilbert transform on $L_p(\mathbb R;E)$. UMD spaces are always reflexive. Some important examples of UMD spaces are:
\begin{itemize}
\item Hilbert spaces, in particular the scalar fields $\mathbb R,\mathbb C$,
\item the space $L_p(S;E)$ for $p\in(1,\infty)$, a $\sigma$-finite measure space $(S,\mathcal{A},\mu)$ and a UMD space $E$,
\item the classical function spaces such as Bessel potential spaces $H^{s}_p$, Besov spaces $B^{s}_{p,q}$ and Triebel-Lizorkin spaces $F^{s}_{p,q}$ in the reflexive range as well as their $E$-valued versions if $E$ is a UMD space.
\end{itemize}
\subsubsection{Cotype}
In this work, Banach spaces satisfying a finite cotype assumption could be considered as merely a technical notion that is needed to derive Proposition~\ref{Chapter3::Proposition::PoissonMappingPropertySobolevRBounded} which is a sharper version of Proposition~\ref{Chapter3::Proposition::PoissonMappingPropertySobolevRBoundedEpsilon}. The latter does not need a finite cotype assumption, while we show that it seems to be necessary to derive the former in Proposition~\ref{Prop:CounterExampleEpsilon}. The main reason why we need finite cotype assumptions is that they allow us to use a version of Kahane's contraction principle with function coefficients, see Proposition~\ref{Prop:HytoenenVeraar}.\\
Let $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},\mathbb{P})$ be a probability space. A sequence of random variables $(\epsilon_k)_{k\in\mathbb N}$ is called Rademacher sequence if it is an i.i.d. sequence with $\mathbb{P}(\epsilon_k=1)=\mathbb{P}(\epsilon_k=-1)=\frac{1}{2}$ for $k\in\mathbb N$. A Banach space $E$ is said to have cotype $q\in[2,\infty]$ if there is a constant $C>0$ such that for all choices of $N\in\mathbb N$ and $x_1,\ldots,x_N\in E$ the estimate
\[
\bigg(\sum_{k=1}^N \|x_k\|^q\bigg)^{1/q}\leq C\bigg(\mathbb E\big\|\sum_{k=1}^N\epsilon_kx_k\big\|^q\bigg)^{1/q}
\]
holds with the usual modification for $q=\infty$. We want to remark the following
\begin{itemize}
\item Every Banach space has cotype $\infty$.
\item If a Banach space has cotype $q\in[2,\infty)$, then it also has cotype $\tilde{q}\in[q,\infty]$.
\item No nontrivial Banach space can have cotype $q\in[1,2)$ since even the scalar fields $\mathbb R$ and $\mathbb C$ do not satisfy this.
\item If the Banach space $E$ has cotype $q_E$, then $L_p(S;E)$ has cotype $\max\{p,q_E\}$ for every measure space $(S,\mathcal{A},\mu)$.
\item If the Banach space $E$ has cotype $q_E$, then $H^{s}_p(\mathbb R^n;E)$ has cotype $\max\{p,q_E\}$ and $B^{s}_{p,q}(\mathbb R^n;E)$ and $F^{s}_{p,q}(\mathbb R^n;E)$ have cotype $\max\{p,q,q_E\}$. The same also holds for the weighted variants we introduce later.
\end{itemize}
\subsubsection{Pisier's property $(\alpha)$}
Finally, we also need Pisier's property $(\alpha)$ at some places in this paper. This condition is usually needed if one wants to derive $\mathcal{R}$-boundedness from Mikhlin's multiplier theorem. If one has a set of $\mathcal{R}$-bounded operator-valued symbols, then one needs Pisier's property $(\alpha)$ in order to obtain the $\mathcal{R}$-boundedness of the resulting operator family.\\
A Banach space $E$ has Pisier's property $(\alpha)$ if Kahane's contraction principle also holds for double random sums, i.e. if for two Rademacher sequences $(\epsilon'_i)_{i\in\mathbb N}$, $(\epsilon''_j)_{j\in\mathbb N}$ on the probability spaces $(\Omega',\mathcal{F}',\mathbb{P}')$ and $(\Omega'',\mathcal{F}'',\mathbb{P}'')$, respectively, there is a constant $C>0$ such that for all $M,N\in\mathbb N$, all $(a_{ij})_{1\leq i\leq M,1\leq j\leq N}\subset\mathbb C$ with $|a_{ij}|\leq1$ and all $(x_{ij})_{1\leq i\leq M,1\leq j\leq N}\subset E$ the estimate
\[
\mathbb E_{\mathbb{P'}}\mathbb E_{\mathbb{P''}}\bigg\| \sum_{i=1}^M\sum_{j=1}^N a_{ij}\epsilon_{i}\epsilon_{j}x_{ij} \bigg\|^2\leq C^2 \mathbb E_{\mathbb{P'}}\mathbb E_{\mathbb{P''}}\bigg\| \sum_{i=1}^M\sum_{j=1}^N \epsilon_{i}\epsilon_{j}x_{ij} \bigg\|^2
\]
holds. Even though Pisier's property $(\alpha)$ is independent of the UMD property, the examples of spaces with Pisier's property $(\alpha)$ we have in mind are similar:
\begin{itemize}
\item Hilbert spaces, in particular the scalar fields $\mathbb R,\mathbb C$,
\item the space $L_p(S;E)$ for $p\in[1,\infty)$, a measure space $(S,\mathcal{A},\mu)$ and a Banach space $E$ with Pisier's property $(\alpha)$,
\item the classical function spaces such as Bessel potential spaces $H^{s}_p$, Besov spaces $B^{s}_{p,q}$ and Triebel-Lizorkin spaces $F^{s}_{p,q}$ in the reflexive range as well as their $E$-valued versions if $E$ has Pisier's property $(\alpha)$.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{\texorpdfstring{$\mathcal{R}$}--bounded Operator Families}
We refer the reader to \cite{DHP03,HvNVW_2017} for introductions to $\mathcal{R}$-bounded operator families. The notion of $\mathcal{R}$--boundedness is frequently needed if one works with vector-valued function spaces. As UMD spaces, it is essential for vector-valued generalizations of Mikhlin's multiplier theorem. But perhaps more importantly, it can be used the derive a necessary and sufficient condition for a closed linear operator $A\colon E\supset D(A)\to E$ on the UMD space $E$ to have the property of maximal regularity. This is the case if and only if it is $\mathcal{R}$--sectorial, i.e. if and only if the set
\[
\{\lambda(\lambda-A)^{-1}:\lambda\in\mathbb C,\,\arg \lambda < \phi\}
\]
for some $\phi>\pi/2$ is $\mathcal{R}$--bounded, see \cite[Theorem 4.2]{Weis_2001}. Here, an operator $A$ is said to have the property of maximal regularity on $[0,T)$, $0<T<\infty$, if the mapping
\[
W^1_p([0,T);X)\cap L_p([0,T);D(A))\to L_p([0,T);X)\times I_p(A),\;u\mapsto\begin{pmatrix}\partial_t u-Au \\ \gamma_0 u \end{pmatrix}
\]
is an isomorphism of Banach spaces, where $\gamma_0u:= u(0)$ denotes the temporal trace and $I_p(A)$ is the space of admissible initial conditions. It can be described as a real interpolation space of $X$ and $D(A)$ by the relation $I_p(A):=(X,D(A))_{1-1/p.p}$. The above isomorphy is very useful for the treatment of nonlinear parabolic equations, as it allows for the efficient use of fixed point iterations. This approach to nonlinear equations has already been applied many times in the literature.\\
Let us now define $\mathcal{R}$--boundedness: Let $E_0,E_1$ be Banach spaces. A family of operators $\mathcal{T}\subset\mathcal{B}(E_0,E_1)$ is called $\mathcal{R}$-bounded if there is a constant $C>0$ and $p\in[1,\infty)$ such that for a Rademacher sequence $(\epsilon_k)_{k\in\mathbb N}$ on a probability space $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},\mathbb{P})$ and all $N\in\mathbb N$, $x_1,\ldots,x_N\in E_0$ and $T_1,\ldots,T_N\in\mathcal{T}$ the estimate
\[
\left\| \sum_{k=1}^N \epsilon_k T_k x_k \right\|_{L_p(\Omega;E_1)}\leq C\left\| \sum_{k=1}^N \epsilon_k x_k \right\|_{L_p(\Omega;E_0)}
\]
holds. The least admissible constant such that this estimate holds will be denoted by $\mathcal{R}(\mathcal{T})$ or, if we want to emphasize the dependence on the Banach spaces, by $\mathcal{R}_{\mathcal{B}(E_0,E_1)}(\mathcal{T})$. By the Kahane-Khintchine inequalities, the notion of $\mathcal{R}$-boundedness does not depend on $p$. $\mathcal{R}$-boundedness trivially implies uniform boundedness, but the converse does not hold true in general. For Hilbert spaces however, both notions coincide.\\
An equivalent characterization of $\mathcal{R}$-boundedness can be given by using the $\operatorname{Rad}_p(E)$-spaces. They are defined as the space of all sequences $(x_k)_{k\in\mathbb N}\subset E$ such that $\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \epsilon_k x_k$ converges in $L_p(\Omega;E)$. $\operatorname{Rad}_p(E)$-spaces are endowed with the norm
\[
\|(x_k)_{k\in\mathbb N}\|_{\operatorname{Rad}_p(E)}=\sup_{N\in\mathbb N}\left\| \sum_{k=1}^N \epsilon_k x_k \right\|_{L_p(\Omega;E)}.
\]
Given $T_1,\ldots,T_N\in\mathcal{B}(E_0,E_1)$ we define
\[
\operatorname{diag}(T_1,\ldots,T_N)\colon \operatorname{Rad}_p(E_0)\to \operatorname{Rad}_p(E_1),\,(x_k)_{k\in\mathbb N}\to (T_kx_k)_{k\in\mathbb N}
\]
where $T_k:=0$ for $k>N$. Then, a family of operators $\mathcal{T}\subset\mathcal{B}(E_0,E_1)$ is $\mathcal{R}$-bounded if and only if
\[
\{\operatorname{diag}(T_1,\ldots,T_N): N\in\mathbb N, T_1,\ldots,T_N\in\mathcal{T}\}\subset \mathcal{B}(\operatorname{Rad}_p(E_0),\operatorname{Rad}_p(E_1))
\]
is uniformly bounded.\\
Let us now collect some results concerning $\mathcal{R}$-boundedness which will be useful in this paper.
\begin{proposition}\label{Prop:HytoenenVeraar}
Let $E$ be a Banach space with cotype $q\in[2,\infty)$, $(\epsilon_k)_{k\in\mathbb N}$ a Rademacher sequence on the probability space $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},\mathbb{P})$ and let $(S,\mathcal{A},\mu)$ be a $\sigma$-finite measure space. For all $\tilde{q}\in(q,\infty]$ there exists a constant $C>0$ such that for all $N\in\mathbb N$, $f_1,\ldots,f_N\in L_{\tilde{q}}(S)$ and $x_1,\ldots,x_N\in E$ it holds that
\begin{align}\label{Eq:Contraction_Principle_Functions}
\left\|\sum_{k=1}^N \epsilon_k f_k x_k \right\|_{L_{\tilde{q}}(S;L_2(\Omega;E))}\leq C \sup_{1\leq k\leq N} \|f_k\|_{L_{\tilde{q}}(S)}\left\|\sum_{k=1}^N \epsilon_kx_k\right\|_{L_2(\Omega;E)}.
\end{align}
If $q\in\{2,\infty\}$, then we can also take $\tilde{q}=q$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
This is one of the statements in \cite[Lemma 3.1]{Hytoenen_Veraar_2009}.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{Rem:HytoenenVeraar}
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item It was already observed in \cite[Remark 3.3]{Hytoenen_Veraar_2009} that if $\tilde{q}<\infty$, then Proposition \ref{Prop:HytoenenVeraar} can also be formulated as follows: The image of the unit ball $B_{L^{\tilde{q}}(S)}(0,1)$ in $L^{\tilde{q}}(S)$ under the embedding $L^{\tilde{q}}(S)\hookrightarrow \mathcal{B}(E,L^{\tilde{q}}(S;E)),f\mapsto f\otimes(\,\cdot\,)$ is an $\mathcal{R}$-bounded subset of $\mathcal{B}(E,L^{\tilde{q}}(S;E))$.
\item If $(S,\mathcal{A},\mu)$ is nonatomic and if \eqref{Eq:Contraction_Principle_Functions} holds for all $N\in\mathbb N$, $f_1,\ldots,f_N\in L_{\tilde{q}}(S)$ and $x_1,\ldots,x_N\in E$, then $E$ has cotype $\tilde{q}$. This is follows from the statements in \cite[Lemma 3.1]{Hytoenen_Veraar_2009}.
\item Let $(A,\Sigma,\nu)$ be a $\sigma$-finite measure space. Let further $2\leq \bar{q}<q<\infty$ and let $\bar{E}$ be a Banach space with cotype $\bar{q}$. If $E=L_q(A;\bar{E})$, then \eqref{Eq:Contraction_Principle_Functions} also holds with $\tilde{q}=q$. This was shown in \cite[Remark 3.4]{Hytoenen_Veraar_2009}.
\end{enumerate}
\end{remark}
\begin{proposition}\label{Prop:Rbounded_Interpolation}
Let $(E_0,E_1)$ and $(F_0,F_1)$ be interpolation couples of UMD-spaces, $\Sigma\subset\mathbb C$ and $f\colon\Sigma\to\mathbb C$. Let further $(T(\lambda))_{\lambda\in\Sigma}\subset \mathcal{B}(E_0+E_1,F_0+F_1)$ be a collection of operators such that
\[
\mathcal{R}_{\mathcal{B}(E_0,F_0)}(\{T(\lambda):\lambda\in\Sigma\})<M_0,\quad \mathcal{R}_{\mathcal{B}(E_1,F_1)}(\{f(\lambda)T(\lambda):\lambda\in\Sigma\})<M_1
\]
for some $M_0,M_1>0$. We write $E_{\theta}=[E_0,E_1]_{\theta}$ and $F_{\theta}=[F_0,F_1]_{\theta}$ with $\theta\in(0,1)$ for the complex interpolation spaces. Then there is a constant $C>0$ such that
\[
\mathcal{R}_{\mathcal{B}(E_\theta,F_\theta)}(\{f(\lambda)^{\theta}T(\lambda):\lambda\in\Sigma\})<CM_0^{1-\theta}M_1^{\theta}.
\]
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
In order to avoid possible ambiguities with complex exponentials, we assume that $f$ takes values in $(0,\infty)$. As a consequence of Kahane's contraction principle (\cite[Theorem 6.1.13]{HvNVW_2017}) we may do this without loss of generality. It suffices to show that
\[
\{\operatorname{diag}(f(\lambda_1)^{\theta}T(\lambda_1),\ldots,f(\lambda_N)^{\theta}T(\lambda_N):N\in\mathbb N,\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_N\in\Sigma\}
\]
is a bounded family in $\mathcal{B}(\operatorname{Rad}_p(E_{\theta}),\operatorname{Rad}_p(F_{\theta}))$. Let
\[
S:=\{z\in\mathbb C: 0\leq\Re z\leq 1\}.
\]
For fixed $N\in\mathbb N$ and $\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_N\in\Sigma$ we define
\begin{align*}
\mathscr{T}_{\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_N}\colon S \to \mathcal{B}(\operatorname{Rad}_p(E_{0})&\cap \operatorname{Rad}_p(E_{1}), \operatorname{Rad}_p(F_{0})+ \operatorname{Rad}_p(F_{1})),\\
&\,z\mapsto \operatorname{diag}( f(\lambda_1)^z T(\lambda_1),\ldots,f(\lambda_N)^z T(\lambda_N)).
\end{align*}
For fixed $(x_k)_{k\in\mathbb N}\in \operatorname{Rad}_p(E_{0})\cap \operatorname{Rad}_p(E_{1})$ the mapping
\begin{align*}
\mathscr{T}_{\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_N}(\,\cdot\,)(x_k)_{k\in\mathbb N}\colon S \to \operatorname{Rad}_p(F_{0})+ \operatorname{Rad}_p(F_{1}),
&\,z\mapsto (f(\lambda_k)^zT(\lambda_k)x_k)_{k\in\mathbb N}.
\end{align*}
is continuous, bounded and analytic in the interior of $S$. Again, we used the convention $T(\lambda_k)=0$ for $k>N$. Moreover, by assumption we have that
\[
\sup_{t\in\mathbb R}\|\mathscr{T}_{\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_N}(j+it)\|_{\mathcal{B}(\operatorname{Rad}_p(E_{j}),\operatorname{Rad}_p(F_{j}))}<M_j\quad(j\in\{0,1\}).
\]
Thus, it follows from abstract Stein interpolation (see \cite[Theorem 2.1]{Voigt_1992}) that
\[
\|\mathscr{T}_{\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_N}(\theta)\|_{\mathcal{B}(\operatorname{Rad}_p^{\theta}(E_{0},E_1),\operatorname{Rad}_p^{\theta}(F_{0},F_1))}<M_0^{1-\theta}M_1^{\theta},
\]
where we used the shorter notation $\operatorname{Rad}_p^{\theta}(E_{0},E_1)=[\operatorname{Rad}_p(E_{0}),\operatorname{Rad}_p(E_{1})]_{\theta}$ in the subscript. But it was shown in \cite[Corollary 3.16]{Kaip_Saal_2012} that
\[
[\operatorname{Rad}_p(E_0),\operatorname{Rad}_p(E_1)]_{\theta}=\operatorname{Rad}_p(E_{\theta})
\]
with equivalence of norms so that there is a constant $C>0$ such that
\[
\|\mathscr{T}_{\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_N}(\theta)\|_{\mathcal{B}(\operatorname{Rad}_p(E_{\theta}),\operatorname{Rad}_p(F_{\theta}))}<CM_0^{1-\theta}M_1^{\theta}.
\]
Since $N\in\mathbb N$ and $\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_N\in\Sigma$ were arbitrary, we obtain the assertion.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item The proof of Proposition~\ref{Prop:Rbounded_Interpolation} was inspired by the proof of \cite[Lemma 6.9]{HHK_2006}. Note that \cite[Example 6.13]{HHK_2006} shows that Proposition~\ref{Prop:Rbounded_Interpolation} does not hold true if the complex interpolation functor is replaced by the real one.
\item In Proposition~\ref{Prop:Rbounded_Interpolation} we only use the UMD assumption in order to show that the interpolation space of two Rademacher spaces coincides with the Rademacher space of the interpolation space of the underlying Banach spaces. This holds more generally for K-convex Banach spaces (see \cite[Theorem 7.4.16]{HvNVW_2017}). We refrain from introducing K-convexity in order not to overload this paper with geometric notions. Note however that UMD spaces are K-convex, see \cite[Example 7.4.8]{HvNVW_2017}.
\end{enumerate}
\end{remark}
\begin{lemma}\label{Lemma:HolomorphicSectorRBounded}
Let $\psi\in(0,\pi)$ and let $E_0,E_1$ be Banach spaces. Let further $N\colon\overline{\Sigma}_{\psi}\to\mathcal{B}(E_0,E_1)$ be holomorphic and bounded on $\Sigma_{\psi}$ and suppose that $N|_{\partial\Sigma_\psi}$ has $\mathcal{R}$-bounded range. Then the set
\[
\{\lambda^k\big(\tfrac{d}{d\lambda}\big)^kN(\lambda):\lambda\in \overline{\Sigma}_{\psi'}\}
\]
is $\mathcal{R}$-bounded for all $\psi'<\psi$ and all $k\in\mathbb N_0$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For $k=0$ and $k=1$ the proof is contained in \cite[Example 2.16]{Kunstmann_Weis_2004}. Other values of $k$ can then be obtained by iteration. Note that the boundedness of $N$ is necessary since Poisson's formula, which is used for $k=0$, only holds for bounded functions.
\end{proof}
\begin{definition}
Let $(X,d)$ be a metric space and $E_0,E_1$ be Banach spaces. Let further $U\subset \mathbb R^n$ be open and $k\in\mathbb N_0$.
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item We say that a function $f\colon X\to\mathcal{B}(E_0,E_1)$ is $\mathcal{R}$-continuous if for all $x\in X$ and all $\epsilon>0$ there is a $\delta>0$ such that we have
\[
\mathcal{R}_{\mathcal{B}(E_0,E_1)}(\{f(y)-f(x): y\in B(x,\delta)\})<\epsilon.
\]
We write $C_{\mathcal{R}B}(X,\mathcal{B}(E_0,E_1))$ for the space of all $\mathcal{R}$-continuous functions $f\colon X\to\mathcal{B}(E_0,E_1)$ with $\mathcal{R}$-bounded range.
\item We say that a function $f\colon X\to\mathcal{B}(E_0,E_1)$ is uniformly $\mathcal{R}$-continuous if for all $\epsilon>0$ there is a $\delta>0$ such that for all $x\in X$ we have
\[
\mathcal{R}_{\mathcal{B}(E_0,E_1)}(\{f(y)-f(x): y\in B(x,\delta)\})<\epsilon.
\]
We write $BUC_{\mathcal{R}}(X,\mathcal{B}(E_0,E_1))$ for the space of all uniformly $\mathcal{R}$-continuous functions $f\colon X\to\mathcal{B}(E_0,E_1)$ with $\mathcal{R}$-bounded range.
\item We write $C_{\mathcal{R}B}^k(U,\mathcal{B}(E_0,E_1))$ for the space of all $f\in C^k(U,\mathcal{B}(E_0,E_1))$ such that $\partial^{\alpha}f\in C_{\mathcal{R}B}(U,\mathcal{B}(E_0,E_1))$ for all $\alpha\in\mathbb N_0^n$, $|\alpha|\leq k$. Analogously, we write $BUC_{\mathcal{R}}^k(U,\mathcal{B}(E_0,E_1))$ for the space of all $f\in C^k(U,\mathcal{B}(E_0,E_1))$ such that $\partial^{\alpha}f\in BUC_{\mathcal{R}}(U\mathcal{B}(E_0,E_1))$ for all $\alpha\in\mathbb N_0^n$, $|\alpha|\leq k$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition} Let $U\subset \mathbb R^n$ be open, $E_0,E_1$ Banach spaces and $k\in\mathbb N_0$. Let further $\mathcal{T}\subset C_{\mathcal{R}B}^k(X,\mathcal{B}(E_0,E_1))$ or $\mathcal{T}\subset BUC_{\mathcal{R}}^k(X,\mathcal{B}(E_0,E_1))$.
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item We say that $\mathcal{T}$ is bounded if $$\sup_{f\in\mathcal{T}}\mathcal{R}(f^{(j)}(U):j\in\{0,\ldots,k\})<\infty.$$
\item We say that $\mathcal{T}$ is $\mathcal{R}$-bounded if
\[
\mathcal{R}(\{f^{(j)}(x):x\in U, f\in\mathcal{T}, j\in\{0,\ldots,k\}\})<\infty.
\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
\subsection{Weighted Function Spaces}
Weights are an important tool to weaken the regularity assumptions on the data which are needed in order to derive well-posedness and a priori estimates for elliptic and parabolic boundary value problems, see for example \cite{Alos_Bonaccorsi_2002, Brzezniak_et_al_2015, Hummel_Lindemulder_2019, Lindemulder_2018, Lindemulder_Veraar_2018}. Power weights, i.e. weights of the form $w_\gamma(x):=\operatorname{dist}(x,\partial\mathcal{O})^\gamma$ which measure the distance to the boundary of the domain $\mathcal{O}\subset\mathbb R^n$, are particularly useful for this purpose. Roughly speaking, the larger the value of $\gamma$, the larger may the difference between regularity in the interior and regularity on the boundary be. This way, one can obtain arbitrary regularity in the interior while the regularity of the boundary data may be close to $0$. However, there is an important borderline: If $\gamma\in (-1,p-1)$, where $p$ denotes the integrability parameter of the underlying function space, then $w_\gamma$ is a so-called $A_p$ weight. If $\gamma\geq p-1$, then it is only an $A_{\infty }$ weight. $A_p$ weights are an important class of weights. These weights are exactly the weights $w$ for which the Hardy-Littlewood maximal operator is bounded on $L_p(\mathcal{O},w)$. Consequently, the whole Fourier analytic toolbox can still be used and many results can directly be transferred to the weighted setting. In the $A_{\infty}$-range however, this does not hold any longer. But in order to obtain more flexibility for the regularity of the boundary data which can be considered, one would like to go beyond the borderline and also work with $A_{\infty}$ weights. This is possible if one works with weighted Besov- or Triebel-Lizorkin spaces. As we will explain later, these scales of function spaces allow for a combination of $A_{\infty}$ weights and Fourier multiplier methods. In our analysis, we want to include both cases: We treat the more classical situation with the Bessel potential scale and $A_p$ weights, which include the classical Sobolev spaces, as well as the more flexible situation with Besov and Triebel-Lizorkin scales and $A_{\infty}$ weights.\\
Let us now give the precise definitions: Let $\mathcal{O}\subset\mathbb R^n$ be a domain. A weight $w$ on $\mathcal{O}$ is a function $w\colon\mathcal{O}\to[0,\infty]$ which takes values in $(0,\infty)$ almost everywhere with respect to the Lebesgue measure. We mainly work with the classes $A_p$ $(p\in(1,\infty])$. A weight $w$ on $\mathbb R^n$ is an element of $A_p$ for $p\in(1,\infty)$ if and only if
\[
[w]_{A_p}:= \sup_{Q\text{ cube in }\mathbb R^n}\bigg(\frac{1}{\lambda(Q)}\int_Q w(x)\,dx\bigg)\bigg(\frac{1}{\lambda(Q)}\int_Q w(x)^{-\frac{1}{p-1}}\,dx\bigg)^{p-1}<\infty.
\]
The quantity $[w]_{A_p}$ is called $A_p$ Muckenhoupt characteristic constant of $w$. We define $A_{\infty}:=\bigcup_{1<p<\infty} A_p$. Moreover, we write $[A_{\infty}]_p'$ for the space of all weights $w$ such that the $p$-dual weight $w^{-\frac{1}{p-1}}$ is in $A_{\infty}$. We refer to \cite[Chapter 9]{Grafakos_2009} for an introduction to these classes of weights.\\
For $p\in[1,\infty)$, a domain $\mathcal{O}\subset\mathbb R^n$, a weight $w$ and a Banach space $E$ the weighted Lebesgue-Bochner space $L_p(\mathcal{O},w;E)$ is defined as the space of all strongly measurable functions $f\colon\mathcal{O}\to E$ such that
\[
\|f\|_{L_p(\mathcal{O},w;E)}:=\bigg(\int_{\mathcal{O}} \|f(x)\|_{E}^p w(x)\,dx\bigg)^{1/p}<\infty.
\]
We further set $L_{\infty}(\mathcal{O},w;E):=L_{\infty}(\mathcal{O};E)$. In addition, let $ L_1^{loc}(\mathcal{O};E)$ be the space of all locally integrable functions, i.e. strongly measurable functions $f\colon \mathcal{O}\to E$ such that
\[
\int_K \|f(x)\|_E\,dx<\infty
\]
for all compact $K\subset \mathcal{O}$. As usual, functions which coincide on a set of measure $0$ are considered as equal in these spaces. \\
One has to be cautious with the definition of weighted Sobolev spaces. One would like to define them as spaces of distributions such that derivatives up to a certain order can be represented by functions in $L_p(\mathcal{O},w;E)$. But for some weights, the elements of $L_p(\mathcal{O},w;E)$ might not be locally integrable and thus, taking distributional derivatives might not be possible. H\"older's inequality shows that $L_p(\mathcal{O},w;E)\subset L_1^{loc}(\mathcal{O},E)$ if $w^{-\frac{1}{p-1}}\in L_1^{loc}(\mathcal{O})$. We refer to \cite{Kufner_Opic_1984} for further thoughts in this direction.
\begin{definition}
Let $\mathcal{O}\subset\mathbb R^n$ be a domain, $E$ a Banach space, $m\in\mathbb N_0$, $p\in[1,\infty)$ and $w$ a weight on $\mathcal{O}$ such that $w^{-\frac{1}{p-1}}\in L_1^{loc}(\mathcal{O})$.
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item We define the weighted Sobolev space $W^m_p(\mathcal{O},w;E)$ by
\[
W^m_p(\mathcal{O},w;E):=\{f\in L_p(\mathcal{O},w;E)\,|\,\forall\alpha\in\mathbb N_0^n,\,|\alpha|\leq m : \partial^\alpha f\in L_p(\mathcal{O},w;E)\}
\]
and endow with the norm $\|f\|_{W^m_p(\mathcal{O},w;E)}:=\big(\sum_{|\alpha|\leq m} \|f\|_{L_p(\mathcal{O},w;E)}^p\big)^{1/p}$. With the usual modifications, we can also define $W^m_\infty(\mathcal{O},w;E)$.
\item As usual, we define $W^m_{p,0}(\mathcal{O},w;E)$ to be the closure of the space of test functions $\mathscr{D}(\mathcal{O};E)$ in $W^m_{p}(\mathcal{O},w;E)$.
\item Let $E$ be reflexive, $w\in A_p$ and $p,p'\in(1,\infty)$ conjugated H\"older indices, i.e. they satisfy $1=\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{p'}$. Then we define the dual scale $W^{-m}_p(\mathcal{O},w;E):=(W^m_{p',0}(\mathcal{O},w^{-\frac{1}{p-1}};E'))'$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
We further define weighted Bessel potential, Besov and Triebel-Lizorkin spaces. Since we use the Fourier analytic approach, we already define them as subsets of tempered distributions.
\begin{definition}\label{def:bessel_potential_space}
Let $E$ be a Banach space, $s\in\mathbb R$, $p\in[1,\infty]$ and $w$ a weight on $\mathbb R^n$ such that $w^{-\frac{1}{p-1}}\in L_1^{loc}(\mathbb R^n)$. Then we define the weighted Bessel potential space $H^s_p(\mathbb R^n,w;E)$ by
\[
H^s_p(\mathbb R^n,w;E):=\{f\in\mathscr{S}'(\mathbb R^n;E)\,|\,\langle D \rangle^s f\in L_p(\mathbb R^n,w;E)\}
\]
and endow it with the norm $\|f\|_{H^s_p(\mathbb R^n,w;E)}:=\|\langle D\rangle^s f\|_{L_p(\mathbb R^n,w;E)}$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item Let $\varphi_0\in\mathscr{D}(\mathbb R^n)$ be a smooth function with compact support such that $0\leq\varphi_0\leq1$ and
\[
\varphi_0(\xi)=1\quad\text{if } |\xi|\leq1,\qquad \varphi_0(\xi)=0\quad\text{if }|\xi|\geq 3/2.
\]
For $\xi\in\mathbb R^n$ and $k\in\mathbb N$ let further
\begin{align*}
\varphi(\xi)&:=\varphi_0(\xi)-\varphi_0(2\xi),\\
\varphi_k(\xi)&:=\varphi(2^{-k}\xi).
\end{align*}
We call such a sequence $(\varphi_k)_{k\in\mathbb N_0}$ smooth dyadic resolution of unity.
\item Let $E$ be a Banach space and let $(\varphi_k)_{k\in\mathbb N_0}$ be a smooth dyadic resolution of unity. On the space of $E$-valued tempered distributions $\mathscr{S}'(\mathbb R^n;E)$ we define the sequence of operators $(S_k)_{k\in\mathbb N_0}$ by means of
\[
S_kf:=\mathscr{F}^{-1}\varphi_k\mathscr{F} f\quad(f\in\mathscr{S}'(\mathbb R^n;E)).
\]
The sequence $(S_k f)_{k\in\mathbb N_0}$ is called dyadic decomposition of $f$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
By construction, we have that $\mathscr{F}(S_k f)$ has compact support so that $S_k f$ is an analytic function by the Paley-Wiener theorem, see \cite[Theorem 2.3.21]{Grafakos_2008}. Moreover, it holds that $\sum_{k\in\mathbb N_0} \varphi_k=1$ so that we have $f=\sum_{k\in\mathbb N_0} S_kf$, i.e. $f$ is the limit of a sequence of analytic functions where the limit is taken in the space of tempered distributions. Elements of Besov- and Triebel-Lizorkin spaces even have convergence in a stronger sense, as their definition shows:
\begin{definition}\label{def:besov_triebel_lizorkin_space}
Let $(\varphi_k)_{k\in\mathbb N_0}$ be a smooth dyadic resolution of unity. Let further $E$ be a Banach space, $w$ a weight, $s\in\mathbb R$, $p\in[1,\infty)$ and $q\in[1,\infty]$.
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item We define the weighted Besov space $B^s_{p,q}(\mathbb R^n,w;E)$ by
\[
B^s_{p,q}(\mathbb R^n,w;E):=\{f\in\mathscr{S}'(\mathbb R^n,E): \|f\|_{B^s_{p,q}(\mathbb R^n,w;E)}<\infty\}
\] where
\[
\|f\|_{B^s_{p,q}(\mathbb R^n,w;E)}:=\|(2^{sk}\mathscr{F}^{-1}\varphi_k\mathscr{F}f)_{k\in\mathbb N_0}\|_{\ell^q(L_p(\mathbb R^n,w;E))}.
\]
\item We define the weighted Triebel-Lizorkin space $F^s_{p,q}(\mathbb R^n,w;E)$ by $$F^s_{p,q}(\mathbb R^n,w;E):=\{f\in\mathscr{S}'(\mathbb R^n;E): \|f\|_{F^s_{p,q}(\mathbb R^n,w;E)}<\infty\}$$ where
\[
\|f\|_{F^s_{p,q}(\mathbb R^n,w;E)}:=\|(2^{sk}\mathscr{F}^{-1}\varphi_k\mathscr{F}f)_{k\in\mathbb N_0}\|_{L_p(\mathbb R^n,w;\ell^q(E)))}.
\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
It is well-known, that these spaces do not depend on the choice of the dyadic resolution of unity if $w$ is an $A_{\infty}$-weight. In this case, different choices lead to equivalent norms, see for example \cite[Proposition 3.4]{Meyries_Veraar_2012}. In fact, the condition on the weight can be weakened: In \cite{Rychkov_2001} it was shown that one also obtains the independence of the dyadic resolution of unity in the case of so-called $A_{\infty}^{loc}$ weights.
\begin{definition}\label{def:dual_besov_triebel_lizorkin_space}
Let $E$ be a reflexive Banach space, $w\in [A_{\infty}]_p'$, $s\in\mathbb R$ and $p,q\in(1,\infty)$. We define the dual scales of Besov and Triebel-Lizorkin scale by
\[
\mathcal{B}^{s}_{p,q}(\mathbb R^n,w;E):=(B^{-s}_{p',q'}(\mathbb R^n,w^{-\frac{1}{p-1}};E'))',\quad \mathcal{F}^{s}_{p,q}(\mathbb R^n,w;E):=(F^{-s}_{p',q'}(\mathbb R^n,w^{-\frac{1}{p-1}};E'))',
\]
where $p',q'$ denote the conjugated H\"older indices.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
The main reason for us to include the dual scales in our considerations is the following: If $w$ is additionally an admissible weight in the sense of \cite[Section 1.4.1.]{Schmeisser_Triebel_1987}, then we have $\mathcal{B}^{s}_{p,q}(\mathbb R^n,w)=B^{s}_{p,q}(\mathbb R^n,w)$ and $\mathcal{F}^{s}_{p,q}(\mathbb R^n,w)=F^{s}_{p,q}(\mathbb R^n,w)$. Therefore, we can also treat weighted Besov- and Triebel-Lizorkin spaces with weights that are outside the $A_{\infty}$ range. Formulating this in terms of dual scales allows us to transfer Fourier multiplier theorems without any additional effort just by duality. The main example we have in mind will be $w(x)=\langle x\rangle^{d}$ with arbitrary $d\in\mathbb R$. We will make use of this in a forthcoming paper on equations with boundary noise.
\end{remark}
\begin{proposition}\label{Prop:Contraction_Principle_Functions}
Recall that Assumption \ref{Assump:Spaces} holds true and suppose that $E$ has cotype $q_E\in[2,\infty)$. Let further $(S,\Sigma,\mu)$ be a $\sigma$-finite measure space, $(\epsilon_k)_{k\in\mathbb N}$ a Rademacher sequence on the probability space $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},\mathbb{P})$, $s\in\mathbb R$ and $p_0,q_0\in(1,\infty)$. Consider one of the following cases:
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item $\mathscr{A}^\bullet$ stands for the Bessel potential scale and $p\in(\max\{q_E,p_0\},\infty)$. Moreover, we allow $p=\max\{q_E,p_0\}$ if $q_E<p_0$ or if $E$ is a Hilbert space and $p_0=2$.
\item $\mathscr{A}^\bullet$ stands for the Besov scale and $p\in(\max\{q_E,p_0,q_0\},\infty)$. Moreover, we allow $p=\max\{q_E,p_0,q_0\}$ if $q_E< p_0\leq q_0$ or if $E$ is a Hilbert space and $p_0=q_0=2$.
\item $\mathscr{A}^\bullet$ stands for the Triebel-Lizorkin scale and $p\in(\max\{q_E,p_0,q_0\},\infty)$. Moreover, we allow $p=\max\{q_E,p_0,q_0\}$ if $q_E< q_0\leq p_0$ or if $E$ is a Hilbert space and $p_0=q_0=2$.
\end{enumerate}
Then the images of balls with finite radius in $L_p(S)$ under the embedding
\[
L_p(S)\hookrightarrow \mathcal{B}(\mathscr{A}^s,L_p(S;\mathscr{A}^s)), f\mapsto f\otimes(\,\cdot\,)
\]
are $\mathcal{R}$-bounded. More precisely, there is a constant $C>0$ such that for all $N\in\mathbb N$, $g_1,\ldots,g_N\in \mathscr{A}^s$ and all $f_1,\ldots,f_N\in L_p(S)$ we have the estimate
\[
\left\| \sum_{k=1}^N \epsilon_k f_k \otimes g_k\right\|_{L_p(\Omega;L_p(S;\mathscr{A}^s))}\leq C\sup_{k=1,\ldots,n}\|f\|_{L_p(S)}\left\| \sum_{k=1}^N \epsilon_k g_k\right\|_{L_p(\Omega;\mathscr{A}^s)}.
\]
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The cases $p\in(\max\{q_E,p_0\},\infty)$ in the Bessel potential case and $p\in(\max\{q_E,p_0,q_0\},\infty)$ in the Besov and Triebel-Lizorkin case follow from the result by Hyt\"onen and Veraar, Proposition \ref{Prop:HytoenenVeraar}, as in these cases $\mathscr{A}^s$ has cotype $\max\{q_E,p_0\}$ and $\max\{q_E,p_0,q_0\}$, respectively, see for example \cite[Proposition 7.1.4]{HvNVW_2017}. The Hilbert space cases follow directly since uniform boundedness and $\mathcal{R}$-boundedness coincide. The other cases in which $p=\max\{q_E,p_0\}$ or $p=\max\{q_E,p_0,q_0\}$ are allowed follow by Fubini's theorem together with the Kahane-Khintchine inequalities as in \cite[Remark 3.4]{Hytoenen_Veraar_2009}.
\end{proof}
For the mapping properties we derive later on, it is essential that we can use Mikhlin's multiplier theorem. There are many versions of this theorem available. For our purposes, the following will be sufficient.
\begin{theorem}\phantomsection \label{Thm:Mikhlin}\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item\label{Thm:MikhlinA_p} Let $E$ be a UMD space, $p\in(1,\infty)$, $s\in\mathbb R$ and let $w$ be an $A_p$ weight. Let $m\in C^n(\mathbb R^n\setminus\{0\};\mathcal{B}(E))$ such that
\[
\kappa_m:=\mathcal{R}\big(\{|\xi|^{|\alpha|}D^{\alpha}m(\xi):\xi\in\mathbb R^n\setminus\{0\},|\alpha|\leq n\}\big)<\infty.
\]
Then we have that
\[
\|\mathscr{F}^{-1} m \mathscr{F} \|_{\mathcal{B}(H^s_p(\mathbb R^n,w;E))}\leq C\kappa_m
\]
with a constant $C>0$ only depending on $n$, $p$ and $E$.
\item\label{Thm:MikhlinA_pAlpha} Suppose that $E$ is a UMD space with Pisier's property $(\alpha)$. Let $p\in(1,\infty)$ and $w\in A_p(\mathbb R^n)$. Let further $\mathcal{T}\subset C^{n}(\mathbb R^n\setminus\{0\},\mathcal{B}(E))$. Then there is a constant $C>0$ independent of $\mathcal{T}$ such that
\[
\mathcal{R}_{\mathcal{B}(H^s_p(\mathbb R^n,w;E))}(\{\mathscr{F}^{-1}m\mathscr{F}:m\in\mathcal{T}\})\leq C\kappa_{\mathcal{T}}
\]
where
\[
\kappa_{\mathcal{T}}:=\mathcal{R}_{\mathcal{B}(E)}(\{|\xi|^{|\alpha|} D^{\alpha}m(\xi):\xi\in\mathbb R^n\setminus\{0\},\alpha\in\mathbb N_0^n,|\alpha|\leq n, m\in\mathcal{T}\}).
\]
\item\label{Thm:MikhlinBesovTriebel} Let $E$ be a Banach space, $p\in(1,\infty)$, $q\in[1,\infty]$ and $s\in\mathbb R$. Let further $w$ be an $A_{\infty}$ weight, $m\in C^{\infty}(\mathbb R^n,\mathcal{B}(E))$ and $\mathscr{A}^s_{p,q}(\mathbb R^n,w;E)\in\{B^s_{p,q}(\mathbb R^n,w;E),F^s_{p,q}(\mathbb R^n,w;E)\}$. Then there is a natural number $N\in\mathbb N$ and a constant $C>0$ not depending on $m$ such that
\[
\|\mathscr{F}^{-1} m \mathscr{F} \|_{\mathcal{B}(\mathscr{A}^s_{p,q}(\mathbb R^n,w;E))}\leq C\kappa_m
\]
where
\[
\kappa_m:=\sup_{|\alpha|\leq N}\sup_{\xi\in\mathbb R^n} \|\langle\xi\rangle^{|\alpha|}D^{\alpha}m(\xi)\|_{\mathcal{B}(E)}.
\]
The same holds if $E$ is reflexive, $p,q\in(1,\infty)$, $w\in[A_\infty]_p'$ and $\mathscr{A}^s_{p,q}(\mathbb R^n,w;E)\in\{\mathcal{B}^s_{p,q}(\mathbb R^n,w;E),\mathcal{F}^s_{p,q}(\mathbb R^n,w;E)\}$.
\item\label{Thm:MikhlinBesovTriebelRBounded} Let $E$ be a Banach space, $p\in(1,\infty)$, $q\in[1,\infty]$ and $s\in\mathbb R$. Let further $w$ be an $A_{\infty}$ weight, $\mathcal{T}\subset C^{\infty}(\mathbb R^n,\mathcal{B}(E))$ and $\mathscr{A}^s_{p,q}(\mathbb R^n,w;E)\in\{B^s_{p,q}(\mathbb R^n,w;E),F^s_{p,q}(\mathbb R^n,w;E)\}$. Then there is an $N\in\mathbb N$ and a constant $C>0$ independent of $\mathcal{T}$ such that
\[
\mathcal{R}(\{\mathscr{F}^{-1} m \mathscr{F} : m\in\mathcal{T}\}\leq C \kappa_{\mathcal{T}}
\]
where
\[
\kappa_{\mathcal{T}}:=\sup_{|\alpha|\leq N}\mathcal{R}(\{\langle\xi\rangle^{|\alpha|}D^{\alpha}m(\xi):\xi\in\mathbb R^n,m\in\mathcal{T}\}).
\]
The same holds if $E$ is a UMD space, $p,q\in(1,\infty)$, $w\in[A_\infty]_p'$ and $\mathscr{A}^s_{p,q}(\mathbb R^n,w;E)\in\{\mathcal{B}^s_{p,q}(\mathbb R^n,w;E),\mathcal{F}^s_{p,q}(\mathbb R^n,w;E)\}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Part \eqref{Thm:MikhlinA_p} with $s=0$ is contained in \cite[Theorem 1.2]{Fackler_Hytoenen_Lindemulder_2018}. The general case $s\in\mathbb R$ follows from $s=0$ by decomposing $m(\xi)=\langle\xi\rangle^{-s}m(\xi)\langle\xi\rangle^{s}$ and by using the definition of Bessel potential spaces. Part \eqref{Thm:MikhlinA_pAlpha} can be derived as \cite[5.2 (b)]{Kunstmann_Weis_2004}. The scalar-valued, unweighted version of part \eqref{Thm:MikhlinBesovTriebel} is contained in \cite[Paragraph 2.3.7]{Triebel_1983}. But the proof therein can be transferred to our situation by using \cite[Proposition 2.4]{Meyries_Veraar_2012}. Part \eqref{Thm:MikhlinBesovTriebelRBounded} is the isotropic version of \cite[Lemma 2.4]{Hummel_Lindemulder_2019}. The statements concerning the dual scales follow by duality. In the $\mathcal{R}$-bounded case we refer the reader to \cite[Proposition 8.4.1]{HvNVW_2017}.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
For the dual scales in Theorem \ref{Thm:Mikhlin} \eqref{Thm:MikhlinBesovTriebelRBounded} it is actually not necessary to assume that $E$ is a UMD space. Instead \cite[Proposition 8.4.1]{HvNVW_2017} shows that K-convexity is good enough. But since we did not introduce K-convexity, we only stated the less general version here.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
Later on, we sometimes want to apply Mikhlin's theorem for $m$ taking values in $\mathcal{B}(E^N,E^M)$ with certain $N,M\in\mathbb N$ instead of $\mathcal{B}(E)$. Note however that we can identify $\mathcal{B}(E^N,E^M)\simeq\mathcal{B}(E)^{M\times N}$. Hence, one can apply Mikhlin's theorem for each component and the statements of Theorem \ref{Thm:Mikhlin} transfer to the case in which $m$ takes values in $\mathcal{B}(E^N,E^M)$.
\end{remark}
Later on, we will also use parameter-dependent versions of our function spaces. They are natural to work with in the context of the parameter-dependent Boutet de Monvel calculus. And since we use elements of this parameter-dependent calculus, these spaces are also useful in our setting.
\begin{definition}
Recall that Assumption \ref{Assump:Spaces} holds true. Let $\mu\in\mathbb C$ and $s,s_0\in\mathbb R$. Then we define the parameter-dependent weighted spaces
\begin{align*}
\mathscr{A}^{s,\mu,s_0}(\mathbb R^n,w;E)&:=\langle D,\mu\rangle^{s_0-s} \mathscr{A}^{s_0}(\mathbb R^n,w;E),\quad \|\cdot\|_{\mathscr{A}^{s,\mu,s_0}(\mathbb R^n,w;E)}:=\|\langle D,\mu\rangle^{s-s_0}\cdot\|_{\mathscr{A}^{s_0}(\mathbb R^n,w;E)},
\end{align*}
where $\langle D,\mu\rangle:=\mathscr{F}^{-1}\langle\xi,\mu\rangle\mathscr{F}=\mathscr{F}^{-1}(1+|\xi|^2+|\mu|^2)^{1/2}\mathscr{F}$.
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma}\label{Lemma:EquivalenceParameterDependentNorms}
Let $\mu\in\mathbb C$ and $s,s_0\in\mathbb R$. We have the estimates
\begin{align*}
\|\cdot\|_{\mathscr{A}^{s,\mu,s_0}}\eqsim \|\cdot\|_{\mathscr{A}^{s}}+\langle\mu\rangle^{s-s_0} \|\cdot\|_{\mathscr{A}^{s_0}}\qquad&\text{if }s-s_0\geq0,\\
\|\cdot\|_{\mathscr{A}^{s,\mu,s_0}} \lesssim \|\cdot\|_{\mathscr{A}^{s}} \lesssim \langle\mu\rangle^{s_0-s}\|\cdot\|_{\mathscr{A}^{s,\mu,s_0}}\qquad&\text{if }s-s_0\leq0
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Assumption \ref{Assump:Spaces} is formulated in a way such that we can apply our versions of the Mikhlin multiplier theorem, Theorem \ref{Thm:Mikhlin} \eqref{Thm:MikhlinA_p} and \eqref{Thm:MikhlinBesovTriebel}. Let first $s\geq s_0$. Note that the function
\[
m\colon \mathbb R^n\times\mathbb C\to \mathbb R,\,(\xi,\mu)\mapsto \frac{\langle\xi,\mu\rangle^{s-s_0}}{\langle\xi\rangle^{s-s_0}+\langle\mu\rangle^{s-s_0}}
\]
satisfies the condition from Theorem \ref{Thm:Mikhlin} uniformly in $\mu$. Indeed, by induction it follows that $\partial^{\alpha}_{\xi}m(\xi,\mu)$ $(\alpha\in\mathbb N_0^n)$ is a linear combination of terms of the form
\[
p_{\beta,i,j,k}(\xi,\mu)=\xi^\beta\langle\xi,\mu\rangle^{s-s_0-i}\langle\xi\rangle^{(s-s_0-2)j-k}(\langle\xi\rangle^{s-s_0}+\langle\mu\rangle^{s-s_0})^{-1-j}
\]
for some $\beta\in\mathbb N_0^n$ and $i,k,j\in\mathbb N_0$ such that $|\alpha|=i+2j+k-|\beta|$. But each of these terms satisfies
\begin{align*}
\langle\xi\rangle^{|\alpha|}|p_{\beta,i,j,k}(\xi,\mu)|&=m(\xi,\mu)\langle\xi\rangle^{|\alpha|}|\xi^\beta|\langle\xi,\mu\rangle^{-i}\langle\xi\rangle^{(s-s_0-2)j-k}(\langle\xi\rangle^{s-s_0}+\langle\mu\rangle^{s-s_0})^{-j}\\
&\lesssim m(\xi,\mu)\langle\xi\rangle^{|\alpha|+|\beta|-i-2j-k+(s-s_0)j-(s-s_0)j}\\
&\lesssim m(\xi,\mu)\\
&\lesssim 1.
\end{align*}
Hence, $(m(\cdot,\mu))_{\mu\in\mathbb C}$ is a bounded family of Fourier multipliers. Using this, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\|u\|_{\mathscr{A}^{s,\mu,s_0}}&=\|\langle D,\mu\rangle^{s-s_0}u\|_{\mathscr{A}^{s_0}}=\big\|m(D,\mu)(\langle D\rangle^{s-s_0}+\langle\mu\rangle^{s-s_0})u\big\|_{\mathscr{A}^{s_0}}\lesssim \big\|(\langle D\rangle^{s-s_0}+\langle\mu\rangle^{s-s_0})u\big\|_{\mathscr{A}^{s_0}}\\
&\leq \|u\|_{\mathscr{A}^{s}}+\langle\mu\rangle^{s-s_0}\|u\|_{\mathscr{A}^{s_0}}=\bigg\|\frac{\langle D\rangle^{s-s_0}}{\langle D,\mu\rangle^{s-s_0}}\langle D,\mu\rangle^{s-s_0}u\bigg\|_{\mathscr{A}^{s_0}}+\bigg\|\frac{\langle \mu\rangle^{s-s_0}}{\langle D,\mu\rangle^{s-s_0}}\langle D,\mu\rangle^{s-s_0}u\bigg\|_{\mathscr{A}^{s_0}}\\
&\lesssim \|\langle D,\mu\rangle^{s-s_0}u\|_{\mathscr{A}^{s_0}}= \|u\|_{\mathscr{A}^{s,\mu,s_0}}
\end{align*}
for $s-s_0\geq0$ and
\begin{align*}
\|u\|_{\mathscr{A}^{s,\mu,s_0}}&=\|\langle D,\mu\rangle^{s-s_0}u\|_{\mathscr{A}^{s_0}}=\bigg\|\frac{\langle D,\mu\rangle^{s-s_0}}{\langle D\rangle^{s-s_0}}\langle D\rangle^{s-s_0}u\bigg\|_{\mathscr{A}^{s_0}}\lesssim\|\langle D\rangle^{s-s_0}u\|_{\mathscr{A}^{s_0}}\\
&=\|u\|_{\mathscr{A}^{s}}=\bigg\|\frac{\langle D\rangle^{s-s_0}}{\langle D,\mu\rangle^{s-s_0}}\langle D,\mu\rangle^{s-s_0}u\bigg\|_{\mathscr{A}^{s_0}}\lesssim \langle\mu\rangle^{s_0-s}\|u\|_{\mathscr{A}^{s,\mu,s_0}}
\end{align*}
for $s-s_0\leq0$.
\end{proof}
In this paper, we also consider function spaces on open intervals $I$. In this case, we can just define them by restriction.
\begin{definition}
Let be $I\subset\mathbb R$ an open interval. Then we define $(\mathscr{A}^{\bullet}(I,w;E),\|\cdot\|_{\mathscr{A}^{\bullet}(I,w;E)})$ by
\[
\mathscr{A}^{\bullet}(I,w;E)=\{f|_I:f\in\mathscr{A}^{\bullet}(I,w;E)\},\quad\|g\|_{\mathscr{A}^{\bullet}(I,w;E)}:=\inf_{f\in\mathscr{A}^{\bullet}(\mathbb R,w;E), f|_I=g} \|f\|_{\mathscr{A}^{\bullet}(\mathbb R,w;E)}.
\]
We use the same definition for $\mathscr{B}^{\bullet}$ and $\mathscr{C}^{\bullet}$.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
Recall that we defined $W^{-m}_p(\mathcal{O},w;E)$ as the dual of $W^m_{p'}(\mathcal{O},w^{-\frac{1}{p-1}};E')$ and not by restriction. In the scalar-valued unweighted setting both definitions coincide, see \cite[Section 2.10.2]{Triebel_1978}. We believe that the same should hold true under suitable assumptions in the weighted vector-valued setting. But since this is not important for this work, we do not investigate this any further.
\end{remark}
\begin{lemma}\label{Lemma:EmbeddingNegitveSmoothness}
Let $s\in\mathbb R$, $p\in(1,\infty)$, $r\in(-1,p-1)$ and $l\in\mathbb N$. Suppose that $\mathscr{A}^{s}$ is reflexive. Then we have the continuous embeddings
\begin{align*}
L_p(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^{r+lp}; &\mathscr{A}^s)\hookrightarrow W^{-l}_{p}(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^{r}; \mathscr{A}^s)
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We should note that almost the same proof was given in \cite{Lindemulder_2018}. By duality, it suffices to prove
\[
W^{l}_{p',0}(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^{r'};(\mathscr{A}^{s})')\hookrightarrow L_{p'}(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^{r'-lp'};(\mathscr{A}^{s})')
\]
where $r'=-\frac{r}{p-1}$ and $p'=\frac{p}{p-1}$. But this is a special case of \cite[Corollary 3.4]{Lindemulder_Veraar_2018}.
\end{proof}
\section{Pseudo-differential Operators in Mixed Scales} \label{Section:Pseudos}
Now we briefly introduce some notions and notations concerning pseudo-differential operators. Since we only use the $x$-independent case in the following, we could also formulate our results in terms of Fourier multipliers. However, parameter-dependent H\"ormander symbol classes provide a suitable framework for the formulation of our results. In the case of parameter-dependent symbols, we oftentimes consider spaces of smooth functions on an open set $U\subset \mathbb R^n\times\mathbb C$. In this case, we identify $\mathbb C\simeq\mathbb R^2$ and understand the differentiability in the real sense. If we want to understand it in the complex sense, we say \textit{holomorphic} instead of \textit{smooth}.
\begin{definition}
Let $Z$ be a Banach space, $d\in\mathbb R$, $\Sigma\subset\mathbb C$ open and $\vartheta\colon\Sigma\to(0,\infty)$ a function.
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item The space of parameter-independent H\"ormander symbols $S^d(\mathbb R^n;Z)$ of order $d$ is the space of all smooth functions $p\in C^{\infty}(\mathbb R^n;Z)$ such that
\[
\|p\|^{(d)}_k:=\sup_{\xi\in\mathbb R^n, \atop\alpha\in\mathbb N_0^n, |\alpha|\leq k} \langle\xi\rangle^{-(d-|\alpha|)} \|D^{\alpha}_{\xi}p(\xi)\|_{Z}<\infty
\]
for all $k\in\mathbb N_0$.
\item The space of parameter-dependent H\"ormander symbols $S^{d,\vartheta}(\mathbb R^n\times\Sigma;Z)$ of order $d$ is the space of all smooth functions $p\in C^{\infty}(\mathbb R^n\times\Sigma;Z)$ such that
\[
\|p\|^{(d,\vartheta)}_k:=\sup_{\alpha\in\mathbb N_0^n,\,\gamma\in\mathbb N_0^2\atop |\alpha|+|\gamma|\leq k}\sup_{\xi\in\mathbb R^n,\mu\in\Sigma} \vartheta(\mu)^{-1}\langle\xi,\mu\rangle^{-(d-|\alpha|_1-|\gamma|_1)} \|D^{\alpha}_{\xi}D_{\mu}^{\gamma}p(\xi,\mu)\|_{Z}<\infty
\]
for all $k\in\mathbb N_0$. If $\vartheta=1$, then we also omit it in the notation.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
Actually, if one omits the weight function $\vartheta$, then the latter symbol class is the special case of parameter-dependent H\"ormander symbols with regularity $\infty$. Usually, one also includes the regularity parameter $\nu$ in the notation of the symbol class, so that the notation $S^{d,\infty}(\mathbb R^n\times\Sigma;Z)$ is more common in the literature. But since the symbols in this paper always have infinite regularity, we omit $\infty$ in the notation.\\
For the Bessel potential case, $\mathcal{R}$-bounded versions of these symbol classes are useful.
\begin{definition}
Let $E$ be a Banach space, $N,M\in\mathbb N$, $d\in\mathbb R$, $\Sigma\subset\mathbb C$ open and $\vartheta\colon\Sigma\to(0,\infty)$ a function.
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item By $S^d_{\mathcal{R}}(\mathbb R^n;\mathcal{B}(E^N,E^M))$ we denote the space of all smooth functions $p\in C^{\infty}(\mathbb R^n;\mathcal{B}(E^N,E^M))$ such that
\[
\|p\|^{(d)}_{k,\mathcal{R}}:=\mathcal{R}\big\{\langle\xi\rangle^{-(d-|\alpha|_1)}D^{\alpha}_{\xi}p(\xi):\xi\in\mathbb R^n, \alpha\in\mathbb N_0^n, |\alpha|\leq k \big\}<\infty
\]
for all $k\in\mathbb N_0$.
\item By $S^{d,\vartheta}_{\mathcal{R}}(\mathbb R^n\times\Sigma;\mathcal{B}(E^N,E^M))$ we denote the space of all smooth functions $p\in C^{\infty}(\mathbb R^n\times\Sigma;\mathcal{B}(E^N,E^M))$ such that
\[
\|p\|^{(d,\vartheta)}_{k,\mathcal{R}}:=\mathcal{R}\big\{\vartheta(\mu)^{-1}\langle\xi,\mu\rangle^{-(d-|\alpha|-|\gamma|)} D^{\alpha}_{\xi}D_{\mu}^{\gamma}p(\xi,\mu): \xi\in\mathbb R^n,\mu\in\Sigma,\alpha\in\mathbb N_0^n,\gamma\in\mathbb N_0^2,|\alpha|+|\gamma|\leq k\big\}<\infty
\]
for all $k\in\mathbb N_0$. If $\vartheta=1$, then we also omit it in the notation.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}\phantomsection \label{Rem:SymbolClasses}
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item It seems like $\mathcal{R}$-bounded versions of the usual H\"ormander symbol classes have first been considered in the Ph.D. thesis of \v{S}trkalj. We also refer to \cite{Portal_Strkalj_2006}.
\item It was observed in \cite{Denk_Krainer_2007} that also the $\mathcal{R}$-bounded symbol classes are Fr\'echet spaces.
\item Since uniform bounds can be estimated by $\mathcal{R}$-bounds, we have the continuous embeddings
\[
S^d_{\mathcal{R}}(\mathbb R^n;\mathcal{B}(E^N,E^M))\hookrightarrow S^d(\mathbb R^n;\mathcal{B}(E^N,E^M)),\quad S^{d,\vartheta}_{\mathcal{R}}(\mathbb R^n\times\Sigma;\mathcal{B}(E^N,E^M))\hookrightarrow S^{d,\vartheta}(\mathbb R^n\times\Sigma;\mathcal{B}(E^N,E^M)).
\]
\item Since uniform boundedness and $\mathcal{R}$-boundedness for a set of scalars are equivalent, we have that
\[
S^d(\mathbb R^n;\mathbb C)\hookrightarrow S^d_{\mathcal{R}}(\mathbb R^n;\mathcal{B}(E^N)),\quad S^{d,\vartheta}(\mathbb R^n\times\Sigma;\mathbb C)\hookrightarrow S^{d,\vartheta}_{\mathcal{R}}(\mathbb R^n\times\Sigma;\mathcal{B}(E^N)).
\]
\item\label{Rem:SymbolClasses:Product} Given $d_1,d_2\in\mathbb R$, $\vartheta_1,\vartheta_2\colon\Sigma\to(0,\infty)$ and $N_1,N_2,N_3\in\mathbb N$ we have the continuous bilinear mappings
\begin{align*}
&S^{d_2}(\mathbb R^n;\mathcal{B}(E^{N_2},E^{N_3}))\times S^{d_1}(\mathbb R^n;\mathcal{B}(E^{N_1},E^{N_2}))\to S^{d_1+d_2}(\mathbb R^n;\mathcal{B}(E^{N_1},E^{N_3})),\,(p_2,p_1)\mapsto p_2p_1,\\
&S^{d_2,\vartheta_2}(\mathbb R^n\times\Sigma;\mathcal{B}(E^{N_2},E^{N_3}))\times S^{d_1,\vartheta_1}(\mathbb R^n\times\Sigma;\mathcal{B}(E^{N_1},E^{N_2}))\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\to S^{d_1+d_2,\vartheta_1\cdot\vartheta_2}(\mathbb R^n\times\Sigma;\mathcal{B}(E^{N_1},E^{N_3})),\,(p_2,p_1)\mapsto p_2p_1.
\end{align*}
The same properties also hold for the $\mathcal{R}$-bounded versions.
\item\label{Rem:SymbolClasses:Derivative} The differential operator $\partial^{\alpha}$ with $\alpha\in\mathbb N_0^n$ is a continuous linear operator
\begin{align*}
S^{d}(\mathbb R^n;\mathcal{B}(E^{N},E^{M}))\to S^{d-|\alpha|}(\mathbb R^n;\mathcal{B}(E^{N},E^{M})),\,p\mapsto \partial^{\alpha}p,\\
S^{d,\vartheta}(\mathbb R^n\times\Sigma;\mathcal{B}(E^{N},E^{M}))\to S^{d-|\alpha|,\vartheta}(\mathbb R^n\times\Sigma;\mathcal{B}(E^{N},E^{M})),\,p\mapsto \partial^{\alpha}p.
\end{align*}
The same properties also hold for the $\mathcal{R}$-bounded versions.
\item \label{Rem:SymbolClasses:DependentIndependent} One could also view parameter-independent symbol classes as a subset of a parameter-dependent symbol classes with bounded $\Sigma\subset\mathbb C$ which consists of those symbols which do not depend on the parameter $\mu$. Hence, the statements we formulate for parameter-dependent symbol classes in the following also hold in a similar way in the parameter-independent case.
\end{enumerate}
\end{remark}
\begin{definition}
Let $E$ be a Banach space, $d\in\mathbb R$ and $\Sigma\subset\mathbb C$ open. Let further $p\in S^d(\mathbb R^n\times\Sigma;\mathcal{B}(E^{N},E^{M}))$. Then we define the corresponding pseudo-differential operator by
\[
(P_{\mu}f)(x):=(\operatorname{op}[p(\,\cdot\,,\mu)]f)(x):=[\mathscr{F}^{-1}p(\,\cdot\,\mu)\mathscr{F}f](x)=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{n/2}}\int_{\mathbb R^n}e^{ix\xi}p(\xi,\mu)\widehat{f}(\xi)\,d\xi.
\]
for $f\in\mathscr{S}(\mathbb R^n;E^N)$.
\end{definition}
Since we only consider $x$-independent symbols, the mapping properties of such pseudo-differential operators are an easy consequence of Mikhlin's theorem.
\begin{proposition}\label{Prop:PseudoMappingProperties}
Let $N,M\in\mathbb N$, $s,s_0,d\in\mathbb R$, $\Sigma\subset\mathbb C$ open and $\vartheta\colon\Sigma\to(0,\infty)$ a function. Consider one of the following two cases
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item\label{Prop:PseudoMappingProperties:PseudoBessel} $\mathscr{A}^{\bullet}$ belongs to the Bessel potential scale and $S^{d,\vartheta}_{\mathscr{A}}(\mathbb R^{n}\times\Sigma;\mathcal{B}(E^N,E^M))=S^{d,\vartheta}_{\mathcal{R}}(\mathbb R^{n}\times\Sigma;\mathcal{B}(E^N,E^M))$.
\item\label{Prop:PseudoMappingProperties:PseudoBesovTriebel} $\mathscr{A}^{\bullet}$ belongs to the Besov or the Triebel-Lizorkin scale and $S^{d,\vartheta}_{\mathscr{A}}(\mathbb R^{n}\times\Sigma;\mathcal{B}(E^N,E^M))=S^{d,\vartheta}(\mathbb R^{n}\times\Sigma;\mathcal{B}(E^N,E^M))$.
\end{enumerate}
Then the mapping
\[
S^{d,\vartheta}_{\mathscr{A}}(\mathbb R^{n}\times\Sigma;\mathcal{B}(E^N,E^M))\times \mathscr{A}^{s+d,\mu,s_0}(\mathbb R^{n},w_0,E^N)\to \mathscr{A}^{s,\mu,s_0}(\mathbb R^{n},w_0,E^M),\; (p,f)\mapsto \operatorname{op}[p(\,\cdot\,,\mu)]f
\]
defined by extension from $\mathscr{S}(\mathbb R^{n},E^N)$ to $\mathscr{A}^{s+d,\mu,s_0}(\mathbb R^{n},w_0,E^N)$ is bilinear and continuous. Moreover, there is a constant $C>0$ independent of $\vartheta$ such that
\[
\| \operatorname{op}[p(\,\cdot\,,\mu)]f\|_{ \mathscr{A}^{s,\mu,s_0}(\mathbb R^{n},w_0,E^N)} \leq C \vartheta(\mu)\|p\|^{(d,\vartheta)}_N\|f\|_{ \mathscr{A}^{s+d,\mu,s_0}(\mathbb R^{n},w_0,E^M)}
\]
for all $\mu\in\Sigma$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
It is obvious that the mapping is bilinear. For the continuity, we note that
\[
S^{d,\vartheta}_{\mathscr{A}}(\mathbb R^n\times\Sigma;\mathcal{B}(E^N,E^M))\to S^{0,\vartheta}_{\mathscr{A}}(\mathbb R^n\times\Sigma;\mathcal{B}(E^N,E^M)), p\mapsto[(\xi,\mu)\mapsto p(\xi,\mu)\langle\xi,\mu\rangle^{-d}]
\]
is continuous. Hence, by Mikhlin's theorem there is an $N'\in\mathbb N$ such that
\begin{align*}
\| \operatorname{op}[p(\,\cdot\,,\mu)]f\|_{ \mathscr{A}^{s,\mu,s_0}(\mathbb R^{n},w_0,E^M)}&=\| \operatorname{op}[\langle\cdot,\mu\rangle^{s_0-s}]\operatorname{op}[p(\,\cdot\,,\mu)\langle\cdot,\mu\rangle^{-d}]\operatorname{op}[\langle\cdot,\mu\rangle^{d+s-s_0}]f\|_{ \mathscr{A}^{s,\mu,s_0}(\mathbb R^{n},w_0,E^M)}\\
&= \|\operatorname{op}[p(\,\cdot\,,\mu)\langle\cdot,\mu\rangle^{-d}]\operatorname{op}[\langle\cdot,\mu\rangle^{d+s-s_0}]f\|_{ \mathscr{A}^{s_0}(\mathbb R^{n},w_0,E^M)}\\
&\lesssim \vartheta(\mu)\|p\|^{(d,\vartheta)}_{N',\mathscr{A}}\|\operatorname{op}[\langle\cdot,\mu\rangle^{d+s-s_0}]f\|_{ \mathscr{A}^{s_0}(\mathbb R^{n},w_0,E^N)}\\
&= \vartheta(\mu)\|p\|^{(d,\vartheta)}_{N',\mathscr{A}}\|f\|_{ \mathscr{A}^{s+d,\mu,s_0}(\mathbb R^{n},w_0,E^N)}.
\end{align*}
This also shows the asserted estimate.
\end{proof}
We can also formulate an $\mathcal{R}$-bounded version of Proposition \ref{Prop:PseudoMappingProperties} without the parameter-dependence of the function spaces.
\begin{proposition}\label{Prop:PseudoMappingProperties_R_bounded}
Let $N,M\in\mathbb N$, $s,d\in\mathbb R$, $\Sigma\subset\mathbb C$ open and $\vartheta\colon\Sigma\to(0,\infty)$ a function. Consider one of the following two cases
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item\label{Prop:PseudoMappingProperties_R_bounded:PseudoBessel} $\mathscr{A}^{\bullet}$ belongs to the Bessel potential scale and $E$ satisfies Pisier's property $(\alpha)$ in addition to the assumptions in Assumption \ref{Assump:Spaces}.
\item\label{Prop:PseudoMappingProperties_R_bounded:PseudoBesovTriebel} $\mathscr{A}^{\bullet}$ belongs to the Besov or the Triebel-Lizorkin scale.
\end{enumerate}
Then the mapping
\[
S^{d,\vartheta}_{\mathcal{R}}(\mathbb R^{n}\times\Sigma;\mathcal{B}(E^N,E^M))\times \mathscr{A}^{s+d}(\mathbb R^{n},w_0;E^N)\to \mathscr{A}^{s}(\mathbb R^{n},w_0;E^M),\; (p,f)\mapsto \operatorname{op}[p(\,\cdot\,,\mu)]f
\]
defined by extension from $\mathscr{S}(\mathbb R^n,E^N)$ to $\mathscr{A}^{s,\mu,s_0}(\mathbb R^{n},w_0;E^N)$ is bilinear and continuous. Moreover, there is a constant $C>0$ independent of $\vartheta$ such that
\[
\mathcal{R}_{\mathcal{B}(\mathscr{A}^{s+d}(\mathbb R^{n},w_0;E^N),\mathscr{A}^{s}(\mathbb R^{n},w_0;E^M))}\big(\{\vartheta(\mu)^{-1}\langle\mu\rangle^{-d_+}\operatorname{op}[p(\,\cdot\,,\mu)]:\mu\in\Sigma\}\big)\leq C \|p\|^{(d,\vartheta)}_N.
\]
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Note that $m(\,\cdot\,,\mu):=[\xi\mapsto \langle\mu\rangle^{-d_+}\langle\xi,\mu\rangle^d\langle\xi\rangle^{-d}]$ satisfies Mikhlin's condition uniformly in $\mu$. Indeed, by induction on $|\alpha|$ one gets that $\partial^{\alpha}\langle\mu\rangle^{-d_+}\langle\xi,\mu\rangle^d\langle\xi\rangle^{-d}$ is a linear combination of terms of the form
\[
p_{j,k}(\xi,\mu)=\xi^{\beta}\langle\xi,\mu\rangle^{d-2j}\langle\xi\rangle^{-d-2k}\langle\mu\rangle^{-d_+}
\]
for some $\beta\in\mathbb N_0^{n-1}$, $j,k\in\mathbb N_0$ with $|\alpha|=2j+2k-|\beta|$. For such a term we obtain
\begin{align*}
\langle\xi\rangle^{|\alpha|}|p_{j,k}(\xi,\mu)|&=m(\xi,\mu)|\xi^{\beta}|\langle\xi,\mu\rangle^{-2j}\langle\xi\rangle^{|\alpha|-2k}\\
&\leq m(\xi,\mu)\langle\xi\rangle^{|\alpha|+|\beta|-2j-2k}\\
&\lesssim 1.
\end{align*}
Hence, by Mikhlin's theorem there is an $N'\in\mathbb N$ such that
\begin{align*}
&\quad\mathcal{R}_{\mathcal{B}(\mathscr{A}^{s+d}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w_0;E^N),\mathscr{A}^{s}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w_0;E^M))}\big(\{\vartheta(\mu)^{-1}\langle\mu\rangle^{-d_+}\operatorname{op}[p(\,\cdot\,,\mu)]:\mu\in\Sigma\}\big)\\
&= \mathcal{R}_{\mathcal{B}(\mathscr{A}^{s+d}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w_0;E^N),\mathscr{A}^{s}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w_0;E^M))}\big(\{\vartheta(\mu)^{-1}\operatorname{op}[p(\,\cdot\,,\mu)\langle\cdot,\mu\rangle^{-d}]\operatorname{op}[\langle\mu\rangle^{-d_+} \langle\cdot,\mu\rangle^{d}]:\mu\in\Sigma\}\big)\\
&\lesssim\mathcal{R}_{\mathcal{B}(\mathscr{A}^{s}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w_0;E^N),\mathscr{A}^{s}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w_0;E^M))}\big(\{\vartheta(\mu)^{-1}\operatorname{op}[p(\,\cdot\,,\mu)\langle\cdot,\mu\rangle^{-d}]:\mu\in\Sigma\}\big)\\
&\lesssim \|p\|^{(d,\vartheta)}_{N'}.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}[Iterated version of Mikhlin's theorem]\label{Prop:IteratedMikhlin}
Let $s,k\in\mathbb R$ and let $E$ be a Banach space. Consider one of the following cases with Assumption \ref{Assump:Spaces} in mind, $\mathscr{B}$ being defined on $I_{x_n}=\mathbb R$ and with $m\in L_{\infty}(\mathbb R^n;\mathcal{B}(E))$ being smooth enough:
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item\label{Prop:IteratedMikhlin:TLTL} Neither $\mathscr{A}$ nor $\mathscr{B}$ stands for the Bessel potential scale. For $N\in\mathbb N_0$ we define
\[
\kappa_{m,N}:=\sup\big\{\langle\xi'\rangle^{|\alpha'|}\langle\xi_n\rangle^{\alpha_n}\|\partial_{\xi}^{\alpha}m(\xi',\xi_n)\|_{\mathcal{B}(E)}: \alpha\in\mathbb N_0^{n},|\alpha|\leq N, \xi\in\mathbb R^{n}\big\}.
\]
\item\label{Prop:IteratedMikhlin:BTL} $\mathscr{A}$ stands for the Bessel potential scale and $\mathscr{B}$ does not stand for the Bessel potential scale. For $N\in\mathbb N_0$ we define
\[
\kappa_{m,N}:=\sup_{\xi_n\in\mathbb R,\alpha_n\in\mathbb N_0,\alpha_n\leq N}\mathcal{R}\big\{|\xi'|^{|\alpha'|}\langle\xi_n\rangle^{\alpha_n}\partial_{\xi}^{\alpha}m(\xi',\xi_n): \alpha'\in\mathbb N_0^{n-1},|\alpha'|\leq N, \xi'\in\mathbb R^{n-1}\big\}.
\]
\item\label{Prop:IteratedMikhlin:TLB} $\mathscr{B}$ stands for the Bessel potential scale and $\mathscr{A}$ does not stand for the Bessel potential scale. For $N\in\mathbb N_0$ we define
\[
\kappa_{m,N}:=\mathcal{R}\big\{\langle\xi'\rangle^{|\alpha'|}|\xi_n|^{\alpha_n}\partial_{\xi}^{\alpha}m(\xi',\xi_n): \alpha\in\mathbb N_0^{n},|\alpha|\leq N, \xi\in\mathbb R^{n}\big\}.
\]
\item\label{Prop:IteratedMikhlin:BB} Both $\mathscr{A}$ and $\mathscr{B}$ stand for the Bessel potential scale and $E$ satisfies Pisier's property $(\alpha)$. For $N\in\mathbb N_0$ we define
\[
\kappa_{m,N}:=\mathcal{R}\big\{|\xi'|^{|\alpha'|}|\xi_n|^{\alpha_n}\partial_{\xi}^{\alpha}m(\xi',\xi_n): \alpha\in\mathbb N_0^{n},|\alpha|\leq N, \xi\in\mathbb R^{n}\big\}.
\]
\end{enumerate}
There is an $N\in\mathbb N_0$ and a constant $C>0$ independent of $m$ such that
\[
\|\operatorname{op}[m]\|_{\mathcal{B}(\mathscr{B}^{k}(\mathscr{A}^s))}\leq C\kappa_{m,N}.
\]
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
First, we note that $\operatorname{op}[\partial_{\xi_n}^{\alpha_n}m(\,\cdot,\xi_n)]=\partial_{\xi_n}^{\alpha_n}\operatorname{op}[m(\,\cdot,\xi_n)]$, $\alpha_n\in\mathbb N$, if $m$ is smooth enough. Indeed, let $\epsilon>0$ be small enough and $h\in (-\epsilon,\epsilon)$. Then we have
\begin{align*}
&\quad \big\|\operatorname{op}\big[\tfrac{1}{h}(m(\,\cdot,\xi_n+h)-m(\,\cdot,\xi_n))-\partial_nm(\,\cdot,\xi_n) \big]\big\|_{\mathcal{B}(\mathscr{A}^s,\mathscr{A}^s)}\\
&\leq C\sup_{\alpha'\in\mathbb N_0^{n-1},|\alpha'|\leq N'}\sup_{\xi'\in\mathbb R^{n-1}}\|\langle\xi'\rangle^{|\alpha'|}\partial_{\xi'}^{\alpha'}[\tfrac{1}{h}(m(\xi',\xi_n+h)-m(\xi',\xi_n))-\partial_nm(\xi',\xi_n) ]\|_{\mathcal{B}(E)}\\
&= C\sup_{\alpha'\in\mathbb N_0^{n-1},|\alpha'|\leq N'}\sup_{\xi'\in\mathbb R^{n-1}}\bigg\|\langle\xi'\rangle^{|\alpha'|}\partial_{\xi'}^{\alpha'}\bigg[\int_0^1\partial_n m(\xi',\xi_n+sh)-\partial_n m(\xi',\xi_n)\,ds\bigg]\bigg\|_{\mathcal{B}(E)}\\
&\leq C\sup_{\alpha'\in\mathbb N_0^{n-1},|\alpha'|\leq N'}\sup_{\xi'\in\mathbb R^{n-1}}\sup_{s\in[0,1]}\langle\xi'\rangle^{|\alpha'|}\|\partial_{\xi'}^{\alpha'}\partial_n[m(\xi',\xi_n+s h)-m(\xi',\xi_n)]\|_{\mathcal{B}(E)}
\end{align*}
Now we can use the uniform continuity of $$\mathbb R^{n-1}\times(-\epsilon,\epsilon)\to\mathcal{B}(E),\,(\xi',h)\mapsto \langle\xi'\rangle^{|\alpha'|}\partial_{\xi'}^{\alpha'}\partial_n m(\xi',\xi_n+h))$$ to see that we have convergence to $0$ as $h\to0$ in the above estimate. The uniform continuity follows from the boundedness of the derivatives (if $m$ is smooth enough). For derivatives of order $\alpha_n\geq2$ we can apply the same argument to $\partial_{\xi_n}^{\alpha_n-1}m$.\\
The idea is now to apply Miklhin's theorem twice. For example in case \eqref{Prop:IteratedMikhlin:BB} one obtains
\begin{align*}
\| \operatorname{op}[m]\|_{\mathcal{B}(\mathscr{B}^{k}(\mathscr{A}^s)))}&\lesssim\mathcal{R}_{\mathcal{B}(\mathscr{A}^s,\mathscr{A}^s)}\big(\{|\xi_n|^{\alpha_n}\partial_{\xi_n}^{\alpha_n}\operatorname{op}[m(\,\cdot,\xi_n)]:\alpha_n\in\mathbb N,\alpha_n\leq N_n,\xi_n\in\mathbb R\}\big)\\
&=\mathcal{R}_{\mathcal{B}(\mathscr{A}^s,\mathscr{A}^s)}\big(\{\operatorname{op}[|\xi_n|^{\alpha_n}\partial_{\xi_n}^{\alpha_n}m(\,\cdot,\xi_n)]:\alpha_n\in\mathbb N,\alpha_n\leq N_n,\xi_n\in\mathbb R\}\big)\\
&\lesssim \kappa_{m,N}
\end{align*}
by Theorem \ref{Thm:Mikhlin} \eqref{Thm:MikhlinA_pAlpha} for $N_n,N\in\mathbb N_0$ large enough. The other cases are obtained analogously.
\end{proof}
There also is an $\mathcal{R}$-bounded version of Proposition \ref{Prop:IteratedMikhlin}
\begin{proposition}[Iterated $\mathcal{R}$-bounded version of Mikhlin's theorem]\label{Prop:IteratedMikhlinRbounded}
Let $s,k\in\mathbb R$ and let $E$ be a Banach space. Consider one of the following cases with Assumption \ref{Assump:Spaces} in mind and with $\mathcal{M}\subset C^{\tilde{N}}(\mathbb R^n\setminus\{0\};\mathcal{B}(E))$ with $\tilde{N}\in\mathbb N_0$ being large enough:
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item\label{Prop:IteratedMikhlinRbounded:TLTL} Neither $\mathscr{A}$ nor $\mathscr{B}$ stands for the Bessel potential scale. For $N\in\mathbb N_0$ we define
\[
\kappa_{\mathcal{M},N}:=\mathcal{R}\big\{\langle\xi'\rangle^{|\alpha'|}\langle\xi_n\rangle^{\alpha_n}\partial_{\xi}^{\alpha}m(\xi): m\in\mathcal{M},\alpha\in\mathbb N_0^{n},|\alpha|\leq N, \xi\in\mathbb R^{n}\big\}.
\]
\item\label{Prop:IteratedMikhlinRbounded:BTL} $\mathscr{A}$ stands for the Bessel potential scale, $\mathscr{B}$ does not stand for the Bessel potential scale and $E$ satisfies Pisier's property $(\alpha)$. For $N\in\mathbb N_0$ we define
\[
\kappa_{\mathcal{M},N}:=\mathcal{R}\big\{|\xi'|^{|\alpha'|}\langle\xi_n\rangle^{\alpha_n}\partial_{\xi}^{\alpha}m(\xi): m\in\mathcal{M},\alpha\in\mathbb N_0^{n},|\alpha|\leq N, \xi\in\mathbb R^{n}\big\}.
\]
\item\label{Prop:IteratedMikhlinRbounded:TLB} $\mathscr{B}$ stands for the Bessel potential scale, $\mathscr{A}$ does not stand for the Bessel potential scale and $E$ satisfies Pisier's property $(\alpha)$. For $N\in\mathbb N_0$ we define
\[
\kappa_{\mathcal{M},N}:=\mathcal{R}\big\{\langle\xi'\rangle^{|\alpha'|}|\xi_n|^{\alpha_n}\partial_{\xi}^{\alpha}m(\xi): m\in\mathcal{M},\alpha\in\mathbb N_0^{n},|\alpha|\leq N, \xi\in\mathbb R^{n}\big\}.
\]
\item\label{Prop:IteratedMikhlinRbounded:BB} Both $\mathscr{A}$ and $\mathscr{B}$ stand for the Bessel potential scale and $E$ satisfies Pisier's property $(\alpha)$. For $N\in\mathbb N_0$ we define
\[
\kappa_{\mathcal{M},N}:=\mathcal{R}\big\{|\xi'|^{|\alpha'|}|\xi_n|^{\alpha_n}\partial_{\xi}^{\alpha}m(\xi',\xi_n):m\in\mathcal{M}, \alpha\in\mathbb N_0^{n},|\alpha|\leq N, \xi\in\mathbb R^{n}\big\}.
\]
\end{enumerate}
There is an $N\in\mathbb N_0$ and a constant $C>0$ such that
\[
\mathcal{R}(\{\operatorname{op}[m]:m\in\mathcal{M}\})\leq C\kappa_m\quad\text{in }\mathcal{B}(\mathscr{B}^{k}(\mathscr{A}^s)).
\]
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
This follows by the same proof as \ref{Prop:IteratedMikhlin}. One just has to use the $\mathcal{R}$-bounded versions of Mikhlin's theorem.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}[Lifting Property for Mixed Scales]\label{Lemma:Lifting_Property}
Let $s,k,t_0,t_1\in\mathbb R$. Then
\[
\langle D_n\rangle^{t_0}\langle D'\rangle^{t_1}\colon \mathscr{B}^{k+t_0}(\mathscr{A}^{s+t_1})\stackrel{\simeq}{\rightarrow} \mathscr{B}^{k}(\mathscr{A}^{s})
\]
is an isomorphism of Banach spaces
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
If $\mathscr{A}^\bullet$ or $\mathscr{B}^{\bullet}$ belongs to the Bessel potential scale, then it follows from the definition of Bessel potential spaces that
\[
\langle D'\rangle^{t_1} \colon\mathscr{A}^{s+t_1}\stackrel{\simeq}{\rightarrow} \mathscr{A}^{s}\quad\text{or} \quad\langle D_n\rangle^{t_0}\colon \mathscr{B}^{k+t_0}(\mathscr{A}^{s})\stackrel{\simeq}{\rightarrow} \mathscr{B}^{k}(\mathscr{A}^{s}),
\]
respectively. In the other cases, this is the statement of \cite[Proposition 3.9]{Meyries_Veraar_2012}. Composing the two mapings yields the assertion.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{Prop:BesselPotentialInMixedScales}
Let $s,k\in\mathbb R$ and $t\geq0$. Suppose that $E$ has Pisier's property $(\alpha)$ if both $\mathscr{A}$ and $\mathscr{B}$ belong to the Bessel potential scale. Then
\[
\langle D\rangle^{t}\colon \mathscr{B}^{k+t}(\mathscr{A}^{s})\cap \mathscr{B}^{k}(\mathscr{A}^{s+t})\stackrel{\simeq}{\rightarrow}\mathscr{B}^k(\mathscr{A}^s)
\]
is an isomorphism of Banach spaces.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
By the assumptions we imposed on $\mathscr{B}^{\bullet}(\mathscr{A}^\bullet)$, we can apply Mikhlin's theorem. We define
\[
f\colon \mathbb R^{n}\to\mathbb R,\;\xi\mapsto \frac{\langle\xi\rangle^{t}}{\langle\xi'\rangle^{t}+\langle\xi_n\rangle^{t}}
\]
which satisfies the assumptions of Proposition \ref{Prop:IteratedMikhlin}. Indeed, by induction we have that $\partial_{\xi}^{\alpha}f$ is a linear combination of terms of the form
\begin{align*}
\xi^{\beta}\langle\xi\rangle^{t-i'-i_n}\langle\xi'\rangle^{(t-2)j'-k'}\langle\xi_n\rangle^{(t-2)j_n-k_n}(\langle\xi'\rangle^t+\langle\xi_n\rangle^t)^{-1-j'-j_n}
\end{align*}
for some $\beta\in\mathbb N_0^n$, $i',i_n,j',j_n,k',k_n\in\mathbb N_0$ such that $\alpha_n=i_n+2j_n+k_n-\beta_n$ and $|\alpha'|=i'+2j'+k'-|\beta'|$. But for such a term we have that
\begin{align*}
&\quad|\langle\xi'\rangle^{|\alpha'|}\langle\xi_n\rangle^{\alpha_n}\xi^{\beta}\langle\xi\rangle^{t-i'-i_n}\langle\xi'\rangle^{(t-2)j'-k'}\langle\xi_n\rangle^{(t-2)j_n-k_n}(\langle\xi'\rangle^t+\langle\xi_n\rangle^t)^{-1-j'-j_n}|\\
&= |f(\xi)\langle\xi'\rangle^{|\alpha'|}\langle\xi_n\rangle^{\alpha_n}\xi^{\beta}\langle\xi\rangle^{-i'-i_n}\langle\xi'\rangle^{(t-2)j'-k'}\langle\xi_n\rangle^{(t-2)j_n-k_n}(\langle\xi'\rangle^t+\langle\xi_n\rangle^t)^{-j'-j_n}|\\
&\leq f(\xi)[\langle\xi'\rangle^{|\alpha'|+|\beta'|-i'-2j'-k'}\langle\xi_n\rangle^{\alpha_n+\beta_n-i_n-2j_n-k_n}][\langle\xi'\rangle^{tj'}\langle\xi_n\rangle^{tj_n}(\langle\xi'\rangle^t+\langle\xi_n\rangle^t)^{-j'-j_n}]\\
&\leq f(\xi)\\
&\leq 1.
\end{align*}
This shows that $f$ satisfies the assumptions of Proposition \ref{Prop:IteratedMikhlin}. Therefore, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\|\langle D\rangle^{t}u\|_{\mathscr{B}^k(\mathscr{A}^s)}&=\|f(D)(\langle D'\rangle^{t}+\langle D_n\rangle^{t})u \|_{\mathscr{B}^k(\mathscr{A}^s)}\lesssim \|(\langle D'\rangle^{t}+\langle D_n\rangle^{t})u \|_{\mathscr{B}^k(\mathscr{A}^s)}\\
&\lesssim\max\{\|u \|_{\mathscr{B}^{k+t}(\mathscr{A}^{s})},\|u \|_{\mathscr{B}^{k}(\mathscr{A}^{s+t})}\}
\end{align*}
as well as
\begin{align*}
\max\{\|u \|_{\mathscr{B}^{k+t}(\mathscr{A}^{s})},\|u \|_{\mathscr{B}^{k}(\mathscr{A}^{s+t})}\} &\leq \|\langle D_n\rangle^t u \|_{\mathscr{B}^{k}(\mathscr{A}^{s})}+\|\langle D'\rangle^t u \|_{\mathscr{B}^{k}(\mathscr{A}^{s})}\\
&= \bigg\|\frac{\langle D'\rangle^{t}}{\langle D\rangle^{t}}\langle D\rangle^{t}u \bigg\|_{\mathscr{B}^k(\mathscr{A}^s)}+\bigg\|\frac{\langle D_n\rangle^{t}}{\langle D\rangle^{t}}\langle D\rangle^{t}u \bigg\|_{\mathscr{B}^k(\mathscr{A}^s)}\\
&\lesssim \|\langle D\rangle^{t}u \|_{\mathscr{B}^k(\mathscr{A}^s)}.
\end{align*}
This proves the assertion.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{Prop:Pseudo_Iterated_Mapping_Properties}
Let $s,k,d\in\mathbb R$. Let
\[
S^d_{\mathscr{B},\mathscr{A}}(\mathbb R^n,\mathcal{B}(E)):=\begin{cases}
S^d(\mathbb R^n,\mathcal{B}(E))&\text{ if neither }\mathscr{A}\text{ nor }\mathscr{B}\text{ stands for the Bessel potential scale},\\
S^d_{\mathcal{R}}(\mathbb R^n,\mathcal{B}(E))&\text{ otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\]
Suppose that $E$ has Pisier's property $(\alpha)$ if both $\mathscr{A}$ and $\mathscr{B}$ belong to the Bessel potential scale
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item If $d\leq 0$, then
\[
S^d_{\mathscr{B},\mathscr{A}}(\mathbb R^n,\mathcal{B}(E)) \times \mathscr{B}^k(\mathscr{A}^s) \to \mathscr{B}^{k-d}(\mathscr{A}^s)\cap \mathscr{B}^k(\mathscr{A}^{s-d}),\;(p,u)\mapsto \operatorname{op}[p] u
\]
is bilinear and continuous.
\item If $d\geq0$, then
\[
S^d_{\mathscr{B},\mathscr{A}}(\mathbb R^n,\mathcal{B}(E)) \times(\mathscr{B}^{k+d}(\mathscr{A}^s)\cap \mathscr{B}^k(\mathscr{A}^{s+d})) \to \mathscr{B}^k(\mathscr{A}^s),\;(p,u)\mapsto \operatorname{op}[p] u
\]
is bilinear and continuous.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{proof}
By writing $p(\xi)=\frac{p(\xi)}{\langle\xi\rangle^d}\langle\xi\rangle^d$ and using Proposition \ref{Prop:BesselPotentialInMixedScales} we only have to treat the case $d=0$. But this case is included in the iterated version of Mikhlin's theorem, Proposition \ref{Prop:IteratedMikhlin}. Indeed, for a symbol $p\in S^0(\mathbb R^n,\mathcal{B}(E))$ we have
\[
\sup_{\xi\in\mathbb R^n\atop \alpha\in\mathbb N_0^n,|\alpha|_1\leq k} \langle\xi'\rangle^{|\alpha'|}\langle\xi_n\rangle^{|\alpha_n|}\|\partial_{\xi}^{\alpha}p(\xi)\|_{\mathcal{B}(E)}\leq \sup_{\xi\in\mathbb R^n\atop \alpha\in\mathbb N_0^n,|\alpha|\leq k} \langle\xi\rangle^{|\alpha|}\|\partial_{\xi}^{\alpha}p(\xi)\|_{\mathcal{B}(E)}<\infty
\]
for all $k\in\mathbb N_0$. If $p\in S^0_{\mathcal{R}}(\mathbb R^n,\mathcal{B}(E))$ we can use Kahane's contraction principle in order to obtain
\begin{align*}
&\mathcal{R}\big\{\langle\xi'\rangle^{|\alpha'|}\langle\xi_n\rangle^{|\alpha_n|}\partial_{\xi}^{\alpha}p(\xi): \alpha\in\mathbb N_0^n,|\alpha|\leq k,\xi\in\mathbb R^n\big\}\\
&\leq \mathcal{R}\big\{\langle\xi\rangle^{|\alpha|}\partial_{\xi}^{\alpha}p(\xi): \alpha\in\mathbb N_0^n,|\alpha|\leq k,\xi\in\mathbb R^n\big\}.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\end{proposition}
\section{Poisson Operators in Mixed Scales}\label{Section:Poisson}
Consider equation \eqref{EllipticBVP} with $f=0$, i.e.
\begin{align}
\begin{aligned}\label{Eq:EllipticBVPf=0}
\lambda u -A(D)u&=0\quad\;\text{in }\mathbb R^n_+,\\
B_j(D)u&=g_j\quad\text{on }\mathbb R^{n-1}.
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
Recall that we always assume that the ellipticity condition and the Lopatinskii-Shapiro condition are satisfied in the sector $\Sigma_{\phi'}\setminus\{0\}$ with $\phi'\in(0,\pi)$ and that $\phi\in(0,\phi')$. The solution operators of \eqref{Eq:EllipticBVPf=0} which map the boundary data $g=(g_1,\ldots,g_m)$ to the solution $u$ are called Poisson operators. This notion comes from the Boutet de Monvel calculus, where Poisson operators are part of the so-called singular Green operator matrices. These matrices were introduced to extend the idea of pseudo-differential operators to boundary value problems. They allow for a unified treatment of boundary value problems and their solution operators, since both of them are contained in the algebra of singular Green operator matrices. In this work however, we do not need this theory in full generality. Instead, we just focus on Poisson operators.\\
We will use a solution formula for the Poisson operator corresponding to \eqref{Eq:EllipticBVPf=0} which was derived in the classical work \cite[Proposition 6.2]{DHP03} by Denk, Hieber and Pr\"uss. In order to derive this formula, a Fourier transform in the tangential directions of \eqref{Eq:EllipticBVPf=0} is applied. This yields a linear ordinary differential equation of order $2m$ at each point in the frequency space. This ordinary differential equation is then transformed to a linear first order system which can easily be solved by an exponential function if one knows the values of $$U(\xi',0):=(\mathscr{F}'u(\xi',0),\partial_n\mathscr{F}'u(\xi',0),\ldots,\partial_n^{2m-1}\mathscr{F}'u(\xi',0)).$$ The Lopatinskii-Shapiro condition ensures that those vectors $U(\xi',0)$ which yield a stable solution can be uniquely determined from $(\mathscr{F}'g_1,\ldots,\mathscr{F}'g_m)$. The operator which gives this solution is denoted by
\[
M(\xi',\lambda)\colon E^m\to E^{2m},\,(\mathscr{F}'g_1(\xi'),\ldots,\mathscr{F}'g_m(\xi'))\mapsto U(\xi',0).
\]
Now one just has to take the inverse Fourier transform of the solution and a projection to the first component. The latter is necessary to come back from the solution of the first order system to the solution of the higher order equation.\\
This would already be enough to derive a good solution formula. However, in \cite{DHP03} an additional rescaling was introduced so that compactness arguments can be applied. More precisely, the variables $\rho(\xi',\lambda)=\langle \xi',|\lambda|^{1/2m}\rangle=(1+|\xi'|^2+|\lambda|^{1/m})^{1/2}$, $b=\xi'/\rho$ and $\sigma=\lambda/\rho^{2m}$ are introduced in the Fourier image. The solution formula is then written in terms of $(\rho,b,\sigma)$ instead of $(\xi',\lambda)$. For this reformulation it is crucial that the operators $A,B_1,\ldots,B_m$ are homogeneous, i.e. that there are no lower order terms. And even though this rescaling makes the formulas more involved, the compactness arguments which can be used as a consequence are very useful.\\
After carrying out all these steps, the solution can be represented by
\[
u(x)=\operatorname{pr}_1[\operatorname{Poi}(\lambda)g](x)
\]
where
\begin{itemize}
\item $\operatorname{pr}_1\colon E^{2m}\to E,\,w\mapsto w_1$ is the projection onto the first component,
\item $g=(g_1,\ldots,g_m)^T$ and the operator $\operatorname{Poi}(\lambda)\colon E^m\to E^{2m}$ is given by
\begin{align}\label{Eq:FormulaPoisson}
\begin{aligned}
\left[\operatorname{Poi}(\lambda)g\right](x):=\big[(\mathscr{F}')^{-1} e^{i\rho A_0(b,\sigma)x_n}M(b,\sigma)\hat{g}_{\rho}\big](x').
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
\item $\mathscr{F}'$ is the Fourier transform along $\mathbb R^{n-1}$, i.e. in tangential direction,
\item $A_0$ is a smooth function with values in $\mathcal{B}(E^{2m},E^{2m})$ which one obtains from $\lambda-A(\xi',D_n)$ after a reduction to a first order system,
\item $M$ is a smooth function with values in $\mathcal{B}(E^{m},E^{2m})$ which maps the values of the boundary operators applied to the stable solution $v$ to the vector containing its derivatives at $x_n=0$ up to the order $2m-1$, i.e. $$(B_1(D)v(0),\ldots, B_m(D)v(0))^T\mapsto (v(0),\partial_n v(0),\ldots, \partial_n^{2m-1} v(0))^T,$$
\item $\rho$ is a positive parameter that can be chosen in different ways in dependence of $\xi'$ and $\lambda$. In our case, it will be given by $\rho(\xi',\lambda)=\langle \xi',|\lambda|^{1/2m}\rangle=(1+|\xi'|^2+|\lambda|^{1/m})^{1/2}$,
\item $b=\xi'/\rho$, $\sigma=\lambda/\rho^{2m}$ and $\hat{g}_{\rho}=((\mathscr{F}'g_1)/\rho^{m_1},\ldots,(\mathscr{F}'g_m)/\rho^{m_m})^T$,
\end{itemize}
Again, we want to emphasize that $b$, $\sigma$, and $\rho$ depend on $\xi'$ and $\lambda$. We only neglect this dependence in the notation for the sake of readability.\\
Another operator that we will use later is the spectral projection $\ms{P}_{-}$ of the matrix $A_0$ to the part of the spectrum that lies above the real line. This spectral projection has the property that $\ms{P}_-(b,\sigma)M(b,\sigma)=M(b,\sigma)$.\\
For our purposes, we will rewrite the above representation in the following way: For $j=1,\ldots,m$ we write
\[
M_{\rho,j}(b,\sigma)\hat{g}_j := M(b,\sigma)\frac{\hat{g}_j\otimes e_j}{\rho^{m_j}},
\]
where $\hat{g}_j\otimes e_j$ denotes the $m$-tuple whose $j$-th component equals to $\hat{g}_j$ and whose other components all equal to $0$, as well as
\[
[\operatorname{Poi}_j(\lambda)g_j](x):=\big[(\mathscr{F}')^{-1} e^{i\rho A_0(b,\sigma)x_n}M_{\rho,j}(b,\sigma)\hat{g}_j\big](x')
\]
so that we obtain
\begin{align}\label{Boutet:Equation:SolutionFormulaPoisson}
u= \operatorname{pr}_1\operatorname{Poi}(\lambda)g=\operatorname{pr}_1\sum_{j=1}^m\operatorname{Poi}_j(\lambda)g_j.
\end{align}
\begin{remark}
If we look at the formula \eqref{Eq:FormulaPoisson} we can already see that the solution operator is actually just an exponential function in normal direction. As such, it should be arbitrarily smooth. Of course, one has to think about with respect to which topology in tangential direction this smoothness should be understood. It is the aim of this section to analyze this carefully. We treat \eqref{Eq:FormulaPoisson} as a function of $x_n$ with values in the space of pseudo-differential operators in tangential direction. Since \eqref{Eq:FormulaPoisson} is exponentially decaying in $\xi'$ if $x_n>0$, the pseudo-differential operators will have order $-\infty$, i.e. they are smoothing. Hence, the solutions will also be arbitrarily smooth, no matter how rough the boundary data is. However, the exponential decay becomes slower as one approaches $x_n=0$. This will lead to singularities if \eqref{Eq:FormulaPoisson} is considered as a function of $x_n$ with values in the space of pseudo-differential operators of a fixed order. In the following, we will study how strong these singularities are depending on the regularity in normal and tangential directions in which the singularities are studied. The answer will be given in Theorem~\ref{Thm:MainThm1}. Therein, one may choose the regularity in normal direction $k$, the integrability in normal direction $p$, the regularity in tangential direction $t$ of the solution and the regularity $s$ of the boundary data. Then the parameter $r$ in the relation $r-p[t+k-m_j-s]_+>-1$ gives a description of the singularity at the boundary, since it is the power of the power weight which one has to add to the solution space such that the Poisson operator is a well-defined continuous operator between the spaces one has chosen.
\end{remark}
In the following, we oftentimes substitute $\mu=\lambda^{1/2m}$ for homogeneity reasons. If $\lambda$ is above the real line, then we take $\mu$ to be the first of these roots, and if $\lambda$ is below the real line, we take $\mu$ to be the last of these roots. If $\lambda>0$, then we just take the ordinary positive root.
\begin{definition}
A domain $\mathcal{O}$ is called plump with parameters $R>0$ and $\delta\in(0,1]$ if for all $x\in\mathcal{O}$ and all $r\in(0,R]$ there exists a $z\in \mathcal{O}$ such that
\[
B(z,\delta r)\subset B(x,r)\cap \mathcal{O}
\]
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma}\label{ASymbolOrdnung0}
Let $E_0,E_1$ be a Banach spaces. As described above, we take $\mu=\lambda^{1/2m}$ so that $\rho(\xi',\mu)=\langle\xi',\mu\rangle$, $b=\xi'/\rho$ and $\sigma=\mu^{2m}/\rho^{2m}$. Let $U\subset\mathbb R^{n-1}\times\Sigma_{\phi}$ be a plump and bounded environment of the range of $(b,\sigma)$. Then the mapping
\[
BUC^{\infty}(U,\mathcal{B}(E_0,E_1))\to S^0_{\mathcal{R}}(\mathbb R^{n-1}\times\Sigma_{\phi/2m},\mathcal{B}(E_0,E_1)), A \mapsto A\circ(b,\sigma)
\]
is well-defined and continuous.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
A similar proof was carried out in \cite[Proposition 4.21]{Hummel_Lindemulder_2019}. We combine this proof with \cite[Theorem 8.5.21]{HvNVW_2017} in order to obtain the $\mathcal{R}$-bounded version.\\
Let $A\in BUC^{\infty}(U,\mathcal{B}(E_0,E_1))$. By induction on $|\alpha'|+|\gamma|$ we show that $D_{\xi'}^{\alpha'}D_{\mu}^\gamma (A\circ(b,\sigma))$ is a linear combination of terms of the form $(D_{\xi'}^{\tilde{\alpha}'}D_{\mu}^{\tilde{\gamma}}A)\circ(b,\sigma)\cdot f$ with $f\in S^{-|\alpha'|-|\gamma|}_{\mathcal{R}}(\mathbb R^{n-1}\times\Sigma_{\phi/2m})$, $\tilde{\alpha}'\in\mathbb N_0^{n-1}$ and $\tilde{\gamma}\in\mathbb N_0$. It follows from \cite[Theorem 8.5.21]{HvNVW_2017} that this is true for $|\alpha'|+|\gamma|=0$. So let $j\in\{1,\ldots,n-1\}$. By the induction hypothesis, we have that $D_{\xi'}^{\alpha'}D_{\mu}^\gamma (A\circ(b,\sigma))$ is a linear combination of terms of the form $(D_{\xi'}^{\tilde{\alpha}'}D_{\mu}^{\tilde{\gamma}}A)\circ(b,\sigma)\cdot f$ with $f\in S^{-|\alpha'|-|\gamma|}_{\mathcal{R}}(\mathbb R^{n-1}\times\Sigma_{\phi/2m})$, $\tilde{\alpha}'\in\mathbb N_0^{n-1}$ and $\tilde{\gamma}\in\mathbb N_0$. Hence, for $D_{\xi_j}D_{\xi'}^{\alpha'}D_{\mu}^{\gamma}$ it suffices to treat the summands separately, i.e. we consider $D_{\xi_j}((D_{\xi'}^{\tilde{\alpha}'}D_{\mu}^{\tilde{\gamma}}A)\circ(b,\sigma)\cdot f)$. By the product rule and the chain rule, we have
\begin{align*}
&\quad\;D_{\xi_j}((D_{\xi'}^{\tilde{\alpha}'}D_{\mu}^{\tilde{\gamma}}A)\circ(b,\sigma)\cdot f)\\
&=(D_{\xi'}^{\tilde{\alpha}'}D_{\mu}^{\tilde{\gamma}}A)\circ(b,\sigma))(D_jf)+\bigg(\sum_{l=2}^{n}D_{\xi_j}( \tfrac{\xi'_l}{\rho})\cdot f \cdot [(D_l D_{\xi'}^{\widetilde{\alpha}'}D_{\mu}^{\tilde{\gamma}} A)\circ(b,\sigma)]\bigg)\\
&\quad+D_{\xi_j}( \tfrac{\mu^{2m}}{\rho^{2m}})\cdot f \cdot [(D_l D_{\xi'}^{\widetilde{\alpha}'}D_{\mu}^{\tilde{\gamma}} A)\circ(b,\sigma)]
\end{align*}
By the induction hypothesis and Remark \ref{Rem:SymbolClasses} \eqref{Rem:SymbolClasses:Product} and \eqref{Rem:SymbolClasses:Derivative} we have that $$(D_{\xi_j}f),(D_{\xi_j}\frac{\xi_1'}{\rho})f,\ldots,(D_{\xi_j} \frac{\xi'_{n-1}}{\rho})f,(D_{\xi_j} \tfrac{\mu^{2m}}{\rho^{2m}}) f\in S^{-|\alpha'|-|\gamma|-1}_{\mathcal{R}}(\mathbb R^{n-1}\times\Sigma_{\phi/2m}).$$
The same computation for $D_{\mu_1}$ and $D_{\mu_2}$ instead of $D_{\xi_j}$ also shows the desired behavior and hence, the induction is finished.\\
Now we use \cite[Theorem 8.5.21]{HvNVW_2017} again: Since $U$ is plump we have that $A$ and all its derivatives have an $\mathcal{R}$-bounded range on $U$. Therefore, the terms $(D_{\xi'}^{\tilde{\alpha}'}D_{\mu}^{\tilde{\gamma}}A)\circ(b,\sigma)\cdot f$ from above satisfy
\[
\mathcal{R}_{\mathcal{B}(E_0,E_1)}\{\langle\xi',\mu\rangle^{|\alpha'|+|\gamma|}(D_{\xi'}^{\tilde{\alpha}'}D_{\mu}^{\tilde{\gamma}}A)\circ(b,\sigma)\cdot f(\xi',\mu):(\xi',\mu)\in\mathbb R^{n-1}\times\Sigma_{\phi/2m}\}
\]
which shows the assertion.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\phantomsection \label{Cor:R_bounded_Exponential_Weight}
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item \label{Cor:R_bounded_Exponential_Weight_Continuity}There is a constant $c>0$ such that the mapping
\[
\mathbb R_+\to S^{0}_{\mathcal{R}}(\mathbb R^{n-1}\times\Sigma_{\phi/2m};\mathcal{B}(E^{2m})), y\mapsto[(\xi',\mu)\mapsto e^{cy}e^{iA_0(b,\sigma)y}\mathscr{P}_{-}(b,\sigma)]
\]
is bounded and and uniformly continuous.
\item \label{Cor:R_bounded_Exponential_Weight_R_Bounds}There are constants $C,c>0$ such that
\[
\mathcal{R}(\{e^{c\rho x_n}e^{i\rho A_0(b,\sigma)x_n}\mathscr{P}_-(b,\sigma):(\xi',\mu)\in\mathbb R^{n-1}\times\Sigma_{\phi/2m}\})<C
\]
for all $x_n\geq0$
\end{enumerate}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item By Lemma \ref{ASymbolOrdnung0} it suffices to show that there is a plump environment $U$ of the range $(b,\sigma)$ such that
\[
\mathbb R_+\to BUC^{\infty}(U,\mathcal{B}(E^{2m})), y\mapsto [(\xi',\mu)\mapsto e^{cy}e^{iA_0(\xi,\mu)y}\mathscr{P}_{-}(\xi,\mu)]
\]
is bounded and continuous. We can for example take
\[
U=\big\{\big(\tfrac{\theta \xi'}{\rho},\tfrac{\theta\mu^{2m}}{\rho^{2m}}\big): \xi'\in\mathbb R^{n-1},\,\mu\in\Sigma_{\phi/2m},\,\theta\in (\tfrac{1}{2},2)\big\}.
\]
Obviously, this set contains the range of $(b,\sigma)$ and it is smooth and relatively compact. By this compactness, it follows as in \cite[Section 6]{DHP03} (mainly because of the spectral gap (6.11)) that there is a constant $c>0$ such that
\[
\sup_{y\geq0,\, (\xi',\mu)\in U}\| e^{2cy}e^{i A_0(\xi',\mu)y}\mathscr{P}_-(\xi',\mu) \|_{\mathcal{B}(E^{2m})}<\infty.
\]
Now, we show by induction on $|\alpha'|+|\gamma|$ that $\partial_{\xi'}^{\alpha'}\partial_{\mu}^{\gamma}e^{i A_0(\xi',\mu)y}\mathscr{P}_-(\xi',\mu)$ is a linear combination of terms of the form
\begin{align}\label{eq:derivative_linear_combination}
f(\xi',\mu) e^{i A_0(\xi',\mu)y}\mathscr{P}_-(\xi',\mu) g(\xi',\mu)y^p
\end{align}
where $f,g\colon\mathbb R^{n-1}\times\Sigma_{\phi/2m}\to\mathcal{B}(E^{2m})$ are holomorphic and $p\in\mathbb N_0$. Obviously this is true for $|\alpha'|+|\gamma|=0$. For the induction step, we can directly use the induction hypothesis and consider a term of the form \eqref{eq:derivative_linear_combination}. Since
\begin{align*}
e^{i A_0(\xi',\mu)y}\mathscr{P}_-(\xi',\mu)&=e^{i A_0(\xi',\mu)y}\mathscr{P}_-(\xi',\mu)^2\\&=\mathscr{P}_-(\xi',\mu)e^{i A_0(\xi',\mu)y}\mathscr{P}_-(\xi',\mu)=\mathscr{P}_-(\xi',\mu)e^{i A_0(\xi',\mu)y}
\end{align*}
one can directly verify that the derivatives $\partial_{\xi_j}\partial_{\xi'}^{\alpha'}\partial_{\mu}^{\gamma}e^{i A_0(\xi',\mu)y}\mathscr{P}_-(\xi',\mu)$ $(j=1,\ldots,n-1)$ and $\partial_{\mu_i}\partial_{\xi'}^{\alpha'}\partial_{\mu}^{\gamma}e^{i A_0(\xi',\mu)y}\mathscr{P}_-(\xi',\mu)$ $(i\in\{1,2\})$ are again a linear combination of terms of the form \eqref{eq:derivative_linear_combination}. But for such a term we have
\begin{align*}
\| f e^{i A_0y}\mathscr{P}_- gy^p \|_{BUC(U,\mathcal{B}(E^{2m}))}\leq C e^{-cy}
\end{align*}
for some constant $C>0$ and all $y\geq0$. This shows that
\[
\big([(\xi',\mu)\mapsto e^{cy}e^{iA_0(\xi,\mu)y}\mathscr{P}_{-}(\xi,\mu)]\big)_{y\geq0}
\]
satisfies the assumptions of Lemma \ref{ASymbolOrdnung0} uniformly in $y$ so that the boundedness follows. The continuity follows from applying the same argument to $$(e^{iA_0(\xi,\lambda)h}-\operatorname{id}_{E^{2m}})e^{iA_0(\xi,\lambda)y}\mathscr{P}_-(\xi',\mu)$$ for small $|h|$, $h\in\mathbb R$. Note that $(\xi,\lambda)$ only runs through a relatively compact set again so that $e^{iA_0(\xi,\lambda)h}-\operatorname{id}_{E^{2m}}\to 0$ in $BUC^{\infty}(U)$ as $h\to\infty$.
\item This follows from the first part by substituting $y=\rho x_n$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{Chapter3::Lemma::PoissonSymbolDerivative}
Let $n_1,n_2\in\mathbb R$ and $c>0$. Moreover, let $f_0\in S^{n_1}_{\mathcal{R}}(\mathbb R^{n-1}\times\Sigma_{\phi/2m},\mathcal{B}(E^{2m}))$ and $g\in S_{\mathcal{R}}^{n_2}(\mathbb R^{n-1}\times\Sigma_{\phi/2m},\mathcal{B}(E,E^{2m}))$. Then for all $\alpha\in\mathbb N_0^{n+1}$ we have that $\partial_{\xi',\mu}^{\alpha}f_0e^{c\rho x_n+i\rho A_0(b,\sigma)x_n}\mathscr{P}_-(b,\sigma)g_0$ is a linear combination of terms of the form $$f_{\alpha}e^{c\rho x_n+i\rho A_0(b,\sigma)x_n}\mathscr{P}_-(b,\sigma)g_{\alpha}x_n^k$$ where $f_{\alpha}\in S_{\mathcal{R}}^{n_1-d_1}(\mathbb R^{n-1}\times\Sigma_{\phi/2m},\mathcal{B}(E^{2m}))$, $g_{\alpha}\in S^{n_2-d_2}_{\mathcal{R}}(\mathbb R^{n-1}\times\Sigma_{\phi/2m},\mathcal{B}(E,E^{2m}))$ and $k+d_1+d_2=|\alpha|$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
This can be shown by induction on $|\alpha|$. Using Lemma \ref{ASymbolOrdnung0}, the proof of \cite[Lemma 4.22]{Hummel_Lindemulder_2019} carries over to our setting.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{Chapter3::Proposition::PoissonSymbolOrderSingularity}
Let $\zeta,\delta\geq0$, $k\in\mathbb N_0$ and $\vartheta(c,x_n,\mu)=x_n^{-\delta}|\mu|^{-\zeta} e^{-c|\mu|x_n}$ for $c,x_n,\mu\in\mathbb R_+$.
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item \label{PSOS::Part1} For all $l\in\mathbb N_0$ there are constants $C,c>0$ such that
\begin{align}\label{Eq:Poisson_R_Bounds}
\| (\xi',\mu)\mapsto D_{x_n}^ke^{c\rho x_n}e^{i\rho A_0(b,\sigma)x_n}M_j(b,\sigma)\tfrac{1}{\rho^{m_j}}\|^{(k+\zeta-m_j-\delta,\vartheta(c/2,x_n,\cdot\,))}_{l,\mathcal{R}}<C
\end{align}
for all $x_n\in\mathbb R_+$.
\item \label{PSOS::Part2} The mapping
\[
\mathbb R_+\to S^{k+\zeta-m_j-\delta}_{\mathcal{R}}(\mathbb R^{n-1}\times\Sigma_{\phi/2m};\mathcal{B}(E,E^{2m})), x_n\mapsto [(\xi',\mu)\mapsto x_n^{\delta} e^{c\rho x_n}D_{x_n}^ke^{i\rho A_0(b,\sigma)x_n}M_j(b,\sigma)\tfrac{1}{\rho^{m_j}}]
\]
is continuous.
\item \label{PSOS::Part3} If $f\in BUC(\mathbb R_+,\mathbb C)$ with $f(0)=0$, then
\[
\overline{\mathbb R_+}\to S^{k+\zeta-m_j-\delta}_{\mathcal{R}}(\mathbb R^{n-1}\times\Sigma_{\phi/2m};\mathcal{B}(E,E^{2m})), x_n\mapsto [(\xi',\mu)\mapsto f(x_n)x_n^{\delta} e^{c\rho x_n}D_{x_n}^ke^{i\rho A_0(b,\sigma)x_n}M_j(b,\sigma)\tfrac{1}{\rho^{m_j}}]
\]
is uniformly continuous.
\item \label{PSOS::Part4} If $\epsilon\in(0,\delta]$, then
\[
\overline{\mathbb R_+}\to S^{k+\zeta+\epsilon-m_j-\delta}_{\mathcal{R}}(\mathbb R^{n-1}\times\Sigma_{\phi/2m};\mathcal{B}(E,E^{2m})), x_n\mapsto [(\xi',\mu)\mapsto x_n^{\delta} e^{c\rho x_n}D_{x_n}^ke^{i\rho A_0(b,\sigma)x_n}M_j(b,\sigma)\tfrac{1}{\rho^{m_j}}]
\]
is uniformly continuous.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item By Lemma \ref{Chapter3::Lemma::PoissonSymbolDerivative}, we have that $D_{\xi'}^{\alpha'}D_{\mu}^{\gamma} e^{i\rho x_n}e^{i\rho A_0(b,\sigma)x_n}M_{j}(b,\sigma)\frac{1}{\rho^{m_j}}$ is a linear combination of terms of the form
\[
f_{\alpha',\gamma}e^{c\rho x_n+i\rho A_0(b,\sigma)x_n}\ms{P}_-(b,\sigma)g_{\alpha',\gamma}x_n^{p}
\]
where $f_{\alpha',\gamma}\in S^{-d_1}(\mathbb R^{n-1}\times\mathbb R_+,\mc{B }( E^{2m},E^{2m}))$, $g_{\alpha',\gamma}\in S^{-m_{j}-d_2}(\mathbb R^{n-1}\times\mathbb R_+,\mc{B}(E,E^{2m}))$ and $p+d_1+d_2=|\alpha'|+|\gamma|$. But for such a term, we have that
\begin{align*}
&\quad\; \mathcal{R}\big(\{\vartheta(\tfrac{c}{2},x_n,\mu)^{-1}\rho^{-k-\zeta+m_j+\delta +|\alpha'|+|\gamma|}D_{x_n}^kf_{\alpha',l}(\xi',\mu)e^{c\rho x_n}e^{i\rho A_0(b,\sigma)x_n}\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\ms{P}_-(b,\sigma)g_{\alpha',l}(\xi',\mu)x_n^p : (\xi',\mu)\in\mathbb R^{n-1}\times\Sigma_{\phi/2m}\}\big) \\
&\leq C \sum_{\tilde{k}=0}^k \mathcal{R}\big(\{\vartheta(\tfrac{c}{2},x_n,\mu)^{-1}\rho^{-k-\zeta+m_j+\delta +|\alpha'|+|\gamma|}f_{\alpha',l}(\xi',\mu)e^{c\rho x_n}e^{i\rho A_0(b,\sigma)x_n}\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\ms{P}_-(b,\sigma)[c\rho+i\rho A_0(b,\sigma)]^{k-\tilde{k}}g_{\alpha',l}(\xi',\mu)x_n^{[p-\tilde{k}]_+}: (\xi',\mu)\in\mathbb R^{n-1}\times\Sigma_{\phi/2m}\}\big)\\
&\leq C \sum_{\tilde{k}=0}^k\mathcal{R}\big(\{\vartheta(\tfrac{c}{2},x_n,\mu)^{-1} \rho^{-\zeta+\delta-\tilde{k}-d_1-d_2+|\alpha'|+|\gamma|}e^{-c\rho x_n}x_n^{[p-\tilde{k}]_+}: (\xi',\mu)\in\mathbb R^{n-1}\times\Sigma_{\phi/2m}\}\big)\\
&\leq C \mathcal{R}\big(\{\vartheta(\tfrac{c}{2},x_n,\mu)^{-1}x_n^{-\delta}|\mu|^{-\zeta}\rho^{-d_1-d_2-p+|\alpha'|+|\gamma|}e^{-\tfrac{c}{2}\rho x_n}: (\xi',\mu)\in\mathbb R^{n-1}\times\Sigma_{\phi/2m}\}\big)\\
&\leq C
\end{align*}
From the second to the third line we used Lemma \ref{ASymbolOrdnung0} and Corollary \ref{Cor:R_bounded_Exponential_Weight} \eqref{Cor:R_bounded_Exponential_Weight_R_Bounds}. This gives \eqref{Eq:Poisson_R_Bounds}.
\item Again, we consider a term of the form \[
f_{\alpha',\gamma}e^{i\rho A_0(b,\sigma)x_n}\ms{P}_-(b,\sigma)g_{\alpha',\gamma}x_n^{p}
\]
where $f_{\alpha',\gamma}\in S^{-d_1}(\mathbb R^{n-1}\times\mathbb R_+,\mc{B }( E^{2m},E^{2m}))$, $g_{\alpha',\gamma}\in S^{-m_{j}-d_2}(\mathbb R^{n-1}\times\mathbb R_+,\mc{B}(E,E^{2m}))$ and $p+d_1+d_2=|\alpha'|+|\gamma|$. By the same computation as in part \eqref{PSOS::Part1} we obtain
\begin{align*}
&\quad\; \mathcal{R}\big(\{\vartheta(\tfrac{c}{2},x_n,\mu)^{-1}\rho^{-k-\zeta+m_j+\delta +|\alpha'|+|\gamma|}D_{x_n}^kf_{\alpha',l}(\xi',\mu)[e^{c\rho (x_n+h)+i\rho A_0(b,\sigma)(x_n+h)}-e^{c\rho x_n+i\rho A_0(b,\sigma)x_n}]:\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad(\xi',\mu)\in\mathbb R^{n-1}\times\Sigma_{\phi/2m}\})\\
&\leq C \mathcal{R}\big(\{\vartheta(\tfrac{c}{2},x_n,\mu)^{-1}x_n^{-\delta}|\mu|^{-\zeta}\rho^{-d_1-d_2-p+|\alpha'|+|\gamma|}[e^{c\rho h+i\rho A_0(b,\sigma)h}-\operatorname{id}_{E^{2m}}] e^{-\tfrac{3c}{4}\rho x_n}: (\xi',\mu)\in\mathbb R^{n-1}\times\Sigma_{\phi/2m}\}\big)\\
&= C \mathcal{R}\big(\{[e^{c\rho h+i\rho A_0(b,\sigma)h}-\operatorname{id}_{E^{2m}}] e^{-\tfrac{c}{4}\rho x_n}: (\xi',\mu)\in\mathbb R^{n-1}\times\Sigma_{\phi/2m}\}\big)\\
&\leq C \mathcal{R}\big(\{[e^{c\rho h+i\rho A_0(b,\sigma)h}-\operatorname{id}_{E^{2m}}] e^{-\tfrac{c}{4}\rho x_n}: (\xi',\mu)\in\mathbb R^{n-1}\times\Sigma_{\phi/2m}, \rho\leq \tfrac{1}{\sqrt{h}}\}\big) \\
&\quad+C \mathcal{R}\big(\{[e^{c\rho h+i\rho A_0(b,\sigma)h}-\operatorname{id}_{E^{2m}}] e^{-\tfrac{cx_n}{4\sqrt{h}}}: (\xi',\mu)\in\mathbb R^{n-1}\times\Sigma_{\phi/2m}, \rho\geq \tfrac{1}{\sqrt{h}}\}\big).
\end{align*}
From Corollary~\ref{Cor:R_bounded_Exponential_Weight}~\eqref{Cor:R_bounded_Exponential_Weight_Continuity} it follows that the first $\mathcal{R}$-bound tends to $0$ as $h\to0$. By Corollary~\ref{Cor:R_bounded_Exponential_Weight}~\eqref{Cor:R_bounded_Exponential_Weight_R_Bounds} it holds that
\[
\mathcal{R}(\{e^{c\rho h+i\rho A_0(b,\sigma)h}-\operatorname{id}_{E^{2m}}:(\xi',\mu)\in\mathbb R^{n-1}\times\Sigma_{\phi/2m}, \rho\geq \tfrac{1}{\sqrt{h}}\})<\infty
\]
and and since $x_n>0$ also the second $\mathcal{R}$-bound tends to $0$ as $h\to0$. This shows the desired continuity.
\item This follows by the same computation as in part \eqref{PSOS::Part2}. However, without $f$ there would be no continuity at $x_n=0$ as the second $\mathcal{R}$-bound
\[
\mathcal{R}\big(\{[e^{c\rho h+i\rho A_0(b,\sigma)h}-\operatorname{id}_{E^{2m}}] e^{-\tfrac{cx_n}{2\sqrt{h}}}: (\xi',\mu)\in\mathbb R^{n-1}\times\Sigma_{\phi/2m}, \rho\geq \tfrac{1}{\sqrt{h}}\}\big)
\]
does not tend to $0$ as $h\to0$ for $x_n=0$. By adding $f$ though, we obtain the desired continuity.
\item This follows from part \eqref{PSOS::Part3} with $f(x_n)=x_n^{\epsilon}$ for $x_n$ close to $0$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
Given a topological spaces $Z_0,Z_1$ and $z\in Z_0$, we now write
\[
\operatorname{ev}_{z}\colon C(Z_0;Z_1)\to Z_1, f\mapsto f(z)
\]
for the evaluation map at $z$.
\begin{corollary}\label{Chapter3::Corollary::PoissonEvalEstimate}
Let $k\in\mathbb N_0$, $p_0\in(1,\infty)$, $q_0\in[1,\infty]$, $\zeta\geq0$ and $s_0,s,\tilde{t}\in\mathbb R$.
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item There are constants $C,c>0$ such that for all $x_n>0$ and all $\lambda\in\Sigma_{\phi}$ we have the parameter-dependent estimate
\begin{align*}
\| [D_{x_n}^k\operatorname{Poi}_j(\lambda)& f](\cdot,x_n)\|_{\mathscr{A}^{\tilde{t}+m_j-k-\zeta,|\lambda|^{1/2m},s_0}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w,E^{2m})}\\&\leq Cx_n^{-[\tilde{t}-s]_+}|\lambda|^{-\zeta/2m}e^{-c|\lambda|^{1/2m}x_n}\|f\|_{\mathscr{A}^{s,|\lambda|^{1/2m},s_0}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w,E)}\quad(f\in\mathscr{S}(\mathbb R^{n-1},E)).
\end{align*}
\item\label{PEE:Part2} There is a constant $c>0$ such that for all $\lambda\in\Sigma_{\phi}$ we have that
\[
K(\lambda):=[x_n\mapsto x_n^{[\tilde{t}-s]_+}|\lambda|^{\frac{\zeta-[-[\tilde{t}-s]_+-m_j+k+\zeta]_+}{2m}}e^{c|\lambda|^{1/2m} x_n}\operatorname{ev}_{x_n}D_{x_n}^k\operatorname{Poi}_j(\lambda)]
\]
is an element of $$C_{\mathcal{R}B}\big(\mathbb R_+;\mathcal{B}(\mathscr{A}^s(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E^{2m}),\mathscr{A}^{\tilde{t}+m_j-k-\zeta}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E^{2m}))\big).$$ Moreover, for all $\sigma>0$ we have that the set $\{K(\lambda):\lambda\in\Sigma_{\phi},\,|\lambda|\geq\sigma\}$ is $\mathcal{R}$-bounded in $C_{\mathcal{R}B}\big(\mathbb R_+;\mathcal{B}(\mathscr{A}^s(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E^{2m}),\mathscr{A}^{\tilde{t}+m_j-k-\zeta}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E^{2m}))\big)$.
\item Let $f\in BUC([0,\infty),\mathbb C)$ such that $f(0)=0$. There is a constant $c>0$ such that for all $\lambda\in\Sigma_{\phi}$ we have that
\[
K_f(\lambda):=[x_n\mapsto f(x_n)x_n^{[\tilde{t}-s]_+}|\lambda|^{\frac{\zeta-[-[\tilde{t}-s]_+-m_j+k+\zeta]_+}{2m}}e^{c|\lambda|^{1/2m} x_n}\operatorname{ev}_{x_n}D_{x_n}^k\operatorname{Poi}_j(\lambda)]
\]
is an element of $$BUC_{\mathcal{R}}\big(\mathbb R_+;\mathcal{B}(\mathscr{A}^s(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E^{2m}),\mathscr{A}^{\tilde{t}+m_j-k-\zeta}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E^{2m}))\big).$$ Moreover, for all $\sigma>0$ we have that the set $\{K_f(\lambda):\lambda\in\Sigma_{\phi},\,|\lambda|\geq\sigma\}$ is $\mathcal{R}$-bounded in $BUC_{\mathcal{R}}\big(\mathbb R_+;\mathcal{B}(\mathscr{A}^s(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E^{2m}),\mathscr{A}^{\tilde{t}+m_j-k-\zeta}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E^{2m}))\big)$.
\item Let $\epsilon>0$ and let $K(\lambda)$ be defined as in Part \eqref{PEE:Part2}. Then $K(\lambda)$
is an element of $$BUC_{\mathcal{R}}\big(\mathbb R_+;\mathcal{B}(\mathscr{A}^s(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E^{2m}),\mathscr{A}^{\tilde{t}+m_j-\epsilon-k-\zeta}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E^{2m}))\big).$$ Moreover, for all $\sigma>0$ we have that the set $\{K(\lambda):\lambda\in\Sigma_{\phi},\,|\lambda|\geq\sigma\}$ is $\mathcal{R}$-bounded in $BUC_{\mathcal{R}}\big(\mathbb R_+;\mathcal{B}(\mathscr{A}^s(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E^{2m}),\mathscr{A}^{\tilde{t}+m_j-\epsilon-k-\zeta}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E^{2m}))\big)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item By Proposition \ref{Chapter3::Proposition::PoissonSymbolOrderSingularity} we have that
\begin{align*}
\big(D_{x_n}^k e^{i\rho A_0(b,\sigma)x_n}\frac{M_{j}(b,\sigma)}{\rho^{m_j}}\big)_{x_n>0}&\subset S^{\zeta+k-m_{j}-[t-s]_+}_{\mathcal{R}}(\mathbb R^{n-1}\times\Sigma_{\phi/2m};\mc{B}(E,E^{2m}))\\
&\subset S^{\zeta+k-m_{j}-\tilde{t}+s}_{\mathcal{R}}(\mathbb R^{n-1}\times\Sigma_{\phi/2m};\mc{B}(E,E^{2m})).
\end{align*}
Therefore, it follows from \eqref{Eq:Poisson_R_Bounds} together with the mapping properties for parameter-dependent pseudo-differential operators, Proposition~\ref{Prop:PseudoMappingProperties}, that $\operatorname{ev}_{x_n}D_{x_n}^k\operatorname{Poi}_j(\lambda)$ maps $\mathscr{A}^{s,|\lambda|^{1/2m},s_0}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w,E)$ into $\mathscr{A}^{\tilde{t}+m_j-k-\zeta,|\lambda|^{1/2m},s_0}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w,E^{2m})$ with a bound on the operator norms which is given by $Cx_n^{-[\tilde{t}-s]_+}|\lambda|^{-\zeta/2m} e^{-c|\lambda|^{1/2m}x_n}$ for all $\tilde{t},s\in\mathbb R$, $x_n>0$ and all $\zeta\geq0$.
\item We use Proposition \ref{Chapter3::Proposition::PoissonSymbolOrderSingularity} \eqref{PSOS::Part1} together with Proposition \ref{Prop:PseudoMappingProperties_R_bounded}. Then we obtain
\begin{align*}
&\quad\mathcal{R}_{\mathcal{B}(\mathscr{A}^s(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E^{2m}),\mathscr{A}^{\tilde{t}+m_j-k-\zeta}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E^{2m})}\big(\{x_n^{[\tilde{t}-s]_+}|\lambda|^{\frac{\zeta-[-[\tilde{t}-s]_+-m_j+k+\zeta]_+}{2m}}e^{c|\lambda|^{1/2m}x_n}\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\operatorname{ev}_{x_n}D_{x_n}^k\operatorname{Poi}_j(\lambda):\lambda\in\Sigma_{\phi},\,|\lambda|\geq\sigma\}\big)\\
&\leq\mathcal{R}_{\mathcal{B}(\mathscr{A}^{\tilde{t}-[\tilde{t}-s]_+}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E^{2m}),\mathscr{A}^{\tilde{t}+m_j-k-\zeta}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E^{2m}))}\big(\{x_n^{[\tilde{t}-s]_+}|\lambda|^{\frac{\zeta-[-[\tilde{t}-s]_+-m_j+k+\zeta]_+}{2m}}e^{c|\lambda|^{1/2m}x_n}\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\operatorname{ev}_{x_n}D_{x_n}^k\operatorname{Poi}_j(\lambda):\lambda\in\Sigma_{\phi},\,|\lambda|\geq\sigma\}\big)\\
&\leq C_{\sigma}.
\end{align*}
This shows that
\[
\mathcal{R}(\{[K(\lambda)](x_n)\colon x_n\geq0,\,\lambda\in\Sigma_{\phi},\,|\lambda|\geq\sigma\})<\infty
\]
in $\mathcal{B}(\mathscr{A}^s(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E^{2m}),\mathscr{A}^{\tilde{t}+m_j-k-\zeta}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E^{2m}))$ it remains to show that the $K(\lambda)$ are $\mathcal{R}$-continuous. But this follows from the continuity statement in Proposition \ref{Chapter3::Proposition::PoissonSymbolOrderSingularity} \eqref{PSOS::Part2} together with Proposition \ref{Prop:PseudoMappingProperties_R_bounded}.
\item This follows as Part \eqref{PEE:Part2} but with Proposition \ref{Chapter3::Proposition::PoissonSymbolOrderSingularity} \eqref{PSOS::Part3} instead of Proposition \ref{Chapter3::Proposition::PoissonSymbolOrderSingularity} \eqref{PSOS::Part2}.
\item This follows as Part \eqref{PEE:Part2} but with Proposition \ref{Chapter3::Proposition::PoissonSymbolOrderSingularity} \eqref{PSOS::Part4} instead of Proposition \ref{Chapter3::Proposition::PoissonSymbolOrderSingularity} \eqref{PSOS::Part2}.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{Chapter3::Proposition::PoissonMappingPropertySobolev}
Consider the situation of Corollary \ref{Chapter3::Corollary::PoissonEvalEstimate} and let $p\in[1,\infty)$, $r\in\mathbb R$. In order to shorten the formulas, we write $\gamma_1=r-p[\tilde{t}-s]_+$ and $\gamma_2=p\zeta-p[-[\tilde{t}-s]_+-m_j+ k+\zeta]_+$. Suppose that $\gamma_1>-1$. Then, for all $\sigma>0$ and all there is a constant $C>0$ such that for all $\lambda\in\Sigma_{\phi}$ with $|\lambda|\geq\sigma$ and all $f\in \mathscr{A}^{s}_p(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E)$ it holds that
\begin{align*}
\| \operatorname{Poi}_{j}(\lambda)f\|_{W^{k}_{p}(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r,\mathscr{A}^{t+m_j- k-\zeta}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E^{2m}))}\leq C|\lambda|^{\frac{-1-\gamma_1-\gamma_2}{2mp}} \|f\|_{\mathscr{A}^{s}_p(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E)}.
\end{align*}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We use Corollary \ref{Chapter3::Corollary::PoissonEvalEstimate} and obtain
\begin{align*}
&\quad \| \operatorname{Poi}_{j}(\lambda)f\|_{W^{k}_{p}(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r,\mathscr{A}^{t+m_j- k-\zeta}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E^{2m}))}^p \\
&= \sum_{l=0}^{k}\int_0^{\infty} \|[D_{x_n}^l\operatorname{Poi}_{j}(\lambda)f](\,\cdot\,,x_n) \|_{\mathscr{A}^{t+m_j- k-\zeta}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E^{2m})}^px_n^r\,dx_n\\
& \leq C \|f\|_{\mathscr{A}^{s}_p(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E)}^p\sum_{l=0}^{k}|\lambda|^{\frac{p[-[t-s]_+-m_j+ l-\zeta]_+-p\zeta}{2m}}\int_0^{\infty} x_n^{\gamma_1} e^{-cp|\lambda|^{1/2m}x_n}\,dx_n\\
& \leq C |\lambda|^{\frac{-\gamma_2}{2m}}\|f\|_{\mathscr{A}^{s}_p(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E)}^p\int_0^{\infty} x_n^{\gamma_1} e^{-c|\lambda|^{1/2m}x_n}\,dx_n\\
& \leq C|\lambda|^{\frac{-1-\gamma_1-\gamma_2}{2m}} \|f\|_{\mathscr{A}^{s}_p(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E)}^p\int_{0}^{\infty} y_n^{\gamma_1} e^{-cy_n}\,dy_n\\
& \leq C|\lambda|^{\frac{-1-\gamma_1-\gamma_2}{2m}} \|f\|_{\mathscr{A}^{s}_p(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E)}^p
\end{align*}
for all $f\in \mathscr{A}^{s}_p(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{Chapter3::Proposition::PoissonMappingPropertySobolevRBoundedEpsilon}
Consider the situation of Corollary \ref{Chapter3::Corollary::PoissonEvalEstimate} and let $p\in[1,\infty)$, $r\in\mathbb R$. Again we write $\gamma_1=r-p[\tilde{t}-s]_+$ as well as $\gamma_2=p\zeta-p[-[\tilde{t}-s]_+-m_j+ k+\zeta]_+$. Suppose that $\gamma_1>-1$ and take $\epsilon\in(0,1+\gamma_1)$. Then, for all $\sigma>0$ and all there is a constant $C>0$ such that for all $\epsilon\geq0$
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{R}\big(\{|\lambda|^{\frac{1+\gamma_1+\gamma_2-\epsilon}{2mp}}\operatorname{Poi}_{j}(\lambda):\lambda\in\Sigma_{\phi},\,|\lambda|\geq\sigma \}\big)\leq C,
\end{align*}
where the $\mathcal{R}$-bounds are taken in $\mathcal{B}(\mathscr{A}^{s}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E),W^{k}_{p}(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^{r};\mathscr{A}^{\tilde{t}+m_j- k-\zeta}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E^{2m}))).$
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $(\epsilon_l)_{l\in\mathbb N}$ be a Rademacher sequence on the probability space $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},\mathbb{P})$ and let $N\in\mathbb N$, $\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_N\in\Sigma_{\phi}$ and $f_1,\ldots,f_N\in\mathscr{A}^s(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E)$. Using Corollary \ref{Chapter3::Corollary::PoissonEvalEstimate} and Kahane's contraction principle we obtain
{\allowdisplaybreaks{
\begin{align*}
& \;\;\;\,\left\|\sum_{l=1}^N \epsilon_l|\lambda_l|^{\frac{1+\gamma_1+\gamma_2-\epsilon}{2mp}}\operatorname{Poi}_{j}(\lambda_l) f_l \right\|_{L_p(\Omega;W^k_p(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^{r},\mathscr{A}^{\tilde{t}+m_j- k-\zeta}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E^{2m})))}\\
&\eqsim \left\|\sum_{l=1}^N \epsilon_l|\lambda_l|^{\frac{1+\gamma_1+\gamma_2-\epsilon}{2mp}}\operatorname{Poi}_{j}(\lambda_l) f_l \right\|_{W^k_p(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^{r};L_p(\Omega;\mathscr{A}^{\tilde{t}+m_j- k-\zeta}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E^{2m})))}\\
&\eqsim \sum_{\tilde{k}=0}^k\left\|\sum_{l=1}^N \epsilon_l|\lambda_l|^{\frac{1+\gamma_1+\gamma_2-\epsilon}{2mp}}D_{x_n}^{\tilde{k}}\operatorname{Poi}_{j}(\lambda_l) f_l \right\|_{L_p(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^{r};L_p(\Omega;\mathscr{A}^{\tilde{t}+m_j- k-\zeta}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E^{2m})))}\\
&\lesssim_{\sigma}\left\|x_n\mapsto\sum_{l=1}^N \epsilon_l|\lambda_l|^{\frac{1+\gamma_1-\epsilon}{2mp}}x_n^{-[\tilde{t}-s]_+} e^{-\frac{c}{2}|\lambda_l|^{1/2m}x_n}f_l \right\|_{L_p(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^{r};L_p(\Omega;\mathscr{A}^{s}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E)))}\\
&\lesssim\left(\int_{0}^{\infty} \max_{l=1,\ldots,N}\{|\lambda_l|^{\frac{1+\gamma_1-\epsilon}{2m}}e^{-p\frac{c}{2}|\lambda_l|^{1/2m}x_n} x_n^{\gamma_1}\}\,dx_n\right)^{1/p}\left\|\sum_{l=1}^N \epsilon_lf_l \right\|_{L_p(\Omega;\mathscr{A}^{s}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E))}\\
&\lesssim\left(\int_{0}^{\infty} \max_{l=1,\ldots,N}\{e^{-p\frac{c}{3}|\lambda_l|^{1/2m}x_n} x_n^{-1+\epsilon}\}\,dx_n\right)^{1/p}\left\|\sum_{l=1}^N \epsilon_lf_l \right\|_{L_p(\Omega;\mathscr{A}^{s}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E))}\\
&\leq\left(\int_{0}^{\infty} e^{-p\frac{c}{3}\sigma^{1/2m}x_n} x_n^{-1+\epsilon}\,dx_n\right)^{1/p}\left\|\sum_{l=1}^N \epsilon_lf_l \right\|_{L_p(\Omega;\mathscr{A}^{s}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E))}\\
&\leq C\left\|\sum_{l=1}^N \epsilon_lf_l \right\|_{L_p(\Omega;\mathscr{A}^{s}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E))}
\end{align*}}}
for all $N\in\mathbb N$, all $\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_N\in\Sigma_{\phi}$ and all $f_1,\ldots,f_N\in\mathscr{A}^s(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E)$. This is the desired estimate.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Comparing Proposition \ref{Chapter3::Proposition::PoissonMappingPropertySobolev} and Proposition \ref{Chapter3::Proposition::PoissonMappingPropertySobolevRBoundedEpsilon} one might wonder if one can omit the $\epsilon$ in Proposition \ref{Chapter3::Proposition::PoissonMappingPropertySobolevRBoundedEpsilon}. After having applied Kahane's contraction principle in the proof of Proposition \ref{Chapter3::Proposition::PoissonMappingPropertySobolevRBoundedEpsilon} it seems like the $\epsilon$ is necessary. Roughly speaking, taking $(\lambda_l)_{l\in\mathbb N}$ such that this sequence is dense in $\Sigma_{\phi}\setminus\overline{B(0,\sigma)}$ will cause $\max_{l=1,\ldots,N}\{|\lambda_l|^{\frac{\gamma_1+1}{2m}}e^{-p\frac{c}{2}|\lambda_l|^{1/2m}x_n} x_n^{\gamma_1}\}$ to have a singularity of the form $x_n^{-1}$ at $x_n=0$ if $N\to\infty$. Indeed, taking $|\lambda_l|^{1/2m}$ close to $x_n^{-1}$ yields that $|\lambda_l|^{\frac{\gamma_1+1}{2m}}e^{-p\frac{c}{2}|\lambda_l|^{1/2m}x_n} x_n^{\gamma_1}$ is close to $x_n^{-1} e^{-pc/2}$. Hence, the integral $\left(\int_{0}^{\infty} \max_{l=1,\ldots,N}\{|\lambda_l|^{\frac{\gamma_1+1}{2m}}e^{-p\frac{c}{2}|\lambda_l|^{1/2m}x_n} x_n^{\gamma_1}\}\,dx_n\right)^{1/p}$ will tend to $\infty$ as $N\to\infty$. Thus, if one wants to remove the $\epsilon$, it seems like one should not apply Kahane's contraction principle as it is applied in the proof of Proposition \ref{Chapter3::Proposition::PoissonMappingPropertySobolevRBoundedEpsilon}. This can for example be avoided under a cotype assumption on $E$ together with a restriction on $p$, as Proposition \ref{Chapter3::Proposition::PoissonMappingPropertySobolevRBounded} shows. However, there are some cases in which the $\epsilon$ can not be removed. We will show this in Proposition \ref{Prop:CounterExampleEpsilon}.
\end{remark}
\begin{proposition}\label{Chapter3::Proposition::PoissonMappingPropertySobolevRBounded}
Consider the situation of Corollary \ref{Chapter3::Corollary::PoissonEvalEstimate} and let $r\in\mathbb R$. Suppose that $E$ has finite cotype $q_E$. Suppose that the assumptions of Proposition \ref{Prop:Contraction_Principle_Functions} hold true. Again, we define $\gamma_1=r-p[\tilde{t}-s]_+$ as well as $\gamma_2=p\zeta-p[-[\tilde{t}-s]_+-m_j+ k+\zeta]_+$. Suppose that $\gamma_1>-1$. Then for all $\sigma>0$ there is a constant $C>0$ such that
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{R}\big(\{|\lambda|^{\frac{1+\gamma_1+\gamma_2}{2mp}}\operatorname{Poi}_{j}(\lambda):\lambda\in\Sigma_{\phi},\,|\lambda|\geq\sigma \}\big)\leq C,
\end{align*}
where $\mathcal{R}$-bounds are taken in $\mathcal{B}(\mathscr{A}^{s}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E),W^{k}_{p}(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^{r};\mathscr{A}^{\tilde{t}+m_j- k-\zeta}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E^{2m}))).$
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $(\epsilon_l)_{l\in\mathbb N}$ be a Rademacher sequence on the probability space $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},\mathbb{P})$ and let $N\in\mathbb N$, $\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_N\in\Sigma_{\phi}$ and $f_1,\ldots,f_N\in\mathscr{A}^s(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E)$. Using Corollary \ref{Chapter3::Corollary::PoissonEvalEstimate} and Proposition \ref{Prop:Contraction_Principle_Functions} we obtain
{\allowdisplaybreaks{
\begin{align*}
& \;\;\;\,\left\|\sum_{l=1}^N \epsilon_l|\lambda_l|^{\frac{1+\gamma_1+\gamma_2}{2mp}}\operatorname{Poi}_{j}(\lambda_l) f_l \right\|_{L_p(\Omega;W^k_p(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^{r},\mathscr{A}^{\tilde{t}+m_j- k-\zeta}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E^{2m})))}\\
&\eqsim \left\|\sum_{l=1}^N \epsilon_l|\lambda_l|^{\frac{1+\gamma_1+\gamma_2}{2mp}}\operatorname{Poi}_{j}(\lambda_l) f_l \right\|_{W^k_p(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^{r};L_p(\Omega;\mathscr{A}^{\tilde{t}+m_j- k-\zeta}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E^{2m})))}\\
&\eqsim \sum_{\tilde{k}=0}^k\left\|\sum_{l=1}^N \epsilon_l|\lambda_l|^{\frac{1+\gamma_1+\gamma_2}{2mp}}D_{x_n}^{\tilde{k}}\operatorname{Poi}_{j}(\lambda_l) f_l \right\|_{L_p(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^{r};L_p(\Omega;\mathscr{A}^{\tilde{t}+m_j- k-\zeta}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E^{2m})))}\\
&\lesssim_{\sigma}\left\|x_n\mapsto\sum_{l=1}^N \epsilon_l|\lambda_l|^{\frac{1+\gamma_1}{2mp}}x_n^{-[\tilde{t}-s]_+} e^{-\frac{c}{2}|\lambda_l|^{1/2m}x_n}f_l \right\|_{L_p(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^{r};L_p(\Omega;\mathscr{A}^{s}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E)))}\\
&\lesssim\max_{l=1,\ldots,N}\left(\int_{0}^{\infty} |\lambda_l|^{\frac{1+\gamma_1}{2m}}e^{-p\frac{c}{2}|\lambda_l|^{1/2m}x_n} x_n^{\gamma_1}\,dx_n\right)^{1/p}\left\|\sum_{l=1}^N \epsilon_lf_l \right\|_{L_p(\Omega;\mathscr{A}^{s}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E))}\\
&=\left(\int_{0}^{\infty} e^{-p\frac{c}{2}y} y^{\gamma_1}\,dy\right)^{1/p}\left\|\sum_{l=1}^N \epsilon_lf_l \right\|_{L_p(\Omega;\mathscr{A}^{s}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E))}\\
&\leq C\left\|\sum_{l=1}^N \epsilon_lf_l \right\|_{L_p(\Omega;\mathscr{A}^{s}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E))}
\end{align*}}}
for all $N\in\mathbb N$, all $\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_N\in\Sigma_{\phi}$ and all $f_1,\ldots,f_N\in\mathscr{A}^s(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E)$. This is the desired estimate.
\end{proof}
Let us now see what can happen if the cotype assumption is not satisfied.
\begin{lemma}\label{Lemma:AuxiliarySpace}
Let $\tilde{\mathscr{A}}^s$ be defined by
\[
\tilde{\mathscr{A}}^s:=\{u\in\mathscr{A}^s: \operatorname{supp}\mathscr{F}u\subset \overline{B(0,1)} \}
\]
where $B(0,1)$ denotes the ball with center $0$ and radius $1$. We endow $\tilde{\mathscr{A}}^s$ with the norm $\|\cdot\|_{\mathscr{A}^s}$. Then $\tilde{\mathscr{A}}^s$ is a Banach space.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $(u_n)_{n\in\mathbb N}\subset\tilde{\mathscr{A}}^s$ be a Cauchy sequence. Since $\mathscr{A}^s$ is a Banach space, we only have to prove that the limit $u:=\lim_{n\to\infty}u_n$ satisfies $\operatorname{supp}\mathscr{F}u\subset \overline{B(0,1)}$. But since
\[
\mathscr{F}\colon \mathscr{A}^s\to \mathscr{S}'(\mathbb R^n;E)
\]
is continuous, it follows that
\[
[\mathscr{F}u](f)=\lim_{n\to\infty}[\mathscr{F}u_n](f)=0
\]
for all $f\in\mathscr{S}(\mathbb R^n)$ such that $\operatorname{supp} f\subset \overline{B(0,1)}^c$. This shows the assertion.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{Prop:CounterExampleEpsilon}
Let $\sigma>0$, $r\in\mathbb R$ and $p\in[1,2)$. For $\lambda\geq\sigma$ and $g\in \mathscr{A}^s$ let $u_\lambda:=\operatorname{Poi}_{\Delta}(\lambda)g$ be the solution of
\begin{align}
\begin{aligned}\label{eq:DirLapInhomogeneous}
\lambda u_{\lambda}(x)-\Delta u_{\lambda}(x)&=0\quad\quad(x\in\mathbb R^n_+),\\
u_{\lambda}(x',0)&=g(x')\quad (x'\in\mathbb R^{n-1})
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
which is decaying in normal direction. Then the set of operators
\[
\{|\lambda|^{\frac{1+r}{2p}}\operatorname{Poi}_{\Delta}(\lambda):\lambda\geq\sigma\}\subset\mathcal{B}(\mathscr{A}^s, L_p(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r;\mathscr{A}^s))
\]
is not $\mathcal{R}$-bounded.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Applying Fourier transform in tangential direction to \eqref{eq:DirLapInhomogeneous} we obtain
\begin{align*}
\partial_n^2 \hat{u}(\xi',x_n)&=(\lambda+|\xi'|^2)\hat{u}(\xi',x_n),\\
&\hat{u}(\xi',0)=\hat{g}(\xi').
\end{align*}
The stable solution of this equation is given by $e^{-(\lambda+|\xi'|^2)^{1/2} x_n}\hat{g}(\xi')$ so that the decaying solution of \eqref{eq:DirLapInhomogeneous} is given by
\[
u_{\lambda}(x',x_n)=\operatorname{Poi}_{\Delta}(\lambda)g= [\mathscr{F}_{x'\to\xi'}^{-1}e^{-(\lambda+|\xi'|^2)^{1/2} x_n}\mathscr{F}_{x'\to\xi'}g](x').
\]
Let $\chi\subset\mathscr{D}(\mathbb R^{n-1})$ be a test function with $\chi(\xi')=1$ for $\xi'\in B(0,1)$ and $\operatorname{supp}\chi\subset B(0,2)$. It holds that $\chi(\xi')e^{((\lambda+|\xi'|^2)^{1/2}-|\lambda|^{1/2})x_n}$ satisfies the Mikhlin condition uniformly in $\lambda\geq\sigma$ and $x_n\leq 1$. Hence, we have that
\[
\{\operatorname{op}[\chi(\xi')e^{((\lambda+|\xi'|^2)^{1/2}-|\lambda|^{1/2})x_n}]:\lambda\geq\sigma,x_n\in[0,1]\}\subset\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\mathscr{A}^s})
\]
is $\mathcal{R}$-bounded, where $\tilde{\mathscr{A}^s}$ is defined as in Lemma~\ref{Lemma:AuxiliarySpace}. Using these observations and assuming the $\mathcal{R}$-boundedness of $\{|\lambda|^{\frac{1+r}{2p}}\operatorname{Poi}_{\Delta}(\lambda):\lambda\geq\sigma\}$, we can carry out the following calculation: Let $(\epsilon_l)_{l\in\mathbb N}$ be a Rademacher sequence on the probability space $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},\mathbb{P})$, $\lambda_l=(\sigma2^l)^2$ $(l\in\mathbb N)$, $N\in\mathbb N$ and $g_1,\ldots,g_N\in\tilde{\mathscr{A}}^s$. Then we obtain
{\allowdisplaybreaks
\begin{align*}
\left\|\sum_{l=1}^N \epsilon_l g_l\right\|_{L_p(\Omega;\tilde{\mathscr{A}}^s)}&\gtrsim \left(\int_{\Omega}\int_{0}^{\sigma^{-1}} \bigg\| \sum_{l=1}^N \epsilon_l\lambda_l^{\frac{1+r}{2p}}[\operatorname{Poi}_{\Delta}(\lambda_l)g_l](\,\cdot,x_n)\bigg\|^p_{\mathscr{A}^s}x_n^r\,dx_n\,d\mathbb{P}\right)^{1/p}\\
&= \left(\int_{\Omega}\int_{0}^{\sigma^{-1}} \bigg\| \sum_{l=1}^N \epsilon_l\lambda_l^{\frac{1+r}{2p}}\operatorname{op}[\chi(\xi')e^{-(\lambda+|\xi'|^2)^{1/2} x_n}]g_l\bigg\|^p_{\mathscr{A}^s}x_n^r\,dx_n\,d\mathbb{P}\right)^{1/p}\\
&\gtrsim \left(\int_{\Omega}\int_{0}^{\sigma^{-1}} \bigg\| \sum_{l=1}^N \epsilon_l\lambda_l^{\frac{1+r}{2p}}e^{-|\lambda_l|^{1/2}x_n}g_l\bigg\|^p_{\mathscr{A}^s}x_n^r\,dx_n\,d\mathbb{P}\right)^{1/p}\\
&\gtrsim\left(\int_{\Omega}\sum_{m=1}^N\int_{\sigma^{-1}2^{-m}}^{\sigma^{-1}2^{-m+1}} \bigg\| \sum_{l=1}^N \epsilon_l\lambda_l^{\frac{1+r}{2p}}e^{-|\lambda_l|^{1/2}x_n}g_l\bigg\|^p_{\mathscr{A}^s}x_n^r\,dx_n\,d\mathbb{P}\right)^{1/p}\\
&\gtrsim \left(\int_{\Omega}\sum_{m=1}^N\int_{\sigma^{-1}2^{-m}}^{\sigma^{-1}2^{-m+1}} \lambda_m^{\frac{1+r}{2}}e^{-p|\lambda_m|^{1/2}x_n}\| g_m\|^p_{\mathscr{A}^s}x_n^r\,dx_n\,d\mathbb{P}\right)^{1/p}\\
&\gtrsim \left(\sum_{m=1}^N\| g_m\|^p_{\mathscr{A}^s} \right)^{1/p}.
\end{align*}}
This shows that $\tilde{\mathscr{A}}^s$ has cotype $p$. However, $\tilde{\mathscr{A}}^s$ is a nontrivial Banach space by Lemma~\ref{Lemma:AuxiliarySpace} and therefore its cotype must satisfy $p\geq2$. This contradicts $p\in[1,2)$ and hence $\{|\lambda|^{\frac{1+r}{2p}}\operatorname{Poi}_{\Delta}(\lambda):\lambda\geq\sigma\}$ can not be $\mathcal{R}$-bounded.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} Proposition~\ref{Prop:CounterExampleEpsilon} shows that it is not possible in general to remove the $\epsilon$ in Proposition~\ref{Chapter3::Proposition::PoissonMappingPropertySobolevRBoundedEpsilon}.
Even though we only treat the Laplacian with Dirichlet boundary conditions in Proposition~\ref{Prop:CounterExampleEpsilon} it seems like the integrability parameter in normal direction may not be smaller than the cotype of the space in tangential directions in order to obtain the sharp estimate of Proposition~\ref{Chapter3::Proposition::PoissonMappingPropertySobolevRBounded}.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}\label{Rem:Simplifications}
Depending on what one aims for, it can also be better to substitute $t=\tilde{t}+m_j-k-\zeta$ in Proposition \ref{Chapter3::Proposition::PoissonMappingPropertySobolev}, Proposition \ref{Chapter3::Proposition::PoissonMappingPropertySobolevRBoundedEpsilon} or Proposition \ref{Chapter3::Proposition::PoissonMappingPropertySobolevRBounded}. In this case, we obtain the estimates
\begin{align*}
\|\operatorname{Poi}_{j}(\lambda)\|&\leq C|\lambda|^{\frac{-1-\gamma_1-\gamma_2}{2mp}},\quad(\text{Proposition \ref{Chapter3::Proposition::PoissonMappingPropertySobolev}}),\\
\mathcal{R}\big(\{|\lambda|^{\frac{1+\gamma_1+\gamma_2-\epsilon}{2mp}}\operatorname{Poi}_{j}(\lambda):\lambda\in\Sigma_{\phi},\,|\lambda|\geq\sigma \}\big)&\leq C,\quad(\text{Proposition \ref{Chapter3::Proposition::PoissonMappingPropertySobolevRBoundedEpsilon}}),\\
\mathcal{R}\big(\{|\lambda|^{\frac{1+\gamma_1+\gamma_2}{2mp}}\operatorname{Poi}_{j}(\lambda):\lambda\in\Sigma_{\phi},\,|\lambda|\geq\sigma \}\big)&\leq C,\quad(\text{Proposition \ref{Chapter3::Proposition::PoissonMappingPropertySobolevRBounded}}),
\end{align*}
where
\[
\gamma_1=r-p[t+k+\zeta-m_j-s]_+,\quad\gamma_2=p\zeta-p[-[t+k+\zeta-m_j-s]_+-m_j+k+\zeta]_+.
\]
and where the operator norms and the $\mathcal{R}$-bounds are taken in
$$\mathcal{B}(\mathscr{A}^{s}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E),W^{k}_{p}((\epsilon,\infty),|\operatorname{pr}_n|^{r};\mathscr{A}^{t}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E^{2m}))).$$
If we now choose $\zeta:=[m_j+s-k-t]_+$, then we obtain
\[
\gamma_1=r-p[t+k-m_j-s]_+,\quad\gamma_2=p[m_j+s-k-t]_+-p[s-t]_+.
\]
From this it follows that
\[
-\gamma_1-\gamma_2=-r+p(k-m_j)+p([s-t]_++t-s)=-r+p(k-m_j)+p[t-s]_+
\]
This yields the following result:
\end{remark}
\begin{theorem}\label{Thm:MainThm1}
Recall Assumption \ref{Assump:ELS} and Assumption \ref{Assump:Spaces}. Let $k\in\mathbb N_0$, $r,s,t\in\mathbb R$ and $p\in[1,\infty)$. Suppose that $r-p[t+k-m_j-s]_+>-1$.
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item \label{Thm:MainThm1:UniformBounds} For all $\sigma>0$ there is a constant $C>0$ such that
\begin{align*}
\|\operatorname{Poi}_{j}(\lambda)\|\leq C|\lambda|^{\frac{-1-r+p(k-m_j)+p[t-s]_+}{2mp}}
\end{align*}
for all $\lambda\in\Sigma_{\phi}$ such that $|\lambda|\geq\sigma$ where the operator norms are taken in the space $\mathcal{B}(\mathscr{A}^{s}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E),W^{k}_{p}(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^{r};\mathscr{A}^{t}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E^{2m})))$.
\item Let $\epsilon\in(0,\gamma_1+1)$. Then for all $\sigma>0$ there is a constant $C>0$ such that
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{R}\big(\{|\lambda|^{\frac{1+r-\epsilon-p(k-m_j)-p[t-s]_+}{2mp}}\operatorname{Poi}_{j}(\lambda):\lambda\in\Sigma_{\phi},\,|\lambda|\geq\sigma \}\big)\leq C
\end{align*}
where the $\mathcal{R}$-bounds are taken in $\mathcal{B}(\mathscr{A}^{s}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E),W^{k}_{p}(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^{r};\mathscr{A}^{t}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E^{2m})))$.
\item Suppose that the assumptions of Proposition \ref{Prop:Contraction_Principle_Functions} hold true. Then for all $\sigma>0$ there is a constant $C>0$ such that
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{R}\big(\{|\lambda|^{\frac{1+r-p(k-m_j)-p[t-s]_+}{2mp}}\operatorname{Poi}_{j}(\lambda):\lambda\in\Sigma_{\phi},\,|\lambda|\geq\sigma \}\big)\leq C
\end{align*}
where the $\mathcal{R}$-bounds are taken in $\mathcal{B}(\mathscr{A}^{s}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E),W^{k}_{p}(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^{r};\mathscr{A}^{t}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E^{2m})))$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
This follows from Proposition \ref{Chapter3::Proposition::PoissonMappingPropertySobolev}, Proposition \ref{Chapter3::Proposition::PoissonMappingPropertySobolevRBoundedEpsilon} and Proposition \ref{Chapter3::Proposition::PoissonMappingPropertySobolevRBounded} together with the observations in Remark \ref{Rem:Simplifications}.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{Cor:MainThm1_negative}
Let $k\in\mathbb Z$, $s,t\in\mathbb R$, $p\in(1,\infty)$ and $r\in(-1,p-1)$. Suppose that $r-p[t+k-m_j-s]_+>-1$ and that $\mathscr{A}^s$ is reflexive.
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item For all $\sigma>0$ there is a constant $C>0$ such that
\begin{align*}
\|\operatorname{Poi}_{j}(\lambda)\|\leq C|\lambda|^{\frac{-1-r+p(k-m_j)+p[t-s]_+}{2mp}}
\end{align*}
for all $\lambda\in\Sigma_{\phi}$ such that $|\lambda|\geq\sigma$ where the operator norms are taken in the space $\mathcal{B}(\mathscr{A}^{s}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E),W^{k}_{p}(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^{r};\mathscr{A}^{t}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E^{2m})))$.
\item Let $\epsilon\in(0,\gamma_1+1)$. Then for all $\sigma>0$ there is a constant $C>0$ such that
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{R}\big(\{|\lambda|^{\frac{1+r-\epsilon-p(k-m_j)-p[t-s]_+}{2mp}}\operatorname{Poi}_{j}(\lambda):\lambda\in\Sigma_{\phi},\,|\lambda|\geq\sigma \}\big)\leq C
\end{align*}
where the $\mathcal{R}$-bounds are taken in $\mathcal{B}(\mathscr{A}^{s}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E),W^{k}_{p}(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^{r};\mathscr{A}^{t}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E^{2m})))$.
\item Suppose that the assumptions of Proposition \ref{Prop:Contraction_Principle_Functions} hold true. Then for all $\sigma>0$ there is a constant $C>0$ such that
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{R}\big(\{|\lambda|^{\frac{1+r-p(k-m_j)-p[t-s]_+}{2mp}}\operatorname{Poi}_{j}(\lambda):\lambda\in\Sigma_{\phi},\,|\lambda|\geq\sigma \}\big)\leq C
\end{align*}
where the $\mathcal{R}$-bounds are taken in $\mathcal{B}(\mathscr{A}^{s}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E),W^{k}_{p}(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^{r};\mathscr{A}^{t}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E^{2m})))$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
The case $k\in\mathbb N_0$ is already contained in Theorem \ref{Thm:MainThm1}. Hence, we only treat the case $k<0$. In this case it holds that
\[
(r-pk)-p[t-m_j-s]_+\geq r-p[t+k-m_j-s]_+>-1.
\]
Hence, Theorem \ref{Thm:MainThm1} holds with a weight of the power $r-pk$ and smoothness $0$ in normal direction. Combining this with Lemma \ref{Lemma:EmbeddingNegitveSmoothness} yields the assertion.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{Cor:MainThm1_Corollary}
Let $s,t\in\mathbb R$, $k\in(0,\infty)\setminus\mathbb N$, $p\in(1,\infty)$, $r\in(-1,p-1)$ and $q\in[1,\infty]$. We write $k=\overline{k}-\theta$ with $\overline{k}\in\mathbb N_0$ and $\theta\in[0,1)$. Suppose that $r-p[t+\overline{k}-m_j-s]_+>-1$.
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item For all $\sigma>0$ there is a constant $C>0$ such that for all $\lambda\in\Sigma_{\phi}$ with $|\lambda|\geq\sigma$ we have the estimate
\begin{align*}
\|\operatorname{Poi}_{j}(\lambda)\|\leq C|\lambda|^{\frac{-1-r+p(k-m_j)+p[t-s]_+}{2mp}}
\end{align*}
where the norm is taken in $\mathcal{B}(\mathscr{A}^{s}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E),H^{k}_{p}(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^{r};\mathscr{A}^{t}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E^{2m})))$ or in $\mathcal{B}(\mathscr{A}^{s}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E),B^{k}_{p,q}(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^{r};\mathscr{A}^{t}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E^{2m}))).$
\item Let $\epsilon\in(0,\gamma_1+1)$ and let $E$ be a UMD space. Then for all $\sigma>0$ there is a constant $C>0$ such that
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{R}\big(\{|\lambda|^{\frac{1+r-\epsilon-p(k-m_j)-p[t-s]_+}{2mp}}\operatorname{Poi}_{j}(\lambda):\lambda\in\Sigma_{\phi},\,|\lambda|\geq\sigma \}\big)\leq C
\end{align*}
where the $\mathcal{R}$-bounds are taken in $\mathcal{B}(\mathscr{A}^{s}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E),H^{k}_{p}(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^{r};\mathscr{A}^{t}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E^{2m})))$.
\item Suppose that the assumptions of Proposition \ref{Prop:Contraction_Principle_Functions} hold true and let $E$ be a UMD space. Then for all $\sigma>0$ there is a constant $C>0$ such that
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{R}\big(\{|\lambda|^{\frac{1+r-p(k-m_j)-p[t-s]_+}{2mp}}\operatorname{Poi}_{j}(\lambda):\lambda\in\Sigma_{\phi},\,|\lambda|\geq\sigma \}\big)\leq C
\end{align*}
where the $\mathcal{R}$-bounds are taken in $\mathcal{B}(\mathscr{A}^{s}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E),H^{k}_{p}(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^{r};\mathscr{A}^{t}(\mathbb R^{n-1},w;E^{2m})))$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
This follows from Theorem \ref{Thm:MainThm1} together with real and complex interpolation, see \cite[Proposition 6.1, $(6.4)$]{Meyries_Veraar_2012} together with a retraction-coretraction argument, \cite[Proposition 5.6]{Lindemulder_Meyries_Veraar_2018} and Proposition \ref{Prop:Rbounded_Interpolation}. Note that the power weight $|\operatorname{pr}_n|^{r}$ is an $A_p$ weight, since $r\in(-1,p-1)$, see \cite[Example 9.1.7]{Grafakos_2009}.\\
\end{proof}
\noindent
\begin{lemma}\label{Lemma:Hilbert_Operator}
Let $p\in(1,\infty)$, $r\in (-1,p-1)$ and $w_r(x):=x^r$ for $x\in\mathbb R_+$. Then the linear operator
\[
T\colon L_p(\mathbb R_+,w_r;\mathbb R)\to L_p(\mathbb R_+,w_r;\mathbb R),\;f\mapsto \int_{0}^{\infty} \frac{f(y)}{x+y}\,dy
\]
is bounded.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
In \cite[Appendix I.3]{Grafakos_2008} this was shown for $r=0$ using Schur's Lemma. We adjust the same proof to the weighted setting.\\
Let $K(x,y):=\frac{1}{y^r(x+y)}$. Then we may write
\[
(Tf)(x)=\int_0^\infty K(x,y)f(y) y^r\,dy.
\]
We further define the transpose operator
\[
(T^tf)(y)=\int_0^\infty K(x,y)f(x) x^r\,dx=\frac{1}{y^r}\int_0^\infty \frac{f(x)}{x+y}x^r\,dx.
\]
By the lemma in \cite[Appendix I.2]{Grafakos_2008} it is sufficient to find $C>0$ and $u,v\colon\mathbb R_+\to(0,\infty)$ such that
\[
T(u^{p'})\leq Cv^{p'}\quad\text{and}\quad T^t(v^{p})\leq Cu^{p},
\]
where $1=\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{p'}$. Similar to \cite[Appendix I.3]{Grafakos_2008} we choose $$u(x):=v(x):=x^{-\frac{1+r}{pp'}}$$
and
\[
C:=\max\left\{\int_0^\infty\frac{t^{-\frac{1+r}{p}}}{1+t}\,dt,\int_0^\infty \frac{t^{r-\frac{1+r}{p'}}}{1+t}\,dt \right\}.
\]
Note that $r\in(-1,p-1)$ ensures that both integrals are finite since
\begin{align*}
-\frac{1+r}{p}\in(-1,0)\Longleftrightarrow r\in(-1,p-1)
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
r-\frac{1+r}{p'}\in(-1,0)\Longleftrightarrow r\in(-1,p-1).
\end{align*}
With this choice we obtain
\begin{align*}
(T u^{p'})(x)=\int_0^\infty \frac{y^{-\frac{1+r}{p}}}{x+y}\,dy=x^{-\frac{1+r}{p}}\int_0^\infty\frac{t^{-\frac{1+r}{p}}}{1+t}\,dt\leq C v(x)^{p'}
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
(T^t v^{p})(y)=\frac{1}{y^r}\int_0^\infty \frac{x^{r-\frac{1+r}{p'}}}{x+y}\,dx=y^{-\frac{1+r}{p'}}\int_0^\infty \frac{t^{r-\frac{1+r}{p'}}}{1+t}\,dt\leq Cu(y)^p.
\end{align*}
This shows the assertion.
\end{proof}
From now on, we use the notation
\begin{align}
\begin{aligned}\label{Eq:MoreSpaces}
D^{k,\tilde{k},s}_{r}(I):= H_p^{k}(I,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r,\mathscr{A}^{s+\tilde{k}}) &\cap H^{k+\tilde{k}}_p(I,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r,\mathscr{A}^{s}),\\
D^{k,2m,s}_{r,B}(I):= \{u\in H_p^{k}(I,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r,\mathscr{A}^{s+2m}) &\cap H^{k+2m}_p(I,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r,\mathscr{A}^{s}):\\&\operatorname{tr}_{x_n=0} B_j(D)u=0\text{ for all }j=1,\ldots,m\}
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
for $p\in(1,\infty)$ $k,\tilde{k}\in[0,\infty)$, $s\in\mathbb R$, $r\in(-1,p-1)$ and $I\in\{\mathbb R_+,\mathbb R\}$. Moreover, we endow both spaces with the norm
\begin{align*}
\|u\|_{D^{k,\tilde{k},s}_{r}(I)}=\max\{\|u\|_{H_p^{k}(I,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r,\mathscr{A}^{s+\tilde{k}})}, \|u\|_{H^{k+\tilde{k}}_p(I,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r,\mathscr{A}^{s})} \},\\
\|u\|_{D^{k,2m,s}_{r,B}(I)}=\max\{\|u\|_{H_p^{k}(I,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r,\mathscr{A}^{s+2m})}, \|u\|_{H^{k+2m}_p(I,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r,\mathscr{A}^{s})} \},
\end{align*}
respectively, so that $(D^{k,\tilde{k},s}_{r}(I),\|\cdot\|_{D^{k,\tilde{k},s}_{r}(I)})$ and $(D^{k,2m,s}_{r,B}(I),\|\cdot\|_{D^{k,2m,s}_{r,B}(I)})$ are a Banach spaces.
\begin{proposition}\label{Prop:PoissonAfterTrace}
Let $s\in\mathbb R$, $p\in(1,\infty)$, $r\in(-1,p-1)$ and $k\in\mathbb N_0$ such that $k\leq\min\{\beta_n:\beta\in\mathbb N_0^n,|\beta|=m_j,b_\beta^j\neq0\}$. Let further $u\in D^{k,2m,s}_{r}(\mathbb R_+)$ and $\theta\in[0,1]$ such that $2m\theta\in\mathbb N_0$. Then for all $\sigma>0$ there is a constant $C>0$ such that we have the estimate
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{R}(\{\lambda^{\theta}\operatorname{Poi}_j(\lambda)\operatorname{tr}_{x_n}B_j(D):\lambda\in\Sigma_{\phi},\,|\lambda|\geq\sigma\})\leq C
\end{align*}
where the $\mathcal{R}$-bound is taken in
\[
\mathcal{B}(D^{k,2m,s}_{r}(\mathbb R_+),D^{k,2m(1-\theta),s}_{r}(\mathbb R_+)).
\]
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The proof uses an approach which is sometimes referred to as Volevich-trick. This approached is already standard in the treatment of parameter-elliptic and parabolic boundary value problems in classical Sobolev spaces, see for example Lemma 7.1 in \cite{DHP03} and how it is used to obtain the results therein. The idea is to use the fundamental theorem of calculus in normal directions and to apply the boundedness of the operator
\[
T\colon L_p(\mathbb R_+,w_r;\mathbb R)\to L_p(\mathbb R_+,w_r;\mathbb R),\;f\mapsto \int_{0}^{\infty} \frac{f(y)}{x+y}\,dy
\]
from Lemma~\ref{Lemma:Hilbert_Operator}. Using these ideas in connection with Corollary~\ref{Chapter3::Corollary::PoissonEvalEstimate} we can carry out the following computation: Let $(\epsilon_n)_{n\in\mathbb N}$ be a Rademacher sequence on the probability space $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},\mathbb{P})$, $N\in\mathbb N$, $\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_N$ and $u_1,\ldots,u_N\in H^{k}(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r;\mathscr{A}^{s+2m})\cap H^{k+2m}(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r;\mathscr{A}^{s})$. Then we obtain
{\allowdisplaybreaks
\begin{align*}
&\quad \left\| \sum_{l=1}^N \epsilon_l\lambda_l^{\theta}\operatorname{Poi}_j\operatorname{tr}_{x_n=0}B_j(D) u_l \right\|_{L_p(\Omega;D^{k,2m(1-\theta),s}_{r}(\mathbb R_+))}\\
\lesssim&\sum_{\tilde{k}=0}^k\left\| \sum_{l=1}^N \epsilon_l\lambda_l^{\theta}D_{x_n}^{\tilde{k}}\operatorname{Poi}_j\operatorname{tr}_{x_n=0}B_j(D) u_l \right\|_{L_p(\Omega;L_p(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r;\mathscr{A}^{s+2m(1-\theta)})}\\
&+ \sum_{\tilde{k}=0}^{k+(1-\theta)2m}\left\| \sum_{l=1}^N \epsilon_l\lambda_l^{\theta}D_{x_n}^{\tilde{k}}\operatorname{Poi}_j\operatorname{tr}_{x_n=0}B_j(D) u_l \right\|_{L_p(\Omega;L_p(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r;\mathscr{A}^{s})}\\
\leq &\sum_{\tilde{k}=0}^k\left(\int_{\Omega}\int_{\mathbb R_+}\bigg\| \int_{\mathbb R_+}\sum_{l=1}^N \epsilon_l\lambda_l^{\theta}[\partial_{y_n}D_{x_n}^{\tilde{k}}\operatorname{ev}_{x_n+y_n}\operatorname{Poi}_j][B_j(D) u_l](\,\cdot\,,y_n)\,dy_n\bigg\|_{\mathscr{A}^{s+2m(1-\theta)}}^px_n^r\,dx_n\,d\mathbb{P}\right)^{1/p}\\
&+\sum_{\tilde{k}=0}^k\left(\int_{\Omega}\int_{\mathbb R_+}\bigg\| \int_{\mathbb R_+}\sum_{l=1}^N \epsilon_l\lambda_l^{\theta}[D_{x_n}^{\tilde{k}}\operatorname{ev}_{x_n+y_n}\operatorname{Poi}_j][\partial_{y_n}B_j(D) u_l](\,\cdot\,,y_n)\,dy_n\bigg\|_{\mathscr{A}^{s+2m(1-\theta)}}^px_n^r\,dx_n\,d\mathbb{P}\right)^{1/p}\\
&+\sum_{\tilde{k}=0}^{k+(1-\theta)2m}\left(\int_{\Omega}\int_{\mathbb R_+}\bigg\| \int_{\mathbb R_+}\sum_{l=1}^N \epsilon_l\lambda_l^{\theta}[\partial_{y_n}D_{x_n}^{\tilde{k}}\operatorname{ev}_{x_n+y_n}\operatorname{Poi}_j][B_j(D) u_l](\,\cdot\,,y_n)\,dy_n\bigg\|_{\mathscr{A}^{s}}^px_n^r\,dx_n\,d\mathbb{P}\right)^{1/p}\\
&+ \sum_{\tilde{k}=0}^{k+(1-\theta)2m}\left(\int_{\Omega}\int_{\mathbb R_+}\bigg\| \int_{\mathbb R_+}\sum_{l=1}^N \epsilon_l\lambda_l^{\theta}[D_{x_n}^{\tilde{k}}\operatorname{ev}_{x_n+y_n}\operatorname{Poi}_j][\partial_{y_n}B_j(D) u_l](\,\cdot\,,y_n)\,dy_n\bigg\|_{\mathscr{A}^{s}}^px_n^r\,dx_n\,d\mathbb{P}\right)^{1/p}.
\end{align*}}
In order to keep the notation shorter, we continue the computation with just the first of the four terms. The steps we would have to carry out for the other three terms, are almost exactly the same with just minor changes on the parameters. We obtain
{\allowdisplaybreaks
\begin{align*}
&\quad\sum_{\tilde{k}=0}^k\left(\int_{\Omega}\int_{\mathbb R_+}\bigg\| \int_{\mathbb R_+}\sum_{l=1}^N \epsilon_l\lambda_l^{\theta}[\partial_{y_n}D_{x_n}^{\tilde{k}}\operatorname{ev}_{x_n+y_n}\operatorname{Poi}_j][B_j(D) u_l](\,\cdot\,,y_n)\,dy_n\bigg\|_{\mathscr{A}^{s+2m(1-\theta)}}^px_n^r\,dx_n\,d\mathbb{P}\right)^{1/p}\\
\leq & \sum_{\tilde{k}=0}^k\left(\int_{\Omega}\int_{\mathbb R_+}\bigg( \int_{\mathbb R_+}\bigg\|\sum_{l=1}^N \epsilon_l\lambda_l^{\theta}[\partial_{y_n}D_{x_n}^{\tilde{k}}\operatorname{ev}_{x_n+y_n}\operatorname{Poi}_j][B_j(D) u_l](\,\cdot\,,y_n)\bigg\|_{\mathscr{A}^{s+2m(1-\theta)}}\,dy_n\bigg)^px_n^r\,dx_n\,d\mathbb{P}\right)^{1/p}\\
\lesssim& \left(\int_{\Omega}\int_{\mathbb R_+}\bigg( \int_{\mathbb R_+}\bigg\|\sum_{l=1}^N \epsilon_l\frac{1}{x_n+y_n}[B_j(D) u_l](\,\cdot\,,y_n)\bigg\|_{\mathscr{A}^{s+k+2m-m_j}}\,dy_n\bigg)^px_n^r\,dx_n\,d\mathbb{P}\right)^{1/p}\\
\lesssim & \left(\int_{\Omega}\int_{\mathbb R_+}\bigg\|\sum_{l=1}^N \epsilon_l[B_j(D) u_l](\,\cdot\,,x_n)\bigg\|_{\mathscr{A}^{s+k+2m-m_j}}^px_n^r\,dx_n\,d\mathbb{P}\right)^{1/p}\\
\leq & \sum_{|\beta|=m_j}\bigg\| b_{\beta}^j\partial_n^{\beta_n}\partial_{x'}^{\beta'}\sum_{l=1}^N \epsilon_l u_l\bigg\|_{L_p(\Omega;L_p(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r;\mathscr{A}^{s+k+2m-m_j}))}\\
\lesssim & \sum_{\beta_n=k}^{m_j}\bigg\| \sum_{l=1}^N \epsilon_l u_l\bigg\|_{L_p(\Omega;H^{\beta_n}_p(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r;\mathscr{A}^{s+k+2m-\beta_n}))}.
\end{align*}}
From the second to the third line we used Corollary~\ref{Chapter3::Corollary::PoissonEvalEstimate}, from the third to the fourth line we used Lemma~\ref{Lemma:Hilbert_Operator} and in the last step we used that $k\leq\min\{\beta_n:\beta\in\mathbb N_0^n,|\beta|=m_j,b_\beta^j\neq0\}$. The other three terms above can either also be estimated by
\[
\sum_{\beta_n=k}^{m_j}\bigg\| \sum_{l=1}^N \epsilon_l u_l\bigg\|_{L_p(\Omega;H^{\beta_n}_p(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r;\mathscr{A}^{s+k+2m-\beta_n}))}
\]
or by
\[
\sum_{\beta_n=k}^{m_j}\bigg\| \sum_{l=1}^N \epsilon_l u_l\bigg\|_{L_p(\Omega;H^{\beta_n+1}_p(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r;\mathscr{A}^{s+k+2m-\beta_n-1}))}
\]
if the derivative $\partial_{y_n}$ is taken of $g_j$ instead of $\operatorname{Poi}_j$. Since $m_j< 2m$, we obtain the estimate
\[
\left\| \sum_{l=1}^N \epsilon_l\lambda_l^{\theta}\operatorname{Poi}_j\operatorname{tr}_{x_n=0}B_j(D) u_l \right\|_{L_p(\Omega;D^{k,2m(1-\theta),s}_{r}(\mathbb R_+))}\lesssim \left\| \sum_{l=1}^N \epsilon_l u_l \right\|_{L_p(\Omega;D^{k,2m,s}_{r}(\mathbb R_+))}
\]
\end{proof}
\section{Resolvent Estimates}\label{Section:Resolvent}
Now we study the resolvent problem, i.e. \eqref{EllipticBVP} with $g_j=0$. We show that the corresponding operator is $\mathcal{R}$-sectorial and thus has the property of maximal regularity in the UMD case. But first, we prove the $\mathcal{R}$-sectoriality in $\mathbb R^n$.
\begin{theorem}\label{Thm:Rboundedness_Rn}
Let $k,s\in\mathbb R$. Suppose that $E$ satisfies Pisier's property $(\alpha)$ if one of the scales $\mathscr{A}, \mathscr{B}$ belongs to the Bessel potential scale. Then for all $\sigma>0$ the realization of $A(D)-\sigma$ in $\mathscr{B}^k(\mathscr{A}^s)$ given by
\[
A(D)-\sigma\colon \mathscr{B}^k(\mathscr{A}^s) \supset \mathscr{B}^{k+2m}(\mathscr{A}^s)\cap \mathscr{B}^k(\mathscr{A}^{s+2m})\to \mathscr{B}^k(\mathscr{A}^s),\, u\mapsto A(D)u-\sigma u
\]
is $\mathcal{R}$-sectorial in $\Sigma_{\phi}$ and there is a constant $C>0$ such that the estimate
\begin{align}\label{Eq:EstimateDomain_Rn}
\|u\|_{\mathscr{B}^{k+2m}(\mathscr{A}^s)\cap \mathscr{B}^k(\mathscr{A}^{s+2m})}\leq C\|(\lambda+\sigma-A(D)u\|_{\mathscr{B}^k(\mathscr{A}^s)}
\end{align}
holds for all $\lambda\in\Sigma_{\phi}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
It was shown in \cite[Lemma 5.10]{Hummel_Lindemulder_2019} that
\begin{align}\label{Eq:Rbounded_aus_Paper_mit_Nick}
\mathcal{R}(\{\langle\xi\rangle^{|\alpha|}D^{\alpha}_{\xi} (s_1+s_2\lambda+s_3|\xi|^{2m})(\lambda+1-A(\xi))^{-1}:\lambda\in\Sigma_{\phi},\,\xi\in\mathbb R^n\})<\infty\quad\text{in }\mathcal{B}(E)
\end{align}
holds for all $\alpha\in\mathcal{B}(E)$ and all $(s_1,s_2,s_3)\in\mathbb R^3$. Note that the authors of \cite{Hummel_Lindemulder_2019} use a different convention concerning the sign of $A$. Taking $(s_1,s_2,s_3)=(0,1,0)$ shows together with the iterated $\mathcal{R}$-bounded versions of Mihklin's theorem, Proposition \ref{Prop:IteratedMikhlinRbounded}, show that
\[
\mathcal{R}(\{\lambda(\lambda+1-A(D))^{-1}:\lambda\in\Sigma_{\phi}\})<\infty.
\]
Thus, it only remains to prove that $\mathscr{B}^{k+2m}(\mathscr{A}^s)\cap \mathscr{B}^k(\mathscr{A}^{s+2m})$ is the right domain and that \eqref{Eq:EstimateDomain_Rn} holds. But \eqref{Eq:Rbounded_aus_Paper_mit_Nick} with $(s_1,s_2,s_3)=(1,0,1)$ shows that
\[
[\xi\mapsto (1+|\xi|^{2m})(\lambda+1-A(\xi))^{-1}]\in S^0_{\mathcal{R}}(\mathbb R^n;\mathcal{B}(E))
\]
so that
\[
[\xi\mapsto (\lambda+1-A(\xi))^{-1}]\in S^{-2m}_{\mathcal{R}}(\mathbb R^n;\mathcal{B}(E))
\]
uniformly in $\lambda\in\Sigma_{\phi}$. Now the assertion follows from Proposition \ref{Prop:Pseudo_Iterated_Mapping_Properties}.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\phantomsection \label{Rem:Rboundedness_Rn}
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item If both $\mathscr{A}$ and $\mathscr{B}$ belong to the Bessel potential scale, then Theorem \ref{Thm:Rboundedness_Rn} can be improved in the following way: Lemma \ref{Lemma:Lifting_Property} together with Fubini's theorem yields that
\[
\langle D' \rangle^{-s}\langle D_n\rangle^{-k} L_p(\mathbb R^n_x,w_0\otimes w_1;E)\stackrel{\eqsim}{\to} H^k_p(\mathbb R_{x_n},w_1;H^{s}_p(\mathbb R^{n-1}_{x'},w_0,E)).
\]
Moreover, we have
\begin{align*}
\langle D' \rangle^{-s}\langle D_n\rangle^{-k} &H^{2m}_p(\mathbb R^n_x,w_0\otimes w_1;E)\\
&=H^{k+2m}_p(\mathbb R_{x_n},w_1;H^{s}_p(\mathbb R^{n-1}_{x'},w_0,E))\cap H^{k}_p(\mathbb R_{x_n},w_1;H^{s+2m}_p(\mathbb R^{n-1}_{x'},w_0,E)).
\end{align*}
But it is well-known that the realization of $A(D)$ even admits a bounded $\mathcal{H}^{\infty}$-calculus in $ L_p(\mathbb R^n_x,w_0\otimes w_1;E)$ with domain $H^{2m}_p(\mathbb R^n_x,w_0\otimes w_1;E)$ no matter whether Pisier's property $(\alpha)$ is satisfied or not (recall that the weights in the Bessel potential case are in $A_p$). This can be derived by using the weighted versions of Mihklin's theorem in the proof of \cite[Theorem 5.5]{DHP03}. Since $\langle D' \rangle^{-s}\langle D_n\rangle^{-k}$ is an isomorphism, $A(D)$ also admits a bounded $\mathcal{H}^{\infty}$-calculus in $H^k_p(\mathbb R_{x_n},w_1;H^{s}_p(\mathbb R^{n-1}_{x'},w_0,E))$ with domain $$H^{k+2m}_p(\mathbb R_{x_n},w_1;H^{s}_p(\mathbb R^{n-1}_{x'},w_0,E))\cap H^{k}_p(\mathbb R_{x_n},w_1;H^{s+2m}_p(\mathbb R^{n-1}_{x'},w_0,E)),$$
even if Pisier's property $(\alpha)$ is not satisfied.
\item \label{Rem:Rboundedness_Rn:Sec} In the proof of Theorem \ref{Thm:Rboundedness_Rn}, one can also use Proposition \ref{Prop:IteratedMikhlin} instead of Proposition \ref{Prop:IteratedMikhlinRbounded} if one only needs sectoriality. In this case, we can again drop the assumption that $E$ has to satisfy Pisier's property $(\alpha)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}\label{Rem:k_max_explanation}
For the $\mathcal{R}$-sectoriality of the boundary value problem, which we are going to derive in Theorem~\ref{Thm:RSectorial_Rnplus}, we have a restriction on the regularity in normal direction. It may not be larger than $k_{max}\in\mathbb N_0$ which we define by
\[
k_{\max}:=\min\{\beta_n|\,\exists j\in\{1,\ldots,m\}\exists\beta\in\mathbb N_0^n,|\beta|=m_j: b^j_{\beta}\neq 0\},
\]
i.e. $k_{\max}$ is the minimal order in normal direction of all non-zero differential operators which appear in any of the boundary operators
\[
B_j(D)=\sum_{|\beta|=m_j} b^j_{\beta}D^{\beta}\quad(j=1,\ldots,m).
\]
Therefore, if there is a non-zero term with no normal derivatives in one of the $B_1,\ldots, B_n$, then $k_{\max}=0$. In particular, it holds that $k_{\max}=0$ if one of the operators $B_1,\ldots, B_n$ corresponds to the Dirichlet trace at the boundary. This includes the case of the Dirichlet Laplacian. On the other hand, for the Neumann Laplacian we have $k_{\max}=1$. In this sense, our results will be analogous to the usual isotropic case: We will be able to derive $\mathcal{R}$-sectoriality of the Neumann Laplacian in $L_{p}(\mathbb R_+,;\mathscr{A}^s)$ and $H_{p}^1(\mathbb R_+,;\mathscr{A}^s)$, but for the Dirichlet Laplacian we can only derive it in $L_{p}(\mathbb R_+,;\mathscr{A}^s)$.
\end{remark}
\begin{theorem}\label{Thm:RSectorial_Rnplus}
Recall Assumption \ref{Assump:ELS} and Assumption \ref{Assump:Spaces}. Suppose that $E$ satisfies Pisier's property $(\alpha)$. Let $k\in[0,k_{\max}]\cap \mathbb N_0$, $p\in(1,\infty)$, $r\in(-1,p-1)$ and $s\in\mathbb R$. We define the operator
\[
A_B\colon H_{p}^k(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r;\mathscr{A}^s)\supset D(A_B) \to H_{p}^k(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r;\mathscr{A}^s),\,u\mapsto A(D)u
\]
on the domain
\begin{align*}
D(A_B):=\{ u\in H_{p}^{k}(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r;\mathscr{A}^s): &A_B u\in H_{p}^{k}(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r;\mathscr{A}^s)\\&\operatorname{tr}_{x_n=0} B_j(D)u=0\text{ for all }j=1,\ldots,m\}
\end{align*}
Then for all $\sigma>0$ we have that $A_B-\sigma$ is $\mathcal{R}$-sectorial in $\Sigma_{\phi}$. Moreover, there is a constant $C$ such that for all $\lambda\in\Sigma_\phi$ with $|\lambda|\geq\sigma$ we have the estimate
\begin{align}\label{Eq:InclusionDomain}
\|u\|_{D^{k,2m,s}_{r,B}(\mathbb R_+)} \leq C \| (\lambda-A(D))u\|_{H_{p}^k(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r;\mathscr{A}^s)}.
\end{align}
In particular, it holds that $D^{k,2m,s}_{r,B}(\mathbb R_+)=D(A_B)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Consider
\begin{align}\label{Eq:Resolvent_Solution_Formula2}
R(\lambda)f=r_+(\lambda-A(D))_{\mathbb R^n}^{-1} \mathscr{E} f - \sum_{j=1}^m\operatorname{pr}_{1}\operatorname{Poi}_j(\lambda)\operatorname{tr}_{x_n=0}B_j(D)(\lambda-A(D))_{\mathbb R^n}^{-1} \mathscr{E} f,
\end{align}
where $\lambda\in\Sigma_{\phi}$, $f\in H_{p}^k(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r;\mathscr{A}^s)$, $(\lambda-A(D))_{\mathbb R^n}^{-1}$ denotes the resolvent on $\mathbb R^n$ as in Theorem \ref{Thm:Rboundedness_Rn}, $r_+$ denotes the restriction of a distribution on $\mathbb R^n$ to $\mathbb R^n_+$ and $\mathscr{E}$ denotes an extension operator mapping $H_{p}^t(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r;\mathscr{A}^s)$ into $H_{p}^t(\mathbb R,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r;\mathscr{A}^s)$ for arbitrary $t\in\mathbb R$. $\mathscr{E}$ can for example be chosen to be Seeley's extension, see \cite{Seeley_1964}.\\
Combining Proposition \ref{Prop:PoissonAfterTrace} with $\theta=1$ and Theorem \ref{Thm:Rboundedness_Rn} yields that the set
\begin{align}\label{Eq:RSec_Estimate}
\{\lambda R(\lambda):\lambda\in\Sigma_{\phi},|\lambda|\geq\sigma\}\subset \mathcal{B}(H_{p}^k(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r;\mathscr{A}^s))
\end{align}
is $\mathcal{R}$-bounded. Next, we show that $R(\lambda)$ is indeed the resolvent so that we obtain $\mathcal{R}$-sectoriality. To this end we show that
\[
R(\lambda)\colon H_{p}^k(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r;\mathscr{A}^s) \to D(A_B)
\]
is a bijection with inverse $\lambda-A_B$. Let $f\in H_{p}^k(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r;\mathscr{A}^s)$. Since $$\operatorname{tr}_{x_n=0}B_k(D)\operatorname{pr}_1\operatorname{Poi}_j(\lambda)=\delta_{k,j}\operatorname{id}_{\mathscr{A}}$$ by construction, it follows from applying $B_j(D)$ to \eqref{Eq:Resolvent_Solution_Formula2} that $\operatorname{tr}_{x_n=0}B_j(D)R(\lambda)f=0$ for all $j=1,\ldots,m$. Moreover, we have $(\lambda-A(D))\operatorname{pr}_1\operatorname{Poi}_j(\lambda)=0$ by the definition of $\operatorname{Poi}_j(\lambda)$. This shows that
\begin{align}\label{Eq:Left_Inverse}
(\lambda-A(D))R(\lambda)=\operatorname{id}_{H_{p}^k(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r;\mathscr{A}^s)}
\end{align}
and therefore
\[
A(D)R(\lambda)f = \lambda R(\lambda)f - (\lambda-A(D))R(\lambda)f=\lambda R(\lambda)f-f.
\]
But it is already contained in \eqref{Eq:RSec_Estimate} that $ \lambda R(\lambda)f\in H_{p}^k(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r;\mathscr{A}^s)$. This shows that $R(\lambda)$ maps $H_{p}^k(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r;\mathscr{A}^s)$ into $D(A_B)$. In addition, \eqref{Eq:Left_Inverse} shows the injectivity of $R(\lambda)$. But also
\[
(\lambda-A(D))\colon D(A_B)\to H_{p}^k(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r;\mathscr{A}^s)
\]
is injective as a consequence of the Lopatinskii-Shapiro condition. Hence, there is a mapping
\[
T(\lambda)\colon H_{p}^k(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r;\mathscr{A}^s)\to D(A_B)
\]
such that $T(\lambda)(\lambda-A(D))=\mathop{\textrm{id}}\nolimits_{D(A_B)}$. But from this we obtain
\[
T(\lambda)=T(\lambda)(\lambda-A_B)R(\lambda)=R(\lambda)
\]
so that
\[
R(\lambda)(\lambda-A_B)=\mathop{\textrm{id}}\nolimits_{D(A_B)},\quad(\lambda-A_B)R(\lambda)=\operatorname{id}_{H_{p}^k(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r;\mathscr{A}^s)},
\]
i.e. $R(\lambda)=(\lambda-A_B)^{-1}$ is indeed the resolvent and we obtain the $\mathcal{R}$-sectoriality.\\
It remains to show that the estimate \eqref{Eq:InclusionDomain} holds. To this end, we can again use the formula for the resolvent \eqref{Eq:Resolvent_Solution_Formula2} in connection with Proposition \ref{Prop:PoissonAfterTrace} ($\theta=0$) and Theorem \ref{Thm:Rboundedness_Rn}. Then we obtain for $u\in D(A_B)$ that
\begin{align*}
\|u\|_{D^{k,2m,s}_{r,B}(\mathbb R_+)}&\leq \|r_+ (\lambda-A(D))_{\mathbb R^n}^{-1}\mathscr{E}(\lambda-A_B)u\|_{D^{k,2m,s}_{r,B}(\mathbb R_+)}
\\&\qquad+\sum_{j=1}^m\|\operatorname{pr}_{1}\operatorname{Poi}_j(\lambda)\operatorname{tr}_{x_n=0}B_j(D)(\lambda-A(D))_{\mathbb R^n}^{-1} \mathscr{E} (\lambda-A_B)u\|_{D^{k,2m,s}_{r,B}(\mathbb R_+)}\\
&\lesssim\|(\lambda-A_B)u\|_{H^k(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r\mathscr{A}^s)}+\sum_{j=1}^m\|r_+ (\lambda-A(D))_{\mathbb R^n}^{-1} \mathscr{E} (\lambda-A_B)u\|_{D^{k,2m,s}_{r,B}(\mathbb R_+)}\\
&\lesssim\|(\lambda-A_B)u\|_{H^k(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r\mathscr{A}^s)}
\end{align*}
This also implies that $D(A_B)=D^{k,2m,s}_{r,B}(\mathbb R_+)$. Indeed, it follows from Proposition \ref{Prop:Pseudo_Iterated_Mapping_Properties} that
\begin{align*}
\|(\lambda-A_B)u\|_{H^k(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r\mathscr{A}^s)}\lesssim \|(\lambda-A(D))\mathscr{E}u\|_{H^k(\mathbb R,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r\mathscr{A}^s)}
\lesssim \|\mathscr{E}u\|_{D^{k,2m,s}_{r,B}(\mathbb R)}\lesssim\|u\|_{D^{k,2m,s}_{r,B}(\mathbb R_+)}
\end{align*}
for $u\in D^{k,2m,s}_{r,B}(\mathbb R_+)$. Hence, we have
\[
D^{k,2m,s}_{r,B}(\mathbb R_+)\hookrightarrow D(A_B) \hookrightarrow D^{k,2m,s}_{r,B}(\mathbb R_+).
\]
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Since $E$ is a UMD space, the results of Theorem~\ref{Thm:RSectorial_Rnplus} also hold for $k\in[0,k_{\max}]$, i.e. $k$ does not have to be an integer. This follows from complex interpolation, see Proposition~\ref{Prop:Rbounded_Interpolation} and \cite[Proposition 5.6]{Lindemulder_Meyries_Veraar_2018}. Note that unlike in Proposition~\ref{Prop:Rbounded_Interpolation} we can not replace the UMD space $E$ by a K-convex Banach space here, since the UMD property is needed for the complex interpolation of Bessel potential spaces in \cite[Proposition 5.6]{Lindemulder_Meyries_Veraar_2018}. Moreover, in Assumption~\ref{Assump:Spaces} we require $E$ to be a UMD space if one of the spaces in tangential or normal direction belongs to the Bessel potential scale.
\end{remark}
Two canonical applications of Theorem \ref{Thm:RSectorial_Rnplus} are Dirichlet and Neumann Laplacian.
\begin{corollary} Let $E=\mathbb C$, $p\in(1,\infty)$, $r\in(1,p-1)$ and $s\in\mathbb R$.
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item We consider the Laplacian with Dirichlet boundary conditions
\[
\Delta_D\colon L_p(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^{r};\mathscr{A}^s)\supset D(\Delta_D)\to L_p(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^{r};\mathscr{A}^s)
\]
on the domain $D(\Delta_D)$ given by
\[
D(\Delta_D):=\{u\in H^{2}_p(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^{r};\mathscr{A}^s)\cap L_p(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^{r};\mathscr{A}^{s+2m}): \operatorname{tr}_{x_n=0}u=0\}.
\]
For all $\sigma>0$ it holds that $\Delta_D-\sigma$ is $\mathcal{R}$-sectorial in any sector $\Sigma_{\psi}$ with $\psi\in(0,\pi)$.
\item Let $k\in\{0,1\}$. We consider the Laplacian with Neumann boundary conditions
\[
\Delta_N\colon H^k_p(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^{r};\mathscr{A}^s)\supset D(\Delta_D)\to H^k_p(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^{r};\mathscr{A}^s)
\]
on the domain $D(\Delta_N)$ given by
\[
D(\Delta_N):=\{u\in H^{k+2}_p(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^{r};\mathscr{A}^s)\cap H^k_p(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^{r};\mathscr{A}^{s+2m}): \operatorname{tr}_{x_n=0}\partial_n u=0\}.
\]
For all $\sigma>0$ it holds that $\Delta_N-\sigma$ is $\mathcal{R}$-sectorial in any sector $\Sigma_{\psi}$ with $\psi\in(0,\pi)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Both statements follow directly from Theorem \ref{Thm:RSectorial_Rnplus}.
\end{proof}
\section{Application to Boundary Value Problems}\label{Section:BVP}
\begin{theorem}\label{Thm:EllipticBVP1}
Let $s_1,\ldots,s_m\in\mathbb R$ and $g_j\in\mathscr{A}^{s_j}$ $(j=1,\ldots,m)$. Then the equation
\begin{align*}
\lambda u-A(D)u&=0\quad\;\text{in }\mathbb R^n_+,\\
B_j(D)u&=g_j\quad\text{on }\mathbb R^{n-1}
\end{align*}
has a unique solution $u\in\mathscr{S}'(\mathbb R^n_+;E)$ for all $\lambda\in\Sigma_{\phi}$. This solution satisfies
\[
u\in\sum_{j=1}^m\bigcap_{r,t\in\mathbb R,\,k\in\mathbb N_0,\,p\in[1,\infty)\atop r-p[t+k-m_j-s_j]_+>-1} W_p^k(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r;\mathscr{A}^t).
\]
Moreover, for all $\sigma>0$, $t,r\in\mathbb R$, $p\in[1,\infty)$ and $k\in\mathbb N_0$ such that $r-p[t+k-m_j-s_j]_+>-1$ for all $j=1,\ldots,m$ there is a constant $C>0$ such that
\[
\|u\|_{W_p^k(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r;\mathscr{A}^t)}\leq C\sum_{j=1}^m |\lambda|^{\frac{-1-r+p(k-m_j)+p[t-s_j]_+}{2mp}}\|g_j\|_{\mathscr{A}^{s_j}}
\]
for all $\lambda\in\Sigma_{\phi}$ with $|\lambda|\geq\sigma$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
All the assertions follow directly from Theorem \ref{Thm:MainThm1} (\ref{Thm:MainThm1:UniformBounds}).
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} \phantomsection \label{Remark:EllipticBVP1}
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item Note that the smoothness parameters $k$ and $t$ of the solution in Theorem \ref{Thm:EllipticBVP1} can be chosen arbitrarily large if one accepts a strong singularity at the boundary. On the other hand, if $t$ is chosen small enough, then the singularity can be removed.
\item In Theorem \ref{Thm:EllipticBVP1} we can take $k=1+\max_{j=1,\ldots,m}m_j$, $r=0$ and $t$ such that $r-p[t+k-m_j-s_j]_+>-1$ for all $j=1,\ldots,m$. This means that the boundary conditions $B_j(D)u=g_j$ can be understood in a classical sense. Indeed, \cite[Proposition 7.4]{Meyries_Veraar_2012} in connection with \cite[Proposition 3.12]{Meyries_Veraar_2012} shows that
\[
W^k_p(\mathbb R_+;\mathscr{A}^t)\hookrightarrow BUC^{k-1}(\mathbb R_+;\mathscr{A}^t).
\]
Hence, $\operatorname{tr}_{x_n=0}B_j(D)u$ can be defined in the classical sense.
\item One can again use interpolation techniques or one can directly work with Corollary \ref{Cor:MainThm1_Corollary} in order to obtain results for the Bessel potential or the Besov scale in normal direction. Note however that this comes with some restrictions on the weight $|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{remark}
\begin{theorem}\label{Thm:EllipticBVP2}
As defined in Remark~\ref{Rem:k_max_explanation} we set
\[
k_{\max}:=\min\{\beta_n|\,\exists j\in\{1,\ldots,m\}\exists\beta\in\mathbb N_0^n,|\beta|= m_j: b^j_{\beta}\neq 0\}.
\]
Let $s\in\mathbb R$, $p\in(1,\infty)$, $r\in(-1,p-1)$, $k\in[0,k_{\max}]\cap\mathbb N_0$ and $f\in W^k_p(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r;\mathscr{A}^s)$. Let further $s_j\in(s+2m+k-m_j-\frac{1+r}{p},\infty)$ and $g_j\in \mathscr{A}^{s_j}$ $(j=1,\ldots,m)$. Then the equation
\begin{align*}
\lambda u-A(D)u&=f\quad\;\text{in }\mathbb R^n_+,\\
B_j(D)u&=g_j\quad\text{on }\mathbb R^{n-1}
\end{align*}
has a unique solution
\[
u\in W^{k+2m}_p(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r;\mathscr{A}^s) \cap W^{k}_p(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r;\mathscr{A}^{s+2m})
\]
and for all $\sigma>0$ there is a constant $C>0$ such that for all $\lambda\in\Sigma_{\phi}$ with $|\lambda|\geq\sigma$ we have the estimate
\begin{align*}
\|u\|_{W^{k+2m}_p(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r;\mathscr{A}^s)}+&\|u\|_{W^{k}_p(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r;\mathscr{A}^{s+2m})}+|\lambda|\,\|u\|_{W^{k}_p(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r;\mathscr{A}^s)}\\
&\leq C\left(\|f\|_{W^k_p(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r;\mathscr{A}^s)}+\sum_{j=1}^m|\lambda|^{\frac{-1-r+p(k+2m-m_j)}{2mp}}\|g\|_{\mathscr{A}^{s_j}}\right).
\end{align*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
By Theorem \ref{Thm:RSectorial_Rnplus} we have a unique solution $$u_1\in W^{k+2m}_p(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r;\mathscr{A}^s) \cap W^{k}_p(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r;\mathscr{A}^{s+2m})$$ to the equation
\begin{align*}
\lambda u_1-A(D)u_1&=f\quad\text{in }\mathbb R^n_+,\\
B_j(D)u_1&=0\quad\text{on }\mathbb R^{n-1}
\end{align*}
which satisfies the estimate
\begin{align*}
\|u_1\|_{W^{k+2m}_p(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r;\mathscr{A}^s)}+\|u_1\|_{W^{k}_p(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r;\mathscr{A}^{s+2m})}+|\lambda|\,\|u_1\|_{W^{k}_p(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r;\mathscr{A}^s)}\leq C\|f\|_{W^k_p(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r;\mathscr{A}^s)}.
\end{align*}
By Remark \ref{Rem:Rboundedness_Rn} \eqref{Rem:Rboundedness_Rn:Sec}, we do not need Pisier's property $(\alpha)$ for this. Moreover, by Theorem \ref{Thm:EllipticBVP1} the unique solution $u_2$ to the equation
\begin{align*}
\lambda u_2-A(D)u_2&=0\quad\;\text{in }\mathbb R^n_+,\\
B_j(D)u_2&=g_j\quad\text{on }\mathbb R^{n-1}
\end{align*}
satisfies the estimates
{\allowdisplaybreaks
\begin{align*}
\|u_2\|_{W^{k+2m}_p(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r;\mathscr{A}^s)}&\leq C \sum_{j=1}^m|\lambda|^{\frac{-1-r+p(k+2m-m_j)}{2mp}}\|g\|_{\mathscr{A}^{s_j}},\\
\|u_2\|_{W^{k}_p(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r;\mathscr{A}^{s+2m})}&\leq C \sum_{j=1}^m|\lambda|^{\frac{-1-r+p(k-m_j)}{2mp}}\|g\|_{\mathscr{A}^{s_j}},\\
\|u_2\|_{W^{k}_p(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r;\mathscr{A}^{s})}&\leq C \sum_{j=1}^m|\lambda|^{\frac{-1-r+p(k-m_j)}{2mp}}\|g\|_{\mathscr{A}^{s_j}}.
\end{align*}}
Note that by our choice of $s_j$, we have
\[
r-[s+2m+k-m_j-s_j]_+>r-(s+2m+k-m_j-s-2m-k+m_j+\tfrac{1+r}{p})=-1
\]
for $s+2m+k-m_j-\frac{1+r}{p}<s_j\leq s+2m+k-m_j$ and
\[
r-[s+2m+k-m_j-s_j]_+=r>-1
\]
for $s_j\geq s+2m+k-m_j$. The unique solution $u$ of the full system is given by $u=u_1+u_2$ and therefore summing up yields the assertion.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{Thm:PBVP}
Recall from Assumption~\ref{Assump:Spaces} that $\mathscr{C}$ stands for the Bessel potential, Besov, Triebel-Lizorkin or one of their dual scales and that we impose some conditions on the corresponding parameters. Let $\sigma>0$, $s_1,\ldots,s_m,l_1,\ldots,l_m\in\mathbb R$ and $g_j\in\mathscr{C}^{l_j}(\mathbb R_+,w_2;\mathscr{A}^{s_j})$. Let further
\begin{align*}
P_j=\{(r,t_0,l,k,p): t_0,l\in\mathbb R,&r\in(-1,\infty).k\in\mathbb N_0,p\in [1,\infty),\\
&r-p[t_0+k-m_j-s_j]_+>-1,\\
&r-2mp(l-l_j)-p(k-m_j)-p[t_0-s_j]_+>-1\}
\end{align*}
the set of admissible parameters. Then the equation
\begin{align}
\begin{aligned}\label{Eq:PBVP}
\partial_t u +\sigma u- A(D) u &= 0\quad\;\text{in }\mathbb R\times\mathbb R^n_+,\\
B_j(D)u&=g_j\quad\text{on }\mathbb R_+\times\mathbb R^{n-1},
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
has a unique solution $u\in\mathscr{S}'(\mathbb R\times\mathbb R^n_+;E)$. This solution satisfies
\[
u\in\sum_{j=1}^m\bigcap_{(r,t_0,l,k,p)\in P_j}\mathscr{C}^{l}(\mathbb R,w_2;W^{k}_p(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r;\mathscr{A}^{t_0}))
\]
and for all $(r,t_0,l,k,p)\in \bigcap_{j=1}^mP_j$ there is a constant $C>0$ independent of $g_1,\ldots,g_m$ such that
\[
\|u\|_{\mathscr{C}^{l}(\mathbb R,w_2;W^{k}_p(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r;\mathscr{A}^{t_0}))}\leq C\sum_{j=1}^m\|g_j\|_{\mathscr{C}^{l_j}(\mathbb R,w_2;\mathscr{A}^{s_j})}.
\]
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We apply the Fourier transform $\mathscr{F}_{t\mapsto\tau}$ in time to \eqref{Eq:PBVP} and obtain
\begin{align}
\begin{aligned}
(\sigma+i\tau) \hat{u}- A(D) \hat{u} &= 0\quad\;\text{in }\mathbb R\times\mathbb R^n_+,\\
B_j(D)\hat{u}&=\hat{g}_j\quad\text{on }\mathbb R_+\times\mathbb R^{n-1}.
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
Hence, the solution of \eqref{Eq:PBVP} is given by
\[
u(t,x)=\sum_{j=1}^m\mathscr{F}_{t\to\tau}^{-1}\operatorname{Poi}_j(\sigma+i\tau)\mathscr{F}_{t\to\tau}g_j.
\]
From Theorem \ref{Thm:MainThm1} together with Lemma \ref{Lemma:HolomorphicSectorRBounded} it follows that
\[
[\tau\mapsto \operatorname{Poi}_j(\sigma+i\tau)]\in S^{\frac{-1-r+p(k-m_j)+p[{t_0}-s_j]_+}{2mp}+\epsilon}_{\mathcal{R}}(\mathbb R,\mathcal{B}(\mathscr{A}^{s_j},W^k_p(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r;\mathscr{A}^{t_0})))
\]
for arbitrary $\epsilon>0$ if the parameters satisfy $r-p[{t_0}+k-m_j-s_j]_+>-1$. Hence, the parameter-independent version of Proposition~\ref{Prop:PseudoMappingProperties_R_bounded} (as in Remark \ref{Rem:SymbolClasses} \eqref{Rem:SymbolClasses:DependentIndependent}) yields
\[
\mathscr{F}_{t\to\tau}^{-1}\operatorname{Poi}_j(\sigma+i\tau)\mathscr{F}_{t\to\tau}g_j\in \mathscr{C}^{l_j-\epsilon+\frac{1+r-p(k-m_j)-p[{t_0}-s_j]_+}{2mp}}(\mathbb R,w_2;W^{k}_p(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r;\mathscr{A}^{t_0}))
\]
as well as the estimate
\[
\|\mathscr{F}_{t\to\tau}^{-1}\operatorname{Poi}_j(\sigma+i\tau)\mathscr{F}_{t\to\tau}g_j\|_{\mathscr{C}^{l_j-\epsilon+\frac{1+r-p(k-m_j)-p[{t_0}-s_j]_+}{2mp}}(\mathbb R,w_2;W^{k}_p(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r;\mathscr{A}^{t_0})}\leq C\|g_j\|_{\mathscr{C}^{l_j}(\mathbb R,w_2;\mathscr{A}^{s_j})}.
\]
But the condition
\begin{align}\label{Eq:AParameterEstimate1}
r-2mp(l-l_j)-p(k-m_j)-p[{t_0}-s_j]_+>-1
\end{align}
implies
\begin{align}\label{Eq:AParameterEstimate2}
l\leq l_j-\epsilon+\frac{1+r-p(k-m_j)-p[{t_0}-s_j]_+}{2mp}.
\end{align}
if $\epsilon>0$ is chosen small enough. Therefore, we obtain
\[
\mathscr{F}_{t\to\tau}^{-1}\operatorname{Poi}_j(\sigma+i\tau)\mathscr{F}_{t\to\tau}g_j\in \mathscr{C}^{l}(\mathbb R,w_2;W^{k}_p(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r;\mathscr{A}^{t_0}))
\]
and the estimate
\[
\|\mathscr{F}_{t\to\tau}^{-1}\operatorname{Poi}_j(\sigma+i\tau)\mathscr{F}_{t\to\tau}g_j\|_{\mathscr{C}^{l}(\mathbb R,w_2;W^{k}_p(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r;\mathscr{A}^{t_0})}\leq C\|g_j\|_{\mathscr{C}^{l_j}(\mathbb R,w_2;\mathscr{A}^{s_j})}.
\]
if $(r,{t_0},l,k,p)\in P_j$. Taking the sum over all $j=1,\ldots,m$ yields the assertion.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item If $\mathscr{C}$ does not stand for the Bessel potential scale or if $p>\max\{p_0,q_0,q_E\}$ where $q_E$ denotes the cotype of $E$, then the parameter set $P_j$ in Theorem \ref{Thm:PBVP} can potentially be chosen slightly larger, namely
\begin{align*}
P_j=\{(r,{t_0},l,k,p): {t_0},l\in\mathbb R,&r\in(-1,\infty).k\in\mathbb N_0,p\in [1,\infty),\\
&r-p[{t_0}+k-m_j-s_j]_+>-1,\\
&r-2mp(l-l_j)-p(k-m_j)-p[{t_0}-s_j]_+\geq-1\}.
\end{align*}
Indeed, if $p>\max\{p_0,q_0,q_E\}$, then
\[
[\tau\mapsto \operatorname{Poi}_j(\sigma+i\tau)]\in S^{\frac{-1-r+p(k-m_j)+p[{t_0}-s_j]_+}{2mp}}_{\mathcal{R}}(\mathbb R,\mathcal{B}(\mathscr{A}^{s_j},W^k_p(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r;\mathscr{A}^{t_0})))
\]
by Theorem \ref{Thm:MainThm1}. If one continues the proof of Theorem \ref{Thm:PBVP} with this information, then one will find that the $\epsilon$ in \eqref{Eq:AParameterEstimate2} can be removed so that the inequality \eqref{Eq:AParameterEstimate1} does not have to be strict. The same holds for Besov and Triebe-Lizorkin scale, as in this case
\[
[\tau\mapsto \operatorname{Poi}_j(\sigma+i\tau)]\in S^{\frac{-1-r+p(k-m_j)+p[{t_0}-s_j]_+}{2mp}}(\mathbb R,\mathcal{B}(\mathscr{A}^{s_j},W^k_p(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r;\mathscr{A}^{t_0})))
\]
is good enough and holds without restriction on $p$.
\item As in Remark \ref{Remark:EllipticBVP1} we can take the trace $\operatorname{tr}_{x_n=0}B_j(D)u$ in the classical sense if $k$ is large enough and if $l$ and ${t_0}$ are small enough.
\item Again, we can use interpolation techniques to extend the result in Theorem \ref{Thm:PBVP} to the case in which the Bessel potential or Besov scale are taken in normal direction. However, this can only be done for $r\in(-1,p-1)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{remark}
\begin{theorem}\label{Thm:PIBVP1}
Let $\alpha\in(0,1)$, $T>0$, $s,t_0\in\mathbb R$, $p\in(1,\infty)$, $r\in(-1,p-1)$, $\mu\in(-1,\infty)$, $v_{\mu}(t)=t^{\mu}$ $(t\in(0,T])$ and $s_1,\ldots,s_m,l_1,\ldots,l_m\in\mathbb R$. Assume that $\mu\in (-1,q_2)$ if $\mathscr{C}$ belongs to the Bessel potential scale. Let again $$k_{\max}:=\min\{\beta_n|\,\exists j\in\{1,\ldots,m\}\exists\beta\in\mathbb N_0^n,|\beta|= m_j: b^j_{\beta}\neq 0\}.$$ and $k\in[0,k_{\max}]\cap\mathbb N_0$. We further assume that
\begin{align}\label{Eq:RestrictionTimeRegularity}
l_j>\frac{1+\mu}{q_2}-\frac{1+r}{2mp}+\frac{k-m_j+[t_0-s_j]_+}{2m}\quad\text{and}\quad s_j>t_0+k-m_j-\frac{1+r}{p}
\end{align}
for all $j=1,\ldots,m$. Suppose that $E$ satisfies Pisier's property $(\alpha)$.\\
Then for all $u_0\in H_p^k(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^{r};\mathscr{A}^{t_0})$, all $\alpha$-H\"older continuous $f\in C^{\alpha}((0,T);H_p^k(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^{r};\mathscr{A}^{t_0}))$ with $\alpha(0,1)$ and $g_j\in\mathscr{C}^{l_j}([0,T],v_{\mu};\mathscr{A}^{s_j})$ there is a unique solution $u$ of the equation
\begin{align}
\begin{aligned}\label{Eq.PIBVP1}
\partial_t u- A(D) u&=f\quad\;\text{in }(0,T]\times\mathbb R^{n}_+,\\
B_j(D)u&=g_j\quad\text{on }(0,T]\times\mathbb R^{n-1},\\
u(0,\,\cdot\,)&=u_0
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
which satisfies
\begin{align*}
u&\in C([0,T];H^{k}_{p}(\mathbb R_{+,x_n},|\operatorname{pr}_n|^{r};\mathscr{A}^{t_0})),\\
u&\in \mathscr{C}^{l^*}((0,T],v_{\mu};H^{k+2m}_p(\mathbb R_{+,x_n},|\operatorname{pr}_n|^{r};\mathscr{A}^{t_0-2m})),\\
u&\in C^1((0,T];H^{k}_{p}([\delta,\infty)_{x_n},|\operatorname{pr}_n|^{r};\mathscr{A}^{t_0})),\\
u&\in C((0,T];H^{k+2m}_p([\delta,\infty)_{x_n},|\operatorname{pr}_n|^{r};\mathscr{A}^{t_0})\cap H^k_p([\delta,\infty)_{x_n},|\operatorname{pr}_n|^{r};\mathscr{A}^{t_0+2m}))
\end{align*}
for all $\delta>0$ and some $l^*\in\mathbb R$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
First, we substitute $v(t,\,\cdot\,)=e^{-\sigma t}u(t,\,\cdot\,)$ for some $\sigma>0$. Since we work on a bounded time interval $[0,T]$, this multiplication is an automorphism of all the spaces we consider in this theorem. Hence, it suffices to look for a solution of the equation
\begin{align*}
\partial_t v+\sigma v- A(D) v&=\tilde{f}\quad\;\text{in }[0,T]\times\mathbb R^{n}_+,\\
B_j(D)v&=\tilde{g}_j\quad\text{on }[0,T]\times\mathbb R^{n-1},\\
v(0,\,\cdot\,)&=u_0,
\end{align*}
where $\tilde{f}(t)=e^{-\sigma t} f(t)$ and $\tilde{g}_j(t)=e^{-\sigma t} g_j(t)$. We split $v$ into two parts $v=r_{[0,T]}v_1+v_2$ which are defined as follows: $v_1$ solves the equation
\begin{align*}
\partial_t v_1+\sigma v_1- A(D) v_1&=0\quad\;\text{in }\mathbb R\times\mathbb R^{n}_+,\\
B_j(D)v_1&=\mathscr{E}\tilde{g}_j\quad\text{on }\mathbb R\times\mathbb R^{n-1},
\end{align*}
where $\mathscr{E}$ is a suitable extension operator and $r_{[0,T]}$ is the restriction to $[0,T]$. Moreover, $v_2$ is the solution of
\begin{align}
\begin{aligned}\label{Eq:InitialPart}
\partial_t v_2+\sigma v_2- A(D) v_2&=\tilde{f}\quad\;\text{in }[0,T]\times\mathbb R^{n}_+,\\
B_j(D)v_2&=0\quad\text{on }[0,T]\times\mathbb R^{n-1},\\
v_2(0,\,\cdot\,)&=v_0-v_1(0,\,\cdot\,).
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
For $v_1$ it follows from Theorem \ref{Thm:PBVP} that
\[
v_1\in\sum_{j=1}^m\bigcap_{(r',t',l',k',p')\in P_j}\mathscr{C}^{l'}(\mathbb R,v_{\mu};W^{k'}_{p'}(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^{r'};\mathscr{A}^{t'}))
\]
and for all $(r',t',l',k',p')\in \bigcap_{j=1}^mP_j$ there is a constant $C>0$ independent of $g_1,\ldots,g_m$ such that
\[
\|v_1\|_{\mathscr{C}^{l'}(\mathbb R,v_{\mu};W^{k'}_{p'}(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^{r'};\mathscr{A}^{t'}))}\leq C\sum_{j=1}^m\|\mathscr{E}\tilde{g}_j\|_{\mathscr{C}^{l_j}(\mathbb R,v_{\mu};\mathscr{A}^{s_j})}.
\]
In particular, if $l'>\frac{1+\mu}{q_2}$ we have $v_1\in BUC([0,T];W^{k'}_{p'}(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^{r'};\mathscr{A}^{t'}))$ so that we can take the time trace $v_1(0)$, see \cite[Proposition 7.4]{Meyries_Veraar_2012}. If condition \eqref{Eq:RestrictionTimeRegularity} is satisfied, then we can choose $l>\frac{1+\mu}{q_2}$ small enough such that $(r,t_0,l,k,p)\in \bigcap_{j=1}^mP_j$. Hence, under this condition we obtain
\[
v_1(0)\in W^{k}_p(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r;\mathscr{A}^{t_0})
\]
is well-defined.
But since we have $r\in(-1,p-1)$, it follows from Theorem \ref{Thm:RSectorial_Rnplus} that $A_B-\sigma$ generates a holomorphic $C_0$-semigroup $(T(t))_{t\geq0}$ in $W^{k}_p(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r;\mathscr{A}^{t_0})$. In addition, $v_2$ is given by
\[
v_2(t)=T(t)[v_0-v_1(0,\,\cdot\,)]+\int_{0}^t T(t-s) f(s)\,ds.
\]
It follows from standard semigroup theory that $$v_2\in C((0,T];D(A_B))\cap C^1((0,T];X)\cap C([0,T];X),$$
where
\[
X=H^{k}_{p}(\mathbb R_{+,x_n},|\operatorname{pr}_n|^{r};\mathscr{A}^{t_0}),\quad D(A_B)=D^{k,2m,s}_{r,B}(\mathbb R_+)\hookrightarrow H^{k+2m}_p(\mathbb R_{+,x_n},|\operatorname{pr}_n|^{r};\mathscr{A}^{t_0})\cap H^k_p(\mathbb R_{+,x_n},|\operatorname{pr}_n|^{r};\mathscr{A}^{{t_0}+2m}),
\]
see for example \cite[Chapter 4, Corollary 3.3]{Pazy_1983}. Since also $v_1\in BUC([0,T];W^{k}_{p}(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^{r};\mathscr{A}^{t_0}))$, we obtain
\[
u\in C([0,T];H^{k}_{p}(\mathbb R_{+,x_n},|\operatorname{pr}_n|^{r};\mathscr{A}^{t_0})),
\]
and, since $v_1$ is arbitrarily smooth away from the boundary, also
\begin{align*}
u&\in C^1((0,T];H^{k}_{p}([\delta,\infty)_{x_n},|\operatorname{pr}_n|^{r};\mathscr{A}^{t_0})),\\
u&\in C((0,T];H^{k+2m}_p([\delta,\infty)_{x_n},|\operatorname{pr}_n|^{r};\mathscr{A}^{t_0})\cap H^k_p([\delta,\infty)_{x_n},|\operatorname{pr}_n|^{r};\mathscr{A}^{t_0+2m}))
\end{align*}
for all $\delta>0$. Concerning the value of $l^*$, we note that if $(r,{t_0},l,k,p)\in \bigcap_{j=1}^mP_j$, then also $(r,{t_0}-2m,l-1,k+2m,p)\in \bigcap_{j=1}^mP_j$. Hence, we just have to take $l^*\leq l-1$ such that
\[
C((0,T];H^{k+2m}_p(\mathbb R_{+,x_n},|\operatorname{pr}_n|^{r};\mathscr{A}^{t_0}))\hookrightarrow \mathscr{C}^{l^*}((0,T],v_{\mu};H^{k+2m}_p(\mathbb R_{+,x_n},|\operatorname{pr}_n|^{r};\mathscr{A}^{t_0-2m})).
\]
Altogether, this finishes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
While we can treat arbitrary space regularity of the boundary data in Theorem \ref{Thm:PIBVP1}, it is important to note that \eqref{Eq:RestrictionTimeRegularity} poses a restriction on the time regularity of the boundary data. Even if we take ${t_0}\leq\min_{j=1,\ldots,m} s_j$, $k=0$, $r$ very close to $p-1$ and $q_2$ very large, we still have the restriction
\[
l_j>-\frac{1+m_j}{2m}.
\]
In the case of the heat equation with Dirichlet boundary conditions, this would mean that the boundary data needs to have a time regularity strictly larger than $-\frac{1}{2}$. Having boundary noise in mind, it would be interesting to go beyond this border. It would need further investigation whether this is possible or not. In fact, \eqref{Eq:RestrictionTimeRegularity} gives a restriction on the time regularity only because we do not allow $r\geq p-1$, otherwise we could just take $r$ very large and allow arbitrary regularity in time. The reason why we have to restrict to $r<p-1$ is that we want to apply the semigroup to the time trace $v_1(0)$. However, until now we can only do this for $r\in(-1,p-1)$. Hence, if one wants to improve Theorem \ref{Thm:PIBVP1} to the case of less time regularity, there are at least two possible directions:
\begin{enumerate}
\item One could try to generalize Theorem \ref{Thm:RSectorial_Rnplus} to the case in which $r>p-1$. In fact, in \cite{Lindemulder_Veraar_2018} Lindemulder and Veraar derive a bounded $\mathcal{H}^{\infty}$-calculus for the Dirichlet Laplacian in weighted $L_p$-spaces with power weights of order $r\in(-1,2p-1)\setminus\{p-1\}$. It would be interesting to see whether their methods also work for $L_p(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}|^r;\mathscr{A}^s)$ with $r\in(p-1,2p-1)$.
\item One could try to determine all initial data $u_0$ which is given by $u_0=\tilde{u}_0+v_1(0)$ where $\tilde{u}_0\in H^k_p(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}_n|^r;\mathscr{A}^t)$ and $v_1$ is the solution to
\begin{align*}
\partial_t v_1+\sigma v_1- A(D) v_1&=0\quad\;\text{in }\mathbb R\times\mathbb R^{n}_+,\\
B_j(D)v_1&=\tilde{g}_j\quad\text{in }\mathbb R\times\mathbb R^{n}_+,
\end{align*}
for some $\tilde{g}_j\in \mathscr{C}^{l_j}(\mathbb R,v_{\mu};\mathscr{A}^{s_j})$ satisfying $\tilde{g}_j\vert_{[0,T]}=g_j$. For such initial data, the initial boundary value problem can be solved with our methods for arbitrary time regularity of the boundary data. Indeed, in this case we just have to take the right extension of $g_j$ so that $u_0-v_1(0)\in H^k_p(\mathbb R_+,|\operatorname{pr}|^r;\mathscr{A}^t)$. Then we can just apply the semigroup in order to obtain the solution of \eqref{Eq:InitialPart}.
\end{enumerate}
\end{remark}
\section*{Acknowledgment} Since most of the material in this work is based on some results of my Ph.D. thesis and just contains generalizations, simplifications and corrections of mistakes, I would like to thank my Ph.D. supervisor Robert Denk again for his outstanding supervision.\\
I thank Mark Veraar for the instructive discussion on the necessity of finite cotype in certain estimates, which helped me to prove Proposition \ref{Prop:CounterExampleEpsilon}.\\
I also thank the Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes for the scholarship during my doctorate and the EU for the partial support within the TiPES project funded by the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 820970. Moreover, I acknowledge partial support of the SFB/TR109 “Discretization in Geometry and Dynamics”.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec.intro}
As for many other fields of statistical research, time series analysis is also facing different challenges due to the increasing amounts of data being recorded over time within a wide variety of contexts going from biology and ecology to finance and engineering. Among others, these challenges include (i) the need for more complex (parametric) models (e.g. to deal with possible long-term non-stationary features), (ii) the need for computationally efficient (or simply feasible) methods to analyze data and estimate such models as well as (iii) the need to deal with the increased probability of observing measurement errors in the form of contamination (outliers), model deviations, etc. In this context, there is currently a large variety of models and statistical methods available to analyze and draw conclusions from time series \citep[see e.g.][for an overview]{percivalbook,durbin2012time, shumway2013time}. However, many of the existing methods may become unfeasible, for example, when estimating even slightly complex models on large time series data. In addition, the use of robust methods to perform inference when the data suffers from contamination is often a daunting task even for relatively simple (parametric) settings and moderate sample sizes, without considering more complex models in larger data settings \citep[for motivating examples and robust inferential approaches, see e.g.][]{MaMaYo:06,maronna2019robust}.
In response to the above challenges and limitations, this paper proposes an alternative and general robust inference framework for (latent) parametric time series models that include (the sum of) ARMA and rounding error models as well as non-stationary models such as drifts and random walks. This framework is based on a two-step approach where the first (and most important) step consists in the proposal of a robust estimator of the Wavelet Variance (WV) \citep[see e.g.][]{percival1995estimation} with adequate asymptotic properties based on minimal conditions, while the second step integrates these results within the Generalized Method of Wavelet Moments (GMWM) framework \citep[see][]{gmwm} for the purpose of inference on time series models\footnote{The method (with relative graphical tools) is implemented partly in the \texttt{simts} R package on CRAN and in a more complete manner in an open source R package, available at \url{github.com/SMAC-Group/gmwm}; see also \citet{GMWM-online-2018,BaRaNaGuZhMo:18,RaBaGuESSeMo:19}}. With regards to the first step, the WV has been widely used within the natural and physical sciences for analysis of variance, model building and prediction \citep[see e.g.][for an overview]{percivalbook}, and more recently within other fields of research \citep[see e.g.][to mention a few]{gallegati2012wavelet, xie2013wavelet,foufoula2014wavelets, jia2015correlations, ziaja2016fault, abry2018wavelet}. In this context, the properties of the standard estimators of WV have been developed \citep[see][]{percival1995estimation, serroukh2000statistical} while their limitations in presence of contamination or outliers have been underlined in \citet{mondal2012mest} where a robust estimator was also put forward for this purpose. However, as explained further on, the use of an alternative M-estimator is preferable in different settings, including the two-step framework considered in the present paper.
With respect to parametric inference for time series, robust methods (including two-step approaches) have been proposed in abundance over the past decades and a detailed overview of these can be found, for example, in \citet{MaMaYo:06, maronna2019robust} (Chapter 8) while Appendix~\ref{LitRev} also provides a short literature review. More specifically, a general approach in this context is to maximize \textit{asymptotic} efficiency of the resulting estimators with respect to a specific model (or class of models). For this purpose, a traditional approach consists in placing estimation (and inference) in the framework of bounded-influence estimators that are obtained by bounding the corresponding estimating equations \citep{HaRoRoSt:86}, such as the Maximum Likelihood Estimator (MLE) equations or indeed those of other efficient (non robust) estimators. In this setting, a correction factor is often required to ensure consistency of the resulting robust estimator and needs to be defined for each model considered for a given time series. The computation of this model-dependent correction factor generally requires numerical approximations of possibly high-dimensional integrals or multiple one-dimensional integrals (for conditionally unbiased estimators, see \citealp{Kuns:84}), whose dimensions or number grow proportionally to the sample size. These consistency corrections can therefore not only be too burdensome to compute, relying on more computationally intensive simulation-based procedures to approximate these quantities, but also are rarely accounted for in the derivation of the statistical properties of the resulting estimator.
On the other hand, robust two-step estimators (based for example on robust filtering methods or on robust autocovariance/autocorrelation estimators), while possibly paying a price in terms of asymptotic efficiency, deliver not only computational advantages but also allow to compare candidate models under a different perspective. Indeed, the first-step estimators provide a set of estimates that remain common to all candidate models and have a bounded Influence Function (IF) \citep{Hamp:74} through weights (for weighted estimators) that are computed \textit{only once} independently from the candidate models. Using these common estimates, aside from guaranteeing that the second step estimators inherit their bounded IF property (hence robustness), the consequence is that the model comparison in terms of fit (or prediction accuracy) is made solely on the structural features of the candidate models. This provides an alternative approach to model comparison based on robust estimators since, in the weighted estimating equation setting, the estimation weights are relative to each model under consideration that is, by assumption, the correct one. On the other hand, a two-step approach alleviates the latter hypothesis in the computation of the robust weights and hence provides an alternative route to robust model comparison. Moreover, this allows to develop graphical robust model selection tools which, in the context of this paper, rely only on a few quantities (even for large samples as seen further on and in Section \ref{sec:applications}) as well as to build robust model selection criteria in a relatively straightforward manner.
However, while robust two-step approaches have noticeable computational and model comparison advantages, these can nevertheless suffer from some theoretical and practical drawbacks. Indeed, when they are based on robust filtering, they may lead to biased estimators and lack asymptotic theory in order to perform adequate inference \citep[see e.g.][]{MuPeYo:09}. Alternatively, in the case where two-step estimators are based on robust moment estimators (e.g. autocovariance or autocorrelation), these are often computed in the framework of indirect inference \citep{smith1993estimating,gourieroux1993indirect} or, similarly, in that of the (simulated) method of moments \citep{mcfadden1989method, gallant1996moments, duffie1993simulated}. In these settings, two-step estimators can become computationally intensive in large samples since the number of auxiliary moments that are available in practice increase linearly with the sample size, thereby requiring a moment selection procedure which delivers additional uncertainty in the successive inference phase \citep[see e.g.][]{andrews1999consistent}. However, the GMWM framework considerably reduces the latter drawback since its first-step moment is the WV which adequately summarizes the information in the spectral density (or autocovariance) function into $J < \log_2(T)$ moments (with $T$ representing the sample size) thereby greatly reducing the number of moments even for large sample sizes while also allowing for inference on non-stationary models. Being a natural extension of the GMWM framework, the Robust GMWM (RGMWM) relies on the proposed robust estimator of WV and makes use of its properties in order to derive the inferential properties of the RGMWM so as to perform adequate estimation and general inference procedures for a wide range of time series models under slight model deviations (such as the presence of outliers) in a computationally efficient manner.
Considering the above goal, the paper is organized as follows. Section~\ref{sec:wv} proposes the robust WV estimator that constitutes the first step of the RGMWM that is presented in Section~\ref{sec:rgmwm}. In both sections, the necessary asymptotic results are developed in order to perform robust estimation and inference for (intrinsically) stationary time series. Section~\ref{sec:simulations} presents a simulation study where the robustness properties of the RGMWM estimator are compared with other estimators and Section~\ref{sec:applications} demonstrates the practical usefulness of the proposed method in an economic setting while another applied setting is presented in Appendix~\ref{iner.sens}.
\section{Robust Wavelet Variance}
\label{sec:wv}
To introduce the WV, let us denote $(X_t)$, $t=1,\hdots,T$, as an \textit{intrinsically} stationary time series that is either stationary or becomes so when a d$^{th}$-order backward difference is applied to it. Moreover, let
\begin{equation*}
W_{j,t} := \sum_{l = 0}^{L_j - 1} h_{j,l} X_{t - l} \, ,
\end{equation*}
denote the wavelet coefficients that result from a wavelet decomposition of the time series, where $(h_{j,t})$ is a known wavelet filter of length $L_j$ at (dyadic) scale $\tau_j$, for $j = 1, \hdots, J$ and $J < \log_2(T)$. Since the filter sequence $(h_{j,t})$ has specific properties, the wavelet coefficients can be seen as the result of a particular form of weighted moving-average taken over a number of observations proportional to $L_j$ \citep[which increases as $j$ increases, see e.g.][for a general overview]{percivalbook}. Moreover, if $L_1 \geq \text{d}$ and $(X_t)$ is a d$^{th}$-order stationary time series, the resulting wavelet coefficients will be stationary. Based on the (stationary) wavelet coefficients, the WV is defined as
\begin{equation*}
\nu_{j}^2 := \text{Var}(W_{j,t}) ,
\end{equation*}
i.e. the variance of the wavelet coefficients, which can be expressed in vector form as $\bm{\nu} := [\nu_j^2]_{j = 1, \hdots, J}$. While this definition holds independently from a possible parametric model underlying the time series $(X_t)$, for the purpose of this work let us assume that the latter is generated from the parametric family of models $F_{\bm{\theta}_0}$, with unknown parameter vector denoted by $\bm{\theta}_0 \in \bm{\Theta} \subset \mathbb{R}^p$. In order to make the link between the WV and an assumed \textit{stationary} parametric model $F_{\bm{\theta}}$ explicit, an alternative representation of this quantity is based on the Spectral Density Function (SDF) and is as follows:
\begin{equation*}
\nu_{j}^2 (\bm{\theta}) = \int_{-1/2}^{1/2} |H_j(f)|^2 S_{F_{\bm{\theta}}}(f) df \, ,
\end{equation*}
with $S_{F_{\bm{\theta}}}(f)$ denoting the theoretical SDF and $H_j(f)$ being the Fourier transform of the wavelet filters $(h_{j,t})$. The above equality is valid also when considering the theoretical spectral density of the wavelet coefficients themselves which, depending on the length of the wavelet filter, is defined even if the original time series $(X_t)$ is not stationary \citep[see e.g.][]{percivalbook}. Although the results of the present section hold without any parametric assumption for $(X_t)$, in this paper we will generally assume that the true WV will depend on a parametric family of models $F_{\bm{\theta}}$ and use the notation $\bm{\nu}$ for this purpose. We will make use of the notation $\bm{\nu}(\bm{\theta})$ whenever it is appropriate to explicitly highlight the link with the underlying parametric model.
Based on the above definitions, each parametric time series model has a corresponding theoretical WV vector which summarizes the information contained in the SDF or AutoCovariance Function (ACF) into few quantities ($J < \log_2(T)$) for a wide range of intrinsically stationary time series models (e.g. SARIMA and many state-space models). Considering this, when compared to the SDF or ACF, the information loss of the WV can be offset by its ability to adequately represent a considerably wide range of stationary and non-stationary time series. In this sense, aside from being discussed in \citet{greenhall1998spectral} and \citet{gmwm}, Appendix~\ref{app_ident} includes additional results proving that the WV is capable of adequately recovering information on time series models thereby supporting the usefulness of this quantity.
For the rest of this section however, let us disregard any parametric assumption for $(X_t)$ and simply assume that its corresponding wavelet coefficients are stationary. With this in mind, several estimators have been proposed for the WV, the main one being the standard unbiased estimator of the WV proposed by \citet{percival1995estimation} and defined as
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\nu}_{j}^2 := \frac{1}{M_{j}} \sum_{t=1}^{M_j} W_{j, t}^2 \,\,,
\label{eq:standard_wvest}
\end{equation}
where $M_j$ is the length of the wavelet coefficient process $(W_{j, t})$ at scale $\tau_j$. The theoretical properties of this estimator were further studied in \citet{serroukh2000statistical} in which the conditions for its asymptotic properties are given. However, as highlighted by \citet{mondal2012mest}, the estimator of WV in (\ref{eq:standard_wvest}) is not robust and can therefore become considerably biased in the presence of outliers or different forms of data contamination. For this reason they put forward a robust estimator of the WV (developed for Gaussian time series specifically affected by scale-based contamination) by making use of a log-transformation of the (squared) wavelet coefficients to apply standard M-estimation theory for location parameters. However, due to these transformations and the approximate corrections to reverse them, the asymptotic properties of the final estimator are not straightforward to define. Therefore, considering the robustness issues of the standard estimator $\tilde{\nu}_{j}^2$ and the ``limitations'' of the latter robust estimator, the following paragraphs put forward a new M-estimator of WV that overcomes these issues and, as shown in Appendix~\ref{sim_wv}, performs generally better in finite sample settings.
\subsection{M-Estimation of Wavelet Variance}
\label{sec:wv_mest}
Following the above discussion, this section generalizes the standard estimator of WV proposed in \citet{percival1995estimation} to an M-estimator \citep{Hube:64} which can also be made robust by choosing a bounded score function, thereby delivering an appropriate framework for inference on this quantity. Let us therefore re-express (\ref{eq:standard_wvest}) as an M-estimator defined as follows:
\begin{equation}
\hat{\nu}_{j}^2 := \underset{\nu_j^2 \in \mathbf{N}}{\argzero} \, \sum_{t=1}^{M_j} \psi(W_{j,t},\nu_j^2),
\label{m.est}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{N} \subset \mathbb{R}^+$ and $\psi(\cdot)$ is a score function ($\psi$-function) which can be unbounded or bounded with respect to $(W_{j,t})$. For bounded $\psi$-functions, popular choices include Huber's function and Tukey's Biweight function \citep[see e.g.][]{HaRoRoSt:86}. Based on standard properties of M-estimators in dependent data settings \citep[see e.g.][]{kunsch1984infinitesimal}, the following proposition states the sufficient conditions under which the WV estimator has a bounded influence function (IF) and is therefore robust.
\begin{prop}
\label{theo.IF}
Assuming that $(W_{j,t})$ is a strictly stationary process, the IF of the estimator of WV is bounded if $\psi(\cdot)$ is bounded.
\end{prop}
Given this intuitive result whose proof can be found in Appendix~\ref{app:wv.if}, we therefore intend to deliver an M-estimator of the form in (\ref{m.est}) whose $\psi$-function can be bounded and directly estimates the quantity of interest $\nu_{j}^2$. The proposed approach is based on ``Huber's Proposal 2'' which was presented in \cite{Hube:81} and was aimed at the estimation of the scale parameter of the residuals in the linear regression framework. Without loss of generality, we assume that $\mathbb{E}[W_{j,t}]~=~0$ and consequently use this proposal by defining $r_{j,t}~:=~W_{j,t}/\nu_{j}$ as the standardized wavelet coefficients, thereby defining the proposed estimator as:
%
\begin{equation}
\hat{\nu}_{j}^2 := \underset{\nu_j^2 \in \mathbf{N}}{\argzero} \, \left[ \frac{1}{M_{j}}\sum_{t=1}^{M_j} \omega^{2} \left(r_{j,t};\nu_{j}^2,c\right) \,r^{2}_{j,t} - a(\nu^2_{j},c) \right],
\label{hub.est}
\end{equation}
%
where $\omega(\cdot)$ represents the weight function implied by the chosen $\psi$-function and $a(\nu^2_{j},c)$ is a correction term to ensure Fisher consistency at the marginal distribution of the wavelet coefficients $(W_{j,t})$. Indeed, this correction term is defined as
$$a(\nu^2_{j},c) := \mathbb{E}[\omega^{2} \left(r_{j,t};\nu_{j}^2,c\right) \,r^{2}_{j,t}],$$
where the latter expectation is taken over the marginal distribution of $(W_{j,t})$ with variance $\nu_j$. It can be noticed that, if the tuning constant $c~\to~\infty$, we have that $\omega(\cdot)~\to~1$ and $a(\nu^2_{j},c)~\to~1$ thereby delivering the estimator in (\ref{eq:standard_wvest}) which implies that the tuning constant $c$ can be chosen to regulate the trade-off between robustness and efficiency of the resulting estimator. A discussion about the choice of the constant $c$ can be found in Appendix~\ref{choice_c} which highlights how this constant can be implicitly chosen by defining the level of statistical efficiency required with respect to the standard estimator. As mentioned, the term $a(\nu^2_{j},c)$ depends on the marginal distribution of the stationary process which is assumed for the wavelet coefficients $(W_{j,t})$ and on the specific weight function $\omega(\cdot)$. The exact analytic form of this term therefore may be complicated to derive when considering distributions other than the Gaussian or other symmetric distributions.
\begin{remark}
\label{remark-cons-correct}
In the case where the wavelet coefficients are assumed to come from a Gaussian distribution, the correction term $a(\nu^2_{j},c)$ can be expressed as $a_{\psi}(c)$ since it only depends on the value of the tuning constant $c$, and can be found explicitly using the results of \citet{dhrymes2005moments}. This is the case when the time series is itself Gaussian \citep[see e.g.][for a discussion]{Perc:16} or can be assumed as an approximation given the averaging nature of the wavelet filter. On the other hand, if the marginal distribution of the wavelet coefficients is non-Gaussian, the term $a(\nu^2_{j},c)$ could eventually be numerically approximated once (based on the standardized simulated values from the assumed distribution with known or estimated parameters) and used for all scales $\tau_j$ and would need to be accounted for in the subsequent inference phase.
\end{remark}
Having defined the M-estimator of WV in (\ref{hub.est}), let us now list a set of conditions which allow us to derive the asymptotic properties of this estimator. Firstly, letting $\nu_{j,0}^2$ represent the true WV at scale $\tau_j$, we define the following conditions for the $\psi$-function:
\begin{enumerate}[label=\bfseries (C\arabic*), leftmargin = 1.5cm]
\item The Bouligand derivative of $\psi(\cdot)$ is continuous almost everywhere. \label{cond.bdiff}
\item $\mathbb{E}[\psi(W_{j,t}, \nu_{j}^2)] = 0$ if and only if $\nu_{j}^2 = \nu_{j,0}^2$. \label{cond.wv_ident}
\end{enumerate}
The first condition is a technical requirement that allows us to perform an expansion in order to represent $\hat{\nu}_j^2$ in an explicit form (in addition to the Tukey Biweight function, for example, the Huber $\psi$-function also respects this condition as shown in Lemma~\ref{bdiff} in Appendix~\ref{app:asy.norm.wv}). On the other hand, Condition \ref{cond.wv_ident} requires the true WV to be identifiable through the chosen function $\psi(\cdot)$. This condition is verified when choosing the Huber and Tukey Biweight $\psi$-functions and assuming the wavelet coefficient process $(W_{j,t})$ is Gaussian as shown in Appendix~\ref{app:wv.ident}.
Given these technical conditions on the properties of the function $\psi(\cdot)$, we can now study the process-related conditions for which we define the filtration $\mathcal{F}_t~:=~(\dots, \, \epsilon_{t-1}, \, \epsilon_t)$ where $\epsilon_t$ are \textit{i.i.d.} random variables. With this definition we can now deliver the first process-related condition.
\begin{enumerate}[label=\bfseries (C\arabic*), leftmargin = 1.5cm, resume]
\item $(W_{j,t})$ is a strictly stationary process and can be represented as
%
\begin{equation*}
W_{j,t} = g_j(\mathcal{F}_t),
\label{cond.ergostationary}
\end{equation*}
%
where $g_j(\cdot)$ is an $\mathbb{R}$-valued measurable function such that $W_{j,t}$ is well defined.
\end{enumerate}
Although not necessarily expressed in this form, Condition \ref{cond.ergostationary} is commonly assumed when studying asymptotics within a time series setting and is respected by a very general class of time series models \citep[see][]{wu2005nonlinear}. In our case, this condition is necessary in order to apply the functional dependence measure defined in \cite{wu2011asymptotic}.
At this stage, we further denote $W_{j,t}^{\star}~=~g_j(\mathcal{F}_t^{\star})$ as being the coupled version of $W_{j,t}$, where $\mathcal{F}_t^{\star}~:=~(\dots, \, \epsilon_0^{\star}, \, \dots, \, \epsilon_{t-1}, \, \epsilon_t)$, with $\epsilon_0$ and $\epsilon_0^{\star}$ also being \textit{i.i.d.} random variables. Hence, the two processes $(W_{j,t})$ and $(W_{j,t}^{\star})$ depend on filtrations that only differ by one element, i.e. $\epsilon_0$ and $\epsilon_0^{\star}$, therefore implying that $W_{j,t}^{\star}~=~W_{j,t}$ for $t~<~0$. Based on this definition, we can define the functional dependence measure given in \citet{wu2011asymptotic}:
\begin{equation*}
\delta_{t, q}^j := \Vert W_{j,t} - W_{j,t}^{\star}\Vert_q,
\end{equation*}
where $\Vert Z \Vert_q~:=~\left( \mathbb{E}[| Z |^q]\right)^{\nicefrac{1}{q}}$ for $q~>~0$. This dependence measure can be interpreted as the expected impact of the innovation $\epsilon_0^{\star}$ on the moments of $W_{j,t}^{\star}$ with respect to its ``original'' path given by $W_{j,t}$. Using this defintion, we provide the final process-related condition.
\begin{enumerate}[label=\bfseries (C\arabic*), leftmargin = 1.5cm, resume]
\item The process $(W_{j,t})$ is such that $\sum_{t=0}^{\infty} \delta_{t,4}^j < \infty$.
\label{cond.weakdep}
\end{enumerate}
This condition can be interpreted as a requirement for the expected difference between the fourth-order moments of the processes $(W_{j,t})$ and $(W_{j,t}^{\star})$ to go to zero as $t~\to~\infty$, implying that the innovation $\epsilon_0^{\star}$ has a limited impact in time on how much $W_{j,t}^{\star}$ deviates from $W_{j,t}$ and, hence, the process $(W_{j,t})$ is a ``stable'' process \citep[see][]{wu2011asymptotic}.
\begin{remark}
In the case where the chosen filter for the wavelet decomposition belongs to the Daubechies family, Conditions \ref{cond.ergostationary} and \ref{cond.weakdep} can be placed directly on the d$^{th}$-order difference of the process $(X_t)$, that we will denote as $\Delta_t$, instead of the process $(W_{j,t})$. The advantage of this consists in the fact that, if the length of the wavelet filter at the first level is such that $L_1~\geq~d$ (where $d$ is the required differencing such that $(\Delta_t)$ is stationary), then we only need $(\Delta_t)$ to respect these conditions to ensure that all levels of decomposition respect them too. Indeed, in the case of a Daubechies wavelet filter, all levels of wavelet coefficients simply correspond to a deterministic linear combination of $(\Delta_t)$ and we would therefore have $g_j(\cdot)~= \gamma_j g(\cdot)$ and $\delta_{t,q}^j~=~\lambda_j \delta_{t,q}$ where $g(\cdot)$ and $\delta_{t,q}$ would be uniquely related to $\Delta_t$ and constants $\gamma_j$ and $\lambda_j$ only depend on the chosen wavelet filter. For example, the process $(W_{j,t})$ in Conditions \ref{cond.ergostationary} and \ref{cond.weakdep} would be replaced by the process $(\Delta_t~=~X_t - X_{t-1})$ in the case of the Haar wavelet filter and hence we would have $\Delta_t~=~g(\mathcal{F}_t)$ and $\delta_{t,q}~=~\Vert \Delta_t - \Delta_t^{\star}\Vert_q$.
\end{remark}
We can now determine the asymptotic properties of the proposed M-estimator of WV in (\ref{hub.est}). For this reason, let us further define $\bm{W}_t~:=~[W_{j,t}]_{j = 1, \hdots, J}$ as the vector of wavelet coefficients at time $t$ and $\hat{\bm{\nu}}~:=~[\hat{\nu}_j^2]_{j = 1, \hdots, J}$ as the vector of estimated WV using the proposed M-estimator. Moreover, we define the projection operator \citep[see][]{wu2011asymptotic} as
$$\mathcal{P}_t \cdot := \mathbb{E}\left[\cdot | \mathcal{F}_t\right] - \mathbb{E}\left[\cdot | \mathcal{F}_{t-1}\right].$$
This operator therefore represents a measure of how much the conditional expectation of a process can change once the immediately previous information is removed. As for the previously defined functional dependence measure, intuitively the projection operator should not be too sensitive if the underlying process is stable \citep[in the sense of ][]{wu2011asymptotic}.
Using the above definitions, we finally define the quantities $\bm{D}_0~:=~\sum_{t=0}^{\infty} \mathcal{P}_0 \psi(\bm{W}_{t},\bm{\nu})$ and $\bm{M}~:=~\mathbb{E}[-\nicefrac{\partial}{\partial \bm{\nu}} \, \psi(\bm{W}_t, \bm{\nu})]$ to deliver the following theorem on the asymptotic distribution of the proposed estimator $\hat{\bm{\nu}}$.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm.asy.nuhat}
Under Conditions \ref{cond.bdiff} to \ref{cond.weakdep} and assuming that the function $\psi(\cdot)$ is bounded, we have that the estimator $\hat{\bm{\nu}}$ has the following asymptotic distribution
$$ \sqrt{T}\left(\hat{\bm{\nu}}-\bm{\nu}\right) \xrightarrow{\mathcal{D}} \mathcal{N}\left(\bm{0}, \bm{V}\right),$$
where $\bm{V} = \bm{M}\,\mathbb{E}[\bm{D}_0 \bm{D}_0^{\intercal}]\,\bm{M}^{\intercal}$.
\end{thm}
\noindent The proof of this theorem can be found in Appendix \ref{app:asy.norm.wv} where the proofs for Condition~\ref{cond.wv_ident} (for Huber and Tukey Biweight functions in the Gaussian setting) and consistency of $\hat{\nu}_j^2$ can also be found.
\begin{remark}
The asymptotic covariance matrix $\bm{V}$ is a long-run covariance matrix which can be estimated via different methods. For example, the moving block bootstrap, the batched-mean estimator \citep[see][]{zhang2017gaussian} or the progressive batched-mean method generalized from the idea in \cite{kim2013progressive} are available methods for such a purpose. In the setting of this paper, we generally assume a parametric family $F_{\bm{\theta}}$ for $(X_t)$ and, for this reason, the parametric bootstrap can also be considered.
\end{remark}
Aside from studying the behaviour of the proposed M-estimator as a first-step estimator for the RGMWM (Section~\ref{sec:simulations}), as an additional exercise in Appendix~\ref{sim_wv} we compare the behaviour of $\hat{\nu}_j^2$ with the standard WV estimator $\tilde{\nu}_j^2$ and the median-type robust estimator in \citet{mondal2012wavelet}. In the latter simulation it appears clearly that the proposed M-estimator is the best alternative to the standard estimator in the uncontaminated setting and the best overall in the contaminated setting. Based on the robustness properties of the proposed estimator $\hat{\bm{\nu}}$ (for bounded $\psi$-functions) and its asymptotic properties, this new estimator provides a suitable tool to perform robust scale-based analysis of variance for time series \citep[see e.g.][and references therein]{percivalbook}. More importantly, it delivers a first-step estimator with adequate properties based on which it is possible to perform robust parametric inference for a wide range of time series models as well as for large data sets as discussed in the following section.
\section{Robust Generalized Method of Wavelet Moments}
\label{sec:rgmwm}
The properties of the proposed M-estimator of WV can be transferred directly within the GMWM framework \citep[see][]{gmwm}. Indeed, as suggested in \cite{GuMoVi:14}, one can replace the standard estimator used in the GMWM with a robust estimator which, in this case, is the proposed M-estimator allowing us to deliver the RGMWM defined as:
\begin{equation}
\hat{\bm{\theta}} := \underset{\bm{\theta} \in \bm{\Theta}}{\text{argmin}}\, (\hat{\bm{\nu}} - \bm{\nu}(\bm{\theta}))^{\intercal}\bm{\Omega}(\hat{\bm{\nu}} - \bm{\nu}(\bm{\theta})),
\label{eq.rgmwm}
\end{equation}
where $\bm{\Omega}$ is a symmetric positive definite weighting matrix chosen in a suitable manner (for example, one can choose $\bm{\Omega}~:=~\hat{\bm{V}}^{-1}$ where $\hat{\bm{V}}$ is a suitable estimator of $\bm{V}$, see \citealp{gmwm}). Moreover, the robustness (bounded IF) of the RGMWM estimator is inherited from the robustness of $\hat{\bm{\nu}}$ as shown in \citet{GeRo:03} in the indirect inference framework.
With this in mind, in the following paragraphs we list and discuss the conditions for the consistency and asymptotic normality of the RGMWM which summarize and reduce those in \citet{gmwm} for the standard GMWM. For this reason, let us define $\hat{\mathbf{\Omega}}$ as an estimator of $\bm{\Omega}$ and $||\cdot||_S$ as the matrix spectral norm which allow us to state the following conditions:
\begin{enumerate}[label=\bfseries (C\arabic*), leftmargin = 1.5cm, resume]
\item $\bm{\Theta}$ is compact. \label{compact.theta}
\item $\bm{\nu}(\bm{\theta})$ is continuous and differentiable for all $\bm{\theta} \in \bm{\Theta}$. \label{continuous}
\item For $\bm{\theta}_1,\, \bm{\theta}_2 \in \bm{\Theta}$,
$\bm{\nu}(\bm{\theta}_1) = \bm{\nu}(\bm{\theta}_2)$ if and only if $\bm{\theta}_1 = \bm{\theta}_2$. \label{ident}
\item $|| \hat{\mathbf{\Omega}} - \bm{\Omega}||_S \overset{p}{\to} 0$. \label{omega.cond}
\end{enumerate}
Condition~\ref{compact.theta} is commonly assumed but could be replaced by imposing
other technical constraints if deemed more appropriate with respect to the parametric setting of reference (as proposed, for example, in Theorem 2.7 of \citealp{newey1994large}). Condition~\ref{continuous} is easy to verify and is respected for most intrinsically stationary processes. However, Condition~\ref{ident} is an essential one which is often hard to verify. In this case, with respect to the Haar wavelet filter (which is one of the most commonly used wavelet filters), the discussion in \citet{gmwm} and the results in \citet{greenhall1998spectral} support the identifiability of a large class of (latent) time series models and are extended in Appendix~\ref{app_ident} as well as in \citet{identlatent} thereby relaxing Condition~\ref{ident}. Finally, Condition~\ref{omega.cond} addresses the choice of the weighting matrix $\bm{\Omega}$ and its corresponding estimator $\hat{\bm{\Omega}}$. In this perspective, the RGMWM is consistent for any matrix $\bm{\Omega}$ that is symmetric positive definite and, therefore, one needs to select an estimator $\hat{\bm{\Omega}}$ that converges to the chosen matrix $\bm{\Omega}$. A final condition which has not been stated is the consistency of the WV estimator $\hat{\bm{\nu}}$ which is implied by Conditions~\ref{cond.wv_ident} to \ref{cond.weakdep} as seen in Section~\ref{sec:wv}.
With these conditions we can now state the consistency of the RGMWM estimator $\hat{\bm{\theta}}$.
\begin{prop}
\label{th.cons.rgmwm}
Under Conditions \ref{cond.wv_ident} to \ref{omega.cond} we have that $\hat{\bm{\theta}} \xrightarrow{\mathcal{P}} \bm{\theta}_0$.
\end{prop}
\noindent The proof of this proposition can be found in Appendix \ref{app_rgmwm_cons}. With this result, we can finally give the conditions for the asymptotic normality of $\hat{\bm{\theta}}$. For this reason, let us define
$$\bm{A}(\bm{\theta}_0) := \frac{\partial}{\partial \bm{\theta}^{\intercal}}\,\bm{\nu}(\bm{\theta})\Big|_{\bm{\theta} = \bm{\theta}_0},$$
which exists for a wide class of time series models \citep[see e.g.][]{Zhan:08}. Using this definition, we can state these final conditions.
\begin{enumerate}[label=\bfseries (C\arabic*), leftmargin = 1.5cm, resume]
\item $\bm{\theta}_0 \in \text{Int}(\bm{\Theta})$. \label{interior}
\item $\mathbf{H}(\bm{\theta}_0) := \bm{A}(\bm{\theta}_0)^{\intercal}\bm{\Omega} \bm{A}(\bm{\theta}_0)$ exists and is non-singular. \label{non.sing}
\end{enumerate}
Condition~\ref{interior} is a standard regularity condition while Condition~\ref{non.sing} is also usually assumed since it depends on the specific parametric model $F_{\bm{\theta}}$ from which the time series $(X_t)$ is generated and cannot therefore be verified in general. Since $\bm{\Omega}$ is non-singular by definition, we have that this condition relies mainly on the non-singularity of (the first $p$ rows of) $\mathbf{A}(\bm{\theta}_0)$ which is used, for example, to discuss Condition~\ref{ident} in Appendix~\ref{app_ident}. Finally, as for the results of consistency in Proposition~\ref{th.cons.rgmwm}, an additional condition for the asymptotic normality of the RGMWM is the asymptotic normality of $\hat{\bm{\nu}}$ which is stated in Theorem~\ref{thm.asy.nuhat}. Having discussed these conditions, we can use them to state the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}
\label{th.norm.rgmwm}
Under Conditions \ref{cond.bdiff} to \ref{non.sing}, the estimator $\hat{\bm{\theta}}$ has the following asymptotic distribution
\begin{equation*}
\sqrt{T}\left(\hat{\bm{\theta}}-\bm{\theta}_0\right) \xrightarrow[T\rightarrow\infty]{\mathcal{D}} \mathcal{N}\left(\mathbf{0},\mathbf{B} \mathbf{V} \mathbf{B}^{\intercal}\right),
\end{equation*}
where $\mathbf{B} = \mathbf{H}(\bm{\theta}_0)^{-1} \mathbf{A}(\bm{\theta}_0)^{\intercal} \mathbf{\Omega}$.
\end{lemma}
The proof of Lemma \ref{th.norm.rgmwm} is provided in Appendix \ref{app_rgmwm_norm}. With the above results on the asymptotic properties of the RGMWM, the next paragraphs discuss some practical and theoretical advantages of the proposed robust framework.
\subsection{Discussion: Practical Properties and Extensions}
\label{Sec_practical-prop}
The RGMWM delivers various advantages that are mainly due to its two-step nature which allows it to benefit from the generality of the M-estimation framework presented in Section~\ref{sec:wv_mest}. A first advantage resides in the fact that the correction term needed to ensure Fisher consistency of the estimator defined in (\ref{hub.est}) only depends on the marginal distribution of the wavelet coefficients $(W_{j,t})$ which, if assumed to be Gaussian, can have an explicit form (for common $\psi$-functions) and only needs to be computed once for all levels $j$. A main advantage however resides in the fact that the dimension of the auxiliary parameter vector is always reasonable since in general $J~<~\log_2(T)$ which allows to make use of all the scales of WV without the need to select specific moments. This is not the case, for example, for Generalized Method of Moments (GMM) estimators where moment-selection is an important issue since, according to the model that is being estimated, the choice should fall on all moments (which can be highly impractical) or on moments that are more ``informative'' than others \citep[see e.g.][]{andrews1999consistent}. The RGMWM on the other hand can make use of all the possible scales of WV even for extremely large sample sizes, allowing it to preserve its statistical efficiency while gaining in terms of computational speed which is approximately of order $\mathcal{O}(T\log_2(T))$ while for the MLE, for example, it is roughly $\mathcal{O}(T^3)$. Appendix~\ref{sim_compeff} reports results on the computational time required to estimate the parameters of some (complex) models for sample sizes up to 10 million, confirming the considerable computational advantage of the RGMWM over both standard and robust alternatives. Moreover, the wavelet decomposition (and consequent variance estimation) is computationally efficient based on well-known algorithms \citep[see e.g.][]{rioul1992fast} and more recent approaches \citep[see e.g.][]{stocchi2018fast} allowing the RGMWM to be scalable. Nevertheless, a possible limitation of this approach is that it requires a large enough sample size to estimate more complex models (although, for example, it can already estimate four-parameter models with a sample size of $T~=~20$ if using a Haar wavelet filter).
For model comparison purposes, using its ``model-independent'' nature based on the robust weights of the proposed M-estimator in \eqref{hub.est}, the latter allows to graphically compare potential candidate models on the basis of the estimated WV as is routinely done, for example, with error characterization in the field of signal processing \citep[see e.g.][]{elsheimy08}. Indeed, decreasing linear trends in the log-log plot of the WV can indicate the presence of white noise or rounding-error models while increasing linear trends can indicate the presence of non-stationary components such as drifts and random walks whereas slight ``bumps'' in the plot can indicate the presence of ARMA components. In Section~\ref{sec:applications}, for example, the graphical display of the WV is used to detect and check the fit of the model when analysing a real data set on personal saving rates. Moreover, continuing with its model comparison advantages, the RGMWM estimator also delivers a general framework for robust goodness-of-fit tests and model selection. Indeed, the objective function in (\ref{eq.rgmwm}) can be used as a statistic for a goodness-of-fit test (Sargan-Hansen test or $J$-test) as proposed by \citet{hansen1982large}, where the asymptotic distribution under the null hypothesis is chi-squared with $J-p$ degrees of freedom. Moreover, model selection criteria can also be built based on the (penalized) GMM objective function which in the RGMWM setting would be given by
\begin{equation}
\label{GMM-objective}
T(\hat{\bm{\nu}} - \bm{\nu}(\hat{\bm{\theta}}_k))^{\intercal}\hat{\bm{\Omega}}_k(\hat{\bm{\nu}} - \bm{\nu}(\hat{\bm{\theta}}_k)) + \Lambda\left(\hat{\bm{\theta}}_k,\hat{\bm{\Omega}}_k\right),
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\bm{\theta}}_k$ and $\hat{\bm{\Omega}}_k$ denote respectively the estimated parameter vector and weighting matrix for the $k^{th}$ model within a set of $K$ candidate models, while $\Lambda\left(\hat{\bm{\theta}}_k,\hat{\bm{\Omega}}_k\right)$ is a possible penalty term. Penalized objective functions have been proposed for model and moment selection for GMM estimators such as, for example, \citet{andrews1999consistent} and successively \citet{AnLu:01} who proposed penalty terms that reflect the number of moment conditions or \citet{zhang2015ModelSelection} who derived a penalty term using the covariance penalty criterion of \citet{efron2004estimation}. Nevertheless, since these model selection criteria only rely on a consistent estimator for the model's parameters $\bm{\theta}_k$, a robust version is (almost) readily available by using the RGMWM framework. Moreover, the estimator $\hat{\bm{\Omega}}_k$ in (\ref{GMM-objective}) can be made model-independent by choosing $\hat{\bm{\Omega}}_k := \hat{\bm{\Omega}}$ (e.g. based only on the empirical WV) making model comparison computationally more efficient. While the $J$-test statistic will be used in the analysis of real data in Section~\ref{sec:applications}, the study of a possible implementation of a robust model selection criterion is left for further research.
Finally, aside from providing the basis for model-independent outlier-detection \citep[which can be of great importance for fault-detection algorithms, see for example][and references therein]{guerrier2012fault}, another advantage of the RGMWM estimator is that it can easily be extended to more complex settings such as multivariate time series \citep[see e.g.][]{mgmwm} or to random fields \citep[see e.g.][]{mondal2012wavelet, mondal2012mest} thereby delivering a computationally efficient framework for robust inference in these settings as well.
\section{Simulation Studies}
\label{sec:simulations}
The aim of this section is to show that the RGMWM has a reasonable performance in settings where there is no data contamination and has a better performance than the classical (and possibly robust) alternatives when the data are contaminated. Concerning the robust alternatives, there is a lack of implemented and generally available (or usable) robust methods for parametric inference on time series models. For this reason, we were only able to successfully implement two robust estimators with which to compare the proposed RGMWM estimator: the Yule-Walker estimator based on the robust autocovariance estimator (YW) \citep[as used for example in][]{sarnaglia2010robust} and the indirect inference estimator based on the YW estimator \citep[as proposed in][]{GeRo:03} using a Tukey Biweight function with tuning constant $c = 2.2$ (chosen based on preliminary simulation studies in order to be highly robust). In the latter case, AR($p^*$) models were used as auxiliary models with $p^* = p + 1$ where, in this case, $p$ represents the number of parameters in the models of interest (excluding the innovation variance parameter). Since the YW estimator is appropriate for autoregressive models while the indirect inference estimator is used for all other models, we will denote both with a common acronym i.e. R-YW (for Robust Yule-Walker based estimators). On the other hand, the GMWM and RGMWM estimators are made available through the open-source \texttt{R} package \texttt{gmwm}\footnote{The \texttt{gmwm} package can be downloaded from \url{https://github.com/SMAC-Group/gmwm}.} where the default options are the Haar wavelet filter and a diagonal matrix for the weighting matrix $\hat{\bm{\Omega}}$ with elements proportional to the estimated variance of $\hat{\nu}_j^2$ (which was used for the simulations also to make more reasonable comparisons with the indirect inference estimators which were based on the identity matrix). The Tukey Biweight was used also for the RGMWM with tuning constant based on an asymptotic efficiency of 60\% thereby guaranteeing high robustness of the resulting estimator.
For the simulation studies different types of contamination were used, going from scale-contamination to additive and replacement outliers as well as patchy outliers and level-shifts. Innovation-type contamination was not considered since it does not affect the estimators much \citep[see][for an overview of different contamination settings]{MaMaYo:06, maronna2019robust}. We denote the proportion of contaminated observations with $\epsilon$ and the size of contamination (i.e. the variance of the observations which are added to the uncontaminated observations) with $\sigma_{\epsilon}^2$. Finally, when dealing with level-shifts, we denote $\mu_{\epsilon_i}$ as the size of the $i^{th}$ shift in level.
The performance of these estimators is investigated on the following models and contamination settings:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{AR(1)}: a zero-mean first-order autoregressive model with parameter vector $[\rho_1 \,\, \upsilon^2]^{\intercal} = [0.9 \,\, 1]^{\intercal} $, scale-based contamination at level $j = 3$, $\epsilon = 0.01$ and $\sigma_{\epsilon}^2 = 100$;
\item \textbf{AR(2)}: a zero-mean second-order autoregressive model with parameter vector $[\rho_1 \,\, \rho_2 \,\, \upsilon^2]^{\intercal} = [0.5 \,\, -0.3 \,\, 1]^{\intercal} $, isolated outliers, $\epsilon = 0.05$ and $\sigma_{\epsilon}^2 = 9$;
\item \textbf{ARMA(1,2)}: a zero-mean autoregressive-moving average model with parameter vector $[\rho \,\, \varrho_1 \,\, \varrho_2 \,\, \upsilon^2]^{\intercal} = [0.5 \,\, -0.1 \,\, 0.5 \,\, 1]^{\intercal}$, and level-shift contamination with $\epsilon = 0.05$, $\mu_{\epsilon_1} = 5$ and $\mu_{\epsilon_2} = -3$;
\item \textbf{ARMA(3,1)}: a zero-mean autoregressive-moving average model with parameter vector $[\rho_1 \,\, \rho_2 \,\, \rho_3 \,\, \varrho_1 \,\, \upsilon^2]^{\intercal} = [0.7\,\,0.3\,\,-0.2\,\,0.5\,\,2]^{\intercal}$, patchy outliers, $\epsilon = 0.01$ and $\sigma_{\epsilon}^2 = 100$;
\item \textbf{SSM}: a state-space model $(X_t)$ interpreted as a composite (latent) process in certain engineering applications. This model is defined as
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
Y_t^{(i)}=&\rho_{(i)} Y_{t-1}^{(i)} + W_t^{(i)},
\;\;\; W_t^{(i)} \stackrel{\iid}{\sim} \mathcal{N}(0,\upsilon_{(i)}^{2}) \\
X_t=&\sum_{i=1}^2 Y_t^{(i)} + Z_t,
\;\;\; Z_t \stackrel{\iid}{\sim} \mathcal{N}(0,\sigma^2)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
with parameter vector
%
\begin{equation*}
[\rho_{(1)} \,\, \upsilon_{(1)}^2 \,\, \rho_{(2)} \,\, \upsilon_{(2)}^2 \,\, \sigma^2]^{\intercal} = [0.99\,\,0.1\,\,0.6\,\,2\,\,3]^{\intercal},
\end{equation*}
%
isolated outliers, $\epsilon = 0.05$ and $\sigma_{\epsilon}^2 = 9$.
\end{itemize}
To measure the statistical performance of the estimators we choose to use a robust and relative version of the Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) defined as follows
\begin{equation}
\text{RMSE*} := \sqrt{\med\left(\frac{\hat{\theta}_i-\theta_{i,0}}{\theta_{i,0}}\right)^2 + \mad\left(\frac{\hat{\theta}_i}{\theta_{i,0}}\right)^2}\,\,, \nonumber
\end{equation}
with $\med(\cdot)$ representing the median, $\mad(\cdot)$ the median absolute deviation and $\hat{\theta}_{i}$ and $\theta_{{i},0}$ representing the ${i}^{th}$ element of the estimated and true parameter vectors respectively. Finally, for each simulation, the number of simulated samples is 500 while the sample size is $T = 10^3$ which delivers $J = 9$ scales for the GMWM-type estimators.
\begin{landscape}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=16cm]{fig2.pdf}
\caption{Top row: logarithm of the RMSE* of the estimators in an uncontaminated setting. Bottom row: logarithm of the RMSE* of the estimators in a contaminated setting. R-YW represents the YW estimator for the \textbf{AR(1)} and \textbf{AR(2)} models while it represents the indirect inference estimator for the other models.}
\label{fig:ts.sim}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\end{landscape}
Figure \ref{fig:ts.sim} displays the (logarithm of the) RMSE* of the estimators in both uncontaminated and contaminated settings for all the models presented above. When considering the \textbf{AR(1)} and \textbf{AR(2)} and \textbf{ARMA(3,1)} models, the RGMWM does not lose much in uncontaminated settings while it performs generally as well or better than the R-YW estimator in contaminated ones, especially concerning the variance parameter $\upsilon^2$ in the \textbf{ARMA(3,1)}. As for the \textbf{ARMA(1,2)} model, the RGMWM is not as efficient as the others in the uncontaminated case while it adequately bounds the influence of outliers in contaminated ones, performing generally better than the R-YW estimator, especially for the variance parameter $\upsilon^2$ as in the case of the \textbf{ARMA(3,1)} model. For the \textbf{SSM} model, standard estimators in their default implementation did not appear to be numerically stable while, to the best of our knowledge, robust alternatives have never been implemented. From Figure~\ref{fig:ts.sim}, it can be seen how the RGMWM is extremely close to the GMWM in uncontaminated settings while it remains more stable than the GMWM in the contaminated ones. When considered jointly with the additional simulation study in Appendix~\ref{sim_compeff}, this simulation exercise shows that the RGMWM provides a computationally efficient and numerically stable method to robustly estimate the parameters of many linear state-space models which, to date, has been almost unfeasible in practice with alternative robust estimators. Indeed, Appendix~\ref{sim_compeff} illustrates the computational efficiency of the RGMWM for time series models with a moderately high number of parameters for sample sizes of $T = 10^7$ for which the RGMWM is computed in just over a minute, denoting the added value of this approach since these models and sample sizes are extremely common, for example, in the natural sciences and engineering. As a final note, since this simulation study does not use a full weighting matrix for $\hat{\bm{\Omega}}$, the efficiency of the (R)GMWM could be improved by choosing an alternative matrix.
\section{Application: Personal Saving Rates}
\label{sec:applications}
Having highlighted the properties of the RGMWM in a controlled simulated setting, in this section we conclude this work by presenting the results when using the RGMWM for an analysis on real data concerning personal saving rates. In addition, in Appendix~\ref{iner.sens} we present the results of an analysis on the measurement error issued from an inertial sensor based on a calibration sample of size $T=9\cdot 10^5$ that requires the estimation of a state-space model with 6 parameters. Indeed, the wide class of intrinsically stationary models for which the RGMWM can be used allows it to be employed in a large variety of applications where outliers and other types of data contamination can often occur. As mentioned above, in this section the RGMWM will be used to analyse data consisting in the monthly seasonally adjusted Personal Saving Rates (PSR) from January 1959 to May 2015 provided by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis\footnote{U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Personal Saving Rate [PSAVERT], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; \url{https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PSAVERT}}. The study of PSR is an essential part of the overall investigation on the health of national and international economies since, within more general economic models, PSR can greatly impact the funds available for investment which in turn determine the productive capacity of an economy. Understanding the behaviour of PSR is therefore an important step in correct economic policy decision making. In this sense, \citet{slacalek2012drives} study the factors behind saving rates and investigate different models which, among others, are compared to the random-walk-plus-noise (local level) model (RWN). As opposed to the latter model, various time-varying models are proposed in the literature to explain precautionary PSR together with risk aversion in the light of different factors such as financial shocks or others \citep[see, for example,][]{videras2004behavioral,brunnermeier2008wealth}. Nevertheless, as emphasized in \citet{pankratz2012forecasting}, modelling the time series with a stationary model, or a d$^{th}$-order non-stationary model such as an ARIMA, can be useful under many aspects such as, for example, to understand if a dynamic model is needed for forecasting and, if so, what kind of model is appropriate.
In this example, we consider the RWN model and we use the WV log-log plot and a $J$-test (see Section~\ref{Sec_practical-prop}) to understand what kind of model could fit the time series. Considering both the visual fit of the WV of the candidate models in the plots as well as the p-values of the $J$-tests (for which the null hypothesis is that the model fits the data well), we find that a random walk plus an ARMA(2,1) appears to be a good fit and therefore, in this case, we have that the ``noise'' in the RWN model is an ARMA(2,1) ($J$-test p-values are 0.109 and 0.279 for GMWM and RGMWM respectively). This can be seen in Figure~\ref{fig:savings} where, in the top part, the saving rate time series is represented along with the identified outliers and, in the bottom part, we see the log-log representation of the classic and robust estimated and model-implied WV respectively. Indeed, for the bottom part, the diagonal plots show the classic and robust estimations respectively, each with the estimated WV and the WV implied by the estimated RWN model; when the difference in the two lines lies within their confidence intervals, the chosen model can be considered as adequate. The off-diagonal plots compare the classic and robust estimated WV (upper off-diagonal) and the WV implied by the GMWM and RGMWM model parameter estimates (lower off-diagonal).
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=11.5cm]{saving_rates_col.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=11cm]{fig_wv.pdf}
\caption{Top figure: Saving rates time series with different types of points indicating outliers identified through the weights of the proposed M-estimator. Bottom figure: log-log scale WV plots for saving rates series with classic estimated WV superposed with model-implied WV based on the parameters estimated through the GMWM (top left); classic and robust estimated WV with respective confidence intervals superposed (top right); classic and robust model-implied WV based on the GMWM and RGMWM estimates respectively (bottom left); robust estimated WV superposed with model-implied WV based on the parameters estimated through the RGMWM estimator (bottom right).}
\label{fig:savings}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
It can be seen how there is a significant difference between the standard and robust WV estimates, especially at the first scales where the confidence intervals of the estimated WV do not overlap (upper off-diagonal plot). This leads to a difference in the model-implied WV whose parameters have been estimated through the GMWM and RGMWM (lower off-diagonal plot).
The estimated parameters of the RWN model using the GMWM and RGMWM are given in Table \ref{tab:savings} along with their respective confidence intervals.
\begin{table}
\caption{Random Walk plus ARMA(2,1) model estimates for the PSR data. Estimated parameters with GMWM and RGMWM estimators with $\gamma^2$ being the random walk parameter, $\rho_i$ the $i^{th}$ autoregressive parameter, $\varrho$ the moving average parameter and $\sigma^2$ the innovation variance of the ARMA(2,1) model. Confidence intervals (CI) based on the approach used in \citet{gmwm}.}
\centering
\footnotesize
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\toprule
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{GMWM} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{RGMWM} \\
\cmidrule(r){2-3} \cmidrule(r){4-5}
& Estimate & CI($\cdot$, 95\%) & Estimate & CI($\cdot$, 95\%) \\
\midrule
$\gamma^2$ & $7.95\cdot 10^{-2}$ & $ (\phantom{-}3.67\cdot 10^{-2} \, ; \, 1.11\cdot 10^{-1}) $ & $5.85\cdot 10^{-2}$ & $ (1.54\cdot 10^{-2} \, ; \, 9.97\cdot 10^{-2})$ \\
$\rho_1$ & $1.64\cdot 10^{-1}$ & $ (\phantom{-}5.93\cdot 10^{-2} \, ; \, 2.89\cdot 10^{-1}) $ & $6.00\cdot 10^{-1}$ & $ (4.48\cdot 10^{-1} \, ; \, 7.55\cdot 10^{-1})$ \\
$\rho_2$ & $3.06\cdot 10^{-3}$ & $ (-1.31\cdot 10^{-1} \, ; \, 1.48\cdot 10^{-1}) $ & $1.84\cdot 10^{-1}$ & $ (3.10\cdot 10^{-2} \, ; \, 2.46\cdot 10^{-1})$ \\
$\varrho$ & $2.43\cdot 10^{-1}$ & $ (\phantom{-}2.02\cdot 10^{-1} \, ; \, 2.81\cdot 10^{-1}) $ & $2.92\cdot 10^{-1}$ & $ (2.28\cdot 10^{-1} \, ; \, 3.45\cdot 10^{-1})$ \\
$\sigma^2$ & $3.14\cdot 10^{-1}$ & $ (\phantom{-}2.59\cdot 10^{-1} \, ; \, 3.85\cdot 10^{-1}) $ & $1.32\cdot 10^{-1}$ & $ (8.59\cdot 10^{-2} \, ; \, 1.80\cdot 10^{-1})$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:savings}
\end{table}
There are two main differences between the two estimations: (i) the estimates of the first autoregressive parameter $\rho_1$ and innovation variance $\sigma^2$ are significantly different; (ii) the second autoregressive parameter $\rho_2$ is not significant using the GMWM. These differences highlight how the conclusions concerning parameter values and model selection can considerably change when outliers are present in the data. Indeed, the choice of the model would then affect the decisions taken towards the selection of appropriate causal and dynamic models to better explain the behaviour of saving rates. The selected model based on the robust fit can in fact be interpreted as a sum of latent models along the lines given in \citet{slacalek2012drives} where the ARMA(2,1) can be seen as a sum of two AR(1) models \citep[see][]{granger1976time} where each of them represents, for example, the reaction of PSR to changes in uncertainty (affected by unemployment) and interest rates, respectively, while the random walk describes the continuous fluctuations of target wealth which also drives PSR.
The additional benefit of the RGMWM, and more specifically of the proposed M-estimator of WV, is also to deliver weights that allow to identify outliers which may not be visible simply by looking at the time series. As shown in the top part of Figure \ref{fig:savings}, the outliers identified by the RGMWM can be interpreted in the light of the national and global economic and political events. Limiting ourselves to the major identified outliers, the first one corresponds to a rise in the precautionary savings in the aftermath of the OPEC oil crisis and the 1974 stock market crash. In the months following October 1987 we can see an instability in the PSR with a rise and sudden fall linked to the ``Black Monday'' stock market crash which added to the savings and loans crisis which lasted to the early 1990s. This period also saw an economic recession where a rise in the saving rates, highlighted by the presence of high outliers, led to a drop in aggregate demand and bankruptcies. Finally, the various financial crises of the 21$^{st}$ century led to sudden and isolated rises in PSR as indicated again by the outliers.
\if00
{
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We would like to thank Stephen Portnoy and Roger Koenker for their valuable inputs and suggestions throughout the development of this work. We would also like to thank Fabio Trojani for his interesting and helpful considerations. Moreover, we would like to thank Donald Percival and Debashis Mondal for sharing wavelet variance code and some data for the case studies presented in the paper and in its supplemental materials. Moreover, we thank Charles Greenhall for his precious insight into the discussion on the injective relationship between the spectral density and the wavelet variance. Finally, we would like to thank Mucyo Karemera, Marc-Olivier Boldi, Samuel Orso and Marco Avella for discussing the results of this work with us.
} \fi
\newpage
\bibliographystyle{plainnat}
|
\section*{Introduction}
Numerical simulations, such as Monte Carlo methods, have been
successfully employed in the study of phase transitions and
critical phenomena~\cite{Landau}.
In spin systems, the spin configurations are sampled using a stochastic
importance technique, and the estimators for physical quantities,
such as the order parameter and the specific heat, are evaluated
for these samples.
Several spin models have recently been studied through
machine learning~\cite{Carrasquilla,Beach,Suchsland,Zhang,Rodriguez-Nieva}.
Carrasquilla and Melko~\cite{Carrasquilla} proposed
a paradigm that is complementary to the above approach.
By using large data sets of spin configurations,
they classified and identified a high-temperature paramagnetic phase
and a low-temperature ferromagnetic phase.
It was similar to image classification using
machine learning.
They demonstrated the use of fully connected and
convolutional neural networks for the study
of the two-dimensional (2D) Ising model and
an Ising lattice gauge theory.
In this study, we extend and generalize the method proposed by
Carrasquilla and Melko~\cite{Carrasquilla}.
First, instead of considering the spin configuration itself,
we analyze the long-range correlation configuration,
which will be explained later. From this analysis,
we can evaluate the multi-component systems, such as the Potts model,
and the systems with a vector order parameter, such as the XY model.
We can identify identical configurations with the permutational symmetry
or the rotational symmetry, which results in an efficient classification
of phases. Moreover, the inclusion of long-range correlation
is helpful in the study of phase transition.
Second, we investigate the Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless
(BKT) phase \cite{Berezinskii1,Berezinskii2,kosterlitz,kosterlitz2},
described by a fixed line instead of a fixed point
from the perspective of the renormalization group,
using the same treatment as the paramagnetic-ferromagnetic phase
transition. By studying the 2D clock model, which is a discrete version
of the XY model, we classify the paramagnetic-BKT-ferromagnetic transitions
through machine learning.
\section*{Model}
We enlist the models we analyze below.
We consider a 2D Ising model on the square lattice,
whose Hamiltonian is given as
\begin{equation}
H = -J \sum_{\l ij \r} s_i s_j, \quad s_i = \pm 1.
\label{Ising}
\end{equation}
The summation is realized over the nearest-neighbor pairs,
and periodic boundary conditions are imposed in numerical
simulations.
The Hamiltonian of the $q$-state Potts model \cite{Potts,Wu}
is given by
\begin{equation}
H = -J \sum_{\l ij \r} \delta_{s_i s_j}, \quad s_i = 1, 2, \cdots, q,
\label{Potts}
\end{equation}
where $\delta_{a b}$ is the Kronecker delta.
The 2D ferromagnetic Potts model is known to exhibit a second-order
phase transition for $q \le 4$ and a first-order phase transition
for $q \ge 5$. The Potts model for $q=2$ is identical to the Ising model.
The 2D spin systems with a continuous XY symmetry exhibit a unique
phase transition called the BKT transition
\cite{Berezinskii1,Berezinskii2,kosterlitz,kosterlitz2}.
A BKT phase of a quasi long-range order (QLRO) exists,
wherein the correlation function decays as a power law.
Here, we consider the $q$-state clock model, which is a discrete version
of the classical XY model.
Its Hamiltonian is given by
\begin{equation}
H = -J \sum_{\l ij \r} \cos (\theta_i - \theta_j), \quad
\theta_i = 2\pi i/q, \ i = 1, 2, \cdots, q.
\label{clock}
\end{equation}
The 2D $q$-state clock model experiences a BKT transition
for $q \ge 5$, whereas the clock model for $q=4$ comprises
two sets of the Ising model and the 3-state clock model
is equivalent to the 3-state Potts model.
The clock model for $q=2$ is simply the Ising model.
We measure temperature in units of $J$.
\section*{Correlation configuration}
The correlation function in the Ising model, with a distance $r$,
is given by
\begin{equation}
g_i(r) = s_{i}s_{i+r}.
\end{equation}
It clearly assumes a value of $+1$ or $-1$.
In the case of the $q$-state Potts model, the correlation
function is defined by
\begin{equation}
g_i(r) = \frac{q \delta_{s_i s_{i+r}} - 1}{q-1}.
\end{equation}
It assumes a value of $+1$ or $-1/(q-1)$.
The correlation function $g_i(r)$ of the $q$-state clock model is
\begin{equation}
g_i(r) = \cos (\theta_i - \theta_{i+r}).
\end{equation}
It assumes a value between $+1$ and $-1$.
There are several types of symmetries in spin systems.
A few different spin configurations are
essentially identical, whereas they
have the same correlation configuration.
For phase transitions, it is preferable
to include long-range correlations, which play
an essential role in phase transitions.
Because the longest distance in the finite-size systems
of size $L$ with periodic boundary conditions is $L/2$,
we consider the average value of the $x$-direction
and the $y$-direction, that is,
\begin{equation}
g_i(L/2) = (s_{x,y}s_{x+L/2,y}+s_{x,y}s_{x,y+L/2})/2,
\label{g_i}
\end{equation}
for the Ising model. The same definitions are
employed for other models.
We note that this type of correlation function was used
along with the generalized scheme for the probability-changing
cluster algorithm~\cite{tomita2002b}.
Using the Swendsen-Wang multi-cluster flip algorithm \cite{sw87}
for updating spins, we generated the spin configurations for a given
temperature $T$.
The examples of the spin configurations $\{ s_i \}$ and correlation
configurations $\{ g_i(L/2) \}$ for several models are shown
in the supplementary information section.
The plots of the 2D Ising model, the 2D 5-state Potts model,
and the 2D 6-state clock model are shown in Fig.~S1,
Fig.~S2, and Fig.~S3,
respectively.
\section*{Machine-Learning Study}
We have considered a fully connected neural network implemented
with a standard TensorFlow library \cite{TF} using the 100-hidden
unit model to classify the ordered and the disordered phases.
For the input layer, we use correlation configurations $\{ g_i(L/2) \}$.
A schematic diagram of the fully connected neural network
in the present simulation is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:network}.
We have used a cross-entropy cost function supplemented with
an $L2$ regularization term.
The neural networks were trained using the Adam method \cite{Adam}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8.6cm]{./Fig1.eps}
\caption{
A schematic diagram of the fully connected neural network
in the present simulation.
}
\label{fig:network}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Typically, around 40,000 training data sets are used, and
30,000 test data sets are used. Ten independent calculations were
performed to provide error analysis.
Although the exact transition
temperatures $T_c$ are known for most of the models in the present study,
we have not used the samples close to $T_c$ for the training data.
We have assumed that the exact $T_c$ is not known.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
{\bf a} \hspace*{6cm}
\includegraphics[width=8.6cm]{./Fig2a.eps}
\vspace*{2mm}
{\bf b} \hspace*{6cm}
\includegraphics[width=8.6cm]{./Fig2b.eps}
\caption{
a) The output layer averaged over a test set as a function of $T$
for the 2D 3-state Potts model. The system sizes are $L$ =
24, 32, and 48.
The samples of $T$ within the ranges $0.85 \le T \le 0.94$ and
$1.06 \le T \le 1.15$ are used for the training data.
In the inset, the finite-size scaling plot is given,
where the horizontal axis is chosen as $t L^{1/\nu}$
with $t=(T-T_c)/J$. The values of $T_c$ and $\nu$ are
$T_c = 1/\ln(1+\sqrt{3}) = 0.995$ and $\nu$=5/6, respectively.
b) The same plot for the 2D 5-state Potts model.
The system sizes are the same.
The samples of $T$ within the ranges $0.7 \le T \le 0.79$ and
$0.91 \le T \le 1.0$ are used for the training data.
}
\label{fig:output_potts3}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
We first analyzed the 2D 3-state Potts model.
The output layer averaged over a test set as a function of $T$
for the 2D 3-state Potts model is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:output_potts3}a.
The probabilities of predicting the phases, the disordered or the ordered,
are plotted for each temperature.
The system sizes are $L$ = 24, 32, and 48.
The samples of $T$ within the ranges $0.85 \le T \le 0.94$ and
$1.06 \le T \le 1.15$ were used for the training data.
The exact second-order transition temperature $T_c$ for this model
is known as $1/\ln(1+\sqrt{3}) = 0.995$.
We observed that the neural network could successfully classify
the disordered and ordered phases.
We give the finite-size scaling plot of the second-order
transition \cite{fisher70} in the inset,
where the horizontal axis is chosen as $t L^{1/\nu}$ with $t=(T-T_c)/J$
and the correlation-length exponent $\nu$.
For the values of $T_c$ and $\nu$, we used the exact values,
$T_c = 1/\ln(1+\sqrt{3}) = 0.995$ and $\nu$=5/6.
We obtained very good finite-size scaling.
We have presented the output layer averaged over a test set
as a function of $T$
for the 2D 5-state Potts model in Fig.~\ref{fig:output_potts3}b.
The system sizes are $L=$ 24, 32, and 48.
The samples of $T$ within the ranges $0.7 \le T \le 0.79$ and
$0.91 \le T \le 1.0$ were used for the training data.
This model is known to exhibit the first-order transition at
$T_c=1/\ln(1+\sqrt{5}) = 0.852$. The transition is sharp
compared with the Potts model for $q=3$ for the second-order
transition.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
{\bf a} \hspace*{6cm}
\includegraphics[width=8.6cm]{./Fig3a.eps}
\vspace*{2mm}
{\bf b} \hspace*{6cm}
\includegraphics[width=8.6cm]{./Fig3b.eps}
\caption{
a) The output layer for the 5-state Potts model using the training data
of the 3-state Potts model.
b) The output layer for the 3-state Potts model using the training data
of the 5-state Potts model.
}
\label{fig:output_potts3_5}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
It is instructive to use the training data obtained from the
3-state Potts model for the classification of the phases
of the 5-state Potts model.
The output layer for the 5-state Potts model using the training data
of the 3-state Potts model is given in Fig.~\ref{fig:output_potts3_5}a.
It successfully reproduces the sharp transition of the 5-state Potts model
at $T_c=1/\ln(1+\sqrt{5}) = 0.852$.
The plot of the opposite direction, that is, the output layer
obtained for the 3-state Potts model using the training data of
the 5-state Potts model is given in Fig.~\ref{fig:output_potts3_5}b.
It reproduces the transition of the 3-state Potts model
at $T_c=1/\ln(1+\sqrt{3}) = 0.995$. The order of the transition
for the 3-state Potts model is second order,
whereas that for the 5-state Potts model is first order.
However, the training data of one model successfully
reproduces the classification of the other model.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
{\bf a} \hspace*{6cm}
\includegraphics[width=8.6cm]{./Fig4a.eps}
\vspace*{2mm}
{\bf b} \hspace*{6cm}
\includegraphics[width=8.6cm]{./Fig4b.eps}
\caption{
a) The output layer averaged over a test set as a function of $T$
for the 2D 6-state clock model. The system sizes are $L$ =
24, 32, 48, and 64.
The samples of $T$ within the ranges $0.4 \le T \le 0.64$,
$0.77 \le T \le 0.83$, and
$0.96 \le T \le 1.2$ are used for the training data.
b) The same plot for the 2D 4-state clock model.
The samples of $T$ within the ranges $0.9 \le T \le 1.06$ and
$1.2 \le T \le 1.4$ are used for the training data.
}
\label{fig:output_clock6}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
We have considered the 2D $q$-state clock model next.
Because of the discreteness, there are two transitions for $q \ge 5$.
One is a higher BKT transition, $T_2$, between the disordered phase
and the BKT phase of QLRO, and the other is a lower transition, $T_1$,
between the BKT phase and the ordered phase.
The recent numerical estimates of $T_1$ and $T_2$ for the
6-state clock model are 0.701(5) and 0.898(5), respectively \cite{Surungan}.
The output layer averaged over a test set as a function of $T$
for the 2D 6-state clock model is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:output_clock6}a.
The system sizes are $L$ = 24, 32, 48, and 64.
The samples of $T$ within the ranges $0.4 \le T \le 0.64$,
$0.77 \le T \le 0.83$, and
$0.96 \le T \le 1.2$ were used for the low-temperature,
mid-range temperature, and high-temperature training data, respectively.
Figure~\ref{fig:output_clock6}a shows the classification
into the three phases.
We estimate the size-dependent $T_{1,2}(L)$ from the point
that the probabilities of predicting two phases are 50\%.
The estimates of $T_1(L)$ and $T_2(L)$, in the range of $24 \le L \le 64$,
are around 0.66-0.67 and 0.93-0.94, respectively.
The correlation length at the BKT transitions diverges rapidly,
as given below,
\begin{equation}
\xi \propto \exp (c/\sqrt{|t|})
\end{equation}
with $t = (T - T_{1,2})/T_{1,2}$, which is both below $T_1$ and above $T_2$.
Finite-size effects result in a wider prediction
of the BKT phase for smaller sizes.
Size effects become smaller gradually with $\ln L$.
In the conventional Monte Carlo study of the BKT transition,
the helicity modulus was calculated, and the size-dependent $T_2(L)$
can be estimated from the intersection with the straight line,
$(2/\pi)*T$, the universal jump \cite{Weber,Harada}.
The numerical estimates of $T_2(L)$ are 0.935 ($L=24$),
0.929 ($L=32$), 0.925 ($L=48$), and 0.921 ($L=64$),
which slowly converge to 0.898 in the infinite $L$ limit \cite{Surungan}.
The present estimates of finite-size $T_2$ are compatible
with the universal jump analysis, although the systematic
size dependence is hided because of statitical errors.
The situation for $T_1$ is the same.
Thus, Fig.~\ref{fig:output_clock6}a clearly shows
the behavior of the three phases.
It is interesting to investigate the relation between
the BKT transition and the second-order transition.
For this purpose, we have examined the 4-state clock model.
This model is equivalent to two sets of the Ising model;
it has a single second-order transition at
$T_c = 1/\ln(1+\sqrt{2}) = 1.135$.
The output layer averaged over a test set as a function of $T$
for the 2D 4-state clock model is given in Fig.~\ref{fig:output_clock6}b.
The samples of $T$ within the ranges $0.9 \le T \le 1.06$ and
$1.2 \le T \le 1.4$ were used for the training data.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8.6cm]{./Fig5.eps}
\caption{
The output layer for the 4-state clock model using the training data
of the 6-state clock model.
}
\label{fig:output_clock6_4}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
We investigate the result of using the training data of the 6-state clock
model for the classification of the 4-state clock model.
We present the output layer for the 4-state clock model
as a function of $T$ using the training data of
the 6-state clock model in Fig.~\ref{fig:output_clock6_4}.
The phases of the 4-state clock model are classified into
the ordered and disordered phases with the expected $T_c$ around 1.135.
However, the narrow region near $T_c$ is regarded as the BKT phase.
It is an indication that the BKT phase with a fixed line is the same as
the critical phase of the second-order transition with a fixed point.
The figure indicates that the critical region becomes narrower
as the system size increases.
\section*{Summary and discussion}
We reported a machine-learning study on several spin models
to study phase transitions.
We considered the configuration of a long-range
spatial correlation instead of the spin configuration itself.
By doing so, we provided a similar treatment to various spin models
including the multi-component systems and the systems
with a vector order parameter.
We successfully classified the disordered and the ordered phases,
along with the BKT type topological phase.
We showed a good finite-size scaling plot for the second-order
transition.
Using the training data of the second-order transition system of
the 3-state Potts model, we reproduced the phase classification
of the first-order transition of the 5-state Potts model.
The phase classification of the opposite direction was also successful.
We achieved the phase classification of the second-order
transition of the 3-state Potts model using the training data
of the 5-state Potts model.
Using the training data of the BKT transition system for
the 6-state clock model, we elucidated the role of the critical phase
of the second-order transition of the 4-state clock model.
It is a direct demonstration that explains that the phase with a fixed line,
whose spatial decay is an algebraic one, has the same structure
as the critical phase of the second-order
transition with a fixed point.
The present treatment of machine-learning study is generalized, and
can be applied to various systems including quantum spin systems.
It will be interesting to study the universal behavior of
the topological phase of BKT type.
There are sometimes implicit symmetries in the models of physics.
Universality appears in totally different systems.
The 3-state antiferromagnetic square lattice Potts model
with a ferromagnetic next-nearest-neighbor interaction
is an example. This model was studied by Otsuka {\it et al.} \cite{Otsuka}
using the level-spectroscopy method, where they presented two BKT transitions
and the universality of the 6-state ferromagnetic clock model.
The machine-learning study on this model is in progress,
and it is expected to be reported in the future.
\section*{Examples of the spin configurations
and correlation configurations}
\setcounter{figure}{0}
\renewcommand{\figurename}{FIG.~S}
As a supplementary information, we present examples of
the spin configurations $\{ s_i \}$ and correlation
configurations $\{ g_i(L/2) \}$, which is defined by
Eq.~(7) (main text).
The 2D Ising model is displayed
in Fig.~S\ref{fig:config_Ising}.
The spin configurations at the low temperature of $T=2.0$, in units
of $J$, are given in Figs.~S\ref{fig:config_Ising}a and
S\ref{fig:config_Ising}b. The $\pm 1$ spins are displayed
in red and blue. These two configurations are identical
because of the inversion symmetry.
The corresponding correlation configuration is shown
in Fig.~S\ref{fig:config_Ising}c.
The correlations from $+1$ to $-1$ are mapped in gray scale
from 255 (white) to 0 (black).
The spin configurations at the high temperature of $T=2.8$ are
given in Figs.~S\ref{fig:config_Ising}d-S\ref{fig:config_Ising}e,
and the corresponding correlation configuration
is given in Fig.~S\ref{fig:config_Ising}f.
Examples of the spin and correlation configurations of the 2D
5-state Potts model are shown in Fig.~S\ref{fig:config_Potts}.
The five spin states are displayed in five colors, and
there is a 120(=$5!$)-fold permutational symmetry
in the $5$-state Potts model.
The spin configurations at the low temperature of $T=0.8$
are shown in Figs.~S\ref{fig:config_Potts}a-S\ref{fig:config_Potts}b,
and those at the high temperature of $T=1.2$
are shown in Figs.~S\ref{fig:config_Potts}d-S\ref{fig:config_Potts}e.
The spin configurations presented
in Figs.~S\ref{fig:config_Potts}a and S\ref{fig:config_Potts}b
are identical, and the corresponding correlation configuration
is given in Fig.~S\ref{fig:config_Potts}c.
The correlation configuration presented in Fig.~S\ref{fig:config_Potts}f
corresponds to the spin configurations presented
in Figs.~S\ref{fig:config_Potts}d-S\ref{fig:config_Potts}e.
We note that the ordered-phase correlation configuration
of the Ising model (Fig.~S\ref{fig:config_Ising}c) and
that of the Potts model (Fig.~S\ref{fig:config_Potts}c)
are similar. At the same time, the behavior of the
disordered-phase correlation configuration
of the Ising model (Fig.~S\ref{fig:config_Ising}f) and
that of the Potts model (Fig.~S\ref{fig:config_Potts}f)
are similar.
We have presented the spin and correlation configurations of
the 2D 6-state clock model in Fig.~S\ref{fig:config_clock}.
There is a 6-fold rotational symmetry.
The spin configurations at the low temperature of $T=0.5$,
at the mid-range temperature of $T=0.8$, and at the high temperature
of $T=1.2$ are given
in Figs.~S\ref{fig:config_clock}a-S\ref{fig:config_clock}b,
S\ref{fig:config_clock}d-S\ref{fig:config_clock}e, and
S\ref{fig:config_clock}g-S\ref{fig:config_clock}h, respectively.
The corresponding correlation configurations are given
in Figs.~S\ref{fig:config_clock}c, S\ref{fig:config_clock}f,
and S\ref{fig:config_clock}i, respectively.
For all the models, the correlation configurations, shown in
the third column of figures, exhibit similar behavior;
they are almost white at low temperatures, whereas at high temperatures,
they are mixtures of white, gray, and black.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
{\bf a} \hspace*{5.6cm}{\bf b}\hspace*{5.6cm}{\bf c}\hspace*{3.6cm}
\vspace*{1mm}
\includegraphics[width=5.6cm]{./FigS1a.eps}
\includegraphics[width=5.6cm]{./FigS1b.eps}
\includegraphics[width=5.6cm]{./FigS1c.eps}
\vspace*{4mm}
{\bf d} \hspace*{5.6cm}{\bf e}\hspace*{5.6cm}{\bf f}\hspace*{3.6cm}
\vspace*{1mm}
\includegraphics[width=5.6cm]{./FigS1d.eps}
\includegraphics[width=5.6cm]{./FigS1e.eps}
\includegraphics[width=5.6cm]{./FigS1f.eps}
\caption{
Examples of the spin configuration $\{ s_i \}$ (a-b, d-e) and
correlation configuration $\{ g_i(L/2) \}$ (c, f) of the 2D Ising model.
The upper figures (a-c) are snapshots at the low temperature of $T=2.0$,
and the lower figures (d-f) are those at the high temperature of $T=2.8$.
}
\label{fig:config_Ising}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
{\bf a} \hspace*{5.6cm}{\bf b}\hspace*{5.6cm}{\bf c}\hspace*{3.6cm}
\vspace*{1mm}
\includegraphics[width=5.6cm]{./FigS2a.eps}
\includegraphics[width=5.6cm]{./FigS2b.eps}
\includegraphics[width=5.6cm]{./FigS2c.eps}
\vspace*{2mm}
{\bf d} \hspace*{5.6cm}{\bf e}\hspace*{5.6cm}{\bf f}\hspace*{3.6cm}
\vspace*{1mm}
\includegraphics[width=5.6cm]{./FigS2d.eps}
\includegraphics[width=5.6cm]{./FigS2e.eps}
\includegraphics[width=5.6cm]{./FigS2f.eps}
\caption{
Examples of the spin configuration $\{ s_i \}$ (a-b, d-e) and
correlation configuration $\{ g_i(L/2) \}$ (c, f)
of the 2D 5-state Potts model.
The upper figures (a-c) are snapshots at the low temperature of $T=0.8$,
and the lower figures (d-f) are those at the high temperature of $T=1.2$.
}
\label{fig:config_Potts}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
{\bf a} \hspace*{5.6cm}{\bf b}\hspace*{5.6cm}{\bf c}\hspace*{3.6cm}
\vspace*{1mm}
\includegraphics[width=5.6cm]{./FigS3a.eps}
\includegraphics[width=5.6cm]{./FigS3b.eps}
\includegraphics[width=5.6cm]{./FigS3c.eps}
\vspace*{2mm}
{\bf d} \hspace*{5.6cm}{\bf e}\hspace*{5.6cm}{\bf f}\hspace*{3.6cm}
\vspace*{1mm}
\includegraphics[width=5.6cm]{./FigS3d.eps}
\includegraphics[width=5.6cm]{./FigS3e.eps}
\includegraphics[width=5.6cm]{./FigS3f.eps}
\vspace*{2mm}
{\bf g} \hspace*{5.6cm}{\bf h}\hspace*{5.6cm}{\bf i}\hspace*{3.6cm}
\vspace*{1mm}
\includegraphics[width=5.6cm]{./FigS3g.eps}
\includegraphics[width=5.6cm]{./FigS3h.eps}
\includegraphics[width=5.6cm]{./FigS3i.eps}
\caption{
Examples of the spin configuration $\{ \theta_i \}$ (a-b, d-e, g-h) and
correlation configuration $\{ g_i(L/2) \}$ (c, f, i)
of the 2D 6-state clock model.
The upper figures (a-c) are snapshots at the low temperature of $T=0.5$,
the middle figures (d-f) are those at the mid-range temperature of $T=0.8$,
and the lower figures (g-i) are those at the high temperature of $T=1.2$.
}
\label{fig:config_clock}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}
A variety of recent papers have demonstrated the promise of deep learning for medical imaging tasks. From the prediction of diabetic retinopathy using retinal scan images to the diagnosis of melanoma from photographs, machine learning approaches have achieved near-physician level performance \cite{Gulshan2016DevelopmentPhotographs,Esteva2017Dermatologist-levelNetworks}. Deep learning classifiers of chest radiographs are not only promising in a research setting, but have also been deployed in clinical practice. For example, an algorithm to detect 4 different thoracic diseases from frontal chest radiographs was evaluated in an emergency medicine setting and was found to increase radiology residents' sensitivity \cite{Hwang2019DeepDepartment}.
Despite these major advances, there are still significant limitations for medical deep learning. One of these problems is dataset shift, or the loss in performance when a model is tested on data that is drawn from a different distribution than the data used for training the model \cite{Quionero-Candela2009DatasetLearning,Pooch2019CanClassification}. Zech et al. \cite{Zech2018} found that a deep learning pneumonia classifier trained on data from two hospital systems exploited differences in the base rate of pneumonia between the two hospitals by learning to identify each radiograph's hospital of origin rather than anatomically-relevant features of pneumonia. While this model apparently had high predictive performance, when the model was tested on radiographs from a third hospital not present in the training data its performance significantly decreased. Furthermore, even within a single hospital system, confounded predictions may be a problem for deep learning. For example, Badgeley et al. \cite{Badgeley2019DeepVariables} demonstrated that a deep learning hip fracture classifier was leveraging patient-level variables (such as age and gender) and process-level variables (such as scanner model and hospital department) in its predictions. After controlling for these variables during model evaluation by rebalancing the test set, they found that the classifier performed no better than random. A recent multi-society statement on the ``Ethics of Artificial Intelligence in Radiology'' points to the importance of being able to understand and guide the decision-making process of machine learning algorithms to ensure that these algorithms can be safely and effectively used in clinical practice \cite{Geis2019EthicsStatement}. While the works above have described the brittleness of deep learning medical imaging classifiers, more work is needed to create robust models.
We propose an approach based on adversarial neural networks to address dataset shift by learning models that are invariant to confounders that may shift across hospitals. In particular, we focus on the problem of pneumonia classification from chest radiographs, as the problem of confounding and dataset shift has been particularly well-documented for this task \cite{Zech2018}. We find that (1) potential model confounding can be effectively identified by evaluating how well confounders can be predicted from a model's output, that (2) adversarial training enables pneumonia classification that is independent of radiograph view, and that (3) the adversarially-trained models attain better generalization performance when tested in novel hospital systems. \footnote{Code to reproduce this project is available at https://github.com/suinleelab/cxr\_adv}
\section{Problem Statement}
\label{sec:ProbStatement}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.65\linewidth]{figures/updated_causal_diagram.pdf}
\caption{Causal graph showing relationships that form part of one plausible data generating process for chest radiographs: relationships are between pneumonia (Y), radiograph view position (V), anatomically relevant radiographic features (A), and the final chest radiograph (X). Red and dashed edges indicate a view-mediated causal path between the radiograph and pneumonia that may shift between different datasets or hospitals. We emphasize that this does not illustrate the full data generating process, and that many data generating processes are possible.}
\label{fig:CausalGraph}
\end{figure}
We first consider some of the causal relationships forming part of one plausible data generating process for chest radiographs, given by the random variable $X$ in \autoref{fig:CausalGraph}. A patient's pneumonia status, given by the random variable $Y$, will lead to a variety of anatomically-relevant features $A$, such as increased radiopacity or consolidation in the lung fields, that form part of the radiograph. Furthermore, the patient's disease status will lead to a variety of clinical signs and symptoms which will influence which department they are seen in (e.g. in-patient or out-patient). Different departments may use different scanners (portable or fixed) and these scanners may be taken with different views ($V$). Frontal chest radiographs may be taken with either an anterior-posterior (AP) view where the x-ray source is positioned such that x-rays enter through the front of the chest and exit through the back of the chest, or a posterior-anterior (PA) view where the x-ray source is positioned such that x-rays enter through the back of the chest and exit through the front.
View directly impacts the appearance of chest radiographs in a variety of ways. Different views cause anatomical structures to have different relative sizes in radiographs since their distance from the radiographic source is altered \cite{Puddy2007InterpretationRadiograph}. Furthermore, AP radiographs are taken on portable scanners, which may place text such as ``PORTABLE'' or ``SEMI-UPRIGHT'' directly on the image. For this graph, it is plausible that the relationship between pneumonia and view may not be consistent across hospitals. The AP view position is generally associated with a higher prevalence of disease, as sicker patients are more likely to need to have a portable scanner brought to them \cite{Puddy2007InterpretationRadiograph,Zech2018WhatLearning}. In our source training dataset (described below in \autoref{sec:Data}), however, the standard relationship is reversed and the prevalence of pneumonia is 2-fold \emph{higher} in PA view radiographs ($2.1$\% base rate of pneumonia in AP images vs. $3.9$\% base rate of pneumonia in PA images). As the difference in base rate between the subgroups increases, the worse the generalization performance should be (see \autoref{sec:BaseRateAlteration}). Since the relationships between pneumonia and view may not be consistent across hospitals, we hypothesize that by learning a model that is invariant to differences in radiograph view, we can create a model that will be more robust to dataset shift. View is additionally an important confounder to control because commerically-available chest radiograph algorithms are currently designed to accept \emph{both} AP and PA view radiographs as input \cite{Hwang2019DeepDepartment}.
We formally state the problem as follows. We are given data from a source distribution $\mathcal{S}$ where each sample (indexed by $i$) is a 3-tuple consisting of a radiograph $x_i \sim X$, a multi-label classification label $y_i \sim Y$, and a binary indicator of view $v_i \sim V$. We would like to learn a model that outputs a pneumonia score that will generalize well to a target domain $\mathcal{T}$, where the relationship between the nuisance variable and the outcome may be different in the target domain than in the source domain. In our particular problem, we assume that we have no access at all to data from the target distribution, corresponding to what Subbaswamy et al. \cite{Subbaswamy2019FromAI} refer to as a proactive approach to addressing dataset shift. Much of the prior work on adversarial domain adaptation has corresponded to a different problem, in which we assume that we have access to \emph{unlabeled data} from the target distribution, corresponding to what Subbaswamy et al. \cite{Subbaswamy2019FromAI} refer to as a reactive approach to dataset shift \cite{Ben-David2010ADomains,Ganin2016Domain-adversarialNetworks,Mahmood2018UnsupervisedTraining,Javanmardi2018DomainTraining}. Since we have no data from the target distribution, we instead aim to learn a classifier $f$ that outputs a pneumonia score $S$ such that $S \perp V$. Even though we use all 13 of the different pathologies in $Y$ to train our model, since we only require that our model learns a relationship such that $S \perp V$, and not $Y \perp V$, there is no constraint for the model to learn view-independent scores for any of the other non-pneumonia pathologies.
\section{Methods}
\subsection{Data}
\label{sec:Data}
To assess the robustness of models to dataset shift, we used chest radiographs from two large publicly-available datasets. For our model training source domain, we used the CheXpert dataset from Stanford \cite{Irvin2019Chexpert:Comparison}. This dataset contains 224,316 chest radiographs of 65,240 patients. We considered only the 191,229 frontal radiographs (AP or PA view) in the dataset, excluding all of the lateral radiographs. Since the test split in the original CheXpert dataset only contained 8 radiographs that were positive for pneumonia, all of which were AP radiographs, we moved 92 more positive pneumonia radiographs (for a total of 100 positive pneumonia radiographs) to the test set for the sake of better pneumonia performance evaluation. For our target domain, we used the MIMIC-CXR dataset from Massachusetts Institute of Technology \cite{Johnson2019MIMIC-CXR:Radiographs}. This dataset includes 371,920 chest radiographs of 65,079 patients. After filtering lateral radiographs, we had 249,995 frontal radiographs remaining. One major advantage of using these two datasets is that they have the same set of 13 labels (``Enlarged Cardiomediastinum,'' ``Cardiomegaly,'' ``Lung Opacity,'' ``Lung Lesion,'' ``Edema,'' ``Consolidation,'' ``Pneumonia,'' ``Atelectasis,'' ``Pneumothorax,'' ``Pleural Effusion,'' ``Pleural Other,'' ``Fracture,'' and ``Support Devices'') and are created using the same labeling algorithm. This algorithm takes expert-generated free-text radiological reports associated with each chest radiograph as input and outputs the set of pathology labels. Using data labeled with the same natural language processing algorithm helps to remove the potential effects of dataset shift due to differences in the label generating process.
\subsection{Standard training}
\label{sec:StandardTraining}
To train our baseline models for prediction, we used the architecture and training procedure described in \cite{Zech2018} and \cite{Rajpurkar2017CheXNet:Learning}. The model architecture used was a DenseNet-121 initialized with weights pretrained on ImageNet, which can be downloaded from the PyTorch torchvision models subpackage \cite{Huang2016DenselyNetworks,Paszke2017AutomaticPytorch}. While we were primarily interested in pneumonia detection, we found that using all pathology labels available in the CheXpert dataset during training significantly increased pneumonia classification performance. Since the number of classes in the CheXpert dataset is different than the number of classes in the ImageNet dataset, the classification head for the pretrained DenseNet-121 was removed and replaced by a linear layer with output dimensions equal to the number of labels in the CheXpert dataset, followed by a sigmoid activation function. A binary cross-entropy loss was optimized using an SGD optimizer with momentum of $0.9$, weight decay of $10^{-4}$, and an initial learning rate of $10^{-2}$. Early stopping was implemented by monitoring binary cross-entropy loss on a held out split of validation data. Our validation set, representing $5\%$ of the training data, was split on patients rather than radiograph index. If validation loss did not improve over an epoch, the learning rate was decreased by a factor of $10$. If validation loss failed to improve for $3$ consecutive epochs, training was stopped. Performance was then evaluated on the held out test set. This procedure was repeated three separate times to attain standard deviations of performance.
\subsection{Adversarial deconfounding}
\label{sec:AdvTraining}
To learn more robust models that generalize better to external test data, we propose an approach based on adversarial training. This approach consists of jointly training two neural networks. The first is the classifier, $f$, which is trained to predict a pneumonia label $y$ from a chest radiograph $x$. The second is an adversary, $g$, which is trained to predict the view $v$ from the output score $s$ of the classifier $f$. The optimization procedure consists of alternating between training the adversary network until it is optimal, then training the classifier to fool the adversary while still predicting pneumonia well.
This approach aims to proactively mitigate the potential effects of domain shift by controlling for known confounders in medical images using adversarial training. In addition to the applications for reactive domain adaptation mentioned above in \autoref{sec:ProbStatement}, adversarial training has been used in a variety of other areas to learn models or representations that are independent of a given variable. For example, there is a significant body of literature in the area of algorithmic fairness where adversarial training has been used to learn representations that are fair with respect to protected classes such as race or gender \cite{Edwards2015CensoringAdversary,Madras2018LearningRepresentations,Wadsworth2018AchievingPrediction}. In the physical sciences, adversarial training has been used to learn classifiers capable of detecting interesting particle jets in particle colliders that are independent of the presence of nuisance interactions in the collider \cite{Louppe2017LearningNetworks}.
We emphasize that one major contribution of our work compared to prior work on deep learning for medical images is that we take advantage of causal domain knowledge to improve generalization performance without needing to use \emph{any} data from the target domain. Where previous approaches to domain adaptation use adversarial training to either learn a score or intermediate representation that are \emph{domain-invariant} by augmenting training with unlabeled data from the target domain, we instead use our domain knowledge about the causal relationships involved in our data to find nuisance variables that potentially will have a different relationship with the outcome in the target domain than in the source domain. We then use an adversarial approach to learn a classifier that is invariant to the nuisance variable, which requires no data whatsoever from the target domain.
To implement our training, we take the approach suggested in Louppe et al. \cite{Louppe2017LearningNetworks} and adapt it for use in the application of radiograph classification. For the notation in the following sections, the parameterization of classifier $f$ will be given as $\theta_f$, while the parameterization of adversary $g$ will be given by $\theta_g$. The classifier's output score for pneumonia is given by $s = f(x)^{pneumo}$ (where the $(pneumo)$ superscript indicates the index for pneumonia in the multi-label output vector).
\subsubsection{Separately pretraining classifier and adversary}
The classifier $f$ is first trained using the procedure described in the standard training section above to optimize the negative log-likelihood of $Y | X$ under $\theta_f$:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{f}(\theta_f) = \mathbb{E}_{x\sim X}\mathbb{E}_{y\sim Y|x} [- \log p_{\theta_f} (y | x) ].
\end{equation}
Then, the parameters of the classifier are fixed and the adversary network is trained. The architecture used for the adversary is a simple feed-forward network with $3$ hidden layers of $32$ nodes. We used ReLU activation functions between the hidden layers, and a linear output. This architecture was selected to have sufficient capacity to model non-linear dependency between the score and view while still being lightweight enough for quick optimization. The network is optimized to minimize the following objective:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{r}(\theta_f, \theta_r) = \mathbb{E}_{s\sim f(X; \theta_f)}\mathbb{E}_{v\sim V|s} [- \log p_{\theta_r} (v | s) ].
\label{eq:adv_loss}
\end{equation}
This means that the adversary takes the scalar-valued pneumonia score output by the classifier as its input, and outputs a scalar-valued prediction of view. The adversary was pretrained for a single epoch.
\subsubsection{Joint adversarial optimization}
After both the classifier and the adversary were pretrained, we began joint adversarial optimization. Each ``joint optimization epoch'' consisted of first fixing the classifier, then training the adversary for one epoch by minimizing the loss of the batch stochastic gradients for each of $K = N / M$ minibatches present in the entire dataset (where $N$ is the number of total samples in the training data and $M$ is the size of the minibatch):
\begin{equation}
\nabla_{\theta_r} \sum_{k=1}^{K} \sum_{m=1}^{M_k} - \log p_{\theta_r} (v_m | s_m).
\end{equation}
Then, after the adversary is trained to optimally predict the nuisance variable $V$ from the score output by the classifier, the parameters of the adversarial network $\theta_r$ are fixed, and we draw a single minibatch of data and update the model by descending the stochastic gradients of the minibatch
\begin{equation}
\nabla_{\theta_f} \sum_{m=1}^{M} \big[ -\log p_{\theta_f} (y_m | x_m) + \log p_{\theta_r} (v_m | s_m) \big].
\end{equation}
The procedure of an entire epoch of training for the adversary with the classifier fixed, and a single minibatch of training for the classifier with the adversary fixed, is repeated until the model achieves optimal performance while its output is independent of the nuisance variable.
Louppe et al. \cite{Louppe2017LearningNetworks} showed that the optimal solution of this minimax optimization scheme is a classifier $f$ that is optimal with respect to the training data with output $S$ that is independent of $V$. If no such classifier exists, then the weight of the adversarial loss term given in \autoref{eq:adv_loss} can be tuned with an additional hyperparameter $\lambda$ to make a tradeoff between stability (in terms of independence of the classifier from the nuisance variable) and accuracy (in terms of classification performance given the data). For all of our models, we used a value of $\lambda = 1$. Finally, while other approaches have enforced independence between $V$ and some intermediate layer of the network, if we want a pneumonia score $S$ that is independent of $V$, we observe that it suffices to directly adversarially optimize the prediction of $V$ from $S$.
\subsection{Previous approaches for controlling confounders}
Attempting to control for confounding in machine learning models is a well studied problem, and has previously been specifically studied in the domain of medical imaging \cite{Rao2017PredictiveConfounds}. In addition to testing the performance of our adversarial approach, we also compared to a variety of previously used approaches for modeling medical images in the presence of confounders.
\subsubsection{Instance sampling} One approach to domain adaptation involves re-weighting samples in the training data \cite{Pearl2011TransportabilityApproach,Little2019CausalBootstrapping,Shimodaira2000ImprovingFunction,Sugiyama2008DirectAdaptation}. We re-implement the approach suggested in Rao et al., called Instance Weighting \cite{Rao2017PredictiveConfounds}. In a normal empirical risk minimization framework, we assume that the data the model will be evaluated on will be drawn from the same data generating process as that which the model is trained on, and thus aim to minimize the empirical risk:
\begin{equation}
f^* = \textrm{argmin}_{f\in\mathcal{F}} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \frac{1}{n} \ell (f(X_i), Y_i).
\end{equation}
If we assume that we will have test data drawn from a different distribution, we can try to reweight the samples in our training set to minimize the empirical risk in the \emph{target population} instead of the source population:
\begin{equation}
f^* = \textrm{argmin}_{f\in\mathcal{F}} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \frac{1}{n} \bigg[\frac{\hat{P}^{\mathcal{T}}(V_i,Y_i)}{\hat{P}^{\mathcal{S}}(V_i,Y_i)}\bigg] \ell(f(X_i),y_i),
\end{equation}
where $\hat{P}^{\mathcal{S}}(V_i,Y_i)$ and $\hat{P}^{\mathcal{T}}(V_i,Y_i)$ indicate the joint density of radiograph view and pneumonia in the source and target domains respectively.
Since we do not have any information about the target distribution, we assume the target marginal distributions of the targets and the confounders are identical to the source marginal distributions, which means that the loss function factorizes to the following form:
\begin{equation}
f^* = \textrm{argmin}_{f\in\mathcal{F}} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \frac{1}{n} \bigg[\frac{\hat{P}^{\mathcal{S}}(Y_i)}{\hat{P}^{\mathcal{S}}(Y_i|V_i)}\bigg] \ell(f(X_i),y_i).
\end{equation}
In order to avoid particular unbalanced batches during optimization, rather than applying the weights as a multiplicative factor during the calculation of the loss function, we instead re-weight the probability of each particular instance in the training data being sampled at each batch.
\subsubsection{Matching}
In addition to changing the sampling weights of each sample in the training set, the most straight-forward possible approach to handling confounding suggested in \cite{Rao2017PredictiveConfounds} is matching the base rate across subgroups in the training data. The drawbacks to this approach are that it either requires deliberately collecting data that is balanced across subgroups in advance, or throwing out data. Since we could not go back and alter the data collection process for our dataset, in order to match the base rate of pneumonia in AP and PA radiographs in the training data, we had to delete 77,117 AP radiographs from the training data. This represented a substantial portion of the total data, amounting to 40\% of the samples negative for pneumonia in the CheXpert dataset, and 35\% of all samples in the training data.
\subsubsection{Include nuisance covariate in regression} Another potential approach to handle confounding suggested in \cite{Rao2017PredictiveConfounds} is to ``regress out" the effect of view on the outcome. We make use of the fact that the classification head of the DenseNet-121 is a logistic regression with the learned features (nodes of the last hidden layer, $H^{n-1}$) as covariates. Therefore, we simply append an extra feature for our covariate $V$ to the last layer $H^{appended} = [H^{n-1}_0, H^{n-1}_1, \cdots, H^{n-1}_i, V] $. We can then model the data using a standard logistic regression:
\begin{equation}
Y = \sigma(H^{appended}w + \beta),
\end{equation}
where $w \in \mathbb{R}^{h + | V |}$ is the vector of weights of the classification head, $\beta \in \mathbb{R}$ is the bias term for the classification head, and $\sigma(t) = \frac{1}{1 + e^{-t}}$.
We then train the modified DenseNet-121 following the exact same procedure as described in \autoref{sec:StandardTraining}. When evaluating our model in the external target domain, we remove the effect of the confounding variable by setting it equal to the mean across all samples.
\section{Results}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.85\linewidth]{figures/PCA_VIEW_PNG.png}
\caption{A pretrained CNN with no task-specific supervision represents radiographs in a manner easily separable by view.}
\label{fig:ViewPCA}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth]{figures/FromDataFromScore_010920.pdf}
\caption{The DenseNet-121 model architecture (solid lines) is capable of near-perfect prediction of the potential nuisance variables radiograph view and patient sex from the original image data. After training a DenseNet-121 to predict pneumonia from the original image data, we see that a simple feed-forward classifier is capable of predicting radiograph view using only the scalar-valued score output by the pneumonia model as input (dashed line, left). However, a neural network classifier fails to attain better than random performance at predicting patient sex from the same scalar-valued score (dashed line, right). This indicates that the pneumonia classification score is independent of patient sex, but not of radiograph view.}
\label{fig:FromDataScore}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{CNN pneumonia classifiers fail to generalize to external health datasets}
\label{sec:FailToGeneralize}
\begin{table}
\caption{Pneumonia classifier performance (AUROC $\pm$ st. dev.) on held out test data from CheXpert dataset (Source), and held out test data from the external MIMIC dataset (Target). Standard deviations reported across three independent re-initializations of the training procedure. Best performance on external test data highlighted in bold and red.
\label{tab:generalization_performance}
\begin{tabular}{cccl}
\toprule
Method & Source (Internal) & Target (External) \\% & $\Delta$\\
\midrule
Standard & 0.791 $\pm$ 0.016 & 0.703 $\pm$ 0.016 \\%& -0.09\\
\color{red}{\textbf{Adversarial (Ours)}} & 0.747 $\pm$ 0.013 & \color{red}{\textbf{0.739 $\pm$ 0.001 }} \\%& -0.01\\
Instance Weighting & 0.685 $\pm$ 0.049 & 0.648 $\pm$ 0.038 \\%& -0.04\\
Covariate & 0.793 $\pm$ 0.008 & 0.715 $\pm$ 0.016 \\%& -0.08\\
Matching & 0.684 $\pm$ 0.036 & 0.689 $\pm$ 0.024 \\%& -0.00\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
To assess the generalization performance of standard deep learning approaches to pneumonia classification, we trained a classifier using the procedure described in \autoref{sec:StandardTraining} on data from the Stanford CheXpert dataset, then evaluated the model on both held-out patients from the same dataset (source performance) and held-out patients from the external MIMIC dataset (target performance). We evaluated performance using area under the ROC curve (AUROC), which evaluates the true positive rate and false positive rate attainable by the model across all possible thresholds.
We found that this model was able to achieve an AUROC of pneumonia classification of $0.791 \pm 0.016$ (see \autoref{tab:generalization_performance}). When we tested this same model on data from the PhysioNet MIMIC dataset, we found a substantial drop in performance, with the model only able to achieve an AUROC for pneumonia classification of $0.703 \pm 0.016$ (see \autoref{tab:generalization_performance}). This result again confirms the concerns raised in \cite{Pooch2019CanClassification} and \cite{Zech2018}, that state-of-the-art training and model architectures for deep learning medical imaging classifiers lead to models that do not generalize well to external datasets.
\subsection{Adversarial predictions improve model interpretability by identifying potentially confounded models}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth]{figures/ap_pa_attributions.png}
\caption{Expected Gradients feature attributions for a DenseNet-121 classifier trained to predict radiograph view position (AP vs. PA). We see that while parts of the image like the laterality markers are important (and have previously been shown to be important confounders for identifying source hospital from chest radiographs \cite{Zech2018}), the most important pixels for identifying confounders are spread throughout the entire image, \emph{including} within the lung fields.}
\label{fig:APPAAttribs}
\end{figure*}
In this section we first show that state-of-the-art convolutional neural network (CNN) architectures are capable of detecting potential confounders given only pixel-level data. We then show how current approaches to model interpretability are of limited usefulness in determining whether or not a particular trained model depends on a potential confounder. We finally propose an approach based on training a neural network to predict the confounder from the model output, and show that it does a better job of identifying potential confounding.
\subsubsection{Pretrained networks separate radiographs on basis of view and sex without any supervision}
\label{sec:unsupervised}
To assess how easily CNNs separate radiographs on the basis of features other than pathology, we examined the features extracted by a DenseNet-121 pretrained on ImageNet before \emph{any} training on chest radiographs (\autoref{fig:ViewPCA}). We randomly sampled 10,000 radiographs and applied the DenseNet-121 features submodule to them (i.e. the entire model except the classification head). We then average pooled over the last two dimensions to get 1024 features for each sample. To visualize how different sorts of radiographs were spread over these pretrained features, we performed principal components analysis on the resulting matrix, and compared the distributions of different subsets of the data along the principal components. We found that the ImageNet-pretrained DenseNet-121 easily separates chest radiographs on the basis of their view, as AP and PA radiographs are embedded in different parts of the last layer.
\subsubsection{Both pretrained and scratch-trained networks exploit confounders}
Since pretraining alone was so easily able to separate confounders, we wanted to rule out the possibility that pretraining on ImageNet was contributing to the confounding or poor generalizability we observed in \autoref{sec:FailToGeneralize}, especially in light of recent results on the potentially limited benefit of transfer learning for medical imaging \cite{Raghu2019Transfusion:Imaging}. Therefore, we also tried training a deep CNN architecture from randomly initialized weights using the same training approach and same CheXpert data (see \autoref{sec:ResNet}). While we found that while this model was able to achieve comparable classification performance on held-out test data from the CheXpert dataset, it generalized significantly worse to the external target domain MIMIC data, indicating that ImageNet pretraining may actually be helpful for model robustness. We therefore are able to conclude that not only do CNNs have access to potential confounders using only pixel-level data, but that this problem can not be solved just by removing pretraining as a training step.
\subsubsection{CNNs can detect potential confounders from image data with high accuracy}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth]{figures/adversarial_training_leads_to_invariant_score_representation.pdf}
\caption{Adversarial training learns a pneumonia score that is independent of view. LEFT: ROC curves for the prediction of radiograph view (AP vs. PA) from a classifier's pneumonia score for a classifier trained with a standard approach (red) and for a classifier trained with our adversarial approach (blue). View can be predicted with relatively high accuracy just using the pneumonia score from the standard classifier, indicating that this model's output and view are not independent. After adversarial training, view can no longer be predicted with better-than-random accuracy, indicating that the output of this classifier is independent of view. RIGHT: When we look at the distribution of pneumonia scores actually output by the two models (Top: Standard, Bottom: Adversarial), we see that the distributions are not identical between AP and PA subgroups in the standard training model, but are much more closely matched betweeen the AP and PA subgroups in the adversarially-trained model.}
\label{fig:IndependentScore}
\end{figure*}
A previously proposed approach for detecting potential confounders has been to evaluate how well that confounder can be predicted from the original data \cite{Zech2018}. When we train the same architecture CNN using the same training procedure to predict nuisance variables like sex or radiographic view from the chest radiograph data, we find that our models are capable of predicting these variables with incredibly high accuracy (\autoref{fig:FromDataScore}). For example, we see that a model can predict view with an AUROC of 1.0, perfectly classifying every example from the held out test data. Similarly, we see that this same model architecture is capable of predicting patient sex with an AUROC of 0.9997, again on held out test data. This result establishes that even if potentially confounding nuisance variables like radiograph view or patient sex are not explicitly included in the input features of CNN classifiers, deep CNN architectures are able to extract them with high accuracy from the pixel-level features of the radiographs, allowing them to still be used in classification.
While this result indicates that CNNs can detect potential confounders from just the radiograph data, it does give us any way to tell whether or not a particular model is invariant to a particular confounder. For example, in the CheXpert dataset, the base rate of pneumonia in male patients is $2.39\%$ while the base rate of pneumonia in female patients is $2.42\%$. Therefore, even though we have seen that a CNN \emph{can} identify whether a radiograph is from a male or female patient with high accuracy, it seems likely that a model would already be invariant to a feature that does not have an association with the outcome of interest.
Saliency maps are another previously proposed approach for understanding model behavior \cite{Sundararajan2017AxiomaticNetworks,Smilkov2017Smoothgrad:Noise,Selvaraju2016Grad-CAM:Localization}. These methods highlight the pixels or regions that were most important for the classifier in a given image. We therefore used Expected Gradients, a pixel-level feature attribution method \cite{erion2019learning}, to generate saliency maps to help understand which pixels were important for classifying view from radiographs (see \autoref{fig:APPAAttribs} and Appendix section \autoref{sec:FeatureAttributions} for more details). We observe that there is no specific region in the image that is indicative of PA vs. AP view. While both the laterality marker and text marker on the image are important for classification of view, pixels throughout the entire image, including within the lung fields, are also important for this prediction. Therefore, saliency map-based approaches are also not necessarily useful for identifying whether a model is invariant to a confounder or not.
\subsubsection{Confounders can be detected directly from score}
While seeing if nuisance variables can be predicted from the images can help understand if a confounded model \emph{could} be learned from some data, it does not help identify how much a \emph{particular model} is actually invariant to confounders. To assess this, we instead evaluate how well a neural network model (adversary) can classify the confounder of interest using only the scalar output score of the model we care about as input. In our case, this quantifies the dependence between the output score for pneumonia $S$ and the confounding variable $V$ by measuring the difference between the two distributions $p(S|X, V = \text{AP})$ and $p(S|X, V = \text{PA})$, and is well-justified as an empirical approximation to the $\mathcal{H}$-divergence discussed in \cite{Ganin2016Domain-adversarialNetworks,Edwards2015CensoringAdversary}. For a classifier where the output with respect to our class of interest, $S$ is independent of $V$, prediction of $V$ from $S$ should be random, while $S$ not independent of $V$ will lead to better than random prediction. As an adversary, we trained a simple feed-forward network with 3 hidden layers of 32 nodes.
While both view and sex were nearly perfectly classified from the original data, when we first train a DenseNet-121 classifier to predict pneumonia from chest radiographs, then try to predict view and sex from the predicted probability of pneumonia, we see that our model attains far greater performance at predicting radiograph view than sex, and that patient sex is not predicted better than random (\autoref{fig:FromDataScore}). Therefore, we can conclude that while the pneumonia classifier is likely independent of sex, it is potentially not invariant to view.
\subsection{Adversarial training can increase model robustness by controlling for confounders}
\subsubsection{Adversarial framework learns view-independent classifier}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth]{figures/generalization_gap_two_subplots.pdf}
\caption{Adversarial training leads to less performance drop and significantly better performance when classifier is tested on data from a hospital system external to the one the training data comes from.}
\label{fig:GeneralizationGapAUROC}
\end{figure*}
Following the insight of the previous section, we can directly optimize for a classifier that learns a score for our class of interest $S$ that is independent of view using an adversarial framework. Prior to adversarial training, an adversary neural network could predict the counfounder with relatively high accuracy given only the score (\autoref{fig:FromDataScore}). Following our adversarial optimization procedure (\autoref{sec:AdvTraining}), a neural network is not able to predict the confounder any better than random accuracy (see \autoref{fig:IndependentScore}, left). Furthermore, when we look at the actual score distributions output by our model, we find that they are more closely matched within the two different view subgroups (see \autoref{fig:IndependentScore}, right top and right bottom). While we mainly present results for the binary view variable, one strength of our approach is that it can be applied to any sort of nuisance variable, including continuous-valued variables like age (see \autoref{sec:AgeAppendix}).
We also find that looking at the predictive performance of the adversarial classifier is far more indicative of model behavior than saliency map-based approaches in this case. When we plot saliency maps (see \autoref{fig:EGAttribs} in the Appendix, as described in \autoref{sec:FeatureAttributions}) we can see that there are definite differences in the pixel-level attributions. Furthermore, it appears that the important pixels are more localized to the lung fields in the adversarially-trained model than in the standard model. However, it is difficult to quantitatively assess to what extent that is the case, and since we have shown that pixels throughout the entire image are important for view classification by CNNs, it is very difficult to answer whether or not a model is confounded by view or not based only on its pixel-level feature attributions.
\subsubsection{View-independent classifier generalizes better to unseen target domain}
In addition to being able to learn a classifier that is independent of view, we find that adversarial training also is able to learn a model that generalizes better to external target domain test data (see \autoref{tab:generalization_performance}). When we compare the performance of the adversarial model to the standard model, we find that while the adversarial model attains slightly worse performance on the source domain (AUROC $= 0.747 \pm 0.013$ vs. AUROC $= 0.791 \pm 0.016$), it attains better performance on the target domain (AUROC $= 0.739 \pm 0.001$ vs. AUROC $= 0.703 \pm 0.016$).
When we compare to the other baseline methods for controlling for confounding (instance weighting, including the covariate, and matching), we find that adversarial training also outperforms these methods. Of these other methods, we find that including the confounder as an additional covariate in modeling is the most effective, followed by matching, then the instance weighting resampling scheme.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth]{figures/PCA_EMBEDDING_SUPERVISED.png}
\caption{Adversarial training leads to a final representation where general pathology is orthogonal to view. White arrows indicate magnitude and direction of view and pathology classification weight vectors.}
\label{fig:SupervisedEmbedding}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Adversarial training learns a representation where pathology is independent of view}
While our adversarial approach only explicitly constrains the final output score to be independent of the nuisance variable $V$ representing view, we wanted to see how the earlier representations in the DenseNet-121 were impacted by this approach. We therefore take the output of the last dense layer before the classification head and average pool over the last two dimensions, and then perform principal components analysis in the same way as we did for the ``unsupervised'' ImageNet-pretrained classifier in section \autoref{sec:unsupervised}.
The representation in the last layer of our adversarially-trained classifier is interesting, in that it is able to learn an embedding where the axis of differentiation separating the two views seems to be orthogonal to the axis representing pathology (see \autoref{fig:SupervisedEmbedding}). When we plot the first two principal components of the radiograph embedding and color by view, we see that the views are separated from the bottom left of the plot towards the top right. When we color the same embedding by pathology, the images with no findings are separated to the bottom right, while images containing pathology separate to the top left.
To quantify if this adversarially-trained representation has a more orthogonal relationship between view and pathology than a classifier with standard training, we learned a simple logisitic regression classifier using the first two principal components of the last layer embeddings of the standard and adversarially trained classifiers as input. The output for prediction was either view or pathology. We then measured the linear correlation ($r$) between the weight vectors of the two linear classifiers.
We found over a 10-fold decrease in the correlation between the view and pathology vectors in the final embeddings from the standard to adversarially-trained models (decreasing from $r = 0.1974$ to $r = 0.008$), indicating that the view-axis was substantially more orthogonal to the pathology-axis in the adversarially-trained classifier. Again, this was particularly remarkable in that there was no constraint to learn a more independent representation in the hidden layers of the model.
\section{Discussion}
Our results demonstrate that an approach based on adversarial optimization is capable of learning more robust medical imaging classifiers. For the specific case of chest radiographs, we show that a pneumonia classifier trained to be independent of view is more stable to dataset shift, attaining better generalization performance when tested on radiographs from an external dataset. Finally, our results show that attempting to predict potential nuisance variables directly from a model's output score can be a valuable tool for model interpretability, indicating whether or not a particular model is independent of potential confounders. While any measure of the difference in the distributions of the model's output conditional on potential confounders is likely to work well, we believe that our approach is well-suited in that it also lends itself naturally to a technique to create confounder-invariant models.
Examination of the causal diagram relating chest radiographs to pneumonia points to important future research directions. Our experiments showed increased stability to dataset shift at the expense of decreased performance on new samples from the same hospital system as the training data. Given the causal diagram, where view mediates the relationship between the presence of pneumonia and the pixel features of the chest radiograph, it is not surprising that controlling for view should decrease performance. We note, however, that pneumonia is a diagnosis that is made in the context of clinical evidence of disease, and a disease where there is not necessarily perfect concordance between severity of symptoms and radiographic evidence of infiltrate \cite{vanVugt2013DiagnosingRadiography,Niederman1993GuidelinesTherapy,Oakden-Rayner2018CheXNet:Review,Botz2017AMeasured}. In the description of the creation of the ``Pneumonia'' label in the CheXpert dataset, the authors note that while pneumonia is a clinical diagnosis, ``Pneumonia... was included as a label in order to represent the images that suggested primary infection as the diagnosis,'' suggesting that clinical information may play a role in labeling \cite{Irvin2019Chexpert:Comparison}. Disentangling the relationship between radiographic evidence of consolidation, the clinical presence of pneumonia symptoms, and the influence of the latter on the labeling of the former in these datasets could be helpful.
Finally, while we showed results from controlling radiograph view (and patient age), we expect that future work could show even more benefits from applying our approach to a wider variety of variables, both individually and in combination. However, it would be required for these variables to be recorded as metadata in datasets. As more and more additional variables are recorded in medical imaging datasets, and the causal relationships between these variables are better explicated, we expect the potential benefit of our approach to further increase.
\begin{acks}
We would like to thank Samantha Gilbert, Pascal Sturmfels, Hugh Chen, Nicasia Beebe-Wang and Alex Okeson for their feedback on the manuscript. We would also like to thank all of the members of Prof. Su-In Lee's lab for their valuable general feedback on the project.
\end{acks}
\bibliographystyle{ACM-Reference-Format}
|
\section{Introduction}
This article develops the proximal method of multipliers for solving
a class of nonsmooth convex optimization
\begin{equation}\label{min}
\min_{x\in \mathbb{R}^n} f(x) +\phi(Ex). \tag{$\mathcal{P}$}
\end{equation}
Throughout this article, we assume that
$f \colon \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is twice continuously differentiable and (not necessarily strongly) convex,
$\phi \colon \mathbb{R}^m \rightarrow \mathbb{R}\cup \{+\infty\}$ is a proper closed convex function, and $E \colon \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^m$ is a linear operator.
Accurate numerical solvers for nonsmooth convex optimization have
received considerable interest. Among the existing methods, the
alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMM)
\cite{Boyd+ParikhETAL-DistOptiStatLear:11,Eckstein+Bertsekas-Dougsplimethprox:92a},
the augmented Lagrangian method (ALM)
\cite{Ito+Kunisch-AugmLagrmethnons:00, Fortin+Glowinski-AugmLagrmeth:83} and its variant
\cite{Tomioka+Sugiyama-DualLagrMethEffi:09}, and the primal dual
active set (PDAS) method
\cite{Hintermueller+ItoETAL-primactistrasemi:02,Ito+Kunisch-actistrabaseaugm:99}
are predominant approaches. Most of these methods, however, are
designed for objective functions possessing strong convexity, which is
rather restrictive in practical applications. Rockafellar proposed in
\cite{Rockafellar-MonooperaugmLagr:78} the proximal method of
multipliers, which is a variant of the augmented Lagrangian method
that works without the assumption of strong convexity on the objective function. The method is designed for the inequality-constrained problem
\begin{equation}\label{min_ineq}
\min_{x\in C} f(x) \quad \mbox{satisfying}\quad g_1(x)\le 0,\ldots,g_m(x)\le 0.
\end{equation}
Here, $C$ is a nonempty closed convex subset of $\mathbb{R}^n$, and $f\colon C\longrightarrow \mathbb{R}$ and $g_i \colon C\longrightarrow \mathbb{R}$ for $i=1,\ldots,m$ are lower semicontinuous convex functions. The proximal method of multipliers is an iteration scheme that generates, for any initial pair $(x_0,\lambda_0)$ and the sequence $\{c_k\}$ of nondecreasing positive real numbers, a sequence $(x_k,\lambda_k)$ by
\begin{align}\label{ppm}
\left\{\begin{array}{rl}
\displaystyle x_{k+1} & \displaystyle \approx \arg\min_{x\in C}\left( \AL{x}{\lambda_k}{c_k} + 1/(2c_k)\Vert x - x_k\Vert^2\right),\\[5pt]
\displaystyle \lambda_{k+1} & \displaystyle =\lambda_k + c_k\nabla_\lambda \AL{x_{k+1}}{\lambda_k}{c_k}\\[5pt]
&= \displaystyle \lambda_k + c_k(g(x_{k+1})-\min(0,g(x_{k+1})+\lambda_k/c_k))\\[5pt]
&= \displaystyle\max(0, \lambda_k + c_k g(x_{k+1})).
\end{array}\right.
\end{align}
Here, $g(x)=(g_1(x),\ldots,g_m(x))^\top \in \mathbb{R}^m$ and $\AL{x}{\lambda}{c}$ is the augmented Lagrangian for the inequality-constrained problem defined by
\begin{equation}\label{ag_ineq}
\AL{x}{\lambda}{c} =f(x)+ \frac{1}{2c}\left(\Vert \max( \lambda+cg(x),0)\Vert^2-\Vert\lambda\Vert^2\right).
\end{equation}
The precise meaning of the approximation ``$\approx$'' is specified depending on the criterion, and
the following one was treated in \cite{Rockafellar-MonooperaugmLagr:78}:
\begin{equation*}
\mbox{dist}(0,\partial \phi_k(x_{k+1})) \le \epsilon_k/c_k\min(1, \Vert ( x_{k+1}-x_k, \lambda_{k+1}-\lambda_k)\Vert^r), \qquad \sum_{k=0}^\infty \epsilon_k < \infty
\end{equation*}
Here, $r$ is either 0 or 1, and $\phi_k(x) = \AL{x}{\lambda_k}{c_k} + 1/(2c_k)\Vert x - x_k\Vert^2$.
Based on the theory of the proximal point algorithm for maximal monotone operators developed in \cite{Rockafellar-Monooperproxpoin:76a}, Rockafellar derived the proximal method of multipliers \eqref{ppm} and established the convergence of the algorithm \cite[Thm.~7]{Rockafellar-MonooperaugmLagr:78}.
The advantage over the method of multipliers (see the Appendix for the
method of multipliers) is that, as mentioned briefly above, even when
the strong convexity of the objective function $f$ is absent and the
primal and dual problems may posses multiple solutions, the
sequences $\{x_k\}$ and $\{\lambda_k\}$ both converge to an optimal
solution of the primal problem and of the dual problem, respectively.
\noindent
\textbf{Application to nonsmooth convex optimization}
It is reasonable to expect that this framework carries over to the problem \eqref{min}.
In fact, Rockafellar noted in the concluding remarks of the article
\cite{Rockafellar-MonooperaugmLagr:78} that the algorithm can be
transferred to more general problems beyond the
inequality-constrained problem and provided brief guidelines on how one may accomplish this task.
In this paper, we follow Rockafellar's remark to obtain the proximal method of multipliers (see Algorithm~\ref{alg:1}) for the problem \eqref{min}, where the minimization problem of the augmented Lagrangian $\AL{x}{\lambda}{c}$ defined by
\begin{equation}\label{ag}
\AL{x}{\lambda}{c} =f(x) + \phi_c(E x + \lambda/c) -\tfrac{1}{2c}\|\lambda\|^2
\end{equation}
arises naturally. Here, $\phi_c$ is the Moreau envelope defined in section~\ref{sec:moreau}.
The remarkable property of the augmented Lagrangian \eqref{ag} is that it is differentiable and the gradient is Lipschitz continuous, and hence, one can define the (generalized) Jacobian. These facts allow us to design a nonsmooth Newton method for solving the subproblem for $x_{k+1}$ in \eqref{ppm_ag2}.
\noindent
\textbf{Contributions}
This paper studies the proximal method of multipliers for the problem \eqref{min} and Newton's method for solving the sequence of subproblems. Our contributions are summarized as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item We perform Rockafellar's minmax application of the proximal point algorithm to a maximal monotone operator associated with the ordinary Lagrangian of the problem \eqref{min} to derive the proximal method of multipliers. This work aims to complete the aforementioned remark noted by Rockafellar in \cite{Rockafellar-MonooperaugmLagr:78}.
\item The proximal method of multipliers requires an optimization method for computing an approximation $x_{k+1}$ of the inner minimization problem in \eqref{ppm_ag2}. We employ a nonsmooth Newton method \cite{Pang+Qi-Nonsequa:93} with a line-search procedure to compute the approximation (see Algorithm~\ref{alg:2}).
The proximal term $1/(2c_k)\Vert x - x_k\Vert^2$ plays several roles in the inner minimization: the quadratic term makes the objective function strongly convex. Consequently, the unique solvability of the problem is ensured. The term also positively affects the local convergence of the Newton method, i.e., the solution of the inner problem will be located in the vicinity of the previous iterate $x_k$, and hence, by starting the inner iteration with $x_k$ as the initial point, the unit step length in the line-search procedure tends to be chosen after a few iterations, and thus, the Newton iteration exhibits fast local convergence.
This phenomenon was observed in our numerical experiments. We present theoretical evidence for the observation, that is, we show that the sequence generated by Algorithm~\ref{alg:2} globally converges to the unique minimizer of the subproblem at least quotient superlinearly.
\end{enumerate}
The augmented Lagrangian \eqref{ag} first appeared in the article of Fortin~\cite{Fortin-Minisomenon-func:75}, where he proposed a method of multipliers, also referred to as the augmented Lagrangian method:
\begin{align}\label{mm_ag}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle x_{k+1} = \arg\min_{x} \AL{x}{\lambda_k}{c}, \\[5pt]
\displaystyle \lambda_{k+1} = \lambda_k + c(Ex_{k+1}-\mbox{prox}_{\phi/c}(Ex_{k+1}+\lambda_k/c)).
\end{array}\right.
\end{align}
(cf. section~\ref{sec:moreau} for the definition of $\prox{\frac{\phi}{c}}$.) However, the article \cite{Fortin-Minisomenon-func:75} has attracted little attention since its appearance.
After more than two decades since his work, the same approach was proposed (rediscovered) by Ito and Kunisch~\cite{Ito+Kunisch-AugmLagrmethnons:00}.
An iterative algorithm that is slightly different in appearance but essentially identical to the augmented Lagrangian method \eqref{mm_ag} was also proposed by Tomioka and Sugiyama in the context of sparsity-regularized minimization problems \cite{Tomioka+Sugiyama-DualLagrMethEffi:09,Tomioka+SuzukiETAL-SupeConvDualAugm:11}.
There are a number of references on the augmented Lagrangian method for convex programming with equality-inequality constraints (e.g., \cite{MR690767,Birgin+Martinez-PracaugmLagrmeth:14}) and on ADMM for \eqref{min}
(e.g., \cite{Boyd+ParikhETAL-DistOptiStatLear:11,Eckstein+Bertsekas-Dougsplimethprox:92a}). In contrast, to the
best of our knowledge, there are few articles available regarding the augmented Lagrangian method (ALM) developed by Fortin \cite{Fortin-Minisomenon-func:75} for the problem \eqref{min}.
To fill this gap, we provide a brief overview of the augmented
Lagrangian method. Our focus is twofold: the first is to excavate
the work by Fortin, which has been buried and has been scarcely referred
to in the subsequence literature since its appearance, and the second is to clarify the difference between ADMM and ALM.
%
We also present some previous works closely related to the method,
namely, the dual augmented Lagrangian (DAL) method
\cite{Tomioka+Sugiyama-DualLagrMethEffi:09,Tomioka+SuzukiETAL-SupeConvDualAugm:11} and the forward-backward
Newton method \cite{parikh2013proximal,Patrinos+StellaETAL-ForwtrunNewtmeth:14}. These
are placed in the Appendix.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows.
In section 2, we present a brief review of proximal mappings and the augmented Lagrangian, which are the basic building blocks for designing the proximal method of multipliers.
In section 3, we derive the proximal method of multipliers for the problem \eqref{min} from the general proximal point algorithm.
In section 4, we describe a nonsmooth Newton method for solving the inner problem \eqref{ppm_ag2}, and
we show that the algorithm is globally convergent at least quotient superlinearly.
We also illustrate the implementation of the algorithm.
\section{Preliminaries}
For a twice continuously differentiable function $f$, its gradient is
denoted by $\nabla f(x)$, and its Hessian is denoted by $\nabla^2 f(x)$.
A convex function $\phi$ is said to be proper if at least one $x_0$
exists such that $\phi(x_0)<+\infty$ and $\phi(x)>-\infty$ for all $x$. The set of proper, lower semicontinuous, convex functions defined on a space ${\mathbb{R}^n}$ is denoted by $\Gamma_0({\mathbb{R}^n})$. The effective domain
of a function $\phi\in\Gamma_0({\mathbb{R}^n})$ is denoted by $\mbox{dom}(\phi)=\{z\in {\mathbb{R}^n}\mid \phi(z)\mbox{ is finite}\}$, and
it is always assumed to be nonempty.
For a function $\phi\in \Gamma_0(\mathbb{R}^n)$, the convex conjugate $\phi^*$ is defined by $\phi^{\ast}(z^\ast) = \sup_{z\in \mathbb{R}^n}\left( (z^{\ast}, z) - \phi(z) \right)$.
A \textit{subgradient} of $\phi$ at $x\in \mathbb{R}^n$ is $g\in\mathbb{R}^n$ satisfying
\begin{equation*}
\phi(y)\ge \phi(x) + (g, y-x),\quad \forall y \in \mathbb{R}^n.
\end{equation*}
The \textit{subdifferential} of $\phi$ at $x$ is the set of all
subgradients of $\phi$ at $x$, and it is denoted by $\partial \phi(x)$.
Let $\{x_k\}\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ be a sequence converging to a limit $x_{\infty}$. We say that the rate of convergence is quotient superlinear (Q-superlinear) if
$\lim_{k\to \infty}\frac{\Vert x_k- x_{\infty}\Vert}{\Vert x_{k+1}-x_{\infty}\Vert}=0$,
and quotient quadratic (Q-quadratic) if
$\lim_{k\to\infty}\frac{\Vert x_k-x_{\infty}\Vert}{\Vert x_{k+1}-x_{\infty}\Vert^2}<\infty$.
\subsection{Dual problem and the (standard) Lagrangian}\label{sec:dual_Lagrangian}
Let $(\mathcal{D})$ denote the Fenchel-Rockafellar dual problem of \eqref{min} defined by
\begin{equation}\label{max}
\max_{\lambda \in \mathbb{R}^m} -f^\ast(-E^\top \lambda) - \phi^\ast(\lambda). \tag{$\mathcal{D}$}
\end{equation}
Throughout this article, we assume that the following conditions are satisfied:
\begin{itemize}
\item[\textrm{(A1)}] There exists an $x\in \mathbb{R}^n$ such that $x\in \mbox{ri}(\mbox{dom} f)$ and $Ex\in \mbox{ri}(\mbox{dom} \phi)$.
\item[\textrm{(A2)}] There exists a $\lambda\in \mathbb{R}^m$ such that $-\lambda\in \mbox{ri}(\mbox{dom} \phi^\ast)$ and $-E^\top \lambda\in \mbox{ri}(\mbox{dom} f^\ast)$.
\end{itemize}
Here, $\mbox{ri}(S)$ for a set $S$ denotes the relative interior of
$S$, i.e., $\mbox{ri}(S)=\{x\in S \mid \exists \epsilon>0 \mbox{ such
that }\mbox{aff}(S)\cap B(x,\epsilon) \subseteq S\}$, where
$\mbox{aff}(S)$ is the smallest affine set that contains the set $S$.
These conditions guarantee the existence of optimal solutions both of \eqref{min} and \eqref{max} (see, e.g., \cite[Prop.~2.2.12]{Kanno-Nonsmechconvopti:11}).
Now let $L$ be the ordinary Lagrangian for \eqref{min}
\begin{equation*
L(x,\lambda) = \inf_{u} \left(f(x) + \phi(Ex + u) - ( \lambda,u) \right)= f(x) - \phi^\ast(\lambda) +( \lambda,Ex).
\end{equation*}
A pair $(\bar{x},\bar{\lambda})$ is said to be a saddle point of the Lagrangian $L$ if it satisfies
\begin{equation*}
L(\bar{x}, {\lambda}) \le L(\bar{x},\bar{\lambda}) \le L(x,\bar{\lambda}) \quad \forall x \in \mathbb{R}^n,\forall\lambda\in\mathbb{R}^m.
\end{equation*}
The next result links a saddle point of the Lagrangian $L$ with a pair of optimal solutions for \eqref{min} and \eqref{max} (see, e.g.,
\cite[Prop.~2.2.17]{Kanno-Nonsmechconvopti:11},\cite[Thm.~4.35]{Ito+Kunisch-Lagrmultapprvari:08}).
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:saddle}
Let $\Phi(x,\lambda)=f(x)+\phi(Ex-\lambda)$. Assume that $\Phi \colon \mathbb{R}^n\times \mathbb{R}^m\rightarrow \mathbb{R}\cup \{+\infty\}$ is a closed proper convex function.
Then, the following are equivalent:
\begin{itemize}
\item[\textrm{(1)}] $(\bar{x},\bar{\lambda})$ is a saddle point of $L$.
\item[\textrm{(2)}] $\bar{x}$ solves \eqref{min}, $\bar{\lambda}$ solves \eqref{max}, and $\min \eqref{min} = \max \eqref{max}$ holds.
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}
Since $f$ and $\phi$ are closed proper convex functions, $\Phi$ is
also a closed proper convex function. Proposition~\ref{prop:saddle} together with (A1) and (A2) implies the existence of a saddle point of $L$.
The existence of the saddle point of $L$ is crucial for the proximal method of multipliers.
As we will show in section 3, if the Lagrangian $L$ possesses at least one saddle point,
then the sequence generated by the proximal method of multipliers converges to a saddle point of $L$, which again by Proposition \ref{prop:saddle} implies that the sequence converges to a pair of optimal solutions of \eqref{min} and \eqref{max}.
\subsection{Moreau envelope and proximal operator}\label{sec:moreau}
We recall the definitions and some basic properties of the Moreau envelope and proximal operator.
Let $\phi\in \Gamma_0({\mathbb{R}^m})$ and $c>0$.
The \textit{proximal operator} $ \prox{\phi}: {\mathbb{R}^m}\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}^m}$ is defined as
\begin{align*}
\prox{\frac{\phi}{c}}(z)=\arg\min_{u \in {\mathbb{R}^m}} \left(\phi(u) + \tfrac{c}{2}\Vert u-z\Vert^2 \right).
\end{align*}
Since the function to be minimized is strongly convex, it admits a
unique solution, and thus, the proximal operator is well defined.
The value function is called the \textit{Moreau envelope} or \textit{Moreau-Yosida approximation} and is denoted by $\phi_c$:
\begin{equation*}
\phi_c(z) =\phi(\prox{\frac{\phi}{c}}(z))+\tfrac{c}{2}\Vert \prox{\frac{\phi}{c}}(z)- z\Vert^2.
\end{equation*}
We list some properties of the Moreau envelope and the proximal operator \cite{Bauschke+Combettes-Convanalmonooper:11}:\\
\textbf{Upper bound.} $0 \le \phi(z)-\phi_c(z) $ for all $z \in {\mathbb{R}^m}$ and all $c>0$.\\
\textbf{Approximation.} $\lim_{c\to \infty}\phi_c(z) = \phi(z)$ for all $z\in {\mathbb{R}^m}$.\\
\textbf{Composition.} If $\phi(z) = a\psi(\alpha z + \beta)+b$ for $\psi\in\Gamma_0(\mathbb{R}^m)$ with $a\in\mathbb{R},b\in \mathbb{R}^m,\beta\in \mathbb{R}^m$ and $\alpha\neq 0$, then
\begin{equation}\label{composition}
\prox{\frac{\phi}{c}}(z) = \frac{1}{\alpha}\left(\prox{\frac{a\alpha^2 \psi}{c}}(\alpha z + \beta) - \beta\right)
\end{equation}
\textbf{Affine addition} If $\phi(z) = \psi(z)+(a,x)+b$ with $a,b\in \mathbb{R}^m$, then
\begin{equation*
\prox{\frac{\phi}{c}}(z) = \prox{\frac{\psi}{c}}(z- a/c).
\end{equation*}
\textbf{Nonexpansiveness.} The proximal operator $\prox{\frac{\phi}{c}}$ is nonexpansive, that is,
\begin{equation*}
\Vert \prox{\frac{\phi}{c}}(z) - \prox{\frac{\phi}{c}}(w)\Vert^2 \le (\prox{\frac{\phi}{c}}(z) - \prox{\frac{\phi}{c}}(w), z-w), \quad \forall z, \forall w\in {\mathbb{R}^m}.
\end{equation*}
\textbf{Differentiability.} The Moreau envelope $\phi_c$ is Fr\'echet differentiable, and the gradient is given by
\begin{equation*
\nabla\phi_c(z) =c(z - \prox{\frac{\phi}{c}}(z) ), \quad \forall c>0, \forall z\in {\mathbb{R}^m}.
\end{equation*}
\textbf{Lipschitz continuity of the gradient.} The gradient $\nabla\phi_c $ is Lipschitz continuous with a Lipschitz constant $c$, i.e.,
\begin{equation*
\Vert \nabla \phi_c(z) - \nabla \phi_c(w)\Vert \le c\Vert z -w\Vert, \quad \forall z ,\forall w \in {\mathbb{R}^m}.
\end{equation*}
\textbf{Decomposition.} The Moreau envelope and the proximal mapping of the conjugate of $\phi$ are related with $\phi_c$ and $\prox{\frac{\phi}{c}}$, respectively, as
\begin{align*
\phi_c(z) + (\phi^\ast)_{\frac{1}{c}}\left(cz\right) =\tfrac{c}{2}\Vert z \Vert^2, \qquad
\prox{\frac{\phi}{c}}(z) + \tfrac{1}{c}\prox{c\phi^{\ast}}\left(cz\right) = z. \nonumber
\end{align*}
\textbf{Subdifferential.} The following conditions are equivalent:
\begin{equation*}
\lambda \in \partial \phi(z) \Longleftrightarrow z - \prox{\frac{\phi}{c}}(z+\lambda/c)=0 \Longleftrightarrow \phi(z) = \phi_c(z+\lambda/c)-\frac{1}{2c}\Vert \lambda \Vert^2.
\end{equation*}
We refer interested readers to Tables~10.1 and 10.2 in \cite{Combettes+Wajs-Signrecoproxforw:05} for closed-form expressions of a number of frequently used proximal mappings.\\
\subsection{The augmented Lagrangian}
Let us recall the definition of the augmented Lagrangian \eqref{ag}.
The augmented Lagrangian $L_c(x,\lambda)$ is finite for all $x\in {\mathbb{R}^n}$ and $\lambda\in {\mathbb{R}^m}$ even when $\phi$ takes infinity at some point, such as the indicator function on a convex set. Moreover, it is Frechet differentiable with respect to both variables:
\begin{proposition}[\cite{Jin+Takeuchi-Lagroptisystclas:16}]\label{prop:KKT}
Let $c>0$ and $f$ be convex and continuously differentiable, and let $\phi\in\Gamma_0({\mathbb{R}^m})$. The augmented Lagrangian
$L_c$ satisfies the following properties:
\begin{itemize}
\item[\textrm{(1)}] $L_c$ is finite for all $x\in {\mathbb{R}^n}$ and for all $\lambda \in {\mathbb{R}^m}$.
\item[\textrm{(2)}] $L_c$ is convex and continuously differentiable
with respect to $x$, and it is concave and continuously
differentiable with respect to $\lambda$. Furthermore, for all
$(x,\lambda)\in {\mathbb{R}^n}\times {\mathbb{R}^m}$ and for all $c>0$, the gradients
$\nabla_xL_c$ and $\nabla_{\lambda} L_c$ are respectively written as
\begin{align}
\nabla_{x} {L}_{c}(x,\lambda) & = \nabla_x f(x) +c E^\top( E x + \lambda/c -\prox{\frac{\phi}{c}}( E x + \lambda/c)), \label{gradL1}\\
\nabla_{\lambda}{L}_{c}(x,\lambda)& = E x - \prox{\frac{\phi}{c}}( E x + \lambda/c). \nonumber
\end{align}
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}
where $G\in \partial_C\prox{\frac{\phi}{c}}(z)$ at $z=Ex+\lambda/c$.
\subsection{The proximal point algorithm}
\subsubsection{Maximal monotone operator}
A set-valued operator $T\colon H \rightarrow 2^H$, defined on a real Hilbert space with an inner product $( \cdot,\cdot)$, is called \textit{monotone} if $( z - z^\prime, w-w^\prime) \ge 0$ for all $w \in T(z),\; w^\prime \in T(z^\prime)$. In addition, if the graph of $T$, $G(T) = \{(z,w)\in H\times H \mid w \in T(z)\}$,
is not properly contained in the graph of any other monotone operator,
then we call $T$ a \textit{maximal monotone} operator.
The fundamental property of the maximal monotone operator is that
for any $c>0$ and any $z\in H$, there exists a unique element $u$ such that
\begin{equation*}
z\in (I+cT)(u).
\end{equation*}
Thus, the operator $P:=(I+cT)^{-1}$ is a single-valued mapping defined on all of $H$.
$P$ is called the \textit{proximal mapping} associated with $cT$. It is nonexpansive
\begin{equation}\label{nonexpansive}
\Vert P(z) - P(w)\Vert \le \Vert z - w\Vert, \quad \forall z, \forall w \in H;
\end{equation}
and $z=P(z)$ if and only if $0\in T(z)$.
The operator $(I +cT)^{-1}$ is also called the \textit{resolvent
operator} of $T$ in the field of functional analysis, and it is often denoted by $J_{cT}$.
Throughout this article, we call $P$ the proximal mapping and the point $P(z)$ for $z\in H$ \textit{the proximal point}.
\subsubsection{Proximal point algorithm}
Many problems can be recast as finding an element satisfying $0\in T(z)$ of a maximal monotone operator $T$.
A fundamental algorithm for solving the inclusion is the proximal point algorithm \cite{Rockafellar-Monooperproxpoin:76a}, which is a fixed-point algorithm
generating, for any initial point $z_0$ and a sequence $\{c_k\}$ of positive numbers bounded away from zero (i.e., $\inf_k c_k > 0$),
a sequence $\{z_k\}$ by the iteration
\begin{align*}
z_{k+1}= P_k(z_k):=(I + c_kT)^{-1}(z_k).
\end{align*}
The evaluation of $P_k(z)$ for a given $z$ is often nontrivial. In our
setting, the evaluation of $P_k(z)$ is equivalent to solving
a nonsmooth convex optimization problem (see Corollary~\ref{cor:P}).
In practice, it is often hopeless to compute the solution without computation error, and only an approximation is possible.
The following is the proximal point algorithm with the inexact evaluation of $P_k(z_k)$.
\renewcommand{\thealgorithm}{}
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{The proximal point algorithm}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE Let $r\ge 0$. Choose sequences of positive number $\{c_k\}_k$
such that $\liminf_{k\to \infty} c_k > 0$ and of $\{\epsilon_k\}_k$ such that $\sum_{k=0}^\infty \epsilon_k <\infty$.
\STATE Choose $z_0 \in H$ arbitrary.
\STATE Compute an approximation $z_{k+1}$ satisfying
\begin{equation}\label{ppa_stop1}
\Vert z_{k+1} - P_k(z_k) \Vert \le \epsilon_k\min(1,\Vert z_{k+1} -z_k\Vert^r). \tag{$\textrm{A}_r$}
\end{equation}
\STATE Set $z_k\leftarrow z_{k+1}$, $c_k\leftarrow c_{k+1}$ and $\epsilon_k\leftarrow \epsilon_{k+1}$, and return to Step 3.
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\renewcommand{\thealgorithm}{1}
\begin{remark}
At first glance, it appears meaningless to consider the criterion \eqref{ppa_stop1} because the criterion involves the unaccessible quantity $P_k(z_k)$.
The criterion is simply what is required in the context of the theoretical justification of the convergence of the iteration.
In practical implementations of the algorithm, we will use an
alternative criterion that does not involve $P_k(z_k)$ and that is sufficient for the condition \eqref{ppa_stop1}.
A computationally amenable criterion will be presented in the next section.
\end{remark}
We cite the general result on the convergence of the proximal point algorithm from \cite[Thm.~1]{Rockafellar-Monooperproxpoin:76a}.
\begin{theorem}[{\cite[Thm.~1]{Rockafellar-Monooperproxpoin:76a}}]\label{thm:mono_converge} Let $T$ be a maximal monotone operator.
Let $\{z_k\}$ be any sequence generated by the proximal point algorithm
satisfying the criterion \eqref{ppa_stop1} ($r\ge 0$) with $\liminf_{k\to\infty}c_k>0$.
Suppose that there exists at least one solution to $0\in T(z)$. Then, $\{z_k\}$ converges weakly to a point $z_\infty$ satisfying $0\in T(z_\infty)$.
\end{theorem}
In this article, we do not consider the rate of convergence of the proximal point algorithm. We refer the reader to the article, e.g.,
\cite{Luque-Asymconvanalprox:84}, for details on the convergence rates.
\section{The proximal method of multipliers}
In this section, we investigate the proximal method of multipliers (Algorithm~\ref{alg:1}).
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{The proximal method of multipliers}\label{alg:1}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE Choose $r\ge0$ and $\{c_k\}_k$ such that $\liminf_{k\to\infty}\{c_k\}_k > 0$ and $\{\epsilon_k\}_k$ such that $\sum_{k=0}^\infty \epsilon_k <\infty$.
\STATE Choose $(x^0,\lambda^0)\in\mathbb{R}^n\times\mathbb{R}^m$.
\STATE Compute an approximation $x_{k+1}$ to the minimization problem
\begin{align}
\min_{x} \AL{x}{\lambda_k}{c_k} + 1/(2c_k)\Vert x-x_k\Vert^2, \label{ppm_ag2}
\end{align}
with the accuracy
\begin{equation}\label{ppm_stop1}
\Vert \nabla_x \AL{x_{k+1}}{\lambda_k}{c_k} + c^{-1}_k(x_{k+1}-x_k)\Vert \le \frac{\epsilon_k}{c_k}\min(1,\Vert (x_{k+1},\lambda_{k+1}) - (x_{k},\lambda_{k})\Vert^r ).
\end{equation}
where $\lambda_{k+1}$ is given by
\begin{align}
\lambda_{k+1} &= \lambda_k + c_k(Ex_{k+1}-\mbox{prox}_{\phi/c_k}(Ex_{k+1}+\lambda_k/c_k)).\label{ppm_ag2_2}
\end{align}
\STATE Set $x_k\leftarrow x_{k+1}$, $\lambda_k\leftarrow \lambda_{k+1}$, $c_k\leftarrow c_{k+1}$ and $\epsilon_k\leftarrow \epsilon_{k+1}$ and return to Step 3.
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
We begin with the statement of our main theorem on the convergence of the proximal method of multipliers.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:ppm}
From any initial point $(x_0,\lambda_0)$, let $\{(x_k,\lambda_k)\}_k$ be any sequence generated by the proximal method of multipliers (Algorithm~\ref{alg:1}).
Suppose that $($A1$)$ and $($A2$)$ hold.
Then, $\{x_k\}_k$ converges to an optimal solution of \eqref{min}, and $\{\lambda_k\}_k$ converges to an optimal solution of \eqref{max}.
\end{theorem}
The proof follows Rockafellar's original idea in \cite{Rockafellar-Monooperproxpoin:76a} developed for the proximal method of multipliers for the inequality-constrained problem \eqref{min_ineq}.
We begin with the definition of a set-valued operator $T_L$ associated with the ordinary Lagrangian $L$: for a point $(x,\lambda)$, $T_L(x,\lambda)$ is defined as a set of all $(u,v)$ such that $u$ is a subgradient of convex function $L(\cdot,\lambda)$ at $x$ and $v$ is a subgradient of the convex function $-L(x,\cdot)$ at $\lambda$
\begin{equation}\label{TL}
T_L(x,\lambda):= \{(u,v) \mid u\in \partial_x L(x,\lambda), v \in \partial_\lambda(-L(x,\lambda))\},\quad \forall (x,\lambda)\in \mathbb{R}^n\times\mathbb{R}^m.
\end{equation}
We have the following Lemma.
\begin{lemma
The map $T_L$ defined by \eqref{TL} is maximal monotone.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
See \cite[Cor.~2, p.~249]{Rockafellar-Monooperassowith:70}.
\end{proof}
Since $T_L$ is maximal, the operator $P_k=(I+c_kT_L)^{-1}$
is well defined as the single-valued operator on all $\mathbb{R}^n\times\mathbb{R}^m$.
The next result provides the connection between the approximation $x_{k+1}$ and the proximal point $P_k(x_k,\lambda_k)$.
\begin{proposition}\label{lem_P}
Let $(x_k,\lambda_k)$ be a current iteration. Let $x_{k+1}$ be any approximation to the minimization problem \eqref{ppm_ag2} and
$\lambda_{k+1}$ be defined as \eqref{ppm_ag2_2}. Then, we have the estimate
\begin{equation}\label{estimates1}
\Vert (x_{k+1},\lambda_{k+1}) -P_k(x_k,\lambda_k)\Vert \le c_k\Vert \nabla_x \AL{x_k}{\lambda_k}{c_k} + c_k^{-1}(x_{k+1} -x_k)\Vert.
\end{equation}
Moreover, if $x_{k+1}$ satisfies the condition \eqref{ppm_stop1}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{estimates2}
\Vert (x_{k+1},\lambda_{k+1}) - P_k(x_k,\lambda_k)\Vert \le \epsilon_k\min(1,\Vert (x_{k+1},\lambda_{k+1}) - (x_{k},\lambda_{k})\Vert^r ).
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The proof is adapted from \cite[Prop.~8]{Rockafellar-Monooperproxpoin:76a}, where the inequality-constrained optimization problem \eqref{min_ineq} was treated.
Let $w$ be $w= \nabla_x \AL{x_{k+1}}{\lambda_k}{c_k}+ c_k^{-1}(x_{k+1} - x_k)$. We show that
\begin{equation}\label{approx_P}
(x_{k+1},\lambda_{k+1}) = P_k(c_kw+x_k,\lambda_k).
\end{equation}
From \eqref{gradL1} and the definition of $\lambda_{k+1}$ and the ordinary Lagrangian $L$, it follows that
\begin{equation*}
\nabla_x\AL{x_{k+1}}{\lambda_k}{c_k} = \nabla_x f(x_{k+1}) + E^{\top}\lambda_{k+1} = \partial_x L(x_{k+1},\lambda_{k+1}).
\end{equation*}
Consequently, we have
\begin{equation}\label{x}
w + c^{-1}(x_k-x_{k+1}) = \partial_x L(x_{k+1},\lambda_{k+1}).
\end{equation}
However, since $\lambda_{k+1}=\lambda_k+c_k(Ex_{k+1}-\prox{\frac{\phi}{c}}(Ex_{k+1}+\lambda_k/c_k))=\prox{c_k\phi^\ast}(\lambda_k + c_kEx_{k+1})$,
it follows that $\lambda_{k+1}$ is the solution of the minimization problem
\begin{equation*}
\lambda_{k+1} = \arg \min_{\mu} \left(\frac{1}{2c_k}\Vert \mu - (\lambda_k+c_k Ex_{k+1})\Vert^2 + \phi^\ast(\mu)\right),
\end{equation*}
whose optimality condition is given by
\begin{equation*}
0 \in \partial \phi^\ast(\lambda_{k+1}) + c_k^{-1}(\lambda_{k+1} - (c_kEx_{k+1}+\lambda_k)).
\end{equation*}
By the definition of $L(x,\lambda)$, this is equivalent to
\begin{align}\label{lambda}
c^{-1}_k(\lambda_{k} -\lambda_{k+1})\in \partial_\lambda(- L)(x_{k+1},\lambda_{k+1}).
\end{align}
From \eqref{x} and \eqref{lambda}, we have
$(w + \frac{x_k - x_{k+1}}{c_k},\frac{\lambda_k-\lambda_{k+1}}{c_k}) \in T_L(x_{k+1},\lambda_{k+1})$,
which is equivalent to
$(c_kw + x_{k},\lambda_k)\in (I + c_kT_L)(x_{k+1},\lambda_{k+1})$.
Thus, we have $P_k(c_kw+x_k,\lambda_k)=(x_{k+1},\lambda_{k+1})$.
This proves the claim \eqref{approx_P}.
Since $P_k$ is nonexpansive (cf. \eqref{nonexpansive}), we have
\begin{align*}
\Vert (x_{k+1},\lambda_{k+1})-P_k(x_k,\lambda_k)\Vert& = \Vert P_k(c_kw+x_k,\lambda_k)-P_k(x_k,\lambda_k)\Vert \\
& \le \Vert (c_kw+x_k,\lambda_k)-(x_k,\lambda_k)\Vert = c_k\Vert w\Vert.
\end{align*}
Finally, the estimate \eqref{estimates2} readily follows from \eqref{ppm_stop1} and \eqref{estimates1}.
\end{proof}
We are now in the position to prove Theorem~\ref{thm:ppm}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:ppm}]
We first show that there exists at least one solution to $0\in T_L(x,\lambda)$.
From (A1) and (A2) in section~\ref{sec:dual_Lagrangian}, it follows that there exist optimal solutions for both \eqref{min} and \eqref{max}.
By virtue of Proposition \ref{prop:saddle}, a pair of optimal solutions is a saddle point of $L$ and vice versa.
Clearly, $(x,\lambda)$ is a saddle point of $L$ if and only if $0\in \partial_x L(x,\lambda)$ and $0\in \partial_\lambda (-L)(x,\lambda)$.
The inclusions are equivalently written as $0\in T_L(x,\lambda)$.
Hence, the assertion is true.
In the above argument, we have also proven that the set of solutions to $0\in T_L(x,\lambda)$ is identical to the set of pairs of optimal solutions for \eqref{min} and \eqref{max}, which is also identical to the set of saddle points of $L$. Hence, it is sufficient to show that the sequence converges to a solution to $0\in T_L(x,\lambda)$.
However, since $x_{k+1}$ satisfies the estimates \eqref{ppm_stop1}, it follows from Proposition~\ref{lem_P} that
\begin{equation*}
\Vert (x_{k+1},\lambda_{k+1}) - P_k(x_k,\lambda_k)\Vert \le \epsilon_k\min(1,\Vert (x_{k+1},\lambda_{k+1}) - (x_{k},\lambda_{k})\Vert^r ),
\end{equation*}
and thus, by Theorem~\ref{thm:mono_converge}, we can conclude that
the sequence $\{(x_k,\lambda_k)\}_k$ converges to a solution to $0\in T_L(x,\lambda)$.
This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
At the end of this section, we provide two interpretations of the proximal point $P_k(x_k,\lambda_k)$.
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:P}
The following assertions are valid:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Let us denote $(\bar{x}_k,\bar{\lambda}_k) = P_k(x_k,\lambda_k)$. Then, $\bar{x}_k$ is a unique minimizer of \eqref{ppm_ag2} and $\bar{\lambda}_k = \lambda_k + c_k(E\bar{x}_k -\prox{\phi/c_k}(E\bar{x}_k+\lambda_k/c_k))$.
\item Let us define the regularized Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}_k$ by
\begin{equation*
\mathcal{L}_k(x,\lambda):=L(x,\lambda) + 1/(2c_k)\Vert x -x_k\Vert^2 - 1/(2c_k)\Vert \lambda - \lambda_k\Vert^2.
\end{equation*}
Then, $P_k(x_k,\lambda_k)$ is the unique saddle point of $\mathcal{L}_k$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
From Proposition~\ref{prop:KKT}, we know that the augmented Lagrangian $L_{c_k}(x,\lambda_k)$ is convex with respect to $x$.
Since $1/(2c_k)\Vert x - x_k\Vert^2$ is strictly convex, the function $L_{c_k}(x,\lambda_k)+1/(2c_k)\Vert x - x_k\Vert^2$ is strictly convex and thus
has a unique minimizer. Let $x^\ast_k$ be the unique minimizer and $\lambda^\ast_k=\lambda_k+c_k(Ex^\ast_k-\prox{\phi/c_k}(Ex^\ast_k+\lambda_k/c_k))$. From the optimality condition, it follows that
\begin{equation*}
\nabla_x \AL{x^\ast_k}{\lambda_k}{c_k}+ c_k^{-1}(x^\ast_{k} - x_k)=0.
\end{equation*}
However, from \eqref{estimates1}, it follows that $(x^\ast_k,\lambda^\ast_k) = P_k(x_k,\lambda_k)$, which proves the first assertion.
The second assertion is valid from the following equivalences: By definition, $(\bar{x}_k,\bar{\lambda}_k) = (I+c_k T_L)^{-1}(x_k,\lambda_k)$. This is equivalently written as $ \left(c^{-1}_k({x_k-\bar{x}_k}) , c^{-1}_k(\lambda_k-\bar{\lambda}_k) \right)\in T_L(\bar{x}_k,\bar{\lambda}_k)$, which is also written as
\begin{align*}
& \left\{\begin{array}{l}
0\in \partial_x (L(x,\bar{\lambda}_k) + 1/(2c_k)\Vert x - x_k\Vert^2 )|_{x=\bar{x}_k}, \\[5pt]
0\in \partial_\lambda (-L(\bar{x}_k, \lambda) + 1/(2c_k)\Vert \lambda -\lambda_k\Vert^2)|_{\lambda=\bar{\lambda}_k}.
\end{array}\right.
\end{align*}
This means that $\bar{x}_k$ is the stationary point of $\mathcal{L}_k(\cdot,\bar{\lambda}_k)$ and
$\bar{\lambda}_k$ is that of $\mathcal{L}_k(\bar{x}_k,\cdot)$; in other words,
$0\in \partial_x \mathcal{L}_k(\bar{x}_k,\bar{\lambda}_k)$
and
$0\in \partial_\lambda (\mathcal{-L}_k)(\bar{x}_k,\bar{\lambda}_k)$.
Since $\mathcal{L}_k(x,\bar{\lambda}_k)$ and $\mathcal{-L}_k(\bar{x}_k,\lambda)$ are strictly convex with respect to $x$ and $\lambda$, respectively, it follows that
\begin{align*}
\left\{\begin{array}{rl}
\mathcal{L}_k(x,\bar{\lambda}_k)\ge \mathcal{L}_k(\bar{x}_k,\bar{\lambda}_k) + ( 0, x-\bar{x}_k) & \forall x\in \mathbb{R}^n,
\\
-\mathcal{L}_k(\bar{x}_k,\lambda)\ge -\mathcal{L}_k(\bar{x}_k,\bar{\lambda}_k) + ( 0, \lambda-\bar{\lambda}_k) & \forall \lambda\in \mathbb{R}^m,
\end{array}\right.
\end{align*}
where the equalities hold if and only if $x=\bar{x}_k$ and $\lambda=\bar{\lambda}_k$. Consequently, we have
$\mathcal{L}_k(\bar{x}_k,\lambda) \le \mathcal{L}_k(\bar{x}_k,\bar{\lambda}_k) \le \mathcal{L}_k(x,\bar{\lambda}_k)$,
for all $(x,\lambda)\in \mathbb{R}^n\times \mathbb{R}^m$.
This implies that the proximal point $(\bar{x}_k,\bar{\lambda}_k)$ is the unique saddle point of the regularized Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}_k$.
\end{proof}
We readily see from Corollary~\ref{cor:P} that the proximal method of multipliers with exact minimization is the realization of the proximal point algorithm with exact evaluation of $P_k(x_k,\lambda_k)$.
\begin{theorem}
The proximal point algorithm with exact minimization
\begin{equation*}
(x_{k+1},\lambda_{k+1})=P_k(x_k,\lambda_k)
\end{equation*}
is equivalent to the proximal method of multipliers with exact minimization
\begin{align*}
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcl}
x_{k+1}& = &\displaystyle \arg \min_{x} \AL{x}{\lambda_k}{c_k} + 1/(2c_k)\Vert x-x_k\Vert^2, \\[5pt]
\lambda_{k+1} &= &\displaystyle \lambda_k + c_k(Ex_{k+1}-\prox{\phi/c_k}(Ex_{k+1}+\lambda_k/c_k)).
\end{array}\right.
\end{align*}
\end{theorem}
\section{Newton method for solving the subproblem}
In the previous section, we established the convergence of the proximal method of multipliers, in which we assumed that
an approximation $x_{k+1}$ to the inner minimization problem \eqref{ppm_ag2} is available.
In this section, we develop a numerical method for computing $x_{k+1}$ satisfying the estimate \eqref{ppm_stop1}.
Let us recall the problem \eqref{ppm_ag2}:
\begin{equation}\label{min_inner}
\min_{\xi}\psi(\xi):=\AL{\xi}{\lambda}{c} + 1/(2c)\Vert \xi - x\Vert^2.
\end{equation}
We use the symbol $\xi$ to denote the variable of $\psi$ to be minimized, and we drop the subscript $k$ from $x_k,\lambda_k$ and $c_k$ for simplicity.
Let $\xi^\ast$ denote the first $n$ components of the proximal point $P_k(x,\lambda)$. Recall that $\xi^\ast$ is the unique minimizer of \eqref{min_inner} (see Corollary~\ref{cor:P}), i.e., $\xi^\ast = \arg\min_\xi \psi(\xi)$. Apparently, the necessary and sufficient optimality condition for $\xi^\ast$ to be
the minimizer for $\psi$ is given as
\begin{equation}\label{equ:opt}
\nabla \psi(\xi^\ast )=0.
\end{equation}
Now, we describe an algorithm for solving \eqref{equ:opt} and state
results on the convergence properties. For this purpose, we need the
concepts of the generalized Jacobian and semismoothness. \\
\textbf{Generalized Jacobian.} Let $\Phi \colon \mathbb{R}^m\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^n$ be a locally Lipschitz continuous map. Rademacher's
Theorem \cite[Sect.~3.1.2]{Evans+Gariepy-Meastheofineprop:92} states that a locally continuous map is
differentiable almost everywhere. Denote by $N_{\Phi}$ a set of measure zero such that $\Phi$ is differentiable
on $\mathbb{R}^m\setminus N_{\Phi}$. The \textit{limiting Jacobian} of $\Phi$ at $\xi$ is the set
\begin{equation*}
\partial_B \Phi(\xi) := \left\{G \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times m} \mid \exists \{\xi^k\} \subset \mathbb{R}^m\setminus N_{\Phi} \mbox{ with } \xi^k\rightarrow \xi,
D_\xi\Phi(\xi^k) \rightarrow G\right\}.
\end{equation*}
\textit{(Clarke's) generalized Jacobian} $\partial\Phi(\xi)$ of $\Phi$ at $\xi \in\mathbb{R}^m$ is the convex hull of the limiting Jacobian:
\begin{equation*}
\partial \Phi(\xi) = \mbox{conv}(\partial_B\Phi(\xi)).
\end{equation*}
We denote by $\partial_B \Phi$ the set-valued map $\xi \rightarrow \partial_B\Phi(\xi)$ for $\xi\in\mathbb{R}^m$. The set-valued map $\partial\Phi$ for the generalized Jacobian is defined analogously. \\
\textbf{Semismoothness.} Let $\Phi: \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^m$ be a locally Lipschitz continuous map.
We say that $\Phi$ is semismooth at a point $\bar{x}$ if $\Phi$ is directionally differentiable near $\bar{x}\in \mathbb{R}^n$ and
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{\substack{\bar{x} \neq x\to \bar{x} \\ G\in \partial \Phi(x)}} \frac{\Vert \Phi(x)+G(\bar{x} - x) - \Phi(\bar{x})\Vert}{\Vert x - \bar{x}\Vert} = 0.
\end{equation*}
If the above requirement is strengthened to
\begin{equation*}
\limsup_{\substack{\bar{x} \neq x\to \bar{x} \\ G\in \partial \Phi(x)}} \frac{\Vert \Phi(x)+G(\bar{x} - x) - \Phi(\bar{x})\Vert}{\Vert x - \bar{x}\Vert^2} <\infty.
\end{equation*}
we say that $\Phi$ is strongly semismooth at $\bar{x}$. If $\Phi$ is (strongly) semismooth at each point of a subset $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^n$, we say that $\Phi$ is (strongly) semismooth on $\Omega$.
We now consider the generalized Jacobian of the map $\nabla\psi$. Here, we recall that
\begin{equation*}
\nabla\psi(\xi) = \nabla f(\xi) +c E^{\top}( E \xi + \lambda/c -\prox{\phi/c}( E \xi + \lambda/c))+(\xi-x)/c.
\end{equation*}
From the chain rule of the generalized Jacobian \cite[Thm.~4]{Imbert-SuppfuncClargene:02}, it follows that
\begin{equation*}
\partial(E^{\top}\prox{\phi/c}(E\xi+\lambda/c))
\subset \{E^{\top} G E \mid G\in \partial (\prox{\phi/c})(E\xi+\lambda/c)\},
\end{equation*}
and thus,
\begin{align}\label{def:T}
\partial(\nabla \psi)(\xi)
\subset T(\xi): = \{ \nabla^2 f(\xi) + c^{-1} I + c E^{\top}(I - G)E \mid G\in \partial (\prox{\phi/{c}})(E\xi+\lambda/c)\}.
\end{align}
With these settings, we formulate a Newton-type method with line search (Algorithm~\ref{alg:2}).
\renewcommand{\thealgorithm}{2}
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Newton method with line search for the inner problem \eqref{min_inner}}\label{alg:2}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE Input: $x\in \mathbb{R}^n$, $\lambda\in\mathbb{R}^m$, $c>0$, $\gamma\in(0,1/2)$, $\rho\in(0,1)$.
\STATE Initialize $\xi_0 \in\mathbb{R}^n$ (e.g., $\xi_0 = x$).
\STATE Select $V_\ell \in T(\xi_\ell)$ and find $d_\ell$ satisfying
\begin{equation*
V_\ell d_\ell = -\nabla\psi(\xi_\ell).
\end{equation*}
\STATE Find the smallest nonnegative integer $i$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{arjimo}
\psi(\xi_\ell+\rho^i d_\ell)\le \psi(\xi_\ell) + \gamma\rho^i \nabla \psi(\xi_\ell)^{\top} d_\ell,
\end{equation}
and set $\tau_\ell = \rho^i$.
\STATE Set $\xi_{\ell+1} = \xi_{\ell}+\tau_\ell d_\ell$.
\STATE
Set $\ell \leftarrow \ell+1$ and return to Step 3.
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
The implementation of Newton's method requires the explicit representation of the Jacobians of the proximal mapping $\prox{\frac{\phi}{c}}(z)$.
We refer the reader to the article \cite{Patrinos+StellaETAL-ForwtrunNewtmeth:14} for the closed forms of a variety of proximal mappings
that frequently appear in practical applications.
The next theorem states the convergence results of Algorithm~\ref{alg:2}.
This theorem guarantees that an approximation $x_{k+1}$ to $P_k(x_k,\lambda_k)$ satisfying the criterion \eqref{ppm_stop1} is obtained within a finite number of iterations.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:converge_alg2} Let $\xi^\ast$ be the global minimizer of $\psi$.
Let $\{\xi_\ell\}$ be a sequence of iterates by Algorithm~\ref{alg:2}. The following statements are valid.
\begin{enumerate}\renewcommand{\labelenumi}{(\roman{enumi})}
\item The sequence globally converges to $\xi^\ast$.
\item If $\prox{\phi/c}$ is semismooth at $\xi^\ast$, then a unit step size $\tau_\ell = 1$ in the Armijo rule
is eventually accepted, i.e., there exists $\ell_0$ such that $\tau_\ell =1 $ for all $\ell\ge \ell_0$.
\item Under the above assumptions, the convergence rate is Q-superlinear.
In addition, if
$\prox{\phi/c}$ is strongly semismooth at $\xi^\ast$, then the convergence rate is Q-quadratic.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
Theorem~8.3.19 in \cite[Ch.~8]{Facchinei+Pang-Finivariineqcomp:03} considers a similar algorithm, where $V_\ell\in\partial_B(\nabla \psi)(\xi)$ is assumed. Note that $\partial_B(\nabla\psi)(\xi) \subset T(\xi)$ is always true but $\partial_B(\nabla\psi)(\xi) = T(\xi)$ does not necessarily hold, which implies that $V_\ell \in T(\xi)$ may not be a member of $\partial_B(\nabla\psi)(\xi)$. For this reason,
Theorem~8.3.9 cannot be directly applied to prove the convergence of Algorithm~\ref{alg:2}. We need the concept of \textit{linear Newton approximation} (LNA for short) and the convergence result of a \textit{linear Newton method}, which will be discussed below. For a comprehensive treatment and for further references on these subjects, one may refer to \cite[Ch.~7]{Facchinei+Pang-Finivariineqcomp:03}.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
The Newton-type method (Algorithm~\ref{alg:2}) was implemented in \cite{Tomioka+SuzukiETAL-SupeConvDualAugm:11} for solving subproblems \eqref{step1_dal} of the method of multipliers (the augmented Lagrangian method by Fortin). However, the article did not investigate the global convergence or the convergence rate of the Newton-type method.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Convergence of the Newton method}
In this section, we provide a proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:converge_alg2}.
Throughout this section, we use the following notations: for a given sequence $\{a_\ell\}_{\ell}$, we denote a subsequence by $\{a_{\ell}\}_{\ell \in \chi}$, where $\chi$ is a subset of $\mathbb{N}$. Let $A\in\mathbb{R}^{n,n}$ and $B\in\mathbb{R}^{n,n}$ be symmetric positive semidefinite matrices. We denote $A\preceq B$ if $(d,Ad)\le (d,Bd)$ for all $d\in \mathbb{R}^n$.
\subsubsection{The proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:converge_alg2} (i)}
To show the global convergence of Algorithm~\ref{alg:2}, we need the result from \cite[Thm.~3.2]{Patrinos+StellaETAL-ForwtrunNewtmeth:14} that states the basic property of the generalized Jacobian of the proximal mapping.
\begin{lemma}[{\cite[Thm.~3.2]{Patrinos+StellaETAL-ForwtrunNewtmeth:14}}]\label{lem:jacobian}
For any $\phi \in \Gamma_0(\mathbb{R}^m)$, every $G \in \partial(\prox{\frac{\phi}{c}})(z)$ is a symmetric positive semidefinite matrix with
$\Vert G\Vert \le 1$.
\end{lemma}
Using the result of Lemma~\ref{lem:jacobian}, one can readily show that $V\in T(\xi)$ is symmetric and strictly positive definite:
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:V}
Let $\xi\in\mathbb{R}^n$, and let $T(\xi)$ be the set of matrices defined by \eqref{def:T}.
Every $V\in T(\xi)$ is a symmetric positive semidefinite matrix with
\begin{equation*}
c^{-1}I \preceq V \preceq \nabla^2 f(\xi) + (c^{-1}+c\Vert E\Vert^2) I.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We recall that $V\in T(\xi)$ is given as
\begin{equation*}
V= \nabla^2 f(\xi) + c^{-1}I + cE^{\top}(I-G)E,\quad G\in \partial(\prox{\phi/c})(E\xi + \lambda/c).
\end{equation*}
The first relation $c^{-1}I \preceq V$ is obvious.
For the second relation, by Lemma~\ref{lem:jacobian}, we have $(d,E^T(I-G)Ed) = (Ed,(I-G)Ed)\le (Ed,Ed)\le \Vert E\Vert^2\Vert d\Vert^2$ for $d\in\mathbb{R}^n$. The rest is obvious, and we complete the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:converge_alg2} (i)]
We show that $\{\xi_\ell\}$ converges to the global minimizer $\xi^\ast$ of $\psi$.
Let $\xi_\ell$ be a nonstationary point of $\psi$, i.e., $\nabla\psi(\xi_\ell)\neq0$. Then, from Lemma~\ref{lem:V}, we have $d_\ell = -V_\ell^{-1}\nabla \psi_k(\xi_\ell)\neq 0$ and
$\nabla\psi(\xi_\ell)^{\top}d_\ell = - (d_\ell, V_\ell d_\ell) = - \Vert V^{1/2}_{\ell}d_\ell\Vert^2<0$, which justifies that there exists $\tau_\ell=\rho^i$ that satisfies \eqref{arjimo}.
Since $\psi(\xi_{\ell+1})\le \psi(\xi_{\ell}) + \gamma \tau_{\ell}\nabla \psi(\xi_\ell)^{\top} d_\ell<\psi(\xi_{\ell})$ and $0\le \psi(\xi_\ell)$,
we see that every $\xi_\ell$ belongs to the set $\{\xi \in \mathbb{R}^n \mid
0\le \psi(\xi) \le\psi(\xi_0)\}$, which is a bounded subset of $\mathbb{R}^n$ because $\psi$ is coercive.
Namely, the generated sequence is $\{\xi_\ell\}_{\ell}$ bounded. Therefore, there exists an accumulation point $\bar{\xi}\in\mathbb{R}^n$ of $\{\xi_\ell\}_{\ell}$ and a subsequence $\{\xi_\ell\}_{\ell\in \chi}$ that converges to $\bar{\xi}$.
Let $\delta>0$ be an arbitrary number, and let $B_\ell = B(\xi_\ell, \delta)$ be a ball with center $\xi_\ell$ and radius $\delta$. Then, there exists a finite subset $J\subset \mathbb{N}$ such that $\cup_{\ell}B_\ell = \cup_{\ell\in J}B_\ell$.
Thus, $L = \sup_{\ell\in J}L_\ell$ is finite, and consequently, we have $\nabla^2 f(\xi_\ell) \preceq L I$ for all $\ell$.
By applying \cite[Prop.~8.3.7]{Facchinei+Pang-Finivariineqcomp:03} to the subsequence $\{\xi_\ell\}_{\ell\in\chi}$, we obtain that $\bar{\xi}$ is a stationary point, which is also the global minimizer of \eqref{min_inner}, i.e., $\bar{\xi}=\xi^\ast$. Since every accumulation point of $\{\xi_\ell\}_{\ell}$ coincides with the global minimizer $\xi^\ast$, the entire sequence converges to $\xi^\ast$.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{The proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:converge_alg2} (ii)}
For a given convergent sequence $\{x_k\}$ with limit $x^\ast$, we say that a sequence $\{d_k\}$ is superlinearly convergent with respect to $\{x_k\}$ if the following limit holds:
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{k\to\infty}\frac{\Vert x_k+d_k-x^\ast\Vert}{\Vert x_k-x^\ast\Vert} = 0.
\end{equation*}
We state the result relevant to the step size in the Armijo rule. The following result is borrowed from
\cite[Prop.~8.3.13]{Facchinei+Pang-Finivariineqcomp:03}
\begin{proposition}[{\cite[Prop.~8.3.18]{Facchinei+Pang-Finivariineqcomp:03}}]\label{prop:13}
Let $\theta : \mathbb{R}^n\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be a continuously differentiable function with $\nabla \theta$ semismooth near a zero $\eta^\ast$ of $\nabla \theta$.
Suppose that a sequence $\{\eta_\ell\}$ converges to $\eta^\ast$ with $\eta_\ell \neq \eta^\ast$ for all $\ell$.
Let $\{d_\ell\}$ be a superlinearly convergent sequence with respect to $\{\eta_\ell\}$.
If every matrix belonging to the generalized Jacobian $\partial(\nabla \theta)(\eta^\ast)$ is strictly positive definite, then
the following two statements hold: \\
(a) There exists a positive constant $\rho$ and $\ell_0$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\nabla\theta(\eta_\ell)^{\top} d_\ell\le -\rho \Vert d_\ell\Vert^2,\quad \mbox{for all}\quad \ell \ge \ell_0.
\end{equation*}
(b) For every $\gamma\in(0,1/2)$, there exists a positive constant $\ell^\prime_0$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\theta(\eta_\ell + d_\ell)\le \theta(\eta_\ell)+\gamma \nabla\theta(\eta_\ell)^{\top} d_\ell,\quad \mbox{for all}\quad \ell \ge \ell^\prime_0.
\end{equation*}
\end{proposition}
We employ Proposition~\ref{prop:13} to prove that $\tau_\ell =1$ is accepted for all $\ell$ sufficiently large by the Armijo rule in Algorithm~\ref{alg:2}. Obviously, $\nabla \psi$ is semismooth. Since $\partial(\nabla \psi)(\xi^\ast)\subset T(\xi^\ast)$ by definition and every $V\in T(\xi^\ast)$ is nonsingular by Lemma~\ref{lem:V}, we know that the generalized Jacobian $\partial(\nabla \psi)(\xi^\ast)$ is strictly positive definite. It remains to show that $\{d_\ell\}$ is a superlinear convergent sequence with respect to $\{\xi_\ell\}$ generated by Algorithm~\ref{alg:2}, namely, we must show that
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{\ell\to\infty}\frac{\Vert \xi_\ell +d_\ell -\xi^\ast\Vert}{\Vert \xi_\ell - \xi^\ast\Vert}=0.
\end{equation*}
To this end, we exploit the theory of the linear Newton approximation scheme.
\begin{definition}\label{def:linear Newton}
Let $\Phi\colon \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^n$ be locally Lipschitz continuous.
If there exists a set-valued map $S\colon \mathbb{R}^n \rightrightarrows \mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$ such that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[\textrm{(a)}] The set of matrices $S(\eta)$ is nonempty and compact for each $\eta\in\mathbb{R}^n$;
\item[\textrm{(b)}] $S$ is upper semicontinuous at $\bar{\eta}$;
\item[\textrm{(c)}] The following limit holds:
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{\substack{\bar{\eta}\neq \eta \rightarrow \bar{\eta}\\ H\in S(\eta) }}
\frac{ \Vert \Phi(\eta) + H(\bar{\eta}-\eta) - \Phi(\bar{\eta})\Vert}{\Vert \eta -\bar{\eta}\Vert} = 0;
\end{equation*}
\end{enumerate}
we say the map $\Phi$ admits a \textit{linear Newton approximation (LNA)} of $\Phi$ at $\bar{\eta}\in\mathbb{R}^n$. We also say that
$S$ is a linear Newton approximation scheme of $\Phi$ at $\bar{\eta}\in\mathbb{R}^n$.
If \textrm{(c)} is strengthened to
\begin{enumerate}
\item[($\textrm{c}^{\prime}$)]
\begin{equation*}
\limsup_{\substack{\bar{\eta}\neq \eta \rightarrow \bar{\eta}\\ H\in S(\eta) }}
\frac{ \Vert \Phi(\eta) + H(\bar{\eta}-\eta) - \Phi(\bar{\eta})\Vert}{\Vert \eta -\bar{\eta}\Vert^2} <\infty,
\end{equation*}
\end{enumerate}
we say that $S$ is a strongly linear Newton approximation scheme at $\bar{\eta}$.
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma}\label{B_LNA}
Assume that a locally Lipschitz map $\Phi \colon \mathbb{R}^m \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^m$ is (strongly) semismooth at $\eta\in \mathbb{R}^m$; then,
each of $\partial \Phi$ and $\partial_B \Phi$ defines a (strong) LNA scheme of $\Phi$ at $\eta$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
It follows from \cite[Prop.~7.1.4]{Facchinei+Pang-Finivariineqcomp:03} that the set-valued map $\partial \Phi $ satisfies conditions {\rm (a)} and {\rm (b)} of Definition~\ref{def:linear Newton}, while from \cite[Thm.~7.4.3]{Facchinei+Pang-Finivariineqcomp:03}, the map satisfies condition {\rm (c)}. We refer the proof for the limiting Jacobian to \cite[Prop.~7.5.16]{Facchinei+Pang-Finivariineqcomp:03}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{prop:sum}
Let $\Phi_1 \colon \mathbb{R}^n\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^m$ and $\Phi_2 \colon \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^m$ be locally Lipschitz maps,
with $T_1$ and $T_2$ being LNAs of $\Phi_1$ and $\Phi_2$ at $\xi$, respectively. For linear maps, $A_1, A_2 \colon \mathbb{R}^{m}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^\ell$, the map $A_1\Phi_1+A_2\Phi_2$ is locally Lipschitz continuous, and $A_1 T_1 + A_2 T_2$ is a LNA of the map.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The assertion directly follows from \cite[Cor.~7.5.18]{Facchinei+Pang-Finivariineqcomp:03}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}[{\cite[Thm~7.5.17]{Facchinei+Pang-Finivariineqcomp:03}}]\label{prop:chain}
Let $\Phi \colon \mathbb{R}^{n}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^m$ be a locally Lipschitz continuous map defined by $\Phi(\xi)=\Phi_1(\Phi_2(\xi))$, where $\Phi_1 \colon \mathbb{R}^m\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^m$ and $\Phi_2 \colon \mathbb{R}^n\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^m$ are both locally Lipschitz continuous. Suppose that $T_1$ and $T_2$ are (strong) linear Newton approximation schemes of $S_1$ and $S_2$ at $\Phi_2(\xi)$ and $\xi$, respectively. Then,
\begin{equation*}
S(\xi)=\{G_1G_2\colon G_1\in T_1(\Phi_2(\xi)),\; G_2\in S_2(\xi)\},
\end{equation*}
is a (strong) LNA of $\Phi$ at $\xi\in \mathbb{R}^n$.
\end{lemma}
We now show that $T(\xi)$ is a (strong) LNA of $\nabla \psi(\xi)$.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:LNA}
Let $\xi\in\mathbb{R}^n$ and assume that the proximal mapping $\prox{\phi/c}$ is (strongly) semismooth at $z=E\xi+\lambda/c$.
Then, $T(\xi)$ defined by \eqref{def:T} is a (strong) linear Newton approximation scheme of $\nabla\psi$ at $\xi$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
From Lemma~\ref{B_LNA}, Lemma~\ref{prop:sum} and Lemma~\ref{prop:chain}, we know that the map $\xi\rightarrow \prox{\phi/c}(E\xi+\lambda/c)$ admits a (strong) LNA scheme $\{GE \mid G\in\partial(\prox{\phi/c})(E\xi+\lambda/c)\}$.
Let us write $\Phi(\xi)=\nabla f(\xi)+c^{-1}(\xi-x)+cE^{\top}E\xi$. It suffices to show that $\nabla\Phi(\xi)=\nabla^2f(\xi)+ c^{-1}I+cE^{\top}E$ is a strong LNA of $\Phi(\xi)$. Since $\nabla f(\xi)$ is locally Lipschitz continuous, we have (cf. \cite[Prop.~7.2.9]{Facchinei+Pang-Finivariineqcomp:03})
\begin{align*}
\Vert \Phi(\xi)-\Phi(\eta)-\nabla\Phi(\xi)(\xi-\eta)\Vert =\Vert \nabla f(\xi)- \nabla f(\eta)-\nabla^2f(\xi)(\xi-\eta)\Vert=O(\Vert \xi- \eta\Vert^2),
\end{align*}
which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
The following estimate is a key to establishing that the direction $\{d_\ell\}$ is superlinear convergent with respect to $\{\xi_\ell\}$.
\begin{lemma}\label{prop:d}
Let $\{\xi_\ell\}$, $\{d_\ell\}$ and $\{V_\ell\}$ be sequences generated by Algorithm~\ref{alg:2}
We have the following estimate:
\begin{equation}\label{est}
\Vert \xi_\ell + d_\ell - \xi^\ast \Vert \le c \Vert \nabla \psi(\xi_\ell)-\nabla \psi(\xi^\ast) - V_\ell(\xi_\ell - \xi^\ast)\Vert, \quad \mbox{for all } \ell.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The estimate follows from the argument in the proof of \cite[Thm.~8.3.15]{Facchinei+Pang-Finivariineqcomp:03}. We provide the derivation of the estimate for completeness.
Adding $\nabla \psi(\xi_\ell)+V_\ell d_\ell = 0$ and $\nabla \psi(\xi^\ast)=0$ to $d_\ell = V_{\ell}^{-1}\nabla \psi(\xi_\ell)$ yields
$V_\ell(\xi_\ell+d_\ell -\xi^\ast) + \nabla \psi(\xi_\ell)-\nabla \psi(\xi^\ast) -V_\ell(\xi_\ell-\xi^\ast) =0$.
By multiplying $x_\ell+d_\ell -\xi^\ast$ and then by using $c^{-1}I \preceq V_\ell$ and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we have the desired estimate \eqref{est}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:converge_alg2} (ii)]
From Lemma~\ref{prop:d}, we have
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\Vert \xi_\ell +d_\ell -\xi^\ast\Vert}{\Vert \xi_\ell - \xi^\ast\Vert}\le \frac{c\Vert \nabla \psi(\xi_\ell)-\nabla \psi(\xi^\ast) - V_\ell(\xi_\ell - \xi^\ast)\Vert}{\Vert \xi_\ell - \xi^\ast\Vert}.
\end{equation*}
By Proposition~\ref{prop:LNA}, if the proximal mapping is semismooth at $\xi^\ast$, the left-hand side tends to 0 as $\ell\to\infty$ because $\lim_{\ell\to\infty}\xi_\ell = \xi^\ast$. Consequently,
$
\lim_{\ell\to\infty}\frac{\Vert \xi_\ell +d_\ell -\xi^\ast\Vert}{\Vert \xi_\ell - \xi^\ast\Vert}=0.
$ Thus, by Proposition~\ref{prop:13}, the Armijo step size rule eventually selects $\tau_\ell=1$ for all $\ell$ sufficiently large.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{The proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:converge_alg2} (iii)}
We begin with the result of the local convergence of the linear Newton iteration.
\begin{proposition}[{\cite[Thm.~7.5.15]{Facchinei+Pang-Finivariineqcomp:03}}]\label{thm:converge}
Let $\Phi \colon \mathbb{R}^n\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^n$ be locally Lipschitz continuous and admit a (strong) LNA scheme
$S$ at $\eta^\ast\in \mathbb{R}^n$ such that $\Phi(\eta^\ast)=0$. If every matrix
$H\in S(\eta^\ast)$ is nonsingular, then the linear Newton metho
\begin{equation*}
\eta^{k+1}= \eta^{k} - H^{-1}_k\Phi(\eta^k) , \mbox{ with }H_k \in S(\eta^k),\quad k=0,1,\ldots,
\end{equation*}
converges Q-superlinearly (resp. Q-quadratically)
to the solution $\eta^\ast$ provided that $\eta^0$ is sufficiently close to $\eta^\ast$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}[The proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:converge_alg2} (iii)]
Theorem~\ref{thm:converge_alg2} (ii) implies that Algorithm~\ref{alg:2} eventually accepts the unit step length in the line search procedure, i.e., there exists $\ell^\prime$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\xi_{\ell+1} = \xi_\ell - V_\ell^{-1}\nabla \psi(\xi_\ell),\quad V_\ell\in T(\xi_\ell),\quad \forall \ell \ge \ell^\prime.
\end{equation*}
By Proposition~\ref{prop:LNA}, we know that $T(\xi)$ is a (strong) LNA of $\nabla \psi$ at $\xi^\ast$. Thus,
Theorem~\ref{thm:converge_alg2} (iii) follows from Proposition~\ref{thm:converge}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Implementation of Algorithm~\ref{alg:2}}
At the end of this section, we illustrate the implementation of Algorithm~\ref{alg:2} using
the $\ell^1$-TV regularization as an example. We only describe the construction of the gradient $\nabla \psi(\xi)$ and the linear Newton approximation scheme $T(\xi)$.
\subsubsection{$\ell^1$\textendash tv regularization}
Let $F$ be an image contaminated by salt-and-pepper noise. Let $y \in \mathbb{R}^{n^2}$ be a column vector collecting the columns of $F$, i.e.,
\begin{equation*}
y_{i+n(j-1)} = F_{i,j},\quad 1\le i \le n , 1\le j\le n.
\end{equation*}
Our object is to remove noise from the image $F$. It can be accomplished by minimizing the function defined by
\begin{equation*}
\min_{u}\alpha \Vert u - y\Vert_1 + \Vert \nabla u\Vert_{2,1},
\end{equation*}
where $\Vert z\Vert_{2,1}$ for $z\in\mathbb{R}^{2n^2}$ denotes the norm $\Vert z\Vert_{2,1} = \sum_{i=1}^{n^2}\sqrt{z_i^2 +z_{i+n^2}^2}$,
$\alpha$ is the regularization parameter, and $\nabla$ denotes the (discretized) gradient matrix $ \nabla = [D_1^{\top},D_2^{\top}]^{\top} \in \mathbb{R}^{2n^2\times n^2}$. Here, $D_1 = I_n\otimes D$ and $D_2 = D\otimes I_n$ with $D$ being the one-dimensional finite difference matrix with periodic boundary condition and $I_n$ being the identity matrix with $n\times n$.
The problem is written in the form of \eqref{min} by setting
\begin{equation*}
f(u)=0,\quad \phi(v,z) = \alpha\Vert v-y\Vert_1+\Vert z \Vert_{2,1},
\quad \mbox{and}\quad
E=\begin{bmatrix}
I_{n^2} \\ \nabla
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{equation*}
The proximal mappings of the function $\phi$ are composed of the proximal mappings of $\ell^1$ norm transported by $y$ and $\Vert \cdot\Vert_{2,1}$ norm;
\begin{equation*}
\prox{\frac{\phi}{c}}(v,z) = \begin{bmatrix}
\prox{\frac{\alpha}{c}\Vert\cdot-y\Vert_1}(v)\\
\prox{\Vert \cdot\Vert_{2,1}/c}(z)
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{equation*}
Now let $u_k\in \mathbb{R}^{n^2}$, $\lambda_k$ be the $k$-th iterates of the
outer iteration, and $\xi_\ell$ be the current solution of the inner iteration. Here, $\lambda_k=(\lambda^{(1)}_k,\lambda^{(2)}_k)$, $\lambda^{(1)}_k\in \mathbb{R}^{n^2}$ is the Lagrange multiplier for $\prox{\frac{\alpha}{c}\Vert\cdot-y\Vert_1}(v)$, and $\lambda^{(2)}_k \in \mathbb{R}^{2n^2}$ is that for $\prox{\Vert \cdot\Vert_{2,1}/c}(z)$. The building blocks for determining the direction $d_\ell$ are:
\begin{align*}
\nabla \psi(\xi_\ell) &= c_kE^{\top}(E \xi_{\ell} +{\lambda_k}/{c_k} - \prox{\phi/{c_k}}(E \xi_{\ell} + {\lambda_k}/{c_k})) + c^{-1}_k(\xi_{\ell} - u_k), \\
V_\ell &= c_k E^{\top} (I_{3n^2}-G)E + c^{-1}_k I_{n^2}.
\end{align*}
where $G \in \partial_B( \prox{\frac{\phi}{c}})(v,z)$ with $v =\xi_\ell +\lambda^{(1)}_k/c_k$ and $z =\nabla \xi_\ell +\lambda^{(2)}_k/c_k$.
Below, we provide closed forms of $\prox{\frac{\phi}{c}}(v,z)$ and $G$.
The proximal mapping $\prox{\frac{\alpha}{c}\Vert\cdot\Vert_1}(z)$ for $z\in\mathbb{R}^n$ is the well-known soft-thresholding operator
\begin{equation*}
\prox{\frac{\alpha}{c}\Vert\cdot\Vert_1}(z) = [\prox{\frac{ \alpha}{c}\vert \cdot \vert}(z_1), \ldots,\prox{\frac{ \alpha}{c}\vert \cdot \vert}(z_n)]^{\top}.
\end{equation*}
Here, $\prox{\frac{ \alpha}{c}\vert \cdot \vert}(s) = \max(s-\tfrac{ \alpha}{c} ,\min(s+\tfrac{ \alpha}{c} ,0))$ for $s\in\mathbb{R}$.
By \eqref{composition}, we have
$\prox{\frac{\alpha}{c}\Vert\cdot-y\Vert_1}(z) = \prox{\frac{\alpha}{c}\Vert\cdot\Vert_1}(z-y)+y \in \mathbb{R}^n$.
A limiting Jacobian $G_1\in \partial_B(\prox{\frac{\alpha}{c}\Vert\cdot-y\Vert_1})(z)$ is diagonal matrix given by
\begin{equation*}
[G_1]_{j,j} =\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1 & \mbox{ if } \vert z_j-y_j\vert > \frac{ \alpha}{c} ,\\
\{0,1\} & \mbox{ if } \vert z_j -y_j\vert= \frac{ \alpha}{c}, \\
0 & \mbox{ otherwise. }
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation*}
On the other hand, the proximal mapping $\prox{\frac{\Vert \cdot \Vert_{2,1}}{c}}(z)$ is block-separable, and its $i$-th and $(i+n^2)$-th components ($i=1,\ldots,n^2$) are given by
\begin{equation*}
([\prox{\frac{\Vert \cdot \Vert_{2,1}}{c}}(z)]_{i},[\prox{\frac{\Vert \cdot \Vert_{2,1}}{c}}(z)]_{i+n^2}) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
(z_{i}-\frac{z_{i}}{c r_i},z_{i+n^2}-\frac{z_{i+n^2}}{c r_i})& \mbox{ if } c r_i \ge 1, \\[5pt]
0 & \mbox{ if } c r_i < 1, \\
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation*}
where $r_i=\sqrt{z_{i}^2 + z_{i+n^2}^2}$. A limiting Jacobian $G_2\in\partial_B
(\prox{\frac{\Vert \cdot \Vert_{2,1}}{c}})(z)$ for $z\in \mathbb{R}^{2n^2}$ is composed of four diagonal matrices
\begin{align*}
G_2=\begin{bmatrix}
G_{11} & G_{12} \\ G_{21} & G_{22}
\end{bmatrix}
\quad \mbox{with}\quad
\begin{array}{ll}
G_{11} = \mbox{diag}(\{g_{i,i}\}_{i=1}^{n^2}), & G_{12}=\mbox{diag}(\{g_{i,n^2+i}\}_{i=1}^{n^2}) \\
G_{21} = \mbox{diag}(\{g_{n^2+i,i}\}_{i=1}^{n^2}) ,&G_{22}=\mbox{diag}(\{g_{n^2+i,n^2+i}\}_{i=1}^{n^2})
\end{array}
\end{align*}
where the $(i,i), (i,i+n^2),(i+n^2,i),(i+n^2,i+n^2)$ components of $G\in \mathbb{R}^{2n^2\times2n^2}$ are given by
\begin{align*}
\begin{bmatrix}
g_{i,i} & g_{i,i+n^2}\\
g_{i+n^2,i} & g_{i+n^2,i+n^2}
\end{bmatrix}
= \left\{\begin{array}{cc}
\displaystyle I_2- \frac{1}{c r_i^{3}}
\begin{bmatrix}
z_{i+n^2}^2& -z_iz_{i+n^2} \\
-z_iz_{i+n^2} & z_i^2
\end{bmatrix} & \mbox{ if } c r_i > 1 \\[10pt]
0 & \mbox{ if } c r_i< 1,
\end{array}\right.
\end{align*}
and any of these elements if $c r_i = 1$ (see, e.g., \cite[Sect.~5.2.3]{Patrinos+StellaETAL-ForwtrunNewtmeth:14}).
Consequently, we have
\begin{align*}
\nabla \psi(\xi_\ell)
&=c_k\left[z^{(1)}_\ell -\prox{\frac{\alpha}{c_k}\Vert \cdot \Vert_{1}}(z_\ell^{(1)})
+ \nabla^{\top}(z^{(2)}_\ell- \prox{\frac{\Vert \cdot \Vert_{2,1}}{{c_k}}}(z^{(2)}_\ell)\right]+ c^{-1}_k(\xi_{\ell} - u_k), \\
V_\ell
& = c_k( (I_{n^2}-G_1) + \nabla^{\top} (I_{2n^2}-G_2)\nabla) + c^{-1}_k I_{n^2},
\end{align*}
where $z_\ell^{(1)} = \xi_\ell+\lambda^{(1)}_k/c_k$ and $z_\ell^{(2)} = \nabla \xi_\ell+\lambda^{(2)}_k/c_k$.
\section*{Conclusion}
In this paper, we have developed the proximal method of multipliers for a class of nonsmooth convex optimization problems
arising in various application domains and a Newton-type method for solving the subproblems.
We provided a rigorous proof on the global convergence of the Newton method with line search and on the rate of the convergence.
To make the proposed framework applicable to real-word applications,
further studies are needed on several important issues, including the
development of efficient solvers for the (possibly) large linear
system (Newton system) and providing parameter choice rules for $c_k$
and $\epsilon_k$, which may have a great influence on the numerical performance of the algorithm. These issues will be investigated in future work.
\renewcommand{\theequation}{A.\arabic{equation}}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\section*{Appendix}
\renewcommand{\theequation}{A.\arabic{equation}}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\subsection*{A. Augmented Lagrangian method (method of multipliers)}
This section provides a brief review of the augmented Lagrangian method.
\noindent
\textbf{Augmented Lagrangian by Hestenes and Powell}\\
Initially, the method of multipliers was independently proposed by Hestenes \cite{Hestenes-Multgradmeth:69} and Powell \cite{Powell-methnonlconsmini:69} for solving nonlinear programming problems with equality constraints
\begin{equation*}
\min_{x\in \mathbb{R}^n} f(x) \quad \mbox{subject to}\quad h(x) = 0,
\end{equation*}
where $f$ and $h$ are smooth functions. The method of multipliers performs a sequence of minimization problems
\begin{equation*}
x_{k} =\arg \min_{x} \left\{ L_{c_k}(x,\lambda_k) = f(x) + (\lambda_k, h(x)) + \frac{c_k}{2}\Vert h(x) \Vert^2 \right\},
\end{equation*}
followed by the multiplier update
\begin{equation*}
\lambda_{k+1} = \lambda_k + c_k \nabla_\lambda L_{c_k}(x_k,\lambda_k)=\lambda_k + c_k h(x_k).
\end{equation*}
The sequence $\{c_k\}$ may be either fixed a priori or adaptively increased during the iteration.
\noindent
\textbf{Augmented Lagrangian by Rockafellar}\\
This approach was generalized to nonlinear programming problems with equality and inequality constraints over a convex set $C\subset \mathbb{R}^n$
\begin{equation}\label{ineq}
\min_{x\in C} f(x) \quad \mbox{subject to}\quad h(x)=0,\quad g(x) \le 0,
\end{equation}
by Rockafellar \cite{Rockafellar-dualapprsolvnonl:73,Rockafellar-multmethHestPowe:73}. Hereafter, we
focus on the inequality constraint only to keep the presentation simpler.
The augmented Lagrangian, which is called the \textit{penalty Lagrangian} in \cite{Rockafellar-dualapprsolvnonl:73}, for the problem is derived by casting the inequality problem into the equality-constrained problem using a slack variable $v$
\begin{equation*}
\min_{x\in C,v\in \mathbb{R}^m} f(x)+ \phi(v) \quad \mbox{subject to}\quad g(x) - v = 0
\end{equation*}
where $\phi(v)$ is the indicator function of the set $K=\{v \in \mathbb{R}^m \mid v_i \le 0, \forall i \}$. Then, define an augmented Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}_{c}(x,v,\lambda)$ by
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{L}_{c}(x,v,\lambda)&= f(x) + \phi(v)+ (\lambda, g(x)-v) + \frac{c}{2}\Vert g(x)-v\Vert^2.
\end{align*}
The augmented Lagrangian $L_c(x,\lambda)$ for the problem \eqref{ineq} is defined by eliminating the slack variable from $\mathcal{L}_c(x,v,\lambda)$ by marginalization with respect to $v$
\begin{align*}
\AL{x}{\lambda}{c} &:=\min_{v\in \mathbb{R}^m}\mathcal{L}_{c}(x,v,\lambda)\\
&=f(x) + \min_{v} \left(\phi(v)+ \frac{c}{2}\Vert g(x)+\lambda/c-v\Vert^2\right) - \frac{\Vert \lambda\Vert^2}{2c}\\
& = f(x) + \phi_c(g(x)+\lambda/c) - \frac{\Vert \lambda\Vert^2}{2c}.
\end{align*}
The proximal operator for the indicator function $\phi$ is the projection onto the convex set $K$,
and it is explicitly given as $ \prox{\frac{\phi}{c}} = \min(z,0)$,
and thus, the Moreau envelope $\phi_c(v)$ is written as
\begin{align*}
\phi_c(v)= \phi(v(g(x)+\lambda/c)) + \frac{c}{2}\Vert g(x)+\lambda/c - \min(g(x)+\lambda/c,0)\Vert^2=\frac{c}{2}\Vert \max( g(x)+\lambda/c,0)\Vert^2.
\end{align*}
Thus, we obtain
\begin{align*
\AL{x}{\lambda}{c} =f(x)+ \frac{c}{2}\Vert \max( g(x)+\lambda/c,0)\Vert^2-\frac{\Vert\lambda\Vert^2}{2c}.
\end{align*}
The method of multipliers is then written as
\begin{align}
x_{k+1} &= \arg\min_{x\in C} \AL{x}{\lambda_k}{c_k}, \label{step1_alm_ineq} \\
\lambda_{k+1}&= \lambda_k + c_k\nabla_\lambda \AL{x_{k+1}}{\lambda_k}{c_k} \nonumber \\
&= \lambda_k + c_k(g(x_{k+1})-\min(g(x_{k+1})+\lambda_k/c_k,0)) \nonumber \\
& = \max(\lambda_k + c_k g(x_{k+1}),0). \nonumber
\end{align}
In practical situations, the minimization \eqref{step1_alm_ineq} can be performed only inexactly.
Rockafellar's approach \cite{Rockafellar-MonooperaugmLagr:78} allows
one to evaluate $x_{k+1}$ approximately provided that a certain condition on the accuracy of the approximation is fulfilled. In addition, he showed that increasing the parameter $c_k$ in every step improves the rate of convergence of the algorithm.
The method of multipliers for the equality and inequality constraints is studied in extensive detail by Bertsekas \cite{MR690767}.
\noindent
\textbf{Augmented Lagrangian by Glowinski-Marroco and Gabay-Mericer}\\
Glowinski and Marroco \cite{glowinski1975} carried out a similar approach to the problem~\eqref{min} by transforming the problem into the equality-constrained convex optimization problem
\begin{equation*}
\min_{x\in {\mathbb{R}^n},v\in {\mathbb{R}^m}} f(x) + \phi(v) \quad \mbox{ subject to } \quad E x = v.
\end{equation*}
An augmented Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}_c(x,v,\lambda)$ is defined by
\begin{equation}\label{ag_glowinski}
\mathcal{L}_c(x,v,\lambda) = f(x) + \phi(v) + (\lambda,E x - v) + \frac{c}{2}\Vert E x - v\Vert^2.
\end{equation}
The method of multipliers is written as
\begin{align*}
(x_{k+1},v_{k+1}) &= \arg \min_{x,v} \mathcal{L}_c(x,v,\lambda_k), \\%\label{step1_alm_glowinski} \\
\lambda_{k+1} & = \lambda_k + c\nabla_\lambda \mathcal{L}_c(x_{k+1},v_{k+1},\lambda_k)=\lambda_k + c(Ex_{k+1} - v_{k+1}).
\end{align*}
Gabay and Mericer \cite{Gabay+Mercier-dualalgosolunonl:76a} proposed decoupling the simultaneous minimization over $x$ and $v$ into the minimization problems with respect to $x$ followed by $v$;
\begin{align*}
x_{k+1} &= \arg \min_{x} \mathcal{L}_c(x,v_k,\lambda_k), \\%\label{step1_admm} \\
v_{k+1} &= \arg \min_{v} \mathcal{L}_c(x_{k+1},v,\lambda_k) = \prox{\frac{\phi}{c}}(Ex_{k+1}+\lambda_k/c), \\%\label{step2_admm} \\
\lambda_{k+1} & = \lambda_k + c\nabla_\lambda \mathcal{L}_c(x_{k+1},v_{k+1},\lambda_k)=\lambda_k + c(Ex_{k+1} - v_{k+1}).
\end{align*}
The algorithm is called \textit{alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMM)}, which is frequently used in a wide range of scientific communities, such as numerical partial differential equations \cite{Fortin+Glowinski-AugmLagrmeth:83} and statistical learning \cite{Boyd+ParikhETAL-DistOptiStatLear:11}, to name a few.
\noindent
\textbf{Augmented Lagrangian by Fortin}\\
Fortin \cite{Fortin-Minisomenon-func:75} proposed an alternative Lagrangian obtained by eliminating $v$ from
\eqref{ag_glowinski}.
\begin{align}\label{ag_fortin}
\AL{x}{\lambda}{c}&=\min_{v}\mathcal{L}_c(x,v,\lambda)=f(x) + \min_{v} \left(\phi(v)+ \frac{c}{2}\Vert Ex+\lambda/c-v\Vert^2\right) - \frac{\Vert \lambda\Vert^2}{2c}.
\end{align}
Using the Lagrangian $L_c$, he developed an algorithm for solving the problem \eqref{min}.
By following exactly the same argument for the inequality-constrained problem,
one obtains the expression of $L_c$ (see \eqref{ag})
and the method of multipliers, which is given as
\begin{align}
x_{k+1} &= \arg\min_{x\in {\mathbb{R}^n}} \AL{x}{\lambda_k}{c}, \label{step1_alm_fortin} \\
\lambda_{k+1}&= \lambda_k + c\nabla_\lambda \AL{x_{k+1}}{\lambda_k}{c}= \lambda_k + c(Ex_{k+1}-\prox{\frac{\phi}{c}}(Ex_{k+1} +\lambda_k/c)) \nonumber\\% \label{step2-1_alm_fortin}\\
& = \prox{c\phi^\ast}(\lambda_k + c Ex_{k+1}). \label{step2-2_alm_fortin}
\end{align}
The equality in \eqref{step2-2_alm_fortin} follows from the Moreau decomposition, $\prox{\frac{\phi}{c}}(z)+c^{-1}\prox{c\phi^\ast}(cz)=z$.
For a particular case where $\phi$ is the indicator function of the convex set $K=\mathbb{R}^n_{-}=\{x\in \mathbb{R}^n\mid x\le 0\}$,
the proximal mapping is the projection onto the set $K$, i.e., $\prox{\frac{\phi}{c}}(z) = \min(z,0)$. Therefore,
the augmented Lagrangian \eqref{ag} is identical to \eqref{ag_ineq} with $g(x)=Ex$.
This implies that the augmented Lagrangian \eqref{ag_fortin}
is the legitimate generalization of Rockafellar's augmented Lagrangian.
The method was initially developed for the unconstrained problem \eqref{min}, and it was extended to the problem with an abstract constraint $x\in C$ in \cite{Ito+Kunisch-AugmLagrmethnons:00}, where the convergence of the algorithm (with the presence of the constraint $x\in C$) is established under the strict assumption that the exact minimization for $x_{k+1}$ is available.
\renewcommand{\theequation}{B.\arabic{equation}}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\subsection*{B. Dual-Augmented Lagrangian (DAL)}
The dual-augmented Lagrangian (DAL) algorithm proposed in \cite{Tomioka+Sugiyama-DualLagrMethEffi:09} and analyzed in-depth in \cite{Tomioka+SuzukiETAL-SupeConvDualAugm:11} is an efficient numerical solver for the sparse optimization problem of estimating an $n$-dimensional parameter vector $x$ from $m$ training examples
\begin{equation}\label{min_dal}
f_\ell(Ax) + \phi(x).
\end{equation}
Here, $f_\ell$ is a $1/\nu$ smooth loss function, e.g., the square
loss, the logistic loss, the hyperbolic secant likelihood, and
multiclass logit (see Table 1 in
\cite{Tomioka+SuzukiETAL-SupeConvDualAugm:11}), and $A\in \mathbb{R}^{m\times
n}$ is a design matrix. The prior $\phi$ is a proper, convex
function introducing sparseness into the solution; such function
includes the $\ell_1$ norm for sparse estimation, the group norm for grouped lasso and the trace norm for a low rank matrix estimation (see Table 2 in \cite{Tomioka+SuzukiETAL-SupeConvDualAugm:11}).
Each of the convex conjugate functions of these priors listed above is an indicator function of a convex set, and hence, the proximal operator of $\phi^\ast$ is the projection onto the convex set; hence, it holds that
\begin{equation}\label{ass_dal}
\phi^\ast( \prox{c\phi^\ast}(z) ) = 0,\quad \forall z\in {\mathbb{R}^m}, \forall c>0.
\end{equation}
The DAL algorithm is the method of multipliers applied to the Fenchel dual problem
\begin{equation}\label{min_dual}
\min_\alpha f^{\ast}_{\ell}(-\alpha) + \phi^\ast(A^\top \alpha),
\end{equation}
and the algorithm is described as follows:
\begin{align}
\alpha_k & \approx \arg \min_{\alpha} f^{\ast}_{\ell}(-\alpha) + 1/(2c_k)\Vert \mbox{prox}_{c_k\phi}(w_k+c_kA^\top \alpha)\Vert^2, \label{step1_dal} \\
w_{k+1} & = \mbox{prox}_{c_k\phi}(w_k+c_kA^\top \alpha_k), \label{step2_dal}
\end{align}
where the approximation $\alpha_k$ must satisfy the following criterion
\begin{equation*}
\Vert \nabla_\alpha \AL{\alpha_k}{w_k}{c_k} \Vert \le \sqrt{\nu/c_k}\Vert w_{k+1}-w_k\Vert.
\end{equation*}
Here, $c_k$ is an increasing positive parameter prescribed prior to the execution of the algorithm, e.g., $c_k = 2^k$.
It is shown in \cite{Tomioka+SuzukiETAL-SupeConvDualAugm:11} that the sequence $\{w_k\}$ generated by DAL converges to a solution of \eqref{min_dal}.
The derivation of \eqref{step1_dal}, \eqref{step2_dal} presented in \cite{Tomioka+Sugiyama-DualLagrMethEffi:09} is similar to the argument deriving $L_c$ in \eqref{ag_fortin} from $\mathcal{L}_c$ in \eqref{ag_glowinski}.
Here, for the reader's convenience, we provide a derivation of DAL.
Let $\AL{\alpha}{w}{c}$ be the augmented Lagrangian of the dual problem \eqref{min_dual}
\begin{equation}\label{ag_dual}
\AL{\alpha}{w}{c}= f^\ast_{\ell}(-\alpha) + \phi_c^\ast(A^\top \alpha + w/c) - \frac{\Vert w\Vert^2}{2c}.
\end{equation}
From the Moreau decomposition $\prox{c\phi}(z)+c\prox{\phi^\ast/c}(z/c)=z$ and the assumption \eqref{ass_dal}, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\phi^\ast_c(z) &=\phi^\ast(\prox{\phi^\ast/c}(z)) + \frac{c}{2}\Vert \prox{\phi^\ast/c}(z)-z\Vert^2 \\
&=\frac{c}{2}\Vert \prox{\phi^\ast/c}(z)-z\Vert^2=\frac{c}{2}\Vert \prox{\phi^\ast/c}(cz/c)-cz/c\Vert^2=\frac{1}{2c}\Vert \prox{c\phi}(cz)\Vert^2,
\end{align*}
for all $z\in {\mathbb{R}^m}$. Thus, we see that the minimization step \eqref{step1_alm_fortin} is written as
\begin{equation*}
\arg\min_{\alpha} L_c(\alpha,w_k)=\arg\min_{\alpha} f^\ast_{\ell}(-\alpha) + \frac{1}{2c_k}\Vert \prox{c\phi}(c_k(A^\top \alpha + w_k/c_k))\Vert^2,
\end{equation*}
which indicates that DAL is the augmented Lagrangian method by \eqref{ag_dual}. From this perspective, DAL can be interpreted as a special instance of Fortin's augmented Lagrangian method.
\renewcommand{\theequation}{C.\arabic{equation}}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\subsection*{C. Forward-Backward Newton Method}
Let us consider the minimization problem of a composite function, which is a special instance of \eqref{min} with $E=I$.
\begin{equation}\label{min2}
\min_{x\in \mathbb{R}^n} F(x):=f(x) +\phi(x).
\end{equation}
The optimality system for this problem is written as (cf., e.g., \cite[Ch.~4]{Ito+Kunisch-AugmLagrmethnons:00}, \cite{Jin+Takeuchi-Lagroptisystclas:16})
\begin{equation*}
\nabla f(x) + \lambda=0\quad \mbox{and}\quad x-\prox{\frac{\phi}{c}}(x+\lambda/c)=0.
\end{equation*}
Eliminating $\lambda$ from the optimality system yields the well-known optimality condition for \eqref{min2}:
\begin{equation}\label{fbn_opt}
x-\prox{\frac{\phi}{c}}(x-\nabla f(x)/c)=0.
\end{equation}
The forward-backward Newton method proposed in \cite{parikh2013proximal} and further investigated in \cite{Patrinos+StellaETAL-ForwtrunNewtmeth:14} is a nonsmooth Newton method applied to the equation \eqref{fbn_opt}.
\begin{align*
\left(I - G_k(I -c^{-1}\nabla^2f(x_k))\right)d_k&= -(x_k - \prox{\frac{\phi}{c}}(z_k)), \\
x_{k+1} &= x_k + \tau_k d_k
\end{align*}
Here, $x_k$ is the current iterate, $\tau_k>0$ is a step size to be selected appropriately, $z_k= x_k -\nabla f(x_k)/c$, and $G_k$ is a generalized Jacobian of ${\prox{\frac{\phi}{c}}}(z)$ at $z=z_k$.
If $c$ is larger than the Lipschitz constant $L_f$ of the gradient $\nabla f$, then
the Newton system is nonsingular and the direction $d_k$ is uniquely determined, which is shown to be a descent direction of the function defined using the augmented Lagrangian
\begin{equation*
F_c(x):=\AL{x}{-\nabla f(x)/c}{c} = f(x) + \phi_c(x -\nabla f(x)/c)-1/(2c)\Vert \nabla f(x)\Vert^2.
\end{equation*}
The function $F_c$, which is called \textit{forward-backward envelope (FBE)} in \cite{Patrinos+StellaETAL-ForwtrunNewtmeth:14}, is used as a merit function for determining the
step length $\tau_k$ in the Armijo line search algorithm.
To avoid the possible ill-conditioning of the Hessian $\nabla^2 f(x)$, a regularization term $\delta_k I$, where $\delta_k$ is an appropriately chosen positive constant, is performed, i.e., the direction $d_k$ is determined by
\begin{align}\label{pn2}
\left(I - G_k(I -c^{-1}\nabla^2f(x_k)) + \delta_k I\right)d&= -(x_k - \prox{\frac{\phi}{c}}(z_k))
\end{align}
The article \cite{Patrinos+StellaETAL-ForwtrunNewtmeth:14} presents the proof of the convergence of the algorithm (\eqref{pn2} followed by the line search), the extensive numerical tests and a list of the generalized Jacobian of the proximal operator of directly relevant to the sparse optimization.
\begin{remark}
The function $F_c$ seems to have appeared for the first time in the monograph \cite[p.~709, p.~787]{Facchinei+Pang-Finivariineqcomp:03} for the minimization problem of a smooth convex function $f$ over a convex set $K$ (hence, the proximal operator is the projection on a convex set $K$), where the direction $d_k$ is determined by $d_k = x_k -\Pi_K(x_k-\nabla f(x_k))$ and a step size $\tau_k$ is selected by the Armijo line search applied to the function $F_c$.
The work \cite{Patrinos+StellaETAL-ForwtrunNewtmeth:14} can be viewed as the generalization: the projection $\Pi_K$ is replaced by the proximal mapping $\prox{\phi/c}$, and the direction $d_k$ is determined by the Newton-like method \eqref{pn2}.
\end{remark}
|
\section{Introduction}
\subsection{Introduction into ERLs}
There is an increasing interest in Energy Recovery Linacs worldwide due to their unique promise of combining the high-brightness electron beams available from conventional linacs with the high average powers available from storage rings. Applications requiring this step-change in capability are coming to the fore in a wide variety of fields, for example high energy particle physics colliders~\cite{AbelleiraFernandez2012}, high luminosity colliders for nuclear physics~\cite{Accardi2016}, free-electron laser drivers for academic and industrial purposes~\cite{Socol2013,Socol2011}, and inverse Compton scattering sources~\cite{Shimada2010,Hayakawa2010}. The first high average power application demonstrated on an ERL was the multi-kW lasing of the JLab IR-FEL~\cite{Neil_PRL_ERL_2000}.
\par Historically, an effective method to cost-optimise an electron linac (where beam dynamics restrictions allow) is to implement recirculation~\cite{York1987,Williams2011}, i.e. accelerating the beam more than once within the same RF structures. Analogously, one may implement recirculation in an ERL, accelerating {\it and} decelerating within the same structures. This has been successfully demonstrated in the normal-conducting Novosibirsk infrared FEL~\cite{Shevchenko2016}. There are a number of GeV scale user facilities proposed that are therefore based upon recirculating superconducting ERLs~\cite{AbelleiraFernandez2012,Angal-Kalinin2018,Ptitsyn:2016ckp}, and two test facilities are currently attempting such a multi-turn ERL demonstration~\cite{Hoffstaetter:2017ipp,Arnold:2018ilm}.
\par It is thus timely to explore the implications of this relatively new accelerator class. Unlike a linac or storage ring, there is large number of degrees of freedom in the basic accelerator topology. For example one may choose a dogbone or racetrack layout, subsequent accelerating pass may be transported in common or separate beam transport, and decelerating passes may be transported pairwise with their equivalent accelerating beam in common or separate transport~\cite{Williams:FLS2018-THA1WA04,Douglas:IPAC2018-THPMK106,WilliamsLHEC2018}.
\par In this article we explore the consequence of these choices on the most important aspect of an ERL-based user facility, the RF stability. Specifically, we consider all possible beam filling patterns in an N-pass recirculating ERL and their interaction with the accelerator low-level RF control system. We show that there are optimal choices, and note which topologies allow these optima to be chosen.
\par It is vital that this analysis is performed during the design stage of an ERL-based facility as it fixes the pass-to-pass
path length required in the recirculation transport at the scale of multiples of the fundamental RF wavelength, typically many metres, therefore any path length variability built in to allow pass-to-pass RF phase variation cannot correct for this macro scale requirement. Similarly, transverse phase advance manipulations that are capable of mitigating BBU thresholds~\cite{Douglas2006} would not be effective against sub-optimal filling pattern generated instabilities.
\par We first introduce beam filling and beam loading patterns, and describe how they affect cavity voltage. We then describe an analytical model of beam loading and use this to make predictions about the system. The next section describes beam loading simulations while varying different parameters such as the signal-to-noise ratio ($S/N$) and synchronous phase. We will expand these studies to sequence preserving scheme in the section \ref{section:4} and compare all the simulations results in the section \ref{section:5}.
\subsection{Filling patterns}
In this article, we note that the topology of the recirculating ERL can impact the filling pattern or ordering of the bunches. We start with a simple recirculating ERL with single arc on two sides as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:SimpleERL} and discuss more complex setup later on.
We consider a 6-turn ERL with 3 acceleration and 3 deceleration turns.
In order to minimise cavity voltage fluctuations, we allow for spacing between injected bunches which become filled by bunches on subsequent passes. Here we elucidate the exact choices in which that process occurs. As an example Fig.~\ref{fig:filling} shows 3 decelerating bunches followed by 3 accelerating ones. The accelerating bunches take energy from the cavity, thus decreasing the cavity voltage and vice versa, therefore mixing them can minimize cavity voltage fluctuation. The 6 bunches form what we term a “bunch packet”. Bunch packets are repeated and fill up the ERL as shown by the diagram in Fig.~\ref{fig:packets}.
As we mix bunches executing different turns into bunch packets we emphasise that ``injection'' only refers to the process of transporting a bunch from the injection line to the ERL main ring; similarly, ``extraction'' refers to the process of extracting a bunch from the ring and transporting them to the beam dump. Therefore a set of injected bunches do not pass through the linac as one, they are always mixed with bunches executing turns in the ERL ring.
The ``bunch number" is the order in which bunches are injected into a bunch packet over $N$ turns, for example bunch 1 (or 1st bunch) is injected on turn 1, bunch 2 (or 2nd bunch) is injected as bunch 1 executes turn 2 and so on.
During the operation, one bunch per packet per turn is extracted and replaced by a new bunch. Usually, not all the RF cycles are filled by bunches, but one bunch is located at the start of a block of $M$ otherwise unoccupied RF cycles. These $M$ RF cycles we call the ``intra-packet block''. In a $N$-turn ERL, 1 bunch packet thus occupies $M\times N$ RF cycles. In the packet illustrated in Fig~\ref{fig:filling} each intra-packet block is coloured uniquely.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=50mm]{1}
\caption{Simple recirculating linac diagram.}
\label{fig:SimpleERL}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{2}
\caption{Filling of recirculating linac with filling pattern [1~2~3~4~5~6]. Blue/red bunches are accelerated/decelerated. Phase flips at 3rd turn.}
\label{fig:filling}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=50mm]{3}
\caption{Filling of ERL by multiple bunch packets.}
\label{fig:packets}
\end{figure}
We can give notation of filling pattern by describing which bunch goes to which intra-packet block. The number indicates the bunch number and its position in the vector indicates the intra-packet block number. The filling pattern of Fig.~\ref{fig:filling} is a 6-element vector [1~2~3~4~5~6]. Filling pattern [1~4~3~6~5~2], for example, describes filling depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:filling2}.
Here we attempt a step-by-step explanation of packet construction.
We assume a flexible injection timing, such that we can insert a small delay of less than the regular pulse spacing (but still a multiple of fundamental RF) with a regular superperiod. Such capability would be novel, though not unfeasible, within the photoinjector laser system.
Please refer to Figs.~\ref{fig:filling}, \ref{fig:packets} and \ref{fig:filling2}: We start by injecting all the bunches labeled 1. In Fig.~\ref{fig:packets}, we see that we can fit 8 packets into the ERL (the number of packets in the ring are arbitrarily chosen), so this accounts for the first 8 bunches from the injector. This completes turn 1 in Fig.~\ref{fig:filling} (or Fig.~\ref{fig:filling2}) (which both shows only one of the 8 packets). The ninth bunch from the injector becomes the first “bunch 2” on the second line of Fig.~\ref{fig:filling} or Fig.~\ref{fig:filling2}. In the case of Fig.~\ref{fig:filling} the bunch 2 is injected in to “intra-packet block” number 2. In the case of Fig.~\ref{fig:filling2} the bunch 2 is injected in to “intra-packet block” number 6.
This difference between Fig.~\ref{fig:filling} and Fig.~\ref{fig:filling2} is accomplished using the aforementioned flexible timing feature of the photoinjector laser by extending the time interval separating the 8th and 9th bunches..
The next 7 injected bunches fill up the other “bunch 2” spaces in the other packets. Following through, the 17th bunch from the injector thus becomes “bunch 3” in the packet, in both Figs.~\ref{fig:filling} and \ref{fig:filling2} this is placed in block number 3. In this way we build up either [1 2 3 4 5 6] for Fig.~\ref{fig:filling}, or [1 4 3 6 5 2] for Fig.~\ref{fig:filling2}. We call patterns constructed in this method "First-In-First-Out" (FIFO) patterns as the order of the bunches in the packet remains constant.
Another way to construct filling patterns is recombination using different path lengths with a fixed injection time interval. In this case, the turn number of the bunches in the packet does not change. Therefore, we name it Sequence Preserving (SP) scheme. We will discuss it in more details in later sections. A point we wish to emphasize for SP scheme is that because choosing between these two filling patterns implies differences in the path lengths of many RF cycles for each individual turn, this choice is a design parameter during machine construction.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{4}
\caption{Filling of recirculating linac with filling pattern [1~4~3~6~5~2].}
\label{fig:filling2}
\end{figure}
We will also use ``pattern number'' for brevity to indicate 120 filling patterns of 6-turn ERL. The pattern number $i$ is used to indicate 120 permutations of [2~3~4~5~6] and related to the filling pattern $F_i$ as
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&F_{1} = [1~2~3~4~5~6], \\
&F_{2} = [1~2~3~4~6~5], \\
&... \\
&F_{120} = [1~6~5~4~3~2].
\end{split}
\label{eq:ustored0}
\end{equation}
\noindent As there are many bunch packets in a ring, without losing the generality we can name intra-packet block of the 1st bunch as the 1st block, i.e. the 1st bunch will always be in the 1st intra-packet block.
\subsection{Cavity voltage calculation}
As the bunches pass through the linacs, they are either accelerated or decelerated by the RF field in the cavity. In doing so, energy is either put into or taken out of the cavity. The cavity voltage $V_{cav}$ is related to the stored energy $U_{stored}$ as
\begin{equation}
U_{stored} = \frac{V_{cav}^{2}}{\omega\left(\frac{R}{Q}\right)}
\label{eq:ustored},
\end{equation}
\noindent with $\frac{R}{Q}$ being shunt impedance of the cavity divided by its Q-factor. For an accelerating cavity, the change in stored energy from a particle bunch passing through is
\begin{equation}
\delta{U}_{stored}=\frac{2V_{cav}\delta{V}_{cav}}{\omega\left(\frac{R}{Q}\right)}=-q_{bunch}V_{cav}.
\label{eq:ustored1}
\end{equation}
\noindent Therefore, the change in cavity voltage from beam loading is given as
\begin{equation}
\delta{V}_{cav}=-\frac{q_{bunch}}{2}\omega\left(\frac{R}{Q}\right)\cos{\left(\phi\right)},
\label{eq:ustored2}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\phi$ is the phase difference between the bunch and the RF and $q_{bunch}$ is the bunch charge. In general, the bunches will not necessarily pass through the cavity on-crest (maximum field) or on-trough (minimum field). When dealing with RF fields, it is convenient to consider the field as a complex number, where only the real part can interact with the beam at any moment in time. Indeed this implies that beam loading can only change the real component of the cavity voltage for any given phase.
In order for a recirculating ERL to operate stably over time, we require that the vector sum of the cavity voltage experienced by each bunch in a bunch packet must equal zero, as shown Fig.~\ref{fig:BL_ERL}. If this is not the case, then there will be a net change in stored energy in the cavity each bunch packet, reducing the overall efficiency of the ERL.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=85mm]{5.png}
\caption{A diagram to show the complex voltages of four bunches in a 4-turn ERL.}
\label{fig:BL_ERL}
\end{figure}
For now, we will neglect the phase of the bunches and only consider voltages as real numbers for brevity in the following mathematical description. Later we will consider off-crest beam loading cases by replacing binary notation with complex notation, i.e. by replace ``1'' and ``0'' by $e^{i\phi}$ and $e^{-i\phi}$. We define a recirculating ERL to be at `steady state' when all intra-packet blocks in the machine are occupied. In this case, on any given turn, half the bunches in the packet pass through the cavity at accelerating phases and half at decelerating phases. As cavity voltage experienced by all bunches in the packet sum to zero, there is no net energy gain or loss over bunch packet.
If we neglect the phase of the bunches and only consider bunches passing through the cavity on-crest and on-trough, then the change in cavity voltage due to beam loading from a bunch is simply $\pm\frac{q_{bunch}}{2}\omega\left(\frac{R}{Q}\right)\cos{\left(\phi\right)}$, from Eq.~\ref{eq:ustored2}. Therefore, in this case, every time a bunch passes through a linac, the cavity voltage is incremented or decremented by a fixed amount.
\subsection{Beam loading pattern}
Let us consider a 6-turn ERL. Table~\ref{tab:bl_patt} shows how the beam loading pattern changes turn-by-turn for the filling patterns [1~2~3~4~5~6], [1~4~3~6~5~2], and [1~4~5~2~3~6]. If we use ``0'' and ``1'' to denote accelerated and decelerated bunches, respectively, we get beam loading patterns as shown in Table~\ref{tab:bl_patt}. The accelerating bunches reduce the voltage in the cavity and vise versa. Now that we have defined the bunch filling pattern and showed how this is associated with a unique sequence of beam loading patterns, we should understand how this beam loading pattern affects the cavity voltage. Fig.~\ref{fig:BL_patterns} shows how the beam loading pattern can be translated into a change in cavity voltage.
\begin{table}
\caption{Filling patterns and associated beam loading patterns.}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{llll}
filling pattern & 1 2 3 4 5 6 & 1 4 3 6 5 2 & 1 4 5 2 3 6 \\
\hline
turn 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
turn 2 & 0~0 & 0~\textcolor{white}{1~1~0~1}~0 & 0~\textcolor{white}{1~1}~0\textcolor{white}{~1~0} \\
turn 3 & 0~0~0 & 0~\textcolor{white}{1}~0~\textcolor{white}{1~1}~0 & 0~\textcolor{white}{1~1}~0~0\textcolor{white}{~1} \\
turn 4 & 1~0~0~0 & 1~0~0~\textcolor{white}{1~1}~0 & 1~0~\textcolor{white}{1}~0~0\textcolor{white}{~1} \\
turn 5 & 1~1~0~0~0 & 1~0~0~\textcolor{white}{1}~0~1 & 1~0~0~1~0\textcolor{white}{~1} \\
turn 6 & 1~1~1~0~0~0 & 1~0~1~0~0~1 & 1~0~0~1~1~0 \\
turn 7 & 0~1~1~1~0~0 & {0~1}~{1~0~0~1} & {0~1}~{0~1~1~0} \\
turn 8 & 0~0~1~1~1~0 & {0~1~1~0}~{1~0} & {0~1}~{1~0}~{1~0} \\
turn 9 & 0~0~0~1~1~1 & {0~1}~{0~1}~{1~0}& {0~1~1~0}~{0~1} \\
turn 10 & 1~0~0~0~1~1 & {1~0}~{0~1~1~0} & {1~0}~{1~0~0~1} \\
turn 11 & 1~1~0~0~0~1 & {1~0~0~1}~{0~1} & {1~0}~{0~1}~{0~1} \\
turn 12 & 1~1~1~0~0~0 & 1~0~0~1~1~0 & 1~0~1~0~0~1 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\label{tab:bl_patt}
\end{table}
For an ERL at steady state, the definition of ``block 1'' is arbitrary and can be one of $N$ choices in a $N$-turn ERL; therefore, there are $\left(N - 1\right)!$ unique bunch filling patterns for a $N$-turn ERL. A 6-turn ERL can have 120 unique filling patterns. Each of these filling patterns is associated with a unique sequence of beam loading patterns. Beam loading patterns changes turn by turn and are periodic over $N$ turns, as shown in Table~\ref{tab:bl_patt}.
\begin{figure}
{\scalebox{0.5} [0.5]{\includegraphics{6.png}}}\\
\caption{A diagram to show how the beam loading pattern translates into a change in cavity voltage over time.}
\label{fig:BL_patterns}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
{\scalebox{0.35} [0.35]{\includegraphics{7.png}}}\\
\caption{Comparison of cavity voltage change by two different filling patterns over 6-turns.}
\label{fig:6Turn_BL_patterns}
\end{figure}
Fig.~\ref{fig:6Turn_BL_patterns} shows beam loading patterns of two filling patterns over 6-turns. The red beam loading pattern has larger cavity voltage fluctuation than blue one. This shows some filling patterns cause larger disturbances to the cavity voltage and RF system of the ERL than others. For a 6-turn ERL, we can evaluate the RF jitters associated with a specific beam filling pattern and use this to identify which patterns are optimal. In Table~\ref{tab:bl_patt}, the beam loading increments have been normalised to $\pm1$ rather than $\pm\frac{q_{bunch}}{2}\omega\left(\frac{R}{Q}\right)\cos{\left(\phi\right)}$ for brevity and clarity. For the remainder of the article, we will continue to use a normalised beam loading to help the reader understand the methodology.
Once a list of all unique filling patterns is defined, we can determine the associated sequence of beam loading patterns, using the method described in Table~\ref{tab:bl_patt}. To determine the normalised change in cavity voltage, we simply calculate the cumulative sum of the beam loading sequence. We define a specific filling pattern as $F_{i}$, the associated beam loading pattern as $B\left(F_{i}\right)$ and the normalised change in cavity voltage as $\delta{V}$ given as
\begin{equation}
\delta{V} = \text{cusum}\left(B\left(F_{i}\right)\right)=\sum_{j=1}^{k}{B_{j}\left(F_{i}\right)}.
\label{eq:cusum}
\end{equation}
\noindent We can use $\delta{V}$ to estimate the RF stability performance of all patterns.
\subsection{Low level RF system}
For the Low level RF (LLRF) system, we model the system as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:LLRFBlock}. The cavity voltage (given as I and Q components) is added to a Gaussian distributed noise (also I and Q), whose standard deviation is defined by the $S/N$; we treat this as the only source of noise in the system, rather than including realistic noise at each component of the LLRF controller. This is then passed through a 16-bit analogue-to-digital converter (ADC), before a PI-control algorithm is implemented to regulate amplitude and phase. The PI correction algorithm also applies limits to the range of values to model the power limits on the amplifier. The amplifier and digital-to-analogue converter (DAC) is modeled as a resonant circuit with a bandwidth defined by the closed-loop bandwidth.
\begin{figure}
{\scalebox{0.3} [0.3]{\includegraphics{8.png}}}\\
\caption{A block diagram of the modelled LLRF system and the feedback loop.}
\label{fig:LLRFBlock}
\end{figure}
We model LLRF system as a proportional-integral (PI) controller~\cite{DEXTER201762,Sjobak:2016ruf,Baudrenghien}. In the PI controller, the LLRF system first calculates the error $u$ voltage, which is difference between actual cavity voltage $V_{measured}$ with set-point voltage $V_{set}$
\begin{equation}
u = V_{measured} - V_{set}.
\label{eq:dV}
\end{equation}
\noindent Then, two types of corrections are made, namely the proportional $V_{pro}$ and integral term corrections $V_{int}$. The proportional term correction is calculated based on the previously measured $dV$ and proportional gain $G_p$, given as
\begin{equation}
V_{pro} = G_{p} u.
\label{eq:P-term}
\end{equation}
\noindent The integral term correction is calculated integrating over on all the previously measured $dV$ and integral term gain $G_i$, given as
\begin{equation}
V_{int} = G_i \int_{0}^{t} udt = G_{i}\sum_{n}{u_{n}\delta{t}},
\label{eq:P-term}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $t$ is the time measurement took place. The proportional and integral term corrections address fast and slow changes, respectively.
The set-point voltage can be constant (static set-point) or can change over time (dynamic set-point). A dynamic set-point can be useful in order to improve RF stability in a recirculating ERL because it prevents the LLRF system from competing with the beam loading voltage in the cavity. If the LLRF feedback system can adjust its set-point voltage according to the anticipated beam loading, then it has a ``dynamic set-point'' voltage. In this case, the feedback system only amplifies noise. If the set-point is static, LLRF system will treat beam loading as noise and amplify it as well.
\section{Analytical model}
\subsection{Variations in cavity voltage}
If we consider the effects of beam loading and noise, the cavity voltage, $V_{cav}$, can be expressed as:
\begin{equation}
V_{cav} = V_{0} + V_{b} + V_{n},
\label{eq:Amod1}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $V_{0}$ is the steady state cavity voltage, which we will assume to be time-independent, $V_{b}$ is the voltage contribution due to beam loading, and $V_{n}$ is the voltage contribution due to all noise sources in the system. We shall assume that noise originates from the electronics in the low-level RF system (LLRF), which in turn introduces noise to the cavity voltage. How the noise propagates through the RF system depends on the behaviour of the LLRF system as well as the beam loading patterns, but the noise voltage in the cavity can be defined as
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{V_{n}} = \frac{\alpha_{RF}\lvert V_{0} \rvert }{S/N},
\label{eq:Amod2}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $S/N$ is the voltage signal to noise ratio and $\alpha_{RF}$ is a constant of proportionality, which depends on the parameters of the system. From Eq.~\ref{eq:Amod1}, we can obtain an expression for the cavity voltage squared:
\begin{equation}
V_{cav}^{2} = V_{0}^{2}+V_{b}^{2}+V_{n}^{2}+2V_{0}V_{b}+2V_{0}V_{n}+2V_{b}V_{n}.
\label{eq:Amod3}
\end{equation}
\noindent We shall assume that $V_{b}$ and $V_{n}$ are independent variables and that $V_{0}$ is constant, therefore, from Eq.~\ref{eq:Amod1} and \ref{eq:Amod3}, we obtain expressions for the mean and standard deviation of the cavity voltage.
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
\langle{V_{cav}}\rangle = V_{0} + \langle{V_{b}}\rangle + \langle{V_{n}}\rangle \\ \\
\sigma_{V_{cav}} = \sqrt{\langle V_{cav}^2 \rangle - \langle V_{cav} \rangle^2}
\end{array}
\label{eq:Amod4}
\end{equation}
\noindent If $V_{b}$ and $V_{n}$ have zero mean, then Eq.~\ref{eq:Amod4} produces the expected result that $\langle{V_{cav}}\rangle = V_{0}$. Because noise and beamloading is independent,
\begin{equation}
\langle V_{b} V_{n} \rangle = \langle V_{b}\rangle \langle V_{n}\rangle.
\label{eq:Amod5}
\end{equation}
\noindent Therefore,
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{V_{cav}} = \sqrt{\sigma_{V_{b}}^{2} + \sigma_{V_{n}}^{2}}.
\label{eq:Amod6}
\end{equation}
\noindent From Eqs.~\ref{eq:Amod2} and \ref{eq:Amod6}, we can express the noise on the cavity voltage as
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{V_{cav}} = \sqrt{\sigma_{V_{b}}^{2} + \alpha_{RF}^{2}\frac{V_{0}^{2}}{\left(S/N\right)^{2}}}.
\label{eq:Amod7}
\end{equation}
\noindent The $\sigma_{V_{b}}$ is pattern specific, and depends on topology of the ERL as well as the expected beam jitters. The voltage fluctuation due to the beam loading and given by
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{V_{b}} = \sigma_{V_{pattern}}\delta V
\label{eq:Amod8}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\sigma_{V_{pattern}}$ is RMS fluctuation of the normalized beam loading pattern over all turns of the machine. The $\sigma_{V_{pattern}}$ for all 120 patterns is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Perdicted-SigVb} for a 6-turn ERL, where we have assumed a FIFO schemes, where the order of the bunch packet does not change turn by turn. One can see that $\sigma_{V_{pattern}}$ varies by approximately a factor of 2 depending on the choice of filling pattern.
\begin{figure}
{\scalebox{0.5} [0.5]{\includegraphics{9}}}\\
\caption{The RMS fluctuation of the normalized beam loading pattern of 6-turn ERL.}
\label{fig:Perdicted-SigVb}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Variations in amplifier power}
From \cite{RobPRAB}, the cavity voltage can be determined from an envelope equation
\begin{equation}
\frac{\dot{\mathbf{V}}_{\mathrm{cav}}}{\omega_{0}}+\left[\frac{\omega_{0}^{2}+\omega^{2}}{4Q_{L}\omega^{2}}+j\frac{\omega_{0}^{2}-\omega^{2}}{2\omega\omega_{0}}\right]\mathbf{V}_{\mathrm{cav}} = \frac{j\dot{\mathbf{V}}_{amp}+\omega\mathbf{V}_{amp}}{\omega{Q_{e}}}
\label{eq:Amod9}.
\end{equation}
\noindent Where $\omega_{0}$ is the resonant frequency of the cavity, $\omega$ is the amplifier drive frequency, $Q_{L}$ and $Q_{e}$ are the loaded and external Q-factors respectively and $P_{amp}$ is the forward power from the amplifier expressed as a voltage as
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{V}_{amp} = \sqrt{2\left(\frac{R}{Q}\right)Q_{e}\mathbf{P}_{amp}}
\label{eq:Amod10}.
\end{equation}
\noindent If we assume that the cavity is driven at the resonant frequency and that the cavity is at steady state, then from Eq.~\ref{eq:Amod9}, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{V}_{cav} = \frac{2Q_{L}}{Q_{e}}\mathbf{V}_{amp}
\label{eq:Amod11},
\end{equation}
\noindent thus
\begin{equation}
P_{amp} = \frac{Q_{e}}{8\left(\frac{R}{Q}\right)Q_{L}^{2}}\lvert V_{cav}^2\rvert
\label{eq:Amod12}.
\end{equation}
\noindent From Eqs.~\ref{eq:Amod3} and \ref{eq:Amod12}, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\langle{P_{amp}}\rangle = \frac{Q_{e}}{8\left(\frac{R}{Q}\right)Q_{L}^{2}}\left[ V_{0}^{2}+\langle{V_{\beta}^{2}}\rangle+\langle{V_{n}^{2}}\rangle\right. \\
\left.+2V_{0}\langle{V_{\beta}}\rangle+2V_{0}\langle{V_{n}}\rangle+2\langle{V_{\beta}}\rangle\langle{V_{n}\rangle}\right]
\label{eq:Amod13}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Note that for the beam loading terms, we now use $V_{\beta}$ rather than $V_{b}$. This is because the LLRF feedback algorithm determines the power required to maintain a stable cavity voltage. If we implement a static set point algorithm, then $V_{\beta}=V_{b}$, if a dynamic set point algorithm is used then $V_{\beta}=\delta{V_{b}}$, which is an error residual when subtracting the expected beam loading voltage from the real value. This error residual depends on pattern number, LLRF algorithm, gains and other factors.
We should note that for the amplifier power, the noise has a simpler relationship to the signal to noise ratio than the noise observed on the cavity voltage (Eq.~\ref{eq:Amod2}) because the noise on the amplifier is the measured noise amplified by the proportional gain of the LLRF, so
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{V_{n}} = \frac{G_{p}}{S/N}V_{0}
\label{eq:Amod14}.
\end{equation}
\noindent If we assume that $V_{\beta}$ and $V_{n}$ are independent and zero mean, then Eq.~\ref{eq:Amod13} can be simplified as:
\begin{equation}
\langle{P_{amp}}\rangle = \frac{Q_{e}V_{0}^{2}}{8\left(\frac{R}{Q}\right)Q_{L}^{2}}\left[ \left(1+\frac{G_{p}^{2}}{\left(S/N\right)^{2}}\right)+\frac{\sigma_{V_{\beta}}^{2}}{V_{0}^{2}}\right]
\label{eq:Amod15}.
\end{equation}
\noindent By a similar method, we can also determine the standard deviation on the amplifier power as
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{P_{amp}} \approx & \frac{Q_{e}V_{0}^{2}}{8\left(\frac{R}{Q}\right)Q_{L}^{2}}\sqrt{\frac{2G_{p}^{4}}{\left(S/N\right)^{4}}+\frac{2G_{p}^{2}}{\left(S/N\right)^{2}}+\Delta} \\
\Delta = & \frac{\langle{V_{\beta}^{4}}\rangle - \langle{V_{\beta}^{2}}\rangle^{2}}{V_{0}^{4}} + \frac{4\langle{V_{\beta}^{2}}\rangle}{V_{0}^{2}}
\label{eq:Amod16}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\noindent For low signal to noise ratios, the first terms dominates, whereas for high signal to noise ratios, we encounter a noise floor due to either beam loading (static set-point) or a residual error (dynamic set-point); this noise floor will be pattern dependent. For the first term, note that it is independent of beam loading pattern and therefore, for lower signal to noise ratios, we expect $\sigma_{P_{amp}}$ to be independent of beam loading pattern.
\section{Beam loading simulation}
The cavity voltage fluctuation can be simulated by simulating beam loading and its interaction with RF system~\cite{RobPRAB}. In this work we have extended beam loading type to accelerating and decelerating. In accelerating mode, voltage changes due to the beam loading is subtracted from cavity voltage and vise versa.
\subsection{Static and dynamic set-points}
Before running simulations, it is important to determine the set-point voltage of LLRF system. As we mentioned earlier, there are two types of set-point voltages: dynamic and static set-points. During the beam loading, the cavity voltage fluctuates but the net beam loading of a packet is zero and voltage will return to nominal voltage. So, there is no need for LLRF correction for beam loading. The dynamic set-point is designed to exclude beam loading correction. In static set-point, however, the LLRF system treats beam loading as noise, tries to correct to the oscillatory beam loading, and thus becomes unstable. Therefore, the dynamic set-point is better than static set-point as it creates less cavity voltage fluctuation and requires much less amplifier power. This is also confirmed by simulations shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:stat-dyna-setpoints}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{tabular}{c}
{\scalebox{0.5} [0.5]{\includegraphics{10a}}}\\
(a) \\
{\scalebox{0.5} [0.5]{\includegraphics{10b}}}\\
(b) \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Comparison of static and dynamic set-points for filling pattern [1~2~3~4~5~6] when $S/N=7.1\times10^2$. (a) cavity voltage and (b) amplifier power as function of time.}
\label{fig:stat-dyna-setpoints}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Simulation parameters}
The simulation parameters are shown in Table~\ref{tab:sim-setup}. We simulated 6-turn ERL, so there are 6 bunches in the packet. The bunch charge was set high to increase the effect of the beam loading and to allow us to explore the behaviour of the RF system under extreme conditions. The circumference is set to 360 m, so number of RF cycles in the ring would be 1200 for a 1~GHz RF frequency. We set 1 intra-packet block is 10 RF cycles, so 20 packets fill up the ring. New bunches replaced old bunches, until total of 96 turns are tracked, which is about 121~$\mu$s time duration. We scanned through all the 120 filling patterns of 6-turn ERL.
\begin{table}
\caption{Simulation parameters.}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{lc}
\textbf{Machine parameters} & \textbf{value} \\
\hline
bunch charge $q_{bunch}$ & 18.4 nC \\
RF cycles per block & 10 \\
bunches per packet & 6 \\
number of bunch packets & 20 \\
circumference & 360 m \\
revolution time & 1.2 $\mu$s \\
number of turns tracked & 96 \\
tracking time duration & 121 $\mu$s \\
\hline
\textbf{Cavity parameters} & \\
\hline
cavity voltage ($V_{0}$) & 18.7 MV \\
R/Q & 400 \\
RF frequency & 1 GHz \\
\hline
\textbf{LLRF parameters} & \\
\hline
latency & 1~$\mu$s \\
digital sampling rate & 40~MHz \\
closed-loop bandwidth & 2.5~MHz \\
proportional controller gain $G_{p}$ & 1000 \\
integral controller gain $G_{i}$ & 1 \\
maximum amplifier power & 800~kW \\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\label{tab:sim-setup}
\end{table}
\subsection{Simulation results}
\subsubsection{Comparison of optimal and non-optimal patterns}
Firstly, we have looked at the effect of beam loading pattern on the cavity voltage and amplifier power. As show in Fig.~\ref{fig:sim-patt1N60}, the simulation results are shown for an optimal filling pattern [1~4~3~6~5~2] indicated by blue line and a non-optimal pattern [1~2~3~4~5~6] indicated by red line. The optimal pattern is better, because it creates much smaller cavity voltage fluctuations as shown in sub-figures (a) and (c) and requires less amplifier power as shown in sub-figures (b) and (d). The sub-figures (a) and (b) are simulation results when $S/N=7.1\times10^2$ and (c) and (d) are results when $S/N=7.1\times10^5$. Increasing the $S/N$ reduced cavity voltage fluctuation slightly and amplifier power significantly. Simulation results confirmed that certain patterns are better from the perspective of cavity voltage jitters, RF stability, and power requirements.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.4\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{11a.png}
\caption{$S/N=7.1\times10^2$}
\end{subfigure}
%
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.4\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{11b.png}
\caption{$S/N=7.1\times10^2$}
\end{subfigure}
%
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.4\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{11c.png}
\caption{$S/N=7.1\times10^5$}
\end{subfigure}
%
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.4\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{11d.png}
\caption{$S/N=7.1\times10^5$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Comparison of patterns [1~4~3~6~5~2] and [1~2~3~4~5~6] with dynamic set-point at different $S/N$. (a) and (c) cavity voltage. (b) and (d) amplifier power. (a) and (b) are the results when $S/N=7.1\times10^2$. (c) and (d) are the results when $S/N=7.1\times10^5$.}
\label{fig:sim-patt1N60}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Noise scan}
We observed the cavity voltage jitters and amplifier power is reduced when $S/N$ is increased. To investigate noise dependence, we have performed simulations with filling patterns [1~4~3~6~5~2] and [1 2 3 4 5 6] by varying $S/N$. The results are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:patts-vs-SN} for (a) $\sigma_{V_{cav}}$, (b) $\sigma_{P_{amp}}$, and (c) average $P_{amp}$.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:patts-vs-SN} (a), we see that the $\sigma_{V_{cav}}$ is more sensitive to the filling pattern than $S/N$. In other words, $\sigma_{V_{cav}}$ is dominated by filling pattern. $\sigma_{V_{cav}}$ reaches pattern specific limit $\sigma_{V_{b}}$ around $10^3$, so $S/N$ needs to larger than $10^3$ to minimize cavity voltage jitters.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:patts-vs-SN} (b) and (c), we see $\sigma_{P_{amp}}$ and average ${P_{amp}}$ are sensitive to noise than filling pattern. To minimize power consumption $P_{amp}$ around to 11.15~kW, the $S/N$ has to be larger than $10^4$. Two patterns has similar amplifier power fluctuations $\sigma_{P_{amp}}$ up to $S/N$ = $10^{5}$. Beyond this point, $\sigma_{P_{amp}}$ reach filling pattern specific floors.
The analytical model underestimates $P_{amp}$ as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:patts-vs-SN} (b) at high noise. As the noise increase, the amplifier starts to have saturation. In this case, the proportional term can't provide sufficient power. As the power shortage build up, the integral term will start to make correction and add power the cavity. The simulation can model the proper PI controller and have integral term. But the analytical doesn't have the integral term and thus can't include the power from integral term. This will cause analytical model to fail at very high noise levels and accounts for the difference between the analytic model and simulation.
The typical $S/N$ range for a real LLRF system is around $10^{3} - 10^{6}$. In the figures, we cover a very wide range of $S/N$, including values which far exceed the realistic range of values. The reason for this is to allow us to explore the behaviour of the RF and LLRF system in the limit of ultra-low noise, which allows us to study features that are not visible at realisable values of $S/N$, such as the pattern-dependent noise floor in Fig.~\ref{fig:patts-vs-SN} (c).
\begin{figure}
\begin{tabular}{c}
{\scalebox{0.5} [0.5]{\includegraphics{12a.png}}} \\
(a) \\
{\scalebox{0.5} [0.5]{\includegraphics{12b.png}}}\\
(b) \\
{\scalebox{0.5} [0.5]{\includegraphics{12c.png}}}\\
(c) \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{RMS cavity voltage (a), average amplifier power (b), and RMS amplifier power (c) as function of $S/N$ for patterns [1~4~3~6~5~2] and [1~2~3~4~5~6].}
\label{fig:patts-vs-SN}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Cavity voltage}
The cavity voltages jitters $\sigma_{V_{cav}}$ of all 120 filling patterns are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:sim-sigVcav}. We see that $\sigma_{V_{cav}}$ is different when different set-points are used. The dynamic set-point is better because it gives smaller cavity voltage jitters. The filling patterns No. 60 (pattern [1~4~3~6~5~2]) and 61 (pattern [1~4~5~2~3~6]) are optimum for both set-points. There are other patterns [1~4~2~5~3~6], [1~4~2~5~6~3], [1~4~3~6~2~5], [1~4~5~2~6~3], [1~4~6~3~2~5], and [1~4~6~3~5~2] are optimal only for dynamic set-point. This indicates that depending on the set-point type, the Figure Of Merit (FOM) to estimate $\sigma_{V_{cav}}$ is different. For static set-point, the FOM can be given as
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\sigma_{V_{cav}} = \sigma_{\overline{V_{turns}}} = \sqrt{\frac{1}{N_{t}} \sum_{i=1}^{i=N_{t}} (\bar{V}_{i})^2 },
\label{eq:FOM-stat}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\noindent with ${\bar{V}_{i}}$ being the average voltage of $i^{th}$ turn, and $N_{t}$ being number of turns. In this case, we averaging voltage over one turn and get ${\bar{V}_{i}}$ first, then calculating the RMS of these $N_{t}$ turns. As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:sim-sigVcav} (a), the FOM roughly overlaps with simulation. Although, the FOM doesn't predict jitters exactly, but it can find optimal pattern quickly without simulations. For dynamic set-point, the FOM is Eq.~\ref{eq:Amod7}. The theoretical prediction matches simulation results exactly for $S/N = 1\times10^{12}$ as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:sim-sigVcav} (b).
\begin{figure}
\begin{tabular}{c}
{\scalebox{0.5} [0.5]{\includegraphics{13a}}} \\
(a) \\
{\scalebox{0.5} [0.5]{\includegraphics{13b}}}\\
(b) \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Simulated $\sigma_{V_{cav}}$ of 120 patterns with (a) static and (b) dynamic set-points compared to prediction. The $S/N$ was set to $1\times10^{12}$ to turn off the noise.}
\label{fig:sim-sigVcav}
\end{figure}
We see the dynamic set-point give smaller jitters. The patterns [1~4~3~6~5~2] and [1~4~5~2~3~6] (pattern number 60 and 61) are optimal in both set-points. Optimal pattern has 2$-$3 times less cavity voltage jitters than worst patterns.
\subsubsection{Amplifier power results}
The required average amplifier powers $P_{amp}$ for different patterns and different $S/N$ are given in Fig.~\ref{fig:ave-Pamp}. We see that the average $P_{amp}$ is reduced from 28~kW to 11.13~kW, when the $S/N$ increased from $7.1\times10^3$ to $7.1\times10^^4$. When $S/N$ reduced further, the $P_{amp}$ is reduced to minimum of 11.147~kW, which is the resistive power loss. This shows that ERLs can be operated with very low power, when $S/N$ is sufficiently high.
\begin{figure}
\begin{tabular}{c}
{\scalebox{0.5} [0.5]{\includegraphics{14}}} \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Average amplifier power $P_{amp}$ of 6-turn ERL patterns at different $S/N$.}
\label{fig:ave-Pamp}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Property of optimal patterns}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:Vcavpatts}, we compared cavity voltage of optimal and non-optimal patterns, indicated by blue and red lines respectively. In sub-figure (a), voltage of optimal pattern [1~4~3~6~5~2] fluctuates less than $\pm0.024$~MV range of 18.7~MV, while non-optimal pattern [1~2~3~4~5~6] has 3 times larger fluctuation. We see similar 3-up-3-down and up-down fluctuations as in Fig.~\ref{fig:6Turn_BL_patterns}, but here we have 20 bunch packets, so these fluctuations are repeated 20 times in each turn. Revolution times is about 1.2~$\mu$s, so every 1.2~$\mu$s turn changes.
The optimum filling patterns [1~4~3~6~5~2] and [1~4~5~2~3~6] (pattern number 60 and 61) and their associated beam loading patterns are given in Table~\ref{tab:bl_patt}. We observe their two consecutive bits are in either up-down (10) or down-up (01) pairs. Such combinations limit cumulative sum of beam loading pattern to a range of [$-1$, 1], and thus minimizes jitters. We also see 1 pair flips (``1" and ``0" switch positions) per turn. The change from ``0" to ``1" (acceleration to deceleration) happens in 3rd to 4th turn transition and the change from ``1" to ``0" is the new bunch replacing the extracted bunch. Therefore, in optimal patterns, consecutive pairs are made up by bunches that are 3 turns apart like [1~4], [2~5], and [3~6].
Patterns [1~4~2~5~3~6], [1~4~2~5~6~3], [1~4~3~6~2~5], [1~4~5~2~6~3], [1~4~6~3~2~5], and [1~4~6~3~5~2] also have above motioned properties of optimal patterns. However, they are only optimal for dynamic set-point and not for static set-point. Therefore, these 6 patterns are Dynamic Set-Point Optimal (DSPO) patterns, while [1~4~3~6~5~2] and [1~4~5~2~3~6] are All Set-Point Optimal (ASPO) patterns. Of course, a ASPO pattern is a DSPO pattern by definition. The difference between the ASPO pattern [1~4~3~6~5~2] and DSPO pattern [1~4~3~6~2~5] is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Vcavpatts}. Both patterns have same fluctuation range, but the turn average of the DSPO is larger in the 1st, 4th, and 7th turns. So, $\sigma_{\overline{V_{turn}}}$ of pattern DSPO is larger, which makes it non-optimal for static set-points according to Eq.~\ref{eq:FOM-stat}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{tabular}{c}
{\scalebox{0.5} [0.5]{\includegraphics{15a.png}}} \\
(a) \\
{\scalebox{0.5} [0.5]{\includegraphics{15b.png}}}\\
(b) \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Comparison of $V_{cav}$ and turn average of $V_{cav}$ of different patterns. (a) ASPO and non-optimal pattern. (b) DSPO and non-optimal pattern.}
\label{fig:Vcavpatts}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Off-crest beam loading}
So far, we have studied the effects of beam loading for on-crest phases. In applications such as FELs, bunches must be compressed during acceleration to achieve high peak current, then stretched and energy compressed on deceleration to eliminate adiabatic energy spread growth. Beams must therefore pass through the RF system off crest~\cite{AChaoHandBook, Neil_PRL_ERL_2000}. In recirculating ERLs, we want to minimize the net beam loading of a packet, so the in-phase (I) and quadrature phase (Q) components of the beam loading of a packet should sum to approximately zero, i.e. the vector sum of the voltage changes sums to zero for the bunch packet. By doing so, the amplitude and phase of the cavity voltage changes minimally after a packet. This implies that the phase and amplitude perturbations from beam loading cancel out over a bunch packet, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:off-crest-bl}. Here, by ``mirror turns" we meant turns that has same energy but the bunch phase is offset by $\pi$ radians. In 6-turn ERLs, turn 1 and 6, 2 and 5, and 3 and 4 are mirror turns. Mirror bunches have same energy and off-set angles as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:off-crest-bl}, so their vector sum is zero. In Fig.~\ref{fig:off-crest-bl}, $\phi_{1}$ is the off phase angle of 1st and 6th turns; $\phi_{2}$ is the off phase angle of 2nd and 5th turns; $\phi_{3}$ is the off phase angle of 3rd and 4th turns.
\begin{figure}
{\scalebox{0.3} [0.3]{\includegraphics{16}}}\\
\caption{Definition of off-set angels in off-crest beamloading.}
\label{fig:off-crest-bl}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Phase angle jitters}
We have estimated off-crest cavity voltage phase fluctuation for 120 patterns of the 6-turn ERL and results are given in Fig.~\ref{fig:off-crest-phase}. The $S/N$ was set to $10^{12}$ to turn off the noise. We have simulated two sets of off-set angles $\phi_{1, 2, 3} = 20^{\circ}, -20^{\circ}, 0^{\circ}$ and $\phi_{1, 2, 3} = 20^{\circ}, -10^{\circ}, -9.7^{\circ}$. We see that: (1) phase jitters is pattern dependent; (2) phase jitters is off-phase angle dependent; (3) in the worst case scenario, the RMS cavity phase jitters is less than $0.03^{\circ}$, even at fairly large off-set angles. (4) the jitters in the on-crest case is negligible.
For the two ASPO patterns (pattern number 60 and 61), the first off-set angles $\phi_{1, 2, 3} = 20^{\circ}, -20^{\circ}, 0^{\circ}$ has smaller jitters of $0.019^{\circ}$. The $\sigma_{\phi_{cav}}$ pattern is approximately up-side down of $\sigma_{V_{cav}}$, as can be seen from Figs~\ref{fig:off-crest-phase} and \ref{fig:off-crest-Vcav} (a). This is more obvious for $\phi_{1, 2, 3} = 20^{\circ}, -10^{\circ}, -9.7^{\circ}$ angle sets. This indicates if a pattern has larger amplitude jitters, then it tends to have smaller phase jitters, and visa versa.
\begin{figure}
{\scalebox{0.5} [0.5]{\includegraphics{17}}}\\
\caption{Cavity voltage phase jitters of off-crest beam loading for 120 patterns for 6-turn ERL.}
\label{fig:off-crest-phase}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Cavity voltage and amplifier power jitters}
We have also estimated cavity voltage and amplifier power jitters and results are given in Fig.~\ref{fig:off-crest-Vcav}. The difference in on- and off-crest cases are insignificant. The average amplifier power is the same as on-crest case, which is about 11.15~kW for all filling patterns.
\begin{figure}
\begin{tabular}{c}
{\scalebox{0.5} [0.5]{\includegraphics{18a}}} \\
(a) \\
{\scalebox{0.5} [0.5]{\includegraphics{18b}}}\\
(b) \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Cavity voltage fluctuation (a) and amplifier power amplitude fluctuation (b) of off-crest beam loading for 120 patterns for 6-turn ERL. The S/N is 10$^{12}$.}
\label{fig:off-crest-Vcav}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Bunch charge jitter}
Bunch charge modulations for a recirculating ERL introduces a unique source of noise that is unlike other sources we have considered thus far in this article. An error on bunch charge persists over all turns in the ERL before the beam is dumped. As a result, the noise spectrum from charge modulation is significantly narrower than the white noise we have assumed for other noise sources. For the 6-turn ERL we consider in this paper, the effective noise spectrum for the bunch charge jitter is peaked at approximately 140 kHz, and therefore it is within the closed-loop bandwidth of 2.5 MHz for the LLRF controller. For small bunch charge errors, the LLRF system is easily able to correct the error, whereas for larger values, it will struggle and the charge jitter becomes the dominant noise source.
We performed beam loading simulations to investigate effect of bunch charge jitter on the cavity voltage and amplifier power. The jitter was assumed to be Gaussian. RMS bunch charge jitters with 2$\%$ and 12$\%$ were simulated. Simulations were carried out for 120 filling patterns with the S/N = 7100, bunches launched on crest, and both set-points. The results are given in Fig.~\ref{fig:charge-jitter} for RMS cavity voltages in sub-figures (a) and (d), for average amplifier powers in (b) and (e), and RMS amplifier jitters in (c) and (f). The sub-figures (a), (b), and (c) are results for dynamic set-points and (d), (e), and (f) are for static set-points. We see charge jitters does not increase cavity voltage jitters for both static and dynamic set-points, even when $\sigma_{q}~=$ 12$\%$. We see the filling pattern and other noises are dominant over charge jitter noise.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.32\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{19a}
\caption{Dynamic set-point}
\end{subfigure}
%
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.32\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{19b}
\caption{Dynamic set-point}
\end{subfigure}
%
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.32\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{19c}
\caption{Dynamic set-point}
\end{subfigure}
%
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.32\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{19d}
\caption{Static set-point}
\end{subfigure}
%
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.32\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{19e}
\caption{Static set-point}
\end{subfigure}
%
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.32\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{19f}
\caption{Static set-point}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Bunch charge jitter simulation results with RMS bunch jitters of 0, 2$\%$, and 12$\%$. (a), (b), and (c) are results with dynamic set-point; (d), (e), and (f) are results with static set-point.}
\label{fig:charge-jitter}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Energy modulation}
It is possible that disturbances, such as charge jitter, beam loading, or other noise or jitter sources, may result in an energy modulation on the accelerating or decelerating beam. The stored energy in the cavity is given in the Eq.~\ref{eq:ustored}. Therefore, the change in energy of the cavity when a beam passes through is equal to minus the energy change of the particle bunch as it passes through the cavity ($q_{bunch}V_{cav}e^{j\phi}$), where $\phi$ is the RF phase at which the bunch passes through the cavity:
\begin{equation}
\delta{U_{stored}}=\frac{\left(V_{cav}+\delta{V}\right)^{2}-V_{cav}^{2}}{\omega\left(\frac{R}{Q}\right)}=q_{bunch}V_{cav}e^{j\phi}
\label{eq:energymod2}
\end{equation}
Usually, Eq.~\ref{eq:energymod2} is simplified to a linear approximation by assuming that the change in cavity voltage is small compared to the cavity voltage, in which case, we obtain $\delta{V}=\frac{q_{bunch}\omega}{2}\left(\frac{R}{Q}\right)e^{j\phi}$, which is independent of the cavity voltage, and small modulations on the cavity voltage do not lead to an energy modulation on the bunches. However, if we don't approximate Eq.~\ref{eq:energymod2}, we get that the change in cavity voltage due to beam loading is:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\delta{V}=-V_{cav}\left[1+\sqrt{1-\frac{q_{bunch}\omega}{V_{cav}}\left(\frac{R}{Q}\right)}e^{j\phi}\right] \\
\approx \frac{q_{bunch}\omega}{2}\left(\frac{R}{Q}\right)e^{j\phi}\left[1+\frac{q_{bunch}\omega}{4V_{cav}}\left(\frac{R}{Q}\right)e^{j\phi}+\cdots\right]
\label{eq:energymod3}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
The second term in Eq.~\ref{eq:energymod3} does result in an energy modulation, and in fact it is the dominant term for causing an energy modulation. If we use the values from Table~\ref{tab:sim-setup}, we find that the second term in Eq.~\ref{eq:energymod3} is approximately 0.06\% of the magnitude of the first term. Therefore, the resultant energy modulation caused by beam loading in our hypothetical recirculating ERL is negligible, hence the energy modulation due to effects such as charge jitter will be even smaller and for most scenarios it can be neglected. However, if we operate at very high frequency ($\sim$THz), very high bunch charge (which would exceed the threshold current for an ERL), or the cavity operates at very low voltages ($<$ kV) then the higher order terms in Eq.~\ref{eq:energymod3} become significant. This would also mean that the machine is operating in a non-linear regime, which would not be beneficial.
\section{Sequence preserving scheme}
\label{section:4}
For a recirculating linac to be an ERL, there has to be an extra path length to delay the bunch by 180$^\circ$ phase to switch from accelerating mode to decelerating mode. By adjusting the delay length or by implementing more sophisticated arcs, topologies, and injection scheme, one can manipulate the bunch order or bunch spacing. The extra path length can be in the form of a longer arc~\cite{HIGH-CURRENT-ERL} or a chicane~\cite{CEBAF-ERL-EXP}. By introducing this additional path length, the topology changes from the ``0" topology of Fig.~\ref{fig:SimpleERL} to the ``8" topology of Fig.~\ref{fig:8-toplogy}. More complicated topologies can be achieved by setting all the arcs to different lengths~\cite{Douglas:IPAC2018-THPMK106, HZBERLCDR, Angal-Kalinin2018}.
Here we discuss ``8" topology as an example to show that it can maintain an `up-down-up-down' ([1~0~1~0~1~0]) beam loading pattern for all turns; which is preferable for cavity voltage and RF stability. It is achieved by utilising an injection and delay scheme shown the Fig.~\ref{fig:delay-scheme}. Such a scheme preserves $\{4~1~5~2~6~3\}$ bunch-turn number sequence and [1~0~1~0~1~0] beam loading pattern. Bunch-turn number sequence $\{4~1~5~2~6~3\}$ indicates the first bunch of bunch packet is at 4th turn, the second bunch is at 1st turn and so on. In SP schemes the new bunch is injected to the head of the packet and the bunch 3 of the earlier packet is delayed to join subsequent packet. In the previously described FIFO scheme, the new bunch is injected to the position of the dumped bunch and thus the bunch-turn number sequence changes turn-by-turn.
Of course, one can maintain `up-down-up-down' patterns with more complicated topologies as well. The presented SP pattern is suitable for both simple or complicated topologies as it can maintain the favoured `up-down-up-down' beam loading pattern and there is no difference from the RF system perspective. For this SP scheme, the cavity voltage fluctuates within $\pm0.5$ normalized beam loading increment, which is half of the optimal FIFO patterns. However, FIFO patterns can achieve a higher density of bunch packets than SP patterns as it is necessary for SP patterns to have unoccupied intra-packet blocks to allow for the required manipulation of the bunch packet to maintain a constant beam loading pattern.
\begin{figure}
{\scalebox{0.35} [0.35]{\includegraphics{20.png}}} \\
\caption{Topology with extra arc length for phase flip and/or delay.}
\label{fig:8-toplogy}
\end{figure}
In ``8" topology of Fig.~\ref{fig:8-toplogy}, all bunches go through the same arc, except for the bunch transitioning from accelerating to decelerating modes. The transitioning bunch goes through arc 6, which has extra length $\Delta{L}$ for delay. The length of delay can be given as
\begin{equation}
\Delta L = nL_{packet} + mL_{block} + \frac{\lambda_{RF}}{2}.
\label{eq:delayDL}
\end{equation}
\noindent with $n = 0, 1, 2, ...$, $m = 0, 1, 2, ...$, $L_{packet}$ being the length occupied by a bunch packet, $L_{block}$ being the length occupied by a intra-packet block, and $\lambda_{RF}$ being the wave length of RF cycle. When $m=n=0$, the bunch flips phase but remains in the same packet; which is the case of the simple recirculating FIFO scheme described in earlier sections. The beam line layout described in \cite{CEBAF-ERL-EXP} can be an example of this. When $m,n\neq0$, the bunches don't only flip phase, but also move to later blocks and packets.
\begin{figure}
{\scalebox{0.45} [0.45]{\includegraphics{21.png}}} \\
\caption{Topology with an extra arc 6 length to preserve $\{4~1~5~2~6~3\}$ bunch-turn number sequence. (a) Depiction of two bunch packets before entering the arcs. (b) Green bunch at 3$^{\text{rd}}$ turn gets delayed. Bunches at their 6$^{\text{th}}$ turn are extracted. (c) Green bunch at 3rd turn is delayed and joined pink packet. When the packet passes injection point, all the bunch numbers are incremented by 1. (d) A new bunch is injected into pink packet. New circulation starts with (a) again.}
\label{fig:delay-scheme}
\end{figure}
Note that sequence $\{4~1~5~2~6~3\}$ indicates the turn number of bunches and should not be confused with filling pattern [1~5~2~6~3~4], which describes filling order. Angal-Kalinin $et$ $al.$, proposed~\cite{Angal-Kalinin2018} a similar SP scheme as $\{4~1~5~2~6~3\}$ for the purpose of separating low energy bunches to minimize Beam-Breakup (BBU) instability~\cite{Hoffstaetter_2004}. BBU is a major limiting factor for the ERL beam current~\cite{Lou_Hoffstaetter_2019} and we will investigate it further in a future study.
\section{Comparison of simulation results}
\label{section:5}
Simulations were performed for SP with on- and off-crest beam loadings and static and dynamic set-points. The results are overlaid for comparison and given in Fig.~\ref{fig:22} and Fig.~\ref{fig:23}. The $S/N$ was set to $7\times10^{3}$ to observe the behavior of the system with moderate noise. Fig.~\ref{fig:22} shows results with on-crest beam loadings only. Fig.~\ref{fig:23} shows results with dynamic set-point only.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{22a}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
%
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{22b}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
%
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{22c}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
%
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{22d}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Comparison of SP and FIFO at dynamic set-point with on-crest beam loadings: (a) cavity voltage jitters; (b) cavity phase jitters; (c) average amplifier power; and (d) amplifier power jitters.}
\label{fig:22}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{23a}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
%
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{23b}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
%
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{23c}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
%
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{23d}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Comparison of SP and FIFO at dynamic set-points when beam loading is at on-crest: (a) cavity voltage jitters; (b) cavity phase jitters; (c) average amplifier power; and (d) amplifier power jitters.}
\label{fig:23}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Comparison of dynamic and static set-points of FIFO and SP}
In the sub-figure (a) of Fig.~\ref{fig:22}, we see SP can have slightly lower cavity voltage jitter $\sigma_{V_{cav}}$ than FIFO. The difference in $\sigma_{V_{cav}}$ between of different patterns of SP are not as significant as FIFO. SP is insensitive to set-points regardless of patterns, wile for FIFO is only insensitive at optimal filling patterns (pattern number 60 and 61).
In the sub-figure (b) of Fig.~\ref{fig:22}, we see the phase jitters are noise dominated and remained low at around $10^{-3}$ degrees. This shows at $S/N$ of $7\times10^{3}$, the phase jitters is negligible for all injection schemes, set-points, and filling patterns.
In the sub-figure (c) of Fig.~\ref{fig:22}, we see injection schemes, filling patterns, and set-points all can affect the average beam power. Firstly, we see SP requires minimum power regardless of set-points and filling patterns. Secondly, when FIFO is combined with the dynamic set-point, the average power is minimized as well. Thirdly, When FIFO is with static set-point, the filling pattern becomes the most important factor in determining the average power. When the pattern is optimal, the power 14.9~kW is very close to minimum power of 11.3~kW. If one combines FIFO with static set-point and the worst filling pattern, the average power can be as high as 333~kW, which is 30 times of minimum. All these are important factors to consider and optimize when designing ERLs to minimize power consumption.
In the sub-figure (d) of Fig.~\ref{fig:22}, we see $\sigma_{P_{amp}}$ has similar shape as average $P_{amp}$. It is because $\sigma_{P_{amp}}$ is determinant factor for $P_{amp}$. At dynamic set-point, the $\sigma_{P_{amp}}$ is very small at about 2~kW for all patterns and injection schemes, which is consistent with our earlier results. On the other hand, for the static set-point $\sigma_{P_{amp}}$ can range from 10$-$270~kW, depending on the filling pattern and injection schemes. SP with static set-point is significantly better than FIFO with static set-point, except for the optimal patterns of FIFO.
Over all, dynamic set-points is better than static as it causes less jitters and requires less power. When set-point is static, the optimal patterns can lower jitters and power to near the minimum. SP is more stable than FIFO, even when it is with static set-point.
\subsection{Comparison of on- and off-crest}
In the sub-figure (a) of Fig.~\ref{fig:23}, we see off-crest beam loading lowers cavity jitters slightly, which could be due to the fact that at off-crest phases electron bunches take/deposit less energy from/to the cavity than on-crest. In the sub-figure (b), we phase jitters increased more than 1 order of magnitude for off-crest cases. Therefore, off-crest beam loading causes increase in the phase jitters, but the jitters after the increase is still small at $0.1-0.3$ degrees for our parameter settings. We have intentionally set the bunch charge to a high value of 18.4~nC to accentuate the effect of beam loading. Over all, SP has smaller phase jitters than FIFO. There is no difference in average amplifier power and its power jitters.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{section:conclusion}
We studied recirculating ERL beam loading instabilities of different filling patterns under various noises, phases, and injection schemes by combining analytical model with simulations. Simulation results agreed with analytical predictions with some minor differences at very high or very low noises, possibly due to the non-linearity of the system. These studies give us useful insight to ERL beam loading with different filling patterns, LLRF systems, and injection schemes.
We found filling patterns, S/N, and LLRF set-points are important for maintaining stable cavity voltage and lowering consumed RF power. We identified optimal filling patterns for 6-turn ERL, but our methodology can be applied for finding optimal patterns of other multi-turn ERLs as well. Optimal filling patterns lower cavity voltage jitters and amplifier power significantly. Our studies show that ERL LLRF requires dynamic set-point voltage. The cavity voltage is more sensitive to the filling patterns than noise. The amplifier power jitters is more sensitive to noise than filling patterns. For our setup parameters, when $S/N$ is increased to $7\times10^3$ or more, the average amplifier power can be reduced to minimum of around 11~kW. Lowering noise is critical for lowering the amplifier power. The effect of charge jitters and off-crest beam loading on the cavity voltage and amplifier power are negligible. The off-crest beam loading increased the cavity phase jitters by one order of magnitude, but jitters are still small at around $0.1-0.3$ degrees.
We have also introduced SP and FIFO injection schemes and found they behave differently, depending on the beam loading type (on- and off-crest), set-points, and filling patterns. Over all, SP is more stable than FIFO and requires less power.
It will be interesting study to investigate BBU instability for different filling patterns. This work has been done only for 6-turn ERLs, but the theoretical construct and simulation can also be applied to higher or less turn numbers.
\begin{acknowledgments}
The authors would like to thank Dr. Graeme Burt, Dr. Amos Dexter, and Dr. David Walsh for their useful suggestions and insights. The studies presented have been funded by STFC Grants No. ST/P002056/1 under the Cockcroft Institute Core Grant.
\end{acknowledgments}
\section{Introduction}
\subsection{Introduction into ERLs}
There is an increasing interest in Energy Recovery Linacs worldwide due to their unique promise of combining the high-brightness electron beams available from conventional linacs with the high average powers available from storage rings. Applications requiring this step-change in capability are coming to the fore in a wide variety of fields, for example high energy particle physics colliders~\cite{AbelleiraFernandez2012}, high luminosity colliders for nuclear physics~\cite{Accardi2016}, free-electron laser drivers for academic and industrial purposes~\cite{Socol2013,Socol2011}, and inverse Compton scattering sources~\cite{Shimada2010,Hayakawa2010}. The first high average power application demonstrated on an ERL was the multi-kW lasing of the JLab IR-FEL~\cite{Neil_PRL_ERL_2000}.
\par Historically, an effective method to cost-optimise an electron linac (where beam dynamics restrictions allow) is to implement recirculation~\cite{York1987,Williams2011}, i.e. accelerating the beam more than once within the same RF structures. Analogously, one may implement recirculation in an ERL, accelerating {\it and} decelerating within the same structures. This has been successfully demonstrated in the normal-conducting Novosibirsk infrared FEL~\cite{Shevchenko2016}. There are a number of GeV scale user facilities proposed that are therefore based upon recirculating superconducting ERLs~\cite{AbelleiraFernandez2012,Angal-Kalinin2018,Ptitsyn:2016ckp}, and two test facilities are currently attempting such a multi-turn ERL demonstration~\cite{Hoffstaetter:2017ipp,Arnold:2018ilm}.
\par It is thus timely to explore the implications of this relatively new accelerator class. Unlike a linac or storage ring, there is large number of degrees of freedom in the basic accelerator topology. For example one may choose a dogbone or racetrack layout, subsequent accelerating pass may be transported in common or separate beam transport, and decelerating passes may be transported pairwise with their equivalent accelerating beam in common or separate transport~\cite{Williams:FLS2018-THA1WA04,Douglas:IPAC2018-THPMK106,WilliamsLHEC2018}.
\par In this article we explore the consequence of these choices on the most important aspect of an ERL-based user facility, the RF stability. Specifically, we consider all possible beam filling patterns in an N-pass recirculating ERL and their interaction with the accelerator low-level RF control system. We show that there are optimal choices, and note which topologies allow these optima to be chosen.
\par It is vital that this analysis is performed during the design stage of an ERL-based facility as it fixes the pass-to-pass
path length required in the recirculation transport at the scale of multiples of the fundamental RF wavelength, typically many metres, therefore any path length variability built in to allow pass-to-pass RF phase variation cannot correct for this macro scale requirement. Similarly, transverse phase advance manipulations that are capable of mitigating BBU thresholds~\cite{Douglas2006} would not be effective against sub-optimal filling pattern generated instabilities.
\par We first introduce beam filling and beam loading patterns, and describe how they affect cavity voltage. We then describe an analytical model of beam loading and use this to make predictions about the system. The next section describes beam loading simulations while varying different parameters such as the signal-to-noise ratio ($S/N$) and synchronous phase. We will expand these studies to sequence preserving scheme in the section \ref{section:4} and compare all the simulations results in the section \ref{section:5}.
\subsection{Filling patterns}
In this article, we note that the topology of the recirculating ERL can impact the filling pattern or ordering of the bunches. We start with a simple recirculating ERL with single arc on two sides as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:SimpleERL} and discuss more complex setup later on.
We consider a 6-turn ERL with 3 acceleration and 3 deceleration turns.
In order to minimise cavity voltage fluctuations, we allow for spacing between injected bunches which become filled by bunches on subsequent passes. Here we elucidate the exact choices in which that process occurs. As an example Fig.~\ref{fig:filling} shows 3 decelerating bunches followed by 3 accelerating ones. The accelerating bunches take energy from the cavity, thus decreasing the cavity voltage and vice versa, therefore mixing them can minimize cavity voltage fluctuation. The 6 bunches form what we term a “bunch packet”. Bunch packets are repeated and fill up the ERL as shown by the diagram in Fig.~\ref{fig:packets}.
As we mix bunches executing different turns into bunch packets we emphasise that ``injection'' only refers to the process of transporting a bunch from the injection line to the ERL main ring; similarly, ``extraction'' refers to the process of extracting a bunch from the ring and transporting them to the beam dump. Therefore a set of injected bunches do not pass through the linac as one, they are always mixed with bunches executing turns in the ERL ring.
The ``bunch number" is the order in which bunches are injected into a bunch packet over $N$ turns, for example bunch 1 (or 1st bunch) is injected on turn 1, bunch 2 (or 2nd bunch) is injected as bunch 1 executes turn 2 and so on.
During the operation, one bunch per packet per turn is extracted and replaced by a new bunch. Usually, not all the RF cycles are filled by bunches, but one bunch is located at the start of a block of $M$ otherwise unoccupied RF cycles. These $M$ RF cycles we call the ``intra-packet block''. In a $N$-turn ERL, 1 bunch packet thus occupies $M\times N$ RF cycles. In the packet illustrated in Fig~\ref{fig:filling} each intra-packet block is coloured uniquely.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=50mm]{1}
\caption{Simple recirculating linac diagram.}
\label{fig:SimpleERL}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{2}
\caption{Filling of recirculating linac with filling pattern [1~2~3~4~5~6]. Blue/red bunches are accelerated/decelerated. Phase flips at 3rd turn.}
\label{fig:filling}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=50mm]{3}
\caption{Filling of ERL by multiple bunch packets.}
\label{fig:packets}
\end{figure}
We can give notation of filling pattern by describing which bunch goes to which intra-packet block. The number indicates the bunch number and its position in the vector indicates the intra-packet block number. The filling pattern of Fig.~\ref{fig:filling} is a 6-element vector [1~2~3~4~5~6]. Filling pattern [1~4~3~6~5~2], for example, describes filling depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:filling2}.
Here we attempt a step-by-step explanation of packet construction.
We assume a flexible injection timing, such that we can insert a small delay of less than the regular pulse spacing (but still a multiple of fundamental RF) with a regular superperiod. Such capability would be novel, though not unfeasible, within the photoinjector laser system.
Please refer to Figs.~\ref{fig:filling}, \ref{fig:packets} and \ref{fig:filling2}: We start by injecting all the bunches labeled 1. In Fig.~\ref{fig:packets}, we see that we can fit 8 packets into the ERL (the number of packets in the ring are arbitrarily chosen), so this accounts for the first 8 bunches from the injector. This completes turn 1 in Fig.~\ref{fig:filling} (or Fig.~\ref{fig:filling2}) (which both shows only one of the 8 packets). The ninth bunch from the injector becomes the first “bunch 2” on the second line of Fig.~\ref{fig:filling} or Fig.~\ref{fig:filling2}. In the case of Fig.~\ref{fig:filling} the bunch 2 is injected in to “intra-packet block” number 2. In the case of Fig.~\ref{fig:filling2} the bunch 2 is injected in to “intra-packet block” number 6.
This difference between Fig.~\ref{fig:filling} and Fig.~\ref{fig:filling2} is accomplished using the aforementioned flexible timing feature of the photoinjector laser by extending the time interval separating the 8th and 9th bunches..
The next 7 injected bunches fill up the other “bunch 2” spaces in the other packets. Following through, the 17th bunch from the injector thus becomes “bunch 3” in the packet, in both Figs.~\ref{fig:filling} and \ref{fig:filling2} this is placed in block number 3. In this way we build up either [1 2 3 4 5 6] for Fig.~\ref{fig:filling}, or [1 4 3 6 5 2] for Fig.~\ref{fig:filling2}. We call patterns constructed in this method "First-In-First-Out" (FIFO) patterns as the order of the bunches in the packet remains constant.
Another way to construct filling patterns is recombination using different path lengths with a fixed injection time interval. In this case, the turn number of the bunches in the packet does not change. Therefore, we name it Sequence Preserving (SP) scheme. We will discuss it in more details in later sections. A point we wish to emphasize for SP scheme is that because choosing between these two filling patterns implies differences in the path lengths of many RF cycles for each individual turn, this choice is a design parameter during machine construction.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{4}
\caption{Filling of recirculating linac with filling pattern [1~4~3~6~5~2].}
\label{fig:filling2}
\end{figure}
We will also use ``pattern number'' for brevity to indicate 120 filling patterns of 6-turn ERL. The pattern number $i$ is used to indicate 120 permutations of [2~3~4~5~6] and related to the filling pattern $F_i$ as
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&F_{1} = [1~2~3~4~5~6], \\
&F_{2} = [1~2~3~4~6~5], \\
&... \\
&F_{120} = [1~6~5~4~3~2].
\end{split}
\label{eq:ustored0}
\end{equation}
\noindent As there are many bunch packets in a ring, without losing the generality we can name intra-packet block of the 1st bunch as the 1st block, i.e. the 1st bunch will always be in the 1st intra-packet block.
\subsection{Cavity voltage calculation}
As the bunches pass through the linacs, they are either accelerated or decelerated by the RF field in the cavity. In doing so, energy is either put into or taken out of the cavity. The cavity voltage $V_{cav}$ is related to the stored energy $U_{stored}$ as
\begin{equation}
U_{stored} = \frac{V_{cav}^{2}}{\omega\left(\frac{R}{Q}\right)}
\label{eq:ustored},
\end{equation}
\noindent with $\frac{R}{Q}$ being shunt impedance of the cavity divided by its Q-factor. For an accelerating cavity, the change in stored energy from a particle bunch passing through is
\begin{equation}
\delta{U}_{stored}=\frac{2V_{cav}\delta{V}_{cav}}{\omega\left(\frac{R}{Q}\right)}=-q_{bunch}V_{cav}.
\label{eq:ustored1}
\end{equation}
\noindent Therefore, the change in cavity voltage from beam loading is given as
\begin{equation}
\delta{V}_{cav}=-\frac{q_{bunch}}{2}\omega\left(\frac{R}{Q}\right)\cos{\left(\phi\right)},
\label{eq:ustored2}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\phi$ is the phase difference between the bunch and the RF and $q_{bunch}$ is the bunch charge. In general, the bunches will not necessarily pass through the cavity on-crest (maximum field) or on-trough (minimum field). When dealing with RF fields, it is convenient to consider the field as a complex number, where only the real part can interact with the beam at any moment in time. Indeed this implies that beam loading can only change the real component of the cavity voltage for any given phase.
In order for a recirculating ERL to operate stably over time, we require that the vector sum of the cavity voltage experienced by each bunch in a bunch packet must equal zero, as shown Fig.~\ref{fig:BL_ERL}. If this is not the case, then there will be a net change in stored energy in the cavity each bunch packet, reducing the overall efficiency of the ERL.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=85mm]{5.png}
\caption{A diagram to show the complex voltages of four bunches in a 4-turn ERL.}
\label{fig:BL_ERL}
\end{figure}
For now, we will neglect the phase of the bunches and only consider voltages as real numbers for brevity in the following mathematical description. Later we will consider off-crest beam loading cases by replacing binary notation with complex notation, i.e. by replace ``1'' and ``0'' by $e^{i\phi}$ and $e^{-i\phi}$. We define a recirculating ERL to be at `steady state' when all intra-packet blocks in the machine are occupied. In this case, on any given turn, half the bunches in the packet pass through the cavity at accelerating phases and half at decelerating phases. As cavity voltage experienced by all bunches in the packet sum to zero, there is no net energy gain or loss over bunch packet.
If we neglect the phase of the bunches and only consider bunches passing through the cavity on-crest and on-trough, then the change in cavity voltage due to beam loading from a bunch is simply $\pm\frac{q_{bunch}}{2}\omega\left(\frac{R}{Q}\right)\cos{\left(\phi\right)}$, from Eq.~\ref{eq:ustored2}. Therefore, in this case, every time a bunch passes through a linac, the cavity voltage is incremented or decremented by a fixed amount.
\subsection{Beam loading pattern}
Let us consider a 6-turn ERL. Table~\ref{tab:bl_patt} shows how the beam loading pattern changes turn-by-turn for the filling patterns [1~2~3~4~5~6], [1~4~3~6~5~2], and [1~4~5~2~3~6]. If we use ``0'' and ``1'' to denote accelerated and decelerated bunches, respectively, we get beam loading patterns as shown in Table~\ref{tab:bl_patt}. The accelerating bunches reduce the voltage in the cavity and vise versa. Now that we have defined the bunch filling pattern and showed how this is associated with a unique sequence of beam loading patterns, we should understand how this beam loading pattern affects the cavity voltage. Fig.~\ref{fig:BL_patterns} shows how the beam loading pattern can be translated into a change in cavity voltage.
\begin{table}
\caption{Filling patterns and associated beam loading patterns.}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{llll}
filling pattern & 1 2 3 4 5 6 & 1 4 3 6 5 2 & 1 4 5 2 3 6 \\
\hline
turn 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
turn 2 & 0~0 & 0~\textcolor{white}{1~1~0~1}~0 & 0~\textcolor{white}{1~1}~0\textcolor{white}{~1~0} \\
turn 3 & 0~0~0 & 0~\textcolor{white}{1}~0~\textcolor{white}{1~1}~0 & 0~\textcolor{white}{1~1}~0~0\textcolor{white}{~1} \\
turn 4 & 1~0~0~0 & 1~0~0~\textcolor{white}{1~1}~0 & 1~0~\textcolor{white}{1}~0~0\textcolor{white}{~1} \\
turn 5 & 1~1~0~0~0 & 1~0~0~\textcolor{white}{1}~0~1 & 1~0~0~1~0\textcolor{white}{~1} \\
turn 6 & 1~1~1~0~0~0 & 1~0~1~0~0~1 & 1~0~0~1~1~0 \\
turn 7 & 0~1~1~1~0~0 & {0~1}~{1~0~0~1} & {0~1}~{0~1~1~0} \\
turn 8 & 0~0~1~1~1~0 & {0~1~1~0}~{1~0} & {0~1}~{1~0}~{1~0} \\
turn 9 & 0~0~0~1~1~1 & {0~1}~{0~1}~{1~0}& {0~1~1~0}~{0~1} \\
turn 10 & 1~0~0~0~1~1 & {1~0}~{0~1~1~0} & {1~0}~{1~0~0~1} \\
turn 11 & 1~1~0~0~0~1 & {1~0~0~1}~{0~1} & {1~0}~{0~1}~{0~1} \\
turn 12 & 1~1~1~0~0~0 & 1~0~0~1~1~0 & 1~0~1~0~0~1 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\label{tab:bl_patt}
\end{table}
For an ERL at steady state, the definition of ``block 1'' is arbitrary and can be one of $N$ choices in a $N$-turn ERL; therefore, there are $\left(N - 1\right)!$ unique bunch filling patterns for a $N$-turn ERL. A 6-turn ERL can have 120 unique filling patterns. Each of these filling patterns is associated with a unique sequence of beam loading patterns. Beam loading patterns changes turn by turn and are periodic over $N$ turns, as shown in Table~\ref{tab:bl_patt}.
\begin{figure}
{\scalebox{0.5} [0.5]{\includegraphics{6.png}}}\\
\caption{A diagram to show how the beam loading pattern translates into a change in cavity voltage over time.}
\label{fig:BL_patterns}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
{\scalebox{0.35} [0.35]{\includegraphics{7.png}}}\\
\caption{Comparison of cavity voltage change by two different filling patterns over 6-turns.}
\label{fig:6Turn_BL_patterns}
\end{figure}
Fig.~\ref{fig:6Turn_BL_patterns} shows beam loading patterns of two filling patterns over 6-turns. The red beam loading pattern has larger cavity voltage fluctuation than blue one. This shows some filling patterns cause larger disturbances to the cavity voltage and RF system of the ERL than others. For a 6-turn ERL, we can evaluate the RF jitters associated with a specific beam filling pattern and use this to identify which patterns are optimal. In Table~\ref{tab:bl_patt}, the beam loading increments have been normalised to $\pm1$ rather than $\pm\frac{q_{bunch}}{2}\omega\left(\frac{R}{Q}\right)\cos{\left(\phi\right)}$ for brevity and clarity. For the remainder of the article, we will continue to use a normalised beam loading to help the reader understand the methodology.
Once a list of all unique filling patterns is defined, we can determine the associated sequence of beam loading patterns, using the method described in Table~\ref{tab:bl_patt}. To determine the normalised change in cavity voltage, we simply calculate the cumulative sum of the beam loading sequence. We define a specific filling pattern as $F_{i}$, the associated beam loading pattern as $B\left(F_{i}\right)$ and the normalised change in cavity voltage as $\delta{V}$ given as
\begin{equation}
\delta{V} = \text{cusum}\left(B\left(F_{i}\right)\right)=\sum_{j=1}^{k}{B_{j}\left(F_{i}\right)}.
\label{eq:cusum}
\end{equation}
\noindent We can use $\delta{V}$ to estimate the RF stability performance of all patterns.
\subsection{Low level RF system}
For the Low level RF (LLRF) system, we model the system as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:LLRFBlock}. The cavity voltage (given as I and Q components) is added to a Gaussian distributed noise (also I and Q), whose standard deviation is defined by the $S/N$; we treat this as the only source of noise in the system, rather than including realistic noise at each component of the LLRF controller. This is then passed through a 16-bit analogue-to-digital converter (ADC), before a PI-control algorithm is implemented to regulate amplitude and phase. The PI correction algorithm also applies limits to the range of values to model the power limits on the amplifier. The amplifier and digital-to-analogue converter (DAC) is modeled as a resonant circuit with a bandwidth defined by the closed-loop bandwidth.
\begin{figure}
{\scalebox{0.3} [0.3]{\includegraphics{8.png}}}\\
\caption{A block diagram of the modelled LLRF system and the feedback loop.}
\label{fig:LLRFBlock}
\end{figure}
We model LLRF system as a proportional-integral (PI) controller~\cite{DEXTER201762,Sjobak:2016ruf,Baudrenghien}. In the PI controller, the LLRF system first calculates the error $u$ voltage, which is difference between actual cavity voltage $V_{measured}$ with set-point voltage $V_{set}$
\begin{equation}
u = V_{measured} - V_{set}.
\label{eq:dV}
\end{equation}
\noindent Then, two types of corrections are made, namely the proportional $V_{pro}$ and integral term corrections $V_{int}$. The proportional term correction is calculated based on the previously measured $dV$ and proportional gain $G_p$, given as
\begin{equation}
V_{pro} = G_{p} u.
\label{eq:P-term}
\end{equation}
\noindent The integral term correction is calculated integrating over on all the previously measured $dV$ and integral term gain $G_i$, given as
\begin{equation}
V_{int} = G_i \int_{0}^{t} udt = G_{i}\sum_{n}{u_{n}\delta{t}},
\label{eq:P-term}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $t$ is the time measurement took place. The proportional and integral term corrections address fast and slow changes, respectively.
The set-point voltage can be constant (static set-point) or can change over time (dynamic set-point). A dynamic set-point can be useful in order to improve RF stability in a recirculating ERL because it prevents the LLRF system from competing with the beam loading voltage in the cavity. If the LLRF feedback system can adjust its set-point voltage according to the anticipated beam loading, then it has a ``dynamic set-point'' voltage. In this case, the feedback system only amplifies noise. If the set-point is static, LLRF system will treat beam loading as noise and amplify it as well.
\section{Analytical model}
\subsection{Variations in cavity voltage}
If we consider the effects of beam loading and noise, the cavity voltage, $V_{cav}$, can be expressed as:
\begin{equation}
V_{cav} = V_{0} + V_{b} + V_{n},
\label{eq:Amod1}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $V_{0}$ is the steady state cavity voltage, which we will assume to be time-independent, $V_{b}$ is the voltage contribution due to beam loading, and $V_{n}$ is the voltage contribution due to all noise sources in the system. We shall assume that noise originates from the electronics in the low-level RF system (LLRF), which in turn introduces noise to the cavity voltage. How the noise propagates through the RF system depends on the behaviour of the LLRF system as well as the beam loading patterns, but the noise voltage in the cavity can be defined as
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{V_{n}} = \frac{\alpha_{RF}\lvert V_{0} \rvert }{S/N},
\label{eq:Amod2}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $S/N$ is the voltage signal to noise ratio and $\alpha_{RF}$ is a constant of proportionality, which depends on the parameters of the system. From Eq.~\ref{eq:Amod1}, we can obtain an expression for the cavity voltage squared:
\begin{equation}
V_{cav}^{2} = V_{0}^{2}+V_{b}^{2}+V_{n}^{2}+2V_{0}V_{b}+2V_{0}V_{n}+2V_{b}V_{n}.
\label{eq:Amod3}
\end{equation}
\noindent We shall assume that $V_{b}$ and $V_{n}$ are independent variables and that $V_{0}$ is constant, therefore, from Eq.~\ref{eq:Amod1} and \ref{eq:Amod3}, we obtain expressions for the mean and standard deviation of the cavity voltage.
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
\langle{V_{cav}}\rangle = V_{0} + \langle{V_{b}}\rangle + \langle{V_{n}}\rangle \\ \\
\sigma_{V_{cav}} = \sqrt{\langle V_{cav}^2 \rangle - \langle V_{cav} \rangle^2}
\end{array}
\label{eq:Amod4}
\end{equation}
\noindent If $V_{b}$ and $V_{n}$ have zero mean, then Eq.~\ref{eq:Amod4} produces the expected result that $\langle{V_{cav}}\rangle = V_{0}$. Because noise and beamloading is independent,
\begin{equation}
\langle V_{b} V_{n} \rangle = \langle V_{b}\rangle \langle V_{n}\rangle.
\label{eq:Amod5}
\end{equation}
\noindent Therefore,
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{V_{cav}} = \sqrt{\sigma_{V_{b}}^{2} + \sigma_{V_{n}}^{2}}.
\label{eq:Amod6}
\end{equation}
\noindent From Eqs.~\ref{eq:Amod2} and \ref{eq:Amod6}, we can express the noise on the cavity voltage as
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{V_{cav}} = \sqrt{\sigma_{V_{b}}^{2} + \alpha_{RF}^{2}\frac{V_{0}^{2}}{\left(S/N\right)^{2}}}.
\label{eq:Amod7}
\end{equation}
\noindent The $\sigma_{V_{b}}$ is pattern specific, and depends on topology of the ERL as well as the expected beam jitters. The voltage fluctuation due to the beam loading and given by
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{V_{b}} = \sigma_{V_{pattern}}\delta V
\label{eq:Amod8}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\sigma_{V_{pattern}}$ is RMS fluctuation of the normalized beam loading pattern over all turns of the machine. The $\sigma_{V_{pattern}}$ for all 120 patterns is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Perdicted-SigVb} for a 6-turn ERL, where we have assumed a FIFO schemes, where the order of the bunch packet does not change turn by turn. One can see that $\sigma_{V_{pattern}}$ varies by approximately a factor of 2 depending on the choice of filling pattern.
\begin{figure}
{\scalebox{0.5} [0.5]{\includegraphics{9}}}\\
\caption{The RMS fluctuation of the normalized beam loading pattern of 6-turn ERL.}
\label{fig:Perdicted-SigVb}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Variations in amplifier power}
From \cite{RobPRAB}, the cavity voltage can be determined from an envelope equation
\begin{equation}
\frac{\dot{\mathbf{V}}_{\mathrm{cav}}}{\omega_{0}}+\left[\frac{\omega_{0}^{2}+\omega^{2}}{4Q_{L}\omega^{2}}+j\frac{\omega_{0}^{2}-\omega^{2}}{2\omega\omega_{0}}\right]\mathbf{V}_{\mathrm{cav}} = \frac{j\dot{\mathbf{V}}_{amp}+\omega\mathbf{V}_{amp}}{\omega{Q_{e}}}
\label{eq:Amod9}.
\end{equation}
\noindent Where $\omega_{0}$ is the resonant frequency of the cavity, $\omega$ is the amplifier drive frequency, $Q_{L}$ and $Q_{e}$ are the loaded and external Q-factors respectively and $P_{amp}$ is the forward power from the amplifier expressed as a voltage as
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{V}_{amp} = \sqrt{2\left(\frac{R}{Q}\right)Q_{e}\mathbf{P}_{amp}}
\label{eq:Amod10}.
\end{equation}
\noindent If we assume that the cavity is driven at the resonant frequency and that the cavity is at steady state, then from Eq.~\ref{eq:Amod9}, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{V}_{cav} = \frac{2Q_{L}}{Q_{e}}\mathbf{V}_{amp}
\label{eq:Amod11},
\end{equation}
\noindent thus
\begin{equation}
P_{amp} = \frac{Q_{e}}{8\left(\frac{R}{Q}\right)Q_{L}^{2}}\lvert V_{cav}^2\rvert
\label{eq:Amod12}.
\end{equation}
\noindent From Eqs.~\ref{eq:Amod3} and \ref{eq:Amod12}, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\langle{P_{amp}}\rangle = \frac{Q_{e}}{8\left(\frac{R}{Q}\right)Q_{L}^{2}}\left[ V_{0}^{2}+\langle{V_{\beta}^{2}}\rangle+\langle{V_{n}^{2}}\rangle\right. \\
\left.+2V_{0}\langle{V_{\beta}}\rangle+2V_{0}\langle{V_{n}}\rangle+2\langle{V_{\beta}}\rangle\langle{V_{n}\rangle}\right]
\label{eq:Amod13}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Note that for the beam loading terms, we now use $V_{\beta}$ rather than $V_{b}$. This is because the LLRF feedback algorithm determines the power required to maintain a stable cavity voltage. If we implement a static set point algorithm, then $V_{\beta}=V_{b}$, if a dynamic set point algorithm is used then $V_{\beta}=\delta{V_{b}}$, which is an error residual when subtracting the expected beam loading voltage from the real value. This error residual depends on pattern number, LLRF algorithm, gains and other factors.
We should note that for the amplifier power, the noise has a simpler relationship to the signal to noise ratio than the noise observed on the cavity voltage (Eq.~\ref{eq:Amod2}) because the noise on the amplifier is the measured noise amplified by the proportional gain of the LLRF, so
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{V_{n}} = \frac{G_{p}}{S/N}V_{0}
\label{eq:Amod14}.
\end{equation}
\noindent If we assume that $V_{\beta}$ and $V_{n}$ are independent and zero mean, then Eq.~\ref{eq:Amod13} can be simplified as:
\begin{equation}
\langle{P_{amp}}\rangle = \frac{Q_{e}V_{0}^{2}}{8\left(\frac{R}{Q}\right)Q_{L}^{2}}\left[ \left(1+\frac{G_{p}^{2}}{\left(S/N\right)^{2}}\right)+\frac{\sigma_{V_{\beta}}^{2}}{V_{0}^{2}}\right]
\label{eq:Amod15}.
\end{equation}
\noindent By a similar method, we can also determine the standard deviation on the amplifier power as
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{P_{amp}} \approx & \frac{Q_{e}V_{0}^{2}}{8\left(\frac{R}{Q}\right)Q_{L}^{2}}\sqrt{\frac{2G_{p}^{4}}{\left(S/N\right)^{4}}+\frac{2G_{p}^{2}}{\left(S/N\right)^{2}}+\Delta} \\
\Delta = & \frac{\langle{V_{\beta}^{4}}\rangle - \langle{V_{\beta}^{2}}\rangle^{2}}{V_{0}^{4}} + \frac{4\langle{V_{\beta}^{2}}\rangle}{V_{0}^{2}}
\label{eq:Amod16}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\noindent For low signal to noise ratios, the first terms dominates, whereas for high signal to noise ratios, we encounter a noise floor due to either beam loading (static set-point) or a residual error (dynamic set-point); this noise floor will be pattern dependent. For the first term, note that it is independent of beam loading pattern and therefore, for lower signal to noise ratios, we expect $\sigma_{P_{amp}}$ to be independent of beam loading pattern.
\section{Beam loading simulation}
The cavity voltage fluctuation can be simulated by simulating beam loading and its interaction with RF system~\cite{RobPRAB}. In this work we have extended beam loading type to accelerating and decelerating. In accelerating mode, voltage changes due to the beam loading is subtracted from cavity voltage and vise versa.
\subsection{Static and dynamic set-points}
Before running simulations, it is important to determine the set-point voltage of LLRF system. As we mentioned earlier, there are two types of set-point voltages: dynamic and static set-points. During the beam loading, the cavity voltage fluctuates but the net beam loading of a packet is zero and voltage will return to nominal voltage. So, there is no need for LLRF correction for beam loading. The dynamic set-point is designed to exclude beam loading correction. In static set-point, however, the LLRF system treats beam loading as noise, tries to correct to the oscillatory beam loading, and thus becomes unstable. Therefore, the dynamic set-point is better than static set-point as it creates less cavity voltage fluctuation and requires much less amplifier power. This is also confirmed by simulations shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:stat-dyna-setpoints}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{tabular}{c}
{\scalebox{0.5} [0.5]{\includegraphics{10a}}}\\
(a) \\
{\scalebox{0.5} [0.5]{\includegraphics{10b}}}\\
(b) \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Comparison of static and dynamic set-points for filling pattern [1~2~3~4~5~6] when $S/N=7.1\times10^2$. (a) cavity voltage and (b) amplifier power as function of time.}
\label{fig:stat-dyna-setpoints}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Simulation parameters}
The simulation parameters are shown in Table~\ref{tab:sim-setup}. We simulated 6-turn ERL, so there are 6 bunches in the packet. The bunch charge was set high to increase the effect of the beam loading and to allow us to explore the behaviour of the RF system under extreme conditions. The circumference is set to 360 m, so number of RF cycles in the ring would be 1200 for a 1~GHz RF frequency. We set 1 intra-packet block is 10 RF cycles, so 20 packets fill up the ring. New bunches replaced old bunches, until total of 96 turns are tracked, which is about 121~$\mu$s time duration. We scanned through all the 120 filling patterns of 6-turn ERL.
\begin{table}
\caption{Simulation parameters.}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{lc}
\textbf{Machine parameters} & \textbf{value} \\
\hline
bunch charge $q_{bunch}$ & 18.4 nC \\
RF cycles per block & 10 \\
bunches per packet & 6 \\
number of bunch packets & 20 \\
circumference & 360 m \\
revolution time & 1.2 $\mu$s \\
number of turns tracked & 96 \\
tracking time duration & 121 $\mu$s \\
\hline
\textbf{Cavity parameters} & \\
\hline
cavity voltage ($V_{0}$) & 18.7 MV \\
R/Q & 400 \\
RF frequency & 1 GHz \\
\hline
\textbf{LLRF parameters} & \\
\hline
latency & 1~$\mu$s \\
digital sampling rate & 40~MHz \\
closed-loop bandwidth & 2.5~MHz \\
proportional controller gain $G_{p}$ & 1000 \\
integral controller gain $G_{i}$ & 1 \\
maximum amplifier power & 800~kW \\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\label{tab:sim-setup}
\end{table}
\subsection{Simulation results}
\subsubsection{Comparison of optimal and non-optimal patterns}
Firstly, we have looked at the effect of beam loading pattern on the cavity voltage and amplifier power. As show in Fig.~\ref{fig:sim-patt1N60}, the simulation results are shown for an optimal filling pattern [1~4~3~6~5~2] indicated by blue line and a non-optimal pattern [1~2~3~4~5~6] indicated by red line. The optimal pattern is better, because it creates much smaller cavity voltage fluctuations as shown in sub-figures (a) and (c) and requires less amplifier power as shown in sub-figures (b) and (d). The sub-figures (a) and (b) are simulation results when $S/N=7.1\times10^2$ and (c) and (d) are results when $S/N=7.1\times10^5$. Increasing the $S/N$ reduced cavity voltage fluctuation slightly and amplifier power significantly. Simulation results confirmed that certain patterns are better from the perspective of cavity voltage jitters, RF stability, and power requirements.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.4\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{11a.png}
\caption{$S/N=7.1\times10^2$}
\end{subfigure}
%
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.4\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{11b.png}
\caption{$S/N=7.1\times10^2$}
\end{subfigure}
%
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.4\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{11c.png}
\caption{$S/N=7.1\times10^5$}
\end{subfigure}
%
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.4\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{11d.png}
\caption{$S/N=7.1\times10^5$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Comparison of patterns [1~4~3~6~5~2] and [1~2~3~4~5~6] with dynamic set-point at different $S/N$. (a) and (c) cavity voltage. (b) and (d) amplifier power. (a) and (b) are the results when $S/N=7.1\times10^2$. (c) and (d) are the results when $S/N=7.1\times10^5$.}
\label{fig:sim-patt1N60}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Noise scan}
We observed the cavity voltage jitters and amplifier power is reduced when $S/N$ is increased. To investigate noise dependence, we have performed simulations with filling patterns [1~4~3~6~5~2] and [1 2 3 4 5 6] by varying $S/N$. The results are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:patts-vs-SN} for (a) $\sigma_{V_{cav}}$, (b) $\sigma_{P_{amp}}$, and (c) average $P_{amp}$.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:patts-vs-SN} (a), we see that the $\sigma_{V_{cav}}$ is more sensitive to the filling pattern than $S/N$. In other words, $\sigma_{V_{cav}}$ is dominated by filling pattern. $\sigma_{V_{cav}}$ reaches pattern specific limit $\sigma_{V_{b}}$ around $10^3$, so $S/N$ needs to larger than $10^3$ to minimize cavity voltage jitters.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:patts-vs-SN} (b) and (c), we see $\sigma_{P_{amp}}$ and average ${P_{amp}}$ are sensitive to noise than filling pattern. To minimize power consumption $P_{amp}$ around to 11.15~kW, the $S/N$ has to be larger than $10^4$. Two patterns has similar amplifier power fluctuations $\sigma_{P_{amp}}$ up to $S/N$ = $10^{5}$. Beyond this point, $\sigma_{P_{amp}}$ reach filling pattern specific floors.
The analytical model underestimates $P_{amp}$ as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:patts-vs-SN} (b) at high noise. As the noise increase, the amplifier starts to have saturation. In this case, the proportional term can't provide sufficient power. As the power shortage build up, the integral term will start to make correction and add power the cavity. The simulation can model the proper PI controller and have integral term. But the analytical doesn't have the integral term and thus can't include the power from integral term. This will cause analytical model to fail at very high noise levels and accounts for the difference between the analytic model and simulation.
The typical $S/N$ range for a real LLRF system is around $10^{3} - 10^{6}$. In the figures, we cover a very wide range of $S/N$, including values which far exceed the realistic range of values. The reason for this is to allow us to explore the behaviour of the RF and LLRF system in the limit of ultra-low noise, which allows us to study features that are not visible at realisable values of $S/N$, such as the pattern-dependent noise floor in Fig.~\ref{fig:patts-vs-SN} (c).
\begin{figure}
\begin{tabular}{c}
{\scalebox{0.5} [0.5]{\includegraphics{12a.png}}} \\
(a) \\
{\scalebox{0.5} [0.5]{\includegraphics{12b.png}}}\\
(b) \\
{\scalebox{0.5} [0.5]{\includegraphics{12c.png}}}\\
(c) \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{RMS cavity voltage (a), average amplifier power (b), and RMS amplifier power (c) as function of $S/N$ for patterns [1~4~3~6~5~2] and [1~2~3~4~5~6].}
\label{fig:patts-vs-SN}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Cavity voltage}
The cavity voltages jitters $\sigma_{V_{cav}}$ of all 120 filling patterns are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:sim-sigVcav}. We see that $\sigma_{V_{cav}}$ is different when different set-points are used. The dynamic set-point is better because it gives smaller cavity voltage jitters. The filling patterns No. 60 (pattern [1~4~3~6~5~2]) and 61 (pattern [1~4~5~2~3~6]) are optimum for both set-points. There are other patterns [1~4~2~5~3~6], [1~4~2~5~6~3], [1~4~3~6~2~5], [1~4~5~2~6~3], [1~4~6~3~2~5], and [1~4~6~3~5~2] are optimal only for dynamic set-point. This indicates that depending on the set-point type, the Figure Of Merit (FOM) to estimate $\sigma_{V_{cav}}$ is different. For static set-point, the FOM can be given as
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\sigma_{V_{cav}} = \sigma_{\overline{V_{turns}}} = \sqrt{\frac{1}{N_{t}} \sum_{i=1}^{i=N_{t}} (\bar{V}_{i})^2 },
\label{eq:FOM-stat}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\noindent with ${\bar{V}_{i}}$ being the average voltage of $i^{th}$ turn, and $N_{t}$ being number of turns. In this case, we averaging voltage over one turn and get ${\bar{V}_{i}}$ first, then calculating the RMS of these $N_{t}$ turns. As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:sim-sigVcav} (a), the FOM roughly overlaps with simulation. Although, the FOM doesn't predict jitters exactly, but it can find optimal pattern quickly without simulations. For dynamic set-point, the FOM is Eq.~\ref{eq:Amod7}. The theoretical prediction matches simulation results exactly for $S/N = 1\times10^{12}$ as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:sim-sigVcav} (b).
\begin{figure}
\begin{tabular}{c}
{\scalebox{0.5} [0.5]{\includegraphics{13a}}} \\
(a) \\
{\scalebox{0.5} [0.5]{\includegraphics{13b}}}\\
(b) \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Simulated $\sigma_{V_{cav}}$ of 120 patterns with (a) static and (b) dynamic set-points compared to prediction. The $S/N$ was set to $1\times10^{12}$ to turn off the noise.}
\label{fig:sim-sigVcav}
\end{figure}
We see the dynamic set-point give smaller jitters. The patterns [1~4~3~6~5~2] and [1~4~5~2~3~6] (pattern number 60 and 61) are optimal in both set-points. Optimal pattern has 2$-$3 times less cavity voltage jitters than worst patterns.
\subsubsection{Amplifier power results}
The required average amplifier powers $P_{amp}$ for different patterns and different $S/N$ are given in Fig.~\ref{fig:ave-Pamp}. We see that the average $P_{amp}$ is reduced from 28~kW to 11.13~kW, when the $S/N$ increased from $7.1\times10^3$ to $7.1\times10^^4$. When $S/N$ reduced further, the $P_{amp}$ is reduced to minimum of 11.147~kW, which is the resistive power loss. This shows that ERLs can be operated with very low power, when $S/N$ is sufficiently high.
\begin{figure}
\begin{tabular}{c}
{\scalebox{0.5} [0.5]{\includegraphics{14}}} \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Average amplifier power $P_{amp}$ of 6-turn ERL patterns at different $S/N$.}
\label{fig:ave-Pamp}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Property of optimal patterns}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:Vcavpatts}, we compared cavity voltage of optimal and non-optimal patterns, indicated by blue and red lines respectively. In sub-figure (a), voltage of optimal pattern [1~4~3~6~5~2] fluctuates less than $\pm0.024$~MV range of 18.7~MV, while non-optimal pattern [1~2~3~4~5~6] has 3 times larger fluctuation. We see similar 3-up-3-down and up-down fluctuations as in Fig.~\ref{fig:6Turn_BL_patterns}, but here we have 20 bunch packets, so these fluctuations are repeated 20 times in each turn. Revolution times is about 1.2~$\mu$s, so every 1.2~$\mu$s turn changes.
The optimum filling patterns [1~4~3~6~5~2] and [1~4~5~2~3~6] (pattern number 60 and 61) and their associated beam loading patterns are given in Table~\ref{tab:bl_patt}. We observe their two consecutive bits are in either up-down (10) or down-up (01) pairs. Such combinations limit cumulative sum of beam loading pattern to a range of [$-1$, 1], and thus minimizes jitters. We also see 1 pair flips (``1" and ``0" switch positions) per turn. The change from ``0" to ``1" (acceleration to deceleration) happens in 3rd to 4th turn transition and the change from ``1" to ``0" is the new bunch replacing the extracted bunch. Therefore, in optimal patterns, consecutive pairs are made up by bunches that are 3 turns apart like [1~4], [2~5], and [3~6].
Patterns [1~4~2~5~3~6], [1~4~2~5~6~3], [1~4~3~6~2~5], [1~4~5~2~6~3], [1~4~6~3~2~5], and [1~4~6~3~5~2] also have above motioned properties of optimal patterns. However, they are only optimal for dynamic set-point and not for static set-point. Therefore, these 6 patterns are Dynamic Set-Point Optimal (DSPO) patterns, while [1~4~3~6~5~2] and [1~4~5~2~3~6] are All Set-Point Optimal (ASPO) patterns. Of course, a ASPO pattern is a DSPO pattern by definition. The difference between the ASPO pattern [1~4~3~6~5~2] and DSPO pattern [1~4~3~6~2~5] is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Vcavpatts}. Both patterns have same fluctuation range, but the turn average of the DSPO is larger in the 1st, 4th, and 7th turns. So, $\sigma_{\overline{V_{turn}}}$ of pattern DSPO is larger, which makes it non-optimal for static set-points according to Eq.~\ref{eq:FOM-stat}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{tabular}{c}
{\scalebox{0.5} [0.5]{\includegraphics{15a.png}}} \\
(a) \\
{\scalebox{0.5} [0.5]{\includegraphics{15b.png}}}\\
(b) \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Comparison of $V_{cav}$ and turn average of $V_{cav}$ of different patterns. (a) ASPO and non-optimal pattern. (b) DSPO and non-optimal pattern.}
\label{fig:Vcavpatts}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Off-crest beam loading}
So far, we have studied the effects of beam loading for on-crest phases. In applications such as FELs, bunches must be compressed during acceleration to achieve high peak current, then stretched and energy compressed on deceleration to eliminate adiabatic energy spread growth. Beams must therefore pass through the RF system off crest~\cite{AChaoHandBook, Neil_PRL_ERL_2000}. In recirculating ERLs, we want to minimize the net beam loading of a packet, so the in-phase (I) and quadrature phase (Q) components of the beam loading of a packet should sum to approximately zero, i.e. the vector sum of the voltage changes sums to zero for the bunch packet. By doing so, the amplitude and phase of the cavity voltage changes minimally after a packet. This implies that the phase and amplitude perturbations from beam loading cancel out over a bunch packet, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:off-crest-bl}. Here, by ``mirror turns" we meant turns that has same energy but the bunch phase is offset by $\pi$ radians. In 6-turn ERLs, turn 1 and 6, 2 and 5, and 3 and 4 are mirror turns. Mirror bunches have same energy and off-set angles as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:off-crest-bl}, so their vector sum is zero. In Fig.~\ref{fig:off-crest-bl}, $\phi_{1}$ is the off phase angle of 1st and 6th turns; $\phi_{2}$ is the off phase angle of 2nd and 5th turns; $\phi_{3}$ is the off phase angle of 3rd and 4th turns.
\begin{figure}
{\scalebox{0.3} [0.3]{\includegraphics{16}}}\\
\caption{Definition of off-set angels in off-crest beamloading.}
\label{fig:off-crest-bl}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Phase angle jitters}
We have estimated off-crest cavity voltage phase fluctuation for 120 patterns of the 6-turn ERL and results are given in Fig.~\ref{fig:off-crest-phase}. The $S/N$ was set to $10^{12}$ to turn off the noise. We have simulated two sets of off-set angles $\phi_{1, 2, 3} = 20^{\circ}, -20^{\circ}, 0^{\circ}$ and $\phi_{1, 2, 3} = 20^{\circ}, -10^{\circ}, -9.7^{\circ}$. We see that: (1) phase jitters is pattern dependent; (2) phase jitters is off-phase angle dependent; (3) in the worst case scenario, the RMS cavity phase jitters is less than $0.03^{\circ}$, even at fairly large off-set angles. (4) the jitters in the on-crest case is negligible.
For the two ASPO patterns (pattern number 60 and 61), the first off-set angles $\phi_{1, 2, 3} = 20^{\circ}, -20^{\circ}, 0^{\circ}$ has smaller jitters of $0.019^{\circ}$. The $\sigma_{\phi_{cav}}$ pattern is approximately up-side down of $\sigma_{V_{cav}}$, as can be seen from Figs~\ref{fig:off-crest-phase} and \ref{fig:off-crest-Vcav} (a). This is more obvious for $\phi_{1, 2, 3} = 20^{\circ}, -10^{\circ}, -9.7^{\circ}$ angle sets. This indicates if a pattern has larger amplitude jitters, then it tends to have smaller phase jitters, and visa versa.
\begin{figure}
{\scalebox{0.5} [0.5]{\includegraphics{17}}}\\
\caption{Cavity voltage phase jitters of off-crest beam loading for 120 patterns for 6-turn ERL.}
\label{fig:off-crest-phase}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Cavity voltage and amplifier power jitters}
We have also estimated cavity voltage and amplifier power jitters and results are given in Fig.~\ref{fig:off-crest-Vcav}. The difference in on- and off-crest cases are insignificant. The average amplifier power is the same as on-crest case, which is about 11.15~kW for all filling patterns.
\begin{figure}
\begin{tabular}{c}
{\scalebox{0.5} [0.5]{\includegraphics{18a}}} \\
(a) \\
{\scalebox{0.5} [0.5]{\includegraphics{18b}}}\\
(b) \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Cavity voltage fluctuation (a) and amplifier power amplitude fluctuation (b) of off-crest beam loading for 120 patterns for 6-turn ERL. The S/N is 10$^{12}$.}
\label{fig:off-crest-Vcav}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Bunch charge jitter}
Bunch charge modulations for a recirculating ERL introduces a unique source of noise that is unlike other sources we have considered thus far in this article. An error on bunch charge persists over all turns in the ERL before the beam is dumped. As a result, the noise spectrum from charge modulation is significantly narrower than the white noise we have assumed for other noise sources. For the 6-turn ERL we consider in this paper, the effective noise spectrum for the bunch charge jitter is peaked at approximately 140 kHz, and therefore it is within the closed-loop bandwidth of 2.5 MHz for the LLRF controller. For small bunch charge errors, the LLRF system is easily able to correct the error, whereas for larger values, it will struggle and the charge jitter becomes the dominant noise source.
We performed beam loading simulations to investigate effect of bunch charge jitter on the cavity voltage and amplifier power. The jitter was assumed to be Gaussian. RMS bunch charge jitters with 2$\%$ and 12$\%$ were simulated. Simulations were carried out for 120 filling patterns with the S/N = 7100, bunches launched on crest, and both set-points. The results are given in Fig.~\ref{fig:charge-jitter} for RMS cavity voltages in sub-figures (a) and (d), for average amplifier powers in (b) and (e), and RMS amplifier jitters in (c) and (f). The sub-figures (a), (b), and (c) are results for dynamic set-points and (d), (e), and (f) are for static set-points. We see charge jitters does not increase cavity voltage jitters for both static and dynamic set-points, even when $\sigma_{q}~=$ 12$\%$. We see the filling pattern and other noises are dominant over charge jitter noise.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.32\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{19a}
\caption{Dynamic set-point}
\end{subfigure}
%
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.32\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{19b}
\caption{Dynamic set-point}
\end{subfigure}
%
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.32\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{19c}
\caption{Dynamic set-point}
\end{subfigure}
%
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.32\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{19d}
\caption{Static set-point}
\end{subfigure}
%
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.32\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{19e}
\caption{Static set-point}
\end{subfigure}
%
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.32\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{19f}
\caption{Static set-point}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Bunch charge jitter simulation results with RMS bunch jitters of 0, 2$\%$, and 12$\%$. (a), (b), and (c) are results with dynamic set-point; (d), (e), and (f) are results with static set-point.}
\label{fig:charge-jitter}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Energy modulation}
It is possible that disturbances, such as charge jitter, beam loading, or other noise or jitter sources, may result in an energy modulation on the accelerating or decelerating beam. The stored energy in the cavity is given in the Eq.~\ref{eq:ustored}. Therefore, the change in energy of the cavity when a beam passes through is equal to minus the energy change of the particle bunch as it passes through the cavity ($q_{bunch}V_{cav}e^{j\phi}$), where $\phi$ is the RF phase at which the bunch passes through the cavity:
\begin{equation}
\delta{U_{stored}}=\frac{\left(V_{cav}+\delta{V}\right)^{2}-V_{cav}^{2}}{\omega\left(\frac{R}{Q}\right)}=q_{bunch}V_{cav}e^{j\phi}
\label{eq:energymod2}
\end{equation}
Usually, Eq.~\ref{eq:energymod2} is simplified to a linear approximation by assuming that the change in cavity voltage is small compared to the cavity voltage, in which case, we obtain $\delta{V}=\frac{q_{bunch}\omega}{2}\left(\frac{R}{Q}\right)e^{j\phi}$, which is independent of the cavity voltage, and small modulations on the cavity voltage do not lead to an energy modulation on the bunches. However, if we don't approximate Eq.~\ref{eq:energymod2}, we get that the change in cavity voltage due to beam loading is:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\delta{V}=-V_{cav}\left[1+\sqrt{1-\frac{q_{bunch}\omega}{V_{cav}}\left(\frac{R}{Q}\right)}e^{j\phi}\right] \\
\approx \frac{q_{bunch}\omega}{2}\left(\frac{R}{Q}\right)e^{j\phi}\left[1+\frac{q_{bunch}\omega}{4V_{cav}}\left(\frac{R}{Q}\right)e^{j\phi}+\cdots\right]
\label{eq:energymod3}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
The second term in Eq.~\ref{eq:energymod3} does result in an energy modulation, and in fact it is the dominant term for causing an energy modulation. If we use the values from Table~\ref{tab:sim-setup}, we find that the second term in Eq.~\ref{eq:energymod3} is approximately 0.06\% of the magnitude of the first term. Therefore, the resultant energy modulation caused by beam loading in our hypothetical recirculating ERL is negligible, hence the energy modulation due to effects such as charge jitter will be even smaller and for most scenarios it can be neglected. However, if we operate at very high frequency ($\sim$THz), very high bunch charge (which would exceed the threshold current for an ERL), or the cavity operates at very low voltages ($<$ kV) then the higher order terms in Eq.~\ref{eq:energymod3} become significant. This would also mean that the machine is operating in a non-linear regime, which would not be beneficial.
\section{Sequence preserving scheme}
\label{section:4}
For a recirculating linac to be an ERL, there has to be an extra path length to delay the bunch by 180$^\circ$ phase to switch from accelerating mode to decelerating mode. By adjusting the delay length or by implementing more sophisticated arcs, topologies, and injection scheme, one can manipulate the bunch order or bunch spacing. The extra path length can be in the form of a longer arc~\cite{HIGH-CURRENT-ERL} or a chicane~\cite{CEBAF-ERL-EXP}. By introducing this additional path length, the topology changes from the ``0" topology of Fig.~\ref{fig:SimpleERL} to the ``8" topology of Fig.~\ref{fig:8-toplogy}. More complicated topologies can be achieved by setting all the arcs to different lengths~\cite{Douglas:IPAC2018-THPMK106, HZBERLCDR, Angal-Kalinin2018}.
Here we discuss ``8" topology as an example to show that it can maintain an `up-down-up-down' ([1~0~1~0~1~0]) beam loading pattern for all turns; which is preferable for cavity voltage and RF stability. It is achieved by utilising an injection and delay scheme shown the Fig.~\ref{fig:delay-scheme}. Such a scheme preserves $\{4~1~5~2~6~3\}$ bunch-turn number sequence and [1~0~1~0~1~0] beam loading pattern. Bunch-turn number sequence $\{4~1~5~2~6~3\}$ indicates the first bunch of bunch packet is at 4th turn, the second bunch is at 1st turn and so on. In SP schemes the new bunch is injected to the head of the packet and the bunch 3 of the earlier packet is delayed to join subsequent packet. In the previously described FIFO scheme, the new bunch is injected to the position of the dumped bunch and thus the bunch-turn number sequence changes turn-by-turn.
Of course, one can maintain `up-down-up-down' patterns with more complicated topologies as well. The presented SP pattern is suitable for both simple or complicated topologies as it can maintain the favoured `up-down-up-down' beam loading pattern and there is no difference from the RF system perspective. For this SP scheme, the cavity voltage fluctuates within $\pm0.5$ normalized beam loading increment, which is half of the optimal FIFO patterns. However, FIFO patterns can achieve a higher density of bunch packets than SP patterns as it is necessary for SP patterns to have unoccupied intra-packet blocks to allow for the required manipulation of the bunch packet to maintain a constant beam loading pattern.
\begin{figure}
{\scalebox{0.35} [0.35]{\includegraphics{20.png}}} \\
\caption{Topology with extra arc length for phase flip and/or delay.}
\label{fig:8-toplogy}
\end{figure}
In ``8" topology of Fig.~\ref{fig:8-toplogy}, all bunches go through the same arc, except for the bunch transitioning from accelerating to decelerating modes. The transitioning bunch goes through arc 6, which has extra length $\Delta{L}$ for delay. The length of delay can be given as
\begin{equation}
\Delta L = nL_{packet} + mL_{block} + \frac{\lambda_{RF}}{2}.
\label{eq:delayDL}
\end{equation}
\noindent with $n = 0, 1, 2, ...$, $m = 0, 1, 2, ...$, $L_{packet}$ being the length occupied by a bunch packet, $L_{block}$ being the length occupied by a intra-packet block, and $\lambda_{RF}$ being the wave length of RF cycle. When $m=n=0$, the bunch flips phase but remains in the same packet; which is the case of the simple recirculating FIFO scheme described in earlier sections. The beam line layout described in \cite{CEBAF-ERL-EXP} can be an example of this. When $m,n\neq0$, the bunches don't only flip phase, but also move to later blocks and packets.
\begin{figure}
{\scalebox{0.45} [0.45]{\includegraphics{21.png}}} \\
\caption{Topology with an extra arc 6 length to preserve $\{4~1~5~2~6~3\}$ bunch-turn number sequence. (a) Depiction of two bunch packets before entering the arcs. (b) Green bunch at 3$^{\text{rd}}$ turn gets delayed. Bunches at their 6$^{\text{th}}$ turn are extracted. (c) Green bunch at 3rd turn is delayed and joined pink packet. When the packet passes injection point, all the bunch numbers are incremented by 1. (d) A new bunch is injected into pink packet. New circulation starts with (a) again.}
\label{fig:delay-scheme}
\end{figure}
Note that sequence $\{4~1~5~2~6~3\}$ indicates the turn number of bunches and should not be confused with filling pattern [1~5~2~6~3~4], which describes filling order. Angal-Kalinin $et$ $al.$, proposed~\cite{Angal-Kalinin2018} a similar SP scheme as $\{4~1~5~2~6~3\}$ for the purpose of separating low energy bunches to minimize Beam-Breakup (BBU) instability~\cite{Hoffstaetter_2004}. BBU is a major limiting factor for the ERL beam current~\cite{Lou_Hoffstaetter_2019} and we will investigate it further in a future study.
\section{Comparison of simulation results}
\label{section:5}
Simulations were performed for SP with on- and off-crest beam loadings and static and dynamic set-points. The results are overlaid for comparison and given in Fig.~\ref{fig:22} and Fig.~\ref{fig:23}. The $S/N$ was set to $7\times10^{3}$ to observe the behavior of the system with moderate noise. Fig.~\ref{fig:22} shows results with on-crest beam loadings only. Fig.~\ref{fig:23} shows results with dynamic set-point only.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{22a}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
%
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{22b}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
%
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{22c}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
%
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{22d}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Comparison of SP and FIFO at dynamic set-point with on-crest beam loadings: (a) cavity voltage jitters; (b) cavity phase jitters; (c) average amplifier power; and (d) amplifier power jitters.}
\label{fig:22}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{23a}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
%
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{23b}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
%
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{23c}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
%
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{23d}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Comparison of SP and FIFO at dynamic set-points when beam loading is at on-crest: (a) cavity voltage jitters; (b) cavity phase jitters; (c) average amplifier power; and (d) amplifier power jitters.}
\label{fig:23}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Comparison of dynamic and static set-points of FIFO and SP}
In the sub-figure (a) of Fig.~\ref{fig:22}, we see SP can have slightly lower cavity voltage jitter $\sigma_{V_{cav}}$ than FIFO. The difference in $\sigma_{V_{cav}}$ between of different patterns of SP are not as significant as FIFO. SP is insensitive to set-points regardless of patterns, wile for FIFO is only insensitive at optimal filling patterns (pattern number 60 and 61).
In the sub-figure (b) of Fig.~\ref{fig:22}, we see the phase jitters are noise dominated and remained low at around $10^{-3}$ degrees. This shows at $S/N$ of $7\times10^{3}$, the phase jitters is negligible for all injection schemes, set-points, and filling patterns.
In the sub-figure (c) of Fig.~\ref{fig:22}, we see injection schemes, filling patterns, and set-points all can affect the average beam power. Firstly, we see SP requires minimum power regardless of set-points and filling patterns. Secondly, when FIFO is combined with the dynamic set-point, the average power is minimized as well. Thirdly, When FIFO is with static set-point, the filling pattern becomes the most important factor in determining the average power. When the pattern is optimal, the power 14.9~kW is very close to minimum power of 11.3~kW. If one combines FIFO with static set-point and the worst filling pattern, the average power can be as high as 333~kW, which is 30 times of minimum. All these are important factors to consider and optimize when designing ERLs to minimize power consumption.
In the sub-figure (d) of Fig.~\ref{fig:22}, we see $\sigma_{P_{amp}}$ has similar shape as average $P_{amp}$. It is because $\sigma_{P_{amp}}$ is determinant factor for $P_{amp}$. At dynamic set-point, the $\sigma_{P_{amp}}$ is very small at about 2~kW for all patterns and injection schemes, which is consistent with our earlier results. On the other hand, for the static set-point $\sigma_{P_{amp}}$ can range from 10$-$270~kW, depending on the filling pattern and injection schemes. SP with static set-point is significantly better than FIFO with static set-point, except for the optimal patterns of FIFO.
Over all, dynamic set-points is better than static as it causes less jitters and requires less power. When set-point is static, the optimal patterns can lower jitters and power to near the minimum. SP is more stable than FIFO, even when it is with static set-point.
\subsection{Comparison of on- and off-crest}
In the sub-figure (a) of Fig.~\ref{fig:23}, we see off-crest beam loading lowers cavity jitters slightly, which could be due to the fact that at off-crest phases electron bunches take/deposit less energy from/to the cavity than on-crest. In the sub-figure (b), we phase jitters increased more than 1 order of magnitude for off-crest cases. Therefore, off-crest beam loading causes increase in the phase jitters, but the jitters after the increase is still small at $0.1-0.3$ degrees for our parameter settings. We have intentionally set the bunch charge to a high value of 18.4~nC to accentuate the effect of beam loading. Over all, SP has smaller phase jitters than FIFO. There is no difference in average amplifier power and its power jitters.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{section:conclusion}
We studied recirculating ERL beam loading instabilities of different filling patterns under various noises, phases, and injection schemes by combining analytical model with simulations. Simulation results agreed with analytical predictions with some minor differences at very high or very low noises, possibly due to the non-linearity of the system. These studies give us useful insight to ERL beam loading with different filling patterns, LLRF systems, and injection schemes.
We found filling patterns, S/N, and LLRF set-points are important for maintaining stable cavity voltage and lowering consumed RF power. We identified optimal filling patterns for 6-turn ERL, but our methodology can be applied for finding optimal patterns of other multi-turn ERLs as well. Optimal filling patterns lower cavity voltage jitters and amplifier power significantly. Our studies show that ERL LLRF requires dynamic set-point voltage. The cavity voltage is more sensitive to the filling patterns than noise. The amplifier power jitters is more sensitive to noise than filling patterns. For our setup parameters, when $S/N$ is increased to $7\times10^3$ or more, the average amplifier power can be reduced to minimum of around 11~kW. Lowering noise is critical for lowering the amplifier power. The effect of charge jitters and off-crest beam loading on the cavity voltage and amplifier power are negligible. The off-crest beam loading increased the cavity phase jitters by one order of magnitude, but jitters are still small at around $0.1-0.3$ degrees.
We have also introduced SP and FIFO injection schemes and found they behave differently, depending on the beam loading type (on- and off-crest), set-points, and filling patterns. Over all, SP is more stable than FIFO and requires less power.
It will be interesting study to investigate BBU instability for different filling patterns. This work has been done only for 6-turn ERLs, but the theoretical construct and simulation can also be applied to higher or less turn numbers.
\begin{acknowledgments}
The authors would like to thank Dr. Graeme Burt, Dr. Amos Dexter, and Dr. David Walsh for their useful suggestions and insights. The studies presented have been funded by STFC Grants No. ST/P002056/1 under the Cockcroft Institute Core Grant.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
\input{intro-new.tex}
\section{Related work}
\label{related-work}
\input{related.tex}
\section{System Design}
\input{sections/architecture}
We show an overview of TunnelTag in Figure~\ref{fig:tunneloverview}. In this section, we describe TunnelTag's components with a greater emphasis on the TunnelScatter mechanism.
\input{sections/vls.tex}
\section{Evaluation}
\label{evaluation}
\input{sections/eval.tex}
\section{Conclusions}
We have presented TunnelScatter, a mechanism that uses a tunnel diode to enable low-power communication when the ACS is weak or even absent. We demonstrate that TunnelScatter enables communication in challenging environments even without ACS. Further, in the presence of a weak ACS, TunnelScatter supports multi-floor communication, a scenario where state-of-the-art backscatter systems achieve a range of only a few meters. We employ TunnelScatter on TunnelTags, that can sense physical phenomena and transmit them at a peak biasing power of \SI{57}{\micro\watt}. We demonstrate hand gesture sensing as a concrete use case of TunnelScatter.
\fakepar{Acknowledgements}
We thank our shepherd, Omid Abari, and the reviewers whose insightful comments and guidance have been very helpful in improving this paper. We thank Luca Mottola, Elena Di Lascio and Christian Rohner for their constructive feedback. We thank Domenico Giustiniano for suggesting the name TunnelTag. This work has been partly funded by the Swedish Research Council (VR, grant 2018-05480), VINNOVA, the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research (SSF) and a Google Faculty Research Award.
\bibliographystyle{ACM-Reference-Format}
\subsection{Gesture Recognition to Control Appliances}
\fakepar{Experimental Setup}
\begin{itemize}
\item NLOS
\item Light level?
\end{itemize}
\fakepar{Challenges}
\begin{itemize}
\item Link obstruction when antenna is located close to the sensor
\end{itemize}
\fakepar{Solutions}
\begin{itemize}
\item Moving the antenna away from the sensors
\item Spreading
\end{itemize}
We investigate the feasibility of our system to detect hand gestures based on the key idea of VLS; a shadow cast over the light sensor such as a hand gesture will give rise to a unique pattern in the perceived light readings. Thus, when a particular hand gesture is performed over the light sensor, the gesture will manifest itself its output. We take advantage of this principle of to detect the presence of hand gestures using our passive switching sensors. We present four principal hand gestures that we can perform; swipe, taps, block, and swirl, as illustrated and explained in Figure~\ref{fig:gesture_one-sensor}. When one of these gestures are performed over a sensor, they are digitized by the
Next, we use our combined sensor design consisting of four solar cells to detect directional information. The direction at which the hand is moving can be inferred by tracking the sequence of which sensors are obstructed at a particular time of an event. For instance, if sensors with ID 1 and 2, 3, and 4 are obstructed in order, then, it can be inferred that the hand is moving in a clockwise motion. Conversely, if sensors with ID 4, 3, 2, 1 are obstructed in order, the hand would be moving in a counter-clockwise motion. The sensor ID is determined at the receiver by observing the time difference between the end of the preamble and the beginning of the bit that indicates the activity of a particular solar cell.
To be able to properly classify the hand gesture event, we make the assumption that we can sample RSSI fast enough at receivers to be able to accurately represent the timing of bit sequences transmitted by the SpreadScatter mechanism. Furthermore, we assume that we can collect RSSI samples for at least the full duration of the hand gesture event, which is defined by the time it takes for the SpreadScatter mechanism to transmit the entire frame, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:packet}. Next,
we evaluate hand gesture detection when backscattering signals at \SI{868}{\mega\hertz}, and we will use a multitude of CC1310 receivers to sample RSSI at different frequencies. We combine the signals from the receivers to reconstruct the transmitted stream of bits.
We perform the experiment in an indoor office environment. We set up a \SI{868}{\mega\hertz} carrier source at approximately 1 meters away from the VLM and the CC1310 receiver approximately 4 meters away from the VLM and in non-line-of-sight. Next, we perform a hand gesture over the VLM and collect RSSI samples approximately every millisecond from the received backscattered signals.
\iffalse
\fakepar{Defining Gesture Features}
By collecting RSSI samples for the duration of a full hand gesture event, we can reconstruct the entire procedure at the receiver and perform classification to identify the event. For the classifier, we initiate a threshold which is equal to the digitized value corresponding to the mean ambient light level, and define three features based on it: gesture duration, drop duration, and rise duration. The gesture duration is defined as the time difference between the start and the end of a gesture, and is measured while the digitized values are below the threshold. The drop duration is defined as the time it takes for the received digitized values to fall from the threshold to the minimum, and rise duration is the reversed operation.
Thus, we can generate training data for the classifier. To make the classifier agnostic to how different users perform the gestures shown in Figure~\ref{fig:gesture_one-sensor}, we construct the training data based on user input. The algorithm prompts a user to perform a particular gesture and labels the collected data accordingly. Next, the algorithm creates normal distribution around the collected samples to generate a larger and artificial training data set. Below is an example of how a user builds training data:
\fi
\iffalse
\fakepar{Implementation of Hand Gesture Classifier}
We use our polymorphic sensor to detect hand gestures at 1-bit and 4-bit, respectively, starting with a single light sensor. We implement a multiclass classification algorithm using a support vector machine (SVM).
\fi
\fakepar{Experimental Evaluation}
\iffalse
\begin{itemize}
\item Where to put this?
\end{itemize}
We perform the experiment in an indoor office environment. We set up a \SI{868}{\mega\hertz} carrier source at approximately X meters away from the VLM and the CC1310 receiver at X meters away from the VLM. Next, we perform a hand gesture over the VLM and collect RSSI samples approximately every millisecond from the received backscattered signals.
\begin{algorithm}[h]
\DontPrintSemicolon
\SetAlgoLined
\KwResult{Write the result here}
\SetKwInOut{Input}{Input}\SetKwInOut{Output}{Output}
\Input{Training Data}
\Output{Classifier}
\BlankLine
\eIf{condition}{
instructions1\;
instructions2\;
}{
instructions3\;
}
\caption{Hand Gesture Classifier}
\end{algorithm}
\fi
\begin{figure}[!tb]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{images/graphs/testplot.pdf}
\caption{\textit{Hand gesture classification accuracies.} }%
\label{fig:hand-gesture-classification}%
\end{figure}
\subsection{Self-sustaining Sensor}
TunnelTags' main task is to sense physical phenomena. We couple the sensing and harvesting components to design what we call a self-sustaining sensor. It can track different physical phenomena, while operating by harvesting energy from ambient energy sources. Coupling the sensing and harvesting components has the advantage that some phenomena can also be a source of energy. Thus, by enabling the sensor to both harvest energy and sense, we reduce the complexity and cost of its design. As an example, light can both be sensed and harvested using solar cells~\cite{bfvls}.
\fakepar{Sensors} TunnelTag supports diverse sensors to sense different phenomena such as ambient light conditions, temperature and vibrations. As the next step in the operation of the TunnelTag, i.e., processing sensor readings through the PPP, requires an analog signal, we restrict ourselves to sensors with analog outputs. To support operations on harvested energy, we look for sensors that sense at a low power consumption. We list such sensors in Table~\ref{sensorself}.
\fakepar{Light Sensor} We prototype and demonstrate a light sensing application as a concrete use case of our system~(Section~\ref{handgesture}). Consequently, we instantiate a light sensing self-sustaining sensor. This is, however, challenging, as some applications require sensing light at a high rate~\cite{li2016practical,li2017reconstructing}. As an example, some applications need to receive node identification information through visible light communication~(VLC), while others only passively track coarse changes in the light caused by shadow events such as hand gestures~\cite{solargest,bfvls}.
Hence, we design a light sensor that supports different sensing rates. We design the light sensor by fusing active and passive light receivers, which we describe next.
\input{sections/passivereceiver}
An active receiver consumes more energy than a passive receiver, but operates in diverse conditions (low light levels and high sensing rate). We design an active receiver using existing designs that involve coupling a photodiode with a transimpedance amplifier (TIA)~\cite{li2015human,li2016practical,li2017reconstructing}. The active receiver uses an SLD70-BG photodiode~\cite{photodiode-sld70-bg}, due to its responsiveness to the most commonly encountered light conditions. As TIA, we use a Texas Instruments OPA838~\cite{opa838} because of its large gain bandwidth product and low current consumption.
A challenge with the active receiver is that
its amplifier has a fixed gain
which limits the operating light conditions. On the other hand, visible light can be very dynamic due to natural changes or mobility. To tackle this, we build on Wang et al.~\cite{jsaclight} and design a complimentary gain (high and low) active receiver. However, this requires us to devise a mechanism to select the appropriate receiver based on the light conditions. Hence, we design the \emph{switchover} mechanism shown in Figure~\ref{fig:lightdynamicsgain}. The mechanism passively senses ambient light levels through the passive receiver, and selects the appropriate active receiver using a low-power comparator and multiplexer. Our switchover mechanism consumes a peak power of \SI{1}{\micro\watt} which represents a significant improvement over Wang et al.'s work~\cite{jsaclight} which required frequent ADC measurements on a microcontroller.
\fakepar{Harvesting Energy} To harvest energy we use the Texas Instruments BQ25570~\cite{bq25570} harvester that has also been used by others~\cite{powifi,bfvls,batteryfreecellphone}. We chose this harvester as it has a very low startup voltage and very low quiescent current. To store energy we use the capacitor Seiko CPX3225A~\cite{capacitor-cpx3225a} of capacitance \SI{7.5}{\milli\farad}, one of the smallest super capacitors with sub-inch dimensions that is available on the market. The choice of the energy harvesting source depends on the phenomenon being tracked. For example, for light we use a solar cell for harvesting energy. For other sensors such as temperature we can use a thermoelectric generator and for vibrations a pizeoelectric element to harvest energy.
\input{sections/polymorphicdigitisation}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{images/processing.pdf}
\vspace{-4mm}
\caption{\emph{Polymorphic Processing Pipeline }. It adapts its capabilities based on the harvesting conditions, and processes using a low-resolution or a more capable but energy-expensive high-resolution component. }
\label{fig:polymorphicprocessor}
\vspace{-4mm}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Low Power Transmissions using TunnelScatter}
\input{sections/ultralowpowercomm}
\subsection{Processing Sensor Readings}
The acquired sensor readings need to be processed and digitised, before they are communicated to a powerful edge device. This step can be energy expensive, especially when operating on harvested energy. As a consequence, recent systems optimise this step by taking advantage of the very low power nature of backscatter communication. These systems either optimise the processing block~\cite{ekhonet}, or backscatter without performing any processing like ADC operations~\cite{batteryfreecellphone,batteryfreehdcamera,bfvls}. We build on these systems, and design a component which we call polymorphic processing pipeline (PPP). We show the hardware prototype in Figure~\ref{fig:tunneltag}.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{images/hardware/tunneltag2_compressed.jpg}
\vspace{-4mm}
\caption{\emph{Polymorphic Processing Pipeline Prototype.} The thresholding circuit acts as a wakeup mechanism for the energy-expensive microcontroller.}
\label{fig:tunneltag}
\vspace{-4mm}
\end{figure}
PPP is based on the insight that in a typical deployment the energy harvesting conditions can significantly vary, as for example, light conditions change due to day and night. This impacts the processing operations that can be performed. Under poor harvesting conditions like low light levels, a lower sensing resolution and no processing might conserve energy and ensure continuous sensing, and vice versa. PPP adapts its capabilities based on the prevailing energy harvesting conditions. PPP consists of a low-resolution processing~(LRP), and a high-resolution processing~(HRP) component, as we show in Figure~\ref{fig:polymorphicprocessor}. The LRP acts like a wake-up mechanism for the comparatively energy-expensive HRP, a design inspired by wake-up radios~\cite{wakeup}.
\fakepar{Low-resolution Processing} When operating under challenging energy harvesting conditions, the PPP performs no processing, and digitises sensor readings at a low resolution in order to conserve energy. To support low-resolution digitisation, we build on the design of the thresholding circuits used on backscatter tags to support reception~\cite{interscatter,wifibackscatter,ambientbackscatter} or RF sensing~\cite{allsee}. In its simplest form, a thresholding circuit consists of a low-power comparator coupled with a low-pass filter, which enables digitisation at sub-\SI{}{\micro\watt}.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{images/fourbit_tresh2.pdf}
\vspace{-4mm}
\caption{\textit{Low-resolution Processing.} LRP is supported by a multibit thresholding circuit. The circuit consumes 5.8-\SI{}{\micro\watt}s of power at a frequency of \SI{200}{\hertz}. }
\label{fig:multibit}
\vspace{-4mm}
\end{figure}
One limitation of thresholding circuits used in existing systems is the sensing resolution, as they act like a 1-bit ADC, which implies that some information is lost in the digitisation process. To overcome this limitation, we design a multibit thresholding circuit by building on the design of Flash ADC as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:multibit}. At a high level, the multibit thresholding circuit converts analog sensor readings to digitised bits through a series of comparators. We design the thresholding circuit to support 4-bit resolution. Due to the use of digital components, comparators, and passive filters the mechanism has a very low power consumption. The power consumption varies with sampling frequency, and consumes a power of \SI{5.8}{\micro\watt}s at \SI{200}{\hertz}, a frequency sufficient to support many sensing applications such as hand gesture recognition.
\fakepar{High-resolution Processing} LRP trades off sensing resolution for power consumption. For applications that require a higher sensing resolution, and when energy harvesting conditions permit, the PPP supports digitisation at a higher sensing resolution using the low-power microcontroller~(MCU) MSP430~\cite{msp430} that has also been used by other energy harvesting systems~\cite{batteryfreecellphone,naderiparizi2015wispcam}. When there is an event of interest such as a hand gesture over the sensor, the LRP wakes up the MCU. Then the MCU senses the energy harvesting condition, and under sufficient conditions performs energy-expensive higher resolution digitisation~(up to 12 bit) and processing.
\subsection{Power consumption}
\subsection{Communication range}
\subsection{Switching between different modes}
\subsection{Dynamics of changing light conditions}
\subsection{Light sensor performance}
\subsection{Operation on harvested energy}
\subsection{Improving reliability with SpreadScatter}
\input{sections/evaluation/spreadscatter.tex}
\fakepar{Setup}
\fakepar{ULP Digitization} Evaluate the 4-bit Flash ADC in terms of power consumption. Perhaps also add an image of how the digitization looks when performing a shadow over the light sensor. How well does it work with overlapping shadows?
\fakepar{Reception of Serial Backscatter Data}
\begin{itemize}
\item The accuracy of receiving the backscattered signals. At the receiver, we need to accurately detect when the antenna starts backscattering and when it stops. By detecting the start and the end of the backscattering period we can infer the duration of the digitized signal which allows us to properly reconstruct the analog signal. Any error in the detected backscatter duration has a significant impact on the accuracy of identifying sensed events.
\end{itemize}
\begin{itemize}
\item FM
\item LoRa (\SI{868}{\MHz})
\item \SI{2.4}{\GHz}
\end{itemize}
\fakepar{Communication Range}
We perform experiments in an indoor office environment and outdoors.
\begin{itemize}
\item FM
\item LoRa (\SI{868}{\MHz})
\item Bluetooth? (\SI{2.4}{\GHz})
\end{itemize}
\fakepar{Power Consumption} We perform a preliminary experiment to evaluate the power consumption of a commercial micro-controller running a low power periodic ADC. We choose the MSP430FR5969~\cite{msp430} micro-controller for this purpose due to its design being targeted towards ultra-low-power~(ULP) applications. We evaluate the power consumption of the MSP430FR5969 micro-controller when running a 12-bit ADC periodically. We program the micro-controller to use a timer to set the sampling rate of the ADC by triggering it to start its conversion at a specified frequency. When the ADC is inactive, the micro-controller stays in low power mode while waiting for the timer trigger signal. To measure the sampling period of the ADC, we program the micro-controller to toggle a GPIO before and after the conversion period of the ADC, and we measure the toggling frequency using a logic analyzer. Next, we disconnect the micro-controller from the programmer and instead power it at the minimum voltage required to enable \SI{1}{\kilo\hertz} of ADC sampling frequency, which we found to be \SI{2.2}{\volt}.
To measure the power consumption, we place a \SI{1}{\kilo\ohm} shunt resistor in series between the voltage source and the micro-controller. Next, we connect a logic analyzer across this resistor and measure the voltage drop over it. The power consumption then follows by calculating the current flow via Ohm's law,
and multiplying the resulting current by the operating voltage value (\SI{2.2}{\volt}). We measure the power consumption of the micro-controller at three different sampling frequencies that are representative of our target applications: \SI{200}{\hertz}, \SI{500}{\hertz}, and \SI{1}{\kilo\hertz}. We collect the samples for \SI{3}{\second} of operation each, and compute the Root Mean Square~(RMS) value to determine the average power consumption during this period of operation. Table~\ref{adc-power} Shows the power consumption of the micro-controller when operating at \SI{2.2}{\volt} for the three aforementioned frequencies.
\begin{table}
\caption{Average power consumption (RMS) of the MSP430FR5969 when running an ADC on a \SI{2.2}{\V} external supply.}
\label{adc-power}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|}
\hline
Sampling frequency & Power consumption \\ \hline
\SI{200}{\Hz} & \SI{385}{\micro\watt} \\ \hline
\SI{500}{\Hz} & \SI{559}{\micro\watt} \\ \hline
\SI{1}{\kHz} & \SI{687}{\micro\watt} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace{-4mm}
\end{table}
\fakepar{Temporal Resolution}
How long does it take to sense, transmit, and detect shadows? Examples of Questions: Sensing rate (e.g. solar cell vs photodiode), communication rate (minimum time it takes to perform serial backscatter), latency of reception (how long does it take to receive and extract useful information from the entire communicated sequence of bits?). All combined will set a fundamental time constraint on the ability of our system to detect variations in light levels or shadows.
\fakepar{Battery-free Operation Conditions}
How will it work in ambient light conditions? Can the system harvest sufficient energy in low light? What's the minimum operating conditions?
\fakepar{Multiple Visible Light Markers}
\subsection{Ambient Carrier-less Transmitter}
\label{eval:act}
In this section, we evaluate the ability of TunnelScatter\xspace to communicate using the ACLT mode, i.e., in the absence of an ACS.
Our experiments focus on the stability of the signal generated by the TDO, and the range achieved in a challenging non-line-of-sight~(NLOS) scenario.
\fakepar{Setup} To measure the stability of the TDO, we connect the TunnelScatter to an RF spectrum analyzer; Keithley 2810~\cite{keithely}. We have seen that the TDO can be influenced by ambient RF noise, and hence we perform these measurements in an anechoic chamber. The ACLT mode transmits amplitude-modulated transmissions. To receive the transmissions, a CC1310 radio acts as energy detector (RSS sampling), similar to FS-backscatter~\cite{freqshift}. We perform the experiment in our office, as shown in Figure~\ref{indoorlayout}. The walls between the rooms consist of insulated gypsum and are approximately 16 cm thick. The rooms are equipped with standard office equipment such as chairs, tables with drawers, and monitors.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{images/graphs/drift-bias2.pdf}
\vspace{-4mm}
\caption{\emph{Drift with voltage}. The resonant frequency of the TDO changes linearly with the bias voltage.}
\vspace{-6mm}
\label{fig:tdvoltage}
\end{figure}
\fakepar{Oscillator stability with bias voltage} To enable oscillations, the tunnel diode has to be biased to the negative resistance region, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:tdiv}. However, within this region, we observe that the frequency of the TDO is influenced by the bias voltage. To investigate this closer, we connect the biasing network of the TunnelScatter mechanism to an external waveform generator~(Digilent Analog Discovery 2) which enables us to control the bias voltage. We change the bias voltage, and observe the frequency of the TDO. We plot the results as the change in the bias voltage, and corresponding changes observed in the frequency of the TDO in Figure~\ref{fig:tdvoltage}. Our results show that the frequency of the TDO changes linearly with the bias voltage. To counter this drift, we maintain a constant bias voltage on TunnelTag using a ultra-low power regulator~(S-1313~\cite{s1313}).
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{images/graphs/center-frequency4.pdf}
\vspace{-6mm}
\caption{\emph{TDO drift}. The frequency of the TDO drifts slightly~(tens of \SI{}{\kilo\hertz}) over the period of six hours.}
\vspace{-6mm}
\label{fig:tdosc-drift}
\end{figure}
\fakepar{Oscillator stability over time} In this experiment, we look at the long term stability of the TDO. As we consume significantly lower power compared to commercially available precision oscillators, we expect the TDO to be less stable. We provide a constant bias voltage to the TDO using a low-power regulator. We keep track of the frequency of the TDO at an interval of \SI{6}{\second}. We run the experiment for a duration of \SI{6}{\hour}. Figure~\ref{fig:tdosc-drift} demonstrates the result of the experiment. Throughout the experiment, the frequency of the TDO varies slightly, but remains within \SI{80}{\kilo\hertz} of the initial frequency, with a standard deviation of \SI{19}{\kilo\hertz}. This is not a problem for our system, as we receive transmissions using ASK and energy detectors, which are less impacted by small shifts in the frequency of the carrier signal. Further, in our experiments, we have noticed that under injection locking in ABT mode, the backscatter signal remains stable with little deviation, which enables reliable reception.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{images/graphs/td-snr2.pdf}
\vspace{-4mm}
\caption{\emph{ACLT through the wall}. We can communicate through several walls covering a distance of \SI{18}{\meter} when using ACLT mode of TunnelScatter.}
\label{fig:snr}
\vspace{-6mm}
\end{figure}
\fakepar{Through the wall communication} In this experiment, we investigate the ability of TunnelScatter\xspace to support communication without an ACS. Due to space constraints, we present only a range experiment. The receiver is placed at different distances from the tag. Our results in Figure~\ref{fig:snr} show that we are able to communicate through three walls despite the NLOS environment, at bitrates of 100 bps and 1 kbps. We cover a distance of \SI{18}{\meter}. We observe slightly anomalous behaviour around the second wall, which might be caused by the presence of metallic equipment in this location. As we had seen earlier, the TDO's output power is restricted to approx.~\SI{-19}{\decibel}m. Yet, we are able to communicate through the wall due to the high sensitivity of the CC1310 receiver.
\subsection{Amplified Backscatter Transmitter}
\label{commability}
We evaluate the ability of TunnelScatter to support backscatter transmissions. A line-of-sight~(LoS) environment significantly improves the range of backscatter systems~\cite{lorea} and our system is no exception. Hence, we focus on challenging NLoS environments.
We perform experiments indoors within our university building.
\fakepar{Setup} We use an SDR, USRP B200, as an ACS emitter. We equip both the SDR and the TunnelTag with a VERT900 antenna~\cite{vert900}. For receiving the transmissions, we use the FSK mode on the CC1310, with parameters similar to those used by LoRea~\cite{lorea}. We use a frequency shift of \SI{100}{\kilo\hertz} to avoid self-interference~\cite{lorea}, and bitrate of 2.9 kbps. We compare the ABT results with a tag similar to LoRea. We have verified that this tag achieves a communication range similar to the one reported for LoRea.
\fakepar{Multifloor communication} We evaluate the range improvement of TunnelScatter when backscattering with amplification with an ACS incident on the tag of a very low strength. We place the tag at a distance of \SI{1}{\meter} from the ACS emitter~(SDR) but configure the SDR to generate an ACS of strength of \SI{-27}{\decibel}m, which represents orders of magnitude lower strength compared to existing long range systems~\cite{lorea,lorabackscatter,peng2018plora}. First, we measure range and reliability with a LoRea tag. Then we replace it with a TunnelTag.
Figure~\ref{multifloor_tunnel_diode} demonstrates the result of the experiment. With the TunnelTag, we can communicate easily through four floors of the university building, while under similar settings, the LoRea tag achieves a range of only three meters. The experiment demonstrates that the TunnelScatter mechanism achieves a significant range improvement over the state-of-the-art backscatter LoRea tag~\cite{lorea}.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{images/graphs/td_multibit.pdf}
\vspace{-6mm}
\caption{\emph{Multifloor backscatter.} With ABT, we communicate to all four floors of our university building when backscattering a weak ACS. }
\label{multifloor_tunnel_diode}
\vspace{-6mm}
\end{figure}
\fakepar{Through the wall communication} Next, we evaluate the ability of TunnelScatter to operate in a challenging NLOS environment. We set up a carrier generator transmitting with a signal of strength \SI{16}{\decibel}m, located \SI{30}{\meter} away, separated by seven walls from the tag as shown in Figure~\ref{indoorlayout}. We experiment similar to the multifloor experiment described above. Figure~\ref{cgkitchen_tunnel_diode} demonstrates the result. The LoRea tag is able to communicate only a few meters, and cannot communicate through the wall while the TunnelTag communicates through three walls covering a distance of \SI{15}{\meter}.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{images/graphs/td_kitchen-small.pdf}
\vspace{-6mm}
\caption{\emph{Through the wall backscatter.} Even when the ACS emitter is placed several walls away~(\SI{30}{\meter}), TunnelScatter enables the tag to communicate \SI{15}{\meter}, going through several walls. }
\label{cgkitchen_tunnel_diode}
\vspace{-4mm}
\end{figure}
\fakepar{Switchover mechanism} We evaluate the advantage of switching between a tunnel diode and a conventional RF switch for backscatter transmissions. This switchover happens depending on the strength of the ambient carrier signal incident on the tag. In the experiment, we place the TunnelTag at a distance of \SI{1}{\meter} from the ACS emitter. We co-locate the tag with a spectrum analyzer to keep track of the incident ACS strength. We position a CC1310 receiver about \SI{4}{\meter} from the tag. We keep track of the signal strength of the received transmissions at the CC1310 receiver.
Figure~\ref{fig:tdraswitchover} demonstrates the results of the experiment. The figure depicts that the strength of the backscattered signal from the conventional tag increases with the strength of the ACS, similar to other backscatter systems~\cite{lorea}. The figure shows that the strength of the backscattered signal remains constant with the tunnel diode-based tag. At an ACS strength between \SI{-30}{\decibel}m and \SI{-40}{\decibel}m, the conventional tag starts to outperform the tunnel diode-based tag.
As described in Section~\ref{sect:tdra}, using the input from the passive envelope detector, TunnelScatter\xspace switches between tunnel diode and the standard RF switch. This makes certain that TunnelScatter\xspace adapts to the strength of the ambient carrier signal, and ensures that the SNR of the backscattered signal is maximized at the receiver.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{images/graphs/normal_td-small.pdf}
\vspace{-6mm}
\caption{\textit{Tunnel diode switchover mechanism}. As we increase the strength of the ACS, the conventional tag outperforms the tunnel diode tag. Shaded regions represent the sensitivity levels of the envelope detector.}
\label{fig:tdraswitchover}
\vspace{-4mm}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Power Consumption}
We evaluate the power consumption of our system. As the ACS emitter and the edge device would be powered externally, we do not evaluate their power consumption.
\fakepar{Experiment setup} To measure the power consumption, we operate using a \SI{2}{\volt} supply, as it decreases with the operating voltage~\cite{freqshift}. We measure the power consumption by connecting a Fluke multimeter in series to the circuit to measure the current draw. To measure the power consumption of the TunnelScatter mechanism, we use a highly sensitive Keysight E36300 voltage supply~\cite{keysight}.
\fakepar{Polymorphic Processing Pipeline} The thresholding circuit's power consumption is dependent on the sampling frequency. At a frequency of \SI{1}{\kilo\hertz}, the thresholding circuit comsumes \SI{11.4}{\micro\watt} of power. On the other hand, to support higher sensing resolution, PPP adapts under favorable energy harvesting conditions and uses the MSP430 microcontroller that consumes more power, as we show in Table~\ref{tab:adcpower}. We note that the power consumption is low enough to support many sensing events, such as in hand gesture sensing.
\begin{table}[!tb]
\centering
\caption{\emph{PPP Power Consumption.} The thresholding circuit ensures that the energy expensive higher resolution processor is activated only during an event. }
\vspace{-4mm}
\begin{adjustbox}{width=\columnwidth,center} \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|}
\hline
\parbox[t]{3cm}{Sampling frequency} & \parbox[t]{3cm}{4-bit thresholding\\power consumption} & \parbox[t]{3cm}{MSP430 \\ power consumption} \\ \hline
\SI{200}{\Hz} & \SI{5.8}{\micro\watt} & \SI{385}{\micro\watt} \\ \hline
\SI{500}{\Hz} & \SI{7.9}{\micro\watt} & \SI{559}{\micro\watt} \\ \hline
\SI{1}{\kHz} & \SI{11.4}{\micro\watt} & \SI{687}{\micro\watt} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{adjustbox}
\label{tab:adcpower}
\vspace{-6mm}
\end{table}
\fakepar{TunnelScatter} Due to the to low biasing voltage required by the tunnel diode, we measure the power consumption through the highly sensitive Keysight voltage supply~\cite{keysight}. We observe that the tunnel diode consumes a peak biasing power of \SI{57}{\micro\watt}, as we show in the Figure~\ref{fig:tdiv}. This low power consumption for biasing is similar to other works that have used a tunnel diode as reflection amplifier operating at \SI{5}{\giga\hertz} band~\cite{amato2017achieving,amato2018tunneling,amato2018tunnel2,amato2015long}. The very low power consumption facilitates battery-free operation, while significantly improving the ability to operate at a distance far away from the ACS emitter. The comparator, and standard RF-backscatter switch, each consume sub-\SI{}{\micro\watt} of power. The envelope detector consumes no additional power. On the contrary, it can be used to harvest energy.
\fakepar{Self-sustaining light sensor} This sensor consists of the solar cell, active receivers~(high and low gain), and the mechanism to select the receivers. The power consumption is influenced by the operation of the sensor which is application-dependent. At the lowest power state, the self-sustaining sensor consumes no energy, and only senses using the passive receiver which does not involve any amplification stage. This mode enables application scenarios such as the hand gesture recognition. To support high sensing rate or low light conditions, the self-sustaining sensor uses the active receiver. Depending on the light conditions, only one of the active receivers is enabled using the switchover mechanism. The active receiver has a peak power consumption of \SI{2.4}{\milli\watt}. Finally, the switchover mechanism consumes \SI{1}{\micro\watt}.
\subsection{Self-sustaining Sensor}
\fakepar{Harvesting energy} A feature of the self-sustaining sensor is its ability to operate battery-free, through harvested energy.
The choice of energy source for harvesting depends on the application scenario. In this paper, we focus on the use of ambient light and solar cell for harvesting. To evaluate the ability to harvest energy from indoor light, we connect the output of the energy harvester to a logic analyzer and vary the light conditions. We keep track of the time taken to charge the capacitor to the maximum voltage supported by the harvester, and the operation time of the active light receiver operational under this condition, as this represents the most energy-expensive component of our system.
Figure~\ref{fig:harvestingexp} shows the result of the experiment. We observe that we can charge the capacitor within a few minutes under light conditions that can be expected in an indoor environment. As expected, the harvesting rate increases with the light levels. Further, we can keep the active receiver operational on the harvested energy for tens of seconds. We note that while it takes a few minutes to charge the capacitor, once charged, the capacitor maintains its charge, and only uses the energy when an event such as a hand gesture is detected. Handling of the events is triggered by the energy-inexpensive passive receiver.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{images/graphs/harvestingexp_2.pdf}
\vspace{-4mm}
\caption{\emph{Self-sustaining light sensor performance.} Within a few minutes, we harvest enough energy under the most commonly found light conditions to operate the active light receiver for tens of seconds.}
\label{fig:harvestingexp}
\vspace{-6mm}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{images/graphs/coldstart.pdf}
\vspace{-2mm}
\caption{\emph{Cold start mode}. Cold start takes a significant time in low light conditions, but usually has to be performed once in an application deployment. }
\label{fig:coldstart}
\vspace{-5mm}
\end{figure}
\fakepar{Cold start mode} Until the harvester reaches a critical voltage~(\SI{1.8}{\volt}), it operates in a less efficient cold start mode. During this period, it takes a significant time to harvest energy. Once the cold start critical voltage is reached, the harvester charges at the faster rate shown in Figure~\ref{fig:harvestingexp}. The operation in cold start mode needs to be performed only occasionally. We measure the time taken for the harvester to reach cold start voltage. Figure~\ref{fig:coldstart} shows that, as expected, the time to reach the cold start is quite high for low light levels but decreases drastically under
bright light conditions. To decrease the time spent in cold start mode, we can increase the size of the solar cell or employ a small external power source.
\iffalse
Energy-harvesting designers can find PMICs with low-voltage cold-start functionality that implement this kind of start-up oscillator circuit and use its output to drive the gates in a switched-boost converter. For example, Texas Instruments uses a start-up oscillator in its TPS61220 converter (Figure 1). If the input voltage to this device is not high enough to supply its control circuit properly, a start-up oscillator operates the switches integrated into the device. During this phase, the oscillator controls the switching frequency, and the maximum switch current is limited. When the device has built up the output voltage high enough to supply the control circuit (approximately 1.8 V), the device switches to its normal operating mode.
Energy harvesting offers a virtually inexhaustible source of power able to support battery-free operation of low-power design for years or decades. For many wearable and IoT designs, however, available ambient sources might present weak energy sources, at times offering voltage levels well below the operating minimums of typical voltage converters. In these applications, start-up circuits boost very low-level voltage inputs, using a combination of self-starting oscillators and simple boost converters. These start-up circuits typically achieve low-voltage operation at the cost of conversion efficiency. Consequently, more efficient energy-harvesting designs combine these low-efficiency start-up circuits with high-efficiency switching converters able to take over conversion as voltage levels rise.
\fi
\section{Application Use Case}
\label{appusecase}
We prototype and demonstrate visible light sensing-based hand gesture recognition as a concrete application enabled by TunnelScatter.
Moreover, we briefly discuss other sensing applications that can be enabled using TunnelScatter.
\subsection{Hand Gesture Sensing}
\label{handgesture}
We investigate the feasibility to implement a hand gesture sensing system using TunnelScatter. We build on the vision of LiSense~\cite{li2015human,li2016practical} and Aili~\cite{li2017reconstructing}. We imagine a scenario where one could control various devices in a home by sensing changes in light conditions caused by hand gestures, and communicate these changes through TunnelScatter. In this section, we focus on the ability to sense the changes in the light levels caused by hand gestures.
\fakepar{Sensitivity} We define the sensitivity of the light sensor as the minimum light level that produces sufficient voltage from the light sensor to enable digitization. This voltage is dictated by the thresholding circuit and in our architecture is above \SI{20}{\milli\volt}. To measure sensitivity, we vary the light levels and track them using a Texas Instrument sensor-tag~\cite{sensortag}. Next, using a logic analyser, we look for the particular light levels that cause the output of the light sensor to fall below the critical voltage of \SI{20}{\milli\volt}. As the sensitivity levels depend on the gain value used in the amplifier, we perform the experiment for the high~(\SI{900}{\kilo\ohm}) and low gain~(\SI{100}{\kilo\ohm}) settings.
Table~\ref{lightsensitivity} demonstrates the result of the experiment. We observe that the high-gain configuration can detect low light levels, but results in the amplifier being saturated easily. On the other hand, the low-gain configuration of the active receiver fails to detect low light levels, but gets saturated first at a light level of \SI{2200}{\lux}, which is very bright for indoor environments. The passive receiver detects the signal above the light level of \SI{30}{\lux}. Hence, it is important to fuse these individual receivers to tackle light dynamics.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{images/graphs/autogain.pdf}
\vspace{-4mm}
\caption{\emph{Handling light dynamics}. As the high-gain receiver saturates, the switchover mechanism automatically switches to the low-gain receiver ensuring we can operate across diverse light conditions.}
\label{fig:autogain}
\vspace{-4mm}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[!tb]
\centering
\caption{Operating light conditions for the light sensor in high and low gain configuration of active receiver.}
\label{lightsensitivity}
\begin{adjustbox}{width=\columnwidth,center}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Configuration (k$\Omega$)\end{tabular}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Minimum light (lx)\end{tabular}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Maximum light (lx)\end{tabular}} \\ \hline
High gain (900) & \textless 30 & 350 \\ \hline
Low gain (100) & 100 & 2200 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{adjustbox}
\vspace{-5mm}
\end{table}
\fakepar{Tackling dynamics} The previous experiment has shown that the receivers have different operating conditions.
We use this observation to tackle the dynamics of the light conditions. The switchover mechanism autonomously switches to the appropriate receiver depending on the light conditions to maximize the SNR of the signal from the light sensor.
To test the switchover mechanism, we perform the experiment under varying light conditions. We change the ambient light conditions between \SI{30}{\lux} to \SI{2500}{\lux}. We keep track of the output of the -- low gain, high gain -- active receiver, and also the output from the switchover mechanism. Figure~\ref{fig:autogain} demonstrates that at low light levels, the high-gain receiver gives a signal with high SNR, and is chosen by the switchover mechanism. However, as the light levels increase, the high-gain receiver saturates, and the switchover mechanism selects the low-gain active receiver. Finally, as the light levels decrease, the switchover mechanism again selects the high gain receiver, thus enabling continuous sensing operation. To achieve minimal power consumption, the passive receiver controls the switchover mechanism.
\fakepar{Hand gesture sensing} In addition to the system described earlier, we design a version of the TunnelTag that we optimise for the lowest power consumption. We show the hardware prototype in Figure~\ref{fig:passiveswitch}. In this design, we employ several solar cells to detect the direction of hand movements, building on Li et al.~\cite{selfpoweredgest}. To achieve this we design the board with four passive receivers whose output is fused together using a parallel to serial converter before being transmitted using TunnelScatter. In the design, we also devise the transmission of preamble bits to enable support for several TunnelTags.
\begin{figure}[!tb]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.4\linewidth]{images/hardware/passiveSwitch_compressed.jpg}
\vspace{-4mm}
\caption{\emph{Hand gesture sensing Prototype.} We detect hand gestures and transmit them with TunnelScatter.}%
\label{fig:passiveswitch}%
\vspace{-6mm}
\end{figure}
With the optimised TunnelTag, we only make use of the LRP component to support four different hand gestures. We demonstrate the following gestures: swipe, taps, block, and swirl. A Swipe is represented as a brief finger movement in any direction over a single light sensor, taps is represented by lifting the finger above and away from a sensor a given number of times, and block is represented as a complete obstruction of the light sensor for a longer duration of time. Finally, a swirl is represented by moving a finger from one sensor to another in either a clockwise or a counterclockwise motion. Each of these gestures give rise to a unique pattern in the output of the passive receiver, as show in the Figure~\ref{fig:gestureDetection}. The gesture information is later transmitted, and then interpreted by the edge device. Next, we demonstrate how we can utilise the PPP, to enable more complex hand gestures which are not possible to recognize with the 1 bit design~\cite{bfvls} . We demonstrate two types of complex gestures, namely push and pull. A push is represented by a decreasing palm movement towards the sensor, and a pull is the reverse motion. In Figure~\ref{fig:gesture_pushpull}, we show the 4 and 12 bit representations of the sensed gestures. The figure also shows that the 1 bit resolution produces similar signal for the Push and Pull gestures and cannot differentiate between them.
\iffalse
With the energy-optimised TunnelTag, we demonstrate that we can make efficient use of of 1 bit digitisation to support four different hand gestures. We demonstrate the following gestures: swipe, taps, block, and swirl. A Swipe is represented as a brief finger movement in any direction over a single light sensor, taps is represented by lifting the finger above and away from a sensor a given number of times, and block is represented as a complete obstruction of the light sensor for a longer duration of time. Finally, a swirl is represented by moving a finger from one sensor to another in either a clockwise or a counterclockwise motion. Each of these gestures give rise to a unique pattern in the output of the passive receiver, as Figure~\ref{fig:gestureDetection} shows. The gesture information is later transmitted and then received and interpreted by the edge device. Next, we demonstrate how we can utilise the PPP in combination with the TunnelTag at different resolutions of the pipeline of the PPP to enable more complex hand gestures which are not possible to represent with the energy-optimised 1 bit design. We demonstrate two types of complex gestures, namely push and pull. A push is represented by a decreasing palm movement towards the sensor, and a pull is the reverse motion. In Figure~\ref{fig:gesture_pushpull}, we show the 4 and 12 bit representations of the sensed gestures when combining the TunnelTag with the PPP. The figure also shows that the 1 bit resolution produces a similar signal for the Push and the Pull gestures, which shows that for a 1 bit resolution, it is not possible to differentiate between them.
\fi
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{images/bitstream_4.pdf}
\vspace{-4mm}
\caption{\textit{Hand gesture sensing.} Through the optimised TunnelTag, each sensor is allocated a binary sequence, which appears after the preamble bits, as shown by the color coded digital signals. When two sensors are blocked, it gives rise to a new sequence.}
\label{fig:gestureDetection}
\vspace{-6mm}
\end{figure}
\fakepar{Related works} A complimentary and concurrent effort to ours~\cite{solargest} develops techniques to detect hand gestures, which can be used with our system to support the detection of gestures with high accuracy. We focus on hardware innovations, such as low-power transmissions using TunnelScatter.
This application scenario is related to our previous design~\cite{bfvls}.
However, we significantly improve this design in several ways.
First, we improve the ability to operate in diverse light conditions through the self-sustaining light sensor. Next,
we support multibit digitisation using PPP, which supports sensing and communication of complex gestures. Finally, we support transmissions in diverse ACS conditions through the TunnelScatter mechanism. Our system is also related to BackVLC~\cite{backvlc}. However,
we significantly enhance its wireless communication ability through TunnelScatter.
\subsection{Other Scenarios}
\label{otherapplications}
\fakepar{Smart Homes} Recently there is an interest to develop various home automation systems. TunnelScatter could make many
sensors used in this application battery-free, such as temperature or occupancy sensors. In a concrete example, there is an interest in designing wireless buttons~\cite{flic} which can be configured for different tasks, such as controlling appliances like television. However, at present they use traditional radios such as BLE~\cite{flic}. We can improve the energy efficiency of these designs by designing a self-sustaining and tactile sensor, and integrating it with the TunnelTag.
\fakepar{RFID Systems} RFID systems are widely used to support applications such as inventory tracking, ID tags~\cite{want2006introduction}. RFID systems, however, are constrained due to power and cost limitations of the reader device. Systems like LoRea~\cite{lorea} overcome this by leveraging bistatic configurations, and using low-cost transceivers. However, such scenarios are constrained as they require a powerful ACS emitter~(few \SI{}{\watt}s). TunnelScatter can improve such scenarios by eliminating the need for power hungry ACS emitters.
\fakepar{Visible Light Communication} VLC is an emerging communication medium for battery free sensor tags. Recent efforts support downlink using VLC on battery free sensor tags~\cite{retrovlc,backvlc}. Energy efficient uplink communication, however, remains a challenge. Efforts like BackVLC~\cite{backvlc} address this by integrating a carrier generator in LED bulbs to support the uplink through backscatter. However, this is challenging for practical deployments as it requires retrofitting LED bulbs with additional hardware. TunnelScatter could simplify such scenarios by supporting uplink communication without requiring ACS, and modifications to existing infrastructure.
\begin{figure}[!tb]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{images/graphs/adc-gestures-final.pdf}
\vspace{-4mm}
\caption{\textit{Multibit Gestures.} Complex gestures cause slow changes in the signal. Differentiating between the two requires higher sensing resolution than 1 bit.}
\label{fig:gesture_pushpull}
\vspace{-6mm}
\end{figure}
\subsection{\textsc{TunnelScatter}\xspace: System Overview}
The fundamental operation of \textsc{TunnelScatter}\xspace is to identify an action that is performed over a visible light sensor under ambient light such as a particular hand gesture movement or a person walking past the sensor. We design a battery-free sensor that utilizes ultra-low power mechanisms to capture, digitize, and communicate light information wirelessly without the use of any energy-expensive computational block. Instead, our sensor delegates all of the processing operations to an end device that runs a classifier algorithm to identify a particular action that is performed over the sensor. The classifier identifies an action by matching it to its unique pattern or \emph{footprint} in the perceived light readings. This enables our envisioned application scenarios, as mentioned in section~\ref{appscenario}.\av{This section will need to be updated with information of polymorphic sensor}
We face several key challenges to realize \textsc{TunnelScatter}\xspace. First, the power consumption of an ADC significantly increases with its resolution and sampling frequency which makes it increasingly difficult to power the sensor from harvested energy, particularly at lower light levels. Thus, we are forced to trade-off these two properties in order to mitigate the power consumption while maintaining a sufficiently high detection accuracy at the end device.
Second, to communicate light readings wirelessly while maintaining ultra-low power consumption and efficient spectrum usage is a non-trivial problem. Prior methods leverage ambient backscatter to communicate sensor readings at microwatts of power, but sacrifice in spectrum bandwidth (few \SI{}{\mega\hertz}) due to the usage of mechanisms that frequency multiplex a large set of raw sensor data~\cite{what}.
Finally, \ldots
\textsc{TunnelScatter}\xspace overcomes the first challenge by employing an ultra-low power digitization mechanism based on a network of thresholding circuits that we design. To allow for the sensor to operate on harvested energy and to support ultra-low power transmissions, we leverage backscatter of ambient BLE and LoRa signals. Further, we devise a mechanism that optimizes for bandwidth-efficiency by forwarding the digitized data in the time-domain to a single transmitting backscatter antenna. Thus, \textsc{TunnelScatter}\xspace communicates streams of digitized sensor readings which are then received and processed by the end device to reveal the light information. We describe our design choices next.
\subsection{Polymorphic Light Sensor}
\input{sections/vls}
\subsection{Using Ambient Wireless Signals for Communication}
\input{sections/ambwireless}
\subsection{Processing at a Powerful End-device}
\section{TunnelTag}
\subsubsection{Ambient Carrier-less Transmissions}\hspace*{\fill}
As discussed earlier, a major obstacle that hinders the deployment of backscatter systems is the requirement of a strong ACS. Conventional transceivers do not encounter this problem, as they generate the carrier signal locally. However, these transceivers are too energy expensive for battery-free sensor tags since they consume~\SI{}{\milli\watt}s of peak power~\cite{passivewifi,ensworth2015every} due to the use of active analog components such as RF oscillators. Hence, to transmit without an ACS, TunnelScatter requires a low-power oscillator operating at hundreds of \SI{}{\mega\hertz} while consuming \SI{}{\micro\watt}s of power. Operation at hundreds of \SI{}{\mega\hertz} ensures that we can communicate in the commonly used ISM bands. On the other hand, as discussed earlier state-of-the-art backscatter systems design or use \SI{}{\micro\watt}s oscillators operating at tens of \SI{}{\mega\hertz}~\cite{freqshift}. TunnelScatter tackles this challenge through a tunnel diode-based RF oscillator.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{images/ivcurve.pdf}
\vspace{-6mm}
\caption{\textit{Tunnel diode characterization}. We bias and operate the tunnel diode within a subset of the region of negative resistance, which we call region of interest.}
\vspace{-4mm}
\label{fig:tdiv}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{images/tdospectruml.pdf}
\vspace{-4mm}
\caption{\emph{Spectrum of TDO}. We generate a signal in the 868 MHz band, at a peak biasing power of \SI{57}{\micro\watt}. }
\label{fig:tdplot}
\vspace{-4mm}
\end{figure}
\fakepar{Tunnel diode oscillator} In ACLT mode, TunnelScatter locally generates a signal using a tunnel diode oscillator. The signal is then modulated using amplitude shift keying~(ASK). We design the TDO to operate at a frequency band of 868~\SI{}{\mega\hertz}, a license-free band for communication in major parts of the world. The TDO can also be tuned to operate at other bands. We design the TDO taking advantage of the fact that RNR enables tunnel diodes to oscillate at high RF frequencies~\cite{rca1963rca,gemanual}. In fact, tunnel diodes were used to design RF oscillators more than half a century back~\cite{rca1963rca}. However, they are not widely used due to their limited peak current which restricts the output power~\cite{gemanual}. We use the limited power consumption to our advantage to design RF oscillators for battery-free sensor tags.
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{images/tdtag.pdf}
\vspace{-6mm}
\caption{\emph{TunnelScatter schematic.} TunnelScatter uses the TDO to operate in diverse ACS strengths (including in the absence of an ACS). The TunnelScatter mechanism employs a passive envelope detector to select between the tunnel diode and the RF-switch by sensing the strength of the ACS. This selection mechanism ensures a high SNR of received backscatter transmissions at the edge device.}
\vspace{-5mm}
\label{fig:quantumscatter}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{images/graphs/phase-noise-anechoic.pdf}
\vspace{-6mm}
\caption{\emph{Phase noise}. We trade off a higher phase noise for low power consumption with a tunnel diode oscillator when compared to precision oscillators.}
\label{fig:phasenoise}
\vspace{-6mm}
\end{figure}
We show the schematic of the TDO in the top right part of Figure~\ref{fig:quantumscatter}. The TDO is designed using a tunnel diode, a biasing circuit, a matching network, and an antenna. The matching network~($C_{M1}$ and $L_{M1}$) sets the resonant oscillating frequency. The biasing circuit configures the tunnel diode into the RNR which is essential to enable oscillations.
\fakepar{TDO performance} We evaluate the TDO, as it dictates the communication ability of the TunnelScatter mechanism. Like any wireless system, the TDO can be affected by ambient noise or interfering signals, and hence we perform the measurements in an anechoic chamber. First, we connect the TDO to a Keithley 2810 RF signal analyzer~\cite{keithely} through a cable, and capture the spectrum plot. Figure~\ref{fig:tdplot} shows the result of the experiment. It shows that most of the energy is contained within the resonant frequency of the TDO, i.e, \SI{867.4}{\mega\hertz}. We note that the resonant frequency itself can change with bias voltage or can drift slightly over time, as we evaluate in Section~\ref{eval:act}. The peak strength of the signal generated by TDO was \SI{-19}{\decibel}m.
Phase noise is commonly used to characterize the performance of oscillators. We investigate the phase noise using the RF signal analyzer. In Figure~\ref{fig:phasenoise}, we observe that we have a higher phase noise as compared to precision oscillators, which is expected as we trade off
some stability for power consumption. As we demonstrate in Section~\ref{evaluation} this does not impact reception negatively.
\subsubsection{Amplified Backscatter Transmissions}\hspace*{\fill}
\label{sect:tdra}
In many scenarios, an ACS might be present.
State-of-the-art backscatter systems~\cite{lorea,lorabackscatter,peng2018plora,passivewifi,hitchhike,freerider,freqshift} achieve a large range only when the ACS is sufficiently strong. TunnelScatter overcomes this limitation through the amplified backscatter transmitter~(ABT) mode. The ABT mode takes advantage of the fact that in the presence of an ACS, the TDO demonstrates a behaviour called called injection locking~\cite{amato2017achieving,injectionlocking,rca1963rca}. This allows the TDO to backscatter the ACS, and achieve a significant gain also with a weak ACS.
\fakepar{Injection locking} This is a phenomenon where an oscillator is influenced by a signal from another oscillator operating in the vicinity of the resonant frequency of the first oscillator. Injection locking as a phenomenon was discovered in the late 16th century by Christiaan Huygens, who observed two pendulum clocks on the wall synchronizing with each other. This phenomenon is used in many transceivers today~\cite{histinjection}.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{images/setup5.pdf}
\vspace{-3mm}
\caption{\emph{Layout for the indoor experiments.} Red dots indicate the location of the receiver. The ACS emitter was switched off for the experiments involving TunnelScatter in ACLT mode. The distance is from the TunnelTag.}
\vspace{-6mm}
\label{indoorlayout}
\end{figure*}
We use the TDO's injection locking to backscatter a weak ACS with significant gain which makes the tunnel diode act as a reflection amplifier~\cite{amato2018tunneling,amato2018tunnel2,amato2015long,amato2017achieving}. In this mode, the TDO uses some energy to bias the diode to amplify, modulate and reflect back the ACS. To demonstrate this phenomenon, we set up TunnelTag approximately \SI{1}{\meter} away from an ACS emitter~(SDR), and co-locate an RF spectrum analyzer. First, we observe the signal generated from the TDO in absence of an ACS. Next, we generate a carrier signal using the SDR. Figure~\ref{fig:latching} shows that the TDO latches onto the impinging signal, and is influenced by the ACS. In fact, this also enhances the harmonics produced by
the backscatter process. Injection locking also reduces the phase noise of the oscillator~\cite{injectionlocking}. In our experiments, we have also observed that the injection locking ability of the TDO is influenced by the strength of the ACS, and the offset of the ACS from the resonant frequency of the TDO. We observe that the stronger the external signal is, the further it can be from the resonant frequency of TDO, and yet result in injection locking. Due to space constraints, we do not present this result.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{images/graphs/td-carrierfree.pdf}
\vspace{-6mm}
\caption{\emph{Injection locking spectrum}. TDO due to injection locking process latches onto an ACS.}
\vspace{-6mm}
\label{fig:latching}
\end{figure}
\fakepar{Amplified Backscatter Transmitter} We design the ABT mode by building on the injection locking of TDO and the FSK modulator presented by LoRea~\cite{lorea}. Since the tunnel diode acts as a reflection amplifier, this mode can achieve a significant range improvement over LoRea when reflecting a weak ACS. We show our high level circuit design in Figure~\ref{fig:quantumscatter}. It works as follows: we generate the two frequencies to enable FSK transmissions, using low-power oscillators, LTC 6906~\cite{ltc6906}. One of these signals is selected using a multiplexer according to the bit being transmitted. Next, this signal is fed to the biasing network which tunes the tunnel diode into the negative resistance region. In the presence of an ACS, it gets modulated and reflected back with a gain. We have measured the gain using a vector network analyzer~(VNA), and found it to be as high as \SI{35}{\decibel} at \SI{-60}{\decibel}m of input power.
\fakepar{Switchover mechanism} While the ABT achieves a significant improvement over conventional tags~\cite{lorea}, we observe on a VNA that the gain of the tunnel diode reflection amplifier is impacted by the incident carrier signal strength. This has also been observed by Amato et al.~\cite{amato2018tunneling}. We believe, one reason for this behaviour is the change in the impedance of the tunnel diode. The impedance of the tunnel diode is a function~\cite{amato2018tunneling,chang2025microwave} of frequency~(f), the bias voltage~($V$), RF input power~($P_{RF}$), and temperature~(T), i.e.,
$Z_L(f, V, P_{RF}, T)$. This means, as we increase the strength of the incident carrier signal, $P_{RF}$ increases, which causes the impedance of the tunnel diode to change, which we, and Amato et al.~\cite{amato2018tunneling}
have also observed. On the other hand, the matching network~($C_{M1}$ and $L_{M1}$) of the circuit is configured for a specific impedance value of the tunnel diode. Hence, there is a mismatch which contributes to the poor performance of the tunnel diode at higher ACS strength, which makes a conventional tag perform better when the ACS is stronger.
We overcome the above challenge with a switchover mechanism that we show in Figure~\ref{fig:quantumscatter}. We build this mechanism using a passive envelope detector that is also used on backscatter tags~\cite{ambientbackscatter,livingiot}. We use a passive envelope detector to sense the ACS' strength, and based on the ACS strength, we switch between tunnel diode or the standard RF-switch~(HMC190BMS8~\cite{rf-switch}). In designing this mechanism, we take advantage of a limitation of envelope detectors, which is their poor sensitivity. Envelope detectors are designed using discrete components, and commonly have a sensitivity of approximately \SI{-40}{\decibel}m~\cite{livingiot,braidio}. The poor sensitivity of envelope detectors ensures that they only output a signal when the ACS signal is sufficiently strong, which activates the conventional backscatter tag. On the other hand when the ACS is weak, the mechanism selects the tunnel diode. We design the switchover mechanism using an ultra-low power multiplexer and comparator~(TS 881~\cite{ts881}).
|
\section{Introduction}
Humans spend most of their lives interacting with each other. In public or private spaces such as squares, concert halls, cafes, schools, we share various aspects of everyday life with one another. Through new technologies and growing distractive effects of social media, we divide our attention and memory into separate themes and may have difficulties to focus our attention onto our primary task. In that regard, from both psychological and computer vision perspectives, understanding a person's attentional focus and particular localization of joint attention present valuable opportunities.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
\subfloat[input image]
{\includegraphics[width=.205\textwidth]{figures/figure_01_a.png}}\quad
\subfloat[saliency estimation]
{\includegraphics[width=.205\textwidth]{figures/figure_01_b.png}}\\
\subfloat[face likelihood]
{\includegraphics[width=.205\textwidth]{figures/figure_01_c.png}}\quad
\subfloat[co-attention likelihood]
{\includegraphics[width=.205\textwidth]{figures/figure_01_d.png}}
\caption{Sample of a social scene in (a), and the estimated saliency map using \cite{Kummerer:2016} in (b). Our method, \emph{Attention Flow} takes only the input image in (a) and estimate the face likelihood (c) and the co-attention likelihood (d).}
\label{figure:01}
\end{figure}
Joint attention is very helpful in many different contexts. For example, in classroom-based learning, teachers who engage all students equally can enhance student achievement \cite{Goldberg:2019,Kent:2013,Prieto:2018,Watanabe:2013}. To investigate this, educational researchers manually analyze student behaviours and especially the visual attention of students from video recordings of instructions and try to explain relationships between students' and teachers' behaviour in a very time-consuming way. Another example is in the context of attention disorders or autism research. For instance, it has been shown that joint attention and engagement, particularly in early ages, can be taught using behavioural and developmental interventions \cite{Olswang:2014}. Thus, computer vision-based, automated joint attention analysis can be instrumental in behavioural psychology to develop efficient training curricula for the treatment of children with disabilities. Another useful application is in the area of human-computer interaction and especially interaction with autonomous systems. For example, robots can infer gaze direction in case of a single person or joint attention in groups and turn their heads into that direction. Such information could be further used by robots to augment their collaboration with humans \cite{Andrist:2015, Aronson:2018}.
Although an automated analysis of joint attention might be beneficial for a variety of applications, related work in the domain of computer vision is still quite limited. Few works addressed a similar problem, namely social saliency in first and third-person view \cite{Park:2012, Park:2013, Park:2015, Suemer:2018}. Also, there are examples of joint attention in human-robot interaction \cite{Andrist:2015,Silva:2012,Nagai:2006,Nagai:2003}. Whereas mapping gaze directions to a common plane \cite{Santini:2017} is a promising option in controlled settings, it does not work in more challenging multimedia data. A recent study \cite{Fan:2018} collected a large video dataset, which we use in this study, and proposed a spatiotemporal neural network to estimate shared attention. Even though we deal with the same problem, we prefer to use the term of joint attention, since shared attention, from a psychological perspective, includes further underlying cognitive processes and does not necessitate joint gaze.
In this work, we propose a new approach that relates saliency and joint attention to estimate locations of joint attention in third person images or videos. Simply explained, saliency is an estimation of fixation likelihood on an image. In fact, due to the limited capacity of our visual system, we, by the help of an attentional mechanism, focus on the most relevant parts of a scene that are more distinctive than the remaining. In essence, it is how our eye movements process a scene, by employing various eye movements (such as saccade and fixations) and visual search which is guided by various bottom-up and top-down processes. Eye tracking-based saliency information has supported many computer vision tasks such as object detection \cite{Papadopoulos:2014}, zero-shot image classification \cite{Karessli:2017}, and image/video captioning \cite{Cornia:2018,Yu:2017}.
Figure~\ref{figure:01} shows a sample of our approach. Despite the usefulness of saliency maps, they do not necessarily represent the visual focus of people in the scene. However, during the training time, we exploit saliency maps to encode contextual information and create pseudo attention maps by combining them with face locations and their joint attention point and learn to predict these likelihoods. Then, during the test time, we can summarise the attentional focus of people in given third-person social images or videos.
The main contributions of this paper are as follows:
\setlist{nolistsep}
\begin{enumerate}[noitemsep]
\item It formulates the problem of inferring joint attention as end-to-end training. Thereby, \textit{Attention Flow} works without additional dependencies such as face/head detection, region proposals, or saliency estimation.
\item It explicitly learns saliency and joint attention of a high-level inference task using saliency augmented pseudo attention maps and Attention Flow network with channel-wise and spatial attention mechanisms.
\item Experimental results verify the performance of our approach on large-scale social videos, namely the VideoCoAtt dataset \cite{Fan:2018}. We also present a comparative ablation analysis of saliency and attention modules.
\end{enumerate}
\section{Related Work}
First, we review related research on gaze following and joint attention. Then, we will discuss saliency estimation and attention modules as we utilized them in our approach to infer the joint attention. \\
\indent \textbf{Gaze Following:\ }Recasens \emph{et al.} \cite{Recasens:2015} proposed a neural network which predicts the locations being gazed at in a convolutional neural network using head location, an image patch from head location, and an entire image. They also created a large-scale dataset where persons' eye and gaze locations were annotated. They later extended their work to use eye locations in a video frame and to predict gazed location in future frames \cite{Recasens:2017}. Gorji \emph{et al.} \cite{Gorji:2017} used a similar approach to \cite{Recasens:2015}; however, they leveraged gaze information to boost saliency estimation and did not report gaze following results.
Recently, Chong \emph{et al.} \cite{Chong:2018} proposed a method to train gaze following, head pose and gaze tasks based on a multitask learning approach by optimizing several losses on different tasks and datasets. They also included \emph{outside} of the frame labels and predicted visual attention. Nevertheless, their approach estimates a single person's visual attention, not joint attention.\\
\indent \textbf{Joint vs. Shared Attention:\ } Joint attention is a social interaction that can occur in the forms of dyadic (looking at each other) or triadic ways (looking at each other and an object). Previous research shows that infants can discriminate between dyadic and joint attention interactions already by the age of 3 months \cite{Striano:2006}. Joint attention is crucial for language learning and imitative learning \cite{Baldwin:1993,Murray:2008}. In contrast to joint attention, shared attention does not require co-attending physically or by gaze. For instance, co-attending a television broadcast when looking at another point can be an example of shared attention. An observer can understand shared attention by using cues from the environment \cite{Shteynberg:2015}. Shared attention is more related to the underlying cognitive processes, whereas joint attention is dyadic and triadic gaze oriented. Thus, in the following we will use the term of joint attention since computer vision relies on seen visual cues.\\
\begin{figure*}[ht!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/figure_02.png}
\caption{\emph{Overview of our Attention Flow} Our method is composed of three modules, (i) feature encoder, (ii) attention flow generator, and (iii) saliency-based ground truth generation. It estimates a two-channel heatmap, which encodes faces and their co-attention likelihood in the scene.}
\label{figure:02}
\end{figure*}
\indent \textbf{Joint Attention:\ }Looking into studies on the analysis of attention in social interactions, \cite{Park:2012} localized head-mounted cameras in 3D using structure from motion and triangulated joint attention. Later, they proposed a geometric model between joint attention and social formation captured from first and third person views \cite{Park:2015}. These works are noteworthy; however, they depend on first-person views and thus cannot be applied in unconstrained third view images and videos. Also, they aim to predict only proximity of joint attention (social saliency) and cannot present a good understanding of joint attention.\\
\indent \textbf{Saliency Estimation:\ }Saliency is a measure of spatial importance, and it characterizes the parts of the scene which stand out relative to other parts. Being salient can depend on low-level features such as luminance, color, texture, high-level features such as objectness, task-driven factor, and center bias phenomenon. In the literature of saliency estimation, two approaches exist: (a) bottom-up methods, which aim to combine relevant information without prior knowledge of the scene, and (b) top-down methods which are more goal-oriented \cite{Borji:2013}. Availability of large-scale attention datasets and deep learning approaches have surpassed all previous psychological and computational methods. Based on these recent studies, we know that humans look at humans, faces, objects, texts \cite{Bylinskii:2016} and also emotional content \cite{Fan_2018_emotional}. The joint attention of humans in the scene is also noticeable. For this reason, we will leverage saliency information to learn joint attention.\\
\indent \textbf{Attention Mechanism:\ } Computer-based estimation of attention can also be approached by means of machine-learning techniques, where models, with the help of spatial or temporal attention mechanisms, are able to learn where, when, and what to attend. The use of First use cases are machine translation \cite{Bahdanau:2014}, image captioning \cite{Kelvin:2015}, and action classification \cite{Sharma:2015}.\\
\indent Looking into attention mechanisms in images, Wang \emph{et al.} \cite{Wang:2017} incorporated attention modules into an encoder-decoder network and performed well in an image classification task. Their method learns attention jointly in 3D. Another recent work exploited inter-channel relationships. In Squeeze-and-Excitation blocks, they utilized global average-pooled features to perform a channel-wise calibration \cite{Hu:2018}. Recently, Woo et al. \cite{Woo:2018} proposed a convolutional attention module that leverages channel and spatial relations separately.
The common point of these works is that they address classification tasks by the use of spatial, temporal, or channel-wise attention. In contrast, we propose novel convolutional attention mechanisms for two purposes: the first is to learn feature selection along the channel dimension of a learned representation, and secondly, to guide a regression network to focus on more relevant areas in the spatial dimension. Instead of an architectural block in a classification task as in \cite{Hu:2018}, we utilize these blocks to benefit from learned features better by applying an adaptive feature selection and apply a further refinement on top of the heatmap generation module.
\section{Method}
Our approach aims to infer joint attention in third person social videos, where two or more people look at another person or object. Figure \ref{figure:02} shows an overview of our workflow.
For a given social image or video frame, we estimate a two-channel likelihood distribution, called \emph{Attention Flow}. One channel represents faces in the scene, whereas the second channel is the likelihood of joint attention. In our workflow, raw images can be considered as
a fusion of social presence in the scene and the center of joint attention. Figure \ref{figure:02} depicts an example prediction of our approach. Our Attention Flow network takes only raw images and detects faces and their respective co-attention locations without depending on any other information. In this section, we will describe (1) the creation of pseudo-attention maps (\S \ref{ssec:pseudoattention}), which are augmented by saliency estimation; (2) learning and inference (\S \ref{ssec:learning}) by our Attention Flow network using attention mechanisms, and provide (3) implementation details (\S \ref{ssec:implementation}).
\subsection{Saliency Augmented Pseudo-Attention Maps}\label{ssec:pseudoattention}
Consider persons interacting with each other in a social scene. The question we address is how to infer their visual attention focus from a third person's view? Probably the most accurate way to obtain this information would be by employing mobile eye trackers or through gaze estimation based on several high-resolution field cameras. For the majority of use cases in our daily lives, where such equipment cannot be employed, it would be very useful to be able to retrieve such information solely based on images or video material. For this reason, we first compute pseudo-attention maps by leveraging saliency estimation. \\
More specifically, for an input image $I$, we have a number of detected head locations $(x_i, y_i, w_i, h_i)$, where $i=1,2,...,n$ and $n\geq 0$. To model social presence and the respective co-attention location we use Gaussian distributions. For a head detection or co-attention bounding box, this distribution is defined as
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{G}&(x+\delta x,y+\delta y)= \\
& \begin{cases}
\exp \{ -\frac{x^2+y^2}{2\sigma^2} \} \quad \ \Vert \delta x\Vert\leq w, \Vert \delta y\Vert\leq h\\
0, \quad otherwise
\end{cases}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Then, we combine head locations and co-attention maps with the estimated saliency maps, which is a precursor of observer's attention. Augmented by estimated saliency maps $\mathcal{S}$, the created pseudo-attention maps can be formalized as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:attention_map}
\begin{aligned}
& \mathcal{H}_1 = \alpha \log \Big(\sum_{i=1,..,n}\mathcal{G}_{f_i}\Big) + \beta \log(\mathcal{S}) \\
&\mathcal{H}_2 = \alpha \log(\mathcal{G}_{coatt}) + \beta \log(\mathcal{S})
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
In this way, we suppress the saliency to lower values and ensure that if there are detected faces in the scene, they and their respective co-attention point will correspond to the maximum values of pseudo-attention maps in the first and second channels.
By employing saliency estimation in our method, we leverage the information of relative importance of the regions which can be also salient for the persons in the scene. Thus, it prevents unreliable training samples, where the same object can appear as a co-attention point or zero when we use only $\mathcal{G}_{f}$ and $\mathcal{G}_{coatt}$.
\subsection{Attention Flow Network}\label{ssec:learning}
Our model aims to solve three problems simultaneously: (1) to locate faces in the given image, (2) to detect whether joint attention exists or not, and (3) to predict the location of joint attention.
As input we only use the raw images instead of any other computational blocks, such as face detector, object detector or proposal networks. In this way, our Attention Flow network can be used to retrieve images or videos according to their social context in an efficient and fast way. The two-channel saliency augmented pseudo-attention maps are a compressed form of these objectives and provide all necessary information. In images which do not contain faces, the first channel of the attention map will give a lower likelihood, and they can be easily omitted from the further attention analysis.
In case of two or more persons in the scene, the first channel will represent the locations of their faces, whereas the second channel will be either estimated saliency or joint attention. Since pseudo-attention maps are a weighted summation of saliency estimation and joint attention, the typical values of maximum points are informative about the presence of joint attention. Therefore, learning pseudo-attention maps enables both detection and localization tasks simultaneously.
As it can be seen in Figure \ref{figure:02}, we first extract a visual representation of the scene using a pre-trained encoder network on object classification tasks. Since inferring joint attention is a complex problem even for humans, we leverage from an encoder to understand the visual focus of the persons in the image and for better generalization. The following block is a generator network, which learns attention maps from encoded representations. In order to avoid undesired outcomes of rescaling, we preserve the original aspect ratio in the input image and prefer fully convolutional architectures in both encoder and generator networks.
As a loss function, we use the Mean Squared Error (MSE) between the predicted attentions maps $\hat{\mathcal{H}}$ and ground truth pseudo saliency maps $\mathcal{H}$ (created as described in \S \ref{ssec:pseudoattention}):
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{MSE}= \frac{1}{H \cdot W} \Vert G(E(I)), \mathcal{H} \Vert^2
\end{equation}
When compared to other vision tasks such as object detection, segmentation or categorization, localizing the joint attention is a very complex task because the same region, i.e., a face or an object, can be the co-attention point in a scene, but shortly for a short period of time, it might not be true. In order to deal with these situations, our Attention Flow network can be guided towards the more relevant regions. For this purpose, we propose two novel attention mechanisms, namely \emph{channel-wise} and \emph{spatial}, and investigate their efficiency in the localization of joint attention. Figure \ref{figure:03} shows these attention mechanisms.
The encoder output is typically the output of a convolutional network which preserves spatial information in a reduced resolution and contains a higher dimension in the channel. The combination of these feature maps decides whether objects are present in the image. Using the complete encoded representation is redundant. According to the context, some channels can have more importance in the representation of the scene. Channel-wise convolutional attention performs a feature selection by weighting channels according to their contribution to the task.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/figure_03.png}
\caption{Channel-wise feature attention and convolutional spatial attention blocks.}
\label{figure:03}
\end{figure}
On the other hand, spatial attention works as a refinement on top of the final joint attention estimations. In contrast to the spatial attention mechanisms in classification, which works as an importance map to maximize class activations, our spatial attention augments a heatmap regression task.
\subsection{Implementation Details}\label{ssec:implementation}
The Attention Flow network is composed of three main modules: encoder, generator, and co-attention map generation blocks. In order to exploit the knowledge of large-scale object classification tasks, we use a pre-trained ResNet-50 \cite{He:2016} as an encoder. Our final estimation is an attention map and needs to preserve spatial relations as much as possible. Thus, we prefer dilated residual architecture, DRN-A-50 \cite{Yu:2017_dilated} trained on ImageNet and keep the resolution 1/8 at the output of the encoder.
As a generator, we used 9 residual blocks with instance normalization. It takes inputs in the number of feature channels (2048) and outputs 2-channel attention maps. Then, linear upsampling (x8) is applied.
The last block is co-attention map generation, and it is used only in training time to produce ground truth attention maps as described in \S \ref{ssec:pseudoattention}. To estimate saliency, we used Deep Gaze II \cite{Kummerer:2016}. Similar to other data-driven saliency estimation methods, Deep Gaze II makes use of different level of features and has an understanding of objectness. It helps us to reduce the number of potential locations where joint attention might exist.
The layers of channel-wise feature attention are depicted in Figure~\ref{figure:03}(a). On the other hand, in the convolutional block of spatial attention, we used a small residual network that contains 3 residual blocks. As we applied spatial attention at 1/8 resolution before upsampling, it does not introduce an extensive computational cost to the entire workflow.
At training time, we used a SGD solver with a learning rate of 0.01 in the generator block. In feature encoder, we either lock the pre-trained parameters or applied \emph{fine-tuning} by a 10 times reduced learning rate.
\section{Experiments}
In this section, we first define the used dataset and performance metrics. Then, we report the ablation studies on the use of saliency estimation to create attention maps and the effect of attention mechanisms and evaluate our approach on the VideoCoAtt dataset in comparison to related approaches.
\subsection{Experimental Setup}\label{ssec:experimentalsetup}
To evaluate our approach on joint attention estimation, we used the Video Co-Attention dataset \cite{Fan:2018}, which is currently, to the best of our knowledge, the only available dataset on a joint attention task. The dataset contains 380 RGB video sequences from 20 different TV shows in the resolution of 320$\times$480. There are 250,030 frames in the training set, 128,260 frames in the validation set, and 113,810 frames in the testing set. Each split comes from different TV shows, and the dataset includes varying human appearances and formation.
There are two tasks: detection and localization of joint attention. Some images might not contain human bodies or faces. In images with social content, subjects' attentional focus can be different. In the detection task, we report overall prediction accuracy in the test set of VideoCoAtt. On the other hand, localization is evaluated on the test images with joint attention locations. $L_2$ distance in the input resolution will be used.
By adopting the evaluation procedure from \cite{Fan:2018}, we use the Structured Edge Detection Toolbox \cite{Zitnick:2014} to generate bounding box proposals. In the location, where our method predicts joint attention, we apply a Non-Maximum Suppression (NMS) and take the one that intersects greatest with our predicted estimation. It should be noted that our approach can locate the center of joint attention. Thus, in order to make a fair comparison with state-of-the-art methods, and we used the bounding box proposal.
Furthermore, there may be no joint attention or more than one joint attention location in an image. In order to learn the detection and localization of joint attention at the same time, we learn by all types of images without social context (body or faces), with social context but without any joint attention, and one or more joint attention. According to Eq. \ref{eq:attention_map}, we limit the values of saliency to some range by natural logarithm and a scale factor. Thus, our trained network's prediction can be joint attention if and only if the predicted likelihood is greater than a threshold.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/figure_04.png}
\caption{Example daily life scenes from VideoCoAtt dataset \cite{Fan:2018} and their respective saliency estimations using Deep Gaze II \cite{Kummerer:2016}. The focus of shared visual attention does not necessarily need to be the most salient region, but contains auxiliary information to localize joint attention.}
\label{figure:04}
\vspace{-0.40cm}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Results and Analysis}\label{ssec:ablation}
\paragraph*{Saliency and joint attention} Saliency models the attention of a third person who observes a video or image. On the other hand, joint attention analysis aims to understand from the perspectives of persons in these visual content. Due to the geometric difference between the viewpoints and human behavior in social scenes, the most salient part of images may not be the focus of persons' attention. Thus, we investigate how the co-attention locations are salient for different saliency estimation methods.
\iffalse
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
\subfloat[Itti \& Koch]
{\includegraphics[width=.21\textwidth]{figures/01_itti_koch.png}}\quad
\subfloat[GVBS]
{\includegraphics[width=.21\textwidth]{figures/02_gvbs.png}}\\
\subfloat[Signature]
{\includegraphics[width=.21\textwidth]{figures/03_signature.png}}\quad
\subfloat[Deep Gaze 2]
{\includegraphics[width=.21\textwidth]{figures/04_deepgaze2.png}}
\caption{\textbf{Attention Flow} learns to focus on faces and their joint attention. A test image (a), using only image input, estimated face (c), and co-attention likelihood (d) and saliency estimation \cite{Kummerer:2016}.}
\label{fig:smap}
\end{figure}
\fi
We tested four saliency estimation methods, Itti and Koch \cite{Itti:1998}, GBVS \cite{Harel:2007}, Signature \cite{Hou:2012}, and Deep Gaze 2 \cite{Kummerer:2016}. The first three were chosen as representatives of classical computational saliency methods, whereas Deep Gaze 2 is a data-driven approach that depends on pre-trained feature representations on image classification. Deep Gaze 2's mean saliency value in co-attention bounding boxes of the training images, 96\% of the time, are above the mean saliency value of images, whereas it is the case in 44\%, 71\% and 77\% for Itti \& Koch, GVBS, and Signature.
In most cases, persons in the scene interact with either another person or an object. We regard that a data-driven Deep Gaze 2 can result in higher saliency in co-attention regions as it leverages a representation trained on object classification. Thus, we prefer Deep Gaze 2 when creating pseudo attention maps (\S \ref{ssec:pseudoattention}).
Figure \ref{figure:04} shows some sample images and their estimated saliency maps using Deep Gaze 2 \cite{Kummerer:2016}, respectively. These samples show us that the most salienct regions do not necessarily contain the possible joint attention in the social images. However, they are a precursor of observer's attention who gaze at images.
A tiny visual change in the image can cause a big change in the presence and location of joint attention. This is the main reason why we leverage the saliency information. The ``raw image'' results in \cite{Fan:2018} also validate our assumption. One can suppose the use of saliency as introducing noise, however, starting from the attention of observer and guiding the attention of the network towards understanding the attention of people inside the scene is a reasonable solution and also makes the problem learnable.
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\paragraph*{Use of attention mechanisms} Our Attention Flow network learns joint attention by using a pre-trained representation and a generator as a regression task with mean square loss. To supplement it, we proposed two attention mechanisms. In contrast to existing attention mechanisms in the literature, such as temporal in videos or text data, or spatial in image categorization, we use two novel convolutional attention blocks for feature selection and regression tasks. We evaluate their performance on the joint attention localization task.
\begin{figure*}[ht!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/figure_05.png}
\caption{\textbf{Qualitative results of Attention Flow} Bounding boxes on sample test images {\color{green} (green)} show the ground truth attentional focus. The second and third columns are our estimated Attention Flow. In the third column, we also depicted the estimated bounding boxes {\color{cyan} (cyan)}. Figure best viewed in color. }
\label{figure:05}
\end{figure*}
The output of the dilated residual network that we used as an encoder is 1/8 resolution of the input and its channel size is 2048. The channel-wise attention module, first applies $(4\times 6)$ average pooling, two convolutional layers whose kernel sizes are $3\times 3$, $3\times 2$ with a stride of 2 and 1, respectively. Their channel sizes are 512 and 2048, respectively. The final output is in the size of $C\times 1 \times 1$ and the original encoder output is channel-wise multiplied by these importance weights.
\begin{table}[b]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ll}
\toprule
\textbf{Method} & \textbf{ $L_2$ distance} \\
\midrule
Attention Flow \\ $E_{(lr=0)}$ & 73.77 \\
$E_{(base\_lr)}$ & 70.47 \\
$E_{(finetune)}$ & 69.72 \\
\midrule
$channel-wise \ attention$ & 62.84 \\ \midrule
$spatial \ attention$ & 65.70 \\
\bottomrule\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{The effect of attention mechanisms in localization of joint attention over the test set of VideoCoAtt dataset.}
\label{table_attention}
\end{table}
Table \ref{table_attention} shows the results of joint attention localization over the test set of VideoCoAtt dataset. We first tested the following options: To use the encoder as pre-trained features (no learning), to train the encoder in the same learning rate as the generator, and finetuning the encoder by a reduced ($\times 0.1$) learning rate. Channel-wise attention aims to apply feature selection in a learn representation. Thus, we freeze the encoder when training channel-wise attention and generator jointly. This approach reduces the mean $L_2$ distance by 10.92 and 6.88 pixels in comparison with no learning and finetuning, respectively.
Looking into our spatial attention, we applied spatial attention to the output of the generator in 1/8 resolution ($40\times 60$) before linear upsampling. Spatial attention module takes the estimation of joint attention maps ($2\times H\times W$) and learns a spatial importance on top to better localize the co-attention point. In spatial attention, we use a $3\times 3$ convolutional layer (64), batch normalization, a residual bottleneck module and final convolutional layer to reduce channel size back to 2. Then, a sigmoid activation is applied and the previous predictions are weighted.
Before using attention mechanisms, we show how accurate we can localize co-attention bounding boxes based on our baseline approach that is depicted in Figure~\ref{figure:02}. After creating saliency guided pseudo-attention maps that we use as the label, our Attention Flow network has two trainable blocks: an encoder, and a generator. The encoder is initialized by ImageNet trained weights. Then, we compared the following three cases: freeze the encoder and train only generator ($E_{(lr=0)}$), train encoder and generator jointly ($E_{(base\_lr)}$), and learn encoder by transfer learning with a reduced learning rate and train generator from scratch ($E_{(finetune)}$). As it can be seen in Table \ref{table_attention}, transfer learning performs better than the approaches mentioned above and achieves an $L_2$ distance of $69.72$.
Channel-wise attention, which is used between encoder and generator, can predict joint attention with a mean distance of $62.84$, whereas spatial attention after the generator gives $65.70$. Both attention mechanisms improve joint attention localization by $4.02$ and $6.88$ points with respect to our baseline network with encoder fine-tuned in Table \ref{table_attention}. The better performance of our channel-wise attention approach indicates that feature selection on top of deep learning features plays an important role. Weighting features per channel improves their potential as a scene descriptor.
\begin{table}[b]
\label{table:results}
\centering
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{lll}
\toprule
\textbf{Model} & \textbf{Prediction Acc.} & \textbf{$L_2$ distance} \\
\midrule
Random & 50.8\% & 286 \\
Fixed Bias & 52.4\% & 122 \\
\midrule
Gaze Follow \cite{Recasens:2015} & 58.7\% & 102 \\
Raw Image \cite{Fan:2018} & 52.3\% & 188 \\
Only Gaze \cite{Fan:2018} & 64.0\% & 108 \\
Gaze+RP \cite{Fan:2018} & 68.5\% & 74 \\
\midrule
Gaze+Saliency+LSTM \cite{Fan:2018} & 66.2\% & 71 \\
Gaze+RP+LSTM \cite{Fan:2018} & 71.4\% & \textbf{62} \\
\midrule
\textbf{Ours \emph{(w channel-wise att.)}} & \textbf{78.1}\% & 62.84 \\
\bottomrule\\
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{\textbf{Quantitative evaluation results} with Prediction Accuracy and \emph{L2} Distance over the test set of VideoCoAtt dataset.}
\label{table:final_results}
\end{table}
Table \ref{table:final_results} shows our results in comparison with other methods in detection and localization of joint attention. \emph{\textbf{Random}} is acquired by drawing a Gaussian heatmap with a random mean and variance. \emph{\textbf{Fixed Bias}} uses joint attention bias in the TV shows (averaged over the VideoCoAtt dataset) to sample predictions. An alternative to joint attention is to make prediction per person using \emph{\textbf{Gaze Follow}} \cite{Recasens:2015} and combine their attention likelihoods. Other methods are from the reference of VideoCoAtt dataset \cite{Fan:2018} and grouped into two categories: single frame and temporal models. All of these methods \cite{Fan:2018} depend on head detection bounding boxes, region proposal model or saliency estimation even in test time. In terms of used modalities, our approach is similar to their \textbf{\emph{``Raw Image''}} approach.
Our Attention Flow network with a channel-wise attention detects joint attention with an accuracy of $78.1\%$ over the entire test set of VideoCoAtt. Furthermore, it localizes co-attention bounding boxes with $L_2$ distance of $62.84$. Our method performs significantly better than \cite{Fan:2018}'s single frame with region proposals and gaze estimation. Furthermore, our approach is on par with \textbf{\emph{Gaze+RP+LSTM}} and outperforms it in terms of prediction accuracy by $6.7\%$.
We should note that our model makes this improvement without using any head pose/gaze estimation branch, region proposal maps, and also temporal information. [9]'s models with LSTM leverages 20-30-frame length sequences to improve and smooth prediction performance. We focused on learning an end-to-end model by using only single raw frames. Therefore, as in Table \ref{table:final_results}, our model's performance ($78.1\%$ and $62.84$) is far beyond \cite{Recasens:2015} and \cite{Fan:2018}'s single frame approaches which perform at best, \textbf{\emph{Gaze+RP}}, $68.5\%$ and 74 in joint attention detection and localization, respectively.
Figure \ref{figure:05} depicts the qualitative results of our Attention Flow network on several test images of VideoCoAtt. The ground truth co-attention locations are shown in green rectangles. Estimated face and co-attention likelihoods are overlaid on images. The first channel of our attention maps successfully locates both frontal and side faces. Looking into co-attention estimation, predictions in groups with $3$-$4$ persons are very good. Even though their distances from ground truths are not very large, the last two examples (on the right) are relatively broad. This is due to the difficulty of scenes and a wider angle of view.
Another point that we should address is the distribution of social formations in the VideoCoAtt dataset. As the dataset is composed of acted scenes mostly from the TV shows, it does not represent the real-world formations such as in learning situations or group work. In addition, when we inspect the failures, we observed that most of them were from complicated cases where many people interest each other. Their faces were far from the camera and difficult to determine their activities (i.e., last two samples on the right side of Figure~\ref{figure:05}). The possible direction in joint attention analysis can be to create training corpus specialized in the desired applications such as group work analysis, therapeutic situations, or children's gaze behaviors.
\section{Conclusion}\label{ssec:conclusion}
This study addressed a recently proposed problem, inferring joint attention in third person social videos. Our Attention Flow network infers joint attention based on only raw input images. Without using any temporal information and other dependencies such as a face detector or head pose/gaze estimator, we detect and localize joint attention better than the previous approaches. We create pseudo-attention maps by leveraging saliency information to better detect and localize joint attention. Furthermore, we propose two new convolutional attention blocks for feature selection and attention map localization. As inferring joint attention in an end-to-end fashion necessitates a high-level inference, increasing the amount of training data or the network depth will not help. We should note that these attention mechanisms, particularly channel-wise attention blocks for feature selection, are highly essential to select useful features from learned representations and improve localization performance of a heatmap regressor.
Understanding of joint attention by use of computer vision can help in a wide range of applications such as educational assessment, human-computer interactions, and therapy for attention disorders and as a future work we extend our approach to specialize in these applications and use as a tool for human behavior understanding.
\paragraph*{Acknowledgements} Ömer Sümer is a doctoral student at the LEAD Graduate School \& Research Network [GSC1028], funded by the Excellence Initiative of the German federal and state governments. This work is also supported by Leibniz-WissenschaftsCampus Tübingen ``Cognitive Interfaces''.
{\small
\bibliographystyle{ieee}
|
\section{Introduction}
The dynamics and equilibrium of a droplet on a substrate are important problems with many practical applications such as coating, painting in industries and the adhesion of vesicles in biotechnology. The capillary effect, which contributes the leading behaviors of the geometric motion of a small droplet, is characterized by the surface tension on interfaces separating two different physical phases. Particularly, the capillary effect greatly affects the dynamics of the contact angle and the contact line of a droplet, where three phases (gas, liquid and solid) meet. Dating back to 1805, \textsc{Young} introduced the notion of mean curvature to study the contact angle of a capillary surface and proposed Young's equation for the contact angle, between the capillary surface and the solid substrate, of a static droplet.
The geometric motion of a dynamic droplet is more challenging
and extensively studied in the literature at the modeling \cite{Davis_1980, deGennes_1985, de2013capillarity, doi2013soft, Qian_Wang_Sheng_2006}, analysis \cite{Finn_Shinbrot_1988, Grunewald_Kim_2011, Caffarelli_Mellet_2007, Caffarelli_Salsa_2005, Freire_2010, Kim_Mellet_2014, Feldman_2018, Feldman_Kim_2018}, and computations level \cite{ Yokoi_Vadillo_Hinch_Hutchings_2009, Schulkes_1994, pozrikidis_stability_2012, Sui_Ding_Spelt_2014}.
In this paper, we study the dynamics of a droplet placed on an inclined rough surface using vertical/horizontal graph representation. The contact angle hysteresis depends on the instantaneous contact angle of the droplet and the spatial heterogeneity of the substrate. Due to the roughness of the hydrophilic/hydrophobic substrate and moving contact lines, which leads to constant changes of local slope of the substrate, interesting phenomena such as pinning or capillary rise of the droplet will occur. After deriving the governing equations via gradient flows on a manifold, we propose first/second order unconditionally stable numerical schemes for the dynamics of the droplet and provide the first/second order convergence analysis for the quasi-static dynamics. Then we perform the accuracy check using quasi-static dynamics and conduct several challenging examples to accurately simulate the phenomena mentioned above.
{ Below, we give a more detailed outline of the results and strategies of the present paper.}
{ First, we give a kinematic description of a droplet using an incompressible potential flow, and derive the governing equations in a gradient flow formulation using a free energy including capillary effect and gravitational effect, and a Rayleigh dissipation function.} After neglecting the inertial effect and the contribution of viscous stress inside the droplet, the dynamics of the droplet becomes a purely geometric motion, i.e., motion by mean curvature of the capillary surface coupled with motion of the contact lines; see Section \ref{sec2}. Using a single vertical/horizontal graph representation, we give a gradient flow formulation of the dynamic droplet by regarding the geometric motion of this droplet as a trajectory on a Hilbert manifold with boundary, where the obstacle occurs; see the resulting governing equations in Section \ref{sec2.4eq} and derivations in Appendix \ref{app_model}. Gradient flows on manifolds and the corresponding interpretation of minimizing movement with proper metrics have been the focus of recent research in both analytic and numerical aspects \cite{AGS, almeida2012mean, Mielke_2015, Muntean_Rademacher_Zagaris_2016}. To completely describe the dynamics of the droplet, a free energy and a Riemannian metric (dissipation potential) in the gradient flow structure will be specific in different physical settings \cite{Davis_1980, Qian_Wang_Sheng_2006, Alberti_DeSimone_2011, doi2013soft}. We also emphasize that there is a rich literature on droplets with different physical effects, such as viscosity stress inside the droplet, Marangoni effect, electromagnetic fields, electric fields or surfactant; see for instance \cite{Qian_Wang_Sheng_2006, ren2007boundary, li2010augmented, xu2014level, xu2016variational, lai2010numerical, Sui_Ding_Spelt_2014, Klinteberg_Lindbo_Tornberg_2014}.
The dynamics of the wetting domain for a 3D droplet is a challenging problem due to the geometric complexity. For example, cusp/corner singularity, topological changes such as merging and splitting. We refer to \cite{Grunewald_Kim_2011, feldman_dynamic_2014} for the studies of weak solutions to quasi-static contact line dynamics in the case that motion by mean curvature of the capillary surface is replaced by a Poisson equation. For the original mean curvature case, we also refer to \cite{Alberti_DeSimone_2011, Feldman_Kim_2018} and the references therein for quantitative/qualitative stability theory of static droplets on rough surface.
For the quasi-static dynamics where the capillary surface is determined by an elliptic equation, there are many analysis results on the global existence and homogenization problems; see \cite{caffarelli2006homogenization, Grunewald_Kim_2011, Kim_Mellet_2014, feldman_dynamic_2014} for capillary surface described by a harmonic equation and see \cite{Caffarelli_Mellet_2007, Caffarelli_Mellet_2007a, Chen_Wang_Xu_2013, Feldman_Kim_2018} for capillary surface described by spatial-constant mean curvature equation.
Next, we propose unconditionally stable numerical schemes with second order accuracy for the 2D droplet dynamics described by the motion by mean curvature and the moving contact lines; see Section \ref{sec3}. The unconditionally stable schemes are based on an explicit boundary update, which decouples the computations for the dynamics of the contact lines and the capillary surface. In Section \ref{convergence}, we will give the stability and convergence analysis for the quasi-static dynamics based on the explicit boundary updates and some properties/dependence formulas of the quasi-static profile; see Proposition \ref{prop_st}, Proposition \ref{pertur_pf0} and Theorem \ref{thm_con}, \ref{thm_con_2}.
For the full dynamic problem, the challenge of moving grids is handled by a semi-Lagrangian method with second order accuracy; see Section \ref{sec_2nd_semiL}. To achieve a second order scheme efficiently, we also design a predictor-corrector scheme with a nonlinear elliptic solver upto second order accuracy; see Section \ref{sec-implicit}.
Third, we construct several challenging and important computational examples to demonstrate the accuracy, validity and efficiency of our numerical schemes; see Section \ref{sec4}. (i) Using a quasi-static solution given by desingularized differential-algebraic system of equations (DAEs), we check the second order accuracy in space and time for our numerical schemes. (ii) We construct a breathing droplet with a closed formula solution, and we use it to show the long-time validity of our numerical schemes. (iii) We use complicated inclined rough surfaces such as the classical Utah teapot \cite{10.1145/97879.97916} to demonstrate the contact angle hysteresis of a droplet on inhomogeneous rough surface and the competition between capillary effect and gravitational effect. (iv) Using a horizontal graph representation and a desingularized formula for quasi-static dynamics, we also present simulations for Kelvin pendant drops with repeated bulges in the volume preserving case. For recent studies of steady solutions to Kelvin pendant droplet problem, we refer to \cite{ pozrikidis_stability_2012}; see also \cite{Finn_Shinbrot_1988, Schulkes_1994}.
{
Now we comment on existing references on different models and computations for droplets with hydrodynamic effects.
Arguably, the contact line dynamics coupled with hydrodynamic effects is one of the mostly studied subjects in fluid dynamics. The contact lines experience an infinite driven force to overcome the no-slip boundary condition due to viscosity inside droplets.
Various specific physical models describing slip boundary conditions and contact angle dynamics need to be imposed. For instance, the well-known Navier slip boundary conditions first used by \cite{dussan1979spreading} and the parameters in the Navier boundary condition can be determined by molecular dynamics \cite{ren2007boundary}. A widely used moving contact line model coupled with fluids is derived in \cite{ren2007boundary}; see \eqref{app_E} in Appendix \ref{app_model}. In the coupled hydrodynamic model of droplets, the normal traction induced by the fluids is balanced with mean curvature $F_n = \gamma_{lg} H$, while in the purely geometric motion, the capillary surface is simply motion by mean curvature $-\zeta v_n=\gamma_{lg} H$ with friction coefficient $\zeta$. There are many numerical methods for the coupled hydrodynamic model of droplets. The level set method is first used in \cite{li2010augmented} and with reinitialization in \cite{xu2016reinitialization} to simulate the moving contact lines. Various other related numerical methods are comprehensively reviewed in 2014 by \cite{Sui_Ding_Spelt_2014},
c.f. the front-tracking method \cite{Leung_Zhao_2009, Chamakos_Kavousanakis_Boudouvis_Papathanasiou_2016}, fixed domain method \cite{Morland_1982}, the level set method \cite{Zhao_Chan_Merriman_Osher_1996, Ding_Spelt_2007, Sui_Spelt_2013}, the phase-field method \cite{GAO20121372, Jiang_Bao_Thompson_Srolovitz_2012, Wang_Jiang_Bao_Srolovitz_2015} or the threshold dynamic method \cite{Esedoglu_Tsai_Ruuth_2008, Lu_Otto_2015, Wang_Wang_Xu_2019}.
Instead, we focus on the purely geometric motion of droplets, in which the full dynamics is the motion by mean curvature of the capillary surface and the contact line dynamics; see Section \ref{sec2}.
We mention particularly numerical methods that are closely related to the purely geometric motion case. The mean curvature flow with obstacles is theoretically studied in \cite{almeida2012mean} in terms of weak solution constructed by a minimizing movement (implicit time-discretization). The threshold dynamics method based on characteristic functions are first used in \cite{xu2017efficient, Wang_Wang_Xu_2019} to simulate the contact line dynamics, which is particularly efficient and can be easily adapted to droplets with topological changes. They extended the original threshold method for mean curvature flows to the case with a solid substrate and a free energy with multi-phase surface tensions, in the form of obstacle problems. However, since they do not enforce the contact line mechanism \cite{deGennes_1985, ren2007boundary}, i.e., relation between contact line speed and unbalanced Young's force $v_{cl}=\frac{\gamma_{lg}}{\mathcal{R}}\left(\cos \theta_Y -\cos \theta_{cl}\right)$, thus their computations on contact angle dynamics are different with the present paper and only the equilibrium Young's angle $\theta_Y$ is accurately recovered.
Besides, the level set method developed in \cite{li2010augmented, xu2016reinitialization} can not be directly used and also can not deal with rough surfaces.
Furthermore, to the best of our knowledge, the existing numerical methods for the contact line dynamics problem, including the level-set method, phase field method and threshold dynamics method, can not give the second order in time convergence as here proved in Theorem \ref{thm_con_2}.
}
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section \ref{sec2}, we describe the purely geometric motions of a dynamic/quasi-static dynamic droplet on inclined rough surfaces. With a specific free energy and a dissipation function, the derivation of governing equations using a gradient flow formulation is given in Appendix \ref{app_model}. In Section \ref{sec3}, we propose the unconditionally stable 1st and 2nd order schemes for droplet dynamics on inclined rough surfaces. The stability and convergence analysis for the quasi-static equations are given in Section \ref{convergence}. The truncation error estimates and peusdo-codes for 1st/2nd order schemes are given in Appendix \ref{appA} and Appendix \ref{appB} respectively. In Section \ref{sec4}, we give some accuracy validations of our schemes compared with the quasi-static solution and demonstrate several challenging examples such as droplets in a teapot, breathing droplets and Kelvin pendant droplets.
\section{Derivation of purely geometric dynamics of partially wetting droplets}\label{sec2}
In this section,
we first revisit the kinematic equations of a droplet described by an incompressible potential flow and the dynamic mechanism driven by a free energy including capillary effect and gravitational effect, and a Rayleigh dissipation function; see Section \ref{sec2.1_n}, Section \ref{sec2.2_n} and Section \ref{sec2.3_n}. After neglecting the inertial effect and the contribution of viscous stress inside the droplet, the dynamics of the droplet becomes a purely geometric motion, i.e., motion by mean curvature of the capillary surface and motion of the contact lines. In this case, using a vertical graph representation
we describe the geometric motion of a droplet as a gradient flow on a Hilbert manifold; see the resulting governing equations for (quasi-static) dynamics of droplets with volume constraint in Section \ref{sec2.4eq}. Detailed derivations for the motion of a 3D droplet driven by a specific free energy and a Riemannian metric (dissipation function) are given in Appendix \ref{app_model}.
The governing equations of a 2D droplet on an inclined rough surfaces are presented in Section \ref{sec3.1}.
When the vertical graph representation is broken, we replace it by a horizontal one; see Section \ref{sec4.3}.
{
\subsection{Kinematic description of a droplet on a solid substrate}\label{sec2.1_n}
In this section, we first give a kinematic description of a droplet using a vertical graph function.
More precisely,
we study the motion of a 3D droplet placed on a substrate $\{(x,y,z); z=0\}$. Assume the wetting domain is $(x,y)\in D \subset\mathbb{R}^2$ with boundary $\Gamma:=\partial D$. The droplet domain is identified by the area $$A:=\{(x,y, z);~ (x,y)\in D, \,0<z<u(x,y),\, \, u|_{\partial D}=0\}.$$ Assume the fluid inside the droplet follows an incompressible potential flow with velocity $v(x,y,x)=\nabla \phi(x,y,z)$ and constant density $\rho$. The motion of the shape of this droplet is described by the following two kinematic boundary conditions. The motion of the capillary surface on $\partial A\cap \{z>0\}$ with the outer normal $n$ is described by the normal speed
\begin{equation}
v_n(x,y,z) := n \cdot \nabla \phi(x,y,z), \quad (x,y,z)\in \partial A\cap \{z>0\}
\end{equation}
and the motion of $\Gamma$ (physically known as contact lines) with outer normal $n_{cl}$ in $x$-$y$ plane is described by the contact line speed
\begin{equation}
v_{cl}(x,y):=n_{cl} \cdot \nabla_{x,y}\phi(x,y,0), \quad (x,y)\in \Gamma.
\end{equation}
Notice the incompressible potential flow satisfies $\nabla \cdot v=0$. Hence together with kinematic boundary condition, we have
\begin{equation}\label{pot_f}
\begin{aligned}
\Delta \phi = 0, \quad \text{ in } A;\qquad
\partial_n \phi =\left\{ \begin{array}{cc}
v_n, \quad& \text{ on } \partial A \cap \{u>0\},\\
0, \quad& \text{ on } \partial A \cap \{u=0\}.
\end{array}\right.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
{ For the dynamic wetting domain and droplets, all the quantities $A(t), D(t), u(x,y,t), \Gamma(t)$ depend on time variable $t$.} The compatibility condition for \eqref{pot_f} is $\int_{\partial A} v_n \,\mathrm{d} s=0$, which turns out to be equivalent to the volume preserving constraint.
Indeed, using the normal speed $v_n=\frac{\partial_t u}{\sqrt{1+|\nabla u|^2}}$ in the graph representation, we have
\begin{equation}
\int_{\partial A(t)} v_n \,\mathrm{d} s = \int_{D(t)} \frac{\partial_t u}{\sqrt{1+|\nabla u|^2}} \sqrt{1+|\nabla u|^2} \,\mathrm{d} x \,\mathrm{d} y= \int_{D(t)} \partial_t u \,\mathrm{d} x \,\mathrm{d} y.
\end{equation}
Then by $u(x,y,t)=0$ on $\Gamma(t)$ and the Reynolds transport theorem, we have
\begin{equation}\label{compa}
\int_{D(t)} \partial_t u(x,y,t) \,\mathrm{d} x \,\mathrm{d} y = \frac{\,\mathrm{d}}{\,\mathrm{d} t} \int_{D(t)} u(x,y,t) \,\mathrm{d} x \,\mathrm{d} y=0,
\end{equation}
where the last equality follows from the volume preserving constraint
$
\frac{\,\mathrm{d}}{\,\mathrm{d} t} \int_{D(t)} u(x,y,t) \,\mathrm{d} x \,\mathrm{d} y=0.
$
Hence in the volume preserving case, the motion of the droplet can be completely described by the motion of capillary surface $u(x,y,t)$ and the motion of contact domain $D(t)$.
\subsection{Free energy for the droplet and Young's angle}\label{sec2.2_n} To give a specific free energy, we will follow the same notations and terminologies as in the classical book of \textsc{de Gennes} \cite{de2013capillarity}.
To consider the interactions between the three phases of materials: gas, liquid, and solid, denote $\gamma_{sl}$ ($\gamma_{sg}, \gamma_{lg}$ resp.) as the interfacial surface energy density between solid-liquid phases (solid-gas, liquid-gas resp.). $\gamma_{sl}, \gamma_{sg}, \gamma_{lg}>0$ are also known as the surface tension coefficients. Surface tension plays the most important role in the dynamics and equilibrium of the droplet. { Surface energy consists of the contributions from the capillary surface (with surface tension $\gamma_{lg}$) and the wetting domain of the droplet (with the relative surface tension $\gamma_{sl}-\gamma_{sg}$).} Surface energy between liquid and gas is the excess energy due to the one half lower coordination number (in the mean field approximation) of molecules at the surface compared with those sitting in the liquid bulk (\textsc{Doi} \cite{doi2013soft}).
We take the total free energy of the droplet as the summation of surface energy, gravitational energy and kinetic energy
\begin{equation}\label{energy00}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{F}=& \gamma_{lg} \int_{\partial A \cap \{u>0\}} \,\mathrm{d} s + (\gamma_{sl}-\gamma_{sg}) \int_{D} \,\mathrm{d} x\,\mathrm{d} y+ \rho g \int_{D}\frac{u^2}{2} \,\mathrm{d} x \,\mathrm{d} y+ \frac{\rho}{2} \int_{A} |\nabla \phi|^2 \,\mathrm{d} x \,\mathrm{d} y \,\mathrm{d} z,\\
=& \gamma_{lg} \int_{D} \sqrt{1+ |\nabla u|^2} \,\mathrm{d} x \,\mathrm{d} y + (\gamma_{sl}-\gamma_{sg})\int_{D} \,\mathrm{d} x\,\mathrm{d} y+ \rho g \int_{D}\frac{u^2}{2} \,\mathrm{d} x \,\mathrm{d} y + \frac{\rho}{2} \int_{A} |\nabla \phi|^2 \,\mathrm{d} x \,\mathrm{d} y \,\mathrm{d} z ,\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\rho$ is the density of the liquid, $g$ is the gravitational acceleration and $\phi$ satisfies \eqref{pot_f}. { For droplets with small Weber number, the contribution of the fluid's inertia is small compared to the capillary effect.} Thus for small droplets, we neglect the inertia effect and drop the last term in the free energy
\begin{equation}\label{energy}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{F}= \gamma_{lg} \int_{D} \sqrt{1+ |\nabla u|^2} \,\mathrm{d} x \,\mathrm{d} y + (\gamma_{sl}-\gamma_{sg})\int_{D} \,\mathrm{d} x\,\mathrm{d} y+ \rho g \int_{D}\frac{u^2}{2} \,\mathrm{d} x \,\mathrm{d} y .\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$\mathcal{F}$ has units of energy.
We neglect other effects, such as viscosity stress inside the droplet, Marangoni effect (solutocapillary and thermocapillary effect), electromagnetic fields, evaporation and condensation, etc. { The free energy \eqref{energy} for small droplets in the current setup is particular useful for
practical applications such as coating, painting in industries and the adhesion of vesicles in biotechnology.}
The competition between the three surface tension coefficients will determine uniquely the steady shape of the droplet with a fixed volume $V$.
Let the density of gas outside the droplet be $\rho_0=0$. We denote the capillary coefficient as $\varsigma:= \frac{\rho g}{\gamma_{lg}}$ and the capillary length as $L_c:=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\varsigma}}.$ For a droplet with volume $V$, its equivalent length (characteristic length) $L$ is defined as $V=\frac{4\pi}{3}L^3$ in 3D and $V=\pi L^2$ in 2D. The Bond number
$\Bo:=(\frac{L}{L_c})^2=\varsigma L^2$ shall be small enough to observe the capillary effect \cite{de2013capillarity}. Notice for simplicity in presentations of the governing equations, we allow $\varsigma<0$ in the case of pendant droplet. Hence when $\varsigma<0$, the capillary length is $L_c=\frac{1}{\sqrt{|\varsigma|}}$ and the Bond number is $\Bo=(\frac{L}{L_c})^2=|\varsigma| L^2$.
{ Define $\sigma$ as the relative adhesion coefficient between the liquid and the solid
$$\sigma:= \frac{\gamma_{sl}-\gamma_{sg}}{\gamma_{lg}}.$$
}
Adhesive forces between the liquid and the solid cause the liquid drop to spread across the surface (called a partially wetting liquid on a hydrophilic surface), while cohesive forces within the liquid cause the drop to ball up and avoid contact with the surface (called dewetting or non-wetting liquid on a hydrophobic surface).
{ We remark that the spreading parameter $S:=\gamma_{lg}\left( \frac{\gamma_{sg}-\gamma_{sl}}{\gamma_{lg}} -1\right)$ could be positive in the so-called total wetting regime \cite[Section 1.2.1]{deGennes_1985}. In this case, the liquid spreads completely to a film of nanoscopic height, which can not be described using contact angle dynamics in the current paper.}
For the present contact angle dynamics setup, $|\sigma|\leq 1$.
By Young's equation \cite{young1805iii}, the equilibrium contact angle
$\theta_Y$ is determined by the Young's angle condition
\begin{equation}\label{young}
\cos \theta_Y= \frac{\gamma_{sg}-\gamma_{sl}}{\gamma_{lg}} = -\sigma.
\end{equation}
{ We call it the partially wetting liquid case (hydrophilic surface) if
$-1<\sigma= -\cos \theta_Y\leq 0,\, 0<\theta_Y\leq \frac{\pi}{2},$
while we call it the non-wetting liquid case (hydrophobic surface) if
$0\leq \sigma= -\cos \theta_Y<1, \, \frac{\pi}{2}\leq \theta_Y< \pi.$
The case $\theta_Y=0, \, \sigma=-1$ is called completely wetting.
}
\subsection{Friction force for the motion of droplet and Rayleigh dissipation function}\label{sec2.3_n}
There are three types of friction and viscosity force on the droplet. First, the contact line friction force density is given by $-\mathcal{R}v_{cl}n_{cl}=-\mathcal{R}(n_{cl} \cdot \nabla_{x,y} \phi) n_{cl}$, where in 3D, $\mathcal{R}$ is the friction coefficient per unit length for the contact line with the units of mass/(length $\cdot$ time). Second, the friction force density on the capillary surface is given by $-\zeta v_n n$, where in 3D, $\zeta$ is the coefficient per unit area for the capillary surface with the units of mass/(area $\cdot$ time). Third, the viscosity stress inside the droplet is $\mu(\nabla v+ \nabla v^\bot)$ where $\mu$ is the dynamic viscosity. We neglect the viscosity effect inside the droplet. Then the Rayleigh dissipation function (with the unit of work) is given by \cite{goldstein2002classical}
\begin{equation}\label{RQ}
Q=\frac{\mathcal{R}}{2} \int_{\Gamma (t)} |v_{cl}|^2 \,\mathrm{d} s + \frac{\zeta}{2} \int_{\partial A(t) \cap \{u>0\}} |v_n|^2 \,\mathrm{d} s.
\end{equation}
After neglecting the kinetic energy and viscosity dissipation inside the droplet, the dynamics of the droplet is purely a geometric motion driven by the free energy \eqref{energy} and Rayleigh's dissipation function \eqref{RQ}. Therefore, the motion of the droplet can be completely described by the geometric configurations: the boundary of wetting domain $\Gamma(t)$ and capillary surface $u(x,y,t)$, instead of by velocity potential $\phi$.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{drop_cor.pdf}
\caption{(a) Illustration of contact angles $\theta_a, \theta_b$; (b) Illustration of contact angles $\theta_a, \theta_b$ and the local slopes of the rough surface $\theta_{0a}, \theta_{0b}$.} \label{fig:ill}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Dynamics of a droplet derived by gradient flow on manifold}\label{sec2.4eq}
In Appendix \ref{app_model}, we will derive the gradient flow of $\mathcal{F}(\eta), \, \eta(t)=(\Gamma(t), u(t))$ on a Hilbert manifold with respect to a Riemannian metric $g_{\eta}$ suggested by \eqref{RQ}.
For a 3D single droplet, this yields the following governing equations
\begin{equation}\label{eq_nD}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{\zeta}{\gamma_{lg}} \frac{\partial_t u}{\sqrt{1+|\nabla u|^2}}= \nabla \cdot \left( \frac{\nabla u}{\sqrt{1+ |\nabla u|^2}} \right)-\varsigma u+\frac{1}{\gamma_{lg}}\lambda(t), \quad \text{ in } D(t),\\
u(\Gamma(t), t)=0,\\
\frac{\mathcal{R}}{\gamma_{lg}}v_{cl}(t)= -\sigma-\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+|\nabla u|^2}},\quad \text{ on } \Gamma(t),\\
\int_{D(t)} u(x,y,t) \,\mathrm{d} x \,\mathrm{d} y = V,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
with initial data $(\Gamma(0), u(x,y,0))$ and initial volume $V$. When there are topological changes, including merging and splitting of droplets, \eqref{eq_nD} becomes parabolic variational inequality; see Appendix \ref{app_model} for more discussions.
In the following proposition, we summarize the dissipation relation, the quasi-static dynamics and the contact line speed mechanism. The proof of Proposition \ref{Prop2.1} is given in Appendix \ref{appA.1} for completeness.
\begin{prop}\label{Prop2.1}
Assume $(\Gamma(t), u(x,y,t), \lambda(t))$, $t\in[0,T]$ are solutions to \eqref{eq_nD} with regularities $u\in H^2_0(D(t))$ and $\Gamma(t)$ is a $C^1$ Jordan curve with a finite perimeter. Then we have
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item the velocity relation on the contact line
\begin{equation}
\partial_t u = -(\nabla u \cdot n_{cl}) v_{cl} = |\nabla u| v_{cl}, \quad \text{ on } \Gamma(t);
\end{equation}
\item the energy-dissipation relation
\begin{equation}\label{dissipation_o}
\frac{\,\mathrm{d}}{\,\mathrm{d} t} \mathcal{F} = -\mathcal{R}\int_{\Gamma(t)} v_{cl}^2 \,\mathrm{d} s - \zeta \int_{D(t)} \frac{(\partial_t u)^2}{\sqrt{1+|\nabla u|^2}} \,\mathrm{d} x \,\mathrm{d} y;
\end{equation}
\item if $\zeta=0$, the resulting quasi-static dynamics is a gradient flow for $\Gamma(t)$
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{R} v_{cl} =-\frac{\delta \mathcal{F}}{\delta \Gamma}= -\gamma_{lg}\left(\sigma+\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+|\nabla u|^2}})\right ),\quad \text{ on } \Gamma
\end{equation}
with $u\in H_0^2(D(t))$ solving $\nabla \cdot \left( \frac{\nabla u}{\sqrt{1+ |\nabla u|^2}} \right)-\varsigma u+\frac{1}{\gamma_{lg}}\lambda(t)=0$ in $D(t)$;
\item the equilibrium contact angle $\theta_{cl}^*=\theta_Y$ and on $\Gamma$
\begin{equation}
v_{cl}=\frac{\gamma_{lg}}{\mathcal{R}}(\cos \theta_Y-\cos \theta_{cl})
~\left\{\begin{array}{c}
>0, \quad \theta_{cl}>\theta_Y,\\
<0, \quad \theta_{cl}<\theta_Y.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
For the cases that singularity occurs on $\Gamma(t)$, the solution $(\Gamma, u)$ shall be understood in the viscosity sense with some geometric assumptions on the wetting domain $D(t)$, which is beyond the scope of this paper.
We will use the statement (iii) above, together with a DAEs solver, to check the accuracy of our numerical schemes proposed in next section.
The dimensional analysis for a 2D droplet is given in Appendix \ref{app_model}. The resulting dimensionless equations in 2D are
\begin{equation}\label{wet-phy0}
\begin{aligned}
\beta\frac{\partial_t u(x,t)}{\sqrt{1+ (\partial_x u)^2}}= \frac{\partial }{\partial x}\left( \frac{\partial_x u}{\sqrt{1+ (\partial_x u)^2}} \right)-\kappa u+\hat{\lambda}(t), \quad x\in(a(t),b(t)),\\
u(a(t), t)=u(b(t), t)=0,\\
a'(t)= \sigma+\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+(\partial_x u)^2}},\quad x=a(t),\\
b'(t)= -\sigma-\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+(\partial_x u)^2}},\quad x=b(t),\\
\int_{a(t)}^{b(t)} u(x,t) \,\mathrm{d} x = V.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Here, with typical length scale $L$ and time scale $T$, the coefficients $\kappa=L^2 \varsigma$,
$\hat{\lambda}=\frac{L}{\gamma_{lg}}{\lambda}$, $\beta= \frac{\zeta L^2}{\gamma_{lg} T}$ and typical 2D volume \cite{de2013capillarity} $V=\pi$ are all dimensionless. The capillary number for the capillary surface $\beta$ measures the ratio between the frictional force on capillary surface and surface tension, and indicates the capillary relaxation time on the capillary surface. The Bond number $\kappa$ measures the ratio between the gravitational force and surface tension.
{ In the remaining of this paper, we will use the dimensionless formulation \eqref{wet-phy0} after dropping hat in $\hat{\lambda}$.}
\subsection{Governing equations for a single 2D droplet on a rough and inclined surface}\label{sec3.1} In this section, with some modifications for the free energy, the Riemannian metric and the same derivation of the gradient flow formulation as in Appendix \ref{app_model}, we summarize the governing equations for a single droplet on a rough and inclined surface.
{ Given a rough solid surface, we follow the convention for studying droplets on an inclined surface and choose the Cartesian coordinate system built on an inclined plane with effective inclined angle $\theta_0$ such that $-\frac{\pi}{2}<\theta_0<\frac{\pi}{2}$, i.e., $(\tan \theta_0) x$ is the new $x$-axis we choose; see Fig \ref{fig:ill} (b).
With this Cartesian coordinate system,} the rough surface is described by the graph of a function $w(x)$ and the droplet is then described by
\begin{equation}
A:= \{(x,y); a\leq x\leq b , w(x)\leq y\leq u(x)+w(x) \}.
\end{equation}
The motion of this droplet is described by the relative height function (capillary surface) $u(x,t)\geq 0$ and partially wetting domain $a(t)\leq x \leq b(t)$ with free boundaries $a(t), b(t).$ Consider a manifold
{
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{M}:= \{\eta=(a, b, u(x));~a,b \in \mathbb{R}, a\leq b,\, u(x)\geq 0,\, u(x)\in H_0^1(a,b)\}.
\end{equation}
For any point $\eta=(a,b, u(x))\in \mathcal{M}$, the tangential plane $T_{\eta} \mathcal{M}$ at $\eta$ is
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
T_{\eta} \mathcal{M}:=&
\{q=(\alpha, \beta, v(x));\, \alpha, \beta \in \mathbb{R}, v(x) \in H^1(a,b), \\
&\qquad v(x)+u(x)\geq 0, ~ v(a)= -\partial_x u(a) \alpha,\, v(b)= - \partial_x u(b) \beta\}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Given any $q_1=(\alpha_1, \beta_2, v_1), q_2=(\alpha_2, \beta_2, v_2)\in T_{\eta}\mathcal{M}$, define the Riemannian metric $g_{\eta}: T_\eta \mathcal{M} \times T_\eta \mathcal{M} \to \mathbb{R}$ as
\begin{align}\label{tm_metric}
&g_{\eta}(q_1, q_2)=\mathcal{R}\alpha_1 \alpha_2 + \mathcal{R}\beta_1 \beta_2+ \zeta \int_{a}^{b} \frac{v_1 v_2}{\sqrt{1+ (\partial_x (u+w))^2}} \,\mathrm{d} x.
\end{align}
The dynamics of a droplet on rough surface can be regarded as a trajectory $\eta(t)=(a(t),b(t), u(x,t))$ on $\mathcal{M}$. The tangent direction of the curve $\eta(t)$ is given by
$\eta'(t):=(a'(t), b'(t), \partial_t u)\in T_{\eta(t)}\mathcal{M}$.
}
Now we consider the energy functional $\mathcal{F}: \mathcal{M} \to \mathbb{R}$ associated with the rough surface
\begin{equation}\label{energy-r}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{F}(\eta)= &\gamma_{lg} \int_{a}^{b} \sqrt{1+ (\partial_x (u+w))^2} \,\mathrm{d} x + (\gamma_{sl}-\gamma_{sg}) \int_{a}^{b} \sqrt{1+ (\partial_x w)^2} \,\mathrm{d} x\\
&+ \rho g \int_{a}^{b}\int_{w}^{u+w}(y\cos \theta_0+x\sin\theta_0)\,\mathrm{d} y \,\mathrm{d} x,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\rho$ is the density of the liquid, $g$ is the gravitational acceleration.
In the inclined case, for a droplet with volume $V$ in 2D, the effective Bond number is
\begin{equation}\label{bo_in}
\Bo:=\left(\frac{L}{L_c}\right)^2 \cos \theta_0=\varsigma L^2 \cos \theta_0.
\end{equation}
Then by same derivations as the gradient flow formulation in Appendix \ref{app_model}, with $h(x,t):= u(x,t)+w(x)$,
the governing equations in the dimensionless form for a single droplet become
\begin{equation}\label{wet-eq-r}
\begin{aligned}
\beta \frac{\partial_t h(x,t)}{\sqrt{1+ (\partial_xh)^2}}= \frac{\partial }{\partial x}\left( \frac{\partial_xh}{\sqrt{1+ (\partial_xh)^2}}\right)-\kappa (h\cos\theta_0+x \sin\theta_0)+\lambda(t), \quad x\in(a(t),b(t)),\\
u(a(t), t)=u(b(t), t)=0,\\
a'(t)= \sigma \sqrt{1+ (\partial_x w)^2}+\frac{1+ \partial_x h \partial_x w}{\sqrt{1+(\partial_xh)^2}}=\frac{1}{\cos \theta_{0a}}( \cos \theta_a-\cos \theta_Y),\quad x=a(t),\\
b'(t)=- \sigma \sqrt{1+ (\partial_x w)^2}-\frac{1+ \partial_x h \partial_x w}{\sqrt{1+(\partial_xh)^2}}=-\frac{1}{\cos \theta_{0b}}( \cos \theta_b-\cos \theta_Y),\quad x=b(t),\\
\int_{a(t)}^{b(t)} u(x,t) \,\mathrm{d} x = V,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where the two angles are defined as $\partial_x w|_a = \tan \theta_{0a}$, $\partial_x h|_a= \tan(\theta_{0a}+ \theta_a)$ and $\partial_x w|_b =- \tan \theta_{0b}$ and $\partial_x h|_b= -\tan(\theta_{0b}+ \theta_b)$; see Fig \ref{fig:ill} (b). Recall $\beta, \kappa, V, \lambda$ are all dimensionless. It is easy to check the steady state $a'(t)=b'(t)=0$ recovers Young's angle condition.
\begin{rem}
For $w(x)=0$, i.e., the surface is a perfect inclined plane with angle $\theta_0$, the derivation above recovers the model for capillary droplets on an {inclined surface} \cite{finn2012equilibrium, Caffarelli_Mellet_2007, Kim_Mellet_2014}.
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}
{We remark that changing the variable $x\in[a,b]$ to $x+x_0\in [a+x_0, b+x_0]$, the first equation in \eqref{wet-eq-r} for $\hat{h}(x)=h(x+x_0)$ with the new Lagrangian multiplier $\hat{\lambda}(t)=x_0 \sin \theta_0+\lambda(t)$ is invariant with respect to the translation $x_0$. As a consequence, the dynamics and the equilibrium profile do not depend on the coordinates we choose.} More importantly, at the equilibrium, the right hand side in the first equation is exactly the hydrostatic balance \cite[Section 61]{Landau1987Fluid}
\begin{equation}\label{vv}
-(p+ \rho g h) = \gamma_{lg} \frac{\partial }{\partial x}\left( \frac{\partial_xh}{\sqrt{1+ (\partial_xh)^2}}\right)-\gamma_{lg}\kappa (h\cos\theta_0+x \sin\theta_0)=\text{const}=-\gamma_{lg}\lambda,
\end{equation}
where we have chosen by convention the pressure outside of the drop to be zero and inside $p= -\gamma_{lg} \frac{\partial }{\partial x}\left( \frac{\partial_xh}{\sqrt{1+ (\partial_xh)^2}}\right)$ due to the force balance on the capillary surface. With $w\equiv 0$, \cite[Theorem 8.3]{finn2012equilibrium} proved the nonexistence of the static profile for $\theta_0\neq 0, \pi$. With a sufficient substrate roughness, \cite{Caffarelli_Mellet_2007} proved the existence of the static profile.
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}\label{rem_V}
In the case without volume constraint, we can calculate the rate of change of the volume
\begin{align*}
\partial_t V=& \int_{a(t)}^{b(t)} \partial_t h \,\mathrm{d} x = \frac{1}{\beta} \arctan \partial_x h\Big|_{a(t)}^{b(t)} - \kappa \int_{a(t)}^{b(t)} \sqrt{1+(\partial_x h)^2} (h\cos\theta_0+x \sin\theta_0) \,\mathrm{d} x\\
=& -\frac{\theta_{0b}+ \theta_b+ \theta_{0a}+ \theta_a}{\beta} - \kappa \int_{a(t)}^{b(t)} \sqrt{1+(\partial_x h)^2} (h\cos\theta_0+x \sin\theta_0) \,\mathrm{d} x\leq 0.
\end{align*}
The shrink estimate of the 2D droplet suggests the volume preserving constraint is necessary to observe interesting phenomena for long enough time. For this reason, all the numerical examples are with volume constraint.
\end{rem}
\section{numerical schemes for droplets dynamics on a rough and inclined surface}\label{sec3}
In this section, we consider a droplet (described by a vertical graph function) on a rough and inclined surface in the partially wetting case, i.e., the relative adhesion coefficient $-1< \sigma\leq 0$. Since a
uniform estimate for the moving boundaries $a(t), b(t)$ in \eqref{wet-eq-r} can be obtained, we have an unconditionally stable explicit scheme for the time stepping of the moving
boundary, which in turn leads to the convergence of the numerical scheme. This explicit discretization decouples the computations for the moving boundary $a(t), b(t)$ and capillary surface $u(x,t)$. In Section \ref{convergence}, to first illustrate the idea, we give the stability and convergence analysis for the first/second order schemes for the quasi-static dynamics; see Proposition \ref{prop_st} and Theorems \ref{thm_con}, \ref{thm_con_2}. To design the numerical schemes for the full dynamics of droplets and achieve a second order scheme in time and space, we should particularly take care of the following issues. First, due to the moving grids at each time step, we need to map the capillary surface at different time to the same domain based on a semi-Lagrangian method upto second order accuracy. Second, to achieve a second order scheme efficiently, we design a predictor-corrector scheme with a nonlinear elliptic solver, which maintains the overall second order accuracy. Third, the effects from the inclined rough substrate and the volume constraint will be included.
We will derive the first order scheme and give its truncation error in Section \ref{sec-sim}. Then we derive the second order scheme and give its truncation error in Section \ref{sec3.2}. The proofs for truncation error estimates will be left to Appendix \ref{appA}.
Before we present the schemes, we list some key notations below in Table \ref{table00}.
\begin{table}[ht]
\caption{Commonly used notations in this paper.}\label{table00}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|}
\hline {\bf Symbols} & {\bf Meaning}\\
\hline\hline
$t^n=n \Delta t$ & Time steps\\
$a(t^n),\, b(t^n)$ & Exact moving boundaries at $t^n$\\
$a^n,\, b^n$ & Numerical moving boundary at $t^n$\\
$\tilde{a}^{n+1},\, \tilde{b}^{n+1}$ &Predictor numerical moving boundary at $t^{n+1}$\\
\hline \hline
$x^n\in[a(t^n), b(t^n)]$ & Spatial variable at $t^n$\\
$x^n\in[a^n, b^n]$ & Numerical spatial variable at $t^n$\\
$x^n_j=a^n+ j \tau^n, \, \tau^n= \frac{b^n-a^n}{N},\, j=0, \cdots, N$ & Moving spatial grids at $t^n$\\
$\tilde{ x}^{n+1}\in[\tilde{a}^{n+1}, \tilde{ b}^{n+1}]$ & Predictor variable at $t^{n+1}$\\
$\tilde{x}^{n+1}_j= \tilde{a}^{n+1}+ j \tilde{\tau}^{n+1},$ & Predictor moving grids at $t^{n+1}$\\ \qquad $\tilde{ \tau}^{n+1}= \frac{\tilde{b}^{n+1}- \tilde{a}^{n+1}}{N}, \, j=0, \cdots, N$ &\, \\
\hline\hline
$h(x^n, t^n)$ for $x^n\in[a(t^{n}), b(t^{n})]$ & PDE solution at $t^n$\\
$h_j^n$, \, $j=0,\cdots, N$ &Numerical solution at time $t^n$ and spatial grid $x_j^n$\\
$h^n(x^n)$ for $x^n\in[a^n, b^n]$ & Numerical solution at $t^n$ (with continuous spatial variable)\\
$h^*(x^{n+1}, t^n)$ & Rescaled PDE solution at $t^n$\\
$h^{n*}(x^{n+1})$ &Numerical rescaled solution at $t^n$\\
\hline\hline
$\tilde{h}(\tilde{x}^{n+1}, t^{n+1})$ & Predictor PDE solution at $t^{n+1}$\\
$\tilde{h}^{n+1}(\tilde{x}^{n+1})$ & Predictor numerical solution at $t^{n+1}$\\
$\tilde{h}_j^{n+1}$ & Predictor numerical solution at $t^{n+1}$ and grid $\tilde{x}_j^{n+1}$\\
$\tilde{h}^{n*}(x^{n+1})$ & Intermediate numerical rescaled solution from predictor\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection{Stability analysis and convergence of numerical schemes for quasi-static dynamics}\label{convergence}
In this section, to illustrate the idea, we will first introduce the first order/second order scheme for $w\equiv 0, \theta_0=0$ and the quasi-static case, i.e., $\beta=0$ in \eqref{wet-phy0}
\begin{equation}\label{quasi-eq}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial }{\partial x}\left( \frac{\partial_x u}{\sqrt{1+ (\partial_x u)^2}} \right)-\kappa u+\lambda(t)=0, \quad x\in(a(t),b(t)),\\
u(a(t), t)=u(b(t), t)=0,\\
\int_{a(t)}^{b(t)} u(x,t) \,\mathrm{d} x = V,\\
a'(t)= \sigma+\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+(\partial_x u)^2}},\quad x=a(t),\\
b'(t)= -\sigma-\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+(\partial_x u)^2}},\quad x=b(t).\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Then we give the stability analysis and convergence result in Proposition \ref{prop_st} and Theorems \ref{thm_con}, \ref{thm_con_2} respectively.
Based on the observation for the unconditional stability and convergence, in Section \ref{sec-sim} and Section \ref{sec3.2}, we will design the first/second order numerical schemes for the full dynamic problem, i.e., $\beta>0$.
We first present the first/second order schemes and then prove the stability and convergence. Let $t^n = n\Delta t$, $n=0, 1, \cdots$ with time step $\Delta t$. Approximate $a(t^n), b(t^n), u(t^n) $ by $a^n, b^n, u^n$ respectively.
\\ \smallskip
\textit{First order scheme:}\\
Step 1 . Explicit boundary updates. Compute the one-side approximated derivative of $u^n$ at $b^n$ and $a^n$, denoted as $(\partial_x u^n)_N$ and $(\partial_x u^n)_0$. Then by the dynamic boundary condition in \eqref{wet-eq-r}, we update $a^{n+1}, b^{n+1}$ using
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}\label{end_a00}
\frac{a^{n+1}-a^n}{\Delta t}&= \sigma +\frac{1 }{\sqrt{1+ (\partial_x u^n)_0^2}} , \qquad
\frac{b^{n+1}-b^n}{\Delta t}&= -\sigma -\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+ (\partial_x u^n)_N^2}}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Step 2. Update $u^{n+1}$ and $\lambda^{n+1}$ implicitly.
\begin{equation}\label{tm_stable}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial }{\partial x}\left( \frac{\partial_x u^{n+1}}{\sqrt{1+ (\partial_x u^{n+1})^2}} \right)-\kappa u^{n+1}+\lambda^{n+1}=0, &\\
u^{n+1}(a^{n+1})=0, \quad u^{n+1}(b^{n+1})=0&,\\
\int_{a^{n+1}}^{b^{n+1}} u^{n+1} \,\mathrm{d} x = \int_{a^0}^{b^0} u^0 \,\mathrm{d} x,&
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where the independent variable for $u^{n+1}$ is $x^{n+1}\in(a^{n+1},b^{n+1})$.
\\
\smallskip
\textit{Second order scheme:}\\
Step 1 . Repeat the Step 1 and Step 2 for the first order scheme. Denote the results as the predictor $\tilde{a}^{n+1}, \tilde{b}^{n+1}, \tilde{u}^{n+1}$.
\\
Step 2. Explicit boundary updates based on a predictor-corrector method. Compute the one-side approximated derivative of $u^n$ at $b^n$ and $a^n$, denoted as $(\partial_x u^n)_N$ and $(\partial_x u^n)_0$. Then update $a^{n+1}, b^{n+1}$ using
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}\label{end_a000}
\frac{a^{n+1}-a^n}{\Delta t}&= \sigma +\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1 }{\sqrt{1+ (\partial_x u^n)_0^2}} + \frac{1 }{\sqrt{1+ (\partial_x \tilde{u}^{n+1})_0^2}} \right) , \quad\\
\frac{b^{n+1}-b^n}{\Delta t}&= -\sigma - \frac12\left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+ (\partial_x u^n)_N^2}}+ \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+ (\partial_x \tilde{u}^{n+1})_N^2}} \right).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\\
Step 3. Update $u^{n+1}$ and $\lambda^{n+1}$ implicitly according to \eqref{tm_stable}.
\begin{prop}[Stability for first/second order scheme]\label{prop_st}
Suppose $\kappa>0$. Given initial data $a^0, b^0, u^0$, assume $T< \frac{b^0-a^0}{2(1+\sigma)}$. Then for { $n <\frac{T}{\Delta t}$}, we have
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item the estimate for endpoints
\begin{equation}\label{stable_ab}
\begin{aligned}
a^0 + \sigma T \leq { a^{n+1}} \leq a^0 + (1+\sigma)T, \qquad b^0 - (1+\sigma) T \leq { b^{n+1} } \leq b^0 - \sigma T;
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\item the estimate for $\lambda$
\begin{equation}\label{lambda_es}
0\leq \lambda^{n+1}\leq C;
\end{equation}
\item the estimate for $u$ and $u_x$
\begin{equation}\label{u_es}
\int_{a^{n+1}}^{b^{n+1}} \bbs{\sqrt{1+(\partial_x u^{n+1})^2} + \kappa (u^{n+1})^2 } \,\mathrm{d} x \leq C,
\end{equation}
where $C$ is a constant depending only on the initial data $a^0, b^0$ and $T$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
First, from \eqref{end_a00} and \eqref{end_a000}, we know for both first and second order schemes,
\begin{equation}
\sigma \Delta t \leq a^{n+1}-a^n \leq( \sigma+1) \Delta t, \quad -(\sigma+1)\Delta t \leq b^{n+1}-b^n\leq -\sigma \Delta t.
\end{equation}
This leads to statement (i).
Second, { multiplying the first equation in \eqref{tm_stable} by $u^{n+1}$ and integration by parts show immediately that $\lambda^{n+1}>0$ since $\kappa>0$.} Then integrating the first equation in \eqref{tm_stable} from $a^{n+1}$ to $b^{n+1}$, we have
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial_x u^{n+1}}{\sqrt{1+ (\partial_x u^{n+1})^2}} \bigg|_{a^{n+1}}^{b^{n+1}}-\kappa V+\lambda^{n+1}(b^{n+1}-a^{n+1})=0.
\end{equation}
Then by (i) we have
\begin{equation}
\lambda^{n+1}\leq \frac{\kappa V+2}{b^{n+1}-a^{n+1}}\leq \frac{\kappa V+2}{b^0-a^0 -2(1+\sigma)T}
\end{equation}
and thus \eqref{lambda_es}.
Third, multiplying the first equation in \eqref{tm_stable} by $u^{n+1}$ and integration by parts show that
\begin{equation}
\int_{a^{n+1}}^{b^{n+1}}\bbs{\sqrt{1+(\partial_x u^{n+1})^2}-1 + \kappa (u^{n+1})^2 } \,\mathrm{d} x \leq \int_{a^{n+1}}^{b^{n+1}} \bbs{\frac{(\partial_x u^{n+1})^2}{\sqrt{1+(\partial_x u^{n+1})^2}} + \kappa (u^{n+1})^2 } \,\mathrm{d} x =\lambda^{n+1} V .
\end{equation}
This, together with the estimate for $\lambda$ in \eqref{lambda_es} and (i), gives the estimate for $\partial_x u$ and $u$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\int_{a^{n+1}}^{b^{n+1}}\bbs{\sqrt{1+(\partial_x u^{n+1})^2} + \kappa (u^{n+1})^2 } \,\mathrm{d} x \leq& \lambda^{n+1} V + b^{n+1}-a^{n+1}\\
\leq& \frac{\kappa V^2+2V}{b^0-a^0 -2(1+\sigma)T}+ b_0-a_0-2\sigma T
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
and we conclude \eqref{u_es}.
\end{proof}
Before proving the convergence of the scheme, we first clarify the existence and properties in Proposition \ref{pertur_pf0} for the quasi-static solution to
\begin{equation}\label{quasi22}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial }{\partial x}\left( \frac{\partial_x u}{\sqrt{1+ (\partial_x u)^2}} \right)-\kappa u+\lambda=0, \quad x\in(a,b),\\
u(a)=u(b)=0,\\
\int_{a}^{b} u(x,t) \,\mathrm{d} x = V.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
It is easy to see \eqref{quasi22} is translation invariant for $x\to x+\epsilon$, so without loss of generality we assume $-a= b >0$. Due to the reflection invariance under $x\to -x$, the solution $u(x)$ is even. Hence $\partial_x u(-x)=- \partial_x u(x)$. Let $\theta$ be the contact angle such that $\tan\theta = -\partial_x u|_{b}$ and thus
\begin{equation}\label{cos}
\cos\theta=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+(\partial_x u)^2}}\Big|_{x=b} .
\end{equation}
{ From \cite[Theorem 1.1]{wente1980symmetry}, the solution to \eqref{quasi22} has only one vertical axis of symmetry such that any nonempty intersection of $u$ with a horizontal hyperplane are two points symmetric w.r.t. that vertical axis. Thus the maximum of $u(x)$ is attained uniquely at $x=0$ and there exists a unique horizontal graph representation using the inverse function $
X(u):=\{X; u(X)=u\}
.$} Let $u(0)=u_m$ be the maximum of $u$. We have
\begin{equation}\label{quasi33}
\begin{aligned}
\partial_u\left( \frac{X_u}{\sqrt{1+X_u^2}} \right) - \kappa u + \lambda=0,\quad 0\leq u \leq u_m,\\
X(u_m)=0,\quad X_u(u_m)=-\infty,\\
\int_0^{u_m} X(u) \,\mathrm{d} u=V/2,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
whose derivation via gradient flow is given in Appendix \ref{app_nonwet} for completeness.
Equation \eqref{quasi33} can be used to describe not only the quasi-static profiles with single vertical graph representation but also profiles with horizontal graph representation; see more details in Kelvin pendant drop problem \eqref{dewet-eq-n}.
For instance, for the simple case $\kappa=0$, the quasi-static profile is given by the spherical cap formula \eqref{cap} with 2D volume formula \eqref{vol2d}. If $2V<\pi b^2$ then the spherical cap has a single vertical graph representation.
{
\begin{lem}\label{finn}(\cite[Theorem 3.2]{finn2012equilibrium})
Given a volume $V$ and a contact angle $0< \theta < \pi$, there exists unique $u_m, \lambda$ and $X(u), u\in[0,u_m]$ satisfying \eqref{quasi33}. Denote the contact point as $b=X(0)$.
\end{lem}
Given a contact angle $\theta$, the existence and symmetry of a static droplet has been comprehensively studied in \cite{finn2012equilibrium, finn1980}. However, our numerical schemes require the existence of \eqref{quasi22} for a given contact boundary $b$ and crucially relies on the continuous dependence on $b$.
Propostion \ref{pertur_pf0} below
obtains the unique critical wetting domain $b^c$ corresponding to $\theta^c=\frac{\pi}{2}$ such that
the quasi-static solution to \eqref{quasi22} has a single vertical graph representation. Moreover, it gives the estimate for the continuous dependence of the contact angle $\theta$ with respect to contact boundary $b$. This is also the key for the convergence analysis later.
Before stating Proposition \ref{pertur_pf0}, we first give the following lemma for the relations between $b,\lambda, \theta, u_m$.
\begin{lem}\label{lem_re}
Suppose $\kappa>0$ and the volume of the droplet is $V$. Then for any contact angle $0< \theta \leq \frac{\pi}{2}$, the droplet profile obtained in Lemma \ref{finn} satisfies the following relations among $\theta, u_m, b$
\begin{equation}\label{rel_n_F}
\begin{aligned}
&F_1(u_m, \theta)
:= u_m^2 \int_0^1 v \frac{J(v, \theta)}{\sqrt{1-J( v, \theta)^2}} \,\mathrm{d} v - \frac{V}{2}=0,\\
&b=F_2(u_m, \theta):= u_m \int_0^{1} \frac{J(v, \theta)}{\sqrt{1-J(v,\theta)^2}} \,\mathrm{d} v ,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $J(v, \theta)$ is defined in \eqref{Jv}.
\end{lem}
}
\begin{proof}
Step 1. Integrating once in the first equation of \eqref{quasi33}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{ju}
\frac{X_u}{\sqrt{1+X_u^2}}= \frac{\kappa u^2}{2} - \lambda u -\cos \theta,
\end{equation}
where we used
$\frac{X_u}{\sqrt{1+X_u^2}}\big|_{u=0}=-\cos \theta.$
Denote
\begin{equation}\label{def_J}
J(u, \theta):=-\frac{\kappa u^2}{2} + \lambda u +\cos \theta.
\end{equation}
From the boundary condition $X_u(u_m)=-\infty$ we know
\begin{equation}\label{jmn}
J(u_m, \theta) = -\frac{\kappa u_m^2}{2} + \lambda u_m +\cos \theta=1.
\end{equation}
Step 2. From \eqref{ju}, we know
\begin{equation}\label{ind}
J(u,\theta) = - \frac{X_u}{\sqrt{1+X_u^2}} \leq 1 = J(u_m, \theta).
\end{equation}
since $\kappa>0$, the graph of $J(u, \theta)$ for fixed $\theta$ is a parabola open downwards.
Hence its axis of symmetry is located to the right of $u_m$ and thus $J(u, \theta)$ is increasing w.r.t $u$ for $0\leq u \leq u_m$, which implies
\begin{equation}\label{ym000}
\kappa u-\lambda\leq 0 \quad \text{ for all } 0\leq u \leq u_m.
\end{equation}
In particular, $0< \kappa u_m \leq \lambda$ and
\begin{equation}
1=J(u_m, \theta)\geq J(u, \theta)> J(0, \theta)= \cos \theta, \quad 0< u\leq u_m.
\end{equation}
Therefore, we know $0\leq \theta \leq \frac{\pi}{2}$ if and only if $J(u,\theta)=- \frac{X_u}{\sqrt{1+X_u^2}}> 0$ for all $0< u \leq u_m$.
Now we derive the relations between $\lambda$ and $u_m$.
Since $J\geq 0$
\begin{equation}\label{X_u15}
\frac{\,\mathrm{d} X}{\,\mathrm{d} u} = \frac{-J(u, \theta)}{\sqrt{1-J(u,\theta)^2}}, \quad 0\leq u \leq u_m.
\end{equation}
Since $X(u_m)=0$, we have the integral formula
\begin{equation}\label{intg}
X(u)= \int_u^{u_m} \frac{J(y,\theta)}{\sqrt{1-J(y,\theta)^2}} \,\mathrm{d} y.
\end{equation}
Then from the volume constraint,
\begin{equation}\label{int_VV}
\frac{V}{2} = \int_0^{u_m} X(u) \,\mathrm{d} u = -\int_0^{u_m} u X_u \,\mathrm{d} u= \int_0^{u_m} u \frac{J(u, \theta)}{\sqrt{1-J(u,\theta)^2}} \,\mathrm{d} u.
\end{equation}
Combining \eqref{ind}, \eqref{intg} and \eqref{int_VV}, we conclude
\begin{equation}\label{rel_n}
\begin{aligned}
-\frac{\kappa u_m^2}{2} + \lambda u_m +\cos \theta=1,\\
\frac{V}{2} = \int_0^{u_m} u \frac{J(u, \theta)}{\sqrt{1-J(u,\theta)^2}} \,\mathrm{d} u,\\
b=\int_0^{u_m} \frac{J(u, \theta)}{\sqrt{1-J(u,\theta)^2}} \,\mathrm{d} u.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
{ Step 3. To further eliminate $\lambda$, we introduce the variable $v\in[0,1]$ such that $u= u_m v$. Then by changing variables $u=u_m v$ in
\eqref{def_J}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{Jv}
J(v,\theta):=J(u_m v,\theta)=-\frac{\kappa u_m^2 v^2}{2} + \lambda u_m v + \cos\theta=\frac{\kappa u_m^2}{2}(v-v^2)+v+(1-v)\cos\theta,
\end{equation}
where we used the first equation in \eqref{rel_n} to eliminate $\lambda$. Thus the relations between $\theta, u_m, b$ in \eqref{rel_n} can be simplified as
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
&F_1(u_m, \theta):= \int_0^{u_m} u \frac{J(u,\theta)}{\sqrt{1-J(u, \theta)^2}} \,\mathrm{d} u- \frac{V}{2}
= u_m^2 \int_0^1 v \frac{J(v, \theta)}{\sqrt{1-J( v, \theta)^2}} \,\mathrm{d} v - \frac{V}{2}=0,\\
&b=F_2(u_m, \theta):= \int_0^{u_m} \frac{J(u, \theta)}{\sqrt{1-J(u,\theta)^2}} \,\mathrm{d} u = u_m \int_0^{1} \frac{J(v, \theta)}{\sqrt{1-J(v,\theta)^2}} \,\mathrm{d} v .
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
}
\end{proof}
{
\begin{prop}\label{pertur_pf0}
Suppose $\kappa>0$ and the volume of the droplet is $V$. For any $0<\theta\leq \frac{\pi}{2}$, assume $\theta, u_m, b$ satisfy \eqref{rel_n_F}. Then
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item the function $u_m(\theta)$ obtained by Lemma \ref{finn} is strictly increasing w.r.t $\theta$ from $u_m(0^+)=0$ to $u_m(\frac{\pi}{2})=u_m^c$;
as a consequence, the inverse function $\theta=\theta(u_m)$ maps $u_m\in (0, u_m^c)$ onto $ \theta\in(0,\frac{\pi}{2})$ such that $F_1(u_m, \theta(u_m))=0$ and $\frac{\partial (\cos \theta(u_m))}{\partial u_m}<0$;
\item $b=F_2(u_m, \theta(u_m))$ is a function of $u_m$ mapping $u_m\in (0, u_m^c)$ onto $b\in(b^c, +\infty)$ such that $\frac{\partial b(u_m)}{\partial u_m}<0$; as a consequence, the inverse function $u_m=u_m(b)$ mapping $b\in(b^c,+\infty)$ onto $u_m\in(0, u_m^c)$;
\item the composition $\theta=\theta(u_m(b))$ is a function of $b$ mapping $b\in(b^c,+\infty)$ to $\theta\in(0,\frac{\pi}{2})$;
and we have the estimate
\begin{equation}\label{theta_b}
0<\frac{\partial (\cos\theta(b))}{\partial b} \leq \frac{1}{V-b u_m} \left( \frac{6V}{ u_m}+\kappa u_m^3\right)=: C_m.
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Step 1. We first show statement (i) via inverse function theorem.
Recall $J(v, \theta)$ defined in \eqref{Jv}. From Lemma \ref{finn}, we know $u_m=u_m(\theta)$ is a function of $\theta$ satisfying $F_1( u_m(\theta), \theta)=0$. Thus we have
$$
\frac{\partial u_m}{\partial \cos\theta} \frac{\partial F_1}{\partial u_m} +\frac{\partial F_1}{\partial \cos \theta}=0.
$$
From the first equation in \eqref{rel_n_F}, taking partial derivative of $F_1$
with respect to $\cos \theta$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{tmFF_1}
\frac{\partial F_1}{\partial {\cos \theta}} = u_m^2 \int_0^1 v \frac{1-v}{(1-J(v, \theta)^2)^{\frac32}} \,\mathrm{d} v\geq u_m^2\int_0^1 (v -v^2) \,\mathrm{d} v= \frac{u_m^2}{6}>0
\end{equation}
due to $J(v,\theta)\leq 1$ from \eqref{ind}.
Moreover, taking partial derivatives of $F_1$ w.r.t $u_m$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{dev32}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial F_1}{\partial u_m}=& 2 u_m \int_0^1 v \frac{J(v,\theta)}{\sqrt{1-J(v,\theta)^2}} \,\mathrm{d} v + u_m^2 \int_0^1 \frac{\kappa u_m (v^2-v^3)}{(1-J(v,\theta)^2)^\frac{3}{2}} \,\mathrm{d} v\\
=& \frac{V}{u_m} + \kappa u_m^3 \int_0^1 \frac{v^2-v^3}{(1-J(v,\theta)^2)^\frac{3}{2}} \,\mathrm{d} v>0.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Therefore $\frac{\partial u_m}{\partial \cos\theta} = - \frac{\frac{\partial F_1}{\partial \cos \theta}}{\frac{\partial F_1}{\partial u_m}}<0$ and $u_m(\theta)$ is a strictly increasing function w.r.t $\theta$. From the inverse function theorem we know there exists a unique function $\theta=\theta(u_m)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{sig1}
\frac{\partial \cos \theta}{\partial u_m} =-\frac{1}{u_m^2 \int_0^1 \frac{v-v^2}{(1-J(v)^2)^\frac{3}{2}} \,\mathrm{d} v}\bbs{ \frac{V}{u_m} + \kappa u_m^3 \int_0^1 \frac{v^2-v^3}{(1-J(v,\theta)^2)^\frac{3}{2}} \,\mathrm{d} v }< 0.
\end{equation}
From the definition of $F_1(u_m, \theta)$, it is easy to verify $u_m=0$ when $\theta=0$. Denote the value of $u_m$ corresponding to $\theta=\frac{\pi}{2}$ as $u_m^c$.
We conclude statement (i).
Step 2. Combining statement (i) and the second relation in \eqref{rel_n_F}, it is easy to see $b=F_2(u_m, \theta(u_m))$ is a function of $u_m$.
Step 3. We now show $u_m=u_m(b)$ is a function of $b$ via the inverse function theorem. Taking partial derivatives of $F_2$ w.r.t $u_m$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{dev33}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial b}{\partial u_m} = \frac{b}{u_m} + \kappa u_m^2 \int_0^1 \frac{v-v^2}{(1-J(v)^2)^\frac{3}{2}} \,\mathrm{d} v + u_m \frac{\partial \cos \theta}{\partial u_m} \int_0^1 \frac{1-v}{(1-J(v)^2)^\frac{3}{2}} \,\mathrm{d} v.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
From statement (i), we plug $\frac{\partial \cos \theta}{\partial u_m}$ into \eqref{dev33} to see
\begin{equation}\label{key1}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial b}{\partial u_m}=&\frac{1}{-u_m^2 \int_0^1 \frac{v-v^2}{(1-J(v)^2)^\frac{3}{2}} \,\mathrm{d} v} \Bigg[-b u_m \int_0^1 \frac{v-v^2}{(1-J(v)^2)^\frac{3}{2}} \,\mathrm{d} v + V \int_0^1 \frac{1-v}{(1-J(v)^2)^\frac{3}{2}} \,\mathrm{d} v \\
& + \kappa u_m^4 \left( \int_0^1 \frac{1-v}{(1-J(v)^2)^\frac{3}{2}} \,\mathrm{d} v \int_0^1 \frac{v^2-v^3}{(1-J(v)^2)^\frac{3}{2}} \,\mathrm{d} v- (\int_0^1 \frac{v-v^2}{(1-J(v)^2)^\frac{3}{2}} \,\mathrm{d} v)^2 \right) \Bigg]\\
=:& \frac{1}{-u_m^2 \int_0^1 \frac{v-v^2}{(1-J(v)^2)^\frac{3}{2}} \,\mathrm{d} v} [I_1 + I_2].
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
From H\"older's inequality, we have
\begin{equation}\label{pos1}
\left(\int_0^1 \frac{v\sqrt{1-v}\sqrt{1-v}}{(1-J(v)^2)^\frac{3}{2}} \,\mathrm{d} v\right)^2 \leq \int_0^1 \frac{1-v}{(1-J(v)^2)^\frac{3}{2}} \,\mathrm{d} v \int_0^1 \frac{v^2-v^3}{(1-J(v)^2)^\frac{3}{2}} \,\mathrm{d} v,
\end{equation}
which shows $I_2$ in \eqref{key1} is nonnegative. On the other hand, from \eqref{ym000}, we have
$$\frac{X_{uu}}{(1+X_u^2)^{\frac32}}=\partial_u\left( \frac{X_u}{\sqrt{1+X_u^2}} \right) = \kappa u - \lambda \leq 0, $$
so the quasi-static profile $X(u)$ is concave. Thanks to the concavity, for any $\alpha\in(0,1)$,
$X( (1-\alpha) u_m) > \alpha X(0) + (1-\alpha)X(u_m).$
Thus we know
$ b u_m<V$. On the other hand, we have $\frac{V}{2}\leq b u_m$ from area formulas. Then from $0\leq v\leq 1$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{pos2}
\begin{aligned}
I_1=& -b u_m \int_0^1 \frac{v-v^2}{(1-J(v,\theta)^2)^\frac{3}{2}} \,\mathrm{d} v + V \int_0^1 \frac{1-v}{(1-J(v,\theta)^2)^\frac{3}{2}} \,\mathrm{d} v\\
\geq& (V-b u_m) \int_0^1 \frac{v-v^2}{(1-J(v,\theta)^2)^\frac{3}{2}} \,\mathrm{d} v \geq \frac{V-b u_m}{6}>0.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where we used $J(v,\theta)\leq 1$ similar to \eqref{tmFF_1}.
Combining \eqref{pos1} and \eqref{pos2}, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{sig2}
\frac{\partial b}{\partial u_m} \leq - \frac{I_1}{u_m^2 \int_0^1 \frac{v-v^2}{(1-J(v,\theta)^2)^\frac{3}{2}} \,\mathrm{d} v}\leq -\frac{V-b u_m}{u_m^2}<0.
\end{equation}
Therefore $b(u_m)$ is a strictly decreasing function w.r.t. $u_m$. By the inverse function theorem, we conclude $u_m=u_m(b)$ is a function of $b$. Moreover, from the definition of $F_2$, it is easy to see when $u_m=0$, $\theta=0$, we have $b= +\infty$. Denote the value of $b$ corresponding to $u_m^c$ as $b^c$. We conclude (ii).
Step 4. From statement (i) and (ii), the composition $\theta(b)=\theta( u_m (b))$ is a function of $b$ and we conclude (iii).
Step 5. Finally, we give the estimate in statement (iv). Combining \eqref{sig1} and \eqref{sig2}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{Cbound}
\begin{aligned}
0< & \frac{\partial (\cos \theta(b))}{ \partial b}= \frac{\frac{\partial \cos\theta}{\partial u_m}}{\frac{\partial u_m}{\partial b}} \leq \frac{ \frac{V}{u_m}+\kappa u_m^3 \int_0^1 \frac{v^2-v^3}{(1-J(v,\theta)^2)^\frac{3}{2}} \,\mathrm{d} v }{(V-b u_m) \int_0^1 \frac{v-v^2}{(1-J(v,\theta)^2)^\frac{3}{2}} \,\mathrm{d} v }\\
\leq & \frac{1}{V-b u_m} \left(\frac{ \frac{V}{u_m} }{ \int_0^1 \frac{v-v^2}{(1-J(v,\theta)^2)^\frac{3}{2}} \,\mathrm{d} v } + \kappa u_m^3 \right)\leq \frac{1}{V-b u_m} \left( \frac{6V}{ u_m}+\kappa u_m^3\right)=:C_m.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\end{proof}
}
{ Proposition \ref{pertur_pf0} gives the continuous dependence of the contact angle $\theta=\theta(b)$ with respect to the contact point $b$ for symmetric contact points ($a=-b$), so we conclude
the existence of solutions to \eqref{quasi-eq} by the well-posedness of the ODE system
\begin{equation}
a' = \sigma + \cos \theta \bbs{\frac{b-a}{2}}, \qquad b' = -\sigma - \cos \theta \bbs{\frac{b-a}{2}},
\end{equation}
where $\cos \theta(\cdot)$ is a function of $\frac{b-a}{2}.$
}
Now we state and prove the convergence result for the first order scheme \eqref{end_a00}-\eqref{tm_stable}.
\begin{thm}\label{thm_con}
{ Assume $a(t), b(t)\in C^2[0,T]$ and the associated $ u(x,t)$ for $x\in[a(t), b(t)]$ are the exact solution to \eqref{quasi-eq}} and let $a^n, b^n, u^n(x^n), \, x^n\in[a^n, b^n]$ at $t=t^n$ be the numerical solution obtained from the first order scheme \eqref{end_a00}-\eqref{tm_stable} with the same initial data $(a^0, b^0, u^0)$. Then for $n <\frac{T}{\Delta t}$, we have the convergence
\begin{equation}\label{convergence_ab}
|b(t^n)-b^{n}|\leq e^{C_mT} \Delta t, \quad |a(t^n)-a^{n}|\leq e^{C_mT} \Delta t,
\end{equation}
where $C_m$ is the bound in \eqref{theta_b}.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Without loss of generality, { we assume initially $-a=b>0$ which is dynamically preserved for both exact solution and numerical scheme.} So we have $-a(t)= b(t)$, $-a^n = b^n$ and we only prove the convergence for $b$.
First,
from the Taylor expansion for the exact solution
\begin{equation}
b(t^{n+1})= b(t^n)+b'(t^n)\Delta t + \frac12 b''(\xi) \Delta t^2
\end{equation}
and the boundary condition in \eqref{quasi-eq}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{tm3.55}
\frac{b(t^{n+1})-b(t^n)}{\Delta t} = b'(t^n) + \frac12 b''(\xi)\Delta t = - \sigma - \cos \theta( b(t^{n})) + \frac12 b''(\xi)\Delta t.
\end{equation}
From the the estimate $0\leq \frac{\partial (\cos\theta(b))}{\partial b} \leq C_m$ in \eqref{theta_b} and the boundary condition in \eqref{quasi-eq}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{b''}
|b''(\xi)|= \left|\frac{\partial (\cos\theta(b))}{\partial b} b' \right| \leq \left|\frac{\partial (\cos\theta(b))}{\partial b} \right|\left|\sigma + \cos \theta \right| \leq 2C_m.
\end{equation}
Now, subtract \eqref{tm3.55} from the boundary update \eqref{end_a00} and denote $\varepsilon^n:= |b(t^n)-b^n|$. From \eqref{theta_b} and \eqref{b''}, we have
{
\begin{equation}\label{recur}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{\varepsilon^{n+1}-\varepsilon^n}{\Delta t}\leq& |-\cos \theta(b(t^{n}))+ \cos \theta(b^n)|+C_m \Delta t\\
\leq& \left|\frac{\partial (\cos\theta(b))}{\partial b} \right| \varepsilon^n+ C_m \Delta t \leq C_m ( \varepsilon^n + \Delta t).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Here we used $\left| \frac{\cos \theta(b(t^n)) - \cos \theta(b^n)}{b(t^n)-b^n} \right| \leq \left| \frac{\partial (\cos \theta(b))}{\partial b} \right|\leq C_m$ since given $b^n$ the numerical profile $u^n$ (thus $\cos \theta(b^n)$) solved in the first order scheme \eqref{tm_stable} is also quasi-static profile and \eqref{theta_b} in Proposition \ref{pertur_pf0} holds.
}
Second,
\eqref{recur} gives the recurrence relation
\begin{equation}
\frac{\varepsilon^{n+1}}{(1+C_m \Delta t)^{n+1}} \leq \frac{\varepsilon^n}{(1+C_m \Delta t)^n} + \frac{C_m \Delta t^2}{(1+C_m \Delta t)^{n+1}}.
\end{equation}
Thus
\begin{equation}
\frac{\varepsilon^{n}}{(1+C_m \Delta t)^{n}} \leq \varepsilon^0 + C_m \Delta t^2 \sum_{k=1}^n \frac{1}{(1+C_m \Delta t)^k},
\end{equation}
which concludes
{
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon^{n}\leq (1+C_m\Delta t)^{n} \varepsilon^0+ (1+C_m\Delta t)^{n} \Delta t \leq e^{C_mT} \left( \varepsilon^0 + \Delta t\right).
\end{equation}
}
Thus $\varepsilon^0=0$ gives the conclusion \eqref{convergence_ab}.
\end{proof}
Now we state the convergence result for the second order scheme \eqref{end_a000}-\eqref{tm_stable} and omit the proof.
\begin{thm}\label{thm_con_2}
{ Assume $a(t), b(t)\in C^3[0,T]$ and the associated $ u(x,t)$ for $x\in[a(t), b(t)]$ are the exact solution to \eqref{quasi-eq}} and let $a^n, b^n, u^n(x^n), \, x^n\in[a^n, b^n]$ at $t=t^n$ be the numerical solution obtained from the second order scheme \eqref{end_a000}-\eqref{tm_stable} with the same initial data $(a^0, b^0, u^0)$. Then for $n <\frac{T}{\Delta t}$, we have the convergence
\begin{equation}
|b(t^n)-b^{n}|\leq Ce^{CT} \Delta t^2, \quad |a(t^n)-a^{n}|\leq Ce^{CT} \Delta t^2,
\end{equation}
where $C$ depends only on the bound $C_m$ in \eqref{theta_b}.
\end{thm}
\subsection{First order unconditionally stable scheme based on explicit boundary update and semi-implicit motion by mean curvature}\label{sec-sim}
Based on the observation for the unconditional stability and convergence for the quasi-static dynamics of the droplet (in Section \ref{convergence}), in this section, we design the first order scheme and give the truncation error estimate.
\subsubsection{First order scheme based on explicit boundary update and semi-implicit motion by mean curvature}\label{sec-1st-scheme}
Now we design a numerical algorithm for the motion by mean curvature case \eqref{wet-eq-r}.
With some proper spatial discretizations (such as finite difference, finite element, spectral approximation), we approximate $h(x^n, t^n)$ by $h^n(x^n)$ for $x^n\in(a^n, b^n)$ and approximate $\lambda(t^n)$ by $\lambda^n$. We propose the following three-step algorithm for updating $a^n, b^n, h^n, \lambda^n$ from time step $t^n$ to $t^{n+1}$.
Step 1. Compute the one-side approximated derivatives of $h^n$ at $b^n$ and $a^n$, denoted as $(\partial_x h^n)_N$ and $(\partial_x h^n)_0$. Then by the dynamic boundary condition in \eqref{wet-eq-r}, we update $a^{n+1}, b^{n+1}$ using
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}\label{end_a}
\frac{a^{n+1}-a^n}{\Delta t}&= \sigma \sqrt{1+ (\partial_x w)_0^2} +\frac{1+ (\partial_x h^n)_0(\partial_x w)_0 }{\sqrt{1+ (\partial_x h^n)_0^2}} , \quad\\
\frac{b^{n+1}-b^n}{\Delta t}&= -\sigma \sqrt{1+ (\partial_x w)_N^2} -\frac{1+ (\partial_x h^n)_N(\partial_x w)_N }{\sqrt{1+ (\partial_x h^n)_N^2}}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Step 2. Rescale $h^n$ from $[a^n, b^n]$ to $[a^{n+1}, b^{n+1}]$ with $O(\Delta t ^2)$ accuracy using a semi-Lagrangian discretization.
For $x^{n+1}\in[a^{n+1}, b^{n+1}]$, denote the map from moving grids at $t^{n+1}$ to $t^n$ as
\begin{equation}
x^n:= a^n + \frac{b^n-a^n}{b^{n+1}-a^{n+1}}(x^{n+1}-a^{n+1})\in[a^n, b^n].
\end{equation}
Define the rescaled solution for $h^n$ as
\begin{equation}\label{inter-u-0}
h^{n*}(x^{n+1}):= h^n(x^n)+ \partial_x h^n (x^n)(x^{n+1}-x^n).
\end{equation}
It is easy to verify by the Taylor expansion
$
h^{n*}(x^{n+1}) = h^n(x^{n+1}) + O(|x^n-x^{n+1}|^2)
$ for the independent variable $x^{n+1}\in(a^{n+1},b^{n+1})$.
Step 3. Update $u^{n+1}$ and $\lambda^{n+1}$ semi-implicitly.
\begin{equation}\label{tm313}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{\beta}{\sqrt{1+ (\partial_x h^{n*})^2}} \frac{h^{n+1}(x^{n+1})-h^{n*}(x^{n+1})}{\Delta t}= { \frac{\partial_{xx} h^{n+1}}{(1+ (\partial_x h^{n*})^2)^\frac32} }-\kappa (h^{n+1}\cos \theta_0 + x^{n+1}\sin \theta_0)+\lambda^{n+1}, &\\
h^{n+1}(a^{n+1})=w(a^{n+1}), \quad h^{n+1}(b^{n+1})=w(b^{n+1})&,\\
{ \int_{a^{n+1}}^{b^{n+1}} (h^{n+1}-w)(x^{n+1}) \,\mathrm{d} x^{n+1} =V},&
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where the independent variable is $x^{n+1}\in(a^{n+1},b^{n+1})$ and $V$ is the initial volume.
For convenience, we provide a pseudo-code for this scheme in Appendix \ref{code1-in}.
Similar to \eqref{stable_ab} in Proposition \ref{prop_st}, from \eqref{end_a}, we know for $n \Delta t <T$, since $\sigma<0$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}\label{stability}
a^0+\left( \sigma \sqrt{1+ \max_x |w_x|^2} - \max_x |w_x| \right) T \leq a^n \leq a_0+ (1+\sigma+ \max_x|w_x|)T, \\
b^0-(1+\sigma+ \max_x|w_x|)T\leq b^n \leq b^0- \left( \sigma \sqrt{1+ \max_x |w_x|^2} - \max_x |w_x| \right) T,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
so the explicit scheme for the moving boundaries is unconditionally stable.
\subsubsection{Truncation analysis for the first order scheme}
Here, we state the truncation error for the first order scheme.
\begin{lem}\label{first-lem1}
{ Assume $a(t), b(t)\in C^2([t^n,t^{n+1}])$ and $h(x,t)\in C_{x,t}^{4,2}([a(t), b(t)]\times [t^n,t^{n+1}])$ be the exact solution to \eqref{wet-eq-r}} with initial data at $t=t^n$, $a^n, b^n, h^n(x^n)$ for $x^n\in[a^n, b^n]$. Then we have the first order truncation error estimates
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}\label{abn}
\frac{a(t^{n+1})-a^n}{\Delta t}&= \sigma \sqrt{1+ (\partial_x w)_0^2} +\frac{1+ (\partial_x h^n)_0(\partial_x w)_0 }{\sqrt{1+ (\partial_x h^n)_0^2}} +O(\Delta t), \quad\\
\frac{b(t^{n+1})-b^n}{\Delta t}&= -\sigma \sqrt{1+ (\partial_x w)_N^2} -\frac{1+ (\partial_x h^n)_N(\partial_x w)_N }{\sqrt{1+ (\partial_x h^n)_N^2}}+ O(\Delta t),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{un}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{\beta}{\sqrt{1+ (\partial_x h^{n*})^2}} \frac{h(t^{n+1})-h^{n*}}{\Delta t}=& { \frac{\partial_{xx} h(t^{n+1})}{\bbs{1+ (\partial_x h^{n*})^2}^\frac32} } -\kappa (h(t^{n+1})\cos \theta_0 + x^{n+1}\sin \theta_0)+\lambda(t^{n+1}) + O(\Delta t),\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad x^{n+1}\in[a(t^{n+1}), b(t^{n+1})],
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $h^{n*}$ is given by
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
&h^{n*}(x^{n+1}):= h^n(x^n)+ \partial_x h^n (x^n)(x^{n+1}-x^n),\\
& x^{n}=a^n + \frac{b^n-a^n}{b(t^{n+1})-a(t^{n+1})}(x^{n+1}-a(t^{n+1}))\in[a^n,b^n].
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
\end{lem}
For simplicity, $h(t^{n+1})$ represents $h(\cdot, t^{n+1})$ in the lemma above and the remaining contents. By mapping moving domain to a fixed domain $Z=\frac{x-a(t)}{b(t)-a(t)}\in[0,1]$ for any $x\in[a(t), b(t)]$, the proof of this lemma is standard so we put it in Appendix \ref{appA}.
\subsection{Second order numeric algorithm based on a predictor–corrector method with an unconditionally stable explicit boundary update }\label{sec3.2} In this section, we use the predictor–corrector method to obtain a second order scheme.
With the notations in Table \ref{table00}, we still approximate $a(t^n), b(t^n) $ by $a^n, b^n$ respectively and approximate $h(x^n, t^n)$ by $h^n(x^n)$ for $x^n\in(a^n, b^n)$. However, it is more convenient to use a fixed domain variable
\begin{equation}
Z(x,t)=\frac{x-a(t)}{b(t)-a(t)}\in[0,1], \quad \text{ for any }x\in[a(t), b(t)],
\end{equation}
which is equivalent to
\begin{equation}\label{inverZ}
x(Z,t) = a(t) + (b(t)-a(t)) Z \in [a(t), b(t)], \quad \text{ for } Z \in [0,1].
\end{equation}
Denote $U(Z,t):=h(x,t)$. We will first present the second order numeric algorithm in Section \ref{sec_2nd_scheme} and then we give the derivation of the second order scheme in Section \ref{sec-implicit} and Section \ref{sec_2nd_semiL}
based on the relation
\begin{equation}\label{Z-re}
Z= Z(x^{n+1}, t^{n+1})= Z(x^n, t^n)= Z(x^{n+\frac12}, t^{n+\frac12}).
\end{equation}
Here $t^{n+\frac12}:= (n+\frac12)\Delta t$ and $Z(x^{n+\frac12}, t^{n+\frac12}) = \frac{x^{n+\frac12}-a(t^{n+\frac12})}{b(t^{n+\frac12})-a(t^{n+\frac12})}$ with the independent variable $x^{n+\frac12}.$
\subsubsection{Second order predictor-corrector scheme and unconditional stability for explicit boundary update}\label{sec_2nd_scheme}
Now we present the second order scheme with continuous spatial variables.
Step 1. Predictor. Since we show in Section \ref{sec-implicit} that the nonlinear elliptic solver for motion by mean curvature requires second order accuracy, after updating $a^{n+1}, b^{n+1}$ by the first order scheme in Section \ref{sec-sim}, we replace the semi-implicit elliptic solver by an implicit nonlinear elliptic solver. Precisely, for the independent variable $x^{n+1}\in(a^{n+1},b^{n+1})$,
\begin{equation}\label{newton}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{\beta}{\sqrt{1+ (\partial_x h^{n+1})^2}} \frac{h^{n+1}(x^{n+1})-h^{n*}(x^{n+1})}{\Delta t}= { \frac{\partial_{xx} h^{n+1}}{\bbs{1+ (\partial_x h^{n+1})^2}^\frac32} }-\kappa (h^{n+1}\cos \theta_0 + x^{n+1}\sin \theta_0)+\lambda^{n+1}, &\\
h^{n+1}(a^{n+1})=w(a^{n+1}), \quad h^{n+1}(b^{n+1})=w(b^{n+1})&,\\
{ \int_{a^{n+1}}^{b^{n+1}} (h^{n+1}-w)(x^{n+1}) \,\mathrm{d} x^{n+1} = V,}&
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $h^{n*}(x^{n+1})$ is the first order intermediate profile given in \eqref{inter-u-0} and $V$ is the initial volume.
Denote the results as the predictor $\tilde{a}^{n+1}, \tilde{b}^{n+1}, \tilde{h}^{n+1}(\tilde{x}^{n+1})$ for $\tilde{x}^{n+1}\in [\tilde{a}^{n+1}, \tilde{b}^{n+1}]$. To solve \eqref{newton}, one can use standard Newton's iterative method.
Step 2. Explicit boundary update. Compute the one-side approximated derivative of $h^n$ at $b^n$ and $a^n$, denoted as $(\partial_x h^n)_N$ and $(\partial_x h^n)_0$. Then update
\begin{equation}\label{second-ab-move}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{a^{n+1}-a^n}{\Delta t}=\frac12\left\{ \sigma \sqrt{1+ (\partial_x w)_0^2}+ \sigma\sqrt{1+ (\partial_x \tilde{w})_0^2} +\frac{1+ (\partial_x h^n)_0(\partial_x w)_0 }{\sqrt{1+ (\partial_x h^n)_0^2}}+ \frac{1+ (\partial_x \tilde{h}^{n+1})_0(\partial_x \tilde{w})_0 }{\sqrt{1+ (\partial_x \tilde{h}^{n+1})_0^2}}\right\} ,\\
\frac{b^{n+1}-b^n}{\Delta t}=-\frac12\left\{ \sigma \sqrt{1+ (\partial_x w)_N^2}+ \sigma\sqrt{1+ (\partial_x \tilde{w})_N^2} +\frac{1+ (\partial_x h^n)_N(\partial_x w)_N }{\sqrt{1+ (\partial_x h^n)_N^2}}+ \frac{1+ (\partial_x \tilde{h}^{n+1})_N(\partial_x \tilde{w})_N }{\sqrt{1+ (\partial_x \tilde{h}^{n+1})_N^2}}\right\}
\\
{ \text{ with } (\partial_x w)_0:=\partial_x w(a^n),\,\, (\partial_x \tilde{w})_0:=\partial_x w(\tilde{a}^{n+1}),\,\, (\partial_x w)_N:=\partial_x w(b^n),\,\, (\partial_x \tilde{w})_N:=\partial_x w(\tilde{b}^{n+1}).}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Step 3.
Solve $h^{n+1}(x)$ semi-implicitly. With $h^{n+1}_0= w(a^{n+1}),\,\, h^{n+1}_N = w(b^{n+1}) $, for $x^{n+1}\in (a^{n+1}, b^{n+1}) $
\begin{align}\label{2nd-eq-r}
&\beta \frac{h^{n+1}(x^{n+1})-\tilde{h}^{n*}(x^{n+1})}{\Delta t}\frac12\left[\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+ (\partial_x h^{n})^2}}+ \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+ (\partial_x h^{n+1})^2}}\right]\\
=& \frac12 { \left(\frac{\partial_{xx} {h}^{n+1}}{ \bbs{1+ (\partial_x h^{n+1})^2}^\frac32} + \frac{\partial_{xx} h^n}{\bbs{1+ (\partial_x h^n)^2}^\frac32} \right) } -\frac{\kappa}{2} [(h^{n+1}+h^n) \cos \theta_0 +(x^n+x^{n+1}) \sin \theta_0 ] +\lambda^{n+\frac12},\nonumber\\
&\int_{a^{n+1}}^{b^{n+1}} (h^{n+1}-w)(x^{n+1}) \,\mathrm{d} x^{n+1} = V\nonumber,
\end{align}
where $\tilde{h}^{n*}$ is the second order intermediate solution defined in \eqref{con-star} later. Notice here the equality holds in the sense of changing variables to the fixed domain $Z=\frac{x-a(t)}{b(t)-a(t)}\in[0,1]$ and $x^{n+1}, x^n$ are related to $Z$ by
$Z= Z(x^{n+1}, t^{n+1})= Z(x^n, t^n)= Z(x^{n+\frac12}, t^{n+\frac12}).$
We will give detailed derivation for the choice of the second order intermediate solution $\tilde{h}^{n*}(x^{n+1})$ in Section \ref{sec_2nd_semiL}.
For convenience, we provide a pseudo-code for this scheme in Appendix \ref{code2-in}.
\subsubsection{Derivation of a second order scheme based on the predictor-corrector method for DAEs with an algebraic solver upto second order accuracy}\label{sec-implicit}
To design a second order scheme, we illustrate the idea using the predictor-corrector method for an analogous DAEs. Assume we have an exact DAEs
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\dot{b}= f(b, u), \quad
0=g(b,u),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where the second algebraic equation is equivalent to $u=G(b)$ for some function $G$.
However, in practice, one may not solve $u=G(b)$ exactly, which in our case, is to solve a nonlinear elliptic equation \eqref{newton}. Therefore, we design a predictor-corrector method to solve a DAEs with an algebraic solver upto second order accuracy.
Let $b^n, u^n$ be given such that $u^n=G(b^n)+O(\Delta t^2)$.
\\Step 1. Solve the predictor $\tilde{b}^{n+1}$ by forward Euler scheme
\begin{equation}
\frac{\tilde{b}^{n+1}-b^n}{\Delta t} = f(b^n, u^n).
\end{equation}
\\Step 2. Obtain the predictor $\tilde{u}^{n+1}$ by solving algebraic equation up to a second order accuracy
\begin{equation}
\tilde{u}^{n+1}= G(\tilde{b}^{n+1})+O(\Delta t^2).
\end{equation}
\\Step 3. Solve the corrector $b^{n+1}$ by the trapezoidal method
\begin{equation}\label{trape}
\frac{{b}^{n+1}-b^n}{\Delta t} = \frac12[f(b^n, u^n)+f(\tilde{b}^{n+1}, \tilde{u}^{n+1})].
\end{equation}
\\Step 4. Obtain the corrector $u^{n+1}$ by solving the algebraic equation up to a second order accuracy
\begin{equation}
{u}^{n+1}= G({b}^{n+1})+O(\Delta t^2).
\end{equation}
Indeed, we show the second order error estimate of this scheme below. Denote function $F(b):=f(b,G(b))=f(b, u)$. Then from \eqref{trape}, we have
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{{b}^{n+1}-b^n}{\Delta t} &= \frac12[f(b^n, u^n)+f(\tilde{b}^{n+1}, \tilde{u}^{n+1})]\\
&=\frac12[f(b^n, G(b^n))+ f(\tilde{b}^{n+1}, G(\tilde{b}^{n+1}))]+ O(\Delta t^2)\\
&=\frac{1}{2} [F(b^n)+ F(\tilde{b}^{n+1})]+O(\Delta t^2),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
which gives the second order accuracy for $b^{n+1}$ and thus $u^{n+1}$.
\subsubsection{Derivation of the second order accuracy for the semi-Lagrangian term $\tilde{h}^{n*}(x^{n+1})$}\label{sec_2nd_semiL}
Now we derive the second order scheme based on \eqref{Z-re}. Notice the spatial grids are moving along time. We need to map grids at different time back to the same fixed domain $Z\in[0,1]$ based on \eqref{Z-re}. Furthermore, to achieve second order accuracy, we apply midpoint scheme and define
\begin{equation}\label{def12}
a^{n+\frac12}:= \frac{a^n+a^{n+1}}{2}, \quad b^{n+\frac12}= \frac{b^n+ b^{n+1}}{2}.
\end{equation}
We illustrate the second order accuracy for the following term involving time derivative, for independent variable $x^{n+\frac12}\in (a^{n+\frac12}, b^{n+ \frac12})$,
\begin{align}\label{tm_I3}
\partial_t h(x^{n+\frac12}, t^{n+\frac12}) &= \partial_t U(Z, t^{n+\frac12}) + \partial_Z U(Z, t^{n+\frac12}) \partial_t Z(x^{n+\frac12}, t^{n+\frac12}) \\
&=:I_1(x^{n+\frac12}, t^{n+\frac12})+ I_2(x^{n+\frac12}, t^{n+\frac12})I_3(x^{n+\frac12}, t^{n+\frac12}).
\end{align}
Below, we approximate $I_1, I_2, I_3$ upto second order accuracy.
First, notice $Z(x,t)$ at different time is related by \eqref{Z-re}. Thus whenever we evaluate some quantity $U$ at different time, for instance at $t^{n+1}$, we mean $U(Z(x^{n+1}, t^{n+1}), t^{n+1})$. Recall $U(Z,t)=h(x,t)$. Therefore, by midpoint scheme, $I_1(x^{n+\frac12}, t^{n+\frac12})=\partial_t U(Z, t^{n+\frac12})$ can be approximated by
\begin{align*}
I_1(x^{n+\frac12}, t^{n+\frac12})= \frac{U(Z, t^{n+1})-U(Z, t^n)}{\Delta t}+ O(\Delta t^2) = \frac{h^{n+1}(x^{n+1})-h^n(x^n)}{\Delta t}+ O(\Delta t^2),
\end{align*}
where we use the numerical solution $h^{n+1}(x^{n+1})\approx h(x^{n+1}, t^{n+1})=U(Z, t^{n+1})$ and $h^n(x^n)$ is similar.
Here the equality holds in the sense of changing variables $x^n, x^{n+\frac12}, x^{n+1}$ to the fixed domain $Z=\frac{x-a(t)}{b(t)-a(t)}\in[0,1]$ and
$Z= Z(x^{n+1}, t^{n+1})= Z(x^n, t^n)= Z(x^{n+\frac12}, t^{n+\frac12}).$
Second,
by midpoint scheme, $I_2= \partial_Z U(Z, t^{n+\frac12})$ can be approximated by
\begin{align*}
I_2= \frac12 \partial_Z [U(Z, t^n)+ U(Z, t^{n+1})]+O(\Delta t^2).
\end{align*}
Recall the scheme in Section \ref{sec_2nd_scheme} use $\tilde{h}^{n+1}(\tilde{x}^{n+1})$ for $\tilde{x}^{n+1}\in [\tilde{a}^{n+1}, \tilde{b}^{n+1}]$ as predictor instead of the nonlinear unknown $h^{n+1}(x^{n+1})$.
From \eqref{accu23}, we have the $|\tilde{x}^{n+1}-x^{n+1}|=O(\Delta t^2)$, which enables us to replace the unknown term by the predictor. Then changing the intermediate variable $Z$ back to $x$ gives
\begin{align*}
I_2&= \frac12[ {\partial_x h^{n}(x^n)}(b^n-a^n) +{\partial_x\tilde{h}^{n+1}(\tilde{x}^{n+1})}(\tilde{b}^{n+1}-\tilde{a}^{n+1})] + O(\Delta t^2).
\end{align*}
Third, we turn to approximate $I_3$. Still by the midpoint scheme, the last term $I_3= \partial_t Z(x^{n+\frac12}, t^{n+\frac12})$ in \eqref{tm_I3} can be approximated by
\begin{align*}
I_3&= \frac{1}{\Delta t} \left( \frac{x^{n+\frac12}-a^{n+1}}{b^{n+1}-a^{n+1}} - \frac{x^{n+\frac12} - a^n}{b^n- a^n} \right) + O(\Delta t^2).
\end{align*}
Notice from \eqref{inverZ} and \eqref{def12}, we have
\begin{equation}
x^{n+\frac12}-a^{n+\frac12} = (b^{n+\frac12} - a^{n+\frac12}) Z = \frac12(b^n+b^{n+1} - a^{n+1}-a^n) Z,
\end{equation}
which is recast as
\begin{equation}\label{3.71}
x^{n+\frac12}-a^{n+\frac12}=\frac{1}{2}(b^{n+1}-a^{n+1} )( b^n -a^n) \left( \frac{1}{b^{n+1}-a^{n+1}} + \frac{1}{b^n - a^n} \right) Z, \quad Z\in[0,1].
\end{equation}
Notice also the relation
$a^{n+1}-a^{n+\frac12}= a^{n+\frac12}-a^n = \frac{a^{n+1}-a^n}{2}$.
Therefore, the last term $I_3= \partial_t Z(x^{n+\frac12}, t^{n+\frac12})$ in \eqref{tm_I3} can be approximated by
\begin{align*}
I_3&= \frac{1}{\Delta t} \left( \frac{x^{n+\frac12}-a^{n+1}}{b^{n+1}-a^{n+1}} - \frac{x^{n+\frac12} - a^n}{b^n- a^n} \right) + O(\Delta t^2)\\
&= \frac{x^{n+\frac12}- a^{n+\frac12}}{\Delta t} \left( \frac{1}{b^{n+1}-a^{n+1}} - \frac{1}{b^n - a^n} \right) - \frac{a^{n+1}-a^n}{2 \Delta t} \left( \frac{1}{b^{n+1}-a^{n+1}} + \frac{1}{b^n - a^n} \right)+ O(\Delta t^2)\\
&=- \frac1{2\Delta t} \left( \frac{1}{b^{n+1}-a^{n+1}} + \frac{1}{b^n - a^n} \right)\left[ (a^{n+1}-a^n) +Z(( b^{n+1}- a^{n+1})-(b^n-a^n) ) \right]+ O(\Delta t^2)\\
&=- \frac1{2\Delta t} \left( \frac{1}{b^{n+1}-a^{n+1}} + \frac{1}{b^n - a^n} \right)\left( x^{n+1}-x^n \right)+ O(\Delta t^2),
\end{align*}
where we used \eqref{3.71} in the third equality.
Therefore, we now define the intermediate variable
$\tilde{h}^{n*}(x^{n+1})$ such that
\begin{equation}
\partial_t h(x^{n+\frac12}, t^{n+\frac12}) = I_1+ I_2 I_3 = \frac{h^{n+1}(x^{n+1})-\tilde{h}^{n*}(x^{n+1})}{\Delta t}+ O(\Delta t^2).
\end{equation}
Using the approximated formulas for $I_1, I_2, I_3$ above, we propose the semi-Lagrangian term
\begin{equation}\label{con-star}
\begin{aligned}
\tilde{h}^{n*}(x^{n+1}):= h^n(x^n) &+ \frac{1}{4}\left( x^{n+1}-x^n \right)\cdot\\& \left[ \partial_x h^n(x^n) \left( 1+ \frac{b^n-a^n}{\tilde{b}^{n+1}-\tilde{a}^{n+1}} \right) +\partial_x \tilde{h}^{n+1}(\tilde{x}^{n+1}) \left( 1+ \frac{\tilde{b}^{n+1}-\tilde{a}^{n+1}}{b^n-a^n} \right)\right].
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
In summary, we have the second order approximation
\begin{equation}\label{inter-u-star}
\partial_t h (x^{n+\frac12}, t^{n+\frac12}) = \frac{h^{n+1}(x^{n+1})- \tilde{h}^{n*}(x^{n+1})}{\Delta t} + O(\Delta t^2).
\end{equation}
Since this is a key step in the numerical discretization, so we also
give the second order spatial discretization of $\tilde{h}^{n*}(x^{n+1})$ to see it has a similar form with \eqref{inter-u-0}. Denote spatial grid size $\tau^n=\frac{b^{n}-a^n}{N}$ and $\tau^{n+1}=\frac{b^{n+1}-a^{n+1}}{N}$.
Notice the second order spatial discretizations for $I_2, I_3$ are
\begin{align*}
I_2= \frac{N}{4} (h^{n}_{j+1}- h_{j-1}^n + \tilde{h}^{n+1}_{j+1}-\tilde{h}^{n+1}_{j-1}) + O(\Delta t^2 + \frac1{N^2}),\\
I_3= -\frac12 \left( \frac{1}{b^{n+1}-a^{n+1}} + \frac{1}{b^n - a^n} \right) \left[ (a^{n+1}-a^n) + j(h^{n+1}-h^n) \right] + O(\Delta t^2).
\end{align*}
Define the second order spatial discretization
\begin{equation}\label{tm376}
\begin{aligned}
\tilde{h}^{n*}(x^{n+1}_j):= h^n(x_j^n) + \frac{1}{8} \left( \frac{1}{\tau^{n+1}} + \frac{1}{\tau^{n}} \right) (h^{n}_{j+1}- h_{j-1}^n + \tilde{h}^{n+1}_{j+1}-\tilde{h}^{n+1}_{j-1}) \left[ (a^{n+1}-a^n) + j(\tau^{n+1}-\tau^n) \right].
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Second order truncation error estimates for the predictor-corrector method}
The strategy of the second order truncation error estimates is the same as that of Lemma \ref{first-lem1}. Namely, we notice that in a fixed domain in terms of $Z\in[0,1]$ the predictor-corrector method gives us a second order scheme and then we prove the mapping from $Z$ to $x^{n+1}$ keeps the second order accuracy. For completeness, we put the proof of Lemma \ref{second-lem1} in Appendix \ref{appA}.
\begin{lem}\label{second-lem1}
{ Assume $a(t), b(t)\in C^3([t^n,t^{n+1}])$ and $h(x,t)\in C_{x,t}^{6,3}([a(t), b(t)]\times [t^n,t^{n+1}])$ be the exact solution to \eqref{wet-eq-r}} with initial data at $t=t^n$, $a^n, b^n, h^n(x^n)$ for $x^n\in[a^n, b^n]$. Let $\tilde{a}^{n+1}, \tilde{b}^{n+1}$ be the predictor obtained by \eqref{end_a} and $\tilde{h}^{n+1}(\tilde{x}^{n+1})=\tilde{U}^{n+1}(Z)$ for $\tilde{x}^{n+1}\in [\tilde{a}^{n+1}, \tilde{b}^{n+1}]$ be the predictor obtained by \eqref{newton}. Then we have the second order truncation error estimates
\begin{equation}\label{second-abn}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{a(t^{n+1})-a^n}{\Delta t}=&\frac12\Big\{ \sigma \sqrt{1+ (\partial_x w)_0^2}+ \sigma\sqrt{1+ (\partial_x \tilde{w})_0^2} \\
&+\frac{1+ (\partial_x h^n)_0(\partial_x w)_0 }{\sqrt{1+ (\partial_x h^n)_0^2}}+ \frac{1+ (\partial_x \tilde{h}^{n+1})_0(\partial_x \tilde{w})_0 }{\sqrt{1+ (\partial_x \tilde{h}^{n+1})_0^2}}\Big\}+ O(\Delta t^2) ,\\
\frac{b(t^{n+1})-b^n}{\Delta t}=&-\frac12\Big\{ \sigma \sqrt{1+ (\partial_x w)_N^2}+ \sigma\sqrt{1+ (\partial_x \tilde{w})_N^2} \\
&+\frac{1+ (\partial_x h^n)_N(\partial_x w)_N }{\sqrt{1+ (\partial_x h^n)_N^2}}+ \frac{1+ (\partial_x \tilde{h}^{n+1})_N(\partial_x \tilde{w})_N }{\sqrt{1+ (\partial_x \tilde{h}^{n+1})_N^2}}\Big\} + O(\Delta t^2),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where { $ (\partial_x w)_0:=\partial_x w(a^n),\,\, (\partial_x \tilde{w})_0:=\partial_x w(\tilde{a}^{n+1}),\,\, (\partial_x w)_N:=\partial_x w(b^n),\,\, (\partial_x \tilde{w})_N:=\partial_x w(\tilde{b}^{n+1})$} and
\begin{align}\label{second-hn}
\beta \frac{h(t^{n+1})-h^{n*}}{\Delta t}\frac12&\left[\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+ (\partial_x h^{n})^2}}+ \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+ (\partial_x {h}^{n+1})^2}}\right]=\frac12 \left(\frac{\partial_{xx} {h}^{n+1}}{\bbs{1+ (\partial_x {h}^{n+1})^2}^\frac32} + \frac{\partial_{xx} h^n}{\bbs{1+ (\partial_x h^n)^2}^\frac32} \right)\\
&-\frac{\kappa}{2} [(h^{n+1}+h^n) \cos \theta_0 +(x^n+x^{n+1}) \sin \theta_0 ] +\lambda^{n+1}+ O(\Delta t^2),\nonumber
\end{align}
with $h^{n*}$ defined in \eqref{con-star}.
\end{lem}
\section{Validations and computations}\label{sec4}
In this section, we will first use the DAEs solution for the quasi-static dynamics to check the second order accuracy of the numerical schemes proposed in the last section. Then we design several challenging and important examples: (i) a periodic breathing droplet with a closed formula solution and a long-time computational validation; (ii) dynamics of a droplet on an inclined rough surface and in a ``Utah teapot"; (iii) Kelvin pendant droplet with repeated bulges and the corresponding desingularized DAEs solver for quasi-static dynamics based on horizontal graph representation.
\subsection{Desingularized DAEs formula and accuracy check for the quasi-static dynamics }
In this section, we will first derive the DAEs for the quasi-static dynamics using a desingularized formula. Then we give an accuracy check for the case $w(x)=0$ and $\theta_0=0$ using the corresponding quasi-static solutions, which can be obtained using the desingularized DAEs solver.
\subsubsection{DAEs description of the quasi-static dynamics}\label{sec4.2.1}
Given volume $V$, assume $w(x)=0$ and $\theta_0=0$. If we assume quasi-static condition $\beta=0$ in \eqref{wet-eq-r}, the quasi-static droplet profile $u$ for any fixed $t$
satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{u-quasi}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial }{\partial x}\left( \frac{\partial_x u}{\sqrt{1+ (\partial_x u)^2}} \right)-\kappa u+ \lambda(t)=0 , \quad a(t) < x< b(t),\\
\int_{a(t)}^{b(t)} u(x,t) \,\mathrm{d} x = V,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
with boundary condition $u(a(t), t)= u(b(t),t)=0.$ Multiplying \eqref{u-quasi} by $u$ and integration by parts give immediately that $\kappa>0$ implies $\lambda>0.$
In this subsection, we will derive the following DAEs for $b(t), \lambda(t), u_m(t)$ in three steps, which completely describes the quasi-static motion
\begin{equation}\label{DAEwet}
\begin{aligned}
b'(t) =- \sigma- \frac{\kappa u_{m}^2(t)}{2}+ \lambda(t) u_m(t)- 1,\\
u_mb - \frac{V}{2}= \sqrt{2}\int_0 ^{u_m} \sqrt{\frac{u_m-u}{2\lambda - {\kappa}(u_m + u)}} \frac{J(u)}{\sqrt{1+J(u)}} \,\mathrm{d} u,\\
b=\sqrt{2} \int_0^{u_m} \frac{1}{\sqrt{u_m-u}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\lambda - {\kappa}(u_m + u)}} \frac{J(u)}{\sqrt{1+J(u)}} \,\mathrm{d} u,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $u_m(t)$ is the maximal point of $u(x,t)$ . Here $J(u)$ is the shorthand notation for the function $J(u, \theta)=-\frac{\kappa (u^2-u_m^2)}{2} + \lambda (u- u_m)+1$, where $\cos \theta$ is solved from \eqref{jmn}.
{ Recall $\theta$ is the contact angle such that
$\tan \theta = - \partial_x u |_b.$ Thus we have \eqref{cos} and from \eqref{jmn} the boundary condition in \eqref{quasi-eq} becomes
$$b'= -\sigma-\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+(\partial_x u)^2|_b}}= -\sigma-\cos \theta = - \sigma- \frac{\kappa u_{m}^2(t)}{2}+ \lambda(t) u_m(t)- 1$$
Then
from Lemma \ref{lem_re}, the first equation in \eqref{DAEwet} comes from the first equation in \eqref{rel_n}. }
The second equation is combination of the second and third equation in \eqref{rel_n},
\begin{equation} \label{desin00}
\begin{aligned}
u_m b - \frac{V}{2}
=& \int_0 ^{u_m} (u-u_m) \frac{-J(u)}{\sqrt{1-J(u)^2}} \,\mathrm{d} u\\
=& \sqrt{2}\int_0 ^{u_m} \sqrt{\frac{u_m-u}{2\lambda - {\kappa}(u_m + u)}} \frac{J(u)}{\sqrt{1+J(u)}} \,\mathrm{d} u.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
On the other hand, to desingularize $X_u$ in the numerical implementation, denote $\psi:=\sqrt{u_m -u}$. Then we have
\begin{equation}
J(u)=1-[ \lambda-(2u_m -\psi^2) \frac{\kappa}{2}]\psi^2.
\end{equation}
{ Recall \eqref{ym000} and particularly in the case $u_{xx}(0)<0$, we have
$$\frac{u_{xx}}{\sqrt{1+u_x^2}^3} \Big|_{x=0} = \partial_x \bbs{\frac{u_x}{\sqrt{1+u_x^2}}}\Big|_{x=0}= \kappa u_m -\lambda <0.$$ }
Thus one can check
\begin{align*}
\frac{\,\mathrm{d} \psi}{\,\mathrm{d} x}= \frac{1}{2\psi} \frac{\sqrt{1-J(u)^2}}{J}= \frac{1}{2\psi} \frac{\sqrt{1-J(u)}\sqrt{1+J(u)}}{J}
=\frac{\sqrt{2 \lambda-\kappa(2u_m-\psi^2)}}{2\sqrt{2}}\frac{\sqrt{1+J(u)}}{J(u)}>0
\end{align*}
for all $0\leq x \leq b.$
Therefore there is no singularity for $\frac{\,\mathrm{d} X}{\,\mathrm{d} \psi}$.
Integrating $\frac{\,\mathrm{d} X}{\,\mathrm{d} \psi}$ for $x$ from $0$ to $b$ while $\psi$ from $0$ to $\sqrt{u_m}$, we have
\begin{align}\label{alg}
b=&\int_0^{\sqrt{u_m}} \frac{2 \sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{2\lambda-\kappa(u_m+u)}}\frac{J(u)}{\sqrt{1+J(u)}} \,\mathrm{d} \psi,
\end{align}
which yields the third equation in \eqref{DAEwet}.
However, to implement this singular integral we need to cluster more points at the singular point near $u_m$, so we use the desingularized midpoint rule suggested by $\psi=\sqrt{u_m-u}$. Let $\tau=\frac{\sqrt{u_m}}{N}$, $\psi_{i+\frac12}:=(i+\frac12)\tau$ and $u_{i+\frac12}:= u_m-\psi_{i+\frac12}^2$. Then \eqref{alg} can be approximated by
\begin{equation}\label{desin-dis}
b\approx 2\sqrt{2} \sum_{i=0}^{N-1} \frac{\tau}{\sqrt{2\lambda - {\kappa}(u_m + u_{i+\frac12})}} \frac{J(u_{i+\frac12})}{\sqrt{1+J(u_{i+\frac12})}}.
\end{equation}
With the desingularized formula \eqref{desin-dis}, there is no singularity in the DAEs \eqref{DAEwet} for $b(t), \lambda(t), u_m(t)$, so it can be solved efficiently and accurately by any ODE solver such as \textit{ode15s} in Matlab, whose results will be used to check the accuracy for our PDE solvers. Furthermore, we can solve the capillary surface
$X(u, t)$ by the integral formula \eqref{intg}.
Finally, we give the
equilibrium solution for DAEs \eqref{DAEwet}. Taking $b'(t)=0$ in \eqref{DAEwet}, we have the algebraic equation
\begin{equation}\label{ag1}
-\frac{\kappa u_{m}^2(t)}{2}+ \lambda(t) u_m(t)= \sigma+ 1
\end{equation}
and can solve uniquely the steady solution $(b, u_m, \lambda)$.
\subsubsection{Accuracy check between DAEs and 1st/2nd order PDE solvers}
We first use the DAEs solver \textit{ode15s} in Matlab to solve DAEs \eqref{DAEwet}
with the initial data
\begin{equation}
\theta_{in} = \frac{1.3\pi}{8}, \quad u_m(0)=1.
\end{equation}
With $u_m(0)=1$, we start the DAEs by first solving the compatible initial data $b(0)$ and $\lambda(0)$ from \eqref{DAEwet}.
The physical parameters in DAEs \eqref{DAEwet} are
\begin{equation}
{ \kappa = 0.1}, \quad \sigma= - \cos(\theta_f),
\end{equation}
where $\theta_f=\frac{3.9\pi}{8}$ is the Young's angle.
The final time in \textit{ode15s} is $T=1$. We obtain { $b(0)=4.532141803665366$, $b(1)=3.747880231652922$.}
Compared with the DAEs solution, we show below the accuracy check for the first order scheme in Section \ref{sec-1st-scheme} and the second order scheme in Section \ref{sec3.2} in Table \ref{table_1st}. The absolute error in \textit{ode15s} is set to be $10^{-13}$, which is smaller than the absolute error in the accuracy check Table \ref{table_1st}. The residual tolerance in Newton's iteration in the second order scheme is set to be $10^{-12}$. We use the same parameters $\beta=0,$ { $\kappa=0.1$}, initial angle $\theta_{in}=\frac{1.3\pi}{8}$, final Young's angle $\theta_Y=\frac{3.9\pi}{8}$, final time $T=1$, the initial boundary $b(0)=4.532141803665366$ and { choose the same initial spherical cap droplet $u(x,0) = - R_0 \cos\theta_{in} + \sqrt{R_0^2-x^2}, \, R_0 :=\frac{b(0)}{\sin \theta_{in}} $} in the first/second order schemes. For several $M_n$ listed in the tables, we take time step as $\Delta t= \frac{T}{M_n}$ and moving grid size $\Delta x= \frac{b(t)-a(t)}{N_n}$ with $N_n=8M_n$. The absolute error $e_n$ between numeric solutions and the DAEs solution $b(1)=3.747880231652922$ is listed in the second column of the tables.
The corresponding order of accuracy $\alpha = \frac{\ln(e_n/e_{n+1})}{\ln(M_{n+1}/M_{n})}$ is listed in the last column of the tables.
\begin{table}[ht]
\caption{Accuracy check: 1st/2nd order schemes in Section \ref{sec-1st-scheme} v.s. exact quasi-static solution to \eqref{DAEwet} using \textit{ode15s}. Parameters: $T=1$, $\kappa=0.1$, $\theta_Y=\frac{3.9\pi}{8}$, $\theta(0)=\frac{1.3\pi}{8}$, $b(0)=3.832203449327490$, time step $\Delta t= \frac{T}{M}$, $M$ listed on the table, moving grid size $\Delta x= \frac{b(t)-a(t)}{N}$, $N=8M$. Absolute errors $e_n$ are computed by comparing with $b(1)=3.747880231652922$.}\label{table_1st}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\, & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{1st order scheme} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{2nd order scheme} \\
\hline
M & Error at $T=1$ & Order of accuracy & Error at $T=1$ & Order of accuracy \\
\hline \hline
$40$ & $e_1=\num{1.528E-3}$ & \,& $e_1=\num{1.799E-5}$ & \\
$80$ & $e_2=\num{7.613E-4}$ &1.0052 & $e_2=\num{4.623E-6}$ &1.9606\\
$160$ & $e_3=\num{3.799E-4}$ &1.0029 & $e_3=\num{1.173E-5}$ &1.9792\\
$320$ & $e_4=\num{1.897E-4}$ &1.0015 & $e_4=\num{2.963E-7}$ &1.9845\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection{Breathing droplet: closed formula and long-time validation}\label{sec4.3}
In this section, we construct a breathing droplet solution motivated by the spherical cap closed-form solution and use this example to demonstrate a long time validity of our numerical schemes in Section \ref{sec3}.
Denote the mean curvature of the capillary surface $u$ in the direction of outer normal as $H$, which is given by $H= -\nabla \cdot\left( \frac{\nabla u}{\sqrt{1+|\nabla u|^2}} \right)$ in the graph representation. Here $u$ is the piecewise graph representation of capillary surface.
When $\kappa=0$, the governing equation for the quasi-static dynamics becomes $H=\lambda$, where $\lambda$ is a function of $t$. This means the quasi-static profile has constant mean curvature $\lambda(t)$ everywhere on the capillary surface. Assume the initial droplet has the wetting domain $\{x\in \mathbb{R}^{d-1}; \,|x|\leq b(0)\}$. Due to the rotation invariance for both equation and initial wetting domain, the solution will remain axially symmetric, denoted as $u(r,t)$. As a consequence, the quasi-static profile is a spherical cap, whose center may be above the ground.
To describe this spherical cap solution, we denote the height of the center as $u^*(t)\in \mathbb{R}$.
Furthermore, notice the mean curvature of a $d$-dimensional ball is $H=\frac{d-1}{R}$, where $R$ is the radius of the spherical cap.
Consider the partially wetting case in 3D when the droplet is represented by the single graph function $u(r,t)$, $0\leq r \leq b(t)$.
Using $H= -\nabla \cdot\left( \frac{\nabla u}{\sqrt{1+|\nabla u|^2}} \right)= - \frac{1}{r} \partial_r \left( \frac{r \partial_r u}{\sqrt{1+ (\partial_r u)^2}} \right)=\lambda(t)=\frac{2}{R(t)}$, we can solve
\begin{equation}
u_m(t) - u(r,t) = \frac{2}{\lambda(t)} \left(1-\sqrt{1-\left(\frac{\lambda(t)r}{2}\right)^2}\right).
\end{equation}
Then $u^*(t)=\frac{2}{\lambda(t)}-u_m(t)$ and we have
\begin{equation}\label{cap}
(u(r,t)-u^*(t))^2 + r^2 = R(t)^2.
\end{equation}
For a droplet in the non-wetting case, the capillary surface can not be expressed uniquely by the graph of a function $u(r)$.
In the non-wetting case, in which the center $u^*(t)$ is above the ground, one shall use two graph representation (with same notations) for $0\leq u\leq u^*(t)$ and $u^*(t)\leq u\leq u_m$ respectively; see also the horizontal graph representation in Section \ref{sec4.4}. The spherical cap formula \eqref{cap} holds true for these two pieces.
Recall the contact angle $\theta$ such as $\tan \theta = - \partial_r u|_{r=b}$.
Then by elementary calculation we obtain the classical spherical cap volume formula in 3D
\begin{equation}\label{re-b-3}
\frac{V}{b^3}= \frac{\pi}{3\sin^3 \theta} (2-3 \cos \theta+ \cos^3 \theta)
\end{equation}
and
in 2D, the formula becomes
\begin{equation}\label{vol2d}
\frac{V}{X(0)^2}= \frac{\theta}{\sin^2 \theta}-\frac{ \cos \theta}{\sin \theta}.
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{ Construct an exact breathing droplet solution and compare with numerical simulations}
Motivated by the spherical cap solution, to check the long-time validation, we construct a breathing spherical cap solution with a prescribed oscillating contact angle $\theta(t)$ satisfying
\begin{equation}\label{breathing0}
\begin{aligned}
\beta \frac{\partial_t u(x,t)}{\sqrt{1+ (\partial_x u)^2}}= \frac{\partial }{\partial x}\left( \frac{\partial_x u}{\sqrt{1+ (\partial_x u)^2}} \right)-\kappa(t) u+\lambda(t), \quad x\in(-b(t),b(t)),\\
b'(t)= -\sigma(t)-\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+(\partial_x u)^2}},\quad x=b(t),\\
\int_{-b(t)}^{b(t)} u(x,t) \,\mathrm{d} x = V,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where the parameters $\kappa(t), \sigma(t)$ are determined below.
Now we proceed to derive the formulas $\kappa(t), \sigma(t)$ for this breathing droplet.
Given $\theta(t)$ with oscillations, we will first calculate $u(x,t)$ and $b(t)$ from the spherical cap formula and then find $\kappa(t)$ and $\sigma(t)$ such that the PDE \eqref{breathing0} holds with the Lagrangian multiplier $\lambda(t)$.
Step 1. Given the initial data $\theta(0)$ and $b(0)$. Calculate volume $V$ from \eqref{vol2d}.
Step 2. Calculate $u(x,t)$ and $b(t)$. From the spherical cap formula \eqref{vol2d}
\begin{equation}
b(t) =\sin\theta(t) \sqrt{\frac{2V}{2\theta(t)-\sin(2\theta(t))}},
\end{equation}
and from $R(t)=\frac{b(t)}{\sin\theta(t)}=\sqrt{\frac{2V}{2\theta(t)-\sin(2\theta(t))}}, \,R(t)-u_m(t)= R \cos \theta(t)$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{cap_u}
u(x,t) = - R(t) \cos\theta(t) + \sqrt{R(t)^2-x^2}, \quad x\in(-b(t), b(t)).
\end{equation}
This construction automatically preserves the volume $V$ and by elementary calculations, we know the following relations
\begin{equation}\label{rrr}
u_x = \frac{-x}{\sqrt{R(t)^2 - x^2}},\quad \sqrt{1+(u_x)^2} = \frac{R(t)}{\sqrt{R(t)^2-x^2}}, \quad \frac{u_x}{\sqrt{1+u_x^2}} = \frac{-x}{R(t)},\quad \frac{R'}{R} = -\frac{b^2}{V} \theta'.
\end{equation}
Step 3. We find $\kappa(t), \sigma(t)$ and $\lambda(t)$ such that \eqref{breathing0} holds.
From the \eqref{rrr}, upto some elementary calculations, we have
\begin{equation}\label{dkappa}
\begin{aligned}
\kappa(t) = -\beta\theta'(t)\left(\frac{b(t)^2}{V}\cos\theta(t)+\sin \theta(t)\right),\\
\lambda(t)=\beta b(t) \theta' \left(-\frac{b(t)^2}{V}\sin\theta(t) + \cos\theta(t)\right)+ \frac{\sin\theta(t)}{b(t)},\\
\sigma(t) =b(t) \theta'(t)(\frac{b(t)^2}{V}-\cot\theta(t))- \cos\theta(t).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Particularly, for the quasi-static case $\beta=0$, we have
\begin{equation}
\kappa(t)=0,\quad \lambda(t) = \frac{\sin\theta(t)}{b(t)}=\frac{1}{R(t)}.
\end{equation}
The constructed breathing droplet solution can be easily extended to 3D case using \eqref{re-b-3}.
Let the oscillating contact angle be $\theta(t)=\theta_{in}+ A \sin t$, with $\theta_{in}=\frac{3\pi}{16},\, A=0.2$. Now we show the evolution of breathing droplet and the periodic recurrence for $[0,30\pi]$. The dynamics of the breathing droplet in Fig. \ref{fig:breath} is computed by the first order scheme in Section \ref{sec-1st-scheme} with $\kappa(t)$, $\sigma(t)$ in \eqref{dkappa} and with initial wetting domain $[-3,3]$ and initial profile calculated by \eqref{cap_u} for $t=0$. The parameters in the PDE solver are $\beta=0.1$, final time $T=30\pi$, time step $\Delta t = \frac{T}{1500}=0.0628,$ $N=1000$ for moving grids in $(a(t), b(t))$. { The exact solution at $T=29\pi$ based on \eqref{cap_u} is also shown with dotted orange line in the lower left part of Fig. \ref{fig:breath} as a comparison.}
\begin{figure}
\caption{Evolution of the breathing droplet and its periodic recurrence for $[0,30\pi]$. Computed by the first order scheme in Section \ref{sec-1st-scheme} with $\kappa(t)$ and $\sigma(t)$ in \eqref{dkappa} and oscillating contact angle $\theta(t)=\theta_{in}+ A \sin t$, with $\theta_{in}=\frac{3\pi}{16},\, A=0.2$. The parameters in the PDE solver are $\beta=0.1$, $T=30\pi$, $\Delta t =0.0628,$ $N=1000$ for moving grids, initial domain $[-3,3]$ and initial $u(x,0)$ calculated by \eqref{cap_u}. Each subfigure shows the breathing droplet at time snapshots $[0, \frac{\pi}{2}, \pi, \frac{3\pi}{2}]$ and the recurrence after $15$ periods. Exact solution at $29\pi$ is shown using dotted orange line as comparison. }\label{fig:breath}
\includegraphics[scale=0.57]
{breath_new_3_1.pdf}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Capillary motion of a droplet in a Utah teapot}
The Utah teapot is an important object in computer graphics history, whose 2D cross section can be completely described by several cubic B\'ezier curves \cite{bohm1984survey}. In this section, we will use the bottom and the mouth of the Utah teapot as the inclined substrate to demonstrate the competition between the gravitational effect and capillary effect for droplets with small Bond number.
We use four points $(x_i, y_i)$, $i=1, \cdots, 4$ to construct a cubic B\'ezier curve $(x(\ell), y(\ell))$ with parameter $\ell\in[0,1]$. Denote the Bernstein basis polynomials as
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
&B_1(\ell)=(1-\ell)^3,\quad B_2(\ell)= 3(1-\ell)^2\ell, \quad B_3(\ell)= 3(1-\ell)\ell^2, \quad B_4(\ell)= \ell^3.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Then the cubic B\'ezier curve is uniquely given by
\begin{equation}\label{para}
x(\ell) = \sum_{i=1}^4 B_i(\ell) x_i,\quad y(\ell) = \sum_{i=1}^4 B_i(\ell) y_i.
\end{equation}
Now we construct the bottom and the mouth of the Utah teapot using $10$ points $x_i, y_i$, $i=1, \cdots, 10$ listed in Table \ref{table2}.
\begin{table}
\caption{Ten points used in B\'ezier curve fitting of geometry of the Utah teapot}\label{table2}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$i$ & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 9 & 10 \\
\hline
$x_i$ & -2 & $-\frac43$ & $-\frac23$ & 0 & $\frac23$ & $\frac43$ & 2 & $2.655$ & 2.846 & 4 \\
\hline
$y_i$ & 0.78 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0.78 & $1.142$ & 2.146 & 2.5 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
For the bottom of the teapot, we use $(x_i, y_i)$ for $i=1, \cdots, 4$ and $(x_i, y_i)$ for $i=4, \cdots, 7$. For the mouth of the teapot, we use $(x_i, y_i)$ for $i=7, \cdots, 10$. Notice the inclined rough substrate is now expressed by parametric curve \eqref{para}. Let $\ell(x)$ be the inverse function of $x(\ell)$, then $w(x)=y(\ell(x))$ and $\theta_0=0$ in \eqref{wet-eq-r}, { which means we do not rotate the Cartesian coordinate system.} To evaluate function $w$ at endpoint $a$ in the numerical implementation, one can use linear interpolation $a=(1-\alpha)x(\ell_i)+ \alpha x(\ell_{i+1})$ for some $\alpha\in[0,1].$
Now we take the physical parameters as $\kappa=5, \, \beta=3$ and the initial droplet as
\begin{equation}\label{h0_tea}
h(x,0)=5.2(x-a(0))(b(0)-x)+w(a(0))+\frac{[w(b(0))-w(a(0))](x-a(0))}{b(0)-a(0)}
\end{equation}
with initial endpoints $a(0)=2.4, b(0)=2.9$. The corresponding effective Bond number can be calculated by \eqref{bo_in} with an approximated effective inclined angle $0.226\pi$, $\Bo=0.1312$. In the second order scheme, we use $N=600$ moving grid points distributed uniformly in $(a(t), b(t))$. Different capillary motions corresponding to the relative adhesion coefficients $\sigma=-0.8$ and $\sigma=-0.6$ are shown in the upper and lower part of Fig. \ref{fig_teapot}, respectively. With time step $\Delta t = 0.002$, we take final time as $T=16$ for the rolling down case ($\sigma=-0.8$) while we take final time as $T=6$ for the rising up case ($\sigma=-0.6$). In Fig. \ref{fig_teapot}, the dotted blue line is the initial droplet, red lines are the evolution of the droplet at equal time intervals, and the solid blue line is the final droplet at $T.$
To see clearly the instantaneous contact angle dynamics, we also track the contact angle at $a(t)$ and $b(t)$ for both the rolling down case (left subfigure) and the rising up case (right subfigure) in Fig. \ref{fig_teapot_angle_f} associated with droplets dynamics in the teapot. Those contact angles vary as the effective slope of the mouth of the teapot changes, and then tend to the equilibrium Young's angle $\theta_Y$. Particularly, two cusps occur for the rolling down case (left subfigure) in Fig. \ref{fig_teapot_angle_f} when the advancing (resp. receding) contact line $a(t)$ (resp. $b(t)$) pass through the corner between the mouth and the body of the Utah teapot. The red line is the dynamics of the contact angle $\theta_a$ at $a(t)$ while the blue line is the dynamics of the contact angle $\theta_b$ at $b(t)$. One can see at the late stage, the sign of both $a'(t)=\frac{1}{\cos \theta_{0a}}( \cos \theta_a-\cos \theta_Y)$ and $b'(t)=-\frac{1}{\cos \theta_{0b}}( \cos \theta_b-\cos \theta_Y)$ are negative (resp. positive) for the rolling down case (resp. rising up case).
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.38]{tea_fall_3_evl_n.pdf}
\includegraphics[scale=0.38]{tea_rise_3_evl_n.pdf}
\caption{Evolution of a partially wetting droplet in the Utah teapot at equal time intervals using the second order time-space scheme in Section \ref{sec_2nd_scheme}. Parameters: number of moving grids $N=600$, time step $\Delta t = 0.002$, $\kappa=5, \, \beta=3$, Bond number $\Bo=0.1312$, initial drop profile given in \eqref{h0_tea} with $a(0)=2.4, b(0)=2.9$. (upper) Gravity wins: relative adhesion coefficient $\sigma=-0.8$ and final time $T=16$; (lower) capillary rise: relative adhesion coefficient $\sigma=-0.6$ and final time $T=6$.}\label{fig_teapot}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=8.1cm]{tea_fall_3_angle16_n.pdf} \includegraphics[width=8.1cm]{tea_rise_3_angle6_n.pdf}
\caption{The contact angle dynamics for the associated droplets dynamics in Fig \ref{fig_teapot}. (Left) Evolution of contact angles for $t\in[0,16]$ for the rolling down case with $\sigma=-0.8$; two cusps when the advancing (resp. receding) contact line $a(t)$ (resp. $b(t)$) passing through the corner between the mouth and the body of the teapot. (Right) Evolution of contact angles for $t\in[0,6]$ for the rising up case with $\sigma=-0.6$.}\label{fig_teapot_angle_f}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Dynamics of droplets on an inclined groove-textured surface}
In this section, we show the contact angle hysteresis (CAH) for a droplet on an inclined rough surface. Gravity will pull the droplet down while CAH will resist its motion. Therefore, one will observe the top of the droplet becomes thin while the bottom of it becomes thick. Besides, the contact line speeds depend on both the instantaneous contact angle $\theta_a, \theta_b$ and the local slope of the rough surface $\theta_{0a}, \theta_{0b}$ (in \eqref{wet-eq-r}), which changes constantly due to the boundary motion. Consequently, one can observe the contact line speed will change accordingly.
To demonstrate those phenomena, we take the inclined angle $\theta_0=0.3$ and a typical groove-textured surface
\begin{align}
w(x)=A(\sin(kx)+\sin(kx/2)+\cos(2kx)),\, A=0.1,\, k=5.\label{w2_r}
\end{align}
We take the physical parameters as $\kappa=0.3, \, \beta=0.3$, relative adhesion coefficient $\sigma=-0.95$ and initial droplet as
\begin{equation}\label{h0_r1}
h(x,0)=0.08(x-a(0))(b(0)-x)(x^2+3x/2+1)+w(a(0))+\frac{[w(b(0))-w(a(0))](x-a(0))}{b(0)-a(0)}
\end{equation}
with initial endpoints $a(0)=-3,\, b(0)=3$. The corresponding effective Bond number can be calculated by \eqref{bo_in} with $\theta_0=0.3$. The evolution of the partially wetting droplet is computed by the second order scheme in Section \ref{sec_2nd_scheme}. We take final time as $T=96$ with time step $\Delta t = 0.08$ and use $N=1000$ moving grids uniformly in $(a(t), b(t))$. We show in Fig. \ref{fig_r1r2} droplet on rough surface $w(x)$ in \eqref{w2_r}. The green line is the initial droplet, red lines are the evolution of the droplet at equal time intervals, and the blue line is the final droplet at $T=96.$
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.33]{rough_lower.pdf}
\caption{Evolution of a partially wetting droplet on an inclined rough surface at equal time intervals using the second order time-space scheme in Section \ref{sec_2nd_scheme}. Parameters: $\kappa=0.3, \, \beta=0.3$, number of moving grids $N=1000$, time step $\Delta t = 0.08$, initial drop profile $h(x,t)$ in \eqref{h0_r1} with initial endpoints $a(0)=-3, b(0)=3$, final time $T=96$, relative adhesion coefficient $\sigma=-0.95$, inclined effective angle $\theta_0=0.3$. Contact angle hysteresis happens on rough surface \eqref{w2_r}. }\label{fig_r1r2}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Quasi-static dynamics of Kelvin pendant drop with volume constraint }\label{sec4.4}
In 1886, Lord Kelvin proposed a geometric integration procedure that the quasistatic profile remains no long graph representation and becomes ``repeated bulges" when the height of the pendant drop exceeds a critical height $u_c$. In this section, we compute the Kelvin pendant drop problem with volume constraint for $\kappa<0$, which is not covered in Proposition \ref{pertur_pf0}. For the cases without volume constraint, we refer to \cite{ pozrikidis_stability_2012}; see also \cite{Finn_Shinbrot_1988, Schulkes_1994} and references therein. To simulate the ``repeated bulges", which certainly break the vertical single graph representation setting, we will first describe the droplet using inverse function $X(u)$ (in horizontal graph setting) and give the gradient flow formulation in terms of $X(u)$. By solving the DAEs for $X(u)$ with $\kappa<0$, which describes the quasi-static dynamics of a pendant droplet, we will recover multiple interfacial shapes including lightbulb and hourglass shapes with different Bond numbers. We refer to \cite{pozrikidis_stability_2012} for simulations and stability analysis of a liquid drop in hydrostatic states.
For the case the capillary surface can not be expressed uniquely by the graph function $u(x)$, we use a horizontal graph setting $X(u)$. {
From \cite[Theorem 1.1]{wente1980symmetry}, for the quasi-static dynamics of a pendant droplet, there is only one vertical axis of symmetry such that any nonempty intersection of $u$ with a horizontal hyperplane are disks centered at that vertical axis. Thus the maximum $u_m$ of the droplet is attained uniquely at $X(u_m)=0$ and there exists a unique horizontal graph representation $X(u)$, $0\leq u \leq u_m$.
For simplicity, we also assume the full dynamics of a pendant droplet has a horizontal graph representation in the derivation of \eqref{dewet-eq-n}.} Now we identify the droplet on the right of $x=0$ as
\begin{equation}\label{inverse}
A:=\{(u,x);~0\leq u\leq u_m, 0\leq x \leq X(u) \}.
\end{equation}
Next we give the following governing equations for a 2D droplet in terms of $X(u)$
\begin{equation}\label{dewet-eq-n}
\begin{aligned}
\beta\frac{\partial_t X }{\sqrt{1+X_u^2}}= \partial_u\left( \frac{X_u}{\sqrt{1+X_u^2}} \right) - \kappa u + \lambda,\quad 0\leq u \leq u_m\\
X(u_m)=0,\quad X_u(u_m)=-\infty,\\
\partial_t X(0, t)= \frac{X_u}{\sqrt{1+ X_u^2}} \Big|_{u=0} - \sigma,\\
\int_0^{u_m} X(u) \,\mathrm{d} u=V/2.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
The derivation using a gradient flow on a Hilbert manifold is similar to \eqref{wet-phy0}; see Appendix \ref{app_nonwet}.
To compute the Kelvin pendant droplet problem with volume constraint, we consider the quasi-static dynamics by taking $\beta=0$ in \eqref{dewet-eq-n}. After desingularization, the quasi-static dynamics can be recast as the following DAEs
for $(X(0,t), u_m(t), \theta(t), \lambda(t))$
\begin{equation}\label{DAE_nonwet}
\begin{aligned}
\partial_t X(0, \cdot)=-\cos \theta-\sigma,\\
J(u_m, \theta) =1,\\
X(0, \cdot) = \frac{V}{2u_m}+\frac{1}{u_m}\int_0 ^{u_m} (u-u_m) \frac{-J(u, \theta)}{\sqrt{1-J(u,\theta)^2}} \,\mathrm{d} u,\\
\frac{V}{2}
= \int_0^{\sqrt{u_m}} \frac{-2u J(u,\theta)}{\sqrt{1+J(u,\theta)}}\frac{\sqrt{u_m-u}}{\sqrt{1-J(u,\theta)}} \,\mathrm{d} \psi,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $J(u, \theta)$ defined in \eqref{def_J}. { The third desingularized formula comes from \eqref{desin00} while
the last desingularized formula comes from the volume formula in \eqref{rel_n}. Using $\psi^2=u_m -u$, we rewrite $V$ as
\begin{equation}\label{D9}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{V}{2} = \int_0^{\sqrt{u_m}} \frac{-2u J(u,\theta)}{\sqrt{1+J(u,\theta)}}\frac{\sqrt{u_m-u}}{\sqrt{1-J(u,\theta)}} \,\mathrm{d} \psi
\end{aligned}.
\end{equation}
By L'Hopital's law, $\lim_{u\to u_m} \frac{u_m-u}{1-J(u)}= \lim_{u\to u_m} \frac{-1}{\kappa u-\lambda}\neq 0$ provided $\kappa u_m \neq \lambda$.
}
After solving $(X(0,t), u_m(t), \theta(t), \lambda(t))$ from the above DAEs, we can further compute the formula for $X(u,t)$
\begin{align}\label{tm_xu}
X(u, \cdot) = \int_u^{u_m} \frac{J(u,\theta)}{\sqrt{1-J(u)^2}} \,\mathrm{d} u.
\end{align}
{ We use the DAEs solver \textit{ode15s} in Matlab to solve the DAEs \eqref{DAE_nonwet}
with different initial data $\theta_{in},\, u_m(0)$ and physical parameters $\kappa$, Young's angle $\theta_Y$; see Table \ref{Tpendant}. We start the DAEs by first solving the compatible initial data $b(0)=X(0,0)$ and $\lambda(0)$ from \eqref{DAE_nonwet}. At the final time $T=4$, the final bulge shape of the pendant droplet (blue line) is illustrated in (left) Fig. \ref{K_wet}, while the final lightbulb shape of the pendant droplet is illustrated in (right) Fig. \ref{K_wet}. The corresponding Bond numbers and the final contact points $b(4)$ are also shown in Table \ref{Tpendant}.}
\begin{table}
\caption{List of the parameters in DAEs solver for pendant droplets}\label{Tpendant}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\, & $\theta_{in}$ & $u_m(0)$ & $\theta_Y$ & $b(0)$ & $\kappa$ & $\Bo$ & $b(4)$ \\
\hline
Bulge shape & $ \frac{3\pi}{16}$ & 0.3 & $\frac{2.7\pi}{8}$ & $0.37045$ & $-28.028$ & 1.213 & 0.17438\\
\hline
Lightbulb shape & $\frac{5\pi}{16}$ & 0.3 & $\frac{4.7\pi}{8}$ & $0.36172$ & $-15.05$ & 0.708 & 0.05020 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\caption{Quasi-static dynamics of Kelvin pendant droplets with volume constraint. The evolution of pendant droplets at equal time intervals are computed using DAEs \eqref{DAE_nonwet} with initial data $u_m(0)=0.3$ and final time $T=4$. The left figure has an initial angle $\theta_{in} = \frac{3\pi}{16}$, final Young's angle $\theta_f=\frac{2.7\pi}{8}$ and the physical parameters $\kappa=-28.028, \Bo=1.213$. The right figure has an initial angle $\theta_{in} = \frac{5\pi}{16}$, final Young's angle $\theta_f=\frac{4.7\pi}{8}$ and the physical parameters $\kappa=-15.0, \Bo=0.708$. }\label{K_wet}
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{KelvinDAE1.pdf} \includegraphics[scale=0.8]{KelvinDAE2.pdf}
\end{figure}
\section*{Acknowledge}
The authors wish to thank Professor Tom Witelski for valuable suggestions and particularly thank anonymous reviewers for insightful criticism and comments, which significantly improved this manuscript. J.-G. Liu was supported in part by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under award DMS-1812573.
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
|
\section{Introduction}
In the prevailing paradigm of galaxy formation, galaxies grow in dark matter halos, built via gravitational collapse of small density peaks in the early Universe. Within halos, baryonic gas cools radiatively and condenses. The gas is then converted into stars, forming galaxies \citep{ReesOstriker1977,WhiteRees1978,FallEfstathiou1980}. Halos grow hierarchically by accreting smaller structures. These small structures become substructures (subhalos) of host halos, and galaxies within them become satellite galaxies, orbiting around the central galaxies residing in the deep gravitational potential wells of the host halos. Many studies use various methods to determine the satellite abundance and suggest that about 30\% of galaxies with stellar mass $\sim 10^9 \rm M_\odot/h$ are satellites, while the satellite fractions decrease with increasing stellar mass \citep{Mandelbaum2006,Tinker2007,VandenBosch2008,Yang2008,Wetzel2013,Bray2016}. Satellite galaxies apparently constitute a non-negligible population of the entire galaxy population.
After being accreted, satellites are believed to experience some specific processes that can quench ongoing star-formation or even cause morphological transformation. For example, subhalos and satellite galaxies stop growing, or lose their mass due to the strong tidal stripping of host halos \citep[e.g.][]{GunnGott1972}; some satellites even get tidally disrupted (e.g. into intra-cluster light) before merging with the centrals \citep{Mihos2005,Wetzel2010,Bahe2019}; dynamical friction gradually reduces the orbital angular momentum so that the satellites sink towards the halo center \citep{Chandrasekhar1943a,Chandrasekhar1943b,Chandrasekhar1943c}; ram pressure can remove the hot halo gas reservoir or even the cold gas in the disk of satellites \citep{GunnGott1972,Ayromlou2019,Yun2019}; `harassment' from neighbouring galaxies can tidally heat the satellite system \citep{FaroukiShapiro1981}; satellite-satellite mergers can affect both the star formation activity and morphology \citep{MakinoHut1997,Wetzel2009}. However, the importance of these processes in quenching/transforming satellites, and their dependence on various halo properties is still under debate.
In observations, satellites have been studied in great detail. \cite{VandenBosch2008} investigated the efficiency of satellite specific processes by comparing the color and concentration of satellites and centrals of the same stellar mass at $z=0$ (see also \citealt{Peng2010,Peng2012,Wang2018}). These studies assume that centrals at $z=0$ closely resemble the progenitors of satellites at the time when they are being accreted by host halos. However, such assumptions ignore the evolution of galaxies (see for example \citealt{Pannella2009,Newman2012,Stark2013,Barro2017,Genzel2017,Tadaki2017,Price2019}). Subsequently, \cite{Yang2012} and
\cite{Wetzel2013} took evolution into account and used an empirical parameterization method to derive the initial star formation rate (SFR) of satellites at the accretion time, and further investigated the quenching time scale of satellites.
In their methods, it is assumed that at the time of accretion, satellite progenitors resemble central galaxies of the same stellar mass. This assumption, however, still needs to be verified.
These satellite specific processes can be investigated in theoretical galaxy formation models, such as semi-analytical models (SAMs), hydrodynamical simulations, and halo-based models. In SAMs, these processes are included in a parameterized way. The efficiencies and scalings that characterize these processes are constrained by fitting simultaneously the observed stellar mass functions and quenched fractions at various redshifts (see \citealt{Henriques2015} for example). These models reasonably reproduce the observed red fractions of galaxies as a function of stellar mass in varying environments across several redshifts, the satellite passive fractions as a function of halo mass, and the projected distance from the central galaxies, and the clustering signal for blue and red galaxies \citep{Henriques2017}. However, significant differences between model predictions and observations are also presented in the literature \citep{Hirschmann2014,WangEnci2018a,WangEnci2018b}. These studies suggest that the SAMs require an improvement in the environmental processes in order to reduce the differences between centrals and satellites. In fact, the detailed treatment of the environmental processes varies from model to model. For example, the earlier versions usually assume an instantaneous stripping of hot gas around satellites once they fall into their hosts (see \citealt{Croton2006,Bower2006}), while subsequent models allow for a gradual loss of the hot gas \citep{Font2008,Kang2008,Weinmann2010,Guo2011,Hirschmann2014}.
Halo-based models have often been used to study the connection
between galaxies and dark matter halos
\citep[e.g.][]{Jing1998,Berlind2002,Yang2003}.
In the subhalo abundance matching methods (SHAMs, see \citealt{Kravtsov2004,ValeOstriker2004,Conroy2006}),
galaxies are populated within subhalos and a tight correlation between galaxy stellar mass and halo properties, such as halo mass, is adopted. However, the halo mass-based SHAMs fail to reproduce small scale clustering measurements, which are usually dominated by satellites
\citep{Yang2012,Behroozi2013,Moster2013,Rodriguez-Puebla2017}.
\cite{Campbell2018} suggested that the discrepancy could be caused by some simple assumptions that are not valid in reality. For example, the models neglect the contribution of `orphan' galaxies, the mass growth of satellites after their accretion, and the influence of halo assembly history. In fact, persistent star formation after accretion is found to be important for understanding the bimodality of satellites \citep{Weinmann2009,Kang2008,WangYu2007,Simha2009,Wetzel2009}.
In addition, tidal stripping of stars \citep{Mihos2005} and satellite-satellite mergers \citep{Wetzel2009} may be also important since they alter the SMHM relations.
All satellite-specific processes, such as tidal stripping, ram pressure, and galaxy interactions, are environmental effects that can be simulated by solving the equations for collisionless dynamics and hydrodynamics (see \citealt{Vogelsberger2019} for a review on cosmological simulations). In particular, hydrodynamical simulations can account for these satellite-specific processes in a self-consistent manner, although the results should be interpreted with caution because of limited numerical resolutions and uncertainties in subgrid models. The predicted satellite stellar mass function at a given halo mass from simulations matches local observations \citep{Bahe2017}. \cite{Wright2019} studied the quenching timescales of galaxies in EAGLE simulations for centrals and satellites, finding that different physical mechanisms are at play for galaxies of low, intermediate, and high mass. \cite{Bahe2015} showed that ram pressure stripping is the main mechanism that is responsible for satellite quenching in groups and clusters using GIMIC cosmological hydrodynamical simulations. \cite{Yun2019} and \cite{Jung2018} studied the efficiency of ram pressure in removing the gas content of satellites using TNG100 and HorizonAGN. Joshi et al. (in preparation) demonstrates with the TNG50 and TNG100 simulations that group and cluster environments transform galaxies from disc to spheroids, possibly because of tidal shocking. Using different suites of hydrodynamical simulations, others have shown how the disruption rate, tidal mass loss, specific star formation rate, luminosity-weighted age, stellar metallicity, and alpha element abundance ratios of satellites depend on the time since infall \citep{Rhee2017,Pasquali2019,Bahe2019}. \cite{Engler2020} show that satellite and central galaxies lie on distinct average relations between stellar mass and current dynamical mass in TNG100.
However, most previous works focus on how satellites evolve after accretion, without considering in detail the role of the formation history of the subhalos prior to accretion.
More recently, \cite{Shi2018} studied the formation history of subhalos before they are accreted by more massive host halos. Interestingly, they find that there are two infall subhalo populations, which correspond to the fast-accretion and slow-accretion phases found in normal distinct halos \citep{Zhao2003}. They also compared these infall subhalos with normal halos at the time of accretion and found that infall subhalos are usually younger than normal halos of the same halo mass. The different halo growth histories of those two infall subhalo populations may leave an imprint on the satellites at $z=0$. In addition, the difference between infall subhalos and normal halos raises the question of whether the satellite progenitors before accretion are different from general centrals at the time of accretion. In this work, we use the cosmological hydrodynamical simulations IllustrisTNG to carry out investigations on satellite galaxies and infall subhalos, focusing on how the formation history of infall subhalos influence the initial status of satellites and their further evolution.
The structure of the paper is organized as follows. In section \ref{sec_method}, we briefly introduce the IllustrisTNG simulations, our sample selection, and definitions adopted in this work. In section \ref{sec_res}, we present our results, focusing on the role of the formation history on satellites/the difference between satellites and centrals at the time of accretion, evolution after accretion, and the state at z=0. In section \ref{sec_dis} we discuss the implications of our work for SHAMs and satellite quenching. We summarize our main results in section \ref{sec_sum}.
\section{Method}
\label{sec_method}
\subsection{The {\rm ILLUSTRIS-TNG} Simulations}
\label{subsec_sim}
Throughout this work, we use the data from the IllustrisTNG simulations \citep{Naiman2018,Marinacci2018,Springel2018, Pillepich2018, Nelson2018, Nelson2019a, Pillepich2019} that feature a novel model for AGN feedback, magneto-hydrodynamics, a new scheme for galactic winds, and updated choices for stellar evolution and chemical enrichment (for more details on the TNG model, see \citealt{Weinberger2018, Pillepich2018, Nelson2019b}), leading to significant improvements over the original Illustris model \citep{Vogelsberger2013,Vogelsberger2014,Vogelsberger2014nature, Genel2014}. The simulations are calibrated to reproduce well the cosmic star formation rate density at $z\leq10$, the observed galaxy stellar mass function, the stellar-to-halo mass relation, the total gas mass content within the massive groups, the stellar mass - stellar size relation, and the BH - galaxy mass relations at $z=0$ \citep{Pillepich2018}. Besides those used to calibrate the models, the simulations can reproduce well the galaxy stellar mass functions up to $z\sim 4$ \citep{Pillepich2018smhmr}, the galaxy clustering of blue and red galaxies \citep{Springel2018}, stellar sizes up to $z\sim2$ \citep{Genel2018}, etc..
To study the evolution of satellite galaxies, we use the highest resolution run of the $\sim 100$Mpc box TNG100-1 (TNG100 hereafter), which is performed with the moving-mesh code AREPO \citep{Springel2010,Weinberger2019} in a periodic box of $75\rm Mpc/h$ on a side. It follows the dynamical evolution of ${\rm 1820}^3$ DM particles and approximately ${\rm 1820}^3$ gas cells or stellar/wind particles from $z=127$ to $z=0$, producing $100$ snapshots between $z=20$ and $z=0$. The DM particle mass is $5.1\times 10^6\rm M_\odot/h$ and the average gas cell mass is $9.4\times 10^5\rm M_\odot/h$. The cosmological parameters of the IllustrisTNG simulations are consistent with recent Planck measurements \citep{Planck2016}: $\Omega_{\rm m}=0.3089$, $\Omega_{\rm b}=0.0486$, $\Omega_{\rm \Lambda}=0.6911$, $\sigma_8=0.8159$, $n_s=0.9667$ and $h=0.6774$.
Halos and structures within them, for example galaxies, are identified by using the Friends-of-Friends (FOF) and SUBFIND algorithms \citep{Davis1985,Springel2001}. Usually, each FOF group contains one or more SUBFIND structures (hereafter substructure or subhalo) and the baryonic component in a substructure is defined as a galaxy. In this paper, FOF halos are referred to as halos or host halos. The most massive substructure in a FOF halo is classified as a central subhalo and its galaxy is regarded as the central galaxy of the halo. The other substructures (if they exist) are called satellite subhalos, the baryonic components of which are referred to as satellite galaxies. We verified that our results do not change when we select satellites that are within the virial radius of host halos. To be concise, we use the term ``satellites (or centrals)" to refer to both satellite (or central) galaxies and satellite (or central) subhalos in the following text.
The subhalos (including both central and satellite subhalos) are connected across the 100 snapshot outputs by the SUBLINK algorithm \citep{Rodriguez-Gomez2015}. The descendant of a subhalo is identified by matching the weighted baryons in the next snapshot (i.e. lower redshift), where the most bound particles/cells have the highest priorities. Each subhalo has only one descendant, yet it can have more than one progenitor. The main progenitor is defined as the one with the `most massive history' behind it \citep{DeLucia2007}. In this way, merger trees are constructed.
We also use the data from the original Illustris simulation and TNG300-1 to verify the dependencies of our results on the parameterized sub-grid physics and the numerical resolution. Most of our results remain the same across the three sets of simulations.
\subsection{Sample and galaxy properties}
\label{subsec_sample}
We first describe the definitions of some common parameters used in this paper for halos and galaxies.
\begin{itemize}
\item \textit{Halo mass:} the mass contained in the spherical region (centered on the most bounded particle) where the mean mass density is equal to $200\rho_{\rm crit}(z)$. Note that halo mass is only measured for central subhalos.
\item \textit{Galaxy stellar mass:} the sum of all stellar particles within twice the stellar half mass radius, $2R_\star$, where $R_\star$ is defined using all stellar particles within the subhalo.
\item \textit{Galaxy gas mass:} the sum of all the mass in gas cells within $2R_\star$.
\item \textit{Specific star formation rate (sSFR):} star formation rate (SFR) per unit stellar mass, where SFR is computed by summing up the star formation rates in all star-forming gas cells within $2R_\star$.
\item \textit{Ex situ stellar mass fraction $f_{\rm ex\ situ}$:} the fraction of stellar mass that is formed in other galaxies and accreted later by the galaxy \citep{Rodriguez-Gomez2017}. This parameter can be used to quantify the contribution of galaxy mergers to the mass growth.
\end{itemize}
We select all satellite galaxies at $z=0$ and trace them back in time along their merger trees. Below, we list some parameters and phrases, which can record the evolution history of satellite galaxies and subhalos, and describe them briefly:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textit{Accretion time $z_{\rm peak}$:} the redshift when the subhalo of a satellite galaxy is a central subhalo and its halo mass reaches the maximum during its lifetime. Therefore, $z_{\rm peak}$ is usually thought to be the time when the subhalo starts to be influenced by the gravitational field of its host halo.
\item \textit{Peak halo mass $M_{\rm peak}$:} the halo mass at $z_{\rm peak}$.
\item \textit{Satellite and Central phases:} The central phase is the time when a $z=0$ satellite galaxy is a central galaxy (i.e. at $z>z_{\rm peak}$), and the satellite phase is the time after being accreted by a more massive host halo (i.e. at $z<z_{\rm peak}$).
\item \textit{Formation time $z_{\rm f}$ and $a_{\rm nf}$:} $z_{\rm f}$ is the redshift when the subhalo of a satellite galaxy is a central subhalo and its subhalo reaches half of its peak mass, $M_{\rm peak}/2$, for the first time. Also, $a_{\rm nf}\equiv (1+z_{\rm f})/(1+z_{\rm peak})$ is the formation redshift scaled by the accretion redshift. $z_{\rm f}$ and $a_{\rm nf}$ therefore reflect the formation history of a subhalo during its central phase.
\item \textit{FA, SA1 and SA2 populations:} Subhalos with $a_{\rm nf}<1.3$ are classified as the fast accretion (FA) population; those with $a_{\rm nf}>1.3$ are classified as the slow accretion (SA) population \citep{Shi2018}. As we do not know whether they grow because of accretion (e.g. of ``smooth" DM) or assembly (i.e. of merging with other DM haloes), we could stick to one name but then it could mean both physical processes. The SA population is further divided into SA1 ($1.3<a_{\rm nf}<1.8$ ) and SA2 ($a_{\rm nf}>1.8$) samples. The FA population corresponds to the first peak in the bimodal distribution of $a_{\rm nf}$ (see Figure \ref{fig_bimodal}), while the SA population corresponds to the second peak in $a_{\rm nf}$ distribution. We adopt the transition values from the first to the second peaks, $a_{\rm nf}\sim 1.3$, which are independent of $z_{\rm peak}$, as a division of the two populations. The further division of the SA populations using $a_{\rm nf}=1.8$ makes the three subsamples to have comparable numbers of galaxies. By comparing the FA population with the SA population, and the SA1 population with SA2 population, we can figure out whether there exists a radical difference between the FA and SA populations, or the difference is purely an influence of the increasing $a_{\rm nf}$. See Section \ref{subsec_bimodal} for more details.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{P_anf_tng_gal.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig_bimodal} Probability distribution of the scaled formation time, $a_{\rm nf}\equiv(1+z_{\rm f})/(1+z_{\rm peak})$, for TNG100 satellite subhalos that survived at $z=0$ and are accreted at different redshifts, where $z_{\rm f}$ is the formation time and $z_{\rm peak}$ is the accretion time, as defined in section \ref{subsec_sample}. Here we include only the satellites with $M_{\rm peak}>10^{10}\rm M_\odot/h$ and host halo mass $M_{0}>10^{11}\rm M_\odot/h$. The gray dashed vertical lines indicate the division thresholds for the FA, SA1, and SA2 populations. The error bars are Poisson errors.}
\end{figure}
The quantities with subscript `0' denote the values measured at $z=0$ and those with subscript `peak' denote the values at $z_{\rm peak}$.
For example, $M_0$ and $M_{\rm peak}$ denote the halo mass at $z=0$ and $z_{\rm peak}$ respectively, while $M_{\rm \star,0}$ and $M_{\rm \star,peak}$ mean the stellar mass at $z=0$ and $z_{\rm peak}$ respectively. In this paper, we mainly focus on satellite galaxies residing in host halos of $M_{0}>10^{11}\rm M_\odot/h$ at $z=0$ and having peak halo mass $M_{\rm peak}>10^{10}\rm M_\odot/h$. We note that a galaxy that is identified as a satellite at $z=0$ was actually a central galaxy in its central phase. \textit{To avoid any confusion, we always call it a satellite galaxy, even in its central phase.}
In this paper, we will compare satellites with centrals at both $z=0$ and $z_{\rm peak}$. The central galaxies at $z=0$($z_{\rm peak}$) shown in the following figures are galaxies classified as centrals at $z=0$($z_{\rm peak}$), regardless of whether or not they are classified as centrals at other redshifts.
\section{Results}
\label{sec_res}
The main purpose of this paper is to investigate whether and how, for a satellite at $z=0$, its formation history in its central phase affects or leaves an imprint on its evolution in its satellite phase and final state, and to understand the different evolutionary paths between centrals and satellites. In Section \ref{subsec_bimodal}, we first show the formation time distribution for these satellites and the separation of fast and slow accretion populations. In Section \ref{subsec_smhmr}, we present results on the stellar mass - halo mass (SMHM) relation. The evolution of stellar mass, gas content, and star formation are presented in Section \ref{subsec_stellar_assembly} and Section \ref{subsec_gas_sf}. We also present the satellite quenched fraction in \ref{subsec_fq}. Finally, in Section \ref{subsec_gal_merger}, we present results about galaxy mergers for these satellite galaxies.
\subsection{Bimodal formation time distribution of infall subhalos}
\label{subsec_bimodal}
In our previous work \citep{Shi2018}, we found that the probability distribution of the scaled formation time ($a_{\rm nf}$) for the satellite subhalos is bimodal at a given accretion time $z_{\rm peak}$, using a cosmological N-body simulation. The result is confirmed here with the cosmological hydrodynamical simulation TNG100, as shown in Figure \ref{fig_bimodal}. Our tests in \cite{Shi2018} with much larger N-body simulations suggest that such bimodality is independent of the host halo mass at $z=0$ and depends only weakly on peak halo mass $M_{\rm peak}$.
In \cite{Shi2018}, we demonstrated that the bimodality in normalized formation time $a_{\rm nf}$ is closely connected to the two accretion phases (fast and slow accretion phases) found in the mass accretion history of dark matter halos \citep{Zhao2003}. The peak with small $a_{\rm nf}$ corresponds to the subhalos that are in the fast-accretion phase (i.e. younger), while the population with large $a_{\rm nf}$ corresponds to the subhalos that are in the slow-accretion phase (i.e. older). It should be noted that the infall time distribution of satellite galaxies selected to be found within the virial radius from a more massive host is bimodal as well, even when infall is defined as virial radius crossing. In that case, the bimodality is removed when backsplash satellites are included, i.e those are outside the virial radius at given time (\citealt{Yun2019,Engler2020}.
Since the $a_{\rm nf}$ distribution of FA halos is narrow and its peak is always around $1.2$, almost independent of $z_{\rm peak}$, host halo mass, and $M_{\rm peak}$ \citep{Shi2018}, we adopt the demarcation value $a_{\rm nf}=1.3$ to divide them into FA and SA populations (see Figure \ref{fig_bimodal}). The fractions of the two populations are a strong function of $z_{\rm peak}$. Satellite subhalos that are accreted at $z_{\rm peak}>2.3$ (roughly $11$ Gyr ago) are mainly FA halos, while those accreted later are dominated by SA halos.
As we will show below, satellites in the FA and SA satellite galaxies evolve in different ways, in particular in the satellite phase. There are two possible origins for the difference. One is that FA and SA satellites are distinct populations, as suggested by the bimodal $a_{\rm nf}$ distribution. The other is that the difference simply reflects a continuous change as a function of $a_{\rm nf}$, since they, by definition, have different formation times. To distinguish the two possibilities, in principle, one should divide the sample into many small $a_{\rm nf}$ bins, then check how the satellite properties and their evolution vary with $a_{\rm nf}$. However, due to the limited number of satellites (as shown in Table \ref{tabel_1}), we adopt a coarse binning method, in which the FA population is kept unchanged and the SA population is split into two subsamples, SA1 ($1.3<a_{\rm nf}<1.8$) and SA2 ($a_{\rm nf}>1.8$).
We choose this approach because the FA population has a much narrower $a_{\rm nf}$ distribution than the SA population. The demarcation value of $1.8$ is chosen so that the three populations have roughly a comparable number of galaxies (see the other vertical dashed line in figure \ref{fig_bimodal}). Table \ref{tabel_1} briefly lists the number of satellites in each subsample. If a satellite property changes smoothly across the three samples, i.e. FA, SA1, and SA2, the property is very likely determined by halo formation history. If a special feature for a property appears in FA, but is totally absent in SA1 and SA2, it implies that FA and SA are indeed different in this property.
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\caption{Number of satellites in each subsample of varying $z_{\rm peak}$ bins that correspond to different lines in Figure \ref{fig_bimodal}.}
\label{tabel_1}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$z_{\rm peak}$ & FA & SA1 & SA2 \\ [0.5ex]
\hline\hline
$0-0.2$ & 186 & 367 & 3154 \\
\hline
$0.4-0.6$ & 754 & 1624 & 3091 \\
\hline
$0.9-1.1$ & 1181 & 2277 & 1627 \\
\hline
$1.4-1.6$ & 1518 & 2285 & 720 \\
\hline
$2-2.5$ & 2021 & 2097 & 228 \\ [1ex]
\hline
$3-3.5$ & 329 & 165 & 5 \\ [1ex]
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection{Stellar mass - halo mass relation}
\label{subsec_smhmr}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.\linewidth]{mstar_mpeak_sf_norm_gal_v3.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig_smhm} Stellar mass to halo mass relation from TNG100. Here $M_{\rm halo}$ is $M_{0}$ for centrals and $M_{\rm peak}$ for satellites.
Upper left: the $z=0$ SMHM relation for the satellites (black lines) and centrals (orange lines). The dotted, dashed, and dash-dotted lines show the relation for satellites accreted at different $z_{\rm peak}$ bins, as indicated by the label.
Lower left: The $z_{\rm peak}$ SMHM relation for satellites at three $z_{\rm peak}$ bins and centrals at the corresponding redshifts. See the text for more details.
Upper right: the median $z=0$ SMHM relation for FA (blue), SA1 (green), and SA2 (red) satellites. The shaded area shows the $1 \sigma$ dispersion around the median relations.
Lower right: The SMHM relation at $z_{\rm peak}$ for satellites.
Color and line types are the same as the upper right panel.}
\end{figure*}
The stellar mass-halo mass (SMHM) relation can provide valuable constraints on the efficiency in transforming gas into stars and has been studied in great detail in the literature (e.g. \citealt{Yang2003,Zheng2007, Yang2008, Yang2009, Behroozi2010,Guo2010,WangJing2010,Yang2012,WechslerTinker2018,Pillepich2018smhmr}). In this subsection, we present the SMHM relations for the three samples of satellites and central galaxies. In order to understand the evolution of the relations, two kinds of SMHM relations are investigated as shown in Figure \ref{fig_smhm}. The first one is the $z=0$ SMHM relation, in which halo mass ($M_{\rm halo}$) is taken as the halo mass at $z_{\rm peak}$ ($M_{\rm peak}$) for satellites and halo mass at $z=0$ ($M_{\rm 0}$) for centrals.
The second one is the $z_{\rm peak}$ SMHM relation. In this re- lation, for both centrals and satellites, stellar mass and halo mass at zpeak are adopted.
We first show the $z=0$ SMHM relations for satellite and central galaxies in the upper-left panel of Figure \ref{fig_smhm}. To check the dependence on accretion time, we select three $z_{\rm peak}$ ranges ($0.4<z_{\rm peak}<0.6$, $1.0<z_{\rm peak}<1.5$ and $1.6<z_{\rm peak}<2.6$), and show results in these $z_{\rm peak}$ ranges in the same panel.
Since the simulation box is quite small, we only show the SMHM relation in a relatively narrow halo mass range (from about $10^{10.5}$ to $10^{12.5}\rm M_\odot/h$). As one can see, for both centrals and satellites, $M_{\star,0}$ is strongly correlated with halo mass, with a scatter of about $0.25$ dex. It is in good agreement with previous studies \citep{Yang2009,More2011,Moster2013,Behroozi2013,ZuMandelbaum2015,Matthee2017}. Moreover, the SMHM relations for satellites are consistent with that for centrals, and almost independent of the accretion time $z_{\rm peak}$, as shown by the non-solid lines.
We then show the $z_{\rm peak}$ SMHM relations at three $z_{\rm peak}$ ranges in the lower-left panel. Similar to the $z=0$ relation, centrals and satellites almost follow the same relation. Furthermore, there is only weak evolution with redshift, which is consistent with the independence of the $z=0$ SMHM relation on accretion time. All of these results suggest that host halo mass (or $M_{\rm peak}$) is the major factor that governs the galaxy stellar mass over a wide range of redshift for both centrals and
satellites. Note that all this applies when the halo mass of satellites are considered at $z_{\rm peak}$, i.e. before any environmental effect. In fact, the $z=0$ relations between current stellar and dynamical mass are clearly distinct for satellite and central galaxies \citep{Engler2020}.
We then investigate the $z_{\rm peak}$ SMHM relation for the three satellite samples with different $a_{\rm nf}$ separately (the lower right panel of Figure \ref{fig_smhm}).
At a given halo mass, $M_{\rm \star,peak}$ increases gradually from the lowest $a_{\rm nf}$ sample (FA, youngest) to the highest $a_{\rm nf}$ sample (SA2, oldest). This suggests that the $z_{\rm peak}$ SMHM relation changes continuously with $a_{\rm nf}$. In addition, the $a_{\rm nf}$ dependence slightly decreases with increasing $M_{\rm peak}$.
Our further tests show that the $z_{\rm peak}$ SMHM relations for the three samples are all independent of $z_{\rm peak}$, consistent with the results shown in the lower left panel of Figure \ref{fig_smhm}. Recently, several works \citep{Matthee2017,Zehavi2018,Artale2018} studied the output of SAMs and hydrodynamical simulations and found that, at fixed halo mass, old halos tend to host more massive central galaxies at $z=0$. For instance, \cite{Artale2018} found that the oldest $20$\% halos host galaxies that are $\sim 0.4$ dex larger than the youngest $20$\% halos. This is broadly consistent with our findings.
At $z=0$, the difference among the three satellite samples is apparently reduced, but still significant (upper right panel of Figure \ref{fig_smhm}). The maximum difference of about $0.25$ dex appears at $M_{\rm peak}<10^{11.5}\rm M_\odot/h$ and the difference decreases with increasing $M_{\rm peak}$.
At $\logM_{\rm peak}\sim 11.9$ ($\log M_{\rm \star,0}\sim 10.2$), the difference becomes negligible.
We also check the dependence of the $z=0$ SMHM relation on accretion time and no significant dependence is found. By comparing the $z_{\rm peak}$ and $z=0$ SMHM relations, we find that satellites grow with time in the satellite phase, but the growth amplitude decreases with increasing $a_{\rm nf}$.
We will discuss this in more detail in the following. These results suggest that there is a time delay between halo assembly and galaxy assembly. So even when a halo becomes a substructure of another massive halo and starts to lose its mass, the galaxies within it can still grow (see also Fig. 8 of \citealt{Engler2020}).
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{mstarz_cen_sat_gal_v3.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig_mstarz} Stellar mass assembly of TNG100 galaxies. The solid lines show the median stellar mass evolution for different satellite samples as indicated in the panels and the corresponding centrals. The vertical gray dashed lines indicate the separation of the satellite and central phase for the infall satellite galaxies.
These central galaxies have stellar masses similar to the satellites, and are classified as centrals at a redshift close to $z_{\rm peak}$, regardless of whether or not they are classified as centrals at other redshifts. The shaded black and orange areas show the 1$\sigma$ dispersion of the evolution for the satellites and centrals. The numbers in each panel show the number of satellites that we have for each subsample. The same statistics applies to Figure \ref{fig_sfrz}, \ref{fig_fqz}, and \ref{fig_faccz}.}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Stellar mass assembly}
\label{subsec_stellar_assembly}
To see more clearly how the stellar mass of satellites evolves with time, we select satellites with two $M_{\rm \star,peak}$ ranges and three $z_{\rm peak}$ ranges and present their stellar mass evolution in Figure \ref{fig_mstarz}.
For comparison, we also show the evolution of the corresponding central galaxies in the same figure. These central galaxies have stellar masses comparable to these satellites, and are classified as centrals at redshifts close to $z_{\rm peak}$, regardless of whether or not they are classified as centrals at other redshifts. We first check the mass growth of these satellite galaxies in their central phase (i.e. $z>z_{\rm peak}$). The mass growth for satellites as a whole (black solid lines) resembles that for centrals (orange solid lines). Moreover, satellites with high $a_{\rm nf}$ (older) grow at a longer timescale and more slowly than centrals, while satellites with low $a_{\rm nf}$ (younger) grow faster than the corresponding centrals.
At the beginning of the satellite phase, satellites continue to grow, although the growth rate appears to be slowed down. On average, the satellites stop growing at $\log{[(1+z)/(1+z_{\rm peak})]}\sim-0.1$, which corresponds to a time scale from $1.3$ Gyr (at $z=2$) to $2.7$ Gyr (at $z=0.5$). The halo dynamical time scales, defined as $R_{\rm 200crit}/V_{\rm crit200}=0.1/H(z)$, at $z=2$ and $z=0.5$ are about $0.5$ Gyr and $1.1$ Gyr, so the mass growth ceases roughly at $2$ times the dynamical time scale after accretion, likely due to the lack of gas supply (see Section \ref{subsec_gas_sf}). For satellites that are accreted at low redshift ($z_{\rm peak}\sim0.5$ and $z_{\rm peak}\sim1.2$), the stellar mass remains unchanged after reaching its peak; while the satellites accreted at high redshift (e.g. $z_{\rm peak}\sim2$) eventually lose mass by a factor of $0.2$ dex after reaching a maximum. This is possibly due to tidal stripping, since these satellites are accreted earlier and tend to reside in the inner region of their host halos at $z=0$, where the tidal field is the strongest \citep{Gnedin1999}. After being accreted, satellites with smaller $a_{\rm nf}$ (younger) apparently grow faster and more (about $0.4$ dex) than satellites with larger $a_{\rm nf}$ (older), ranging from $0.15$ to $0.25$ dex. The growth rate decreases with increasing $a_{\rm nf }$, consistent with the results shown in the SMHM relations (see the left panels of figure \ref{fig_smhm}). This is saying that the stellar mass growth relies on $a_{\rm nf}$ in both central and satellite phases, and the difference between FA and SA populations does not relate to the bimodality of $a_{\rm nf}$.
\subsection{Gas content and star formation}
\label{subsec_gas_sf}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.\linewidth]{gprop_mstarzpeak_norm_gal_v3.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig_prop_zpeak} Median gas mass fractions and sSFRs in TNG100 galaxies. Left column: gas to stellar mass ratio (top) and sSFR (bottom) for centrals (orange) and satellites (black) in various $z_{\rm peak}$ bins.
Right column: gas to stellar mass ratio (top) and sSFR (bottom) as a function of the stellar mass at $z_{\rm peak}$ for the three satellite populations in various $z_{\rm peak}$ bins. }
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{ssfrz_cen_sat_gal_v3.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig_sfrz} Similar to figure \ref{fig_mstarz}, but for the sSFR evolution of satellites and centrals from TNG100.}
\end{figure*}
Galaxies grow their mass mainly via two ways, star formation and mergers. In this subsection, we analyze the gas content and star formation of the satellites and how they evolve with time. In the left panels of Figure \ref{fig_prop_zpeak}, we show the gas to stellar mass ratio and specific star formation rate (sSFR) at accretion time as a function of stellar mass. As before, three $z_{\rm peak}$ ranges are adopted. In this plot, the sSFRs of galaxies with a vanishing sSFR value (i.e. sSFR$<10^{-14}yr^{-1}$) are set to be $10^{-14}yr^{-1}$ by hand; galaxies with vanishing gas content are also included when calculating the median values. We can see that galaxies with small stellar mass or at high redshift tend to be more gas rich. This is consistent with previous studies (e.g. \citealt{Genzel2015,Tacconi2018,Calette2018}). The sSFR shows a similar correlation with redshift, but a different correlation with stellar mass. As one can see, sSFR is almost independent of stellar mass at $\log M_{\rm \star,peak}<10$ and then quickly drops as the stellar mass increases. The drop in sSFR at the massive end is caused by the kinetic-mode AGN feedback in the TNG model, which tends to quench star formation \citep{Donnari2019,Terrazas2019,Weinberger2018}. We also show the results for central galaxies at three snapshots with redshifts close to the considered $z_{\rm peak}$ in the right panels. Again, centrals are very similar to these satellites at all stellar mass and redshift bins in consideration.
We then check whether these properties vary with $a_{\rm nf}$. The results are presented in the right panels of Figure \ref{fig_prop_zpeak}. We investigate the $a_{\rm nf}$ dependence in three $z_{\rm peak}$ bins, to make the results free of the effects of the redshift evolution. We find that the satellites in subhalos with the lowest $a_{\rm nf}$ (youngers, blue lines) have largest gas content and the highest sSFR at given $z_{\rm peak}$.
This is consistent with results shown in the SMHM relation and mass evolution that the satellites with smaller $a_{\rm nf}$ (younger) grow faster than satellites with larger $a_{\rm nf}$ (older).
Figure \ref{fig_sfrz} shows the evolution of sSFR with time. Since the evolution of gas to stellar mass ratio is similar to sSFR, we only show results for sSFR. Similar to Figure \ref{fig_mstarz}, the results for two $M_{\rm \star,peak}$ ranges and three $z_{\rm peak}$ ranges are presented as an example. The results for central galaxies are also presented as a benchmark. First of all, central galaxies exhibit a continuous and steady decline in star formation with redshifts, consistent with previous studies in both simulations and observations (\citealt{VandeVoort2011,Bahe2015,Sales2015}). This is likely due to the continuous decline of gas amount with decreasing redshift (see e.g. Figure \ref{fig_prop_zpeak}). Second, in the central phase, satellites as a whole have almost the same evolutionary history as centrals. This explains why the stellar mass evolution is the same for centrals and satellites in the central phase (see Section \ref{subsec_smhmr}). Third, in the satellite phase ($z<z_{\rm peak}$), compared to centrals, the star formation activity in satellites declines much more quickly. This is apparently ascribed to satellite-specific processes, such as strangulation, ram pressure stripping and tidal stripping (\citealt{OstrikerTremaine1975,Peng2015, Yun2019,Bahe2015}). Fourth, in both central and satellite phases, satellites of low $a_{\rm nf}$ (younger) have slightly stronger star formation activities than high $a_{\rm nf}$ (older) ones. Our tests show that, for a given accretion time, low $a_{\rm nf}$ satellites are, on average, more gas rich than high $a_{\rm nf}$ satellites throughout the entire central and satellite phases. It can thus be used to understand why the low $a_{\rm nf}$ satellites grow faster than high $a_{\rm nf}$ ones (see Figure \ref{fig_smhm} and \ref{fig_mstarz}).
Fifth, we observe an apparent enhancement of star formation activity around $z_{\rm peak}$ for FA satellites. This enhancement is completely absent for the central galaxies and the SA satellite populations. We also see a similar enhancement in gas to stellar mass ratio. We will come back to this interesting phenomenon later.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.95\linewidth]{fq_mstarz0_gal_v3.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig_fq_z0}
Quenched fractions at $z=0$ in TNG100. Quenched fractions at $z=0$ as a function of the stellar mass for centrals, satellites as a whole, and the three satellite populations accreted at $1<z_{\rm peak}<1.5$ (dashed) and $0.4<z_{\rm peak}<0.6$ (dotted). Satellites in the $1.6<z_{\rm peak}<2.6$ bin are almost all quenched at $z=0$, but the results are not plotted for clarity.
The error bars are Poisson errors.}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Quenched fractions}
\label{subsec_fq}
Finally, we investigate the status of satellites at $z=0$. Since a large fraction of satellites contain no gas particles and have no star formation activity at $z=0$, we show quenched fractions instead of gas content and sSFR. The quenched fraction is the fraction of galaxies with sSFR less than $10^{-11} {yr}^{-1}$ (see e.g. \citealt{Donnari2019} for the discussion of the quenched galaxy definition in TNG100). Figure \ref{fig_fq_z0} shows the quenched fractions as a function of stellar mass. As expected, satellites are more frequently quenched than centrals of the same stellar mass, due to the satellite-specific processes.
A detailed comparison of satellite quenched fractions with observational data will be useful (Donnari et al. 2020, in preparation).
We also show the quenched fractions for satellites accreted at two $z_{\rm peak}$ ranges with different halo assembly histories separately. As one can see, satellites accreted earlier are more frequently quenched than those accreted later. At a given $z_{\rm peak}$, the quenched fraction increases with
increasing $a_{\rm nf}$, consistent with the results shown above.
To understand more about satellite quenching, we show the quenched fractions of satellite galaxies as a function of look-back time to $t_{\rm peak}$ in Figure \ref{fig_fqz}. As before, we show the results for two stellar mass bins and three $z_{\rm peak}$ bins as examples. We can see strong dependences of quenching time scale on stellar mass, accretion time and satellite halo assembly history. More massive satellites are quenched in a longer time scale than less massive satellites for $\log M_{\star,0}<10.0$. This suggests that environmental processes are more efficient for less massive satellites, as is to be expected. Satellites accreted early are quenched more quickly than those accreted later. One possible reason is that the gas environment in host halos at high redshift is more dense than that at low redshift. Therefore, the environmental effects are stronger at high redshift. Consistent with Figure \ref{fig_fq_z0}, the time scale for satellites of high $a_{\rm nf}$ (older) to be quenched is longer than that for satellites of low $a_{\rm nf}$ (younger). There are two possible reasons. First, at accretion time, satellites in lower $a_{\rm nf}$ subhalos are more gas rich than satellites in higher $a_{\rm nf}$ subhalos. Second, in the satellite phase, satellites that are in lower $a_{\rm nf}$ subhalos seem capable of acquiring more cold gas through accretion and even mergers (see Section \ref{subsec_gal_merger}).
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.\linewidth]{fq_cen_sat_gal_v3.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig_fqz} The quenched fractions of satellites as a function of the lookback time relative to the accretion time $t_{\rm peak}$ for satellites of different $a_{\rm nf}$, $z_{\rm peak}$ and stellar mass in TNG100. The last column shows the quenching fractions for satellites accreted at three $z_{\rm peak}$ bins without distinguishing $a_{\rm nf}$ to highlight the dependence on $z_{\rm peak}$.
}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Galaxy stellar mass accretion and mergers}
\label{subsec_gal_merger}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.\linewidth]{facc_mstar_sf_norm_gal_v3.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig_facc_mstar} Ex situ stellar mass fractions for TNG100 galaxies. Upper left: the ex situ stellar mass fractions as a function of stellar mass for satellite galaxies at different $z_{\rm peak}$ and centrals at corresponding redshifts. Upper right: the ex situ stellar mass fractions as a function of the stellar mass for the three satellite populations at three $z_{\rm peak}$ bins. Lower panels: the ex situ stellar mass fractions at $z=0$. The dashed-dotted, dashed, and dotted lines show the results for satellites with different $z_{\rm peak}$. }
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.\linewidth]{faccz_cen_sat_gal_v3.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig_faccz}
Similar to Figure \ref{fig_mstarz}, but for the evolution of the accreted stellar mass fractions (i.e. the ex situ stellar mass fractions) of galaxies in TNG100.}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{lognmergerz0_mstarz0_sf_gal_v3.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig_nmerger} The mean number of major mergers and minor mergers experienced by the satellites in the three populations of halos (blue, green, and red) accreted at varying $z_{\rm peak}$ (from left to right columns) in TNG100. Major mergers are defined as $M_{\rm \star, prog}/M_{\rm \star, 0}>0.2$; Minor merger are defined as $0.05<M_{\rm \star, prog}/M_{\rm \star, 0}<0.2$, where
$M_{\rm \star, 0}$ is the $z=0$ stellar mass of a satellite in consideration, while $M_{\rm \star, prog}$ is the maximum mass of its merging companion. Squares show the results for mergers occurring before $z_{\rm peak}$, and diamonds are for mergers experienced after $z_{\rm peak}$. The mean merger number of centrals at $z=0$ are plotted as gray stars.}
\end{figure*}
Galaxy mergers play an important role in mass growth and morphological transformation. It is thus interesting to investigate the importance and frequency of galaxy mergers for satellites. We first use $f_{\rm ex\ situ}$ (see Section \ref{subsec_sample} for the definition) to quantify the importance of galaxy mergers.
In Figure \ref{fig_facc_mstar}, we show $f_{\rm ex\ situ}$ at accretion ($f_{\rm ex\ situ, peak}$) and at $z=0$ ($f_{\rm ex\ situ, 0}$) for satellites with different $z_{\rm peak}$ and $a_{\rm nf}$. The results for the corresponding centrals are also presented for comparison. On average, $f_{\rm ex\ situ}$ is low, ranging from $0.03$ to $0.3$, indicating that in situ star formation dominates the stellar mass growth for most galaxies with $M_{\star, \rm 0}<10^{10}\rm M_\odot/h$
(See \citet{LuZhankui2015}, see also
\citealt{Pillepich2018smhmr} for the ex situ stellar mass fractions at larger galaxy masses). One common feature among these centrals and satellites of different $a_{\rm nf}$ at different redshifts is that $f_{\rm ex\ situ}$ is almost constant with stellar mass at $\log M_{\star}<10.0$, and rapidly increases with stellar mass at the massive end.
Such behavior is quite similar to sSFR and quenched fractions shown in Figure \ref{fig_prop_zpeak} and \ref{fig_fq_z0}. One likely reason for the similarity is that, in TNG, galaxy mergers can cause the growth of supermassive black holes and trigger AGN feedback, which can cease star formation in host galaxies. This hints that galaxy mergers play an important (or even dominant) role in triggering AGN feedback and quenching star formation in TNG (see \citealt{Tacchella2019} for an in depth discussion of this in the TNG100 simulation).
As we can see, there is no significant difference in $f_{\rm ex\ situ, peak}$ between central and satellites. At $z=0$, centrals and satellites also have quite similar $f_{\rm ex\ situ, 0}$ at a given stellar mass, on average. This means that environment has little effect on $f_{\rm ex\ situ}$. However, the dependence of $f_{\rm ex\ situ}$ on $z_{\rm peak}$ and $a_{\rm nf}$ appears to evolve with time. At $z_{\rm peak}$ time, $f_{\rm ex\ situ, peak}$ is almost independent of $z_{\rm peak}$, while at $z=0$, we observe a strong dependence. Moreover, at accretion time, satellites with large $a_{\rm nf}$ tend to have slightly smaller $f_{\rm ex\ situ, peak}$ than their counterparts with small $a_{\rm nf}$. At $z=0$, the difference becomes larger for satellites in a given $z_{\rm peak}$ bin. These results imply that some specific processes occur in the satellite phase, as we will see below.
To better understand the results shown above, we present the evolution of $f_{\rm ex\ situ}$ for two $M_{\rm \star,peak}$ bins and three $z_{\rm peak}$ bins in Figure \ref{fig_faccz}. Central galaxies exhibit a mass dependent of evolution. For the less massive galaxies, in general, $f_{\rm ex\ situ}$ decreases with time, indicating that in situ star formation is more important at low redshift.
For massive galaxies selected at low redshift, $f_{\rm ex\ situ}$ almost does not evolve with time, while for massive galaxies selected at high redshift, $f_{\rm ex\ situ}$ first decreases then increases as cosmic time passes. This is apparently the result of the competition between star formation and mergers. These results are broadly consistent with \cite{Rodriguez-Gomez2017}. However, the detailed processes responsible for such evolution is beyond the scope of this paper and we will mainly focus on the behavior of satellites.
In the central phase ($z>z_{\rm peak}$), the difference among centrals, FA, SA1, and SA2 populations are generally small. The significant lower values of SA2 (red lines) in $1.6<z_{\rm peak}<2.6$ bin is mainly caused by poor statistics. It is consistent with the results at $z_{\rm peak}$ shown in Figure \ref{fig_facc_mstar}. We note that, at $z_{\rm peak}\sim0.5$, the results for FA satellites are significantly different from others. This is very likely due to the fact that the FA population at low redshift is relatively small (see e.g. Figure \ref{fig_bimodal}).
In the satellite phase, satellites deviate from the tracks of centrals and the deviation becomes larger and larger with time. For satellites accreted at low redshift ($z_{\rm peak}<1.5$), the difference between centrals and satellites at $z=0$ is small, but for those accreted at $z_{\rm peak}>1.6$, the deviation is very large. In fact, we observe a persistent and strong decrease of $f_{\rm ex\ situ}$ for satellites of high $z_{\rm peak}$, very different from their central counterparts. In the satellite phase, the stellar mass growth is small and occurs only at the beginning (see Section \ref{subsec_smhmr} and Figure \ref{fig_mstarz}), so the persistent decrease of $f_{\rm ex\ situ}$ cannot be primarily ascribed to the contribution of in situ star formation. One possible reason is that tidal stripping is more efficient for accreted stars since they are usually located in the outer regions of the galaxies.
In the satellite phase, FA (blue line) and SA (green and red lines) galaxies exhibit very different evolutionary tracks in $f_{\rm ex\ situ}$. We observe a `burst' of $f_{\rm ex\ situ}$ around $z_{\rm peak}$ for FA satellites, particularly at low $z_{\rm peak}$. This means that a large fraction of the FA population experiences merger events around $z_{\rm peak}$. It is usually believed that mergers can enhance the star formation rate \citep{MihosHernquist1996}. Indeed, we also observe an enhancement in star formation activity, as shown in Figure \ref{fig_sfrz}). However, no signal for such merger events is found for the two SA samples. This explains why the difference in $f_{\rm ex\ situ}$ between FA and SA populations becomes larger at $z=0$ (Figure \ref{fig_facc_mstar}).
We can also quantify the importance of galaxy mergers by counting the number of merger events during the history of a galaxy. We define mergers with $M_{\rm \star, prog}/M_{\rm \star, 0}>0.2$ as major mergers and $0.05<M_{\rm \star, prog}/M_{\rm \star, 0}<0.2$ as minor mergers, where $M_{\rm \star, 0}$ is the stellar mass of a galaxy at $z=0$ and $M_{\rm \star, prog}$ is the maximum stellar mass of its merging companion. We note that, the conventional definition for merger types uses the ratio of two stellar masses at the moment when mergers happen. However, one of our main concerns is whether galaxy mergers eventually affect the galaxy at $z=0$, we thus classify major and minor merger by comparing the stellar masses of the merging companion and the final galaxy at $z=0$.
In Figure \ref{fig_nmerger}, we show the mean number of major and minor mergers as a function of $M_{\rm \star, 0}$ for the three populations separately. In order to know when mergers usually happen, we show the results for mergers happening before and after $z_{\rm peak}$ separately. In general, the FA population experiences more major and minor mergers than the two SA populations of the same $M_{\rm \star, 0}$ and $z_{\rm peak}$ in both central and satellite phases. For the FA population, both major and minor mergers occur more frequently in the satellite phase ($z<z_{\rm peak}$) than in the central phase ($z>z_{\rm peak}$). Furthermore, this trend holds in very wide $M_{\rm \star, 0}$ and $z_{\rm peak}$ ranges as shown in the figure, while for the two SA populations, the trends are reversed. In addition, it also shows that the difference between the three populations in the central phase is much less than that in the satellite phase, consistent with the results for $f_{\rm ex\ situ}$ (see Figure \ref{fig_faccz}).
It is particularly interesting to inspect the results in the satellite phase in more detail. Major mergers for SA satellites with $\log M_{\star, 0}<10.0$ seem rather rare, with mean number of about $0.02$, while for the FA satellites, the mean number of major mergers is about $10$ times higher. Minor mergers occur much more frequently. The mean minor merger number for FA satellites with $\log M_{\star, 0}<10.0$ is about $0.5$, $10$ times higher than that for SA satellites. For comparison, we also show the results for central galaxies at $z=0$. These results suggest that, even in the satellite phase, galaxy mergers occur. In particular for FA satellites, the number of mergers that happen during the satellite phase can be higher/comparable to the total mergers happening for centrals. Note that for central galaxies, we count the merger events in their whole life. It is found that the mean number of major merger for centrals is usually lower than that for FA satellites (even if we count only the mergers in the satellite phase) and higher than that for the SA population. Furthermore, for minor mergers, the mean merger number for centrals is comparable to that for FA satellites and still higher than SA satellites.
\section{Implications for satellite evolution}
\label{sec_dis}
Although hydrodynamical simulations cannot model all the details of the physical processes in galaxy formation, especially those occurring on small spatial scales within the interstellar medium, they still provide valuable information about how galaxies form and evolve, which may be useful for improving other galaxy formation models, such as SHAMs and semi-analytic models (Section \ref{subsec_implication_sham} and \ref{subsec_implication_merger}). In fact, in simulations like TNG100 all the physical mechanisms that are important for the evolution of satellite and central galaxies are emerging phenomena and are not put in by hand: e.g. the hierarchical growth of structure, tidal and ram-pressure stripping, dynamical friction, etc.
Moreover, when analyzing the efficiency of the quenching processes using observational data, we usually adopt some assumptions. Hydrodynamical simulations can also be used to check these assumptions (Section \ref{subsec_implication_quenching}).
\subsection{Implications for SHAM}
\label{subsec_implication_sham}
In the simplest implementation of SHAMs \citep{Kravtsov2004,ValeOstriker2004,Conroy2006}, galaxies and halos (subhalos) are rank ordered by $M_{\rm \star, 0}$ and $M_{\rm halo}$, and matched one by one according to their ranks so that $n_{\rm gal}(>M_{\rm \star, 0})=n_{\rm halo}(>M_{\rm h})$ is satisfied. Here $M_{\rm halo}$ is usually taken as $M_{\rm peak}$ for satellites and $M_{0}$ for centrals. Instead of direct rank ordering, other SHAM implementations \citep{Yang2012,Moster2013,Behroozi2013} parameterize the SMHM relation for centrals at various redshifts.
The parameters in the SMHM relation are constrained using the observed stellar mass function at various redshifts. However, these SHAM methods include several assumptions (see also \citealt{Campbell2018} for a relevant discussion): (i) the rank ordered SHAM (rSHAM) assumes the same $z=0$ SMHM relation for satellites and centrals, and that the SMHM relation is independent of the accretion time of satellites,
(ii) the parameterized SHAM (pSHAM) assumes that satellites share the same $z_{\rm peak}$ SMHM relation as centrals, and there is neither gain nor loss of their stellar mass after accretion time, (iii) for both the rank-ordered and parameterized SHAM, at a given halo mass, the stellar mass of galaxies is independent of halo formation history.
More recently, \cite{Campbell2018} investigated the above halo-mass based SHAM models and found that they generally fail to reproduce the small-scale galaxy clustering signal. The authors tried to relax some of the assumptions in order to save those models, for example, by including orphan satellites, including satellite growth after accretion in pSHAM, and considering the dependence of the SMHM relation on halo formation history. However, none of the above solutions alone can solve the ``small-scale" clustering crisis, indicating a more detailed investigation of these assumptions is needed. Our results can provide a check for these (at least part of) assumptions made in those SHAM methods and help to provide insights for future improvements that can be done from the point of view of the TNG models.
Our studies (see Figure \ref{fig_smhm}) support the assumptions made in rSHAM that satellites and centrals follow the same $z=0$ SMHM relation when expressed as a function of $M_{\rm peak}$ for the satellites, and the relation for satellites is independent of accretion time. Our results further suggest that the scatter in the relation is also the same for centrals and satellites, and that
the assumption that centrals and satellites share the same $z_{\rm peak}$ SMHM relation (where $M_{\rm peak}$ is adopted as the halo mass for satellites), which is usually adopted in pSHAM. These models usually ignore the mass growth of satellites in the satellite phase, which is apparently in conflict with our results and those by \cite{Engler2020} (based on TNG50, TNG100, and TNG300). However, as shown in Figure \ref{fig_smhm}, the mass growth after accretion does not change the SMHM relation too much when the latter is expressed for the satellites as a function of $M_{\rm peak}$. This suggests that considering mass growth after accretion would not improve the model significantly.
Moreover, these pSHAM models usually predict that the $M_{\rm \star, 0}-M_{\rm peak}$ relation for satellites is dependent on accretion time \citep{Campbell2018}, since in these models, the SMHM relation is usually dependent on redshift. In contrast, we find only weak or no dependence on $z_{\rm peak}$ in the TNG simulations.
We clearly show that the dependence of the SMHM relation on halo formation time is strong and significant,
which is ignored by most SHAM models. In fact, \cite{Matthee2017} and \cite{Artale2018} have already found that the SMHM relation for central galaxies relies on the halo formation time. Our results (Figure \ref{fig_smhm}) demonstrate a clear difference in the SMHM relation for satellites with different halo assembly histories (characterized by $a_{\rm nf}$) at both $z=0$ and $z_{\rm peak}$. Since satellites with lower $a_{\rm nf}$ (younger) are usually accreted earlier than satellites with higher $a_{\rm nf}$ (higher), they are expected to reside in the inner regions of host halos at $z=0$. This means that if we use the average SMHM relation to assign satellite mass, it might cause a systematic bias in the ``small-scale" clustering. In addition, caution should be made when one assigns stellar mass to satellites taking into account halo formation history.
A satellite with low $a_{\rm nf}$ and yet accreted at high $z_{\rm peak}$ may have the
same $z_{\rm f}$ as an old satellite at low $z_{\rm peak}$. Although they have the same $z_{\rm f}$,
they have very different SMHM relations (see Figure \ref{fig_smhm}). It thus would be better to adopt $a_{\rm nf}$ rather than $z_{\rm f}$, since the former takes into account
$z_{\rm peak}$. A quantitative evaluation of how large the effects could be is certainly required.
\subsection{Galaxy mergers for satellites}
\label{subsec_implication_merger}
Galaxy mergers play an important role in galaxy formation and evolution. Major mergers can significantly change the galaxy morphology and may be responsible for the formation of massive ellipticals or bulges (see e.g. \citealt{Torrey2014,NaabBurkert2003,Cox2006}). Moreover, major mergers can trigger starbursts and accelerate the consumption of the cold gas reservoir (e.g. \citealt{MihosHernquist1996,BarnesHernquist1996,Cox2008}). Minor mergers are also important, since they can increase sizes of passive galaxies \citep{Shen2003,Oser2010,Shankar2013}. The galaxy merger scenario is even thought to be able to reproduce the fundamental plane relation \citep{Robertson2006}.
In this paper, we find that satellites can experience frequent merger events. This is the case, however, exclusively for the FA satellites. Even in the satellite phase, major (minor) merger rate for FA satellites is higher than (comparable to) that for centrals. It means that after $z_{\rm peak}$, satellites, exclusively FA satellites, may have even higher (or at least comparable) probability
to change their morphology or increase their size via mergers than central galaxies of the same stellar mass. Moreover, major mergers likely play a role in consuming the cold gas and quenching star formation in satellite galaxies. More recently, \cite{WangEnci2019} found that the SDSS satellite and central galaxies have similar morphologies as long as halo mass and stellar mass are controlled, while SAM L-galaxies predicted a very different morphology between the two populations. One of the reasons for this discrepancy is that, in SAMs, by construction, mergers between satellites are assumed to be rare compared to the central-satellite merger (see e.g. \citealt{Guo2011}).
Hydrodynamical simulations may provide some clues to improve the treatment of galaxy mergers in SAMs.
As shown in Figure \ref{fig_faccz}, the ex situ stellar mass in the satellite phase (exclusively for FA satellites) usually grows rapidly around $z_{\rm peak}$. Most of the ex situ accreted stars can be attributed to merger activities. It is interesting to know why galaxy mergers are boosted at this particular moment.
FA halos are merging with their host halos at $z_{\rm peak}$.
It is possible that the orbits of the satellites in these FA halos are disrupted by the violent mergers between halos, and then galaxy mergers are enhanced in a short time. However, there is no such signal for the two SA populations, which seems inconsistent with this scenario. In contrast to FA satellites, mergers for SA satellites in the satellite phase are apparently suppressed compared to central phases (Figure \ref{fig_faccz} and \ref{fig_nmerger}). This means that halo mergers are not necessary to lead to an increase in galaxy mergers. It is likely that whether mergers are enhanced or not depends on the halo formation history or halo inner structure.
We will discuss this in a subsequent paper.
\subsection{Implications for satellite quenching}
\label{subsec_implication_quenching}
Observationally, attempts have been made to constrain the efficiency of environmental processes by comparing satellites with centrals \citep{Wetzel2013}. The underlying assumption is that satellites at the accretion time share the same properties as centrals. Our results clearly show that centrals and satellites are very similar in the SMHM relation at $z_{\rm peak}$ (Figure \ref{fig_smhm}) and even mass growth history before $z_{\rm peak}$ (Figure \ref{fig_mstarz}). They also share similar median gas to stellar mass ratios and specific star formation rates (Figure \ref{fig_prop_zpeak}) and have a similar evolution of sSFR (Figure \ref{fig_sfrz}). Finally, they seem to have quite similar merging histories before $z_{\rm peak}$ (Figure \ref{fig_faccz}).
The simulation thus validates the assumptions adopted in the relevant studies.
From the evolution of the quenched fraction (Figure \ref{fig_fqz}), we can see that the quenching time scale for satellites is up to a few billion years long.
For satellites with $8.5<\log M_{\star,0}<9.0$,
to quench half of them requires about $4$ Gyrs
for $z_{\rm peak}\sim 2$ and about $6.5$ Gyrs for $z_{\rm peak}\sim 1.2$.
For satellites with $9.5<\log M_{\star,0}<10.0$,
the corresponding time scales increase to 5 Gyrs and 8 Gyrs,
respectively. More than $80\%$ of satellites
with $z_{\rm peak}\sim 0.5$ are still active in forming stars today.
In particular, we find that, after $2$ Gyrs since accretion
(i.e. the time of peak mass), only a small fraction of satellites is quenched.
This suggests that these satellites can retain part of their hot gas
and still acquire cold gas to fuel their star formation even when their
dark halos stop growing. In practice, it can be expected that these
time scales for quenching will be shorter and better captured, if the
time of accretion was chosen to represent the time when
a satellite crosses the virial radius instead of $z_{\rm peak}$
(see Donnari et al., in preparation).
\section{Summary}
\label{sec_sum}
By using the cosmological hydrodynamical simulation TNG100, we studied in detail the formation histories of subhalos and the evolution of satellite galaxies lying therein. We use a scaled formation time, $a_{\rm nf}\equiv (1+z_{\rm f})/(1+z_{\rm peak})$, to characterize the formation history of a satellite subhalo before it is accreted by a massive host halo. Here $z_{\rm f}$ is the half mass formation time and $z_{\rm peak}$ is the accretion time. We choose satellites that have peak mass $M_{\rm peak}>10^{10}\rm M_\odot/h$ and within host halos of $M_{\rm 0}>10^{11}\rm M_\odot/h$.
Our main results can be summarized as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] The scaled formation time distribution for subhalos in central phase is bimodal in TNG100. We divide them into three populations, fast accretion (FA, with $a_{\rm nf}<1.3$) and slow accretion (SA), which is sub-divided into SA1 with $1.3<a_{\rm nf}<1.8$ and SA2 with $a_{\rm nf}>1.8$. At a given $z_{\rm peak}$, subhalos with larger $a_{\rm nf}$ are older. Satellites accreted at high $z_{\rm peak}$ are dominated by the FA population, while satellites accreted at low $z_{\rm peak}$ are mainly SA halos. (Figure \ref{fig_bimodal})
\item[(2)] When expressed in terms of halo mass at $z_{\rm peak}$ for satellites (i.e. $M_{\rm peak}$, the central phase peak halo mass), the median SMHM relation at $z=0$ in TNG100 shows no significant difference between centrals and satellites; at accretion time, $z_{\rm peak}$, the SMHM relation is also roughly the same between satellites and centrals. Besides, the SMHM relation shows very weak redshift evolution in TNG100. However, the SMHM relations are systematically different for young (lower $a_{\rm nf}$) and old (higher $a_{\rm nf}$) subhalos, particularly at $z_{\rm peak}$. (Figure \ref{fig_smhm})
\item[(3)] The subhalo formation history has a significant impact on the stellar mass of satellite galaxies. At fixed halo mass at $z_{\rm peak}$, the satellites in subhalos with lower $a_{\rm nf}$ (i.e. residing in younger subhalos) are more massive than those in the subhalos with higher $a_{\rm nf}$ (residing in older subhalos). After accretion, satellites continue to grow in stellar mass, with these in the subhalos with lower $a_{\rm nf}$ growing more comparing to those in the subhalos with higher $a_{\rm nf}$. (see Figure \ref{fig_smhm} and \ref{fig_mstarz})
\item[(4)] The subhalo formation history also matters for the gas content and star-formation activities of satellites. At a given stellar mass at $z_{\rm peak}$, satellites with lower $a_{\rm nf}$ subhalos (i.e. residing in younger subhalos) are more gas rich and have higher sSFRs than satellites in higher $a_{\rm nf}$ subhalos (Figure \ref{fig_prop_zpeak}). After a short delay since accretion, satellite sSFRs decrease faster than for their central counterparts, indicating the role of host halo environments.
\item[(5)] The quenching time scale depends on stellar mass, accretion time and subhalo formation history. It takes, e.g., on average up to $4$ Gyr for half of those satellites having $z_{\rm peak}\sim 2$ and about $6.5$ Gyr for satellites having $z_{\rm peak}\sim 1.2$ with $10^{8.5}<M_{\star, \rm 0}<10^{9}\rm M_\odot/h$ at $z=0$ to be quenched (Figure \ref{fig_fqz}). Especially for satellites with lower $a_{\rm nf}$ subhalo, the quenching time is longer than satellites with higher $a_{\rm nf}$ subhalo. This is due to a combination of the higher gas mass in the central phase and the higher probability of mergers in the satellite phase for FA satellites.
\item[(6)] The subhalo formation history has a dramatic impact on the satellite merger history. At a given $z_{\rm peak}$, FA satellites experience merger events more frequently than SA satellites in both central and satellite phases. For FA satellites, mergers mainly happen in satellite phase, while for SA satellites, mergers mainly happen in the central phase (Figure \ref{fig_nmerger}). After being accreted by host halos, galaxy mergers for FA satellites are enhanced, while those for SA satellites are suppressed. For FA satellites, we find a burst of galaxy mergers and enhancement in star formation around $z_{\rm peak}$, hinting that violent halo mergers might disrupt the orbits of galaxies in FA halos and trigger galaxy mergers. (Figure \ref{fig_facc_mstar} and \ref{fig_faccz}).
\end{itemize}
\section{Acknowledgments}
J. Shi acknowledges the support of the Boya fellow provided by Peking University, helpful discussions with Lizhi Xie on the satellite-specific process and semi-analytic models. J. Shi also acknowledges discussions with Jeremy Tinker on satellite quenching. This work is supported by the National Key R\&D Program of China (grant No. 2018YFA0404503), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC, Nos. 11733004, 11421303, 11890693, and 11522324), the National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program)(2015CB857002), and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities. The work is supported by the Supercomputer Center of University of Science and Technology of China and the High-performance Computing Platform of Peking University in China. LCH was supported by the National Science Foundation of China (11721303, 11991052) and the National Key R\&D Program of China (2016YFA0400702).
\bibliographystyle{mn2e_new}
|
\section*{\refname}}
\newcommand{\begin{equation}}{\begin{equation}}
\newcommand{\end{equation}}{\end{equation}}
\newcommand{\begin{equation*}}{\begin{equation*}}
\newcommand{\end{equation*}}{\end{equation*}}
\newcommand{{\rm Tr}}{{\rm Tr}}
\def\begin{eqnarray}{\begin{eqnarray}}
\def\end{eqnarray}{\end{eqnarray}}
\def\begin{eqnarray*}{\begin{eqnarray*}}
\def\end{eqnarray*}{\end{eqnarray*}}
\def\vert\,\lambda\,>{\vert\,\lambda\,>}
\def\log_2\,{\log_2\,}
\newcommand{\begin{array}}{\begin{array}}
\newcommand{\end{array}}{\end{array}}
\newcommand{\nonumber}{\nonumber}
\newcommand{\begin{displaymath}}{\begin{displaymath}}
\newcommand{\end{displaymath}}{\end{displaymath}}
\newcommand{\begin{array}{ll}}{\begin{array}{ll}}
\newcommand{\end{array}}{\end{array}}
\newcommand{\la}[1]{\lambda^{#1}}
\newcommand{\vskip .2cm\hskip 4cm{\bf TO BE CONTINUED}\vskip .2cm}{\vskip .2cm\hskip 4cm{\bf TO BE CONTINUED}\vskip .2cm}
\def\sc#1{\textstyle{\scriptstyle #1}}
\def\ft#1#2{{\textstyle{{\scriptstyle #1}\over {\scriptstyle #2}}}}
\def\bvec\nabla {\bvec\nabla }
\def\bra#1{\langle\,#1\,\vert}
\def\ket#1{\vert\,#1\,\rangle}
\def\pket#1{|\hskip -2pt |\, #1 \,\rangle\hskip -3pt \rangle}
\def\pbra#1{\langle\hskip -3pt \langle\,#1\,|\hskip -2pt |}
\def\mc#1{\mathcal#1}
\def\thrupork#1{\mathrel{\mathop{#1\!\! \!\!/}}}
\newcommand{\boldsymbol}{\boldsymbol}
\newcommand{\vskip .5cm\noindent}{\vskip .5cm\noindent}
\def\m#1{\mathcal#1}
\newcolumntype{Y}{>{\centering\arraybackslash}X}
\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.2}
\newcommand{\g}[1]{\mathbf{#1}}
\newcommand{\vev}[1]{\langle #1 \rangle_0}
\newcommand{\gb}[1]{\bar{\mathbf{#1}}}
\newcommand{\bar{H}_{\g{5}}}{\bar{H}_{\g{5}}}
\newcommand{$\varphi^{(t)}_{\g{3}_1}$}{$\varphi^{(t)}_{\g{3}_1}$}
\newcommand{\varphi^{(t)}_{\g{3}_1}}{\varphi^{(t)}_{\g{3}_1}}
\newcommand{\gob}[1]{\mathbf{\overline{#1}}}
\newcommand{\mb}[1]{\mathbb{Z}_{#1}}
\newcommand{\matc}[1]{ \left(
\begin{array}{c}
#1
\end{array}
\right)
}
\newcommand{\red}[1]{\textcolor{black}{#1}}
\newcommand{\blue}[1]{\textcolor{black}{#1}}
\newcommand{\sky}[1]{\textcolor{black}{#1}}
\newcommand{\blu}[1]{\textcolor{black}{#1}}
\newcommand{\myred}[1]{\textcolor{black}{#1}}
\newcommand{\myboxed}[1]{%
\rlap{\hspace*{\dimexpr\fboxrule+\fboxsep\relax}%
\phantom{\m@th$\displaystyle#1$}}%
\smash{\boxed{#1}}}
\renewcommand{\thesection}{\arabic{section}{\Large}}
\renewcommand{\thesubsection}{\thesection.\arabic{subsection}}
\renewcommand{\thesubsubsection}{\thesubsection.\arabic{subsubsection}}
\makeatletter
\renewcommand{\p@subsection}{}
\renewcommand{\p@subsubsection}{}
\makeatother
\begin{document}
\title{\Large Tribimaximal Mixing in the $SU(5) \times \mc T_{13}$ Texture \\\vspace*{1cm}}
\author{M. Jay P\'erez}
\email[Email: ]{<EMAIL>}
\affiliation{\small{Valencia College, Osceola Science Department, Kissimmee, FL 34744, USA}}
\author{Moinul Hossain Rahat}
\email[Email: ]{<EMAIL>}
\affiliation{\small{Institute for Fundamental Theory, Department of Physics,
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA }}
\author{Pierre Ramond}
\email[Email: ]{<EMAIL>}
\affiliation{\small{Institute for Fundamental Theory, Department of Physics,
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA }}
\author{Alexander J. Stuart}
\email[Email: ]{<EMAIL>}
\affiliation{\small{Facultad de Ciencias-CUICBAS, Universidad de Colima, C.P. 28045, Colima, M\'exico}\\\vspace*{1cm}}
\author{Bin Xu }
\email[Email: ]{<EMAIL>}
\affiliation{\small{Institute for Fundamental Theory, Department of Physics,
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA }}
\begin{abstract}
\vskip 0.5cm
\noindent \blu{We extend the recently proposed $SU(5) \times \mc T_{13}$ model for the asymmetric texture to the up-type quark and seesaw sectors. The hierarchical up-type quark masses are generated from higher-dimensional operators involving family-singlet Higgses, gauge-singlet familons, and vector-like messengers. The complex-tribimaximal (TBM) seesaw mixing arises from the vacuum structure of a minimal number of familons, resulting in an alignment between the Yukawa and Majorana matrices of the seesaw formula. Introducing four right-handed neutrinos, normal ordering of the light neutrino masses is obtained, with $m_{\nu_1} = 27.6\ \mathrm{meV}$, $m_{\nu_2} = 28.9\ \mathrm{meV}$ and $m_{\nu_3} = 57.8\ \mathrm{meV}$. Their sum almost saturates Planck's cosmological upper bound ($120$ $\text{meV}$). The right-handed neutrino masses are expressed in terms of two parameters for a particular choice of familon vacuum alignment. We predict the $\cancel{CP}$ Jarlskog-Greenberg invariant to be $|\mc J| = 0.028$, consistent with the current PDG estimate, and Majorana invariants $|\mc I_1| = 0.106$ and $|\mc I_2| = 0.011$. A sign ambiguity in the model parameters leads to two possibilities for the invariant mass parameter $|m_{\beta \beta}|$: $13.02$ or $25.21$ $\text{meV}$, both within an order of magnitude of the most rigorous experimental upper limit ($61$--$165$ $\text{meV}$).}
\end{abstract}
\maketitle
\section{Introduction}
\blu{In Ref.~\cite{rrx2018asymmetric}, three of us proposed a minimally asymmetric Yukawa texture for the down-type quark matrix, $Y^{(-\frac{1}{3})}$, and charged lepton matrix, $Y^{(-1)}$, in the context of $SU(5)$ gauge-unification. Assuming a diagonal up-type quark Yukawa matrix $Y^{(\frac{2}{3})}$, this texture successfully reproduces the quark mixing angles and the mass ratios of the down-type quarks and charged leptons in the deep ultraviolet. The PMNS lepton mixing matrix bridges the $\Delta I_w = \frac{1}{2}$ physics of charged leptons to the unknown $\Delta I_w = 0$ physics of the seesaw sector:
\begin{align}
\mc U_{PMNS} = \mc U^{(-1)^\dagger}\ \mc U_{seesaw}.
\end{align}
The large atmospheric and solar angles in the PMNS matrix are explained by Tribimaximal (TBM) \cite{harrison2002tri, *tbm2, *xing2002nearly, *he2003some, *wolfenstein1978oscillations} seesaw mixing, whereas the small reactor angle emerges entirely from the ``Cabibbo haze" \cite{cabibbohaze, *everett2006viewing, *Everett:2006fq, *kile2014majorana} provided by the charged leptons. Adding a single $\cancel{CP}$ phase \cite{Everett:2019idp,*parida2019high, *Shimizu2019, *ballett2014testing, *ballett2014testingatm, *antusch2018predicting, *king2019theory, *ahriche2018mono, *delgadillo2018predictions, *girardi2016leptonic, *ding2019status, *Chen:2019egu, *liu2019further, *petcov2018discrete, *girardi2015predictions, *girardi2015determining, *girardi2016predictions, *dinh2017revisiting, *penedo2018low, *agarwalla2018addressing, *petcov2016theory, *ge2011z2, *ge2012residual, *Ding:2019zhn, *CarcamoHernandez:2018djj, *Chen:2015siy, *Chen:2018eou} to TBM reproduces all three angles within $1\sigma$ of their PDG global fits \cite{tanabashi2018review}. Moreover, the phase yields the $\cancel{CP}$ Jarlskog-Greenberg invariant \cite{jarlskog1, *greenberg1} to be $|\mc J| = 0.028$, consistent with PDG \cite{tanabashi2018review}. }
In Ref.~\cite{Perez:2019aqq}, we introduced a model where the ``fine-tunings'' of the asymmetric texture are upgraded to ``natural'' relations with the addition of a discrete family symmetry (see \cite{king2013neutrino, *tanimoto2015neutrinos, *meloni2017gut, *petcov2017discrete} and the references therein) $\mc T_{13} = \mc Z_{13} \rtimes \mc Z_{3}$, the smallest subgroup of $SU(3)$ with two inequivalent triplets \cite{miller1961theory, *fairbairn1964finite, *ludl2011comments, *grimus2014characterization, *ishimori2010non, *kajiyama2011t13}, which are necessary to generate the asymmetry. Folded in with grand-unified theory (GUT) $SU(5)$, this model explains the features of the $\Delta I_w = \frac{1}{2}$ down-type quark and charged-lepton Yukawa matrices constructed from higher-dimensional operators in terms of gauge-singlet familons, family-singlet Higgses, and messengers with heavy vectorlike masses. \myred{A key feature of the model is ``crystallographic'' familon vacuum alignments, implying that all nonzero components of the triplet/antitriplet familons obtain the same order of vacuum expectation values.}
This paper expands the analysis to the up-type quark and seesaw sectors of the model. The up-type quark masses are explained by dimension-five, -six, and -seven operators, which yield a diagonal $Y^{(\frac{2}{3})}$ and reproduce their ultraviolet hierarchy.
Turning to the $\Delta I_w = 0$ seesaw sector, we show how the complex-TBM seesaw mixing arises from the vacuum structure of a minimal number of familons, resulting from the $\mc T_{13}$ Clebsch-Gordan coefficients.\footnote{Ref.~\cite{parattu2011tribimaximal} scans over subgroups of $SU(3)$ and identifies $\mc T_{13}$ as one of the groups that can yield TBM mixing. See \cite{ding2011tri, *hartmann2011neutrino, *PhysRevD.85.013012} for other approaches to study neutrino mixing with TBM in relation to $\mc T_{13}$ family symmetry as well as \cite{Feruglio:2019ktm} for a recent review of neutrino flavor symmetries.} It requires an alignment between the Yukawa ($Y^{(0)}$) and Majorana ($\mc M$) matrices of the seesaw formula
\begin{align}
\mc S = Y^{(0)}\ \mc M^{-1}\ Y^{(0)^T},
\end{align}
\myred{without the need to specify familon vacuum expectation values}. The minimal construction with three right-handed neutrinos with TBM mixing yields mass relations between the light neutrinos incompatible with the oscillation data \cite{tanabashi2018review}. The addition of a gauge-singlet fourth right-handed neutrino is shown to produce TBM seesaw mixing, and $m_{\nu_2} = \frac{1}{2} m_{\nu_3}$ in two different scenarios, and by using the oscillation data \cite{tanabashi2018review} generates the three light neutrino masses in normal ordering: $m_{\nu_1} = 27.6$ $\text{meV}$, $m_{\nu_2} = 28.9$ $\text{meV}$ and $m_{\nu_3} = 57.8$ $\text{meV}$, with their sum close to the Planck value ($120$ $\text{meV}$) \cite{aghanim2018planck}.
The four right-handed neutrino masses are calculated in terms of two parameters assuming simple vacuum alignments of the seesaw familons. We find curious cases of degeneracies in their mass spectrum.
We also calculate the $\cancel{CP}$ Dirac and Majorana phases \cite{schechter1982neutrinoless} yielded by the asymmetric texture with complex-TBM seesaw mixing. Together with the light neutrino masses, they predict the invariant mass parameter $|m_{\beta\beta}|$ in neutrinoless double-beta decay \cite{dell2016neutrinoless, *engel2017status, *vergados2016neutrinoless, *pas2015neutrinoless, *king2013power} to be either $13.02$ $\text{meV}$ or $25.21$ $\text{meV}$, \myred{depending on the sign of the parameters}, within an order of magnitude of the recently measured upper limit of $61$--$165$ $\text{meV}$ by the KamLAND-Zen experiment \cite{gando2016search}.
The $SU(5) \times \mc T_{13}$ symmetry still allows for some unwanted tree-level vertices which can be prohibited by introducing a $\mc Z_n$ symmetry, where $n = 14$ or $12$ depending on which of the two aforementioned scenarios is realized in the seesaw sector. The full symmetry of the unified model is therefore $SU(5) \times \mc T_{13} \times \mc Z_n$, successfully explaining the masses and mixings of both quarks and leptons.
The organization of the paper is as follows. In Section \ref{sec:2}, we review the construction of the asymmetric texture, its key features, and how they are realized by a $\mc T_{13}$ family symmetry. Section \ref{sec:5} explains how the hierarchical up-type quark Yukawa texture is built from higher-dimensional operators. Section \ref{sec:3} discusses the seesaw sector in detail. In Section \ref{sec:4}, we calculate the Majorana phases and the invariant mass parameter $|m_{\beta\beta}|$. We summarize the unified model in Section \ref{sec:6}. Section \ref{sec:7} discusses the theoretical outlook and we conclude in Section \ref{sec:8}.
\section{Asymmetric Tribimaximal Texture from $\mc T_{13}$}\label{sec:2}
\blu{In this section we review the key features of the asymmetric texture and how it emerges from the discrete family symmetry $\mc T_{13}$.} Our approach is inspired by ``gauge simplicity'' and ``seesaw simplicity'' in the deep ultraviolet. \blu{Gauge simplicity leads to $SU(5)$ grand unification of the Standard Model gauge groups, and relates $Y^{(-\frac{1}{3})}$ to $Y^{(-1)}$. Renormalization group running to the deep ultraviolet hints at suggestive relations between quark and charged-lepton masses: }
\begin{align}
\frac{m_u}{m_c} \approx \frac{m_c}{m_t} \approx \lambda^4,\ \ \frac{m_s}{m_b} \approx \frac{\lambda^2}{3},\ \ \frac{m_e}{m_\tau} \approx \frac{\lambda^4}{9},\ \frac{m_\mu}{m_\tau} \approx \lambda^2,\ m_b \approx m_\tau, \label{GUTmass}
\end{align}
relating quark mass ratios to mixing angles through the Gatto relation \cite{gatto}
\begin{align}
\sqrt{\frac{m_d}{m_s}} &\approx \lambda, \label{gattoeq}
\end{align}
and implies that
\begin{align}
\det Y^{(-\frac{1}{3})} \approx \det Y^{(-1)}, \label{detcond}
\end{align}
where $\lambda \approx 0.225$ is the Wolfenstein parameter.
The GUT-scale relations of Eq.~\eqref{GUTmass} imply $(m_\mu / m_s)( m_d / m_e) \approx 9$, which is in tension with the recent estimate $(m_\mu / m_s)( m_d / m_e) \approx 10.7^{+ 1.8}_{-0.8}$ \cite{Antusch:2013jca}.
Seesaw simplicity suggests that the two large angles in the PMNS lepton mixing matrix arise from a bi-large mixing matrix, e.g. TBM, assuming that the small reactor angle is entirely generated by Cabibbo haze from the charged leptons.
However, symmetric $Y^{(-\frac{1}{3})}$ textures in $SU(5)$ are incompatible with TBM mixing \cite{kile}, and ``seesaw simplicity'' requires us to search for the minimal asymmetry in $Y^{(-\frac{1}{3})}$ that yields the PMNS angles \cite{rrx2018asymmetric}. Under the assumption that all Yukawa couplings are real, and there is only one $\overline{\g{45}}$ coupling (inspired by minimality), a unique Georgi-Jarlskog-like \cite{gj} texture at the GUT scale emerges \cite{rrx2018asymmetric}:
\begin{align}
\begin{aligned}
Y^{(\frac{2}{3})} \sim~ &\mathrm{diag}\ (\lambda^8, \lambda^4, 1), \\
Y^{(-{1\over3})} \sim
\begin{pmatrix}
b d \lambda ^4 & a \lambda ^3 & b \lambda ^3 \cr
a \lambda ^3 & c \lambda ^2 & g \lambda ^2 \cr
d \lambda & g \lambda ^2 & 1 \end{pmatrix}
~~&\mathrm{ and~~~}
Y^{(-1)} \sim
\begin{pmatrix}
b d \lambda ^4 & a \lambda ^3 & d \lambda \cr
a \lambda ^3 & -3c \lambda ^2 & g \lambda ^2 \cr
b \lambda^3 & g \lambda ^2 & 1 \end{pmatrix}, \label{texture}
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
where in terms of the Wolfenstein parameters $A$, $\rho$, and $\eta$, the $\mc O(1)$ prefactors \cite{rrx2018asymmetric} are \footnote{Curiously, there are numerical coincidences between prefactors: $\frac{2}{3A} \approx A = 0.81$ implying $g \approx d$, and $b = 0.31$ is close to $a = c = 0.33$.}
\begin{equation} \nonumber
a = c = \frac{1}{3}, ~~ g = A, ~~b = A \sqrt{\rho^2+\eta^2}, ~~d = \frac{2a}{g}=\frac{2}{3A}.
\end{equation}
\blu{The solo $\overline{\g{45}}$ coupling $c$ appears only in the $(22)$ position, and implies that the subdeterminant with respect to it must vanish to satisfy Eq.~\eqref{detcond}.} This texture successfully reproduces the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) mixing angles, the Gatto relation, and the GUT-scale mass relations (up to an overall constant) \cite{rrx2018asymmetric}:
\begin{align}
\begin{aligned}
&m_b = 1.019, \quad m_d = 0.994\ \lambda^4/3,\quad m_s = 0.951\ \lambda^2/3, \\
&m_\tau = 1.019, \quad m_e = 0.912\ \lambda^4/9,\quad m_\mu = 1.036\ \lambda^2. \label{mymass}
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
These yield $(m_\mu / m_s)( m_d / m_e) \approx 10.7$, in agreement with Ref.~\cite{Antusch:2013jca} but in slight disagreement with Georgi-Jarlskog's relations in $SU(5)$, and do not change the structure of the texture.
With TBM seesaw mixing, the texture of Eq.~\eqref{texture} slightly overestimates the reactor and solar angles and underestimates the atmospheric angle. All angles are brought within $1\sigma$ of their PDG fit \cite{tanabashi2018review} by introducing a single phase $\delta = 78^\circ$ \cite{rrx2018asymmetric} in the TBM matrix:
\begin{equation} \label{tbmdelta}
\mc U_{ TBM}(\delta) = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & e^{i \delta}
\end{pmatrix} \cdot
\begin{pmatrix} \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} & 0 \\
-\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} & - \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
It generates a $\cancel{CP}$ Dirac phase $|\delta_{CP}| = 0.68\pi$, yielding the Jarlskog-Greenberg invariant \cite{jarlskog1, *greenberg1} $|\mathcal{J}| = 0.028$, consistent with the current PDG estimate \cite{tanabashi2018review}.
Although phenomenologically successful, the asymmetric TBM texture was constructed without concern for fine-tuning. Its key features are
\begin{itemize}
\item an asymmetric term in $Y^{(-\frac{1}{3})}$ and $Y^{(-1)}$,
\item a vanishing subdeterminant with respect to the $(22)$ element of $Y^{(-\frac{1}{3})}$ and $Y^{(-1)}$,
\item a diagonal hierarchical $Y^{(\frac{2}{3})}$,
\item TBM seesaw mixing with a phase.
\end{itemize}
These fine-tuned features become natural when they originate from a discrete family symmetry.
In Ref.~\cite{Perez:2019aqq}, we identified $\mc T_{13} = \mc Z_{13} \rtimes \mc Z_3$ as the smallest non-Abelian discrete subgroup of $SU(3)$ capable of reproducing the first two features. Assuming the fermions $F$ and $T$ transform as $\mc T_{13}$ triplets but the Higgs $H$ as a family singlet, the $\Delta I_w = \frac{1}{2}$ effective operators are at least of dimension five: $FTH \varphi$, constructed with gauge-singlet family-triplet and -antitriplet familons $\varphi$. These interactions are mediated by heavy messengers with vectorlike mass. The vacuum alignment of the familons are ``crystallographic,'' pointing towards the sides or face diagonals of a three-dimensional cube.
$\mc T_{13}$ contains two different triplet representations required by the asymmetry. Considering $F\equiv(F_1, F_2, F_3) \sim (\gb{5},\g{3}_1)$ and $T\equiv(T_1, T_3, T_2) \sim (\g{10},\g{3}_2)$ under $SU(5) \times \mc T_{13}$, it labels each matrix element $F_i T_j$ of the texture with a unique $\mc Z_{13}$ charge and thus separates out the asymmetric term. \myred{The vanishing of the $(22)$-subdeterminant is achieved naturally by coupling the operator $FTH$ to three familons, orthogonal in the vacuum. The first two, $\varphi$ and $\varphi'$, couple at dimension five and generate the $F_1 T_3$ and $F_3 T_3$ elements, respectively. The third familon, $\varphi''$ then couples to \emph{both} dimension-five operators, generating the $F_1 T_1$ and $F_3 T_1$ elements at dimension six; their $\mc T_{13}$ coupling structure and vacuum alignments then implement the requisite relation between the matrix elements $Y^{(-\frac{1}{3})}_{11} Y^{(-\frac{1}{3})}_{33} = Y^{(-\frac{1}{3})}_{13} Y^{(-\frac{1}{3})}_{31}$, irrespective of the coupling constants. }
\vspace{0.5cm}
\blu{In this paper we complete the $SU(5) \times \mc T_{13}$ model by implementing the last two features -- diagonal $Y^{(\frac{2}{3})}$ and complex-TBM seesaw mixing -- of the asymmetric texture. In the next section, we show how the hierarchical structure of the up-type quark matrix appears naturally in the $\mc T_{13}$ model. }
\section{$Y^{(\frac{2}{3})}$ Texture}\label{sec:5}
Assuming a family-singlet Higgs $\bar{H}_{\g{5}}$, the up-type quark Yukawa matrix $Y^{(\frac{2}{3})}$ is constructed from terms like $T T \bar{H}_{\g{5}} \varphi$, where $\varphi$ is a gauge-singlet $\mc T_{13}$ triplet or antitriplet familon (or combination of such familons) and $\bar{H}_{\g{5}}$ is the complex conjugate of the field $H_{\gb{5}}$ that couples to $Y^{(-\frac{1}{3})}$ and $Y^{(-1)}$. In terms of $\mc T_{13}$ Clebsch-Gordan coefficients, the product $T \otimes T$ yields
\begin{align} \label{eq:TT}
\matc{
T_1\\
T_3\\
T_2
}_{\g{3}_2} \otimes
\matc{
T_1\\
T_3\\
T_2
}_{\g{3}_2} &\rightarrow
\matc{
T_3 T_3 \\
T_2 T_2 \\
T_1 T_1
}_{\gb{3}_1} \oplus
\matc{
T_3 T_2 \\
T_2 T_1 \\
T_1 T_3
}_{\gb{3}_2} \oplus
\matc{
T_2 T_3 \\
T_1 T_2 \\
T_3 T_1
}_{\gb{3}_2} .
\end{align}
With simple familon vacuum alignments, the hierarchical structure of $Y^{(\frac{2}{3})}$ suggests the operators
\begin{align*}
TT\bar{H}_{\g{5}}\varphi^{(t)}_{\g{3}_1} \qquad &\textrm{for the top-quark mass,}\\
TT\bar{H}_{\g{5}}\varphi^{(t)}_{\g{3}_1} \varphi_{\g{3}_i} \qquad &\textrm{for the charm-quark mass, and}\\
TT\bar{H}_{\g{5}}\varphi^{(t)}_{\g{3}_1} \varphi_{\g{3}_i} \varphi_{\g{3}_i} \qquad &\textrm{for the up-type quark mass}
\end{align*}
in vacuum, with the hierarchical factor of $\lambda^4$ supplied by $\vev{\varphi_{\g{3}_i}}$. $\varphi^{(t)}_{\g{3}_1}$ transforms as a $\g{3}_1$, while $\varphi_{\g{3}_i}$ is a triplet or antitriplet whose exact representation is unresolved at this stage.
\subsection{Top-quark mass}
The dimension-five operator $TT\bar{H}_{\g{5}}\varphi^{(t)}_{\g{3}_1}$ yields the top-quark mass when $\vev{\varphi^{(t)}_{\g{3}_1}} \sim m_t (1,0,0).$ It arises from tree-level vertices $T\Gamma \varphi^{(t)}_{\g{3}_1}$ and $T\overline{\Gamma}\bar{H}_{\g{5}}$, where $\Gamma \sim (\overline{\g{10}}, \g{3}_2)$ under $SU(5) \times \mc T_{13}$ is a heavy messenger field with vectorlike mass:
\begin{equation}\label{dia:charm}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(a.base)]
\begin{feynman}[small]
\vertex (a);
\vertex [right=of a] (c);
\vertex [above left=of a] (i1) {\(T\)};
\vertex [below left=of a] (i2) {\(\varphi^{(t)}_{\g{3}_1}\)};
\vertex [above right=of c] (f1) {\(T\)};
\vertex [below right=of c] (f2) {\(\bar{H}_{\g{5}}\)};
\diagram* {
(i1) -- (a) --[insertion=0.5, edge label=\(\Gamma\quad \overline{\Gamma}\)] (c) -- (f1),
(a) -- [scalar] (i2),
(c) -- [scalar] (f2),
};
\end{feynman}
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation}
This diagram implements the contractions $(T \varphi^{(t)}_{\g{3}_1})_{\gb{3}_2} \cdot (T H_\g{5})_{\g{3}_2}.$ The first contraction yields $m_t(0, T_3, 0)_{\gb{3}_2}$ and the second $(T_1, T_3, T_2)_{\g{3}_2}$, resulting in the top-quark mass term $ m_t T_3 T_3$ \footnote{The dimension-five operator generating the top-quark mass is the leading order (LO) operator. As will be discussed in Section \ref{sec:6} and Appendix \ref{app:shape}, this is guaranteed by introducing a $\mathcal{Z}_n$ symmetry to restrict `dangerous' operators from coupling to unwanted matrix elements. Even without the $\mathcal{Z}_n$ symmetry, the next-to-leading-order (NLO) operator contributing to the top-quark mass is of dimension six: $TT\bar{H}_{\textbf{5}}\varphi_{3_1}^{(t)*} \varphi_{3_2}$, which is suppressed by a factor of $\lambda^4$.}.
\subsection{Charm-quark mass}
From Eq. \eqref{eq:TT}, we want the familon combination $\varphi^{(t)}_{\g{3}_1} \varphi_{\g{3}_i}$ to transform as a $\g{3}_1$, with a vacuum alignment along $(0,1,0)$. The $\mc T_{13}$ Kronecker products then uniquely determine $\varphi_{\g{3}_i} \equiv \varphi_{\g{3}_2}$.
The dimension-six operator $TT\bar{H}_{\g{5}} \varphi^{(t)}_{\g{3}_1} \varphi_{\g{3}_2}$ can be constructed by adding two new tree-level vertices $T\Omega\varphi^{(t)}_{\g{3}_1}$ and $\overline{\Omega}\Gamma \varphi_{\g{3}_2}$ to $T\overline{\Gamma}\bar{H}_{\g{5}}$:
\begin{equation}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(a.base)]
\begin{feynman}[small]
\vertex (a);
\vertex [right=of a] (b);
\vertex [right=of b] (c);
\vertex [below=of b] (d) {$\varphi_{\g{3}_2}$};
\vertex [above left=of a] (i1) {\(T\)};
\vertex [below left=of a] (i2) {\(\varphi^{(t)}_{\g{3}_1}\)};
\vertex [above right=of c] (f1) {\(T\)};
\vertex [below right=of c] (f2) {\(\bar{H}_{\g{5}}\)};
\diagram* {
(i1) -- (a) --[insertion=0.5, edge label=\(\Omega\ \overline{\Omega}\)] (b) --[insertion=0.5, edge label=\(\Gamma\ \overline{\Gamma}\)] (c) -- (f1),
(a) -- [scalar] (i2),
(b) -- [scalar] (d),
(c) -- [scalar] (f2),
};
\end{feynman}
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation}
giving the contraction
$\left(T \varphi^{(t)}_{\g{3}_1}\right)_{\g{3}_2} \cdot \left(TH\varphi_{\g{3}_2}\right)_{\gb{3}_2}$,
where a new vectorlike messenger $\Omega \sim (\overline{\g{10}}, \gb{3}_2)$ is required to pick out $m_t T_2$ from the first contraction. With $\vev{\varphi_{\g{3}_2}} \sim \lambda^4 (1, \alpha, 0)$, where $\alpha$ is still unresolved, the second contraction contributes $\lambda^4 T_2$, thus resulting in the charm-quark mass term $m_t \lambda^4 T_2 T_2$ in vacuum.
\subsection{Up-quark mass}
Again consulting Eq. \eqref{eq:TT}, the familon combination $\varphi^{(t)}_{\g{3}_1} \varphi_{\g{3}_2}\varphi_{\g{3}_2}$ must transform as a $\g{3}_1$ and be aligned along $(0,0,1)$ in vacuum. This fixes $\alpha$ to be $1$.
The dimension-seven operator $TT\bar{H}_{\g{5}} \varphi^{(t)}_{\g{3}_1} \varphi_{\g{3}_2}\varphi_{\g{3}_2}$ can be constructed by adding three new tree-level vertices $T\Theta\varphi^{(t)}_{\g{3}_1}$, $\overline{\Theta}\Theta\varphi_{\g{3}_2}$ and $\overline{\Theta}\Gamma \varphi_{\g{3}_2}$ to $T\overline{\Gamma}\bar{H}_{\g{5}}$, where $\Theta \sim (\overline{\g{10}}, \gb{3}_1)$ is a new messenger:
\begin{equation}\label{dia:up}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(a.base)]
\begin{feynman}[small]
\vertex (a);
\vertex [right=of a] (b);
\vertex [right=of b] (c);
\vertex [right=of c] (d);
\vertex [below=of b] (e){$\varphi_{\g{3}_2}$};
\vertex [below=of c] (f){$\varphi_{\g{3}_2}$};
\vertex [above left=of a] (i1) {\(T\)};
\vertex [below left=of a] (i2) {\(\varphi^{(t)}_{\g{3}_1}\)};
\vertex [above right=of d] (f1) {\(T\)};
\vertex [below right=of d] (f2) {\(\bar{H}_{\g{5}}\)};
\diagram* {
(i1) -- (a) --[insertion=0.5, edge label=\(\Theta\ \overline{\Theta}\)] (b) --[insertion=0.5, edge label=\(\Theta\ \overline{\Theta}\)] (c) --[insertion=0.5, edge label=\(\Gamma\ \overline{\Gamma}\)] (d) -- (f1),
(a) -- [scalar] (i2),
(b) -- [scalar] (e),
(c) -- [scalar] (f),
(d) -- [scalar] (f2),
};
\end{feynman}
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation}
implementing the contractions
$
\left( (T\varphi^{(t)}_{\g{3}_1})_{\g{3}_1} \cdot \varphi_{\g{3}_2}\right)_{\g{3}_1} \cdot \left( TH_\g{5} \varphi_{\g{3}_2} \right)_{\gb{3}_1}.
$
The first contraction extracts $m_t T_1$, the second $\lambda^4$, while the third gives $\lambda^4 T_1$, thus yielding the up- quark mass term $m_t \lambda^8 T_1 T_1$ in vacuum.
\myred{In summary, the above diagrams yield the desired hierarchical up-type quark masses:}
\begin{align*}
m_u : m_c : m_t = \lambda^8 : \lambda^4 : 1.
\end{align*}
\section{The seesaw Sector}\label{sec:3}
\blu{In this section we show how TBM seesaw mixing is realized in the $SU(5) \times \mc T_{13}$ model. It requires four right-handed neutrinos and three familons, whose vacuum expectation values need not be fine-tuned to yield TBM-diagonalization.}
The necessity of the fourth right-handed neutrino becomes apparent by first considering the simpler three-neutrino case.
\subsection{Three Right-Handed Neutrinos}
We introduce three right-handed neutrinos $\bar{N} \equiv (\bar{N}_1, \bar{N}_3, \bar{N}_2)$, \myred{their order mimicking $T \equiv (T_1, T_3, T_2)$ inspired by an $SO(10)$ extension of the gauge group, and} transforming as $(\g{1}, \g{3}_2)$ under $SU(5) \times \mc T_{13}$.
Their $\Delta I_w = \frac{1}{2}$ coupling is given by the dimension-five operator
$
F \bar{N} \bar{H}_{\g{5}} \varphi_{\mc A},
$
where $\varphi_{\mc A}$ is a familon transforming as $(\g{1}, \gb{3}_1 \times \gb{3}_2) = (\g{1}, \gb{3}_1) \oplus (\g{1}, \gb{3}_2) \oplus (\g{1}, \g{3}_2)$. This operator can be constructed from tree-level vertices $y_{\mc A} F \Lambda \bar{H}_{\g{5}}$ and $y_{\mc A}' \bar{N} \overline{\Lambda}\varphi_{\mc A}$:
\begin{equation}
\begin{comment}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(a.base)]
\begin{feynman}[small]
\vertex (a);
\vertex [right=of a] (c){\({\Lambda}\)};
\vertex [above left=of a] (i1) {\(F\)};
\vertex [below left=of a] (i2) {\(\bar{H}_{\g{5}}\)};
\diagram* {
(i1) -- (a) -- (c),
(a) -- [scalar] (i2),
};
\end{feynman}
\end{tikzpicture} +
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(a.base)]
\begin{feynman}[small]
\vertex (a);
\vertex [left=of a] (c){\({\overline{\Lambda}}\)};
\vertex [above right=of a] (i1) {\(\bar{N}\)};
\vertex [below right=of a] (i2) {\(\varphi_{\mc A}\)};
\diagram* {
(i1) -- (a) -- (c),
(a) -- [scalar] (i2),
};
\end{feynman}
\end{tikzpicture} \rightarrow
\end{comment}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(a.base)]
\begin{feynman}[small]
\vertex (a);
\vertex [right=of a] (c);
\vertex [above left=of a] (i1) {\(F\)};
\vertex [below left=of a] (i2) {\(\bar{H}_{\g{5}}\)};
\vertex [above right=of c] (f1) {\(\bar{N}\)};
\vertex [below right=of c] (f2) {\(\varphi_{\mc A}\)};
\diagram* {
(i1) -- (a) --[insertion=0.5, edge label=\(\Lambda\quad \overline{\Lambda}\)] (c) -- (f1),
(a) -- [scalar] (i2),
(c) -- [scalar] (f2),
};
\end{feynman}
\end{tikzpicture}
\rightarrow
\frac{1}{M}y_{\mc A} y_{\mc A}' \vev{\bar{H}_{\g{5}}} \vev{\varphi_{\mc A}} F\bar{N}.
\label{feynman}
\end{equation}
Here, $y_{\mc A}$ and $y_{\mc A}'$ are dimensionless Yukawa couplings and $\Lambda$ is a complex messenger with heavy vectorlike mass $M$. Denoting the combination of vacuum expectation values of the familon and Higgs as
$\frac{1}{M}y_{\mc A} y_{\mc A}' \vev{\bar{H}_{\g{5}}} \vev{\varphi_{\mc A}} \equiv (a_1, a_2, a_3)^t,$
$\mc T_{13}$ yields three possibilities for the coupling matrix $\mc A$:
\begin{align}
\varphi_{\mc A} \sim \gb{3}_1: \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
a_2 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & a_1 \\
0 & a_3 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right),\
\varphi_{\mc A} \sim \gb{3}_2: \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & a_3 & 0 \\
a_2 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & a_1 \\
\end{array}
\right),
\varphi_{\mc A} \sim \g{3}_2: \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & a_1 \\
0 & a_3 & 0 \\
a_2 & 0 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right), \label{Aforms2}
\end{align}
where the $a_i$ have dimension of mass.
The $\Delta I_w = 0$ coupling of the right-handed neutrinos is given minimally by the dimension-four operator
$
y_{\mc B}\bar{N} \bar{N} \varphi_{\mc B}
$
for some dimensionless coupling constant $y_{\mc B}$, where $\varphi_{\mc B}$ transforms as $(\g{1},\gb{3}_2 \times \gb{3}_2) = (\g{1},\g{3}_1) \oplus (\g{1},\g{3}_2) \oplus (\g{1},\g{3}_2)$. Denoting its vacuum expectation value by $y_{\mc B} \vev{\varphi_{\mc B}} \equiv (b_1, b_2, b_3)^t$, $\mc T_{13}$ offers two possibilities for the symmetric Majorana matrix $\mc B$:
\begin{align}
\varphi_{\mc B} \sim \g{3}_2: \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & b_2 & b_3 \\
b_2 & 0 & b_1 \\
b_3 & b_1 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right), \quad
\varphi_{\mc B} \sim \g{3}_1: \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
b_3 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & b_2 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & b_1 \\
\end{array}
\right), \label{Bforms2}
\end{align}
where again the $b_i$ have dimension of mass.
\myred{Minimality dictates we introduce the least number of right-handed neutrinos and familons in the seesaw sector. In this spirit, we adopt $\varphi_{\mc A} \sim \gb{3}_2$ in Eq.~\eqref{Aforms2} and $\varphi_{\mc B} \sim \g{3}_2$ in Eq.~\eqref{Bforms2}. The implications of the alternative choices are discussed in Appendix~\ref{App:B}.}
\vspace{0.5cm}
The seesaw matrix $\mc S$ is related to the $\Delta I_w = \frac{1}{2}$ and $\Delta I_w = 0$ matrices by
\begin{align}
\mc S = \mc A \mc B^{-1} \mc A^t,
\end{align}
for $\det \mc B \neq 0$. We choose a particular decomposition of $\mc B$:
\begin{align}
\mc B = \mc C\ \mc G\ \mc C^t, \label{mydecom}
\end{align}
where $\mc C$ depends on $\vev{\varphi_{\mc B}}$:
\begin{comment}
Compare this to the case of Golden Ratio mixing. By choosing $\mc C = \sqrt{b_1 b_2 b_3}\ \text{diag}(b_1^{-1}, \sqrt{2} b_3^{-1}, -b_2^{-1})$, the decomposition of Eq.~\eqref{mydecom} yields
\begin{align*}
\mc G = \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} & -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \\
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} & 0 & -1 \\
-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} & -1 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right) \label{Gform}
\end{align*}
which is diagonalized by the Golden Ratio matrix. In this case, however, $\mc C$ is not proportional to a unitary matrix without fine-tuning the vacuum expectation value of $\varphi_{\mc B}$ and it cannot be absorbed into the redefinition of $\bar{N}$. Diagonalizing the seesaw matrix matrix by the Golden Ratio mixing does not follow naturally, it requires $vev{\varphi_{\mc A}}$ and $vev{\varphi_{\mc B}}$ to be related in a particular way.
\end{comment}
\begin{align}
\mc C = \sqrt{b_1 b_2 b_3}\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
b_1^{-1} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & b_3^{-1} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -b_2^{-1} \\
\end{array}
\right),
\end{align}
and $\mc G$ is a purely numerical matrix:
\begin{align}
\mc G = \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 1 & -1 \\
1 & 0 & -1 \\
-1 & -1 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right). \label{Gform}
\end{align}
Surprisingly, $\mc G$ is diagonalized by the TBM matrix
\begin{align}
\mc G = \mc U_{TBM}\ \mc D_b\ \mc U_{TBM}^t, \label{Gdecomp}
\end{align}
where
$
\mc D_b = \text{diag} (-1, 2, -1).
$
$\mc G$ is invariant under the transformation $\mc P'$
\begin{align}
\mc P'\ \mc G\ \mc P'^t = \mc G, \label{Ptrans}
\end{align}
so that $\mc C$ can be redefined as
\begin{align}
\mc C \rightarrow \mc C\ \mc P' \label{ctrans}
\end{align}
in Eq.~\eqref{mydecom}, where $\mc P'$ is the identity matrix or any of the following permutation matrices (up to a sign)
\begin{align}
\begin{gathered}
(1\ 2):\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 1 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right),\
(2\ 3):\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
-1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 \\
0 & 1 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right),\
(3\ 1):\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & 1 \\
0 & -1 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right), \\
(1\ 2\ 3):\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & -1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 \\
1 & 0 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right),\
(3\ 2\ 1):\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & 1 \\
-1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right). \label{Pforms2}
\end{gathered}
\end{align}
Using the decomposition of Eq.~\eqref{mydecom}, the seesaw matrix is given by
\begin{align}
\mc S = \mc A (\mc C^{-1})^t\ \mc U_{TBM}\ \mc D_b^{-1}\ \mc U_{TBM}^t\ \mc C^{-1} \mc A^t. \label{seesaw}
\end{align}
$\mc S$ is itself diagonalized by $\mc U_{TBM}(\delta)$ only if
\begin{align}
\mc A (\mc C^t)^{-1} &= \sqrt{m_\nu}\ \text{diag}\ (1,1,e^{i\delta})\ \mc P'^t \nonumber \\
\implies \mc A &= \sqrt{m_\nu}\ \text{diag}\ (1,1,e^{i\delta})\ (\mc C \mc P')^t \label{cond1}
\end{align}
for some mass parameter $m_\nu$.
Eq.~\eqref{cond1} embodies two requirements: (i) $\mc A$ must have the same form as $(\mc C \mc P')^t$, and (ii) the vacuum alignment of $\varphi_{\mc A}$, given by $a_i$, is determined by that of $\varphi_{\mc B}$, given by $b_i$.
\noindent Requirement (i) can always be satisfied; for any $\mc A$ in \eqref{Aforms2}, there exists a $\mc P'$ in \eqref{Pforms2} that satisfies Eq.~\eqref{cond1}. With $\varphi_{\mc A} \sim \gb{3}_2$ and $\mc P' \equiv (1\ 2)$, we have
\begin{align}
\mc C \rightarrow \mc C \mc P' = \sqrt{b_1 b_2 b_3} \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & b_1^{-1} & 0 \\
b_3^{-1} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -b_2^{-1} \\
\end{array}
\right), \label{Cform}
\end{align}
yielding the same $\mc G$ as in Eq.~\eqref{Gform}. With this form of $\mc C$, requirement (ii) is fulfilled by the alignment
\begin{align}
\matc{a_1\\ a_2\\ a_3} = \sqrt{m_\nu b_1 b_2 b_3} \matc{-b_2^{-1} e^{i\delta}\\ b_1^{-1}\\ b_3^{-1}}. \label{avev}
\end{align}
\begin{comment}
This suggests that in vacuum, $\varphi_{\mc A}$ can be expressed as a composite familon made up of two $\varphi_{\mc B}$s:
\begin{align}
\vev{\varphi_{\mc A}} &= \sqrt{\frac{m_\nu}{b_1 b_2 b_3}} \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & -e^{i\delta} & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right) \vev{\left(\varphi_{\mc B} \cdot \varphi_{\mc B}\right)_{\gb{3}_2}} .
\end{align}
\end{comment}
Applying Eq.~\eqref{cond1}, the seesaw matrix becomes
\begin{align}
\mc S = m_\nu\ \mc U_{TBM}(\delta)\ \text{diag} \left(-1,\frac{1}{2},-1 \right)\ \mc U_{TBM}^t(\delta)
\end{align}
\myred{and yields three relations among the light neutrino masses: $$m_{\nu_2} = \frac{1}{2}m_{\nu_3}, \quad m_{\nu_1} = 2 m_{\nu_2},\quad \text{and\quad } m_{\nu_1} = m_{\nu_3}.$$ The first relation is consistent with normal ordering, but the other two, involving $m_{\nu_1}$, contradict oscillation data \cite{tanabashi2018review}. If $m_{\nu_1}$ can be corrected to a smaller value, the first relation can be used along with oscillation data to calculate the light neutrino masses in normal ordering. We are then compelled to enlarge the neutrino sector.}
\subsection{Four Right-Handed Neutrinos}
Following our minimalist approach, we choose a gauge- and family-singlet fourth right-handed neutrino $\bar{N}_4$. It introduces the extra operators
\begin{align*}
\Delta I_w = \frac{1}{2}:\quad & F\bar{N}_4 \bar{H}_{\g{5}} \varphi_v, \quad \text{where } \varphi_{v} \sim (\g{1},\gb{3}_1), \\
\Delta I_w = 0:\quad &y_z \bar{N} \bar{N_4} \varphi_z,\ \text{and } m\bar{N}_4 \bar{N_4}, \quad \text{where } \varphi_z \sim (\g{1},\gb{3}_2).
\end{align*}
The dimension-five operator $F\bar{N}_4 \bar{H}_{\g{5}} \varphi_v$ can be constructed from tree-level vertices $y_{\mc A} F \Lambda \bar{H}_{\g{5}}$ and $y_v' \bar{N} \overline{\Lambda} \varphi_v$ in a similar way as in Eq.~\eqref{feynman}, using the same messenger field $\Lambda$. For $\frac{1}{M}y_v y_v' \vev{\bar{H}_{\g{5}}} \vev{\varphi_v} \equiv v \equiv (v_1, v_2, v_3)^t$, the numerator of the seesaw formula is a $(3\times 4)$ $\Delta I_w = \frac{1}{2}$ matrix $$\matc{\mc A\quad v}$$.
The $(4\times 4)$ $\Delta I_w = 0$ Majorana matrix in vacuum is given by
\begin{align}
\mc M = \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\mc B & z \\
z^t & m \\
\end{array}
\right),
\end{align}
where $y_z \vev{\varphi_z} \equiv z \equiv (z_1, z_2, z_3)^t$. For $\det \mc B \neq 0$,
\begin{align}
\mc M^{-1} &= \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\mc B & z \\
z^t & m \\
\end{array}
\right)^{-1} = \frac{1}{\mu}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\mu \mc B^{-1} + \mc B^{-1} z z^t \mc B^{-1} & -\mc B^{-1} z \\
-z^t \mc B^{-1} & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right),
\end{align}
with
\begin{align}
\mu = m - z^t \mc B^{-1} z. \label{mudef}
\end{align}
The seesaw matrix now has two terms:
\begin{align}
\mc S &\equiv \mc S_1 + \mc S_2 \nonumber \\
&= \mc A \mc B^{-1} \mc A^t + \frac{1}{\mu} \mc W\ \mc W^t , \label{mastereq}
\end{align}
where $$\mc W=\mc A \mc B^{-1} z-v.$$ The first term is the same as in the three right-handed neutrinos case:
\begin{align}
\mc S_1 &= m_\nu\ \mc U_{TBM} (\delta)\ \text{diag}\left(-1,\frac{1}{2},-1\right)\ \mc U_{TBM}^t (\delta).
\end{align}
\noindent The second term $\mc S_2= \frac{1}{\mu} \mc W\ \mc W^t$ has two zero eigenvalues. If it is to be diagonalized by $\mc U_{TBM} (\delta)$, the column vector $\mc U_{TBM}^\dagger (\delta) \mc W$ must be one of the following forms:
$$
(0, 1, 0)^t,\quad (0,0,1)^t,\quad (1,0,0)^t.
$$
\noindent The first two are incompatible with data. A nonzero entry in the second element implies that $\mc S_2$ corrects only $m_{\nu_2}$, leaving $m_{\nu_1}$ and $m_{\nu_3}$ degenerate. The third nonzero element is also unphysical because it leads to $m_{\nu_1} > m_{\nu_2}$.
Phenomenology requires us to choose the third possibility, in which case $\mc W$ is of the form
\begin{equation}\label{w100}
\mc W \propto \mc U_{TBM} (\delta)\matc{1\\ 0\\ 0} \propto \matc{2\\ -1\\ e^{i\delta}},
\end{equation}
\myred{which further aligns $\varphi_z$, $\varphi_v$ and $\varphi_{\mc B}$ in vacuum and corrects $m_{\nu_1}$. Thus $\mc S_2$ negates the two unwanted mass relations in $\mc S_1$, but the relation $m_{\nu_2} = \frac{1}{2} m_{\nu_3}$ singling out normal ordering remains unaltered. Together with oscillation data, it can determine all three light neutrino masses.}
\blu{We present two minimal scenarios with either $\varphi_v$ or $\varphi_z$ absent in the seesaw formula. Both scenarios yield the same light neutrino mass spectrum.}
\subsection*{\textbf{\large Scenario 1: $\varphi_{\mc B} \sim \g{3}_2, \varphi_z \sim \gb{3}_2, \varphi_{\mc A} \sim \gb{3}_2$}}
In this case $\varphi_v$ is absent, and $\mc W=\mc A \mc B^{-1} z$. Applying Eqs.~\eqref{cond1} and \eqref{Gdecomp}, we obtain
\begin{align}
\mc W &=\sqrt{m_\nu}\ \mc U_{TBM}(\delta)\ \mc D_b^{-1}\ \mc U_{TBM}^t\ \mc C^{-1} z.
\end{align}
\noindent For $\mc C$ given by Eq.~\eqref{Cform}, it becomes
\begin{align}
\mc W &= \frac{\sqrt{m_\nu}}{\sqrt{6b_1 b_2 b_3}}\ \mc U_{TBM}(\delta)\ \matc{(b_1 z_1 - 2b_3 z_2 + b_2 z_3)\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(b_1 z_1 + b_2z_3 + b_3z_2)\\ -\sqrt{3}(b_1z_1 - b_2 z_3)}.
\end{align}
Comparing this to Eq.~\eqref{w100}, we require
\begin{align}
b_1 z_1 + b_2z_3 + b_3z_2 = 0,\quad
b_1z_1 - b_2 z_3 = 0.
\end{align}
These constraints yield a vacuum alignment condition between $\varphi_{\mc B}$ and $\varphi_{z}$:
\begin{align}
b_1 z_1 = b_2 z_3 = -\frac{1}{2}b_3 z_2 \equiv m_{bz}^2 \label{bzsol}
\end{align}
where the parameter $m_{bz}$ has dimension of mass. Then $\vev{\varphi_z}$ becomes
\begin{align}
\matc{z_1\\ z_2\\ z_3} &= m_{bz}^2 \matc{b_1^{-1}\\ -2b_3^{-1}\\ b_2^{-1}}. \label{zvev}
\end{align}
\begin{comment}
which implies that $\varphi_z$, in vacuum, can be expressed as a composite familon made up of two $\varphi_{\mc B}$s:
\begin{align}
\vev{\varphi_z} &= \frac{m_{bz}^2}{b_1 b_2 b_3} \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -2 \\
0 & 1 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right) \vev{\left(\varphi_{\mc B} \cdot \varphi_{\mc B}\right)_{\gb{3}_2}}.
\end{align}
\end{comment}
\noindent From Eq.~\eqref{mudef}, $\mu$ is evaluated as
\begin{align}
\mu &= \frac{6 m_{bz}^4+mb_1b_2b_3}{b_1b_2b_3}, \label{muval}
\end{align}
and $\mc S_2$ becomes
\begin{align}
\mc S_2= \frac{6 m_{\nu} m_{bz}^4}{6m_{bz}^4 + mb_1b_2b_3}\ \mc U_{TBM}(\delta)\ \text{diag}(1,0,0)\ \mc U_{TBM}^t(\delta).
\end{align}
\noindent Combining $\mc S_1$ and $\mc S_2$ yields the light neutrino masses in normal ordering:
\begin{align}
m_{\nu_1} = -\frac{m}{\mu}\ m_{\nu}, \quad
m_{\nu_2} = \frac{1}{2}\ m_{\nu},\quad
m_{\nu_3} = - m_{\nu}, \label{numass3}
\end{align}
in terms of three undetermined parameters $m$, $\mu$ and $m_{\nu}$. As we will show below, $\frac{m}{\mu}$ and $m_{\nu}$ can be extracted from oscillation data, albeit with a sign ambiguity.
\subsection*{\textbf{\large A circle parametrization for neutrino oscillations}}
We introduce a convenient geometrical representation of oscillation parameters and neutrino masses. The neutrino oscillation parameters for normal ordering $\Delta_{31} \equiv \sqrt{\Delta m_{31}^2}$ and $\Delta_{32} \equiv \sqrt{\Delta m_{32}^2}$ and the light neutrino masses $m_{\nu_1}$, $m_{\nu_2}$ and $m_{\nu_3}$ are represented as the sides and diagonals of the inscribed quadrilateral $ABCD$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:numass}. The largest mass, $m_{\nu_3}$, is chosen to be the diameter of the circle.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (0,0) circle [radius=2.3];
\coordinate (A) at (-2.3,0);
\coordinate (C) at (2.3,0);
\coordinate (B) at (50:2.3);
\coordinate (D) at (-60:2.3);
\draw (A)node[left]{$A$} --node[above left]{$\Delta_{31}$} (B)node[above right]{$B$} --node[below left]{$m_{\nu_1}$} (C) node[right]{$C$}--node[above left]{$m_{\nu_2}$} (D)node[below right]{$D$} --node[below left]{$\Delta_{32}$} (A) --node[above]{$m_{\nu_3}$} (C);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Circle parametrization of neutrino masses and oscillation parameters.} \label{fig:numass}
\end{figure}
The relation $m_{\nu_2} = \frac{1}{2} m_{\nu_3}$ implies $\angle CAD = 30^\circ$. Using PDG values \cite{tanabashi2018review} of the oscillation data (see \cite{deSalas:2018bym, *Esteban:2018azc} for other recent global fits) for normal ordering,
we find
\begin{align*}
\Delta_{31} &= \sqrt{\Delta m_{32}^2 + \Delta m_{21}^2} = 50.8\ \text{meV}, \\
\Delta_{32} &= \sqrt{\Delta m_{32}^2} = 50.1\ \text{meV}.
\end{align*}
\noindent Our prediction for the light neutrino masses follow:
\begin{align}
\boxed{
m_{\nu_1} = 27.6\ \text{meV},\quad m_{\nu_2} = 28.9\ \text{meV}, \quad m_{\nu_3} = 57.8\ \text{meV}. \label{numass2}
}
\end{align}
\blu{Their sum is $114.3$ $\text{meV}$, very close to Planck's cosmological upper bound \cite{aghanim2018planck}}
\begin{align*}
\sum_i |m_{\nu_i}| \leq 120\ \mathrm{meV}.
\end{align*}
\vspace{0.3cm}
\noindent Comparing Eqs.~\eqref{numass3} and \eqref{numass2}, the parameters $m_{\nu}$, $m$ and $\mu$ are given by
\begin{align}
|m_\nu| = 57.8\ \mathrm{meV}, \quad \left|\frac{m}{\mu}\right| = 0.48. \label{param1}
\end{align}
The sign ambiguity appears because these are determined from mass-squared relations in the oscillation data.
Next we discuss the second scenario with four right-handed neutrinos, where $\varphi_z$ is absent in the seesaw formula.
\subsection*{\large{Scenario 2: $\varphi_{\mc B} \sim \g{3}_2, \varphi_v \sim \gb{3}_1, \varphi_{\mc A} \sim \gb{3}_2$}}
In this case, $\mc W=v$ and $\mu=m$. With the form of $\mc W$ given by \eqref{w100}, we have
\begin{align}
\matc{v_1\\ v_2\\ v_3} &= \sqrt{m m_v'}\matc{2\\ -1\\ e^{i\delta}}, \label{vvev}
\end{align}
where $m_v'$ is another mass parameter. Unlike the $\varphi_z$ of scenario 1, the vacuum alignment of $\varphi_v$ here does not depend on $\vev{\varphi_\mc B}$.
The second term in Eq.~\eqref{mastereq} becomes
\begin{align}
\mc S_2 =\frac{1}{m}vv^t= 6 m_v'\ \mc U_{TBM} (\delta)\ \text{diag}(1,0,0)\ \mc U_{TBM}^t (\delta). \label{S2'}
\end{align}
Combining with $\mc S_1$, we express the light neutrino masses in terms of the parameters $m_{\nu}$ and $m_v'$:
\begin{align}
m_{\nu_1} = -m_{\nu} + 6m_v',\quad m_{\nu_2} = \frac{1}{2}m_{\nu},\quad m_{\nu_3} = -m_{\nu},
\end{align}
yielding the same mass spectrum as in Eq.~\eqref{numass2}.
Using oscillation data for normal ordering \cite{tanabashi2018review} and the circle diagram in Fig.~\ref{fig:numass}, the parameters are
\begin{align}
|m_\nu| = 57.8\ \text{meV},\quad |m_v'| = 5.03\ \text{meV}\ \text{or}\ 14.2\ \text{meV}. \label{paramv}
\end{align}
The mass parameters we have introduced so far are either completely determined from oscillation data or depend only on $b_1$, $b_2$, $b_3$ and $m$. Hence, there are only four undetermined parameters.
\subsection{TBM Mixing and the Familon Vacuum Structure}
Central to the TBM seesaw mixing are Eqs.~\eqref{avev} and \eqref{zvev}, which align the familons $\varphi_{\mc A}$ and $\varphi_z$ to $\varphi_{\mc B}$ in vacuum. Suggestively, $\varphi_{\mc A}$ and $\varphi_z$ can be expressed as quadratic functions of $\varphi_{\mc B}$ in vacuum:
\begin{align}
\begin{aligned}
\vev{\varphi_{\mc A}} &= \sqrt{\frac{m_\nu}{b_1 b_2 b_3}} \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & -e^{i\delta} & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right) \vev{\left(\varphi_{\mc B} \cdot \varphi_{\mc B}\right)_{\gb{3}_2}}, \\
\vev{\varphi_z} &= \frac{m_{bz}^2}{b_1 b_2 b_3} \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -2 \\
0 & 1 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right) \vev{\left(\varphi_{\mc B} \cdot \varphi_{\mc B}\right)_{\gb{3}_2}}.
\end{aligned}\label{alignment}
\end{align}
Eq.~\eqref{alignment} is expected to come from the minimization of the familon potential in vacuum.
If we assume a simple vacuum alignment for $\varphi_{\mc B}$, setting $\vev{\varphi_{\mc B}} \sim b\ (1,1,1)^t$, thus reducing the number of undetermined mass parameters to two, $\varphi_{\mc A}$ and $\varphi_z$ in scenario 1 are also aligned in ``crystallographic'' directions:
\begin{align}
\matc{a_1\\ a_2\\ a_3} &= \sqrt{m_\nu b} \matc{-e^{i\delta}\\ 1\\ 1}, \quad \matc{z_1\\ z_2\\ z_3} = \frac{m_{bz}^2}{b}\matc{1\\ -2\\ 1}.
\end{align}
In scenario 2, $\varphi_z$ has similar vacuum alignment independent of $\vev{\varphi_{\mc B}}$.
\blu{In the next subsection we calculate the right-handed neutrino masses from diagonalization of the Majorana matrix. As we will see, setting $b_1 = b_2 = b_3 \equiv b$ greatly simplifies the analysis and yields interesting cases of degeneracy in the mass spectrum.}
\subsection{Right-handed Neutrino Mass Spectrum}
\blu{We now explore the right-handed neutrino masses in the two scenarios discussed before. Although these scenarios yield identical light neutrino mass spectrum, their predictions for the right-handed neutrinos are quite different. }
\subsection*{\large{Scenario 1: $\varphi_{\mc B} \sim \g{3}_2, \varphi_z \sim \gb{3}_2, \varphi_{\mc A} \sim \gb{3}_2$}}
In this case, the Majorana matrix is
\begin{align}
\mathcal{M} &= \left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & b_2 & b_3 & \dfrac{m_{bz}^2}{b_1} \\[0.3em]
b_2 & 0 & b_1 & -\dfrac{2 m_{bz}^2}{b_3} \\[0.3em]
b_3 & b_1 & 0 & \dfrac{m_{bz}^2}{b_2}\\[0.3em]
\dfrac{m_{bz}^2}{b_1} & -\dfrac{2 m_{bz}^2}{b_3} & \dfrac{m_{bz}^2}{b_2} & m \\
\end{array}
\right) \label{Majorana}
\end{align}
where $b_i \neq 0$. From Eqs.~\eqref{muval} and \eqref{param1},
\begin{align}
&\dfrac{b_1 b_2 b_3 m}{b_1 b_2 b_3 m + 6m_{bz}^4} = 0.48 \equiv \dfrac{1}{k} \\
\implies &m_{bz}^4 = \dfrac{k-1}{6} m b_1 b_2 b_3.
\end{align}
Setting $b_1=b_2=b_3\equiv b$, the characteristic equation for $\mathcal{M}$ becomes
\begin{align}
x^4 - mx^3 - b(3b+m(k-1))x^2 + b^2 \left(m(k+2)-2b \right)x +2b^3 km = 0.
\end{align}
Its solutions yield the four right-handed neutrino masses:
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
m_{\mc N_1} &= -b,\\
m_{\mc N_2} &= 2b, \\
m_{\mc N_3} &= \frac{b}{2} \left( \left(\frac{m}{b}-1\right) - \sqrt{\left(\frac{m}{b}-1\right)^2+4k\frac{m}{b}} \right), \\
m_{\mc N_4} &= \frac{b}{2} \left( \left(\frac{m}{b}-1\right) + \sqrt{\left(\frac{m}{b}-1\right)^2+4k\frac{m}{b}} \right).
\end{split}
\end{align}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:my_label1}, we plot the normalized mass spectrum with respect to $\frac{m}{b}$.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.78\textwidth]{Majorana_mass2.pdf}
\caption{Normalized right-handed neutrino mass spectrum. A small number has been added to $m_{\mc N_3}$ to separate it from $m_{\mc N_4}$ in the degenerate region $-6.23\leqslant \frac{m}{b} \leqslant -0.16$. Note that these masses become complex in this region, thus their modulus is degenerate, although they have a relative phase.}
\label{fig:my_label1}
\end{figure}
There are several interesting cases of degeneracy in the mass spectrum. $m_{\mc N_3}$ and $m_{\mc N_4}$ are degenerate for $-6.23\leqslant \frac{m}{b} \leqslant -0.16$. We also have two degenerate masses at $\frac{m}{b}=0.65,\ 1,\ 1.46$. And three of the masses are degenerate for $\frac{m}{b}=-1.91,\ -0.48$. Such degeneracies or near degeneracies in the right-handed neutrino spectrum may be interesting from the point of leptogenesis, where an enhancement of the $CP$ asymmetry is achieved for near-degenerate masses \cite{Pilaftsis:2003gt, *Dev:2017wwc, *Pilaftsis:2009pk}.
\subsection*{\large{Scenario 2: $\varphi_{\mc B} \sim \g{3}_2, \varphi_v \sim \gb{3}_1, \varphi_{\mc A} \sim \gb{3}_2$}}
In this case the Majorana matrix $\mc M$ is simpler:
\begin{align}
\mc M = \left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & b_2 & b_3 & 0 \\
b_2 & 0 & b_1 & 0 \\
b_3 & b_1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & m \\
\end{array}
\right). \label{Majorana2}
\end{align}
Again setting $b_1=b_2=b_3\equiv b$, the right-handed neutrino masses are given by the following eigenvalues of $\mc M$:
\begin{equation}
m_{\mc N_1} = -b,\quad
m_{\mc N_2} = -b,\quad
m_{\mc N_3} = 2b,\quad
m_{\mc N_4} = m.
\end{equation}
Unlike the previous scenario, the masses are dependent on either $b$ or $m$, but not both. The first two masses are degenerate.
This ends our discussion of neutrino masses and mixings. In the next section, we calculate the $\cancel{CP}$ phases predicted by the asymmetric texture and discuss their implication for neutrinoless double-beta decay.
\section{$\cancel{CP}$ Phases and $\left|m_{\beta\beta} \right|$}\label{sec:4}
In order to analyze the $\cancel{CP}$ phases in the asymmetric texture, consider the Jarlskog-Greenberg invariant $\mc J$ \cite{jarlskog1, *greenberg1} given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:jarlkoginvgen}
\mathrm{Im} (\mc U_{ij}\ \mc U_{kl}\ \mc U_{il}^*\ \mc U_{kj}^*)=\mathcal{J}\sum_{n,m}\epsilon_{ikm}\ \epsilon_{jln}.
\end{equation}
Letting $i=j=1$ and $k=l=2$ in the above equation ``fixes'' the sign so tha
\begin{equation}\label{eq:jarlskoginv}
\mathcal{J} = \mathrm{Im} (\mc U_{11}\ \mc U_{22}\ \mc U_{12}^*\ \mc U_{21}^*).
\end{equation}
The two analogous invariants associated with the Majorana phases \cite{jenkins2008rephasing} are then
\begin{equation}\label{eq:MajInvs}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{I}_1 &= \mathrm{Im}(\mc U_{12}\ \mc U_{11}^*)^2, ~~~~ \mathcal{I}_2 = \mathrm{Im}(\mc U_{13}\ \mc U_{11}^*)^2.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Next, let $\mc U = \mc U_{PMNS}$ in the PDG convention \cite{tanabashi2018review}, so that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:mnsppdg}
\mc U=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
c_{12} c_{13} & c_{13} s_{12} & e^{-i \delta_{CP} } s_{13} \\
-c_{23} s_{12}-c_{12} s_{13} s_{23}e^{i \delta_{CP} } & c_{12} c_{23}- s_{12} s_{13} s_{23}e^{i \delta_{CP} } & c_{13} s_{23} \\
s_{12} s_{23}-c_{12} c_{23} s_{13}e^{i \delta_{CP} } & -c_{12} s_{23}-c_{23} s_{12} s_{13}e^{i \delta_{CP} } & c_{13} c_{23} \\
\end{array}
\right)P\\
\end{equation}
where $P={\rm diag} \left(1,e^\frac{i\alpha_{21}}{2},e^\frac{i\alpha_{31}}{2}\right)$ is a diagonal matrix of Majorana phases, $s_{ij}=\sin{\theta_{ij}}$ and $c_{ij}=\cos{\theta_{ij}}$. The Jarlskog-Greenberg invariant from Eq.~\eqref{eq:jarlskoginv} in the PDG convention is given as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:jarlskogpdg}
\mathcal{J}_{PDG}=c_{12} c_{13}^2 c_{23} s_{12} s_{13} s_{23} \sin {\delta_{CP} }= \frac{1}{8} s'_{12} s'_{13} s'_{23} c_{13} \sin{\delta_{CP}},
\end{equation}
where $s'_{ij}= \sin{2\theta_{ij}}$. Finally, the PDG Majorana invariants are given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:MajInvspdg}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{I}_1^{PDG}&= c_{12}^2 c_{13}^4 s_{12}^2 \sin {\alpha_{21}},~~~
\mathcal{I}_2^{PDG} = c_{12}^2 c_{13}^2 s_{13}^2 \sin {(\alpha_{31}-2 \delta_{CP}) }.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
From Eqs.~\eqref{eq:jarlskogpdg} and \eqref{eq:MajInvspdg}, it is possible to extract the three $\cancel{CP}$ phases knowing the values of the angles in the PDG convention.
The PMNS mixing matrix resulting from the asymmetric texture \cite{rrx2018asymmetric} is parametrized as $\mc U_{PMNS} = {\mc U^{(-1)}}^\dagger \ \mc U_{TBM}(\delta)$, where
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ul}
\mc U^{(-1)} =\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1-\left(\frac{2}{9 A^2}+\frac{1}{18}\right) \lambda ^2 & \frac{\lambda }{3} & \frac{2 \lambda }{3 A} \\[0.5em]
-\frac{\lambda }{3} & 1-\frac{\lambda ^2}{18} & A \lambda ^2 \\[0.5em]
-\frac{2 \lambda }{3 A} & \left(-A-\frac{2}{9 A}\right) \lambda ^2 & 1-\frac{2 \lambda ^2}{9 A^2} \\
\end{array}
\right)+\mathcal{O}(\lambda^3)
\end{equation}
From $\mc U_{PMNS}$, we calculate the mixing angles in the PDG convention, cf.~Eq.~\eqref{eq:mnsppdg} as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:anglesasym}
\begin{aligned}
\theta_{13}&=\frac{\lambda \sqrt{A^2+4 A \cos {\delta} +4}}{3 \sqrt{2} A}+\mathcal{O}(\lambda^3),\\[1em]
\theta_{23}&=\frac{\pi }{4}+\frac{ (4-4 (9 A^3+A) \cos {\delta }-A^2)}{36 A^2}\lambda ^2+\mathcal{O}(\lambda^3),\\[1em]
\theta_{12}&=\sin ^{-1}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\right)+\frac{2 \cos {\delta} -A}{3 \sqrt{2} A}\lambda +\frac{\sin^2{\delta }}{9 \sqrt{2} A^2}\lambda^2+\mathcal{O}(\lambda^3).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Notice that angles in the above equation are just perturbative corrections in the expansion parameter $\lambda$ to the initial angle starting points of $ \mc U_{TBM}(\delta=0)$.
Using the perturbatively calculated angles of Eq.~\eqref{eq:anglesasym}, it is possible to find the Jarlskog-Greenberg invariant of Eq.~\eqref{eq:jarlskogpdg} and Majorana invariants of Eq.~\eqref{eq:MajInvspdg}:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:jarlskogpert}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{J} &= \frac{\lambda \sin {\delta }}{9 A}-\frac{\lambda ^2 \sin {\delta }}{27 A} + \mc O(\lambda^3),\\
\mc I_1 &= \frac{4 \lambda \sin {\delta }}{9 A}-\frac{2 \lambda ^2 \sin {\delta }\ (A-2 \cos {\delta})}{27 A^2} + \mc O(\lambda^3), \\
\mc I_2 &= \frac{4 \lambda ^2 \sin {\delta }\ (A+2 \cos {\delta })}{27 A^2} + \mc O(\lambda^3).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Note that in the asymmetric texture, all the invariants have the same sign, determined by $\sin(\delta)$.
Following the results of Ref.~\cite{rrx2018asymmetric}, we calculate, to $\mc O(\lambda^3)$, the mixing angles as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:anglesasymnum}
\begin{aligned}
\theta_{13}&= 8.33^{\circ}, ~~\theta_{23}=44.87^{\circ},~~\theta_{12}=34.09^{\circ},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
and the invariants as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:jarlkoginv}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{J} &= 0.028, \qquad \qquad \mathcal{J} = -0.028,\\
\mathcal{I}_1 &= 0.106, ~~\quad \mathrm{or} \quad~ \mathcal{I}_1 = -0.106,\\
\mathcal{I}_2 &= 0.011, \qquad \qquad \mathcal{I}_2 = -0.011.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
The above values can be used to extract values for the $\cancel{CP}$ phases [cf. Eqs.~\eqref{eq:jarlskogpdg} and\eqref{eq:MajInvspdg}]:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sinphases}
\begin{aligned}
\sin \delta_{CP} &= 0.854,\qquad \qquad \quad \qquad \sin \delta_{CP} = -0.854,\\
\sin \alpha_{21} &= 0.515,~~~\quad \mathrm{or} \quad \qquad \quad~ \sin \alpha_{21} = -0.515,\\
\sin(\alpha_{31}-2\delta_{CP})&= 0.809, \quad \qquad \quad \sin(\alpha_{31}-2\delta_{CP})= -0.809.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\noindent With the three light neutrino masses and the Dirac and Majorana phases determined, we can now express the effective Majorana mass parameter in neutrinoless double-beta decay as \cite{bilenky2015neutrinoless}
\begin{align}
| m_{\beta \beta} | &= \left| c_{13}^2 c^2_{12} m_{\nu_1} + c_{13}^2 s^2_{12} e^{i\alpha_{21}} m_{\nu_2} + s_{13}^2 m_{\nu_3} e^{i(\alpha_{31}-2\delta_{CP})} \right| \label{mbb}
\end{align}
Note that in Eq.~\eqref{eq:sinphases} all the signs are either positive or negative. This does not make any difference in evaluating $\left|m_{\beta \beta}\right|$ in Eq.~\eqref{mbb}. However, there are ambiguities in the signs of the light neutrino masses. For example, in Eq.~\eqref{numass3}, these masses have been expressed in terms of $\frac{m}{\mu}$ and $m_{\nu}$. The absolute value of $\frac{m}{\mu}$ and $m_\nu$ has been determined in Eq.~\eqref{param1}, but the signs remain undetermined. Depending on which sign is realized, $|m_{\beta \beta}|$ is predicted to be one of the following:
\begin{align}
| m_{\beta \beta} | &= 13.02\ \quad \text{or}\quad 25.21\ \text{meV}.
\end{align}
The most stringent experimental upper bound on $|m_{\beta \beta}|$ is in between $61$ and $165$ $\text{meV}$, reported recently by the KamLAND-Zen experiment \cite{gando2016search}.\footnote{See \cite{Anton:2019wmi, *Agostini:2018tnm, *Cappuzzello:2018wek, *Alenkov:2019jis} for other recent results.} Both of our predicted values are within an order of magnitude of this limit.
This ends our discussion of the seesaw sector. In the next section, we summarize the components and predictions of the model.
\section{Summary of the Model}\label{sec:6}
\blu{We proposed a phenomenologically successful framework --- a diagonal $Y^{(\frac{2}{3})}$, asymmetric $Y^{(-\frac{1}{3})}$ and $Y^{(-1)}$ related by $SU(5)$ grand unification, and a complex-TBM seesaw mixing --- in Ref.~\cite{rrx2018asymmetric}. In Ref.~\cite{Perez:2019aqq}, we built a model based on $SU(5) \times \mc T_{13}$ symmetry that constructs the asymmetric $Y^{(-\frac{1}{3})}$ and $Y^{(-1)}$ textures. In this paper, we show how the diagonal $Y^{(\frac{2}{3})}$ texture and the complex-TBM seesaw mixing follows from the $SU(5) \times \mc T_{13}$ symmetry. We now put all the pieces of the puzzle together to construct a unified model that describes both quarks and leptons.}
\blu{The gauge and family symmetry of the model are $SU(5)$ and $\mc T_{13}$, respectively. This still allows some unwanted operators at the tree level. In Appendix~\ref{app:shape}, we show that such operators can be prevented by introducing a $\mc Z_n$ ``shaping'' symmetry, where $n$ is determined to be $14$ for the scenario with no $\varphi_v$, and $12$ with no $\varphi_z$. Thus the full symmetry of the unified model is $SU(5) \times \mc T_{13} \times \mc Z_n$.}
\subsection{Particle Content and their Transformation Properties}
The tree-level Lagrangian of the model is
\begin{align} \label{lagrangian}
\mc L &= y_0 T \overline{\Delta} H_{\gb{5}} + y_1 F \Delta\varphi^{(1)} + y_2 F \Delta\varphi^{(2)} + y_3 \overline{\Delta} \Delta \varphi^{(3)} + y_4 F \Delta\varphi^{(4)} \nonumber \\
&+ y_5 F \Delta\varphi^{(5)} + M_\Delta \overline{\Delta} \Delta + y_6 F\overline{\Sigma} H_{\overline{\g{45}}}+ y_7 T\Sigma {\varphi^{(6)}}+M_\Sigma \overline{\Sigma} \Sigma \nonumber \\
&+ y_8 T \Gamma \varphi_{\g{3}_1}^{(t)} + y_9 T \Omega \varphi_{\g{3}_1}^{(t)} + y_{10} T \Theta \varphi_{\g{3}_1}^{(t)} + y_{11} T \overline{\Gamma} \bar{H}_{\g{5}} + y_{12} \Gamma \overline{\Omega} \varphi_{\g{3}_2} \nonumber \\
&+ y_{13} \Theta \overline{\Theta} \varphi_{\g{3}_2} + y_{14} \Gamma \overline{\Theta} \varphi_{\g{3}_2} + M_\Gamma \overline{\Gamma} \Gamma + M_\Omega \overline{\Omega} \Omega + M_\Theta \overline{\Theta} \Theta \nonumber \\
&+ y_{\mc A} F \Lambda \bar{H}_{\g{5}} + y'_{\mc A} \bar{N} \overline{\Lambda} \varphi_{\mc A} + y_{\mc B} \bar{N} \bar{N} \varphi_{\mc B} + y'_v\bar{N} \overline{\Lambda} \varphi_v + M_\Lambda \overline{\Lambda} \Lambda \nonumber \\
&+ y_z \bar{N} \bar{N}_4 \varphi_z + m \bar{N}_4 \bar{N}_4,
\end{align}
where only one of $\varphi_z$ and $\varphi_v$ is present. The first two lines describe the down-type quarks and charged leptons, the next two yield the up-type quark masses and the last two depict the seesaw sector of the model. The $\mc Z_{n}$ symmetry ensures that the familons and messengers in one sector do not mix with fields in the other sector. In Table \ref{table:summary}, we show the transformation properties of the fields in each sector.
\begin{table}[ht]\centering
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.25}
\begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{@{}l | Y Y | Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y @{}}
\toprule
& \multicolumn{2}{c | }{Higgs} & \multicolumn{10}{c }{Down-type quark and Charged-lepton Sector} \\
\hline
Fields & $H_{\gb{5}}$ & $H_{\overline{\g{45}}}$ & $F$ & $T$ & $\Delta$ & $\Sigma$ & $\varphi^{(1)}$ & $\varphi^{(2)}$ & $\varphi^{(3)}$ & $\varphi^{(4)}$ & $\varphi^{(5)}$&${\varphi^{(6)}}$\\
\hline
$SU(5)$ & $\overline{ \g{5}}$&$\overline{\g{45}}$ & $\overline{ \g{5}}$ & $\g{10}$ & $\g{5}$ & $\overline{ \g{10}}$ & $\g{1}$ & $\g{1}$ & $\g{1}$ & $\g{1}$ & $\g{1}$ & $\g{1}$ \\
$\mc T_{13}$ & $\g{1}$ & $\g{1}$ & $\g{3}_2$ & $\g{3}_1$ & $\g{3}_2$ & $\g{3}_1$ & $\gb{3}_2$ & $\g{3}_2$ & $\gb{3}_1$ & $\gb{3}_2$ & $\gb{3}_1$ & $\g{3}_2$\\
$\mathcal{Z}_{14}$ & $\g{\eta^3}$ & $\g{\eta^4}$ & $\g{\eta^1}$& $\g{\eta^1}$ & $\g{\eta^4}$ & $\g{\eta^5}$ & $\g{\eta^9}$ & $\g{\eta^9}$ & $\g{1}$ & $\g{\eta^9}$ & $\g{\eta^9}$ & $\g{\eta^8}$ \\
$\mathcal{Z}_{12}$ & $\g{\zeta^3}$ & $\g{\zeta^1}$ & $\g{\zeta^1}$& $\g{1}$ & $\g{\zeta^3}$ & $\g{\zeta^2}$ & $\g{\zeta^{8}}$ & $\g{\zeta^{8}}$ & $\g{1}$ & $\g{\zeta^{8}}$ & $\g{\zeta^{8}}$ & $\g{\zeta^{10}}$ \\
\end{tabularx}
\vspace{0.3cm}
\begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{@{}l | Y Y Y Y Y | Y Y Y Y Y Y Y @{}}
\toprule
& \multicolumn{5}{c |}{Up-type quark Sector} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{seesaw Sector}\\
\hline
Fields & $\Gamma$ & $\Omega$ & $\Theta$ & $\varphi_{\g{3}_1}^{(t)}$ & $\varphi_{\g{3}_2}$ & $\bar{N}$ & $\bar{N}_4$ & $\Lambda$ & $\varphi_{\mc A}$ & $\varphi_{\mc B}$ & $\varphi_{z}$ & $\varphi_{v}$ \\
\hline
$SU(5)$ & $\overline{ \g{10}}$ & $\overline{\g{10}}$ & $\overline{ \g{10}}$ & $\g{1}$ & $\g{1}$ & $\g{1}$ & $\g{1}$ & $\g{1}$ & $\g{1}$ & $\g{1}$ & $\g{1}$ & $\g{1}$ \\
$\mc T_{13}$ & $\g{3}_2$ & $\gb{3}_2$ & $\gb{3}_1$ & $\g{3}_1$ & $\g{3}_2$ & $\g{3}_2$ & $\g{1}$ & $\gb{3}_1$ & $\gb{3}_2$ & $\g{3}_2$ & $\gb{3}_2$ & $\gb{3}_1$ \\
$\mathcal{Z}_{14}$ & $\g{\eta^{12}}$ & $\g{\eta^{12}}$ & $\g{\eta^{12}}$& $\g{\eta^1}$ & $\g{1}$ & $\g{\eta^5}$ & $\g{\eta^7}$ & $\g{\eta^2}$ & $\g{\eta^{11}}$ & $\g{\eta^4}$ & $\g{\eta^2}$ & $\times$ \\
$\mathcal{Z}_{12}$ & $\g{\zeta^{9}}$ & $\g{\zeta^{9}}$ & $\g{\zeta^{9}}$& $\g{\zeta^3}$ & $\g{1}$ & $\g{\zeta^3}$ & $\g{1}$ & $\g{\zeta^2}$ & $\g{\zeta^{11}}$ & $\g{\zeta^6}$ & $\times$ & $\g{\zeta^2}$ \\
\botrule
\end{tabularx}
\caption{Charge assignments of matter, Higgs, messenger and familon fields. $\mc Z_{14}$ charges apply for the scenario with no $\varphi_v$ and $\mc Z_{12}$ for no $\varphi_z$. The symbol $\times$ implies `not applicable'. Here $\eta^{14} = \zeta^{12} = 1$.}
\label{table:summary}
\end{table}
\subsection{Familon Vacuum Structure}
The familons in the quark and charged-lepton sectors have a ``crystallographic'' feature in vacuum, in the sense that they are aligned along sides or face diagonals of a cube. The seesaw sector familons, which depend on $b_1, b_2, b_3$, are also similarly aligned if we set $b_1 = b_2 = b_3 \equiv b$. In Table~\ref{table:vev}, we list all vacuum alignments.
\begin{table}[!ht]
\renewcommand*{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{Y Y}
\toprule
Down-type quark and charged-lepton sector & Up-type quark and seesaw sector\\
\hline
$\begin{aligned}
\vev{\varphi^{(1)}} &\sim m_b(1,0,0) \\[0.4em]
\vev{\varphi^{(2)}} &\sim d\lambda~ m_b(0,1,0)\\[0.4em]
\vev{\varphi^{(3)}} &\sim b\lambda^3~ m_b(0,0,1)\\[0.4em]
\vev{\varphi^{(4)}} &\sim a\lambda^3~ m_b (0,1,1)\\[0.4em]
\vev{\varphi^{(5)}} &\sim g\lambda^2~ m_b(1,0,1)\\[0.4em]
\vev{\varphi^{(6)}} &\sim c\lambda^2~ m_b(0,0,1)
\end{aligned}$ &
$\begin{aligned}
\vev{\varphi_{\g{3}_1}^{(t)}} &\sim m_t (1,0,0)\\[0.3em]
\vev{\varphi_{\g{3}_2}} &\sim \lambda^4 (1,0,0)\\[0.3em]
\vev{\varphi_{\mc B}} &\sim b(1, 1, 1)\\[0.3em]
\vev{\varphi_{\mc A}} &\sim \sqrt{m_\nu b} (-e^{i\delta},1,1)\\[0.3em]
\vev{\varphi_{z}} &\sim \frac{m_{bz}^2}{b} (1, -2, 1)\\[0.3em]
\vev{\varphi_{v}} &\sim \sqrt{m m_2'} (2, -1, e^{i\delta})
\end{aligned}$\\
\botrule
\end{tabularx}
\caption{Vacuum alignment of familons, setting $b_1 = b_2 = b_3 \equiv b$.}
\label{table:vev}
\end{table}
\begin{comment}
$\vev{\varphi^{(1)}} \sim m_b(1,0,0)$, & \qquad $\vev{\varphi_{\g{3}_1}^{(t)}} \sim m_t (1,0,0)$,\\
$\vev{\varphi^{(2)}} \sim d\lambda~ m_b(0,1,0)$, & \qquad $\vev{\varphi_{\g{3}_2}} \sim m_t \lambda^4 (1,0,0)$,\\
$\vev{\varphi^{(3)}} \sim b\lambda^3~ m_b(0,0,1)$, & \qquad $\vev{\varphi_{\mc B}} \sim (b_1, b_2, b_3)$,\\
$\vev{\varphi^{(4)}} \sim a\lambda^3~ m_b (0,1,1)$, & \qquad $\vev{\varphi_{\mc A}} \sim \sqrt{m_\nu b_1 b_2 b_3} (-b_2^{-1}e^{i\delta},b_1^{-1},b_3^{-1})$,\\
$\vev{\varphi^{(5)}} \sim g\lambda^2~ m_b(1,0,1)$, & \qquad
$\vev{\varphi_{z}} \sim m_{bz}^2 (b_1^{-1}, -2b_3^{-1}, b_2^{-1})$,\\
$\vev{\varphi^{(6)}} \sim c\lambda^2~ m_b(0,0,1)$, & \qquad $\vev{\varphi_{v}} \sim \sqrt{m m_2'} (2, -1, e^{i\delta})$.
\end{comment}
Note that the vacuum expectation values of $\varphi_{\mathcal{A}}$ and $\varphi_v$ contain a nontrivial phase $\delta$, as required by the alignment conditions of the seesaw sector. We view this as an interesting constraint on the parameters of the familon vacuum potential, to be studied in a follow-up work.
\subsection{Predictions}
The model successfully reproduces the CKM mixing angles, Gatto relation, GUT-scale mass ratios of up-type quarks, down-type quarks and charged leptons as well as the PMNS mixing angles.
The key predictions of the model are
\begin{itemize}
\item leptonic $CP$ violation, with the Jarlskog-Greenberg invariant $|\mc J| = 0.028$, Majorana invariants $|\mc I_1| = 0.106$ and $|\mc I_2| = 0.011$,
\item normal ordering of light neutrino masses: $m_{\nu_1} = 27.6$ $\text{meV}$, $m_{\nu_2}=28.9$ $\text{meV}$ and $m_{\nu_3} = 57.8$ $\text{meV}$, and
\item invariant mass parameter in neutrinoless double-beta decay $|m_{\beta \beta}| = 13.02$ or $25.21$ $\text{meV}$.
\end{itemize}
\myred{The first prediction ($|\mc J|$) is consistent with the current PDG fit \cite{tanabashi2018review} and translates into $\delta_{CP} = \pm 0.68\pi$ \cite{rrx2018asymmetric}. Although current expected error in global fit for $\delta_{CP}$ is too wide, it is expected that next-generation experiments like DUNE \cite{Abi:2018dnh} and Hyper-K \cite{Abe:2018uyc} will measure this with $5\sigma$ precision in the next decade.}
\myred{The second prediction for ordering of light neutrino masses can, in principle, be tested experimentally in three ways \cite{deSalas:2018bym}: (i) oscillation experiments that directly measure the sign of $\Delta m_{31}^2$, (ii) cosmological bounds on $\sum_i |m_{\nu_i}|$, and (iii) measurement of $|m_{\beta \beta}|$ in neutrinoless double-beta decay experiments. If $\sum_i |m_{\nu_i}| < 10\ \text{meV}$ or $|m_{\beta \beta}| < 10\ \text{meV}$ we can rule out inverted ordering \cite{deSalas:2018bym}, assuming neutrinos are Majorana particles; but neither of these materializes in this model. Hence, we must rely on oscillation experiments to determine the mass ordering. The current fit from various experiments (e.g. Super-Kamiokande \cite{Abe:2017aap}, T2K \cite{T2K2017}, NOvA \cite{nova2018}) gives above $3\sigma$ preference for normal over inverted ordering. A $3\sigma$ rejection of the wrong mass ordering will be obtained in Hyper-K \cite{Abe:2018uyc} after five years of data taking. DUNE will be able to measure the mass ordering with a significance above $5\sigma$ after $7$ years of data taking \cite{Abi:2018dnh}. }
\myred{The second prediction also gives $\sum_i |m_{\nu_i}| = 114.3$ $\text{meV}$, to be compared with the strictest cosmological upper bound of $120$ $\text{meV}$ reported recently by combining various sources of data by the Planck collaboration \cite{aghanim2018planck}. Combining the data from large scale structure surveys, e.g., Euclid \cite{Amendola:2016saw} and LSST \cite{Abell:2009aa} to DESI \cite{Levi:2013gra, *Aghamousa:2016zmz}, and WFIRST \cite{Spergel:2015sza}, the error margin on $\sum_i |m_{\nu_i}|$ will be constrained to less than $11$ $\text{meV}$ \cite{Font-Ribera:2013rwa}, and $8$ $\text{meV}$ \cite{Jain:2015cpa}, respectively. These estimates can test our prediction in coming years.}
\myred{The third prediction is consistent with the recently reported upper bound of $61$--$165$ $\text{meV}$ by the KamLAND-Zen experiment \cite{gando2016search} and is expected to be tested in next-generation experiments in R\&D \cite{Barabash:2019drl} (LEGEND: $11$--$28$ $\text{meV}$ \cite{Abgrall:2017syy}, CUPID: $6$--$17$ $\text{meV}$ \cite{Wang:2015raa, *Wang:2015taa}, nEXO: $8$--$22$ $\text{meV}$ \cite{Albert:2017hjq}, SNO+-II: $20$ - $70$ $\text{meV}$ \cite{Andringa:2015tza, *Fischer:2018squ}, AMoRE-II: $15$--$30$ $\text{meV}$ \cite{Jo:2017jod}, PandaX-III: $20$--$55$ $\text{meV}$ \cite{Chen:2016qcd}), which will be sensitive to the range of our predictions. If either of our predictions is correct, these experiments will detect neutrinoless double-beta decay \cite{Barabash:2019drl}.}
\section{Theoretical Musings}\label{sec:7}
We have presented an asymmetric unified texture of quarks and leptons. Under the grand-unified $SU(5)$ times the discrete family symmetry $ \mc T_{13}$ its fermion content $T, F, \bar{N}, \bar{N}_4$ is,
$$
(\bf 10,\bf \g{3}_2)\oplus (\bf\bar 5,\bf \g{3}_1) \oplus (\bf 1,\bf \g{3}_2) \oplus (\bf 1, \bf 1).
$$
By upgrading $SU(5)$ to $SO(10)$, we get a simpler particle content
\begin{equation}
SO(10) \times\mc T_{13}:~~~~~ (\bf 16,\bf \g{3}_2) \oplus (\bf 10,\bf \g{3}_1) \oplus (\bf 1, \bf 1). \label{SO(10)}
\end{equation}
The decomposition $SO(10) \supset SU(5)\times U(1)$
$$
\bf 16=\bf 10_{-1} \oplus \bf\bar 5_{3} \oplus \bf 1_{-5},\qquad \bf 10=\bf 5_2 \oplus \bf\bar 5_{-2},
$$
shows that the $\bf 5$ in the $\bf 10$ can couple to the $\bf\bar 5$ in the $\bf 16$ and acquire a heavy $\Delta I_w=0$ vectorlike mass. This leaves $T$ and $\bar{N}$ embedded inside the $\g{16}$ and explains their similar labeling.
The grand-unified group above $SO(10)$ is the exceptional group $E_6$. Its complex 27-dimensional fundamental representation decomposes under $E_6 \supset SO(10) \times U(1)$ as
$$\bf 27=\bf 16_1 \oplus \bf 10_{-2} \oplus 1_{4},
$$ which are precisely the representations in the asymmetric texture's particle set. It is a suggestive pattern: matching the representations of the gauge group to those of the discrete group. The mother symmetry could be $E_6\times \mc G_f$, where $\mc G_f$ is a \myred{continuous} group that contains $\mc T_{13}$ \cite{Rachlin:2017rvm, *Merle:2011vy, *Luhn:2011ip}.
There are several ways to see how $\mc T_{13}$ fits in a continuous group. The first is
$$
G_2\supset \mc P\mc S\mc L_2(13)\supset \mc Z_{13}\rtimes \mc Z_6\supset \mc \mc Z_{13}\rtimes \mc Z_3= \mc T_{13}
$$
with the embeddings
$$
\bf 7 \rightarrow \bf \begin{matrix} \bf 7\cr \bf 7'\end{matrix}\rightarrow\bf 6\rightarrow \begin{matrix} \bf \g{3}_1\cr \bf \g{3}_2\end{matrix}$$
which occurs through the embedding of $G_2$'s real $\bf 7$ representation.
\noindent The second way is more direct with
\begin{align*}
\begin{gathered}
G_2\supset SU(3)\supset \mc Z_{13}\rtimes \mc Z_3=\mc T_{13}\\
\bf 7 \rightarrow \bf \bf 1 \oplus \bf 3 \oplus \bf\bar 3\rightarrow \begin{matrix} \bf \g{3}_1\cr \bf \g{3}_2\end{matrix}.
\end{gathered}
\end{align*}
All paths seem to lead to the continuous exceptional group $G_2$ whose seven-dimensional representation describes the coset manifold of $11$-dimensional space-time.
It would be nice to obtain the particle content of Eq.~\eqref{SO(10)} as the result of a spontaneously broken theory. For this we need both $SO(10)$ and $\mc T_{13}$ to be extended so as to be able to pair their representations as described. To that purpose the representations must be tagged. On the gauge side it is easy since the $E_6$ decomposition into $SO(10)$ contains a continuous $U(1)$. On the family side, there is no available tag, so we must invent one.
\section{Conclusion}\label{sec:8}
Continuing from our recent work in Ref.~\cite{Perez:2019aqq}, we have derived the up-type quark sector of the asymmetric texture \cite{rrx2018asymmetric} and the complex-tribimaximal seesaw mixing from an $SU(5) \times \mc T_{13} \times \mc Z_n$ symmetry. This results in a unified model for quarks and leptons from $SU(5)$ gauge unification and $\mc T_{13}$ family symmetry.\footnote{See, for example, \cite{deMedeirosVarzielas:2017sdv, *Rachlin:2018xkm, *Chen:2013wba} for other unified models employing gauge and family symmetry.}
$\mc T_{13}$, an off-the-beaten-road subgroup of $SU(3)$, is a powerful family symmetry. Its ability to label each matrix element of a Yukawa texture with a distinct $\mc Z_{13}$ charge makes it an ideal candidate for constructing the asymmetric texture. Although not evident straightaway, we showed in Ref.~\cite{Perez:2019aqq} that it is capable of naturally producing the zero-subdeterminant condition of the $Y^{(-\frac{1}{3})}$ and $Y^{(-1)}$ textures. In this paper we have shown how it yields the hierarchical diagonal structure of the $Y^{(\frac{2}{3})}$ texture.
What comes as a true surprise is how the complex-tribimaximal mixing arises from the familon vacuum structure in $\mc T_{13}$. The Clebsch-Gordan coefficients of the group yield a off-diagonal symmetric Majorana submatrix, whose decomposition offers TBM seesaw mixing without fine-tuning the familon vacuum expectation values. All familons in the seesaw sector take crystallographic vacuum alignments for the special case where the familon generating the Majorana submatrix lies along $(1,1,1)$ in vacuum.
The seesaw sector uses a minimal number of familons. However, the conventional three right-handed neutrino case fails to yield a light neutrino mass spectrum consistent with oscillation data. Introducing a fourth right-handed neutrino, we predict normal ordering of light neutrino masses: $m_{\nu_1} = 27.6$ $\text{meV}$, $m_{\nu_2} = 28.9$ $\text{meV}$ and $m_{\nu_3} = 57.8$ $\text{meV}$. Compared to the sum of neutrino masses restricted by cosmological upper bound ($120$ $\text{meV}$), our prediction yields $114.3$ $\text{meV}$. The model presented in this paper can be falsified with a slight improvement in the cosmological bound.
In Ref.~\cite{rrx2018asymmetric}, we required a phase in the TBM seesaw mixing to reproduce the experimentally determined PMNS angles. In our analysis, this phase arises from the vacuum expectation value of the seesaw familons. Ref.~\cite{CentellesChulia:2019ldn} discusses a different approach where this phase can arise from the residual flavor and generalized $CP$ symmetries \cite{everett2017lepton, *ding2013generalised, *li2016a4, *nishi2013generalized, *sinha2019c, *ding2014lepton, *hagedorn2015lepton, *ding2016generalized, *li2015lepton, *di2015lepton, *ballett2015mixing, *turner2015predictions, *ding2013spontaneous, *feruglio2013lepton, *feruglio2014realistic, *li2014generalised, *li2015deviation, *lu2017alternative, *king2014lepton, *ding2014generalized, *chen2015neutrino, *ding2014generalised2, *chen2018neutrino, *lu2018quark, *joshipura2018pseudo, *rong2017lepton, *Everett:2015oka, *Lu:2018oxc, *girardi2014generalised, *penedo2017neutrino, *Li:2017abz, *Li:2017zmk, *Lu:2016jit, *Li:2016nap, *Yao:2016zev, *Chen:2016ica, *Chen:2016ptr, *Li:2016ppt, *Ding:2013nsa, *chen2019cp, *chen2019cp2, *barreiros2019combining, *sinha2019phenomenological, *Samanta:2019yeg} of the effective neutrino mass matrix. This phase yields $\cancel{CP}$ phases in the lepton sector, best represented in terms of invariants to avoid ambiguity with many existing definitions. We predict the Jarlskog-Greenberg invariant $|\mc J| = 0.028$ for Dirac $CP$ violation, and Majorana invariants $|\mc I_1| = 0.106$ and $|\mc I_2| = 0.011$. Although no strict bound exists on the Majorana invariants from current experiments \cite{Ge:2016tfx, *Minakata:2014jba}, our prediction for $\mc J$ matches with the current PDG fit, albeit with a sign ambiguity. Light neutrino masses and $\cancel{CP}$ phases make prediction for neutrinoless double-beta decay, with the invariant mass parameter $|m_{\beta \beta }|$ determined to be either $13.02$ or $25.21$ $\text{meV}$ depending on the sign of model parameters. Compared to the latest upper bound ($61$--$165$ $\text{meV}$) from the KamLAND-Zen experiment, both of these are only an order of magnitude away.
We also explore the right-handed neutrino mass spectrum in terms of two parameters. Several curious cases of degeneracy arise for a range of values of the parameters. We think these degeneracies may lead to interesting physics, particularly when one considers the decay of the right-handed neutrinos in the context of leptogenesis. Exploring this is the aim of a future publication.
\begin{acknowledgments}
M.J.P. would like to thank the Departament de F\'{i}sica T\`{e}orica at the Universitat de Val\`{e}ncia for their hospitality during the preparation of this work. A.J.S. would like to acknowledge partial support from CONACYT project CB-2017-2018/A1-S-39470 (M\'exico). M.H.R., P.R., and B.X. acknowledge partial support from the U.S. Department of Energy under Grant No. DE-SC0010296.
\end{acknowledgments}
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
Signal propagation in fiber is generally governed by nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation (NLSE), which is a time-dependent nonlinear differential partial equation and cannot be solved analytically due to interactions between nonlinearity and linear dispersion \cite{WeidemanSSFM}. Thus, operational and accurate simulation algorithms are required to model the evolution of the electrical field in the fiber. The split-step Fourier method (SSFM) is the most commonly used way of simulating the NLSE because of its operability and high accuracy. In the SSFM, lightwave propagation along the fiber is discretized into many small spatial steps, in each of which the nonlinearity and dispersion can be separated and expressed analytically. Nevertheless, the SSFM usually requires high oversampling rates of the signal \cite{ErikCapacity,Kamran} and small step sizes to converge to the true result of the NLSE, indicating a trade-off between the simulation accuracy and complexity.
The computational complexity of the SSFM mostly comes from the large number of times of transformations between time domain and frequency domain using the fast Fourier transform and its inverse, and the exponential computations in the nonlinear operator. Much research has been devoted to analyzing the accuracy of different SSFM schemes and proposing refinements, particularly optimizing the selection and updating rules of the step size \cite{SimoneAccuracy,OlegVariable,QZhang,Heidt,Jshao}. In this paper, different from the all-pass filters usually used in the linear operators of the SSFM, we modify the SSFM by simply including a low-pass filter (LPF) in each linear operator to avoid possible aliasing during simulation. It shows that with these ``cost-free'' filters, the modeling accuracy of the SSFM is improved for a given set of oversampling rates and step sizes, or in other words, we can reduce the simulation complexity for a given accuracy.
\section{Reduced-complexity SSFM}
Let $\mathbf{a}(t,z)$ be the electrical field propagating along the fiber at time $t$ and distance $z$. The NLSE for the evolution of $\mathbf{a}(t,z)$ in an unamplified fiber span can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\partial \mathbf{a}(t,z)}{\partial z}=-\frac{\alpha }{2}\mathbf{a}(t,z)-j\frac{\beta _{2}}{2}\frac{\partial ^{2}\mathbf{a}(t,z)}{\partial t^{2}}+j\gamma \left | \mathbf{a}(t,z) \right |^{2}\mathbf{a}(t,z)
\label{eq1}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathbf{a}(t,0)$ is the input signal, $\alpha$ is the attenuation factor, $\beta_{2}$ is the dispersion parameter, and $\gamma$ is the nonlinear parameter. Let $L$ and $N$ denote the linear operator $-\frac{\alpha }{2}-j\frac{\beta _{2}}{2}\frac{\partial ^{2}}{\partial t^{2}}$ and nonlinear operator $j\gamma \left | \mathbf{a}(t,z) \right |^{2}$ in each step of the SSFM respectively. With $N_{\text{seg}}$ discretized steps and total transmission distance $Z$, Fig.~\ref{Fig.1sub.1} shows a traditional SSFM structure. The need for small enough time resolution $\Delta t$ can be illustrated by Fig.~\ref{Fig.2sub.1}, where $T_{\text{s}}$ is the symbol time. In this example, where the launch power is set high to stress-test the SSFM under adverse conditions, the SSFM output converges to the NLSE with $30$ samples per symbol and as $\Delta t$ increases, the output becomes increasingly deviated from the NLSE. After increasing $\Delta t$ to $T_{\text{s}}/4$, the output is completely independent of the NLSE. This phenomenon is caused by spectrum aliasing resulting from spectral broadening, since higher $\Delta t$ implies lower sampling frequency.
We modify the linear step in traditional SSFM by including an LPF with bandwidth $W$, as shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig.1sub.2}, to reduce aliasing. The proposed linear step is a multiplication with
\begin{equation}
H(f)=\left\{\begin{matrix}
\exp(-\alpha \Delta z+2j\pi^{2}f^{2}\beta_{2}\Delta z),& \left |f \right |\leq W\\
0,& W< \left |f \right |\leq\frac{W_{\text{s}}}{2}
\end{matrix}\right.
\end{equation}
in the frequency domain, where $f$ is the frequency component of the signal, $\Delta z= Z/N_{seg}$ is the step size, $W_{\text{s}}$ is the sampling rate and the filter bandwidth $W\leq W_{\text{s}}/2$. When $W=W_{\text{s}}/2$, $H(f)$ implies the linear step in traditional SSFM. Thus, since fewer complex exponentials need to be computed when $W<W_{\text{s}}/2$, the proposed scheme has slightly lower complexity than the traditional one. The LPF bandwidth $W$ intuitively cannot be too narrow to avoid erasing too much information of the signal. Importantly, the purpose of the modified linear step is to improve the simulation accuracy for the standard NLSE channel \eqref{eq1}, which we do not modify in any way. This makes our contribution fundamentally different from, e.g., \cite{GarciaBrickwall}, where a new kind of propagation channel is created and analyzed by inserting band-pass filters regularly along the fiber. Our motivation is that the LPF improves the simulation accuracy, provided the filter bandwidth is carefully selected and optimized, which can be seen in Fig.~\ref{Fig.2sub.2}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\label{Fig.1}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.48\textwidth}
\centering
\usetikzlibrary{shapes,arrows}
\tikzstyle{expr}=[font=\footnotesize]%
\tikzstyle{block} = [draw, fill=white, rectangle,
minimum height=2em, minimum width=2em]
\begin{tikzpicture}[auto, node distance=2cm,>=latex']
\draw[black, dashed, rounded corners=5, fill=black!0] (1, -0.7) rectangle (4.5, 0.94);%
\node [block] (a0) {$ \mathbf{a}(t,0) $};
\node [block, right of=a0,node distance=2cm] (N) {N};
\node [block, right of=N, node distance=1.5cm] (L) {L};
\node [block, right of=L, node distance=2cm] (aZ) {$ \mathbf{a}(t,Z) $};
\node[label=above:$\times N_\text{seg}$,above of=aZ, node distance=0.4cm, ] [xshift=-13pt] {};
\node[label=above:{One fiber segment},above of=N, node distance=0.22cm, ] [xshift=22pt] {};
\draw [-] (a0) -- node {} (N);
\draw [-] (N) -- node {} (L);
\draw [-] (L) -- node {} (aZ);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{}
\label{Fig.1sub.1}
\end{subfigure}
~
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.48\textwidth}
\usetikzlibrary{shapes,arrows}
\tikzstyle{expr}=[font=\footnotesize]%
\tikzstyle{block} = [draw, fill=white, rectangle,
minimum height=2em, minimum width=2em]
\begin{tikzpicture}[auto, node distance=2cm,>=latex']
\draw[black, dashed, rounded corners=5, fill=black!0] (1, -0.7) rectangle (4.5, 0.94);%
\node [block] (a0) {$ \mathbf{a}(t,0) $};
\node [block, right of=a0,node distance=2cm] (N) {N};
\node [block, right of=N, node distance=1.5cm] (Hf) {$H(f)$};
\node [block, right of=Hf, node distance=2cm] (aZ) {$ \mathbf{a}(t,Z) $};
\node[label=above:$\times N_\text{seg}$,above of=aZ, node distance=0.4cm, ] [xshift=-13pt] {};
\node[label=above:{One fiber segment},above of=N, node distance=0.22cm, ] [xshift=22pt] {};
\draw [-] (a0) -- node {} (N);
\draw [-] (N) -- node {} (Hf);
\draw [-] (Hf) -- node {} (aZ);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{}
\label{Fig.1sub.2}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Traditional SSFM structure (a) and improved SSFM with LPFs (b).}
\label{Fig.1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.47\textwidth}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[
xmin=3.2, xmax=4.2,
xticklabels={-400,-200,0,200,400},
xtick={3.3,3.5,3.7,3.9,4.1},
ymin=-0.26, ymax=0.25,
xlabel={Transmission time $t$ [\text{ps}]},
ylabel={$\text{Re}\left \{\mathbf{a}(t,Z) \right \}$},
ylabel style={at={(axis description cs:0.05,0.5)}, anchor=north},
cycle list name=myCycleList,
legend pos=north west,
legend columns=3,
legend entries = {$\Delta t=T_{\text{s}}/30$, $\Delta t=T_{\text{s}}/10$,$\Delta t=T_{\text{s}}/8$,$\Delta t=T_{\text{s}}/6$, $\Delta t=T_{\text{s}}/4$},
legend style={fill=white, fill opacity=0.6, draw opacity=1,text opacity=1,font=\tiny},
legend cell align=left,
ylabel style={yshift=-.05cm},
height =0.55\textwidth,
]
\addplot+[color=black, line width=0.5mm] table[
x=t,
y=y,
] {./fig2data_30.txt};
\addplot+[color=blue, line width=0.3mm] table[
x=t,
y=y,
] {./fig2data_10.txt};
\addplot+[dashed,color=red, line width=0.2mm] table[
x=t,
y=y,
] {./fig2data_8.txt};
\addplot+[dotted,color=orange, line width=0.2mm] table[
x=t,
y=y,
] {./fig2data_6.txt};
\addplot+[dash dot,color=green, line width=0.2mm] table[
x=t,
y=y,
] {./fig2data_4.txt};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The SSFM output without LPFs.}
\label{Fig.2sub.1}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.47\textwidth}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[
xmin=3.2, xmax=4.2,
xticklabels={-400,-200,0,200,400},
xtick={3.3,3.5,3.7,3.9,4.1},
ymin=-0.26, ymax=0.25,
xlabel={Transmission time $t$ [\text{ps}]},
ylabel={$\text{Re}\left \{\mathbf{a}(t,Z) \right \}$},
ylabel style={at={(axis description cs:0.05,0.5)}, anchor=north},
cycle list name=myCycleList,
legend pos=north west,
legend columns=3,
legend entries = {$\Delta t=T_{\text{s}}/30$, $\Delta t=T_{\text{s}}/10$,$\Delta t=T_{\text{s}}/8$,$\Delta t=T_{\text{s}}/6$, $\Delta t=T_{\text{s}}/4$},
legend style={fill=white, fill opacity=0.6, draw opacity=1,text opacity=1,font=\tiny},
legend cell align=left,
ylabel style={yshift=-.05cm},
height =0.55\textwidth,
]
\addplot+[color=black, line width=0.5mm] table[
x=t,
y=y,
] {./fig2data_30_filter.txt};
\addplot+[color=blue, line width=0.3mm] table[
x=t,
y=y,
] {./fig2data_10.txt};
\addplot+[dashed,color=red, line width=0.2mm] table[
x=t,
y=y,
] {./fig2data_8_filter.txt};
\addplot+[dotted,color=orange, line width=0.2mm] table[
x=t,
y=y,
] {./fig2data_6_filter.txt};
\addplot+[dash dot,color=green, line width=0.2mm] table[
x=t,
y=y,
] {./fig2data_4_filter.txt};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The SSFM output with LPFs.}
\label{Fig.2sub.2}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{The output with different $\Delta t$ become more similar to the NLSE using LPFs. Parameters: $16$-QAM single wavelength transmission at $9.6$ dBm launch power; one span of $600$ km single mode fiber with ideal distributed amplification; $\beta_{2}=-21.7$ $\text{ps}^{2}$/km, $\gamma=1.27 (\text{W}\cdot \text{km})^{-1}$; step size $1.5$ km. The filter bandwidth is optimized for each $\Delta t$.}
\label{Fig.2}
\end{figure}
\section{Numerical results}
We consider a $16$-QAM modulation format transmitted at $10$ Gbaud through single-mode fiber using a raised-cosine pulse with roll-off factor $10\%$ and ideal distributed amplification. The fiber parameters $\beta_{2}$ and $\gamma$ are $-21.7$ $\text{ps}^{2}$/km and $1.27 (\text{W}\cdot \text{km})^{-1}$, respectively, and the amplifier noise is neglected. To evaluate the accuracy, we define the normalized square difference (NSD)
\begin{equation}
\text{NSD}=\frac{\int (\mathbf{a}(t,Z)-\hat{\mathbf{a}}(t,Z))^{2}dt}{\int\mathbf{a}^{2}(t,Z)dt}
\end{equation}
between the NLSE output $\mathbf{a}(t,Z)$ and another simulated output $\hat{\mathbf{a}}(t,Z)$. Let $\Delta t_{\text{NLSE}}=T_{\text{s}}/30$ and $\Delta z_{\text{NLSE}}=0.1$ km denote the time discretization and step size of the benchmark NLSE. It was numerically validated that in all figures of this paper, these parameters are sufficient for the SSFM to converge to the NLSE output $\mathbf{a}(t,Z)$. We measure the NSD without and with LPFs as a function of: (a) transmission distance $Z$ [km], (b) input power $P$ [dBm], and (c) time discretization $\Delta t/T_{\text{s}}$ [\%] for some example cases as shown in Fig. \ref{Fig.3}. The NSD results in Fig. \ref{Fig.3} were obtained by averaging over many transmitted $16$-QAM symbol sequences. All the curves with the LPFs were obtained by globally searching the filter bandwidth $W$ to get the best performance.
Fig. \ref{Fig.3sub.1} shows that at a given distance, the NSD reduces by a factor of $3$--$5$ using the LPFs, which means that with a fixed oversampling rate, we can simulate longer distances without losing accuracy. Similarly, Fig. \ref{Fig.3sub.2} implies that this modified SSFM shows more robustness to nonlinearity than the traditional SSFM. For a certain simulation time resolution, the NSD can be reduced by more than half using these filters (see Fig. \ref{Fig.3sub.3}). To this end, we can implement the SSFM with a larger sampling density with the LPFs and the only cost is to find the most suitable bandwidth to achieve the gain. The filter bandwidth $W$ over half of the sampling rate $W_{\text{s}}$ of the signal for some example cases is analyzed in Fig. \ref{Fig.3sub.5}, where the minimum NSD appears when $W$ is between $70\%$ and $85\%$, while $100 \%$ means the SSFM without LPFs. When $W$ is below $60\%$, the simulation becomes less accurate compared with the traditional SSFM, because the LPF erases some information of the signal.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.49\textwidth}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[
xmin=100, xmax=1000,
ymin=0, ymax=10,
xlabel={Transmission distance $Z$ [\text{km}]},
ylabel={NSD (\%) },
ylabel style={at={(axis description cs:0.05,0.5)}, anchor=north},
cycle list name=myCycleList,
legend pos=north west,
legend entries = {without LPFs, with LPFs},
legend style={font=\tiny},
legend cell align=left,
ylabel style={yshift=-.05cm},
height =0.52\textwidth,
]
\addplot+[color=blue, mark=triangle*, mark options={mark size=2.0pt, fill=white, mark repeat=1}] table[
x=Z,
y=without,
] {./fig3adata1km16.txt};
\addplot+[color=red, mark=*, mark options={mark size=1.7pt, fill=white, mark repeat=1}] table[
x=Z,
y=with,
] {./fig3adata1km16.txt};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Parameters: $\Delta z =0.1$ km, $P=10$ dBm, $\Delta t = T_{\text{s}}/16$.}
\label{Fig.3sub.1}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.49\textwidth}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[
xmin=5.4, xmax=7.8,
ymin=0, ymax=20,
xlabel={Input power $P$ [\text{dBm}]},
ylabel={NSD (\%) },
ylabel style={at={(axis description cs:0.05,0.5)}, anchor=north},
cycle list name=myCycleList,
legend pos=north west,
legend entries = {without LPFs, with LPFs},
legend style={fill=white, fill opacity=0.6, draw opacity=1,text opacity=1,font=\tiny},
legend cell align=left,
ylabel style={yshift=-.05cm},
height =0.52\textwidth,
]
\addplot+[color=blue, mark=triangle*, mark options={mark size=2.0pt, fill=white,mark repeat=1}] table[
x=P,
y=without,
] {./fig3bdata4.txt};
\addplot+[color=red, mark=*, mark options={mark size=1.7pt, fill=white,mark repeat=1}] table[
x=P,
y=with,
] {./fig3bdata4.txt};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Parameters: $\Delta z =0.1$ km, $\Delta t = T_{\text{s}}/8$, $Z=1000$ km.}
\label{Fig.3sub.2}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.49\textwidth}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[
xmin=4.7, xmax=7.15,
ymin=0, ymax=20,
xlabel={Time discretization $\Delta t/T_{\text{s}}$ [$\%$] },
ylabel={NSD (\%) },
ylabel style={at={(axis description cs:0.05,0.5)}, anchor=north},
cycle list name=myCycleList,
legend pos=north west,
legend entries = {without LPFs, with LPFs},
legend style={fill=white, fill opacity=0.6, draw opacity=1,text opacity=1,font=\tiny},
legend cell align=left,
ylabel style={yshift=-.05cm},
xlabel style={xshift=-.05cm},
height =0.52\textwidth,
]
\addplot+[color=blue, mark=triangle*, mark options={mark size=2.0pt, fill=white,mark repeat=1}] table[
x=dt,
y=without,
] {./fig3cdata3.txt};
\addplot+[color=red, mark=*, mark options={mark size=1.7pt, fill=white,mark repeat=1}] table[
x=dt,
y=with,
] {./fig3cdata3.txt};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Parameters: $\Delta z =0.1$ km, $P=10$ dBm, $Z = 1000$ km.}
\label{Fig.3sub.3}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.49\textwidth}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[
xmin=62, xmax=100,
xticklabels={60,70,80,90,100},
xtick={60,70,80,90,100},
ymin=0,
xlabel={Filter bandwidth $W$ over $W_{\text{s}}/2$ [\text{\%}]},
ylabel={NSD (\%) },
ylabel style={at={(axis description cs:0.05,0.5)}, anchor=north},
cycle list name=myCycleList,
legend pos=north west,
legend entries = {$\Delta t=T_{\text{s}}/16$~~$P=10~\text{dBm}$, $\Delta t=T_{\text{s}}/17$~~$P=10~\text{dBm}$,$\Delta t=T_{\text{s}}/8$~~$P=6.3~\text{dBm}$,$\Delta t=T_{\text{s}}/7$~~$P=6.3~\text{dBm}$},
legend cell align=left,
legend style={fill=white, fill opacity=0.6, draw opacity=1,text opacity=1,font=\tiny},
ylabel style={yshift=-.05cm},
xlabel style={xshift=-.05cm},
height =0.52\textwidth,
]
\addplot+[color=orange] table[
x=BW,
y=NSD,
] {./fig3edata1km16P10.txt};
\addplot+[color=black] table[
x=BW,
y=NSD,
] {./fig3edata1km17.txt};
\addplot+[color=red,] table[
x=BW,
y=NSD,
] {./fig3edata1km8P6d3.txt};
\addplot+[color=blue,] table[
x=BW,
y=NSD,
] {./fig3edata1km76d3.txt};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Parameters: $\Delta z=0.1$ km, $Z=1000$ km.}
\label{Fig.3sub.5}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{The NSD is improved with LPFs as a function of transmission distance $Z$, input power $P$, time discretization $\Delta t$, and filter bandwidth $W$. }
\label{Fig.3}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion and future work}
We proposed a modified SSFM algorithm with slightly lower complexity by including LPFs in the linear operator to avoid aliasing. How transmission distance, input power, and time discretization in the SSFM affect the NSD between the NLSE output and a simulated output is studied and the bandwidth of the LPFs is analyzed as well for some specific cases. We find that the proposed filter method can reduce more than $50\%$ of the simulation error for a wide range of link and simulation parameters.
For future work, it would be interesting if this filtering method could help with reducing the symbol error rate of the digital backpropagation algorithm, since the digital backpropagation is an inverse process of the SSFM where aliasing could happen as well.
\textbf{Acknowledgement}
This work was supported by the Swedish Research Council (VR) under grant no. 2017-03702.
|
\section{Introduction}
Person re-identification (Re-ID) is a crucial task aiming to match a specific person image with other images of this person across non-overlapping camera views.
Most of the existing methods draw much
attention on the feature representation~\cite{chang2018multi,zheng2016personsurvery,sun2018beyond,Li_2018_CVPR,chang2018multi,xu2018attention,zhang2017alignedreid,chen2017person,sun2017svdnet,chenself,chen2019mixed} and metric learning~\cite{cheng2016person,hermans2017defense,chen2017beyond} under the \textit{supervised learning} setting.
Although these methods achieve impressive performances, they highly depend on abundant labelled data which can be costly and time-consuming to obtain.
Some recent approaches~\cite{huang2018eanet,deng2018image,fan2017pul,peng2016unsupervised,wang2018reid,wei2018person,Zhong_2018_ECCV} attempt to study \textit{unsupervised cross-domain} person Re-ID, which mainly focuses on how to adapt the information from the labelled \textit{source domain} to an unlabelled \textit{target domain} so as to take advantage of large and easily collected unlabelled data.
The main difficulties are two-fold.
Firstly, data points from different domains suffer from \textit{domain shift} \cite{zhang2019self,song2019generalizable,wei2018person,Zhong_2018_ECCV}, \ie, inconsistent data distributions.
Some methods \cite{deng2018image,wei2018person,bak2018domain,li2018adaptation}
spend effort
to narrow down the domain gaps
using
Generative Adversarial Network (GAN).
The other problem is \textit{intra-domain variation}, which is more crucial for the performance due to lacking identity annotation on the target data.
To handle this issue, some methods try to discover the underlying relationships among the unlabelled data points \cite{zhong2019invariance,fu2019self,zhang2019self}.
To use the invariance properties over the whole training set in the mini-batch training, ECN \cite{zhong2019invariance} maintain an exemplar memory to record features of the target samples.
It identifies the sample relationships by solely measuring the exemplar-level similarity, which
is often
fragile and can be misled easily, since it ignores the \textit{fine-grained} information between similar but different identities as well as the \textit{global distribution} of the data points with large variances in the same identities.
Although SSG~\cite{fu2019self} and PAST~\cite{zhang2019self} apply part-based clustering methods to capture the global and local information, they mainly rely on some heuristic training techniques and do not fully capture the global data distribution.
\par
In order to tackle above issues, we propose a novel \textit{multi-level memory network} (MMN) to use multi-level information of the target domain.
Memory modules are used to maintain representations of the entire dataset, which are updated dynamically and enable the model to use the whole data relationships in each mini-batch efficiently.
Beyond the exemplar memory in \cite{zhong2019invariance}, MMN maintains memory pools on three representation levels, \ie,
\textit{part-level memory},
\textit{instance-level memory}, and \textit{domain-level memory}.
The three memory modules complement each other by integrating the information from different levels in a systematical scheme, instead of using them heuristically.
It empowers MMN to discover the similarity-and-dissimilarity relationships among the target samples and use
them to provide more reliable supervision for unlabelled samples.
\par
The most straightforward approach
to build memory on the target examples is to maintain the image-based representations in the slots as \cite{zhong2019invariance}.
Each slot in our instance-level memory thus stores the entire image features that encodes the whole body information of a person.
Given an input, the most similar memory items are selected (based on $k$-nearest neighbor search) as the ones with same identities to provide supervision signals.
However, the similarity measuring may contain errors and mislead training, since the samples with similar overall appearance can belong to different identities (see Figure \ref{fig:figure1}) and the similarity only focusing on independent samples is fragile. We thus introduce \textit{part-level memory} and \textit{domain-level memory} to handle the issues, respectively.
Considering that some subtle differences of different identifies can be distinguished by focusing on local parts \cite{su2017pose,suh2018part,sun2018beyond,zhao2017spindle,zhao2017deeply,zhang2019densely,sun2019perceive,yang2019patch,fu2019self}, in the part-level memory, each slot maintains the features of separate parts of a sample.
We use the part-level memory to verify and rectify the similarity relationships obtained from the instance-level memory, instead of using it independently.
The \textit{domain-level memory} is introduced to fully capture the overall structure of the target domain.
Specifically, we cluster data points into several pseudo classes and assign each memory slot as the cluster centroid, \ie, the representative prototype of a cluster.
The domain-level memory can further guide the
memory read operation in instance level and part level and directly enforce the model to concentrate more on discriminative features on a high level.
The three multi-level memory modules are trained under mutual guidance from each other and work cooperatively to improve the generalization ability of the model.
To summarize, our main contributions are as follows:
\setlist{nolistsep}
\begin{itemize}[fullwidth, itemindent=1em]
\item[1)] We introduce a dynamically updated multi-level memory network (MMN) to systematically capture the multi-level information from bottom to up in the whole target domain.
\item[2)] The three memory modules in MMN are complementary to each other, which considers the whole data relationships from both fine-grained information and holistic structure simultaneously.
Particularly,
the part-level memory rectifies the similarity relationships for instance-level memory, while the domain-level memory provides the guidance of memory read for the other two.
\item[3)]
Experiments on three large-scale datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of our MMN on the task
of unsupervised cross-domain person Re-ID.
\end{itemize}
\setlist{nolistsep}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[trim =0mm 0mm 0mm 0mm, clip, width=.9\linewidth]{images/Figure2.pdf}
\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{0.13cm}
\setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{-0.3cm}
\caption{Diagram of our proposed multi-level memory network (MMN).
The source domain branch applies a classifier to calculate the softmax cross-entropy loss $L_{\text{s}}$.
The target domain branch is with a multi-level memory module, in which two loss functions $L_\text{I}$ and $L_\text{D}$ perform on the instance-level memory and domain-level memory, respectively.
Specifically, the three memories cooperatively provide reliable supervision for the target data from fine-grained information to holistic representation.
These memory modules are complementary with each other,
\ie, the domain-level guidance for memory read (Section~\ref{sec:domain}) and the part-level rectification for memory read-out (Section~\ref{sec:part}).}
\label{fig:model}
\end{figure*}
\section{Related Work}
\noindent\textbf{Part-based Person Re-ID.} Most existing methods~\cite{sun2018beyond,su2017pose,zhao2017deeply,suh2018part,zhao2017spindle,bai2017scalable} attempt to take advantage of local structures to improve the holistic feature representation. Among these methods, \cite{sun2018beyond,wang2018learning} split the feature maps evenly into several parts from vertical and horizontal orientations.
Others like~\cite{sun2019perceive,su2017pose,zhao2017spindle,saquib2018pose,zheng2019pose,insafutdinov2016deepercut,kalayeh2018human,zhang2019densely} utilize various part-location algorithms to further advance the retrieval accuracy via extracting more accurate part regions.
For example, VPM~\cite{sun2019perceive} explores the visible regions through probability maps to locate the shared parts between images.
\cite{su2017pose,zhao2017spindle,saquib2018pose,zheng2019pose,insafutdinov2016deepercut} learn to extract relatively precise part regions via pose estimation algorithms.
\cite{kalayeh2018human,zhang2019densely} learn to employ human semantic information to fully use the well-aligned local representation of the human body.
Although these methods have achieved great improvement, they are all designed for supervised learning and cannot generalize well to the unlabelled datasets.
\noindent\textbf{Unsupervised Cross-Domain Person Re-ID.}
Recently, many methods~\cite{wei2018person,deng2018image,Zhong_2018_ECCV,wang2018reid,huang2018eanet,li2018unsupervised,peng2016unsupervised,liu2017stepwise,song2018unsupervised,zhang2019self,fu2019self} pay more attention to the task of unsupervised cross-domain person Re-ID.
in which the goal is to adapt the information learned from the labelled source domain to the unlabelled target domain.
In this case, both labelled datasets (source domain) and the easy-collected unlabelled dataset (target domain) can be used simultaneously.
Some domain transfer works~\cite{wei2018person,deng2018image,Zhong_2018_ECCV} have spent much
effort to solve the domain-shift problem.
One direct approach is to decrease the domain gaps using
the Generative Adversarial Network~\cite{goodfellow2014generative}.
Particularly, PTGAN~\cite{wei2018person} and SPGAN~\cite{deng2018image} aim to generate high-quality images in which image styles are transferred from source domain to target domain.
At the same time, person identities are kept to ensure that the transferred images are satisfied for model training.
Alternative methods~\cite{wang2018reid,huang2018eanet} are to discover the shared common knowledge between source and target domain to help the model training.
For instances, TJ-AIDL~\cite{wang2018reid} proposes a joint attribute-identity transfer learning to transfer the attribute information learned from labelled source data to unlabelled target data.
EANet~\cite{huang2018eanet} fuses the human semantic information for both source and target data to provide additional supervision so as to narrow down the domain gap.
The drawback of these methods is that they all highly depend on the quality of the auxiliary knowledge, which is determined by other methods.
On the other hand, many works~\cite{li2018unsupervised,peng2016unsupervised,liu2017stepwise,song2018unsupervised,zhang2019self,fu2019self} proposes to generate reliable pseudo identity labels for the unlabelled target dataset.
In particular, authors of \cite{song2018unsupervised,zhang2019self,fu2019self} propose to use density-based clustering methods~\cite{campello2013density,ester1996density} for label estimation, which is proved to largely improve the pseudo-label quality.
Besides, the work of \cite{zhang2019self,fu2019self} also uses evenly divided part regions as additional representation to achieve high performance.
Since these methods can not fully consider the subtle details and the whole data distribution in the target domain,
the performance is often still unsatisfactory in practice.
\noindent\textbf{Memory Network.}
Memory-based learning network has been applied on various tasks~\cite{MemoryNetworks2015,graves2014neural,vinyals2016matching,sukhbaatar2015end,santoro2016meta,santoro2016one,Gong_2019_ICCV,xiong2016dynamic,zhong2019invariance,chandar2016hierarchical,wu2018unsupervised}.
Among these existing methods, authors of \cite{chandar2016hierarchical} introduce a hierarchical memory structure to speed up memory access, in which memory cells are clustered to several groups, and then these groups are further organized to higher-level groups.
The difference from \cite{chandar2016hierarchical} is that we take advantage of multiple information from multi-level memory modules simultaneously
with respective supervision rather than one supervision for all levels.
Moreover, \cite{zhong2019invariance,wu2018unsupervised} construct an exemplar memory bank to store the instance-level feature for each image and then discover $k$-nearest neighbors based on it.
Compared with them, we explore the data relationships by considering different-level information comprehensively so that the feature representations are further improved with both fine-grained information and the global structure.
Besides, these memory modules complement each other to extract more reliable data relationships.
\section{The Proposed Method}
In the unsupervised cross-domain person Re-ID problem, we are given a labelled source training dataset $\{\left(x^i_s, y^i_s\right) \}$ with a set of person images $x_s^i$ and corresponding identity labels $y_s^i$ and an unlabelled target training dataset $\{x^i \}^{N}_{i=1}$ containing $N$ unlabelled images. The identity information in the target dataset is unavailable.
There is usually a large domain gap between source and target data. The model trained on the labelled source dataset thus cannot be directly used on the target domain.
Our goal is to learn discriminative embedding for the target domain by using both labelled source data and unlabelled target data.
\subsection{Overview}
The proposed multi-level memory network (MMN) contains two main branches for training on labelled source domain and unlabelled target domain, respectively. The proposed multi-level memory module is applied to handle the unsupervised training on target domain.
As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:model}, the two branches share a same CNN backbone for feature extraction. Given an image, the backbone first extracts global-area feature map and then partitions it horizontally to two part feature maps, \ie, upper and bottom part as in \cite{fu2019self}. Following global average polling (GAP), $L_2$-normalization and ReLU activation, the model obtains $D$-dimensional embedding features for global area ${\mathbf{f}}_{\text{g}} \!\in\! {\mathbb R}^D$ and part areas $\mathbf{f}_{\text{pu}} \!\in\! {\mathbb R}^D$ and $\mathbf{f}_{\text{pb}} \!\in\! {\mathbb R}^D$, respectively.
In mini-batch training, half of each batch is from source domain and the other half is from target domain.
\par
Based on available identity labels,
we apply a simple classifier (based on fully-connected layer and softmax) on ${\mathbf{f}}_\text{g}$ following a cross-entropy loss to perform supervised learning in the source domain branch, which is denoted as $L_{\text{s}}$.
In the target domain branch,
${\mathbf{f}}_\text{g}$, ${\mathbf{f}}_\text{pu}$ and ${\mathbf{f}}_\text{pb}$ are used
as the input of the multi-level module to obtain the similarity measurement.
As shown in Figure \ref{fig:model}, two loss functions perform directly based on the instance-level and domain-level memory,
while the part-level memory helps to rectify the similarity measurement from instance level.
Each memory is associated with a reading operation and a writing operation.
Note that the reader of domain-level memory can provide a guidance for instance-level and part-level memory reading with a domain similarity measurment and soft assignment weights, while the part-level memory can rectify the memory read-out at instance level, as shown in Figure \ref{fig:model}.
Details for each memory module are in the following sections.
\subsection{Instance-level Memory Module}\label{sec:image}
We first define the instance-level memory as a matrix ${\mathbf{M}_\text{I} }\!\in\! {\mathbb R}^{D\times N}$ to
store the $D$-dimensional global image features of all $N$ sample. Let ${\bf m}_{ {\text{I}} ,i}, \forall i \in [N]$ denote the $i$-th column of ${\mathbf{M}_\text{I} }$, where $[N]$ denotes the set of integers from $1$ to $N$. Each ${\bf m}_{ {\text{I}} ,i}$ denotes a memory item corresponding to global-area feature ${\mathbf{f}}_{\text{g},i}$ of $i$-th target image $x_i$.
All $\mathbf{m}_{\text{I},i}$ in $\mathbf{M}_{\text{I}}$ are initialized as zero vectors and dynamically updated via the writing operation.
Given an ${\mathbf{f}}_{\text{g},i}$, the model can read out the relationships between the $i$-th sample and all others by measuring the similarity with all memory items ${\bf m}_{\text{I}, j}$, which are used to obtain training supervisions in the target domain. To easily apply the similarity relationship in a classification scheme, we define the unique index of each sample as an individual class.
The $i$-th image is assigned as class $i$. In this way, the similarity measurements can also be seen as the probability for classification.
\textbf{Reading Operation.}
To obtain the similarity relationships, we calculate the cosine similarities between ${\mathbf{f}}_{\text{g},i}$ and all ${\bf m}_{\text{I}, j}$. The predicted probability is then obtained via a softmax function. The detailed formula is as follows:
\begin{equation}
\setlength{\abovedisplayskip}{0.2cm}
\setlength{\belowdisplayskip}{0.2cm}
P_{\text{I}}(x_i,j)=\frac{\exp ( d ( {\mathbf{f}}_{\text{g},i}, {\bf m}_{\text{I}, j} ) )}{{\sum}^{N}_{n=1} \exp ( d ( {\mathbf{f}}_{\text{g},i}, {\bf m}_{\text{I}, n} ) )} ,
\label{eq:probability}
\end{equation}
where $d(\cdot,\cdot)$ is the cosine similarity measurement, formulated as
$d(\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v})=(\mathbf{u}\cdot \mathbf{v})/(||\mathbf{u}||\cdot ||\mathbf{v}||)/\alpha_1$.
$\alpha_1 \in (0,1]$ is a temperature fact scaling the distribution.
Based on the fact that there always exist same-identity samples in the target dataset~\cite{zhong2019invariance}, we assume that $x_i$ belongs to all the classes of the most relevant $k$ samples.
We denote ${\mathcal K}$ as the index set of the selected $k$ memory slots.
Then a multi-class objective for a mini-batch of size $B$ associated with the instance-level memory can be formulated as follows:
\begin{equation}
\setlength{\abovedisplayskip}{0.2cm}
\setlength{\belowdisplayskip}{0.2cm}
L_{\text{I}} = - \sum_{i=1}^{B} \sum_{j=1}^{N} \mu_{i,j} \log P_{\text{I}}(x_i, j),
\label{eq:imageloss}
\end{equation}
where $\mu_{i,j}$ denotes hard assignment weight.
If $j\in {\mathcal K}$, $\mu_{i,j}=1$; otherwise, $\mu_{i,j}=0$.
Here, ${\mathcal K}$ can be generated from the top-$k$ similar samples in Eq.~\eqref{eq:probability} as in \cite{zhong2019invariance}.
However, we propose a new selection method guided by the domain-level memory in Section~\ref{sec:domain}.
\textbf{Write Operation.}
To update the memory slot, we write ${\mathbf{f}}_{\text{g},i}$ into the corresponding $i$-th memory slot by running average operation that is performed as:
\begin{equation}
\setlength{\abovedisplayskip}{0.2cm}
\setlength{\belowdisplayskip}{0.2cm}
\mathbf{m}_{\text{I},i}\leftarrow \rho \mathbf{m}_{\text{I},i} + (1-\rho){\mathbf{f}}_{\text{g},i},
\label{eq:imagewrite}
\end{equation}
where the coefficient $\rho$ represents the degree of the memory update.
A smaller $\rho$ indicates paying more consideration on the up-to-date feature, while the larger one on the representation saved in the memory slot.
After the updating, we re-normalize $\mathbf{m}_{\text{I},i}$ via $L_2$-normalization.
\subsection{Domain-level Memory Module}\label{sec:domain}
Although we have explored the relationships among individual images,
it is still hard to fully capture the overall structure of the data since only $k$ samples are utilized.
We thus design a domain-level memory to store the representative prototypes of the whole target domain.
In detail, we first calculate the similarity metric $\mathbf{S}$ on all target data points via $k$-reciprocal encoding~\cite{zhong2017re}, which has been proved to be useful for Re-ID~\cite{zhang2019self,fu2019self,song2018unsupervised}. Then we utilize the clustering algorithm~\cite{campello2013density} to split the data points into $C$ pseudo-classes.
The domain-level memory is designed to store the $D$-dimensional domain-level features of all pseudo-classes, defined as a matrix ${\mathbf{M}_\text{D} }\!\in\! {\mathbb R}^{D\times C}$.
The memory item $\mathbf{m}_{\text{D},c},\forall c\in[C]$ represents the representative feature of the $c$-th pseudo cluster, which is initialized as the feature of the $c$-th cluster centroid calculated by averaging all $\mathbf{f}_g$ of its elements.
$[C]$ denotes the set of integers from $1$ to $C$.
Note that ${\mathbf{M}_\text{D} }$ is a dynamic memory module since
$C$ changes every time calculating $\mathbf{S}$.
\textbf{Read Operation.}
Given an ${\mathbf{f}}_{\text{g},i}$ of target sample $x_i$ with pseudo class $c_i$, we can also obtain the predicted probability that ${\mathbf{f}}_{\text{g},i}$ belongs to each pseudo class via a softmax function,
which is shown as:
\begin{equation}
\setlength{\abovedisplayskip}{0.2cm}
\setlength{\belowdisplayskip}{0.2cm}
P_{\text{D}}(x_i, j)=\frac{\exp ( d ( {\mathbf{f}}_{\text{g},i}, \mathbf{m}_{\text{D},j} ) )}{{\sum}^{C}_{c=1} \exp ( d ( {\mathbf{f}}_{\text{g},i}, \mathbf{m}_{\text{D},c} ) )} ,
\label{eq:domain_probability}
\end{equation}
where $d(\cdot,\cdot)$ is the cosine similarity measurement which is the same as Eq.~\eqref{eq:probability}.
Based on Eq.~\eqref{eq:domain_probability}, we apply the cross-entropy loss as the objective function. Besides, we also use batch-hard triplet loss~\cite{hermans2017defense} to mine the relationships among image samples.
The final formula is shown as:
\begin{equation}
\setlength{\abovedisplayskip}{0.2cm}
\setlength{\belowdisplayskip}{0.2cm}
L_{\text{D}} = - \sum_{i=1}^{B} \log P_{\text{D}}(x_i, c_i) + L_{\text{Tri}},
\label{eq:domainloss}
\end{equation}
where $L_{\text{Tri}}$ denotes the batch-hard triplet loss~\cite{hermans2017defense}.
\textbf{Write Operation.}
In the write process of the domain-level memory, we only update the $c_i$-th memory item, \ie, the class centroid of itself. The update process is formulated as follows:
\begin{equation}
\setlength{\abovedisplayskip}{0.2cm}
\setlength{\belowdisplayskip}{0.2cm}
\mathbf{m}_{\text{I},c_i}\leftarrow \rho \mathbf{m}_{\text{I},c_i} + (1-\rho){\mathbf{f}}_{\text{g},i},
\label{eq:domainwrite}
\end{equation}
where $\rho$ is the same coefficient as in Eq.~\eqref{eq:imagewrite}. We also use $L_2$-normalization on $\mathbf{m}_{\text{I},c_i}$ after updating.
\textbf{Domain-level guidance for memory read.}
Aparat from the training objective above, the domain-level memory also provides guidance for the memory read on the instance level.
In Eq.~\eqref{eq:imageloss}, we select ${\mathcal K}$ with $k$ samples relying on the cosine similarity in Eq.~\eqref{eq:probability}, which have limited confidence especially in the early training stage due to the unreliable features.
To address the problem, we propose a new selection method for ${\mathcal K}$ in the instance level guided by the high-level information in the domain level.
Specially, given a target sample $x_i$, we first extract the most similar $2k$ samples based on $\mathbf{S}$ and do the same thing for each selected sample.
We assume that if a sample A is more similar to B than C, the number of the overlapped samples in the selected $2k$ samples of A and B is larger than A and C. If B and C have the same number of overlapped samples with A, $S_{A,B}$ and $S_{A,C}$ (\ie the values in the similarity matrix $\mathbf{\text{S}}$) will be used to measure the similarity.
According to this, the selected $2k$ samples can be reordered.
After that, we select the top-$k$ samples based on the reordered rank and record their indexes in a set as $\widetilde{{\mathcal K}}$, will be used for the operations on the instance level and part level, reflecting the guidance from the domain-level memory.
\par
Moreover, if A is more similar to B than C, it is more likely that A and B belong to same identity, and it is reasonable to assign larger weight on B when applying the training loss Eq.~\eqref{eq:imageloss} on A.
We thus define a similarity-based soft assignment weight on $\widetilde{{\mathcal K}}$ relying on the similarity matrix $\mathbf{S}$:
\begin{equation}
\setlength{\abovedisplayskip}{0.2cm}
\setlength{\belowdisplayskip}{0.2cm}
w_{i,j}=\text{exp}(-\alpha_2 (1-S_{i,j})), \forall j \in \widetilde{{\mathcal K}},
\label{eq:softweight}
\end{equation}
where $\alpha_2$, $\alpha_2>0$ is a temperature parameter to control the importance of the selected samples.
Since $S_{i,j}\in (0, 1]$, the soft weight $w_{i,j}\in (0, 1]$.
By applying Eq.~\eqref{eq:softweight}, Eq.~\eqref{eq:imageloss} can be modified as:
\begin{equation}
\setlength{\abovedisplayskip}{0.1cm}
\setlength{\belowdisplayskip}{0.1cm}
L_{\text{I}} = - \sum_{i=1}^{B} \sum_{j=1}^{N} (\mu_{i,j}\cdot w_{i,j}) \log P_{\text{I}}(x_i, j),
\label{eq:imageloss2}
\end{equation}
where if $j\in \widetilde{{\mathcal K}}$, $w_{i,j}$ is defined by Eq.~\eqref{eq:softweight}; if $j\notin \widetilde{{\mathcal K}}$, $w_{i,j}=0$.
\par
With the guidance from the domain-level memory, we can select more confident top-$k$ samples ${\mathcal K}$ for the instance-level training objective as well as assign different weights for them according to the higher level similarity measurement.
\subsection{Part-level Memory Module}\label{sec:part}
As illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:figure1}, it is important to consider the subtle differences of different identities since their overall appearances may look similar to each other.
In particular, we design a part-level memory $\mathbf{M}_\text{P}$ consisting of two components for memorizing the information from upper body and bottom body, denoted as $\mathbf{M}_\text{PU}$ and $\mathbf{M}_{\text{PB}}$ respectively.
Given an upper-body feature ${\mathbf{f}}_{\text{pu},i}$ of target sample $x_i$, we also obtain the predicted probability using the same process in Eq.~\eqref{eq:probability}:
\begin{equation}
\setlength{\abovedisplayskip}{0.2cm}
\setlength{\belowdisplayskip}{0.2cm}
P_{\text{PU}}(x_i,j)=\frac{\exp ( d ( {\mathbf{f}}_{\text{pu},i}, {\bf m}_{\text{PU}, j} ) )}{{\sum}^{N}_{n=1} \exp ( d ( {\mathbf{f}}_{\text{pu},i}, {\bf m}_{\text{PU}, n} ) )} ,
\label{eq:part_probability}
\end{equation}
where ${\bf m}_{\text{PU}, j}$, $j\in [N]$ denotes the $j$-th column of $\mathbf{M}_\text{PU}$.
$d(\cdot,\cdot)$ is the same as Eq.~\eqref{eq:probability}.
The predicted probability $P_{\text{PB}}(x_i,j)$ for bottom body is obtained in the same way.
\textbf{Part-level rectification for memory read-out.}
We utilize the part-level information from Eq.~\eqref{eq:part_probability} as the complementary guidance to rectify the soft weight in Eq.~\eqref{eq:softweight} for the instance-level memory.
To be specific, we first apply $0$-$1$ normalization on $P_{\text{PU}}(x_i,j)$ and $P_{\text{PB}}(x_i,j)$ to force the value of each element in the range of $0$ to $1$.
The soft weight in Eq.~\eqref{eq:softweight} is then modified as:
\begin{equation}
\setlength{\abovedisplayskip}{0.2cm}
\setlength{\belowdisplayskip}{0.2cm}
w_{i,j} \leftarrow (1-\gamma) w_{i,j} + \gamma (P_{\text{PU}}(x_i,j) + P_{\text{PB}}(x_i,j)),
\label{eq:softweight2}
\end{equation}
where $\gamma$ reflects the degree of the rectification by the part information. We apply Eq.~\eqref{eq:softweight2} into Eq.~\eqref{eq:imageloss2} to build the final objective $L_\text{I}$ in the instance-level memory.
\subsection{Training Loss}
By combining Eq.~\eqref{eq:softweight2}, Eq.~\eqref{eq:imageloss2}, Eq.~\eqref{eq:domainloss} in the target domain and $L_{\text{s}}$ in the source domain together, we construct a joint optimization function for our MMN formulated as:
\begin{equation}
\setlength{\abovedisplayskip}{0.2cm}
\setlength{\belowdisplayskip}{0.2cm}
L = (1-\lambda) L_{\text{s}} + \lambda(L_{\text{I}} + \beta L_{\text{D}}),
\label{eq:totalloss}
\end{equation}
where $\lambda$ and $\beta$ are loss weights. $\lambda$ controls the proportion of the source loss and and the target loss. $\beta$ is responsible for measuring the importance of domain-level loss.
\section{Experiments}
\subsection{Datasets and Evaluation Protocol}
\textbf{Datasets.} We evaluate the proposed MMN on three large-scale person Re-ID datasets.
\textit{Market-1501}~\cite{bai2017scalable} includes 32,668 labelled images of 1,501 identities from 6 cameras. All the pedestrians are detected using DPM detector~\cite{felzenszwalb2009object}. There are 12,936 images of 751 identities for the training set and 19,732 images of 750 identities for the test set.
\textit{DukeMTMC-Re-ID}~\cite{zheng2017unlabeled} comprises 36,411 labelled images belonging to 1,404 identities collected from 8 camera viewpoints.
It is divided into the training set with 16,522 images of 702 identities and the test set with the remaining 19,889 images of 702 identities.
For simplicity, we use the term ``Duke'' to represent this dataset.
\textit{MSMT17}~\cite{wei2018person} is a newly released dataset consisting of 126,441 images from 4,101 identities. The dataset is captured by 15 camera views, in which 12 cameras are outdoor, and 3 are indoor.
The person detector is Faster RCNN~\cite{ren2015faster}.
32,621 images of 1,041 identities are used as the training set, while 93,820 images of 3,060 identities as the test set.
\textbf{Evaluation Protocol.}
We use the cumulative match characteristic (CMC) curve~\cite{gray2007evaluating} and the mean average precision (mAP)~\cite{bai2017scalable} as the evaluation metrics.
The CMC reflects the match scores that a query is in the various sizes of candidate lists. We report the Rank-1 score to represent the CMC curve.
For each query image, the average precision (AP) is first computed from its precision-recall curve, and the mAP is then calculated as the mean value of APs of all queries.
Note that we fairly report all the results under the single-shot setting as~\cite{zhang2019self,fu2019self}, and there are no other post-processing methods like re-ranking~\cite{zhong2017re}.
\begin{table}[t!]
\small
\setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{-0.1cm}
\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-0.1cm}
\begin{center}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{1.48mm}{
\begin{tabular} {l|ccc|c|c|c|c}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Method} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Module} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{D$\rightarrow$M} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{M$\rightarrow$D} \\
\cline{2-8}
& $\mathbf{M}_\text{I}$ & $\mathbf{M}_\text{D}$ & $\mathbf{M}_\text{P}$ & mAP & Rank-1 & mAP & Rank-1 \\
\hline
\hline
Baseline & - & - & - & 17.7 & 43.7 & 12.9 & 27.4 \\
\hline
MMN & $\checkmark$ & - & - & 50.3 & 79.5 & 48.3 & 68.9 \\
MMN & $\checkmark$ & - & $\checkmark$ & 55.2 & 81.3 & 49.8 & 70.0 \\
MMN & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & - & 60.3 & 84.4 & 52.4 & 72.4 \\
MMN & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & \textbf{65.1} & \textbf{86.0} & \textbf{53.9} & \textbf{73.2} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{center}
\caption{Effectiveness of the multi-level memory module. $\mathbf{M}_\text{I}$, $\mathbf{M}_\text{D}$ and $\mathbf{M}_\text{P}$ represent the instance-level, domain-level and the part-level memory module, respectively. D$\rightarrow$M means that we use Duke~\cite{zheng2017unlabeled} as the source domain and Market-1501~\cite{bai2017scalable} as the target domain. Baseline means directly using the model trained on source domain to the target domain.
}
\label{tab:Effectiveness of different part}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[trim =0mm 0mm 0mm 0mm, clip, width=0.493\linewidth]{images/lamda_map_bold.pdf}
\includegraphics[trim =0mm 0mm 0mm 0mm, clip, width=0.493\linewidth]{images/lamda_rank1_bold.pdf}
\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-0.2cm}
\setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{-0.3cm}
\caption{Parameter analysis of the loss weight $\lambda$ on D$\rightarrow$M and M$\rightarrow$D.}
\label{fig:lamda}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Implementation Details}
\textbf{Model.}
We adopt ResNet-50~\cite{resnet50} as the backbone of our model without the last classification layer, which is pre-trained on ImageNet~\cite{deng2009imagenet}.
Same as~\cite{zhang2019self,sun2018beyond,huang2018eanet}, the stride of the last residual block is set from $2$ to $1$.
Moreover, we fix the weights of the first two residual blocks to save GPU memory similar as~\cite{zhong2019invariance}.
\textbf{Preprocessing.}
All input images are resized to $256\times128$.
Random flipping and random erasing~\cite{zhong2017random} are employed as the data augmentation for training stage.
Same as~\cite{zhong2019invariance}, we use the generated camera-style images~\cite{zhong2019camstyle} for the unseen target domain to increase the image diversity.
\textbf{Training Settings.}
Following~\cite{zhong2019invariance}, we set the mini-batch size to $128$ for both source and target images.
All experiments use the SGD optimizer with a momentum of $0.9$ and a weight decay of $5\times10^{-4}$.
We train the model with an initial learning rate of $0.01$ for the backbone and $10$ times for the other layers.
After $40$ epochs, the learning rate is divided by $10$.
The total epochs of the training stage are $60$.
The coefficient $\rho$ is set to $\rho=0.01\times \text{epoch}$.
Note that the domain-level memory is added at the $10$-th epoch.
We set the number of the selected samples $k=10$ and change $\mathbf{S}$ every $2$ epochs.
Without otherwise notation, we set $\alpha_1=0.05$, $\alpha_2=2.0$.
For evaluation, we concatenate ${\mathbf{f}}_{\text{g}}$, ${\mathbf{f}}_{\text{pu}}$ and ${\mathbf{f}}_{\text{pb}}$ as the feature representation.
When removing the part-level memory, we only use the global-area feature embedding.
Cosine similarity is used as the evaluation metric.
Specially, we denote the model trained with an identity classifier without any memory components as the \textit{baseline}.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[trim =0mm 0mm 0mm 0mm, clip, width=0.493\linewidth]{images/beta_map_bold.pdf}
\includegraphics[trim =0mm 0mm 0mm 0mm, clip, width=0.493\linewidth]{images/beta_rank1_bold.pdf}
\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-0.2cm}
\setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{-0.2cm}
\caption{Parameter analysis of the loss weight $\beta$ on D$\rightarrow$M and M$\rightarrow$D.}
\label{fig:beta}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[trim =0mm 0mm 0mm 0mm, clip, width=.975\linewidth]{images/gamma.pdf}
\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{0.1cm}
\setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{-0.6cm}
\caption{Parameter analysis of the degree of the soft-weight rectification $\gamma$ on D$\rightarrow$M and M$\rightarrow$D.}
\label{fig:gamma}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[trim =0mm 0mm 0mm 0mm, clip, width=.95\linewidth]{images/Figure3.pdf}
\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{0.13cm}
\setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{-0.3cm}
\caption{Illustration of the effectiveness of multi-level memory module. Images in the fist row are drawn from t-SNE~\cite{van2014accelerating} which reflects the distribution of the memory slots in different level. The second-row pictures represent the example images of two identities A and B. For part-level and instance-level memory, we use clustering method \cite{campello2013density} on the memory slots to generate the pseudo labels.
The \textcolor[rgb]{0.2,0.7,0.3}{green},
\textcolor[rgb]{1.0,0.8,0.1}{yellow},
and \textcolor[rgb]{0.6,0.0,1.0}{purple} rectangles shows different clusters.
Memory in different level provides multiple representations for the images from fine-grained information to global data structure.
}
\label{fig:visualization}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Ablation Study}
In this section, we first perform several ablation studies to investigate the importance of each memory module in our MMN.
Then we conduct series experiments to analyze the sensitivities of some important hyper-parameters.
\begin{table}[t!]
\small
\setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{-0.1cm}
\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-0.4cm}
\begin{center}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{1.6mm}{
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c|cc}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Method} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{D$\rightarrow$M} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{M$\rightarrow$D} \\
\cline{2-5}
& mAP & Rank-1 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{mAP} & Rank-1 \\
\hline
\hline
MMN (w/ $\mathbf{M}_\text{I}$) w/o G & 45.8 & 78.0 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{40.3} & 63.3 \\
MMN (w/ $\mathbf{M}_\text{I}$) & 50.3 & 79.5 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{48.3} & 68.9 \\
\hline
MMN w/o G & 60.8 & 82.5 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{51.2} & 70.9 \\
MMN & \textbf{65.1} & \textbf{86.0} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{53.9}} & \textbf{73.2} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{center}
\caption{Effectiveness of domain-level guidance for memory read on D$\rightarrow$M and M$\rightarrow$D. G denotes the domain-level guidance. The w/ $\mathbf{M}_\text{I}$ means MMN reduces to only using $\mathbf{M}_\text{I}$ as in Table~\ref{tab:Effectiveness of different part}.}
\label{tab:rss}
\end{table}
\textbf{Effectiveness of Multi-level Memory Module.}
We evaluate the effectiveness of each memory module by adding them gradually.
As shown in Table~\ref{tab:Effectiveness of different part}, only with the instance-level memory $\mathbf{M}_\text{I}$, we improve the performance by $32.6\%$ and $35.4\%$ in mAP compared with the baseline for D$\rightarrow$M and M$\rightarrow$D .
After adding the part-level memory $\mathbf{M}_\text{P}$ into the model,
the mAP and Rank-$1$ accuracy further increase by $4.9\%$ and $1.8\%$ for D$\rightarrow$M and $1.5\%$ and $1.1\%$ for M$\rightarrow$D.
It shows that part-level guidance is important to improve the feature representation with fine-grained information.
Compared with only using $\mathbf{M}_\text{I}$, adding the domain-level memory $\mathbf{M}_\text{D}$ can provide $10.0\%$ and $4.1\%$ mAP improvement for D$\rightarrow$M and M$\rightarrow$D respectively.
This demonstrates that $\mathbf{M}_\text{D}$ has a great impact on the model generalization by considering the global structure in the target domain.
Moreover, when integrating $\mathbf{M}_\text{I}$, $\mathbf{M}_\text{D}$ and $\mathbf{M}_\text{P}$ together, our multi-level module network (MMN) gain a significant improvement in performance.
For instance, MMN achieves $65.1\%$ and $53.9\%$ in mAP for D$\rightarrow$M and M$\rightarrow$D, which are $14.8\%$ and $5.6\%$ higher than only using $\mathbf{M}_\text{I}$.
In addition, we provide a visualization in Figure~\ref{fig:visualization} to intuitively see whether the memory modules have learned effective information after training.
It is shown that $\mathbf{M}_\text{I}$ provides more fine-grained details for images while $\mathbf{M}_\text{D}$ focuses on the global distribution in the whole dataset.
\begin{table}[t!]
\small
\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-0.4cm}
\begin{center}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{2.0mm}{
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c|cc}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Method} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{D$\rightarrow$M} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{M$\rightarrow$D} \\
\cline{2-5}
& mAP & Rank-1 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{mAP} & Rank-1 \\
\hline
\hline
MMN w/o $\mathbf{M}_\text{D}$ & 55.2 & 81.3 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{49.8} & 70.0 \\
MMN w/ FC & 62.6 & 84.6 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{52.9} & 71.9 \\
MMN & \textbf{65.1} & \textbf{86.0} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{53.9}} & \textbf{73.2} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{center}
\caption{Comparison of the memory module and an FC layer on the domain level. FC denotes the fully-connected layer. The w/o $\mathbf{M}_\text{D}$ means MMN reduces to only using $\mathbf{M}_\text{I}$ and $\mathbf{M}_\text{P}$ as in Table~\ref{tab:Effectiveness of different part}.}
\label{tab:memory}
\end{table}
\begin{table*}[t!]\footnotesize
\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-0.2cm}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabu} to 0.8971\textwidth {l|X[c]|X[c]|X[c]|X[c]|X[c]|X[c]|X[c]|X[c]}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{l|}{\multirow{2}{*}{Methods}}&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{D$\rightarrow$M}&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{M$\rightarrow$D}&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{D$\rightarrow$MS}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{M$\rightarrow$MS}\\
\cline{2-9}
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & mAP & Rank-1 & mAP & Rank-1 & mAP & Rank-1 & mAP & Rank-1 \\
\hline
\hline
PTGAN \cite{wei2018person}'18 & - & 38.6 & - & 27.4 & 3.3 & 11.8 & 2.9 & 10.2 \\
PUL \cite{fan2017pul}'18 & 20.5 & 45.5 & 16.4 & 30.0 & - & - & - & - \\
SPGAN \cite{deng2018image}'18 & 22.8 & 51.5 & 22.3 & 41.1 & - & - & - & - \\
MMFA \cite{lin2018multibmvc}'18 & 27.4 & 56.7 & 24.7 & 45.3 & - & - & - & - \\
{SPGAN+LMP} \cite{deng2018image}'18 & 26.7 & 57.7 & 26.2 & 46.4 & - & - & - & - \\
TJ-AIDL \cite{wang2018reid}'18 & 26.5 & 58.2 & 23.0 & 44.3 & - & - & - & - \\
HHL \cite{Zhong_2018_ECCV}'18 & 31.4 & 62.2 & 27.2 & 46.9 & - & - & - & - \\
EANet~\cite{huang2018eanet}'19 & 51.6 & 78.0 & 48.0 & 67.7 & - & - & - & - \\
CamStyle \cite{zhong2019camstyle}'19 & 27.4 & 58.8 & 25.1 & 48.4 & - & - & - & - \\
DECAMEL \cite{yu2018unsupervised}'19 $^\dagger$& 32.4 & 60.2 & - & - & - & - & 11.1 & 30.3\\
MAR \cite{yu2019unsupervised}'19 $^\ddagger$ & 40.0 & 67.7 & 48.0 & 67.1 & - & - & - & - \\
SCAN \cite{chenself}'19& 30.4 & 61.0 & 28.4 & 48.4 & - & - & - & - \\
PAUL \cite{yang2019patch}'19& 36.8 & 66.7 & 35.7 & 56.1 & - & - & - & - \\
UDA \cite{song2018unsupervised}'19 & 53.7 & 75.8 & 49.0 & 68.4 & - & - & - & - \\
ECN \cite{zhong2019invariance}'19 & 43.0 & 75.1 & 40.0 & 63.3 & 10.2 & 30.2 & 8.5 & 25.3\\
PAST \cite{zhang2019self}'19& 54.5 & 78.4 & \textcolor{red}{\textbf{54.3}} & 72.4 & - & - & - & - \\
SSG \cite{fu2019self}'19& \textcolor{blue}{58.3} & \textcolor{blue}{80.0} & 53.4 & \textcolor{blue}{73.0} & \textcolor{blue}{13.3} & \textcolor{blue}{32.2} & \textcolor{blue}{13.2} & \textcolor{blue}{31.6} \\
\hline
Baseline & 17.7 & 43.7 & 12.9 & 27.4 & 4.5 & 15.0 & 2.6 & 8.9\\
\hline
MMN & \textcolor{red}{\textbf{65.1}} & \textcolor{red}{\textbf{86.0}} & \textcolor{blue}{53.9} & \textcolor{red}{\textbf{73.2}} & \textcolor{red}{\textbf{17.2}} & \textcolor{red}{\textbf{43.2}} & \textcolor{red}{\textbf{14.1}} & \textcolor{red}{\textbf{36.8}} \\
\hline
\end{tabu}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{tabel:sota} Performance comparison with state-of-the-art methods under the unsupervised cross-domain setting. \textbf{M}: Market-1501 \cite{zheng2015scalable}. \textbf{D}: DukeMTMC-reID \cite{zheng2017unlabeled}. \textbf{MS}: MSMT17 \cite{wei2018person}. A$\rightarrow$B represents that A (source dataset) transfers to B (target dataset). $\dagger$ denotes that the source domain is a combination of seven datasets while $\ddagger$ denotes MSMT17 is used as the source domain. We mark the \textcolor{red}{\textbf{1st}} and \textcolor{blue}{2rd} highest scores to \textcolor{red}{\textbf{red}} red and \textcolor{blue}{blue} respectively.}
\end{table*}
\textbf{Parameter Analysis for $\lambda$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$.}
In Figure~\ref{fig:lamda}, we first analyze the loss weight $\lambda$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:totalloss}.
When $\lambda=0$, only source dataset is used for training while the model reduces to the baseline model.
When applying MMN on the target domain, the performance can be improved consistently by a large margin whatever $\lambda$ is.
It means that our MMN is beneficial for the model generalization on the target domain.
Note that our MMN can produce a satisfactory result even $\lambda=1$, \ie, without source data.
We believe that it is benefited from our MMN learning discriminative features using multi-level information on the unlabelled target data.
We then compare different values of the loss weight $\beta$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:totalloss} as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:beta}, which measures the degree of importance of the domain-level memory $\mathbf{M}_\text{D}$.
When $\beta=0$, the model reduces to MMN w/o $\mathbf{M}_\text{D}$ as in Table~\ref{tab:Effectiveness of different part}.
When $\beta>0$, the performance gains consistent improvement, which verifies the effectiveness of $\mathbf{M}_\text{D}$.
With increasing $\beta$ continually, the result would get a platform.
Furthermore, we explore the effect of the hyper-parameter $\gamma$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:softweight2}, which is the degree of the rectification guided by $\mathbf{M}_\text{P}$.
When $\gamma=0$, the model is changed to MMN w/o $\mathbf{M}_\text{P}$ as in Table~\ref{tab:Effectiveness of different part}, while the soft assignment weight reduces from Eq.~\eqref{eq:softweight2} to Eq.~\eqref{eq:softweight}.
In Figure~\ref{fig:gamma}, we can see that our MMN achieves the improvement in performance after adding $\mathbf{M}_\text{P}$ into the training when $\gamma>0$.
It is worth noting that our approach can still improve the mAP even only using the probability from the part-level memory as the soft weight, \ie, when $\gamma=1.0$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:softweight2}.
This demonstrates the importance of the fine-grained information from the part-level memory.
To sum up, we set $\lambda=0.3$, $\beta=1.0$ and $\gamma=0.2$ in the next experiments.
\textbf{Effectiveness of Domain-level Guidance for Memory Read.}
In Table~\ref{tab:rss}, we evaluate the importance of domain-level guidance for memory read, \ie, top-$k$ similar sample selection with soft assignment weight in Eq.~\eqref{eq:softweight}.
If the model is trained without this guidance, the sample selection and the weights for different samples are reduced to the traditional method, as described in Eq.~\eqref{eq:imageloss}.
We observe that our MMN largely improves the performance with the guidance of the domain-level memory by $4.3\%$ and $2.7\%$ in mAP and $3.5\%$ and $2.3\%$ in Rank-$1$ for D$\rightarrow$M and M$\rightarrow$D respectively.
When the model is only trained with the instance-level memory, the performance can still improve, especially for M$\rightarrow$D.
This shows that our method can select more reliable $k$ nearest samples with domain-level guidance.
Meanwhile, it also shows that it is important to consider the soft weight for each sample in the $k$ neighbors, in which the weight guidance is from the similarity relationships generated from the domain level.
\textbf{Comparison of Domain-level Memory with FC Layer.}
In order to verify the effectiveness of the domain-level memory, we build a fully-connected layer (FC) with the softmax cross-entropy loss as the classifier in the domain level.
For fairness, we also initialize the FC by calculating the mean embedding features for each cluster.
Table~\ref{tab:memory} shows that both the FC-based classifier and the memory-based classifier can get large improvement compared with the model without domain level. It proves that global-structure information is useful for model generalization.
Meanwhile, our MMN achieves better results than the FC-based classifier, which validates the advantage of the memory module.
\subsection{Comparison with the State-of-the-art Methods}
In Table~\ref{tabel:sota}, we compare our MMN with the state-of-the-art unsupervised methods following the evaluation setting in \cite{zhang2019self,zhong2019invariance,fu2019self}.
Our proposed MMN is competitive or superior to the previous methods.
In particular, our MMN achieves $65.1\%/86.0\%$ for D$\rightarrow$M, $53.9\%/73.2\%$ for M$\rightarrow$D, $17.2\%/43.2\%$ for D$\rightarrow$MS and $14.1\%/36.8\%$ for M$\rightarrow$MS in mAP$/$Rank-$1$, which is higher than the relatively best existing method SSG~\cite{fu2019self} by $6.8\%/6.0\%$, $0.5\%/0.2\%$, $4.1\%/11.0\%$ and $0.9\%/5.2\%$ respectively.
The reason that our MMN has a little bit lower result than PAST~\cite{zhang2019self} on mAP for M$\rightarrow$D is that
PAST~\cite{zhang2019self} concatenates $9$ part features together and uses the pre-trained model from the source domain as the initialization.
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we present a multi-level memory network (MMN) for the unsupervised cross-domain person Re-ID task.
The MMN consists of three different-level memory modules, \ie, instance-level memory, part-level memory and domain-level memory, which are beneficial for discovering the similarity-and-dissimilarity relationships from fine-grained information to holistic representations in the target domain.
These three memory modules provide different yet complementary representations with each other while cooperatively improve the model generalization.
Experiments demonstrate that our MMN achieves competitive performance on three large datasets.
In the feature, we plan to extend our MMN to other domain adaptive tasks, such as face recognition and semantic segmentation.
\section{Appendix}
\subsection{More Experiments for Parameter Analysis}
\textbf{Analysis of Different Settings of $k$ for the Selected $k$-Nearest Neighbors.}
The hyper-parameter $k$ is used in Eq.~$\left(\textcolor{red}{2}\right)$ and Eq.~$\left(\textcolor{red}{8}\right)$ in the main paper, which defines the number of the most relevant samples for a given query image.
As demonstrated in Table~\ref{tab:k-nearest}, the performance improves with the increase of $k$ first and achieves the relatively best result when $k$ is set as $5$ to $15$.
With the increase of $k$ further, the performance decreases.
We believe that it is because the model with a larger $k$ could involve more false-positive samples, which hampers the model training.
In this paper, we set $k=10$ in all experiments except this part.
\begin{table}[h!]
\small
\setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{-0.1cm}
\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-0.4cm}
\begin{center}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{2.0mm}{
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Number of the $k$} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{D$\rightarrow$M} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{M$\rightarrow$D} \\
\cline{2-5}
& mAP & Rank-1 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{mAP} & Rank-1 \\
\hline
\hline
1 & 63.7 & 85.1 & 52.1 & 72.1 \\
5 & 63.4 & 85.5 & 53.4 & 72.6 \\
10 & \textbf{65.1} & \textbf{86.0} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{53.9} & 73.2 \\
15 & 64.2 & 84.8 & {\textbf{54.5}} & \textbf{73.6} \\
20 & 62.3 & 83.5 & 53.8 & 72.9 \\
25 & 61.0 & 83.4 & 53.4 & 72.9 \\
30 & 60.8 & 83.2 & 51.9 & 71.6 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{center}
\caption{Evaluation with different number of the $k$-nearest neighbors on D$\rightarrow$M and M$\rightarrow$D. M denotes Market-1501~\cite{bai2017scalable} dataset while D denotes DukeMTMC-Re-ID~\cite{zheng2017unlabeled} dataset.}
\label{tab:k-nearest}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[trim =0mm 0mm 0mm 0mm, clip, width=.95\linewidth]{images/temperature.pdf}
\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{0.2cm}
\setlength{\belowcaptionskip}{-0.3cm}
\caption{
The influence of temperature factor $\alpha_2$ on D$\rightarrow$M.
}
\label{fig:temperature}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Analysis of Temperature Factor $\alpha_2$ in the Cosine Similarity Measurement.}
As described in Eq.~$\left(\textcolor{red}{7}\right)$, we use the temperature $\alpha_2$ to control the importance of the selected $k$ samples.
We conduct several experiments to evaluate the sensitivity of our method to $\alpha_2$ when transferring the model from DukeMTMC-Re-ID~\cite{zheng2017unlabeled} to Market-1501~\cite{bai2017scalable}.
From Figure~\ref{fig:temperature}, we can observe that when setting $\alpha_2$ in the range of $2.0$ to $8.0$, our method can obtain consistently high performance, and the best result is achieved when $\alpha_2=2.0$.
When $\alpha_2$ is too large, the mAP and Rank-$1$ accuracy will decrease simultaneously since the calculated score does not reflect the difference among images obviously enough.
When $\alpha_2=1$, the mAP is impacted marginally, and the Rank-1 accuracy is still high.
It shows that our method is insensitive to $\alpha_2$ when $\alpha_2$ is in an appropriate range.
\subsection{More Qualitative Analyses}
\textbf{Qualitative Analysis of the Selected $k$-Nearest Neighbors.}
To demonstrate the results intuitively, we visualize the selected $k$-nearest neighbors along with the training process.
In Figure~\ref{fig:multitargets}, we illustrate four query images and their top-$10$ nearest neighbors in each epoch.
We can see that our MMN framework can progressively improve the quality of the selected nearest neighbors with the training process going on.
For instance, in the early epoch $10$, the model can make mistakes when the appearance or the background of images is similar.
As shown in the second row at epoch $10$, the model even cannot distinguish the images with different color upper clothes.
When the training is in epoch $40$, it clearly shows that the difficulties of the model are mainly on subtle details, such as the bags and the strips of clothes.
When the training keeps going, we can further improve the ability of the model to focus on more detailed information and more robust on the problem of the misalignment.
It means that our MMN framework is beneficial for learning the similarity-and-dissimilarity of the training images with the fine-grained part information and the global structure of the whole training dataset.
\begin{figure*}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[trim =0mm 0mm 0mm 0mm, clip, width=1\linewidth]{images/multitargets.pdf}
\caption{Qualitative Analysis of the Selected $k$-Nearest Neighbors by the visualization on the Market-1501~\cite{bai2017scalable} target training data.
We choose the top-$10$ nearest neighbors for each query image and illustrate the images at epoch $10$, $20$, $40$ and $60$.
The first image in each row is the query image.
The \textcolor{green}{\textbf{green rectangle}} means images from the same identity with the query image, and the \textcolor{red}{\textbf{red rectangle}} represents the images from different identities.
The value at the bottom of each image is the similarity between the selected image and the query image.
It is clear that our MMN can improve the quality of the selected images along with the training process.}
\label{fig:multitargets}
\end{figure*}
\textbf{Analysis of the Clustering Quality During the Training.}
We also analyze the clustering quality along with the training process.
As illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:clusters}, the clustering quality becomes more reliable since our MMN improves the feature representation.
Moreover, we can observe that more samples are selected for training.
In the early stage, some images with different appearances are ignored by the clustering since the feature representations have huge variances compared with others for each real identity.
With the training going on, images with similar appearances are grouped, and more images are used for training.
It is because that the extracted feature representations are more discriminative.
Based on the consideration of the part information and the global structure simultaneously, our MMN can further improve the generalization of the model with more reliable features, and the images with large intra-variances can be better resolved.
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[trim =0mm 0mm 0mm 0mm, clip, width=.975\linewidth]{images/clusters.pdf}
\caption{Analysis of the Clustering Quality During the Training. All the $32$ images are from the same identity with no labels in this scenario, which has a large intra-class variance.
We illustrate the clustering results on epoch $10$, $20$, $40$ and $60$.
Images with same color belong to the same cluster.
\textcolor{gray}{Gray} images mean the samples do not belong to any cluster and are not used for training.
From epoch $10$ to epoch $60$, we can see that more images are used for training and the quality of the clustering result becomes more reliable with the training going on.}
\label{fig:clusters}
\end{figure*}
{\small
\bibliographystyle{ieee_fullname}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{Introduction}}
\IEEEPARstart{F}{or} some electronic devices, which are composed of dedicated hardware equipments, i.e., field programmable gate array (FPGA), digital signal processor (DSP) and integrated circuit (IC), the compatibilities for different requested tasks are difficult to guarantee and the systems will be more complicated with the increase in the number of the requested tasks. The software defined network (SDN) and virtualization technology are the foundations of the cloud computing, and provide a promising and flexible approach to facilitate resource allocation \cite{kim2013improving,sezer2013we,erdogmus2009cloud}. Cloud service providers can allocate the available resources related to service nodes to the requested tasks depending on demand and supply. When a task consists of multiple sub-tasks, these sub-tasks could be deployed on several service nodes and form a service chain, which is a data flow through the service nodes in sequence and can be presented as a directed acyclic graph (DAG) \cite{moens2014vnf}. Each sub-task needs the physical resources for central processing unit (CPU), memory, or graphic processing unit (GPU). Besides, there are bandwidth costs to transfer data on different service nodes. For example, in case of data transmission, it includes five sub-tasks and the service chain about these sub-tasks can be represented as: network receiving $\rightarrow$ capture $\rightarrow$ tracking $\rightarrow$ synchronization $\rightarrow$ decoding, where each functional module is achieved by software programming and can run on a commonly used computer system. The complexity and development cost of a system can be effectively reduced by cloud computing, and the flexibility and scalability can also be improved. However, a new challenge in cloud computing is how to effectively allocate the available resources related to service nodes to the requested tasks, which leads to a combinatorial optimization problem \cite{kazmi2017hierarchical,zheng2017hybrid}.\par
\subsection{Literature Review}\label{Literature Review}
The optimization problems for resource allocation in cloud computing have been widely studied \cite{rankothge2017optimizing,qu2016delay,tseng2017dynamic,tan2017nsga,khebbache2018multi}, which are proved to be NP-hard and the complexities are analyzed in \cite{sun2016forecast,amaldi2016computational,addis2018complexity}. Meta-heuristic algorithms are effective optimization approaches for solving these resource allocation problems. Several variants of genetic algorithm (GA) are developed to improve the performance of the resource allocation solution in \cite{rankothge2017optimizing,qu2016delay,tseng2017dynamic} and the fast elitist non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm (NSGA-II), which is described in detail in \cite{deb2002fast}, is also used to tackle this problem \cite{tan2017nsga,khebbache2018multi}. Two modified particle swarm optimizations (MPSO) are proposed to reallocate the migrated virtual machines and achieve the resource management based on a flexible cost in \cite{dashti2016dynamic} and \cite{mani2017flexible}, respectively. Moreover, an ant colony optimization (ACO) for dealing with the nonlinear resource allocation problem is presented in \cite{yin2006ant}. To enhance the efficiency in terms of seeking the optimal solution, the authors in \cite{muthulakshmi2017hybrid} introduce a hybrid optimization algorithm of simulated annealing and artificial bee colony (ABC-SA).\par
However, as the scale of the optimization problem grows, a large feasible solution space needs to be searched and the computational complexity order of seeking the optimal solution increases. Hence, the performance of solving the problem could be reduced by using meta-heuristic algorithms \cite{omidvar2015designing,liu2001scaling}. To further solve this issue, some optimization algorithms based on decomposition and cooperative co-evolutionary method are introduced, where a large-scale problem is divided into several small-scale problems and global optimal solution can be obtained by addressing these sub-problems with cooperative co-evolutionary method \cite{wu2019new,ren2018boosting}. Reference \cite{yang2017Efficient} proposes a new cooperative co-evolution framework (CCFR), which can efficiently allocate computational resources based on the contributions of different sub-populations, to address a large-scale optimization problem.\par
Compared with centralized optimization methods, distributed optimization algorithms based on multi-agent systems (MAS) \cite{stone2000multiagent} have an explicit potential advantage for solving the task deployment and resource allocation in cloud computing \cite{kaihara2003multi,de2012multiagent,wang2016multiagent}. In \cite{kaihara2003multi}, the product allocation problem for supply chain market is considered as a discrete resource allocation and solved by a multi-agent based distributed optimization algorithm. In addition, an efficient greedy algorithm with multi-agent is proposed to address the task allocation problem in social networks \cite{de2012multiagent}, where the agents just require their local information about tasks and resources, and provide the resources for the tasks by an auction mechanism. Another auction-based virtual machine resource allocation approach with the multi-agent system is presented to save energy cost, and the virtual machines assigned on different agents can be exchanged by a local negotiation-based approach in \cite{wang2016multiagent}.\par
\subsection{Contributions}\label{Contributions}
In this paper, we assume that the information about the requested tasks and service nodes is given in advance, e.g., task types, the number of tasks, resource requirements for each sub-task and resource capacity values of service nodes. Furthermore, we formulate the problem of resource allocation to maximize the resource utilization and minimize the bandwidth cost under resource constraints. The resource utilization is defined as the ratio of the number of resources used by all the requested tasks to the total number of resources of the service nodes that are used to deploy the requested tasks. In order to address the optimization problem, we propose a hierarchical multi-agent optimization (HMAO) algorithm which is a combination of improved GA and multi-agent optimization (MAO) algorithm.\par
Firstly, we decompose the main objective of maximizing the resource utilization and minimizing the bandwidth cost into two sub-objectives: maximizing the resource utilization and minimizing the bandwidth cost \cite{yang2017Efficient}. The two sub-objective optimization problems are in conflict with each other and we assume that the former is considered with a higher priority. The improved GA is used to seek the optimal solution in order to maximize the resource utilization and the optimal solution can be expressed as a set of service nodes that are used to deploy the requested tasks. For the MAO algorithm, there are two types of agents: service agent and shared agent. Service agents are assigned to each service node to assist in resource management. A shared agent holds the information about resource allocation for all the service nodes and supports the service agents in \textit{access} and \textit{update} processes. The agents have environment-aware, autonomy, social behavior and load-balancing properties\cite{zheng2015multi}. The service agents visit the shared agent to obtain the information about resource allocation for all the service agents, and they can migrate and swap their sub-tasks with each other by selection and exchange operators that are designed based on a probabilistic approach. In addition, a priority-based source sub-task selection mechanism for the selection operator is implemented by considering load-balancing on the service nodes and the relationships between different sub-tasks. As a result, a global optimal solution will be obtained by seeking the optimal solutions of the service agents with cooperative co-evolutionary method \cite{ren2018boosting}. The proposed HMAO algorithm provides the following contributions.\par
\begin{enumerate}
\item Considering to solve the joint problem of optimizing the resource utilization and bandwidth cost as an entire problem, it will increase the computational complexity of the optimization problem and weaken the performance of seeking the optimal solution, especially, for the high-dimensional problems. In this paper, we decompose the total optimization problem into two sub-problems. Correspondingly, a hierarchical multi-agent optimization algorithm, which combines an improved GA with MAO algorithm, is presented for solving the two optimization sub-problems. So that we can effectively reduce the computational complexity of the overall optimization problem.
\item The set of available service nodes, which represents the optimal solution of maximizing the resource utilization, can be obtained by the improved GA. Then the MAO algorithm is proposed to solve the sub-problem of minimizing the bandwidth cost. We consider four main characteristics for the agents: environment-aware, autonomy, social behavior and load-balancing. Furthermore, we design the action sets and behavior criteria for service agents and a shared agent, the relationships between different agents are illustrated based on an organized architecture. To migrate and swap those sub-tasks on the service nodes, we implement two operators of selection and exchange, where the selection operator consists of a source sub-task selection and a target sub-task selection. Considering load-balancing on the service nodes and the relationships between different sub-tasks, the source sub-task is provided by a priority-based selection mechanism. For the MAO algorithm, a feasible solution is partitioned into several small-scale solutions and each service agent indicates one part. We can find the global optimal solution by optimizing the objectives of the service agents with cooperative co-evolutionary method.
\item To keep diversity in feasible solutions and avoid premature convergence, the selection and exchange operators for the MAO algorithm are implemented based on a probabilistic method. For the former, we can randomly choose a sub-task from the service nodes as the target sub-task through the selection probability. Similarly, if the objective result for a service agent does not improve after the exchange, it can also continue to be executed with the use of exchange probability. By introducing a probabilistic method to the selection and exchange operators, we can further improve the performance of the proposed HMAO algorithm.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.36\textwidth]{Fig/1.eps}
\caption{Procedure for resource allocation.}
\label{Procedure for resource allocation}
\end{figure}
Finally, several experiments for different tasks are carried out to verify the performance of the proposed HMAO algorithm. The results show that the proposed HMAO algorithm is an effective approach to solve the optimization problem of resource allocation. When compared with GA and NSGA-II, the proposed HMAO algorithm performs better for high-dimensional problems in terms of solution quality, convergence time and stability.\par
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section \ref{System Model} introduces the system model of resource allocation. In Section \ref{Problem Formulation}, we provide the problem formulation for the system model. A hierarchical multi-agent optimization algorithm is proposed in Section \ref{Hierarchical Multi-agent Optimization}. Section \ref{Performance Evaluation} investigates the effect of key parameters for the proposed HMAO algorithm and evaluates the performance comparison with existing optimization algorithms. The conclusion of this paper is discussed in Section \ref{Conclusion}.\par
\section{System Model}\label{System Model}
A cloud computing system can be modeled as a graph $G = <V,E>$, where $V=\left \{v_0,v_1,\dots,v_{K-1} \right \}$ represents a set of service nodes with $K$ service nodes, $v_i$ is the $i$-th service node. $E$ describes a set of links between these service nodes and $<v_i,v_j>\in E$ indicates the link between service nodes $v_i$ and $v_j$. Service node $v_i$ contains four resources: CPU, memory, GPU and bandwidth, whose capacities are denoted as $C^i,M^i,G^i$ and $B^i$, respectively. We also assume that any two service nodes can communicate with each other through inter-connected networks, i.e., $\forall <v_i,v_j>\in E$. Let $T=\left \{t_0,t_1,\dots,t_{L-1} \right \}$ be a set of tasks with $L$ total number of tasks and $t_l$ denotes the $l$-th task. $t_l$ consists of $N_l$ sub-tasks and is expressed as $t_l=\left \{ t_{l,0},t_{l,1},\dots,t_{l,N_l-1} \right \}$, which is an ordered list and there is a precedence relationship between different sub-tasks. That is, $t_{l,n}$ can not be carried out until all its predecessors are finished. The resource requirements of CPU, memory, GPU and bandwidth for $t_{l,n}$ running on $v_i$ are described as $c_{l,n}^i,m_{l,n}^i,g_{l,n}^i,b_{l,n}^i$, respectively. In cloud computing, an effective resource allocation approach is used to allocate the available resources of service nodes to the requested tasks. Note that the total number of resources on any service node can not be more than its capacities, and the bandwidth cost will be considered when two adjacent sub-tasks are placed on different service nodes. Moreover, we can deploy as many sub-tasks as possible to a service node in order to improve the resource utilization \cite{rankothge2017optimizing,sun2016forecast,khebbache2018multi}.\par
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{Fig/2-a.eps}
\label{Example of resource allocation with different schemes-a}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{Fig/2-b.eps}
\label{Example of resource allocation with different schemes-b}}
\caption{Example of resource allocation with different schemes.}
\label{Example of resource allocation with different schemes}
\end{figure}
The procedure for resource allocation in our system model is shown in Fig.~\ref{Procedure for resource allocation}, where the information about the requested tasks and service nodes is obtained in advance, all sub-tasks from the requested tasks are deployed to multiple service nodes simultaneously, and the neighbouring sub-tasks can be located on the same service node or different ones. Therefore, different resource allocation schemes have an impact on the system performance \cite{sun2016forecast}.\par
Fig.~\ref{Example of resource allocation with different schemes} presents an example of resource allocation with different schemes. There are five service nodes with communication links in the network, two tasks are given as $t_0=\left \{ t_{0,0},t_{0,1},t_{0,2},t_{0,3},t_{0,4}\right \}$ and $t_1=\left \{ t_{1,0},t_{1,1},t_{1,2},t_{1,3}\right \}$. In Fig.~\ref{Example of resource allocation with different schemes-a}, for task $t_{0}$, sub-tasks $t_{0,0},t_{0,1}$ are deployed on service node $v_0$, sub-tasks $t_{0,2},t_{0,3}$ and $t_{0,4}$ are on service nodes $v_1,v_3$ and $v_4$, respectively. A service chain for $t_0$ is built on the service nodes $v_0,v_1,v_3$ and $v_4$ in order, and there is no bandwidth cost between sub-tasks $t_{0,0}$ and $t_{0,1}$ as they are on the same service node. Hence, the bandwidth cost for $t_0$ is $b_{0,0}^0+b_{0,2}^1+b_{0,3}^3+b_{0,4}^4$. For task $t_1$, sub-tasks $t_{1,0}$ and $t_{1,1}$ are allocated on service node $v_2$, and sub-tasks $t_{1,2}$ and $t_{1,3}$ are on service nodes $v_3$ and $v_4$, respectively. The bandwidth cost for $t_1$ is indicated as $b_{1,0}^2+b_{1,2}^3+b_{1,3}^4$. Different resource allocation schemes for tasks $t_0$ and $t_1$ are described in Fig.~\ref{Example of resource allocation with different schemes-b}. sub-tasks $t_{0,0},t_{0,1}$ and $t_{0,2}$ are assigned on service node $v_0$, and sub-tasks $t_{0,3}$ and $t_{0,4}$ are on service nodes $v_1$ and $v_4$, respectively, and the bandwidth cost for $t_0$ is $b_{0,0}^0+b_{0,3}^1+b_{0,4}^4$. Similarly, the bandwidth cost for $t_1$ is $b_{1,0}^2+b_{1,1}^3+b_{1,3}^4$. As shown in Fig.~\ref{Example of resource allocation with different schemes}, the bandwidth costs vary for different resource allocation schemes.
\section{Problem Formulation}\label{Problem Formulation}
\begin{table}[htbp]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\caption{List of Symbols}
\label{List of Symbols}
\centering
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{l|l
\hline
\bfseries Symbol & \bfseries Definition\\
\hline\hline
$V$ & Set of service nodes in cloud computing.\\
$E$ & Set of network links in cloud computing.\\
$K$ & Maximum number of service nodes.\\
$V_a$ & Set of service nodes deployed tasks.\\
$K_a$ & Number of service nodes deployed tasks.\\
$T$ & Set of tasks.\\
$L$ & Number of tasks.\\
$N_l$ & Number of sub-tasks for the $l$-th task.\\
$t_l$ & Set of sub-tasks for the $l$-th task.\\
$t_{l,n}$ & The $n$-th sub-task for the $l$-th task.\\
$v_i$ & The $i$-th service node. \\
$C^i$ & Resource capacity for CPU on $v_i$.\\
$M^i$ & Resource capacity for Memory on $v_i$.\\
$G^i$ & Resource capacity for GPU on $v_i$.\\
$B^i$ & Resource capacity for Bandwidth on $v_i$.\\
$c_{l,n}^i$ & Resource requirement of $t_{l,n}$ for CPU on $v_i$.\\
$m_{l,n}^i$ & Resource requirement of $t_{l,n}$ for Memory on $v_i$.\\
$g_{l,n}^i$ & Resource requirement of $t_{l,n}$ for GPU on $v_i$.\\
$b_{l,n}^i$ & Resource requirement of $t_{l,n}$ for Bandwidth on $v_i$.\\
$x_{l,n}^i$ & Indicate whether $t_{l,n}$ is assigned on $v_i$. \\
$y_{l,n,\hat{n}}^{i,j}$ & Indicate whether a bandwidth cost is available for $t_{l,n},t_{l,\hat{n}}$. \\
$\tilde{b}_{l,n}^{i}$ & Bandwidth cost for running $t_{l,n}$.\\
$U_{l,n}^{s}$ & Set of successors of $t_{l,n}$.\\
$U_{l,n}^{p}$ & Set of predecessors of $t_{l,n}$.\\
$Z_{1}$ & Objective function of resource utilization.\\
$Z_{2}$ & Objective function of bandwidth cost.\\
$Z$ & Total objective function.\\
$\alpha,\beta$ & Weight values.\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table}
In this section, a mathematical description of resource allocation is presented for our system model. Our purpose is to maximize the resource utilization and minimize the bandwidth cost in cloud computing with several physical constraints. Moreover, we do not consider the network resource constraints in this paper, such as routers and switches. The main symbols used to formulate our problem are summarized in Table~\ref{List of Symbols}.\par
To further discuss the problem, we define a binary decision variable $x_{l,n}^i$ that indicates whether sub-task $t_{l,n}$ is deployed on service node $v_i$, i.e., $x_{l,n}^i = 1$ means $t_{l,n}$ is allocated on $v_i$, otherwise not. In addition, another binary decision variable $y_{l,n,\hat{n}}^{i,j}$ is used to describe whether there is a bandwidth cost between sub-tasks $t_{l,n}$ and $t_{l,\hat{n}}$. Let us denote a set of predecessors of $t_{l,n}$ as $U_{l,n}^{p}$ and a set of successors of $t_{l,\hat{n}}$ as $U_{l,\hat{n}}^{s}$. We assume that $t_{l,n}$ and $t_{l,\hat{n}}$ are placed on $v_i$ and $v_j$, respectively. When $U_{l,n}^{p} \neq \varnothing, t_{l,\hat{n}} \in U_{l,n}^{p}$, then $y_{l,n,\hat{n}}^{i,j} = 1$, or else $y_{l,n,\hat{n}}^{i,j} = 0$. Note that the bandwidth cost between a sub-task and the source node is not neglected. The bandwidth cost for $t_{l,n}$ can be written as:
\begin{equation} \label{equation1}
\tilde{b}_{l,n}^{i} =\begin{cases}
b_{l,n}^{i}, & \text{if } U_{l,n}^{p}=\varnothing \quad \text{or} \quad y_{l,n,\hat{n}}^{i,j} = 1, \\
0, & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}\par
With the physical resource constraints \cite{tseng2017dynamic}, the number of resources used by the requested tasks on a service node should be less than the resource capacities. As a result, the resource constraints about CPU, memory and GPU are given as follows:
\begin{equation} \label{equation2}
\begin{cases}
\sum\limits_{l=0}^{L-1}\sum\limits_{n=0}^{N_l-1}c_{l,n}^{i}x_{l,n}^{i} \leq C^{i},\\
\sum\limits_{l=0}^{L-1}\sum\limits_{n=0}^{N_l-1}m_{l,n}^{i}x_{l,n}^{i} \leq M^{i},\\
\sum\limits_{l=0}^{L-1}\sum\limits_{n=0}^{N_l-1}g_{l,n}^{i}x_{l,n}^{i} \leq G^{i}.\\
\end{cases}
\end{equation}\par
\noindent Similarly, as the amount of bandwidth used on a service node can not be more than the capacity, the bandwidth resource constraint is expressed as:
\begin{equation} \label{equation3}
\sum\limits_{l=0}^{L-1}\sum\limits_{n=0}^{N_l-1} \tilde{b}_{l,n}^{i}x_{l,n}^{i} \leq B^{i}.
\end{equation}\par
\noindent Furthermore, all the sub-tasks from the task set $T$ are deployed to the service nodes in $V$ and any sub-task can be allocated just only once. Thus, we can obtain the following:
\begin{equation} \label{equation4}
\sum\limits_{i=0}^{K-1}\sum\limits_{l=0}^{L-1}\sum\limits_{n=0}^{N_l-1}x_{l,n}^{i} = \sum\limits_{l=0}^{L-1}N_{l}.
\end{equation}\par
In this paper, one of our goals is to improve the resource utilization of cloud computing by reducing the number of service nodes used. For service node $v_i$, the resource utilization includes three parts: CPU utilization, memory utilization and GPU utilization, which are denoted by $\varphi_c^i,\varphi_m^i,\varphi_g^i$, respectively. They can be computed as follows:
\begin{equation} \label{equation5}
\begin{cases}
\varphi_c^i = \sum\limits_{l=0}^{L-1}\sum\limits_{n=0}^{N_l-1}c_{l,n}^{i}x_{l,n}^{i}/C^i,\\
\varphi_m^i = \sum\limits_{l=0}^{L-1}\sum\limits_{n=0}^{N_l-1}m_{l,n}^{i}x_{l,n}^{i}/M^i,\\
\varphi_g^i = \sum\limits_{l=0}^{L-1}\sum\limits_{n=0}^{N_l-1}g_{l,n}^{i}x_{l,n}^{i}/G^i.\\
\end{cases}
\end{equation}\par
According to the preferences of different resource types, we provide the weight values for CPU, memory and GPU as $\alpha _c,\alpha _m$ and $\alpha _g$, respectively. The resource utilization $Z_{1}$ for our system model is obtained by a linear weighted sum method as follows:
\begin{equation} \label{equation6}
Z_{1}(X) =\frac{1}{K_a}\sum\limits_{i=0}^{K_a-1}\left ( \alpha _c\varphi_c^i + \alpha _m\varphi_m^i + \alpha _g\varphi_g^i\right ),
\end{equation}\par
\noindent where $X=\left \{ x_{l,n}^{i},\forall v_i \in V,\forall t_{l,n} \in T \right \}$ is a feasible solution for allocating the available resources of service nodes to the requested tasks in cloud computing. The parameter $K_a$ $(K_a \leq K)$ denotes the number of service nodes that are used to deploy the requested tasks. In addition, $\alpha _c +\alpha _m + \alpha _g = 1$.\par
\noindent Another goal is to optimize the bandwidth cost by deploying the adjacent sub-tasks to the same service node. Let us denote the bandwidth cost as $Z_{2}$ which can be expressed as follows:
\begin{equation} \label{equation7}
Z_{2}(X) = \frac{1}{K_a}\sum\limits_{i=0}^{K_a-1}\sum\limits_{l=0}^{L-1}\sum\limits_{n=0}^{N_l-1} \tilde{b}_{l,n}^{i}x_{l,n}^{i}.
\end{equation}\par
Next, we need to simultaneously optimize these two objectives which are $Z_{1}(X)$ and $Z_{2}(X)$. Specifically, our purpose is to seek an optimal solution which maximizes the resource utilization $Z_{1}(X)$ and minimizes $Z_{2}(X)$. Thus the combined objective $Z(X)$ which involves maximizing $Z_{1}(X)$ and minimizing $Z_{2}(X)$ can be expressed as:
\begin{equation} \label{equation8}
\textrm{maximize} \quad Z(X) = \beta_{1}Z_{1}(X) + \beta_{2}(1-Z_{2}(X)),
\end{equation}\par
\noindent where $\beta_{1}$ and $\beta_{2}$ are the weight values for $Z_{1}(X)$ and $1-Z_{2}(X)$, respectively. The preferences of different objectives can be adjusted by varying $\beta_{1}$ and $\beta_{2}$, and we consider $\beta_{1} + \beta_{2} = 1$. However, this optimization problem is regarded as NP-hard problem, which means a high computational complexity order for finding an optimal solution. Meta-heuristic optimization algorithms are effective approaches to solve the combinatorial optimization problem, but the performance of solution quality and convergence time will degrade with the increase in the scale of the problem. Distributed optimization algorithms, which are based on decomposition and multi-agent systems, can improve the optimization solution effectively.\par
In the next section, we propose the HMAO algorithm, which is an optimization approach using hierarchical multi-agent framework, to address the resource allocation problem in cloud computing.\par
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.36\textwidth]{Fig/3.eps}
\caption{Proposed hierarchical multi-agent framework.}
\label{Proposed hierarchical multi-agent framework}
\end{figure}
\section{Hierarchical Multi-agent Optimization}\label{Hierarchical Multi-agent Optimization}
In this paper, we address a joint optimization problem of maximizing the resource utilization in cloud computing systems and reducing the bandwidth cost. To reduce the computational complexity of the optimization problem, we decompose the total objective into two optimization sub-problems: maximizing $Z_{1}(X)$ and minimizing $Z_{2}(X)$, and these two optimization sub-problems will be solved, accordingly.\par
Firstly, an improved GA is introduced to find the optimal solution which maximizes $Z_{1}(X)$. All sub-tasks from $T$ make up an ordered list as an individual that represents a feasible solution. We use a roulette wheel selection approach \cite{razali2011genetic} to obtain those individuals with higher fitness values. Besides, two-point crossover and signal-point mutation are also used \cite{hartmann1998competitive}. A set $V_a$ of service nodes that are used to deploy the requested tasks can be provided as the optimal solution by the improved GA.\par
Then, a multi-agent optimization algorithm is proposed to solve the sub-problem of minimizing $Z_{2}(X)$. We use a shared agent to hold the information of resource allocation for the service nodes, and assign service agents to each service node for assisting in resource management. Different service agents can cooperate, coordinate and compete with each other to optimize their objectives with respect to the behavior criteria \cite{wang2016multiagent}. To keep the diversity of feasible solutions and avoid the occurrence of premature convergence, both selection and exchange operators are achieved by a probabilistic method. In addition, a feasible solution consists of all the sub-tasks from the available service agents and those sub-tasks on a service agent are considered as part of a feasible solution. We can optimize the objectives of the service agents with cooperative co-evolutionary method to obtain a global optimal solution \cite{ren2018boosting}.\par
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.36\textwidth]{Fig/4.eps}
\caption{Procedure for decoding an individual.}
\label{Procedure for decoding an individual}
\end{figure}
Fig.~\ref{Proposed hierarchical multi-agent framework} shows the proposed hierarchical multi-agent framework. The procedure for addressing the optimization problem is divided into two steps. In the first step, the improved GA is used to find the optimal solution which maximizes $Z_{1}(X)$, and each agent represents an individual. In the second step, the MAO algorithm is applied to seek the optimal solution which minimizes $Z_{2}(X)$.\par
\subsection{Improved GA}
For the sub-problem of optimizing the resource utilization, the objective is to maximize $Z_{1}(X)$ and the constraints need to be satisfied. The improved GA is introduced to solve this optimization problem.\par
In the improved GA, a population includes $P$ individuals, an individual $p \in P$ is encoded by a permutation representation \cite{hartmann1998competitive,kaur2012efficient} and consists of $\sum\limits_{l=0}^{L-1}N_l$ genes in order, where a gene represents a sub-task. During the process of decoding, all service nodes in $V$ are sorted in ascending order by index, and the service nodes with low index have high priority to be deployed with the requested tasks. Thus, a sub-task is deployed depending upon the priority of a service node until the resource requirements are satisfied. By the decoding method, the sub-tasks from an individual can be allocated to these service nodes in $V$ in sequence, and the result of resource allocation indicates a feasible solution.\par
Fig. \ref{Procedure for decoding an individual} illustrates the procedure for decoding an individual. There are two tasks: $t_0$ with 5 sub-tasks and $t_1$ with 4 sub-tasks, an individual is expressed as $p= \left \{ t_{0,0},t_{0,1},t_{0,2},t_{0,3},t_{0,4},t_{1,0},t_{1,1},t_{1,2},t_{1,3}\right \}$. Three service nodes are denoted as $v_0,v_1$ and $v_2$, respectively, and their resource capacities are limited. Firstly, it is seen that sub-tasks $t_{0,0}$ and $t_{0,1}$ are allocated to service node $v_0$, but the required resources for $v_0$ are more than the capacities after deploying $t_{0,2}$ to $v_0$. As a result, sub-task $t_{0,2}$ is moved to service node $v_1$. Due to the high priority of service nodes with low index, sub-task $t_{0,3}$ will be placed to service node $v_0$. Similarly, we deploy sub-tasks $t_{0,4}$ and $t_{1,0}$ to service node $v_1$, sub-tasks $t_{1,1},t_{1,2}$ and $t_{1,3}$ to service node $v_2$.\par
Three operators for selection, crossover and mutation are used as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Selection operator:} A roulette wheel selection \cite{razali2011genetic} is applied to obtain the individuals with high fitness values. All individuals are sorted in ascending order by their fitness values and the cumulative probability distribution function (CDF) is computed accordingly. Then we choose the candidates through the concept of the survival of the fittest,which means an individual with high fitness is more likely to be chosen.\par
\item \emph{Crossover operator:} Two-point crossover \cite{hartmann1998competitive} is used as the crossover operator and executed with crossover probability $p_c$. We randomly select two gene points for two individuals (one each from the mother and father) in the field $\left \{1, \sum\limits_{l=0}^{L-1}N_l-2 \right \}$ to mate with each other, each offspring inherits some of the genes from their parents, respectively. An example of two-point crossover is described in Fig. \ref{Example of two-point crossover operator}. Two individuals $p_0= \left \{ t_{0,3},t_{0,1},t_{0,4},t_{1,0},t_{0,0},t_{1,1},t_{0,2},t_{1,2},t_{1,3} \right \},p_1= \left \{ t_{0,0},t_{0,4},t_{1,3},t_{0,1},t_{1,2},t_{1,0},t_{0,3},t_{1,1},t_{0,2} \right \}$ are given as the parents, and two gene points are randomly generated, such as $3$ and $6$. Firstly, an offspring inherits $t_{0,3},t_{0,1}$ and $t_{0,4}$ from $parent0$ as the genes of itself. Then $3$ genes ($point 1 -point 0 =3$) from $parent1$ need to be searched from low to high, and they can not be the same as that of the offspring. Therefore, genes $t_{0,0},t_{1,3}$ and $t_{1,2}$ from $parent1$ are inherited as the genes of the offspring. In the same way, the offspring can inherit genes $t_{1,0},t_{1,1}$ and $t_{0,2}$ from $parent0$. Thus the offspring is indicated as $\left \{ t_{0,3},t_{0,1},t_{0,4},t_{0,0},t_{1,3},t_{1,2},t_{1,0},t_{1,1},t_{0,2}\right \}$. Similarly, $\left \{ t_{0,0},t_{0,4},t_{1,3},t_{0,3},t_{0,1},t_{1,0},t_{1,2},t_{1,1},t_{0,2} \right \}$ can represent another offspring.\par
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.36\textwidth]{Fig/5.eps}
\caption{Example of two-point crossover operator.}
\label{Example of two-point crossover operator}
\end{figure}
\item \emph{Mutation operator:} Mutation operator \cite{hartmann1998competitive} is carried out with mutation probability $p_m$, where we randomly choose two gene points from an individual and exchange their genes to gemerate a new individual.\par
\end{itemize}
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Improved GA.}
\label{Improved GA}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE \textbf{Initialize:} Population $P$, individual $p \in P$, crossover probability $p_c$, mutation probability $p_m$, maximum number of iterations $Iter_{max}$;
\FOR {$Iter = 0$ to $Iter_{max}$}
\STATE Compute the fitness for all individuals $P$;
\STATE Obtain the CDF based on the fitness values;
\STATE Run selection operator to get $P$ candidates;
\FOR{$i = 0$ to $\frac{length(P)}{2}$}
\STATE Randomly choose two individuals;
\STATE Generate a random number $p_r$;
\IF{$p_r \leq p_c$}
\STATE Run two-point crossover operator;
\ENDIF
\ENDFOR
\STATE Produce offspring population;
\FOR{$i = 0$ to $length(P)$}
\STATE Randomly choose an individual;
\STATE Generate a random number $p_r$;
\IF{$p_r \leq p_m$}
\STATE Run mutation operator;
\ENDIF
\ENDFOR
\STATE Update population $P$;
\ENDFOR
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
The improved GA is described in Algorithm \ref{Improved GA}. Let us denote the maximum number of iterations as $Iter_{max}$. At the beginning, the initial population $P$ is randomly produced, we compute the fitness of the objective function for those individuals from population $P$ and obtain the CDF. Then the population of offsprings can be obtained by running selection, crossover and mutation operators, respectively. The optimal solution of maximizing $Z_{1}(X)$ will be given in iterative evolution. The termination criterion is met when the number of iterations is greater than $Iter_{max}$.\par
According to the improved GA, we obtain an optimal solution which maximizes the resource utilization, where the optimal solution indicates a set $V_a$ of service nodes that are used to deploy the requested tasks and contains $K_a$ service nodes. However, the bandwidth cost and load-balancing are not considered for this sub-problem. The following section \ref{Multi-agent Optimization} will discuss the sub-problem of minimizing the bandwidth cost and load-balancing based on a set $V_a$ of service nodes.\par
\subsection{Multi-agent Optimization}\label{Multi-agent Optimization}
For set $V_a$ of service nodes, we propose a multi-agent optimization approach to address the optimization sub-problem of minimizing $Z_{2}(X)$ with the constraints. For the MAO, the agents have four characteristics: environment-aware, autonomy, social behavior and load-balancing \cite{zheng2015multi}, which are described in detail as follows:\par
\begin{enumerate}
\item \emph{Environment-aware:} The environment in the MAO algorithm consists of all the agents and their relationships, where the agents are designed as a shared agent and $K_a$ service agents in advance, and we use an organized architecture to illustrate their relationships. A service agent can obtain the information about resource allocation by accessing the shared agent, and interact with other service agents to better adapt to the current environment condition, that is, to achieve a higher fitness value. A shared agent provides access services for the service agents in order to help with resource management.\par
\item \emph{Autonomy:} When the environment conditions are changed, an agent can autonomously make a decision for the next actions to adjust its fitness value by a set of actions and the behavior criteria. For a service agent, its action set includes four parts: access, selection, exchange and update. Firstly, it obtains the information about resource allocation by accessing the shared agent. Then selection and exchange operators, which are described later in this section, can be executed, respectively. The results of interaction on service agents will be updated on the shared agent. In addition, the action set of a shared agent can provide three services which are storing, accessing and updating the information.\par
\item \emph{Social behavior:} According to social behavior, the agents share the information about resource allocation, and the sub-tasks deployed on different service agents can be exchanged with each other. There are two kinds of social behavior which are between shared agent and service agents, and service agents with each other. For the former, the agents can share the information about resource allocation with all the service agents. For the latter, the aim is to exchange those sub-tasks that are deployed on different service agents to improve their objectives.\par
\item \emph{Load-balancing:} Load-balancing is an important issue to ensure that the service nodes are being used sufficiently. Therefore, considering load-balancing, a service agent runs the exchange operator by cooperating, coordinating and competing with other service agents.\par
\end{enumerate}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.36\textwidth]{Fig/6.eps}
\caption{Architecture for multi-agent optimization.}
\label{Architecture for multi-agent optimization}
\end{figure}
In order to better describe the MAO algorithm, some important specifications are given as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Shared agent:} Shared agent, which is denoted by $a_s$, holds the information about task deployment and resource allocation for all service agents, it can support the service agents to access and update the information in real-time.
\item \emph{Service agent:} Service agents are assigned to the service nodes in $V_a$ to assist in resource management, where they can access and update the information about resource allocation on the shared agent. Moreover, the sub-tasks deployed on different service agents can be migrated and swapped with each other by selection and exchange operators. The service agent assigned to $v_i$ is indicated as $a_i$ and all the service agents make up a set $A_a$ of the service agents.
\item \emph{Adjacent agent:} We assume that $\forall t_{l,n} \in a_i$, $\exists t_{l,\hat{n}} \in a_j, i\neq j$, where $t_{l,\hat{n}} \in U_{l,n}^{p} \cup U_{l,n}^{s}$, then $a_i,a_j$ are seen as adjacent agents.
\item \emph{Active sub-task:} For a sub-task $\forall t_{l,n} \in a_i$, its adjacent sub-tasks are migrated and swapped to $a_i$ to improve the bandwidth cost by selection and exchange operators. Sub-task $t_{l,n}$ is defined as an active sub-task.
\item \emph{Host service agent:} If an active sub-task $t_{l,n} \in a_i$, the service agent $a_i$ is considered as the host service agent.
\item \emph{Feasible solution:} All sub-tasks placed on service agent $a_i$ are indicated as $\Lambda_i$, where $\Lambda_i$ is considered as part of a feasible solution. Therefore, a feasible solution can be expressed as $X = \bigcup\limits_{i=0}^{K_a-1} \Lambda_i$.
\item \emph{Objective function:} A feasible solution is decomposed into $K_a$ parts, thus the objective can be re-written as: $Z_{2}(X) = \frac{1}{K_a}\sum\limits_{i=0}^{K_a-1}Z_{2}(\Lambda_i)$.
\end{itemize}
In the MAO algorithm, there is a shared agent $a_s$ and $K_a$ service agents, the agents can communicate with each other by network links, such as $a_s$ and $a_i$, and $a_i$ and $a_j, i \neq j$. The service agents can share the information about resource allocation by accessing the shared agent $a_s$, migrate and swap their sub-tasks with each other to reduce their bandwidth costs. To keep the diversity of feasible solutions, selection and exchange operators are implemented based on a probabilistic method which is discussed later in this section.\par
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.36\textwidth]{Fig/7.eps}
\caption{Source sub-task candidate list.}
\label{Source sub-task candidate list}
\end{figure}
Generally, the procedure of the MAO includes four parts: obtain the adjacent agents, choose source and target sub-tasks, execute the exchange operator, and update the shared information. Firstly, let us select sub-task $\forall t_{l,n} \in a_i$ as the active sub-task, all its adjacent sub-tasks $U_{l,n}=U_{l,n}^{p} \cup U_{l,n}^{s}$ and their service agents can be obtained by accessing the shared agent. Then selection and exchange operators can be carried out for each sub-task from corresponding $U_{l,n}$. For the selection operator, we need to choose the source and target sub-tasks, where the target sub-task is selected by a probabilistic method, and the source sub-task from $a_i$ is obtained by a priority-based selection mechanism. For exchange operator, we can migrate and swap the source and target sub-tasks among different service agents with multiple constraints. Furthermore, the exchange operation can be carried out with exchange probability $p_e$ if the objective fitness is not improved at this instance. When the exchange is finished, the shared information will be updated.\par
An example of the MAO algorithm is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{Architecture for multi-agent optimization}. We assume that a host service agent is $a_4$ and an active sub-task is $t_{l,n}$. The service agent $a_4$ can obtain the information about the adjacent sub-tasks for $t_{l,n}$ by visiting the shared agent, and there are two adjacent sub-tasks $t_{l,n-1} \in a_1,t_{l,n+1} \in a_9$. For sub-task $t_{l,n+1}$, it is chosen as the target sub-task with selection probability $1-p_s$ or else a random sub-task $t_{\hat{l},\hat{n}} \in a_3$ is chosen to be the target sub-task. A source sub-task from $a_4$ is selected by a priority-based selection mechanism. Then we can run the exchange operation and update the shared information. Similarly, we can proceed with the processing for $t_{l,n-1}$.\par
Next, we discuss three main parts for the MAO algorithm.\par
\subsubsection{Target Selection}
In the MAO algorithm, to optimize the bandwidth cost, our purpose is to assign the adjacent sub-tasks from a task to the same service agent as far as possible. In addition, a probabilistic method is used to select the target sub-task to avoid premature convergence.\par
For active sub-task $t_{l,n} \in a_i$, the set of its adjacent sub-tasks is $U_{l,n}$, and we assume that a candidate adjacent sub-task is $t_{l,\hat{n}} \in U_{l,n}, t_{l,\hat{n}} \in a_j, i \neq j$ and a random sub-task is denoted as $t_{\hat{l},\hat{n}} \in a_k, i \neq k$. Therefore, the target sub-task is $t_{\hat{l},\hat{n}}$ with probability $p_s$, otherwise $t_{l,\hat{n}}$. The algorithm for target selection is described in Algorithm \ref{Target selection}.\par
\begin{algorithm}[tbp]
\caption{Target selection.}
\label{Target selection}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE \textbf{Initialize:} Probability $p_s$;
\STATE For $\forall t_{l,n} \in a_i,\exists t_{l,\hat{n}} \in U_{l,n},t_{l,\hat{n}} \in a_j,a_i,a_j \in A_a,i \neq j$, $t_{\hat{l},\hat{n}} \in a_k, i \neq k$;
\STATE Generate a random number $p_r$;
\IF{$p_r \geq p_s$}
\STATE Let $t_{l,\hat{n}}$ be the target sub-task;
\ELSE
\STATE Let $t_{\hat{l},\hat{n}}$ be the target sub-task;
\ENDIF
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\subsubsection{Source Selection}
Considering load-balancing and objective optimization, a priority-based source sub-task selection mechanism is proposed. In the host service agent, all available sub-tasks for active sub-task $t_{l,n} \in a_i$ are sorted in descend order by the priority, which includes two categories: the dependence relationships of sub-tasks for the host and adjacent service agents, and the used resources. There are three sub-task types according to the dependence relationships as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Sub-task1:} Let us denote active sub-task as $t_{l,n} \in a_i$, an adjacent service agent as $a_j, i\neq j$ and a set of available sub-tasks as $W_{l,n}$. If $t_{{l}',{n}'} \in W_{l,n}, {t}'_{{l}',{n}'} \in U_{{l}',{n}'}$, make $\exists {t}'_{{l}',{n}'} \notin W_{l,n}$ and ${t}'_{{l}',{n}'} \in a_j$, let $t_{{l}',{n}'}$ be sub-task1.
\item \emph{Sub-task2:} If $t_{{l}',{n}'} \in W_{l,n}, {t}'_{{l}',{n}'} \in U_{{l}',{n}'}$, make $\forall {t}'_{{l}',{n}'} \notin W_{l,n}$ and $ {t}'_{{l}',{n}'} \notin a_j$, let $t_{{l}',{n}'}$ be sub-task2.
\item \emph{Sub-task3:} If $t_{{l}',{n}'} \in W_{l,n}, {t}'_{{l}',{n}'} \in U_{{l}',{n}'}$, make $\exists {t}'_{{l}',{n}'} \in W_{l,n}$, let $t_{{l}',{n}'}$ be sub-task3.
\end{itemize}\par
\noindent The precedence relations for three sub-task types are ranked as: sub-task1 $>$ sub-task2 $>$ sub-task3. Furthermore, for the same sub-task type, we calculate the resource utilization difference between $a_i$ and the average value of the system for each candidate sub-task. All the candidate sub-tasks are sorted in ascending order by the differences.\par
Fig. \ref{Source sub-task candidate list} describes the procedure of a source sub-task candidate list. Host service agent is indicated as $\left \{ t_{0,3},t_{0,1},t_{0,4},t_{1,0},t_{0,0},t_{1,2}\right \}$, active sub-task is $t_{0,3}$ and an adjacent service agent consists of $t_{0,2},t_{1,3}$ and $t_{2,1}$. We can find that $t_{1,2}$ is sub-task1, $t_{1,0}$ is sub-task2, $t_{0,1},t_{0,0}$ and $t_{0,4}$ are sub-task3. For sub-task3, the differences of the sub-tasks are ranked as $d_{0,1} < d_{0,0} < d_{0,4}$. As a result, the task list can be indicated as $\left \{ t_{1,2},t_{1,0},t_{0,1},t_{0,0},t_{0,4}\right \}$.\par
For the sub-task candidate list, the source sub-task can be chosen by the priority, and different source sub-tasks have an influence on the performance. The algorithm for source selection is shown in Algorithm \ref{Source selection}.\par
\begin{algorithm}[tbp]
\caption{Source selection.}
\label{Source selection}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE For active sub-task $t_{l,n}\in a_i$, an adjacent service agent $a_j,i\neq j$;
\STATE Make a set of available sub-tasks $W_{l,n}$;
\FOR{$\forall t_{{l}',{n}'} \in W_{l,n}$}
\STATE Obtain the set of its adjacent sub-tasks $U_{{l}',{n}'}$;
\STATE For ${t}'_{{l}',{n}'} \in U_{{l}',{n}'}$;
\IF{$\exists {t}'_{{l}',{n}'} \notin W_{l,n}$ and ${t}'_{{l}',{n}'} \in a_j$}
\STATE Let $t_{{l}',{n}'}$ be sub-task1;
\ELSIF{$\forall {t}'_{{l}',{n}'} \notin W_{l,n}$ and ${t}'_{{l}',{n}'} \notin a_j$}
\STATE Let $t_{{l}',{n}'}$ be sub-task2;
\ELSE
\STATE Let $t_{{l}',{n}'}$ be sub-task3;
\ENDIF
\STATE Assume $t_{{l}',{n}'}$ is a source sub-task and calculate the difference between the resource utilization of $a_i$ and the average value of the system;
\ENDFOR
\STATE Sort the sub-task candidate list by precedence.
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\subsubsection{Exchange Procedure}
For active sub-task $t_{l,n}$, the target sub-task and source sub-task candidate list are given by target and source selection operations, then the service agents can cooperate, coordinate and compete with each other to migrate and swap their sub-tasks to improve the objectives through the exchange operator. In this context, there are four situations to be considered as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Objective optimization:} For the exchange procedure, our aim is to migrate and swap these sub-tasks on different service agents to reduce their bandwidth costs. That is, the objective fitness should be improved for the host service agent after running the exchange operator.
\item \emph{Resource constraints:} The number of resources used for each service agent can not exceed its resource capacities.
\item \emph{Load-balancing:} Load-balancing is implemented by a priority-based source sub-task selection mechanism and the procedure of migrating and swapping the sub-tasks.
\item \emph{Diversity of feasible solutions:} Exchange operator is achieved by a probabilistic method, when the objective optimization is not satisfied, the exchange procedure can continue to be carried out with a lower probability.
\end{itemize}\par
\noindent Next, we describe the exchange procedure in detail.\par
Let us denote the source sub-task list by $Q_{l,n}$. For $\forall t_{l',n'} \in Q_{l,n}$, we firstly ensure that the objective result is improved by the exchange operation. If it is not, the exchange procedure can keep running with exchange probability $p_e$. Considering the load-balancing for all the service agents, if the load-balancing constraint in equation \eqref{equation9} is satisfied, we will just migrate the target sub-task from $a_j$ to $a_i$ and there will be nothing to do for the source sub-task. Besides, the migration will be also considered when there is no available source sub-task in the candidate list. The load-balancing constraint can be expressed as:\par
\begin{equation} \label{equation9}
\eta_{i} < \eta_{j} + 2*\bar{\eta},
\end{equation}\par
\noindent where $\eta_{i}$ and $\eta_{j}$ show the resource utilization of $a_i$ and $a_j$ after the migration, respectively. The parameter $\bar{\eta}$ indicates the average resource utilization for all sub-task types. In most cases, we need to swap the target and source sub-tasks with each other between $a_i$ and $a_j$. Note that the migration and exchange are satisfied with the resource constraints. The exchange procedure is shown in Algorithm \ref{Exchange procedure}.\par
\begin{algorithm}[tbp]
\caption{Exchange procedure.}
\label{Exchange procedure}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE For target sub-task $t_{\hat{l},\hat{n}}$, source sub-task candidate list $Q_{l,n}$, exchange probability $p_e$;
\FOR{$\forall t_{l',n'} \in Q_{l,n}$}
\IF {The objective optimization is invalid}
\STATE Generate a random number $p_r$;
\IF {$p_r > p_e$}
\STATE Continue;
\ENDIF
\ENDIF
\IF{($t_{l',n'} = EOF$ or ($t_{l',n'} \neq EOF$ and hold equation \eqref{equation9})) and meet with resource constraints}
\STATE Run the migration and break;
\ELSIF{$t_{l',n'} \neq EOF$ and hold resource constraints}
\STATE Run the exchange and break;
\ENDIF
\ENDFOR
\STATE Update the shared information on the shared agent.
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
The MAO algorithm is an iterative optimization algorithm based on multi-agent systems and Algorithm \ref{MAO algorithm} describes the entire MAO algorithm. We assume that the maximum number of iterations is $M$. During an iterative evolution, all the sub-tasks from each service agent run the selection and exchange operations, and the objective value for this service agent can be improved with high probability. All the service agents can work together with cooperative co-evolutionary method. Thus, the global optimal solution can be found by increasing the number of iterations.\par
\begin{algorithm}[tbp]
\caption{MAO algorithm.}
\label{MAO algorithm}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE \textbf{Input:} Maximum number of iterations $M$, selection probability $p_s$, exchange probability $p_e$;
\FOR{$m = 0$ to $M$}
\FOR{$\forall a_i \in A_a$}
\FOR{$\forall t_{l,n} \in a_i$}
\STATE Obtain $U_{l,n}$ by visiting $a_s$;
\FOR{$\forall t_{l,\hat{n}} \in U_{l,n}, t_{l,\hat{n}} \in a_j, i\neq j$}
\STATE Run the target selection operation;
\STATE Run the source selection operation;
\STATE Run the exchange procedure;
\ENDFOR
\ENDFOR
\STATE Update $\Lambda_i$ for $a_i$;
\ENDFOR
\STATE Get the feasible solution $X=\bigcup\limits_{i=0}^{K_a-1}\Lambda_i$ and compute the objective fitness value;
\ENDFOR
\STATE Obtain an approximate optimal solution.
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{HMAO Algorithm in On-line Resource Allocation}
\begin{algorithm}[tbp]
\caption{HMAO Algorithm in on-line resource allocation.}
\label{HMAO Algorithm in on-line resource allocation}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE \textbf{Input at time $t$:} Set $T_{new,t} \in T$ of the tasks coming at $t$, set $T_{old,t-1} \in T$ of the tasks ending at $t-1$;
\STATE Release the required resources of the old tasks in $T_{old,t-1}$ and update the resource information for the service nodes;
\STATE Generate the initial population $P$ for $T_{new,t}$;
\STATE Run the GA and obtain the set $V_{a,t}$ of service nodes that are used to deploy the new tasks;
\STATE Carry out the MAO algorithm for $V_{a,t}$;
\STATE Obtain an approximate optimal solution of allocating the available resources to $T_{n,t}$.
\STATE Time: $t\leftarrow t+1$.
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
The proposed HMAO algorithm is easily to be applied to the on-line resource allocation by a few modifications. In this paper, we consider the scenario of allocating the available resources related to service nodes to the requested tasks in batch mode. That is, the requested tasks need to be performed are collected and will be handled at a fixed time slot. In order to improve the quality of the initial solutions for the GA, an individual is encoded by the inter-dependent relationships of those sub-tasks in sequence and the rest of the population are randomly encoded to keep diversity of feasible solutions. For the decoding procedure of the GA, we sort the service nodes that are used to deploy the requested tasks in ascending order by the resource utilization. All the sub-tasks for an individual are assigned to the available service nodes with the first-fit rule \cite{bhamare2017optimal,Espling2016modeling} and a new service node would be activated when any of the available service nodes can not meet the resource requirements of the sub-task to be assigned. In each time slot, some new requested tasks appear and several old requested tasks are over. Therefore, we can release the resources used by the old tasks and re-assign them to the new requested tasks. Algorithm \ref{HMAO Algorithm in on-line resource allocation} describes the proposed HMAO algorithm in on-line resource allocation. For time slot $t$, let us denote the set of the new requested tasks as $T_{new,t} \in T$ and the set of the old requested tasks that are ending as $T_{old,t-1} \in T$. Firstly, we end the old tasks from $T_{old,t-1}$ and release the required resources used. Then with existing resources used and physical resource constrains, we use the proposed HMAO algorithm to allocate the available resources of service nodes to the new requested tasks.\par
\section{Performance Evaluation}\label{Performance Evaluation}
In this section, we make several experiments for different number of communication tasks to verify the performance of the proposed HMAO algorithm with computer simulation results. Meanwhile, the performance of the proposed HMAO algorithm is analyzed by comparing with two existing baseline algorithms, which are GA and NSGA-II. The experimental platform is a high performance server, which is i7-4790k CPU, 16 GB memory and windows 10. Each communication task contains 5 parts: network receiving, capture, tracking, synchronization and decoding, and their resource requirements can be observed in Table \ref{Resource requirements for a task}. All service nodes are homogeneous and the resource capacities for CPU, memory, GPU and bandwidth are 2900 MHz, 96 GB, 8 and 1000 Mbps, respectively. Note that the limitation of network links is not considered in this paper, such as switches and routers. Equation \eqref{equation8} is considered for performance metrics comparison between the proposed HMAO algorithm and other existing baseline algorithms.\par
\begin{table}[tbp]
\centering
\caption{Resource requirements for a task.}
\label{Resource requirements for a task}
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{|p{0.12\textwidth}<{\centering}|p{0.06\textwidth}<{\centering}|p{0.06\textwidth}<{\centering}|p{0.04\textwidth}<{\centering}|p{0.08\textwidth}<{\centering}|}
\hline
Name & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}CPU\\(MHz)\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Memory\\(GB)\end{tabular} & GPU & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Bandwidth\\(Mbps)\end{tabular} \\ \hline
Network receiving & 290 & 9.6 & 0 & 100 \\ \hline
Capture & 319 & 11.52 & 1 & 97 \\ \hline
Tracking & 435 & 12.48 & 1 & 95 \\ \hline
Synchronization & 638 & 12.48 & 1 & 92 \\ \hline
Decoding & 145 & 4.8 & 1 & 90 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table}
\subsection{Simulation Parameters Setup}\label{Simulation Parameters Setup}
\begin{table}[tbp]
\centering
\caption{Parameters for Taguchi method.}
\label{Parameters for Taguchi method}
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}
\begin{tabular}{|p{0.07\textwidth}<{\centering}|p{0.07\textwidth}<{\centering}|p{0.07\textwidth}<{\centering}|p{0.07\textwidth}<{\centering}|p{0.07\textwidth}<{\centering}|}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Factor} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{Level} \\ \cline{2-5}
& 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ \hline
$p_s$ & 0.01 & 0.05 & 0.10 & 0.15 \\ \hline
$p_e$ & 0.01 & 0.05 & 0.10 & 0.15 \\ \hline
$M$ & 250 & 500 & 750 & 1000 \\ \hline
\end{tabular
}
\end{table}
Firstly, we assume that the weights in equation \eqref{equation8} have the same values, and can be described as $\alpha _c = \alpha _m = \alpha _g = \frac{1}{3}$ and $\beta_{1} = \beta_{2} = \frac{1}{2}$. The parameters for the improved GA are $P = 16,Iter_{max}=5,p_c=1.0,p_m=0.1$. In the MAO algorithm, there are three main parameters: selection probability $p_s$, exchange probability $p_e$ and the number of iterations, which have impact on the performance results. In order to better estimate this impact on the performance for different combinations of parameters, the Taguchi method of design-of-experiment (DOE) is used to generate the test cases and analyze the results of our experiments \cite{zheng2015multi}. There are 3 factors and each factor contains 4 levels, and the combinations of different parameters for Taguchi method are shown in Table \ref{Parameters for Taguchi method}. Moreover, we develop the orthogonal table $L_{16}(4^3)$, where there are 16 cases and each case is carried out 10 times for 8, 16, 24, 32 tasks, respectively, to obtain the average results. Table \ref{Orthogonal table and the approximate solutions} provides the orthogonal table $L_{16}(4^3)$ and the values related to the approximate solutions for different tasks.
\begin{table}[tbp]
\centering
\caption{Orthogonal table $L_{16}(4^3)$ and the optimal solutions for $Z(X)$. }
\label{Orthogonal table and the approximate solutions}
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{No.} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Factor} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{$Z(X)$} \\ \cline{2-8}
& $p_s$ & $P_e$ & $M$ & $L=8$ & $L=16$ & $L=24$ & $L=32$ \\ \hline
0 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 250 & 0.7829 & 0.8008 & 0.8103 & 0.8109 \\ \hline
1 & 0.01 & 0.05 & 500 & 0.7853 & 0.8032 & 0.8141 & 0.8133 \\ \hline
2 & 0.01 & 0.10 & 750 & 0.7861 & 0.8079 & 0.8138 & 0.8136 \\ \hline
3 & 0.01 & 0.15 & 1000 & 0.7869 & 0.8075 & 0.8152 & 0.8139 \\ \hline
4 & 0.05 & 0.01 & 500 & 0.7869 & 0.8088 & 0.8156 & 0.8146 \\ \hline
5 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 250 & 0.7869 & 0.8062 & 0.8144 & 0.8136 \\ \hline
6 & 0.05 & 0.10 & 1000 & 0.7869 & 0.8088 & 0.8167 & 0.8148 \\ \hline
7 & 0.05 & 0.15 & 750 & 0.7869 & 0.8088 & 0.8164 & 0.8147 \\ \hline
8 & 0.10 & 0.01 & 750 & 0.7869 & 0.8088 & 0.8161 & 0.8148 \\ \hline
9 & 0.10 & 0.05 & 1000 & 0.7869 & 0.8088 & 0.8170 & 0.8148 \\ \hline
10 & 0.10 & 0.10 & 250 & 0.7869 & 0.8088 & 0.8161 & 0.8141 \\ \hline
11 & 0.10 & 0.15 & 500 & 0.7869 & 0.8088 & 0.8170 & 0.8143 \\ \hline
12 & 0.15 & 0.01 & 1000 & 0.7869 & 0.8088 & 0.8170 & 0.8148 \\ \hline
13 & 0.15 & 0.05 & 750 & 0.7869 & 0.8088 & 0.8170 & 0.8148 \\ \hline
14 & 0.15 & 0.10 & 500 & 0.7869 & 0.8088 & 0.8170 & 0.8148 \\ \hline
15 & 0.15 & 0.15 & 250 & 0.7869 & 0.8088 & 0.8167 & 0.8141 \\ \hline
\end{tabular
}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\subfigure[Mean for $L=8$]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{Fig/8-a.eps}
\label{Mean for 8 tasks}}
\subfigure[Mean for $L=16$]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{Fig/8-b.eps}
\label{Mean for 16 tasks}}
\subfigure[Mean for $L=24$]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{Fig/8-c.eps}
\label{Mean for 4 tasks}}
\subfigure[Mean for $L=32$]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{Fig/8-d.eps}
\label{Mean for 32 tasks}}
\caption{Mean for $L=8,16,24,32$.}
\label{Mean for different tasks}
\end{figure}
Fig. \ref{Mean for different tasks} shows the main effects plot for means with different tasks. It can be obvious that the objective values are improved as $p_s,p_e$ and the number of iterations increase. For the proposed HMAO algorithm, we can adjust the values of $p_s,p_e$ to the diversity of feasible solutions, however, it will cost more time to seek an approximate solution for $Z(X)$. The ideal value of $p_s$ for 8, 16, 24, 32 tasks is 0.15, the ideal value of $p_e$ is 0.1 for 8, 24 tasks and 0.15 for 16, 32 tasks.
\subsection{Numerical Simulation}\label{Numerical Simulation}
Based on the parameters above, the maximum number of iterations is set as $250$, we run several experiments for 8, 16, 24, 32 tasks to evaluate convergence of the proposed HMAO algorithm. As it is shown in Fig. \ref{Bandwidth utilization for 8,16,24,32 tasks}, we illustrate the relationships between iterations and the bandwidth utilization for different tasks. Fig. \ref{Bandwidth utilization for 8 tasks} and Fig. \ref{Bandwidth utilization for 24 tasks} indicate the procedure for seeking the optimal solution of bandwidth utilization for $L=8, 24$ with $p_s=0.15$, $p_e=0.15$, and the best values 0.1640 and 0.0.2076 can be observed at 49 and 176 iterations, respectively. For $L=16,32$, $p_s=0.15$, $p_e=0.10$, their results for optimizing the bandwidth utilization are depicted in Fig. \ref{Bandwidth utilization for 16 tasks} and Fig. \ref{Bandwidth utilization for 32 tasks}, and we can obtain the optimal solution results 0.1872 and 0.2137 at 73 and 121 iterations, respectively.\par
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\subfigure[$L=8,p_s=0.15,p_e=0.15$]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{Fig/9-a.eps}
\label{Bandwidth utilization for 8 tasks}}
\subfigure[$L=16,p_s=0.15,p_e=0.10$]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{Fig/9-b.eps}
\label{Bandwidth utilization for 16 tasks}}
\subfigure[$L=24,p_s=0.15,p_e=0.15$]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{Fig/9-c.eps}
\label{Bandwidth utilization for 24 tasks}}
\subfigure[$L=32,p_s=0.15,p_e=0.10$]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{Fig/9-d.eps}
\label{Bandwidth utilization for 32 tasks}}
\caption{Bandwidth utilization for $L=8,16,24,32$.}
\label{Bandwidth utilization for 8,16,24,32 tasks}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[tbp]
\centering
\caption{Results of simulation for the HMAO algorithm.}
\label{Results of simulation for the HMAO algorithm}
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$L$ & $M$ & Min & Max & Mean & Std & Time(min) \\ \hline
8 & \multirow{4}{*}{250} & 0.7869 & 0.7869 & 0.7869 & 0.0 & 0.2375 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{3-7}
16 & & 0.8046 & 0.8088 & 0.8084 & 0.0013 & 0.4777 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{3-7}
24 & & 0.8141 & 0.8170 & 0.8164 & 0.0012 & 0.7205 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{3-7}
32 & & 0.8104 & 0.8148 & 0.8137 & 0.0015 & 0.9703 \\ \hline
8 & \multirow{4}{*}{500} & 0.7869 & 0.7869 & 0.7869 & 0.0 & 0.4995 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{3-7}
16 & & 0.8088 & 0.8088 & 0.8088 & 0.0 & 1.0125 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{3-7}
24 & & 0.8170 & 0.8170 & 0.8170 & 0.0 & 1.5177 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{3-7}
32 & & 0.8146 & 0.8148 & 0.8147 & 0.0001 & 2.0164 \\ \hline
\end{tabular
}
\end{table}
Similarly, Fig. \ref{Objective values for 8,16,24,32 tasks} describes the evolutionary plots of the iterative optimal solutions for different tasks, which include the best and real-time objective values. Fig. \ref{Objective values for 8 tasks} and Fig. \ref{Objective values for 24 tasks} show the simulation results of 8, 24 tasks with $p_s=0.15$, $p_e=0.15$, Fig. \ref{Objective values for 16 tasks} and Fig. \ref{Objective values for 32 tasks} show the simulation results of 16, 32 tasks with $p_s=0.15$, $p_e=0.10$. It can be observed that the objective values for 8, 16, 24 and 32 tasks converge to the approximate solution results as 0.7869, 0.8088, 0.8112 and 0.8148 at 49, 73, 176 and 121 iterations, respectively. Therefore, it can be depicted that the proposed HMAO algorithm is an effective optimization algorithm to solve the problem of resource allocation in cloud computing and has a better convergence performance.\par
As the number of iterations have impact on the performance of the proposed HMAO algorithm, therefore, some experiments with 250 and 500 iterations are carried out for different tasks. Each case runs 10 times, we can obtain minimum, maximum, mean and standard deviation of the optimal solutions and the average computing time, which are shown in Table \ref{Results of simulation for the HMAO algorithm}. It can be observed from Table \ref{Results of simulation for the HMAO algorithm} that the performance of the proposed HMAO algorithm is high when the number of iterations increases, i.e., the means for 8, 16, 24 and 32 tasks with 250 iterations are 0.7869, 0.8084, 0.8164 and 0.8137, respectively, while the means are 0.7869, 0.8088, 0.8170 and 0.8147 with 500 iterations, respectively. That is, the potential optimal solution for $Z(X)$ is more likely to be sought by exploring and exploiting the solution space iteratively. Besides, the results indicate that the computing time of the proposed HMAO algorithm increases almost linearly with the increase in the number of iterations.\par
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\subfigure[$L=8,p_s=0.15,p_e=0.15$]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{Fig/10-a.eps}
\label{Objective values for 8 tasks}}
\subfigure[$L=16,p_s=0.15,p_e=0.10$]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{Fig/10-b.eps}
\label{Objective values for 16 tasks}}
\subfigure[$L=24,p_s=0.15,p_e=0.15$]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{Fig/10-c.eps}
\label{Objective values for 24 tasks}}
\subfigure[$L=32,p_s=0.15,p_e=0.10$]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{Fig/10-d.eps}
\label{Objective values for 32 tasks}}
\caption{Objective values for $L=8,16,24,32$.}
\label{Objective values for 8,16,24,32 tasks}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Performance Comparison with the Baseline Algorithms}\label{Performance Comparison with the Baseline Algorithms}
In order to further discuss the effectiveness of the proposed HMAO algorithm, we compare the proposed HMAO algorithm for different tasks with two existing algorithms, which are GA and NSGA-II.\par
\textbf{GA:} The genetic algorithm described in \cite{tseng2017dynamic} is used in our paper. We randomly select two individuals from the population $P$ to be the parents, and they can mate with each other by the two-point crossover operator with crossover probability $p_c$ to generate their offsprings. If the fitness value of an offspring is superior to its parent, we will consider it as a candidate in the next generation. Otherwise, the mutation operator is carried out with mutation probability $p_m$. An individual that has a better fitness value between the offspring and its parent will be seen as a new individual in the next generation.\par
\textbf{NSGA-II:} We introduce NSGA-II in \cite{deb2002fast} to address our problem, two optimization sub-problems are $Z_{1}(X)$ and $1-Z_{2}(X)$, respectively. A binary tournament selection method \cite{razali2011genetic} is applied to make decision for choosing the parents from the population $P$ to mate with each other. In crossover operator, we randomly select two gene points of one individual to exchange their genes equivalently with the other individual under crossover probability $p_c$. A bitwise mutation is executed with mutation probability $p_m$.\par
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\subfigure[$L=4$]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{Fig/11-a.eps}
\label{Evolution of optimal solution for 4 tasks with different algorithms}}
\subfigure[$L=6$]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{Fig/11-b.eps}
\label{Evolution of optimal solution for 6 tasks with different algorithms}}
\subfigure[$L=8$]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{Fig/11-c.eps}
\label{Evolution of optimal solution for 8 tasks with different algorithms}}
\subfigure[$L=10$]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{Fig/11-d.eps}
\label{Evolution of optimal solution for 10 tasks}}
\caption{Objective values for $L=4,6,8,10$ with HMAO, GA and NSGA-II.}
\label{Evolution of optimal solution}
\end{figure}
With the above analysis of the proposed HMAO algorithm, we set the maximum iterations as 1000 for the proposed HMAO algorithm, 5000 for GA and NSGA-II, the population $P$ is set as 16 for the proposed HMAO algorithm, 100 for GA and NSGA-II. Moreover, we have $p_e=p_s=0.15$, $p_c=1.0$, $p_m=0.1$. The number of tasks is from 4 to 16 corresponding to the number of initial service nodes $4,5,\dots,16$, respectively. We run each test case 10 times and compute the average results. The parameters used for the proposed HMAO algorithm, GA and NSGA-II are summarized in Table \ref{Parameter setting for HMAO, GA and NSGA-II}.\par
\begin{table}[tbp]
\centering
\caption{Parameter setting for HMAO, GA and NSGA-II.}
\label{Parameter setting for HMAO, GA and NSGA-II}
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
Parameters & Value \\ \hline
Number of tasks $L$ & $\left \{ 4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 \right \}$ \\ \hline
Number of service nodes $K$ & $\left \{ 4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 \right \}$ \\ \hline
Maximum iterations $M$ & HMAO: 1000; GA,NSGA-II: 5000 \\ \hline
Population size $P$ & HMAO: 16; GA,NSGA-II: 100 \\ \hline
Selective probability $p_e$ & 0.15 \\ \hline
Exchange probability $p_s$ & 0.15 \\ \hline
Crossover probability $p_c$ & 1.0 \\ \hline
Mutation probability $p_m$ & 0.1 \\ \hline
Running time & 10 \\ \hline
\end{tabular
}
\end{table}
Firstly, we simulate all test cases by the proposed HMAO algorithm, GA and NSGA-II with the specified parameters in Table \ref{Parameter setting for HMAO, GA and NSGA-II} and obtain the average results of these three algorithms, including resource utilization, bandwidth utilization, objective value and time cost. Note that the number of initial service nodes $K$ can influence the results of GA and NSGA-II.\par
To investigate the evolution of the optimal solution for the proposed HMAO algorithm over time, we compare the evolutionary performance of the proposed HMAO algorithm, GA and NSGA-II for $L=4,6,8,10$ and the results of these three algorithms are shown in Fig. \ref{Evolution of optimal solution}. It can be observed that the performance of the proposed HMAO algorithm is similar to that of GA for $L=4,6,8$, NSGA-II for $L=4,8$. Hence, the effectiveness of the proposed HMAO algorithm is verified by comparing the performance of the proposed HMAO algorithm with GA and NSGA-II algorithms. Moreover, the convergence of the proposed HMAO algorithm is better than GA and NSGA-II as the number of tasks grows.\par
The reason is that the selection and exchange operators for the proposed HMAO algorithm are executed with a finer-grained sub-task level and the optimization objective tends to a good result with high probability during each iterative evolution. Besides, the probabilistic-based selection and exchange operators are used to achieve the diversity of feasible solutions and avoid early entering into the local optimal solution. However, the space of feasible solutions for GA and NSGA-II becomes larger with the increase in the number of tasks, i.e., it will take more time to search the optimal solution. In addition, Fig. \ref{Evolution of optimal solution} shows that GA outperforms NSGA-II for $L=4,6,8,10$, because each offspring generated by GA, which has a better fitness value than its parent, will be selected as a new individual in the next generation and that can guarantee that the performance of solving the optimization problem is improved in each iterative evolution.\par
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\subfigure[Resource utilization]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{Fig/13-a.eps}
\label{Resource utilization}}
\subfigure[Bandwidth utilization]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{Fig/13-b.eps}
\label{Bandwidth utilization}}
\subfigure[Optimal solution]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{Fig/13-c.eps}
\label{Optimal solution}}
\subfigure[Convergence time]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{Fig/13-d.eps}
\label{Convergence time}}
\caption{Performance comparisons for HMAO, GA and NSGA-II.}
\label{Comparisons of different algorithms}
\end{figure}
In order to further analyze the performance of the proposed HMAO algorithm, we provide the maximum, minimum, mean, standard deviation and average convergence time of the simulation results for the proposed HMAO algorithm, GA and NSGA-II, and the detailed information can be observed from Table \ref{Results of simulation for HMAO, GA and NSGA-II}. In all test cases except $L=11$, the maximum, minimum, mean and standard deviation of the optimal solutions obtained by the proposed HMAO algorithm are better than or equal to GA and NSGA-II, respectively. Furthermore, the convergence time of the proposed HMAO algorithm is slower than GA, NSGA-II for $L=4,6$ but faster for the other cases, the difference is more evident with increasing the number of tasks. For example, in the case of $L=14$, we can observe that the performance of the proposed HMAO algorithm increases by $3.27\%$, and $3.44\%$, the convergence time reduces by $35.67\%$ and $58.38\%$ for GA and NSGA-II, respectively. For $L=16$, the mean results of the proposed HMAO algorithm improve by $4.26\%$ and $3.49\%$, the convergence time decreases by $78.23\%$ and $88.57\%$ for GA and NSGA-II, respectively. The results can demonstrate that the proposed HMAO algorithm is an effective optimization approach for resource allocation and has a better performance in terms of solution quality, robustness and convergence.\par
\begin{table*}[htbp]
\centering
\caption{Results of simulation for HMAO, GA and NSGA-II.}
\label{Results of simulation for HMAO, GA and NSGA-II}
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{L} & \multicolumn{5}{c|}{HMAO} & \multicolumn{5}{c|}{GA} & \multicolumn{5}{c|}{NSGA-II} \\ \cline{2-16}
& Min & Max & Mean & Std & Time(min) & Min & Max & Mean & Std & Time(min) & Min & Max & Mean & Std & Time(min) \\ \hline
4 & 0.7869 & 0.7869 & 0.7869 & 0.0000 & 0.2737 & 0.7869 & 0.7869 & 0.7869 & 0.0000 & 0.0231 & 0.7869 & 0.7869 & 0.7869 & 0.0000 & 0.0569 \\ \hline
5 & 0.7718 & 0.7718 & 0.7718 & 0.0000 & 0.0520 & 0.7718 & 0.7718 & 0.7718 & 0.0000 & 0.0481 & 0.7603 & 0.7718 & 0.7706 & 0.0034 & 0.1408 \\ \hline
6 & 0.8170 & 0.8170 & 0.8170 & 0.0000 & 0.4752 & 0.817 & 0.817 & 0.817 & 0.0000 & 0.4573 & 0.7628 & 0.8170 & 0.7953 & 0.0265 & 0.4666 \\ \hline
7 & 0.7989 & 0.7989 & 0.7989 & 0.0000 & 0.0645 & 0.7989 & 0.7989 & 0.7989 & 0.0000 & 0.2841 & 0.7567 & 0.7989 & 0.7937 & 0.0126 & 1.0380 \\ \hline
8 & 0.7869 & 0.7869 & 0.7869 & 0.0000 & 0.1903 & 0.7869 & 0.7869 & 0.7869 & 0.0000 & 0.5710 & 0.7869 & 0.7869 & 0.7869 & 0.0000 & 0.8126 \\ \hline
9 & 0.8170 & 0.8170 & 0.8170 & 0.0000 & 0.5219 & 0.8170 & 0.8170 & 0.8170 & 0.0000 & 2.3043 & 0.7782 & 0.8170 & 0.7899 & 0.0177 & 2.1777 \\ \hline
10 & 0.8041 & 0.8041 & 0.8041 & 0.0000 & 0.8174 & 0.7975 & 0.8041 & 0.8034 & 0.0020 & 1.8199 & 0.7718 & 0.8041 & 0.7976 & 0.0129 & 2.1903 \\ \hline
11 & 0.7368 & 0.8102 & 0.7874 & 0.0283 & 0.8174 & 0.7887 & 0.7944 & 0.7938 & 0.0017 & 1.7007 & 0.7771 & 0.7944 & 0.7909 & 0.0052 & 2.3302 \\ \hline
12 & 0.8170 & 0.8170 & 0.8170 & 0.0000 & 0.2446 & 0.7818 & 0.8170 & 0.8045 & 0.0135 & 3.1743 & 0.7628 & 0.8170 & 0.7929 & 0.0161 & 4.0658 \\ \hline
13 & 0.8070 & 0.8070 & 0.8070 & 0.0000 & 1.0464 & 0.7715 & 0.8069 & 0.7973 & 0.0104 & 3.8402 & 0.7762 & 0.8070 & 0.7977 & 0.0131 & 4.2793 \\ \hline
14 & 0.8116 & 0.8119 & 0.8118 & 0.0001 & 2.1852 & 0.7677 & 0.7989 & 0.7861 & 0.0127 & 3.3968 & 0.7675 & 0.7989 & 0.7848 & 0.0119 & 5.2505 \\ \hline
15 & 0.8170 & 0.8170 & 0.8170 & 0.0000 & 0.9704 & 0.7590 & 0.7923 & 0.7811 & 0.0099 & 4.3592 & 0.7680 & 0.8075 & 0.7875 & 0.0115 & 7.7129 \\ \hline
16 & 0.8088 & 0.8088 & 0.8088 & 0.0000 & 1.0624 & 0.7576 & 0.7869 & 0.7757 & 0.0092 & 4.8812 & 0.7714 & 0.7868 & 0.7815 & 0.0049 & 9.3008 \\ \hline
\end{tabular
}
\end{table*}
Furthermore, we compare the results of the proposed HMAO algorithm with GA and NSGA-II in Fig. \ref{Comparisons of different algorithms}, including resource and bandwidth utilization, optimal solution and average convergence time. Fig. \ref{Resource utilization} shows the resource utilization for different tasks, the results obtained by the proposed HMAO algorithm are equal to GA for $L=4,6,8,10$, NSGA-II for $L=4,8$, and better than GA and NSGA-II for the other cases. The solution with a lower resource utilization implies that there are more service nodes to be used to deploy the requested tasks. The results of bandwidth utilization are described in Fig. \ref{Bandwidth utilization}. We can observe that the performance of the proposed HMAO algorithm is better than or equal to GA and NSGA-II for $L=4,6,8,10$. For $L=12,14,16$, it is due to the fact that the number of service nodes for the proposed HMAO algorithm is less than that of the other two baseline algorithms. Fig. \ref{Optimal solution} illustrates the results of optimal solutions, the performance for the proposed HMAO algorithm, GA and NSGA-II is approximately equivalent with a lower number of tasks, and the proposed HMAO algorithm performs better than GA and NSGA-II as the number of tasks increases. The average convergence time of three algorithms can be observed from Fig. \ref{Convergence time}, the time taken to converge by the proposed HMAO algorithm is worse than that of GA and NSGA-II as the number of tasks is small, but the proposed HMAO algorithm outperforms GA and NSGA-II as the number of tasks increases.\par
\subsection{Evaluate HMAO in On-line Resource Allocation}\label{Performance Analysis of the HMAO in On-line Resource Allocation}
To further investigate the performance of the proposed HMAO algorithm in on-line resource allocation, we implement the resource allocation model in a dynamic environment and design several experiments of dynamically allocating the available resources to the requested tasks with the parameters given in Table \ref{Parameter setting for HMAO, GA and NSGA-II}. We assume that there are new requested tasks are appearing and old requested tasks are ending in each time slot, whose numbers are randomly produced from $L_i = \left \{ 4*i+1,\dots, 4*i+9 \right \}, i=0,1,\dots,10$. Each case also runs 10 times with time slots from 0 to 30 and the average results of optimal solutions are obtained by the proposed HMAO algorithm. Moreover, we compare the proposed HMAO algorithm with a first-fit greedy approach \cite{Espling2016modeling} in terms of resource utilization, bandwidth utilization and optimal solution. The simulation results for the case $L_0$ can be observed from Fig. \ref{Performance of the HMAO in dynamical environment}, where we provide the performance of optimal solutions for all cases $L_0 \sim L_{10}$ by the proposed HMAO algorithm and the greedy approach in Fig. \ref{Optimal solution with all cases in dynamical environment}.\par
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\subfigure[Resource utilization with $L_0$]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{Fig/14-a.eps}
\label{Resource utilization in dynamical environment}}
\subfigure[Bandwidth utilization with $L_0$]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{Fig/14-b.eps}
\label{Bandwidth utilization in dynamical environment}}
\subfigure[Optimal solution with $L_0$]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{Fig/14-c.eps}
\label{Optimal solution in dynamical environment}}
\subfigure[Optimal solutions with $L_{0\sim 10}$]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{Fig/14-d.eps}
\label{Optimal solution with all cases in dynamical environment}}
\caption{Performance comparisons for HMAO and Greedy.}
\label{Performance of the HMAO in dynamical environment}
\end{figure}
Fig. \ref{Resource utilization in dynamical environment} shows the computing resource utilization for $L_0$. It can be observed that the number of computing resources are comparatively close between the proposed HMAO algorithm and the greedy approach in each time slot. The results of bandwidth utilization for $L_0$ are illustrated in Fig. \ref{Bandwidth utilization in dynamical environment}, where we can observe that the bandwidth utilization values obtained by the proposed HMAO algorithm are better than that of the greedy approach for all time slots, and there is average $19.00\%$ performance improvement. This is because that the adjacent sub-tasks of a task can be migrated and swapped to the same service node by the proposed HMAO algorithm as far as possible in order to reduce the bandwidth resources used by the requested tasks. Fig. \ref{Optimal solution in dynamical environment} describes the objective results of optimal solution for $L_0$, where we can observe that the proposed HMAO algorithm performs better than the greedy approach and the performance of the proposed HMAO algorithm shows an average increase of $2.31\%$ when compared with the greedy approach. To better analyze the performance of the proposed HMAO algorithm for processing the different number of the requested tasks in a time slot, we provide the average results of optimal solutions for $L_0 \sim L_{10}$ in Fig. \ref{Optimal solution with all cases in dynamical environment}. It is obvious that the proposed HMAO algorithm outperforms the greedy approach for $L_0 \sim L_{10}$, and the average performance improvement of the proposed HMAO algorithm is nearly $2.81\%$. From Fig. \ref{Performance of the HMAO in dynamical environment}, we can observe that the proposed HMAO algorithm is better than the first-fit greedy approach in dynamical resource allocation.
\section{Conclusion}\label{Conclusion}
This paper studies the problem of resource allocation in cloud computing systems. Our aim is to maximize the resource utilization based on CPU, memory and GPU, and minimize the bandwidth cost. To address the problem, we propose the HMAO algorithm which combines the improved GA and the MAO algorithm, where the improved GA is to find an optimal resource utilization solution and the MAO algorithm is to minimize the bandwidth cost. For the MAO algorithm, we use a priority-based selection mechanism to obtain the candidate source sub-tasks, and design the selection and exchange operators by a probabilistic method to migrate and swap the sub-tasks on several service agents. The proposed HMAO algorithm can obtain the objective optimal result by cooperative co-evolutionary method.\par
Finally, we verify and evaluate the performance of the proposed HMAO algorithm via simulation experiments. When compared with GA and NSGA-II, we can observe that the proposed HMAO algorithm outperforms them in terms of solution quality, convergence time and robustness as the number of tasks increases. For $L=14$, the proposed HMAO algorithm improves performance by $3.38\%$ for GA and $3.44\%$ for NSGA-II, and reduces the average convergence time by $19.34\%$ for GA and $58.38\%$ for NSGA-II. Furthermore, we compare the performance of the proposed HMAO algorithm with the first-fit greedy approach in on-line resource allocation. We can observe that the performance of the proposed HMAO algorithm increases approximately by $2.81\%$. \par
\ifCLASSOPTIONcaptionsoff
\newpage
\fi
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
\section{Introduction}\label{Introduction}}
\IEEEPARstart{F}{or} some electronic devices, which are composed of dedicated hardware equipments, i.e., field programmable gate array (FPGA), digital signal processor (DSP) and integrated circuit (IC), the compatibilities for different requested tasks are difficult to guarantee and the systems will be more complicated with the increase in the number of the requested tasks. The software defined network (SDN) and virtualization technology are the foundations of the cloud computing, and provide a promising and flexible approach to facilitate resource allocation \cite{kim2013improving,sezer2013we,erdogmus2009cloud}. Cloud service providers can allocate the available resources related to service nodes to the requested tasks depending on demand and supply. When a task consists of multiple sub-tasks, these sub-tasks could be deployed on several service nodes and form a service chain, which is a data flow through the service nodes in sequence and can be presented as a directed acyclic graph (DAG) \cite{moens2014vnf}. Each sub-task needs the physical resources for central processing unit (CPU), memory, or graphic processing unit (GPU). Besides, there are bandwidth costs to transfer data on different service nodes. For example, in case of data transmission, it includes five sub-tasks and the service chain about these sub-tasks can be represented as: network receiving $\rightarrow$ capture $\rightarrow$ tracking $\rightarrow$ synchronization $\rightarrow$ decoding, where each functional module is achieved by software programming and can run on a commonly used computer system. The complexity and development cost of a system can be effectively reduced by cloud computing, and the flexibility and scalability can also be improved. However, a new challenge in cloud computing is how to effectively allocate the available resources related to service nodes to the requested tasks, which leads to a combinatorial optimization problem \cite{kazmi2017hierarchical,zheng2017hybrid}.\par
\subsection{Literature Review}\label{Literature Review}
The optimization problems for resource allocation in cloud computing have been widely studied \cite{rankothge2017optimizing,qu2016delay,tseng2017dynamic,tan2017nsga,khebbache2018multi}, which are proved to be NP-hard and the complexities are analyzed in \cite{sun2016forecast,amaldi2016computational,addis2018complexity}. Meta-heuristic algorithms are effective optimization approaches for solving these resource allocation problems. Several variants of genetic algorithm (GA) are developed to improve the performance of the resource allocation solution in \cite{rankothge2017optimizing,qu2016delay,tseng2017dynamic} and the fast elitist non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm (NSGA-II), which is described in detail in \cite{deb2002fast}, is also used to tackle this problem \cite{tan2017nsga,khebbache2018multi}. Two modified particle swarm optimizations (MPSO) are proposed to reallocate the migrated virtual machines and achieve the resource management based on a flexible cost in \cite{dashti2016dynamic} and \cite{mani2017flexible}, respectively. Moreover, an ant colony optimization (ACO) for dealing with the nonlinear resource allocation problem is presented in \cite{yin2006ant}. To enhance the efficiency in terms of seeking the optimal solution, the authors in \cite{muthulakshmi2017hybrid} introduce a hybrid optimization algorithm of simulated annealing and artificial bee colony (ABC-SA).\par
However, as the scale of the optimization problem grows, a large feasible solution space needs to be searched and the computational complexity order of seeking the optimal solution increases. Hence, the performance of solving the problem could be reduced by using meta-heuristic algorithms \cite{omidvar2015designing,liu2001scaling}. To further solve this issue, some optimization algorithms based on decomposition and cooperative co-evolutionary method are introduced, where a large-scale problem is divided into several small-scale problems and global optimal solution can be obtained by addressing these sub-problems with cooperative co-evolutionary method \cite{wu2019new,ren2018boosting}. Reference \cite{yang2017Efficient} proposes a new cooperative co-evolution framework (CCFR), which can efficiently allocate computational resources based on the contributions of different sub-populations, to address a large-scale optimization problem.\par
Compared with centralized optimization methods, distributed optimization algorithms based on multi-agent systems (MAS) \cite{stone2000multiagent} have an explicit potential advantage for solving the task deployment and resource allocation in cloud computing \cite{kaihara2003multi,de2012multiagent,wang2016multiagent}. In \cite{kaihara2003multi}, the product allocation problem for supply chain market is considered as a discrete resource allocation and solved by a multi-agent based distributed optimization algorithm. In addition, an efficient greedy algorithm with multi-agent is proposed to address the task allocation problem in social networks \cite{de2012multiagent}, where the agents just require their local information about tasks and resources, and provide the resources for the tasks by an auction mechanism. Another auction-based virtual machine resource allocation approach with the multi-agent system is presented to save energy cost, and the virtual machines assigned on different agents can be exchanged by a local negotiation-based approach in \cite{wang2016multiagent}.\par
\subsection{Contributions}\label{Contributions}
In this paper, we assume that the information about the requested tasks and service nodes is given in advance, e.g., task types, the number of tasks, resource requirements for each sub-task and resource capacity values of service nodes. Furthermore, we formulate the problem of resource allocation to maximize the resource utilization and minimize the bandwidth cost under resource constraints. The resource utilization is defined as the ratio of the number of resources used by all the requested tasks to the total number of resources of the service nodes that are used to deploy the requested tasks. In order to address the optimization problem, we propose a hierarchical multi-agent optimization (HMAO) algorithm which is a combination of improved GA and multi-agent optimization (MAO) algorithm.\par
Firstly, we decompose the main objective of maximizing the resource utilization and minimizing the bandwidth cost into two sub-objectives: maximizing the resource utilization and minimizing the bandwidth cost \cite{yang2017Efficient}. The two sub-objective optimization problems are in conflict with each other and we assume that the former is considered with a higher priority. The improved GA is used to seek the optimal solution in order to maximize the resource utilization and the optimal solution can be expressed as a set of service nodes that are used to deploy the requested tasks. For the MAO algorithm, there are two types of agents: service agent and shared agent. Service agents are assigned to each service node to assist in resource management. A shared agent holds the information about resource allocation for all the service nodes and supports the service agents in \textit{access} and \textit{update} processes. The agents have environment-aware, autonomy, social behavior and load-balancing properties\cite{zheng2015multi}. The service agents visit the shared agent to obtain the information about resource allocation for all the service agents, and they can migrate and swap their sub-tasks with each other by selection and exchange operators that are designed based on a probabilistic approach. In addition, a priority-based source sub-task selection mechanism for the selection operator is implemented by considering load-balancing on the service nodes and the relationships between different sub-tasks. As a result, a global optimal solution will be obtained by seeking the optimal solutions of the service agents with cooperative co-evolutionary method \cite{ren2018boosting}. The proposed HMAO algorithm provides the following contributions.\par
\begin{enumerate}
\item Considering to solve the joint problem of optimizing the resource utilization and bandwidth cost as an entire problem, it will increase the computational complexity of the optimization problem and weaken the performance of seeking the optimal solution, especially, for the high-dimensional problems. In this paper, we decompose the total optimization problem into two sub-problems. Correspondingly, a hierarchical multi-agent optimization algorithm, which combines an improved GA with MAO algorithm, is presented for solving the two optimization sub-problems. So that we can effectively reduce the computational complexity of the overall optimization problem.
\item The set of available service nodes, which represents the optimal solution of maximizing the resource utilization, can be obtained by the improved GA. Then the MAO algorithm is proposed to solve the sub-problem of minimizing the bandwidth cost. We consider four main characteristics for the agents: environment-aware, autonomy, social behavior and load-balancing. Furthermore, we design the action sets and behavior criteria for service agents and a shared agent, the relationships between different agents are illustrated based on an organized architecture. To migrate and swap those sub-tasks on the service nodes, we implement two operators of selection and exchange, where the selection operator consists of a source sub-task selection and a target sub-task selection. Considering load-balancing on the service nodes and the relationships between different sub-tasks, the source sub-task is provided by a priority-based selection mechanism. For the MAO algorithm, a feasible solution is partitioned into several small-scale solutions and each service agent indicates one part. We can find the global optimal solution by optimizing the objectives of the service agents with cooperative co-evolutionary method.
\item To keep diversity in feasible solutions and avoid premature convergence, the selection and exchange operators for the MAO algorithm are implemented based on a probabilistic method. For the former, we can randomly choose a sub-task from the service nodes as the target sub-task through the selection probability. Similarly, if the objective result for a service agent does not improve after the exchange, it can also continue to be executed with the use of exchange probability. By introducing a probabilistic method to the selection and exchange operators, we can further improve the performance of the proposed HMAO algorithm.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.36\textwidth]{Fig/1.eps}
\caption{Procedure for resource allocation.}
\label{Procedure for resource allocation}
\end{figure}
Finally, several experiments for different tasks are carried out to verify the performance of the proposed HMAO algorithm. The results show that the proposed HMAO algorithm is an effective approach to solve the optimization problem of resource allocation. When compared with GA and NSGA-II, the proposed HMAO algorithm performs better for high-dimensional problems in terms of solution quality, convergence time and stability.\par
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section \ref{System Model} introduces the system model of resource allocation. In Section \ref{Problem Formulation}, we provide the problem formulation for the system model. A hierarchical multi-agent optimization algorithm is proposed in Section \ref{Hierarchical Multi-agent Optimization}. Section \ref{Performance Evaluation} investigates the effect of key parameters for the proposed HMAO algorithm and evaluates the performance comparison with existing optimization algorithms. The conclusion of this paper is discussed in Section \ref{Conclusion}.\par
\section{System Model}\label{System Model}
A cloud computing system can be modeled as a graph $G = <V,E>$, where $V=\left \{v_0,v_1,\dots,v_{K-1} \right \}$ represents a set of service nodes with $K$ service nodes, $v_i$ is the $i$-th service node. $E$ describes a set of links between these service nodes and $<v_i,v_j>\in E$ indicates the link between service nodes $v_i$ and $v_j$. Service node $v_i$ contains four resources: CPU, memory, GPU and bandwidth, whose capacities are denoted as $C^i,M^i,G^i$ and $B^i$, respectively. We also assume that any two service nodes can communicate with each other through inter-connected networks, i.e., $\forall <v_i,v_j>\in E$. Let $T=\left \{t_0,t_1,\dots,t_{L-1} \right \}$ be a set of tasks with $L$ total number of tasks and $t_l$ denotes the $l$-th task. $t_l$ consists of $N_l$ sub-tasks and is expressed as $t_l=\left \{ t_{l,0},t_{l,1},\dots,t_{l,N_l-1} \right \}$, which is an ordered list and there is a precedence relationship between different sub-tasks. That is, $t_{l,n}$ can not be carried out until all its predecessors are finished. The resource requirements of CPU, memory, GPU and bandwidth for $t_{l,n}$ running on $v_i$ are described as $c_{l,n}^i,m_{l,n}^i,g_{l,n}^i,b_{l,n}^i$, respectively. In cloud computing, an effective resource allocation approach is used to allocate the available resources of service nodes to the requested tasks. Note that the total number of resources on any service node can not be more than its capacities, and the bandwidth cost will be considered when two adjacent sub-tasks are placed on different service nodes. Moreover, we can deploy as many sub-tasks as possible to a service node in order to improve the resource utilization \cite{rankothge2017optimizing,sun2016forecast,khebbache2018multi}.\par
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{Fig/2-a.eps}
\label{Example of resource allocation with different schemes-a}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{Fig/2-b.eps}
\label{Example of resource allocation with different schemes-b}}
\caption{Example of resource allocation with different schemes.}
\label{Example of resource allocation with different schemes}
\end{figure}
The procedure for resource allocation in our system model is shown in Fig.~\ref{Procedure for resource allocation}, where the information about the requested tasks and service nodes is obtained in advance, all sub-tasks from the requested tasks are deployed to multiple service nodes simultaneously, and the neighbouring sub-tasks can be located on the same service node or different ones. Therefore, different resource allocation schemes have an impact on the system performance \cite{sun2016forecast}.\par
Fig.~\ref{Example of resource allocation with different schemes} presents an example of resource allocation with different schemes. There are five service nodes with communication links in the network, two tasks are given as $t_0=\left \{ t_{0,0},t_{0,1},t_{0,2},t_{0,3},t_{0,4}\right \}$ and $t_1=\left \{ t_{1,0},t_{1,1},t_{1,2},t_{1,3}\right \}$. In Fig.~\ref{Example of resource allocation with different schemes-a}, for task $t_{0}$, sub-tasks $t_{0,0},t_{0,1}$ are deployed on service node $v_0$, sub-tasks $t_{0,2},t_{0,3}$ and $t_{0,4}$ are on service nodes $v_1,v_3$ and $v_4$, respectively. A service chain for $t_0$ is built on the service nodes $v_0,v_1,v_3$ and $v_4$ in order, and there is no bandwidth cost between sub-tasks $t_{0,0}$ and $t_{0,1}$ as they are on the same service node. Hence, the bandwidth cost for $t_0$ is $b_{0,0}^0+b_{0,2}^1+b_{0,3}^3+b_{0,4}^4$. For task $t_1$, sub-tasks $t_{1,0}$ and $t_{1,1}$ are allocated on service node $v_2$, and sub-tasks $t_{1,2}$ and $t_{1,3}$ are on service nodes $v_3$ and $v_4$, respectively. The bandwidth cost for $t_1$ is indicated as $b_{1,0}^2+b_{1,2}^3+b_{1,3}^4$. Different resource allocation schemes for tasks $t_0$ and $t_1$ are described in Fig.~\ref{Example of resource allocation with different schemes-b}. sub-tasks $t_{0,0},t_{0,1}$ and $t_{0,2}$ are assigned on service node $v_0$, and sub-tasks $t_{0,3}$ and $t_{0,4}$ are on service nodes $v_1$ and $v_4$, respectively, and the bandwidth cost for $t_0$ is $b_{0,0}^0+b_{0,3}^1+b_{0,4}^4$. Similarly, the bandwidth cost for $t_1$ is $b_{1,0}^2+b_{1,1}^3+b_{1,3}^4$. As shown in Fig.~\ref{Example of resource allocation with different schemes}, the bandwidth costs vary for different resource allocation schemes.
\section{Problem Formulation}\label{Problem Formulation}
\begin{table}[htbp]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\caption{List of Symbols}
\label{List of Symbols}
\centering
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{l|l
\hline
\bfseries Symbol & \bfseries Definition\\
\hline\hline
$V$ & Set of service nodes in cloud computing.\\
$E$ & Set of network links in cloud computing.\\
$K$ & Maximum number of service nodes.\\
$V_a$ & Set of service nodes deployed tasks.\\
$K_a$ & Number of service nodes deployed tasks.\\
$T$ & Set of tasks.\\
$L$ & Number of tasks.\\
$N_l$ & Number of sub-tasks for the $l$-th task.\\
$t_l$ & Set of sub-tasks for the $l$-th task.\\
$t_{l,n}$ & The $n$-th sub-task for the $l$-th task.\\
$v_i$ & The $i$-th service node. \\
$C^i$ & Resource capacity for CPU on $v_i$.\\
$M^i$ & Resource capacity for Memory on $v_i$.\\
$G^i$ & Resource capacity for GPU on $v_i$.\\
$B^i$ & Resource capacity for Bandwidth on $v_i$.\\
$c_{l,n}^i$ & Resource requirement of $t_{l,n}$ for CPU on $v_i$.\\
$m_{l,n}^i$ & Resource requirement of $t_{l,n}$ for Memory on $v_i$.\\
$g_{l,n}^i$ & Resource requirement of $t_{l,n}$ for GPU on $v_i$.\\
$b_{l,n}^i$ & Resource requirement of $t_{l,n}$ for Bandwidth on $v_i$.\\
$x_{l,n}^i$ & Indicate whether $t_{l,n}$ is assigned on $v_i$. \\
$y_{l,n,\hat{n}}^{i,j}$ & Indicate whether a bandwidth cost is available for $t_{l,n},t_{l,\hat{n}}$. \\
$\tilde{b}_{l,n}^{i}$ & Bandwidth cost for running $t_{l,n}$.\\
$U_{l,n}^{s}$ & Set of successors of $t_{l,n}$.\\
$U_{l,n}^{p}$ & Set of predecessors of $t_{l,n}$.\\
$Z_{1}$ & Objective function of resource utilization.\\
$Z_{2}$ & Objective function of bandwidth cost.\\
$Z$ & Total objective function.\\
$\alpha,\beta$ & Weight values.\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table}
In this section, a mathematical description of resource allocation is presented for our system model. Our purpose is to maximize the resource utilization and minimize the bandwidth cost in cloud computing with several physical constraints. Moreover, we do not consider the network resource constraints in this paper, such as routers and switches. The main symbols used to formulate our problem are summarized in Table~\ref{List of Symbols}.\par
To further discuss the problem, we define a binary decision variable $x_{l,n}^i$ that indicates whether sub-task $t_{l,n}$ is deployed on service node $v_i$, i.e., $x_{l,n}^i = 1$ means $t_{l,n}$ is allocated on $v_i$, otherwise not. In addition, another binary decision variable $y_{l,n,\hat{n}}^{i,j}$ is used to describe whether there is a bandwidth cost between sub-tasks $t_{l,n}$ and $t_{l,\hat{n}}$. Let us denote a set of predecessors of $t_{l,n}$ as $U_{l,n}^{p}$ and a set of successors of $t_{l,\hat{n}}$ as $U_{l,\hat{n}}^{s}$. We assume that $t_{l,n}$ and $t_{l,\hat{n}}$ are placed on $v_i$ and $v_j$, respectively. When $U_{l,n}^{p} \neq \varnothing, t_{l,\hat{n}} \in U_{l,n}^{p}$, then $y_{l,n,\hat{n}}^{i,j} = 1$, or else $y_{l,n,\hat{n}}^{i,j} = 0$. Note that the bandwidth cost between a sub-task and the source node is not neglected. The bandwidth cost for $t_{l,n}$ can be written as:
\begin{equation} \label{equation1}
\tilde{b}_{l,n}^{i} =\begin{cases}
b_{l,n}^{i}, & \text{if } U_{l,n}^{p}=\varnothing \quad \text{or} \quad y_{l,n,\hat{n}}^{i,j} = 1, \\
0, & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}\par
With the physical resource constraints \cite{tseng2017dynamic}, the number of resources used by the requested tasks on a service node should be less than the resource capacities. As a result, the resource constraints about CPU, memory and GPU are given as follows:
\begin{equation} \label{equation2}
\begin{cases}
\sum\limits_{l=0}^{L-1}\sum\limits_{n=0}^{N_l-1}c_{l,n}^{i}x_{l,n}^{i} \leq C^{i},\\
\sum\limits_{l=0}^{L-1}\sum\limits_{n=0}^{N_l-1}m_{l,n}^{i}x_{l,n}^{i} \leq M^{i},\\
\sum\limits_{l=0}^{L-1}\sum\limits_{n=0}^{N_l-1}g_{l,n}^{i}x_{l,n}^{i} \leq G^{i}.\\
\end{cases}
\end{equation}\par
\noindent Similarly, as the amount of bandwidth used on a service node can not be more than the capacity, the bandwidth resource constraint is expressed as:
\begin{equation} \label{equation3}
\sum\limits_{l=0}^{L-1}\sum\limits_{n=0}^{N_l-1} \tilde{b}_{l,n}^{i}x_{l,n}^{i} \leq B^{i}.
\end{equation}\par
\noindent Furthermore, all the sub-tasks from the task set $T$ are deployed to the service nodes in $V$ and any sub-task can be allocated just only once. Thus, we can obtain the following:
\begin{equation} \label{equation4}
\sum\limits_{i=0}^{K-1}\sum\limits_{l=0}^{L-1}\sum\limits_{n=0}^{N_l-1}x_{l,n}^{i} = \sum\limits_{l=0}^{L-1}N_{l}.
\end{equation}\par
In this paper, one of our goals is to improve the resource utilization of cloud computing by reducing the number of service nodes used. For service node $v_i$, the resource utilization includes three parts: CPU utilization, memory utilization and GPU utilization, which are denoted by $\varphi_c^i,\varphi_m^i,\varphi_g^i$, respectively. They can be computed as follows:
\begin{equation} \label{equation5}
\begin{cases}
\varphi_c^i = \sum\limits_{l=0}^{L-1}\sum\limits_{n=0}^{N_l-1}c_{l,n}^{i}x_{l,n}^{i}/C^i,\\
\varphi_m^i = \sum\limits_{l=0}^{L-1}\sum\limits_{n=0}^{N_l-1}m_{l,n}^{i}x_{l,n}^{i}/M^i,\\
\varphi_g^i = \sum\limits_{l=0}^{L-1}\sum\limits_{n=0}^{N_l-1}g_{l,n}^{i}x_{l,n}^{i}/G^i.\\
\end{cases}
\end{equation}\par
According to the preferences of different resource types, we provide the weight values for CPU, memory and GPU as $\alpha _c,\alpha _m$ and $\alpha _g$, respectively. The resource utilization $Z_{1}$ for our system model is obtained by a linear weighted sum method as follows:
\begin{equation} \label{equation6}
Z_{1}(X) =\frac{1}{K_a}\sum\limits_{i=0}^{K_a-1}\left ( \alpha _c\varphi_c^i + \alpha _m\varphi_m^i + \alpha _g\varphi_g^i\right ),
\end{equation}\par
\noindent where $X=\left \{ x_{l,n}^{i},\forall v_i \in V,\forall t_{l,n} \in T \right \}$ is a feasible solution for allocating the available resources of service nodes to the requested tasks in cloud computing. The parameter $K_a$ $(K_a \leq K)$ denotes the number of service nodes that are used to deploy the requested tasks. In addition, $\alpha _c +\alpha _m + \alpha _g = 1$.\par
\noindent Another goal is to optimize the bandwidth cost by deploying the adjacent sub-tasks to the same service node. Let us denote the bandwidth cost as $Z_{2}$ which can be expressed as follows:
\begin{equation} \label{equation7}
Z_{2}(X) = \frac{1}{K_a}\sum\limits_{i=0}^{K_a-1}\sum\limits_{l=0}^{L-1}\sum\limits_{n=0}^{N_l-1} \tilde{b}_{l,n}^{i}x_{l,n}^{i}.
\end{equation}\par
Next, we need to simultaneously optimize these two objectives which are $Z_{1}(X)$ and $Z_{2}(X)$. Specifically, our purpose is to seek an optimal solution which maximizes the resource utilization $Z_{1}(X)$ and minimizes $Z_{2}(X)$. Thus the combined objective $Z(X)$ which involves maximizing $Z_{1}(X)$ and minimizing $Z_{2}(X)$ can be expressed as:
\begin{equation} \label{equation8}
\textrm{maximize} \quad Z(X) = \beta_{1}Z_{1}(X) + \beta_{2}(1-Z_{2}(X)),
\end{equation}\par
\noindent where $\beta_{1}$ and $\beta_{2}$ are the weight values for $Z_{1}(X)$ and $1-Z_{2}(X)$, respectively. The preferences of different objectives can be adjusted by varying $\beta_{1}$ and $\beta_{2}$, and we consider $\beta_{1} + \beta_{2} = 1$. However, this optimization problem is regarded as NP-hard problem, which means a high computational complexity order for finding an optimal solution. Meta-heuristic optimization algorithms are effective approaches to solve the combinatorial optimization problem, but the performance of solution quality and convergence time will degrade with the increase in the scale of the problem. Distributed optimization algorithms, which are based on decomposition and multi-agent systems, can improve the optimization solution effectively.\par
In the next section, we propose the HMAO algorithm, which is an optimization approach using hierarchical multi-agent framework, to address the resource allocation problem in cloud computing.\par
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.36\textwidth]{Fig/3.eps}
\caption{Proposed hierarchical multi-agent framework.}
\label{Proposed hierarchical multi-agent framework}
\end{figure}
\section{Hierarchical Multi-agent Optimization}\label{Hierarchical Multi-agent Optimization}
In this paper, we address a joint optimization problem of maximizing the resource utilization in cloud computing systems and reducing the bandwidth cost. To reduce the computational complexity of the optimization problem, we decompose the total objective into two optimization sub-problems: maximizing $Z_{1}(X)$ and minimizing $Z_{2}(X)$, and these two optimization sub-problems will be solved, accordingly.\par
Firstly, an improved GA is introduced to find the optimal solution which maximizes $Z_{1}(X)$. All sub-tasks from $T$ make up an ordered list as an individual that represents a feasible solution. We use a roulette wheel selection approach \cite{razali2011genetic} to obtain those individuals with higher fitness values. Besides, two-point crossover and signal-point mutation are also used \cite{hartmann1998competitive}. A set $V_a$ of service nodes that are used to deploy the requested tasks can be provided as the optimal solution by the improved GA.\par
Then, a multi-agent optimization algorithm is proposed to solve the sub-problem of minimizing $Z_{2}(X)$. We use a shared agent to hold the information of resource allocation for the service nodes, and assign service agents to each service node for assisting in resource management. Different service agents can cooperate, coordinate and compete with each other to optimize their objectives with respect to the behavior criteria \cite{wang2016multiagent}. To keep the diversity of feasible solutions and avoid the occurrence of premature convergence, both selection and exchange operators are achieved by a probabilistic method. In addition, a feasible solution consists of all the sub-tasks from the available service agents and those sub-tasks on a service agent are considered as part of a feasible solution. We can optimize the objectives of the service agents with cooperative co-evolutionary method to obtain a global optimal solution \cite{ren2018boosting}.\par
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.36\textwidth]{Fig/4.eps}
\caption{Procedure for decoding an individual.}
\label{Procedure for decoding an individual}
\end{figure}
Fig.~\ref{Proposed hierarchical multi-agent framework} shows the proposed hierarchical multi-agent framework. The procedure for addressing the optimization problem is divided into two steps. In the first step, the improved GA is used to find the optimal solution which maximizes $Z_{1}(X)$, and each agent represents an individual. In the second step, the MAO algorithm is applied to seek the optimal solution which minimizes $Z_{2}(X)$.\par
\subsection{Improved GA}
For the sub-problem of optimizing the resource utilization, the objective is to maximize $Z_{1}(X)$ and the constraints need to be satisfied. The improved GA is introduced to solve this optimization problem.\par
In the improved GA, a population includes $P$ individuals, an individual $p \in P$ is encoded by a permutation representation \cite{hartmann1998competitive,kaur2012efficient} and consists of $\sum\limits_{l=0}^{L-1}N_l$ genes in order, where a gene represents a sub-task. During the process of decoding, all service nodes in $V$ are sorted in ascending order by index, and the service nodes with low index have high priority to be deployed with the requested tasks. Thus, a sub-task is deployed depending upon the priority of a service node until the resource requirements are satisfied. By the decoding method, the sub-tasks from an individual can be allocated to these service nodes in $V$ in sequence, and the result of resource allocation indicates a feasible solution.\par
Fig. \ref{Procedure for decoding an individual} illustrates the procedure for decoding an individual. There are two tasks: $t_0$ with 5 sub-tasks and $t_1$ with 4 sub-tasks, an individual is expressed as $p= \left \{ t_{0,0},t_{0,1},t_{0,2},t_{0,3},t_{0,4},t_{1,0},t_{1,1},t_{1,2},t_{1,3}\right \}$. Three service nodes are denoted as $v_0,v_1$ and $v_2$, respectively, and their resource capacities are limited. Firstly, it is seen that sub-tasks $t_{0,0}$ and $t_{0,1}$ are allocated to service node $v_0$, but the required resources for $v_0$ are more than the capacities after deploying $t_{0,2}$ to $v_0$. As a result, sub-task $t_{0,2}$ is moved to service node $v_1$. Due to the high priority of service nodes with low index, sub-task $t_{0,3}$ will be placed to service node $v_0$. Similarly, we deploy sub-tasks $t_{0,4}$ and $t_{1,0}$ to service node $v_1$, sub-tasks $t_{1,1},t_{1,2}$ and $t_{1,3}$ to service node $v_2$.\par
Three operators for selection, crossover and mutation are used as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Selection operator:} A roulette wheel selection \cite{razali2011genetic} is applied to obtain the individuals with high fitness values. All individuals are sorted in ascending order by their fitness values and the cumulative probability distribution function (CDF) is computed accordingly. Then we choose the candidates through the concept of the survival of the fittest,which means an individual with high fitness is more likely to be chosen.\par
\item \emph{Crossover operator:} Two-point crossover \cite{hartmann1998competitive} is used as the crossover operator and executed with crossover probability $p_c$. We randomly select two gene points for two individuals (one each from the mother and father) in the field $\left \{1, \sum\limits_{l=0}^{L-1}N_l-2 \right \}$ to mate with each other, each offspring inherits some of the genes from their parents, respectively. An example of two-point crossover is described in Fig. \ref{Example of two-point crossover operator}. Two individuals $p_0= \left \{ t_{0,3},t_{0,1},t_{0,4},t_{1,0},t_{0,0},t_{1,1},t_{0,2},t_{1,2},t_{1,3} \right \},p_1= \left \{ t_{0,0},t_{0,4},t_{1,3},t_{0,1},t_{1,2},t_{1,0},t_{0,3},t_{1,1},t_{0,2} \right \}$ are given as the parents, and two gene points are randomly generated, such as $3$ and $6$. Firstly, an offspring inherits $t_{0,3},t_{0,1}$ and $t_{0,4}$ from $parent0$ as the genes of itself. Then $3$ genes ($point 1 -point 0 =3$) from $parent1$ need to be searched from low to high, and they can not be the same as that of the offspring. Therefore, genes $t_{0,0},t_{1,3}$ and $t_{1,2}$ from $parent1$ are inherited as the genes of the offspring. In the same way, the offspring can inherit genes $t_{1,0},t_{1,1}$ and $t_{0,2}$ from $parent0$. Thus the offspring is indicated as $\left \{ t_{0,3},t_{0,1},t_{0,4},t_{0,0},t_{1,3},t_{1,2},t_{1,0},t_{1,1},t_{0,2}\right \}$. Similarly, $\left \{ t_{0,0},t_{0,4},t_{1,3},t_{0,3},t_{0,1},t_{1,0},t_{1,2},t_{1,1},t_{0,2} \right \}$ can represent another offspring.\par
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.36\textwidth]{Fig/5.eps}
\caption{Example of two-point crossover operator.}
\label{Example of two-point crossover operator}
\end{figure}
\item \emph{Mutation operator:} Mutation operator \cite{hartmann1998competitive} is carried out with mutation probability $p_m$, where we randomly choose two gene points from an individual and exchange their genes to gemerate a new individual.\par
\end{itemize}
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Improved GA.}
\label{Improved GA}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE \textbf{Initialize:} Population $P$, individual $p \in P$, crossover probability $p_c$, mutation probability $p_m$, maximum number of iterations $Iter_{max}$;
\FOR {$Iter = 0$ to $Iter_{max}$}
\STATE Compute the fitness for all individuals $P$;
\STATE Obtain the CDF based on the fitness values;
\STATE Run selection operator to get $P$ candidates;
\FOR{$i = 0$ to $\frac{length(P)}{2}$}
\STATE Randomly choose two individuals;
\STATE Generate a random number $p_r$;
\IF{$p_r \leq p_c$}
\STATE Run two-point crossover operator;
\ENDIF
\ENDFOR
\STATE Produce offspring population;
\FOR{$i = 0$ to $length(P)$}
\STATE Randomly choose an individual;
\STATE Generate a random number $p_r$;
\IF{$p_r \leq p_m$}
\STATE Run mutation operator;
\ENDIF
\ENDFOR
\STATE Update population $P$;
\ENDFOR
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
The improved GA is described in Algorithm \ref{Improved GA}. Let us denote the maximum number of iterations as $Iter_{max}$. At the beginning, the initial population $P$ is randomly produced, we compute the fitness of the objective function for those individuals from population $P$ and obtain the CDF. Then the population of offsprings can be obtained by running selection, crossover and mutation operators, respectively. The optimal solution of maximizing $Z_{1}(X)$ will be given in iterative evolution. The termination criterion is met when the number of iterations is greater than $Iter_{max}$.\par
According to the improved GA, we obtain an optimal solution which maximizes the resource utilization, where the optimal solution indicates a set $V_a$ of service nodes that are used to deploy the requested tasks and contains $K_a$ service nodes. However, the bandwidth cost and load-balancing are not considered for this sub-problem. The following section \ref{Multi-agent Optimization} will discuss the sub-problem of minimizing the bandwidth cost and load-balancing based on a set $V_a$ of service nodes.\par
\subsection{Multi-agent Optimization}\label{Multi-agent Optimization}
For set $V_a$ of service nodes, we propose a multi-agent optimization approach to address the optimization sub-problem of minimizing $Z_{2}(X)$ with the constraints. For the MAO, the agents have four characteristics: environment-aware, autonomy, social behavior and load-balancing \cite{zheng2015multi}, which are described in detail as follows:\par
\begin{enumerate}
\item \emph{Environment-aware:} The environment in the MAO algorithm consists of all the agents and their relationships, where the agents are designed as a shared agent and $K_a$ service agents in advance, and we use an organized architecture to illustrate their relationships. A service agent can obtain the information about resource allocation by accessing the shared agent, and interact with other service agents to better adapt to the current environment condition, that is, to achieve a higher fitness value. A shared agent provides access services for the service agents in order to help with resource management.\par
\item \emph{Autonomy:} When the environment conditions are changed, an agent can autonomously make a decision for the next actions to adjust its fitness value by a set of actions and the behavior criteria. For a service agent, its action set includes four parts: access, selection, exchange and update. Firstly, it obtains the information about resource allocation by accessing the shared agent. Then selection and exchange operators, which are described later in this section, can be executed, respectively. The results of interaction on service agents will be updated on the shared agent. In addition, the action set of a shared agent can provide three services which are storing, accessing and updating the information.\par
\item \emph{Social behavior:} According to social behavior, the agents share the information about resource allocation, and the sub-tasks deployed on different service agents can be exchanged with each other. There are two kinds of social behavior which are between shared agent and service agents, and service agents with each other. For the former, the agents can share the information about resource allocation with all the service agents. For the latter, the aim is to exchange those sub-tasks that are deployed on different service agents to improve their objectives.\par
\item \emph{Load-balancing:} Load-balancing is an important issue to ensure that the service nodes are being used sufficiently. Therefore, considering load-balancing, a service agent runs the exchange operator by cooperating, coordinating and competing with other service agents.\par
\end{enumerate}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.36\textwidth]{Fig/6.eps}
\caption{Architecture for multi-agent optimization.}
\label{Architecture for multi-agent optimization}
\end{figure}
In order to better describe the MAO algorithm, some important specifications are given as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Shared agent:} Shared agent, which is denoted by $a_s$, holds the information about task deployment and resource allocation for all service agents, it can support the service agents to access and update the information in real-time.
\item \emph{Service agent:} Service agents are assigned to the service nodes in $V_a$ to assist in resource management, where they can access and update the information about resource allocation on the shared agent. Moreover, the sub-tasks deployed on different service agents can be migrated and swapped with each other by selection and exchange operators. The service agent assigned to $v_i$ is indicated as $a_i$ and all the service agents make up a set $A_a$ of the service agents.
\item \emph{Adjacent agent:} We assume that $\forall t_{l,n} \in a_i$, $\exists t_{l,\hat{n}} \in a_j, i\neq j$, where $t_{l,\hat{n}} \in U_{l,n}^{p} \cup U_{l,n}^{s}$, then $a_i,a_j$ are seen as adjacent agents.
\item \emph{Active sub-task:} For a sub-task $\forall t_{l,n} \in a_i$, its adjacent sub-tasks are migrated and swapped to $a_i$ to improve the bandwidth cost by selection and exchange operators. Sub-task $t_{l,n}$ is defined as an active sub-task.
\item \emph{Host service agent:} If an active sub-task $t_{l,n} \in a_i$, the service agent $a_i$ is considered as the host service agent.
\item \emph{Feasible solution:} All sub-tasks placed on service agent $a_i$ are indicated as $\Lambda_i$, where $\Lambda_i$ is considered as part of a feasible solution. Therefore, a feasible solution can be expressed as $X = \bigcup\limits_{i=0}^{K_a-1} \Lambda_i$.
\item \emph{Objective function:} A feasible solution is decomposed into $K_a$ parts, thus the objective can be re-written as: $Z_{2}(X) = \frac{1}{K_a}\sum\limits_{i=0}^{K_a-1}Z_{2}(\Lambda_i)$.
\end{itemize}
In the MAO algorithm, there is a shared agent $a_s$ and $K_a$ service agents, the agents can communicate with each other by network links, such as $a_s$ and $a_i$, and $a_i$ and $a_j, i \neq j$. The service agents can share the information about resource allocation by accessing the shared agent $a_s$, migrate and swap their sub-tasks with each other to reduce their bandwidth costs. To keep the diversity of feasible solutions, selection and exchange operators are implemented based on a probabilistic method which is discussed later in this section.\par
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.36\textwidth]{Fig/7.eps}
\caption{Source sub-task candidate list.}
\label{Source sub-task candidate list}
\end{figure}
Generally, the procedure of the MAO includes four parts: obtain the adjacent agents, choose source and target sub-tasks, execute the exchange operator, and update the shared information. Firstly, let us select sub-task $\forall t_{l,n} \in a_i$ as the active sub-task, all its adjacent sub-tasks $U_{l,n}=U_{l,n}^{p} \cup U_{l,n}^{s}$ and their service agents can be obtained by accessing the shared agent. Then selection and exchange operators can be carried out for each sub-task from corresponding $U_{l,n}$. For the selection operator, we need to choose the source and target sub-tasks, where the target sub-task is selected by a probabilistic method, and the source sub-task from $a_i$ is obtained by a priority-based selection mechanism. For exchange operator, we can migrate and swap the source and target sub-tasks among different service agents with multiple constraints. Furthermore, the exchange operation can be carried out with exchange probability $p_e$ if the objective fitness is not improved at this instance. When the exchange is finished, the shared information will be updated.\par
An example of the MAO algorithm is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{Architecture for multi-agent optimization}. We assume that a host service agent is $a_4$ and an active sub-task is $t_{l,n}$. The service agent $a_4$ can obtain the information about the adjacent sub-tasks for $t_{l,n}$ by visiting the shared agent, and there are two adjacent sub-tasks $t_{l,n-1} \in a_1,t_{l,n+1} \in a_9$. For sub-task $t_{l,n+1}$, it is chosen as the target sub-task with selection probability $1-p_s$ or else a random sub-task $t_{\hat{l},\hat{n}} \in a_3$ is chosen to be the target sub-task. A source sub-task from $a_4$ is selected by a priority-based selection mechanism. Then we can run the exchange operation and update the shared information. Similarly, we can proceed with the processing for $t_{l,n-1}$.\par
Next, we discuss three main parts for the MAO algorithm.\par
\subsubsection{Target Selection}
In the MAO algorithm, to optimize the bandwidth cost, our purpose is to assign the adjacent sub-tasks from a task to the same service agent as far as possible. In addition, a probabilistic method is used to select the target sub-task to avoid premature convergence.\par
For active sub-task $t_{l,n} \in a_i$, the set of its adjacent sub-tasks is $U_{l,n}$, and we assume that a candidate adjacent sub-task is $t_{l,\hat{n}} \in U_{l,n}, t_{l,\hat{n}} \in a_j, i \neq j$ and a random sub-task is denoted as $t_{\hat{l},\hat{n}} \in a_k, i \neq k$. Therefore, the target sub-task is $t_{\hat{l},\hat{n}}$ with probability $p_s$, otherwise $t_{l,\hat{n}}$. The algorithm for target selection is described in Algorithm \ref{Target selection}.\par
\begin{algorithm}[tbp]
\caption{Target selection.}
\label{Target selection}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE \textbf{Initialize:} Probability $p_s$;
\STATE For $\forall t_{l,n} \in a_i,\exists t_{l,\hat{n}} \in U_{l,n},t_{l,\hat{n}} \in a_j,a_i,a_j \in A_a,i \neq j$, $t_{\hat{l},\hat{n}} \in a_k, i \neq k$;
\STATE Generate a random number $p_r$;
\IF{$p_r \geq p_s$}
\STATE Let $t_{l,\hat{n}}$ be the target sub-task;
\ELSE
\STATE Let $t_{\hat{l},\hat{n}}$ be the target sub-task;
\ENDIF
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\subsubsection{Source Selection}
Considering load-balancing and objective optimization, a priority-based source sub-task selection mechanism is proposed. In the host service agent, all available sub-tasks for active sub-task $t_{l,n} \in a_i$ are sorted in descend order by the priority, which includes two categories: the dependence relationships of sub-tasks for the host and adjacent service agents, and the used resources. There are three sub-task types according to the dependence relationships as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Sub-task1:} Let us denote active sub-task as $t_{l,n} \in a_i$, an adjacent service agent as $a_j, i\neq j$ and a set of available sub-tasks as $W_{l,n}$. If $t_{{l}',{n}'} \in W_{l,n}, {t}'_{{l}',{n}'} \in U_{{l}',{n}'}$, make $\exists {t}'_{{l}',{n}'} \notin W_{l,n}$ and ${t}'_{{l}',{n}'} \in a_j$, let $t_{{l}',{n}'}$ be sub-task1.
\item \emph{Sub-task2:} If $t_{{l}',{n}'} \in W_{l,n}, {t}'_{{l}',{n}'} \in U_{{l}',{n}'}$, make $\forall {t}'_{{l}',{n}'} \notin W_{l,n}$ and $ {t}'_{{l}',{n}'} \notin a_j$, let $t_{{l}',{n}'}$ be sub-task2.
\item \emph{Sub-task3:} If $t_{{l}',{n}'} \in W_{l,n}, {t}'_{{l}',{n}'} \in U_{{l}',{n}'}$, make $\exists {t}'_{{l}',{n}'} \in W_{l,n}$, let $t_{{l}',{n}'}$ be sub-task3.
\end{itemize}\par
\noindent The precedence relations for three sub-task types are ranked as: sub-task1 $>$ sub-task2 $>$ sub-task3. Furthermore, for the same sub-task type, we calculate the resource utilization difference between $a_i$ and the average value of the system for each candidate sub-task. All the candidate sub-tasks are sorted in ascending order by the differences.\par
Fig. \ref{Source sub-task candidate list} describes the procedure of a source sub-task candidate list. Host service agent is indicated as $\left \{ t_{0,3},t_{0,1},t_{0,4},t_{1,0},t_{0,0},t_{1,2}\right \}$, active sub-task is $t_{0,3}$ and an adjacent service agent consists of $t_{0,2},t_{1,3}$ and $t_{2,1}$. We can find that $t_{1,2}$ is sub-task1, $t_{1,0}$ is sub-task2, $t_{0,1},t_{0,0}$ and $t_{0,4}$ are sub-task3. For sub-task3, the differences of the sub-tasks are ranked as $d_{0,1} < d_{0,0} < d_{0,4}$. As a result, the task list can be indicated as $\left \{ t_{1,2},t_{1,0},t_{0,1},t_{0,0},t_{0,4}\right \}$.\par
For the sub-task candidate list, the source sub-task can be chosen by the priority, and different source sub-tasks have an influence on the performance. The algorithm for source selection is shown in Algorithm \ref{Source selection}.\par
\begin{algorithm}[tbp]
\caption{Source selection.}
\label{Source selection}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE For active sub-task $t_{l,n}\in a_i$, an adjacent service agent $a_j,i\neq j$;
\STATE Make a set of available sub-tasks $W_{l,n}$;
\FOR{$\forall t_{{l}',{n}'} \in W_{l,n}$}
\STATE Obtain the set of its adjacent sub-tasks $U_{{l}',{n}'}$;
\STATE For ${t}'_{{l}',{n}'} \in U_{{l}',{n}'}$;
\IF{$\exists {t}'_{{l}',{n}'} \notin W_{l,n}$ and ${t}'_{{l}',{n}'} \in a_j$}
\STATE Let $t_{{l}',{n}'}$ be sub-task1;
\ELSIF{$\forall {t}'_{{l}',{n}'} \notin W_{l,n}$ and ${t}'_{{l}',{n}'} \notin a_j$}
\STATE Let $t_{{l}',{n}'}$ be sub-task2;
\ELSE
\STATE Let $t_{{l}',{n}'}$ be sub-task3;
\ENDIF
\STATE Assume $t_{{l}',{n}'}$ is a source sub-task and calculate the difference between the resource utilization of $a_i$ and the average value of the system;
\ENDFOR
\STATE Sort the sub-task candidate list by precedence.
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\subsubsection{Exchange Procedure}
For active sub-task $t_{l,n}$, the target sub-task and source sub-task candidate list are given by target and source selection operations, then the service agents can cooperate, coordinate and compete with each other to migrate and swap their sub-tasks to improve the objectives through the exchange operator. In this context, there are four situations to be considered as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Objective optimization:} For the exchange procedure, our aim is to migrate and swap these sub-tasks on different service agents to reduce their bandwidth costs. That is, the objective fitness should be improved for the host service agent after running the exchange operator.
\item \emph{Resource constraints:} The number of resources used for each service agent can not exceed its resource capacities.
\item \emph{Load-balancing:} Load-balancing is implemented by a priority-based source sub-task selection mechanism and the procedure of migrating and swapping the sub-tasks.
\item \emph{Diversity of feasible solutions:} Exchange operator is achieved by a probabilistic method, when the objective optimization is not satisfied, the exchange procedure can continue to be carried out with a lower probability.
\end{itemize}\par
\noindent Next, we describe the exchange procedure in detail.\par
Let us denote the source sub-task list by $Q_{l,n}$. For $\forall t_{l',n'} \in Q_{l,n}$, we firstly ensure that the objective result is improved by the exchange operation. If it is not, the exchange procedure can keep running with exchange probability $p_e$. Considering the load-balancing for all the service agents, if the load-balancing constraint in equation \eqref{equation9} is satisfied, we will just migrate the target sub-task from $a_j$ to $a_i$ and there will be nothing to do for the source sub-task. Besides, the migration will be also considered when there is no available source sub-task in the candidate list. The load-balancing constraint can be expressed as:\par
\begin{equation} \label{equation9}
\eta_{i} < \eta_{j} + 2*\bar{\eta},
\end{equation}\par
\noindent where $\eta_{i}$ and $\eta_{j}$ show the resource utilization of $a_i$ and $a_j$ after the migration, respectively. The parameter $\bar{\eta}$ indicates the average resource utilization for all sub-task types. In most cases, we need to swap the target and source sub-tasks with each other between $a_i$ and $a_j$. Note that the migration and exchange are satisfied with the resource constraints. The exchange procedure is shown in Algorithm \ref{Exchange procedure}.\par
\begin{algorithm}[tbp]
\caption{Exchange procedure.}
\label{Exchange procedure}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE For target sub-task $t_{\hat{l},\hat{n}}$, source sub-task candidate list $Q_{l,n}$, exchange probability $p_e$;
\FOR{$\forall t_{l',n'} \in Q_{l,n}$}
\IF {The objective optimization is invalid}
\STATE Generate a random number $p_r$;
\IF {$p_r > p_e$}
\STATE Continue;
\ENDIF
\ENDIF
\IF{($t_{l',n'} = EOF$ or ($t_{l',n'} \neq EOF$ and hold equation \eqref{equation9})) and meet with resource constraints}
\STATE Run the migration and break;
\ELSIF{$t_{l',n'} \neq EOF$ and hold resource constraints}
\STATE Run the exchange and break;
\ENDIF
\ENDFOR
\STATE Update the shared information on the shared agent.
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
The MAO algorithm is an iterative optimization algorithm based on multi-agent systems and Algorithm \ref{MAO algorithm} describes the entire MAO algorithm. We assume that the maximum number of iterations is $M$. During an iterative evolution, all the sub-tasks from each service agent run the selection and exchange operations, and the objective value for this service agent can be improved with high probability. All the service agents can work together with cooperative co-evolutionary method. Thus, the global optimal solution can be found by increasing the number of iterations.\par
\begin{algorithm}[tbp]
\caption{MAO algorithm.}
\label{MAO algorithm}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE \textbf{Input:} Maximum number of iterations $M$, selection probability $p_s$, exchange probability $p_e$;
\FOR{$m = 0$ to $M$}
\FOR{$\forall a_i \in A_a$}
\FOR{$\forall t_{l,n} \in a_i$}
\STATE Obtain $U_{l,n}$ by visiting $a_s$;
\FOR{$\forall t_{l,\hat{n}} \in U_{l,n}, t_{l,\hat{n}} \in a_j, i\neq j$}
\STATE Run the target selection operation;
\STATE Run the source selection operation;
\STATE Run the exchange procedure;
\ENDFOR
\ENDFOR
\STATE Update $\Lambda_i$ for $a_i$;
\ENDFOR
\STATE Get the feasible solution $X=\bigcup\limits_{i=0}^{K_a-1}\Lambda_i$ and compute the objective fitness value;
\ENDFOR
\STATE Obtain an approximate optimal solution.
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{HMAO Algorithm in On-line Resource Allocation}
\begin{algorithm}[tbp]
\caption{HMAO Algorithm in on-line resource allocation.}
\label{HMAO Algorithm in on-line resource allocation}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE \textbf{Input at time $t$:} Set $T_{new,t} \in T$ of the tasks coming at $t$, set $T_{old,t-1} \in T$ of the tasks ending at $t-1$;
\STATE Release the required resources of the old tasks in $T_{old,t-1}$ and update the resource information for the service nodes;
\STATE Generate the initial population $P$ for $T_{new,t}$;
\STATE Run the GA and obtain the set $V_{a,t}$ of service nodes that are used to deploy the new tasks;
\STATE Carry out the MAO algorithm for $V_{a,t}$;
\STATE Obtain an approximate optimal solution of allocating the available resources to $T_{n,t}$.
\STATE Time: $t\leftarrow t+1$.
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
The proposed HMAO algorithm is easily to be applied to the on-line resource allocation by a few modifications. In this paper, we consider the scenario of allocating the available resources related to service nodes to the requested tasks in batch mode. That is, the requested tasks need to be performed are collected and will be handled at a fixed time slot. In order to improve the quality of the initial solutions for the GA, an individual is encoded by the inter-dependent relationships of those sub-tasks in sequence and the rest of the population are randomly encoded to keep diversity of feasible solutions. For the decoding procedure of the GA, we sort the service nodes that are used to deploy the requested tasks in ascending order by the resource utilization. All the sub-tasks for an individual are assigned to the available service nodes with the first-fit rule \cite{bhamare2017optimal,Espling2016modeling} and a new service node would be activated when any of the available service nodes can not meet the resource requirements of the sub-task to be assigned. In each time slot, some new requested tasks appear and several old requested tasks are over. Therefore, we can release the resources used by the old tasks and re-assign them to the new requested tasks. Algorithm \ref{HMAO Algorithm in on-line resource allocation} describes the proposed HMAO algorithm in on-line resource allocation. For time slot $t$, let us denote the set of the new requested tasks as $T_{new,t} \in T$ and the set of the old requested tasks that are ending as $T_{old,t-1} \in T$. Firstly, we end the old tasks from $T_{old,t-1}$ and release the required resources used. Then with existing resources used and physical resource constrains, we use the proposed HMAO algorithm to allocate the available resources of service nodes to the new requested tasks.\par
\section{Performance Evaluation}\label{Performance Evaluation}
In this section, we make several experiments for different number of communication tasks to verify the performance of the proposed HMAO algorithm with computer simulation results. Meanwhile, the performance of the proposed HMAO algorithm is analyzed by comparing with two existing baseline algorithms, which are GA and NSGA-II. The experimental platform is a high performance server, which is i7-4790k CPU, 16 GB memory and windows 10. Each communication task contains 5 parts: network receiving, capture, tracking, synchronization and decoding, and their resource requirements can be observed in Table \ref{Resource requirements for a task}. All service nodes are homogeneous and the resource capacities for CPU, memory, GPU and bandwidth are 2900 MHz, 96 GB, 8 and 1000 Mbps, respectively. Note that the limitation of network links is not considered in this paper, such as switches and routers. Equation \eqref{equation8} is considered for performance metrics comparison between the proposed HMAO algorithm and other existing baseline algorithms.\par
\begin{table}[tbp]
\centering
\caption{Resource requirements for a task.}
\label{Resource requirements for a task}
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{|p{0.12\textwidth}<{\centering}|p{0.06\textwidth}<{\centering}|p{0.06\textwidth}<{\centering}|p{0.04\textwidth}<{\centering}|p{0.08\textwidth}<{\centering}|}
\hline
Name & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}CPU\\(MHz)\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Memory\\(GB)\end{tabular} & GPU & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Bandwidth\\(Mbps)\end{tabular} \\ \hline
Network receiving & 290 & 9.6 & 0 & 100 \\ \hline
Capture & 319 & 11.52 & 1 & 97 \\ \hline
Tracking & 435 & 12.48 & 1 & 95 \\ \hline
Synchronization & 638 & 12.48 & 1 & 92 \\ \hline
Decoding & 145 & 4.8 & 1 & 90 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table}
\subsection{Simulation Parameters Setup}\label{Simulation Parameters Setup}
\begin{table}[tbp]
\centering
\caption{Parameters for Taguchi method.}
\label{Parameters for Taguchi method}
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}
\begin{tabular}{|p{0.07\textwidth}<{\centering}|p{0.07\textwidth}<{\centering}|p{0.07\textwidth}<{\centering}|p{0.07\textwidth}<{\centering}|p{0.07\textwidth}<{\centering}|}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Factor} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{Level} \\ \cline{2-5}
& 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ \hline
$p_s$ & 0.01 & 0.05 & 0.10 & 0.15 \\ \hline
$p_e$ & 0.01 & 0.05 & 0.10 & 0.15 \\ \hline
$M$ & 250 & 500 & 750 & 1000 \\ \hline
\end{tabular
}
\end{table}
Firstly, we assume that the weights in equation \eqref{equation8} have the same values, and can be described as $\alpha _c = \alpha _m = \alpha _g = \frac{1}{3}$ and $\beta_{1} = \beta_{2} = \frac{1}{2}$. The parameters for the improved GA are $P = 16,Iter_{max}=5,p_c=1.0,p_m=0.1$. In the MAO algorithm, there are three main parameters: selection probability $p_s$, exchange probability $p_e$ and the number of iterations, which have impact on the performance results. In order to better estimate this impact on the performance for different combinations of parameters, the Taguchi method of design-of-experiment (DOE) is used to generate the test cases and analyze the results of our experiments \cite{zheng2015multi}. There are 3 factors and each factor contains 4 levels, and the combinations of different parameters for Taguchi method are shown in Table \ref{Parameters for Taguchi method}. Moreover, we develop the orthogonal table $L_{16}(4^3)$, where there are 16 cases and each case is carried out 10 times for 8, 16, 24, 32 tasks, respectively, to obtain the average results. Table \ref{Orthogonal table and the approximate solutions} provides the orthogonal table $L_{16}(4^3)$ and the values related to the approximate solutions for different tasks.
\begin{table}[tbp]
\centering
\caption{Orthogonal table $L_{16}(4^3)$ and the optimal solutions for $Z(X)$. }
\label{Orthogonal table and the approximate solutions}
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{No.} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Factor} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{$Z(X)$} \\ \cline{2-8}
& $p_s$ & $P_e$ & $M$ & $L=8$ & $L=16$ & $L=24$ & $L=32$ \\ \hline
0 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 250 & 0.7829 & 0.8008 & 0.8103 & 0.8109 \\ \hline
1 & 0.01 & 0.05 & 500 & 0.7853 & 0.8032 & 0.8141 & 0.8133 \\ \hline
2 & 0.01 & 0.10 & 750 & 0.7861 & 0.8079 & 0.8138 & 0.8136 \\ \hline
3 & 0.01 & 0.15 & 1000 & 0.7869 & 0.8075 & 0.8152 & 0.8139 \\ \hline
4 & 0.05 & 0.01 & 500 & 0.7869 & 0.8088 & 0.8156 & 0.8146 \\ \hline
5 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 250 & 0.7869 & 0.8062 & 0.8144 & 0.8136 \\ \hline
6 & 0.05 & 0.10 & 1000 & 0.7869 & 0.8088 & 0.8167 & 0.8148 \\ \hline
7 & 0.05 & 0.15 & 750 & 0.7869 & 0.8088 & 0.8164 & 0.8147 \\ \hline
8 & 0.10 & 0.01 & 750 & 0.7869 & 0.8088 & 0.8161 & 0.8148 \\ \hline
9 & 0.10 & 0.05 & 1000 & 0.7869 & 0.8088 & 0.8170 & 0.8148 \\ \hline
10 & 0.10 & 0.10 & 250 & 0.7869 & 0.8088 & 0.8161 & 0.8141 \\ \hline
11 & 0.10 & 0.15 & 500 & 0.7869 & 0.8088 & 0.8170 & 0.8143 \\ \hline
12 & 0.15 & 0.01 & 1000 & 0.7869 & 0.8088 & 0.8170 & 0.8148 \\ \hline
13 & 0.15 & 0.05 & 750 & 0.7869 & 0.8088 & 0.8170 & 0.8148 \\ \hline
14 & 0.15 & 0.10 & 500 & 0.7869 & 0.8088 & 0.8170 & 0.8148 \\ \hline
15 & 0.15 & 0.15 & 250 & 0.7869 & 0.8088 & 0.8167 & 0.8141 \\ \hline
\end{tabular
}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\subfigure[Mean for $L=8$]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{Fig/8-a.eps}
\label{Mean for 8 tasks}}
\subfigure[Mean for $L=16$]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{Fig/8-b.eps}
\label{Mean for 16 tasks}}
\subfigure[Mean for $L=24$]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{Fig/8-c.eps}
\label{Mean for 4 tasks}}
\subfigure[Mean for $L=32$]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{Fig/8-d.eps}
\label{Mean for 32 tasks}}
\caption{Mean for $L=8,16,24,32$.}
\label{Mean for different tasks}
\end{figure}
Fig. \ref{Mean for different tasks} shows the main effects plot for means with different tasks. It can be obvious that the objective values are improved as $p_s,p_e$ and the number of iterations increase. For the proposed HMAO algorithm, we can adjust the values of $p_s,p_e$ to the diversity of feasible solutions, however, it will cost more time to seek an approximate solution for $Z(X)$. The ideal value of $p_s$ for 8, 16, 24, 32 tasks is 0.15, the ideal value of $p_e$ is 0.1 for 8, 24 tasks and 0.15 for 16, 32 tasks.
\subsection{Numerical Simulation}\label{Numerical Simulation}
Based on the parameters above, the maximum number of iterations is set as $250$, we run several experiments for 8, 16, 24, 32 tasks to evaluate convergence of the proposed HMAO algorithm. As it is shown in Fig. \ref{Bandwidth utilization for 8,16,24,32 tasks}, we illustrate the relationships between iterations and the bandwidth utilization for different tasks. Fig. \ref{Bandwidth utilization for 8 tasks} and Fig. \ref{Bandwidth utilization for 24 tasks} indicate the procedure for seeking the optimal solution of bandwidth utilization for $L=8, 24$ with $p_s=0.15$, $p_e=0.15$, and the best values 0.1640 and 0.0.2076 can be observed at 49 and 176 iterations, respectively. For $L=16,32$, $p_s=0.15$, $p_e=0.10$, their results for optimizing the bandwidth utilization are depicted in Fig. \ref{Bandwidth utilization for 16 tasks} and Fig. \ref{Bandwidth utilization for 32 tasks}, and we can obtain the optimal solution results 0.1872 and 0.2137 at 73 and 121 iterations, respectively.\par
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\subfigure[$L=8,p_s=0.15,p_e=0.15$]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{Fig/9-a.eps}
\label{Bandwidth utilization for 8 tasks}}
\subfigure[$L=16,p_s=0.15,p_e=0.10$]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{Fig/9-b.eps}
\label{Bandwidth utilization for 16 tasks}}
\subfigure[$L=24,p_s=0.15,p_e=0.15$]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{Fig/9-c.eps}
\label{Bandwidth utilization for 24 tasks}}
\subfigure[$L=32,p_s=0.15,p_e=0.10$]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{Fig/9-d.eps}
\label{Bandwidth utilization for 32 tasks}}
\caption{Bandwidth utilization for $L=8,16,24,32$.}
\label{Bandwidth utilization for 8,16,24,32 tasks}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[tbp]
\centering
\caption{Results of simulation for the HMAO algorithm.}
\label{Results of simulation for the HMAO algorithm}
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$L$ & $M$ & Min & Max & Mean & Std & Time(min) \\ \hline
8 & \multirow{4}{*}{250} & 0.7869 & 0.7869 & 0.7869 & 0.0 & 0.2375 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{3-7}
16 & & 0.8046 & 0.8088 & 0.8084 & 0.0013 & 0.4777 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{3-7}
24 & & 0.8141 & 0.8170 & 0.8164 & 0.0012 & 0.7205 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{3-7}
32 & & 0.8104 & 0.8148 & 0.8137 & 0.0015 & 0.9703 \\ \hline
8 & \multirow{4}{*}{500} & 0.7869 & 0.7869 & 0.7869 & 0.0 & 0.4995 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{3-7}
16 & & 0.8088 & 0.8088 & 0.8088 & 0.0 & 1.0125 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{3-7}
24 & & 0.8170 & 0.8170 & 0.8170 & 0.0 & 1.5177 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{3-7}
32 & & 0.8146 & 0.8148 & 0.8147 & 0.0001 & 2.0164 \\ \hline
\end{tabular
}
\end{table}
Similarly, Fig. \ref{Objective values for 8,16,24,32 tasks} describes the evolutionary plots of the iterative optimal solutions for different tasks, which include the best and real-time objective values. Fig. \ref{Objective values for 8 tasks} and Fig. \ref{Objective values for 24 tasks} show the simulation results of 8, 24 tasks with $p_s=0.15$, $p_e=0.15$, Fig. \ref{Objective values for 16 tasks} and Fig. \ref{Objective values for 32 tasks} show the simulation results of 16, 32 tasks with $p_s=0.15$, $p_e=0.10$. It can be observed that the objective values for 8, 16, 24 and 32 tasks converge to the approximate solution results as 0.7869, 0.8088, 0.8112 and 0.8148 at 49, 73, 176 and 121 iterations, respectively. Therefore, it can be depicted that the proposed HMAO algorithm is an effective optimization algorithm to solve the problem of resource allocation in cloud computing and has a better convergence performance.\par
As the number of iterations have impact on the performance of the proposed HMAO algorithm, therefore, some experiments with 250 and 500 iterations are carried out for different tasks. Each case runs 10 times, we can obtain minimum, maximum, mean and standard deviation of the optimal solutions and the average computing time, which are shown in Table \ref{Results of simulation for the HMAO algorithm}. It can be observed from Table \ref{Results of simulation for the HMAO algorithm} that the performance of the proposed HMAO algorithm is high when the number of iterations increases, i.e., the means for 8, 16, 24 and 32 tasks with 250 iterations are 0.7869, 0.8084, 0.8164 and 0.8137, respectively, while the means are 0.7869, 0.8088, 0.8170 and 0.8147 with 500 iterations, respectively. That is, the potential optimal solution for $Z(X)$ is more likely to be sought by exploring and exploiting the solution space iteratively. Besides, the results indicate that the computing time of the proposed HMAO algorithm increases almost linearly with the increase in the number of iterations.\par
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\subfigure[$L=8,p_s=0.15,p_e=0.15$]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{Fig/10-a.eps}
\label{Objective values for 8 tasks}}
\subfigure[$L=16,p_s=0.15,p_e=0.10$]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{Fig/10-b.eps}
\label{Objective values for 16 tasks}}
\subfigure[$L=24,p_s=0.15,p_e=0.15$]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{Fig/10-c.eps}
\label{Objective values for 24 tasks}}
\subfigure[$L=32,p_s=0.15,p_e=0.10$]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{Fig/10-d.eps}
\label{Objective values for 32 tasks}}
\caption{Objective values for $L=8,16,24,32$.}
\label{Objective values for 8,16,24,32 tasks}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Performance Comparison with the Baseline Algorithms}\label{Performance Comparison with the Baseline Algorithms}
In order to further discuss the effectiveness of the proposed HMAO algorithm, we compare the proposed HMAO algorithm for different tasks with two existing algorithms, which are GA and NSGA-II.\par
\textbf{GA:} The genetic algorithm described in \cite{tseng2017dynamic} is used in our paper. We randomly select two individuals from the population $P$ to be the parents, and they can mate with each other by the two-point crossover operator with crossover probability $p_c$ to generate their offsprings. If the fitness value of an offspring is superior to its parent, we will consider it as a candidate in the next generation. Otherwise, the mutation operator is carried out with mutation probability $p_m$. An individual that has a better fitness value between the offspring and its parent will be seen as a new individual in the next generation.\par
\textbf{NSGA-II:} We introduce NSGA-II in \cite{deb2002fast} to address our problem, two optimization sub-problems are $Z_{1}(X)$ and $1-Z_{2}(X)$, respectively. A binary tournament selection method \cite{razali2011genetic} is applied to make decision for choosing the parents from the population $P$ to mate with each other. In crossover operator, we randomly select two gene points of one individual to exchange their genes equivalently with the other individual under crossover probability $p_c$. A bitwise mutation is executed with mutation probability $p_m$.\par
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\subfigure[$L=4$]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{Fig/11-a.eps}
\label{Evolution of optimal solution for 4 tasks with different algorithms}}
\subfigure[$L=6$]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{Fig/11-b.eps}
\label{Evolution of optimal solution for 6 tasks with different algorithms}}
\subfigure[$L=8$]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{Fig/11-c.eps}
\label{Evolution of optimal solution for 8 tasks with different algorithms}}
\subfigure[$L=10$]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{Fig/11-d.eps}
\label{Evolution of optimal solution for 10 tasks}}
\caption{Objective values for $L=4,6,8,10$ with HMAO, GA and NSGA-II.}
\label{Evolution of optimal solution}
\end{figure}
With the above analysis of the proposed HMAO algorithm, we set the maximum iterations as 1000 for the proposed HMAO algorithm, 5000 for GA and NSGA-II, the population $P$ is set as 16 for the proposed HMAO algorithm, 100 for GA and NSGA-II. Moreover, we have $p_e=p_s=0.15$, $p_c=1.0$, $p_m=0.1$. The number of tasks is from 4 to 16 corresponding to the number of initial service nodes $4,5,\dots,16$, respectively. We run each test case 10 times and compute the average results. The parameters used for the proposed HMAO algorithm, GA and NSGA-II are summarized in Table \ref{Parameter setting for HMAO, GA and NSGA-II}.\par
\begin{table}[tbp]
\centering
\caption{Parameter setting for HMAO, GA and NSGA-II.}
\label{Parameter setting for HMAO, GA and NSGA-II}
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
Parameters & Value \\ \hline
Number of tasks $L$ & $\left \{ 4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 \right \}$ \\ \hline
Number of service nodes $K$ & $\left \{ 4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 \right \}$ \\ \hline
Maximum iterations $M$ & HMAO: 1000; GA,NSGA-II: 5000 \\ \hline
Population size $P$ & HMAO: 16; GA,NSGA-II: 100 \\ \hline
Selective probability $p_e$ & 0.15 \\ \hline
Exchange probability $p_s$ & 0.15 \\ \hline
Crossover probability $p_c$ & 1.0 \\ \hline
Mutation probability $p_m$ & 0.1 \\ \hline
Running time & 10 \\ \hline
\end{tabular
}
\end{table}
Firstly, we simulate all test cases by the proposed HMAO algorithm, GA and NSGA-II with the specified parameters in Table \ref{Parameter setting for HMAO, GA and NSGA-II} and obtain the average results of these three algorithms, including resource utilization, bandwidth utilization, objective value and time cost. Note that the number of initial service nodes $K$ can influence the results of GA and NSGA-II.\par
To investigate the evolution of the optimal solution for the proposed HMAO algorithm over time, we compare the evolutionary performance of the proposed HMAO algorithm, GA and NSGA-II for $L=4,6,8,10$ and the results of these three algorithms are shown in Fig. \ref{Evolution of optimal solution}. It can be observed that the performance of the proposed HMAO algorithm is similar to that of GA for $L=4,6,8$, NSGA-II for $L=4,8$. Hence, the effectiveness of the proposed HMAO algorithm is verified by comparing the performance of the proposed HMAO algorithm with GA and NSGA-II algorithms. Moreover, the convergence of the proposed HMAO algorithm is better than GA and NSGA-II as the number of tasks grows.\par
The reason is that the selection and exchange operators for the proposed HMAO algorithm are executed with a finer-grained sub-task level and the optimization objective tends to a good result with high probability during each iterative evolution. Besides, the probabilistic-based selection and exchange operators are used to achieve the diversity of feasible solutions and avoid early entering into the local optimal solution. However, the space of feasible solutions for GA and NSGA-II becomes larger with the increase in the number of tasks, i.e., it will take more time to search the optimal solution. In addition, Fig. \ref{Evolution of optimal solution} shows that GA outperforms NSGA-II for $L=4,6,8,10$, because each offspring generated by GA, which has a better fitness value than its parent, will be selected as a new individual in the next generation and that can guarantee that the performance of solving the optimization problem is improved in each iterative evolution.\par
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\subfigure[Resource utilization]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{Fig/13-a.eps}
\label{Resource utilization}}
\subfigure[Bandwidth utilization]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{Fig/13-b.eps}
\label{Bandwidth utilization}}
\subfigure[Optimal solution]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{Fig/13-c.eps}
\label{Optimal solution}}
\subfigure[Convergence time]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{Fig/13-d.eps}
\label{Convergence time}}
\caption{Performance comparisons for HMAO, GA and NSGA-II.}
\label{Comparisons of different algorithms}
\end{figure}
In order to further analyze the performance of the proposed HMAO algorithm, we provide the maximum, minimum, mean, standard deviation and average convergence time of the simulation results for the proposed HMAO algorithm, GA and NSGA-II, and the detailed information can be observed from Table \ref{Results of simulation for HMAO, GA and NSGA-II}. In all test cases except $L=11$, the maximum, minimum, mean and standard deviation of the optimal solutions obtained by the proposed HMAO algorithm are better than or equal to GA and NSGA-II, respectively. Furthermore, the convergence time of the proposed HMAO algorithm is slower than GA, NSGA-II for $L=4,6$ but faster for the other cases, the difference is more evident with increasing the number of tasks. For example, in the case of $L=14$, we can observe that the performance of the proposed HMAO algorithm increases by $3.27\%$, and $3.44\%$, the convergence time reduces by $35.67\%$ and $58.38\%$ for GA and NSGA-II, respectively. For $L=16$, the mean results of the proposed HMAO algorithm improve by $4.26\%$ and $3.49\%$, the convergence time decreases by $78.23\%$ and $88.57\%$ for GA and NSGA-II, respectively. The results can demonstrate that the proposed HMAO algorithm is an effective optimization approach for resource allocation and has a better performance in terms of solution quality, robustness and convergence.\par
\begin{table*}[htbp]
\centering
\caption{Results of simulation for HMAO, GA and NSGA-II.}
\label{Results of simulation for HMAO, GA and NSGA-II}
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{L} & \multicolumn{5}{c|}{HMAO} & \multicolumn{5}{c|}{GA} & \multicolumn{5}{c|}{NSGA-II} \\ \cline{2-16}
& Min & Max & Mean & Std & Time(min) & Min & Max & Mean & Std & Time(min) & Min & Max & Mean & Std & Time(min) \\ \hline
4 & 0.7869 & 0.7869 & 0.7869 & 0.0000 & 0.2737 & 0.7869 & 0.7869 & 0.7869 & 0.0000 & 0.0231 & 0.7869 & 0.7869 & 0.7869 & 0.0000 & 0.0569 \\ \hline
5 & 0.7718 & 0.7718 & 0.7718 & 0.0000 & 0.0520 & 0.7718 & 0.7718 & 0.7718 & 0.0000 & 0.0481 & 0.7603 & 0.7718 & 0.7706 & 0.0034 & 0.1408 \\ \hline
6 & 0.8170 & 0.8170 & 0.8170 & 0.0000 & 0.4752 & 0.817 & 0.817 & 0.817 & 0.0000 & 0.4573 & 0.7628 & 0.8170 & 0.7953 & 0.0265 & 0.4666 \\ \hline
7 & 0.7989 & 0.7989 & 0.7989 & 0.0000 & 0.0645 & 0.7989 & 0.7989 & 0.7989 & 0.0000 & 0.2841 & 0.7567 & 0.7989 & 0.7937 & 0.0126 & 1.0380 \\ \hline
8 & 0.7869 & 0.7869 & 0.7869 & 0.0000 & 0.1903 & 0.7869 & 0.7869 & 0.7869 & 0.0000 & 0.5710 & 0.7869 & 0.7869 & 0.7869 & 0.0000 & 0.8126 \\ \hline
9 & 0.8170 & 0.8170 & 0.8170 & 0.0000 & 0.5219 & 0.8170 & 0.8170 & 0.8170 & 0.0000 & 2.3043 & 0.7782 & 0.8170 & 0.7899 & 0.0177 & 2.1777 \\ \hline
10 & 0.8041 & 0.8041 & 0.8041 & 0.0000 & 0.8174 & 0.7975 & 0.8041 & 0.8034 & 0.0020 & 1.8199 & 0.7718 & 0.8041 & 0.7976 & 0.0129 & 2.1903 \\ \hline
11 & 0.7368 & 0.8102 & 0.7874 & 0.0283 & 0.8174 & 0.7887 & 0.7944 & 0.7938 & 0.0017 & 1.7007 & 0.7771 & 0.7944 & 0.7909 & 0.0052 & 2.3302 \\ \hline
12 & 0.8170 & 0.8170 & 0.8170 & 0.0000 & 0.2446 & 0.7818 & 0.8170 & 0.8045 & 0.0135 & 3.1743 & 0.7628 & 0.8170 & 0.7929 & 0.0161 & 4.0658 \\ \hline
13 & 0.8070 & 0.8070 & 0.8070 & 0.0000 & 1.0464 & 0.7715 & 0.8069 & 0.7973 & 0.0104 & 3.8402 & 0.7762 & 0.8070 & 0.7977 & 0.0131 & 4.2793 \\ \hline
14 & 0.8116 & 0.8119 & 0.8118 & 0.0001 & 2.1852 & 0.7677 & 0.7989 & 0.7861 & 0.0127 & 3.3968 & 0.7675 & 0.7989 & 0.7848 & 0.0119 & 5.2505 \\ \hline
15 & 0.8170 & 0.8170 & 0.8170 & 0.0000 & 0.9704 & 0.7590 & 0.7923 & 0.7811 & 0.0099 & 4.3592 & 0.7680 & 0.8075 & 0.7875 & 0.0115 & 7.7129 \\ \hline
16 & 0.8088 & 0.8088 & 0.8088 & 0.0000 & 1.0624 & 0.7576 & 0.7869 & 0.7757 & 0.0092 & 4.8812 & 0.7714 & 0.7868 & 0.7815 & 0.0049 & 9.3008 \\ \hline
\end{tabular
}
\end{table*}
Furthermore, we compare the results of the proposed HMAO algorithm with GA and NSGA-II in Fig. \ref{Comparisons of different algorithms}, including resource and bandwidth utilization, optimal solution and average convergence time. Fig. \ref{Resource utilization} shows the resource utilization for different tasks, the results obtained by the proposed HMAO algorithm are equal to GA for $L=4,6,8,10$, NSGA-II for $L=4,8$, and better than GA and NSGA-II for the other cases. The solution with a lower resource utilization implies that there are more service nodes to be used to deploy the requested tasks. The results of bandwidth utilization are described in Fig. \ref{Bandwidth utilization}. We can observe that the performance of the proposed HMAO algorithm is better than or equal to GA and NSGA-II for $L=4,6,8,10$. For $L=12,14,16$, it is due to the fact that the number of service nodes for the proposed HMAO algorithm is less than that of the other two baseline algorithms. Fig. \ref{Optimal solution} illustrates the results of optimal solutions, the performance for the proposed HMAO algorithm, GA and NSGA-II is approximately equivalent with a lower number of tasks, and the proposed HMAO algorithm performs better than GA and NSGA-II as the number of tasks increases. The average convergence time of three algorithms can be observed from Fig. \ref{Convergence time}, the time taken to converge by the proposed HMAO algorithm is worse than that of GA and NSGA-II as the number of tasks is small, but the proposed HMAO algorithm outperforms GA and NSGA-II as the number of tasks increases.\par
\subsection{Evaluate HMAO in On-line Resource Allocation}\label{Performance Analysis of the HMAO in On-line Resource Allocation}
To further investigate the performance of the proposed HMAO algorithm in on-line resource allocation, we implement the resource allocation model in a dynamic environment and design several experiments of dynamically allocating the available resources to the requested tasks with the parameters given in Table \ref{Parameter setting for HMAO, GA and NSGA-II}. We assume that there are new requested tasks are appearing and old requested tasks are ending in each time slot, whose numbers are randomly produced from $L_i = \left \{ 4*i+1,\dots, 4*i+9 \right \}, i=0,1,\dots,10$. Each case also runs 10 times with time slots from 0 to 30 and the average results of optimal solutions are obtained by the proposed HMAO algorithm. Moreover, we compare the proposed HMAO algorithm with a first-fit greedy approach \cite{Espling2016modeling} in terms of resource utilization, bandwidth utilization and optimal solution. The simulation results for the case $L_0$ can be observed from Fig. \ref{Performance of the HMAO in dynamical environment}, where we provide the performance of optimal solutions for all cases $L_0 \sim L_{10}$ by the proposed HMAO algorithm and the greedy approach in Fig. \ref{Optimal solution with all cases in dynamical environment}.\par
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\subfigure[Resource utilization with $L_0$]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{Fig/14-a.eps}
\label{Resource utilization in dynamical environment}}
\subfigure[Bandwidth utilization with $L_0$]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{Fig/14-b.eps}
\label{Bandwidth utilization in dynamical environment}}
\subfigure[Optimal solution with $L_0$]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{Fig/14-c.eps}
\label{Optimal solution in dynamical environment}}
\subfigure[Optimal solutions with $L_{0\sim 10}$]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{Fig/14-d.eps}
\label{Optimal solution with all cases in dynamical environment}}
\caption{Performance comparisons for HMAO and Greedy.}
\label{Performance of the HMAO in dynamical environment}
\end{figure}
Fig. \ref{Resource utilization in dynamical environment} shows the computing resource utilization for $L_0$. It can be observed that the number of computing resources are comparatively close between the proposed HMAO algorithm and the greedy approach in each time slot. The results of bandwidth utilization for $L_0$ are illustrated in Fig. \ref{Bandwidth utilization in dynamical environment}, where we can observe that the bandwidth utilization values obtained by the proposed HMAO algorithm are better than that of the greedy approach for all time slots, and there is average $19.00\%$ performance improvement. This is because that the adjacent sub-tasks of a task can be migrated and swapped to the same service node by the proposed HMAO algorithm as far as possible in order to reduce the bandwidth resources used by the requested tasks. Fig. \ref{Optimal solution in dynamical environment} describes the objective results of optimal solution for $L_0$, where we can observe that the proposed HMAO algorithm performs better than the greedy approach and the performance of the proposed HMAO algorithm shows an average increase of $2.31\%$ when compared with the greedy approach. To better analyze the performance of the proposed HMAO algorithm for processing the different number of the requested tasks in a time slot, we provide the average results of optimal solutions for $L_0 \sim L_{10}$ in Fig. \ref{Optimal solution with all cases in dynamical environment}. It is obvious that the proposed HMAO algorithm outperforms the greedy approach for $L_0 \sim L_{10}$, and the average performance improvement of the proposed HMAO algorithm is nearly $2.81\%$. From Fig. \ref{Performance of the HMAO in dynamical environment}, we can observe that the proposed HMAO algorithm is better than the first-fit greedy approach in dynamical resource allocation.
\section{Conclusion}\label{Conclusion}
This paper studies the problem of resource allocation in cloud computing systems. Our aim is to maximize the resource utilization based on CPU, memory and GPU, and minimize the bandwidth cost. To address the problem, we propose the HMAO algorithm which combines the improved GA and the MAO algorithm, where the improved GA is to find an optimal resource utilization solution and the MAO algorithm is to minimize the bandwidth cost. For the MAO algorithm, we use a priority-based selection mechanism to obtain the candidate source sub-tasks, and design the selection and exchange operators by a probabilistic method to migrate and swap the sub-tasks on several service agents. The proposed HMAO algorithm can obtain the objective optimal result by cooperative co-evolutionary method.\par
Finally, we verify and evaluate the performance of the proposed HMAO algorithm via simulation experiments. When compared with GA and NSGA-II, we can observe that the proposed HMAO algorithm outperforms them in terms of solution quality, convergence time and robustness as the number of tasks increases. For $L=14$, the proposed HMAO algorithm improves performance by $3.38\%$ for GA and $3.44\%$ for NSGA-II, and reduces the average convergence time by $19.34\%$ for GA and $58.38\%$ for NSGA-II. Furthermore, we compare the performance of the proposed HMAO algorithm with the first-fit greedy approach in on-line resource allocation. We can observe that the performance of the proposed HMAO algorithm increases approximately by $2.81\%$. \par
\ifCLASSOPTIONcaptionsoff
\newpage
\fi
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
The concept of lower bounded curvature on the metric space or the metric measure space has evolved to a rich theory due to Alexandrov's insight. The stability of Riemannian manifolds with curvature bounded below is another deriving force to extend the definition of the curvature bounded below to a broader space. However, the scalar curvature (of Riemannian metrics) bounded below was yet absent from this picture. Gromov proposed a synthetic treatment of scalar curvature bounded below, which was called the $n$-volumic scalar curvature bounded below, and offered some pertinent conjectures in \cite[Section~26]{Gromov}. Motivated by the ${\rm CD}(\kappa,n)$ condition, we add an $n$-dimension condition to the Gromov's definition and introduce the definition of~${\rm Sc}_{\alpha, \beta}$ on the smooth metric measure space. Details will be given later.
\begin{Theorem}Assume that the metric measure space $(X^n, d, \mu)$ satisfies $n$-dimensional condition and the curvature-dimension condition ${\rm CD}(\kappa, n)$ for $\kappa\geq 0$ and $n\geq 2$, then $(X^n, d, \mu)$ satisfies ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}(X^n)\geq n\kappa$.
\end{Theorem}
\begin{Theorem}
If compact metric measure spaces $(X_i^n, d_i, \mu_i)$ with ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}(X^n_i)\geq \kappa\geq 0$ and SC-radius $r_{x^n_i}\geq R>0$ and $(X_i^n, d_i, \mu_i)$ strongly measured Gromov--Hausdorff converge to the compact metric measure space $(X^n, d, \mu)$ with $n$-dimensional condition, then~$X^n$ also satisfies ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}(X^n)\geq \kappa$ and the SC-radius $r_{X^n}\geq R$.
\end{Theorem}
\begin{Theorem}
Let $\big(M^n, g, {\rm e}^{-f}\,{\rm dVol}_g\big)$ be the closed smooth metric measure space with ${\rm Sc}_{\alpha, \beta}>0$, then we have the following conclusions:
\begin{itemize}\itemsep=0pt
\item[$1.$] If $M^n$ is a spin manifold, $\alpha \in \mathbb{R}$ and $\beta \geq \frac{|\alpha|^2}{4}$, then the harmonic spinors of $M^n$ vanish.
\item[$2.$] If the dimension $n\geq 3$, $\alpha \in \mathbb{R}$ and $\beta \geq \frac{(n-2)|\alpha|^2}{4(n-1)}$, then there is a metric $\tilde{g}$ conformal to $g$ with positive scalar curvature.
\item[$3.$] If the dimension $n\geq 3$, $\alpha=2$, $\beta \geq \frac{n-2}{n-1}$ and $\big(N^{n-1},\bar{g}\big)$ is the compact $L_f$-stable minimal hypersurface of $\big(M^n, g, {\rm e}^{-f}\,{\rm dVol}_g\big)$, then there exists a PSC-metric conformal to~$\bar{g}$ on~$N^{n-1}$, where $\bar{g}$ is the induced metric of $g$ on $N^{n-1}$.
\item[$4.$] Assume $M^n$ is a spin manifold and there exists a smooth $1$-contracting map $h\colon (M^n, g)\to (S^n, g_{\rm st})$ of non-zero degree. If $\alpha \in \mathbb{R}$ , $\beta \geq \frac{|\alpha|^2}{4}$ and ${\rm Sc}_{\alpha, \beta}\geq n(n-1)$, then $h$ is an isometry between the metrics $g$ and $g_{\rm st}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{Theorem}
The paper is organized as follows. In Section~\ref{CD}, we introduce the notions and show that ${\rm CD}(\kappa,n)$ implies ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}\geq (n-1)\kappa$. In Section~\ref{sm}, we show the stability of spaces with ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}\geq\kappa$. In Section~\ref{smooth mm-space}, we present the properties of the smooth metric measure space with ${\rm Sc}_{\alpha, \beta}>0$.
\section[CD meets n-volumic scalar curvature]{CD meets $\boldsymbol{n}$-volumic scalar curvature}\label{CD}
The $n$-dimensional Aleksandrov space with curvature $\geq\kappa$ equipped with the volume-measure satisfies Lott--Villani--Sturm's weak curvature-dimension condition for dimension $n$ and curvature $(n-1) \kappa$, i.e., ${\rm CD}((n-1)\kappa, n)$, was shown by Petrunin for $\kappa=0$ (and said that for general curvature $\geq\kappa$ the result followed in a similar way) \cite{MR2869253} and then Zhang--Zhu investigated the general case~\cite{MR2747437}. We will modify Gromov's definition of $n$-volumic scalar curvature bounded below in \cite[Section~26]{Gromov} to fill the picture, which means Lott--Sturm--Villani's Ricci curvature $\geq 0$ implies Gromov's scalar curvature $\geq 0$.
The metric measure space (mm-space) $X=(X,d,\mu)$ means that $d$ is the complete separable length metric on $X$ and $\mu$ is the locally finite full support Borel measure on $X$ equipped with its Borel $\sigma$-algebra. Say that an mm-space $X=(X,d,\mu)$ is locally volume-wise smaller (or not greater) than another such space $X'=(X',d',\mu')$ and write $X<_{\rm vol} X'$ $(X\leq_{\rm vol} X')$, if all $\epsilon$-balls in $X$ are smaller (or not greater) than the $\epsilon$-balls in $X'$, $\mu(B_{\epsilon}(x))<\mu'(B_{\epsilon}(x')) (\mu(B_{\epsilon}(x))\leq \mu'(B_{\epsilon}(x'))$, for all $x\in X, x'\in X'$ and the uniformly small $\epsilon$ which depends on $X$ and $ X'$.
From now on, the Riemannian 2-sphere $\big(S^2(\gamma),d_S, {\rm vol}_S\big)$ is endowed with round metric such that the scalar curvature equal to $2\gamma^{-2}$, $\big(\mathbf{R}^{n-2},d_E, {\rm vol}_E\big)$ is endowed with Euclidean metric with flat scalar curvature and the product manifold $S^2(\gamma)\times \mathbf{R}^{n-2}$ is endowed with the Pythagorean product metrics $d_{S\times E}:=\sqrt{d_S^2 + d_E^2}$ and the volume ${\rm vol}_{S\times E}:={\rm vol}_S \otimes {\rm vol}_E$.
Thus, we have $S^2(\gamma)<_{\rm vol} \mathbf{R}^2 $. If $0<\gamma_1< \gamma_2$, then $S^2(\gamma_1)<_{\rm vol} S^2(\gamma_2)$. Furthermore, $S^2(\gamma)\times \mathbf{R}^{n-2}<_{\rm vol} \mathbf{R}^n$. If $0<\gamma_1< \gamma_2$, then $S^2(\gamma_1)\times \mathbf{R}^{n-2}<_{\rm vol} S^2(\gamma_2)\times \mathbf{R}^{n-2}$.
\begin{Definition}[Gromov's $n$-volumic scalar curvature]
Gromov's $n$-volumic scalar curvature of $X$ is bounded below by $0$ for $X=(X, d, \mu)$ if~$X$ is locally volume-wise not greater than $\mathbf{R}^n$.
Gromov's $n$-volumic scalar curvature of $X$ bounds from below by $\kappa>0$ for $X=(X, d, \mu)$ if~$X$ is locally volume-wise smaller than $S^2(\gamma)\times \mathbf{R}^{n-2}$ for all $\gamma>\sqrt{\frac{2}{\kappa}}$, i.e., $X<_{\rm vol} S^2(\gamma)\times \mathbf{R}^{n-2}$ and $\gamma>\sqrt{\frac{2}{\kappa}}$, where $S^2(\gamma)\times \mathbf{R}^{n-2}=\big(S^2(\gamma)\times \mathbf{R}^{n-2},d_{S\times E},{\rm vol}_{S\times E}\big)$.
\end{Definition}
The $n$-volumic scalar curvature is sensitive to the scaling of the measure, but the curvature condition ${\rm CD}(\kappa, n)$ of Lott--Villani--Sturm \cite[Definition~1.3]{MR2237207} is invariant up to scalars of the measure only \cite[Proposition~1.4(ii)]{MR2237207}. Therefore, the $n$-dimensional condition needs to be put into the definition of Gromov's $n$-volumic scalar curvature. In fact, the $n$-dimensional condition is the special case of Young's point-wise dimension in dynamical systems \cite[Theorem~4.4]{MR684248}.
\begin{Definition}[$n$-dimensional condition]
For given positive natural number $n$, the mm-space $X=(X, d, \mu)$ satisfies the $n$-dimensional condition if
\begin{align*}
\lim\limits_{r \to 0}\frac{\mu(B_r(x))}{{\rm vol}_E(B_r(\mathbf{R}^n))}=1
\end{align*}
for every $x \in X$, where $B_r(\mathbf{R}^n)$ is the closed $r$-ball in the Euclidean space $\mathbf{R}^n$ and the $B_r(x)$ is the closed $r$-ball with the center $x\in X$.
\end{Definition}
From now on, the superscript of $n$ in the space $X^n$ means the mm-space $(X^n, d, \mu)$ satisfies $n$-dimensional condition.
Note that a closed smooth $n$-manifold $M^n$ $(n\geq 3)$ admits a Riemannian metric with constant negative scalar curvature and a Riemannian metric of non-negative scalar curvature which is not identically zero, then by a conformal change of the metric we get a metric of positive scalar curvature according to Kazdan--Warner theorem \cite{MR365409}. Furthermore, if there is a scalar-flat Riemannian metric $g$ on $M^n$, but $g$ is not Ricci-flat metric, then $g$ can be deformed to a~metric with positive scalar curvature according to Kazdan theorem \cite[Theorem~B]{MR675736} or by using Ricci-flow with an easy argument. Hence we will focus more on promoting the positive scalar curvature to positive $n$-volumic scalar curvature.
\begin{Definition}[$n$-volumic scalar curvature]
Assume $X^n=(X^n, d, \mu)$ is the compact mm-space and satisfies the $n$-dimensional condition, we call
\begin{enumerate}\itemsep=0pt
\item[$1.$] the $n$-volumic scalar curvature of $X^n$ is positive, i.e., ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}(X^n)> 0$, if there exists $r_{X^n} > 0$ such that the measures of $\epsilon$-balls in $X^n$ are smaller than the volumes of $\epsilon$-balls in~$\mathbf{R}^n$ for $0 < \epsilon \leq r_{X^n}$.
\item[$2.$] the $n$-volumic scalar curvature of $X^n$ is bounded below by 0, i.e., ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}(X^n)\geq 0$, if there exists $r_{X^n} > 0$ such that the measures of $\epsilon$-balls in $X^n$ are not greater than the volumes of $\epsilon$-balls in~$ \mathbf{R}^{n}$ for $0 < \epsilon \leq r_{X^n}$.
The $r_{X^n}$ is called scalar curvature radius $($SC-radius$)$ of $X^n$ for ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}(X^n)\geq 0$.
\item[$3.$] the $n$-volumic scalar curvature of $X^n$ is bounded below by $\kappa>0$, i.e., ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}(X^n)\geq\kappa>0$, if, for any $\gamma$ with $\gamma> \sqrt{\frac{2}{\kappa}}$, there exists $r_{X^n,\gamma} >0$ such that the measures of $\epsilon$-balls in $X^n$ are smaller than the volumes of $\epsilon$-balls in $S^2(\gamma)\times \mathbf{R}^{n-2}$ for $0 < \epsilon \leq r_{X^n,\gamma}$.
We call $r_{X^n}:=\inf\limits_{\gamma> \sqrt{\frac{2}{\kappa}}} r_{X^n,\gamma}$ is the SC-radius of $X^n$ for ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}(X^n)\geq\kappa>0$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Definition}
In particular, we will focus on the case of $\inf\limits_{\gamma> \sqrt{\frac{2}{\kappa}}} r_{X^n,\gamma}\neq 0$ for stability in Section~\ref{sm}.
If the mm-space $X^n$ is locally compact, then the definition of the $n$-volumic scalar curvature bounded below only modifies the definition of the $r_{X^n,\gamma} >0$ to a positive continuous function of~$X^n$.
Two mm-spaces $(X^n, d, \mu)$ and $(X^n_1, d_1, \mu_1)$ are isometric if there exists a one-to-one map $f\colon X^n \to X^n_1$ such that $d_1(f(a),f(b))=d(a,b)$ for $a$ and $b$ are in $X^n$ and $f_*\mu=\mu_1$, where $f_*\mu$ is the push-forward measure, i.e., $f_*\mu(U)=\mu\big(f^{-1}(U)\big)$ for a measureable subset $U\subset X^n_1$. If~$X^n$ satisfies ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}(X^n)\geq\kappa\geq 0$, then each mm-space $(X^n_1, d_1, \mu_1)$ that is isometric to $(X^n, d, \mu)$ also satisfies ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}(X^n_1)\geq\kappa\geq 0$.
\begin{Proposition}Let $g$ be a $C^2$-smooth Riemannian metric on a closed oriented $n$-mani\-fold~$M^n$ with induced metric measure space $(M^n, d_g, {\rm dVol}_g)$, then the scalar curvature of $g$ is positive, ${\rm Sc}_g> 0$, if and only if ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}(M^n)>0 $, and ${\rm Sc}_g\geq\kappa> 0$ if and only if~${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}(M^n)\geq\kappa> 0$.
\end{Proposition}
\begin{proof}For a $C^2$-smooth Riemannian metric $g$, one has
\begin{gather*}
{\rm dVol}_g(B_r(x)) = {\rm vol}_E(B_r(\mathbf{R}^n))\left[1 - \frac{{\rm Sc}_g(x)}{6(n+2)} r^2 + O\big(r^4\big)\right]
\end{gather*}
for $B_r(x) \subset M^n$ as $r\to 0$. Hence $(M^n, d_g, {\rm dVol}_g)$ satisfies the $n$-dimensional condition.
If we have ${\rm Sc}_g > 0$, then, since $M^n$ is compact, there exists $r_{M^n} > 0$, so that ${\rm dVol}_g(B_r(x))< {\rm vol}_E(B_r(\mathbf{R}^n))$ for all $0<r \leq r_{M^n}$. On the other hand, if there exists $r_{M^n} > 0$ such that ${\rm dVol}_g(B_r(x))< {\rm vol}_E(B_r(\mathbf{R}^n))$ for all $0<r \leq r_{M^n}$, then ${\rm Sc}_g$ must be greater than 0.
If ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}(M^n)\geq\kappa> 0$, then ${\rm Sc}_g \geq \kappa > 0$. Otherwise, assume there exist small $\epsilon>0$ such that ${\rm Sc}_g \geq \kappa-\epsilon>0$. That means that there exists a point $x_0$ in $M^n$ such that ${\rm Sc}_g(x_0)= \kappa-\epsilon$, as $M^n$ is compact and the scalar curvature is a continuous function on $M^n$. Thus, we can find a small $r$-ball $B_r(x_0)$ such that the volume of $B_r(x_0)$ is greater than the volume of the $r$-ball in the $S^2(\gamma)\times \mathbf{R}^{n-2}$ for $\gamma=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\kappa-\frac{\epsilon}{2}}}$, which is a contradiction.
On the other hand, ${\rm Sc}_g\geq\kappa> 0$ implies ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}(M^n)\geq\kappa> 0$. Assume ${\rm Sc}_g(x_1)=\kappa$ for some $x_1\in M^n$, then there exists $r_1$ such that ${\rm dVol}_g(B_{r_1}(x))\leq {\rm dVol}_g(B_{r_1}(x_1))$ for $r_1$-balls in $M^n$ and
\begin{gather*}
{\rm dVol}_g(B_r(x_1)) = {\rm vol}_E(B_r(\mathbf{R}^n))\left[1 - \frac{\kappa}{6(n+2)} r^2 + O\big(r^4\big)\right]
\end{gather*}
as $r\to 0$. Thus, for any $\gamma$ with $\gamma> \sqrt{\frac{2}{\kappa}}$, there exists $r_{M^n,\gamma} >0$ such that the measures of $\epsilon$-balls in $M^n$ are smaller than the volumes of $\epsilon$-balls in $S^2(\gamma)\times \mathbf{R}^{n-2}$ for $0 < \epsilon \leq r_{M^n,\gamma}$, i.e., ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}(M^n)\geq\kappa> 0$.
\end{proof}
Therefore, we have $S^n_{\frac{\kappa}{n-1}}<_{\rm vol} S^2(\gamma)\times \mathbf{R}^{n-2}$ for all $\gamma>\sqrt{\frac{2}{n\kappa}}$. Here $S^n_{\frac{\kappa}{n-1}}$ is the Riemannian manifold $S^n$ with constant sectional curvature $\frac{\kappa}{n-1}$.
\begin{Remark}For a closed smooth Riemannian manifold $(M^n,g)$, ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}(M^n)\geq 0 $ implies ${\rm Sc}_g\geq 0$. Otherwise, there exists a point in $M^n$ such that the scalar curvature is negative, then the volume of small ball will be greater than the volume of the small ball in Euclidean space, which is a contradiction.
On the other hand, one can consider the case of the scalar-flat metric, i.e., ${\rm Sc}_g\equiv 0$. If $g$ is a strongly scalar-flat metric, meaning a metric with scalar curvature zero such that $M^n$ has no metric with positive scalar curvature, then~$g$ is also Ricci flat according to Kazdan theorem above. Thus, we have
\begin{gather*}
{\rm dVol}_g(B_r(x)) = {\rm vol}_E(B_r(\mathbf{R}^n))\left[1 - \frac{\|{\rm Rie}(x)\|^2_g}{120(n+2)(n+4)} r^4 + O\big(r^6\big)\right]
\end{gather*}
for $B_r(x) \subset M^n$ as $r\to 0$ {\rm \cite[Theorem~3.3]{MR521460}}. Here ${\rm Rie}$ is the Riemannian tensor. Therefore, if~$g$ is a not flat metric, then $M^n<_{\rm vol} \mathbf{R}^n$. If $g$ is a flat metric, then $M^n\leq_{\rm vol} \mathbf{R}^n$. Thus ${\rm Sc}_g\geq 0$ implies ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}(M^n)\geq 0 $ for a strongly scalar-flat metric $g$.
However, ${\rm Sc}_g\geq 0$ may not imply ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}(M^n)\geq 0$. There are a lot of scalar-flat metrics but not strongly scalar flat metrics, i.e., ${\rm Sc}_g\equiv 0$ but not ${\rm Ricc}_g\neq 0$. For instance, the product metric on $S^2(1)\times \Sigma$, where $\Sigma$ is a closed hyperbolic surface, is the scalar-flat metric, but not the Ricci-flat metric. For those metrics, we have
\begin{gather*}
{\rm dVol}_g(B_r(x)) = {\rm vol}_E(B_r(\mathbf{R}^n))\left[1 + \frac{-3\|{\rm Rie}(x)\|^2_g+8\|{\rm Ricc}(x)\|^2_g}{360(n+2)(n+4)} r^4 + O\big(r^6\big)\right]
\end{gather*}
for $B_r(x) \subset M^n$ as $r\to 0$ {\rm \cite[Theorem~3.3]{MR521460}}. If $8\|{\rm Ricc}(x)\|^2_g>-3\|{\rm Rie}(x)\|^2_g$ for some point, then ${\rm Sc}_g\geq 0$ does not imply ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}(M^n)\geq 0$.
\end{Remark}
\begin{Theorem}
Assume that the mm-space $(X^n, d, \mu)$ satisfies $n$-dimensional condition and the curvature-dimension condition ${\rm CD}(\kappa, n)$ for $\kappa\geq 0$ and $n\geq 2$, then $(X^n, d, \mu)$ satisfies ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}(X^n)\geq n\kappa$.
\end{Theorem}
\begin{proof}
In fact, one only needs the generalized Bishop--Gromov volume growth inequality, which is implied by the curvature-dimension of $X^n$ \cite[Theorem~2.3]{MR2237207}.
(i) If $\kappa=0$, then
\begin{gather*}
\frac{\mu(B_r(x))}{\mu(B_R(x))}\geq \left(\frac{r}{R}\right)^n
\end{gather*}
for all $ 0< r <R$. That is
\begin{gather*}
\frac{\mu(B_r(x))}{{\rm vol}_E(B_r(\mathbf{R}^n))} = \frac{\mu(B_r(x))}{\alpha(n)r^n}\geq \frac{\mu(B_R(x))}{\alpha(n)R^n}=\frac{\mu(B_R(x))}{{\rm vol}_E(B_R(\mathbf{R}^n))},
\end{gather*}
where $\alpha(n)=\frac{{\rm vol}_E(B_r(\mathbf{R}^n))}{r^n}$.
Combining the $n$-dimensional condition,
\begin{gather*}
\lim\limits_{r \to 0}\frac{\mu(B_r(x))}{{\rm vol}_E(B_r(\mathbf{R}^n))}=1,
\end{gather*}
that implies ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}(X)\geq 0$.
(ii) If $\kappa >0$, then
\begin{gather*}
\frac{\mu(B_r(x))}{\mu(B_R(x))}\geq \frac{\int_0^r \big[\sin\big(t\sqrt{\frac{\kappa}{(n-1)}}\big)\big]^{n-1}{\rm d}t}{\int_0^R \big[\sin\big(t\sqrt{\frac{\kappa}{(n-1)}}\big)\big]^{n-1}{\rm d}t}
\end{gather*}
for all $ 0< r \leq R\leq \pi \sqrt{\frac{(n-1)}{\kappa}}$.
Since the scalar curvature of the product manifold $S^2(\gamma)\times \mathbf{R}^{n-2}$ is $n\kappa$, where $\gamma=\sqrt{\frac{2}{n\kappa}}$, then there exists $C_1, C_2 >0$ such that
\begin{gather*}
1 - \frac{n\kappa}{6(n+2)}r_1^2 - C_2r_1^4 \leq \widetilde{{\rm vol}_{S\times E}(B_{r_1}(y))} := \frac{ {\rm vol}_{S\times E}(B_{r_1}(y))}{{\rm vol}_E(B_{r_1}(\mathbf{R}^n))} \leq 1 - \frac{n\kappa}{6(n+2)}r_1^2 + C_2r_1^4,
\end{gather*}
for $y\in S^2(\gamma)\times \mathbf{R}^{n-2}$ and $r_1\leq C_1$, where $C_1$, $C_2$ are decided by the product manifold $S^2(\gamma)\times \mathbf{R}^{n-2}$.
Let
\begin{gather*}
\widetilde{\mu(B_r(x))}:=\frac{\mu(B_r(x))}{{\rm vol}_E(B_r(\mathbf{R}^n))}
\end{gather*}
and
\begin{gather*}
f(r):= \frac{\int_0^r \big[\sin\big(t\sqrt{\frac{\kappa}{(n-1)}}\big)\big] ^{n-1}{\rm d}t}{{\rm vol}_E(B_r(\mathbf{R}^n))},
\end{gather*}
then the generalized Bishop--Gromov inequality can be re-formulated as
\begin{gather*}
\widetilde{\mu(B_R(x))} \leq \widetilde{\mu(B_r(x))} \frac{f(R)}{f(r)}
\end{gather*}
for all $ 0< r <R\leq \pi \sqrt{\frac{(n-1)}{\kappa}}$. The asymptotic expansion of $f(r)$ is
\begin{gather*}
f(r)= \frac{\frac{1}{n}r^n\big[\frac{\kappa}{(n-1)}\big]^{\frac{(n-1)}{2}}-\frac{(n-1)}{6(n+2)}r^{n+2} \big[\frac{\kappa}{(n-1)}\big]^{\frac{n+1}{2}}+O\big(r^{n+4}\big)}{{\rm vol}_E(B_r(\mathbf{R}^n))}
\end{gather*}
as $ r\rightarrow 0$.
Thus, the asymptotic expansion of $\frac{f(R)}{f(r)}$ is
\begin{gather*}
\frac{f(R)}{f(r)}= \frac{1-\frac{n\kappa}{6(n+2)}R^2+ O\big(R^4\big)}{1-\frac{n\kappa}{6(n+2)}r^2+ O\big(r^4\big)}
\end{gather*}
as $R \to 0$, $r \to 0$.
The $n$-dimensional condition, $\lim\limits_{r\to 0} \widetilde{\mu(B_r(x))}=1$, implies that
\begin{gather*}
\widetilde{\mu(B_R(x))}\leq 1-\frac{n\kappa}{6(n+2)}R^2+ O\big(R^4\big)
\end{gather*}
as $R\to 0$. Therefore, for any $\kappa'$ with $0<\kappa' < \kappa$, there exists $\epsilon_{\kappa'} >0$ such that for any $0<R\leq \epsilon_{\kappa'}$, we have
\begin{gather*}
\widetilde{\mu(B_R(x))}<\widetilde{{\rm vol}_{S\times E}(B_{R}(y))},
\end{gather*}
where $\widetilde{{\rm vol}_{S\times E}(B_{R}(y))}= \frac{ {\rm vol}_{S\times E}(B_{R}(y))}{{\rm vol}_E(B_{R}(\mathbf{R}^n))}$ is defined as before, the balls $B_{R}(y)$ are in $S^2(\gamma)\times \mathbf{R}^{n-2}$ and $\gamma=\sqrt{\frac{2}{n\kappa'}}$.
That is $X^n <_{\rm vol} S^2(\gamma)\times \mathbf{R}^{n-2}$, for all $\gamma>\sqrt{\frac{2}{n\kappa}}$, i.e., ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}(X^n)\geq n\kappa$.
In fact, one has the classical Bishop inequality by adding the $n$-dimensional condition to the generalized Bishop--Gromov volume growth inequality. It means that
\begin{itemize}\itemsep=0pt
\item if $\kappa=0$, $\mu(B_R(x))\leq {\rm vol}_E(B_R(\mathbf{R}^n))$ for all $R>0$,
\item if $\kappa>0$, $\mu(B_R(x))\leq {\rm vol}_{S^n}\big(B_R\big(S^n_{\frac{\kappa}{n-1}}\big)\big)$ for $0< R\leq \pi \sqrt{\frac{(n-1)}{\kappa}}$.
\end{itemize}
In other words, if $\kappa=0$, $X^n\leq_{\rm vol}\mathbf{R}^n$. If $\kappa>0$, $X^n\leq_{\rm vol}S^n_{\frac{\kappa}{n-1}}$. We have $S^n_{\frac{\kappa}{n-1}}<_{\rm vol} S^2(\gamma)\times \mathbf{R}^{n-2}$ for all $\gamma>\sqrt{\frac{2}{n\kappa}}$. Then $X^n<_{\rm vol} S^2(\gamma)\times \mathbf{R}^{n-2}$ for all $\gamma>\sqrt{\frac{2}{n\kappa}}$.
Thus, we also get ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}(X^n)\geq n\kappa$.
\end{proof}
\begin{Remark}
Hence the mm-space $(X^n, d, \mu)$ with ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}(X^n)\geq n\kappa$ includes the mm-spaces that satisfies $n$-dimensional condition and the generalized Bishop--Gromov volume growth inequality as stated in the proof, e.g., the mm-spaces with the Riemannian curvature condition ${\rm RCD}(\kappa,n)$ \cite{MR3205729} or with the measure concentration property ${\rm MCP}(\kappa,n)$~\cite{MR2341840}.
\end{Remark}
\begin{Question}Let ${\rm Al}^n(1)$ be an orientable compact $n$-dimensional Aleksandrov space with curvature $\geq 1$, then do all continuous maps $\phi$ from ${\rm Al}^n(1)$ to the sphere $S^n$ with standard metric of non-zero degree satisfy ${\rm Lip}(\phi)\geq C(n)$? Here ${\rm Lip}(\phi)$ is the Lipschitz constant of $\phi$, $\phi$ maps the boundary of ${\rm Al}^n(1)$ to a point in~$S^n$ and $C(n)$ is a constant depending only on the dimension~$n$.
\end{Question}
\begin{Question}Assume the compact mm-space $(X, d, \mu)$ satisfies the curvature-dimension condition ${\rm CD}(n-1, n)$, $n$-dimensional condition and the covering dimension is also $n$, then do all continuous maps $\phi$ from $(X, d, \mu)$ to the sphere $S^n$ with standard metric, where $\phi$ is non-trivial in the homotopy class of maps, satisfy ${\rm Lip}(\phi)\geq C_1(n)$, where $C_1(n)$ is a~constant depending only on~$n$?
\end{Question}
\begin{Remark}
The questions above are inspired by Gromov's spherical Lipschitz bounded theorem in \cite[Section~3]{MR3816521} and the results above. The finite covering dimension is equal to the cohomological dimension over integer ring~$\mathbb{Z}$ for the compact metric space according to the Alexandrov theorem. The best constant of~$C(n)$ and~$C_1(n)$ would be~1 if both questions have positive answers.
\end{Remark}
\begin{Proposition}[quadratic scaling] Assume the compact mm-space $(X^n, d, \mu)$ satisfies \linebreak ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}(X^n)\geq \kappa> 0$, then ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}(\lambda X^n)\geq \lambda ^{-2}\kappa> 0$ and $r_{\lambda X^n}=\lambda r_{X^n}$ for all $\lambda>0$, where $\lambda X^n:=(X^n, \lambda \cdot d,\lambda^n \cdot \mu)$.
\end{Proposition}
\begin{proof}
First, we will show that the $n$-dimensional condition is stable under scaling. Let $d':=\lambda\cdot d$, $\mu':=\lambda^n \cdot \mu$, $B'_r(x)$ be an $r$-ball in the $(X^n,d')$, and $B_r(x)$ be an $r$-ball in the $(X^n,d)$, then $B'_r(x)=B_{\frac{r}{\lambda}}(x)$ as the subset in the $X^n$. One has
\begin{gather*}
\lim\limits_{r \to 0}\frac{\mu'(B'_r(x))}{{\rm vol}_E(B_r(\mathbf{R}^n))}=\lim\limits_{r \to 0}\frac{\mu'(B_{\frac{r}{\lambda}}(x))}{{\rm vol}_E(B_r(\mathbf{R}^n))}=\lim\limits_{r \to 0}\frac{\lambda^n \cdot \mu(B_{\frac{r}{\lambda}}(x))}{\lambda^n \cdot {\rm vol}_E(B_{\frac{r}{\lambda}}(\mathbf{R}^n))}=1,
\end{gather*}
then $\lambda X^n$ satisfies the $n$-dimensional condition.
Since $\lambda \cdot \big(S^2(\gamma)\times \mathbf{R}^{n-2} \big)=\lambda \cdot S^2(\gamma)\times \lambda\cdot\mathbf{R}^{n-2}=S^2(\lambda \gamma)\times \lambda\cdot\mathbf{R}^{n-2}$, we have
\begin{gather*}
\lambda \cdot X^n<_{\rm vol}\lambda \cdot \big(S^2(\gamma)\times \mathbf{R}^{n-2} \big)=S^2(\lambda \gamma)\times \lambda\cdot\mathbf{R}^{n-2}
\end{gather*}
for all $\lambda\gamma> \sqrt{\frac{2}{\lambda\kappa}}$ and $0 < \epsilon \leq \lambda r_{X^n}$. That means ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}(\lambda X^n)\geq \lambda ^{-2}\kappa> 0$ and $r_{\lambda \cdot X^n}=\lambda r_{X^n}$.
\end{proof}
We also have ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}(\lambda X^n)\geq 0$ $(>0)$, if ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}(X^n)\geq 0$ $(>0)$.
\begin{Remark}Since the $n$-dimensional condition and definition of $n$-volumic scalar curvature is locally defined, we have the following construction.
\begin{itemize}\itemsep=0pt
\item Global to local: Let the locally compact mm-space $(X^n, d, \mu)$ satisfy ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}(X^n)\geq \kappa\geq 0$ and $Y^n\subset X$ be an open subset. Then, if $(Y^n,d_Y)$ is a complete length space, $(Y^n,d_Y,\mu\llcorner_Y)$ satisfies ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}(Y^n)\geq \kappa\geq 0$ and $r_{Y^n}=r_{X^n}$. Where $d_Y$ is the induced metric of $d$ and $\mu\llcorner_Y$ is the restriction operator, namely, $\mu\llcorner_Y(A):=\mu(Y^n\cap A)$ for $A\subset X^n$.
\item Local to global: Let $\{Y^n_i\}_{i\in I}$ be a finite open cover of a locally compact mm-space $(X^n, d, \mu)$. Assume that $(Y^n_i,d_{Y_i})$ is a complete length space and $(Y^n_i,d_{Y_i},\mu\llcorner_{Y_i})$ satisfies ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}(Y^n_i)\geq \kappa\geq 0$, then $(X^n, d, \mu)$ satisfies ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}(X^n)\geq \kappa\geq 0$ and $r_{X^n}$ can be chosen as a partition of unity of the functions $\{r_{Y^n_i}\}_{i\in I}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{Remark}
\begin{Question}Assume that ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_{n_1}}(X^{n_1}_1)\geq \kappa_1 (\geq 0)$ for the compact mm-space $(X^{n_1}_1, d_1, \mu_1)$ and ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_{n_2}} \big(X^{n_2}_2 \big)\geq \kappa_2 (\geq 0)$ for the compact mm-space $(X^{n_2}_2, d_2, \mu_2)$, then do we have
\begin{gather*}
{\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_{n_1+n_2}} \big(X^{n_1}_1\times X^{n_2}_2 \big)\geq \kappa_1+\kappa_2, \qquad r_{X^n_1 \times X^n_2}=\min \{r_{X^n_1},r_{X^n_2}\}
\end{gather*}
for $ \big(X^{n_1}_1\times X^{n_2}_2, d_3, \mu_3 \big)$? Here $X^{n_1}_1 \times X^{n_2}_2$ is endowed with the measure $\mu_3:= \mu_1 \otimes \mu_2$ and with the Pythagorean product metric $d_3 :=\sqrt{d_1^2+d_2^2}$.
\end{Question}
\section{smGH-convergence}\label{sm}
Let $\{\mu_n\}_{n\in\mathbf{N}}$ and $\mu$ be Borel measures on the space $X$, then the sequence $\{\mu_n\}_{n\in\mathbf{N}}$ is said to converge \textit{strongly} (also called setwise convergence in other literature ) to a limit $\mu$ if $\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow \infty} \mu_n(\mathcal{A})=\mu(\mathcal{A})$ for every $\mathcal{A}$ in the Borel $\sigma$-algebra.
A map $f\colon X\rightarrow Y$ is called an $\epsilon$-isometry between compact metric spaces $X$ and $Y$, if $|d_{X}(a, b)-d_{Y}(f(a), f(b))|\leq\epsilon$ for all $a,b \in X$ and it is almost surjective, i.e., for every $y\in Y$, there exists an $x\in X$ such that $d_Y(f(x), y)\leq \epsilon$.
In fact, if $f$ is an $\epsilon$-isometry $X\rightarrow Y$, then there is a $(4\epsilon)$-isometry $f'\colon Y\rightarrow X$ such that for all $x\in X$, $y\in Y$, $d_X(f'\circ f(x), x)\leq 3\epsilon$, $d_Y(f\circ f'(y), y)\leq \epsilon$.
\begin{Definition}[smGH-convergence]
Let $(X_i, d_i, \mu_i)_{i\in\mathbf{N}}$ and $(X, d, \mu)$ be compact mm-spaces. $X_i$ converges to $X$ in the strongly measured Gromov--Hausdorff topology (smGH-convergence) if there are measurable $\epsilon_i$-isometries $f_i\colon X_i\rightarrow X$ such that $ \epsilon_i \rightarrow 0$ and $f_{i*}\mu_i\rightarrow \mu$ in the strong topology of measures as $i\rightarrow \infty$.
If the spaces $(X_i,d_n,\mu_i,p_i)_{i\in\mathbf{N}}$ and $(X,d,\mu,p)$ are locally compact pointed mm-spaces, it is said that $X_i$ converges to $X$ in the pointed strongly measured Gromov--Hausdorff topo\-lo\-gy (psmGH-convergence) if there are sequences $r_i\to \infty$, $\epsilon_i \to 0$, and measurable pointed $\epsilon_i$-isometries $f_i\colon B_{r_i}(p_i)\to B_{r_i}(p)$, such that $f_{i*}\mu_i \to \mu$, where the convergence is strong convergence.
\end{Definition}
\begin{Remark}Let $(X_i, d_i, \mu_i)_{i\in\mathbf{N}}$ converge to $(X, d, \mu)$ in the measured Gromov--Hausdorff topo\-lo\-gy, then there are measurable $\epsilon_i$-isometries $f_i\colon X_i\rightarrow X$ such that~$f_{i*}\mu_i$ weakly converges to~$\mu$. If there is a Borel measure $\nu$ on $X$ such that $\sup\limits_{i}f_{i*}\mu_i\leq \nu$, i.e., $\sup \limits_{i}f_{i*}\mu_i (\mathcal{A})\leq \nu(\mathcal{A})$ for every~$\mathcal{A}$ in the Borel $\sigma$-algebra on~$X$, then $X_i$ smGH-converges to $X$ (see \cite[Lemma~4.1]{MR1453465}).
\end{Remark}
\begin{Remark}The $n$-dimensional condition is not preserved by the measured Gromov--Hausdorff convergence as the following example shows. Let $\big\{a_i S^2:= \big(S^2, a_i d_S \big)\big\}$ $(a_i \in (0,1))$ be a sequence of space, then the limit of $a_i S^2$ under the measured Gromov--Hausdorff convergence is a point when $a_i$ goes to $0$. The limit exists as the Ricci curvature of~$a_i S^2$ is bounded below by~$1$.
\end{Remark}
\begin{Remark}
The $n$-dimensional condition is not preserved by the smGH-convergence since the limits of $\lim\limits_{r \to 0}\lim\limits_{i \to \infty}\frac{\mu_i(B_r(x))}{{\rm vol}_E(B_r(\mathbf{R}^n))}$ may not be commutative for some mm-spaces $(X, d, \mu_i)$. Assume the total variation distance of the measures goes to 0 as $i \to \infty$, i.e.,
\begin{gather*}
d_{TV}(\mu_i, \mu):=\sup\limits_{\mathcal{A}}|\mu_i(\mathcal{A})-\mu(\mathcal{A})|\to 0,
\end{gather*}
where $\mathcal{A}$ runs over the Borel $\sigma$-algebra of $X$, then the limits are commutative.
\end{Remark}
One can also define \textit{the total variation Gromov--Hausdorff convergence $($tvGH-convergence$)$} for mm-spaces by replacing the strong topology with the topology induced by the total variation distance in definition of smGH-convergence. Then tvGH-convergence implies smGH-convergence and the $n$-dimensional condition is preserved by tvGH-convergence.
\begin{Theorem}[stability]
If compact mm-spaces $(X_i^n, d_i, \mu_i)$ with ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}(X^n_i)\geq \kappa\geq 0$, SC-radius $r_{X^n_i}\geq R>0$, and $(X_i^n, d_i, \mu_i)$ smGH-converge to the compact mm-space $(X^n, d, \mu)$ with $n$-dimensional condition, then $X^n$ also satisfies ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}(X^n)\geq \kappa$ and the SC-radius $r_{X^n}\geq R$.
\end{Theorem}
\begin{proof}
Fix an $x\in X^n$ and let $B_r(x)$ be the small $r$-ball on $X^n$ where $r < R$, then there exists $x_i\in X^n_i$ such that $f^{-1}_i(B_r(x))\subset B_{r+4\epsilon_i}(x_i) $ where $B_{r+4\epsilon_i}(x_i) \subset X^n_i$ and $r+4\epsilon_i\leq R$. Thus, $f_{i*}\mu_i(B_r(x))\leq \mu_i(B_{r+4\epsilon_i}(x_i))$.
\begin{itemize}\itemsep=0pt
\item For $\kappa=0$, since ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}(X^n_i)\geq 0$ and SC-radius$\geq R>0$, then $\mu_i(B_r(x_i))\leq {\rm vol}_E(B_r(\mathbf{R}^n))$ for all $0<r \leq R$ and all $i$. Therefore, $f_{i*}\mu_i(B_r(x))< \mu_i(B_{r+4\epsilon_i}(x_i))\leq {\rm vol}_E(B_{r+4\epsilon_i}(\mathbf{R}^n))$ for $r+4\epsilon_i\leq R$. Since $\epsilon_i$ that is not related to $r$ can be arbitrarily small, then $\mu(B_r(x))\leq {\rm vol}_E(B_r(\mathbf{R}^n))$.
\item For $\kappa>0$, we have $\mu_i(B_r(x_i))< {\rm vol}_{S \times E} \big(B_r \big(S^2(\gamma)\times \mathbf{R}^{n-2} \big) \big)$ for all $0< r \leq R$, all $i$, and $\gamma>\sqrt{\frac{2}{\kappa}}$. Thus, $f_{i*}\mu_i(B_r(x))< \mu_i(B_{r+4\epsilon_i}(x_i))< {\rm vol}_{S\times E} \big(B_{r+4\epsilon_i} \big(S^2(\gamma)\times \mathbf{R}^{n-2} \big) \big)$ for $r+4\epsilon_i\leq R$. Since $\epsilon_i$ that is not related to $r$ can be arbitrarily small, then $\mu(B_r(x))\leq {\rm vol}_{S\times E} \big(B_{r} \big(S^2(\gamma)\times \mathbf{R}^{n-2} \big) \big)$ for $\gamma>\sqrt{\frac{2}{\kappa}}$. Thus, $\mu(B_r(x))< {\rm vol}_{S\times E} \big(B_{r} \big(S^2\big(\sqrt{\frac{2}{\kappa+\epsilon'}}\big)\times \mathbf{R}^{n-2} \big) \big)$, where $0<\epsilon'$ is independence on~$r$ and~$\epsilon'$ can as small as we want. Therefore, we have ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}(X^n)\geq \kappa$.\hfill\qed
\end{itemize}\renewcommand{\qed}{}
\end{proof}
\begin{Definition}[tangent space]
The mm-space $(Y,d_Y,\mu_Y, o)$ is a tangent space of $(X^n,d,\mu)$ at $p\in X^n$ if there exists a sequence $\lambda_i\to \infty$ such that $(X^n,\lambda_i\cdot d,\lambda_i^n \cdot\mu,p)$ psmGH-converges to $(Y,d_Y,\mu_Y, o)$ as $\lambda_i\to \infty$.
\end{Definition}
Therefore, $(Y,d_Y,\mu_Y, o)$ also satisfies the $n$-dimensional condition and can be written as $Y^n$.
\begin{Corollary}Assume the compact mm-space $(X^n,d,\mu)$ with ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}(X^n)\geq\kappa\geq 0$ and the tangent space $(Y^n,d_Y,\mu_Y, o)$ of $X^n$ exists at the point $p$, then $(Y^n,d_Y,\mu_Y, o)$ satisfies ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}(Y^n)\allowbreak\geq 0$ and the SC-radius$\geq r_{X^n}$.
\end{Corollary}
\begin{proof}
Since the $n$-volumic scalar curvature has the quadratic scaling property, i.e., ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}(\lambda X^n)\allowbreak \geq \lambda ^{-2}\kappa \geq 0$ and $r_{\lambda X^n}=\lambda r_{X^n}$ for all $\lambda>0$, where $\lambda X^n:=(X^n, \lambda \cdot d,\lambda^n \cdot \mu)$, then ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}(Y^n)\geq 0$ is implied by the stability theorem.
\end{proof}
The mm-spaces with ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}\geq 0$ includes some of the Finsler manifolds, for instance, $\mathbf{R}^n$~equip\-ped with any norm and with the Lebesgue measure satisfies ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}\geq 0$ and any smooth compact Finsler manifold is a ${\rm CD}(\kappa, n)$ space for appropriate finite $\kappa$ and~$n$~\cite{MR2546027}. It is well-known that Gigli's infinitesimally Hilbertian~\cite{MR3381131} can be seen as the Riemannian condition in ${\rm RCD}(\kappa, n)$ space. Thus, infinitesimally Hilbertian can also be used as a Riemannian condition in the mm-spaces with ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}\geq 0$.
\begin{Definition}[${\rm RSC}(\kappa, n)$ space]
The compact mm-space $(X^n,d,\mu)$ with the $n$-dimensional condition is a Riemannian $n$-volumic scalar curvature$\geq\kappa$ space $({\rm RSC}(\kappa, n)$ space$)$ if it is infinitesimally Hilbertian and satisfies the ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}(X^n)\geq\kappa\geq 0$.
\end{Definition}
Note that any finite-dimensional Alexandrov spaces with curvature bounded below are infinitesimally Hilbertian. Then
\begin{gather*}
{\rm Al}^n(\kappa)\Rightarrow {\rm RCD}((n-1)\kappa, n)\Rightarrow {\rm RSC}((n(n-1)\kappa, n)
\end{gather*}
on $(X^n,d,\mathcal{H}^n)$, where the measure $\mathcal{H}^n$ is the $n$-dimensional Hausdorff measure that satisfies the $n$-dimensional condition.
\begin{Question} Are ${\rm RSC}(\kappa, n)$ spaces stable under tvGH-convergence?
\end{Question}
\begin{Remark}[convergence of compact mm-spaces]
For the compact metric measure spaces with probability measures, one can consider mGH-convergence, Gromov--Prokhorov convergence, Gromov--Hausdorff--Prokhorov convergence, Gromov--Wasserstein convergence, Gromov--Hausdorff--Wasserstein convergence, Gromov's
$\underline{\Box}$-convergence, Sturm's $\mathbb{D}$-convergence \cite[Section~27]{MR2459454}, and Gromov--Hausdorff-vague convergence \cite{MR3522292}. smGH-convergence implies those convergences for compact metric measure spaces with probability measures, since the measures converge strongly in smGH-convergence and converge weakly in other situations.
Note that mm-spaces with infinitesimally Hilbertian are not stable under mGH-conver\-gen\-ce~\cite{MR3381131}. It is not clear if the infinitesimally Hilbertian are preserved under smGH-convergence or tvGH-convergence.
\end{Remark}
\section[Smooth mm-space with Sc(alpha,beta)>0]{Smooth mm-space with $\boldsymbol{{\rm Sc}_{\alpha, \beta}>0}$}\label{smooth mm-space}
Let the smooth metric measure space $\big(M^n, g, {\rm e}^{-f}\,{\rm dVol}_g\big)$ (also known as the weighted Riemannian manifold in some references), where $f$ is a $C^2$-function on $M^n$, $g$ is a $C^2$-Riemannian metric and $n \geq 2$, satisfy the curvature-dimension condition ${\rm CD}(\kappa, n)$ for $\kappa\geq 0$, then $M^n$ also satisfies ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}(M^n)\geq n\kappa$.
Motivated by the importance of the Ricci Bakry-Emery curvature, i.e.,
\begin{gather*}
{\rm Ric}^M_f= {\rm Ricc} +{\rm Hess}(f),
\end{gather*}
the weighted sectional curvature of smooth mm-space was proposed and discussed in~\cite{MR3397488}. On the other hand, Perelman defined and used the P-scalar curvature in his $\mathcal{F}$-functional in \cite[Section~1]{2002math.....11159P}. Inspired by the P-scalar curvature, i.e., $ {\rm Sc}_g + 2\bigtriangleup_gf - \|\bigtriangledown_gf\|^2_g$, we propose another scalar curvature on the smooth mm-space.
\begin{Definition}[weighted scalar curvature ${\rm Sc}_{\alpha, \beta}$]
The weighted scalar curvature ${\rm Sc}_{\alpha, \beta}$ on the smooth mm-space $\big(M^n, g, {\rm e}^{-f}\,{\rm dVol}_g\big)$ is defined by
\begin{gather*}
{\rm Sc}_{\alpha, \beta}:= {\rm Sc}_g + \alpha \bigtriangleup_gf - \beta\| \bigtriangledown_gf\|^2_g.
\end{gather*}
\end{Definition}
Note that the Laplacian $\bigtriangleup_g$ here is the trace of the Hessian and ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}(M^n)\geq \kappa\geq 0$ is equivalent to ${\rm Sc}_{\alpha, \beta}\geq \kappa\geq 0$ for $\alpha=3$ and $\beta=3$ (see \cite[Theorem~8]{MR1458581} or the proof of Corollary~\ref{weighted volume} below).
\begin{Example}\quad
\begin{enumerate}\itemsep=0pt
\item[1.] For $\alpha=\frac{2(n-1)}{n}$ and $\beta=\frac{(n-1)(n-2)}{n^2}$, the ${\rm Sc}_{\frac{2(n-1)}{n}, \frac{(n-1)(n-2)}{n^2}}$ is the Chang--Gursky--Yang's conformally invariant scalar curvature for the smooth mm-space \cite{MR2203156}. That means for a~$C^2$-smooth function $w$ on $M^n$, one has
\begin{align*}
{\rm Sc}_{\frac{2(n-1)}{n}, \frac{(n-1)(n-2)}{n^2}}\big({\rm e}^{2w}g\big)={\rm e}^{-2w}{\rm Sc}_{\frac{2(n-1)}{n}, \frac{(n-1)(n-2)}{n^2}}(g).
\end{align*}
\item[2.] For $\alpha=2$ and $\beta=\frac{m+1}{m}$, where $m\in \mathbb{N}\cup \{0, \infty\}$, the ${\rm Sc}_{2, \frac{m+1}{m}}$ is Case's weighted scalar curvature and Case also defined and studied the weighted Yamabe constants in~\cite{MR3116020}. Case's weighted scalar curvature is the classical scalar curvature if $m=0$. If $m=\infty$, then it is Perelman's $P$-scalar curvature.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Example}
Note that the results in this paper are new for those examples.
\subsection[Spin manifold and Sc(alpha,beta)>0]{Spin manifold and $\boldsymbol{{\rm Sc}_{\alpha, \beta}> 0}$}
For an orientable closed surface with density $\big(\Sigma, g, {\rm e}^{-f}\,{\rm dVol}_g\big)$ with ${\rm Sc}_{\alpha, \beta} > 0$ and $\beta\geq 0$, then the inequality,
\begin{gather*}
0 < \!\int_\Sigma\! {\rm Sc}_{\alpha, \beta} \,{\rm dVol}_g = \!\int_\Sigma\! \big({\rm Sc}_g + \alpha\bigtriangleup_gf - \beta\|\bigtriangledown_gf\|_g^2\big) \,{\rm dVol}_g
= 4\pi\chi(\Sigma) - \beta\!\int_\Sigma\! \|\bigtriangledown_gf\|_g^2 \,{\rm dVol}_g,\!
\end{gather*}
implies that $\chi(\Sigma)> 0$. Thus, $\Sigma$ is a 2-sphere.
The following proposition of vanishing harmonic spinors is owed to Perelman essentially and the proof is borrowed from \cite[Proposition~1]{MR3625165}.
\begin{Proposition}[vanishing harmonic spinors]\label{vanishing}
Assume the smooth mm-space $\big(M^n{,} g{,} {\rm e}^{-f} {\rm dVol}_g\big)$ is closed and spin. If $\alpha \in \mathbb{R}$, $\beta \geq \frac{|\alpha|^2}{4}$ and ${\rm Sc}_{\alpha, \beta}>0$, then the harmonic spinor of $M^n$ vanishes.
\end{Proposition}
\begin{proof}Let $\psi$ be a harmonic spinor, though the Schr\"odinger--Lichnerowicz--Weitzenboeck formula
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{D}^2=\bigtriangledown^*\bigtriangledown + \frac{1}{4}{\rm Sc}_g,
\end{align*}
one has
\begin{align*}
0& = \int_M \left[\|\bigtriangledown_g\psi\|^2_g + \frac{1}{4}\big({\rm Sc}_{\alpha, \beta} - \alpha \bigtriangleup_g f + \beta\|\bigtriangledown_gf\|^2_g\big)\|\psi\|^2_g \right] {\rm dVol}_g\\
& = \int_M \left[\|\bigtriangledown_g\psi\|^2_g + \left(\frac{1}{4}{\rm Sc}_{\alpha, \beta} + \frac{\beta}{4}\|\bigtriangledown_g f\|^2_g\right)\|\psi\|^2_g + \frac{\alpha}{4} \big\langle \bigtriangledown_gf, \bigtriangledown_g\|\psi\|^2_g\big\rangle_g\right] {\rm dVol}_g .
\end{align*}
Then one gets
\begin{align*}
\frac{|\alpha|}{4}|\big\langle\bigtriangledown_g f,\bigtriangledown_g\|\psi\|^2_g \big\rangle_g| & \leq\frac{|\alpha|}{4}\big(c\|\bigtriangledown_gf\|_g \|\psi\|_g \times 2c^{-1}\|\bigtriangledown_g\psi\|_g\big)\\
& \leq \frac{|\alpha| c^2}{8} \|\bigtriangledown_gf\|^2_g \|\psi\|^2_g + \frac{c^{-2}|\alpha|}{2}\|\bigtriangledown_g\psi\|^2_g.
\end{align*}
Therefore,
\begin{equation*}
0 \geq \int_M \left[\left(1- \frac{c^{-2} |\alpha|}{2}\right)\|\bigtriangledown_g\psi\|^2_g + \frac{2\beta - c^{2} |\alpha|}{8} \|\bigtriangledown_gf\|^2_g\|\psi\|^2_g + \frac{1}{4} {\rm Sc}_{\alpha, \beta} \|\psi\|^2_g \right] {\rm dVol}_g ,
\end{equation*}
where $c\neq 0$.
If $c^{-2} |\alpha| \leq 2$, $\beta \geq \frac{c^{2} |\alpha|}{2}$ and ${\rm Sc}_{\alpha, \beta} > 0$, then $\psi = 0$. So the conditions $\alpha \in \mathbb{R}$ and $\beta \geq \frac{|\alpha|^2}{4}$ are needed
\begin{align*}
\frac{|\alpha|}{4}|\big\langle\bigtriangledown_gf, \bigtriangledown_g \|\psi\|^2_g \big\rangle_g| &\leq \frac{|\alpha|}{4}\big(\|\bigtriangledown_gf\|_g \|\psi\|_g \times 2 \|\bigtriangledown_g \psi\|_g\big)\\
& = \frac{|\alpha|}{2}\big( c_1 \|\bigtriangledown_gf\|_g\|\psi\|_g \times c_1^{-1} \|\bigtriangledown_g\psi\|_g\big) \\
& \leq \frac{|\alpha|}{4} \big(c_1^2 \|\bigtriangledown_gf\|^2_g \|\psi\|^2_g + c_1^{-2} \|\bigtriangledown_g\psi\|^2_g\big).
\end{align*}
Thus,
\begin{equation*}
0 \geq \int_M \left[\left(1- \frac{c_1^{-2} |\alpha|}{4}\right)\|\bigtriangledown_g\psi\|^2_g + \frac{\beta - c_1^{2} |\alpha|}{4} \|\bigtriangledown_gf\|^2_g\|\psi\|^2_g + \frac{1}{4} {\rm Sc}_{\alpha, \beta} \|\psi\|^2_g\right] {\rm dVol}_g ,
\end{equation*}
where $c_1 \neq 0$. If $c_1^{-2} |\alpha| \leq 4$, $\beta \geq c_1^{2} |\alpha|$ and ${\rm Sc}_{\alpha, \beta} > 0$, then $\psi = 0$. Also the conditions $\alpha \in \mathbb{R}$ and $\beta \geq \frac{|\alpha|^2}{4}$ are needed.
\end{proof}
The following 3 corollaries come from the proposition of vanishing of harmonic spinors.
\begin{Corollary}\label{Genus}
Assume the smooth mm-space $\big(M^n, g, {\rm e}^{-f}\,{\rm dVol}_g\big)$ is closed and spin. If $\alpha \in \mathbb{R}$, $\beta \geq \frac{|\alpha|^2}{4}$ and ${\rm Sc}_{\alpha, \beta}>0$, then the $\widehat{A}$-genus and the Rosenberg index of $M^n$ vanish.
\end{Corollary}
\begin{proof}Since the $C^*(\pi_1(M^n))$-bundle in the construction of the Rosenberg index \cite{MR720934} is flat, there are no correction terms due to curvature of the bundle. Then the Schr\"odinger--Lichne\-ro\-wicz--Weitzenboeck formula and the argument in the proof of vanishing harmonic spinors can be applied without change.
\end{proof}
\begin{Corollary}Assume that $M^n$ is a closed spin $n$-manifold and $f$ is a smooth function on~$M^n$. If one of the following conditions is met,
\begin{enumerate}\itemsep=0pt
\item[$(1)$] $N \subset M^n$ is a codimension one closed connected submanifold with trivial normal bundle, the inclusion of fundamental groups $\pi_1\big(N^{n-1}\big)\rightarrow\pi_1(M^n)$ is injective and the Rosenberg index of $N$ does not vanish, or
\item[$(2)$] $N\subset M^n$ is a codimension two closed connected submanifold with trivial normal bundle, $\pi_2(M^n)=0$, the inclusion of fundamental groups $\pi_1\big(N^{n-1}\big)\rightarrow\pi_1(M^n)$ is injective and the Rosenberg index of $N$ does not vanish, or
\item[$(3)$] $N=N_1\cap \dots \cap N_k$, where $N_1 \cdots N_k\subset M$ are closed submanifolds that intersect mutually transversely and have trivial normal bundles. Suppose that the codimension of~$N_i$ is at most two for all $i\in \{1\dot k \}$ and $\pi_2(N) \rightarrow \pi_2(M)$ is surjective and $\hat{A}(N)\neq 0$,
\end{enumerate}
then $M^n$ does not admit a Riemnannian metric $g$ such that the smooth mm-space $\big(M^n, g, \allowbreak {\rm e}^{-f}\,{\rm dvol}_g\big)$ satisfies ${\rm Sc}_{\alpha, \beta}> 0$ for the dimension $n\geq 3$, $\alpha \in \mathbb{R}$ and $\beta \geq \frac{|\alpha|^2}{4}$.
\end{Corollary}
\begin{proof}The results in the \cite[Theorem~1.1]{MR3449594} and \cite[Theorem~1.9]{MR3704253} can be applied to show that the Rosenberg index of $M^n$ does not vanish and Corollary~\ref{Genus} implies the theorem.
\end{proof}
Let $\mathcal{R}_f(M^n):=\{(g,f)\}$ be the space of densities, where $g$ is a smooth Riemannian metric on~$M^n$ and~$f$ is a smooth function on $M^n$ and $\mathcal{R}^+_f(M^n)\subset \mathcal{R}_f(M^n)$ is the subspace of densities such that the smooth mm-space $\big(M^n, g, {\rm e}^{-f}\,{\rm dvol}_g\big)$ satisfies ${\rm Sc}_{\alpha, \beta}> 0$. Furthermore, let $\mathcal{R}^+_f(M^n)$ be endowed with the smooth topology.
\begin{Corollary}Assume $M^n$ is a closed spin $n$-manifold, $n\geq 3$, $\alpha \in \mathbb{R}$ and $\beta \geq \frac{|\alpha|^2}{4}$ and $\mathcal{R}^+_f(M^n)\neq \varnothing$, then there exists a homomorphism
\begin{gather*}
A_{m-1}\colon \ \pi_{m-1}(\mathcal{R}^+_f(M^n))\to KO_{n+m}
\end{gather*}
such that
\begin{itemize}\itemsep=0pt
\item $A_0\neq 0$, if $n\equiv 0,1$ $({\rm mod}~8)$,
\item $A_1\neq 0$, if $n\equiv -1,0$ $({\rm mod}~8)$,
\item $A_{8j+1-n}\neq 0$, if $n\geq 7$ and $8j-n\geq 0$.
\end{itemize}
\end{Corollary}
\begin{proof}Since the results in the \cite[Section~4.4]{MR358873} and~\cite{MR3073935}
depend on the existence of exotic spheres with non-vanishing $\alpha$-invariant. Let $\phi\colon M^n\to M^n$ be a diffeomorphism of $M^n$ and $(g, f)\in \mathcal{R}^+_f(M^n)$, then $(\phi^*g, f\circ\phi)$ is also in $\mathcal{R}^+_f(M^n)$. Combining it with Proposition \ref{vanishing} shows that Hitchin's construction of the map $A$ \cite[Proposition~4.6]{MR358873} can be applied to the case of $\mathcal{R}^+_f(M^n)$ and then we can finish the proof with the arguments in \cite[Section~4.4]{MR358873} and \cite[Section~2.5]{MR3073935}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Conformal to PSC-metrics}
\begin{Proposition}[conformal to PSC-metrics]\label{Conformal}
Let $\big(M^n, g, {\rm e}^{-f}\,{\rm dVol}_g\big)$ be a closed smooth mm-space with ${\rm Sc}_{\alpha, \beta} > 0$. If the dimension $n\geq 3$, $\alpha \in \mathbb{R}$ and $\beta \geq \frac{(n-2)|\alpha|^2}{4(n-1)}$, then there is a metric $\tilde{g}$ conformal to $g$ with positive scalar curvature (PSC-metric).
\end{Proposition}
\begin{proof}One only needs to show for all nontrivial $u$, $\int_M - u L_gu \,{\rm dVol}_g > 0$ as in the Yamabe problem \cite{MR788292}, where
\begin{align*}
L_g: = \bigtriangleup_g - \frac{n-2}{4(n-1)}{\rm Sc}_g
\end{align*}
is conformal Laplacian operator. To see this,
\begin{align*}
\int_M - u L_gu \,{\rm dVol}_g &= \int_M \big[ \|\bigtriangledown_gu\|_g^2 + \frac{n-2}{4(n-1)}{\rm Sc}_g u^2 \big] \,{\rm dVol}_g \\
& = \int_M \left[ \|\bigtriangledown_gu\|_g^2 + \frac{n-2}{4(n-1)}\big({\rm Sc}_{\alpha, \beta} - \alpha \bigtriangleup_gf + \beta\|\bigtriangledown_gf\|^2_g\big) u^2\right] {\rm dVol}_g \\
& = \int_M \left[ \|\bigtriangledown_gu\|_g^2 + \frac{n-2}{4(n-1)}({\rm Sc}_{\alpha, \beta} + \beta\|\bigtriangledown_gf\|^2_g)u^2\right.\\
&\left. \hphantom{=}{} + \frac{\alpha(n-2)}{2(n-1)} \langle\bigtriangledown_gf,\bigtriangledown_gu \rangle_g u \right] {\rm dVol}_g.
\end{align*}
Through the inequality
\begin{gather*}
\langle\bigtriangledown_gf,\bigtriangledown_gu \rangle_g u \leq c_2 \|\bigtriangledown_gf\|_gu \times c_2^{-1} \|\bigtriangledown_gu\|_g \leq \frac{c_2^2 \|\bigtriangledown_gf\|_g^2 u^2 + c_2^{-2}\|\bigtriangledown_gu\|_g^2}{2},
\end{gather*}
one gets
\begin{gather*}
\int_M - u L_gu \,{\rm dVol}_g \geq
\int_M \bigg[ \left(1- \frac{|\alpha|c_2^{-2}(n-2)}{4(n-1)}\right)\|\bigtriangledown_gu\|_g^2 \\
\hphantom{\int_M - u L_gu \,{\rm dVol}_g \geq}{}
+\frac{\big(\beta -|\alpha|c_2^{-2}\big)(n-2)}{4(n-1)}\|\bigtriangledown_gf\|_g^2u^2+ \frac{n-2}{4(n-1)}{\rm Sc}_{\alpha, \beta}u^2\bigg]{\rm dVol}_g,
\end{gather*}
where $c_2 \neq 0$.
If $ |\alpha|c_2^{-2} \leq \frac{4(n-1)}{n-2}$, $\beta \geq c_2^2|\alpha|$ and ${\rm Sc}_{\alpha, \beta}> 0$, then
\begin{align*}
\int_M - u L_gu\, {\rm dVol}_g >0.
\end{align*}
So the conditions $n>2$, $\alpha \in \mathbb{R}$ and $\beta \geq \frac{(n-2)\alpha^2}{4(n-1)}$ are needed.
\end{proof}
\begin{Remark}
The proof was borrowed from \cite[Proposition~2]{MR3625165}. The two propositions above offer a geometric reason why the condition of the vanishing of $\widehat{A}$-genus (without simply connected condition) does not imply that $M^n$ can admit a PSC-metric for the closed spin manifold $M^n$.
\end{Remark}
The proposition of conformal to PSC-metrics has following 3 corollaries.
\begin{Corollary}[weighted spherical Lipschitz bounded]
Let $\big(M^n, g, {\rm e}^{-f}\,{\rm dVol}_g\big)$ be a closed orientable smooth mm-space with ${\rm Sc}_{\alpha, \beta}\geq \kappa >0$, $3\leq n\leq 8$, $\alpha \in \mathbb{R}$ and $\beta \geq \frac{(n-2)|\alpha|^2}{4(n-1)}$, then the Lipschitz constant of the continuous map $\phi$ from $\big(M^n, g, {\rm e}^{-f}\,{\rm dVol}_g\big)$ to the sphere $S^n$ with standard metric of non-zero degrees has uniformly non-zero lower bounded.
\end{Corollary}
\begin{proof}There is a metric $\tilde{g}$ conformal to $g$ with scalar curvature${}\geq n(n-1)$ by the proposition of conformal PSC-metrics. For the continuous map $\phi$ from $(M^n, \tilde{g})$ to $S^n$ of non-zero degrees, the Lipschitz constant of $\phi$ is greater than a constant that depends only on the dimensions $n$ by Gromov's spherical Lipschitz bounded theorem \cite[Section~3]{MR3816521}. Since the conformal function has the positive upper bound by the compactness of the manifold, then the Lipschitz constant has uniformly non-zero lower bounded.
\end{proof}
\begin{Corollary}\label{weighted volume}
For the closed smooth mm-space $\big(M^n, g, {\rm e}^{-f}\,{\rm dVol}_g\big)$ $(n\geq 3)$ with ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}(M^n) \allowbreak >0$, there is a metric $\hat{g}$ conformal to $g$ with PSC-metric. In particular, the $\widehat{A}$-genus and Rosenberg index vanish with additional spin condition.
For the closed orientable smooth mm-space $\big(M^n, g, {\rm e}^{-f}\,{\rm dVol}_g\big)$ $(3\leq n\leq 8)$ with ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}(M^n)\geq \kappa >0$, then the Lipschitz constant of the continuous map $\phi$ from $\big(M^n, g, {\rm e}^{-f}\,{\rm dVol}_g\big)$ to the sphere~$S^n$ with standard metric of non-zero degrees has uniformly non-zero lower bounded.
\end{Corollary}
\begin{proof}The volume of the small disk of $\big(M^n, g, {\rm e}^{-f}\,{\rm dVol}_g\big)$ was computed in \cite[Theorem~8]{MR1458581},
\begin{align*}
\mu(B_r(x)) = {\rm vol}_E(B_r(\mathbf{R}^n))\left[1 - \frac{{\rm Sc}_g +3 \bigtriangleup_gf -3\| \bigtriangledown_gf\|^2_g }{6(n+2)} r^2 + O\big(r^4\big)\right]
\end{align*}
as $r \rightarrow 0$. Since ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}(M^n) > 0$, i.e., $ \mu(B_r(x)) < {\rm vol}_E(B_r)$ as $r \rightarrow 0$, then
\begin{align*}
{\rm Sc}_g +3 \bigtriangleup_gf -3\|\bigtriangledown_gf\|^2_g > 0.
\end{align*}
Therefore, the propositions of vanishing harmonic spinors and of conformal PSC-metrics and Corollary~\ref{Genus} imply it.
\end{proof}
\begin{Remark}
Since any weighted Riemannian manifold (with non-trivial Borel measure) is infinitesimally Hilbertian (see \cite{MR4059811}), Corollary \ref{weighted volume} also works for $\big(M^n, g, {\rm e}^{-f}\,{\rm dVol}_g\big)$ with ${\rm RSC}(\kappa, n)$ condition.
\end{Remark}
Enlargeability as an obstruction to the existence of a PSC-metric on a closed manifold was introduced by Gromov--Lawson. We call a manifold enlargeable as Gromov--Lawson's definition in \cite[Definition~5.5]{MR720933}
\begin{Corollary}
Assume $M^n$ $(n\geq 3)$ is a closed spin smooth enlargeable manifold, then $\mathcal{R}^+_f(M^n)$ is an empty set for $\alpha \in \mathbb{R}$ and $\beta \geq \frac{(n-2)|\alpha|^2}{4(n-1)}$.
In particular, $\big(\mathbb{T}^n,g, {\rm e}^{-f}\,{\rm dVol}_g\big)$ does not satisfy ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}(\mathbb{T}^n) >0$ for any $C^2$-smooth Riemannian metrics~$g$ and $C^2$-smooth functions~$f$ on the torus~$\mathbb{T}^n$.
\end{Corollary}
\begin{proof}Since a closed enlargeable manifold cannot carry a PSC-metric \cite[Theorem~5.8]{MR720933}, Proposition \ref{Conformal} implies $\mathcal{R}^+_f(M^n)=\varnothing$ for $\alpha \in \mathbb{R}$ and $\beta \geq \frac{(n-2)|\alpha|^2}{4(n-1)}$.
$\mathbb{T}^n$ is an important example of enlargeable manifolds and then Corollary \ref{weighted volume} implies that $\big(\mathbb{T}^n,g, {\rm e}^{-f}\,{\rm dVol}_g\big)$ does not satisfy ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}(\mathbb{T}^n) >0$ for $n\geq 3$. For dimension $2$, the conditions of ${\rm Sc}_{\alpha, \beta} > 0$ and $\beta\geq 0$ imply that the oriented surface is $2$-sphere.
\end{proof}
\subsection[f-minimal hypersurface and Sc(alpha,beta)>0]{$\boldsymbol{f}$-minimal hypersurface and $\boldsymbol{{\rm Sc}_{\alpha, \beta}>0}$}
In addition to using the Dirac operator method, Schoen--Yau's minimal hypersurface method~\cite{MR541332} is another main idea. For an immersed orientable hypersurface $N^{n-1}\subset M^n$, the weighted mean curvature vector~$H_f$ of~$N^{n-1}$ is defined by Gromov in \cite[Section~9.4.E]{MR1978494},
\begin{gather*}
H_f= H+ (\bigtriangledown_gf)^{\perp},
\end{gather*}
where $H$ is the mean curvature vector field of the immersion, $(\cdot)^{\perp}$ is the projection on the normal bundle of $N^{n-1}$. The first and second variational formulae for the weighted volume functional of $N^{n-1}$ were derived in Bayle's thesis (also see~\cite{MR2342613}). We take the detailed presentation of such derivation for~\cite{MR3324919}. The $\big(N^{n-1}, \bar{g}\big)$ with the induced metric is called $f$-minimal hypersurface if the weighted mean curvature vector $H_f$ vanishes identically.
In fact, the definition of $f$-minimal hypersurface can also be derived from the first variational formula. Furthermore, an $f$-minimal hypersurface is a minimal hypersurface of $(M^n, \tilde{g})$, where~$\tilde{g}$ is the conformal metric of $g$, $\tilde{g}={\rm e}^{-\frac{2f}{n-1}}g$.
The connection between the geometry of the ambient smooth mm-space and the $f$-minimal hypersurfaces occurs via the second variation of the weighted volume functional. For a hypersurface $\big(N^{n-1}, \bar{g}\big)$, the $L_f$ operator is defined by
\begin{gather*}
L_f:= \bigtriangleup_f + |A|^2 + {\rm Ricc}^M_f(\nu, \nu),
\end{gather*}
where $\nu$ is the unit normal vector, $|A|^2$ denotes the square of the norm of the second fundamental form~$A$ of~$N^{n-1}$ and
\begin{gather*}
\bigtriangleup_f:=\bigtriangleup_{\bar{g}} - \langle\bigtriangledown_{\bar{g}}f, \bigtriangledown_{\bar{g}}\cdot\rangle
\end{gather*}
is the weighted Laplacian. Through the second variational formula, a two-sided $f$-minimal hypersurface~$N^{n-1}$ is stable (called $L_f$-stable) if for any compactly supported smooth function $u\in C^{\infty}_c\big(N^{n-1}\big)$, it holds that
\begin{gather*}
-\int_NuL_fu {\rm e}^{-f}\,{\rm dVol}_{\bar{g}}\geq 0.
\end{gather*}
\begin{Proposition}\label{hypersuface}
Let $\big(M^n, g, {\rm e}^{-f}\,{\rm dVol}_g\big)$ be a closed orientable smooth mm-space with \linebreak \mbox{${\rm Sc}_{\alpha, \beta} > 0$} and $\big(N^{n-1},\bar{g}\big)$ be the compact $L_f$-stable minimal hypersurface of $\big(M^n, g, {\rm e}^{-f}\,{\rm dVol}_g\big)$. If the dimension $n\geq 3$, $\alpha=2$, and $\beta \geq \frac{n-2}{n-1}$, then there exists a PSC-metric conformal to $\bar{g}$ on~$N^{n-1}$.
\end{Proposition}
\begin{proof}The $f$-minimal hypersurface $\big(N^{n-1}, \bar{g}\big)$ is $L_f$-stable if and only if $\big(N^{n-1}, \bar{\tilde{g}}\big)$ is stable as a minimal hypersurface on $(M^n, \tilde{g})$, where $\tilde{g}:={\rm e}^{-\frac{2f}{n-1}}g$ and $ \bar{\tilde{g}}$ is the induced metric of $\tilde{g}$ (see \cite[Appendix]{MR3324919}). On the other hand, the scalar curvature of $(M^n, \tilde{g})$ is
\begin{gather*}
{\rm Sc}_{\tilde{g}}= {\rm e}^{\frac{f}{n-1}}\left({\rm Sc}_g +2\bigtriangleup_gf-\frac{n-2}{n-1}\|\bigtriangledown_gf\|^2_g\right).
\end{gather*}
Thus, ${\rm Sc}_{\alpha, \beta} > 0$ with $n\geq 3$, $\alpha=2$, and $\beta \geq \frac{n-2}{n-1}$ imply ${\rm Sc}_{\tilde{g}}>0$. Then the standard Schoen--Yau's argument can be applied to show that $\bar{\tilde{g}}$ conformal to a PSC-metric on $N^{n-1}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{Remark}The minimal hypersurface method poses a stricter condition to the valid range of $\alpha, \beta$ than that of the Dirac operator method.
\end{Remark}
Since the oriented closed manifolds with a PSC-metric in 2 and 3 dimensions are classified by Gauess--Bonnet theorem and Perelman--Thurston geometrization theorem, then Proposition~\ref{hypersuface} can give the following elementary applications:
\begin{Corollary}\label{minisurface}
Let $\big(M^n, g, {\rm e}^{-f}\,{\rm dVol}_g\big)$ be a closed orientable smooth mm-space with ${\rm Sc}_{\alpha, \beta} > 0$.
\begin{enumerate}\itemsep=0pt
\item[$1.$] If $n=3$, $\alpha=2$, and $\beta \geq \frac{1}{2}$, then there is no closed immersed $L_f$-stable minimal $2$-di\-men\-sional surface with positive genus.
\item[$2.$] If $n=4$, $\alpha=2$, and $\beta \geq \frac{2}{3}$, then the closed immersed $L_f$-stable minimal $3$-dimensional submanifold must be spherical $3$-manifolds, $S^2\times S^1$ or the connected sum of spherical $3$-manifolds and copies of~$S^2\times S^1$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Corollary}
\begin{Remark}[historical remark]The prototype of Corollary~\ref{minisurface}(1) is the Schoen--Yau's classic result, which said that the oriented closed 3-manifold with a PSC-metric has no compact immersed stable minimal surface of positive genus~\cite{MR541332}. The Schoen--Yau result had been generalized to Perelman's P-scalar curvature${}>0$ by Fan~\cite{MR2407091}. Note that one can also consider the noncompact immersed $L_f$-stable minimal 2-dimensional surface under the condition of Corollary~\ref{minisurface}(1) since an oriented complete stable minimal surface in a complete oriented 3-manifold with a PSC-metric is conformally equivalent to the complex plane~$\mathbb{C}$ showed by Fischer--Colbrie--Schoen~\cite{MR562550}.
\end{Remark}
The smooth mm-space with ${\rm Sc}_{\alpha, \beta}>0$ under suit ranges of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ implies the manifold admits PSC-metrics, but the manifold (itself) that can admit PSC-metrics does not necessarily imply there exists ${\rm Sc}_{\alpha, \beta}>0$.
\begin{Question}Does the smooth mm-space with ${\rm Sc}_{\alpha, \beta}>0$ under suitable ranges of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ give more topological restriction on the manifold than the PSC-metric on the manifold?
\end{Question}
\begin{Question}Let $M$ be a closed smooth manifold, $f$ be a smooth function on $M$ and $h$ be a smooth function that is negative for some point $p$ on $M$. What is the range of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ such that there exists a smooth Riemannian metric $g$ on $M$ satisfying
\begin{gather*}
{\rm Sc}_g + \alpha\bigtriangleup_gf - \beta\|\bigtriangledown_gf\|_g^2=h,
\end{gather*}
i.e., ${\rm Sc}_{\alpha, \beta}(g)=h$?
\end{Question}
Let $(M, g_i)$ be smooth Riemannian manifolds and $\{g_i\}_{i\in \mathbf{N}}$ $C^0$-converges to $g$, then $\{g_i\}_{i\in \mathbf{N}}$ also smGH-converges to $g$. Gromov showed that the scalar curvature$\geq \kappa$ is stable under $C^0$-convergence in \cite[Section~1.8]{MR3201312}.
\begin{Question}Assume smooth mm-spaces $\big(M^n,g_i, {\rm e}^{-f}\,{\rm dVol}_{g_i}\big)$ all satisfy ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}(M^n)\geq 0$ such that $\{g_i\}_{i\in \mathbf{N}}$ $C^2$-converges to the smooth Riemannian metric~$g$ on~$M^n$, then does $\big(M^n,g, \allowbreak{\rm e}^{-f}\,{\rm dVol}_{g}\big)$ also satisfy ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}(M^n)\geq 0$?
\end{Question}
\begin{Question}Let mm-spaces $\big(M^n,g, {\rm e}^{-f}\,{\rm dVol}_{g}\big)$ with ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}(M^n)\geq \kappa>0$, where~$M^n$ is a~closed smooth manifold, $g$ and~$f$ are $C^0$-smooth, then does there exist a PSC-metric on~$M^n$?
\end{Question}
Since the role of ${\rm Sc}_{\alpha, \beta}>0$ on the smooth mm-space is similar to the role of ${\rm Sc}>0$ on the manifold, one can try to extend the knowledge about ${\rm Sc}>0$ to ${\rm Sc}_{\alpha, \beta}>0$.
\subsection{Weighted rigidity}
Gromov's conjecture that said if a smooth Riemannian metric $g$ satisfies $g\geq g_{\rm st}$ and ${\rm Sc}(g)\geq {\rm Sc}(g_{\rm st})=n(n-1)$ on $S^n$ then $g=g_{\rm st}$, was proved by Llarull~\cite{MR1600027} and called Llarull rigidity theorem. A map $h\colon (M^n, g_M)\to (N^n, g_N)$ is said to be $\epsilon$-contracting if $\|h_*v\|_{g_N}\leq \epsilon\|v\|_{g_N}$ for all tangent vectors $v$ on $M^n$
\begin{Proposition}[weighted rigidity] Assume the smooth mm-space $\big(M^n,g, {\rm e}^{-f}\,{\rm dVol}_{g}\big)$ is closed and spin and there exists a smooth $1$-contracting map $h\colon (M^n, g)\to (S^n, g_{\rm st})$ of non-zero degree. If $\alpha \in \mathbb{R}$, $\beta \geq \frac{|\alpha|^2}{4}$ and ${\rm Sc}_{\alpha, \beta}\geq n(n-1)$, then~$h$ is an isometry between the metrics~$g$ and~$g_{\rm st}$. Furthermore, if $\alpha> 0$, then~$f$ is a constant function.
\end{Proposition}
\begin{proof}One just need to insert the tricks in the proof of Proposition~\ref{vanishing} to the proof in \cite[Theorem~4.1]{MR1600027}. Following the setup of Llarull, we only prove the even-dimensional~($2n$) case without loss of generality.
First, we will show that $h$ is an isometry. Fix $p\in M^{2n}$. Let $\{e_1,\dots, e_{2n}\}$ be a $g$-orthonormal tangent fame near $p$ such that $(\bigtriangledown_g e_k)_p=0$ for each~$k$. Let $\{\epsilon_1,\dots,\epsilon_{2n}\}$ be a $g_{\rm st}$-orthonormal tangent frame near $h(p)\in S^{2n}$ such that $(\bigtriangledown_{g_{\rm st}}\epsilon_k)_{h(p)}=0$ for each $k$. Moreover, the bases $\{e_1,\dots, e_{2n}\}$ and $\{\epsilon_1,\dots,\epsilon_{2n}\}$ can be chosen so that $\epsilon_j=\lambda_jh_*e_j$ for appropriate $\{\lambda_j\}_{j=1}^{2n}$. This is possible since $h_*$ is symmetric. Since $h$ is $1$-contracting map, $\lambda_k\geq 1$ for each $k$.
Then one constructs the twisted vector bundles $S \bigotimes E$ over $M^{2n}$ as Llarull did. Let $R^E$ be the curvature tensor of $E$ and $\psi$ be a twisted spinor, then one gets
\begin{gather*}
\big\langle R^E\psi, \psi\big\rangle_g \geq -\frac{1}{4}\sum_{i\neq j}\frac{1}{\lambda_i\lambda_j}\|\psi\|_g.
\end{gather*}
For the twisted Dirac operator $\mathbb{D}_E$, one has $\mathbb{D}^2_E=\bigtriangledown^*\bigtriangledown + \frac{1}{4}{\rm Sc}_g + R^E$ and
\begin{gather*}
\int_M \big\langle \mathbb{D}^2_E \psi, \psi \big\rangle_g \,{\rm dVol}_g = \int_M \bigg[\|\bigtriangledown_g\psi\|^2_g + \frac{1}{4}\big({\rm Sc}_{\alpha, \beta} - \alpha \bigtriangleup_g f + \beta\|\bigtriangledown_gf\|^2_g\big)\|\psi\|^2_g \\
\hphantom{\int_M \big\langle \mathbb{D}^2_E \psi, \psi \big\rangle_g \,{\rm dVol}_g =}{} + \big\langle R^E\psi, \psi\big\rangle_g\bigg] \,{\rm dVol}_g\\
\hphantom{\int_M \big\langle \mathbb{D}^2_E \psi, \psi \big\rangle_g \,{\rm dVol}_g}{}
= \int_M \bigg[\|\bigtriangledown_g\psi\|^2_g + \left(\frac{1}{4}{\rm Sc}_{\alpha, \beta} + \frac{\beta}{4}\|\bigtriangledown_g f\|^2_g\right)\|\psi\|^2_g \\
\hphantom{\int_M \big\langle \mathbb{D}^2_E \psi, \psi \big\rangle_g \,{\rm dVol}_g =}{}
+ \frac{\alpha}{4} \langle \bigtriangledown_gf, \bigtriangledown_g\|\psi\|^2_g\rangle_g + \big\langle R^E\psi, \psi\big\rangle_g\bigg] {\rm dVol}_g .
\end{gather*}
Because $\lambda_k\geq 1$ for each $k$, one gets
\begin{gather*}
\big\langle R^E\psi, \psi\big\rangle_g \geq \frac{-2n(2n-1)}{4}\|\psi\|_g
\end{gather*}
and then
\begin{align*}
\frac{|\alpha|}{4}|\big\langle\bigtriangledown_gf, \bigtriangledown_g \|\psi\|^2_g \big\rangle_g| &\leq \frac{|\alpha|}{4}\big(\|\bigtriangledown_gf\|_g \|\psi\|_g \times 2 \|\bigtriangledown_g \psi\|_g\big)\\
& = \frac{|\alpha|}{2}\big( c_1 \|\bigtriangledown_gf\|_g\|\psi\|_g \times c_1^{-1} \|\bigtriangledown_g\psi\|_g\big) \\
& \leq \frac{|\alpha|}{4} \big(c_1^2 \|\bigtriangledown_gf\|^2_g \|\psi\|^2_g + c_1^{-2} \|\bigtriangledown_g\psi\|^2_g\big),
\end{align*}
where $c_1 \neq 0$. Therefore,
\begin{gather*}
\int_M \big\langle \mathbb{D}^2_E \psi, \psi \big\rangle_g \,{\rm dVol}_g \geq
\int_M \bigg[\left(1- \frac{c_1^{-2} |\alpha|}{4}\right)\|\bigtriangledown_g\psi\|^2_g + \frac{\beta - c_1^{2} |\alpha|}{4} \|\bigtriangledown_gf\|^2_g\|\psi\|^2_g \\
\hphantom{\int_M \langle \mathbb{D}^2_E \psi, \psi \rangle_g \,{\rm dVol}_g \geq}{}
+\frac{1}{4} ({\rm Sc}_{\alpha, \beta}-2n(2n-1)) \|\psi\|^2_g \bigg] {\rm dVol}_g.
\end{gather*}
Furthermore, since $\alpha \in \mathbb{R}$, $\beta \geq \frac{|\alpha|^2}{4}$ and ${\rm Sc}_{\alpha, \beta}\geq 2n(2n-1)$, one can choose $c_1$ such that $c_1^{-2} |\alpha|\leq 4$, then $\beta - c_1^{2} |\alpha|\geq 0$. Thus,
\begin{equation*}
\int_M \big\langle \mathbb{D}^2_E \psi, \psi \big\rangle_g \,{\rm dVol}_g\geq \int_M \frac{1}{4} [{\rm Sc}_{\alpha, \beta}-2n(2n-1)]\|\psi\|^2_g \,{\rm dVol}_g\geq 0.
\end{equation*}
The fact ${\rm Index}(\mathbb{D}_{E^+})\neq 0$ implies ${\rm ker}(\mathbb{D}_E)\neq 0$ and then ${\rm Sc}_{\alpha, \beta}=2n(2n-1)$. Then using the inequality $\big\langle R^E\psi, \psi\big\rangle_g \geq -\frac{1}{4}\sum_{i\neq j}\frac{1}{\lambda_i\lambda_j}\|\psi\|_g$, one gets
\begin{equation*}
\int_M \big\langle \mathbb{D}^2_E \psi, \psi \big\rangle_g \,{\rm dVol}_g\geq \int_M \frac{1}{4} \bigg[\sum_{i\neq j}\left(1-\frac{1}{\lambda_i\lambda_j}\right)\bigg]\|\psi\|^2_g \,{\rm dVol}_g\geq 0.
\end{equation*}
Choosing $\psi\neq 0$ such that ${\mathbb D}_E\psi=0$, one has
\begin{align*}
0\leq 1-\frac{1}{\lambda_i\lambda_j}\leq 0
\end{align*}
for $i\neq j$. Thus, $\lambda_k=0$ for all $1\leq k\leq 2n$ and $h$ is an isometry.
Second, we will show that $f$ is a constant function. Since ${\rm Sc}_{\alpha, \beta}=2n(2n-1)$, ${\rm Sc}_g=2n(2n-1)$, $\alpha> 0$ and $\beta \geq \frac{|\alpha|^2}{4}$,
then $\bigtriangleup_g f\geq 0$. One has
\begin{align*}
\int_M \bigtriangleup_g f \,{\rm dVol}_g=0
\end{align*}
for a closed manifold~$M^n$, so one gets $\bigtriangleup_g f=0$. That implies $\bigtriangledown_gf=0$ so that $f$ is a constant function on~$M^n$.
\end{proof}
\begin{Corollary}Let the closed and spin smooth mm-space $\big(M^n,g, {\rm e}^{-f}\,{\rm dVol}_{g}\big)$ with ${\rm Sc}^{{\rm vol}_n}(M^n)\allowbreak \geq n(n-1)$ and there exists a smooth $1$-contracting map $h\colon (M^n, g)\to (S^n, g_{\rm st})$ of non-zero degree, then~$h$ is an isometry between the metrics $g$ and $g_{\rm st}$.
\end{Corollary}
\begin{proof}Combining the weighted rigidity theorem and the proof of Corollary~\ref{weighted volume} can imply it.
\end{proof}
As Llarull rigidity theorem (and the weighted rigidity theorem) still holds if the condition that $h$ is $1$-contracting is replaced by the condition that $h$ is area-contracting, Gromov called such metrics area-extremal metrics, asked which manifolds possess area-extremal metrics, and conjectured that Riemannian symmetric spaces should have area-extremal metrics~\cite{MR1389019}, \cite[Section~17]{Gromov} and \cite[Section~4.2]{2019arXiv190810612G}. Goette--Semmelmann showed that several classes of symmetric spaces with non-constant curvatures are area-extremal \cite{MR1877585}.
\begin{Question}Can Goette--Semmelmann's results~{\rm \cite{MR1877585}} be generalized to the smooth mm-space with ${\rm Sc}_{\alpha, \beta}>0$ under other suitable conditions?
\end{Question}
Since Corollary~\ref{minisurface}(1) showed that the closed orientable immersed $L_f$-stable minimal $2$-dimensional surface in the closed orientable smooth mm-space $\big(M^n,g, {\rm e}^{-f}\,{\rm dVol}_{g}\big)$ with ${\rm Sc}_{2, \beta}>0$ $\big(\beta\geq \frac{1}{2}\big)$ is $2$-sphere, then one can consider rigidity of area-minimizing 2-sphere
in $3$-dimensional smooth mm-space. Bray’s volume comparison theorem \cite[Chapter~3, Theorem~18]{MR2696584} is another rigidity theorem that needs the conditions of Ricci curvature and scalar curvature bounded below. There are other rigidity phenomena involving scalar curvature, see~\cite{MR3076061}.
\begin{Question}Can Bray’s volume comparison theorem be extended to the smooth mm-space?
\end{Question}
\begin{Question}What is the correct Einstein field equation on the smooth mm-space?
If one replaces the Ricci and scalar curvature on the left hand side of Einstein field question by ${\rm Ricc}^M_f$ and ${\rm Sc}_{\alpha, \beta}$ for the smooth mm-space $\big(M^n,g, {\rm e}^{-f}\,{\rm dVol}_{g}\big)$, then what is the stress–energy tensor on the right hand side in this case?
\end{Question}
\subsection*{Acknowledgements}
I am grateful to Thomas Schick for his help, the referees for their useful comments, and the funding from China Scholarship Council.
\pdfbookmark[1]{References}{ref}
|
\section{Introduction}
\input{snippets_ana_005/snippet_intro.tex}
\section{Simulating Blockchains}
\input{snippets_ana_005/snippet_simulating_blockchains.tex}
\section{Featurizing Monero Blockchains}
\input{snippets_ana_005/snippet_features.tex}
\section{Machine Learning}
\subsection{Machine Learning Spoofed/Real Transactions}
\input{snippets_ana_005/snippet_ml_spoof.tex}
\subsection{Machine Learning User Identity and Group Membership}
\input{snippets_ana_005/snippet_ml_identity.tex}
\subsection{Machine Learning Transaction Value}
\input{snippets_ana_005/snippet_value_regression.tex}
\section{Machine Learning on the real Monero network; Identifying ShapeShift}
\label{sec:transfer_real}
\input{snippets_ana_005/snippet_transfer_real.tex}
\section{Conclusions}
\input{snippets_ana_005/snippet_conclusions.tex}
\newpage
\section{Task }
Model performance for the value regression task is the $R^2$ coefficient.
\[R^2 = 1 - \frac{\sum_i (y_i - \tilde{y_i})^2}{ \sum_i (y_i - \mu_y )^2 } \]
where $\mu_y$ is the transaction value in expectation. We set the baseline predictor of this task to be
predicting shapeshift transaction values in expectation, and its $R^2$ performance is 0. A perfect score
is 1, and models that improve on our baseline performance lies in the range $(0, 1]$.
To predict the transaction values of the i-th entry, we fitted two models: Epsilon-Support Vector
Regression (SVR) and neural network.
For both models, a randomized search was completed over hyperparameters. The SVR hyperparameters include its
kernel, regularization parameter C, and tolerance parameter $\epsilon$. The neural network is
composed of 2 dense layers, with 182 and $n$ neurons respectively, $n$ ranging within [10, 30].
The learning rate $\gamma$ was another hyperparameter searched over. Given a hyperparameter set, model performances are computed over 5-folds of the data then averaged.
We find that more information regarding transactions is required to predict their values. The SVR model
has a $R^2$ value of $-0.16$, and the neural network has a value of $-0.1$, both below the
baseline performance of $0$. Future directions of value regression include
\begin{enumerate}
\item In the case of multiple rings, incorporating input-level correlations between rings.
\item Integrating known user-level information to value prediction.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.8\linewidth]{./img/ml_value.png}
\caption{The transaction value on the blockchain is missing in the black.
We attempt to recover the value from the wallet in white through regression on the features.}
\label{fig:ml_value}
\end{figure}
\subsection{ML results}
Fig. \ref{fig:ml_results} shows the results of our machine learning efforts.
We expect that uniformity between the users and a severe lag in time transactions posted compared to the design specifications
contributed to the poor performance in Scenario 6 and Scenario 7.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.8\linewidth]{./img/ml_results1.png}
\caption{ML results for the various tasks are shown. In transaction value predictions, our regressors did not surpass baseline of guessing average transaction values. }
\label{fig:ml_results}
\end{figure}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{Introduction}
In many Internet of things applications and cyber-physical control systems, freshness of the status information at receivers is a critical factor. Recently, the age of information (AoI) was proposed as a destination-centric metric to measure the information freshness in status update systems \cite{8469047,6195689,6310931}. A status update packet contains the measured value of a monitored process and a time stamp representing the time when the sample was generated. Due to wireless channel access, channel errors, and fading, etc., communicating a status update packet through the network experiences a random delay. If at a time instant $t$, the most recently received status update packet contains the time stamp $U(t)$, AoI is defined
as the random process $\Delta(t)=t-U(t)$. Thus, the AoI measures for each sensor the time elapsed since the last received status update packet was generated at the sensor. The average AoI is the most commonly used metric to evaluate the AoI \cite{8187436,8901143,moltafet2019power,6195689,6310931,5984917,7415972,8006592,7541764,6284003,9099557,8469047,8406928,8437591,8406966,8437907,9013935,9086190,8006504}.
The work \cite{6195689} is the seminal queueing theoretic work on the AoI in which the authors derived the average AoI for a single-source first-come first-served (FCFS) M/M/1 queueing model.
In \cite{6875100}, the authors proposed peak AoI as an alternative metric to evaluate the information freshness.
The work \cite{6284003} was the first to investigate the average AoI in a multi-source setup. The authors of \cite{6284003} derived the average AoI for a multi-source FCFS M/M/1 queueing model.
The authors of \cite{7282742} considered a multi-source M/G/1 queueing system and optimized the arrival rates of each source to minimize the peak AoI. The authors of \cite{9099557} derived an exact expression for the average AoI for a multi-source FCFS M/M/1 queueing model and an approximate expression for the average AoI for a multi-source FCFS M/G/1 queueing model having a general service time distribution.
The above works address the FCFS policy under the infinite queue size. However, it has been shown that the AoI can be significantly decreased if there is a possibility to apply \emph{packet management} in the system (either in the queue or server) \cite{8469047,6310931,7415972,8006504,7541764,8406928,8437591,8406966,8437907,9013935}.
To this end, the average AoI for a last-come first-served (LCFS) M/M/1 queueing model with preemption was analyzed in \cite{6310931}.
The average AoI for different packet management policies in a single-source M/M/1 queueing model were derived in \cite{7415972}.
The authors of \cite{8006504} derived a closed-form expression for the average
AoI of a single-source M/G/1/1 preemptive queueing model (where the last entry in the Kendall notation shows the total capacity of the queueing system; 1 indicates that there is one packet under service whereas the queue holds zero packets).
The work \cite{7541764} considered a single-source LCFS queueing model where the packets arrive according to a Poisson process and the service time follows a gamma distribution. They derived the average AoI for two packet management policies, LCFS with and without preemption. The closed-form expressions for the average AoI and average peak AoI in a multi-source M/G/1/1 preemptive queueing model were derived in \cite{8406928}.
In \cite{8469047}, the authors gave an in-depth introduction on a powerful technique, \textit{stochastic hybrid systems} (SHS), that can be used to evaluate the AoI in different continuous-time queueing systems. They considered a multi-source queueing model in which the packets of different sources are generated according to the Poisson process and
served according to an exponentially distributed service time. The authors derived the average AoI for two packet management policies: 1) LCFS with preemption under service (LCFS-S), and 2) LCFS with preemption only
in waiting (LCFS-W). Under the LCFS-S policy, a new arriving packet preempts any packet that is currently
under service (regardless of the source index). Under the LCFS-W policy, a new arriving packet replaces
any older packet waiting in the queue (regardless of the source index); however, the new
packet has to wait for any packet under service to finish.
Since its establishment as an efficient tool for the AoI analysis \cite{8469047}, the SHS technique has recently been applied to derive the average AoI for various queueing models and packet management policies \cite{8437591,8406966,8437907,9013935,9086190,9103131}.
{The authors of \cite{8437591} studied a multi-source M/M/1 queueing model in which sources have different priorities and proposed two packet management policies: 1) there is no waiting room
and an update under service is preempted on arrival of an equal or
higher priority update, and 2) there is a waiting room for at
most one update and preemption is allowed in waiting but not in
service.} In \cite{8406966}, the author considered a single-source M/M/1 status update system in which the updates follow a route through a series of network nodes where each node is an LCFS queue that supports preemption in service.
In \cite{8437907}, the author considered a single-source LCFS queueing model with multiple servers with preemption in service.
The authors of \cite{9013935} considered a multi-source LCFS queueing model with multiple servers that employ preemption in service. In \cite{9086190}, the authors derived the average AoI for a multi-source FCFS M/M/1 queueing model with an infinite queue size. In \cite{9103131}, the authors studied moments and the moment generating function of the AoI.
\subsection{Contributions}
In this paper, we consider a status update system in which two independent sources generate packets according to the Poisson process and the packets are served according to an exponentially distributed service time. To emphasize the importance of minimizing the average AoI of each individual source and enhance the fairness between different sources in the system, we propose three different \emph{source-aware} packet management policies.
In Policy 1, the queue can contain at most two waiting packets at the same time (in addition to the packet under service), one packet of source 1 and one packet of source 2. When the server is busy and a new packet arrives, the possible packet of the same source waiting in the queue (not being served) is replaced by the fresh packet.
In Policy 2, the system (i.e., the waiting queue and the server) can contain at most two packets, one from each source. When the server is busy at an arrival of a packet, the possible packet of the same source either
waiting in the queue or being served is replaced by the fresh packet.
Policy 3 is similar to Policy 2 but it does not permit preemption in service, i.e., while a packet is under service all new arrivals from the same source are blocked and cleared.
We derive the average AoI for each source under the proposed packet management policies using the SHS technique. By numerical experiments, we investigate the effectiveness of the proposed packet management policies in terms of the sum average AoI and fairness between different sources. The results show that our proposed policies provide better fairness than that of the existing policies. In addition, Policy 2 outperforms the existing policies in terms of the sum average AoI. To the best of our knowledge, the proposed policies have not been considered and analyzed in the AoI context earlier.
\subsection{Related Works}
The most related works to our paper are \cite{8469047,8437591,9013935}. Each of these works considers a multi-source queueing model with such a packet management policy where the different sources can preempt the packets of each other in the system (\emph{source-agnostic} preemption). In addition, in \cite{8437591}, an arriving packet is discarded if the server is currently serving a packet of another source having higher priority (service priority). These packet management policies result in queueing systems where the server mostly serves either the packets of a source with a high packet arrival rate \cite{8469047,9013935}, or the packets of a source with high service priority \cite{8437591}. In this regard, these policies are not appropriate for the applications in which besides the sum average AoI, the average AoI of each individual source is important. Note that differently from \cite{8469047,8437591,9013935}, all our policies employ source-aware preemption in the system in the sense that an arriving packet can preempt \emph{only} a packet with the same source index in the system. This promotes fairness, as shown by our numerical experiments.
\subsection{Organization}
The paper is organized as follows. The system model and problem definition are presented in Section \ref{System Model}.
The basics of the SHS technique are presented in Section \ref{Introduction to the SHS Technique}. The average AoI for each source under different packet management policies is derived in Section \ref{AoI Analysis Using the SHS Technique}.
Numerical results are presented in Section \ref{Numerical Results}.
Finally, concluding remarks are expressed in Section \ref{Conclusions}.
\section{System Model and Summary of the Main Results}\label{System Model}
We consider a status update system consisting of two independent sources\footnote{We consider two sources for simplicity of presentation; the same methodology as used in this paper can be applied for more than two sources. However, the complexity of the calculations increases exponentially with the number of sources.}, one server, and one sink, as depicted in Fig. \ref{AoIs}.
Each source observes a random process at random time instants. The sink is interested in timely information about the status of these random processes. Status updates are transmitted as packets, containing the measured value of the monitored process and a time stamp representing the time when the sample was generated. We assume that the packets of sources 1 and 2 are generated according to the Poisson process with rates $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$, respectively, and
the packets are served according to an exponentially distributed service time with mean ${1}/{\mu}$. Let $\rho_1={\lambda_1}/{\mu}$ and $\rho_2={\lambda_2}/{\mu}$ be the load of source 1 and 2, respectively. Since packets of the sources are generated according to the Poisson process and the sources are independent, the packet generation in the system follows the Poisson process with rate
$\lambda=\lambda_1+\lambda_2$. The overall load in the system is
$\rho=\rho_1+\rho_2={\lambda}/{\mu}$.
In the next subsections, we first explain each packet management policy, and then, give a formal definition of AoI.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\subfloat[Policy 1: The queue can contain at most two waiting packets at the same time (in addition to the packet under service), one packet of source 1 and one packet of source 2; when the server is busy and a new packet arrives, the possible packet of the same source waiting in the queue (not being served) is replaced by the fresh packet.]{\includegraphics[width=0.79\linewidth]{Multiclassbasic.pdf}}\\
\subfloat[ Policies 2 and 3: The system (i.e., the waiting queue and the server) can contain at most two packets, one from each source. In Policy 2, when the server is busy and a new packet arrives, the possible packet of the same source either
waiting in the queue or being served is replaced by the fresh packet. Policy 3 is similar to Policy 2 but it does not permit preemption in service.]{\includegraphics[width=0.76\linewidth]{4Multiclassbasic.pdf}}\vspace{-4mm}
\caption
The packet management policies.
}
\vspace{-12mm}
\label{AoIs}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Packet Management Policies}\label{II-A}
The structure of the queuing system for all considered policies is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{AoIs}. In all policies, when the system is empty, any arriving packet immediately enters the server. However, the policies differ in how they handle the arriving packets when the server is busy.
In Policy 1 (see Fig.~\ref{AoIs}(a)), when the server is busy and a new packet arrives, the possible packet of the same source waiting in the queue (not being served) is replaced by the fresh packet.
In Policy 2 (see Fig.~\ref{AoIs}(b)), when the server is busy and a new packet arrives, the possible packet of the same source either waiting in the queue or being served (called \textit{self preemption}) is replaced by the fresh packet.
Policy 3 is similar to Policy 2 but it does not permit preemption in service (see Fig.~\ref{AoIs}(b)). While a packet is under service all new arrivals from the same source are blocked and cleared. However, the packet waiting in the queue is replaced upon the arrival of a newer one from the same source. It is also interesting to remark that this policy is also similar to Policy 1 but it has a one unit shorter waiting queue.
\subsection{AoI Definition}
For each source, the AoI at the destination is defined as the time elapsed since the last successfully received packet was generated. Formal definition of the AoI is given next.
Let $t_{c,i}$ denote the time instant at which the $i$th status update packet of source $c$ was generated, and $t'_{c,i}$ denote the time instant at which this packet arrives at the sink. At a time instant $\tau$, the index of the most recently received packet of source $c$ is given by
$
N_c(\tau)=\max\{i'|t'_{c,i'}\le \tau\},
$
and the time stamp of the most recently received packet of source $c$ is
$
U_c(\tau)=t_{c,N_c(\tau)}.
$
The AoI of source $c$ at the destination is defined as the random process
$
\Delta_{c}(t)=t-U_c(t).
$
Let $(0,\tau)$ denote an observation interval. Accordingly, the time average AoI of the source $c$ at the sink, denoted as $\Delta_{\tau,c}$, is defined as
$$
\displaystyle\Delta_{\tau,c}=\dfrac{1}{\tau}\int_{0}^{\tau}\Delta_{c}(t)\mathrm{d}t.
$$
The average AoI of source $c$, denoted by $\Delta_{c}$, is defined as
\begin{equation}\label{AoIeq}
\Delta_{c}=\lim_{\tau\to\infty}\Delta_{\tau,c}.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Summary of the Main Results}
In this paper, we derive the average AoI for each source under the Policy 1, Policy 2, and Policy 3 using the SHS technique. The derived results are summarized by the following three theorems.
\begin{theorem}\label{theo1}
The average AoI of source 1 under Policy 1 is given as
\begin{align}\nonumber
\Delta_{1}=\dfrac{\sum_{k=0}^7 \rho_1^k\eta_k}{\mu \rho_1\left(1+\rho_1\right)^2\sum_{j=0}^4 \rho_1^j\xi_j},
\end{align}
where
\begin{align} \nonumber
&\eta_0=\rho_2^4+\!2\rho_2^3+3\rho_2^2+2\rho_2+1,~~~~~~~~~~~
\eta_1=7\rho_2^4+15\rho_2^3+21\rho_2^2+14\rho_2+6,\\\nonumber&
\eta_2=17\rho_2^4+46\rho_2^3+64\rho_2^2+42\rho_2+16,\,\,\,\,\,
\eta_3=15\rho_2^4+73\rho_2^3+118\rho_2^2+78\rho_2+26,\\\nonumber&
\eta_4=5\rho_2^4+52\rho_2^3+124\rho_2^2+102\rho_2+30,\,\,\,\,
\eta_5=15\rho_2^3+66\rho_2^2+79\rho_2+24,\\\nonumber&
\eta_6=15\rho_2^2+31\rho_2+11,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\eta_7=5\rho_2+2,\\\nonumber&
\xi_0=\rho_2^4+2\rho_2^3+3\rho_2^2+2\rho_2+1,~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\xi_1=2\rho_2^4+6\rho_2^3+9\rho_2^2+7\rho_2+3,\,\,\\\nonumber&
\xi_2=6\rho_2^3+12\rho_2^2+10\rho_2+4,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\xi_3=6\rho_2^2+8\rho_2+3,\,\,\,\\\nonumber&
\xi_4=2\rho_2+1.
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The proof of Theorem \ref{theo1} appears in Section \ref{FCFS Prioritized Packet Management Policy} of this paper.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{theo2}
The average AoI of source 1 under Policy 2 is given as
\begin{align}\nonumber
\Delta_{1}=\dfrac{{(\rho_2+1)}^2+\sum_{k=1}^5 \rho_1^k\tilde\eta_k}{\mu \rho_1\left(1+\rho_1\right)^2\big(\rho_1^2(2\rho_2+1)+(\rho_2+1)^2(2\rho_1+1)\big)},
\end{align}
where
\begin{align} \nonumber
&\tilde\eta_1=6\rho_2^2+11\rho_2+5,~~~~~~~~~~~~
\tilde\eta_2=13\rho_2^2+24\rho_2+10,\\\nonumber&
\tilde\eta_3=10\rho_2^2+27\rho_2+10,~~~~~~~~~
\tilde\eta_4=3\rho_2^2+14\rho_2+5,\\\nonumber&
\tilde\eta_5=3\rho_2+1.
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The proof of Theorem \ref{theo2} appears in Section \ref{Average AoI Under Policy 2} of this paper.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{theo3}
The average AoI of source 1 under Policy 3 is given as
\begin{align}\nonumber
\Delta_{1}=\dfrac{{(\rho_2+1)}^3+\sum_{k=1}^4 \rho_1^k\hat\eta_k}{\mu \rho_1\left(1+\rho_1\right)\left(1+\rho_2\right)\big(\rho_1^2(2\rho_2+1)+(\rho_2+1)^2(2\rho_1+1)\big)},
\end{align}
where
\begin{align} \nonumber
&\hat\eta_1=5\rho_2^3+14\rho_2^2+13\rho_2+4,~~~~~~~~~~~~
\hat\eta_2=10\rho_2^3+28\rho_2^2+25\rho_2+7,\\\nonumber&
\hat\eta_3=5\rho_2^3+22\rho_2^2+23\rho_2+6,~~~~~~~~~~~~
\hat\eta_4=5\rho_2^2+8\rho_2+2.\\\nonumber&
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The proof of Theorem \ref{theo3} appears in Section \ref{Average AoI Under Policy 3} of this paper.
\end{proof}
\section{ A Brief Introduction to the SHS Technique}\label{Introduction to the SHS Technique}
In the following, we briefly present the main idea behind the SHS technique which is the key tool for our AoI analysis in Section \ref{AoI Analysis Using the SHS Technique}. We refer the readers to \cite{8469047} for more details.
The SHS technique models a queueing system through the states $(q(t), \bold{x}(t))$, where ${q(t)\in \mathcal{Q}=\{0,1,\ldots,m\}}$ is a continuous-time finite-state Markov
chain that
describes the occupancy of the system and ${\bold{x}(t)=[x_0(t)~x_1(t)\cdots x_n(t)]\in \mathbb{R}^{1\times(n+1)}}$ is a continuous
process that describes the evolution of age-related processes at the sink. Following the approach in \cite{8469047}, we label the source of interest as source 1 and employ the continuous process $ \bold{x}(t) $ to track the age of source 1 status updates at the sink.
The Markov chain $q(t)$ can be presented as a graph $(\mathcal{Q},\mathcal{L})$ where
each discrete state $q(t)\in \mathcal{Q}$ is a node of the chain and a (directed) link $ l\in\mathcal{L} $ from node $ q_l $ to node $q'_{l}$ indicates a transition from state $ {q_l \in \mathcal{Q}}$ to state ${q'_{l}\in \mathcal{Q}}$.
A transition occurs when a packet arrives or departs in the system. Since the time elapsed between departures and arrivals is exponentially distributed according to the M/M/1 queueing model, transition $l\in\mathcal{L}$ from state $ q_l $ to state $q'_{l}$ occurs with the exponential rate $\lambda^{(l)}\delta_{q_l,q(t)}$\footnote{In our system model, $ \lambda^{(l)} $ can represent three quantities: arrival rate of source 1 ($ \lambda_1 $), arrival rate of source 2 ($ \lambda_2 $), and the service rate ($ \mu $). },
where the Kronecker delta function $\delta_{q_l,q(t)}$ ensures that the transition $ l $ occurs only when the discrete
state $ q(t) $ is equal to $ q_l $. When a transition $l$ occurs, the discrete state $ q_l $ changes to state $q'_{l}$, and the continuous state $\bold{x}$ is reset to $\bold{x}'$ according to a binary transition reset map matrix ${\bold{A}_l}\in\mathbb{B}^{(n+1)\times(n+1)}$ as ${\bold{x}'=\bold{x}\bold{A}_l}$. In addition, at each state ${q(t)=q\in \mathcal{Q}}$, the continuous state $\bold{x}$ evolves as a piece-wise linear function through the
differential equation ${\dot{\bold{x}}(t)\triangleq\dfrac{\partial\bold{x}(t)}{\partial t}=\bold{b}_q}$, where
$\bold{b}_q=[b_{q,0}~b_{q,1}\cdots b_{q,n}]\in\mathbb{B}^{1\times(n+1)}$ is a binary vector with elements $b_{q,j}\in \{0,1\}, \forall j\in\{0,\ldots,n\},q \in\mathcal{Q}$.
If the age process $x_j(t)$ increases at a unit rate, we have ${b}_{q,j}=1$; otherwise, ${b}_{q,j}=0$.
Note that unlike in a typical continuous-time Markov
chain, a transition
from a state to itself (i.e., a self-transition) is possible in $q(t)\in \mathcal{Q}$. In the case of a self-transition, a reset of the continuous state $\bold{x}$ takes place, but the discrete state remains the same. In addition, for a given pair of states $s,s'\in \mathcal{Q}$, there may be multiple
transitions $ l $ and $ l' $ so that the discrete state changes from $ s $ to
$ s' $ but the transition reset maps $\bold{A}_l $ and $ \bold{A}_{l'}$ are different (for more details, see \cite[Section III]{8469047}).
To calculate the average AoI using the SHS technique, the state probabilities of the Markov chain and the correlation vector between the discrete state $q(t)$ and the continuous state $\bold{x}(t)$ need to be calculated. Let $\pi_q(t)$ denote the probability of being in state $q$ of the Markov chain and $\bold{v}_q(t)=[{v}_{q0}(t)\cdots{v}_{qn}(t)]\in\mathbb{R}^{1\times(n+1)}$ denote the correlation vector between the discrete state $q(t)$ and the continuous state $\bold{x}(t)$. Accordingly, we have
\begin{equation}
\pi_q(t)=\mathrm{Pr}(q(t)=q)=\mathbb{E}[\delta_{q,q(t)}], \,\,\,\forall q\in\mathcal{Q},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\bold{v}_q(t)=[{v}_{q0}(t)\cdots{v}_{qn}(t)]=\mathbb{E}[\bold{x}(t)\delta_{q,q(t)}],\,\,\,\forall q\in\mathcal{Q}.
\end{equation}
Let $\mathcal{L}'_q$ denote the set of incoming transitions and $\mathcal{L}_q$ denote the set of outgoing transitions for state $q$, defined as
\begin{align}\nonumber
&\mathcal{L}'_q=\{l\in\mathcal{L}:q'_{l}=q\},\,\,\,\forall q\in\mathcal{Q},\\\nonumber&\mathcal{L}_q=\{l\in\mathcal{L}:q_{l}=q\},\,\,\,\forall q\in\mathcal{Q}.
\end{align}
Following the ergodicity assumption of the Markov chain $q(t)$ in the AoI analysis \cite{8469047,9103131,9007478}, the state
probability vector $\boldsymbol{\pi}(t)=[\pi_0(t) \cdots \pi_m(t)]$ converges uniquely
to the stationary vector $\bar{\boldsymbol{\pi}}=[\bar{\pi}_0 \cdots \bar{\pi}_m]$ satisfying \cite{8469047}
\begin{align}\label{eqrt01}
&\bar{{\pi}}_q\textstyle\sum_{l\in\mathcal{L}_q}\lambda^{(l)}=\textstyle\sum_{l\in\mathcal{L}'_q}\lambda^{(l)}\bar{{\pi}}_{q_l}, \,\,\,\forall q\in\mathcal{Q},\\&\label{erwq}
\textstyle\sum_{q\in\mathcal{Q}}\bar{{\pi}}_q=1.
\end{align}
Further, it has been shown in \cite[Theorem 4]{8469047} that under the ergodicity assumption of the Markov chain $q(t)$ with stationary distribution $\bar{\boldsymbol{\pi}}\succ0$, the existence of a nonnegative solution ${\bar{\bold{v}}_q=[\bar{v}_{q0} \cdots \bar{v}_{qn} ], \forall q\in \mathcal{Q}},$ for the following system of linear equations
\begin{align}\label{asleq}
\bar{\bold{v}}_q\textstyle\sum_{l\in\mathcal{L}_q}\lambda^{(l)}=\bold{b}_q\bar{{\pi}}_q+\textstyle\sum_{l\in\mathcal{L}'_q}\lambda^{(l)}\bar{\bold{v}}_{q_l}\bold{A}_l, \,\,\,\forall q\in\mathcal{Q},
\end{align}
implies that the correlation vector $\bold{v}_q(t)$ converges to ${\bar{\bold{v}}_q=[\bar{v}_{q0} \cdots \bar{v}_{qn} ], \forall q\in \mathcal{Q}}$ as $t\rightarrow\infty$.
Finally, the average AoI of source 1 is calculated by \cite[Theorem 4]{8469047}
\begin{align}\label{AOIANAL}
\Delta_1=\textstyle\sum_{q\in\mathcal{Q}}\bar{v}_{q0}.
\end{align}
As \eqref{AOIANAL} implies, the main challenge in calculating the average AoI of a source using the SHS technique reduces to deriving the first elements of each correlation vector $\bar{\mathbf{v}}_{q}$, i.e.,
$\bar{v}_{q0}$, ${\forall{q}\in\mathcal{Q}}$. Note that these quantities are, in general, different for each particular queueing model.
\section{ Average AoI Analysis Using the SHS Technique}\label{AoI Analysis Using the SHS Technique}
In this section, we use the SHS technique to calculate the average AoI in \eqref{AoIeq} of each source under the considered packet management policies described in Section \ref{II-A}. Recall from \eqref{AOIANAL} that the characterization of the average AoI in each of our queueing setup is accomplished by deriving the quantities $\bar{v}_{q0}$, ${\forall{q}\in\mathcal{Q}}$. The next three sections are devoted to elaborate derivations of these quantities.
\subsection{Average AoI under Policy 1}\label{FCFS Prioritized Packet Management Policy}
In Policy 1, the state space of the Markov chain is $\mathcal{Q}=\{0,1,\ldots,5\}$, with each state presented in Table \ref{table-1}. For example, ${q=0}$ indicates that the server is idle which is shown by I; ${q=1}$ indicates that a packet is under service, i.e., the queue is empty and the server is busy which is shown by B; and ${q=5}$ indicates that server is busy, the first packet in the queue (i.e., the packet that is at the head of the queue as depicted in Fig. \ref{AoIs}(a)) is a source 2 packet, and the second packet in the queue is a source 1 packet.
The continuous process is ${\bold{x}(t)=[x_0(t)~x_1(t)~x_2(t)~x_3(t)]}$, where $x_0(t)$ is the current AoI of source 1 at time instant $t$, $\Delta_1(t)$; $ x_1(t) $ encodes what $\Delta_1(t)$ would become if the packet that is under service is delivered to the sink at time instant $t$; $ x_2(t) $ encodes what $\Delta_1(t)$ would become if the first packet in the queue is delivered to the sink at time instant $t$; $ x_3(t) $ encodes what $\Delta_1(t)$ would become if the second packet in the queue is delivered to the sink at time instant $t$.
Recall that our goal is to find $\bar{v}_{q0}, \forall q\in\mathcal{Q} $, to calculate the average AoI of source 1 in \eqref{AOIANAL}. To this end, we need to solve the system of linear equations \eqref{asleq} with variables $\bar{\bold{v}}_q, \forall{q}\in\mathcal{Q}$. To form the system of linear equations \eqref{asleq} for each state $\forall{q}\in\mathcal{Q}$, we need to determine $\bold{b}_q$, $\bar{{\pi}}_q$, and $\bar{\bold{v}}_{q_l}\bold{A}_l$ for each incoming transition ${l\in\mathcal{L}'_q}$. Next, we derive these for Policy 1.
\subsubsection{Determining the value of $\bar{\bold{v}}_{q_l}\bold{A}_l$ for incoming transitions for each state $q\in\mathcal{Q}$}
The Markov chain for the discrete state $q(t)$ with the incoming and outgoing transitions for each state $q\in\mathcal{Q}$ is shown in Fig. \ref{Chain1}. The transitions between the discrete states ${{q_l \rightarrow q'_l}, \,\,\forall l\in \mathcal{L}}$, and their effects on the continuous state $\bold{x}(t)$
are summarized in Table \ref{table-2}. In the following, we explain the transitions presented in Table \ref{table-2}:
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.7]{chain_New_r.pdf
\caption{The SHS Markov chain for Policy 1.}
\vspace{-5mm}
\label{Chain1}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\centering\small
\caption{SHS Markov chain states for Policy 1
\label{table-1}
\begin{tabular}{ |c|m{3.5cm}|m{3.5cm}|c|}
\hline
State & Source index of the second packet in the queue &Source index of the first packet in the queue & Server \\
\hline
0&-& -&I \\
\hline
1&-&-&B\\
\hline
2&-&1&B\\
\hline
3&-&2&B\\
\hline
4&2&1&B\\
\hline
5&1&2&B\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}\small
\centering
\caption{Table of transitions for the Markov chain of Policy 1 in Fig. \ref{Chain1}
\label{table-2}
\begin{tabular}{ |l|l|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textit{l} & $q_l \rightarrow q'_l $&$\lambda^{(l)}$& $\bold{A}_l$&$\bold{x}\bold{A}_l$&$\bold{v}_{q_l}\bold{A}_l$ \\
\hline
1&$0 \rightarrow 1$& $\lambda_1$&$\left[x_0~ 0~ x_2 ~x_3\right]$&$\tiny\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0&0\\
0 & 0 & 0&0\\
0 & 0 & 1&0\\
0 & 0 & 0&1
\end{bmatrix}$&$\left[v_{00}~ 0~ v_{02} ~v_{03}\right]$ \\
\hline
2&$0 \rightarrow 1$&$\lambda_2$&$\left[x_0~ x_0~ x_2~x_3\right]$&$\tiny\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 1 & 0&0\\
0 & 0 & 0&0\\
0 & 0 & 1&0\\
0 & 0 & 0&1
\end{bmatrix}$&$\left[v_{00}~ v_{00}~ v_{02} ~v_{03}\right]$\\
\hline
3&$1 \rightarrow 0$&$\mu$&$\left[x_1~ x_1~ x_2 ~x_3\right]$&$\tiny\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0&0\\
1 & 1 & 0&0\\
0 & 0 & 1&0\\
0 & 0 & 0&1
\end{bmatrix}$&$\left[v_{11}~ v_{11}~ v_{12} ~v_{13}\right]$\\
\hline
4&$1 \rightarrow 2$&$\lambda_1$&$\left[x_0~ x_1~ 0 ~x_3\right]$&$\tiny\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0&0\\
0 & 1 & 0&0\\
0 & 0 & 0&0\\
0 & 0 & 0&1
\end{bmatrix}$&$\left[v_{10}~ v_{11}~ 0 ~v_{13}\right]$\\
\hline
5&$1 \rightarrow 3 $&$\lambda_2$&$\left[x_0~ x_1~ x_1 ~x_3\right]$&$\tiny\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0&0\\
0 & 1 & 1&0\\
0 & 0 & 0&0\\
0 & 0 & 0&1
\end{bmatrix}$&$\left[v_{10}~ v_{11}~ v_{11} ~v_{13}\right]$\\
\hline
6&$2 \rightarrow 1$&$\mu$&$\left[x_1~ x_2~ x_2 ~x_3\right]$&$\tiny\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0&0\\
1 & 0 & 0&0\\
0 & 1 & 1&0\\
0 & 0 & 0&1
\end{bmatrix}$&$\left[v_{21}~ v_{22}~ v_{22} ~v_{23}\right]$\\
\hline
7&$3 \rightarrow 1$&$\mu$&$\left[x_1~ x_1~ x_2 ~x_3\right]$&$\tiny\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0&0\\
1 & 1 & 0&0\\
0 & 0 & 1&0\\
0 & 0 & 0&1
\end{bmatrix}$&$\left[v_{31}~ v_{31}~ v_{32} ~v_{33}\right]$\\
\hline
8&$2 \rightarrow 2$&$\lambda_1$&$\left[x_0~ x_1~ 0 ~x_3\right]$&$\tiny\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0&0\\
0 & 1 & 0&0\\
0 & 0 & 0&0\\
0 & 0 & 0&1
\end{bmatrix}$&$\left[v_{20}~ v_{21}~ 0 ~v_{23}\right]$\\
\hline
9&$2 \rightarrow 4 $&$\lambda_2$&$\left[x_0~ x_1~ x_2 ~x_2\right]$&$\tiny\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0&0\\
0 & 1 & 0&0\\
0 & 0 & 1&0\\
0 & 0 & 0&1
\end{bmatrix}$&$\left[v_{20}~ v_{21}~ v_{22} ~v_{22}\right]$\\
\hline
10&$3 \rightarrow 5$&$\lambda_1$&$\left[x_0~ x_1~ x_1 ~0\right]$&$\tiny\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0&0\\
0 & 1 & 1&0\\
0 & 0 & 0&0\\
0 & 0 & 0&0
\end{bmatrix}$&$\left[v_{30}~ v_{31}~ v_{31} ~0\right]$\\
\hline
11&$4\rightarrow 4$&$\lambda_1$&$\left[x_0~ x_1~ 0 ~0\right]$&$\tiny\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0&0\\
0 & 1 & 0&0\\
0 & 0 & 0&0\\
0 & 0 & 0&0
\end{bmatrix}$&$\left[v_{40}~ v_{41}~ 0 ~0\right]$\\
\hline
12&$5 \rightarrow 5$&$\lambda_1$&$\left[x_0~ x_1~ x_1 ~0\right]$&$\tiny\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0&0\\
0 & 1 & 1&0\\
0 & 0 & 0&0\\
0 & 0 & 0&0
\end{bmatrix}$&$\left[v_{50}~ v_{51}~ v_{51} ~0\right]$\\
\hline
13&$4 \rightarrow 3$&$\mu$&$\left[x_1~ x_2~ x_2 ~x_3\right]$&$\tiny\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0&0\\
1 & 0 & 0&0\\
0 & 1 & 1&0\\
0 & 0 & 0&1
\end{bmatrix}$&$\left[v_{41}~ v_{42}~ v_{42} ~v_{43}\right]$\\
\hline
14&$5 \rightarrow 2$&$\mu$&$\left[x_1~ x_1~ x_3 ~x_3\right]$&$\tiny\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0&0\\
1 & 1 & 0&0\\
0 & 0 & 0&0\\
0 & 0 & 1&1
\end{bmatrix}$&$\left[v_{51}~ v_{51}~ v_{53} ~v_{53}\right]$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{itemize}
\item \textit{l=1}: A source 1 packet arrives at an empty system. With this arrival/transition the AoI of source 1 does not change, i.e., $x'_0=x_0$.
This is because the arrival of source 1 packet does not yield an age reduction until it is delivered to the sink. Since the arriving source 1 packet is fresh and its age is zero, we have $x'_1=0$. Since with this arrival the queue is still empty, $x_2$ and $x_3$ become irrelevant to the AoI of source 1, and thus, $x'_2=x_2$ and $x'_3=x_3$. Note that if the system moves into a new state where $ x_j $ is irrelevant, we set $ x'_j=x_j, j\in\{1,2,3\} $.
An interpretation of this assignment is that $ x_j $ has not changed in the transition to the new state.
Finally, we have
\begin{align}\label{l1}
\bold{x}'=[x_0~x_1~x_2~x_3]\bold{A}_1=[x_0~0~x_2~x_3].
\end{align}
According to \eqref{l1}, it can be shown that the binary matrix $\bold{A}_1$ is given by
\begin{align}\label{l11}
\bold{A}_1=\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0&0\\
0 & 0 & 0&0\\
0 & 0 & 1&0\\
0 & 0 & 0&1
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{align}
Then, by using \eqref{l11}, $\bold{v}_{0}\bold{A}_1$ is calculated as
\begin{align}\label{l12}
\bold{v}_{0}\bold{A}_1\!\!=\![v_{00}~ v_{01}~ v_{02} ~v_{03}]\bold{A}_1
=\!\!\left[v_{00}~ 0~ v_{02} ~v_{03}\right].
\end{align}
It can be seen from \eqref{l1}-\eqref{l12} that when we have $\bold{x}'$ for a transition $l\in\mathcal{L}$, it is easy to calculate $ \bold{v}_{q_l}\bold{A}_l $.
Thus, for the rest of the transitions, we just explain the calculation of $\bold{x}'$ and present the final expressions of $\bold{A}_l$ and $ \bold{v}_{q_l}\bold{A}_l $.
\item \textit{l=2}: A source 2 packet arrives at an empty system. We have $x'_0=x_0$, because this arrival does not change the AoI at the sink. Since the arriving packet is a source 2 packet, its delivery does not change the AoI of source 1, thus we have
$x'_1=x_0$. Moreover, since the queue is empty, $x_2$ and $x_3$ become irrelevant, and we have $x'_2=x_2$ and $x'_3=x_3$.
\item \textit{l=3}: A packet is under service and it completes service and is delivered
to the sink. With this transition,
the AoI at the sink is reset to the age of the packet that just completed service, and thus, $x'_0=x_1$. Since the
system enters state $q=0$,
we have ${x'_1=x_1}$, ${x'_2=x_2}$, and ${x'_3=x_3}$.
\item \textit{l=4}: A packet is under service and a source 1 packet arrives. In this transition, we have $x'_0=x_0$ because there is no departure. The delivery of the packet under service reduces the AoI to $x_1$ and thus, $x'_1=x_1$. Since the arriving source 1 packet is fresh and its age is zero we have $x'_2=0$. Since there is only one packet in the queue, $x_3$ becomes irrelevant, and we have $x'_3=x_3$.
\item \textit{l=5}: A packet is under service and a source 2 packet arrives. In this transition, we have $x'_0=x_0$ because there is no departure. The delivery of the packet under service reduces the AoI to $x_1$ and thus, $x'_1=x_1$. Since the arriving source 2 packet, its delivery does not change the AoI of source 1, and thus we have $x'_2=x_1$. Since there is only one packet in the queue, $x_3$ becomes irrelevant, and we have $x'_3=x_3$.
\item \textit{l=6}: A source 1 packet is in the queue, a packet is under service and it completes service and is delivered
to the sink. With this transition, the AoI at the sink is reset to the age of the packet that just completed service, and thus, $x'_0=x_1$. Since the source 1 packet in the queue goes to the server, we have $x'_1=x_2$. In addition, since with this departure the queue becomes empty, we have $x'_2=x_2$ and $x'_3=x_3$.
\item \textit{l=7}: A source 2 packet is in the queue, a packet is under service and it completes service and is delivered
to the sink. With this transition, the AoI at the sink is reset to the age of the packet that just completed service, and thus, $x'_0=x_1$. Since the source 2 packet in the queue goes to the server and its delivery does not change the AoI of source 1, we have $x'_1=x_1$. In addition, since with this departure the queue becomes empty, we have $x'_2=x_2$ and $x'_3=x_3$.
\item \textit{l=8}: A packet is under service, a source 1 packet is in the queue, and
a source 1 packet arrives. According to Policy 1, the source 1 packet in the queue is replaced by the fresh
source 1 packet. In this transition, we have $x'_0=x_0$ because there is no departure. The delivery of the packet under service reduces the AoI to $x_1$, and thus, $x'_1=x_1$. Since the arriving source 1 packet is fresh and its age is zero, we have $x_2=0$. Since there is only one packet in the queue,
we have $x'_3=x_3$.
\item \textit{l=9}:
A packet is under service, a source 1 packet is in the queue, and
a source 2 packet arrives. In this transition, ${x'_0=x_0}$ because there is no departure. The delivery of the packet under service reduces the AoI to $x_1$, and thus, $x'_1=x_1$. The delivery of the first packet in the queue reduces the AoI to $x_2$, and thus, ${x'_2=x_2}$. Since the second packet in the queue is a source 2 packet, its delivery does not change the AoI of source 1, and thus we have $x'_3=x_2$.
\item \textit{l=10}:
A packet is under service, a source 2 packet is in the queue, and
a source 1 packet arrives. In this transition, ${x'_0=x_0}$ because there is no departure. The delivery of the packet under service reduces the AoI to $x_1$, and thus, $x'_1=x_1$. Since the first packet in the queue is a source 2 packet, its delivery does not change the AoI of source 1, and thus we have
$x'_1=x_1$. Since the arriving source 1 packet is fresh and its age is zero, we have $x_3=0$.
\item \textit{l=11}: A packet is under service, the first packet in the queue is a source 1 packet, the second packet in the queue is a source 2 packet, and a source 1 packet arrives. According to Policy 1, the source 1 packet in the queue is replaced by the fresh source 1 packet. In this transition, we have $x'_0=x_0$ because there is no departure. The delivery of the packet under service reduces the AoI to $x_1$, thus, $x'_1=x_1$. Since the arriving source 1 packet is fresh and its age is zero we have $x'_2=0$. Since the second packet in the queue is a source 2 packet, its delivery does not change the AoI of source 1, and thus
we have $x'_3=0$.
The reset maps of transition $l=12$ can be derived similarly.
\item \textit{l=13}:
The first packet in the queue is a source 1 packet, the second packet in the queue is a source 2 packet, and the packet under service completes service and is delivered to the sink.
With this transition, the AoI at the sink is reset to the age of the source 1 packet that just completed service, and thus, $x'_0=x_1$. Since the first packet in the queue goes to the server, we have $x'_1=x_2$.
In addition, since with this departure the queue holds the source 2 packet and its delivery does not change the AoI of source 1, we have $x'_2=x_2$ and $x'_3=x_3$. The reset maps of transition $l=14$ can be derived similarly.
\end{itemize}
Having defined the sets of incoming and outgoing transitions, and the value of $\bar{\bold{v}}_{q_l}\bold{A}_l$ for each incoming transition for each state $q\in\mathcal{Q}$, the remaining task is to derive $\bold{b}_q, \forall q\in\mathcal{Q}$, and the stationary probability vector $\bar{\boldsymbol{\pi}}$. This is carried out next.
\subsubsection{Calculation of $\bold{b}_q$ and $\bar\pi_q$ for each state $ q\in\mathcal{Q}$}
The evolution of $ \bold{x}(t) $ at each discrete state $q(t)=q$ is determined by the differential equation $\dot{\bold{x}}=\bold{b}_q$, as described in Section \ref{Introduction to the SHS Technique}. Since as long as the discrete state $q(t)$ is unchanged, the age of each element $x_j(t), j\in\{0,\ldots,3\},$ increases at a unit rate with time, and thus we have $\bold{b}_q=\bold{1}$, where $\bold{1}$ is the row vector $[1 \cdots 1]\in\mathbb{R}^{1\times(n+1)}$.
To calculate the stationary probability vector $\bar{\boldsymbol{\pi}}$, we use \eqref{eqrt01} and \eqref{erwq}. Using \eqref{eqrt01} and the transitions between the different states presented in Table \ref{table-2}, it can be shown that the stationary probability vector $\bar{\boldsymbol{\pi}}$ satisfies
$
\bar{\boldsymbol{\pi}}\bold{D}=\bar{\boldsymbol{\pi}}\bold{Q}
$
where the diagonal matrix $\bold{D}\in\mathbb{R}^{(n+1)\times(n+1)}$ and matrix $\bold{Q}\in\mathbb{R}^{(n+1)\times(n+1)}$ are given as
\begin{align}\nonumber
\bold{D}=&\,\,\text{diag}[\lambda,\lambda+\mu,\lambda+\mu,\lambda_1+\mu,\lambda_1+\mu,\lambda_1+\mu],\\&\nonumber
\bold{Q}=\left[\begin{array}{cccccc}
\mu & \lambda & 0 &0 & 0 &0\\
0 & 0 & \lambda_1 &\lambda_2& \lambda_2&0 \\
0 & \mu & \lambda_1 &0 & 0 &0\\
0 & \mu & 0 &0 & 0 & \lambda_1\\
0 & 0 & 0 &\mu & \lambda_1& 0\\
0 & 0 & \mu &0 & 0 & \lambda_1\\
\end{array}\right],
\end{align}
where $\text{diag}[a_1, a_2,\ldots,a_n]$ denotes a diagonal matrix with elements $a_1, a_2,\ldots,a_n$ on its main diagonal. Using the above $
\bar{\boldsymbol{\pi}}\bold{D}=\bar{\boldsymbol{\pi}}\bold{Q}
$ and $\textstyle\sum_{q\in\mathcal{Q}}\bar{{\pi}}_q=1$ in \eqref{erwq}, the stationary probabilities are given as
\begin{align}\label{proeqq}
\bar{\boldsymbol{\pi}}= \dfrac{1}{\rho^2+\rho(2\rho_1\rho_2+1)+1}\left[1~~ \rho~~ \rho_1\rho ~~\rho_2\rho ~~\rho_1\rho_2\rho~~\rho_1\rho_2\rho\right].
\end{align}
\subsubsection{Average AoI Calculation}
By substituting \eqref{proeqq} into \eqref{asleq} and solving the corresponding system of linear equations, the values of $\bar{v}_{q0}, \,\,\forall q\in\mathcal{Q}$, are calculated as presented in Appendix \ref{Valuesof v appendix}. Finally, substituting the values of $\bar{v}_{q0}, \,\,\forall q\in\mathcal{Q}$,
into \eqref{AOIANAL} results in the average AoI of source 1 under Policy 1, given in Theorem \ref{theo1}.
Note that the expression is \emph{exact}; it characterizes the average AoI in the considered queueing model in \emph{closed form}.
\subsection{Average AoI under Policy 2}\label{Average AoI Under Policy 2}
Recall from Section~\ref{System Model} that the main difference of Policy 2 compared to Policy 1 treated above is that \emph{the system} can contain only two packets, one packet of source 1 and one packet of source 2. Accordingly for Policy 2, the state space of the Markov chain is $\mathcal{Q}=\{0,1,2,3,4\}$, where
${q=0}$ indicates that the server is idle, i.e., the system is empty; ${q=1}$ indicates that a source 1 packet is under service and the queue is empty; ${q=2}$ indicates that a source 2 packet is under service and the queue is empty; ${q=3}$ indicates that a source 1 packet is under service, and a source 2 packet is in the queue; and ${q=4}$ indicates that a source 2 packet is under service, and a source 1 packet is in the queue.
The continuous process is ${\bold{x}(t)=[x_0(t)~x_1(t)~x_2(t)]}$, where $x_0(t)$ is the current AoI of source 1 at time instant $t$, $\Delta_1(t)$; $ x_1(t) $ encodes what $\Delta_1(t)$ would become if the packet that is under service is delivered to the sink at time instant $t$; $ x_2(t) $ encodes what $\Delta_1(t)$ would become if the packet in the queue is delivered to the sink at time instant $t$. Next, we will determine the required quantities to form the system of linear equations in \eqref{asleq} under Policy 2.
\subsubsection{Determining the value of $\bar{\bold{v}}_{q_l}\bold{A}_l$ for incoming transitions for each state $q\in\mathcal{Q}$}
The Markov chain for the discrete state $q(t)$ is shown in Fig. \ref{Chain3}. The transitions between the discrete states ${{q_l \rightarrow q'_l}, \,\,\forall l\in \mathcal{L}}$, and their effects on the continuous state $\bold{x}(t)$ are summarized in Table \ref{table-4}. In the following, we explain the transitions presented in Table \ref{table-4}:
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.7]{Chain_new_second_model.pdf
\caption{The SHS Markov chain for Policy 2.}
\vspace{-5mm}
\label{Chain3}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\centering\small
\caption{Table of transitions for the Markov chain of Policy 2 in Fig. \ref{Chain3}}
\label{table-4
\begin{tabular}{ |l|l|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textit{l} & $q_l \rightarrow q'_l $&$\lambda^{(l)}$& $\bold{x}\bold{A}_l$&$\bold{A}_l$&$\bold{v}_{q_l}\bold{A}_l$ \\
\hline
1&$0 \rightarrow 1$& $\lambda_1$&$\left[x_0 ~ 0 ~ x_2 \right]$&$\tiny\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1
\end{bmatrix}$&$\left[v_{00}~ 0~ v_{02} \right]$ \\
\hline
2&$0 \rightarrow 2$&$\lambda_2$&$\left[x_0~ x_0~ x_2 \right]$&$\tiny\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1
\end{bmatrix}$&$\left[v_{00}~ v_{00}~ v_{02} \right]$\\
\hline
3&$1 \rightarrow 1$&$\lambda_1$&$\left[x_0~ 0~ x_2 \right]$&$\tiny\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1
\end{bmatrix}$&$\left[v_{10}~ 0~ v_{12} \right]$\\
\hline
4&$1 \rightarrow 3$&$\lambda_2$&$\left[x_0~ x_1~ x_1 \right]$&$\tiny\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 1\\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{bmatrix}$&$\left[v_{10}~ v_{11}~ v_{11} \right]$\\
\hline
5&$2 \rightarrow 4 $&$\lambda_1$&$\left[x_0~ x_0~ 0 \right]$&$\tiny\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{bmatrix}$&$\left[v_{20}~ v_{20}~ 0 \right]$\\
\hline
6&$3 \rightarrow 3$&$\lambda_1$&$\left[x_0~ 0~ 0 \right]$&$\tiny\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{bmatrix}$&$\left[v_{30}~ 0~ 0 \right]$\\
\hline
7&$4 \rightarrow 4 $&$\lambda_1$&$\left[x_0~ x_0~ 0 \right]$&$\tiny\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{bmatrix}$&$\left[v_{40}~ v_{40}~ 0 \right]$\\
\hline
8&$1 \rightarrow 0$&$\mu$&$\left[x_1~ x_1~ x_2 \right]$&$\tiny\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0\\
1 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1
\end{bmatrix}$&$\left[v_{11}~ v_{11}~ v_{12} \right]$\\
\hline
9&$2 \rightarrow 0$&$\mu$&$\left[x_0~ x_1~ x_2 \right]$&$\tiny\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1
\end{bmatrix}$&$\left[v_{20}~ v_{21}~ v_{22} \right]$\\
\hline
10&$3 \rightarrow 2$&$\mu$&$\left[x_1~ x_1~ x_2 \right]$&$\tiny\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0\\
1 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1
\end{bmatrix}$&$\left[v_{31}~ v_{31}~ v_{32} \right]$\\
\hline
11&$4 \rightarrow 1$&$\mu$&$\left[x_0~ x_2~ x_2 \right]$&$\tiny\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 1
\end{bmatrix}$&$\left[v_{40}~ v_{42}~ v_{42} \right]$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{itemize}
\item \textit{l=1}: A source 1 packet arrives at an empty system. With this transition we have $x'_0=x_0$ because there is no departure. Since with this arrival the queue is still empty, $x_2$ becomes irrelevant to the AoI of source 1, and thus, $x'_2=x_2$.
\item \textit{l=2}: A source 2 packet arrives at an empty system. We have $x'_0=x_0$, because this arrival does not change the AoI at the sink. Since the arriving packet is a source 2 packet, its delivery does not change the AoI of source 1, and thus we have
$x'_1=x_0$. Moreover, since the queue is empty, $x_2$ becomes irrelevant, and thus, we have $x'_2=x_2$.
\item \textit{l=3}: A source 1 packet is under service and a source 1 packet arrives. According to the self-preemptive service of Policy 2, the source 1 packet that is under service is preempted by the arriving source 1 packet.
In this transition, we have $x'_0=x_0$ because there is no departure.
Since the arrived source 1 packet that entered the server through the preemption is fresh and its age is zero, we have $x'_1=0$. Since the queue is empty, $x_2$ becomes irrelevant, and thus, we have $x'_2=x_2$.
\item \textit{l=4}: A source 1 packet is under service and a source 2 packet arrives. In this transition, we have $x'_0=x_0$ because there is no departure. The delivery of the packet under service reduces the AoI to $x_1$, and thus, we have $x'_1=x_1$. Since the packet in the queue is a source 2 packet, its delivery does not change the AoI of source 1, and thus
we have $x'_2=x_1$.
The reset map of transition $l=6$ can be derived similarly.
\item \textit{l=5}: A source 2 packet is under service and a source 1 packet arrives. In this transition, we have $x'_0=x_0$ because there is no departure. Since the packet under service is a source 2 packet, its delivery does not change the AoI of source 1, and thus we have $x'_1=x_0$. Since the arriving source 1 packet is fresh and its age is zero, we have $x_2=0$.
\item \textit{l=6}: A source 1 packet is under service, the packet in the queue is a source 2 packet, and a source 1 packet arrives. According to the self-preemptive policy, the source 1 packet that is under service is preempted by the arriving source 1 packet.
In this transition, we have $x'_0=x_0$ because there is no departure. Since the arrived source 1 packet that entered the server through the preemption is fresh and its age is zero, we have $x'_1=0$.
Since the packet in the queue is a source 2 packet, its delivery does not change the AoI of source 1, and thus
we have $x'_2=0$.
The reset maps of transition $l=7$ can be derived similarly.
\item \textit{l=8}: A source 1 packet is under service and it completes service and is delivered
to the sink. With this transition,
the AoI at the sink is reset to the age of the source 1 packet that just completed service, and thus, $x'_0=x_1$. Since the
system enters state $q=0$,
we have ${x'_1=x_1}$, and ${x'_2=x_2}$. The reset map of transition $l=9$ can be derived similarly.
\item \textit{l=10}:
The packet in the queue is a source 2 packet and the source 1 packet in the server completes service and is delivered to the sink.
With this transition, the AoI at the sink is reset to the age of the source 1 packet that just completed service, i.e., $x'_0=x_1$. Since the packet that goes to the server is a source 2 packet, its delivery does not change the AoI of source 1, and thus we have $x'_1=x_1$. In addition, since with this transition the queue becomes empty, we have $x'_2=x_2$.
The reset map of transition $l=11$ can be derived similarly.
\end{itemize}
\subsubsection{Calculation of $\bold{b}_q$ and $\bar\pi_q$ for each state $ q\in\mathcal{Q}$}
Similarly as in Section \ref{FCFS Prioritized Packet Management Policy}, as long as the discrete state $q(t)$ is unchanged, the age of each element $x_j(t), j\in\{0,\ldots,2\},$ increases at a unit rate with time. Thus, we have $\bold{b}_q=\bold{1}$.
Next, we calculate the stationary probability vector $\bar{\boldsymbol{\pi}}$. Using \eqref{eqrt01} and the transition rates among the different states presented in Table \ref{table-4}, it can be shown that the stationary probability vector $\bar{\boldsymbol{\pi}}$ satisfies $\bar{\boldsymbol{\pi}}\bold{D}=\bar{\boldsymbol{\pi}}\bold{Q}$ with
\begin{align}\nonumber
\bold{D}=&\,\,\text{diag}[\lambda,\lambda+\mu,\lambda_1+\mu,\lambda_1+\mu,\lambda_1+\mu],\\&\nonumber
\bold{Q}=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}
0 & \lambda_1 & \lambda_2&0& 0 \\
\mu & \lambda_1 & 0&\lambda_2& 0 \\
\mu & 0 & 0&0& \lambda_1 \\
0 & 0 & \mu&\lambda_1& 0 \\
0 & \mu & 0&0& \lambda_1\\
\end{array}\right]\!.
\end{align}
Using the above $
\bar{\boldsymbol{\pi}}\bold{D}=\bar{\boldsymbol{\pi}}\bold{Q}
$ and $\textstyle\sum_{q\in\mathcal{Q}}\bar{{\pi}}_q=1$ in \eqref{erwq}, the stationary probabilities are given as
\begin{align}\label{proeqq0}
\bar{\boldsymbol{\pi}}= \dfrac{1}{2\rho_1\rho_2+\rho+1}\left[1~~ \rho_1~~ \rho_2 ~~\rho_1\rho_2 ~~\rho_1\rho_2\right].
\end{align}
\subsubsection{Average AoI Calculation}
By substituting \eqref{proeqq0} into \eqref{asleq} and solving the corresponding system of linear equations, the values of $\bar{v}_{q0}, \,\,\forall q\in\mathcal{Q}$, are calculated as
\begin{align}\label{V2AoI2}
&\bar{v}_{00}=\dfrac{\rho_1^2(2\rho+5)+(4\rho_1+1)(\rho_2+1)}{\mu\rho_1(1+\rho_1)^2(1+\rho)(1+\rho+2\rho_1\rho_2)},\\\nonumber&
\bar{v}_{10}=\dfrac{(1+\rho_2)(\rho_1^3+4\rho_1^2+1)+\rho_1(5\rho_2+4)}{\mu(1+\rho_2)(1+\rho_1)^2(1+\rho+2\rho_1\rho_2)},\\\nonumber&
\bar{v}_{20}=\dfrac{\rho_2\big(\rho_1^2(2\rho+6)+(4\rho_1+1)(\rho_2+1)\big)}{\mu\rho_1(1+\rho_1)^2(1+\rho)(1+\rho+2\rho_1\rho_2)},\\\nonumber&
\bar{v}_{30}=\dfrac{\rho_2\big((1+\rho_2)(2\rho_1^3+6\rho_1^2+1)+\rho_1(6\rho_2+5)\big)}{\mu(1+\rho_2)(1+\rho_1)^2(1+\rho+2\rho_1\rho_2)},\\\nonumber&
\bar{v}_{40}=\dfrac{\rho_2\big(\rho_1^2(\rho_1^2+5\rho_1+\rho_1\rho_2+4\rho_2+9)+(5\rho_1+1)(1+\rho_2)\big)}{\mu(1+\rho_1)^2(1+\rho)(1+\rho+2\rho_1\rho_2)}.
\end{align}
Finally, substituting the values of $\bar{v}_{q0}, \,\,\forall q\in\mathcal{Q}$, in \eqref{V2AoI2} into \eqref{AOIANAL} results in the average AoI of source 1 under Policy 2, given in Theorem \ref{theo2}.
\subsection{Average AoI under Policy 3}\label{Average AoI Under Policy 3}
The main difference of Policy 3 compared to Policy 2 is that it does not permit preemption in service.
The Markov chain and the continuous process of Policy 3 are the same as those for Policy 2. Thus, the stationary probability vector $\bar{\boldsymbol{\pi}}$ of Policy 3 is given in \eqref{proeqq0}. The transitions between the discrete states ${{q_l \rightarrow q'_l}, \,\,\forall l\in \mathcal{L}}$, and their effects on the continuous state $\bold{x}(t)$ are summarized in Table \ref{table-5}. The reset maps of transitions $ l\in\{1,2,4,5,7,8,9,10,11\}$ are the same as those for Policy 2. Thus, we only explain transitions $l=3$ and $l=6$ (see Table \ref{table-5}).
\begin{table}
\centering\small
\caption{Table of transitions for the Markov chain of Policy 3}
\label{table-5
\begin{tabular}{ |l|l|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textit{l} & $q_l \rightarrow q'_l $&$\lambda^{(l)}$& $\bold{x}\bold{A}_l$&$\bold{A}_l$&$\bold{v}_{q_l}\bold{A}_l$ \\
\hline
1&$0 \rightarrow 1$& $\lambda_1$&$\left[x_0 ~ 0 ~ x_2 \right]$&$\tiny\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1
\end{bmatrix}$&$\left[v_{00}~ 0~ v_{02} \right]$ \\
\hline
2&$0 \rightarrow 2$&$\lambda_2$&$\left[x_0~ x_0~ x_2 \right]$&$\tiny\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1
\end{bmatrix}$&$\left[v_{00}~ v_{00}~ v_{02} \right]$\\
\hline
3&$1 \rightarrow 1$&$\lambda_1$&$\left[x_0~ x_1~ x_2 \right]$&$\tiny\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1
\end{bmatrix}$&$\left[v_{10}~ v_{11}~ v_{12} \right]$\\
\hline
4&$1 \rightarrow 3$&$\lambda_2$&$\left[x_0~ x_1~ x_1 \right]$&$\tiny\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 1\\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{bmatrix}$&$\left[v_{10}~ v_{11}~ v_{11} \right]$\\
\hline
5&$2 \rightarrow 4 $&$\lambda_1$&$\left[x_0~ x_0~ 0 \right]$&$\tiny\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{bmatrix}$&$\left[v_{20}~ v_{20}~ 0 \right]$\\
\hline
6&$3 \rightarrow 3$&$\lambda_1$&$\left[x_0~ x_1~ x_1 \right]$&$\tiny\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 1\\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{bmatrix}$&$\left[v_{30}~ v_{31}~ v_{31} \right]$\\
\hline
7&$4 \rightarrow 4 $&$\lambda_1$&$\left[x_0~ x_0~ 0 \right]$&$\tiny\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{bmatrix}$&$\left[v_{40}~ v_{40}~ 0 \right]$\\
\hline
8&$1 \rightarrow 0$&$\mu$&$\left[x_1~ x_1~ x_2 \right]$&$\tiny\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0\\
1 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1
\end{bmatrix}$&$\left[v_{11}~ v_{11}~ v_{12} \right]$\\
\hline
9&$2 \rightarrow 0$&$\mu$&$\left[x_0~ x_1~ x_2 \right]$&$\tiny\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1
\end{bmatrix}$&$\left[v_{20}~ v_{21}~ v_{22} \right]$\\
\hline
10&$3 \rightarrow 2$&$\mu$&$\left[x_1~ x_1~ x_2 \right]$&$\tiny\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0\\
1 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1
\end{bmatrix}$&$\left[v_{31}~ v_{31}~ v_{32} \right]$\\
\hline
11&$4 \rightarrow 1$&$\mu$&$\left[x_0~ x_2~ x_2 \right]$&$\tiny\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 1
\end{bmatrix}$&$\left[v_{40}~ v_{42}~ v_{42} \right]$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{itemize}
\item \textit{l=3}: A source 1 packet is under service and a source 1 packet arrives. According to Policy 3, the arrived source 1 packet is blocked and cleared.
In this transition, we have $x'_0=x_0$ because there is no departure. The delivery of the packet under service reduces the AoI to $x_1$, and thus, we have $x'_1=x_1$.
Since the queue is empty, $x_2$ becomes irrelevant, and thus, we have $x'_2=x_2$.
\item \textit{l=6}: A source 1 packet is under service, the packet in the queue is a source 2 packet, and a source 1 packet arrives. The arrived source 1 packet is blocked and cleared.
In this transition, we have $x'_0=x_0$ because there is no departure. The delivery of the packet under service reduces the AoI to $x_1$, and thus, we have $x'_1=x_1$.
Since the packet in the queue is a source 2 packet, its delivery does not change the AoI of source 1, and thus
we have $x'_2=x_1$.
\end{itemize}
Having the stationary probability vector $\bar{\boldsymbol{\pi}}$ (given in \eqref{proeqq0}) and the table of transitions (Table \ref{table-5}), we can form the system of linear equations \eqref{asleq}. By
solving the system of linear equations, the values of $\bar{v}_{q0}, \,\,\forall q\in\mathcal{Q}$, are calculated as
\begin{align}\label{V2AoI20}
&\bar{v}_{00}=\dfrac{\rho_1^3+\rho_1^2((\rho_2+2)^2-1)+(\rho_2+1)^2(3\rho_1+1)}{\mu\rho_1(1+\rho_1)(1+\rho_2)(1+\rho)(1+\rho+2\rho_1\rho_2)},\\\nonumber&
\bar{v}_{10}=\dfrac{(1+\rho_2)(2\rho_1^2+1)+\rho_1(4\rho_2+3)}{\mu(1+\rho_2)(1+\rho_1)(1+\rho+2\rho_1\rho_2)},\\\nonumber&
\bar{v}_{20}=\dfrac{\rho_2\big(\rho_1^3(\rho_2+2)+\rho_1^2(\rho_2^2+5\rho_2+4)+(3\rho_1+1)(\rho_2+1)^2\big)}{\mu\rho_1(1+\rho_1)(1+\rho_2)(1+\rho)(1+\rho+2\rho_1\rho_2)},\\\nonumber&
\bar{v}_{30}=\dfrac{\rho_2\big((\rho_2+1)(3\rho_1^2+1)+\rho_1(5\rho_2+4)\big)}{\mu(1+\rho_1)(1+\rho_2)(1+\rho+2\rho_1\rho_2)},\\\nonumber&
\bar{v}_{40}=\dfrac{\rho_2\big(\rho_1^3(2\rho_2+3)+2\rho_1^2((\rho_2+2)^2-1)+(4\rho_1+1)(\rho_2+1)^2\big)}{\mu(1+\rho_1)(1+\rho_2)(1+\rho)(1+\rho+2\rho_1\rho_2)}.
\end{align}
Finally, substituting the values of $\bar{v}_{q0}, \,\,\forall q\in\mathcal{Q}$, in \eqref{V2AoI20} into \eqref{AOIANAL} results in the average AoI of source 1 under Policy 3, given in Theorem \ref{theo3}.
\section{Numerical Results}\label{Numerical Results}
In this section, we show the effectiveness of the proposed packet management policies in terms of the sum average AoI and fairness between the different sources in the system. Moreover, we compare our policies against the following existing policies:
the source-agnostic packet management policies LCFS-S and LCFS-W proposed in \cite{8469047}, and the priority based packet management policies proposed in \cite{8437591}, which we term PP-NW and PP-WW. Under the LCFS-S policy, a new arriving packet preempts any packet that is currently under service (regardless of the source index). Under the LCFS-W policy, a new arriving packet replaces any older packet waiting in the queue (regardless of the source index); however, the new packet has to wait for any packet under service to finish. Under the PP-NW policy, there is no waiting room
and an update under service is preempted on arrival of an equal or
higher priority update. Under the PP-WW policy, there is a waiting room for at
most one update and preemption is allowed in waiting but not in
service.
Without loss of generality, for the PP-NW and PP-WW policies, we assume that source 2 has higher priority than source 1; for the opposite case, the results are symmetric.
\subsubsection{Average AoI}
Fig. \ref{1Comparision} depicts the contours of achievable average AoI pairs
$(\Delta_1,\Delta_2)$ for fixed values of system load $\rho=\rho_1+\rho_2$ under different packet management policies with normalized service rate $\mu=1$; in Fig.~\ref{1Comparision}(a), ${\rho=1}$ and in Fig.~\ref{1Comparision}(b), ${\rho=6}$. This figure shows that under an appropriate packet management policy in the system (either in the queue or server), by increasing the load of the system the average AoI decreases.
Besides that, it shows that Policy 2 provides the lowest average AoI as compared to the other policies.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\subfloat[]
{\includegraphics[width=0.54\linewidth,trim = 10mm 0mm 20mm 10mm,clip]{Delta12r1-eps-converted-to.pdf}}\\
\subfloat[]
{\includegraphics[width=0.55\linewidth,trim = 10mm 0mm 20mm 10mm,clip]{Delta12r6-eps-converted-to.pdf}}\\% \vspace{-2mm}
\caption{ The average AoI of sources 1 and 2 under different packet management policies for $\mu=1$ with (a) $\rho=\rho_1+\rho_2=1$, and (b) $\rho=\rho_1+\rho_2=6$.}
\vspace{-12mm}
\label{1Comparision}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Sum Average AoI}
Fig. \ref{2Comparision} depicts sum average AoI as a function of $\rho_1$ under different packet management policies with $\mu=1$; in Fig. \ref{2Comparision}(a), ${\rho=\rho_1+\rho_2=1}$ and in Fig. \ref{2Comparision}(b), ${\rho=\rho_1+\rho_2=6}$.
This figure shows that Policy 2 provides the lowest average AoI for all values of $ \rho_1 $ as compared to the other policies.
In addition, we can observe that among Policy 1, Policy 3, PP-NW, PP-WW, LCFS-S, and LCFS-W policies, the policy that achieves the lowest value of the sum average AoI depends on the system parameters. Moreover, we can observe that under the PP-NW and PP-WW policies the minimum value of sum average AoI is achieved for a high value of $\rho_1$. This is because when priority is with source 2, a high value of $\rho_1$ is needed to compensate for the priority. In addition, we can see that for a high value of total load, i.e., $ \rho=6 $, the range of values of $ \rho_1 $ for which PP-NW and PP-WW policies operate well becomes narrow.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\subfloat[]
{\includegraphics[width=0.53\linewidth,trim = 10mm 0mm 20mm 10mm,clip]{sum1-eps-converted-to.pdf}}\\
\subfloat[]
{\includegraphics[width=0.54\linewidth,trim = 10mm 0mm 20mm 10mm,clip]{sum6-eps-converted-to.pdf}}\\% \vspace{-2mm}
\caption{Sum average AoI as a function of $\rho_1$ under different packet management policies for $\mu=1$ with (a) $\rho=\rho_1+\rho_2=1$, and (b) $\rho=\rho_1+\rho_2=6$.}
\vspace{-12mm}
\label{2Comparision}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Fairness}
For some applications, besides the sum average AoI, the individual average AoI of each source is critical. In this case, fairness between different sources becomes important to be taken into account. To compare the fairness between different sources under the different packet management policies, we use the Jain's fairness index \cite{6547814}. For the average AoI of sources 1 and 2, the Jain's fairness index $J(\Delta_1,\Delta_2)$ is defined as \cite[Definition~1]{6547814} \cite[Section~3]{8901143halim}
\begin{align}\label{01mnn}
J(\Delta_1,\Delta_2)=\dfrac{(\Delta_1+\Delta_2)^2}{2(\Delta_1^2+\Delta_2^2)}.
\end{align}
The Jain's index $J(\Delta_1,\Delta_2)$ is continuous and lies in $[0.5,1]$, where
$ J(\Delta_1,\Delta_2) = 1 $ indicates the fairest situation in the system.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\subfloat[]
{\includegraphics[width=0.55\linewidth,trim = 10mm 0mm 20mm 15mm,clip]{Fairness1-eps-converted-to.pdf}}\\% \vspace{-3mm}
\subfloat[]
{\includegraphics[width=0.55\linewidth,trim = 10mm 0mm 20mm 10mm,clip]{Fairness6-eps-converted-to.pdf}}\\
\caption{The Jain's fairness index for the average AoI of sources 1 and 2 as a function of $\rho_1$ under different packet management policies for $\mu=1$ with (a) $\rho=\rho_1+\rho_2=1$, and (b) $\rho=\rho_1+\rho_2=6$.}
\vspace{-12mm}
\label{FairnessComparision}
\end{figure}
Fig. \ref{FairnessComparision} depicts the Jain's fairness index for the average AoI of sources 1 and 2 as a function of $\rho_1$ under different packet management policies with $\mu=1$; in Fig. \ref{FairnessComparision}(a), ${\rho=\rho_1+\rho_2=1}$ and in Fig. \ref{FairnessComparision}(b), ${\rho=\rho_1+\rho_2=6}$.
As it can be seen, among Policy 1, Policy 2, Policy 3, LCFS-S, and LCFS-W policies, the LCFS-S policy provides the lowest fairness in the system. This is because
the packets of a source with a lower packet arrival rate are most of the time preempted by the packets of the other source having a higher packet arrival rate. In addition, we observe that the proposed source-aware policies (i.e., Policy 1, Policy 2, and Policy 3) in general provide better fairness than that of the other policies and Policy 3 provides the fairest situation in the system. This is because under these policies, a packet in the queue or server can be preempted \textit{only} by a packet with the same source index. Similarly as in Fig. \ref{2Comparision}(b), for the high load case, the range of values of $ \rho_1 $ for which PP-NW and PP-WW policies provide a good fairness becomes narrow.
\section{Conclusions}\label{Conclusions}
We considered a status update system consisting of two independent sources, one server, and one sink. We proposed three source-aware packet management policies where differently from the existing works, a packet in the system can be preempted only by a packet with the same source index. We derived the average AoI for each source under the proposed packet management policies using the SHS technique.
The numerical results showed that Policy 2 results in a lower sum average AoI in the system compared to the existing policies. In addition, the experiments showed that in general the proposed source-aware policies result in higher fairness in the system than that of the existing policies and, in particular, Policy 3 provides the fairest situation in the system.
The present paper opens several research directions for future study. It would be interesting to extend the results for more than two sources. The same methodology as used in this paper can be applied for more than two sources; however, the complexity of the calculations increases exponentially with the number of sources. Another interesting future work includes calculating the stationary distribution of the AoI under the proposed packet management policies.
\appendices
\section{Values of $\bar{v}_{q0}, \,\,\forall q\in\mathcal{Q},$ for Policy 1} \label{Valuesof v appendix}
\begin{align}\label{VAoI0}
\bar{v}_{00}=\dfrac{3\rho_1^4+\rho_1^3(5\rho_2+9)+\rho_1^2(2\rho_2^2+11\rho_2+10)+\rho_1(4\rho_2^2+6\rho_2+5)+\rho_2^2+\rho_2+1}{\mu\rho_1(1+\rho_1)^2\big((\rho+1)^2-\rho_2\big)\big(\rho^2+\rho(2\rho_1\rho_2+1)+1\big)},
\end{align}
\begin{align}\label{VAoI1}
\bar{v}_{10}=\dfrac{\rho_2^5+3\rho_2^4+4\rho_2^3+3\rho_2^2+\rho_2+\sum_{k=1}^{7}\rho_1^k\gamma_{1,k}}{\mu\rho_1(1+\rho)(1+\rho_2)(1+\rho_1)^2\big((\rho+1)^2-\rho_2\big)\big(\rho^2+\rho(2\rho_1\rho_2+1)+1\big)},
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}\nonumber
&\gamma_{1,1}=4\rho_2^5+16\rho_2^4+26\rho_2^3+22\rho_2^2+9\rho_2+1,~~~~
\gamma_{1,2}= 2\rho_2^5+25\rho_2^4+64\rho_2^3+70\rho_2^2+35\rho_2+6,\\\nonumber&
\gamma_{1,3}=11\rho_2^4+62\rho_2^3+107\rho_2^2+72\rho_2+16,~~~~
\gamma_{1,4}= \rho_2^4+23\rho_2^3+75\rho_2^2+77\rho_2+23,\\\nonumber&
\gamma_{1,5}=3\rho_2^3+23\rho_2^2+41\rho_2+18,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\gamma_{1,6}=3\rho_2^2+10\rho_2+7,
~~~
\gamma_{1,7}=\rho^2_2+10\rho_2+1.
\end{align}
\begin{align}\label{VAoI22}
\bar{v}_{20}=\dfrac{\rho_2^6+4\rho_2^5+7\rho_2^4+7\rho_2^3+4\rho_2^2+\rho_2+\sum_{k=1}^{7}\rho_1^k\gamma_{2,k}}{\mu(1+\rho)(1+\rho_1)^2(1+\rho_2)^2\big((\rho+1)^2-\rho_2\big)\big(\rho^2+\rho(2\rho_1\rho_2+1)+1\big)},
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}\nonumber
&\gamma_{2,1}=5\rho_2^6+23\rho_2^5+46\rho_2^4+51\rho_2^3+32\rho_2^2+10\rho_2+1,~~~~\\\nonumber&
\gamma_{2,2}=4\rho_2^6+36\rho_2^5+108\rho_2^4+156\rho_2^3+119\rho_2^2+46\rho_2+7,\\\nonumber&
\gamma_{2,3}=\rho_2^6+2\rho_2^5+100\rho_2^4+213\rho_2^3+222\rho_2^2+111\rho_2+21,~~~~~~\\\nonumber&
\gamma_{2,4}=4\rho_2^5+40\rho_2^4+134\rho_2^3+202\rho_2^2+138+33,~~~~~~
\gamma_{2,5}=6\rho_2^4+39\rho_2^3+89\rho_2^2+87\rho_2+28,\\\nonumber&
\gamma_{2,6}=4\rho_2^3+18\rho_2^2+26\rho_2+12,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\gamma_{2,7}=\rho_2^2+3\rho_2+2.
\end{align}
\begin{align}\label{VAoI3}
\bar{v}_{30}=\dfrac{\rho_2^6+3\rho_2^5+4\rho_2^4+3\rho_2^3+\rho_2^2+\sum_{k=1}^{7}\rho_1^k\gamma_{3,k}}{\mu\rho_1(1+\rho)(1+\rho_2)(1+\rho_1)^2\big((\rho+1)^2-\rho_2\big)\big(\rho^2+\rho(2\rho_1\rho_2+1)+1\big)},
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}\nonumber
&\gamma_{3,1}=5\rho_2^6+19\rho_2^5+30\rho_2^4+25\rho_2^3+10\rho_2^2+\rho_2,~
\gamma_{3,2}= 5\rho_2^6+37\rho_2^5+84\rho_2^4+87\rho_2^3+41\rho_2^2+6\rho_2,\\\nonumber&
\gamma_{3,3}=2\rho_2^6+27\rho_2^5+101\rho_2^4+149\rho_2^3+91\rho_2^2+18\rho_2,~
\gamma_{3,4}=8\rho_2^5+55\rho_2^4+126\rho_2^3+110\rho_2^2+30\rho_2,\\\nonumber&
\gamma_{3,5}=12\rho_2^4+51\rho_2^3+69\rho_2^2+27\rho_2,~~~~~~~~~~~~
\gamma_{3,6}=8\rho_2^3+20\rho_2^2+12\rho_2,~~~~~~~~
\gamma_{3,7}=2\rho_2^2+2\rho_2.
\end{align}
\begin{align}\label{VAoI4}
\bar{v}_{40}=\dfrac{\rho_2^7+4\rho_2^6+7\rho_2^5+7\rho_2^4+4\rho_2^3+\rho_2^2+\sum_{k=1}^{7}\rho_1^k\gamma_{4,k}}{\mu(1+\rho)(1+\rho_2)^2(1+\rho_1)^2\big((\rho+1)^2-\rho_2\big)\big(\rho^2+\rho(2\rho_1\rho_2+1)+1\big)},
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}\nonumber
&\gamma_{4,1}=6\rho_2^7+27\rho_2^6+53\rho_2^5+58\rho_2^4+36\rho_2^3+11\rho_2^2+\rho_2,~~\\\nonumber&
\gamma_{4,2}= 6\rho_2^7+48\rho_2^6+137\rho_2^5+193\rho_2^4+145\rho_2^3+55\rho_2^2+8\rho_2,\\\nonumber&
\gamma_{4,3}=2\rho_2^7+32\rho_2^6+143\rho_2^5+286\rho_2^4+287\rho_2^3+140\rho_2^2+26\rho_2,~~\\\nonumber&
\gamma_{4,4}=8\rho_2^6+67\rho_2^5+201\rho_2^4+281\rho_2^3+183\rho_2^2+43\rho_2,\\\nonumber&
\gamma_{4,5}=12\rho_2^5+67\rho_2^4+137\rho_2^3+123\rho_2^2+38\rho_2,~~~~~~~\\\nonumber&
\gamma_{4,6}=8\rho_2^4+31\rho_2^3+40\rho_2^2+14\rho_2,~~~~~~~~
\gamma_{4,7}=2\rho_2^3+5\rho_2^2+3\rho_2.
\end{align}
\begin{align}\label{VAoI5}
\bar{v}_{50}=\dfrac{\rho_2^6+3\rho_2^5+4\rho_2^4+3\rho_2^3+\rho_2^2+\sum_{k=1}^{7}\rho_1^k\gamma_{5,k}}{\mu(1+\rho)(1+\rho_2)(1+\rho_1)^2\big((\rho+1)^2-\rho_2\big)\big(\rho^2+\rho(2\rho_1\rho_2+1)+1\big)},
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}\nonumber
&\gamma_{5,1}=6\rho_2^6+22\rho_2^5+34\rho_2^4+28\rho_2^3+11\rho_2^2+\rho_2,~~~~~~\\\nonumber&
\gamma_{5,2}=7\rho_2^6+47\rho_2^5+103\rho_2^4+105\rho_2^3+49\rho_2^2+7\rho_2,\\\nonumber&
\gamma_{5,3}=3\rho_2^6+38\rho_2^5+133\rho_2^4+190\rho_2^3+115\rho_2^2+23\rho_2,\\\nonumber&
\gamma_{5,4}=12\rho_2^5+78\rho_2^4+170\rho_2^3+145\rho_2^2+40\rho_2,~~~~
\gamma_{5,5}=18\rho_2^4+73\rho_2^3+95\rho_2^2+37\rho_2,\\\nonumber&
\gamma_{5,6}=12\rho_2^3+29\rho_2^2+17\rho_2,~~~~
\gamma_{5,7}=3\rho_2^2+3\rho_2.
\end{align}
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
\begin{spacing}{1.55}
|
\section{Introduction}
The advancements of astronomical instrumentation, large-scales surveys and the policy of open data access have led
us into the midst of a revolution of data science. This makes the {\it knowledge discovery in databases} (KDD) become
feasible \citep{ball2010}. However, in order to fully harness the power of the deluge of data, one has to employ
the techniques of machine learning and data mining. This is envisioned as {\it the fourth paradigm} in astronomy
\citep{bell2009}. \footnote{The other three traditional paradigms are: theory, observation and computer simulation}.
Machine learning has been applied in classifying objects in different wavelengths
\citep[e.g.][]{farrell2015,buisson2015,miller2015,mirabal2012,parkinson2016classification}
In this work, we will focus on the $\gamma-$ray regime.
The successful launch of \emph{Fermi} Gamma-ray Space Telescope in 2008 has brought us into a golden era of $\gamma-$ray
astronomy \citep[see][for a recent review]{hui2018}.
Its large field-of-view enables it to continuously survey the whole sky every $\sim3$~hrs. Together with the
high sensitivity of the Large Area Telescope (LAT) onboard, both the volume and the quality of the data collected in the
energy range from 100~MeV to 300~GeV are unprecedentedly high. With only three months of observations, LAT has already
detected 205 sources with statistical significance $>10\sigma$ \citep{abdo2009}. For comparison, {\it Fermi}'s
predecessor, the Energetic Gamma-Ray Experiment Telescope (EGRET) on the {\it Compton} Gamma-Ray Observatory have
only detected 271 $\gamma-$ray sources in $\sim4.5$~years \citep{hartman1999}.
{\it Fermi} has revolutionized $\gamma-$ray astronomy by significantly enlarging the
$\gamma-$ray source population, as well as
discovering a number of new classes of $\gamma-$ray objects,
such as globular clusters, millisecond pulsars, radio-quiet pulsars, classical novae.
In the third {\it Fermi} LAT source catalog
\cite[3FGL,][]{acero2015}, over 3000 sources belong to $\sim20$ different $\gamma-$ray object classes
have been detected based on the first four year data. About
$\sim2/3$ of the 3FGL sources have been identified as pulsars or active galactic nuclei, which are the two
largest broad classes. On the other hand, there are about $\sim1000$ sources in 3FGL have not yet been identified
unambiguously. This provides us with a considerable data space to explore.
Various identification campaigns have been launched so as to unveil the nature of these unidentified $\gamma-$ray
sources. A number of investigations have utilized the conventional analysis to classify these sources
\citep[e.g.][]{hui2015}, which requires prior knowledge of $\gamma-$ray source properties in different classes.
On the other hand, automatic classification techniques have also been experimented
\citep{ackermann2012,mirabal2012,parkinson2016classification}.
These techniques have a number of advantages over the conventional ones.
For building classification model, the conventional methods require our current understanding of the emission properties of different $\gamma-$ray object classes. However,
owing to the relatively short history of $\gamma-$ray astronomy, our current understanding of different classes might be
far from being complete. With new data continuously pouring in and dedicated investigations, the existing models are subjected
to modifications and new characteristics of various classes can be established. This implies that both efficiency and
accuracy of the conventional method in identifying the unclassified $\gamma-$ray sources are unlikely to be optimal.
By employing machine learning techniques in automatic classification, instead of relying on prior knowledge, one let the data ``speak for themselves".
In this way, classification models are generated based on the respective inductive bias of machine learning methods and the current data without prior knowledge.
With an appropriate algorithm, attributes and patterns of the data that might be overlooked by human investigators can be possibly highlighted by machine. Furthermore, as the data volume increases
monotonically, automatic algorithms definitely have advantages over the traditional approaches.
Also, once the new data become available, they can be trivially incorporated in most algorithms and the model will be
automatically updated. Therefore, in terms of the efficiency, accuracy and cost-effectiveness, the automatic classification
schemes supersede the traditional analysis.
A number of previous investigations have explored the machine learning techniques in classifying {\it Fermi} $\gamma-$ray sources.
By applying classification tree and logistic regression to the first {\it Fermi} LAT catalog
\citep[1FGL][]{abdo2010} that based on the first 11 months data,
\citet{ackermann2012} have attained an average accuracy of $\sim80\%$ in their automatic scheme. \citet{mirabal2012}
have trained a random forest classifier in predicting the class memberships for the unassociated object in the second {\it Fermi}
LAT catalog \citep[2FGL][]{nolan2012} which is based on two years data. An average accuracy $\sim97\%$ is achieved in their
work. \citet{parkinson2016classification} have experimented various algorithms in classifying the sources in 3FGL
catalog. Using the random forest technique, the authors obtained the best overall accuracy of $\sim96\%$ for pulsars (PSRs) and active Galactic nuclei (AGNs) classifications. On the other hand, an accuracy of $\sim90\%$ is attained for young pulsars (YNGs) and millisecond pulsars (MSPs) classification.
While there are a number of studies applying machine learning techniques in $\gamma$-ray astronomy, none of them have investigated the factors that can improve/hamper the performance in details. First, we aware that the power of automatic feature selection algorithms \citep[e.g.][]{guyon2003} has not been exploited. The feature selections in these previous works were somewhat relied on the knowledge of the human investigators.
For example, the absolute Galactic latitude $|b|$ was not adopted as a feature in classifying
the $\gamma-$ray objects into PSRs and AGNs as
this might introduce a bias against AGNs close to the Galactic plane and the pulsars away from it \citep{ackermann2012,mirabal2012,parkinson2016classification}.
\citet{mirabal2012} have explicitly demonstrated that the classification
accuracy is slightly lower when this parameter is included. However, for the classification between YNGs and MSPs,
\citet{parkinson2016classification} have added $|b|$ as a predictor parameter. This ad hoc decision is simply based on our existing knowledge of the
spatial distributions of MSPs and YNGs.
Involving human decision in the classification in the previous works suggests that the power of the automatic approaches might not be fully harnessed.
Another issue for $\gamma$-ray astronomy is the sample size of the training/test set is relatively small in comparison with other wavelength. For example, the YNG/MSP classification performed by \citet{parkinson2016classification} depending on a sample of only $<100$ labeled objects in each class. It is possible that fluctuations of any performance metrics can be resulted from such small sample. However, such issue has not yet been properly addressed.
One basic assumption for any supervised learning is that the training and test data are drawn from the same distribution in the feature space. This assumption has not been examined in all previous studies, because the test sets and the training sets were constructed from the identified sources. However, in view of the selection effects (e.g. analysis of bright sources in details can be easier in pinpointing their natures), it is uncertain whether the model developed through the training with identified sources can legitimately be applied to classify unidentified sources.
The objective of this paper is to investigate the impacts of these factors in $\gamma$-ray source classification, which is organized as follows: We gives an overview on the algorithm of automatic feature selection in Section ~\ref{sec_feature_selection} and describe how we incorporate this technique in our framework in Section ~\ref{sec_OurMethod}. In Section ~\ref{sec_metrics}, we describe the metrics that we have adopted in quantifying the model performance. In Section ~\ref{sec_3fgl_experiments}, we present the results of the classification of 3FGL sources by using our framework and compare with those reported by \citet{parkinson2016classification}. In Sections ~\ref{sec_covariate_shift} and ~\ref{sec_cross_matched}, we introduce the concept of covariate shift and examine its possible impacts on 3FGL classification. In Section ~\ref{sec_4fgl_msp}, with these factors taken into account, we have selected 20 promising MSP candidates from the unidentified sources in 8-year {\it Fermi} LAT point source \citep[4FGL][]{fermi2019} catalog for follow-up investigations in the future. And lastly, we summarize our work in Section ~\ref{sec_summar}.
\section{Feature Selection}
\label{sec_feature_selection}
\subsection{An Overview for Feature Selection}
In the context of machine learning, the term feature selection refers to the process that extracts an effective subset of features from the feature space for better classification performance and/or lower computational complexity.
The goal of feature selection is to improve the performance of models built by machine learning techniques.
Especially, it is important for improving model performance with a feature space in high dimensionality.
Among many existing methods for feature selection, we select Recursive Feature Elimination (RFE) in our work because of its good performance as well as its simplicity.
However, other feature selection methods can also be very effective
methods \citep{Sanchez2007,Nguyen2014,vergara2014,bennasar2015}.
\subsection{An Overview for Recursive Feature Elimination}
RFE is one of the best performing methods for feature selection \citep{Richert2013}.
RFE is a backward selection method and, therefore, unimportant features are sequentially eliminated during a recursive process.
To select features, RFE has to be combined with a classification method producing the important scores.
It is worth to notice that the classification method combined with RFE in the feature selection stage can be a different method from the eventual classifier in the classification stage (see Algorithm~\ref{sec_OurMethod}).
For example, it is possible that a combination of Random Forest with RFE for feature selection and the Support Vector Machine (SVM) can lead to an optimal classification performance.
Unimportant features are iteratively eliminated in RFE.
In the $i$-th iteration, first, the classification method combined with RFE is fitted to the remaining $N-i$ features, and then, the performance of the fitted model $M_{i}$ is evaluated.
Finally, the important scores of $N-i$ features are generated using the fitted model $M_{i}$, and the feature with the lowest important score is eliminated.
The remaining $N-i-1$ features are used for the next iteration.
The classification method combined with RFE is fitted to the various subsets of $N$ features,
and totally $N$ fitted models are generated.
Features used to build the fitted model with the best classification performance is the output of RFE.
\subsection{Recursive Feature Elimination with Random Forest}
In this work, Random Forest (RF) is used as the classification method combined with RFE.
RF is successfully used to deal with a lot of classification problems with high-dimensional data \citep{genuer2017random,gomes2017adaptive,belgiu2016random,ristin2015incremental}.
RF is one of the most famous bagging methods, and it aggregates the predictions from a large number of bootstrapped trees for classification.
When an object is predicted by an RF classifier, it takes the results from each classification tree with its weight into account.
With bagging, this algorithm can provide a relatively high stability and give a more reliable classification rule.
In RFE with RF, RF is iteratively fitted to the various subsets of $N$ features, and totally $N$ RF classifiers are generated.
$N$ denotes the number of features of input data.
In each iteration, the performance of the RF classifier and feature important scores used to build the classifier are computed.
The performance of the $N$ classifiers are compared, and the set of features $F$ used to build the classifier with the best performance is selected to be the best set of features.
\section{A proposed simple Automatic Framework}
\label{sec_OurMethod}
In this work, a
simple
framework with automatic feature selection is proposed to classify $\gamma$-ray sources automatically.
The proposed framework (see Algorithm~\ref{alg_OurMeth}) consists of four stages:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
Preprocessing data,
\item
Automatic feature selection,
\item
Building the prediction models, and
\item
Classification/Prediction.
\end{enumerate}
The stages of the proposed framework are introduced in detail in the following subsections.
The feature selection method is only applied on the training set. Features are selected based on the best performance on the training set only.
It means that Algorithm~\ref{alg_rfe_rf} is only applied on the training set.
In Algorithm~\ref{alg_OurMeth}, Stage 1 to 3 are performed on the training data, and only Stage 4 is performed on the test data.
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{The Proposed Framework}
\label{alg_OurMeth}
\renewcommand{\algorithmicrequire}{\bf Input:}
\renewcommand{\algorithmicensure}{\bf Output:}
\begin{algorithmic}
\Require
The training set and test set; a threshold: $E$
\Ensure
The prediction results of test set.
\State \texttt{Stage 1 to 3 are performed on the training data}
\State \texttt{ Stage 1: Preprocessing Data} %
\State 1: Count the number of empty entries per feature
\State 2: Remove features with more than $E$ empty entries
\State 3: The values of empty entries in the features with less than $E$ empty entries are filled with the mean of the features
\State 4: (Optional) Clean features
\State 5: (Optional) Adding manual features using prior knowledge
\State \texttt{ Stage 2: Feature Selection}
\State 6: Select sources' features by the variant of RFE with RF (see Algorithm ~\ref{alg_rfe_rf})
\State \texttt{ Stage 3: Building the prediction models}
\State 7: Build seven prediction models based on various machine learning methods
\State 8: Predict the training set using prediction models
\State 9: Calculate ``Train ROC" curves using the predicting results of the training set
\State \texttt{ Stage 4: Predicting}
\State \texttt{Only Stage 4 is performed on the test data}
\State 10: Predict the test set using the prediction models
\State 11: Calculate ``Test ROC" curves using the predicting results of the test set
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{Data Preprocessing}
The purpose of the data preprocessing stage is to deal with missing data and to add more useful information with extra manual features to the $\gamma-$ray sources before subsequent stages.
All data preprocessing steps in this stage are shown in Algorithm~\ref{alg_OurMeth} where $E$ is the threshold defined manually and $E$ is chosen to be 95\% in our experiments.
To handle missing data, any feature with more than $E$ empty entries are removed because there are too many sources with insufficient information for that particular parameter.
For the features which have empty entries less than $E$, the empty entries are filled with the mean value of respective feature values.
For example, we assume that there is a four-dimensional feature shown as a vector $\left [ 1,2,miss,3 \right ]^{T}$.
Only one empty entry in this four-dimensional feature, and it with less than $E$ (here is 95\%) empty entries.
The value of the empty entry is filled with the mean of the four-dimensional feature, and the vector of feature is shown as $\left [ 1,2,2,3 \right ]^{T}$ after handling missing data (see the third step of Algorithm~\ref{alg_OurMeth}).
This is the general data preprocessing procedure adopted in this work with minimal modification of the data.
However, for comparing our results with those of \cite{parkinson2016classification} in classifying 3FGL sources,
we add exactly the same extra manual parameters (e.g. hardness ratios) and apply the same cleaning methods used in \cite{parkinson2016classification}.
Hence, the procedures of cleaning and adding manual parameters for the 3FGL catalog are exactly
the same as the procedures used in \cite{parkinson2016classification}.
\subsection{Feature Selection}
\label{subsec_fs}
In Algorithm~\ref{alg_OurMeth}, the feature selection method is only applied on the training set.
The output of any feature selection method is a set of $F$ features with low redundancy, which results in effective training for classifiers to achieve higher performance.
A simplicity variant of the RFE with RF (see Algorithm~\ref{alg_rfe_rf}) is used for the feature selection stage in our framework (see Algorithm~\ref{alg_OurMeth}).
What motivates us to develop a simplicity variant of the RFE with RF is the question: why do we only trust the machine learning model and ignore why it made a correct prediction?
Motivated by Occam's Razor, one can pay for the simplicity with a small drop in predictive performance.
A lot of feature selection techniques have been criticized for the lack of guarantees about their simplicity
\citep{hastie03,johnstone09,loh12,lipton2016mythos,ribeiro2016model,guidotti2019survey}.
By trial and error, we accept a factor of 1.05 as the margin of error in the RMSE value to trade for a simpler model.
As shown in Algorithm~\ref{alg_rfe_rf}, the simplicity variant is started with fitting RF to all features of input data, and then the less important features are removed one by one in a loop.
In the loop, RF is iteratively fitted to various subsets of $N$ features, and totally $N$ RF classifiers are generated.
In each iteration, the performance and important scores of an already fitted RF classifier are computed, and are recorded in a matrix $D$.
In Algorithm~\ref{alg_rfe_rf}, the root-mean-square error (RMSE) is used to evaluate the performance of the RF classifiers with a 10-fold cross-validation
on the training set.
Finally, after the loop, the output of Algorithm~\ref{alg_rfe_rf} is the set of features $F$ used to build the classifier with best trade-off between model prediction accuracy and simplicity.
Here, we consider that the best trade-off is to accept a factor of 1.05 as the margin of error in the RMSE value to trade for simplicity.
For example, assume that $N$ is equal to five, and $C_{1}$, $C_{2}$, $C_{3}$, $C_{4}$, $C_{5}$ are the five RF classifiers built by using 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 features.
The RMSE error of the five classifiers is 1.06, 1.04, 1.03, 1, 1.07 in order, and $C_{2}$ is the classifier with the best trade-off.
\begin{algorithm}[]
\caption{Recursive Feature Elimination with Random Forest in the Proposed Framework.}
\label{alg_rfe_rf}
\renewcommand{\algorithmicrequire}{\textbf{Input:}}
\renewcommand{\algorithmicensure}{\textbf{Output:}}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Require
The training set with $N$ features
\Ensure
$F$; $P$.
\State Train the RF classifier of RFE using the training set with $N$ features
\State Calculate the performance of the classifier (RF)
\State Calculate the importance scores of $N$ features
\State Record the performance and the features with their importance scores in $D$.
\For{i = 1 ... $N-2$,$N-1$}
\State Eliminate the feature with the lowest importance score
\State Train the RF classifier of RFE using the training set with remaining $N-i$ features
\State Calculate the performance of the RF classifier
\State Calculate the importance scores of $N-i$ remaining features
\State Record the performance of the RF classifier and the $N-i$ remaining features with their importance scores in $D$.
\EndFor
\State Obtain the performance profile, $P$, from $D$
\State Obtain the set of features, $F$, which are used to build the classifier with the best trade-off (see the second paragraph of Subsection~\ref{subsec_fs})
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{Building the Prediction Models}
\label{sec_predcitionModel}
After feature selection with Algorithm~\ref{alg_rfe_rf}, we compare the performance of seven prediction models on the training set.
These models are built using the following methods:
Random Forest (RF), Generalized Additive Models (GAM),
Logistic Regression (LR), Boosted Logistic Regression (Boost LR),
Support Vector Machines (SVM),
Decision Trees (DT) and Logistic Trees (LT).
During the process of building the prediction models, some parameters of various classifiers are tuned for optimizing their performances.
Such parameters are automatically optimized by using a 10-fold cross-validation.
We use the same method (and the same code) as in \cite{parkinson2016classification} to find the best classifier thresholds using training ROC curves (see Section ~\ref{sec_metrics} for a detailed description). And hence, if there is any difference between our results and
\cite{parkinson2016classification}, it should come from the incorporation of our feature selection scheme.
\subsection{Predictions}
At this stage, the test set is evaluated with the features from the aforementioned seven prediction models.
Different machine learning algorithms have their own characteristics and are suitable for different tasks.
RF, a widely used ensemble learning method, consists of a certain number of decision trees used as based learners \citep{breiman2001random,painsky2016cross,zhu2015reinforcement}. In the RF method, the prediction result is determined by voting of the decision trees trained using various subsets of features.
GAM, a statistical model, is based on the assumption that the input data can be modeled linearly \citep{hastie2017generalized}. In this method, smooth functions are learned for predictions.
LR, also a statistical model, draws on concepts from regression analyses \citep{hosmer2013applied}. This model is usually applied to the two-class classification problem and the probabilities of belonging to each class are calculated based on a set of independent features.
Boost LR, an ensemble learning method, draws on concepts from adaptive boosting (AdaBoost) \citep{friedman2000additive}. Boost LR is similarly to AdaBoost \citep{freund1999short} except Boost LR uses a negative log-likelihood loss function, instead of the exponential loss function used in AdaBoost.
SVM, traditionally a statistical machine learning method, is one of the most popular methods for two-class classification \citep{burges1998tutorial,hsu2002comparison,chang2011libsvm}. In SVM, a hyperplane is constructed for classification before the data in the high-dimensional space is mapped to the low-dimensional space.
DT, an inductive learning method, is a basic method for classification. It consists of two steps: 1.) the construction of tree and 2.) pruning \citep{quinlan2014c4,steinberg2009cart}.
LT is a method based on both LR and DT \citep{landwehr2005logistic}.
The LT is constructed by using standard decision trees with logistic regression functions on the leaves. This method uses the LogitBoost algorithm to create a logistic regression function on the nodes of the tree.
\section{Performance Metrics}
\label{sec_metrics}
In order to completely evaluate the performance of the $\gamma$-ray classification methods, there are four performance metrics used in our experiments: the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, the area under the curve (AUC), the average accuracy (see Equation~\ref{equ_aver_Acc}), and the standard error (see Equation~\ref{equ_sd}).
The ROC curve and AUC are two of the most popular evaluation methods for a binary classifier.
The curve is a plot of sensitivity against specificity.
The sensitivity of a ROC curve is the probability that a true positive is indeed classified as such by the model, while the specificity gives the probability of false alarm.
Moreover, the sensitivity is also referred to as the true positive rate (TPR), and the specificity equals one minus the false positive rate (FPR).
The AUC value is equal to the probability that a randomly chosen positive example is ranked higher than a randomly chosen negative example.
An ROC curve is obtained by calculating TPR against FPR at various thresholds.
For each threshold, TPR and FPR are computed using true negatives (TN), false negatives (FN), true positives (TP), false positives (FP):
\begin{equation}
TPR = TP / \left( TP+FN \right),
\label{equ_TPR}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
FPR = FP/ \left( FP+TN \right).
\label{equ_FPR}
\end{equation}
The classification accuracy computed using TN, FN, TP, and FP:
\begin{equation}
\label{equ_Acc}
{\rm Accuracy} = \left (TP + TN\right ) /\left ( TP + TN + NP +NF \right )
\end{equation}
is another important metric for quantifying the performance of classification models.
Because of the randomness of algorithms (e.g. different bootstrapped trees in RF), although the same group of $\gamma$-ray sources are classified by the same machine learning models, experiment results show a little different.
In order to clearly evaluate the performance of $\gamma$-ray classification methods, each method is executed ten times with resampling by bootstrap,
and the average over these ten accuracies (see Equation~\ref{equ_Acc}) is taken as the accuracy of the method (see Equation~\ref{equ_aver_Acc}).
Hence, Equation~\ref{equ_Acc} are re-defined as:
\begin{equation}
{\rm Accuracy} = \frac{1}{10}\sum_{i=1}^{10} \frac{TP_{i} + TN_{i}}{TP_{i} + TN_{i} + NP_{i} +NF_{i} },
\label{equ_aver_Acc}
\end{equation}
where $TP_{i}$, $TN_{i}$, $NP_{i}$ and $NF_{i}$ are generated the $i$-th time the classification method is run.
In addition, the average accuracy are reported with the standard error obtained as:
\begin{equation}
{\rm S. E.} =(\frac{1}{10-1}\sum_{i=1}^{10}\frac{TP_{i} + TN_{i}}{TP_{i} + TN_{i} + NP_{i} +NF_{i}} - {\rm Accuracy})^{\frac{1}{2}}
\label{equ_sd}
\end{equation}
where ${Accuracy}$ here is computed by Equation~\ref{equ_aver_Acc}.
\section{Comparing the performance in classifying 3FGL sources with Saz Parkinson et al. (2016)}
\label{sec_3fgl_experiments}
We have performed a series of experiments to demonstrate the impact of including an automatic feature selection algorithm in classifying $\gamma-$ray sources in a catalog with a high-dimensional feature space.
We intend to examine the impact of incorporating the procedure of automatic RFE with RF for classifying the same set of data by comparing our results with those of \cite{parkinson2016classification}.
The features are automatically selected by a machine learning technique in our method, instead of manually selected as in the case of \cite{parkinson2016classification} \citep[see][Table 1]{parkinson2016classification}.
For comparing our results with previous results using the 3FGL catalog, classification methods and the way of preprocessing the data are exactly the same as those in \cite{parkinson2016classification}.
The major improvement here in our experiments hence comes from the enhanced performance by selecting
an optimal feature set automatically.
For the motivations mentioned above, we follow \cite{parkinson2016classification} to divide the 3FGL catalog into binary classes for PSR/AGN and YNG/MSP classifications.
Our method (i.e. Algorithm~\ref{alg_OurMeth}) and that proposed by \citet{parkinson2016classification} are both evaluated using 3FGL catalog with the most updated source labels.
Currently, there are 1904 $\gamma$-ray labeled sources (166 PSRs and 1738 AGNs) which can be used in the PSRs/AGNs classification.
And the PSRs can be further divided for YNGs/MSPs classification.
For PSRs/AGNs classification, the sample size is the same as that used by \cite{parkinson2016classification},
On the other hand, we have 13 more newly identified MSPs available for YNGs/MSPs classification than in case of \cite{parkinson2016classification}.
Additionally, we follow exactly the same procedures in preprocessing the data. This includes: (1) adding the
points in the spectral energy density distribution (SED) in five different bands (Band 1. 0.1-0.3~GeV; Band 2. 0.3-1~GeV; Band 3. 1-3~GeV; Band 4. 3-10~GeV;
Band 5. 10-100~GeV) and
the derived hardness ratios in the feature space; (2) eliminating sources with missing values for any
predicting features as adopted by \cite{parkinson2016classification}; (3) for each tested classifier, the data is randomly divided into the training set (70\%) and the test set (30\%).
Starting with 35 features after data preprocessing, our feature selection method with the RFE technique (see Algorithm~\ref{alg_rfe_rf}) selects a subset of features for each task of classifying AGN/PSR and YNG/MSP.
For each task, we measure the feature selection performance with the RMSE against the number of selected features produced by the RFE with RF algorithm (see Algorithm~\ref{alg_rfe_rf}).
The feature selection performances for AGN/PSR and YNG/MSP classification tasks are shown in Figure~\ref{fig_profile_agn} and Figure~\ref{fig_profile_yng} respectively.
In our feature selection method, we accept a factor of 1.05 as the margin of error in the RMSE value to trade for simplicity.
In Figure~\ref{fig_profile_agn} and Figure~\ref{fig_profile_yng}, the red points denote the number of features used to build the classifiers with the best trade-off between model prediction accuracy and model interpretation.
Features selected by our method are ranked by the importance scores of features and summarized in Table~\ref{tab_3fgl_agnpsr_fea} and Table~\ref{tab_3fgl_mspyng_fea}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3in,height=2.5in]{3fgl_agnpsr_rmse_profile.png}
\caption{The RMSE profile of AGN/PSR classification in the 3FGL catalog.
This profile is obtained with the training set.
The classifier with the best trade-off between model prediction accuracy and model simplicity is trained with five features (the red point).}
\label{fig_profile_agn}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3in,height=2.5in]{3fgl_mspyng_rmse_profile.png}
\caption{The RMSE profile of MSP/YNG classification in the 3FGL catalog.
This profile is obtained with the training set.
The classifier with the best trade-off between model prediction accuracy and model simplicity is trained with four features (the red point).}
\label{fig_profile_yng}
\end{figure}
In both classification tasks, it is shown that the prediction models in our framework are built with fewer features than that in \cite{parkinson2016classification} and hence our model is simpler.
Using Algorithm~\ref{alg_rfe_rf}, only five features (Table~\ref{tab_3fgl_agnpsr_fea}) are selected for the AGN/PSR classification task which is less than the set of nine features adopted by \cite{parkinson2016classification}.
Also, using our method, a smaller set of features with four features (Table~\ref{tab_3fgl_mspyng_fea}) can lead to a better performance for YNG/MSP classification. Figure~\ref{fig_profile_yng} explicitly shows that this set of features gives rise to the global minimum in the RMSE profile.
For AGN/PSR classification, four selected features are related to the spectral shape in $\gamma-$ray. \texttt{Signif\_Curve} which depicts the curvature of the $\gamma-$ray spectrum receives the highest importance score. \texttt{Spectral\_Index} and the hardness ratio \texttt{hr45} are also determined by the $\gamma-$ray spectrum. For the uncertainty of integrated photon flux in $1-100$~GeV (\texttt{Unc\_Flux1000}), it can either reflect the quality of the spectral fit in this energy band
(in which pulsars typically have exponential cut-off in their spectra) or as a proxy for the brightness in this band
(see Section~\ref{sec_cross_matched} for further discussion). On the other hand, the other selected feature \texttt{Variability\_Index} enables one to differentiate PSR from AGN by their temporal behavior as the $\gamma-$ray emission from AGNs is typically highly variable..
In \cite{parkinson2016classification}, the Galactic latitude, \texttt{GLAT}, is manually removed in the AGN/PSR classification task and the same feature is manually chosen to be included in the YNG/MSP classification task based on the current knowledge of spatial distributions of YNG and MSP in the Milky Way.
In our method, however, such feature is automatically included/excluded in classifying YNG/MSP and AGN/PSR. The selection is entirely based on the training data without any human intervention.
On the other hand, the other three selected features for YNG/MSP classification are related to the uncertainty of flux at different bands. As aforementioned, these parameters reflect either the differences of the spectral steepness/curvature and/or the brightness between two classes.
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ c | c}
\hline
\hline
Features & Importance Scores \\
\hline
Signif\_Curve & 33.00 \\
\hline
Variability\_Index & 29.34 \\
\hline
Spectral\_Index & 24.97\\
\hline
Unc\_Flux1000 & 20.86 \\
\hline
hr45 & 19.47 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The rank of the features selected by Algorithm~\ref{alg_rfe_rf} for the AGN/PSR classification on the 3FGL training data.
Please refer to Acero et al. (2015) for the physical meanings of these features.}
\label{tab_3fgl_agnpsr_fea}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ c | c}
\hline
\hline
Features & Importance Scores\\
\hline
Unc\_Flux1000 & 18.39 \\
\hline
Unc\_Energy\_Flux100 & 15.99 \\
\hline
Unc\_Flux\_Density & 9.94\\
\hline
GLAT & 8.87\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The rank of the features selected by Algorithm~\ref{alg_rfe_rf} for the YNG/MSP classification on the 3FGL training data.
Please refer to Acero et al. (2015) for the physical meanings of these features.}
\label{tab_3fgl_mspyng_fea}
\end{table}
Using these two sets of selected features, we build the prediction models for the AGN/PSR and YNG/MSP classification tasks with various machine learning methods.
A comparison of accuracies between our method and that adopted by \cite{parkinson2016classification} are presented in Table~\ref{tab_3fgl_agnpsr_accu} and Table~\ref{tab_3fgl_mspyng_accu}.
Both tables show that our method generally achieves a higher nominal accuracy regardless of the method used to build the prediction model, though such difference can be possibly be reconciled with the tolerance of statistical fluctuation reflected by their S. E..
Hence, in terms of the overall accuracy,
the use of automatic feature selection can lead to a comparable performance in the previous results with a simpler model.
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c | c | c| c| c}
\hline
\hline
\multicolumn{5}{|c}{AGN/PSR Classification in the 3FGL Catalog}\\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Classifiers} & \multicolumn{2}{|c}{Saz Parkinson et al. (2016)} & \multicolumn{2}{|c}{Our framework} \\
\cline{2-5}
~&Accu. & S. E. &Accu. & S. E.\\
\hline
\textbf{Boost LR} & \textbf{97.9$\%$} & {\bf 0.38$\%$} & \textbf{ 98.4$\%$} & {\bf 0.43$\%$}\\
\hline
RF & 97.7$\%$ & $0.41\%$ & $98.0\%$ & $0.47\%$ \\
\hline
LR & 97.3$\%$ & $0.52\%$ & $97.7\%$ & $0.56\%$ \\
\hline
SVM & 97.6$\%$ & $0.50\%$ & 97.7$\%$ & $0.60\%$ \\
\hline
LMT & 97.3$\%$ & $0.51\%$ & 97.7$\%$ & $0.56\%$ \\
\hline
DT & 96.8$\%$ & $0.49\%$ & 97.0$\%$ & $0.52\%$ \\
\hline
GAM & 97.2$\%$ & $0.53\%$ & 97.7$\%$ & $0.58\%$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The comparison of accuracies (see Equation~\ref{equ_aver_Acc}) and standard error (see Equation~\ref{equ_sd}) between our framework and the approach \citep{parkinson2016classification} for AGN/PSR classification.
The highest classification accuracy is obtained by using our framework with boosted logistic regression (Boost LR)}
\label{tab_3fgl_agnpsr_accu}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c | c | c| c| c}
\hline
\hline
\multicolumn{5}{|c}{MSP/YNG Classification in the 3FGL Catalog}\\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Classifiers} & \multicolumn{2}{|c}{Saz Parkinson et al. (2016)} & \multicolumn{2}{|c}{Our framework} \\
\cline{2-5}
~&Accu. & S. E. &Accu. & S. E. \\
\hline
\textbf{Boost LR} & \textbf{90.2$\%$} & {\bf 2.16$\%$} & \textbf{ 93.0$\%$} & {\bf 3.31$\%$}\\
\hline
RF & 88.2 $\%$ & 2.57$\%$ & 90.7$\%$ & 3.56$\%$ \\
\hline
LR & 87.0 $\%$ & 2.71$\%$ & 88.7$\%$ & 3.81$\%$ \\
\hline
SVM & 83.7$\%$ & 4.00$\%$ & 87.4$\%$ & 4.32$\%$ \\
\hline
LMT & 83.9$\%$ & 2.55$\%$ & 84.3$\%$ & 3.21$\%$ \\
\hline
DT & 83.5$\%$ & 1.83$\%$ & 84.6$\%$ & 2.98$\%$ \\
\hline
GAM & 84.8$\%$ & 3.08$\%$ & 86.5$\%$ & 3.04$\%$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The comparison of accuracies (see Equation~\ref{equ_aver_Acc}) and standard error (see Equation~\ref{equ_sd}) between our framework and the approach \citep{parkinson2016classification} for MSP/YNG classification.
The highest classification accuracy is obtained by using our framework with boosted logistic regression (Boost LR)}
\label{tab_3fgl_mspyng_accu}
\end{table}
One should note that the S. E. of the accuracies for the AGN/PSR classification are generally smaller than
those for the YNG/MSP classification (see Table~\ref{tab_3fgl_mspyng_accu} and Table~\ref{tab_3fgl_agnpsr_accu}).
Such difference is stemmed from the different sizes of the training sets in these two tasks. The relatively small sample for training any classifiers in $\gamma-$ray astronomy make us cannot ignore the fluctuations of the accuracy when one quote this performance metric.
Apart from the accuracies (Table~\ref{tab_3fgl_agnpsr_accu} and Table~\ref{tab_3fgl_mspyng_accu}), we also compare the prediction performance of our method and that of \cite{parkinson2016classification} by computing the ROC curves using the test data sets and with the models result in the highest nominal accuracies.
The test ROC curves are shown in Figure~\ref{fig_compari_test_roc} for AGN/PSR and YNG/MSP classifications respectively. On the other hand, the training ROC curves are given in
Figure~\ref{fig_train_roc_blr}.
Comparing the test ROC curves produced by our method and that adopted by \cite{parkinson2016classification} (Figure~\ref{fig_compari_test_roc}), our method results in a higher true-positive rate and keep a lower false-positive rate in both classification tasks (i.e. the ROC curve pushed to the top-left corner). And hence,
the AUC obtained by our method is apparently higher, particularly in the YNG/MSP classification task.
Together with the higher nominal accuracies obtained by our method, we can observe that by using the set of the features selected by our algorithm (see Algorithm~\ref{alg_rfe_rf})
the classification performance can generally be improved.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\subfigure[In AGN/PSR classification, the training ROC curve produced by our framework]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{2.5in}
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{3fgl_agn_trainroc_blr_our.png}
\end{minipage}
}
~~~~
\subfigure[In AGN/PSR classification, the training ROC curve produced by the method of Saz Parkinson et al. (2016)]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{2.5in}
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{3fgl_agn_trainroc_blr_parblo.png}
\end{minipage}
}
\vfill
\subfigure[In PSR/YNG classification, The training ROC curve produced by our framework]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{2.5in}
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{3fgl_msp_trainroc_blr_our.png}
\end{minipage}
}
~~~~
\subfigure[In PSR/YNG classification, The training ROC curve produced by the method of Saz Parkinson et al. (2016)]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{2.5in}
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{3fgl_msp_trainroc_blr_parblo.png}
\end{minipage}
}
\caption{The training ROC curves of Boosted Logistic Regression (Boost LR) in AGN/PSR and PSR/YNG classification.}
\label{fig_train_roc_blr}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\subfigure[The test ROC produced by Boosted Logistic Regression (Boost LR)]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{3.2in}
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{compare_3fgl_testroc_agn_blr.png}
\end{minipage}
}
~~~~
\subfigure[The test ROC produced by Boosted Logistic Regression (Boost LR)]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{3.2in}
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{compare_3fgl_testroc_msp_blr.png}
\end{minipage}
}
\caption{Comparison of the test ROC curves produced by our method and the method of Saz Parkinson et al. (2016) in the AGN/PSR classification and YNG/MSP classification.}
\label{fig_compari_test_roc}
\end{figure*}
\section{Covariate Shift}
\label{sec_covariate_shift}
The usual assumption in supervised learning is that training and test feature vectors are independently
and identically (iid) drawn from the same distribution. When the distributions on the training and the test sets do not match, we have sample selection bias, covariate shift or the Malmquist bias in astronomy. More specifically with sample selection bias, given feature vectors
$X$ and labels $Y$, we have training samples $Z = \{(x_1 , y_1 ), \dots , (x_m , y_m )\} \subset X \times Y$ from a particular probability distribution $Pr(x, y)$, and test $Z' = \{(x'_1 , y'_1 ), \dots , (x'_m , y'_m )\} \subset X \times Y$ drawn from another distribution $Pr'(x, y)$.
For example, in astronomy, the training examples can be biased towards brighter sources as they can be detected easier.
For variable stars,
samples of more luminous or well-understood stars are mostly used to train models with supervised learning to classify fainter stars compiled in later and more recent surveys \citep{richards2011active,richards2012overcoming}. This can lead to potential problems as the classification models perform the best with bright objects, not faint objects. Sample selection bias has been ignored in most work in astronomy with machine learning techniques. Especially in astronomy and astrophysics, the problem with bias arises fairly naturally, i.e., with the training data collected in a biased manner (strong sources are more easily found), inevitably the trained model is used to classify objects from a more general target population if sample selection bias is not considered.
In the case of $\gamma$-ray astronomy, samples of previously detected pulsars and AGNs do not necessarily reflect the general population in view of various possible observational biases. However, such possible problem of covariate shift was ignored in all previous studies.
\section{Examining the actual performance in 3FGL/4FGL cross-matched test set}
\label{sec_cross_matched}
We have to stress that the classification model built by any supervised learning techniques must be based on the training sets with labels (i.e. the $\gamma$-sources with identified nature in our case).
Also, all the performance metrics quoted for the aforementioned analysis as well as other previous studies (e.g. \cite{parkinson2016classification}) in classifying $\gamma$-ray sources are based
on the test sets which are constructed by sampling from the pool of identified sources. This raises the question on
the actual performance of such model in classifying unidentified sources which is based on the assumption that
the probability distribution functions of the features are the same as those of the training data.
However, no one has investigated whether such an assertion is justified.
Motivated by this, in the second part of our experiment, we examine the actual performance of apply such model in classifying unidentified sources.
\subsection{Constructing the 3FGL/4FGL cross-matched test set}
As there were more dedicated analyses in compiling the 4FGL catalog with eight years LAT data accumulated, some unidentified sources in 3FGL
catalog now have their natures revealed.
There are 303 unidentified 3FGL sources which are now confirmed as PSR or AGN in the 4FGL catalog.
These 303 sources allow us to construct a cross-match test set for examining the applicability of the model built by
the labeled 3FGL sources (i.e. those in Sec.~\ref{sec_3fgl_experiments} and in \cite{parkinson2016classification})
in actually classifying the unidentified objects in this catalog.
Given that there are only 31 sources in this cross-match test set can be used for MSP/YNG classification,
only the AGN/PSR classification will be considered in the experiments of examining possible covariate shift.
For predicting whether a source in the 3FGL/4FGL cross-match test set is a AGN or PSR, classifiers are trained with the labeled sources
from the 3FGL catalog with our method (i.e Algorithms~\ref{alg_OurMeth} \& \ref{alg_rfe_rf}).
In the 3FGL catalog, there are 1904 identified sources in total can be used for building AGN/PSR classification model.
In order to clearly examining the actual performance in the cross-matched test set, five training sets are constructed, and these training sets contain different number of sources ($x \in \left \{ 60,70,80,90,100 \right \}$\% of the 1904 sources).
\subsection{Results}
Using our method (see Algorithm~\ref{alg_OurMeth}), five models were built with training sets of different sizes as sampled from the same pool of identified AGN and PSR in 3FGL catalog.
The models built with 70\% of the identified AGN/PSR are consistent with those in Section~\ref{sec_3fgl_experiments}.
We evaluated their performances by testing with the same cross-matched test set.
All the accuracies (see Equation~\ref{equ_aver_Acc}) and the S.E. (see Equation~\ref{equ_sd}) of our method are shown in Table~\ref{tab_cross_match_accu}.
It is obvious that when the sample size of the training set increases,
the accuracies of our method are increased and the S.E. are decreased.
When we compare these results with those given in Table~\ref{tab_3fgl_agnpsr_accu} which are based on the test sets
with identified 3FGL sources, the accuracies of
classifying the cross-match test set are significantly decreased and the S.E. is increased.
For example, when the Boost LR technique is used as the classifier and 70\% of 1904 sources are used for training,
the accuracy of our method is $98.4\pm0.4$\% as determined by a test set of identified 3FGL sources (see Table~\ref{tab_3fgl_agnpsr_accu}). However, if we test the same model with the 3FGL/4FGL cross-match test set, we obtain an accuracy of $94.1\pm1.0$\%
(Table~\ref{tab_cross_match_accu})
Even with the model trained by 100$\%$ of the training data, the drop of accuracy in comparing with Table~\ref{tab_3fgl_agnpsr_accu}
still can hardly be
reconciled by statistical fluctuations. Therefore, the classification
model built with identified $\gamma-$ray sources is likely suffering from the problem of covariate shift when it is applied on
unidentified objects.
\begin{table*}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c | c | c| c| c |c | c | c| c| c | c | }
\hline
\hline
\multicolumn{11}{|c}{AGN/PSR Classification in the 3FGL/4FGL Cross-Matched Test Set}\\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Classifiers} &
\multicolumn{2}{|c}{60\% Training set} &
\multicolumn{2}{|c}{70\% Training set} &
\multicolumn{2}{|c}{80\% Training set} &
\multicolumn{2}{|c}{90\% Training set} &
\multicolumn{2}{|c}{100\% Training set} \\
\cline{2-11}
~ & Accu. & S. E. & Accu. & S. E. & Accu. & S. E..& Accu. & S. E. & Accu. & S. E.\\
\hline
\textbf{Boost LR} &
\textbf{93.3$\%$} & {\bf 1.70$\%$} & \textbf{ 94.1$\%$} & {\bf 1.04$\%$} & \textbf{94.9$\%$} & {\bf 1.00$\%$} & \textbf{95.3$\%$} & {\bf 0.83$\%$} & \textbf{95.6$\%$} & {\bf 0.77$\%$} \\
\hline
RF & 91.8$\%$ & 2.02$\%$ & 92.6$\%$ & 1.83$\%$ & 92.4$\%$ & 1.61$\%$ & 93.5$\%$ & 1.37$\%$ & 94.1$\%$ & 0.96$\%$ \\
\hline
LR & 92.6$\%$ & 1.75$\%$ & 93.2$\%$ & 1.46$\%$ & 93.1$\%$ & 1.24$\%$ & 94.1$\%$ & 1.10$\%$ & 93.7$\%$ & 1.21$\%$ \\
\hline
SVM & 92.0$\%$ & 2.20$\%$ & 92.9$\%$ & 1.50$\%$ & 93.2$\%$ & 1.40$\%$ & 92.9$\%$ & 1.24$\%$ & 92.9$\%$ & 0.95$\%$ \\
\hline
LMT & 90.0$\%$ & 2.57$\%$ & 92.2$\%$ & 1.21$\%$ & 92.5$\%$ & 1.31$\%$ & 92.0$\%$ & 1.31$\%$ & 93.0$\%$ & 0.74$\%$ \\
\hline
DT & 91.7$\%$ & 1.88$\%$ & 91.3$\%$ & 1.86$\%$ & 92.0$\%$ & 1.13$\%$ & 92.1$\%$ & 1.52$\%$ & 94.1$\%$ & 1.15$\%$ \\
\hline
GAM & 92.1$\%$ & 1.90$\%$ & 92.1$\%$ & 1.52$\%$ & 92.4$\%$ & 1.61$\%$ & 93.2$\%$ & 1.40$\%$ & 93.3$\%$ & 1.11$\%$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{For AGN/PSR classification, the summary of overall mean accuracies (Accu.) and mean standard error (S. E.) in the 3FGL/4FGL cross-matched test set. The highest classification accuracy is obtained by using our framework with boosted logistic regression (Boost LR)}
\label{tab_cross_match_accu}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Identifying the features with covariate shift problem}
Since the problem of the covariate shift has been spotted, we proceeded to find out which feature(s) is/are the
culprit(s). In Figure~\ref{3fgl4fgl_agnpsr_comp}, we compare the histograms of the five features selected by RFE for
AGN/PSR classification from the 3FGL training set and the 3FGL/4FGL cross-matched test set. We notice that the
distributions of some features between these two samples are very different. For quantifying the differences, we
used two-sample Anderson-Darling tests to investigate which feature(s) has/have significant
covariate shift problem. The results are summarized in Table~\ref{3fgl4fgl_ad}.
Among all the selected features, the most significant difference between the training data and the cross-match set is
found in the distribution of \texttt{Variability\_Index} (see Table~\ref{3fgl4fgl_ad}).
It is obvious that there are significantly more sources with high \texttt{Variability\_Index}
in the training set (Figure~\ref{3fgl4fgl_agnpsr_comp}).
Such difference can be a result of selection effect. $\gamma-$ray variability flux is one
of the defining characteristics of AGNs and it is not difficult to identify their flux variation with the survey mode
of {\it Fermi} LAT. Because of this, most of the highly variable sources in the 3FGL catalog could be
readily identified as AGNs. And this can possibly result in a deficit of highly variable sources in the
pool of unidentified objects.
While the importance score of \texttt{Variability\_Index} ranks the second among all the features selected by
our RFE scheme and has been adopted in many other studies in discriminating PSR-like sources from AGN, one has to be
aware of the covariate shift in the actual classification of the unidentified objects as a result of the aforementioned
selection effect. The performance
(e.g. accuracy) can possibly be lower that that determined from a test set sampled from the known sources.
\texttt{Unc\_Flux1000} is also found to be significantly different between the training set and the cross-matched
test set. It appears that the training set contains more sources with higher flux uncertainties
(see Figure~\ref{3fgl4fgl_agnpsr_comp}). As mentioned in Section~\ref{sec_3fgl_experiments},
\texttt{Unc\_Flux1000} can act as a proxy for the source brightness in 1-100 GeV. A source with higher photon
flux also tends to have a higher flux uncertainty. In Figure~\ref{3fgl_flux1000}, we plot \texttt{Unc\_Flux1000} versus
the photon flux in this band \texttt{Flux1000} for all the sources in 3FGL catalog. It is very clear that
these two parameters are strongly correlated. This implies that there are more bright sources in the training set.
This can also be a result of selection effect as the bright $\gamma-$ray sources can be analysed in more details (e.g.
pulsation searches for pinpointing it as a pulsar).
Also, a brighter $\gamma-$ray source also likely to be bright in the other frequencies so
as to facilitate multiwavelength identifications.
The other three selected features are related the spectral shape in $\gamma-$ray.
\texttt{Signif\_Curve} and \texttt{Spectral\_Index} are based on the results of spectral fitting.
The differences of their distributions in the training set and the cross-matched test set are much less
than those of \texttt{Unc\_Flux1000} and \texttt{Variability\_Index}, though they are still not negligible
(cf. Table~\ref{3fgl4fgl_ad}). \texttt{Signif\_Curve} in 3FGL catalog is obtained by comparing the
difference of the fitting by a model of power-law with an exponential cutoff and that by a simple
power-law model (in units of $\sigma$). In order to have a significant discrimination between these two
models, the sources need to have sufficient photon statistics in the hard band. Therefore, brighter pulsars
typically have larger \texttt{Signif\_Curve}. This can explain why the training set has more sources with
large \texttt{Signif\_Curve}. The reason for the excess of objects with small \texttt{Spectral\_Index} (i.e. hard sources) in
the training data is similar. Sources with small \texttt{Spectral\_Index} are apparently harder in $\gamma-$ray. For a
source with a power-law spectrum to have photons detected in the hard band, it has to be sufficiently bright.
The relatively small covariate shift of this feature can therefore also be ascribed to the selection effect.
The excess of hard $\gamma-$ray sources (and hence brighter) can also be seen in the distribution of
the hardness ratio \texttt{hr45} (cf. Figure~\ref{3fgl4fgl_agnpsr_comp}),
though there is no significant covariate shift found for this feature (Table~\ref{3fgl4fgl_ad}).
This analysis of covariate shift in actual $\gamma-$ray source classification echoes to the point that we raised in Section~\ref{sec_OurMethod}.
A simple model enables a easier understanding of the learned model and therefore make the diagnosis of the problem more manageable.
Also, a model built with fewer features is less likely to encounter the problem of covariate shift.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=7in]{3fgl_comparison_20190826.pdf}
\caption{Comparisons of the normalized distributions of the features
selected by RFE between the identified AGN/PSR in 3FGL
catalog (blue) and the 3FGL/4FGL cross-match test set (red). The purple regions represent the overlaps between
these training data and the test set.}
\label{3fgl4fgl_agnpsr_comp}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\hline
\hline
Feature & Null hypothesis probability \\
\hline
Variability\_Index & $5.5\times10^{-27}$ \\
\hline
Unc\_Flux1000 & $5.6\times10^{-9}$ \\
\hline
Signif\_Curve & $3.4\times10^{-4}$ \\
\hline
Spectral\_Index & $2.0\times10^{-3}$ \\
\hline
hr45 & 0.35 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Summary of the results of A-D tests in comparing the feature distributions between the 3FGL training data and the 3FGL/4FGL cross-match test set.
}
\label{3fgl4fgl_ad}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3in]{3fgl_flux1000_err.eps}
\caption{The correlation between \texttt{Unc\_Flux1000} and \texttt{Flux1000} in 3FGL catalog.}
\label{3fgl_flux1000}
\end{figure}
\section{Identifying Millisecond Pulsar Candidates from 4FGL Unidentified Sources}
\label{sec_4fgl_msp}
With all the aforementioned concerns in applying supervised machine learning techniques in classifying
$\gamma-$ray sources taking into account, we would like to apply our framework (i.e. Algorithm~\ref{alg_OurMeth})
to pick MSP-like sources systematically from the unidentified objects in the 4FGL catalog,
which has not yet been reported by any other work.
We started by evaluating the performance of seven machine learning methods in the AGN/PSR and MSP/YNG classifications.
Then, the AGN/PSR and MSP/YNG classifiers with the best performance are coupled into two-layers model to selecting
MSP-like source from the pool of 4FGL unidentified sources.
Finally, in view of the actual performance of our model can be hampered by the possible covariate shift,
a threshold cut on the confidence scores has been applied to the MSP-like candidates to reduce the possible misclassifications.
The final candidate list is given in Table~\ref{msp_candidate}.
\subsection{Developing AGN/PSR and MSP/YNG Classification Models}
In the latest version of 4FGL catalog (released on 15 May 2019),
there are 3550 sources have been identified/associated as PSRs (248) or AGNs (3302). For the identified PSRs,
we added a label to denote whether it is a MSP or a YNG according to its rotational period.
A PSR is labeled as a MSP if its rotational period is $<30$~ms, otherwise it is labeled as a YNG.
There are 5 PSRs we cannot find any information of their rotational periods and therefore they are excluded in the
training set for MSP/YNG classification. For the other 243 PSRs,
we can further divide them into 132 YNGs and 111 MSPs.
Following the experimental setting in Section~\ref{sec_3fgl_experiments}, 70\% of the 3550 sources are randomly extracted to the training set, and the rest sources are in the test set.
In total, there are 114 features in this version of 4FGL catalog available for model building, including
\texttt{Variability\_Index} which earlier versions of this catalog do not have.
By applying our automatic feature selection method with RFE to the data together with a 1.05 margin of error trade-off
imposed (see Algorithm~\ref{alg_rfe_rf}),
three and seven out of 114 features are selected for the AGN/PSR classification and MSP/YNG classification respectively.
The RMSE profiles of both classification tasks are shown in Figure~\ref{fig_4fgl_profile_agn} and Figure~\ref{fig_4fgl_profile_yng}.
We emphasize that these RMSE profiles are obtained with the training set.
Both sets of selected features with their important scores are shown in Table~\ref{tab_4fgl_agnpsr_fea} and ~\ref{tab_4fgl_mspyng_fea}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3in,height=2.5in]{4fgl_agnpsr_rmse_profile.png}
\caption{The RMSE profile of AGN/PSR classification in the 4FGL catalog. This profile is obtained with the training set. The classifier with the best trade-off between model prediction accuracy and model simplicity is trained with three features (the red point).}
\label{fig_4fgl_profile_agn}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3in,height=2.5in]{4fgl_mspyng_rmse_profile.png}
\caption{The RMSE profile of MSP/YNG classification in the 4FGL catalog. This profile is obtained with the training set. The classifier with the best trade-off between model prediction accuracy and model simplicity is trained with seven features (the red point).}
\label{fig_4fgl_profile_yng}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ c | c}
\hline
\hline
Features & Importance Scores\\
\hline
PLEC\_SigCurv & 21.90 \\
\hline
LP\_SigCurv & 21.36 \\
\hline
SpectrumType & 19.26\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The rank of the features selected by Algorithm~\ref{alg_rfe_rf} for the AGN/PSR classification on the 4FGL training data with labeled sources.
}
\label{tab_4fgl_agnpsr_fea}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ c | c}
\hline
\hline
Features & Importance Scores\\
\hline
Unc\_Flux\_Band (10-30 GeV) & 14.87\\
\hline
Unc\_Flux\_Band (3-10 GeV) & 12.43 \\
\hline
GLAT & 9.55 \\
\hline
Unc\_Flux\_Band (1-3 GeV) & 8.97 \\
\hline
LP\_Index & 8.12 \\
\hline
PLEC\_Expfactor & 7.52 \\
\hline
Unc\_Energy\_Flux100 & 7.44 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The rank of the features selected by Algorithm~\ref{alg_rfe_rf} for the MSP/YNG classification on the 4FGL training data with labeled sources.}
\label{tab_4fgl_mspyng_fea}
\end{table}
For the AGN/PSR classification, \texttt{Variability\_Index} is not selected by RFE. This is
likely due to the fact that the variabilities in this version of 4FGL catalog are computed with the light curves
over 1-year interval \citep{fermi2019}. Such light curves can be too coarse in discriminating PSRs and AGNs. All three features
selected for the AGN/PSR classification are all related to the $\gamma-$ray spectral shape.
\texttt{PLEC\_SigCurv} and \texttt{LP\_SigCurv} replace \texttt{Signif\_Curve} in 3FGL catalog
in describing how significant the spectra are curved. While \texttt{PLEC\_SigCurv} compares the likelihood of
a subexponentially cutoff power-law model with that of a simple power-law model, \texttt{LP\_SigCurv}
compare that of a log-normal model with a power-law. Another selected feature \texttt{SpectrumType} is
categorical which labels the spectral model of the source as a simple power-law (\texttt{PowerLaw}),
a subexponentially cutoff power-law (\texttt{PLSuperExpCutoff}) or a log-normal model (\texttt{LogParabola}).
For YNG/MSP classification, we found that the properties of the features are similar that used in classifying
YNG/MSP in 3FGL catalog (cf. Table~\ref{tab_3fgl_mspyng_fea}). The uncertainties of the photon flux in three different
energy ranges and the uncertainty of energy flux in 0.1-100~GeV are chosen. As aforementioned,
these features can be regarded as proxies for differentiating the brightness between YNGs and MSPs in the corresponding energy bands.
In 4FGL catalog, the integrated photon fluxes and their uncertainties are given in seven different bands. This can shed light on
which energy range provide better discrimination between MSPs and YNGs. According to the ranks assigned
by our algorithm, it appears that hard $\gamma-$ray bands provide better ways to divide these two classes of pulsars.
Apart from the flux uncertainties, similar to the previous studies,
the Galactic latitude \texttt{GLAT} is also chosen to discriminate the spatial
distributions as MSPs tend to populate in the regions further away from the Galactic plane.
Furthermore, there are more parameters in 4FGL catalog available for separating MSPs from YNGs.
The other two selected features, namely \texttt{LP\_Index} and \texttt{PLEC\_Expfactor}, describe the
slope of \texttt{LogParabola} model and the magnitude of the exponential cutoff factor in \texttt{PLSuperExpCutoff}
model respectively, which cannot be found in the 3FGL catalog.
These features suggest that the spectral shapes of YNGs and MSPs can be different. Dedicated $\gamma-$ray spectral analysis
is encouraged to further examine this issue.
Using these two sets of selected features, for each classification task, seven classifiers are
trained based on various machine learning methods.
The accuracies and their S.E. as computed with Equation~\ref{equ_aver_Acc} and Equation~\ref{equ_sd}
are summarized in Table~\ref{tab_4fgl_agnpsr_accu} and Table~\ref{tab_4fgl_mspyng_accu} for
AGN/PSR classification and YNG/MSP classification respectively.
We show that RF as the classifier attains the highest nominal accuracy of 99.19\% for the
AGN/PSR classification. Several other classifiers
(Boost LR, LMT and GAM) also result in the accuracies which are consistent with that of RF within the
tolerance of the statistical uncertainties, but RF appears to the most stable one as it has
the lowest S.E.. The training and test ROC curves resulted from this model are shown in
Figure~\ref{fig_agn_roc_4fhl_rf}.
For the MSP/YNG classification, the best performance is obtained by the model with Boost LR which has an
nominal accuracy of 89.61$\%$ with S.E. of 2.34$\%$.
The corresponding training and test ROC curves are shown in Figure~\ref{fig_msp_roc_4fhl_blr}.
\subsection{Selection of MSP-like candidates from the unidentified 4FGL sources}
Using two classifiers with the best performance in the AGN/PSR and MSP/YNG classification, we build a
two-layer cascade method for picking MSP-like sources from the 1154 4FGL unidentified sources.
In the first layer, all 1154 unidentified/unassociated sources are classified into AGN or PSR by using the trained model with RF.
Then, the PSR-like sources selected by the first layer are further classified into MSP or YNG by using the
Boost LR classifier in the second layer.
In view of the possible covariate shift when applying this model in classifying real unidentified sources,
which is difficult to assess in the 4FGL catalog, we apply a selection threshold of pick only those unidentified
sources with MSP confidence scores $>98\%$ to reduce the chance of misclassifications.
Finally, 20 MSP-like sources are picked out, and these sources are shown in Table~\ref{msp_candidate}.
Follow-up multiwavelength observations are encouraged to identify the intrinsic
nature of these short-listed candidate.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\subfigure[The training ROC curve]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{2.5in}
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{4fgl_agn_trainroc_rf.png}
\end{minipage}
}
~~~~
\subfigure[The test ROC curve]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{2.5in}
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{4fgl_agn_testroc_rf.png}
\end{minipage}
}
\caption{The training and test ROC curves produced by random forest (RF) classifier using 4FGL catalog in the AGN/PSR classification}
\label{fig_agn_roc_4fhl_rf}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\subfigure[The training ROC curve]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{2.5in}
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{4fgl_msp_trainroc_blr.png}
\end{minipage}
}
~~~~
\subfigure[The test ROC curve]{
\begin{minipage}[b]{2.5in}
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{4fgl_msp_testroc_blr.png}
\end{minipage}
}
\caption{The training and test ROC curves produced by boosted logistic regression (Boost LR) classifier using 4FGL catalog in the MSP/YNG classification}
\label{fig_msp_roc_4fhl_blr}
\end{figure*}
\section{Summary}
\label{sec_summar}
We have investigated the impacts of several factors on the performance of classifying {\it Fermi} LAT $\gamma-$ray
sources with supervised learning techniques.
First, we found that incorporating the classifier with an automatic feature selection algorithm can enable one to
choose the features for discriminating different classes which can possibly be overlooked by human investigators
(Section~\ref{sec_feature_selection}). Furthermore,
this automatic approach can facilitate the updating of a classification model with the inputs of new data. For example,
in Section~\ref{sec_4fgl_msp}, we have explicitly demonstrated how the AGN/PSR and YNG/MSP classification models can
be updated from 3FGL catalog to the current version of 4FGL catalog automatically.
With a small trade-off in the performance (i.e. 5\% in RMSE), we can construct
a simple model with a smaller feature set.
A simple model can lead us to better understanding of the relationships between the selected
features and the model predictions instead of using it as black box. Also,
a simple model is more robust and enables an
easier diagnosis of any problem (e.g see Section~\ref{sec_cross_matched}).
In Section~\ref{sec_3fgl_experiments}, we compare various performance metrics of our framework and those based on
\citet{parkinson2016classification} in AGN/PSR and YNG/MSP classifications with 3FGL catalog. We showed that the
our prediction models can perform better than \citet{parkinson2016classification} (see Table~\ref{tab_3fgl_agnpsr_accu}, Table\ref{tab_3fgl_mspyng_accu} and Figure~\ref{fig_compari_test_roc}) with
fewer features. We also pointed out that while the overall accuracy can be a convenient metric for gauging the performance,
it subjects to non-negligible fluctuations as a result of relatively small samples in $\gamma-$ray astronomy.
In view of this, we suggest one has to evaluate the accuracy and its standard error with a 10-fold nested cross-validation
by resampling (Equation~\ref{equ_aver_Acc} and Equation~\ref{equ_sd}).
The basic assumption of supervised learning is that the training data and the unknown sources that awaited to classified are drawn
from the same distribution in the feature space. However, the validity of such basic assumption has not be properly examined in all
previous works in $\gamma-$ray source classifications as the test sets used for evaluating the model were also drawn from
this identified sources, which come from the same pool for sampling the training data. To examine whether this assumption is
valid for the AGN/PSR classification model built for 3FGL catalog, we have constructed a test set by cross-matching the unidentified
sources in 3FGL catalog and the known pulsars or AGNs in 4FGL catalog. Comparing the accuracies based on this cross-match set and
those reported in Section~\ref{sec_3fgl_experiments} which are based on a test set consists of 3FGL identified sources, we
have found a significant drop in the performance which can be ascribed to the problem of covariate shift
(Figure~\ref{3fgl4fgl_agnpsr_comp} and Table~\ref{3fgl4fgl_ad}). We found these can be resulted from various selection effect.
While \texttt{Variability\_Index} have been adopted in many previous work to differentiate PSRs and AGNs, we found that its
distribution for the identified sources can be seriously biased.
Since significant flux variation can be readily spotted and this
is one of the defining properties of AGNs, there are more identified sources have high
\texttt{Variability\_Index} (Figure~\ref{3fgl4fgl_agnpsr_comp}). The flux uncertainties \texttt{Unc\_Flux1000} also has excess
at large values in the training data (Figure~\ref{3fgl4fgl_agnpsr_comp}). As \texttt{Unc\_Flux1000} is a proxy of the integrated
flux (see Figure~\ref{3fgl_flux1000}), brighter sources are more likely to be identified with detailed analysis. Hence, the covariate
shift of this feature is also a result of selection effect. The other three features selected for building the 3FGL AGN/PSR
classification model are related to the $\gamma-$ray spectral shape. Although there are also biases found, the difference of their
distributions between the training set and the cross-match test set are far less significant than those of
\texttt{Variability\_Index} and \texttt{Unc\_Flux1000} (Table~\ref{3fgl4fgl_ad}).
This suggest that the spectral shape or the $\gamma-$ray hardness is a less biased factor for discriminating PSR and AGN.
Lastly, we have applied our framework to update both AGN/PSR and YNG/MSP classification models with 4FGL catalog.
Using Algorithm~\ref{alg_OurMeth}, such model-updating procedure can be carried out automatically with new features in the
updated catalog incoporated. In comparison with 3FGL catalog, there are more features included in the 4FGL catalog, including
fluxes and their uncertainties in seven different energy bands as well as categorical description of the source spectral type.
These can possibly provide us with a better classification rules. It is interesting to note that it only requires three
features to achieve an accuracy of $\gtrsim99\%$ for the AGN/PSR classification (Figures~\ref{fig_4fgl_profile_agn},
\ref{fig_agn_roc_4fhl_rf} and Table~\ref{sec_summar}). By coupling with YNG/MSP classifier and applying a
threshold cut on the MSP confidence score, we have selected 20 promising MSP candidates from the pool of 1154 unidentified/unassociated
4FGL objects. Pulsation searches in different wavelengths are encouraged. Also, for the MSPs belongs to the classes of redbacks and
black widows, orbital modulations with periods less than one day can also be detected in optical/infrared as a results of pulsar wind
heating/ellipsoidal modulation as well as in X-ray from the intrabinary shock. Therefore, the candidate list given in
Table~\ref{msp_candidate} can initiate a series of multiwavelength identification campaign.
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c | c | c }
\hline
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{|c}{AGN/PSR Classification in the 4FGL Catalog}\\
\hline
Classifier & Accuracy & Standard Error \\
\hline
Boost LR & 99.17$\%$ & 0.19 \\
\hline
\textbf{RF} & \textbf{99.19$\%$} & 0.16 \\
\hline
LR & 94.72$\%$ & 0.30 \\
\hline
SVM & 95.77$\%$ & 0.31 \\
\hline
LMT & 99.10$\%$ & 0.20 \\
\hline
DT & 98.49$\%$ & 0.24 \\
\hline
GAM & 99.03$\%$ & 0.20 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The overall mean accuracies and standard errors for AGN/PSR Classification in the 4FGL Catalog
by using our framework.
The highest classification accuracy is obtained by using our framework with random forest (RF).}
\label{tab_4fgl_agnpsr_accu}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c | c | c}
\hline
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{|c}{MSP/YNG Classification in the 4FGL Catalog}\\
\hline
Classifier & Accuracy & Standard Error \\
\hline
\textbf{Boost LR} & \textbf{89.61$\%$} & 2.34 \\
\hline
RF & 86.30$\%$ & 2.14 \\
\hline
LR & 83.56$\%$ & 1.82 \\
\hline
SVM & 84.25$\%$ & 2.76 \\
\hline
LMT & 84.11$\%$ & 2.68 \\
\hline
DT & 84.11$\%$ & 5.42 \\
\hline
GAM & 85.34$\%$ & 2.96 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The overall mean accuracies and standard errors for MSP/YNG Classification in the 4FGL Catalog
by using our framework.
The highest classification accuracy is obtained by using our framework with boosted logistic regression (Boost LR)}
\label{tab_4fgl_mspyng_accu}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l c c c}
\hline
\hline
4FGL Name & $l$ & $b$ & Significance \\
\hline
& degree & degree & $\sigma$ \\
\hline
4FGL J0940.3-7610 & 292.2483 & -17.4495 & 18.4 \\
\hline
4FGL J1833.0-3840 & 356.0167 & -13.2500 & 6.5 \\
\hline
4FGL J1922.5-5233 & 344.9273 & -25.8029 & 5.6 \\
\hline
4FGL J2039.4-3616 & 6.3374 & -36.5465 & 12.5 \\
\hline
4FGL J2039.5-5617 & 341.2679 & -37.1465 & 41.8 \\
\hline
4FGL J2112.5-3043 & 14.9039 & -42.4435 & 50.3 \\
\hline
4FGL J0235.3+5650 & 136.8187 & -3.1947 & 10.5 \\
\hline
4FGL J0330.1+5038 & 146.9120 & -4.6964 & 10.1 \\
\hline
4FGL J0736.9-3231 & 246.7860 & -5.5748 & 13.2 \\
\hline
4FGL J0933.8-6232 & 282.2436 & -7.9074 & 38.4 \\
\hline
4FGL J1335.0-5656 & 308.8829 & 5.4196 & 16.7 \\
\hline
4FGL J1400.6-1432 & 326.9817 & 45.0692 & 19.0 \\
\hline
4FGL J1431.0-4432 & 321.0098 & 14.8082 & 7.7 \\
\hline
4FGL J1539.4-3323 & 338.7878 & 17.5321 & 30.5 \\
\hline
4FGL J1544.2-2554 & 344.7576 & 22.6035 & 18.0 \\
\hline
4FGL J1805.1-3618 & 355.6623 & -7.2374 & 12.5 \\
\hline
4FGL J1827.5+1141 & 40.7509 & 10.5546 & 16.0 \\
\hline
4FGL J1842.1+2737 & 57.0481 & 14.0857 & 13.7 \\
\hline
4FGL J2054.2+6904 & 104.3717 & 15.2847 & 12.0 \\
\hline
4FGL J2212.4+0708 & 68.7857 & -38.4799 & 14.1 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{msp_candidate}
\caption{List of 20 MSP candidates selected from 4FGL unidentified/unassociated object with confidence score > 98\%)}
\end{table}
\section{Future Work}
Our work has shown some factors one need to consider
when applying machine learning in $\gamma-$ray astronomy. However, there are
still many other possible approaches one can consider for further improving the performance.
A number of selected features have missing values in the raw data.
While \citet{parkinson2016classification} drop all the sources with any missing values
in their selected features, we have adopted an approach that
these values are imputed using the mean of the respective feature values in this work. For future analysis, one can consider using median for imputing missing values as it
is robust to outliers.
In this work, RFE is used for feature selection because of its simplicity and acceptable performance. In RFE, a classifier method is wrapped around to select features.
It might incorporate the inductive bias of the wrapped method.
Using filter methods \citep{Sanchez2007,vergara2014,bennasar2015} to solve the above issues can provide a reasonable possibility for extending our work in the future. The filter methods are relatively classifier-agnostic and select features based on how relevant the features are for predicting the target and how redundant they are with one another in the information-theoretic sense.
Although nested resampling and cross-validations are reasonable evaluation methods, these methods might lead to overestimate the generalization of models.
To make a more complete evaluation of machine learning methods with the limited amount of data available in $\gamma-$ray regime, Leave One Out Cross Validation (LOOCV) \citep{kohavi1995,wong2015,vehtari2017} is worth exploring.
Also, the techniques of data augmentation can also be considered which provide ways to enrich the dataset by transformations that preserve the class or adding noise.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
\addcontentsline{toc}{section}{Acknowledgements}
CYH is supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea through grant 2016R1A5A1013277 and 2019R1F1A1062071.
Shengda L. and Alex P. L. are funded by the Science and Technology Development Fund, Macau SAR (No. 0019/2018/ASC).
KLL is supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan through grant 108-2112-M-007-025-MY3.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
The clarity and elegance of the description of the gravitational interaction in the general theory of relativity often seem to stand in contrast with the confusion which surrounds the description of interactions at the microscopic level through quantum theory and its successors. The workings of the requirement for general covariance (Einstein's general principle of relativity) and the principle of equivalence leave comparatively little room for vagueness concerning the role of the abstract mathematical structures in general relativity. In this paper I propose a generalized version of these two principles in terms of symmetry and non-symmetry transformations. When the principles are applied to the Hilbert space of a quantum particle, its law of coupling to electromagnetic fields is naturally obtained.
As a central application I provide an analysis of the Aharonov-Bohm effect \cite{aharonovbohm1959}, an effect which remains controversial as it celebrates its 60th anniversary. I then focus on the role of topology in explaining the effect. In contrast to the central existing accounts of the effect which explain it in terms of potentials, fields or holonomies, the suggested account manifests the principle-theory approach described a century ago by Einstein \cite{einstein1919times}.
\section{The principles}
\label{principles}
\subsection{Symmetries: A Generalized Principle of Relativity}
\label{relativity}
In the course of the second half of the eighteenth century coordinate systems became a major mathematical tool used by physicists to represent physical systems. Coordinate systems allowed a common ground on which different kinds of motions in different physical contexts can be described \cite{meli1993reference}. The foundational significance of reference frames became apparent when inertial frames were introduced by Ludwig Lange\cite{lange2014inertia} in 1885. Inertial frames replaced the heavy ontological commitment of Newtonian absolute space with a minimalistic, operationally defined, mathematical structure required in order to consistently apply Newton's laws\cite{SEPinertialframes}. The special theory of relativity further emphasized the foundational importance of inertial frames. The privileged set of inertial frames of reference now took the role of both obsolete notions of Newtonian absolute space and the luminiferous aether.
Surprisingly, the next major breakthrough, the general theory of relativity, was based on the banishment of inertial frames from their privileged status. Einstein had described the motivation for this move \cite{einstein1919times}:
\begin{quotation}
What has nature to do with our coordinate systems and their state of motion? If it is necessary for the purpose of describing nature, to make use of a coordinate system arbitrarily introduced by us, then the choice of its state of motion ought to be subject to no restriction; the laws ought to be entirely independent of this choice (general principle of relativity).
\end{quotation}
At first glance this principle seems like anything but a solid foundation for a physical theory. It is motivated by philosophical \emph{a priori} reasoning, not by empirical evidence. On the contrary, it is even in conflict with the successful physical theories that predated general relativity, and also with later successful theories such as quantum field theories.
The principle regards the role of coordinate systems as a matter of mere labeling that should make no difference. According to Earman \cite{earman1989ST} the principle can be regarded as a manifestation of a general symmetry principle: any space-time symmetry of a physical theory should also be a dynamical symmetry of the theory. If a theory assumes that one space-time point is not inherently different from another, then the laws of motion should not discriminate between them and not depend upon their labels.
The generalization of the principle to spaces that are more abstract than space-time is straightforward. \newline
\emph{\textbf{The generalized principle of relativity}: The form of the dynamical law should not change under change of representation}.
The principle is therefore relevant when physical states have different possible mathematical representations. The methodology it suggests is to attempt to change the theory in a way that extends its invariance properties under different transformations.
\subsection{Non-Symmetries: A Generalized Principle of Equivalence}
\label{equivalence}
The mathematical notion of general covariance that follows from the general principle of relativity does not provide by itself a sufficient basis for a gravitational theory. Likewise, in the different context of gauge theories, several philosophers have noted that the mathematical requirement of local gauge covariance cannot be held a satisfactory justification for the derivation of interactions \cite{brown1998objectivity,teller2000gauge,redhead2003gauge,BenMenahem2012symmetry}. The analogy between these two cases was noted by Lyre \cite{lyre2000equivalence,lyre2001gauging,lyre2003phase}. He suggested to supplement the requirement for local gauge covariance with a generalized equivalence principle, by analogy with the way the principle of equivalence supplements the requirement for general covariance in general relativity. Lyre's generalized equivalence principle is formulated in analogy to the idea of equality of inertial and gravitational mass. Its role is to bridge the gap between mathematical gauge transformations and physical interaction fields. The generalized principle of equivalence I present here serves to fulfill the same role, but it is based on a different formulation of the principle of equivalence in GR, emphasizing its methodological role. It is an improved version of a methodological principle I recently presented in a previous paper\cite{hetzroni2019ghosts}.
The principle of equivalence becomes useful exactly where the general principle of relativity is violated, i.e. for those transformations under which the dynamical law changes its form. Einstein's principle of equivalence sets off from the simplest case of non-symmetry transformations in special relativity, which is the transition to a uniformly accelerating frame of reference.
\begin{quotation}
``Can the principle of relativity be extended also to reference systems, which are (uniformly) accelerated relative to one another? The answer runs: As far as we really know the laws of nature, nothing stops us from considering the [accelerating] system $K’$ as at rest. If we assume the presence of a gravitational field (homogeneous in the first approximation) relative to $K’$.[...] The assumption that one may treat $K’$ as at rest with all strictness without any laws of nature not being fulfilled with respect to $K’$ I call the principle of equivalence.''\footnote{From Einstein's reply to Friedrich Kottler, Annalen der Physik 51:639-642 (1916) as, quoted in \cite{norton1985equivalence}. \label{kottler}}
\end{quotation}
This simple ``elevator'' version of Einstein's principle of equivalence can also be presented from a slightly different point of view. Consider a localized mechanical system. In special relativity the processes in the system would be described from the perspective of some preferred (inertial) reference frame by certain equations. The same processes would be described from the perspective of other (non-inertial) frames of reference by modified equations; the general principle of relativity is thus violated. The principle of equivalence provides a way to get rid of this violation by modifying the original theory. For this purpose the principle conjectures the existence of an interaction which modifies the original equations that describe this localized system \emph{in exactly the same way} as does the non-inertial change of representation. Empirical considerations identify this conjectured interaction with the effect caused by a uniform gravitational field.
The two principles therefore work together. In order to satisfy the general principle of relativity and have a theory that is invariant under \emph{passive} change of coordinates, the theory must include a parallel notion of \emph{active} change\footnote{To avoid ambiguities, it is emphasized that the terms `passive' and `active' are used throughout this paper to distinguish between transformations of the mathematical representation (that do not alter the physical state), and transformations which replace one physical configuration with a different one.\label{passiveactive}}. In the case of general relativity this is an active change with respect to the metric field, which is the physical object that is described by coordinate systems. The gravitational interaction instantiates this active transformation.
From this perspective the principle of equivalence appears as a powerful epistemological principle: the mathematical scheme for moving from one representation to another in the interaction-free theory informs us of the form of the law of interaction. We therefore suggest the following methodological principle. \newline
\emph{\textbf{Generalized principle of equivalence}: For every possible change of the form of the dynamical law under change of representation, there is an interaction that is locally manifested as a change of an equivalent form.}
It is important to note that while every change of representation is conjectured to have a parallel active change, the opposite is not necessarily true. The early controversies regarding the principle of equivalence in general relativity were in large part due to the fact that the effect of gravity in the theory is generally \emph{not} equivalent to the effect of a change of frame of reference. Spacetime curvature cannot be removed by a transformation of the coordinates. Thus, despite the notion of equivalence between coordinate transformations and some gravitational effects, the introduction of the gravitational interaction enriches the theory with new phenomena that cannot be regarded as a different description of interaction-free situations. Einstein emphasized in this context that ``one may in no way assert that gravitational fields should be explained so to speak purely kinematically [...] Merely by means of acceleration transformations from a Galilean system into another, we do not become acquainted with \emph{arbitrary} gravitational fields, but those of quite a special kind. [...] This is only again another formulation of the principle of equivalence.''\footnote{See footnote \ref{kottler}.} We shall see that the same is true for the generalized principle. In general, neither the kinematics nor the dynamics of the interaction would be uniquely determined by the generalized principle of equivalence.
The generalized principle of equivalence therefore establishes a methodology that adds an interaction to an interaction-free theory. The form of the law of interaction is derived based on a generalization of the active counterparts of the non-symmetries of the interaction-free theory.
\section{Applying the principles in Hilbert space and the AB effect}
\label{hilbert}
Various reconstructions of quantum theory set off from principles about information or locality, from which they derive some properties of the quantum structure. The approach presented here is different, and is arguably closer to the principle-theory approach presented by Einstein. I do not attempt to reconstruct quantum theory from scratch. Instead, the two generalized principles are applied in the given Hilbert space of a free quantum particle to get the interaction.
\subsection{A quantum particle on a ring}
\label{ring}
We begin with a simple case. Consider a quantum particle of mass $m$ that is confined to a thin ring of radius $R$. The position basis can be parametrized by the polar angle $\theta$, such that the position eigenstates are written as $\vert\theta\rangle$. The momentary state $\vert\Psi\left(t\right)\rangle$ of the particle can be expressed in terms of the wavefunction $\Psi\left(\theta,t\right)=\langle\theta\vert\Psi\left(t\right)\rangle$. The angular momentum operator can be written in terms of a derivative of the wave function: $\hat{L}=-i\hbar \partial/\partial\theta$. The Hamiltonian is $\hat{H}=\hat{L}^2/2mR^2$, and the \Schrodinger\ equation is
\begin{equation}
\label{ringschrodinger}
i\hbar\frac{\partial\Psi}{\partial t}=-\frac{\hbar^2}{2mR^2}\frac{\partial^2\Psi}{\partial\theta^2}.
\end{equation}
The eigenfunctions are $\psi_n\left(\theta\right)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}e^{i n\theta}$, and the energy spectrum is given by:
\begin{equation}
\label{ringenergies}
\epsilon_n=\frac{\hbar^2 }{2mR^2}n^2.
\end{equation}
On the backdrop of these familiar consideration it is now possible to apply the two principles. In order to do this we first need to ask what are the possible different representations of the states of the particle, and what would count as a change of representation. In quantum mechanics the answer is obvious: the different representations for the states of the systems are different bases of the Hilbert space. The transformations between the different representations are passive unitary transformations. They replace a representation in one basis with a representation in another basis. For every unitary transformation there is a third basis which is a preferred basis for the transformation in the sense that in this basis the transformation takes a diagonal form. That means that the variables changed in the transformation are the relative phases between the basis states.
In this example we limit ourselves to those unitary transformations which are diagonal in position basis. These transformations take the form
\begin{equation}
\label{ringunitary}
\vert\theta\rangle\rightarrow \vert\theta'\rangle=U\vert\theta\rangle=e^{-i\Lambda\left(\theta\right)}\vert\theta\rangle.
\end{equation}
The wave function transforms accordingly: $\Psi\left(\theta,t\right)=\langle\theta\vert\Psi\rangle\rightarrow\Psi'\left(\theta,t\right)=\langle\theta'\vert\Psi\rangle=e^{i\Lambda\left(\theta\right)}\Psi\left(\theta,t\right)$. The transformation law of the operators is based on the fact that every linear operator $\hat{B}$ can be expressed as a linear combination of matrix elements of the form $\vert\theta_1\rangle\langle\theta_2\vert$, and therefore transforms as $B\rightarrow B'=UBU^\dagger$. The angular momentum operator therefore transforms as
\begin{equation}
\label{ringLtrans}
\hat{L}\rightarrow\hat{L}'=U\hat{L}U^\dagger=-i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta}-\omega\left(\theta\right),
\end{equation}
with:
\begin{equation}
\label{ringomega}
\omega\left(\theta\right)\equiv-\hbar\frac{\partial\Lambda}{\partial\theta}.
\end{equation}
Thus, the dynamics is given by the \Schrodinger\ equation \eqref{ringschrodinger} only for a preferred representation in which $\hat{L}=-i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta}$. Paul Dirac had similarly noted the many possible representations of the momentum operators \cite{dirac1958principles}. To the preferred representation (in which $p_j=-i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial x_j}$) he had referred as ``\Schrodinger's representation''.
It is straightforward to see that this situation does not satisfy the generalized principle of relativity. The dynamical law takes a preferred form in a given representation, with an additional term added in other representations. (This form is analogous to the way classical dynamics takes a preferred form in inertial frames.)
In order to extend the theory into a theory that is invariant under \eqref{ringunitary}, we apply the generalized principle of equivalence. The effect of a change of frame of reference is given by \eqref{ringLtrans}. We therefore postulate the existence of an interaction that locally takes a similar form:
\begin{equation}
\label{ringLactivetrans}
\hat{L}\rightarrow -i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta}-\tilde{\omega}\left(\theta\right).
\end{equation}
The transformed \Schrodinger\ equation is therefore:
\begin{equation}
\label{ringschrodingeromega}
i\hbar\frac{\partial\Psi}{\partial t}=\frac{1}{2mR^2}\left(-i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta}-\tilde{\omega}\left(\theta\right)\right)^2\Psi.
\end{equation}
The term equivalence refers to the similar mathematical form of the two transformations \eqref{ringLtrans} and \eqref{ringLactivetrans}, but it is clear that despite the similarity they represent different things. The transformation \eqref{ringLtrans} is a passive transformation which represents the same angular momentum operator in the transformed basis. The transformation \eqref{ringLactivetrans} replaces the angular momentum operator with a local relation between the angular momentum and a physical (classical) field. This relation now takes the role of a dynamic variable in the Hamiltonian. The temporal evolution is therefore an active change of the state of the particle with respect to the field.
The difference between the two transformations is not merely interpretational; they are also formally different. The transformation \eqref{ringLtrans} was obtained out of a well defined change of basis \eqref{ringunitary} parametrized by the single valued function $\Lambda\left(\theta\right)$. From this it follows that $\oint_{0}^{2\pi}\omega\left(\theta\right) d\theta=0$. The natural generalization would be to remove this constraint, and regard the physical field $\tilde{\omega}$ as arbitrary. The simplest case of physical importance is that in which it is constant. In this case we can write: $\tilde{\omega}=\frac{q\Phi}{2\pi}$ with $q$ a coupling constant, and the \Schrodinger\ equation \eqref{ringschrodingeromega} yields the energy spectrum: $\epsilon_n=\frac{\hbar^2 }{2mR^2}\left(n-\frac{q\Phi}{2\pi\hbar}\right)^2$, which is empirically distinguishable from \eqref{ringenergies} \cite{viefers2004quantum}.
These equations correctly describe the influence of a classical magnetic field on the ring, with $\Phi$ the magnetic flux through the ring and $q$ the charge of the particle. The shift of the energy levels is the static version of the Aharonov-Bohm effect, in which the effect depends on the total flux \emph{through} the ring, and is observable even if the magnetic field vanishes \emph{on} the ring.
\subsection{A quantum particle coupled to electromagnetic field}
\label{singleparticle}
In this subsection we start from the description of a single free quantum particle, and obtain the law of coupling of the particle to electromagnetic influence using the generalized principles. The derivation is similar to the case presented in the previous subsection.
The changing state of a quantum particle is represented by the time dependent spatial wave function $\Psi\left(\vec{r},t\right)=\langle\vec{r}\vert\psi\left(t\right)\rangle$. A time dependent unitary transformation that is diagonal in position basis is given by a phase transformation that depends on both space and time:
\begin{equation}
\label{unitarytrans}
\vert\vec{r}\rangle\rightarrow \vert\vec{r}'\rangle=U\vert\vec{r}\rangle=e^{-i\Lambda\left(\vec{r},t\right)}\vert\vec{r}\rangle.
\end{equation}
Momentum operators transform:
\begin{equation}
\label{Ptrans}
\hat{p_i}\rightarrow\hat{p_i}'=U\hat{p_i}U^\dagger=p_i-\omega_i\left(\theta\right)=-i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}-\omega_i\left(\theta\right),
\end{equation}
with $\omega_i\equiv -\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}\Lambda\left(\vec{r},t\right)$. And the energy operator:
\begin{equation}
\label{Etrans}
\hat{E}\rightarrow\hat{E}'=U\hat{E}U^\dagger=i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t}+\omega_0\left(\vec{r},t\right),
\end{equation}
with $\omega_0\equiv -\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Lambda\left(\vec{r},t\right)$.
The \Schrodinger\ equation of a free particle
\begin{equation}
\label{freeschrodinger}
i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Psi\left(\vec{r},t\right)=-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\nabla^2\Psi\left(\vec{r},t\right)
\end{equation}
transforms to the equation
\begin{equation}
\label{schrodingeromega}
\left(i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t}+\omega_0\left(\vec{r},t\right)\right)\Psi\left(\vec{r},t\right)=\frac{1}{2m}\left(-i\hbar\nabla-\vec{\omega}\left(\vec{r},t\right)\right)^2\Psi\left(\vec{r},t\right)
\end{equation}
(with $\vec{\omega}$ for the vector field whose Cartesian components are $\omega_i$).
The theory does not satisfy the generalized principle of relativity due to this non-invariance. Like in the previous subsection, we apply the generalized principle of equivalence by introducing an interaction with an external field in order to obtain an extended invariant theory. The effect of the field on the particle is locally equivalent to a change of representation, therefore the energy and momentum operators transform as
\begin{align}
\label{PEtransactive}
p_i &\rightarrow p_i - \tilde{\omega}_i & E &\rightarrow E + \tilde{\omega}_0.
\end{align}
The transformed \Schrodinger\ equation is therefore
\begin{equation}
\label{schrodingeromegaactive}
\left(i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t}+\tilde{\omega}_0\left(\vec{r},t\right)\right)\Psi\left(\vec{r},t\right)=\frac{1}{2m}\left(-i\hbar\nabla-\vec{\tilde{\omega}}\left(\vec{r},t\right)\right)^2\Psi\left(\vec{r},t\right).
\end{equation}
The corresponding physical fields are identified when empirical considerations are taken into account: Equation \eqref{schrodingeromegaactive} is identical to the \Schrodinger\ equation coupled to electromagnetism that is obtained using standard minimal coupling procedure if $\tilde{\omega}=\frac{q}{c}\vec{A}\left(r,t\right)$ and $\tilde{\omega}_0=-qV\left(r,t\right)$.
Equation \eqref{schrodingeromegaactive} is invariant under the transformation
\begin{align}
\label{gaugetrans}
\vert\vec{r}\rangle&\rightarrow e^{-i\Lambda\left(\vec{r},t\right)}\vert\vec{r}\rangle & \vec{A}&\rightarrow\vec{A}-\frac{\hbar c}{q}\nabla\Lambda\left(\vec{r},t\right) & V\left(\vec{r},t\right)&\rightarrow V\left(\vec{r},t\right)+\frac{\hbar}{q}\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Lambda\left(\vec{r},t\right).
\end{align}
The theory now satisfies the generalized principle of relativity if this transformation is regarded as one change of representation of the state of both the particle and the field. The physically significant quantities on which the interaction depends are the relations $\vec{p}-\frac{q}{c}\vec{A}$ and $E-qV$. The above transformation is a change of representation in the sense that it does not change these quantities.
Equation \eqref{schrodingeromegaactive} describes the change of a wave function that is coupled to external physical fields. It corresponds to the well known Hamiltonian which takes the two fields into account:
\begin{equation}
\label{EMschrodingerH}
H=\frac{1}{2m}\left(p-\frac{q\vec{A}}{c}\right)^2 + qV.
\end{equation}
\subsection{The dynamical Aharonov-Bohm effect}
\label{ABeffect}
The principle of equivalence states that every change of representation has a parallel interaction that induces change of the same form, but not vice versa. A change in the curvature has no equivalent change of coordinates. This is also the case with the equivalence between local phase transformations and coupling to electromagnetic fields. One way to see it is to note that even though a change of basis does change the form of the momentum operators according to \eqref{Ptrans}, it does not change the commutation relation between them ($\left[p'_i,p'_j\right]=\left[p_i,p_j\right]$ as a direct result of the definition $\omega=-\hbar\vec{\nabla}\Lambda$). In contrast, the replacement in \eqref{PEtransactive} of $p_i$ with $\pi_i\equiv p_i-\frac{q}{c}A_i$ may generally change the commutation relations, since $A$ is arbitrary. It is easy to see that the relation $\left[\pi_i,\pi_j\right]$ is proportional to a component of the magnetic field.
What about the case $\left[\pi_i,\pi_j\right]=\left[p_i,p_j\right]=0$? It may be tempting to think that if this condition holds in a given region of space, then there is no real electromagnetic influence on that region, as a simple change of basis would suffice to undo the transition from $p_i$ to $\pi_i$. The Aharonov-Bohm effect demonstrates that this is not true. The experiment demonstrates that an electron interference pattern can be altered by a static magnetic flux that only exists inside a shielded cylinder, where the wave function is zero.
At this point many explanations of the effect (e.g. in \cite{ryder1996qft}, and see also Section \ref{conclusion}) turn to emphasize what appears to be the essential part of topological considerations. The effect, according to this approach, only exists because of the non-trivial topology of the configuration space of the particle (understood as the region of space in which the wave function can get non-zero values), and is explained by it. In this kind of explanation the situation is described from the point of view of an observer who has no access to the inside of the cylinder, where the flux is. As long as the observer limits herself to experiments that are conducted in contractible regions of the configuration space, she will not be able to tell whether there is a magnetic flux in the cylinder. The effect would only appear once two wave packets go around the cylinder, forming a domain that is not simply connected.
According to the view that is presented here, the equivalence between the effect of an interaction and local phase transformation is formal; they are not the same thing. Accordingly, the role of topology is descriptive, not fundamental. The heart of the matter is the existence of the small region in which $p$ is replaced by $\pi$ such that $\left[\pi_i,\pi_j\right]\ne \left[p_i,p_j\right]$. This ensures that one physical situation is replaced by a different one. The new situation cannot be regarded as mere different description of the old situation. The principle of equivalence implies that \emph{locally}, in some other regions of space-time, the interaction would appear like a change of representation. The fiber-bundle formalism expresses this local equivalence in the possibility of mapping the solutions of the \Schrodinger\ equations in patches of spacetime to solutions of the interaction-free equation in these regions. This possibility is useful for the calculation of the phase shift. It should not be regarded, however, as the reason for it.
It is true that any experiment that is confined to a simply-connected region of space in which $\left[\pi_i,\pi_j\right]= \left[p_i,p_j\right]$ cannot reveal the presence of a magnetic field outside that region. But this fact does not mean that the remote field does not change the physical situations in this region. The Aharonov-Bohm experiment, performed in a domain that can be regarded as a union of two such simply-connection regions, demonstrates that the relation between the physical situation in one simply-connected region and the physical situation in the other has definitely changed due to the electromagnetic interaction.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{conclusion}
\subsection{Ontology}
\label{conclusionontology}
The Aharonov-Bohm effect serves to widen the spectrum of possible interpretations of the theory of electromagnetism beyond particles and fields\footnote{A comprehensive discussion of the different interpretations is given in \cite{belot1998EM}.}. One far-reaching possibility that was raised in the paper by Aharonov and Bohm \cite{aharonovbohm1959} is that of taking the electromagnetic potentials seriously as a fundamental physical entity and to ``define the physical difference between two quantum states which differ only by gauge transformation'' (p. 491). Later, Wu and Yang \cite{wu1975factors} proposed to understand electromagnetic interactions in terms of holonomies. Another approach suggests to regard the fiber-bundle structure as the fundamental physical entity \cite{Nounou2003AB,arntzenius2014space}. These approaches appeal to some hidden structure they postulate to exist in the world, resembling what Einstein had called a constructive theory approach\cite{einstein1919times}. To conclude, I would like to note that the suggestion to replace the constructive approach by a principle-theory approach does not mean total renunciation of the aim to explain the observed phenomena by appealing to physical properties of the world. Once the success of the generalized principles of relativity and of equivalence has been established, we are in a position to ask about the underlying ontological properties. What features of the physical world are reflected in the fact that physical situations have many possible mathematical representations? Why does every change of representation have a corresponding local change in the world that can be realized in an interaction?
A possible answer to both questions can be found in the understanding of gauge theories as a manifestation of the relational nature of physical quantities \cite{rovelli2014gauge,hetzroni2019ghosts}. The generalized principle of relativity reflects the claim that the laws of physics should depend on the relations between fundamental physical objects, and not on the relations of the physical objects to a fictitious mathematical frame of reference. The generalized principle of equivalence is valid because for every possible change of a relation between a physical object and the mathematical frame of reference which is used to describe its state, there is a corresponding possible change of the relation between the physical object and another physical object. Interactions cause actual changes of the latter type. This correspondence is reflected in the structure of gauge theories when the formal role of a connection (a generalization of the concept of a frame of reference) is taken by an actual physical field that describes the physical configuration.
The gauge invariant quantity that seems to represent a relation between the field and the particle is the canonical momentum $\pi^{\mu} = p^{\mu}-\frac{q}{c}A^{\mu}$. In contrast to the gauge invariant electromagnetic fields and to the holonomies, both characterize the electromagnetic situation, the canonical momentum is a genuine relational quantity between the two objects. The choice of a given gauge amounts to a choice of phase convention which divides this quantity into the phase gradient of the particle and the electromagnetic potential, but there seems to be no reason to regard this division as more than conventional. The observable properties of the particle depend on it, rather then on the momentum $p^\mu$ itself. On the electromagnetic side, the components of the electromagnetic tensor $F^{\mu\nu}$ can be derived from the canonical momentum through its commutation relations.
The principle-theory approach to the Aharonov-Bohm effect thus reveals a new way to think about the ontology of the electromagnetic interaction. The matter field and the interaction field represent two distinct physical objects, but the interaction between the two depends on only one fundamental dynamical physical quantity $\pi^\mu$, which is the relation between them.
\subsection{Fiber Bundles, Topology and the Applicability of Mathematics}
\label{conclusiontopology}
The structure of general relativity provided the inspiration for the first attempt, by Weyl \cite{weyl1918gravitation}, to formulate electromagnetism in terms of gauge. Soon after the introduction of \Schrodinger's theory, it was realized by London \cite{london1927gauge} that Weyl's ideas can be formulated in terms of quantum phases, which had lead to Weyl's second theory \cite{weyl1929elektron}. Weyl showed that the transition from global to local phase invariance can facilitate the law of electromagnetic coupling of the electron, in analogy with the transition from the special theory of relativity to the general theory. In developing his theories Weyl was motivated by a philosophical view that favors pure \emph{a priori} mathematical and geometrical considerations as the basis for theories, and considered local symmetry transformations as the ultimate expression of such considerations \cite{ryckman2003gauge}. Some surprising consequences of the electromagnetic gauge theory were only revealed later, in the form of the Aharonov-Bohm effect. The common topological approach to the effect can be easily seen as based on an aim that may be similar to Weyl's, to explain physical phenomena in mathematical terms. Thus, continuous symmetries and topological considerations raise in a related way the question of the applicability of mathematics to physics.
Wigner \cite{wigner1990effectiveness} has seen the effectiveness of mathematics in physics as an incomprehensible miracle, referring in particular to the adequacy of abstract structures such as the Hilbert space representation in quantum mechanics. Steiner \cite{steiner1998applicability} provided a detailed philosophical analysis of the question, in which gauge symmetries and the issue of topology are brought as central examples. In these cases (and in some others) Steiner is astonished by the success of equations and theories that are constructed based on formal analogies, and sees it as a support for anthropocentric, non-naturalist philosophical view.
This paper, on the one hand, supports Weyl's analogy by pointing out that the electromagnetic interaction of the quantum particle manifests the same principles that are manifested by the general theory of relativity, applied to a different state-space. The generalized principle of relativity repeats a common view on the issue, which goes back to Weyl. The formulation presented here emphasizes that it is an \emph{a priori} principle, and that it applies to the theoretical representation of the world, not to the world itself.
But on the other hand, the generalized principle of equivalence proposed here goes beyond Weyl's theory, and suggests a very different relation between the physical and the mathematical than the one that was pursued by Weyl. The mathematical transformation which relabels the states is not in itself physically significant, it is the corresponding active transformation that takes an identical form and represents an actual change in the world. The existence of such a possible change, and the existence of an object with respect to which the change can take place, has to be tested empirically. There is no \emph{a priori} reason why would the gravitational mass equal the inertial mass, nor for the locally similar structure of interactions and coordinate transformations. The principle of equivalence therefore expresses a kind of a guesswork. It is constructed at first with the purpose of satisfying the general principle of relativity, and its consequences have to be ultimately justified on empirical grounds.
In general relativity coordinate transformations are directly equivalent to some ways in which the gravitational interaction can change space-time, not to the change caused by a general gravitational field. The analogy with electromagnetism is clear. A change of basis \eqref{unitarytrans} is not equivalent to the introduction of a general electromagnetic field, but only to a special case of it. This is because of the condition $\omega^\mu = -\hbar\partial^\mu\Lambda$ that is implicit in the definition of a change of basis. The general form of the interaction is obtained by omitting this condition in the transformation \eqref{PEtransactive}. Interestingly, it is exactly the Aharonov-Bohm effect that demonstrates that even those interactions that satisfy the condition, and are thus locally equivalent to a change of representation, are actual interactions that can make an observable difference, and should therefore be understood as changing the physical state.
Thus, the active view of the transformation also plays a crucial role in understanding the applicability of topological considerations. The point here is not the manner in which topology helps to understand the properties of the interaction\footnote{This issue is the subject of the lion's of the contemporary philosophical discourse about the topological approach to the effect, see for example \cite{Nounou2003AB,shech2018idealizations} and references therein.}, but rather that the nature of the physical interaction, as it is expressed by the generalized principle of equivalence, helps us to understand the applicability of topology.
Allowing the phase-convention to change according to \eqref{unitarytrans}, the generators of passive translations in the configuration space of the particle are the 3 operators $-i\frac{\partial}{\partial x_j}+\frac{\partial\Lambda}{\partial x_j}$. That means that passive infinitesimal translation $\vec{\Delta r}$ transforms $\psi\left(\vec{r},t\right)$ into $\psi\left(\vec{r}+\vec{\Delta r},t\right) e^{i\vec{\Delta r}\cdot\nabla\Lambda(\vec{t},t)}$. The function $\Lambda$ defines the change in the phase convention, and the second term in the generator of translations reflects the change of phase due to the local change of convention. The term convention is justified since the choice of $\Lambda$ makes no observable difference. In other words, $\nabla\Lambda$ amounts to a flat connection. Active translation is understood here as a transport of the wave function in space with respect to other physical objects (e.g. the solenoid)\footnote{see footnote \ref{passiveactive}}. This is an actual change in the state, and therefore the phase can change in a more general way, such that $\psi\left(\vec{r},t\right)$ would be transformed into $\psi\left(\vec{r}+ \vec{\Delta r},t\right) e^{i\vec{\Delta r}\cdot\vec\omega(\vec{r},t)}$, with $\omega$ a general function. The common analysis of the experiment regards the change of the wave packets as a sequence of such active transformations\footnote{This is an approximation assuming that the wave packets are fast, such that they do not change their form during the experiment.}. Here $\omega$ plays the role of a general connection, which is then reinterpreted as a representation of the magnetic field.
The difference-maker in the experiment is obviously the region of space in which the existence of the magnetic field introduces curvature to the connection of the $U\left(1\right)$ principal bundle over configuration space. The existence of this region implies that the entire situation is not equivalent to a free particle, and the existence of observable consequences (in the form of a shift of the interference pattern or a change in the energy levels) should therefore come as no surprise. The principle asserts that locally the interaction has the same form as a change of basis, not that it is globally equivalent to it. Topology and the fiber-bundle formalism allow for a convenient mathematical description which expresses this difference between local and global characteristics. It should not be regarded as more than a convenient mathematical description of the physical properties of the interaction.
Symmetry and topology are mathematical notions whose applicability to physics is often portrayed as mysterious or even miraculous. The principles proposed in this paper aim at removing that mystery by establishing a connection between passive mathematical transformations and active changes in the world, and noting that while they share a similar form, they thoroughly differ in their meaning.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
I would like to thank Yemima Ben-Menahem and Daniel Rohrlich for their guidance and advice. This research was supported by the Israel Science Foundation (grant no. 1190/13) and by The Open University of Israel's Research Fund (grant no. 41240). This is a pre-print version of an article accepted for publication in \emph{Foundations of Physics}. The final authenticated version would be available online at: \url{https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-020-00322-y}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
The roundworm \textit{C. elegans} is commonly used in neuroscience because the connectome (the connectivity between all 302 neurons of the nervous system) has been entirely mapped, the genome has been sequenced, and genetic manipulations are relatively trivial \cite{white1986structure, Genome2012}. Combining these features with behaviour analysis allows investigations into the relationship between genes, neurons and systems. Although it is relatively simple for a human observer to learn typical movement and body shape patterns, quantifying anomalous behaviours can be a painstakingly slow and inaccurate process. There is a great need for automated detection, tracking and quantification of worms and their behaviours in neurogenetic research. For sophisticated behavioural analyses, the ability to distinguish the head of the worm from its tail is required. For instance, whether the worm is crawling forward or backward can be determined by comparing head and tail locations in sequential series of video frames. Nematodes will reverse the direction of crawling when encountering an aversive stimulus (‘escape’ behavior), which is an often used metric for quantifying behavioral responses \cite{huang2006machine}. Although there exists commercial and open tracking software, those are either proprietary software, outdated, no longer supported, needs manual tuning to work properly for different scales and lighting conditions or have a combination of these drawbacks. Here, we investigate an approach to detect the head and the tail of worms that generalizes well under different conditions. The creation of a broadly applicable method for automatic behaviour analysis will increase reproducibility in biological research.
\subsection{Literature Survey}
Manually curated features are extensively used for head-tail detection. Early methods for discrimination involved image thresholding and relied on differences in the brightness of the head compared to the tail, in addition to the change in frame-to-frame distance \cite{geng2004automatic, huang2006machine}. Worm Tracker 2.0 built upon these earlier methods by taking the largest connected component in the given image after an initial image thresholding step \cite{yemini2013database}. The worm endpoints are located as sharp, convex angles of the shape contour. Then lateral motion and grayscale intensity features are used as input for linear discriminant analysis to identify an endpoint as head or tail. However, the threshold to detect large, convex angles can be different between imaging conditions and this method is susceptible to noise and intensity variations on the edges as shown in Figure \ref{fig:worm_img}.
\citet{wang2013track} used a similar approach and designated the sharpest corner as the tail and the second sharpest corner as the head. They use error checking mechanisms to ensure that curves at other locations of the worm are not mistaken as either the head or the tail. Preceding frames are also used to detect head in current frame to make the process easier. However, the thresholding algorithms that both of these methods use are sensitive to brightness variations. Further, errors could propagate from previous frames to future frames. In addition, error checking mechanisms require setting parameters manually. \citet{zhan2015automated} takes a different approach to identifying the head after an initial image preprocessing stage, which includes thresholding and size filtering steps, to detect structures present near the head but far from the tail.
Figure \ref{fig:worm_img}, shows an image of a single worm. The top-right end of the worm is its head and the bottom-left end of the worm is the tail. Under common imaging conditions, the head appears with a less sharp angle than the tail and exhibits a brighter intensity than the tail. Figure \ref{fig:worm_img} shows the proposed head and tail locations based on the method in \cite{yemini2013database}. The proposed locations do not identify the worm's actual head or tail in the image, demonstrating a common drawback of existing software packages. Accurate detection requires manually tuning parameters, like angular thresholds or Gaussian blur spread, for each set of imaging conditions. Relying on a threshold for the angular bend parameter can lead to false identification of a worm body bend as either head or tail (see figure \ref{fig:worm_img}).
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
{\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Stack-0010_mod.png}}
\caption{Head and tail proposals using approach from \citet{yemini2013database} on an image from our dataset. Red line is the detected contour and blue points indicate the head/tail proposals}
\label{fig:worm_img}
\end{figure}
We use a neural network based approach which generates head and tail predictions directly as well as eliminates the need for feature engineering. Our approach is also robust to different lighting conditions and is scaleable for different image sizes. The article is organized as follows: In section \ref{sec:Method}, we describe our approach. In section \ref{sec:Data}, we describe dataset collection and preprocessing, and in section \ref{sec:Experiments} we present experimental results.
\section{Methodology}
\label{sec:Method}
Given an image containing a worm, our goal is to output coordinates of the head and tail (termed `coordinate regression'). We use the method proposed in \citet{dsnt} to perform coordinate regression. Since worm head/tail can be anywhere in the image, a successful method should be able to spatially generalize as well as be trained end-to-end with labelled numerical coordinates. First, we use a fully connected convolutional network (VGG16 \citet{simonyan2014very}) to generate one heatmap for tail ($Z_t$) and one heatmap for head ($Z_h$). The heatmaps are of size 5x5 pixels for the model that we use in this paper. Heatmaps have higher values near the head and tail and low values everywhere else. All convolutional layers are shared between head and tail detection except the final convolutional layer. This setup enables the model to share common features and also learn features which are specific to head and tail.
Each heatmap is then normalized, i.e. sum of all values of heatmap is set to one and all values are greater than zero. This is achieved by applying a softmax function over the heatmaps. Each pixel in a normalized heatmap gives the probability that the corresponding pixel is the location of the head or tail. The normalized heat map is given by:
\begin{eqnarray}
Z'_t = softmax(Z_t)\\
Z'_h = softmax(Z_h)
\end{eqnarray}
We then use Differential Spatial to Numerical Transform (DSNT) \citet{dsnt} to get numerical coordinates from the heatmap. The DSNT layer is differentiable, unlike heatmap matching techniques, and preserves spatial content better than fully connected coordinate regression methods.
The inputs to the DSNT layer are normalized heatmaps and coordinate matrices $X$ and $Y$. Each entry of the coordinate matrix represents coordinate values of the corresponding pixel scaled between (-1,1) as shown in \cite{dsnt}. The coordinate predictions are calculated as the Frobenius inner product, i.e. element-wise multiplication of $Z'_t$ and $Z'_h$ with the normalized coordinate matrices and then taking the mean of the resultant matrix. Tail coordinate predictions are given as:
\begin{eqnarray}
(x_t, y_t) = \mathbf{\mu_t} = [{\langle Z_t', X \rangle}_F , {\langle Z_t', Y \rangle}_F]
\end{eqnarray}
The same methodology is used for head coordinate predictions. Direct coordinate predictions from the DSNT layer makes our network trainable end-to-end. We show the network used in Figure \ref{fig:Network_used}.
As outputs of DSNT layers are normalized coordinates, mean squared error between predicted coordinates and ground truth coordinates is used as a loss. To control the spread of predicted heatmap, along with MSE, Jensen-Shannon divergence is used as regularizer as described in \citet{dsnt}.
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering
{\includegraphics[width=0.85\linewidth]{Network_1.PNG}}
\caption{Neural network used to train the model. For "Convolutional" layer $ p \times p \times r $, $p$ is the kernel size and $r$ is a number of output channels.}
\label{fig:Network_used}
\end{figure}
\section{Data Collection and Pre-processing}
\label{sec:Data}
600 images (480x640 pixels) were selected and downloaded pseudo-randomly from the database described in \citet{javer2018open} across a variety of imaging conditions to minimize overfitting to a specific context.
We manually labelled the head and tail of the worm and then applied adaptive thresholding on the given image using the OpenCV toolbox. Note that we use thresholding only to detect bounding boxes and not for head and tail localization. The largest bounding box was obtained around the largest connected component of the thresholded image. We then resized all bounding boxes to $ 150 \times 150 $ size. We removed bounding boxes if the label was outside the bounding box.
\section{Experiments}
\label{sec:Experiments}
After pre-processing, we had a total of 596 images, out of which we selected 70 $\%$ (417) as the training images and the remaining 30 $\%$ (179) as the validation images. We also applied image augmentation techniques during training to increase the size of the dataset synthetically. Specifically, we added random brightness of up-to 12.5\% to the images and randomly rotated
images by 90/180/270 degrees. We set a learning rate of $5e-4$ with Adam as an optimizer and trained the model for 600 epochs with a batch size of 64 on NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080Ti GPU. We used MSE loss and probability of correct keypoint ($PCK$) accuracy to measure localization performance of our model. We define $PCK @ p$ metric as percentage of prediction coordinates which lie within range of $p$ pixels of ground truth label. We report $PCK$ for $p = 7, 15$ and $ 30 $ pixels (note that bounding box has the size of $ 150 \times 150 $). We run all experiments 10 times and show average loss for every epoch in \ref{fig:loss} and average $PCK @ 15$ for every epoch in the Figure \ref{fig:accu}. Code to reproduce results is available at \footnote{https://github.com/mansimane/WormML}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
{\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{head_tail_accuracy.eps}}
\caption{Accuracy}
\label{fig:accu}
\end{subfigure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
{\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{train_eval_loss.eps}}
\caption{Loss}
\label{fig:loss}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Training vs evaluation metrics}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[htb]
\caption{Accuracies for head and tail localization for evaluation images}
\label{tab:table}
\vskip 0.15in
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{sc}
\begin{tabular}{lccr}
\toprule
& Percentage Accuracy \\
\midrule
Head ($PCK @ 7$) & 94.24 $\pm$ 2.09 \\
Head ($PCK @ 15$) & 96.65 $\pm$ 1.60 \\
Head ($PCK @ 30$) & 97.81 $\pm$ 1.02 \\
Tail ($PCK @ 7$) & 85.82 $\pm$ 3.28 \\
Tail ($PCK @ 15$) & 96.98 $\pm$ 1.47 \\
Tail ($PCK @ 30$) & 98.19 $\pm$ 1.03 \\
Average ($PCK @ 7$) & 90.03 $\pm$ 2.38 \\
Average ($PCK @ 15$) & 96.82 $\pm$ 1.48 \\
Average ($PCK @ 30$) & 97.99 $\pm$ 0.89 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{sc}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.1in
\end{table}
In table \ref{tab:table}, we show head and tail localization accuracy for different $PCK$ levels. In Figure \ref{fig:train} we show ground truth and predicted coordinates for example training images and in Figure \ref{fig:eval} we show ground truth and predicted coordinates for example evaluation images. In the evaluation case, there are some examples where our method predicts head or tail at different location. But on average, $96.82 \% $ of the time our model is able to predict head and tail coordinates within 15 pixels of ground truth coordinates. For context, the approximate width of the worm body in our images is 15 pixels.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.2\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth, height=0.7\textwidth]{0_train.png}
\label{fig:subim1}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.25\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth, height=0.5\textwidth]{0h_train.png}
\label{fig:subim2}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.2\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth, height=0.7\textwidth]{8_train.png}
\label{fig:subim3}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.25\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth, height=0.5\textwidth]{8h_train.png}
\label{fig:subim4}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.2\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth, height=0.7\textwidth]{62_train.png}
\label{fig:subim5}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.25\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth, height=0.5\textwidth]{62h_train.png}
\label{fig:subim6}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.2\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth, height=0.7\textwidth]{19_train.png}
\label{fig:subim7}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.25\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth, height=0.5\textwidth]{19h_train.png}
\label{fig:subim8}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Head and tail localization on training images and corresponding heatmaps for head predictions. a) Green: ground truth head coordinates, b) Blue: predicted head coordinates, c) Red: ground truth tail coordinates, d) Magenta: predicted tail coordinates}
\label{fig:train}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.2\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth, height=0.7\textwidth]{47_val.png}
\label{fig:subim9}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.25\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth, height=0.5\textwidth]{47h_val.png}
\label{fig:subim10}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.2\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth, height=0.7\textwidth]{17_val.png}
\label{fig:subim11}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.25\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth, height=0.5\textwidth]{17h_val.png}
\label{fig:subim12}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.2\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth, height=0.7\textwidth]{1_val.png}
\label{fig:subim13}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.25\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth, height=0.5\textwidth]{1h_val.png}
\label{fig:subim14}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.2\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth, height=0.7\textwidth]{0_val.png}
\label{fig:subim15}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.25\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth, height=0.5\textwidth]{0h_val.png}
\label{fig:subim16}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Head and tail localization on evaluation images and corresponding heatmaps for head predictions}
\label{fig:eval}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion and Future Work}
\label{sec:Conclusion}
The approaches used until now for head and tail localization were sensitive to lighting conditions and required extensive tuning of parameters upon changing imaging conditions. Here, we proposed an approach which does not require manual tuning of the parameters and is robust to the range (albeit limited) of image conditions present in our dataset. Although we used a VGG16 network here, other networks like the resnet \citet{he2016deep} and stacked hourglass networks \citet{newell2016stacked} may improve the performance even further. It is worth noting that the training and evaluation sets used here contain several images per worm which may not be ideal in practice. We plan to collect more data from a variety of worm genotypes for future training and evaluations. The methodology used in this paper works when there is single worm in the image. However, We are currently expanding on this work so that the head and tail of multiple worms in a single image can be detected and localized simultaneously.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec-intro}
Consider a synchronous, time-slotted, single-hop wireless network formed by $n$ devices (or, simply \emph{nodes}). Each node is equipped with a radio transceiver, and these nodes communicate over a shared wireless medium containing $C$ channels. In each time slot, each node can operate on one arbitrary channel, but cannot send and listen simultaneously. In this model, we study a fundamental communication problem---broadcasting---in which a designated \emph{source} node wants to disseminate a message $m$ to all other nodes in the network.
Lots of modern wireless devices are powered by battery and are able to switch between active and sleep states. Often, sending and listening occurring during active state dominate the energy expenditure, while sleeping costs much less~\cite{polastre05}. Therefore, when running an algorithm, each node's energy complexity (or, \emph{energy cost}) is often defined as the number of channel accesses~\cite{kardas13,chang17,chang18,chang20}; while time complexity is the number of slots till it halts.
The open and shared nature of wireless medium makes it vulnerable to jamming~\cite{gummadi07}.
To thwart such behavior, one reasonable restriction is to bound the total amount of jamming, as injecting interfering signals also incurs operational cost. Specifically, we assume the existence of a jamming adversary called Eve. She can jam multiple channels in each slot, and jamming one channel for one slot costs one unit of energy. Eve has an energy budget $T$ that is \emph{unknown} to the nodes, and she can employ \emph{arbitrary} strategy to disrupt communication.
This setting motivates the notation of \emph{resource competitive algorithms}~\cite{bender15,king11,king18,gilbert14,chen19,augustine20disc} which focus on optimizing relative cost. Specifically, assume for each node the cost of sending or listening on one channel for one slot is one unit of energy (while idling is free),\footnote{In reality, the cost for sending, listening, and jamming might differ, but they are often in the same order. The assumptions here are mostly for the ease of presentation, and are consistent with existing work. Moreover, allowing different actions to have different constant costs will not affect the results.} can we design broadcast algorithms that ensure each node's cost is only $o(T)$? Such results would imply Eve cannot efficiently stop nodes from accomplishing the distributed computing task in concern. Interestingly enough, the answer is positive. In particular, Gilbert et al.~\cite{gilbert14} present a resource competitive broadcast algorithm in the single-channel radio network setting: with high probability, each node receives the message and terminates within $\tilde{O}(T+n)$ slots, while spending only $\tilde{O}(\sqrt{T/n}+1)$ energy.\footnote{We say an event happens \emph{with high probability (w.h.p.)} if the event occurs with probability at least $1-1/n^c$, for some tunable constant $c\geq 1$. Moreover, we use $\tilde{O}$ to hide poly-log factors in $n$, $C$, and $T$.} This algorithm works even when Eve is adaptive and $n$ is unknown to the nodes. Later, Chen and Zheng~\cite{chen19} consider the multi-channel setting: they show that when Eve is oblivious and $C=O(n)$, having multiple channels allows a linear speedup in time complexity, while the energy cost of each node remains to be $\tilde{O}(\sqrt{T/n}+1)$.
In this paper, we develop two new multi-channel broadcast algorithms that can tolerate a stronger adaptive adversary and work for arbitrary $n,C$ values, without sacrificing time efficiency or resource competitiveness. The first algorithm---called \textsc{MultiCastAdp}\xspace---needs to know $n$; while the other more complicated one---called \textsc{MultiCastAdvAdp}\xspace---does not. Both algorithms are randomized, and in the interesting case where $T$ is large compared with $n$ and $C$, each node's runtime is $O(T/C)$, while each node's energy cost is $\tilde{O}(\sqrt{T/n})$.\footnote{The primary goal of resource competitive algorithms is to optimize nodes' cost for large $T$ values, see previous work (e.g., \cite{bender15,king18}) and discussion on resource competitiveness in Section \ref{subsec-model} for more details.}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm-multicastadv}
\textsc{MultiCastAdp}\xspace guarantees the following properties w.h.p.: (a) all nodes receive the message and terminate within $O(T/C+\tau_{time})=\tilde{O}(T/C+\max\{n/C,C/n\})$ slots; and (b) the cost of each node is $O(\sqrt{T/n}\cdot\sqrt{\lg{T}}\cdot\lg{n}+\tau_{cost})=\tilde{O}(\sqrt{T/n}+C/n)$.
\begin{itemize}
\item When $C=O(n)$, $\tau_{time}=(n/C)\cdot\lg{(n/C)}\cdot\lg^2{n}$, and $\tau_{cost}=\lg{(n/C)}\cdot\lg{n}$.
\item When $C=\Omega(n)$, $\tau_{time}=(C/n)\cdot\lg{(C/n)}\cdot\lg^2{n}$, and $\tau_{cost}=(C/n)\cdot\lg{(C/n)}\cdot\lg{n}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm-multicastadvadp}
\textsc{MultiCastAdvAdp}\xspace guarantees the following properties w.h.p.: (a) all nodes receive the message and terminate within $O(T/C+(nC+C^2)\cdot\lg^4(nC))=\tilde{O}(T/C+nC+C^2)$ slots; and (b) the cost of each node is $O(\sqrt{T/n}\cdot\lg^2{T}+C^2\cdot\lg^5(nCT)+(nC+C^2)\cdot\lg^4(nC))=\tilde{O}(\sqrt{T/n}+nC+C^2)$.
\end{theorem}
We also complement algorithmic results with lower bounds. Specifically, the $O(T/C)$ term in runtime is optimal, as Eve can jam all $C$ channels continuously for $T/C$ slots. Meanwhile, the $\tilde{O}(\sqrt{T/n})$ term in energy cost matches lower bound up to a poly-logarithmic factor. Thus our algorithms achieve (near) optimal time and energy complexity simultaneously.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm-cost-lower-bound}
For an adaptive adversary with budget $T$, any fair multi-channel broadcast algorithm that succeeds with constant probability imposes an expected cost of $\Omega(\sqrt{T/n})$ per node. Notice, an algorithm is \emph{fair} if all participating nodes have the same expected cost; both \textsc{MultiCastAdp}\xspace and \textsc{MultiCastAdvAdp}\xspace are fair.
\end{theorem}
\subsection{Related Work}
Broadcasting in radio networks is non-trivial due to collisions. Classical results often rely on variants of the \textsc{Decay} procedure~\cite{bar-yehuda92}, while recent ones (e.g., \cite{ghaffari15,czumaj17}) tend to employ more advanced techniques (e.g., network decomposition) to improve performance. Besides time complexity, energy cost has also been taken into consideration when building communication primitives (e.g., \cite{gasieniec07,chang17,chang18,chang20}), but usually without assuming the existence of a jamming adversary.
Distributed computing in jamming-prone environment has attracted a lot of attention as well. Researchers from the theory community usually pose certain restrictions on the behavior of the malicious user(s), and then develop corresponding countermeasures (e.g., \cite{awerbuch08,richa10,meier09,dolev07}). Unfortunately, these restrictions somewhat limit the adversary's strategy, and many of the proposed algorithms also require honest nodes to spend a lot of energy. In view of these, \emph{resource competitive analysis}~\cite{bender15} is proposed. This framework allows more flexibility for the adversary, hence potentially better captures reality. However, it also brings new challenges to the design and analysis of algorithms.
In 2011, King, Saia, and Young~\cite{king11} developed the first resource competitive algorithm, in the context of 1-to-1 communication. (That is, Alice wants to send a message to Bob.)
As mentioned earlier, Gilbert et al.~\cite{gilbert14} later devise a single-channel broadcast algorithm that is resource competitive against jamming. They have also proved several lower bounds showing the algorithm's energy cost is near optimal. The work that is most closely related to ours is by Chen and Zheng~\cite{chen19}, in which several multi-channel broadcast algorithms are developed. However, an important drawback of \cite{chen19} is that it only considers an oblivious adversary, while all other previous results can tolerate an adaptive (or even reactive) adversary. In this paper, we close the gap by considering an adaptive adversary, and provide similar or better results than \cite{chen19} that work for arbitrary values of $n$ and $C$. We also prove our results are (near) optimal by deriving new lower bounds.
\subsection{Additional Model Details}\label{subsec-model}
All nodes in the network start execution simultaneously and can independently generate random bits. In each slot, each node either sends a message on a channel, or listens on a channel, or remains idle. Only listening nodes get feedback regarding channel status. The adversary Eve is adaptive and potentially randomized: at the beginning of each slot, she is given all past execution history and can use these information to determine her behavior. However, she does \emph{not} know honest nodes' random bits or behavior of the current slot.
In each slot, for each listening node, the channel feedback is determined by the number of sending nodes on that channel and the behavior of Eve. Specifically, consider a slot and a channel $ch$. If no node sends on $ch$ and Eve does not jam $ch$, then nodes listening on $ch$ hear silence. If exactly one node sends a message on $ch$ and Eve does not jam $ch$, then nodes listening on $ch$ receive the unique message. Finally, if at least two nodes send on $ch$ or Eve jams $ch$, then nodes listening on $ch$ hear noise. Note that we assume nodes cannot tell whether noise is due to jamming or message collision (or both).
We adopt the following definition of resource competitive algorithms introduced in \cite{bender15}:
\begin{definition}\label{def-comp-alg}
Consider an execution $\pi$ in which nodes execute algorithm $\mathcal{A}_N$ and Eve employs strategy $\mathcal{A}_E$. Let $\texttt{cost}_u(\pi)$ denote the energy cost of node $u$, and $T(\pi)$ denote the energy cost of Eve. We say $\mathcal{A}_N$ is \emph{$(\rho,\tau)$-resource competitive} if $\max_{u}\{\texttt{cost}_u(\pi)\}\leq\rho(T(\pi))+\tau$ for any execution $\pi$.
\end{definition}
In above, $\rho$ is a function of $T$ and possibly other parameters (such as $n,C$). It captures the additional cost nodes incur due to jamming. The other function $\tau$ captures the cost of the algorithm when Eve is absent, thus $\tau$ should not depend on $T$. Most resource competitive algorithms aim to minimize $\rho$, while keeping $\tau$ reasonably small.
\subsection{Overview of Techniques}\label{subsec-technique-overview}
\subparagraph*{Fast and competitive broadcast against jamming.} Most resource competitive broadcast algorithms group slots into consecutive \emph{epochs}, and execute a jamming-resistant broadcast scheme within each epoch. In the single-channel setting, often the core idea is to broadcast ``sparsely''~\cite{king11,king18}. Consider 1-to-1 communication as an example. If both nodes send and listen in $\Theta(\sqrt{R})$ random slots in an epoch of length $R$, then by a birthday-paradox argument, successful transmission will occur with constant probability even if Eve jams constant fraction of all $R$ slots. In the multi-channel setting, ``\emph{epidemic broadcast}'' is employed~\cite{chen19}. In the simplest form of this scheme, in each time slot, each node will choose a random channel from $[C]=\{1,2,\cdots,C\}$. Then, each informed node (i.e., the node knows the message $m$) will broadcast $m$ with a constant probability, while each uninformed node will listen with a constant probability. If $C=n/2$, broadcast will complete in $O(\lg{n})$ slots w.h.p., and this claim holds even if Eve jams constant fraction of all channels for constant fraction of all slots.
In designing \textsc{MultiCastAdp}\xspace and \textsc{MultiCastAdvAdp}\xspace, one key challenge is to extend the basic epidemic broadcast scheme to guarantee an optimal $O(T/C)$ runtime for arbitrary $n,C$ values, without increasing energy expenditure. To that end, we note that in the single-channel setting, \cite{gilbert14} has shown $\Theta(1/\sqrt{Rn})$ is roughly an optimal working probability (i.e., sending/listening probabilities). When $C$ channels are available, a good way to adjust the probability would be to multiply it by a factor of $\sqrt{C}$ (i.e., $\Theta(\sqrt{C/(Rn)})$). Intuitively, the reason being: if each node works on $\sqrt{C}$ random channels simultaneously in each slot, then again by a birthday-paradox argument, each pair of nodes will meet on at least one channel with at least constant probability, which effectively means the optimal single-channel analysis could be applied again. Of course nodes do not have multiple transceivers and cannot work on multiple channels simultaneously, but over a period of time, multiplying the single-channel working probability by $\sqrt{C}$ achieves similar effect. On the other hand, although the working probability of nodes is increased by a factor of $\sqrt{C}$, the energy expenditure of Eve will increase by a factor of $\Theta(C)$. As a result, compared with single-channel solutions, our algorithms has a $\Theta(C)$ speedup in time, yet the resource competitive ratio is unchanged.
\vspace{-2ex}\subparagraph*{Termination and the coupling technique.} Termination mechanism is another key integrant, it ensures nodes stop execution correctly and timely. For each node $u$, a helpful termination criterion is comparing $N_u$---the number of silent slots it observed during the current epoch---to some pre-defined threshold.
To argue the correctness of our algorithms, we often need to show $N_u$ is close to its expected value. However, this is non-trivial if Eve is adaptive.
To see this, consider an epoch containing $R$ slots. Define $G_i$ as the \emph{behavior} (i.e., channels choices and actions) of all nodes in slot $i$, and define $Q_i$---the set of channels that are \emph{not} jammed by Eve---as the \emph{jamming result} of slot $i$. Note that $N_u$ can be written as the sum of $R$ indicator random variables: $N_u=\sum_{i=1}^{R}N_{u,i}$, where $N_{u,i}=1$ iff $u$ hears silence in the $i$\textsuperscript{th} slot. $N_{u,i}$ is determined by $G_i$ and $Q_i$, but in general $Q_i$ can be arbitrary function of $\{G_1,G_2,\cdots,G_{i-1},Q_1,Q_2,\cdots,Q_{i-1}\}$. Nonetheless, in case Eve is oblivious (i.e., an offline adversary), her optimal strategy would be a fixed vector of jamming results $\langle q_1,q_2,\cdots,q_R\rangle$, thus $\{N_{u,1},N_{u,2},\cdots,N_{u,R}\}$ are mutually independent when $\{G_1,G_2,\cdots,G_R\}$ are mutually independent (this can be easily enforced by the algorithm). Therefore, if Eve is oblivious, we can directly apply powerful concentration inequalities like Chernoff bounds to show $N_u$ is close to its expectation. However, once Eves becomes adaptive, $Q_i$ could depend on $\{G_1,\cdots,G_{i-1}\}$ and above observations no longer hold: $\{N_{u,1},\cdots,N_{u,R}\}$ could be dependent!
In this paper, we leverage the \emph{coupling} technique (see, e.g., \cite{dubhashi09}) extensively to resolve the dependency issue. Specifically, for each vector of jamming results over one epoch, we create a coupled execution and relate $N_u$ to a corresponding random variable in the coupled execution. By carefully crafting the coupling, the random variable in the coupled execution can be interpreted as the sum of a set of independent random variables, allowing us to bound the probability that $N_u$ deviates a lot from its expectation. However, there is a catch in this approach: bounding the probability that $N_u$ deviates a lot from its expectation requires us to sum the failure probability over all jamming results vectors, but there are $O(2^{CR})$ such vectors! Our solution to this new problem is to group all vectors into fewer categories, such that vectors within one category have same or similar effects on the metric we concern.
\textbf{Remark.} Techniques like ``principle of deferred decision'', or the ones used in previous work, cannot resolve the dependency issue directly in our setting. See Appendix \ref{sec-app-adaptive-discussion}.
\vspace{-2ex}\subparagraph*{Lower bound.} Existing result~\cite{gilbert14} indicates broadcast in the single-channel settings requires each node spending $\Omega(\sqrt{T/n})$ energy, but could it be the case that having multiple channels also reduces the energy complexity of the problem? We show the answer is negative.
Specifically, for any multi-channel broadcast algorithm $\mathcal{A}_n$, we devise a corresponding multi-channel 1-to-1 communication algorithm $\mathcal{A}_2$ that simulates $\mathcal{A}_n$ internally. We also devise a jamming strategy $\mathcal{S}$ for disrupting $\mathcal{A}_n$ and $\mathcal{A}_2$: in each slot, for each channel, Eve jams that channel iff a successful transmission will occur on that channel with a probability more than $1/T$. $\mathcal{A}_2$ and $\mathcal{S}$ are carefully constructed so that algorithms' success probabilities and participating nodes' energy expenditure in the two executions (i.e., $(\mathcal{A}_n,\mathcal{S})$ and $(\mathcal{A}_2,\mathcal{S})$) are closely connected. Then, we derive an energy complexity lower bound for multi-channel 1-to-1 communication assuming Eve uses $\mathcal{S}$. (This result, Theorem \ref{thm-cost-lower-bound-1-to-1} in Section \ref{sec-lower-bound}, could be of independent interest and is strong in two aspects: (a) the bound holds even if the two nodes has multiple transceivers; (b) the proof uses an explicit jamming strategy $\mathcal{S}$.) At this point, an energy complexity lower bound for $\mathcal{A}_n$ can be obtained via reduction.
\section{Notations}\label{sec-notation}
Let $V$ be the set of all nodes. Since all algorithms developed in this paper proceed in epochs, consider a slot $i$ in an epoch of length $R$, where $1\leq i\leq R$. Denote $Q_i\in 2^{[C]}$ as the jamming result of the $i$\textsuperscript{th} slot: $Q_i$ is the set of channels that are \emph{not} jammed by Eve in the $i$\textsuperscript{th} slot. Denote $G_i=\langle(G_{i,v}^{ch})_{v\in V},(G_{i,v}^{act})_{v\in V}\rangle$ as the behavior (i.e., channel choices and actions) of the $n$ nodes in the $i$\textsuperscript{th} slot: $G_i\in\Omega=[C]^n\times\{\text{send},\text{listen},\text{idle}\}^n$.\footnote{There is a technical subtlety worth clarifying. The ``behavior'' here does not care about the exact content to be broadcast if some node(s) choose to send message(s) in a slot. That is, for each slot, the ``behavior'' here is \emph{not} some element in $[C]^n\times(M\cup\{\text{listen},\text{idle}\})^n$, where $M$ is the set of all possible messages. This is for the ease of presentation and will not affect the correctness of our results.\label{footnote-behavior}} We use $F_i$ to denote the randomness Eve used in the $i$\textsuperscript{th} slot. Since Eve is adaptive, it is easy to see $Q_i$ is determined by $\bm{F}_{\leq i}=(F_1,\cdots,F_i)$ and $\bm{G}_{<i}=(G_1,\cdots,G_{i-1})$.
Lastly, define $\bm{Q}_{\leq i}=(Q_1,\cdots,Q_i)$.
To quantify the severity of jamming from Eve, for a given slot, we use $\mathcal{E}(>x)$ (respectively, $\mathcal{E}(\geq x)$, $\mathcal{E}(<x)$, $\mathcal{E}(\leq x)$) to denote that in a slot, more than (respectively, at least, less than, at most) $x$ fraction of the $C$ channels are \emph{not} jammed by Eve. In the following, we use $\mathcal{E}(\cdot x)$ to represent one of the above four forms. (I.e., ``$\cdot$'' denotes ``$>$'', ``$\geq$'', ``$<$'', or ``$\leq$''.)
For an epoch, we use $\mathcal{E}^{(>y)}(\cdot x)$ (respectively, $\mathcal{E}^{(\geq y)}(\cdot x)$, $\mathcal{E}^{(<y)}(\cdot x)$, $\mathcal{E}^{(\leq y)}(\cdot x)$) to denote the event that for more than (respectively, at least, less than, at most) $y$ fraction of the $R$ slots, $\mathcal{E}(\cdot x)$ happen. For example, $\mathcal{E}^{(>0.1)}(>0.2)$ means in an epoch, for more than $0.1$ fraction of all slots, Eve leaves more than $0.2$ fraction of all channels unjammed.
Define negation operation in the following manner: $(\overline{>x})=(\leq x)$ and vice versa; $(\overline{<x})=(\geq x)$ and vice versa. Further define complement operation in the following manner: $\complement(>x)=(<1-x)$ and vice versa; $\complement(\geq x)=(\leq 1-x)$ and vice versa. It is easy to verify $\mathcal{E}^{(\cdot y)}(\cdot x)=\mathcal{E}^{(\complement(\cdot y))}(\overline{\cdot x})$ and $\overline{\mathcal{E}^{(\cdot y)}(\cdot x)}=\mathcal{E}^{(\overline{\cdot y})}(\cdot x)$. Therefore:
\vspace{-1ex}$$\overline{\mathcal{E}^{(\geq y)}(\geq x)} = \overline{\mathcal{E}^{(\leq 1-y)}(\overline{\geq x})} = \mathcal{E}^{(>1-y)}(\overline{\geq x}) = \mathcal{E}^{(>1-y)}(<x)$$
Again, as a simple example, the above equality implies ``if in an epoch, it is not the case that in at least $0.1$ fraction of all slots Eve leaves at least $0.2$ fraction of all channels unjammed, then it must be the case that in more than $0.9$ fraction of all slots, Eve leaves less than $0.2$ fraction of all channels unjammed; and vice versa''. (I.e., $\overline{\mathcal{E}^{(\geq 0.1)}(\geq 0.2)}= \mathcal{E}^{(>0.9)}(<0.2)$.)
\section{The \textsc{MultiCastAdp}\xspace Algorithm}\label{sec-multicastadp}
Each node $u$ maintains a Boolean variable $M_u$ to indicate whether it knows the message $m$ (in which case $M_u=true$ and $u$ is informed) or not (in which case $M_u$ is $false$ and $u$ is uninformed). Initially, only the source node sets $M_u=true$. The algorithm proceeds in epochs and the $i$\textsuperscript{th} epoch contains $R_i=a\cdot 4^i\cdot i\cdot\lg^2{n}$ slots, where $a$ is some large constant. In each slot in epoch $i$, for each active node $u$, it will hop to a uniformly chosen random channel. Then, $u$ will choose to broadcast or listen each with probability $p_i=(\sqrt{C/n})/2^i$. If $u$ decides to broadcast and $M_u=true$, it sends $m$; otherwise, $u$ sends a special beacon message $\pm$. On the other hand, if in a slot $u$ decides to listen, it will record the channel feedback. Finally, by the end of an epoch $i$, for a node $u$, if among the slots it listened within this epoch, at least $(p_iR_i)/2$ are silent slots, then $u$ will halt. One point worth noting is, the first epoch number is not necessarily one; instead, it is chosen as a sufficiently large integer to ensure $p_i\leq 1/2$ and $p_i\leq C/(4n)$. Hence, the first epoch number is $I_b=2+\lceil\max\{\lg{(\sqrt{n/C})},\lg{(\sqrt{C/n})}\}\rceil$. See Figure \ref{fig-alg-multicastadp} in Appendix \ref{sec-app-code} for the pseudocode of \textsc{MultiCastAdp}\xspace.
\section{Analysis of \textsc{MultiCastAdp}\xspace}\label{sec-multicastadp-analysis}
\subparagraph*{Effectiveness of epidemic broadcast.} The first technical lemma states if in an epoch jamming from Eve is not strong and every node is active, then all nodes will be informed by the end of the epoch
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma-multicastadp-fast-bcst}
Assume all nodes are active during epoch $i$. By the end of epoch, with probability at most $n^{-\Theta(i)}$, the following two events happen simultaneously: (a) $\mathcal{E}_{\geq}$ occurs in the epoch; and (b) some node is still uninformed. Here, $\mathcal{E}_{\geq}$ is event $\mathcal{E}^{\geq 0.1}(\geq 0.1)$, defined in Section \ref{sec-notation}.
\end{lemma}
Proof of this lemma highlights how coupling can help us handle the adaptivity of Eve. To construct the coupling, we first specify how nodes' behavior is generated. Fix an epoch and let constant $x_1=0.1$, and $y_1=0.1$. Imagine two sufficiently long bit strings $\bm{T}_{high}$ and $\bm{T}_{low}$, in which each bit is generated independently and uniformly at random. Divide $\bm{T}_{high}$ and $\bm{T}_{low}$ into consecutive \emph{chunks} of equal size, such that each chunk provides enough random bits for $n$ nodes to determine their behavior in a slot. More formally, $\bm{T}_{high}=(T_{hi}^{(1)},T_{hi}^{(2)},\cdots,T_{hi}^{(R)})$ and $\bm{T}_{low}=(T_{lo}^{(1)},T_{lo}^{(2)},\cdots,T_{lo}^{(R)})$, where each $T_{hi}^{(*)}$ or $T_{lo}^{(*)}$ is a chunk. Next, we introduce three processes that are used during the coupling: $\beta$, $\beta'$, and $\gamma$.
We begin with $\beta$, which is an execution of \textsc{MultiCastAdp}\xspace with adversary Eve. The tricky part about $\beta$ is: in the $i$\textsuperscript{th} slot, nodes' behavior $G_i$ is \emph{not} determined by $T_{hi}^{(i)}$ or $T_{lo}^{(i)}$ directly. Instead, the chunk is chosen in a more complicated way. Specifically, at the beginning of slot $i$, Eve first computes its jamming result $Q_i$ (i.e. the set of unjammed channels) based on $\bm{F}_{\leq i}$ and $\bm{G}_{<i}$. If $|Q_i|\geq x_1C$ and the number of previously used chunks from $\bm{T}_{high}$ is less than $y_1R$, then we pick the next unused chunk from $\bm{T}_{high}$; otherwise, we pick the next unused chunk from $\bm{T}_{low}$. Assume $T^{(j)}$ is the chosen chunk, and it computes to nodes' behavior $\langle(\hat{G}^{ch}_{v})_{v\in V},(\hat{G}^{act}_{v})_{v\in V}\rangle$. Still, we do not use $\langle(\hat{G}^{ch}_{v})_{v\in V},(\hat{G}^{act}_{v})_{v\in V}\rangle$ as nodes' behavior. Instead, we permute the channel choices according to the jamming result. Specifically, for each $q\in 2^{[C]}$, define permutation $\pi_q$ on $[C]$ as follows: for $1\leq k\leq |q|$, $\pi_q(k)$ is the $k$\textsuperscript{th} smallest element in $q$; and for $|q|+1\leq k\leq C$, $\pi_q(k)$ is the $(k-|q|)$\textsuperscript{th} smallest element in $[C]\backslash q$. (For example, if $C=5$ and $q=\{2,4\}$, then $\pi_q$ permutes $\langle 1,2,3,4,5\rangle$ to $\langle 2,4,1,3,5\rangle$.) Further define bijection $\Psi_q:\Omega \to \Omega$ using $\pi_{q}$:\label{def-psi_q-pi_q}
\vspace{-1ex}$$\Psi_q\left(\left\langle\left(\hat{G}^{ch}_{v}\right)_{v\in V},\left(\hat{G}^{act}_{v}\right)_{v\in V}\right\rangle\right)=\left\langle\left(\pi_q\left(\hat{G}^{ch}_{v}\right)\right)_{v\in V},\left(\hat{G}^{act}_{v}\right)_{v\in V}\right\rangle$$
\noindent Now, we use $\langle(\pi_q(\hat{G}^{ch}_{v}))_{v\in V},(\hat{G}^{act}_{v})_{v\in V}\rangle$ as nodes' behavior $G_i$ in slot $i$. Formally, let $K(\bm{Q}_{\leq i})=\sum_{j=1}^{i}{\mathbb{I}[|Q_j|\geq x_1C]}$ count weakly jammed slots (i.e., $|Q_j|\geq x_1C$) among the first $i$ slots, where $\mathbb{I}[|Q_j|\geq x_1C]$ is an indicator random variable. Then, $G_i$ can be defined as:
\vspace{-1ex}$$G_i=
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\Psi_{Q_i}\left(T_{hi}^{\left(K\left(\bm{Q}_{\leq i}\right)\right)}\right), & |Q_i|\geq x_1C \textrm{ and } K(\bm{Q}_{\leq i})\leq y_1R \\
\Psi_{Q_i}\left(T_{lo}^{\left(i-K\left(\bm{Q}_{\leq i}\right)\right)}\right), &|Q_i|< x_1C \textrm{ and } K(\bm{Q}_{\leq i})\leq y_1R \\
\Psi_{Q_i}\left(T_{lo}^{\left(i-y_1R\right)}\right), &\textrm{ otherwise} \\
\end{array}
\right.$$
Careful readers might suspect does $\bm{G}=(G_1,G_2,\cdots,G_R)$ in process $\beta$ really has the correct distribution $\bm{\mathcal{G}}$ we want. (That is, $\bm{\mathcal{G}}$ is the distribution in which the behavior of the nodes are determined by, say $\bm{T}_{low}$, directly.)
After all, just by looking at the definition, it seems $G_i$ depends on $Q_i$, which is controlled by Eve. Interestingly enough, indeed $\bm{G}\sim \bm{\mathcal{G}}$. To understand this intuitively, consider the following simple game played between Alice and Eve. In each round, Alice tosses a fair coin but does not reveal it to Eve (this coin plays similar role as $T^{(j)}$). However, Eve can decide whether to flip the coin or not (this is like permuting channel assignments according to $q$). Finally, the coin is revealed and the game continues into the next round. Now, a simple but important observation is: the coin is still a fair coin in each round, although Eve can decide whether to flip it or not.
Similarly, back to our setting, we can show $\bm{G}\sim \bm{\mathcal{G}}$.
Detailed proof of this claim is provided in Appendix \ref{sec-app-multicastadp-proof}.
We continue to introduce process $\beta'$. In $\beta'$, still there are $n$ nodes executing \textsc{MultiCastAdp}\xspace, along with a jamming adversary Carlo. However, for each slot $i$, if in $\beta$ nodes use $\Psi_{Q_i}(T_{hi}^{(j)})$ (resp., $\Psi_{Q_i}(T_{lo}^{(j)})$) to determine their behavior, then in $\beta'$ nodes directly use $T_{hi}^{(j)}$ (resp., $T_{lo}^{(j)}$), and Carlo leaves channels $\{1,2,\cdots,x_1C\}$ unjammed (resp., jams all channels).
Finally, in $\gamma$, again there are $n$ nodes executing \textsc{MultiCastAdp}\xspace, yet adversary
adopts a fixed strategy $\bm{\hat{q}}$: in the first $y_1R$ slots, channels $\{1,2,\cdots,x_1C\}$ are unjammed; and in the remaining $(1-y_1)R$ slots, all channels are jammed. Besides, in the $i^{th}$ slot, node directly use chunk $T^{(i)}_{hi}$ if $i\leq y_1R$, and otherwise $T^{(i-y_1R)}_{lo}$ to compute their behavior.
Now we can define and couple some random variables in these process.
We sketch the proof of Lemma~\ref{lemma-multicastadp-fast-bcst} here.
Appendix \ref{sec-app-multicastadp-proof} includes omitted proofs of this section.
\begin{proof}[Proof sketch of Lemma~\ref{lemma-multicastadp-fast-bcst}] Define $\mathcal{E}_{X}$ (resp., $\mathcal{E}_{X'}$ or $\mathcal{E}_{Y}$) be the event that some node is still uninformed by the end of process $\beta$ (resp., $\beta'$ or $\gamma$). Recall $\mathcal{E}_{\geq}$ is related to $\bm{Q}$ in process $\beta$. The following claims capture the relationship between them:
\emph{Claim I: $\mathcal{E}_{X}$ implies $\mathcal{E}_{X'}$}. Notice that permuting nodes' behaviors and unjammed channels together will not change nodes' feedback. Moreover, $(\pi(Q'_i)\subseteq Q_i)\wedge (M'_{i-1}\subseteq M_{i-1})$ implies $M'_i\subseteq M_i$, where $Q_i$ (resp., $Q'_i$) denotes the set of unjammed channels in $i^{th}$ slot, and $M_i$ (resp., $M'_i$) denotes the set of informed nodes by the end of slot $i$, in process $\beta$ (resp., $\beta'$).
\emph{Claim II: $(\mathcal{E}_{X'}\wedge \mathcal{E}_{\geq})$ implies $(\mathcal{E}_{Y}\wedge \mathcal{E}_{\geq})$}. If $\mathcal{E}_{\geq}$ holds, in both $\beta'$ and $\gamma$, Eve leaves exactly $y_1R$ slots in which channel $\{1,2,\cdots,x_1C\}$ are unjammed, and jams all channels in $(1-y_1)R$ slots. Since we can simply ignore the slots in which all channels are jammed, then in each left slot, behavior and further feedback of nodes in the two processes are same correspondingly.
Therefore, $\Pr[\mathcal{E}_{X} \wedge \mathcal{E}_{\geq}]\leq \Pr[\mathcal{E}_{Y} \wedge \mathcal{E}_{\geq}]\leq \Pr[\mathcal{E}_{Y}]\leq\exp(-\Theta(i\cdot\lg{n}))$, the last inequality is due to $|M|$ will increase by some constant factor every so often when $|M|\leq n/2$; once $|M|>n/2$, remaining uninformed nodes will quickly learn the message too.
\end{proof}
\subparagraph*{Competitiveness and Correctness.} We prove two other key lemmas in this part. The first one shows Eve cannot stop nodes from halting without spending a lot of energy, thus guaranteeing the resource competitiveness of the termination mechanism.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma-multicastadp-fast-halt}
Fix an epoch $i$ and a node $u$, assume $u$ is alive at the beginning of this epoch. By the end of this epoch, with probability at most $\exp(-\Theta(i\cdot\lg {n}))$, the following two events happen simultaneously: (a) $\mathcal{E}_{\geq}$ occurs in the epoch; and (b) node $u$ does not halt. Here, $\mathcal{E}_{\geq}$ is event $\mathcal{E}^{\geq 0.99}(\geq 0.99)$, which is defined in Section \ref{sec-notation}.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Arrange the randomness of nodes as what we do in the proof of Lemma \ref{lemma-multicastadp-fast-bcst}, except that we use parameter $x_2=0.99$ to replace $x_1$, and $y_2=0.99$ to replace $y_1$. Let $R$ be the length of the epoch, and $p$ be nodes' working probability. Now, fix an arbitrary node $u$, define $X_i$ (resp., $X'_i$ or $Y_i$) to be an indicator random variable taking value one iff $u$ hears silence in the $i$\textsuperscript{th} slot in $\beta$ (resp., $\beta'$ or $\gamma$). Following random variables are what we intend to couple: $X=\sum_{i=1}^{R}X_i$, $X'=\sum_{i=1}^{R}X'_i$, and $Y=\sum_{i=1}^{R}{Y_i}$. Specifically:
\emph{Claim I: For any integer $t\geq 0: \Pr[X\leq t]\leq\Pr[X'\leq t]$.} This is because in each slot $i$, when each node chooses its operating channel uniformly at random, both $X_i$ and $X'_i$ are proportional to $|Q_i|$. Moreover, since $\pi(Q'_i)\subseteq Q_i$, with a stochastic dominance argument, then $X'$ is a ``underestimate'' of $X$. Detailed proof of this claim is provided in Appendix \ref{sec-app-multicastadp-proof}.
\emph{Claim II: For any integer $t\geq 0: \Pr[(X'\leq t)\wedge \mathcal{E}_{\geq}]\leq \Pr[(Y\leq t)\wedge \mathcal{E}_{\geq}]$.} In both $\beta'$ and $\gamma$, Eve leaves channels $\{1,2,\cdots,x_2C\}$ unjammed for $y_2R$ slots. Notice that in each of the $R$ slots, nodes' behavior are sampled from a same the distribution, so the index set of the $y_2R$ slots does not matter.
Therefore, $\Pr[(Y\leq t)\wedge \mathcal{E}_{\geq}]\leq \Pr[Y\leq t]\leq \exp(-\Theta(i\cdot\lg^2{n}))$. Since $\{Y_1,Y_2,\cdots,Y_R\}$ is a set of independent random variables, bounding $\Pr[Y<Rp/2]$ is easy. Specifically, $\mathbb{E}[Y]=y_2\cdot x_2\cdot p\cdot (1-p/C)^{n-1}\geq 0.99^2\cdot Rp\cdot(1-p/C)^{n}\geq 0.99^2\cdot Rp\cdot e^{-2np/C}\geq 0.99^2\cdot Rp\cdot e^{-0.5}>0.59Rp$. Apply a Chernoff bound, we know $\Pr[Y<Rp/2]\leq\exp(-\Theta(Rp))\leq\exp(-\Theta(i\cdot\lg {n}))$.
\end{proof}
The second lemma states that all nodes must have been informed before any node decides to halt, thus message dissemination must have completed before any node stops execution.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma-multicastadp-halt-imply-informed}
Fix an epoch $i$ in which all nodes are active, fix an alive node $u$. By the end of this epoch, with probability at most $\exp(-\Theta(i\cdot\lg{n}))$, the following two events happen simultaneously: (a) node $u$ halts; and (b) some node is still uninformed.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}[Proof sketch of Lemma \ref{lemma-multicastadp-halt-imply-informed}]
Consider two complement cases: either Eve jams a lot in the epoch, or she does not. If jamming is not strong, Lemma \ref{lemma-multicastadp-fast-bcst} implies no node remains uninformed. Otherwise, then $u$ should not hear a lot of silent slots and will not halt.
Let $\mathcal{E}_1$ be event (a) in lemma statement;
and $\mathcal{E}_2$ be event (b) in lemma statement.
Let $\mathcal{E}_3$ be the event that $\mathcal{E}^{\geq 0.1}(\geq 0.1)$ happens in the epoch. By Lemma \ref{lemma-multicastadp-fast-bcst}, $\Pr[\mathcal{E}_2 \wedge \mathcal{E}_3 ]\leq\exp(-\Theta(i\cdot\lg{n}))$.
Bounding $\Pr[\mathcal{E}_1\wedge \overline{\mathcal{E}_3}]\leq \exp(-\Theta(i\cdot\lg{n}))$ is similar to that of Lemma \ref{lemma-multicastadp-fast-halt}'s.
As a result, $\Pr[\mathcal{E}_1\wedge\mathcal{E}_2]=\Pr[\mathcal{E}_1\wedge\mathcal{E}_2\wedge\mathcal{E}_3]+\Pr[\mathcal{E}_1\wedge\mathcal{E}_2\wedge\overline{\mathcal{E}_3}]\leq\Pr[\mathcal{E}_1\wedge \overline{\mathcal{E}_3}]+\Pr[\mathcal{E}_2 \wedge \mathcal{E}_3 ]\leq \exp(-\Theta(i\cdot\lg{n}))$.
\end{proof}
\subparagraph*{Main theorem.} We sketch the proof of Theorem \ref{thm-multicastadv} here, and full version is in Appendix \ref{sec-app-multicastadp-proof}.
Fix a node $u$, we begin by computing how long $u$ remains active. Let $L$ be the total runtime of $u$. Since epoch length increases geometrically, we only need to focus on the last epoch $u$ in which is active. Also, notice that Lemma \ref{lemma-multicastadp-fast-halt} suggests Eve must jam a lot in an epoch---the amount of which can be described as some function of epoch length---to stop $u$ from halting. Putting these pieces together, we show $\Pr(L>\Theta(1)\cdot T/C)\leq n^{-\Omega(1)}$. By a union bound, we know when $T=\Omega(C)$ w.h.p.\ all nodes halt within $O(T/C)$ slots.
Next, we analyze the cost of nodes. Again fix a node $u$, let $F$ denote its total cost. By an argument similar to above, we are able to prove $\Pr(F>\Theta(\lg{n})\cdot\sqrt{\lg{T}\cdot(T/n)})\leq n^{-\Omega(1)}$. By a union bound, we know when $T=\Omega(C)$ w.h.p.\ the cost of each node is $O(\sqrt{T/n}\cdot\sqrt{\lg{T}}\cdot\lg{n})$.
The last step is to show with high probability each node must have been informed when it halts, and this can be proved via an application of Lemma \ref{lemma-multicastadp-halt-imply-informed}.
Finally, we note that when $T=o(C)$, all nodes will halt by the end of the first epoch, with high probability. This results in the $\tau_{time}$ and $\tau_{cost}$ terms in the theorem statement.
\section{The \textsc{MultiCastAdvAdp}\xspace Algorithm}\label{sec-multicastadvadp}
Our second algorithm---called \textsc{MultiCastAdvAdp}\xspace---works even if knowledge of $n$ is absent. However, its design and analysis are much more involved than that of \textsc{MultiCastAdp}\xspace.
\vspace{-2ex}\subparagraph*{Building \textsc{MultiCastAdvAdp}\xspace.} When the value of $n$ is unknown, the principal obstacle lies in properly setting nodes' working probabilities. In view of this, we let \textsc{MultiCastAdvAdp}\xspace contain multiple \emph{super-epochs}, each of which contains multiple \emph{phases}, and nodes may use different working probabilities in different phases. Notice, for each super-epoch, we need to ensure it contains sufficiently many ``good'' phases, in the sense that within each such good phase broadcast will succeed if Eve does not heavily jam it. Another challenge posed by the unknown $n$ value is that the simple termination criterion---large fraction of silent slots---no longer works, as this can happen when the working probability is too low.
Gilbert et al.~\cite{gilbert14} provide a solution to the above two challenges in the single-channel setting. Specifically, at the beginning of a super-epoch $i$, nodes set their initial working probability to a pre-defined small value. After each phase, each node $u$ increases its working probability $p_u$ by a factor of $2^{\max\{0,\eta_u-0.5\}/i}$, where $\eta_u$ denotes the fraction of silent slots $u$ observed within the phase. This mechanism provides two important advantages: (a) Eve has to keep jamming heavily to prevent $p_u$ from reaching the ideal value; and (b) $p_u$ and $p_v$ might be different for two nodes $u$ and $v$, but the difference is bounded. As for termination, the number of messages nodes heard could be a good metric. However, a simple threshold would not work. Instead, Gilbert et al.\ develop a two-stage termination mechanism: when a node $u$ hears the message sufficiently many times, it becomes a \texttt{helper} and obtains an estimate of $n$; Later, when $u$ is sure that all nodes have become \texttt{helper}, it will stop execution.
In \textsc{MultiCastAdvAdp}\xspace, we extend the above approach to the multi-channel setting. Specifically, we observe that the single-channel message dissemination scheme used in \cite{gilbert14} is relatively slow in that it needs $\Theta(\lg{n})$ phases to accomplish broadcast. By contrast, in \textsc{MultiCastAdvAdp}\xspace, the application of epidemic broadcast reduces this time period to a single weakly-jammed phase. This replacement is not a simple cut-and-paste. Instead, we also adjust the phase structure accordingly. In particular, each phase now contains two \emph{steps}. This adjustment further demands us to change the way nodes' update their working probabilities after each phase: $p_u\gets p_u\cdot 2^{\max\{0,\eta^{step1}_u+\eta^{step2}_u-1.5\}}$. In the end, \textsc{MultiCastAdvAdp}\xspace provides a slightly better resource competitive ratio than \cite{gilbert14}.
Handing adaptivity via coupling also becomes more challenging.
In more detail, in each phase we need the number of silent slots $u$ heard $N_u$ to be close to its expectation for \emph{any} jamming result (instead of, say, only when jamming is strong, as in the proof of Lemma \ref{lemma-multicastadp-halt-imply-informed}).
To acquire the desired results, we have to consider jamming results vectors at a finer level (rather than the unique extremal category in \textsc{MultiCastAdp}\xspace), which in turn requires the failure probability for each category to be much lower (otherwise a union bound over the increased number of categories would not work).
Larger deviation of $N_u$ from expectation solves the issue, but it further demands the initial working probability nodes used at the beginning of each epoch to be sufficiently high.
Unfortunately, this modification could result in nodes becoming \texttt{helper} with incorrect estimates of $n$, violating the correctness of the termination mechanism. We fix this problem by adding step three to each phase.
\vspace{-2ex}\subparagraph*{Algorithm description.} \textsc{MultiCastAdvAdp}\xspace contains multiple super-epochs, and the first super-epoch number is $I_b=2\lg{C}+20$. In super-epoch $i$, there are $bi$ phases numbered from $0$ to $bi-1$, where $b$ is some large constant. Each phase contains three steps. For any super-epoch $i$, the length of each step is always $R_i=a\cdot 2^i\cdot i^3$, where $a$ is some large constant. Prior to execution, all nodes are in \texttt{init} status.
Similar to \textsc{MultiCastAdp}\xspace, each node $u$ maintains $M_u$ to indicate whether it knows the message $m$ or not.
We now describe nodes' behavior in each $(i,j)$-phase---i.e., phase $j$ of super-epoch $i$---in detail. For each slot in an $(i,j)$-phase, each node will go to a channel chosen uniformly at random. Then, for each node $u$, it will broadcast or listen on the chosen channel, each with a certain probability. In step one and two, this probability is $p_u^{i,j}$; in step three, this probability is $p_{step3}^{i}=C^2/2^i$. We often call $p_u^{i,j}$ as the working probability of node $u$. Notice, at the beginning of an super-epoch $i$, the probability $p_u^{i,j}$, which is actually $p_u^{i,0}$, is set to $C/2^i$. In a slot, if $u$ chooses to send, then the broadcast content depends on the value of $M_u$: if $M_u$ is $true$ then $u$ will broadcast $m$, otherwise $u$ will broadcast a beacon message $\pm$. On the other hand, if $u$ chooses to listen in a slot, then it will record the channel feedback. One point worth noting is, a node $u$ will only change $M_u$ from $false$ to $true$ if it hears message $m$ in step one. (The purpose of this somewhat strange design is to facilitate analysis.)
At the end of each phase $j$, nodes will compute $p_u^{i,j+1}$ (i.e., the working probability of the next phase). Specifically, for each node $u$, define $\Delta^{step1}_u=\Delta^{step2}_u=R_ip^{i,j}_u/(1-p^{i,j}_u/C)$ and $\Delta^{step3}_u=R_ip^{i}_{step3}/(1-p^{i}_{step3}/C)$. Let $N_u^{step1,c}$, $N_u^{step2,c}$, and $N_u^{step3,c}$ denote the number of silent slots $u$ observed in step one, step two, and step three in phase $j$, respectively. Then, $\eta_u^{i,j}=N_u^{step1,c}/\Delta^{step1}_u+N_u^{step2,c}/\Delta^{step2}_u+N_u^{step3,c}/\Delta^{step3}_u$, and $p_u^{i,j+1}=p_u^{i,j}\cdot 2^{\max\{0,\eta_u^{i,j}-2.5\}}$.
At the end of each phase $j$, nodes will also potentially change their status. Specifically, if a node $u$ is in \texttt{init} status and finds: (a) $\eta_u^{i,j}\geq 2.4$; and (b) it has heard the message $m$ at least $ai^3$ times during step two of phase $j$. Then, node $u$ will become \texttt{helper} and compute an estimate of $n$ as $n_u=C/((p_u^{i,j})^2\cdot 2^i)$. On the other hand, if $u$ is already a \texttt{helper} and finds $p_u^{i,j+1}\geq 64\sqrt{C/(2^i\cdot n_u)}$, then $u$ will change its status to \texttt{halt} and stop execution. Pseudocode of \textsc{MultiCastAdvAdp}\xspace is provided in Figure \ref{fig-alg-multicastadvadp} in Appendix \ref{sec-app-code}.
\section{Analysis of \textsc{MultiCastAdvAdp}\xspace}
Throughout the analysis, when considering an $(i,j)$-phase, we often omit the indices $i$ and/or $j$ if they are clear from the context. For any node $u$, we often use $p_u$ to denote its working probability in a step. We always use $V$ to denote active nodes, and use $M$ to denote active nodes with $M_u=true$. Omitted proofs and some auxiliary materials are in Appendix \ref{sec-app-multicastadvadp-proof}.
\vspace{-2ex}\subparagraph*{The ``bounded difference'' property.} The main goal of this part is to show nodes' working probabilities can never differ too much. This ``bounded difference'' property is used extensively in remaining analysis, either explicitly or implicitly.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma-multicastadvadp-pu-pv-bounded}
Consider a super-epoch $i>\lg{n}$. With probability at least $1-\exp(-\Theta(iC))$, we have $1/2\leq p_u/p_v\leq 2$ for any two nodes $u$ and $v$ at any phase of the super-epoch.
\end{lemma}
At a high level, the above lemma holds because the fraction of silent slots nodes observed during a phase cannot differ too much. To prove it formally, we show the following claim via a coupling argument. However, details of the coupling differ from the ones we saw in Section \ref{sec-multicastadp-analysis}. Specifically, we divide jamming results vectors into $\binom{R+C}{C}$ categories.
\begin{claim}\label{claim-multicastadvadp-pu-pv-bounded}
Consider a step of length $R$ and two active nodes $u$ and $v$. Let $p_u$ (resp., $p_v$) be the sending/listening probabilities of $u$ (resp., $v$); and let $X_u$ (resp., $X_v$) be the number of silent slots $u$ (resp., $v$) observed. Define $\Delta_u=Rp_u/(1-p_u/C)$ and $\Delta_v=Rp_v/(1-p_v/C)$. For constant $g\leq a/20$, define $\chi_u=\sqrt{{giC}/{(Rp_u)}}$ and $\chi_v=\sqrt{{giC}/{(Rp_v)}}$. Then:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\Pr[X_u/\Delta_u>1]\leq\exp(-\Theta(i^3C))$.
\item $\Pr[(X_u/\Delta_u>0.2)\wedge(X_v/\Delta_v<0.1)]\leq\exp(-\Theta(i^3C))$.
\item $\Pr[(|X_u/\Delta_u-X_v/\Delta_v|\geq \chi_u+\chi_v)\wedge((X_u/\Delta_u\geq 0.1)\wedge(X_v/\Delta_v\geq 0.1))]\leq\exp(-\Theta(iC))$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}[Proof sketch]
We begin with part (1). Define $\alpha=\prod_{w\in V}(1-p_w/C)$. To make $X_u$ as large as possible, assume Eve does no jamming, thus whether $u$ hears silence are independent among different slots. Notice that $\mathbb{E}[X_u]=p_u\cdot(\prod_{v\in V\setminus\{u\}}(1-p_v/C))\cdot R=\alpha\cdot\Delta_u<\Delta_u$. Therefore, by a Chernoff bound, the probability that $X_u>\Delta_u$ is at most $\exp(-\Theta(\Delta_u))=\exp(-\Omega(i^3C))$.
Proofs for part (2) and (3) both rely on coupling, and we only focus on part (2) here.
We first setup the coupling. Assume the randomnesses of nodes come from $C$ lists $(\bm{T}_{0},\cdots,\bm{T}_{C})$.
Specifically, for each slot $i$ in the step, if the jamming result is $Q_i\subseteq[C]$, then nodes' behavior in this slot is determined by $\Psi_{Q_i}\left({T}_{|Q_i|}^{(\sum_{j\leq i}\mathbb{I}[|Q_j|=|Q_i|])}\right)$ using permutation $\pi_{Q_i}$ and bijection $\Psi_{Q_i}$.
Notice, $\pi_{Q_i}$ and $\Psi_{Q_i}$ are defined in Section \ref{sec-multicastadp-analysis} on page \pageref{def-psi_q-pi_q}, and ${T}_{|Q_i|}^{\sum_{j\leq i}\mathbb{I}[|Q_j|=|Q_i|]}$ is the $(\sum_{j\leq i}\mathbb{I}[|Q_j|=|Q_i|])$-th chunk in list $\bm{T}_{|Q_i|}$.
Let $X_{u,i}$ be an indicator random variable taking value 1 iff $u$ hears silence in the $i$\textsuperscript{th} slot, define $X_u=\sum_{i=1}^{R}X_{u,i}$.
Define $\mathcal{Z}=\{\bm{z}=\langle z_1,z_2,\cdots,z_C \rangle\in\mathbb{N}^C:\sum_{l=1}^{C}z_l\leq R\}$, thus $|\mathcal{Z}|=\binom{R+C}{C}\leq(R+1)^C\leq(2R)^C$. (Intuitively, for every $l\in[C]$, $z_l$ in $\bm{z}$ is the number of slots in which Eve leaves $l$ channels unjammed.) Denote the jamming results of this step as $\bm{Q}=(Q_1,\cdots,Q_R)\in \mathcal{Q}$, and define $|\bm{Q}|=\sum_{i=1}^{R}|Q_i|$. Further define function $K:\mathcal{Q}\to \mathcal{Z}$ such that $K(\bm{Q})=\langle K_1(\bm{Q}),\cdots,K_C(\bm{Q})\rangle$, where $K_l(\bm{Q})=\sum_{i=1}^R \mathbb{I}[|Q_i|=l]$. (That is, $K_l(\bm{Q})$ counts the number of slots in which Eve leaves $l$ channels unjammed.) Hence, given $K(\bm{Q})$, we can use a function $L:\mathbb{N}^C\to\mathbb{N}$ to compute $|\bm{Q}|$. In particular, $L(\bm{z})=\sum_{l=1}^{C}z_l\cdot l$ and $L(K(\bm{Q}))=|\bm{Q}|$.
Now, consider another execution, for any $j\geq 1$ and $l\in[C]$, let $Y_{u,l}^{(j)}$ be an indicator random variable taking value 1 iff $u$ hears silence in a slot in which the jamming result is $[l]$ and the behavior of nodes is determined by the $j$\textsuperscript{th} chunk of $\bm{T}_l$ directly.
Define $Y_u(\bm{z})=\sum_{l=1}^{C}\sum_{j=1}^{z_l}Y_{u,l}^{(j)}$ for any $\bm{z}\in \mathcal{Z}$. By definition, it is easy to verify $X_u(\bm{Q})=Y_u(K(\bm{Q}))$ for any $\bm{Q}$. That is, for any $\bm{Q}$, values of $X_u$ and $Y_u$ are identical. The significance of this observation is that it relates $X_u$---which counts the number of silent slots $u$ heard---to $Y_u$, and $Y_u$ can be interpreted as the sum of independent random variables once $\bm{z}$ is fixed.
At this point, we are ready to prove part (2). Notice $\mathbb{E}[X_u]/\Delta_u=\mathbb{E}[X_v]/\Delta_v=\alpha\cdot|\bm{Q}|/(RC)$ where $\alpha=\prod_{w\in V}(1-p_w/C)$. Also, it is easy to verify $\mathbb{E}[Y_u(\bm{z})]/\Delta_u=\mathbb{E}[Y_v(\bm{z})]/\Delta_v=\alpha\cdot L(\bm{z})/(RC)$. Let $\mathcal{Z}_1=\{\bm{z}\in\mathcal{Z}:L(\bm{z})\leq0.15RC/\alpha\}$. Then for $\bm{z}\in \mathcal{Z}_1$, $\mathbb{E}[Y_u(\bm{z})]\leq 0.15\Delta_u$, further by a Chernoff bound, $\Pr(Y_u(\bm{z})>0.2\Delta_u)\leq \exp(-\Theta(i^3C))$. Similarly, for $\bm{z}\in\mathcal{Z}\setminus \mathcal{Z}_1$, $\Pr(Y_v(\bm{z})<0.1\Delta_v)\leq \exp(-\Theta(i^3C))$. Therefore, we can conclude $\Pr\left(X_u(\bm{Q})>0.2\Delta_u \wedge X_v(\bm{Q})<0.1\Delta_v \right) \leq \sum_{\bm{z}\in\mathcal{Z}_1}\Pr(Y_u(\bm{z})>0.2\Delta_u)+\sum_{\bm{z}\in\mathcal{Z}\setminus \mathcal{Z}_1}\Pr(Y_v(\bm{z})<0.1\Delta_v) \leq |\mathcal{Z}|\cdot \exp(-\Theta(i^3C))=\exp(-\Theta(i^3C))$.
\end{proof}
We now sketch the proof of Lemma \ref{lemma-multicastadvadp-pu-pv-bounded}. Denote the working probabilities of the current phase and the next phase as $p$ and $p'$. If $\eta_u\leq 2.5$ and $\eta_v\leq 2.5$, then $p'_u/p'_v=p_u/p_v$ and we are done. So assume $\eta_u> 2.5$. In such case, Claim \ref{claim-multicastadvadp-pu-pv-bounded} imply $|N^{c,step*}_u/\Delta^{step*}_u-N^{c,step*}_v/\Delta^{step*}_v|\leq \sqrt{{giC}/{(Rp_u)}}+\sqrt{{giC}/{(Rp_v)}}$ for any step $*$ in $\{1,2\}$, and $|N^{c,step3}_u/\Delta^{step3}_u-N^{c,step3}_v/\Delta^{step3}_v|\leq 2\sqrt{{giC}/{(Rp_{step3})}}$. This further suggests ${p'_u}/{p'_v}\leq({p_u}/{p_v})\cdot 2^{1/bi}$, thus the lemma is proved.
\vspace{-2ex}\subparagraph*{Correctness.} This part shows \textsc{MultiCastAdvAdp}\xspace enforces two nice properties. First, when some node halts, all nodes must have become \texttt{helper}. This property can be seen as a stronger version of Lemma \ref{lemma-multicastadp-halt-imply-informed}, which implies all nodes are informed before any node halts, since a node must have heard the message $m$ when becoming a \texttt{helper}. The second property, on the other hand, states when a node becomes \texttt{helper}, it also obtains a good estimate of $n$. This property helps to ensure nodes can stop execution at the right time.
\begin{lemma}[``halt-imply-helper'' property]\label{lemma-multicastadvadp-halt-imply-helper}
The probability that some node has stopped execution while some other node has not become \texttt{helper} is at most $n^{-\Omega(1)}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}[``good-estimate'' property]\label{lemma-multicastadvadp-good-estimate}
For each node $u$, the probability that $u$ becomes \texttt{helper} with $n_u<n/256$ or $n_u>4n$ is at most $n^{-\Omega(1)}$.
\end{lemma}
The following lemma is helpful for proving both of the above two properties. Roughly speaking, this lemma states that if in an $(i,j)$-phase some node $u$ has working probability $p_u=\Theta(\sqrt{C/(2^in)})$ and decides to raise $p_u$ at the end of the phase, then all nodes must have heard the message many times in step two of the phase.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma-multicastadvadp-pu-raise-and-msg}
Consider an $(i,j)$-phase where $i>\lg{n}$. Assume at the beginning of the phase: $(\sum_{u\in V}{p_u})/C\leq 1/2$, all nodes are active and their working probabilities are within a factor of two, and the working probability of each node is at least $8\sqrt{{C}/{(2^in)}}$. Then, with probability at most $\exp(-\Theta(i^2))$, these two events both occur: (a) some node raises its working probability at the end of the phase; and (b) some node hears message $m$ less than $ai^3$ times in step two.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}[Proof sketch]
Let $\mathcal{E}_{R}$ be the event that some node raises its working probability by the end of the phase, $\mathcal{E}_{M}$ be the event that some node hears $m$ less than $ai^3$ times during step two, $\mathcal{E}_{un}$ be the event that some node is still uninformed by the end of step one. Moreover, let $\mathcal{E}_1$ (respectively, $\mathcal{E}_2$) be the event that $\mathcal{E}_{step1}^{\geq 0.25}(\geq 0.25)$ (respectively, $\mathcal{E}_{step2}^{\geq 0.25}(\geq 0.25)$) occurs during step one (respectively, step two) of the phase. We know:
\begin{align*}
\Pr(\mathcal{E}_M\mathcal{E}_R)\leq &\Pr(\mathcal{E}_M\wedge(\mathcal{E}_1\wedge\mathcal{E}_2))+\Pr(\mathcal{E}_R\wedge\overline{(\mathcal{E}_1\wedge\mathcal{E}_2)})\\
\leq &\Pr(\mathcal{E}_{un}\mathcal{E}_1)+\Pr(\overline{\mathcal{E}_{un}}\mathcal{E}_M\mathcal{E}_2)+\Pr(\mathcal{E}_R \wedge (\overline{\mathcal{E}_1}\vee \overline{\mathcal{E}_2}))
\end{align*}
The reminder of the proof bounds the three probabilities in the last line.
\emph{Claim I: $\Pr(\mathcal{E}_{un}\mathcal{E}_1)\leq\exp(-\Theta(i^2))$. Proof sketch:} If $\mathcal{E}_1$ happens, then step one is not heavily jammed. Thus every node will be informed at the end of step one due to the effectiveness of the epidemic broadcast scheme, much like the proof of Lemma \ref{lemma-multicastadp-fast-bcst}.
\emph{Claim II: $\Pr(\overline{\mathcal{E}_{un}}\mathcal{E}_{M}\mathcal{E}_2)\leq\Pr(\mathcal{E}_{M}\mathcal{E}_2|\overline{\mathcal{E}_{un}})\leq\exp(-\Theta(i^3))$. Proof sketch:} Fix a node $u$, and assume all nodes know $m$ at the beginning of step two. Similar to the proof of Lemma \ref{lemma-multicastadp-fast-halt} (except that we focus on message slots and apply the coupling argument accordingly), the probability that $u$ hears $m$ less than $ai^3$ times during a step two when $\mathcal{E}_2$ occurs is at most $\exp(-\Theta(i^3))$. Take a union over all nodes and the claim is proved.
\emph{Claim III: $\Pr(\mathcal{E}_{R}\wedge(\overline{\mathcal{E}_1}\vee \overline{\mathcal{E}_2}))\leq\exp(-\Theta(i^3C))$. Proof sketch:} Notice that $\Pr(\mathcal{E}_{R}\wedge(\overline{\mathcal{E}_1}\vee\overline{\mathcal{E}_2})) \leq \Pr(\mathcal{E}_{R}\overline{\mathcal{E}_1})+\Pr(\mathcal{E}_{R}\overline{\mathcal{E}_2}) \leq \sum_{u\in V}\Pr(\mathcal{E}_{u,1}\overline{\mathcal{E}_1})+\sum_{u\in V}\Pr(\mathcal{E}_{u,2}\overline{\mathcal{E}_{2}})+4\sum_{u\in V}\exp(-\Theta(i^3C))$. Here, $\mathcal{E}_{u,1}$ (resp., $\mathcal{E}_{u,2}$) is the event that node $u$ hears silence more than $\Delta_{u}^{step1}/2$ (resp., $\Delta_{u}^{step2}/2$) times in step one (resp., step two) of the phase, and the last inequality is due to part (1) of Claim \ref{claim-multicastadvadp-pu-pv-bounded}.
When $\overline{\mathcal{E}_1}$ occurs, the expected number of silent slots heard by $u$ in step one is at most $7/16\Delta_{u}^{step1}$. Again via a coupling argument, we know $\Pr(\mathcal{E}_{u,1}\overline{\mathcal{E}_1})\leq \exp(-\Theta(i^3))$, and bounding $\Pr(\mathcal{E}_{u,2}\overline{\mathcal{E}_2})$ is similar.
\end{proof}
At this point, to prove the ``halt-imply-helper'' property, we only need to combine the above lemma with the following two observations. First, nodes are unlikely to become \texttt{helper} in early super-epochs, as the sending probabilities in these super-epochs are too high and nodes cannot hear enough silent slots. (See Lemma \ref{lemma-multicastadvadp-no-helper-in-early-epoch} in Appendix \ref{sec-app-multicastadvadp-proof} on page \pageref{lemma-multicastadvadp-no-helper-in-early-epoch}.) Second, when nodes' working probabilities in step two are too small, they will also not become \texttt{helper} as the number of messages heard is not enough. (See Lemma \ref{lemma-multicastadvadp-estimate-upper-bound} in Appendix \ref{sec-app-multicastadvadp-proof} on page \pageref{lemma-multicastadvadp-estimate-upper-bound}.) Notice, this second observation also leads to an upper bound on the estimates of $n$.
To prove the ``good-estimate'' property, what remains is to show a lower bound for $n_u$. To that end, we show if all nodes are alive and $u$'s working probability is close to the ideal value $\Theta(\sqrt{C/(2^in)})$, then $u$ must have become \texttt{helper} already. (See Claim \ref{claim-multicastadvadp-pu-high-implies-helper} in Appendix \ref{sec-app-multicastadvadp-proof} on page \pageref{claim-multicastadvadp-pu-high-implies-helper}.) By then, a lower bound of $n_u$ can be derived as a simple corollary of this claim.
\vspace{-2ex}\subparagraph*{Termination.} This part shows nodes will quickly become \texttt{helper} and then halt once jamming from Eve becomes weak. (In other words, Eve cannot delay nodes unless she spends a lot of energy.) We begin by classifying phases and super-epochs into \emph{weakly jammed} ones and \emph{strongly jammed} ones. Specifically, call a phase weakly jammed if event $\mathcal{E}^{\geq 0.95}(\geq 0.95)$ occurs for all three steps of the phase. On the other hand, if event $\mathcal{E}^{>0.05}(<0.95)$ occurs for any of the three steps, then the phase is strongly jammed. Call a super-epoch weakly jammed if at least half of the phases in the super-epoch are weakly jammed, otherwise the super-epoch is strongly jammed.
We first show, if a node's working probability has not reached the ideal value, then this probability will increase by some constant factor in a weakly jammed phase.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma-multicastadvadp-pu-inc-in-weak-jam-phase}
Fix an $(i,j)$-phase where $i\geq\lg(nC)+6$, and fix an active node $u$ satisfying $p^{i,j}_u<C/(128n)$. By the end of the phase, the following two events happen simultaneously with probability at most $\exp(-\Omega(iC))$: (a) the phase is weakly jammed; and (b) $p^{i,j+1}_u< p_u^{i,j}\cdot 2^{(1/10)}$.
\end{lemma}
Building upon Lemma \ref{lemma-multicastadvadp-pu-inc-in-weak-jam-phase}, we can prove nodes' working probabilities will reach $\tilde{p_i}=1024\sqrt{{C}/{(2^in)}}$ in a weakly jammed super-epoch, as there are enough weakly jammed phases.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma-multicastadvadp-pu-inc-in-weak-jam-epoch}
Fix a super-epoch $i\geq 34+\lg(nC)$ and a node $u$ that is active at the beginning of the super-epoch. The following two events happen simultaneously with probability at most $\exp(-\Omega(iC))$: (a) the super-epoch is weakly jammed; and (b) by the end of the super-epoch $u$ is still alive with a working probability less than $\tilde{p_i}$.
\end{lemma}
Lastly, we show that when a node's working probability reaches $\tilde{p_i}$, it will halt.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma-multicastadvadp-large-pu-halt}
Fix a super-epoch $i\geq\lg{(nC)}-7$ and a node $u$. Assume when $u$ becomes \texttt{helper}, it is true that $n_u\geq n/256$ and all nodes are active at the beginning of that phase. Then, the probability that $u$ is active at the end of super-epoch $i$ with a working probability exceeding $\tilde{p_i}$ is at most $\exp(-\Theta(i))$.
\end{lemma}
\vspace{-3ex}\subparagraph*{Main theorem.} In this last part we sketch the proof of Theorem \ref{thm-multicastadvadp}.
Fix an arbitrary node $u$. The first step is to analyze how long $u$ remains active. Since super-epoch length increases geometrically, we only need to focus on the last super-epoch in which $u$ is active. Specifically, let $\hat{I}=34+\lg C+\max\{\lg C,\lg n\}$, let $r_i$ be the number of slots in super-epoch $i$, and let $sr_i=\sum_{k=\hat{I}+1}^{i}r_k$ be the total number of slots from super-epoch $\hat{I}+1$ to super-epoch $i$. It is easy to verify, for $i\geq \hat{I}+1$, $sr_{i}\leq 5r_{i-1}$. Define constant $\beta=2400$, and let random variable $L$ denote node $u$'s actual runtime starting from super-epoch $\hat{I}+1$. Combine Lemma \ref{lemma-multicastadvadp-halt-imply-helper}, \ref{lemma-multicastadvadp-good-estimate}, \ref{lemma-multicastadvadp-pu-inc-in-weak-jam-epoch}, \ref{lemma-multicastadvadp-large-pu-halt}, along with the fact that Eve spends less than $r_iC/\beta=bi/2\cdot 0.05^2R_iC$ in super-epoch $i$ implies super-epoch $i$ is weakly jammed, we can prove $L\leq 5\beta T/C$ holds w.h.p. Take a union bound over all nodes, we know every node will terminate within $(\sum_{k=I_b}^{\hat{I}}bk\cdot 3R_k)+5\beta T/C=\tilde{O}(T/C+nC+C^2)$ slots, w.h.p.
Next, we analyze the cost of node $u$. Let $F_{step1,2}$ (respectively, $F_{step3}$) be node $u$'s total actual cost during step one and step two (respectively, step three) starting from super-epoch $\hat{I}+1$. By an analysis similar to above, we show $F_{step1,2}\leq \Theta(\sqrt{T/n}\cdot\lg^2{T})$ and $F_{step3}\leq \Theta(C^2\cdot(\lg{(T)}+\hat{I})^5)$, w.h.p. As a result, we can conclude w.h.p.\ the energy cost of each node is bounded by $F_{step1,2}+F_{step3}+\sum_{k=I_b}^{\hat{I}}(bk\cdot 3R_k)=\tilde{O}(\sqrt{T/n}+nC+C^2)$.
Finally, notice the algorithm itself ensures a node must be informed when it halts.
\section{Lower Bounds}\label{sec-lower-bound}
In this section, we show our algorithms achieve (near) optimal time and energy complexity simultaneously against an adaptive adversary with budget $T$. The time complexity part is obvious: Eve can jam all channels during the first $T/C$ slots, so the $O(T/C)$ term in the runtime of \textsc{MultiCastAdp}\xspace and \textsc{MultiCastAdvAdp}\xspace is asymptotically optimal.
Obtaining an energy complexity lower bound is more involved. To do so, the first step is a simulation argument. Specifically, given any fair multi-channel broadcast algorithm $\mathcal{A}_n$, we can devise a multi-channel 1-to-1 communication algorithm $\mathcal{A}_2$ (in which the goal is to let one node called Alice to send a message $m$ to another node Bob) that simulates $\mathcal{A}_n$ internally. To make the simulation feasible, we allow Alice and Bob to have multiple transceivers, so that in each slot they can operate on multiple channels, as well as send and listen simultaneously. In more detail, Alice in $\mathcal{A}_2$ mimics the source node in $\mathcal{A}_n$. As for Bob, he simulates the $n-1$ non-source nodes in $\mathcal{A}_n$. Particularly, in each slot, for each channel, if at least one non-source node listens, then Bob uses a transceiver to listen; if exactly one non-source node broadcasts, then Bob uses a transceiver to broadcast the unique message; and if at least two non-source nodes broadcast, then Bob uses a transceiver to broadcast noise. (Notice Bob can simultaneously listen and broadcast on a channel: he uses two transceivers and incurs two units of cost.) On the other hand, Eve's strategy for disrupting $\mathcal{A}_n$ and $\mathcal{A}_2$ is called $\mathcal{S}$: in each slot, for each channel, if the probability that the source node (resp., Alice) successfully transmits $m$ to some non-source node (resp., Bob) exceeds $1/T$, then Eve jams that channel.
Clearly, the above simulation is ``perfect'': an execution of $\mathcal{A}_2$ is identical to an execution of $\mathcal{A}_n$, assuming nodes and Eve use identical random bits in the two executions. To simplify presentation, we further assume $\mathcal{A}_n$ automatically stops once all nodes are informed, and $\mathcal{A}_2$ automatically stops once Bob is informed. This modification will not increase nodes' energy cost, thus will not affect the correctness of our lower bound. Now, observe that the success of $\mathcal{A}_2$ is a necessary condition for the success of $\mathcal{A}_n$, and Bob's energy cost will not exceed the sum of all non-source nodes' cost, hence the following lemma is immediate.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma-lower-bound-1-to-1-sim-broadcast}
For any fair multi-channel broadcast algorithm $\mathcal{A}_n$, there exists a multi-channel 1-to-1 communication algorithm $\mathcal{A}_2$. If in $\mathcal{A}_n$ each node incurs an expected cost of $f(T)$ and $\mathcal{A}_n$ succeeds with probability $p$, then: (a) in $\mathcal{A}_2$ Alice and Bob incur an expected cost of at most $f(T)$ and $n\cdot f(T)$, respectively; (b) $\mathcal{A}_2$ succeeds with probability at least $p$.
\end{lemma}
What remains is an energy complexity lower bound for $\mathcal{A}_2$: with such a result, Theorem \ref{thm-cost-lower-bound} is immediate via simple reduction. Indeed, we are able to prove Theorem \ref{thm-cost-lower-bound-1-to-1}, an energy complexity lower bound for 1-to-1 communication in the multi-channel setting. This result could be of independent interest, and at a high-level its proof is organized in the following way. First, we note that in a rough sense, any multi-channel 1-to-1 communication algorithm $\mathcal{A}$ can be viewed as a decision tree, and each path from the root to a leaf in the tree corresponds to an oblivious algorithm. Then, we argue that $\mathcal{A}$ can be used to generate another algorithm $\mathcal{A}'$ which is a ``convex combination'' (or, a distribution) of all such oblivious algorithms, without changing the success probability or the product of Alice's and Bob's expected cost. Moreover, an important observation is that among all the oblivious algorithm used in the ``convex combination'', at least one---say $\mathcal{A}_{\hat{w}}$---is (roughly) as good as $\mathcal{A}'$ in terms of both success probability and energy efficiency. Finally, depending on whether Eve uses all her budget during execution, we consider two potential scenarios for $\mathcal{A}_{\hat{w}}$, and for both we show $\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{A}_{\hat{w}}}[A]\cdot\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{A}_{\hat{w}}}[B]\in\Omega(T)$, which in turn implies $\mathbb{E}_\mathcal{A}[A]\cdot\mathbb{E}_\mathcal{A}[B]\in\Omega(T)$. Complete proof of Theorem \ref{thm-cost-lower-bound-1-to-1} is deferred to Appendix \ref{sec-app-lower-bound-proof} on page \pageref{sec-app-lower-bound-proof} due to space constraint.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm-cost-lower-bound-1-to-1}
Consider any multi-channel 1-to-1 communication algorithm that succeeds with constant probability against an adaptive adversary Eve with budget $T$. Let $A$ and $B$ denote Alice's and Bob's expected cost respectively, then Eve can force $\mathbb{E}[A]\cdot\mathbb{E}[B]\in\Omega(T)$.
\end{theorem}
\bibliographystyle{plainurl}
|
\section{Introduction}
A sequence is a regularity with its elements repeating in a predictable manner. Any sequence is built from a certain set of primitives which repeat according to a certain set of rules. Humans are really good at observing these primitives and rules behind the patterns. Given a sequence, people could naturally predict what comes next by learning rules behind it. Current state-of-the-art Recurrent Neural Network architectures like Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks require hundreds or thousands of data to predict the next number in a sequence as they fail to learn richer concepts which humans do very easily \cite{lstm}.
We would be dealing with strictly increasing mathematical sequences in this project. Numbers in a mathematical sequence follow certain rules. In general, a number in a sequence would depend on the number preceding it or its position. (Even if it's dependent on just the position in the sequence, the current number could still be related to its preceding number in some intuitive fashion). But, in cases like Fibonacci series, a number depends on two numbers preceding it. We propose a model that captures human learning abilities for predicting the next number in the sequence using Bayesian Concept Learning.
In general, humans are remarkably adaptable to noisy sequences. People are fairly capable of identifying the underlying rules generating a sequence even when the sequence is corrupted with either stationary noise (where some elements are slightly away from their original hypothesis) or progressive noise (where the errors are propagating across a sequence). Our model also captures this ability of humans to perform well in a noisy environment, meaning identifying the underlying rule and thereby predicting the next number. In this report, we've considered only progressive noise in our Bayesian model while computing likelihood, as stationary noise might be harder to implement using our method. We claim that this type of Bayesian learning approach is similar to humans approach to capturing the rules of the intended sequence.
Over time, people gradually develop their sequence solving skills. At first, they learn to predict sequences which just vary by a constant addition or multiplication factor. As they develop, they could predict sequences with combinations/compositions of multiplication and addition factors. And, when their expertise improves more, they could even predict sequences which depend on two preceding numbers. We are able to capture this gradual learning process of humans in our model with the help of a parameter called \textbf{Human Experience Factor - $\beta_{hef}$}.
The core ideas and inspiration were from the paper on number game (Ref. \cite{tenen}) and (Ref. \cite{tenen2}). Although Ref. \cite{jaini} is somewhat remotely related, our work is pretty much outlined by Ref. \cite{Hutter}. As described in Ref. \cite{tenen2}, our models could also be formalised using $lambda$ functions, but we're not using that formalism here.
\section{Mathematical Sequence}
In a mathematical sequence, usually a number $x(n)$ depends either on just $n$ (or the position) or the previous element(s) in the sequence, $x(n-1),x(n-2),...$. Here, for simplicity we are going to consider only sequences where each number depends on just the previous number.
Hence, the rule that we consider for generating sequences is:
$x(n)=f (x (n-1))$, where $f:\mathbb{N}\rightarrow\mathbb{N}$
Here we'll be considering only linear functions as generators or $f$. So,
$x(n)=ax(n-1)+b$, for some positive integers $a$ and $b$.
Examples of sequences:
Ex. 1.1. Rule: $x(n) = 2x (n-1)$;
Example of a sequence generated using this rule: $2, 4, 8, 16,...$
Ex. 1.2. Rule: $x(n) = 2x (n-1) + 2$;
Example of a sequence generated using this rule: $4, 10, 22, 46,...$
Ex. 1.3. Rule: $x(n) = x(n-1) + 5$;
Example of a sequence generated using this rule: $2, 7, 12, 17,...$
Here, you could notice that Ex 1.1. is a sequence of powers of two.
\section{Bayesian Concept Learning: Model Setup}
\subsection{Primitives and Hypothesis}
A lot of strictly increasing mathematical sequences can be generated by a just a series of multiplications ($\times$) and additions ($+$) of certain numbers.
For the sake of simplicity, let us assume just the following 12 primitives, $10$ for addition ($+$) and $2$ for multiplication ($\times$). Let $A_{i}(p) = p+i, i \in {1,2...10}$ (meaning add $i$ to the previous number)
Similarly, let $M_{i}(p)=p \times i, i \in {2,3}$ (meaning multiply $2$ or $3$ to the previous number)
For each of the above defined primitives, we will store a possible transition pair. We assume these pairs as something that humans could infer right way from their elementary math knowledge or memory.
Examples for primitive pair lists:
Ex 2.1. $L(A_{1}) = \{ (1,2) , (2,3) ,..., (99,100) \}$
Ex 2.2. $L(M_{2}) = \{ (1,2) , (2,4) ,..., (49, 98) \}$
Ex 2.3. $L(A_{5}) = \{ (1,6) , (2,7) ,...,(94, 99 ) \}$
We generate different hypotheses by combining these primitives - combining one of the $M_{s}$'s with one of the $A_{t}$'s to obtain: $x_{n}=A_{t}(M_{s}(x_{n-1}))=s\times x_{n-1}+t$
Here, $M_{s}$ is from the set of multiplicative primitives $\{M_{2}, M_{3}\}$ and $A_{t}$ is from the set of additive primitives $\{A_{1}, A_{2},...., A_{10}\}$ So, number of possible such compound hypotheses for a sequence would be $10 \times 2 = 20$.
A compound hypothesis is a combination of primitives (one additive and one multiplicative hypothesis combined). Examples of sequences generated from such compound hypotheses:
Ex. 3.1. $H$ with primitives - $(M_{2}, A_{2}) \rightarrow x_{n}=2x_{n-1}+2$. Sequence example: $2, 6, 14, 30,...$
Ex. 3.2. $H$ with primitives - $(M_{3}, A_{5}) \rightarrow x_{n}=3x_{n-1}+5$. Sequence example: $5, 10, 15, 20,...$
\subsection{Noise}
Before we discuss about the Bayesian method of concept learning let us assume that the training and test sequences could be corrupted by some noise. Here,w.l.o.g. we add standard Gaussian noise $N(0,\sigma)$ (properly normalized so that only integer values are allowed) to the sequence, which could be introduced in the following two ways:
\textbf{Stationary Noise} - Consider a noise free sequence generated from a hypothesis, and now to each term we add noise but with obviously only integer numbers in the sequence.
Example $M_{2} : 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64$., with noise might become $2, 5, 8, 16, 32, 64$.
\textbf{Progressive Noise} - Here, every time we generate the next term we add noise. Then, we take the term with noise added and continue with the generation.
Example $M_{2} : 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64$., with noise will become $2, 5, 10, 20, 40, 80$
For the sake of simplicity, we are only considering Progressive Noise in our project. All the models can be effortlessly extended to Stationary Noise too.
\subsection{Prior}
The framework described here is closely related to the ones described in Ref. \cite{tenen}. We are assuming that the prior probability would depend on the human experience, meaning, it would be a function of how much familiar the human is to the mathematical sequences that we present here. So, we have the probabilities defined as a function of $\beta_{hef}$ which varies from $0$ to $1$ depending on whether the human is completely inexperienced or a math novice! Here we assume that for any $\beta_{hef}$ or human experience level, the probability of a human being able to identify hypothesis with just one primitive would be the same independent of whether the primitive is $A_{i}$ or $P_{i}$. But, depending on $\beta_{hef}$ or the human experience level, the probability of a human being able to identify the compound hypothesis (hypothesis formed by both $A_{i}$ and $P_{i}$) corresponding to the given sequence increases for higher values of $\beta_{hef}$.
The probability of choosing one of the primitive hypotheses would be, $P(h_{p\text{ }or\text{ } a})=1/[(n_{p}+n_{a})+\beta_{hef}n_{p}n_{a}]$
Similarly, the probability of choosing one of the compound hypothesis would be
$P(h_{c})=\beta_{hef}/[(n_{p}+n_{a})+\beta_{hef}n_{p}n_{a}]$, where $\beta_{hef}$ varies from $0$ to $1$; $n_{p}$ is the total number of product primitives and $n_{a}$ is the number of additive primitives and so $n_{p}n_{a}$ therefore represents the total number of compound hypotheses that are formed by combining a $A_{i}$ and a $P_{i}$.
\subsection{Likelihood}
Our aim here is to compute $P(D|h_{i})$, where $D = x_{1}, x_{2}, x_{3} , x_{4}, ... ,x_{n}$ is the given sequence. Here $P(D|h_{i})$ is the probability that we get $D$ while using the generating rule $h_{i}$.
$P(D|h_{i}) = P(x_{1}|h_{i})\prod_{j=2}^{n} P( x_{j}|x_{j-1}, h_{i} )$
Here, $h_{i}$ is a combination of primitives.
$h_{i} = \{A_{p}, M_{q}\}$, and
$P(x_{n}| x_{n-1},h_{i}) = g(x_{n}-f(h_{i}(x_{n-1})))$,
where $g(x)$ is a standard normal distribution $N(0,1)$ and $f(h_{i}(x(n-1)))=A_{p}(M_{q}(x(n-1)))$.\\
$M_{q}(k)$ is transition of number $k$ in $L(M_{q})$.\\
$A_{p}(k)$ is transition of number $k$ in $L(A_{p})$
(We assume here w.l.o.g., that $P(x_{j}|h_{i})=k$, some constant. We'll see that this constant would get cancelled out in most of our calculations, especially due to Bayesian, and so, it need not be included in our analysis.)
\subsection{Posterior}
Using Bayes’ Theorem :
$P(h_{i}|D) = P(D|h_{i})P(h_{i})/P(D)$
To find the most likely hypothesis $h^{*} :
h^{*} = \max_{i} P ( h_{i} | D )$
After finding $h^{*}$, we generate the next number by just applying the hypothesis on the last element of
$h^{*} = \{M_{p}, A_{q}\}$.\\
$x(n+1) = p x (n) +q$
\subsection{Human Experience Factor ($\beta_{hef}$)}
We introduce a new parameter to the model which is human experience factor ($\beta_{hef}$). The $\beta_{hef}$ is higher for people who are better at identifying sequences, because of "familiarity". To capture it in the model, we assume that the prior probabilities are a function of $\beta_{hef}$, as mentioned in an earlier section. For lower $\beta_{hef}$ values, prior probabilities for hypothesis with $\{A_{1}, A_{2},...., A_{10}, M_{2}, M_{3}\}$ will be high and for compound hypothesis, it would be low. As $\beta_{hef}$ increase, probabilities for compound hypothesis also becomes comparable to the primitive hypotheses.
\section{Recurrent Neural Networks}
We performed experiments specifically on LSTMs. LSTM is a variant of an RNN. They are good at maintaining long term dependencies and hence they are perform well as sequence models. A brief description of a LSTM cell and related equations are explained below.
LSTMs are first introduced by S. Hochreiter and J. Schmidhuber in 1991 (Ref.\cite{lstm}). Gates are the major components of an LSTM which are input gate - $i(t)$, forget gate - $f(t)$, output gate – $o(t)$,input modulation gate - $g(t)$ and $c(t)$ - memory cell. At each time step, an LSTM cell takes $x(t)$, $h(t-1)$ and $c(t-1)$ as inputs and outputs $h(t)$ and $c(t)$. Working of an LSTM cell is described using sequence of equations below.
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
i(t) &= \sigma (W_{xi}x(t) + W_{hi}h(t-1) + b_{i})\\
f(t) &= \sigma (W_{xf}x(t) + W_{hf}h(t-1) + b_{f})\\
o(t) &= \sigma (W_{xo}x(t) + W_{ho}h(t-1) + b_{o})\\
g(t) &= \phi (W_{xc}x(t) + W_{hc}h(t-1) + b_{c})
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
c(t) &= f(t)\cdot c(t-1) + i(t)\cdot g(t)\\
h(t) &= o(t)\cdot \phi(c(t))
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Here $\sigma(x)=\frac{1}{1+e^{-x}}$ (sigmoid activation) and $\phi(x)=\tanh{x}$ ($\tanh$ activation).
Memory gate enables LSTM to learn complex long- term temporal dependencies. Additional depth can be added by stacking these on top of each other.
\section{Behavioral Experiments}
We conducted an online survey, to observe how humans choose the next possible number among 4 options, more specifically, the $6^{th}$ number in a sequence where 5 numbers are given. About 119 people participated in the survey from different backgrounds. The profile of the participants is illustrated in Fig. [\ref{fig:pie}]. Since we passed it among our friends and family, we could observe that most of the participants are either graduates or undergraduates. Here, in our analysis, we are ignoring this selection bias and assuming that the participants would still be diverse enough in terms of identifying the underlying rules in a numerical sequence, as that depends more on the cognitive abilities of the humans which are very hard to profile.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{Picture2.jpg}
\caption{Pie-chart of the distribution of the participants' educational background}
\label{fig:pie}
\end{figure}
The survey had 2 sections of 6 questions each. Each of those questions belong to a particular class/type of sequences. The sequences given in section 1 and their types are mentioned in table - 1. From about 54 participants (who opted to answer more questions), we received responses to 6 more questions of similar types (as the ones in section 1). So, overall we received about 173 responses to each of the 6 type of sequences.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|l|}
\hline
Sequence Type & Sequence given in section 1\\
\hline\hline
& 11, 19, 27, 35, 43, \_\_\_ \\
Pure addition & a) 86; b) 51; c) 52; d) 53\\
& Ans: b) 51\\
\hline
& 5, 7, 9, 12, 14 \_\_\_ \\
Addition with noise & a) 17; b) 28; c) 12; d) 16\\
& Ans: d) 16\\
\hline
& 5, 10, 20, 40, 80 \_\_\_ \\
Pure multiplication & a) 120; b) 85; c) 160; d) 100\\
& Ans: c) 160\\
\hline
& 3, 6, 12, 25, 50, \_\_\_ \\
Multiplication & a) 75; b) 100; c) 56; d) 150\\
with noise & Ans: b) 100\\
\hline
& 1, 4, 13, 40, 121, \_\_\_ \\
Pure compound & a) 122; b) 364; c) 243; d) 606\\
sequence & Ans: b) 364\\
\hline
& 5, 14, 33, 70, 144, \_\_\_ \\
Compound sequence & a) 580; b) 436; c) 148; d) 292\\
with noise & Ans: d) 292\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Different class of sequences given to people in the survey. The sequences were given with and without noise or error as can be observed from the sequences in the 2nd column. The options that were given in the survey and the correct option are also given in the same column.}
\end{table}
\section{Experimental Results}
\subsection{Results of the online survey}
From fig. \ref{fig:overall}, it is evident that humans are able to detect the generative rules of both noisy and noiseless sequences with similar precision. Humans are able to capture the concepts despite corruption of data with noise. As expected humans with more experience (or education qualification) were able to more easily understand the compound sequences.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{overall.jpg}
\caption{Overall accuracy of humans (left) from different education backgrounds, in predicting the next number in a sequence; the set of bars in the middle and in the right end show the accuracy of the participants in sequence prediction tasks when there is no noise in the sequence and when there is an error/noise in the sequence, respectively.}
\label{fig:overall}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{types.jpg}
\caption{Accuracy of humans from different education backgrounds, while predicting the next number in a sequence. The set of bars to the left corresponds to sequences that are generated using just addition operation; similarly the set of bars in the middle corresponds to sequences that are generated using just multiplication operation and the set of bars in the right corresponds to sequences that are generated using both multiplication and addition operations.}
\label{fig:types}
\end{figure}
\subsection{LSTMs}
We trained LSTM models separately for additive, multiplicative and compound sequences with and without considering noise. From our results, it is interesting to note that LSTMs are really good at learning addition without noise. Our best LSTM model, with the hyper parameters as mentioned in table - 2, got an accuracy of $99.21\%$ without noise and $70.3\%$ with noise for addition (table - 3). Although LSTMs performed well for addition, they greatly under-performed when compared to humans for the multiplicative and compound hypotheses-based sequences (fig. \ref{fig:comp_types}). This brought down the overall accuracy of LSTMs and its accuracy for sequences with and without noise too (fig. \ref{fig:comp_overall}).
\textbf{Data} - Deciding right amount of data for a fair training of LSTM was a challenge for us. We considered 999 as the maximum number for generating addition hypotheses to get a good amount of data to train our LSTM model. But for the multiplication and combination hypotheses, 999 is a very low number and we could barely get sequences in that range. Hence, we considered 99999 as our maximum number for multiplication and combination hypotheses.
Another interesting aspect we considered for ensuring fair training of LSTM is to select a certain number of sequences such that probability of seeing all pairs is at least $70$. We considered this to be a reasonable number for investigating LSTMs on our tasks. More specifically, we chose $2500$ sequences out of $10000$ possible for training addition hypotheses, $500$ out of $1700$ possible for multiplication hypotheses and $300$ out of $1000$ possible for combination hypotheses. Despite giving the LSTM a slight advantage, their performance is still low for multiplication and combination hypotheses (fig. \ref{fig:overall} and table - 3).
\textbf{Data Encoding} - From our experiments, we observed that encoding of the data fed to LSTMs is an important factor while training LSTM. We first followed one-hot encoding for each number in our dataset. Results obtained were really bad and it was totally unfair for LSTMs to be trained that way. We then considered one-hot encoding for each digit of a number which is introduced in Ref. \cite{graves}. So, size of our encoding now became 30 for addition hypotheses (as maximum number is 999) and 50 for multiplication and combination hypotheses (as maximum number is 99999).
\textbf{Hyper Parameters} - We considered a batch size of 16 with 2 hidden layers and trained all our models for 30 Epochs. We followed 80-20 train test split (table - 2).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{comp_overall.jpg}
\caption{Comparing the overall accuracy (left) of humans with the overall accuracy of the Bayesian model and LSTM, in predicting the next number in a sequence. The set of bars in the middle and in the right end show the comparison of the accuracy of humans with that of the Bayesian model and LSTM for sequences that does not have errors and the noisy sequences (or the sequences with error), respectively.}
\label{fig:comp_overall}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{comp_types.jpg}
\caption{Comparing the accuracy of humans from different education backgrounds, with the accuracy of the Bayesian model and LSTM, while predicting the next number in a sequence. The set of bars to the left compares the accuracy of humans to that of the Bayesian model and LSTM for sequences that are generated using just addition operation; similarly the set of bars in the middle corresponds to sequences that are generated using just multiplication operation and the set of bars in the right corresponds to sequences that are generated using both multiplication and addition operations.}
\label{fig:comp_types}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
Hyper & Addition & Multipli- & Compound \\
parameters &&cation&\\
\hline\hline
Epochs & 30 & 30 & 30\\
\hline
Batch size & 16 & 16 & 16\\
\hline
No. of hidden & 2 & 2 & 2\\
layers &&&\\
\hline
Train data & 2500 & 500 & 300\\
\hline
MAX\_number & 999 & 99999 & 99999\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Hyper parameters used in the LSTM implementation for different class of sequences.}
\end{table}
\subsection{Bayesian Model}
Despite noise we noticed that the Bayesian model was able to very accurately predict the generating rule/hypothesis.
Here is an example. Consider the sequence : $1, 2, 3, 5, 8,...$
There are two highly probable rules that could have generated this sequence namely $(M_{2}, A_{1})$ with no noise or $(M_{2})$ with noise in each term.
Below are the results with the following parameters:
Noise mean = 0 \\
Noise variance at each element = 0.66 (This ensures ~half of the sequences are noiseless) \\
Prior of A, M, C : $(1,1,1)$ or $\beta_{hef}=1$ (meaning all the hypotheses including the compound hypotheses are equal) \\
\textbf{Result:} \\
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
A_{2} &: 0.74162549807248, \text{ Prediction :} 10 \\
A_{1} &: 0.19419344602990238, \text{ Prediction :} 9 \\
M_{2} &: 0.0639090892641122, \text{ Prediction :} 16 \\
A_{3} &: 0.0002719666030357511, \text{ Prediction :} 11\\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Here, 'Prediction' refers to the next possible number predicted by the model.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
Sequence Type & Humans & Bayesian & LSTM \\
&& Model & \\
\hline\hline
Pure addition & 94.22 & 99.99 & 99.21 \\
\hline
Addition with noise & 91.33 & 74.80 & 70.20\\
\hline
Pure multiplication & 91.33 & 99.99 & 48.00\\
\hline
Multiplication with & 88.44 & 99.99 & 18.00\\
noise &&&\\
\hline
Compound sequence & 76.88 & 56.42 & 21.00\\
\hline
Compound sequence & 78.03 & 89.11 & 15.00\\
with noise &&&\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Comparing accuracy of humans (derived from the behavioral experiment) with that of the Bayesian model and LSTM for the 6 class/type of sequences. The accuracy mentioned here are in \%.
}
\end{table}
\subsection{Impact of Human Experience Factor}
From the results, it can be seen that humans find it harder to solve compound sequences. We noticed that experienced people were able to identify these compound sequences easily. An expert tends to add more weight to the prior associated with the compound sequence. We were able to capture this scenario using Human Experience Factor ($\beta_{hef}$). In particular, we noticed that graduates were more comfortable with compound sequences compared to high school students in general. This could possibly be a result of priors developing with experience.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{accu_comp.jpg}
\caption{Comparing the accuracy of the Bayesian model with human accuracy for different values of $\beta_{hef}$. The x-axis is scaled logarithmically to illustrate the variation in accuracy while changing the $\beta_{hef}$ factor across orders of magnitude.}
\label{fig:accu_comp}
\end{figure}
On another note, we tried to approximate the $\beta_{hef}$ factor averaging over a hundred humans as a group by comparing with our Bayesian learning model. This plot is shown in Fig. [\ref{fig:accu_comp}]. The red line at $0.86705$ refers to the average human's accuracy, averaged over hundred participants. Whereas the blue line refers to the Bayesian model's accuracy for different values of $\beta_{hef}^{eff}$. The point at which both the plots meet would correspond to the effective $\beta_{hef}^{eff}$ value for the entire group of participants as per the Bayesian model. It turns out be about $\beta_{hef}^{eff}=0.0001$. At that value of $\beta_{hef}=0.0001$, the overall accuracy of the Bayesian model matches with that of the group of human participants.
\section{Conclusion}
We noticed that LSTMs performed exceptionally well on noiseless addition and reasonably well on its noisy counterpart. Despite LSTMs being able to grasp the additive rule, it failed to understand multiplication and compound sequences which are just meta-additive rules.
As was expected, humans were able to figure out addition and multiplication sequences accurately and compound sequences to a reasonable extent.
The Bayesian learning model performed a lot better compared to LSTMs, specifically the multiplicative and compound sequences. Despite the noise, the Bayesian model was able to accurately predict the generative rule for a sequence.
From our behavioral data, we were able to gauge certain trends of human experience with sequences. An higher Human Experience Factor ($\beta_{hef}$) implied increased familiarity with compound sequences. From this we conclude that as humans come across more sequences, their priors also develop in such a way that they would be able to solve compound sequences. This is analogous to how children improve their priors as they learn more patterns. From our analyses, we observed that this kind of sequential concept learning does not seem to be captured by LSTMs.
\section{Future Work}
We have to admit that our survey results were skewed due to lack of proportionate representation of different groups. We plan to rectify this with proper control groups. More steps have to be taken to compensate the inherent selection bias in a free-for-all survey!
Our Bayesian model can be improved by using additional psychological and cognitive factors that might be affecting the way humans identify patterns in general. These may be derived from human data. It could be factors like, giving more weight to the latter numbers in the sequence, accounting for familiarity with round numbers ($+1, +2, +5, +10$) and inherent grouping of numbers in the sequence that were not a result of our hypotheses. For example: the sequence $3, 5, 7,...$ could either be identified as a sequence of odd numbers or a sequence of prime numbers).
We could also extend our model to more complex hypotheses, with very little modification. For instance, we could extend our model to Fibonacci-like sequences which depend on the previous two numbers unlike our hypotheses which only depended on the previous number.
\long\def\acks#1{\vskip 0.15in\noindent{\large\bf Acknowledgments}\vskip 0.10in
\noindent #1}
\acks{We would like to acknowledge Prof. Brenden Lake and Reuben Feinman from NYU (USA) and Prabhu Prakash Kagitha from NIT Surat (India) for the useful discussions and suggestions.}
|
\section*{Introduction}
\label{intro}
Measuring the neutron lifetime is a whole epoch in the history of nuclear physics.
This era began in the late 1940s and consists of two periods.
In the first period, the results for the neutron lifetime exceeded 900 seconds.
The so-called beam method measured a counting rate of protons or
electrons from the decay of neutrons $n \to p+e^-+\tilde \nu $
in a neutron beam of a nuclear reactor ~\cite{SS59}, ~\cite{Chr72}, ~\cite{Brn80}.
For the second period, typical neutron lifetimes
were less than 900 seconds. During this period, another method
of measuring the neutron lifetime becomes the leading one, namely
the method of storing ultracold neutrons in a trap
until beta-decay. In 2018, this method yielded
the neutron lifetime equal to $881.5 \pm 0.9$ s \cite{Srb2018}.
The most accurate result of the beam method is
$\tau_n=887.7 \pm2.2$ s \cite{Yue2013}.
There were cases of recalculating the results of the
experiments and shifting it from the upper range of values to
the lower one. Herewith, the shift in the estimates of the
lifetime significantly exceeded the indicated experimental
errors. In the case of \cite{SS59} in 1959, the result was
$1013 \pm26$ seconds and was reduced in 1978 to the
value of $877 \pm 8$ seconds \cite{BS78} while repeating
the basic scheme of the experiment.
In the experiment \cite{Brn80} the result of 1980 was $937 \pm 18$
seconds, but 16 years later, the authors published their result
\cite{Brn96} as equal to $889.2 \pm 4.8$ s. The averaging out all the
results for the whole mentioned measurement period without any
restriction leads to an average neutron lifetime of about 900 s.
The beam experiments use the differential decay equation:
$$
\frac{dN_d}{dt}=\frac{1}{\tau_n} \cdot \varepsilon \times N, \eqno (1)
$$
where $\frac{dN_d}{dt}$ is the counting rate of the decay
electron (or proton) detector, $\tau_n$ is the neutron
lifetime, $N$ is the number of neutrons at time $t$ in some
region of the neutron beam, $\varepsilon$ is the total
efficiency. The total efficiency includes the efficiency of
neutron detection by a neutron detector, the efficiency of
collecting electrons (or protons) from the decay region to
the electron (proton) detector, and the efficiency of their registration
by the detector. The most difficult problem is the
exact experimental determination of the number $N_d=(\varepsilon \times N)$
on the right side of equation (1), i.e. the number of neutrons
whose decay is in the field of view for the electron (or proton) detector.
The value $(\varepsilon \times N)$ includes all sources of
systematic errors of the beam method.
A new method for the beam experiments has been developed in some years.
This method excludes necessities to measure precisely the number of neutrons
in the beam, and eliminates the need to determine the absolute values
of the efficiency components.
\section{ Variation method of neutron decay scale tuning}
\label{sect1:VARM}
The method proposed by the author \cite{VV1} uses a step-wise variation
of the initial number of neutrons passing through a region
controlled by a detector of electrons. The method is based on a system
of differential equations of type (1) for $k$ steps of
neutron numbers:
$$
R_d(i)=\frac{1}{\tau_n} \times N_d(i), \eqno (2)
$$
where $R_d(i)$ is the electron count rate from the detector,
$N_d(i)$ is a number of neutrons seen by the electron detector at
the $i$-th variation step, $i=1, 2, 3,\cdots k$. The problem of measuring
the number of neutrons is not posed here at all. At each
$i$-th stage of the neutron number variation the count rate
$R_d(i)$ of the electron detector is measured and, after
multiple iterations, the count rate error $\sigma_d(i)$ at each
stage is determined. As a result, an array $(R_d(i),\sigma_d(i))$
with $k$ lines is formed. To simplify the notation, it is worth
eliminating the indices $d$ and $n$ in (2).
The next step is to represent an unknown set of neutron
numbers $N_i$ by members of an arithmetic progression
$N_i\approx \frac{1}{\mu}\times m_i$ with $\frac{1}{\mu}$
as a decimal common difference. The common
difference of the required arithmetic progression is the step of
the neutron number scale that describes the distribution of
counting rates with their errors. The integer $m_i$ is the
number of the scale division corresponding to the neutron
number $N_i$. The parameter $\mu$, the inverse of the scale
step, is called a scale factor or $\mu$-factor.
Then the system of differential equations of decay has the following form:
$$
\tau \times (R_i \pm \sigma_i)\approx \frac{1}{\mu} \times m_i, \eqno (3)
$$
where $i=1, 2, 3,\cdots k$, $k$ is the full number of
variation steps.
The goal is set as follows. It is necessary to choose an
optimal scale step to describe in the best way the measured data
array of count rates by a certain sample of members of the
obtained arithmetic progression of neutron numbers.
The $\frac{1}{\mu}$ scale step uniquely identifies the set
of integers $m_i$ - the scale division numbers corresponding
to the array of pairs $(R_i,\sigma_i)$ for a given value of $\tau$--trial
lifetime.
The estimate $\aleph_i$ of neutron number $N_i$ is
$$
\aleph_i =
round \left[\frac{round \left[\mu \cdot \tau \cdot R_i,0 \right]}{\mu}, p \right] \mbox{.} \eqno (4)
$$
The operator $round[C, p]$ rounds to the nearest number
with $p$ significant digits. The operator $round[C, 0]$ means
rounding $C$ to the nearest integer.
The following error functional is constructed for the
required range of $\tau$ for different $p$:
$$
F_{\mu,p}(\tau)=\sum_{i=1}^k \frac{(R_i-\frac{1}{\tau} \cdot
\aleph_i(p,\mu,\tau))^2}{\sigma^2_i} \mbox{.} \eqno (5)
$$
The scale factor $\mu_0$ is to be selected for the best
approximation by the estimate
$\aleph_i(p,\mu_0,\tau)$ for any $p$.
The neutron lifetime $\tau_0$ is determined from the equation
$$
\frac{dF_{\mu_0,p}(\tau)}{d\tau}=0 \mbox{.} \eqno (6)
$$
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics{fig1_lines}
\caption{Description of count rates with integer neutron numbers.}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
Fig. ~\ref{fig1} illustrates the method in the case of integer neutron
numbers. The figure shows the best correspondence of count
rates to the set of neutron numbers 1, 2, 3, 5 by the straight
line L1. The path AB-BC-CD-DE-EF describes the action of the
operator (4) in the case of the count rate $R2$ for the line L2.
At the counting rate $R3$ the operator implements the
trajectory GH-HK-KD-DE-EF. The description of the line L2 in
integers leads to an increase in the error functional by the deviations
FA and GF. Hence a deviation from the optimal line (from L1 to
L2) leads to an increase in the approximation error while
processing in the same neutron number scale. The main
requirement for obtaining an accurate result is a high accuracy
of counting rate measurements.
\section{Experimental data}
\label{sect2:ExpData}
The experimental data of background measurement in the last ITEP experiment
on the magnetic storage of ultra-cold neutrons (UCN) was used.
The background consisted of electrons generated in the vacuum
chamber of the magnetic trap by the decay of neutrons.
Electrons were transported from the trap to the UCN detector \cite{VV2}.
The proportional gas chamber of the UCN detector operated as an
electron detector of high efficiency.
The vertical and horizontal channels of the reactor with open shutters
were sources of thermal, intermediate and fast neutrons of the neutron
background. The set of those neutrons penetrating through
the walls of the trap was the generator of decay electrons.
To measure the electron background, a separate long experiment
was performed. The low pressure gas detector was specially
optimized for counting electrons emanating from the magnetic trap.
A special absorber was installed into the trap chamber for
eliminating the ultracold neutrons. A virtually complete storage cycle for electrons
collected in the trap from background neutrons was carried out.
The electron counts in the intervals with the magnetic shutter
on and in the drain intervals with the magnetic shutter off
were measured. The counting of the electron background
from the neutron flux through the magnetic trap
was an analogue of the beam experiment. The count of electrons
flowing to the detector from the magnetic trap changed cyclically with
the changes in the set of simultaneously operating neutron
channels of the reactor. The data on background measurements in
the readout intervals of the outgoing electrons were processed
and shown in the order
of growth in Fig. ~\ref{fig2}--Fig.~\ref{fig4}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{fig2_rates_a}
\caption{Electron count rate vs number. Number 1-71.}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{fig3_rates_b}
\caption{Electron count rate vs number. Number 72-145.}
\label{fig3}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{fig4_rates_c}
\caption{Electron count rate vs number. Number 147-151.}
\label{fig4}
\end{figure}
The full series of 152 count rates is divided into two series.
There are seventy-one values (``series 71'', S-71) in the first
series (Fig. ~\ref{fig2}). The most accurate among these values is
$6.6667\cdot10^{-3} \pm 6\cdot10^{-7}$ $s^{-1}$. In addition,
eighty-one values formed the second series (``series 81'', S-81)
Fig. \ref{fig3} --Fig. \ref{fig4}. Out of 81 measurements,
for reasons of scale, two points are not shown:
$$
\mbox{point number} \quad 146: R = 1.355 \cdot10^{-2} \pm 6 \cdot 10^{-5} \quad s^{-1}
$$
and
$$
\mbox{point number} \quad 152: R = 3.738 \cdot10^{-2} \pm 4 \cdot10^{-4}\quad s^{-1} \mbox{.}
$$
There are several steps of the background electrons in
Fig.~\ref{fig2}~--Fig.\ref{fig4}.
Fig. ~\ref{fig4} shows the count of electrons flowing out of the
magnetic trap after opening the magnetic shutter.
All results for different reading-out intervals were received
over a period of more than 100 days. The paper \cite{VV2}
described the scheme and description of the
experimental set-up in more details.
\section{Decay asymmetry and neutron lifetime}
\label{sect3:DAs}
The well-known phenomenon of electron-spin asymmetry of the neutron
beta decay $n \to p+e^{-}+\tilde \nu$ reveals itself in the fact that neutron
decays with an electron emitting in the direction of the neutron spin occur
less frequently than neutron decays with an electron emitting against
the neutron spin direction. The neutron decay probability
\cite{Jacks} modified for decay electrons emitting is
$$
dW(E_e,\Theta_e)=W_0dE_ed\Theta_e\left(1+A\cdot\frac{v_e}{c}
\cdot\cos\theta_e\right) \mbox{,} \eqno (7)
$$
where $A$ is the correlation coefficient of the electron emission with the direction
of the neutron spin, $\theta_e$ is an electron emission angle
relative to the direction of the neutron spin,
$\Theta_e$ is a solid angle of electron emission, $\frac{v_e}{c}$ is an electron helicity,
and $W_0$ is a constant. From numerous experiments \cite{PDG} it is known
that the coefficient $A = - 0.1173 \pm 0.0013$. Thus, neutron decays with electron
emission in the direction of the neutron spin and against the spin differ qualitatively and
quantitatively. The decay asymmetry in case of a transversely polarized neutron beam
is the relative difference of the electrons emitted in the direction of the neutron spin
and against the direction of the neutron spin. However, the fact that even with
a completely depolarized ensemble of neutrons, the asymmetry of decay leads
to two different frequencies of electron generation in the decay region remains
unnoticed. Nevertheless, the asymmetry of neutron decay is a phenomenon of
existence of two $\beta$-decay constants, i.e. two reduced decay frequencies
defined at different subsets of neutrons. The total set $T$ of neutrons is a sum
of two subsets. Those are the subset of $L$-neutrons with decays by an electron
ejection against the direction of the neutron spin ($L$-channel) and the subset
of $R$-neutrons, decaying with the emission of an electron in the direction of
the neutron spin ($R$-channel). Hence $T=L\cup R$ and the number of neutrons
$N_T$ in the total set $T$ is the sum of $L$-neutrons ($L$-subset) and $R$-neutrons
($R$-subset): $N_T=N_L+N_R$. Without loss of generality the decay constants
for these neutron sets are equal to
$$
\lambda_S=\frac{1}{N_{S}}\cdot\frac{dN_{S}}{dt}\mbox{,} \eqno (8)
$$
where $S=T, L, R$.
Differentiation of the sum $N_T$ in the expression (8) for $S=T$ with the
subsequent insularity of the partial constants for $S=L$ and $S=R$
leads to the expression:
$$
\lambda_T=\lambda_L \cdot W_L+ \lambda_R \cdot W_R \mbox{.} \eqno (9)
$$
Here the total decay constant $\lambda_T$ has the form of a weighted average
of the partial constants $\lambda_L$ and $\lambda_R$.
The weights $W_L$ and $W_R$, when use the parallel decay rule \cite[ p. 344]{Blatt} as
$\frac{N_R}{N_L}=\frac{\lambda_R}{\lambda_L}$
are the following relations
$$
W_L=\frac{N_L}{N_L + N_R}=\frac{\lambda_L}{\lambda_L + \lambda_R} \mbox{,} \eqno (10.1)
$$
$$
W_R=\frac{N_R}{N_L + N_R}=\frac{\lambda_R}{\lambda_L + \lambda_R} \mbox{.} \eqno (10.2)
$$
The lifetime of neutrons in every $S$-set is
$\tau_{NS} = \frac {1} {\lambda_S}$
and the total lifetime on the full set $T$ is equal to
$\tau_{NT} = \frac {1} {\lambda_T}$.
Therefore, a record for the total lifetime follows from (9) in the form of
a weighted average value, namely:
$$
\tau_{NT}=\tau_{NL} \cdot W_{\tau L}+\tau_{NR} \cdot W_{\tau R}\mbox{,} \eqno (11)
$$
where the weights for the partial lifetimes receive the following forms:
$$
W_{\tau L} = \frac{\tau^2_{NR}}{\tau^2_{NL}+\tau^2_{NR}}\mbox{,} \eqno (12.1)
$$
$$
W_{\tau R} = \frac{\tau^2_{NL}}{\tau^2_{NL}+\tau^2_{NR}}\mbox{.} \eqno (12.2)
$$
The introduced partial decay constants receive the following dependence on
the asymmetry parameter $\Delta$
$$
\lambda_L=\lambda_0\cdot (1+\Delta) \mbox{,} \eqno (13.1)
$$
$$
\lambda_R=\lambda_0\cdot (1-\Delta) \mbox{,} \eqno (13.2)
$$
where $\lambda_0$ is the arithmetic mean of the introduced constants,
$\Delta=A\cdot\frac{\bar v_e}{c}$ , where $\frac{\bar v_e}{c}$ is the
average helicity of electrons emitted during neutron decay.
The average helicity of electrons can be calculated from the electronic
neutron decay spectrum, for example, from the results of \cite{Robsn}.
The partial lifetimes are
$$
\tau_{NL}=\tau_{NCenter} \cdot (1-\Delta) \mbox{,} \eqno (14.1)
$$
$$
\tau_{NR}= \tau_{NCenter} \cdot (1+\Delta) \mbox{,} \eqno (14.2)
$$
where $\tau_{NCenter}$ is a central neutron life time , i.e. the central
point between values of $\tau_{NL}$ and $\tau_{NR}$ .
The weighted average decay constant $\lambda_T$ is related to the average
decay constant $\lambda_0$ as follows:
$$
\lambda_T=\lambda_0 \cdot (1+\Delta^2) \mbox{.} \eqno (15)
$$
The total neutron lifetime $\tau_{NT}$ vs $\Delta$ is
$$
\tau_{NT}=
\tau_{NCenter} \cdot \left(1-\frac{2 \cdot \Delta^2}{1+\Delta^2}\right) \mbox{.} \eqno (16)
$$
Therefore, the dependence of the error functional (5) on the trial lifetime is symmetrical with respect to the point $\tau_{NCenter}$. Then the weighted average lifetime according to (16) is to the left of the center of symmetry.
The goal of this study, therefore, turned out to be two-fold.
Firstly, it is a direct determination of an experimental value for the observed neutron lifetime, i.e. the weighted average neutron lifetime.
On the other hand, it became necessary to determine the value of the ``central'' neutron lifetime. In the case of a convincing correspondence between a determined displacement value and a calculated value (16), it is advisable to introduce new physical quantities into the physical dictionary -- the lifetimes of $L$-neutrons and $R$-neutrons and to estimate their numerical values using formulas (14.1) and (14.2).
\section{Direct determination of the neutron lifetime from the experimental data}
\label{sect4:DDED}
The interval of the trial lifetime from 860 seconds to 940 seconds is quite
informative for solving the given problem. This interval includes
the results of measurements of the lifetime of the last three decades.
To determine the neutron lifetime, it is necessary to find the minimum value
of the scale-factor $\mu$, providing the condition of ``reduction-to-one''.
This condition means that the minimum point of the error
functional is the closest to the unity for any data series in the considered
range of the lifetime.
The ``reduction-to-one'' is applied to the data shown in Fig. ~\ref{fig2}--Fig.~\ref{fig4}
for various values of the scale step in the indicated range of the trial
neutron lifetime $\tau$. The results of the data processing
are illustrated by Fig. ~\ref{fig5}--Fig.~\ref{fig7}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{fig5_sigma_152}
\caption{ Error functional dependence on trial lifetime for S-152.}
\label{fig5}
\end{figure}
Fig. ~\ref{fig5} shows the result of the reduction-to-one
for the S-152 series with $p=3$. The closest to the unity is
the value of the functional minimum equal to 1.074, corresponding to
the lifetime of 883.305 s for the scale-factor $\mu =72$. At the same
scale-factor $\mu$, minimums of the functional of the second, third and
fourth orders of accuracy reached a good agreement. The value for
the neutron lifetime is
$\tau_{NT}=(529983\pm10)\cdot\frac{1}{6}\cdot10^{-2}$ s
after using the half-width of the parabola of the third order functional
at height $\chi^2=1.2$.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{fig6_sigma_71_81}
\caption{ Error functional dependence on trial lifetime for S-71 and S-81.}
\label{fig6}
\end{figure}
Fig. ~\ref{fig6} shows the results of the reduction-to-one for
the S-71 (1) and S-81 (2) series separately. The dependence of the average
weighted functional over two series on the lifetime gives the result for
the neutron lifetime $\tau_{NT}=(264992\pm7)\cdot\frac{1}{3}\cdot10^{-2}$ s.
Thus, the complete result for the neutron lifetime is
$\tau_{NT}=883.31\pm0.02$ s, 95\%, $CL$.
All these facts prove the following:
a) both independent data series S-71 and S-81 are qualitatively homogeneous
and describe electrons from the decay of neutrons without admixture
of an additional background;
b) the results of independent data series S-71 and S-81 are compatible
within statistical errors, reasonably processed together and do not require
an additional introduction of a systematic error to describe the consolidated result.
Therefore, the applied method has reached its goal of eliminating known
systematic errors for higher accuracy in the experimental determination of
the neutron lifetime.
Additional studies were made to prove the existence of a common center of
symmetry of the error functional on the trial lifetime interval
from 895 to 905 seconds for all orders of accuracy $p = 0, 1, 2, \cdots $.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{fig7_symmetry}
\caption{Center of symmetry of the error functional for S-152 at $\mu=72$}
\label{fig7}
\end{figure}
Fig.~\ref{fig7} shows results for the scale-factor $\mu=72$ by dependencies
(1)-(3) of error functional $F_{\mu,p}(\tau)$: (1) integers ($p = 0$); (2) $p=1$; (3) $p=2$.
The coincidence of the minimums of all three orders of the functional on the
$\tau$-scale at the point of 899.975 s, with symmetry of the left and right wings
of the functional shows that this point is the center of symmetry and confirms
the result of \cite{VV2}. This value can serve as an estimate of
the so-called ``central'' neutron lifetime.
The symmetry of the coordinates of the jumps of the functional (3) with respect
to this $\tau_{NCenter}=899.975$ s point also confirms its central position.
The dependence of the functional on the trial lifetime allows determining
the value of the central neutron lifetime with a completely moderate error
$\tau_{NCenter}=(179995\pm 4)\cdot 5 \cdot 10^{-3}$ s. It is important
to emphasize that the error functional in the range of the trial lifetime of
750-1050 s has only one specified center of symmetry for all accuracy level $p$.
\section{Upper limit of a systematic error}
\label{sect5:SYS}
As a source of systematic error, a hypothetical difference between the electrons
flowing through the closed magnetic shutter and the electrons flowing onto
the detector through the open magnetic shutter may appear. If only the electrons
of the first type are presented in the first S-71 series, then in the second S-81
series there is a fraction of electrons of the second type providing
the maximum values of the counting rate.
The result indicated in Fig.~\ref{fig6} proves that the independently
obtained lifetime values in these series are mutually compatible within the
statistical error. In the case of functional (1), the result is $883.29 \pm 0.03$ s,
and in the case of functional (2), the result is $883.33 \pm 0.03$ s.
The errors indicated here are equal to the half-width of the parabolas at the level $\chi^2=1.3$.
It means that the displacement is within the limits of the statistical errors
at 95$\% CL$.
Calculation of the half-sum of these lifetimes and its error gives
$\tau_{NT}=883.31\pm 0.02$ s, and comparison with the result
shown in Fig. ~\ref{fig5} confirms complete coincidence. Moreover,
the minimums of the functional for S-152, $\mu=72$ at $p=2$,
$p=3$ and $p=4$ coincide in those limits altogether.
Nevertheless, the fact that the minimums at the accuracy $p=4$
shift from 883.29 s for S-71 to 883.33 s for S-81 gives
a reason to interpret it due to some unaccounted factors and to introduce
on this basis a systematic error equal to the half of the bias value.
Thus, the estimate of the systematic error is 0.02 s, and the result for
the neutron lifetime as a weighted average is
$\tau_{NT}=883.31 \pm 0.02(stat.)\pm 0.02(sys.)$ s, $95\% CL$.
In the same format, the central neutron lifetime has got the following
value $\tau_{NCenter}=899.98 \pm 0.02(stat.) \pm 0.02(sys.)$ s.
\section{Discussion of the result}
\label{sect6:DISR}
In details the previous two results in the introduction are
$$
887.7 \pm 1.2 (stat.) \pm 1.9 (syst.) \quad \mbox{s}
$$ for the beam method,
and
$$
881.5 \pm 0.7 (stat.) \pm 0.6 (syst.) \quad \mbox{s}
$$
for the storage method.
Taking into account limits within double total errors for these two results,
it is easy to note the coincidence of the result of this work with the lower limit
for the first result (883.3 s) and with the upper limit for the second result (883.3 s) .
Therefore, a good agreement between these three results, including the presented
one, is evident.
It also means that there are no grounds for any conclusions about the
so-called "neutron anomaly" as a possible interpretation of the difference
between the two mentioned results of measuring the neutron lifetime.
A side and unexpected result of the present research is the above evidence of
the difference between the two obtained neutron lifetimes, the first of them
is the weighted average value and the second is the "central" lifetime of neutron.
Within the error limits (0.02 s), the obtained value
of the weighted average neutron lifetime in a more convenient form is
$$
\tau_{NT}=900 \cdot \frac{53}{54} \quad \mbox{s,}
$$
while the central lifetime is $\tau_{NCenter}\approx 900$ s within the same error.
The value of the relative shift
$$
\delta=\frac{\tau_{NCenter} - \tau_{NT}}{\tau_{NCenter}+\tau_{NT}}
$$
is a characteristic of the displacement of the weighted average lifetime relative to
the central lifetime. Then the estimate of the relative shift is
$$
\delta=\frac{1}{107} \mbox{.}
$$
The weighted average lifetime is connected with the central lifetime as
$$
\tau_{NT}=\tau_{NCenter} \cdot \left(1-\frac{2 \cdot \delta}{1+\delta}\right) \mbox{.}
\eqno (17)
$$
From (16) $\delta$ is interpreted as $\delta=\Delta^2$.
The obtained value for $\Delta=\frac{1}{\sqrt{107}}$ is in a good agreement with $A = - 0.1173 \pm 0.001$
and $\frac{\bar v_e}{c}=0.824$. This value for the average helicity is confirmed
by the spectrum of electrons from the neutron decay \cite{Robsn}.
Thus, the displacement of the weighted average neutron lifetime relative to the
so-called central lifetime is a consequence of the electron-spin asymmetry of neutron decay.
The main purpose of this research is the direct determination of the observed neutron lifetime.
Nevertheless, it is easy to predict from the displacement the numerical values for
the lifetime of $L$-neutrons $\tau_{NL}$ (14.1) and
the lifetime of $R$-neutrons $\tau_{NR}$ (14.2). They are the following:
$$
\tau_{NL}=(2 \cdot 3 \cdot 5)^2 \cdot \left (1-\frac{1}{\sqrt{107}} \right) \quad \mbox{s,}
$$
$$
\tau_{NR}=(2 \cdot 3 \cdot 5)^2 \cdot \left (1+\frac{1}{\sqrt{107}} \right) \quad \mbox{s.}
$$
The errors of the indicated values are estimated not exceeding 0.08 s.
A direct determination of these parameters of the neutron ~$\beta$-decay will make
it possible in the future to indicate their values more accurately.
Now it is worth noticing that the weighted average of the mentioned above
values of $\tau_{NL}$ and $\tau_{NR}$ is in a good agreement with
the neutron lifetime obtained in this research from the experimental data.
This can be easily verified using numerical expressions for the lifetime weights of
(12.1) and (12.2), namely:
$$
W_{\tau L}=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\sqrt{107}}{108} \mbox{,}
$$
$$
W_{\tau R}=\frac{1}{2}-\frac{\sqrt{107}}{108} \mbox{.}
$$
The calculation result by formula (11) gives 883.33 s
that coincides with the experimental result of this work within $\pm 0.01$ s.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sect7:CONCL}
Using the proposed method, the neutron lifetime is determined with
the accuracy of 0.02 s. The system of differential equations of decay
with a step-wise variation of the number of neutrons turned out
to be a sufficient tool for determining the neutron lifetime by
the modified least-squares method.
Traditional sources of systematic errors inherent in the beam method of measuring
the neutron lifetime are successfully excluded. As a result, the accuracy of the neutron lifetime is significantly improved. The observed (weighted average) neutron lifetime obtained in this work is expressed in primes as
$$
\tau_{NT}=2 \cdot 5^2 \cdot \frac{53}{3} \quad \mbox{s}
$$
within no more than 0.03 s (taking into account the introduced systematic error).
In addition to the main result, estimates of the effect of splitting the neutron lifetime
are obtained. It is indicated that neutron decay can be described by two lifetimes:
$L$-neutron lifetime and $R$-neutron lifetime, differing in the sign of the scalar
product of the electron momentum and the neutron spin. The estimation results
correspond to the known parameters of the electron-spin asymmetry of the neutron decay.
This fact provides the grounds for introducing new quantities - $L$-neutron lifetime
and the $R$-neutron lifetime into the neutron ~$\beta$ -decay physics.
The obtained interval of neutron lifetimes from $\tau_{NL} = 813$ s to
$\tau_{NR} = 987$ s gives an explanation of the range of experimental values
obtained over the 70-year history of of the neutron lifetime measurements.
This method opens up the prospect of reducing the neutron lifetime errors
to thousandths of a second.
\begin{acknowledgements}
The author is deeply grateful to V.V. Vladimirsky for his personal support.
The author is grateful to the staff of the UCN-ITEP group - V. F. Belkin, A. A. Belonozhenko, N. I. Kozlov, E. N. Mospan, A. Yu. Karpov, I. B. Rozhnin, A.M. Salomatin , V.G. Frankovskaya, and also and especially G.M. Kukavadze and S.P. Boroblev for the creation and operation of the KENTAVR set-up at the ITEP HWR reactor.
\end{acknowledgements}
|
\section{Introduction and statement of the results}
Let $X$ be a compact metric space that is endowed with the
metric $d$. We call $(X, T)$ a \textit{topological dynamical system} (TDS), if $T: X\rightarrow X$ is a
continuous map on the compact metric space $X$.
We denote by $\mathcal{M}(X,T)$ the space of all $T$-invariant Borel probability measures on $X$. This space is a nonempty convex set and is compact with respect to the weak-$\ast$ topology. Moreover, we denote by $\mathcal{E}(X, T)\subset \mathcal{M}(X, T)$ the subset of ergodic measures, which are exactly the extremal points of $\mathcal{M}(X, T).$
Let $f:X\rightarrow \mathbb R$ be a continuous function. We denote by $S_{n}f(x):=\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}f(T^{k}(x))$ the \textit{Birkhoff sum}, and we call
\begin{equation}\label{Birkhoff}
\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{n}S_{n}f(x)
\end{equation}
a \textit{Birkhoff average}.
By Birkhoff theorem, for every $\mu \in \mathcal{M}(X, T)$ and $\mu$-almost every $x\in X$, the Birkhoff average is well-defined. We denote by $\beta(f)$ and $\alpha(f)$ the supremum and infimum of the Birkhoff average over $x\in X$, respectively; we call these numbers the \textit{maximal and minimal ergodic averages of $f$}.
We say that $\Phi:=\{\log \phi_{n}\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ is a \textit{subadditive potential} if each $\phi_{n}$ is a continuous positive-valued function on $X$ such that
\[ 0 < \phi_{n+m}(x) \leq \phi_{n}(x) \phi_{m}(T^{n}(x)) \hspace{0,2cm} \forall x\in X, m,n \in \mathbb N.\]
Furthermore, $\Phi=\{\log\phi_{n}\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ is said to be an \textit{almost additive potential} if there exists a constant $C \geq 1$ such that for any $m,n \in \mathbb N$, $x\in X$, we have
\[ C^{-1}\phi_{n}(x)\phi_{m}(T^{n})(x) \leq \phi_{n+m}(x)\leq C \phi_{n}(x) \phi_{m}(T^{n}(x)).\]
We also say that $\Phi=\{\log\phi_{n}\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ is an \textit{additive potential} if
\[\phi_{n+m}(x)=\phi_{n}(x)\phi_{m}(T^{n}(x)) \hspace{0,2cm} \forall x\in X, m,n \in \mathbb N;\]
in this case, $\phi_{n}(x) = e^{S_n\log \phi_1(x)}$.
If $\mu$ is an ergodic invariant probability measure, then the Birkhoff average converges to $\int f d \mu$ for $\mu-$ almost all points, but there are plenty of ergodic invariant measures, for which the limit exists
but converges to a different quantity. Moreover, there are plenty of points
which are not generic points for any ergodic measure or even for which
the Birkhoff average does not exist. So, one may ask about the size of the set of points
\[E_{f}(\alpha)=\{x\in X : \frac{1}{n} S_{n}f(x)\rightarrow \alpha \hspace{0.2cm}\textrm{as}\hspace{0.2cm}n\rightarrow \infty \} ,\]
which we call $\alpha$\textit{-level set of Birkhoff spectrum}, for a given value $\alpha$ from the set
\[ L=\{\alpha \in \mathbb R: \exists x \in X \hspace{0.2cm}\textrm{and} \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\frac{1}{n}S_{n}f(x)=\alpha\},\]
which we call \textit{Birkhoff spectrum.}
That size is usually
calculated in terms of topological entropy (see Subsection \ref{top_entropy}). Let $Z\subset X$, we denote by $h_{top}(T, Z)$ topological entropy of $T$ restricted to $Z$ or, simply, the topological
entropy of $Z$, denote $h_{top}(Z),$ when there is no confusion about $T$. In particular we write $h_{top}(T)$ for
$h_{top}(T,X)$.
We investigate the end points of Birkhoff spectrum, i.e., $\alpha(f)$ and $\beta(f)$. Since $\alpha(f)=-\beta(-f)$, let us focus on the quantity $\beta$. It can also be characterized as
\[ \beta(f)=\sup_{\mu \in \mathcal{M}(X, T)}\int f d\mu.\]
By the compactness of $\mathcal{M}(X, T)$, there is at least one measure $\mu \in \mathcal{M}(X, T)$ for which $\beta(f)=\int f d\mu$; such measures are called \textit{Birkhoff maximizing measures}.
It is well-known (see, e.g. \cite{Ol}, \cite{Fe03}, \cite{FFW}) when $(X, T)$ is a transitive subshift of finite type and $f$
is an additive potential, then
\[ E_{f}(\alpha)\neq \emptyset \Leftrightarrow \alpha \in \Omega :=\{ \int f d\mu : \mu \in \mathcal{M}(X,T)\},\]
and
\begin{align*}
h_{top}(E_{f}(\alpha))&=\inf_{t\in \mathbb R}\{P_{f}(t)-\alpha t : t\in \mathbb R\}\\
&=\sup\{h_{\mu}(T): \mu \in \mathcal{M}(X, T) \hspace{0.2cm}\textrm{with}\int f d\mu= \alpha\}\hspace{0.2cm}\forall \alpha\in \Omega,\stepcounter{equation}\tag{\theequation}\label{myeq1}
\end{align*}
Where $P_{f}(t)$ the topological pressure for a potential $tf$ (see \cite{PU}).
In the almost additive potentials case, (\ref{myeq1}) was proven by Feng and Huang \cite{FH} under certain assumptions. In the subadditve potentials case, Feng and Huang \cite{FH} proved a similar result for $t>0$ under the upper semi continuity entropy assumption.
A natural example of subadditive potentials is matrix cocycles. More precisely, given a continuous map $\mathcal{A}:X \rightarrow GL(k, \mathbb R)$ taking values into the space $k \times k$ invertible matrices. We consider the products
\[ \mathcal{A}^{n}(x)=\mathcal{A}(T^{n-1}(x)) \ldots \mathcal{A}(T(x))\mathcal{A}(x).\]
The pair $(T, \mathcal{A})$ is called a \textit{linear cocycle}. That induces a skew-product dynamics $F$ on $X\times \mathbb R^{k}$ by $(x, v)\mapsto X\times \mathbb R^{k}$, whose $n$-th iterate is therefore \[(x, v)\mapsto (T^{n}(x), \mathcal{A}^{n}(x)v).\] If $T$ is invertible then so is $F$. Moreover, $F^{-n}(x)=(T^{-n}(x), \mathcal{A}^{-n}(x)v)$ for each $n\geq1$, where
\[\mathcal{A}^{-n}(x):=\mathcal{A}(T^{-n}(x))^{-1}\mathcal{A}(T^{-n+1}(x))^{-1}...\mathcal{A}(T^{-1}(x))^{-1}.\]
In general, one could consider vector bundles over $X$ instead of $X \times \mathbb R^{d}$, and then consider bundle endomorphisms that fiber over $T:X\rightarrow X.$
A simple class of linear cocycles is \textit{locally constant cocycles} which is defined as follows. Assume that $X=\{1,...,q\}^{\mathbb Z}$ is a symbolic space. Suppose that $T:X \rightarrow X$ is a shift map, i.e. $T(x_{l})_{l}=(x_{l+1})_{l}$. Given a finite set of matrices $\mathcal{A} =\{A_{1},\ldots,A_{q}\} \subset GL(k, \mathbb R)$, we define the function $\mathcal{A}:X \rightarrow GL(k, \mathbb R)$ by $\mathcal{A}(x)=A_{x_{0}}.$ In this case, we say that$(T,\mathcal{A})$ is a locally constant cocycle.
By Kingman’s subadditive ergodic theorem, for any $\mu \in \mathcal{M}(X, T)$ and $\mu$ almost every $x\in X$ such that $\log^{+} \|\mathcal{A}\| \in L^{1}(\mu)$, the following limit, called the \textit{top Lyapunov exponent} at $x$, exists:
\begin{equation}\label{number}
\chi(x, \mathcal{A}):= \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\frac{1}{n}\log \|\mathcal{A}^{n}(x)\|,
\end{equation}
where $\|\mathcal{A}\|$ the Euclidean operator norm of a matrix $\mathcal{A}$, that is submultiplicative i.e.,
\[ 0< \|\mathcal{A}^{n+m}(x)\| \leq \|\mathcal{A}^{n}(x)\| \|\mathcal{A}^{m}(T^{n}(x))\| \hspace{0.2cm}\forall x\in X, m,n\in \mathbb N,\]
therefore, the potential $\Phi_{\mathcal{A}}:=\{\log \|\mathcal{A}^{n}\|\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ is subadditive.
Let us denote $\chi(\mu, \mathcal{A})=\int \chi(. , \mathcal{A} )d\mu.$ If the measure $\mu$ is ergodic, then $\chi(x, \mathcal{A})=\chi(\mu, \mathcal{A})$ for $\mu$-almost every $x\in X.$
Similarly to what we did for Birkhoff average (\ref{Birkhoff}), one can either maximize or minimize top Lyapunov exponent (\ref{number}); the corresponding quantities will be denoted by $\beta(\mathcal{A})$ and $\alpha(\mathcal{A})$, respectively; we call these numbers the \textit{maximal and minimal Lyapunov exponents of $\mathcal{A}$}. However, this time the maximization and the minimization problems are totally different. Even though $\beta(\mathcal{A})$ is always attained by at least one measure (which is called a \textit{Lyapunov maximizing measure}), that is not necessarily the case for the minimal Lyapunov exponent $\alpha(\mathcal{A})$. In fact, in the locally constant cocycles case, Bochi and Morris \cite{BM} investigated the continuity properties of the minimal Lyapunov exponent. They showed that $\alpha(\mathcal{A})$ is Lipschitz continuous at $\mathcal{A}$ under $1-$domination assumption. Breuillard and Sert \cite{BS} extended Bochi and Morris's result to the joint spectrum under domination condition. In this case the $\chi(\mu, \mathcal{A})$ depends continuously on the measure $\mu$.
Feng \cite{Fe03} proved (\ref{myeq1}) for continuous positive matrix-valued functions on the one side shift. He (see \cite{F}, \cite{FH}) also proved the first part (\ref{myeq1}) for locally constant cocycles under the irreducibility assumption.
The linear cocycles generated by the derivative of a diffeomorphism map or a smooth map $T:X\rightarrow X$ on a closed Riemannian manifold $X$ and a family of maps $\mathcal{A}(x):=D_{x}T: T_{x} X\rightarrow T_{T(x)}X$ are called \textit{derivative cocycles}. Moreover, when $T:X\rightarrow X$ is an Anosov diffeomorphism (or expanding map), Bowen \cite{B} showed that there exists a symbolic coding of $T$ by a subshift of finite type. Therefore, one can replace the derivative cocycle of a uniformly hyperbolic map by a linear cocycle over a subshift of finite type. In general, we know much more about locally constant cocycles than about the more general derivative cocycles.
In this paper, we are interested in linear cocycles $(T, \mathcal{A})$ generated by $GL(k, \mathbb R)-$\\valued functions $\mathcal{A}$ over two side subshifts of finite type $(\Sigma, T)$.
We denote by $\mathcal{L}$ the set of admissible words of $\Sigma$. For any $\mathcal{A}:\Sigma \rightarrow GL(k, \mathbb R)$ and $I\in \mathcal{L}$, we define
\begin{equation}\label{defini1}
\|\mathcal{A}(I)\|:=\max_{x\in [I]} \|\mathcal{A}^{|I|}(x)\|.
\end{equation}
We define a positive continuous function $\{\varphi_{\mathcal{A}, n}\}_{n\in \mathbb N}$ on $\Sigma$ such that
\[\varphi_{\mathcal{A}, n}(x):=\|\mathcal{A}^{n}(x)\|.\]
We denote by $\Phi_{\mathcal{A}}$ the subbadditive potential $\{\log \varphi_{\mathcal{A}, n}\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$.
We say that $\mathcal{A}$ is \textit{quasi-multiplicative} if there exist $C>0$ and $m\in \mathbb N$ such that for every $I, J \in \mathcal{L}$, there exists $K\in \mathcal{L}$ with $|K|\leq m$ such that $IKJ \in \mathcal{L}$ and
\[\|\mathcal{A}(IKJ)\|\geq C \|\mathcal{A}(I)\|\|\mathcal{A}(J)\|.\]
We define the \textit{typical cocycles} as follows. We assume that $T:\Sigma \rightarrow \Sigma$ is a topologically mixing subshift of finite type. We denote by $H^{r}(\Sigma, GL(k, \mathbb R))$ the space of all $r-$H\"older continuous functions. We also denote by $H_{b}^{r}(\Sigma, GL(k, \mathbb R))$ the space of all $r-$H\"older continuous and fiber bunched functions, which says that the cocycles are nearly conformal. Bonatti and Viana \cite{BV1} introduced the notion of \textit{typical
cocycles} among fiber-bunched cocycles (see Definitions \ref{typical1} and \ref{typical2} for precise formulations). The set
\[\mathcal{W}:=\{\mathcal{A}\in H_{b}^{r}(\Sigma, GL(k, \mathbb R)) : \mathcal{A} \textrm{ is typical} \},\]
is open in $H_{b}^{r}(\Sigma, GL(k, \mathbb R))$, and also Bonatti and Viana \cite{BV1} proved that $\mathcal{W}$ is dense in
$H_{b}^{r}(\Sigma, GL(k, \mathbb R))$ and that its complement has infinite codimension, i.e., it is contained in finite unions of closed submanifolds with arbitrary codimension.
We denote $E(\alpha)=E_{\Phi}(\alpha)$ when there is no confusion about $\Phi.$
Our main results are Theorems A, B, C and D formulated as follows:
\begin{thmA}\label{thmA} Let $\mathcal{A}\in \mathcal{W}$. Then,
\[L=\overline{\{\alpha, \hspace{0.2cm} h_{top}(E(\alpha))>0\}}.\]
Furthermore, $\alpha \mapsto h_{top}(E(\alpha))$ is concave in $\alpha \in \mathring{L}.$
\end{thmA}
\begin{thmB}\label{thmB}
Suppose that $\mathcal{A}:\Sigma \rightarrow GL(k, \mathbb R)$ belongs to typical functions $\mathcal{W}$. Then,
\begin{align*}
h_{top}(E(\alpha))&=
\sup\{h_{\mu}(T) : \mu\in \mathcal{M}(\Sigma, T), \chi(\mu, \mathcal{A})=\alpha\}\\
&=\inf\{P_{\Phi_{\mathcal{A}}}(q)-\alpha. q : q\in \mathbb R \} \hspace{0.2cm}\forall \alpha \in \mathring{\Omega}\stepcounter{equation}\tag{\theequation}\label{second_eq},
\end{align*}
where $\Omega:=\{\chi(\mu, \mathcal{A}) : \mu \in \mathcal{M}(\Sigma, T)\}.$
\end{thmB}
Barreira and Gelfert \cite{BG06} first obtained similar results for repellers of $C^{1+\alpha}$ maps satisfying
the cone condition (see Section \ref{5}) and bounded distortion. Feng and Huang \cite[Theorem 4.8]{FH} improved the result to subadditive potentials for $q \in \mathbb R_{+}$ (see \eqref{second_eq}), and then Park \cite[Corollary 6.6]{P} used their result for cocycles that are quasi-multiplicative. We extend the result for $q \in \mathbb R$ (see \eqref{second_eq}).
We show the continuity of the entropy spectrum of Lyapunov exponents for
generic matrix cocycles.
\begin{thmC}\label{thmC}
Suppose $\mathcal{A}_{l}, \mathcal{A}\in \mathcal{W}$ with $\mathcal{A}_{l} \rightarrow \mathcal{A}$, and $t_{l},t\in \mathbb R_{+}$ such that $t_{l}\rightarrow t.$
Let $\alpha_{t_{l}}=P_{\Phi_{\mathcal{A}_{l}}}^{'}(t_{l})$ and $\alpha_{t}=P_{\Phi_{\mathcal{A}}}^{'}(t)$. Then
\[\lim_{l\rightarrow \infty} h_{top}(E_{\mathcal{A}_{l}}(\alpha_{l})) =h_{top}(E_{\mathcal{A}}(\alpha)).\]
Moreover,
\[ h_{top}(E(\alpha_{t})) \rightarrow h_{top}(E(\beta(\mathcal{A})) \hspace{0,2cm}\textrm{when}\hspace{0,2cm} t \rightarrow \infty.\]
\end{thmC}
We also investigate the continuity of the minimal Lyapunov exponents for general cocycles. We prove the continuity of the minimal Lyapunov exponent under a cone condition. Moreover, our result implies the continuity of the minimal Lyapunov exponent under 1-domination assumption.
\begin{thmD}\label{thmD}
Let $(X, T)$ be a topologically mixing subshift of finite type. Suppose that $\mathcal{A}_{n}, \mathcal{A}:X \rightarrow GL(k, \mathbb R)$ are matrix cocycles over $(X, T)$, and $\Phi_{\mathcal{A}}$ has bounded distortion. Assume that $(C_x)_{x\in X}$ is an invariant cone field on $X$ \footnote{See Section \ref{5}.}. Then $\alpha(\mathcal{A}_{n}) \rightarrow \alpha(\mathcal{A})$ when $\mathcal{A}_{n}\rightarrow \mathcal{A}.$
\end{thmD}
In this paper, we also obtain the high dimensional versions of Theorems A, B, and C.
The paper divides into two parts. The first part contains Sections \ref{2}, \ref{3} and \ref{4}, where we introduce necessary notions and results needed to state Theorems A, B and C as well as the proofs of Theorems A, B and C, and the second part contains Section \ref{5}, where we introduce necessary notions and results needed to state Theorem D and its proof.
\textbf{\textit{Acknowledgements.}}
The author thanks Micha{\l} Rams for his careful reading of an earlier version of this paper and many helpful discussions. In particular, the author thanks Micha{\l} for helping with Proposition \ref{prop:add}. He would also like to thank Aaron Brown and Cagri Sert for introducing papers \cite{P} and \cite{BS}. Finally, he thanks the referee for corrections and suggestions that helped improve the paper.
Much of this work was completed at IMPAN in 2016-2020, and was partially supported by the National Science Center grant 2019/33/B/ST1/00275 (Poland).
\section{Preliminaries}\label{2}
In this section, we recall some basic facts and definitions that we need to prove main theorems.
\subsection{Symbolic dynamics}
In this section, we recall some definitions and basic facts related to subshift of finite type. For more information see \cite{LM}.
Let $Q=(q_{ij})$ be a $k\times k$ with $q_{ij}\in \{0, 1\}.$
The one side subshift of finite type associated to the matrix $Q$ is a left shift map $T:\Sigma_{Q}^{+}\rightarrow \Sigma_{Q}^{+}$ meaning that, $T(x_{n})_{n\in \mathbb N_{0}}=(x_{n+1})_{n\in \mathbb N_{0}}$, where $\Sigma_{Q}^{+}$ is the set of sequences
\[ \Sigma_{Q}^{+}:=\{x=(x_{i})_{i\in \mathbb N_{0}} : x_{i}\in \{1,...,k\} \hspace{0.2cm}\textrm{and} \hspace{0.1cm}Q_{x_{i}, x_{i+1}}=1 \hspace{0.2cm}\textrm{for all}\hspace{0.1cm}i\in \mathbb N_{0}\}.\]
Similarly, one defines two sided subshift of finite type $T:\Sigma_{Q}\rightarrow \Sigma_{Q}$, where
\[\Sigma_{Q}:=\{x=(x_{i})_{i\in \mathbb Z} : x_{i}\in \{1,...,k\} \hspace{0.2cm}\textrm{and} \hspace{0.1cm}Q_{x_{i}, x_{i+1}}=1 \hspace{0.2cm}\textrm{for all}\hspace{0.1cm}i\in \mathbb Z\}.\]
When the matrix $Q$ has entries all equal to $1$ we say this is the \textit{full shift}. For simplicity, we denote that $\Sigma_{Q}^{+}=\Sigma^{+}$ and $\Sigma_{Q}=\Sigma$.
We say that $i_{0}...i_{k-1}$ is an \textit{admissible word} if $Q_{i_{n},i_{n+1}}= 1$ for all $0\leq n \leq k-2$. We denote by $\mathcal{L}$ the collection of admissible words. We denote by $|I|$ the length of $I\in \mathcal{L}.$ Denote by $\mathcal{L}(n)$ the set of \textit{admissible words of length $n$}. That is, a word $i_{0},..,i_{n-1}$ with $i_{j}\in \{1,...,k\}$ such that $Q_{x_{i}, x_{i+1}}=1$. One can define \textit{n-th level cylinder} $[I]$ as follows:
\[ [I]=[i_{0}...i_{n-1}]:=\{x\in \Sigma : x_{i}=i_{j} \hspace{0.2cm}\forall \hspace{0.1cm} 0\leq j\leq n-1 \},\]
for any $i_{0}...i_{n-1}\in \mathcal{L}(n).$
Observe that the partition of $\Sigma_Q$ (or $\Sigma_Q^+$) into first level cylinders is generating, for this reason the partition into first level cylinders is the partition canonically used in symbolic dynamics to calculate the metric entropy.
\begin{defn}
The matrix $Q$ is called primitive when there exists $n>0$ such that all the entries of $Q^n$ are positive.
\end{defn}
It is well-known that a subshift of a finite type associated with a primitive matrix $Q$ is \textit{topologically mixing}. That is, for every open nonempty $U, V \subset \Sigma$, there is $N$ such that for every $n\geq N$, $T^{n}(U)\cap V \neq \emptyset.$ We say that $T$ is \textit{topological transitive} if there is a point with dense orbit.
We fix $\omega \in (0,1)$ and consider the space $\Sigma$ is endowed with the metric $d_{\omega}$ which is defined as follows: For $x=(x_{i})_{i\in \mathbb Z}, y=(y_{i})_{i\in \mathbb Z} \in \Sigma$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{metric}
d_{\omega}(x,y)= \omega^{k},
\end{equation}
where $k$ is the largest integer such that $x_{i}=y_{i}$ for all $|i| <k.$ We denote $d:=d_{\omega}$ when there is no confusion about $\omega.$
In the two-sided dynamics, we define the \textit{local stable set}
\[ W_{\loc}^{s}(x)=\{(y_{n})_{n\in \mathbb Z} : x_{n}=y_{n} \hspace{0,2cm}\textrm{for all}\hspace{0.2cm} n\geq 0\} \]
and the \textit{local unstable set}
\[ W_{\loc}^{u}(x)=\{(y_{n})_{n\in \mathbb Z} : x_{n}=y_{n} \hspace{0,2cm}\textrm{for all}\hspace{0.2cm} n<0\} .\]
Furthermore, the global stable and unstable manifolds of $x \in \Sigma$ are
\[W^{s}(x):=\left\{y \in \Sigma: T^{n} y \in W_{\loc}^{s}(T^{n}(x))\text { for some } n \geq 0\right\},\]
\[
W^{u}(x):=\left\{y \in \Sigma: T^{n} y \in W_{\loc}^{u}(T^{n}(x)) \text { for some } n \leq 0\right\}
.\]
If $\Sigma$ is equipped by the metric $d_{\omega}$ (see \eqref{metric}), then the two side subshift of finite type $T:\Sigma \rightarrow \Sigma$ becomes a hyperbolic homeomorphism; see \cite[Subsection 2.3]{AV10}.
\subsection{Multilinear algebra}
We recall some basic facts about the exterior algebra. We use it for studying the singular value function.
We denote by $\sigma_{1},...,\sigma_{k}$ the singular values of the matrix $A$, which are the square roots of the eigenvalues of the positive semi definite matrix $A^{\ast}A$ listed in decreasing order according to multiplicity.
$\{e_{1},..,e_{k}\}$ is the standard orthogonal basis of $\mathbb R^{k}$ and define
\[ \land^{l} \mathbb R^{k} :=\textrm{span} \{e_{i_{1}}\wedge e_{i_{2}} \wedge ... \wedge e_{i_{l}} : 1\leq i_{1}\leq i_{2} \leq ... \leq i_{l}\leq k\}\]
for all $l\in\{1,...,k\}$ with the convention that $\land^{0} \mathbb R^{k}=\mathbb R$. It is called the \textit{l-th exterior power of} $\mathbb R^{k}$. That is a $\binom kl$-dimensional $\mathbb R$-vector space spanned by decomposable vectors $v_1 \wedge \ldots \wedge v_k$ with the usual identifications.
We are interested in the group $k\times k$ invertible matrices of real numbers $GL(k, \mathbb R)$ that can be seen as a subset of $\mathbb R^{k^{2}}$. This space has a
topology induced from $\mathbb R^{k^{2}}$. For $A\in GL(k, \mathbb R)$, we define an invertible linear map $A^{\wedge l} : \land^{l} \mathbb R^{k} \rightarrow \land^{l} \mathbb R^{k}$ as follows
\[ (A^{\wedge l}(e_{i_{1}}\wedge e_{i_{2}} \wedge ... \wedge e_{i_{l}}))= Ae_{i_{1}}\wedge Ae_{i_{2}} \wedge ... \wedge Ae_{i_{l}}.\]
$A^{\wedge l}$ can be represented by a $\binom kl \times \binom kl$ whose entries are the $l \times l$ minors of $A$. It can be also shown that
\[(AB)^{\wedge l}=A^{\wedge l} B^{\wedge l},\]
\[ \|A^{\wedge l}\|=\sigma_{1}(A)...\sigma_{l}(A).\]
\subsection{Fiber bunched cocycles}
We recall that $T:\Sigma \rightarrow \Sigma$ is a topologically mixing subshift of finite type. We say that $\mathcal{A}:\Sigma \rightarrow GL(k, \mathbb R)$ is a r-H\"older continuous function, if there exists $C>0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{hol}
\|\mathcal{A}(x)-\mathcal{A}(y)\|\leq Cd(x,y)^{r} \hspace{0,2cm} \forall x,y \in \Sigma.
\end{equation}
We fix a $\omega \in (0,1)$ and for $r> 0$ we let $H^{r}(\Sigma, GL(k, \mathbb R))$ be the set of r-H\"older continuous functions over the shift with respect to the
metric $d_{\omega}$ on $\Sigma$.
We denote by $h_{r}(\mathcal{A})$ the smallest constant $C$ in (\ref{hol}). We equip the $H^{r}(\Sigma, GL(k, \mathbb R))$ with the distance
\[ D_{r}(A_1, A_2)=\sup_{X}\|A_1 -A_2\|+h_{r}(A_1 - A_2).\]
It is clear the locally constant functions are $\infty$-H\"older i.e, they are $r$-H\"older for every $r>0$, with bounded $h_{r}(\mathcal{A}).$
\begin{defn}\label{holonomy}
A \textit{local stable holonomy} for the linear cocycle $(T, \mathcal{A})$ is a family of matrices $H_{y \leftarrow x}^{s} \in GL(k, \mathbb R)$ defined for all $x\in \Sigma$ with $y\in W_{\loc}^{s}(x)$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item[a)]$H_{x \leftarrow x}^{s}=Id$ and $H_{z \leftarrow y}^{s} o H_{y \leftarrow x}^{s}=H_{z \leftarrow x}^{s}$ for any $z,y \in W_{\loc}^{s}(x)$.
\item[b)] $\mathcal{A}(x)\circ H_{x \leftarrow y}^{s}=H_{T(x) \leftarrow T(y)}^{s}\circ \mathcal{A}(y).$
\item[c)] $(x, y, v)\mapsto H_{y\leftarrow x}(v)$ is continuous.
\end{itemize}
Moreover, if $y\in W_{\loc}^{u}(x)$, then similarly one defines $H_{x \leftarrow y}^{u}$ with analogous properties.
\end{defn}
According to $(b)$ in the above definition, one can extend the definition to the global stable holonomy $H_{y\leftarrow x}^{s}$ for $y\in W^{s}(x)$ not necessarily in $W_{\loc}^{s}(x)$ :
\[ H_{y\leftarrow x}^{s}=\mathcal{A}^{n}(y)^{-1} \circ H_{T^{n}(y)\leftarrow T^{n}(x)}^{s}\circ \mathcal{A}^{n}(x),\]
where
$n\in \mathbb N$ is large enough such that $T^{n}(y)\in W_{\loc}^{s}(T^{n}(x))$. One can extend the definition the global unstable holonomy similarly.
\begin{defn}
A $r-$H\"older continuous function $\mathcal{A}$ is called \textit{fiber bunched} if for any $x\in \Sigma$,
\begin{equation}\label{fiber}
\|\mathcal{A}(x)\|\|\mathcal{A}(x)^{-1}\|\omega^{r}<1.
\end{equation}
\end{defn}
We say that the linear cocycle $(T, \mathcal{A})$ is fiber-bunched if its generator $\mathcal{A}$ is fiber-bunched. Recall that $H_{b}^{r}(\Sigma, GL(k, \mathbb R)))$ is the family of r-H\"older-continuous and fiber bunched functions.
The geometric interpretation of the fiber bunching condition is as follows. Let $\mathcal{A}\in H_{b}^{r}(\Sigma, GL(k, \mathbb R))$. The \textit{projective} cocycle associated to $\mathcal{A}$ and $T$ is the map $\mathbb{P}F:\Sigma \times \mathbb{P}\mathbb R^{k} \rightarrow \Sigma \times \mathbb{P}\mathbb R^{k}$ given by
\[\mathbb{P}F(x, v):=(T(x), \mathbb{P} \mathcal{A}(x)v).\]
We denote by $D\mathcal{A}_{v}$ the derivative of the action $\mathbb{P}\mathbb R^{k} \rightarrow \mathbb{P}\mathbb R^{k}$ on projective space at all points $v\in \mathbb{P}\mathbb R^{k}$. Taking derivative
\[ \|D\mathcal{A}_{v}\|\leq \|\mathcal{A}\| \|\mathcal{A}^{-1}\| \hspace{0.2cm}\textrm{and}\hspace{0.2cm} \|D\mathcal{A}_{v}^{-1}\|\leq \|\mathcal{A}\| \|\mathcal{A}^{-1}\|\]
for all $v\in \mathbb{P}\mathbb R^{k}.$ Therefore, the fiber bunching condition implies that rate of expansion (respectively, contraction) the projective cocycle $\mathbb{P}F$ at every point $x\in \Sigma$ is bounded above by $(\frac{1}\omega)^{r}$ (respectively, below by $\omega^{r}$).
The H\"older continuity and the fiber bunched assumption on $\mathcal{A}\in H_{b}^{r}(\Sigma, GL(k, \mathbb R))$ implies the convergence of the \textit{canonical holonomy} $H^{s \diagup u}$ (see \cite{BGMV}, \cite{KS}). That means, for any $y\in W_{\loc}^{s \diagup u}(x)$,
\[H_{y\leftarrow x}^{s}:=\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\mathcal{A}^{n}(y)^{-1} \mathcal{A}^{n}(x) \hspace{0.2cm}\textrm{and}\hspace{0.2cm}H_{y\leftarrow x}^{u}:=\lim_{n\rightarrow -\infty}\mathcal{A}^{n}(y)^{-1} \mathcal{A}^{n}(x).\]
In addition, when the linear cocycle is fiber bunched, the canonical holonomies vary $r-$H\"older continuously (see \cite{KS}), i.e., there exists $C>0$ such that for $y\in W_{\loc}^{s \diagup u}(x)$,
\[\|H_{x \leftarrow y}^{s \diagup u}-I\|\leq C d(x,y)^{r}.\]
In this paper, we will always work with the canonical holonomies for fiber bunched cocycles.
\begin{rem} Even though the locally constant cocycles are not necessary fiber bunched, the canonical holonomies always exist. Indeed, for every $y\in W^{s}(x)$ there exist $m$ such that $x_n=y_n$ for all $n\geq m$. Then,
\[H_{x \leftarrow y}^{s} =\mathcal{A}^{-1}(x)\cdots\mathcal{A}^{m-1}(x)^{-1} \mathcal{A}^{m-1}(y)\cdots\mathcal{A}(y). \]
In particular
$H_{x \leftarrow y}^{s}= Id,$ for all $y\in W_{\loc}^{s}(x)$.
Similarly, we get the existence of the unstable holonomy.
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}If a linear cocycle is not fiber bunched, then it might admit multiple holonomies (see \cite{KS16}).
\end{rem}
\subsection{Typical cocycles}
We are going to discuss typical cocycles. For details, one is referred to \cite{AV}, \cite{BV1} and \cite{V}.
Suppose that $p\in \Sigma$ is a periodic point of $T$, we say $p\neq z\in \Sigma$ is a \textit{homoclinic point} associated to $p$ if it is the intersection of the stable and unstable manifold of p. That is, $z\in W^{s}(p) \cap W^{u}(p)$ (see figure \ref{fig1}). The set of homoclinic points of any periodic point is dense for hyperbolic systems such as $(\Sigma, T)$.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[paths/.style={<->, thick, >=stealth'}]
\draw[line width=0.5mm] (-2,3.5) -- (8,3.5) node[pos=0.12,above]{\(p\)} ;
\draw[>-<,thick,>=stealth'] (-1.5,3.5) -- (0,3.5);
\coordinate (G) at (0,4.3);
\coordinate (R) at (-0.9,3.1);
\coordinate (B) at (5,3);
\coordinate (D) at (8.2,5);
\draw[smooth,tension=0.7,thick] plot coordinates{(-1.2,3) (0.5,5) (2.2,6) (4.3,4) (5.19,3) (6,2.1)};
\draw[smooth,tension=0.6, <->,thick,>=stealth'] (-1.2,3) --(-0.5,3.9) --(0.39,4.9)--(0.4,4.9)--(0.5,5);
\coordinate [label=above:${z }$] (C) at (4.8,3.45);
\node[point] at (C) {};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Homoclinic point.} \label{fig1}
\label{tikz:decision-tree}
\end{figure}
We define the \textit{holonomy loop}
\[ \psi_{p}^{z}:=H_{p \leftarrow z}^{s} \circ H_{z \leftarrow p}^{u}.\]
\begin{defn}\label{typical1}
Suppose that $\mathcal{A}:\Sigma \rightarrow GL(k, \mathbb R)$ belongs $H_{b}^{r}(\Sigma, GL(k, \mathbb R))$. We say that $\mathcal{A}$ is \textit{1-typical} if there exist a periodic point $p$ and a homoclinic point $z$ associated to $p$ such that:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] the eigenvalues of $\mathcal{A}^{per(p)}(p)$ have multiplicity $1$ and distinct absolute values. Let $\{v_{i}\}_{i=1}^{k}$ be the eigenvectors of $P:=\mathcal{A}^{per(p)}(p).$
\item[(ii)]for any $1\leq i, j\leq k$, $\psi_{p}^{z}(v_{i})$ does not lie in any hyperplane $W_{j}$, where $ W_{j}$ spanned by all eigenvectors of $P$ other than $v_{j}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{defn}
For $k=2$ this second condition means that $\psi_{p}^{z}(v_{i})\neq v_{j}$ for $1 \leq i, j \leq 2$. See Figure \ref{fig2}.\\
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.75]
\tikzset{->-/.style={decoration={
markings,
mark=at position .2 with {\arrow{>}}},postaction={decorate}}}
\draw[dotted] (-3.5,0)--(-3.5,3)node[pos=1.2,left]{\(v_{2}\)};
\draw[dotted] (3.1,0)--(3.1,3);
\draw (-3.5,5) ellipse (1cm and 2cm);
\draw (3.1,5) ellipse (1cm and 2cm);
\draw[dotted] (-2.7,6)--(4,6) node[pos=0.05,above]{\(v_{1}\)}node[pos=-0.47,right]{\(\psi_{p}^{z}(v_{1})\)};
\draw[dotted] (4,6) to[out=122,in=70] (-5,4.6) ;
\draw[->-] (-5,0) -- (5,0) node[pos=0.12,above]{\(p\)} node[pos=0.83,above]{\(z\)} ;
\tikzset{-<-/.style={decoration={
markings,
mark=at position .2 with {\arrow{<}}},postaction={decorate}}}
\draw[-<-] (-4.5, -0.4) to [out=10,in=-180](0,3) to[out=0,in=-70] (4,-2);
\coordinate (m1) at (-3.78,3.1);
\coordinate (Mor10) at (-2.7,6);
\coordinate (m3) at (-3.5,0);
\coordinate (m4) at (-4.5,5.5);
\coordinate (m5) at (3.05,0);
\node[point] at (m1) {};
\node[point] at (Mor10) {};
\node[point] at (m3) {};
\node[point] at (m4) {};
\node[point] at (m5) {};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{$\psi_{p}^{z}(v_{1})\neq v_{2}$} \label{fig2}
\end{figure}
We refer to $(i)$ as the \textit{(pinching)} properties and to $(ii)$ as the \textit{(twisting)} properties.
The cocycles generated by $\mathcal{A}^{\wedge t}$, $1\leq t\leq k$ also admit stable and unstable holonomies, namely $(H^{s \diagup u})^{\wedge t}.$
\begin{defn}\label{typical2}
Assume that $\mathcal{A}$ is 1-typical. We say $\mathcal{A}$ is \textit{t-typical} for $2\leq t \leq k-1$, if the points $p, z \in \Sigma$ from Definition \ref{typical1} satisfy
\begin{itemize}
\item[(I)] all the products of $t$ distinct eigenvalues of $P$ are distinct;
\item[(II)] The induced map $(\psi_{p}^{z})^{\wedge t}$ on $(\mathbb R^{k})^{\wedge t}$ satisfies the analogous statement to $(ii)$ from Definition \ref{typical1} with respect to $\left\{v_{i_{1}} \wedge \ldots \wedge v_{i_{t}}\right\}_{1 \leq i_{1}<\ldots<i_{t} \leq k} \text { of } P^{\wedge t}$.
\end{itemize}
We say that $\mathcal{A}$ is \textit{typical} if $\mathcal{A}$ is $t-$typical for all $1 \leq t \leq k-1$. We denote by $\mathcal{W} \subset H_{b}^{r}(\Sigma, GL(k, \mathbb R))$ the set of all typical functions.
\end{defn}
\begin{rem}
Above definition for typical cocycles comes from \cite{P} that is a slightly weaker form of typical cocycles which were first introduced by Bonatti and Viana \cite{BV1}; Park \cite{P} considered a weaker twisting assumption. We also remark that
the difference between the settings of \cite{BV1} and \cite{P} does not cause
any problems in translating the relevant results and statements from \cite{BV1} to this paper. In spite of slight variations in the definition of typicality, such assumptions are
satisfied by an open and dense subset $\mathcal{W}$ of maps in $H_{b}^{r}(\Sigma, GL(k, \mathbb R))$, and its complement has infinite codimension (see \cite{AV, BV1}).
\end{rem}
\subsection{The continuity of Lyapunov exponents}
Through, $\mathbb{P}F: \Sigma^{+} \times \mathbb{P} \mathbb R^{k} \rightarrow \Sigma^{+}\times\mathbb{P}\mathbb R^{k}$ is the projective cocycle associated with linear cocycle $F:\Sigma^{+} \times \mathbb R^{k} \rightarrow \Sigma^{+} \times \mathbb R^{k}$ that is generated by $(T, \mathcal{A})$.
Let $(T, \mu$) be a Bernoulli shift. We say that a matrix cocycle is \textit{strongly irreducible} when there is no finite family of proper subspaces invariant by $\mathcal{A}(x)$ for $\mu$-almost every $x$. Furstenberg \cite[Theorem 6.8]{V} showed that the Lyapunov exponent $\chi(\mu, \mathcal{A})$ of $F$ coincides with the integral of the function $\psi : \Sigma^{+} \times \mathbb{P}\mathbb R^{k} \rightarrow \mathbb R,$
\[\psi(x, v)=\log \frac{\|\mathcal{A}(x)v\|}{\|v\|}\]
for locally constant cocycles under the strong irreducibility assumption. In other words, he showed that
\[ \chi(\mu, \mathcal{A})=\int \psi d(\mu \times \eta),\]
for any stationary measure $\eta$ of the associated projective cocycle $\mathbb{P}F$. So, one can easily show that we have the continuity of Lyapunov exponents with respect to $(\mathcal{A}, \mu)$ (\cite[Corollary 6.10]{V}) under the strong irreducibility assumption.
Even though discontinuity of Lyapunov exponents is a common feature (see \cite{Bo}, \cite{Boc1}), there are some results for the continuity of Lyapunov exponents. For instance, Bocker and Viana \cite{BV} proved the continuity of Lyapunov exponents of $2-$dimensional locally constant cocycles under a certain assumption.
Avila, Eskin and Viana \cite{AEV} announced recently that Bocker and Viana's result remains true in arbitrary dimensions. It was conjectured by Viana \cite{V} that Lyapunov exponents are always continuous among $H_{b}^{\alpha}(X ,GL(2, \mathbb R))$-cocycles, and that has been proved by Backes, Brown and Butler \cite{BBB}.
We state the main result of Backes, Brown, and Butler as follows.
\begin{thm}[{{\cite[Theorem 1.1]{BBB}}}]\label{con1}
Lyapunov exponents vary continuously restricted to the subset of fiber-bunched elements $\mathcal{A}:X \to GL(2,\mathbb R).$
\end{thm}
That improves Bocker and Viana's result \cite{BV}. Furthermore, Butler \cite{Bu} showed in the following example that the fiber-bunching condition is sharp.
\begin{ex}\label{example}
Assume that $T:\{0,1\}^{\mathbb Z}\rightarrow \{0,1\}^{\mathbb Z}$ is a shift map. We define a locally constant cocycle $(T, \mathcal{A})$ such that
\[ A_{0}=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}\sigma & 0\\ 0 & \sigma^{-1}
\end{array} \right], \hspace{0.2cm}A_{1}=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}\sigma^{-1} & 0\\ 0 & \sigma
\end{array} \right],\]
where $\sigma$ is a positive constant greater than 1. We define probability measure $\nu_{p}$ in order to $\nu_{p}([0])=p, \nu_{p}([1])=1-p,$ and then Bernoulli measure $\mu_{p}=\nu_{p}^{\mathbb Z}$. By definition the cocycle $(T, \mathcal{A})$ is fiber bunched if and only if $\sigma^{2}<2^{\alpha}$ \footnote{$\Sigma$ is equipped by a norm $d$ that is, for all $x\neq y$, $d(x, y)=2^{-N(x,y)}$, where $N(x, y)=\min\{n, x_{n}\neq y_{n}\}$.}.
\end{ex}
Butler\cite{Bu} shows that for above example if $\sigma^{4p-2}\geq 2^{\alpha}$ for $p\in(\frac{1}{2},1)$, then for each neighborhood $\mathcal{U}\subset H^{\alpha}(\{0, 1\}^{\mathbb Z}, SL(2, \mathbb R))$ of $\mathcal{A}$ and every $\kappa \in (0, (2p-1)\log \sigma],$ there is a locally constant cocycle $\mathcal{B}\in \mathcal{U}$ such that $\chi(x, \mathcal{B})=\kappa$. In particular, $\mathcal{A}$ is a discontinuity point for Lyapunov exponents in $H^{\alpha}(\{0, 1\}^{\mathbb Z}, SL(2, \mathbb R)).$ So, this example shows that we have discontinuity of Lyapunov exponents near fiber bunched cocycles.
By considering the exterior product cocycles $\mathcal{A}^{\wedge t}$, we define
\[
\chi_{t}(\mathcal{A}(x)):=\lim _{n \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{n} \log \varphi_{\mathcal{A}^{\wedge t},n}(x)
\]
if the limit exists, and set
\[
\vec{\chi}(x):=\left(\chi_{1}(\mathcal{A}(x)), \ldots, \chi_{k}(\mathcal{A}(x))\right)
\]
if $\chi_{t}(x)$ exists for each $1 \leq t \leq k$. We define the \textit{pointwise Lyapunov spectrum} of $\mathcal{A}$ as
$\vec{L}:=\left\{\vec{\alpha} \in \mathbb{R}^{k}: \vec{\alpha}=\vec{\chi}(x)\right.$ for some $\left.x \in \Sigma\right\}$. For simplicity, we denote $\chi_{t}(\mathcal{A}):=\chi_{t}(\mathcal{A}(x))$ for all $1\leq t \leq k.$
\begin{thm}[{{\cite[Theorem D]{P}}}]\label{closed}
Let $\mathcal{A}\in \mathcal{W}$. Then $\vec{L}$ is a convex and closed subset of $\mathbb R^{k}$.
\end{thm}
We use Theorem \ref{con1} to show that the Lyapunov spectrum of fiber bunched cocycles is a closed and convex set.
\begin{cor}
Let $\mathcal{A}\in H_{b}^{r}(X, GL(2, \mathbb R)))$. Then $\vec{L}$ is a convex and closed subset of $\mathbb R^{2}$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Since $\mathcal{W}$ is open and dense in $H_{b}^{r}(X, GL(d, \mathbb R)))$ (see \cite{BV1}), for every $\mathcal{A} \in H_{b}^{r}(X, GL(2, \mathbb R)))$ there is a $\mathcal{A}_{k} \in \mathcal{W}$ such that $\mathcal{A}_{k}\rightarrow \mathcal{A}$.
By Theorem \ref{con1},
\[ \chi_{i}(\mathcal{A})\rightarrow \chi_{i}(\mathcal{A}) \]
By Theorem \ref{closed}, $\vec{L}$ is a closed and convex subset of $\mathbb R^{2}.$
\end{proof}
\section{Thermodynamic Formalism }\label{3}
\subsection{Convex functions}
Let $U$ be an open convex subset of $\mathbb R^{n}$ and $f$ be a real continuous convex function on $U$. We say a vector $a\in \mathbb R^{n}$ is a \textit{subgradient} of $f$ at $x$ if for all $z \in U$,
\[f(z)\geq f(x) +a^{T}(z-x),\]
where the last term on the right-hand side is the scalar product.\\
For each $x\in \mathbb R^{n}$ set the \textit{subdifferential} of $f$ at point $x$
\[\partial f(x) :=\{a: a \hspace{0,1cm}\textrm{is a subgradient for} \hspace{0,1cm}f\hspace{0,1cm} \textrm{at}\hspace{0,1cm} x \}.\]
For $x\in U$, the subdifferential $\partial f(x)$ is
always a nonempty convex compact set. Define $\partial^{e} f(x) := \ext\{\partial f(x)\}$, i.e., the set of exterior points $\partial f(x)$. We say that $f$ is \textit{differentiable} at $x$ if the set $\partial^{e} f(x)$ is singleton. \\
%
We define
\begin{equation}\label{dense222}
\partial f(U)=\cup_{x \in U} \partial f(x) \hspace{0,2cm}\textrm{and}\hspace{0.2cm} \partial^{e} f(U)=\cup_{x \in U} \partial^{e} f(x).
\end{equation}
\subsection{Legendre transform}\label{lege} Assume that $f:\mathbb R^{k} \rightarrow \mathbb R \cup \{+\infty\}$ is a convex function that is not identically equal to $-\infty$. The Legendre transform of $f$ is the function $f^{\ast}$ of a new variable $t$, defined by
\[ t\mapsto -f^{\ast}(-t) :=\inf\{f(x)-tx : x\in \mathbb R^{k}\},\]
where $tx$ denotes the dot product of $t$ and $x$.
It is easy to show that $f^{\ast}$ is a convex function and not identically equal to $-\infty$. Let $f^{\ast \ast}$ be the Legendre transform of $f^{\ast}$.
Assume that $f:\mathbb R^{k}\rightarrow \mathbb R \cup \{\infty\}$ is convex and not identically equal to $-\infty$. Let $x\in \mathbb R^{k}$. Suppose that $f$ is lower semi continuous at $x$, i.e., $\liminf_{y\rightarrow x} f(y)\geq f(x)$. Then $f^{\ast \ast}(x)=f(x).$
Feng and Huang \cite[Corollary 2.5]{FH} proved the following theorem:
\begin{thm}\label{Cor}
Assume that $S$ is a non-empty, convex set in $\mathbb R^{k}$ and let $g:S\rightarrow \mathbb R$ be a concave function. Set
\[W(x)=\sup\{g(a) + ax : a\in S \}, \hspace{0.3cm}x\in \mathbb R^{k}\]
and
\[G(a)=\inf\{W(x) - ax : x\in \mathbb R^{k} \}, \hspace{0.3cm}a\in S.\]
Then $G(a)=g(a)$ for $a \in \text{ri}(S)$, where $\text{ri}(S)$ denotes the relative interior of $A$ (cf. \cite{R}).
\end{thm}
\subsection{Topological entropy}\label{top_entropy}
Assume that $(X, d)$ is a compact metric space and $T:X\rightarrow X$ is a continuous transformation. For any $n\in \mathbb N$, we define a new metric $d_{n}$ on $X$ as follows
\begin{equation}\label{new_metric}
d_{n}(x, y)=\max\{d(T^{k}(x), T^{k}(y)) : k=0,...,n-1\},
\end{equation}
and for any $\epsilon>0$, one can define \textit{Bowen ball} $B_{n}(x, \epsilon)$ that is an open ball of radius $\epsilon>0$ in the metric $d_{n}$ around $x$. That is,
\[ B_{n}(x, \epsilon)=\{y\in X : d_{n}(x, y)<\epsilon\}.\]
Let $Y \subset X$ and $\epsilon>0$. We say that a countable collection of balls $\mathcal{Y}:=\left\{B_{n_{i}}\left(y_{i}, \epsilon\right)\right\}_{i}$ covers $Y$ if $Y \subset \bigcup_{i} B_{n_{i}}\left(y_{i}, \epsilon\right)$. For $\mathcal{Y}=\left\{B_{n_{i}}\left(y_{i}, \epsilon\right)\right\}_{i}$, put $n(\mathcal{Y})=\min _{i} n_{i}$. Let $s\geq 0$ and define
\[ S(Y, s, N, \epsilon)=\inf \sum_{i} e^{-sn_{i}},\]
where the infimum is taken over all collections $\mathcal{Y}=\{B_{n_{i}}(x_{i}, \epsilon)\}_{i}$ covering $Y$ such that $n(\mathcal{Y})\geq N.$ The quantity $S(Y, s, N, \epsilon)$ does not decrease with $N$, consequently
\[ S(Y, s, \epsilon) = \lim_{N\rightarrow \infty} S(Y, s, N, \epsilon).\]
There is a critical value of the parameter $s$, which we denote by $h_{top}(T,Y, \epsilon)$ such that
\[S(Y, s, \epsilon)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
0, & \mbox{$s>h_{top}(T,Y, \epsilon)$},\\
\infty, & \mbox{$s<h_{top}(T,Y, \epsilon)$}.\end{array} \right . \]
Since $h_{top}(T,Y, \epsilon)$ does not decrease with $\epsilon$, the following limit exists,
\[h_{top}(T,Y)=\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0}(T,Y,\epsilon).\]
We call $h_{top}(T, Y)$ the \textit{topological entropy} of $T$ restricted to $Y$ or the topological entropy of $Y$ (we denote $h_{top}(Y)$), as there is no confusion about $T$. We denote $h_{top}(X, T)=h_{top}(T).$
\subsection{Aadditive thermodynamic formalism}
A \textit{potential} on $X$ is a continuous function $f: X \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$. For any $\epsilon>0$ a set $E \subset X$ is said to be a $(n,\epsilon)$-\textit{separated subset} of $X$ if $d_{n}(x,y)> \epsilon$ (see \eqref{new_metric}) for any two different points $x,y \in E$. Using $(n, \varepsilon)$-separated subsets, we can define the pressure $\mathrm{P}(f)$ of $f$ as follows:
$$
P(f):=\lim _{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0} \limsup _{n \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{n} \log \sup \left\{\sum_{x \in E} e^{S_{n} f(x)}: E \text { is an }(n, \varepsilon) \text {-separated subset of } X\right\}.
$$
When $f \equiv 0$, the pressure $\mathrm{P}(0)$ is equal to the topological entropy $h_{top}(T)$, which measures the complexity of the system $(X, T)$.
The pressure satisfies the \textit{variational principle}:
$$
P(f)=\sup \left\{h_{\mu}(f)+\int \psi d \mu: \mu \in \mathcal{M}(X,T)\right\}
$$
where $h_{\mu}(f)$ is the measure-theoretic entropy (see \cite{PU}).
Any invariant measure $\mu \in \mathcal{M}(X,T)$ achieving the supremum in the variational principle is called an \textit{equilbrium state} of $f.$ If the entropy map $\mu \mapsto h_{\mu}(T)$ is upper semi-continuous, then every potential has an equilibrium state.
\subsection{Subadditive thermodynamic formalism}
Let $\Phi=\{\log \phi_{n}\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ be a subadditive potential over the TDS $(X, T)$. We introduce the $\textit{topological pressure}$ of $\Phi$ as follows. The space $X$ is endowed with a metric $d$.
We define for a subadditive $\Phi$
\[ P_{n}(T, \Phi, \epsilon)=\sup\{\sum_{x\in E} \phi_{n}(x) : E \hspace{0,1cm}\textrm{is} \hspace{0,1cm}(n, \epsilon) \textrm{-separated subset of X} \}.\]
Since $P_{n}(T, \Phi, \epsilon)$ is a decreasing function of $\epsilon$, We define
\[P(T, \Phi, \epsilon)=\limsup_{n \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{n} \log P_{n}(T, \Phi, \epsilon),\] and
\[ P_{\Phi}(T)=\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0}P(T, \Phi, \epsilon).\]
We call $P_{\Phi}(T)$ the topological pressure of $\Phi$. We denote by $P_{\Phi}(q)$ the topological pressure for a subadditive potential $q\Phi.$
Bowen \cite{B2} showed that for any H\"older continuous $\psi :X \rightarrow \mathbb R$ on a transitive hyperbolic set $(X, T)$ there exists a unique equilibrium measure $\mu$ (which is also a Gibbs state) for the additive potential $ \psi$.
Feng and K\"aenm\"aki \cite{FK} extended the Bowen's result for subadditive potentials $t\Phi$ on a locally constant cocycle under the assumption that the matrices in $\mathcal{A}$ do not preserve a common proper subspace of $\mathbb R^{d}$(i.e. $(T, \mathcal{A})$ is irreducible).
Let $(X, T)$ be a topological dynamical system, and let $\Phi=\{\log \phi_{n}\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ be a subadditive potential over the TDS $(X, T)$. Define
\[ \alpha(\Phi):=\liminf_{n\rightarrow \infty}\frac{1}{n} \log \inf_{x \in X}\phi_{n}(x), \hspace{0.1cm} \beta(\Phi):=\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\frac{1}{n} \log \sup_{x \in X}\phi_{n}(x).\]
Let $ \vec{q} = (q_{1}, ..., q_{k})\in \mathbb R_{+}^{k}$, and $\vec{\Phi}=(\Phi_{1},...,\Phi_{k})=(\{\log \phi_{n,1}\}_{n=1}^{\infty},...,\\\{\log \phi_{n,k}\}_{n=1}^{\infty})$. Assume that $\vec{q}.\vec{\Phi}=\sum_{i=1}^{k} q_{i}\Phi_{i}$ is a subadditive potential $\{q_{i}\log \phi_{n, i}\}_{n=1}^{\infty}.$ We can write topological pressure, maximal Lyapunov exponent, and minimal Lyapunov exponent of $\vec{\Phi}$, respectively
\[ P_{\vec{\Phi}}(\vec{q})=P(T,\vec{q}.\vec{\Phi}),\hspace{0.3cm} \vec{\beta}(\vec{\Phi})=\beta(\sum_{i=1}^{k} \Phi_{i}),\hspace{0.3cm} \vec{\alpha}(\vec{\Phi})=\alpha(\sum_{i=1}^{k} \Phi_{i}).\]
For $\mu \in \mathcal{M}(X, T)$, we write
\[ \mathcal{\chi}(\mu, \vec{\Phi})=(\chi(\mu, \Phi_{1}),...., \chi(\mu, \Phi_{k})),\]
where $\chi(\mu, \Phi_{i})=\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\frac{1}{n}\int \log \phi_{n, i}(x)d\mu(x)$ for $i=1,...,k.$
Cao, Feng and Huang \cite{CFH} proved the variantional principle formula for subadditive potentials.
\begin{thm}[{{\cite[Theorem 1.1]{CFH}}}]\label{var1}
Let $(X,T)$ be a topological dynamical system such that $h_{top}(T)<\infty$. For $\vec{t}\in \mathbb R_{+}^{d}$, suppose that $\vec{\Phi}$ is a subadditive potential on the compact metric space $X$. Then
\[ P_{\vec{\Phi}}(\vec{t})=\sup\{h_{\mu}(T)+\vec{t}.\chi(\mu, \vec{\Phi})
: \mu \in \mathcal{M}(X,T) , \chi(\mu, \vec{\Phi}) \neq \infty \}.\]
\end{thm}
Let $\vec{t}\in \mathbb R_{+}^{d}$, we denote by $\Eq(\vec{\Phi}, \vec{t})$ the collection of invariant measures $\mu$ such that
\[ h_{\mu}(T)+\vec{t}.\chi(\mu, \vec{\Phi})= P_{\vec{\Phi}}(\vec{t}).\]
If $\Eq(\vec{\Phi}, \vec{t})\neq \emptyset$, then each element $\Eq(\vec{\Phi}, \vec{t})$ is called an $\textit{equilibrium state}$ for $\vec{t}.\vec{\Phi}$.
In the remaining part of this section, we recall some theorems about multifractal formalism for subadditive potentials.
\begin{thm}[{{\cite[Theorem 1.1]{FH}}}]\label{level set1}
Let $(X,T)$ be a topological dynamical system such that the topological entropy $h_{top}(T)$ is finite. Then $E(\beta(\Phi))\neq \emptyset$ . Moreover,
\begin{align*}
h_{top}(T,E(\beta(\Phi))) &=\sup\{h_{\mu}(T) : \mu \in \mathcal{M}(X,T), \chi(\mu, \Phi) =\beta(\Phi) \}\\
=&\sup\{h_{\mu}(T) : \mu \in \mathcal{E}(X,T), \chi(\mu, \Phi) =\beta(\Phi) \}.\\
\end{align*}
\end{thm}
The topological pressure is related to Lyapunov exponents in the following way.
\begin{prop}[{{\cite[Theorem 3.3]{FH}}}]\label{eq11}
Let $(X, T)$ be a topological dynamical system such that the entropy map $\mu\mapsto h_{\mu}(T)
$ is upper semi-continuous and $h_{top}(T)<\infty$. For $t\in \mathbb R_{+}^{k}$, suppose that $\vec{t}.\vec{\Phi}$ is a subadditive potential on the compact metric space $X$. Then,
\begin{equation}\label{subadditive}
\partial P_{\vec{\Phi}}(\vec{t}) =\{\chi(\mu_{\vec{t}}, \vec{\Phi}) : \mu\in \Eq(\vec{\Phi}, \vec{t})\}.
\end{equation}
Moreover, $\Eq(\vec{\Phi}, \vec{t})$ is a non-empty compact convex subset of $\mathcal{M}(X,T)$, for any $t\in \mathbb R_{+}^{k}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{thm}[{{\cite[Theorem 4.8]{FH}}}]\label{derivative}
Keep the assumption of Theorem (\ref{level set1}), we also assume that the entropy map $\mu \mapsto h_{\mu}(T)$ is upper semi-continuous on $\mathcal{M}(X,T)$. If $t \in \mathbb R_{+}^{k}$ such that $\vec{t}. \vec{\Phi}$ has a unique equilibrium state $\mu_{\vec{t}}\in \mathcal{M}(X,T)$, then $\mu_{\vec{t}}$ is ergodic, $\nabla P_{\vec{\Phi}}(\vec{t}) = \chi(\mu_{\vec{t}}, \vec{\Phi})$, $E(\nabla P_{\vec{\Phi}}(\vec{t}))\neq \emptyset$ and $h_{top}(T,E(\nabla P_{\vec{\Phi}}(\vec{t}))) =h_{\mu_{\vec{t}}}(T).$
\end{thm}
\subsection{Thermodynamic formalism of linear cocycles}
Our motivation for studying of subadditive (or almost additive) thermodynamic formalism is to deal with linear cocycles. In this subsection, we recall some definitions and results that were just proved for linear cocycles.
We study \textit{ergodic optimization} of Lyapunov exponents. Ergodic optimization of Lyapunov exponents is concerned invariant measures in maximizing (or minimizing) the Lyapunov exponents. They were first considered by Rota and Strang \cite{RS} and by Gurvits \cite{GU}, respectively. The associated growth rates are called upper joint spectral radius and lower joint spectral radius, respectively; they play an important role in Control Theory (see \cite{J}, \cite{Bo}).
Let $(X,T)$ be a topological dynamical system and let $\mathcal{A}:X\to GL(k,\mathbb R)$ be a matrix cocycle over the topological dynamical system $(X,T).$
We define the \textit{maximal Lyapunov exponent} of linear cocycles as follows
\[ \beta(\mathcal{A}):=\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\frac{1}{n}\log \sup_{x\in X} \|\mathcal{A}^{n}(x)\|.\]
Morris \cite{Mor10} also showed
\begin{equation}\label{invariant1}
\beta(\mathcal{A})=\sup_{\mu \in \mathcal{M}(X,T)} \chi(\mu, \mathcal{A}).
\end{equation}
Feng and Huang \cite{FH} gave a different proof of it.
Let us define the set of \textit{maximizing measures} of $\mathcal{A}$ to be the set of measures on $X$ given by
\[ \mathcal{M}_{\max}(\mathcal{A}):=\{\mu \in \mathcal{M}(X, T), \hspace{0,2cm} \beta(\mathcal{A})=\chi(\mu, \mathcal{A}) \}. \]
We also define the \textit{minimal Lyapunov exponents} of linear cocycles as follows
\[ \alpha(\mathcal{A}):=\liminf_{n\rightarrow \infty}\frac{1}{n}\log \inf_{x\in X} \|\mathcal{A}^{n}(x)\|.\]
Similarly, the set of minimizing measures is defined as follows
\[ \mathcal{M}_{\min}(\mathcal{A}):=\{\mu \in \mathcal{M}(X, T), \hspace{0,2cm} \alpha(\mathcal{A})=\chi(\mu, \mathcal{A}) \}. \]
We remark that supremum (\ref{invariant1}) is attained, so $\mathcal{M}_{\max}$ is non-empty set. But, $\mathcal{M}_{\min}$ is not necessarily non-empty; see Section \ref{5}.
Similarly, one can define the above definitions for subadditive potentials.
Let $\log^{+} \|\mathcal{A}\| \in L^{1}(\mu)$. We define sum of top $l$ Lyapunov exponents of measure as follows
\[ \chi_{l}(\mu, \mathcal{A}):=\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\frac{1}{n} \int \log \varphi_{\mathcal{A}^{\wedge l}, n}(x) d\mu(x),\]
for $\mu \in \mathcal{M}(X,T)$.
We are mainly concerned with the distribution of the Lyapunov exponents of $\mathcal{A}$. More precisely, for any $\alpha \in \mathbb R$, define
\[ E_{\mathcal{A}}(\alpha) =\{x\in X, \chi_{1}(\mathcal{A})=\alpha \}, \]which is called the $\alpha$-level set of $\chi_{1}(\mathcal{A}).$
We also define the higher dimensional of level set of all of Lyapunov exponents as follows
\[ E_{\mathcal{A}}(\vec{\alpha}) =\{x\in X, \chi_{l}(\mathcal{A})=\alpha_{l} \}, \]
for $1\leq l \leq k.$
We denote $E(\alpha)=E_{\mathcal{A}}(\alpha)$, when there is no confusion about $\mathcal{A}.$
We denote \[\vec{\Phi}_{\mathcal{A}}:=(\{\log \varphi_{\mathcal{A},n}\}_{n=1}^{\infty}, \{\log \varphi_{\mathcal{A}^{\wedge 2},n}\}_{n=1}^{\infty},...,\{\log \varphi_{\mathcal{A}^{\wedge k}, n}\}_{n=1}^{\infty} ).\]
We say that $\vec{\Phi}_{\mathcal{A}}$ is \textit{(simultaneously) quasi-multiplicative} if there exist $C>0$ and $m\in \mathbb N$ such that for every $I, J \in \mathcal{L}$, there exists $K\in \mathcal{L}$ with $|K|\leq m$ such that $IKJ \in \mathcal{L}$ and
\[\|\mathcal{A}^{\wedge i}(IKJ)\|\geq C \|\mathcal{A}^{\wedge i}(I)\| \|\mathcal{A}^{\wedge i}(J)\|,\]
for $1\leq i \leq k.$
Park \cite{P} proved quasi-multiplicativity
for typical cocycles $\mathcal{W}$. The approach has
its roots in previous work of Feng \cite[Proposition 2.8]{F} who showed quasi-multiplicativity for locally constant cocycles under the irreducibility assumption.
\begin{thm}[{{\cite[Theorem F]{P}}}]\label{quasi}
Assume that $\mathcal{A}\in \mathcal{W}$. Then $\mathcal{A}$ is quasi-multiplicative. Moreover, $\vec{\Phi}_{\mathcal{A}}$ is (simultaneously) quasi-multiplicative.
\end{thm}
He \cite{P} also uses the quasi-multiplicative property $\mathcal{A}\in \mathcal{W}$ to show the continuity of the topological pressure which it states in the following theorem.
\begin{thm}[{{\cite[Theorem B]{P}}}]\label{continuity} The map $(s, \mathcal{A})\rightarrow P_{\tilde{\Phi}_{\mathcal{A}}}(s)$ is continuous on $[0, \infty) \times \mathcal{W}$.
\end{thm}
Theorem \ref{uniq11} shows that we have the Feng and K\"aenm\"aki's result \cite[Proposition 1.2]{FK} for typical cocycles.
\begin{thm}\label{uniq11}
Let $\mathcal{A}\in \mathcal{W}$ be typical. Assume that $\vec{\Phi}_{\mathcal{A}}$ is (simultaneously) quasi-multiplicative and $\vec{t}\in \mathbb R_{+}^{k}$. Then $P_{\vec{\Phi}_{\mathcal{A}}}(\vec{t})$ has a unique equilibrium state $\mu_{\vec{t}}$ for the subadditive potential $\vec{t}.\vec{\Phi}_{\mathcal{A}}
$. Furthermore, $\mu_{\vec{t}}$ has the following Gibbs property: There exists $C \geq 1$ such that for any $n\in \mathbb N$, $[J]\in \mathcal{L}(n)$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{gibbs11}
C^{-1} \leq \frac{\mu_{\vec{t}} ([J])}{e^{-nP_{\vec{\Phi}_{\mathcal{A}}}(\vec{t})+\vec{t}.\ \vec{\Phi}_{\mathcal{A}}(x)}}\leq C,
\end{equation}
for any $x\in [J]$. Furthermore, $P_{\vec{\Phi}_{\mathcal{A}}} ( . )$ is differentiable on $\mathbb R_{+}^{k}$ and $\nabla P_{\vec{\Phi}_{\mathcal{A}}} ( \vec{t} )=\chi(\mu_{\vec{t}}, \vec{\Phi}_{\mathcal{A}}).$
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
It is easily follows from \cite[Lemma 3.10]{P} and \cite[Proposition 3.9]{P}.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}\label{convex11}
Assume that $h_{top}(T)<\infty $, and $\alpha(\mathcal{A})<\infty$. If $\mathcal{A} \in \mathcal{W}$, then $P_{\Phi_{\mathcal{A}}}( )$ is a real continuous convex function on $\mathbb R$. Moreover, $\alpha(\mathcal{A})$ exists \footnote{It means the limit exists.} and it is equal to $P_{\Phi_{\mathcal{A}}}^{'}(-\infty):=\lim_{t\rightarrow -\infty} \frac{P_{\Phi_{\mathcal{A}}}(t)}{t}.$ Similarly, $P_{\vec{\Phi}_{\mathcal{A}}}$ is a real continuous convex function on $\mathbb R^{k}.$ Furthermore,
\[
\vec{\alpha}(\mathcal{A}):=\min\{\alpha_{i}, \vec{\alpha}\in \vec{L} \}=\lim_{\vec{t}\rightarrow -\infty}\frac{P_{\vec{\Phi}_{\mathcal{A}}}(\vec{t})}{\vec{t}}.
\]
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
See \cite[Lemmas 2.2 and 2.3]{F}. We remark that although \cite[Lemmas 2.2 and 2.3]{F} only deal with locally constant cocycles, the proof given there works for our theorem under slightly modification. Indeed, Feng uses the quasi-multiplicative properties to prove the lemmas. Since $\mathcal{A}\in \mathcal{W}$, $\vec{\Phi}_{\mathcal{A}}$ is (simultaneously) quasi-multiplicative by Theorem \ref{quasi}.
\end{proof}
Note that every almost additive potential is quasi-multiplicative, but the reverse is not true; see Example \eqref{example}. Therefore, one also can use the above theorem for almost additive potentials.
\section{The proofs of Theorems A, B and C}\label{4}
In this section we discuss multifractal formalism of typical cocycles. Our motivation is to study the multifractal formalism associated to certain iterated function systems with overlaps. For instance, the Hausdorff dimension of level sets has been calculated for 2-dimension-planar affine iterated function systems satisfying strong irreducibility and the strong open set condition by B. B\'ar\'any, T. Jordan, A. K\"aenm\"aki, and M. Rams \cite{BJKR}. In additive potential setting, the Lyapunov exponents are equal the Birkhoff averages. In this case, the restricted varitional principle, topological entropy, and Hausdorff dimension level set has been studied by a lot of authors (see \cite{C}). We remark that Feng and Huang \cite{FH} proved (\ref{myeq1}) for almost additive potentials under certain assumptions. In fact, the
proof of Theorem \ref{addth1} is based on some ideas from that work.
\begin{thm}\label{concave1}
Let $\mathcal{A} \in \mathcal{W}$. Suppose that $P_{\vec{\Phi}_{\mathcal{A}}}(\vec{q})\in \mathbb R$ for each $\vec{q}\in \mathbb R^{k}$. Then for $\vec{\alpha} \in \vec{L}$,
\begin{equation}\label{FHF}
h_{top}(T,E(\vec{\alpha})) = \inf \{P_{\vec{\Phi}_{\mathcal{A}}}(\vec{q})-\vec{\alpha}. \vec{q}: \hspace{0,2cm} \vec{q}\in \mathbb R^{k}\}.
\end{equation}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
By Theorem \ref{quasi}, $\vec{\Phi_{\mathcal{A}}}$ is simultaneously quasi-multiplicative. Then, the proof follows from \cite[Theorem 4.10]{FH}.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}\label{addth1}
Assume that $T:\Sigma \rightarrow \Sigma$ is a topologically mixing subshift of finite type on the compact metric space $\Sigma$. Suppose that $\mathcal{A}:X\rightarrow GL(k, \mathbb R)$ belongs to typical functions $\mathcal{W}$.
Assume that $\vec{\Omega}$ is the range of the map from $\mathcal{M}(\Sigma,T)$ to $\mathbb R^{k}$
\[ \mu \mapsto (\chi_{1}(\mu, \mathcal{A}), \chi_{2}(\mu, \mathcal{A}),...,\chi_{k}(\mu, \mathcal{A})).\]
We define
\[ \textbf{h}(\vec{\alpha}):=\sup\{h_{\mu}(T) : \mu \in \mathcal{M}(\Sigma, T), \chi_{i}(\mu, \mathcal{A})=\alpha_{i}\},\]
where $\vec{\alpha}\in \Omega.$ Then,
\[\textbf{h}(\vec{\alpha})=\inf\{P_{\vec{\Phi}_{\mathcal{A}}}(\vec{q})-\vec{\alpha}. \vec{q} : \vec{q}\in \mathbb R^{k} \},\]
for $\vec{\alpha} \in \text{ri}(\vec{\Omega}).$
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
It is clear that $\vec{\Omega}$ is non-empty and convex. We define $g:\vec{\Omega} \to \mathbb R$ by
\[g(\vec{\alpha})=\sup\{h_{\mu}(T): \mu \in \mathcal{M}(\Sigma, T), \quad (\chi_{1}(\mu, \mathcal{A}), \ldots, \chi_{k}(\mu, \mathcal{A}))=\vec{\alpha}\}.\]
It is easy to see that $g$ is a real-valued concave function on $\vec{\Omega}.$ We define
\[Z(\vec{x}):=\sup\{g(\vec{\alpha})+\vec{\alpha}.\vec{x}: \vec{\alpha}\in \vec{\Omega}\}, \quad \forall \vec{x} \in \mathbb R^{k}.\]
Let $f:\mathbb R^{k} \to \mathbb R \cup \{+\infty\}$ be the function which agrees with $-g$ on $\vec{\Omega}$ but is $+\infty$ everywhere else. Then, $f$ is convex and has $\vec{\Omega}$ as its effective domain, i.e. $\vec{\Omega}=\{\vec{x}, f(\vec{x})< \infty \}.$ By the definition of $Z$, $Z$ is equal to the conjugate function of $f$, so $Z$ is a convex function on $\mathbb R^{k}$ (see Subsection \ref{lege}).
We have
\[g(\vec{\alpha})=\inf\{Z(\vec{x})-\vec{\alpha}.\vec{x}: \vec{x}\in \mathbb R^{k}\},\]
for all $\vec{\alpha}\in \text{ri}(\vec{\Omega})$, by Theorem \ref{Cor}.
By Theorem \ref{quasi}, $\vec{\Phi_{\mathcal{A}}}$ is simultaneously quasi-multiplicative. Therefore, $P_{\vec{\Phi}_{\mathcal{A}}}(\vec{q})$ is a convex function on $\mathbb R^{k}$ by Theorem \ref{convex11}. Then, by variational principle
\[Z(\vec{x})=P_{\vec{\Phi}_{\mathcal{A}}}(\vec{x}) .\]
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem B] Theorem B is just the one-dimensional version
of Theorems \ref{concave1} and \ref{addth1}. Also, note that $\mathring{\Omega}=\text{ri}(\Omega).$
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzset{
show curve controls/.style={
decoration={
show path construction,
curveto code={
\draw [blue, dashed]
(\tikzinputsegmentfirst) -- (\tikzinputsegmentsupporta)
node [at end, cross out, draw, solid, red, inner sep=2pt]{};
\draw [blue, dashed]
(\tikzinputsegmentsupportb) -- (\tikzinputsegmentlast)
node [at start, cross out, draw, solid, red, inner sep=2pt]{};
}
}, decorate
}
}
\draw [gray!50] (-1,0) -- (6,0)node[black][pos=0.8,right]{\(q^{'}\)} node[pos=1.0,right]{\(q\)} ;
\draw [gray!50] (0,-1) -- (0,6)node[black][pos=0.0,left]{\(P_{\Phi}(q^{'})\)}node[pos=1.0,right]{\(P_{\Phi}\)} ;
\draw[dotted] (0, -0.84)-- (5, -0.84);
\draw[dotted] (5, -0.84)-- (5, 0);
\draw [red] plot [smooth cycle] coordinates {(-1,4) (6,-1)} ;
\draw[blue] (5.5, -1.0331)--(5, -0.84)-- (-0.8,1.4) node[pos=0.8,left]{\(h_{top}(E(\alpha))=h_{\mu_{q^{'}}}(T)=P_{\Phi}(q^{'})+\alpha q^{'}\)};
\draw [ultra thick,red] (-1,5) to[out=123,in=180](6,-1);
\node[red]at (-1,3.6){\(P_{\Phi}(q)\)} ;
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{$P_{\Phi}(. )$ is a convex function for $q\in \mathbb R$. The blue line is tangent to $P_{\Phi}(.)$ at $q$ with slope $-\alpha=P_{\Phi}'(q)$.} \label{fig3}
\end{figure}
\begin{rem}In the locally constant cocycles case with Bernoulli measures, Theorem \ref{addth1} is true for $\vec{\alpha}\in \vec{\Omega}$ under strongly irreducible assumption, which means we do not need pinching assumption in this case.
\end{rem}
Now, we are going to show that the closure of the set where the entropy spectrum is positive is equal the Lyapunov spectrum for typical cocycles. This result is first attempt to characterize Lyapunov spectrum as a set of positive entropy spectrum. The main input of our argument will be the fact that the topological pressure is convex for typical cocycles, and Theorems \ref{concave1} and \ref{addth1}. Then, we can show the concavity of the entropy spectrum of Lyapunov exponents by Theorem B.
We recall that $T:\Sigma\rightarrow \Sigma$ is a topologically mixing subshift of finite type and $\mathcal{A}:\Sigma \rightarrow GL(k, \mathbb R)$ is a H\"older continuous function. We always assume $h_{\rm top}(T)>0$.
\begin{lem}\label{concave2}
Let $\mathcal{A} \in \mathcal{W}$. Then, $h_{\rm top}(E(\alpha))$ is concave on the convex set $\mathring{L}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The topological pressure $P_{\Phi_{\mathcal{A}}}( .)$ is convex by Theorem \ref{convex11} and $\mathring{L}$ is convex by Theorem \ref{closed}. Moreover, by Theorem \ref{concave1}, we have
\[
h_{\rm top}(E(\alpha))=\inf_{t\in \mathbb R}\{P_{\Phi_{\mathcal{A}}}(t)- \alpha t\}.\]
Since the Legendre transform of the convex function is concave (cf. \cite[Theorem 1.1.2]{HL}), $h_{\rm top}(E(\alpha))$ is concave.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{positive-new}
Assume that a nonnegative function $f$ defined on a convex domain $D$ is concave and achieves a positive value at some point $x\in D$. Then $f(y)>0$ for all $y\in \mathring{D}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $x$ be in $D$ such that $f(x)>0$. For any point $y$ in the interior of $D$, we can always choose a point $z\in \mathring{D}$ such that:
\[ (1-\lambda)x+\lambda z=y,\]
for some $\lambda \in (0,1)$. Hence,
\[(1-\lambda)f(x)+\lambda f(z) \leq f(y).\]
Therefore, $f(y)>0$ for all $y\in \mathring{D}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}\label{posi1}
For $\alpha \in \mathring{L}$, $h_{\rm top}(E(\alpha))>0.$
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma \ref{concave2}, $h_{\rm top}(E(\alpha))$ is concave. Moreover, by Theorems \ref{level set1}, \ref{concave1} and \ref{addth1},
\[h_{\rm top}(E(\alpha))=\sup\{h_{\mu}(T) :\hspace{0.2cm} \mu\in \mathcal{M}(\Sigma, T),\hspace{0.2cm} \chi(\mu, \mathcal{A})=\alpha\}.\]
Since the measure-theoretic entropy is non-negative, $h_{\rm top}(E(\alpha))\geq0$.
We claim that there is $\alpha$ such that $h_{\rm top}(E(\alpha))>0.$ Let us assume $h_{\rm top}(E(\alpha))=0$ for all $\alpha \in \mathring{L}$. Then, as by Oseledets Theorem for every ergodic measure $\mu$ supported on $(\Sigma, T)$ there exist a common value of Lyapunov exponent shared $\mu$-almost everywhere, we must have $h(\mu)=0$ for every ergodic measure $\mu$. Thus, by variational principle, $h_{\rm top}(T) = \sup_{\mu} h(\mu) = 0$, which is a contradiction. Consequently, by Lemma \ref{positive-new}, $h_{\rm top}(E(\alpha))>0$ for all $\alpha \in \mathring{L}.$
\end{proof}
\begin{rem} Entropy spectrum at boundary of Lyapunov spectrum is not necessarily positive. In fact, there is a conjecture, which is known as \textit{Meta conjecture}, that says that under generic assumptions the entropy spectrum at boundary of Lyapunov spectrum is zero (which would mean that $h_{top}(E(\beta(\mathcal{A})))=0$); this phenomenon is often referred to as \textit{ergodic optimization of Lyapunov exponents}, see for example \cite{Bo}. In the additive potential case, instead, this phenomenon is often referred to as \textit{ergodic optimization of Birkhoff averages}, see for example \cite{J}.
\end{rem}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.north)]
\begin{scope}
\clip (-1.5,0) rectangle (1.5,1.5);
\draw (0,0) circle(1.5);
\draw (-1.5,0) -- (1.5,0);
\end{scope}
\node[below left= 1mm of {(-1.5,0)}] {$\alpha_{\min}$};
\node[below right= 1mm of {(1.5,0)}] {$\alpha_{\max}$};
\node[above right= 1mm of {(60:1.5)}] {};
\node[above left= 1mm of {(120:1.5)}] {};
\draw[black] (0, -2)-- (0, 4)node[pos=1.0,right]{\(P_{\Phi_{\mathcal{A}}}\)};
\draw[black] (-3, 0)-- (4, 0)node[pos=1.0,right]{\(\alpha\)};
\node[point] at (-1.5, 0) {};
\node[point] at (1.5, 0) {};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{figure}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem A]
That is a direct consequence of Theorem \ref{posi1}.
\end{proof}
Park \cite{P} proved Theorem \ref{closed} for higher dimensional case. That means, $\vec{L}$ is closed and convex. So, we can obtain the following generalization of Theorem A to the Lyapunov spectrum of of all Lyapunov exponents.
\begin{thm}\label{dense}
$\overline{\{ \vec{\alpha} \in \mathbb R^{k}, \hspace{0,2cm} h_{top}(E(\vec{\alpha}))>0 \}}= \vec{L}.$
\end{thm}
We remark that
the concavity of a function defined on a convex set implies the continuity of
the function in the interior, and that
the continuity of the entropy under the change of the Lyapunov exponents
implies the continuity of the Lyapunov spectrum.
We will discuss the continuity of the entropy spectrum of Lyapunov exponents, that is, the topological entropy of level sets of points with a common given Lyapunov exponent. In the locally constant cocycles case, Lemma \ref{convergence1} follows from \cite{FS}.
\begin{lem}\label{convergence1}
Assume $\mathcal{A}_{k}, \mathcal{A}\in \mathcal{W}$ with $\mathcal{A}_{k} \rightarrow \mathcal{A}$. For $t_{k}, t>0$, let $t_{k}\rightarrow t$.
Suppose that $\alpha_{t_{k}}$ and $\alpha_{t}$ are the derivatives of $P_{\Phi_{\mathcal{A}_{k}}}( )$ and $P_{\Phi_{\mathcal{A}}}( )$ at $t_{k}$ and $t$, respectively. Then,
\[\lim_{k\rightarrow \infty} h_{top}(E_{\mathcal{A}_{k}}(\alpha_{t_{k}})) =h_{top}(E_{\mathcal{A}}(\alpha_{t})).\]
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
According to Theorem \ref{uniq11} $P_{\Phi_{\mathcal{A}}}( )$ is differentiable for any $t>0$ and there is a unique equilibrium measure $\mu_{t}$ for the subadditive potential $t\Phi_{\mathcal{A}}$ . Therefore, we have \[h_{top}(E_{\mathcal{A}}(\alpha_{t}))=h_{\mu_{t}}(T),\] where $P_{\Phi_{\mathcal{A}}}^{'}(t)=\alpha_{t}$, by Theorem \ref{derivative}.
Taking into account the observation above, to prove the theorem it is enough to show that $h_{\mu_{t_{k}}}(T) \rightarrow h_{\mu_{t}}(T)$ for proving the theorem.
By the definition of $\Eq(\Phi_{\mathcal{A}_{k}}, t_{k})$,
\[P_{\Phi_{\mathcal{A}_{k}}}(t_{k})=h_{\mu_{t_{k}}}(T)+t_{k}\chi(\mu_{t_{k}},\mathcal{A}_{k}).\]
Notice that the Lyapunov exponents are upper semi-continuous. Moreover, the topologically mixing subshift of finite type $T:\Sigma\rightarrow \Sigma$ implies upper semi-continuity of the entropy map $\mu \mapsto h_{\mu}(T)$. Now, we conclude from above observations and Theorem \ref{continuity},
\begin{align*}
P_{\Phi_{\mathcal{A}}}(t)&=\lim_{k\rightarrow \infty} P_{\Phi_{\mathcal{A}_{k}}}(t_{k})\\&=\lim_{k\rightarrow \infty} h_{\mu_{t_{k}}}(T)+t_{k}\chi(\mu_{t_{k}},\mathcal{A}_{k})\\
&\leq h_{\mu_{t}}(T)+t\chi(\mu_{t},\mathcal{A}).
\end{align*}
This shows $\mu_{t} \in \Eq(\Phi_{\mathcal{A}}, t)$. By weak-$^{\ast}$ compactness $\mu_{t_{k}}$ has a accumulation point, let us call $\mu_{t}$. According the above observation $\mu_{t}$ is an equilibrium measure for $t\Phi_{\mathcal{A}}$. Then uniqueness of equilibrium measure implies $\mu_{t_{k}} \rightarrow \mu_{t}$. Moreover, we have equality in the above, which gives the claim. Furthermore, it shows the continuity of the Lyapunov exponent of equilibrium measures.
\end{proof}
Assume that $(\mu_{t})$ is a sequence of equilibrium measures for a subadditive potential $t\log \Phi$, where $t>0$. The author \cite{Moh20} investigated the behavior of the equilibrium measure $(\mu_{t})$ as $t\rightarrow \infty$. In the thermodynamic interpretation of the parameter $t$, it is the \textit{inverse temperature}. The limits $t\rightarrow \infty$ is called \textit{zero temperature limits}, and the accumulation points of the measure $(\mu_{t})$ as $t\rightarrow \infty$ are called \textit{ground states}.
Zero temperature limit is also related to ergodic optimization, as for $t\rightarrow \infty$ any accumulation points of equilibrium measure $\mu_{t}$ is a maximizing measure $\Phi.$
\begin{thm}[{{\cite[Theorem 1.1]{Moh20}}}]\label{cont1en}
Let $(X,T)$ be a topological dynamical system for which the entropy map $\mu \mapsto h_{\mu}(T)$ is upper semi-continuous and topological entropy $h_{top}(T)<\infty.$ Assume that $\Phi=\{\log \phi_{n}\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ is a subadditive potential on the compact metric $X$. Then a family of equilibrium measures $(\mu_{t})$ for potentials $t\Phi$, where $t>0$, has a weak$^{\ast}$ accumulation point as $t \rightarrow \infty.$ Any such accumulation point is a Lyapunov maximizing measure for $\Phi$. Furthermore,
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\chi(\Phi, \mu)=\lim_{i\rightarrow \infty} \chi(\Phi, \mu_{t_{i}}),$
\item[(ii)]$h_{\mu}(T)=\lim_{i \rightarrow \infty} h_{\mu_{t_{i}}}(T).$
\end{itemize}
Moreover, above result works for higher dimensional case.
\end{thm}
We use the above theorem to prove the following theorem.
\begin{thm}\label{1dim}
Suppose that $\mathcal{\mathcal{A}} \in \mathcal{W}$. If $\alpha_{t}= P_{\Phi_{\mathcal{A}}}^{'}(t)$ for $t>0.$ Then
\[ h_{top}(E(\alpha_{t})) \rightarrow h_{top}(E(\beta(\mathcal{A})) \hspace{0,2cm}\textrm{when}\hspace{0,2cm} t \rightarrow \infty.\]
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Since $\mathcal{\mathcal{A}}\in \mathcal{W}$, Theorem \ref{uniq11} implies that for $t>0$, there is a unique equilibrium state $\mu_{t}$ for the subadditive potential $t \Phi_{\mathcal{A}}$ such that \[\chi(\mu_{t}, \mathcal{A})=\alpha_{t}=P_{\Phi_{\mathcal{A}}}^{'}(t).\]
By Theorem (\ref{derivative}), \[h_{top}(E(\alpha_{t}))=h_{\mu_{t}}(T).\]
We know that \[h_{top}(E(\beta(\mathcal{A}))=\sup\{h_{\mu}(T), \hspace{0,2cm} \mu \in \mathcal{M}(\Sigma, T), \hspace{0,2cm} \chi(\mu, \mathcal{A})=\beta(\mathcal{A})\}\] by Theorem \ref{level set1}. So, we only need to show that
\[ h_{\mu_{t}}(T) \rightarrow \sup\{h_{\mu}(T), \hspace{0,2cm} \mu \in \mathcal{M}(\Sigma, T), \hspace{0,2cm} \chi(\mu, \mathcal{A})=\beta(\mathcal{A})\}.\]
That follows from Theorem \ref{cont1en}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem C]It follows from Theorem \ref{1dim} and \ref{convergence1}.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}\label{thmC}
Suppose $\mathcal{A}_{l}, \mathcal{A}\in \mathcal{W}$ with $\mathcal{A}_{l} \rightarrow A$, and $\vec{t_{l}},\vec{t}\in \mathbb R_{+}^{k}$ such that $t_{l}\rightarrow t.$
Assume that $\vec{\alpha_{t_{l}}}= \nabla P_{\vec{\Phi}_{\mathcal{A}_{l}}}(\vec{t_{l}})$ and $\vec{\alpha_{t}}=\nabla P_{\vec{\Phi}_{\mathcal{A}}}(\vec{t})$. Then,
\[\lim_{l\rightarrow \infty} h_{top}(E(\vec{\alpha_{t_{l}}})) =h_{top}(E(\vec{\alpha_{t}})).\]
Moreover,
\[ h_{top}(E(\vec{\alpha_{t}})) \rightarrow h_{top}(E(\vec{\beta}(\vec{\Phi}_{\mathcal{A}})) \hspace{0,2cm}\textrm{when}\hspace{0,2cm} t \rightarrow \infty.\]
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
The proof is similar to Theorems \ref{1dim} and \ref{cont1en} and is omitted.
\end{proof}
\section{The proof of Theorem D}\label{5}
In this section, we are going to prove the continuity of the lower joint spectral radius for general cocycles under certain assumptions. This kind of result is known by Bochi and Morris \cite{BM} under 1-domination assumption for locally constant cocycles. Breuillard and Sert \cite{BS} extended their result to the joint spectrum of locally constant cocycles. Moreover, they gave a counterexample \cite[Example 4.13]{BS} that shows that we have discontinuity the lower joint spectral for typical cocycles. Even though, we have a lot of results for the upper spectral radius, we have few result about the lower spectral radius, which shows that working on the latter case is much harder than the former case.
Assume that $T:X\rightarrow X$ is a diffeomorphism on a compact invariant set $X$. Let $V\oplus W$ be a splitting of the tangent bundle over $X$ that is invariant by the tangent map $DT$. In this case, if vectors in $V$ are uniformly contracted by $DT$ and vectors in $W$ are uniformly expanded, then the splitting is called \textit{hyperbolic}. The more general notion is the \textit{dominated splitting}, if at each point all vectors in $V$ are more contracted than all vectors in $W$. Domination could also be called uniform projective hyperbolicity. Indeed, domination is equivalent to $V$ being hyperbolic repeller and $W$ being hyperbolic attractor in the projective bundle.
In the linear cocycles, we are interested in bundles of the form $X\times \mathbb R^{k}, $ where the linear cocycles are generated by $(T, \mathcal{A})$. Bochi and Gourmelon \cite{BGO} showed that a cocycle admits a dominated splitting $V\oplus W$ with $\dim V=k$ if and only if when $n\rightarrow \infty$, the ratio between the $k-th$ and $(k+ 1)-th$ singular values of the matrices of the $n-th$ iterate increase uniformly exponentially. In fact, they extended the Yoccoz's result \cite{Y} that was proved for 2-dimensional vector bundles.
\begin{defn}
We say that $\mathcal{A}$ is \textit{i-dominated} if there exist constants $C >1$, $0<\tau<1$ such that
\[\frac{\sigma_{i+1}(\mathcal{A}^{n}(x))}{\sigma_{i}(\mathcal{A}^{n}(x))}\leq C \tau^n, \hspace{0.2cm} \forall n\in \mathbb N, x\in X.\
\end{defn}
According to the multilinear algebra properties, where $\mathcal{A}$ is $i-$dominated if and only if $\mathcal{A}^{\wedge i}$ is $1-$dominated.
Let $(X,T)$ be a TDS. We say that $\mathcal{A}:X\rightarrow GL(k, \mathbb R)$ is \textit{almost multiplicative} if there is a constant $C>0$ such that
\[||\mathcal{A}^{m+n}(x)|| \geq C ||\mathcal{A}^m(x)|| ||\mathcal{A}^n(T^m(x))|| \hspace{0.2cm}\forall x\in X, m.n\in \mathbb N.\]
We note that since clearly $||\mathcal{A}^{m+n}(x)|| \leq ||\mathcal{A}^m(x)|| ||\mathcal{A}^n(T^m(x))|| \hspace{0.1cm}$ for all $x\in X, m,n\in \mathbb N$, the condition of almost multiplicativity of $\mathcal{A}$ is equivalent to the statement that $\Phi_{\mathcal{A}}$ is almost additive.\\
\subsection{Almost additive thermodynamic formalism}
In this subsection, we state a theorem that shows we have the Bowen's result for almost additive sequences.
Let $T:\Sigma \to \Sigma$ be a topologically mixing subshift of finite type. We say that a subadditive sequences $\Phi:=\{\log \phi_{n}\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ over $(\Sigma, T)$ has \textit{bounded distortion:} there exists $C\geq 1$ such that for any $n\in \mathbb N$ and $I \in \mathcal{L}(n)$, we have
\[ C^{-1} \leq \frac{\phi_{n}(x)}{\phi_{n}(y)} \leq C\]
for any $x, y \in [I].$
\begin{thm}[{{\cite[Theorem 10.1.9]{Bar}}}]\label{almost-unique}
Let $\Phi=\{\log \phi_{n}\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ be an almost additive sequence over a topologically mixing subshift of finite type $(\Sigma, T)$. Assume that $\Phi$ has bounded distortion. Then :
\begin{itemize}
\item[1.]There is a unique equilibrium measure for $\Phi$,
\item[2.]there is a unique invariant Gibbs measure for $\Phi$,
\item [3.]the two measures coincide and are ergodic.
\end{itemize}
\end{thm}
\begin{thm}\label{derivative:aa}
Let $t\in \mathbb R^{k}$ and let $\vec {\Phi}$ be an almost additive potential. Then, Proposition \ref{eq11} holds for $t\in \mathbb R^{k}$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
It follows from \cite[Theorem 3.3]{FH}.
\end{proof}
Given an almost additive potential $\Phi=\{\log \phi_{n}\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$. Feng and Huang \cite[ Lemma A.4.]{FH} proved the following lemma:
\begin{lem}\label{AAP}
Let $\mu\in \mathcal{M}(X, T)$. Then the map $\mu \mapsto \chi(\mu, \Phi)$ is continuous on $\mathcal{M}(X, T)$.
\end{lem}
\subsection{A cocycle is almost multiplicativite under a cone condition}
Let $\mathcal{A}:X\to GL(k, \mathbb R)$ be a matrix cocycle over a TDS $(X,T)$. We say that a family of convex cones $\mathcal{C}:=(C_x)_{x\in X}$ is a $\ell$-dimensional invariant cone field on $X$ if
\[\mathcal{A}(x)C_{x} \subset C_{T(x)}^{o} \hspace{0.2cm}\forall x\in X,\]
where $\ell$ is the dimension $\mathcal{C}.$
Let $V$ be a vector space over the reals.
\begin{defn}
Fix a convex cone $C \subset V$. Given $v, w \in C$, let
\begin{equation}\label{Hil1}
\alpha(v,w)=\sup\{\lambda >0 | w-\lambda v \in C \}, \hspace{0.2cm}\beta(v,w)=\inf\{\mu >0 | \mu v-w \in C\},
\end{equation}
with $\alpha = 0$ and/or $\beta = \infty$ if the corresponding set is empty. The cone
distance between $v$ and $w$ is
\begin{equation}\label{Hil2}
d_{c}(v, w)=\log \frac{\beta(v, w)}{\alpha(v, w)}.
\end{equation}
The distance $d_{c}$ is called Hilbert projective (pseudo) metric.
\end{defn}
\begin{thm}\label{contraction}
Let $C_{1} \subset V_{1}$ and $C_{2} \subset V_{2}$ be convex cones, and $L:V_{1}\rightarrow V_{2}$ be a linear map such that $L(C_{1}) \subset C_{2}^{o}$. Assume that $\triangle:=\sup_{\hat{v}, \hat{\psi}\in L(C_{1})} d_{C_{2}}(\hat{v}, \hat{w}).$ Then for all $v,w\in C_{1}$, we have
\[d_{C_{2}}(Lv, Lw) \leq \tanh(\frac{\triangle}{4})d_{C_{1}}(v, w),\]
where we use the convention that $\tanh\infty = 1.$
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
See \cite{NL}.
\end{proof}
We are also going to use the following lemma in Proposition \ref{prop:add}.
\begin{lem}\label{bounded_hilbert}Let $V$ be a finite dimensional vector space. Suppose that $C_{1}$ and $C_{2}$ are two convex cones in $V$ such that $C_1\subset C_2^o$ and $d_{C_{2}}$ is the Hilbert metric on $C_2$. Then $C_1$ is bounded in metric $d_{C_2}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let us denote $d$ as the usual distance on the projective space. Since $C_{1} \subset C_{2}^{o}$, $d(C_{1}, \partial C_{2})>0$. Hence, for every $v,w \in C_{1}$ the distances $d(A,v), d(B,w)$ are uniformly bounded from below by $c_1=d(C_1, \partial C_2)$, where $A,B$ are the intersections of the line $\overline{vw}$ with $\partial C_1$. On the other hand, $d(v,w)$ is uniformly bounded from above by $c_2=\diam_d(C_1)$. Thus, $d_{C_2}(v,w) \leq \log ( (c_1+c_2)/c_1)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop} \label{prop:add}
Let $X$ be a compact metric space, and let $\mathcal{A}: X\rightarrow GL(k, \mathbb R)$ be a matrix cocycle over a TDS $(X,T)$. Let $(C_r)_{r\in X}$ be a 1-dimensional invariant cone field on $X$. Then, there exists $\kappa>0$ such that for every $m,n>0$ and for every $x\in X$ we have
\[
||\mathcal{A}^{m+n}(x)|| \geq \kappa ||\mathcal{A}^m(x)|| \cdot ||\mathcal{A}^n(T^m(x))||.
\]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let us start from the notation. Denote by $\pi$ the natural projection from $\mathbb R^{k}$ to the projective space $\mathbb{P}\mathbb R^{k}$ and by $d$ the natural metric on $\mathbb{P}\mathbb R^{k}$. For a family of convex cones $(C_r)_{r\in X}$, all contained in the interior $C^o$ of another convex cone $C$, we define their convex hull as
\[
\conv(C_r) = \{v\in C; \pi(v) = \pi(\sum_i \alpha_i v_i) \hspace{0.1cm}\textrm{for some}\hspace{0.1cm} \alpha_i\geq 0, \sum_i \alpha_i=1, v_i\in C_{r_i}\}
\]
The Hausdorff distance in metric $d$ between $C$ and $\conv(C_r)$ equals the supremum of Hausdorff distances between $C$ and $C_r$ (to be absolutely precise, the Hausdorff distance is defined for compact sets and the metric $d$ is defined on the projective space, so we mean here the Hausdorff distance between $\overline{\pi(C)}$ and $\overline{\pi(\conv(C_r))}$).This supremum is positive, hence $\conv(C_r)\subset C^o$.
For every $x\in X$ the set $T^{-1}(x)$ is compact. Thus, we can define
\[
D_x = \conv(\{\mathcal{A}(y)C_y; y\in T^{-1}(x)\})
\]
for $x\in T(X)$ and, by compactness, we have $D_x\subset C_x^o$.
We choose $D_x$ as any convex cone contained in $C_x^o$ for $x\in X\setminus T(X)$, we only demand that $x\to D_x$ is a continuous map (this can be done because $X$ is compact, hence $X\setminus T(X)$ is open in $X$).
One can check that, as $D_x\subset C_x^o$, we have
\[
\mathcal{A}(x) D_x \subset (\mathcal{A}(x) C_x)^o \subset D_{T(x)}^o.
\]
Hence, $(D_x)$ is another invariant cone field, strictly contained in $(C_x)$.
Let for each $x\in X$ $d_x$ be the Hilbert metric in $C_x$. Let $d$ be the usual metric on $\mathbb{P}\mathbb R^{k}$. We have the following properties:
\begin{itemize}
\item Each $D_x$ is bounded in $d_x$ by Lemma \ref{bounded_hilbert}. By compactness of $X$, there exists $K_1>0$ such that $\diam_{d_x}(D_x)<K_1$ for all $x\in X$.
\item In each $D_x$ the metric $d_x$ is equivalent to $d$. By compactness of $X$, there exists $K_2>1$ such that for every $x\in X$ for every $v,w\in D_x$ we have $K_2^{-1} d_x(v,w) \leq d(v,w) \leq K_2 d_x(v,w)$.
\item Each $A(x): D_x \to D_{T(x)}$ is a contraction by Theorem \ref{contraction}. By compactness of $X$, there exists $\lambda<1$ such that for every $x\in X$ for every $v,w\in D_x$ we have $d_{T(x)}(\mathcal{A}(x)v, \mathcal{A}(x)w) \leq \lambda d_x(v,w)$.
\item For $v\in C_x$ denote \begin{equation}\label{fun}
\gamma_x(v):= \log (\|\mathcal{A}(x)v\|/\|v\|) \in \mathbb R.
\end{equation} The map $v\to\gamma_x(v)$ is Lipschitz (in metric $d$) on $D_x$. By compactness of $X$, there exists $K_3>0$ such that for every $x\in X$ the map $\gamma_x$ is $K_3$-Lipschitz (in metric $d$) on $D_x$.
\item For every $x\in X$ the convex cone $D_x$ contains (for some $v_x\in D_x\cap \mathbb{P}\mathbb R^{k}$ and $r_x>0$) a ball $B(v_x,r_x)=\{w\in \mathbb{P}\mathbb R^{k}; d(v_x,w)<r_x\}$. By compactness of $X$, there exists $r>0$ such that for every $x\in X$ we have $D_x \supset B(v_x,r)$ for some $v_x\in D_x\cap \mathbb{P}\mathbb R^{k} $.
\end{itemize}
Choose some $x\in X$ and $v,w\in D_x$. Fix $m>0$. Denote
\[
\gamma_x^m(v) = \log \frac {\|\mathcal{A}^m(x)v\|} {\|v\|} = \sum_{i=0}^{m-1} \gamma_{T^i(x)}(\mathcal{A}^i(x)v).
\]
Note three obvious properties of this function:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\gamma_x$ is a projective function, that is $\gamma_x (v)=\gamma_x (\alpha v)$ for $\alpha>0$. Thus, we can define $\gamma_x$ on the projective space $\mathbb{P}\mathbb R^{k}$. The same holds for $\gamma_x^m$.
\item $\gamma_x^m(v) \leq \log ||\mathcal{A}^m(x)||$,
\item $\gamma_x^{m+n}(v) = \gamma_x^m(v) + \gamma_{T^m(x)}^n(\mathcal{A}^m(x) v)$.
\end{itemize}
We have
\begin{align*}
d(\mathcal{A}^i(x)v, \mathcal{A}^i(x)w) &\leq K_2 d_{T^i(x)} (\mathcal{A}^i(x)v, \mathcal{A}^i(x)w)\\ &\leq K_2 \lambda^i d_x(v,w) \leq K_2 \lambda^i K_1.
\end{align*}
Hence (see \eqref{fun}),
\[
|\gamma_{x}^m(v)-\gamma_{x}^m(w)| \leq K_3 \sum_{i=0}^{m-1} d(\mathcal{A}^i(x)v, \mathcal{A}^i(x)w) \leq K_4:= K_1 K_2 K_3 \frac 1 {1-\lambda}
\]
for every $v,w\in D_x$.
To finish the proof we need the following lemma.
\begin{lem} \label{lem:supp}
Let $A\in GL(k, \mathbb R)$ and let $K,r>0$. Assume $|\gamma(v)-\gamma(w)|<K$ for some $v\in \mathbb{P}\mathbb R^{k}$ and all $w\in B(v,r)$, where $\gamma(v)=\log \|Av\|$. Then there exists a constant $\rho=\rho(K,r)$, depending on $K$ and $r$ but not on $A$, such that $\gamma(v) \geq \log ||A|| - \rho(K,r)$.
\end{lem}
Before proving Lemma \ref{lem:supp} let us observe that it indeed implies the assertion of Proposition \ref{prop:add}. As $D_x$ contains some ball $B(v,r)$ with $v\in D_x\cap \mathbb{P}\mathbb R^{k}$, we can apply the lemma to the matrix $\mathcal{A}^m(x)$, obtaining $\log ||\mathcal{A}^m(x)|| \leq \rho(K_4,r) + \gamma_x^m(v)$. Hence, for every $w\in D_x$ we have
\[
\log ||\mathcal{A}^m(x)|| \leq \rho(K_4,r) + K_4+ \gamma_x^m(w).
\]
Similarly, $D_{T^m(x)}$ contains a ball of size $r$, hence for every $u\in D_{T^m(x)}$ we have
\[
\log ||\mathcal{A}^n(T^m(x))|| \leq \rho(K_4,r) + K_4+ \gamma_{T^m(x)}^n(u).
\]
Thus, choosing $u=\mathcal{A}^m(x) w$ we get
\begin{align*}
\log ||\mathcal{A}^m(x)|| + \log ||\mathcal{A}^n(T^m(x))|| &\leq 2 \rho(K,r) + 2K_4 + \gamma_x^{m+n}(w)\\ & \leq 2 \rho(K,r) + 2K_4 + \log ||\mathcal{A}^{m+n}(x)||
\end{align*}
which is our assertion.
Now, let us come back and prove Lemma \ref{lem:supp}.
\begin{proof}
We start by a decomposition $A=O_1 D O_2$, where $O_1, O_2$ are orthogonal matrices and $D$ is a diagonal matrix with elements $\pm(\sigma_i(A))$ (the singular values of $A$). It is enough to prove the assertion for the matrix $D$.
So, let $D$ be a diagonal matrix. Let $e$ be the eigenvector corresponding to the maximal eigenvalue: $|De|=||D||$. Even when $v.e=0$, the ball $B(v,r)$ still must contain a vector $w$ such that $|w.e|\geq 1/2 \cdot\sin r$. We have $w=|w.e|e + (1-(w.e)^2)^{1/2}e'$, where $e.e'=0$. Hence,
\[
\gamma(w) = \log |Dw| \geq \log (|w.e| \cdot |De|) = \log |w.e| + \log ||D|| \geq \log (\frac 12 \sin r) + \log ||D||.
\]
Thus, for every $u\in B(v,r)$ we have
\[
\gamma(u) \geq \gamma(w) - K \geq \log ||D|| + \log (\frac 12 \sin r) - K.
\]
We are done.
\end{proof}
\end{proof}
Given $l$-dimensional subspace $E(x)\subset T_{x} \mathbb R^{k}$, we define the convex cone
\[C_{x}=\left\{(u, v) \in E(x) \oplus E(x)^{\perp}:\|v\| \leq \|u\|\right\}.\]
We say that a differentiable map $f: \mathbb{R}^{k} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{k}$ satisfies a $l-$\textit{cone condition} on a set $\Lambda \subset \mathbb{R}^{k}$ if for each $x \in \Lambda$ a $l$-dimensional subspace $E(x) \subset T_{x} \mathbb{R}^{k}$ varying continuously with $x$ such that
\[
\left(d_{x} f\right) C_{x} \subset C_{f(x)}^{o}.
\]
\begin{cor}
Let $M$ be a compact manifold in dimension $d$. Let $T\in \Diff^1(M)$. Let $\mathcal{A}(x)=DT(x)\in GL(k,\mathbb R)$ satisfying a $1-$cone condition. Then, there exists $\kappa>0$ such that for every $m,n>0$ and for every $x\in M$ we have
\[
||\mathcal{A}^{m+n}(x)|| \geq \kappa ||\mathcal{A}^m(x)|| \cdot ||\mathcal{A}^n(T^m(x))||.
\]
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
It follows from the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:add}.
\end{proof}
One needs to be careful that quasi-multiplicativity is not equivalent of almost additivity. For instance, let $T:\{0,1\}^{\mathbb Z}\rightarrow \{0,1\}^{\mathbb Z}$ be a shift map. We define a linear cocycle $(T, \mathcal{A})$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{example}
A_{0}=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc} 2 & 0\\ 0 & \frac{1}{2}
\end{array} \right], \hspace{0.2cm} A_{1}=R_{\theta},
\end{equation}
where $\theta$ is an irrational angle. It is easy to see that the locally constant cocycle $(T, \mathcal{A})$ is strongly irreducible. Feng \cite[Proposition 2.8]{F} showed that the irreducible matrix cocycles are quasi-multiplicative.
\subsection{The proof of Theorem D}
We say that $\hat{\rho}(\mathcal{A})$ is the \textit{upper joint spectral radius} of $\mathcal{A}: X \rightarrow GL(k, \mathbb R)$ if
\[ \log \hat{\rho}(\mathcal{A})=\beta(\mathcal{A}).\]
Similarly, we say that $\check{\rho}(\mathcal{A})$ is the \textit{lower joint spectral radius} of $\mathcal{A}: X \rightarrow GL(k, \mathbb R)$ if
\[ \log\check{\rho}(\mathcal{A})=\alpha(\mathcal{A}).\]
Assume that $f:X\rightarrow X$ is a convex continuous function on the compact metric space $X$. We have $\overline{\partial f(\mathbb R)}=\partial f(\mathbb R) \cup \{f^{'}(\infty)\}\cup \{f^{'}(-\infty)\}$, where $\partial f(\mathbb R) $ is defined as in (\ref{dense222}).
\begin{thm}\label{app}
Let $(X, T)$ be a TDS such that the entropy
map $\mu \mapsto h_{\mu}(T)$ is upper semi-continuous and $h_{top}(T)<\infty$. Suppose that $\mathcal{A}:X\rightarrow GL(k, \mathbb R)$ is a matrix cocycle over the TDS $(X, T)$. Assume that $(C_x)_{x\in X}$ is a 1-dimensional invariant cone field on $X$. Then $\alpha(\mathcal{A})$ can be approximated by
the Lyapunov exponents of the equilibrium measures for the almost additive potential $t\Phi_{\mathcal{A}}$, where $t\in \mathbb R$. Moreover, a minimizing measure for $\mathcal{A}$ exists.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Let $\alpha:=\alpha(\mathcal{A})=P_{\Phi_{\mathcal{A}}}^{'}(-\infty)$ (see Theorem \ref{convex11}). We know that $\mathcal{A}$ is almost multiplicative by Proposition \ref{prop:add}.
According to convexity of $P_{\Phi_{\mathcal{A}}}()$, there exists a sequence $(t_{j} )$ such that $ P_{\Phi_{\mathcal{A}}}^{'}(t_j )=:
\alpha_{j}$ exists for every $j\in \mathbb N$ and $\alpha_{j}\rightarrow \alpha$ as $j \rightarrow \infty$. There exists $\mu_{j} \in \Eq(\Phi_{\mathcal{A}}, t_{j} )$
such that $\chi(\mu_{j}, \Phi)=\alpha_{j}$ for all $j$, by Theorem \ref{derivative:aa}. Let $\mu$ be an accumulation \footnote{$\Eq(
\Phi_{\mathcal{A}}, t)$ is compact in weak-$^{\ast}$ topology.} point of sequence $(\mu_{j}$) as $j\rightarrow \infty$. By Lemma \ref{AAP}, we have
\[\chi(\mu_{j}, \mathcal{A}) \rightarrow \chi(\mu, \mathcal{A})=\alpha.\]
Furthermore, our proof shows that a minimizing measure exists.
\end{proof}
Now, we can show the continuity of the minimal Lyapunov exponent.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem D]
According to Theorem \ref{app}, $\alpha(\mathcal{A})$ can be approximated by
Lyapunov exponents of equilibrium measures for the almost additive potential $t\Phi_{\mathcal{A}}$, where $t\in \mathbb R$. Thus, it is enough to show that \begin{equation}\label{r88}
\chi(\mu_{n}, \mathcal{A}_{n})\rightarrow \chi(\mu, \mathcal{A}),
\end{equation}
where $\mu, \mu_{n}$ are the equilibrium measures.
By Proposition \ref{prop:add}, $\mathcal{A}$ is almost multiplicative and $\Phi_{\mathcal{A}}$ has bounded distortion. Hence, there exist a unique equilibrium measure for the almost additive potential $t\Phi_{\mathcal{A}}$ by Theorem \ref{almost-unique}. Therefore, (\ref{r88}) follows from Lemma \ref{AAP}.
\end{proof}
Domination can be characterized in terms of the existence of invariant cone fields for derivative cocycles (\cite[Theorem 2.6]{CP}). This fact shows that 1-domination implies that $\mathcal{A}$ is almost multiplicative. Hence, one can prove Theorem D for fiber bunched cocycles \footnote{See \cite[Lemma 3.10]{P}.} under 1-domination assumption.
It is possible to obtain the generalization of Theorem \ref{app} to the joint spectrum of all Lyapunov exponents. One can also obtain the continuity of the lower joint spectral radius for all Lyapunov exponents.
|
\section{Introduction}
\noindent Given independent samples from an underlying unknown distribution, we consider the problem of estimating the support size of the distribution. Estimating the support size and unseen species estimation has applications in ecological diversity~\cite{C84,SV84,SCL03,C05,CCG12}, vocabulary size estimation~\cite{ET76,TE87}, database attribute variation~\cite{HNSS95}, password analysis~\cite{FH07}, and, recently, in modern applications such as microbial diversity~\cite{HHJTB01,PBG01,GCB07} and genome sequencing~\cite{daley2013predicting}.
Formally, let $P$ denote the unknown distribution over domain $\mathcal{X}$. Upon observing $N$ independent samples $X_1,X_2,\ldots, X_N \stackrel{\text{def}}{=} X^N$ from $P$, the goal is to estimate the support size,
\begin{equation*}
S(P) \stackrel{\text{def}}{=} \sum_{x \in \mathcal{X}} \mathbbm{1}_{p_x > 0}.
\end{equation*}
Let $N_x(X^N)$ be the number of occurrences of symbol $x$ in $X^N$. The simplest estimator is the \emph{plug-in} or the \emph{empirical} estimator, which estimates $S(P)$ by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:plug_def}
\hat{S}^\text{pl}(X^N) \stackrel{\text{def}}{=} \sum_{x \in \mathcal{X}} \mathbbm{1}_{N_x(X^N) > 0}.
\end{equation}
The plug-in estimator often performs poorly in the non-asymptotic regime, where $N \approx S(P)$. To overcome this, several estimators have been proposed, including the Efron-Thisted estimator~\cite{ET76}, the Chao estimator~\cite{C84}, and, more recently, a near-optimal estimator via linear programming \cite{VV11,VV13} and an optimal linear estimator via Chebyshev polynomials~\cite{WY14b}.
Of the above, perhaps the most used estimator is the Chao estimator which has seen wide usage in ecological~\cite{C84} and microbiological~\cite{LEMOS201142} applications among others. Despite its widespread use, apart from the analysis of the expectation of the estimator in the original paper~\cite{C84}, not much is known about its theoretical properties. In this paper, we analyze the Chao estimator and provide bounds on its worst case \emph{mean squared error} (MSE). In the next section, we state the problem definition and the statistical model.
\subsection{Preliminaries and Notation}
In general, support size estimation is an ill-posed problem as there might be a large set of symbols with infinitesimally small probability, which can never be detected with any finite number of samples. To overcome this, following~\cite{RRSS09, VV11, WY14b}, we focus on distributions where every non-zero probability is lower-bounded. Formally, we restrict ourselves to $\Delta_k$, the set of distributions such that all non-zero symbols have probability $\geq 1/k$. By the law of total probability, distributions in $\Delta_k$ have support size upper-bounded by $k$.
Support size estimation has been studied in a number of different statistical models, including multinomial~\cite{GT56}, Poisson, and Bernoulli-product models~\cite{CCG12}.
Following~\cite{C84, orlitsky2016optimal}, we study the problem in the Poisson sampling model, where the number of observed samples $N$ is a Poisson random variable with known mean $n$. Under Poisson sampling, the multiplicities of symbols $N_x(X^N)$, $x\in\mathcal{X}$, are independent random variables, and $N_x(X^N)$ is Poisson with mean $n p_x$. The
independence of multiplicities comparatively simplifies the MSE analysis. We believe similar results should hold for the other above stated statistical models.
For a distribution $P$ and an estimator $\hat{S}(X^N)$, we measure the performance of the estimator in terms of MSE, given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:spmse}
\mathcal{E}_n(\hat{S}, P) \stackrel{\text{def}}{=} {\mathbb{E}}_{X^N \sim P} (S(P) - \hat{S}(X^N))^2,
\end{equation}
and the worst case MSE over all distributions is
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{E}_{n,k}(\hat{S}) \stackrel{\text{def}}{=} \max_{P \in \Delta_k} \mathcal{E}_n(\hat{S}, P).
\end{equation*}
The simple plug-in estimator only takes into account the number of seen symbols and does not try to predict the symbols that are not observed yet. In this context, Efron-Thisted~\cite{ET76} and Chao~\cite{C84}, observed that support size estimation is closely related to the problem of unseen species estimation, where the goal is to estimate the number of
symbols that have not yet appeared and will appear in the future,
\begin{equation*}
U(X^N, P) \stackrel{\text{def}}{=} \sum_{x \in \mathcal{X}} \mathbbm{1}_{p_x > 0}
\mathbbm{1}_{N_x = 0}.
\end{equation*}
Given an estimator $\hat{U}(X^N)$ for $U(X^N, P)$, one can estimate the support size via
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:utos}
\hat{S}^{\text{pl}}(X^N) + \hat{U}(X^N).
\end{equation}
Let the \emph{prevalence} or \emph{finger-print} $\varphi_i(X^N)$ denote the number of symbols with non-zero probability that appeared $i$ times. For $i \geq 1$
\begin{equation*}
\varphi_i(X^N) \stackrel{\text{def}}{=} \sum_{x \in \mathcal{X}} \mathbbm{1}_{N_x = i},
\end{equation*}
and, for $i = 0$, $\varphi_0(X^N,P) \stackrel{\text{def}}{=} \sum_{x \in \mathcal{X}} \mathbbm{1}_{N_x = 0} \mathbbm{1}_{p_x >0}$. With this notation, $S(P) = \varphi_0(X^N,P)+\sum_{i \geq 1} \varphi_i(X^N)$, the plug-in estimator, $\hat{S}^{\text{pl}} = \sum_{i \geq 1} \varphi_i(X^N)$, and $U(X^N, P) = \varphi_0(X^N,P)$. Hence, for estimators of the form ~\eqref{eq:utos},
\begin{equation*}
S(P) -\hat{S} = \varphi_0(X^N,P) - \hat{U}(X^N),
\end{equation*}
and the error in estimating the support is same as the error in estimating the unseen symbols. Similar to \eqref{eq:spmse}, we define the worst case mean squared error in estimating the unseen symbols by
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{E}_{n,k}(\hat{U}) = \max_{P \in \Delta_k} {\mathbb{E}}_{X^N \sim P} (\hat{U}(X^N) - \varphi_0(X^N,P))^2,
\end{equation*}
and, hence, for the support estimator $\hat{S} = \hat{S}^{\text{pl}} + \hat{U}$,
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{E}_{n,k}(\hat{S}) = \mathcal{E}_{n,k}(\hat{U}).
\end{equation*}
Chao~\cite{C84} proposed the following estimator to estimate the number of unseen symbols\footnote{We use $N_x$ and $\varphi_i$ to abbreviate $N_x(X^N)$ and $\varphi_i(X^N)$ for simplicity.},
\begin{equation*}
\hat{U}^{\text{c}}(X^N) = \frac{\varphi^2_1}{2 \varphi_2},
\end{equation*}
which has a rational form and is not in the class of linear estimators. To understand the Chao estimator, first observe that $\varphi_i = \sum_{x \in \mathcal{X}} \mathbbm{1}_{N_x = i}$. Since $N_x$ is a Poisson random variable with mean $np_x$,
\begin{equation*}
{\mathbb{E}}[\varphi_i] = \sum_{x \in \mathcal{X}} e^{-np_x} \frac{(np_x)^i}{i!}.
\end{equation*}
By the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality,
\begin{align}
{\mathbb{E}}[\varphi_0] \cdot {\mathbb{E}}[\varphi_2] & = \left(\sum_{x \in \mathcal{X}} e^{-np_x} \right) \cdot \left(\sum_{x \in \mathcal{X}} e^{-np_x} \frac{(np_x)^2}{2!} \right), \nonumber \\
& \geq \left(\sum_{x \in \mathcal{X}} e^{-np_x} \frac{(np_x)}{\sqrt{2!}} \right)^2 = \frac{({\mathbb{E}}[\varphi_1])^2}{2}. \label{eq:cauchy}
\end{align}
Hence, $\frac{{\mathbb{E}}[\varphi_1]^2}{2{\mathbb{E}}[\varphi_2]} \leq {\mathbb{E}}[\varphi_0]$, and thus is a lower bound on the expected number of unseen symbols. Since expectations are not available, Chao \cite{C84} proposed to use $\frac{\varphi^2_1}{2\varphi_2}$ as an estimator for $\varphi_0$.
\section{Main Results}
Before we state results for the Chao estimator, we first state a folklore result on the performance of the plug-in estimator.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:plugin}
For the plug-in estimator $\hat{S}^{\text{pl}}$ defined in ~\eqref{eq:plug_def},
\begin{equation*}
k^2 e^{-2n/k} + k e^{-n/k} \ge \mathcal{E}_{n,k}(\hat{S}^{\text{pl}}) \ge k^2 e^{-2n/k} + k e^{-n/k} - k e^{-2n/k}.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For any distribution $p \in \Delta_k$, let
\begin{align*}
S(P) - \hat{S}^{\text{pl}} = \varphi^0 = \sum_{x \in \mathcal{X}} \mathbbm{1}_{N_x = 0}.
\end{align*}
Hence,
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}[(S(P) - \hat{S}^{\text{pl}} )^2]
& = \mathbb{E}[(\sum_{x \in \mathcal{X}} \mathbbm{1}_{N_x = 0})^2] \\
& \stackrel{(a)}{=} \mathbb{E}^2[(\sum_{x \in \mathcal{X}} \mathbbm{1}_{N_x = 0})] + \text{Var}\left(\sum_{x \in \mathcal{X}} \mathbbm{1}_{N_x = 0}\right)\\
& \stackrel{(b)}{=} \mathbb{E}^2[(\sum_{x \in \mathcal{X}} \mathbbm{1}_{N_x = 0})] + \sum_{x \in \mathcal{X}} \text{Var}( \mathbbm{1}_{N_x = 0}) \\
& \stackrel{(c)}{=} (\sum_{x \in \mathcal{X}} e^{-np_x})^2 + \sum_{x \in \mathcal{X}} e^{-np_x} (1-e^{-np_x}),
\end{align*}
where $(a)$ follows from the definition of bias and variance, $(b)$ follows from the fact that variance of sum of independent random variables is the sum of variance of independent random variables, and $(c)$ follows from the fact that $\mathbbm{1}_{N_x = 0}$ is a Bernoulli random variable with parameter $e^{-np_x}$. The lower bound follows by substituting $p$ to be the uniform distribution over $k$ elements and the upper bound follows by the convexity of the function $p \to e^{-np}$.
\end{proof}
\noindent Observe that the Chao estimator is undefined if $\varphi_2 = 0$. To circumvent this, we consider the closely related \emph{modified Chao estimator},
\begin{equation*}
\hat{U}^{\text{mc}} (X^N) = \frac{\varphi_1^2}{2 (\varphi_2 + 1)}.
\end{equation*}
The analysis of MSE for the Chao estimator and the modified Chao estimator are involved, as they are rational functions over the prevalences. Furthermore, the prevalences are dependent on each other. By developing new tools to analyze the expectation of ratios of functions of prevalences, we show the following.
\begin{theorem}
\label{theorem:main:MSE}
For the modified Chao estimator,
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{E}_{n,k} (\hat{U}^{\text{mc}}) \le k^2 \left( \frac{1}{1 + n/(k\alpha)}\right)^4 e^{-2n/k} + \epsilon(n,k),
\end{equation*}
where $\alpha=0.5569...$ solves $u^2=4e^{-2}e^{-u}$ and
\begin{align*}
\epsilon(n,k) = \left( \frac{4k^4}{\left(n^{4/5} - \sqrt{4/\pi}\right)^3} + \frac{(32.28)k^4}{n^{12/5}} + \frac{(98.97)k^3}{n^{11/5}} + \frac{2k^2}{n^{6/5}} + \frac{(1.77)k}{n^{1/5}} + \frac{(22.21)k^2}{n^2} \right).
\end{align*}
\end{theorem}
For the non-asymptotic regime of interest, where $n = \Omega(k)$, $\epsilon(n,k)$ is $o(k^2)$ and the first term dominates. Hence, for $n = \Omega(k)$, the Chao estimator has better worst case MSE than the plug-in estimator. Furthermore, when $n \geq k$, the worst case MSE of the Chao estimator is at least a factor $(k/n)^4$ lower than the worst case MSE of the plug-in estimator (Lemma~\ref{lem:plugin}) and, for $n \ll k$, the worst case performance of the Chao estimator approaches that of the plug-in estimator.
We note that the best estimator for support size and the unseen species problem achieves the worst case MSE
\begin{equation*}
\min_{\hat{S}}\ \mathcal{E}_{n,k}(\hat{S}) = k^2 \cdot \exp \left(- \Theta \left( \sqrt{\frac{n \log k}{k}} \vee
\frac{n}{k} \vee 1 \right) \right),
\end{equation*}
and is achieved by the \emph{Chebyshev linear estimator}~\cite{WY14b}, obtained by the approximation properties of Chebyshev polynomials.
An empirical comparison of three estimators: plug-in, Chao, and Chebyshev estimators on synthetic data is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:1}. The Chebyshev estimator is
parameterized by constants $c_0$ and $c_1$, which we choose as $0.45$ and $0.5$ as suggested in \cite{WY14b}. The distributions are chosen from $\Delta_k$ with $k = 10^4$. We consider (i) the uniform distribution on $k$ symbols, (ii) the $\mathrm{Zipf}(1)$ distribution with probability of the $i^{th}$ symbol proportional to $i^{-1}$, (iii) the geometric distribution with probability of the $i^{th}$ symbol proportional to $\alpha^{i-1}$ where $\alpha = 1 - k^{-1}$, and (iv) an even mixture of two uniform distributions, with probability of half of the symbols as $k^{-1}$ and the other half as $3 k^{-1}$. From Fig. \ref{fig:1}, the convergence rate of the modified Chao estimator is seen to be higher than the plug-in estimator over the distributions we considered. However, with the exception of the uniform distribution, the Chebyshev estimator outperforms the modified
Chao estimator. In the rest of the paper, we provide a proof of Theorem \ref{theorem:main:MSE}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{subfigure}[h]{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{img/uniform/uniform10k.eps}
\label{fig:uniform}
\end{subfigure}%
\begin{subfigure}[h]{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{img/zipf1/zipf1_1292.eps}
\label{fig:zipf1}
\end{subfigure}\\%
\begin{subfigure}[h]{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{img/geo/geo_5820.eps}
\label{fig:geo}
\end{subfigure}%
\begin{subfigure}[h]{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{img/unimix/unimix_5k.eps}
\label{fig:unimix}
\end{subfigure}%
\caption{Comparison of plug-in, Chao and Chebyshev estimators over various distributions.}
\label{fig:1}
\end{figure}
\section{Analysis of the Chao estimator} \label{sec:proof-sketch}
The MSE of the modified Chao estimator can be written as
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{E}(\hat{U}^{\text{mc}}, P)=\mathbb{E} \left[ \left(\frac{\varphi_1^2}{2(\varphi_2+1)} \right)^2
\right] - \mathbb{E} \left[ \frac{\varphi_0
\varphi_1^2}{\varphi_2+1} \right] + \mathbb{E} \left[ \varphi_0^2
\right].
\label{eq:MSE3term}
\end{equation}
Analyzing the above quantity is difficult as it involves rational
functions of prevalences. A natural question to ask is how good are the
approximations:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:approx_special1}
\mathbb{E} \left[ \left(\frac{\varphi_1^2}{2(\varphi_2+1)} \right)^2\right] &\approx
\left(\frac{\mathbb{E}[\varphi_1^2]}{2(\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2]+1)} \right)^2, \\
\mathbb{E} \left[ \frac{\varphi_0 \varphi_1^2}{\varphi_2+1} \right] &\approx \frac{\mathbb{E} [\varphi_0] \cdot \mathbb{E}[\varphi_1^2]}{\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2]+1}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
We expect such approximations to hold when $\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2]$ is
large. Motivated by this, we divide the proof of
Theorem~\ref{theorem:main:MSE} into two cases based on $\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2]$:
\begin{description}
\item[High collision regime~.] ${\mathbb{E}} [\varphi_2] \ge n^a$, where $a$ is a
constant that is determined later. In this case, the
prevalences concentrate around their mean.
\item[Low collision regime~.] ${\mathbb{E}} [\varphi_2] < n^a$. In this case, both the number
of unseen elements and the estimates are small.
\end{description}
\subsection{Analysis for High collision regime~}
\label{sec:rational_approx1}
We first analyze the case where $\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2]$ is large. Instead of
asking when approximation \eqref{eq:approx_special1} holds, we generalize and ask if
expectations involving such rational functions of prevalences hold. Let
$\varPhi_\mathrm{poly}$ be a homogeneous polynomial of degree $d$ in
$\varphi_i$ and let $\varPhi_\mathrm{linear}$ be a linear function of prevalences of the
form
\[
\varPhi_\mathrm{linear} = \sum_{i \geq 0} \beta_i \varphi_i,
\]
and let
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:sigma}
\sigma \triangleq \beta_0 + \sum_{i \ge 1} \frac{\beta_i}{\sqrt{2 \pi i}}.
\end{equation}
\begin{theorem} \label{theorem:decouple1}
Let $\beta_i \in [0,1]$ for each $i \geq 0$. Then for any
{non-increasing} function $f$,
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E} \left[ \varPhi_\mathrm{poly} \cdot f(\varPhi_\mathrm{linear})
\right]\ \ge\ \mathbb{E} [\varPhi_\mathrm{poly}] \cdot \mathbb{E} [f(
\varPhi_\mathrm{linear} + d)].\label{eq:lower-bound1}
\end{equation}
If $f$ is \textbf{concave} and $\mathbb{E} [\varPhi_\mathrm{linear}] \ge d
\sigma$,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:upper-bound1}
\mathbb{E} \left[ \varPhi_\mathrm{poly} \cdot f(\varPhi_\mathrm{linear})
\right]\ \le\ \mathbb{E} [\varPhi_\mathrm{poly}] \cdot f(\mathbb{E} [
\varPhi_\mathrm{linear} ] - d \sigma ).
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
A proof is given in Section \ref{sec:rational_approx}.
\end{proof}
Note that if the function $f$ is smooth and has small derivative around $\mathbb{E} [\varPhi_\mathrm{linear}]$, then Theorem~\ref{theorem:decouple1} implies that
\[
\mathbb{E} \left[ \varPhi_\mathrm{poly} \cdot f(\varPhi_\mathrm{linear})
\right] \approx \mathbb{E} \left[ \varPhi_\mathrm{poly}] \cdot \mathbb{E}[ f(\varPhi_\mathrm{linear})
\right].
\]
In addition to \eqref{eq:upper-bound1} of Theorem~\ref{theorem:decouple1},
which only holds when $f$ is concave, we develop one more such upper bound when $f$ is not concave. This is particularly useful for Chao estimator as the function $f$ in Chao estimator is $1/x$, which is not concave.
Define $\mathbb{V}$ as the space spanned by the functions $\{1, (x+1)^{-1}, ((x+1)(x+2))^{-1}, \dots\}$ over $\mathbb{R}_{\ge 0}$. Functions in this space are represented as
$\mathbf{v} = (v_0,v_1,\dots) \equiv \sum_{r \ge 0} v_r \cdot \prod_{j=1}^r (x+j)^{-1}$. A function $f_1$ is said to dominate
another function $f_2$ over some domain $D$ if $\forall x \in D, f_1 (x)
\ge f_2 (x)$. Let $\mathrm{Supp} (\varPhi_\mathrm{linear})$ be the range of function $\varPhi_\mathrm{linear}$.
\begin{theorem} \label{theorem:decouple:0011}
Consider $\varPhi_\mathrm{linear}$ with $\beta_i \in [0,1]$ for each $i \geq 0$. Consider some function $f$ and let $(f_0',f_1',\dots) \in \mathbb{V}$ dominate $f$ over $\ \mathrm{Supp} (\varPhi_\mathrm{linear})$. Then, if $\mathbb{E} [\varPhi_\mathrm{linear}] > d \sigma$,
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb{E} \left[ \varPhi_\mathrm{poly} f(\varPhi_\mathrm{linear}) \right] \le \mathbb{E} [\varPhi_\mathrm{poly}] \cdot \sum_{t \ge 0} f'_t (\mathbb{E} [ \varPhi_\mathrm{linear} ] - d \sigma )^{-t}.
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
A proof is given in Section \ref{sec:rational_approx}.
\end{proof}
The above two theorems can be used in other scenarios where expectation of rational functions of prevalences are required, such as computing the expected KL risk for Good-Turing estimators~\cite{OS15} and modified Good-Turing estimators~\cite{acharya2013optimal, hao2019doubly}.
Using Theorems \ref{theorem:decouple1} and \ref{theorem:decouple:0011}, we approximate $\mathcal{E}(\hat{U}^{\text{mc}}, P)$ and relate the expectation of ratios (resp. products) to ratio (resp. product) of expectations as required in \eqref{eq:approx_special1}. This results in the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:high:0011}
For the modified Chao estimator, defining $\sigma_{\mathrm{Chao}} = 1/\sqrt{4\pi} = 0.282...$ by \eqref{eq:sigma},
if $\mathbb{E} [\varphi_2] > 4\sigma_{\mathrm{Chao}}$, for any distribution
$P \in \Delta_k$,
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{E}(\hat{U}^{\text{mc}}, P) \le \left( \frac{\mathbb{E}[\varphi_1^2]}{2
\mathbb{E} [\varphi_2]} - \mathbb{E} [\varphi_0]\right)^2
+ \frac{ 4 k^4}{\left( \mathbb{E}
[\varphi_2] - 4 \sigma_{\mathrm{Chao}} \right)^3}.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We start by upper-bounding the first term of $\mathcal{E}(\hat{U}^{\text{mc}}, P)$ in \eqref{eq:MSE3term} using Theorem \ref{theorem:decouple:0011}. Let $f(x) = (1+x)^{-2}$. For $x\ge0$, since
\[
\frac{1}{(1+x)^2}\le \frac{1}{(1+x)(2+x)}+\frac{3}{(1+x)(2+x)(3+x)},
\]
we have that $(0,0,1,3,0,\ldots)\in\mathbb{V}$ dominates $f$ in $[0,\infty)$. Setting $\varPhi_\mathrm{poly}=\varphi_1^4$ ($d=4$) and $\varPhi_\mathrm{linear}=\varphi_2$ in Theorem \ref{theorem:decouple:0011}, we get
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E} \left[ \left(\frac{\varphi_1^2}{2(\varphi_2+1)} \right)^2
\right]&\le \frac{\mathbb{E}[\varphi_1^4]}{4}\left(\frac{1}{(\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2]-4\sigma_{\mathrm{Chao}})^2}+\frac{3}{(\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2]-4\sigma_{\mathrm{Chao}})^3}\right).\label{eq:MSE11}
\end{align}
For $0<a<x$ and integer $t\ge 1$, we have $(1-a/x)^t \ge 1-at/x \ge 1-at/(x-a)$. Rearranging, we get
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{(x-a)^t}\le \frac{1}{x^t}+\frac{at}{(x-a)^{t+1}},\,\,0<a<x.
\end{equation}
Using the above in the first term of \eqref{eq:MSE11} with $x=\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2]$, $a=4\sigma_{\mathrm{Chao}}$, we get
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E} \left[ \left(\frac{\varphi_1^2}{2(\varphi_2+1)} \right)^2
\right]&\le \frac{\mathbb{E}[\varphi_1^4]}{4\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2]^2}+\frac{(3+8\sigma_{\mathrm{Chao}})k^4}{4(\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2]-4\sigma_{\mathrm{Chao}})^3},\label{eq:MSE12}
\end{align}
where we have used $\varphi_1\le k$ in the second term. Using Lemma \ref{lemma:appB:004} with $\varPhi_\mathrm{poly} = \varphi_1^2$, we have
$$\mathbb{E}[\varphi_1^4]\le \mathbb{E}[\varphi_1^2]^2+6k\mathbb{E}[\varphi_1^2]\le \mathbb{E}[\varphi_1^2]^2+6k^3.$$
Using the above in \eqref{eq:MSE12}, we get
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E} \left[ \left(\frac{\varphi_1^2}{2(\varphi_2+1)} \right)^2
\right] &\le \frac{\mathbb{E}[\varphi_1^2]^2}{4\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2]^2}
+\frac{6k^3}{4\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2]^2}
+\frac{(3+8\sigma_{\mathrm{Chao}})k^4}{4(\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2]-4\sigma_{\mathrm{Chao}})^3}\nonumber\\
&\stackrel{(i)}{\le}\frac{\mathbb{E}[\varphi_1^2]^2}{4\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2]^2}
+\frac{6k^3}{4(\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2]-4\sigma_{\mathrm{Chao}})^2}\,\frac{k}{\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2]-4\sigma_{\mathrm{Chao}}}
+\frac{(3+8\sigma_{\mathrm{Chao}})k^4}{4(\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2]-4\sigma_{\mathrm{Chao}})^3}\nonumber\\
&\le \frac{\mathbb{E}[\varphi_1^2]^2}{4\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2]^2}+\frac{(9+8\sigma_{\mathrm{Chao}})k^4}{4(\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2]-4\sigma_{\mathrm{Chao}})^3},
\label{eq:MSEterm1}
\end{align}
where $(i)$ follows because $\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2]-4\sigma_{\mathrm{Chao}}\le \mathbb{E}[\varphi_2] \le k$.
Next, we lower bound the second term of $\mathcal{E}(\hat{U}^{\text{mc}},P)$ in \eqref{eq:MSE3term}. In \eqref{eq:lower-bound1}, setting $\varPhi_\mathrm{poly}=\varphi_0\varphi_1^2$ ($d=3$), $\varPhi_\mathrm{linear}=\varphi_2$ and $f(x)=(1+x)^{-1}$, we get
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E} \left[ \frac{\varphi_0
\varphi_1^2}{\varphi_2+1} \right] &\ge \mathbb{E}[\varphi_0
\varphi_1^2]\,\mathbb{E}\left[\frac{1}{\varphi_2+4}\right]\nonumber\\
&\stackrel{(i)}{\ge} \mathbb{E}[\varphi_0\varphi_1^2]\,\frac{1}{\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2]+4}\nonumber\\
&\stackrel{(ii)}{\ge} \mathbb{E}[\varphi_0\varphi_1^2]\left(\frac{1}{\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2]}-\frac{4}{\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2]^2}\right),\label{eq:MSEterm2}
\end{align}
where $(i)$ follows by Jensen's inequality and $(ii)$ by the inequality $1/(x+a)\ge 1/x-a/x^2$ for $x+a\ge0$.
To upper bound the third term of $\mathcal{E}(\hat{U}^{\text{mc}},P)$ in \eqref{eq:MSE3term}, we use Lemma \ref{lemma:appB:002} (with $h=2$) to get
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}[\varphi_0^2]\le \mathbb{E}[\varphi_0]^2+\mathbb{E}[\varphi_0].\label{eq:MSEterm3}
\end{equation}
Adding \eqref{eq:MSEterm1}, \eqref{eq:MSEterm2} and \eqref{eq:MSEterm3}, we get
\begin{align}
\mathcal{E}(\hat{U}^{\text{mc}},P)
&\le \frac{\mathbb{E}[\varphi_1^2]^2}{4\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2]^2}+\frac{(9+8\sigma_{\mathrm{Chao}})k^4}{4(\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2]-4\sigma_{\mathrm{Chao}})^3}
-\frac{\mathbb{E}[\varphi_1^2\varphi_0]}{\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2]}+\frac{4\mathbb{E}[\varphi_1^2\varphi_0]}{\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2]^2}
+\mathbb{E}[\varphi_0]^2+\mathbb{E}[\varphi_0].\label{eq:MSE:ub1}
\end{align}
In \eqref{eq:upper-bound1} of Theorem \ref{theorem:decouple1}, setting $\varPhi_\mathrm{poly}=\varphi_1^2$ ($d=2$), $\varPhi_\mathrm{linear}=\varphi_0$ and $f(x)=-x$, we get
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}[\varphi_1^2\varphi_0]\ge \mathbb{E}[\varphi_1^2]\mathbb{E}[\varphi_0-2\sigma_{\mathrm{Chao}}]=\mathbb{E}[\varphi_1^2]\mathbb{E}[\varphi_0]-2\sigma_{\mathrm{Chao}}\mathbb{E}[\varphi_1^2].
\end{equation}
Using the above in the negative third term in \eqref{eq:MSE:ub1} and rearranging, we get
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{E}(\hat{U}^{\text{mc}},P)\le
\left(\frac{\mathbb{E}[\varphi_1^2]}{2\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2]}-\mathbb{E}[\varphi_0]\right)^2
+\frac{(9+8\sigma_{\mathrm{Chao}})k^4}{4(\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2]-4\sigma_{\mathrm{Chao}})^3}
+\frac{2\sigma_{\mathrm{Chao}}\mathbb{E}[\varphi_1^2]}{\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2]}+\frac{4\mathbb{E}[\varphi_1^2\varphi_0]}{\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2]^2}+\mathbb{E}[\varphi_0].\label{eq:MSE1}
\end{equation}
To get the statement of the lemma, the last three terms above are bounded and combined into the second term as follows. Using $\varphi_i\le k$ in the numerators of the last three terms in \eqref{eq:MSE1} and replacing $\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2]$ with the smaller $\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2]-4\sigma_{\mathrm{Chao}}$ in the denominators, we get
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{E}(\hat{U}^{\text{mc}},P)\le
\left(\frac{\mathbb{E}[\varphi_1^2]}{2\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2]}-\mathbb{E}[\varphi_0]\right)^2
+\frac{(9+8\sigma_{\mathrm{Chao}})k^4}{4(\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2]-4\sigma_{\mathrm{Chao}})^3}
+\frac{2\sigma_{\mathrm{Chao}} k^2}{\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2]-4\sigma_{\mathrm{Chao}}}+\frac{4k^3}{(\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2]-4\sigma_{\mathrm{Chao}})^2}+k.\label{eq:MSE2}
\end{equation}
Finally, observe that
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2]-4\sigma_{\mathrm{Chao}} \le \mathbb{E}[\varphi_2] = \frac{1}{2}\sum_{x\in\mathcal{X}}(np_x)^2e^{-np_x}\stackrel{(i)}{\le} 2e^{-2}\mathcal{X} \le 2e^{-2}k,
\end{align}
where $(i)$ follows because $x^2e^{-x}\le 4e^{-2}$, $x\ge0$. Using the above in \eqref{eq:MSE2},
\begin{align}
\mathcal{E}(\hat{U}^{\text{mc}},P)&\le
\left(\frac{\mathbb{E}[\varphi_1^2]}{2\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2]}-\mathbb{E}[\varphi_0]\right)^2
+\frac{(9+8\sigma_{\mathrm{Chao}})k^4}{4(\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2]-4\sigma_{\mathrm{Chao}})^3}
+\frac{2\sigma_{\mathrm{Chao}} (4e^{-4})k^4}{(\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2]-4\sigma_{\mathrm{Chao}})^3}\nonumber\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad+\frac{4(2e^{-2})k^4}{(\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2]-4\sigma_{\mathrm{Chao}})^3}+\frac{(8e^{-8})k^4}{(\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2]-4\sigma_{\mathrm{Chao}})^3}\nonumber\\
&\le \left(\frac{\mathbb{E}[\varphi_1^2]}{2\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2]}-\mathbb{E}[\varphi_0]\right)^2+\frac{(9/4+2\sigma_{\mathrm{Chao}}+8e^{-4}\sigma_{\mathrm{Chao}}+8e^{-2}+8e^{-8})k^4}{(\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2]-4\sigma_{\mathrm{Chao}})^3},
\end{align}
which results in the statement of the lemma.
\end{proof}
Thus, to bound the MSE of the Chao estimator, we need to bound $
\frac{\mathbb{E}[\varphi_1^2]}{2 \mathbb{E} [\varphi_2]} - \mathbb{E} [\varphi_0]$.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:high:0021}
For any $P \in \Delta_k$,
\begin{equation}
\frac{-k e^{-n/k}}{(1 + n/(k\alpha))^2} \le
\frac{\mathbb{E}[\varphi_1^2]}{2 \mathbb{E} [\varphi_2]} -
\mathbb{E} [\varphi_0] \le \frac{k}{n}, \label{eq:biasbound}
\end{equation}
where $\alpha=0.5569...$ solves $u^2=4e^{-2}e^{-u}$. Modifying \eqref{eq:biasbound},
\begin{equation}
\left(\frac{\mathbb{E}[\varphi_1^2]}{2 \mathbb{E} [\varphi_2]} -
\mathbb{E} [\varphi_0]\right)^2 \le \frac{k^2 e^{-2n/k}}{(1 + n/(k\alpha))^4}+\frac{k^2}{n^2}.\label{eq:biassquarebound}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We first prove the upper bound. By Lemma \ref{lemma:appB:002} (with $h=2$),
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}[\varphi_1^2]\le \mathbb{E}[\varphi_1]^2+\mathbb{E}[\varphi_1].\label{eq:phi1}
\end{align}
Using \eqref{eq:cauchy}, the first term above is upper-bounded as $\mathbb{E}[\varphi_1]^2\le 2\mathbb{E}[\varphi_0]\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2]$. For the second term, we proceed as follows:
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}[\varphi_1] &= \sum_{x\in\mathcal{X}}e^{-np_x}np_x = 2\sum_{x\in\mathcal{X}}e^{-np_x}\frac{(np_x)^2}{2}\frac{1}{np_x}\nonumber\\
&\stackrel{(i)}{\le} 2\sum_{x\in\mathcal{X}}e^{-np_x}\frac{(np_x)^2}{2}\frac{k}{n}\nonumber\\
&\le \frac{k}{n}\,2\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2],\label{eq:ephi1}
\end{align}
where $(i)$ follows by using $p_x\ge1/k$ in the term $1/np_x$. Using \eqref{eq:cauchy} and \eqref{eq:ephi1} in \eqref{eq:phi1}, we get the upper bound of the lemma.
The lower bound is more involved and we provide the proof now.
By Jensen's inequality,
\[
\frac{{\mathbb{E}} [\varphi^2_1]}{2 {\mathbb{E}} \left[ \varphi_2 \right]} - {\mathbb{E}} \left[ \varphi_0 \right] \geq \frac{{\mathbb{E}} [\varphi_1]^2}{2 {\mathbb{E}} \left[ \varphi_2 \right]} - {\mathbb{E}} \left[ \varphi_0 \right].
\]
Hence, it suffices to lower bound the RHS above, or upper bound its negative. For ease of exposition, let $\lambda_x$ denote $np_x$ for symbol $x\in\mathcal{X}$. Recall that
\[
\mathbb{E}[\varphi_i] = \sum_{x \in \mathcal{X}} e^{-\lambda_x} \frac{\lambda^i_x}{i!}.
\]
Fixing the size of the alphabet $m\triangleq|\mathcal{X}|$ and letting $\lambda=[\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_m]$, we define
\[
B(\lambda) \triangleq{\mathbb{E}} \left[ \varphi_0 \right]-\frac{{\mathbb{E}} [\varphi_1]^2}{2 {\mathbb{E}} \left[ \varphi_2 \right]} =\sum_{i=1}^m e^{-\lambda_i} - \frac{(\sum_{i=1}^m \lambda_i e^{-\lambda_i})^2}{\sum_{i=1}^m \lambda_i^2 e^{-\lambda_i}},
\]
where
\begin{equation}
\lambda\in\Lambda\triangleq\{v\in\mathbb{R}^m:v_i\ge n/k,\sum_i v_i = n\}.
\end{equation}
We relax the domain of $\lambda$ to
\begin{equation}
\Lambda'\triangleq\{v\in\mathbb{R}^m:v_i\ge n/k\}\supseteq \Lambda,
\end{equation}
and consider the following optimization problem:
\begin{equation}
B^* = \max_{\lambda\in\Lambda'} B(\lambda).
\end{equation}
In the rest of this proof, we will show that $B^*\le k\,e^{-n/k}/(1+n/\alpha k)^2$, which implies the lower bound of the lemma.
Since $B(\lambda)$ is continuously differentiable in $\Lambda'$, any extremum point $\lambda^*=[\lambda^*_1,\ldots,\lambda^*_m]\in\Lambda'$ for $B(\lambda)$ satisfies either $\lambda^*_i=n/k$ or $\frac{\partial B}{\partial \lambda_i}\vert_{\lambda^*_i}=0$ for each $i$. Differentiating $B(\lambda)$ partially with respect to $\lambda_i$ and simplifying, we get
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial B}{\partial \lambda_i} &= -\left(\lambda_i - \frac{2\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2]}{\mathbb{E}[\varphi_1]}\right)\left(\lambda_i - 2 - \frac{2\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2]}{\mathbb{E}[\varphi_1]}\right)\frac{e^{-\lambda_i}\mathbb{E}[\varphi_1]^2}{4\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2]^2}\label{eq:Bp1}\\
&= -\big(a_{\mbox{\tiny$\sim$} i}\lambda_i-b_{\mbox{\tiny$\sim$} i}\big)\big((a_{\mbox{\tiny$\sim$} i}-2e^{-\lambda_i})\lambda_i-(2a_{\mbox{\tiny$\sim$} i}+b_{\mbox{\tiny$\sim$} i})\big)\frac{e^{-\lambda_i}}{4\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2]^2},\label{eq:Bp2}
\end{align}
where $a_{\mbox{\tiny$\sim$} i}=\sum\limits_{i'=1,i'\ne i}^m\lambda_{i'}e^{-\lambda_{i'}}$ and $b_{\mbox{\tiny$\sim$} i}=\sum\limits_{i'=1,i'\ne i}^m\lambda^2_{i'}e^{-\lambda_{i'}}$. Hence, if
$\frac{\partial B}{\partial \lambda_i}=0$, then either
\begin{align}
\lambda_i &= \frac{2\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2]}{\mathbb{E}[\varphi_1]} = \frac{b_{\mbox{\tiny$\sim$} i}}{a_{\mbox{\tiny$\sim$} i}},\text{ or}\\
\lambda_i& = 2+\frac{2\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2]}{\mathbb{E}[\varphi_1]}\text{ solves }(a_{\mbox{\tiny$\sim$} i}-2e^{-\lambda_i})\lambda_i=2a_{\mbox{\tiny$\sim$} i}+b_{\mbox{\tiny$\sim$} i}.\label{eq:li}
\end{align}
Since $(a_{\mbox{\tiny$\sim$} i}-2e^{-x})x$ is one-to-one from $[\max(0,\log(2/a_{\mbox{\tiny$\sim$} i})),\infty)$ to $[0,\infty)$, a solution for $\lambda_i$ exists in \eqref{eq:li}. Also, by \eqref{eq:ephi1}, $\frac{2\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2]}{\mathbb{E}[\varphi_1]}\ge n/k$.
Hence, any extremum point $\lambda^*=[\lambda^*_1,\ldots,\lambda^*_m]\in\Lambda'$ of $B(\lambda)$ necessarily has the following form:
\begin{align}
\exists S_0\subseteq [m]: &\,\,\lambda^*_i=n/k, \qquad\quad i\in S_0,\\
\exists S_1\subseteq [m]\setminus S_0: &\,\,\lambda^*_i=\lambda_c, \qquad\qquad i\in S_1,\\
S_2 = [m]\setminus S_0\setminus S_1: &\,\,\lambda^*_i=2+\lambda_c, \qquad i\in S_2,\\
&\,\,\lambda_c = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^m(\lambda^*_i)^2 e^{-\lambda^*_i}}{\sum_{i=1}^m\lambda^*_i e^{-\lambda^*_i}}.\label{eq:lc}
\end{align}
Letting $s_0 = |S_0|$, $s_1 = |S_1|$, \eqref{eq:lc} can be written as
\begin{align}
\lambda_c = \frac{s_0(n/k)^2 e^{-n/k} + s_1\lambda^2_c e^{-\lambda_c} + (m-s_0-s_1)(2+\lambda_c)^2 e^{-(2+\lambda_c)}}{s_0(n/k)e^{-n/k}+s_1\lambda_c e^{-\lambda_c}+(m-s_0-s_1)(2+\lambda_c)e^{-(2+\lambda_c)}}.
\end{align}
Cross-multiplying and simplifying, we get
\begin{align}
s_0(\lambda_c-n/k)(n/k)e^{-n/k}=2(m-s_0-s_1)(2+\lambda_c)e^{-(2+\lambda_c)}.\label{eq:lc2}
\end{align}
For $s_0=m$, we get $B(\lambda^*)=0$. For $s_0=0$, from \eqref{eq:lc2}, we need $s_1=m$, which results in $B(\lambda^*)=0$. For $s_0+s_1=m$, we have $s_2=0$ and, from \eqref{eq:lc2}, we need $\lambda_c=n/k$, which results in $B(\lambda^*)=0$. For $s_0>0, s_1\ge0$ such that $s_0+s_1<m$, it is easy to see that there exists a unique $\lambda_c>n/k$ satisfying \eqref{eq:lc2} (the LHS increases from 0 at $\lambda_c=n/k$ linearly, and the RHS falls from a non-zero value). For such extremum points, we get $B(\lambda^*)>0$. Therefore,
\begin{align}
B^* &= \max_{\lambda\in\Lambda'} B(\lambda)\nonumber\\
&= \max_{\stackrel{s_0\in[1:m-1],s_0+s_1<m}{\lambda^*:\lambda_c\text{ solves }\eqref{eq:lc2}}} \left[s_0e^{-n/k}+s_1e^{-\lambda_c}+(m-s_0-s_1)e^{-(2+\lambda_c)} - \frac{\left(\sum_{i=1}^m\lambda^*_i e^{-\lambda^*_i}\right)^2}{\sum_{i=1}^m(\lambda^*_i)^2 e^{-\lambda^*_i}}\right]\nonumber\\
&\stackrel{(a)}{=}\max_{\stackrel{s_0\in[1:m-1],s_0+s_1<m}{\lambda_c\text{ solves }\eqref{eq:lc2}}}\left[s_0e^{-n/k}+s_1e^{-\lambda_c}+(m-s_0-s_1)e^{-(2+\lambda_c)}\right.\nonumber\\ &\left.\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad - \frac{s_0(n/k)e^{-n/k}+s_1\lambda_c e^{-\lambda_c} + (m-s_0-s_1)(2+\lambda_c)e^{-(2+\lambda_c)}}{\lambda_c}\right]\nonumber\\
&=\max_{\stackrel{s_0\in[1:m-1],s_0+s_1<m}{\lambda_c\text{ solves }\eqref{eq:lc2}}} \frac{1}{\lambda_c}\left[s_0(\lambda_c-n/k)e^{-n/k}-2(m-s_0-s_1)e^{-(2+\lambda_c)}\right]\nonumber\\
&\stackrel{(b)}{=}\max_{\stackrel{s_0\in[1:m-1],s_0+s_1<m}{\lambda_c\text{ solves }\eqref{eq:lc2}}} \frac{2k}{n}(m-s_0-s_1)\frac{1}{\lambda_c}(\lambda_c+2-n/k)e^{-(2+\lambda_c)},\label{eq:Bstar}
\end{align}
where $(a)$ uses \eqref{eq:lc} and $(b)$ follows from \eqref{eq:lc2}.
For a given $s_0$, $s_1$, let
\begin{align}
\lambda_c(s_0,s_1)&\triangleq \lambda_c\text{ that solves }s_0(\lambda_c-n/k)(n/k)e^{-n/k}=2(m-s_0-s_1)(2+\lambda_c)e^{-(2+\lambda_c)},\\
B(s_0,s_1)&\triangleq \frac{2k}{n}(m-s_0-s_1)\frac{1}{\lambda_c(s_0,s_1)}(\lambda_c(s_0,s_1)+2-n/k)e^{-(2+\lambda_c(s_0,s_1))}.
\end{align}
Now, whenever $s_0+s_1+1<m$, it is easy to see that
\begin{equation}
\lambda_c(s_0,s_1+1) < \lambda_c(s_0,s_1).
\end{equation}
Further, we claim that $B(s_0,s_1)\ge B(s_0,s_1+1)$. To reduce clutter, we denote $\lambda_c\triangleq \lambda_c(s_0,s_1)$ and $\lambda'_c\triangleq \lambda_c(s_0,s_1+1)$. The claim $B(s_0,s_1)\ge B(s_0,s_1+1)$ reduces as follows:
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{\lambda_c}(\lambda_c+2-n/k)e^{-(2+\lambda_c)}&\ge \frac{m-s_0-s_1-1}{m-s_0-s_1}\frac{1}{\lambda'_c}(\lambda'_c+2-n/k)e^{-(2+\lambda'_c)},\text{ or}\nonumber\\
\frac{1}{\lambda_c}(\lambda_c+2-n/k)&\ge \frac{\lambda'_c-n/k}{\lambda_c-n/k}\,\frac{\lambda_c+2}{\lambda'_c+2}\,\frac{1}{\lambda'_c}(\lambda'_c+2-n/k),\text{ or}\label{eq:Bs0s1}\\
\frac{2\lambda'_c+2-n/k}{\lambda'_c(\lambda'_c+2)}&\ge \frac{2\lambda_c+2-n/k}{\lambda_c(\lambda_c+2)},\label{eq:Bs0}
\end{align}
where \eqref{eq:Bs0s1} follows by using \eqref{eq:lc2} for the two cases and \eqref{eq:Bs0} is true because $\frac{2x+2-n/k}{x(x+2)}$ is decreasing for $x>n/k$ and $\lambda'_c < \lambda_c$. Hence, the claim is true.
Now, using $B(s_0,s_1)\ge B(s_0,s_1+1)$ repeatedly, we see that $B(s_0,0)\ge B(s_0,s_1)$ for any $s_1>0$. Hence, in the optimization, it is sufficient to consider $s_1=0$. To reduce clutter, let $\lambda_c(s_0)\triangleq\lambda_c(s_0,0)$ be the solution to
\begin{equation}
s_0(\lambda_c-n/k)(n/k)e^{-n/k}=2(m-s_0)(2+\lambda_c)e^{-(2+\lambda_c)}
\label{eq:lambda1}
\end{equation}
in $[n/k,\infty)$. Using the above observations in \eqref{eq:Bstar}, we get
\begin{align}
B^* &= \max_{s_0\in[1:m-1]} \frac{2k}{n}(m-s_0)\frac{1}{\lambda_c(s_0)}(\lambda_c(s_0)+2-n/k)e^{-(2+\lambda_c(s_0))}\nonumber\\
&\stackrel{(a)}{=} \max_{\lambda_c(s_0),s_0\in[1:m-1]} \frac{2(\lambda_c(s_0)-n/k)(\lambda_c(s_0)+2-n/k)e^{-(\lambda_c(s_0)+2)}\,m}{\lambda_c(s_0)(2(\lambda_c(s_0)+2)e^{-(\lambda_c(s_0)+2-n/k)}+(n/k)(\lambda_c(s_0)-n/k))}\nonumber\\
&\stackrel{(b)}{\le} \max_{u\in\mathbb{R},u>n/k} \frac{2(u-n/k)(u+2-n/k)e^{-(u+2)}\,m}{u(2(u+2)e^{-(u+2-n/k)}+(n/k)(u-n/k))},\nonumber\\
&\stackrel{(c)}{=}2m e^{-n/k}\,\max_{u > 0} \frac{u(u+2)e^{-(u+2)}}{(u+n/k)(2(u+2+n/k)e^{-(u+2)}+u n/k))},\label{eq:BS2}
\end{align}
where $(a)$ follows by using \eqref{eq:lambda1} to write $s_0$ in terms of $\lambda_c(s_0)$, $(b)$ follows by relaxing $\{\lambda_c(s_0):s_0\in[1:m-1]\}$ to a real-valued $u\in[n/k,\infty)$, and $(c)$ follows by the substituting $u$ by $u+n/k$.
The maximization in \eqref{eq:BS2} is relatively straight-forward using calculus and is achieved at
\begin{equation}
\alpha=0.5569... \text{ that solves }u^2=4e^{-(u+2)}.
\end{equation}
Replacing $2e^{-(\alpha+2)}$ with $\alpha^2/2$ in the RHS of \eqref{eq:BS2} and simplifying, we get $B^*\le k\,e^{-n/k}/(1+n/(\alpha k))^2$.
\end{proof}
Combining Lemmas \ref{lemma:high:0011} and \ref{lemma:high:0021} and assuming $E[\varphi_2]\ge n^{4/5}$ results in Theorem~\ref{theorem:main:MSE} for High collision regime~.
\subsection{Analysis for Low collision regime~}
If $\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2]$ is small, then it is not possible to prove general
results as in Theorem~\ref{theorem:decouple1} and say that the MSE must be
small. The case $\varPhi_\mathrm{poly} = \varphi_1^2$ and
$\varPhi_\mathrm{linear} = \varphi_\infty$ illustrates this claim, since
${\mathbb{E}} [\varPhi_\mathrm{linear}]$ is always $0$, but the MSE $\approx {\mathbb{E}} [\varPhi_\mathrm{poly}]$
can be as high as $\Theta (k^4)$ for a certain range of $n$. Hence, modifying our approach for small $\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2]$, we show that both the Chao estimate and the number of unseen symbols
are small.
\begin{lemma} \label{case:0021}
For the Chao estimator, if $\mathbb{E} [\varphi_2] \le n^{4/5}$, for any
distribution $P \in \Delta_k$,
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{E}(\hat{U}^{\text{mc}}, P) \le \left( \frac{(32.28)k^4}{n^{12/5}} + \frac{(98.97)k^3}{n^{11/5}} + \frac{2k^2}{n^{6/5}} +
\frac{(1.77)k}{n^{1/5}} + \frac{(21.21)k^2}{n^2} \right).
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
Recall that in Low collision regime~ we assume that ${\mathbb{E}} [\varphi_2] < n^{4/5}$. Our strategy is to show that when ${\mathbb{E}} [\varphi_2]$ is small, then the unseen elements as well as the estimates are small on average. The idea of negative regression between random variables will play a role in proving Lemma \ref{case:0021}.
Negative regression is a strong notion of negative dependence between random variables. It is closely related to negative correlation and negative association \cite{NA-83} between random variables. We begin with its definition,
\begin{definition} \cite[Definition 21]{dubhashi1996balls} \label{definition:NR:001}
Let $\mathbf{X} := \{X_1,\dots,X_m\}$ be a set of random variables. $\mathbf{X}$ satisfies the negative regression condition if $\mathbb{E}\left[f(X_i, i \in I) \middle| X_j = t_j , j \in J \right]$ is non-increasing in each $t_j, j \in J$ for any disjoint $I,J \subseteq [m]$ and any non-decreasing (coordinate-wise) function $f$.
\end{definition}
\noindent To make the connection with negative regression, we first introduce the classical balls and bins experiment. Consider a set of $n$ balls and $m$ bins. In the experiment, each ball is tossed into one of the $m$ bins as per some distribution independent of the others (balls need not have the same distribution of probabilities of going into different bins). There is an intuitive notion of negative dependence in the balls and bins experiment - if a particular bin, say $i$, was revealed to hold a comparatively high number of balls, one would expect the other bins to hold fewer number of balls (because there are fewer balls left to go into the other bins). This notion is formalized in the following theorem.
\begin{theorem} \cite[Theorem 31]{dubhashi1996balls} \label{theorem:NR:002}
The set $\mathbf{B} = \{B_1,B_2,\dots\}$, where $B_i$ represents the number of balls in bin $i$ satisfies the negative regression condition.
\end{theorem}
By the negative regression condition, we can conclude that for all bins $j \ne i$, ${\mathbb{E}} [B_j | B_i = \delta]$ is a decreasing function of $\delta$. We are now ready to introduce the lemma that brings these results into context.
\begin{theorem} \label{theorem:NR:003}
Under the Poisson sampling model, $\{\varphi_0,\varphi_1,\dots\}$ satisfy the negative regression condition.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} The heart of the proof lies in the fact that the Poisson arrival process can be thought of as a version of balls and bins where the set $\{\varphi_i, i \in {\mathbb{N}}_0 \}$ plays the role of $\mathbf{B}$, as elaborated below.
Each symbol $x \in \mathcal{X}$ is a ball. A ball $x$ is in Bin $i$, $i=0,1,2,\ldots$, if $N_x=i$.
Each ball $x$ is put into bin $i$ with probability $P(N_x = i)$ independently. The total number of balls in bin $i$ is therefore $\sum_{x \in \mathcal{X}} \mathbbm{1}_{N_x = i} = \varphi_i$. The vector $\mathbf{B}$ of Theorem \ref{theorem:NR:002} is, therefore, equivalent to $\{ \varphi_i, i \in {\mathbb{N}}_0 \}$. This concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
In order to prove Lemma \ref{case:0021}, we first use negative regression to establish an upper bound on the MSE for any distribution in $P \in \Delta_k$ as a function of ${\mathbb{E}}[\varphi_2]$ and show that if ${\mathbb{E}} [ \varphi_2 ]$ is small, this bound is small too.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:small:001}
For the modified Chao estimator, for any distribution $P \in \Delta_k$,
\begin{align}
\mathcal{E}(\hat{U}^{\text{mc}}, P) \le (4+8a) (k/n)^4{\mathbb{E}} \left[ \varphi_2 \right]^2 + (28a(k/n)^3+2(k/n)^2+0.5a(k/n)){\mathbb{E}} \left[ \varphi_2 \right] + 6a(k/n)^2,
\end{align}
where $a = 1/(1-2e^{-2})^4$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
From the definition of MSE,
\begin{align}
\mathcal{E}(\hat{U}^{\text{mc}}, P) &= \mathbb{E} \left[ \left( \frac{\varphi_1^2}{2 (\varphi_2+1)} - \varphi_0 \right)^2 \right] \nonumber\\
&\le \underbrace{\mathbb{E} \left[ \left( \frac{\varphi_1^2}{2 (\varphi_2+1)} \right)^2 \right]}_{(a)} + \underbrace{\mathbb{E} \left[ \varphi_0^2 \right]}_{(b)}.\label{eq:MSEsplit}
\end{align}
In order to upper bound the MSE, we separately upper bound the quantities $(a)$ and $(b)$. By definition of conditional expectation,
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E} \left[ \left( \frac{\varphi_1^2}{2 (\varphi_2+1)} \right)^2 \right] = \frac14 \sum_{j \in {\mathbb{N}}_0} \frac{{\mathbb{E}} \left[ \varphi_1^4 | \varphi_2 = j \right]}{(j+1)^2} P(\varphi_2 = j).
\end{equation}
Using the negative regression of $\{ \varphi_i,\ i=0,1,2,\dots \}$, we can conclude that $\forall \delta \ne 0,\ {\mathbb{E}} [\varphi_1^4 | \varphi_2 = 0] \ge {\mathbb{E}} [\varphi_1^4 | \varphi_2 = \delta]$. Therefore,
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E} \left[ \left( \frac{\varphi_1^2}{2 (\varphi_2+1)} \right)^2 \right] &\le \frac14\mathbb{E} \left[\varphi_1^4 | \varphi_2 = 0 \right] \cdot {\mathbb{E}} \left[ (\varphi_2 + 1)^{-2} \right] \nonumber\\
&\overset{(i)}{\le} \frac14 \frac{{\mathbb{E}} \left[ \varphi_1^4 \right]}{\left(1-2e^{-2} \right)^4} \cdot {\mathbb{E}} \left[ (\varphi_2 + 1)^{-2} \right],
\end{align}
where $(i)$ uses Lemma \ref{lemma:appB:001} to bound the conditional expectation of $\varphi_1^4$. Using Lemma \ref{lemma:appB:002} (with $h=4$) to bound ${\mathbb{E}} [\varphi_1^4]$,
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E} \left[ \left( \frac{\varphi_1^2}{2 (\varphi_2+1)} \right)^2 \right] &= \left( \frac{{\mathbb{E}} \left[ \varphi_1 \right]^4 + 7{\mathbb{E}} \left[ \varphi_1 \right]^3 + 6{\mathbb{E}} \left[ \varphi_1 \right]^2 + {\mathbb{E}} \left[ \varphi_1 \right]}{4\left(1-2e^{-2} \right)^4} \right) \cdot {\mathbb{E}} \left[ \frac{1}{(\varphi_2 + 1)^{2}} \right] \nonumber\\
&= \left( \frac{{\mathbb{E}} \left[ \varphi_1 \right]^4 + 7{\mathbb{E}} \left[ \varphi_1 \right]^3 + 6{\mathbb{E}} \left[ \varphi_1 \right]^2}{4\left(1-2e^{-2} \right)^4} \right) \cdot {\mathbb{E}} \left[ \frac{1}{(\varphi_2 + 1)^{2}} \right]+ \frac{{\mathbb{E}} \left[ \varphi_1 \right]}{4\left(1-2e^{-2} \right)^4}\cdot {\mathbb{E}} \left[ \frac{1}{(\varphi_2 + 1)^{2}} \right] \nonumber\\
&\le \underbrace{2 \left(\frac{{\mathbb{E}} \left[ \varphi_1 \right]^4 + 7{\mathbb{E}} \left[ \varphi_1 \right]^3 + 6{\mathbb{E}} \left[ \varphi_1 \right]^2}{ 4\left(1-2e^{-2} \right)^4 {\mathbb{E}} \left[ \varphi_2 \right]^2} \right)}_{(i)} + \underbrace{\vphantom{\frac{{\mathbb{E}} [\varphi_1]^4}{ {\mathbb{E}} [\varphi_2]^2}} \frac{{\mathbb{E}} \left[ \varphi_1 \right]}{4\left(1-2e^{-2} \right)^4}}_{(ii)} \nonumber\\[5pt]
&\overset{(iii)}{\le} \frac{(\frac{2k}{n})^4 {\mathbb{E}} [\varphi_2]^2 + \left( 7 (\frac{2k}{n})^3 + \frac{k}{n} \right){\mathbb{E}} \left[ \varphi_2 \right] + 6(\frac{2k}{n})^2}{2 \left(1-2e^{-2} \right)^4}, \label{eq:14632}
\end{align}
where $(i)$ follows from the fact that ${\mathbb{E}} [(1 + \varphi_2)^{-2}] \le 2{\mathbb{E}} [\varphi_2]^{-2}$ from Theorem \ref{theorem:decouple:0011} with $f(x)=(1+x)^{-2}$, $f'=(0,0,2,0,\ldots)$, $(ii)$ uses ${\mathbb{E}} [(1+ \varphi_2)^{-2}] \le 1$, and $(iii)$ follows from \eqref{eq:ephi1}.
We now upper bound $(b)$ in \eqref{eq:MSEsplit}. Using Lemma \ref{lemma:appB:004} ($h=2$, $j=0$),
\begin{align}
{\mathbb{E}}[\varphi_0^2] &\le {\mathbb{E}} \left[ \varphi_0 \right]^2 + {\mathbb{E}} \left[ \varphi_0 \right], \nonumber\\
&\overset{(a)}{\le} 4(k/n)^4 {\mathbb{E}} \left[ \varphi_2 \right]^2 + 2(k/n)^2 {\mathbb{E}} \left[ \varphi_2 \right], \label{eq:12930}
\end{align}
where $(a)$ follows because ${\mathbb{E}}[\varphi_0]\le 2(k/n)^2 {\mathbb{E}}[\varphi_2]$, which is proved as follows.
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}[\varphi_0] &= \sum_{x\in\mathcal{X}}e^{-np_x} = 2\sum_{x\in\mathcal{X}}e^{-np_x}\frac{(np_x)^2}{2}\frac{1}{(np_x)^2}\nonumber\\
&\stackrel{(i)}{\le} 2\sum_{x\in\mathcal{X}}e^{-np_x}\frac{(np_x)^2}{2}(k/n)^2\nonumber\\
&\le 2(k/n)^2\mathbb{E}[\varphi_2],\label{eq:ephi02}
\end{align}
where $(i)$ follows using $p_x>1/k$.
Combining \eqref{eq:14632} and \eqref{eq:12930}, proves the lemma.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{case:0021}]
Lemma \ref{case:0021} follows by substituting the upper bound ${\mathbb{E}} [\varphi_2] \le n^{4/5}$ into Lemma \ref{lemma:small:001}.
\end{proof}
Combining Lemmas~\ref{lemma:high:0011},~\ref{lemma:high:0021} and~\ref{case:0021}, the proof of Theorem~\ref{theorem:main:MSE} is complete for all cases. In the rest of the paper, we provide detailed proofs for Theorems~\ref{theorem:decouple1} and~\ref{theorem:decouple:0011}.
\section{Analysis of rational estimators}
We use the notation ${\mathbb{N}}$ to denote the set of natural numbers $\{1,2,\dots \}$ and ${\mathbb{N}}_0$ to denote the set of whole numbers, ${\mathbb{N}} \cup \{0\}$. In addition, for some $i \in {\mathbb{N}}$ we use $[i]$ to denote the set $\{1,\dots,i \}$.
\label{sec:rational_approx}
The degree-$d$, homogeneous $\varPhi_\mathrm{poly}$ can be expressed as
\begin{equation}
\varPhi_\mathrm{poly}=\sum_{i^d}\alpha_{i^d}\varphi_{i_1}\cdots\varphi_{i_d}=\sum_{i^d}\alpha_{i^d}\sum_{x^d\in\mathcal{X}^d}\prod_{t=1}^d\mathbbm{1}_{N_{x_t} = i_t},\label{eq:O1}
\end{equation}
where $i^d=[i_1,\ldots,i_d]$, $i_j\in\{0,1,\ldots\}$, $x^d=[x_1,\ldots,x_d]$, $x_j\in\mathcal{X}$, $\alpha_{i^d}\in\mathbb{R}$. Recall that
$$\varPhi_{\mathrm{linear}}=\sum_{i\ge0}\sum_{u\in\mathcal{X}}\beta_i\mathbbm{1}_{N_u = i}.$$
Note that both $\varPhi_\mathrm{poly}$ and $\varPhi_\mathrm{linear}$ are functions of $N_x$, $x\in\mathcal{X}$. To proceed further, we make the following two definitions.
\begin{align}
S(i^d,x^d)&\triangleq\prod_{t=1}^d\mathbbm{1}_{N_{x_t} = i_t},\\
T(i^d,x^d)&\triangleq\varPhi_{\mathrm{linear}}|_{N_{x_1}=i_1,\ldots,N_{x_d}=i_d}.
\end{align}
In words, $T(i^d,x^d)$ denotes evaluation of $\varPhi_\mathrm{linear}$ by setting $N_{x_j} = i_j$, $j=1,\ldots,d$. Now,
\begin{align}
\varPhi_\mathrm{poly} f(\varPhi_{\mathrm{linear}})&=\sum_{i^d}\alpha_{i^d}\sum_{x^d}\left[S(i^d,x^d) f(\varPhi_{\mathrm{linear}})\right]\nonumber\\
&\stackrel{(i)}{=}\sum_{i^d,x^d}\alpha_{i^d}S(i^d,x^d) f(T(i^d,x^d)),\label{eq:O21}
\end{align}
where $(i)$ follows because $S(i^d,x^d)=1$ only when $N_{x_j} = i_j$, $j=1,\ldots,d$. Note that $S(i^d,x^d)$ and $T(i^d,x^d)$ do not involve any common $N_x$ terms and are independent. Taking expectations in \eqref{eq:O21} and using the independence,
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}[\varPhi_\mathrm{poly} f(\varPhi_{\mathrm{linear}})]=\sum_{i^d,x^d}\alpha_{i^d}\mathbb{E}[S(i^d,x^d)]\mathbb{E}[f(T(i^d,x^d))].
\label{eq:start1}
\end{equation}
The above equality is the main starting point for the proofs.
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{theorem:decouple1}}
For a given $i^d$ and $x^d$, we can write $T(i^d,x^d)$ as follows:
\begin{align}
T(i^d,x^d)&=\sum_{j=1}^d \beta_{i_j}+\sum_{u\in\mathcal{X}\setminus x^d}\sum_{i\ge0}\beta_i\mathbbm{1}_{N_u=i}.
\end{align}
To compare the above with $\varPhi_\mathrm{linear}$, we rewrite $\varPhi_\mathrm{linear}$ as follows:
\begin{align}
\varPhi_\mathrm{linear}&=\sum_{j=1}^d \sum_{i\ge 0}\beta_i \mathbbm{1}_{N_{x_j}=i}+\sum_{u\in\mathcal{X}\setminus x^d}\sum_{i\ge0}\beta_i\mathbbm{1}_{N_u=i}.
\end{align}
Hence, we see that
\begin{align}
T(i^d,x^d)=\varPhi_\mathrm{linear}-\sum_{j=1}^d \sum_{i\ge 0}\beta_i \mathbbm{1}_{N_{x_j}=i}+\sum_{j=1}^d \beta_{i_j}.\label{eq:Tphi}
\end{align}
Since $\beta_i\le1$, from \eqref{eq:Tphi}, we have $T(i^d,x^d)\le \varPhi_\mathrm{linear}+d$. Since $f$ is non-increasing, we have
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}[f(T(i^d,x^d))]\ge \mathbb{E}[f(\varPhi_\mathrm{linear}+d)].
\end{equation}
Using the above in \eqref{eq:start1}, we get the lower bound in \eqref{eq:lower-bound1}.
Since $f$ is concave, by Jensen's inequality,
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}[f(T(i^d,x^d))]\le f(\mathbb{E}[T(i^d,x^d)]).\label{eq:fJ}
\end{equation}
In \eqref{eq:Tphi}, dropping the third positive term on the RHS and taking expectations, we get
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}[T(i^d,x^d)]&\ge \mathbb{E}[\varPhi_\mathrm{linear}]-\sum_{j=1}^d \sum_{i\ge 0}\beta_i P(N_{x_j}=i)\nonumber\\
&\stackrel{(i)}{\ge} \mathbb{E}[\varPhi_\mathrm{linear}]-\sum_{j=1}^d \sum_{i\ge 0}\beta_i/\sqrt{2\pi i}\nonumber\\
&=\mathbb{E}[\varPhi_\mathrm{linear}]-d\sigma,\label{eq:Tlb}
\end{align}
where $(i)$ follows because $P(N_u=j)=j^je^{-j}/j!\le 1/\sqrt{2\pi j}$ by Stirling's approximation for $u\in\mathcal{X}$ and $j\ge1$. Using the above in \eqref{eq:fJ}, since $f$ is non-increasing, we get
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}[f(T(i^d,x^d))]\le f(\mathbb{E}[\varPhi_\mathrm{linear}]-d\sigma).
\end{align}
Using the above in \eqref{eq:start1}, we get the upper bound in \eqref{eq:upper-bound1}.
\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{theorem:decouple:0011}}
If $f$ is not concave, arriving at upper bounds as in Theorem
\ref{theorem:decouple1} is less straightforward. However, they are necessary
to analyze Chao estimator as the function $(1+\varphi_2)^{-2}$ in \eqref{eq:approx_special1} is not concave. An additional property of $\varPhi_\mathrm{linear}$ is
required to arrive at upper bounds on the approximation error for such
functions.
Observe that $\varPhi_\mathrm{linear} = \sum_{i \ge 0} \beta_i \varphi_i$
can be expanded as
\begin{equation}
\varPhi_\mathrm{linear} = \sum_{x \in \mathcal{X}} \sum_i \beta_i \mathbbm{1}_{N_x = i} = \sum_{x \in \mathcal{X}} Y_x,
\end{equation}
where each $Y_x$ is a discrete random variable that takes value
$\beta_i$ with probability $P(N_x = i)$. The restriction of
$\beta_i \in [0,1]$ for Theorem \ref{theorem:decouple:0011} implies that $\mathrm{Supp} (Y_x) \subseteq
[0,1]$. In the Poisson sampling model, the random variables $Y_x$, $x\in\mathcal{X}$,
are independent. Hence, $\varPhi_\mathrm{linear}$ is the sum of independent discrete random variables each supported on some subset of $[0,1]$. We term such random variables as
\textit{generalized Poisson binomial} random variables.
The crucial result is the following.
\begin{lemma}
If $X=\sum_i X_i$ with $X_i\in[0,1]$ being independent discrete random variables,
\begin{equation}
\int_0^u\mathbb{E}[z^X]dz\le \mathbb{E}[X]^{-1} \mathbb{E}[u^X],\,u\in(0,1].
\end{equation}
\label{lem:zX}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
See Section \ref{sec:lemzXproof} for a proof.
\end{proof}
Let $f_r (X) = \prod_{j=1}^{r} (X+j)^{-1}$, $f_0(X)=1$. It is easy to see that
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}[f_r(X)] = \left[\int\limits_0^{u_0}\int\limits_0^{u_1}\cdot\cdot\int\limits_0^{u_{r-1}} \mathbb{E}[u_r^X]du_r\cdots du_2du_1\right]_{u_0=1}.
\end{equation}
Using Lemma \ref{lem:zX} $r$ times, we get
\begin{equation} \label{eq:inv1}
{\mathbb{E}} [f_r (X)] \le {\mathbb{E}} [X]^{-r}.
\end{equation}
Note that $T(i^d,x^d)$ is a generalized Poisson binomial random variable and satisfies Lemma \ref{lem:zX}.
Now, we are ready to prove the theorem. From the hypothesis of the theorem, $(f'_0,f'_1,\ldots)\in\mathbb{V}$ dominates $f$. Thus we have
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}[f(T(i^d,x^d))]&\le \sum_{i\ge0} f'_t\, \mathbb{E}[f_t(T(i^d,x^d))]\nonumber\\
&\stackrel{(i)}{\le} \sum_{t\ge0} f'_t\, \mathbb{E}[T(i^d,x^d)]^{-t}\nonumber\\
&\stackrel{(ii)}{\le} \sum_{t\ge0} f'_t\, (\mathbb{E}[\varPhi_\mathrm{linear}]-d\sigma)^{-t},
\end{align}
where $(i)$ uses \eqref{eq:inv1} and $(ii)$ uses \eqref{eq:Tlb}. Using the above in \eqref{eq:start1} concludes the proof of the theorem.
\printbibliography
\section{Submission of Papers for Review}
Papers in the form of a PDF file, formatted as described below, may be
submitted online at
\begin{center}
\url{http://isit2019.fr/Papers.asp}
\end{center}
The deadline for registering the paper and uploading the manuscript is \textbf{January 13, 2019}.
The papers are restricted in length to \textbf{five pages} (including
figures, references, etc.) in the IEEEtran-conference style as
presented here.
Each paper must be classified as ``eligible for student paper award''
or ``not eligible for student paper award''. \textbf{Do not include any text concerning the student paper award in the abstract or manuscript.}
\section{Submission of Accepted Papers}
Accepted papers will be published in full (up to five pages in
length). A program booklet and a book of abstracts will also be
distributed at the Symposium to serve as a guide to the sessions.
The deadline for the submission of the final camera-ready paper will
be announced in due course. Accepted papers not submitted by that
date will not appear in the ISIT proceedings and will not be included
in the technical program of the ISIT.
\section{Paper Format}
\subsection{Templates}
The paper (A4 or letter size, double-column format, not exceeding
5~pages) should be formatted as shown in this sample \LaTeX{} file
\cite{Laport:LaTeX, GMS:LaTeXComp, oetiker_latex, typesetmoser}.
The use of Microsoft Word instead of \LaTeX{} is strongly
discouraged. However, acceptable formatting may be achieved by using
the template that can be downloaded from the ISIT 2019 website:
\begin{center}
\url{http://isit2019.fr/}
\end{center}
Users of other text processing systems should attempt to duplicate the
style of this example, in particular the sizes and type of font, as
closely as possible.
\subsection{Formatting}
The style of references, equations, figures, tables, etc., should be
the same as for the \emph{IEEE Transactions on Information
Theory}. The source file of this template paper contains many more
instructions on how to format your paper. So, example code for
different numbers of authors, for figures and tables, and references
can be found (they are commented out).
For instructions on how to typeset math, in particular for equation
arrays with broken equations, we refer to \cite{typesetmoser}.
Pages should not be numbered and there should be no footer or header
(both will be added during the production of the proceedings). The
affiliation shown for authors should constitute a sufficient mailing
address for persons who wish to write for more details about the
paper.
\subsection{PDF Requirements}
Only electronic submissions in form of a PDF file will be
accepted. The PDF file has to be PDF/A compliant. A common problem is
missing fonts. Make sure that all fonts are embedded. (In some cases,
printing a PDF to a PostScript file, and then creating a new PDF with
Acrobat Distiller, may do the trick.) More information (including
suitable Acrobat Distiller Settings) is available from the IEEE
website \cite{IEEE:pdfsettings, IEEE:AuthorToolbox}.
\section{Conclusion}
We conclude by pointing out that on the last page the columns need to
balanced. Instructions for that purpose are given in the source file.
Moreover, example code for an appendix (or appendices) can also be
found in the source file (they are commented out).
\section*{Acknowledgment}
We are indebted to Michael Shell for maintaining and improving
\texttt{IEEEtran.cls}.
\IEEEtriggeratref{3}
|
\section{Introduction} \label{sec:intro}
The study of the properties of the Milky Way is unique in that it provides the opportunity to observe the features of the galaxy from within, but at the same time it is challenging to obtain a global perspective of Galactic properties. Messier 31 (M31), also called the Andromeda galaxy, is the closest neighboring major galaxy to the Milky Way and it is known to be a spiral galaxy of similar structure to the Milky Way. Moreover, M31 is one of the seven external star-forming galaxies that have been observed in GeV gamma rays \citep{Abdo:2010kib,Ackermann:2017nya}. M31 also differs from the Milky Way in important ways: for example, its total stellar mass is a factor of $1.1$ to $2$ larger than our own galaxy \citep{Yin:2009, Licquia:2014rsa, Sick:2014iau}, while its star formation rate is a factor of 2 to 5 lower \citep{Yin:2009, Azimlu:2011aj, Licquia:2014rsa}, possibly decreasing from a peak in the past 10 to 100 Myr \citep{Kang:2009apj}. The similarities and differences make M31 an excellent complement for the study of astrophysics in the Milky Way.
In galaxies such as the Milky Way and M31, cosmic rays can have energy densities comparable to the contributions from magnetic fields and radiation \citep{Garmire:1965}. Thus, they are likely to have a significant influence on galactic dynamics. Moreover, cosmic rays are potential probes of other poorly understood galactic properties such as the star formation rate (SFR). Due to the presence of Galactic and extragalactic magnetic fields, it is not possible to directly associate charged cosmic rays measured at Earth with acceleration sites in the Milky Way or in other galaxies such as M31. However, cosmic ray interactions with radiation and dense material near their production sites can produce high energy photons, allowing us to probe particle acceleration indirectly. Charged particle acceleration can easily produce spectrally ``hard'' gamma-ray emission extending to TeV energies \citep{Dwek:2012nb}. The gamma-ray flux from a galaxy provides an indirect measurement of the energy density of cosmic rays in the galaxy. With sufficient data, this measurement can then be used to estimate the star formation rate.
For example, the \Fermi~Large Area Telescope (\LAT) has detected a $\sim 10\sigma$ excess of GeV gamma rays with a spectral index of $\Gamma$ of -2.4$\pm$0.1 from the core of M31, and they found agreement between the observed gamma-ray energy flux \citep{Ackermann:2017nya} and the calculated SFR of 0.35 to 1.0 $M_\odot\xspace$~yr$^{-1}$ by \cite{Yin:2009}. M31 has also been studied for its cosmic ray energy density and other properties by \cite{Yoast-Hull:2015bfk}. Recently, the Milky Way was found to have undergone past periods of galactic activity via the discovery of the ``\Fermi Bubbles'' \citep{Su:2010qj, Fermi-LAT:2014sfa}. The \Fermi Bubbles (FBs) were first detected during a search for residual gamma rays between 1 and 100~GeV measured by the \LAT \citep{Su:2010qj}. The bubbles subtend approximately 0.8~sr above and below the Galactic Center and are located 9.4~kpc from the Sun under the assumption that they originate from the Galactic Center \citep{Fermi-LAT:2014sfa}. Since most spiral galaxies are believed to contain supermassive black holes at their centers, they may also undergo periods of high activity that give rise to bubble-like structures. Therefore, in the very high energy (VHE) gamma-ray analysis of M31 presented in this paper, we take into consideration the possibility that M31 has its own set of FBs. We assume a simple morphological model in our analysis based on a study of data from the \LAT by \cite{Pshirkov:2016qhu}, which indicated that M31 does contain two $6-7.5$~kpc circular regions of gamma-ray emission between $0.1-300$~GeV. We note that this emission was not reported in subsequent publication by the \LAT collaboration \citep{Ackermann:2017nya}.
At TeV energies, the VERITAS Collaboration collected data from several regions around M31 for 54 hours, searching for evidence of VHE emission from the M31 galactic plane and the bubble regions \citep{Bird:2015npa}. However, no significant emission was observed. VERITAS has excellent energy and angular resolution and is very sensitive to point sources, but M31 is a spatially extended source covering roughly $3.2^\circ \times 1^\circ$ \citep{Bird:2015npa}, making observations with VERITAS difficult. On the other hand, the High Altitude Water Cherenkov (HAWC) observatory is well suited to perform unbiased measurements of gamma rays from spatially extended objects. HAWC is conducting a survey of 2/3 of the sky in gamma rays and is sensitive to gamma rays with energies ranging from 1 TeV to a few hundred TeV \citep{Abeysekara:2017mjj,Abeysekara:2017hyn,Abeysekara:2019edl}. HAWC is located at 4100 m above sea level, at a latitude of 18$^\circ$59.7' N and longitude of 97$^\circ$18.6' W. The nucleus of M31 is located at
$\alpha_{J2000} = 0^h~43^m~35^s.43, \delta_{J2000} = +41^\circ~20'~56.8''$,
and the galaxy transits $22^\circ$ from the zenith of the HAWC detector.
In this paper, we present a systematic search of the extended gamma-ray emission from M31 disk and its possible bubble-like regions above 1~TeV using 33 months of data from HAWC. The paper is structured as follows: we present the spatial models of M31, its possible associated bubbles, and analysis method in Section \ref{sec:method}; in Section \ref{sec:results} we provide gamma-ray upper limits for M31, the bubbles and the combined morphology. We also constrain the cosmic-ray energy density in the M31 disk in Section \ref{sec:results}.
\section{Method}
\label{sec:method}
The analysis of gamma ray sources with HAWC is described in detail in
\citet{Abeysekara:2017mjj}. In brief, the energy of each gamma ray is estimated
from the fraction of the optical sensors in HAWC triggered by gamma-ray air
showers. To estimate the energy spectrum of an observed source of gamma rays,
parametric spatial and spectral models of gamma ray sources are fit to HAWC
data using a maximum likelihood technique. We employ the Multi-Mission Maximum
Likelihood analysis framework \citep{Vianello:2015wwa, Younk:2015saa} to fit parametric spatial and spectral models to the HAWC data. For both the M31 disk and bubble regions, we assume the gamma-ray emission is described by a simple power law
\begin{equation}
\frac{dN}{dE} = K\left(\frac{E}{E_0}\right)^{\Gamma},
\label{eq:powerlaw}
\end{equation}
where $K$ is a normalization constant, $E_0$ is the pivot energy, and $\Gamma$ is the spectral index. For the disk-only analysis, we perform a maximum likelihood fit of the flux normalization with three different fixed spectral indices. The same procedure is followed for the bubbles-only analysis. For the combined case, we perform the analysis for all combinations of spectral indices for the disk and the bubble regions. Note that when fitting, the normalizations and the spectral indices are assumed to be same for both bubbles. Throughout the analysis, a fixed pivot energy of $E_0=1$~TeV is used and the spectral indices of $\left[-2.0,\, -2.5,\, -3.0\right]$ are considered. Our estimate of statistical significance, the ``Test Statistic'' (TS), is computed for each fit as follows \citep{Albert:2017vtb, Wilks:1938}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\rm{TS} & = & 2\ln\frac{\mathcal{L}(\text{source(s)}+\text{background})}{\mathcal{L}(\text{background})} \\
\text{significance} & \approx & \sqrt{\rm{TS}}~[\text{Gaussian $\sigma$}]
\label{eqn:TS}
\end{eqnarray}
The maximum-likelihood estimators are used to find the best normalizations,
$\hat{K}_\text{disk}$ and $\hat{K}_\text{FB}$. We then use
$\hat{K}_\text{disk}$ and $\hat{K}_\text{FB}$ as input to a Markov-Chain
Monte Carlo (MCMC) in order to estimate the distribution of the posterior
likelihood around the maximum. In the MCMC, a uniform prior range is assumed for
both $K_\text{disk}$ and $K_\text{FB}$ between $0$ and
$10^{-11}$~TeV$^{-1}$~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$. Given the lack of statistically
significant VHE emission, the MCMC results are then used to compute 95\%
credible upper intervals on the flux normalization.
In addition to upper limits on $K$ assuming a fixed $\Gamma$ for the disk,
bubbles, and disk and bubbles in combination, we also compute
quasi-differential limits between $1$ and $100$~TeV. That is, the data are
sorted into five energy bins $j\in[1,\ldots,5]$ and independent power-law fits
are used to constrain $K_j$ and $\Gamma_j$ in each bin. The bin widths
correspond to a half-decade in gamma-ray energy, following the analysis of HAWC
data presented in \citet{Aartsen:2017snx}, with the pivot energy $E_{0,j}$ is set to the center of the logarithmic energy range of bin $j$. The energy bins are defined in Table~\ref{table:ebins}.
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c c c c}
Energy bin & Lower Energy [TeV] & Higher Energy [TeV] & Pivot Energy ($E_0$) [TeV] \\
\hline \hline
1 & 0.56 & 1.78 & 1.0 \\
2 & 1.78 & 5.62 & 3.16 \\
3 & 5.62 & 17.78 & 10.0 \\
4 & 17.78 & 56.23 & 31.63 \\
5 & 56.23 & 177.8 & 100.0 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Definition of energy bins used for the quasi-differential limit calculations, following the analysis used in \cite{Aartsen:2017snx}.}
\label{table:ebins}
\end{table}
\subsection{Model Templates}
We treat the morphology of the M31 FBs as described in \cite{Pshirkov:2016qhu}. The position of the core of M31 is taken from the 100~$\mu$m infrared map found in the Improved Reprocessing of the IRAS Survey (IRIS) database \citep{MivilleDeschenes:2004ci}. The location of the M31 galactic center, the positions of the bubbles, and the orientation of the disk of M31 used in the analysis are given in Table~\ref{tab:positions}.
The M31 galactic disk is modeled as an ellipse with a semi-major axis of length $0.9^\circ$ inclined 45.04$^{\circ}$ counterclockwise from the positive right ascension axis. The ellipse has an aspect ratio of $b/a = 0.22$ \citep{Pshirkov:2016qhu}. The two FB regions are modeled as circular disks of radius $0.45^\circ$, oriented perpendicular to and symmetrically above and below the galactic plane of M31. Figure~\ref{fig:bubblemodel} displays the regions used in the spatial fit. Two of the model templates used in the analysis are based on M31 and the FB separately. The third model template is the combination of M31 and the FBs. The flux is assumed to be constant within the area encompassed by the template.
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\begin{tabular*}{0.75\textwidth}{@{\extracolsep{\fill}} c c c }
\hspace{10pt}Region & $\alpha_{J2000}$ & $\delta_{J2000}$\hspace{10pt} \\
\hline\hlin
\hspace{10pt}M31 Nucleus & $10.6848^\circ$ & $41.7166^\circ$\hspace{10pt} \\
\hspace{10pt}M31 Disk Endpoint 1 & $11.1509^\circ$ & $40.8256^\circ$\hspace{10pt} \\
\hspace{10pt}M31 Disk Endpoint 2 & $10.2145^\circ$ & $40.8256^\circ$\hspace{10pt} \\
\hspace{10pt}FB 1 Center & $10.3746^\circ$ & $41.5951^\circ$\hspace{10pt} \\
\hspace{10pt}FB 2 Center & $10.9949^\circ$ & $40.9430^\circ$\hspace{10pt} \\
\hline
\end{tabular*}
\caption{Positions of M31 regions from the IRIS database \citep{MivilleDeschenes:2004ci,Pshirkov:2016qhu}. The two endpoints and nucleus of M31 define the galactic plane, which we use to locate two positions perpendicular and symmetric to the center of the plane (FB1 and FB2) that are spaced $0.45^\circ$ from the nucleus.}
\label{tab:positions}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{shape_template.pdf}
\caption{Regions to be used in the model for the FBs around M31. The M31 galactic plane is modeled as an ellipse with the two FBs as circular regions with radius $0.45^\circ$. The background image is the IRIS 100$~\mu m$ map of the $2.5^\circ \times 2.5^\circ$ region surrounding M31. The dashed line represents the M31 galactic plane between the two endpoints defined in Table~\ref{tab:positions}.}
\label{fig:bubblemodel}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Cosmic-ray Energy Density}\label{subsec:cr_density}
Using a measurement of or constraint on the flux of TeV gamma rays, under the
assumption that gamma-ray emission is due to the decay of neutral pions
produced by cosmic-ray interactions, the energy density of cosmic rays
responsible for the production of gamma rays can be derived using
\citep{Abramowski:2016mir}
\begin{eqnarray}
\omega_{CR}\left(\geq 10E_{\gamma}\right) & \sim &
1.8\times10^{-2}\left(\frac{\eta_{n}}{1.5}\right)^{-1}\left(\frac{L_{\gamma}\left(\geq
E_{\gamma}\right)}{10^{34}~\text{erg~s$^{-1}$}}\right)\left(\frac{M}{10^{6}~M_\odot\xspace}\right)^{-1}~\text{eV~cm$^{-3}$}.
\label{eqn:cosmic}
\end{eqnarray}
In eq.~\ref{eqn:cosmic}, $L_{\gamma}\left(\geq E_{\gamma}\right)$ is the
observed gamma-ray luminosity at energies beyond $E_\gamma$, and $M$ is the
mass of target nuclei within the region of interest. Note that $\omega_{CR}$
is estimated for $\geq 10E_{\gamma}$ because, on average, approximately 10\% of
the primary cosmic-ray energy goes into the production of gamma-ray photons via
the interactions $pp\to pp\pi^0$ and $\pi^0\to\gamma\gamma$. Estimates of target mass are
typically based on measurements of HI and H$_2$; the quantity $\eta_{n}$ is a
scale factor fixed at 1.5 to account for nucleons present other than hydrogen
\citep{Abramowski:2016mir}. Since physical properties such as the mass of the
galaxy are required for the calculation, the cosmic-ray energy density is only
computed for M31 and not for the bubbles. In addition, we also compute the
cosmic-ray energy density corresponding to a gamma-ray energy above 1~TeV for
each energy bin adopted from the quasi-differential limits.
Current best estimates of the properties of M31 are used with relevant
uncertainties (see Table \ref{table:values_used}). The uncertainties are
propagated to calculate the systematic uncertainties on each value of
$\omega_\text{CR}$. Most of the uncertainties on the energy densities come from
the estimates of the target mass and the detector systematics in the HAWC
analysis \citep{Abeysekara:2017mjj}.
\begin{table}[hb]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ c c c }
\hline
Mass HI & {\bf $(7.33\pm2.20)\times10^{9}~M_\odot\xspace$} & {\bf \cite{Braun:2009apj}} \\
Mass H$_2$ & {\bf $(3.45\pm1.80)\times10^{9}~M_\odot\xspace$} & {\bf \cite{Nieten:2005if}} \\
Distance & $d=785\pm25~\text{kpc}$ & \cite{McConnachie:2004dv} \\
Flux Uncertainty & $\pm$50\% & \cite{Abeysekara:2017mjj} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The mass budget used to calculate the cosmic-ray energy distribution.}
\label{table:values_used}
\end{table}
\section{Results}
\label{sec:results}
The analysis uses data recorded with HAWC between June 2015 and December 2017
\citep{Abeysekara:2017mjj}. A description of the construction of HAWC sky maps
is provided in \cite{Abeysekara:2017hyn}. In brief, maps of the sky around M31
are produced by binning the arrival directions of cosmic rays and gamma rays in
a HEALPix map \citep{Gorski:2004by} using bins of width 0.057$^\circ$,
considerably smaller than the $0.2^\circ$ to $1^\circ$ angular resolution of
HAWC. Cosmic ray air showers are identified and rejected based on the variance
of the distribution of charge deposited as a function of distance from the
reconstructed shower core. The rejection power of the cosmic-ray cut depends
strongly on the size of the air shower; 10\% of cosmic rays below 1~TeV pass
the event selection, while 0.1\% pass at 10~TeV \citep{Abeysekara:2017mjj}. The
gamma-ray selection efficiency is $>30\%$ at all energies.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[width=0.325\textwidth]{1024_map.pdf}
\hfill
\includegraphics[width=0.325\textwidth]{512_map.pdf}
\hfill
\includegraphics[width=0.325\textwidth]{256_map.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:m31_sig_map}
Significance map around M31 (crosshairs) produced with 33 months of HAWC data using (left) the point source map, (center) $0.5^\circ$-smoothed map and (right) $2^\circ$-smoothed map. An $E^{-2}$ spectrum is used for the three maps.}
\end{figure}
Once the HEALPix map is filled, we produce a background map giving the expected number of counts from an isotropic distribution of events. The background expectation is computed from the data themselves using the direct integration method developed in \cite{Atkins:2003ep}. A maximum likelihood technique is then used to search for significant excesses and deficits with respect to the isotropic background expectation as a function of sky location. The signal model in the likelihood assumes each HEALPix pixel includes background counts plus a flux from a power-law energy spectrum. The source or sources contributing to counts in a given pixel can be treated as point-like or spatially extended, assuming a uniform disk of fixed radius; the source morphology is convolved with the detector angular resolution in the likelihood.
Figure~\ref{fig:m31_sig_map} shows HAWC sky maps around M31 assuming an $E^{-2}$ source spectrum and a point-like source morphology (left), a source extended by $0.5^\circ$ (center), and a $2^\circ$ extended source (right). The maps include all energies $>1$~TeV, and no significant excess emission is observed. Thus, for each of our model templates, we report 95\% credible upper limits on the flux of gamma rays above 1 TeV.
To estimate the sensitivity of our analysis, we calculate the expected upper limits of HAWC to the M31 disk and two FBs (as well as individual components of such a combined model) by fitting the same M31 spatial templates to background-only regions at different right ascensions, keeping the declination of the templates fixed. By avoiding regions with known VHE gamma-ray sources, this produces a distribution of background-only estimates for the particular morphological models we are using. These are used to provide expected limits of the model templates used in our analysis and 68\% and 95\% containment bands of the expected limits.
\subsection{Expected Gamma-ray Flux from M31 Fermi Bubbles, assuming Milky-Way like Emission}
\label{sec:extrapolation}
The observed spectral energy distribution (SED) of the Milky Way FBs reported by \cite{Fermi-LAT:2014sfa} is approximately constant in the 1~-~100~GeV energy range. However, at higher energies the spectrum falls off as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:SED}.
\begin{figure}[b!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fermi_bubble_flux_extrapolation.pdf}
\caption{Spectral energy distribution (SED) of the Milky Way \Fermi Bubbles,
with statistical uncertainties shown as error bars and systematic uncertainties
as the filled contour \citep{Fermi-LAT:2014sfa}. The dashed line is a best-fit
broken power law between $1-500$ GeV with spectral indices $\Gamma_1$,
$\Gamma_2$, and break energy $E_B$. Below 50~GeV the flux is an $E^{-2}$
spectrum; above the spectrum is described by $E^{-2.75}$.}
\label{fig:SED}
\end{figure}
From the observed flux of the Milky Way bubbles, we can calculate the gamma-ray
flux of equivalent bubble-like structures of M31, given the distance
$d_\text{M31}=785$~kpc between M31 and the Milky Way. This follows a similar
analysis carried out by \cite{Pshirkov:2016qhu}. Since HAWC is sensitive to
gamma rays in the TeV regime, we extrapolate the SED to energies greater than
1~TeV. First, we calculate the integral flux of the Milky Way FBs by
integrating the best-fit power law (dashed line in Figure~\ref{fig:SED}) above
1~TeV multiplied by the total solid angle of the bubbles. To extrapolate the
flux to what is expected from a similarly sized source at the position of M31,
we scale the integral flux by ($d_\text{MW}$/$d_\text{M31}$)$^2$ where
$d_\text{MW}$ is the assumed distance to the Milky Way FBs. Under these assumptions, the expected integral flux from M31 FBs is approximately $3.9\times10^{-15}$~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$ at energies $>1$~TeV.
Using the constant flux from 1 to 50 GeV (the dashed curve in
Fig.~\ref{fig:SED}), we calculate the total integral flux expected from M31
bubbles to be $2.06\times10^{-10}$~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$. This is significantly
below the integral flux of $(2.6\pm0.6)\times10^{-9}$~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$ one
obtains using the spectral index $\Gamma_\text{FB}=2.3\pm0.1$ reported by
\cite{Pshirkov:2016qhu}. The \LAT Collaboration does not report any
statistically significant GeV emission from the bubble regions
\citep{Ackermann:2017nya}.
\subsection{Spectral Analysis}
The spectrum of the M31 disk, the bubbles and the combined spatial model are
shown in Figures \ref{fig:m31_results} and \ref{fig:fb_results}. We summarize
integral flux upper limits for the M31 disk, bubbles and combined models in
Table~\ref{tab:limits} based on power law fits (eq.~\ref{eq:powerlaw}); the
table also includes expected upper limits for the corresponding models.
Figures~\ref{fig:m31_results} and \ref{fig:fb_results} show quasi-differential
limits calculated using the method described in Section~\ref{sec:method}. Plots
based on the single power law fits and tables giving the normalizations $K$ for
each fit are provided in the Appendix of this paper.
For the various single and joint fits, the limits on the VHE integral gamma-ray
flux $>1$~TeV differ by roughly a factor of six when different spectral indices
are assumed. We note that all upper limits are within the 95\% intervals of the
``expected'' upper limits, defined using fits to background-only regions
observed by HAWC (see Section~\ref{sec:method}). Thus the upper limits on the
VHE flux are consistent with the expected sensitivity of the detector. For
comparison, VERITAS upper limits corresponding to a large and a small test
region of M31 \citep{Bird:2015npa} are also shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:m31_results}..
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\begin{tabular*}{\textwidth}{@{\extracolsep{\fill}} c c c }
Model Template & Integral Flux Upper Limit & Expected Upper Limit \\
& ($>1$ TeV) [$10^{-13}\text{ cm}^{-2}\text{ s}^{-1}$] & ($>1$ TeV) [$10^{-13}\text{ cm}^{-2}\text{ s}^{-1}$] \\
\hline \hline
M31 Disk ($\Gamma = -2.0$) & 0.85 & 0.93 (0.77-1.09, 0.51-1.65) \\
M31 Disk ($\Gamma = -2.5$) & 3.75 & 3.83 (3.18-4.63, 2.08-6.03) \\
M31 Disk ($\Gamma = -3.0$) & 5.18 & 7.10 (6.00-8.77, 4.41-12.85) \\
\hline
FB ($\Gamma = -2.0$) & 0.31 & 0.50 (0.39-0.63, 0.24-0.86) \\
FB ($\Gamma = -2.5$) & 1.67 & 1.91 (1.62-2.27, 1.01-3.31) \\
FB ($\Gamma = -3.0$) & 2.03 & 3.28 (2.86-4.03, 1.96-6.30) \\
\hline
Combined ($\Gamma_{M31} = -2.0, \Gamma_{FB} = -2.0$) & 1.12 & 1.19
(0.97-1.48, 0.53-2.37) \\
Combined ($\Gamma_{M31} = -2.0, \Gamma_{FB} = -2.5$) & 1.87 & 2.26
(1.78-3.03, 0.95-4.53) \\
Combined ($\Gamma_{M31} = -2.0, \Gamma_{FB} = -3.0$) & 2.64 & 3.43
(2.63-4.88, 1.26-6.80) \\
Combined ($\Gamma_{M31} = -2.5, \Gamma_{FB} = -2.0$) & 2.97 & 2.98
(2.30-4.17, 1.00-6.71) \\
Combined ($\Gamma_{M31} = -2.5, \Gamma_{FB} = -2.5$) & 4.20 & 4.59
(3.75-5.84, 2.26-8.89) \\
Combined ($\Gamma_{M31} = -2.5, \Gamma_{FB} = -3.0$) & 5.54 & 6.08
(4.83-7.40, 2.59-11.39) \\
Combined ($\Gamma_{M31} = -3.0, \Gamma_{FB} = -2.0$) & 5.25 & 5.36
(4.24-6.57, 2.06-12.55) \\
Combined ($\Gamma_{M31} = -3.0, \Gamma_{FB} = -2.5$) & 6.04 & 7.17
(5.44-8.77, 3.00-14.41) \\
Combined ($\Gamma_{M31} = -3.0, \Gamma_{FB} = -3.0$) & 7.97 & 8.36
(6.99-10.19, 4.53-16.42) \\
\hline
\end{tabular*}
\caption{Observed 95\% credible upper limits on the emission from the M31
galactic disk and its bubbles. The expected median upper limits, as well as the
68\% and 95\% containment bands for the expected limits are given in the last
the column.}
\label{tab:limits}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{sed_quasi_M31_2p5_ednde.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:m31_results} 95\% credible upper intervals on
gamma-ray emission from the disk of M31 using the 33-month dataset from
HAWC (red arrows), assuming an $E^{-2.5}$ power law. The expected range of
upper limits assuming the null hypothesis of no emission ($\mathcal{H}_0$)
was computed using background-only regions.
For each quasi-differential energy bin, dotted lines represent mean upper
limits, yellow boxes represent
68\% containment regions for the upper limits, and green boxes represent
95\% containment regions.
(See Section~\ref{sec:results} for details.)
Also shown are measurements of
M31 from \LAT \citep{Ackermann:2017nya} and upper limits from VERITAS
\citep{Bird:2015npa}.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{quasi_combined_2p5_ednde.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:fb_results} {\sl Left}: 95\% credible upper limits on
VHE emission from ``\Fermi Bubbles'' in M31, assuming an $E^{-2.5}$
spectrum. {\sl Right}: 95\% upper limits VHE emission from a joint fit of
M31 and the FB regions, assuming independent spectral normalizations but
the same power law index of $-2.5$.}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Cosmic Ray Energy Density Interpretation}
The calculated integral flux upper limits are used to infer the measured upper
limits for the cosmic-ray energy density of the M31 disk above 1~TeV. The
results are tabulated in Table~\ref{tab:cr_limits} along with the uncertainties
calculated by propagating the uncertainties in the disk mass and distance (see
Table~\ref{table:values_used}) and the systematic uncertainties on gamma-ray
spectra measured with HAWC \citep{Abeysekara:2017mjj}.
For limits on the quasi-differential cosmic-ray energy density, we calculate
$\omega_{CR}\left(\geq 10E_{\gamma}\right)$ with $E_{\gamma}$ set to the lower
and higher end energy values for each energy bin in measured quasi-differential
flux upper limits. As described in Section~\ref{subsec:cr_density}, $10E_\gamma$ is used as a
proxy for the energy of the hadronic cosmic rays which produce gamma rays via
the production and decay of neutral pions. Then we use the values to compute
the quasi-differential cosmic-ray energy density upper limits per energy bin
using:
\begin{equation}
\omega_{CR}\left(10E_{\gamma, 2} \geq 10E_\gamma \geq 10E_{\gamma, 1}\right) = \omega_{CR}\left(\geq 10E_{\gamma, 1}\right) - \omega_{CR}\left(\geq 10E_{\gamma, 2}\right)
\end{equation}
Our limits on the cosmic ray energy density agree with the expected upper
limits computed in background-only regions. For all energy bins considered in
this work, the computed upper limits on $\omega_\mathrm{CR}$ are higher than
the average cosmic ray energy density of the Milky Way calculated by the
H.E.S.S. Collaboration \citep{Abramowski:2016mir}, $\sim10^{-3}$ eV~cm$^{-3}$.
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\begin{tabular*}{0.5\textwidth}{@{\extracolsep{\fill}} c c}
& Upper limit \\
Model Template & $\omega_{CR}$($>$ 10 TeV) \\
& [eV/cm$^3$] \\
\hline \hline
M31 Disk ($\Gamma=-2.0$) & $0.011 \pm 0.009$ \\
M31 Disk ($\Gamma=-2.5$) & $0.028 \pm 0.022$ \\
M31 Disk ($\Gamma=-3.0$) & $0.028 \pm 0.022$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular*}
\caption{Calculated upper limits on the cosmic-ray energy density for the M31 disk for three spectral indices.}
\label{tab:cr_limits}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{cosmic_ray_energy_density_index2p5.pdf}
\caption{Upper limits on the energy density of cosmic rays in M31 $>10$~TeV
using the HAWC data set. The calculation assumes an $E^{-2.5}$ spectrum for
the VHE gamma rays.
\label{fig:cosmicray_sensitivity}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}
We have searched for gamma-ray emission from the nearby spiral galaxy, M31, applying spatial templates with 33 months of HAWC data. Independent and joint fits to the galactic disk and FB-like structures are performed. No significant emission is observed in the regions of M31 with the HAWC point source and extended source searches. Therefore, we report flux upper limits for the disk, the bubbles and the two features combined. The calculated integral flux upper limits are consistent with HAWC's sensitivity to background-only regions. The \LAT spectral analysis of the M31 disk \citep{Ackermann:2017nya} provides a spectral index of $\Gamma$ of -2.4$\pm$0.1. When the spectrum is extrapolated under the assumption of no spectral break, the corresponding particle flux above 1 TeV has a value of 2.51$\times$10$^{-14}$ cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$. The flux upper limits from HAWC are about an order of magnitude higher than the extrapolated results, but consistent with the HAWC sensitivity. Our results do not coincide in energy range with VERITAS results \citep{Bird:2015npa}; however, our upper limits have an agreement with their upper limits.
Using the calculated flux upper limits of the M31 galactic disk, we estimate
its cosmic-ray energy density using different fixed spectral indices at
$>$1~TeV extrapolated to the full energy range of HAWC (see Table
\ref{tab:cr_limits}) as well as quasi-differential energy bins (Figure
\ref{fig:cosmicray_sensitivity}). We note that if we extrapolate the M31 disk
spectrum measured by the \LAT
\citep{Ackermann:2017nya} to the $1-100$ TeV range, we obtain an integral flux
of 7.40$\times$10$^{-14}$ TeV cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$. This value
can be interpreted as cosmic ray energy density of 1.05$\times$10$^{-5}$
eV~cm$^{-3}$, which is consistent with the upper limits on cosmic ray energy
density that we estimate with HAWC and report in this work.
The HAWC limits can also be compared to the flux of the FBs in the Milky Way,
normalized to the distance to M31, as described in
Section~\ref{sec:extrapolation}. The upper limits of the integral flux of the
M31 FB structures (0.30 - 2.68$\times10^{-13}$~cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$) are found to
be higher than the extrapolated flux of 3.9$\times10^{-15}$~cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$
by approximately two orders of magnitude.
This analysis is the first systematic study of the extended gamma-ray
emission from the M31 region at TeV energies by a detector optimized to study
extended emission. While no VHE gamma rays from the disk of M31 or ``\Fermi
Bubble'' regions around the galactic nucleus were observed, we have constrained
emission from this region up to 100~TeV. Future versions of this analysis will
benefit from a factor of two increase in the size of the HAWC data set, as well
as the development of high-resolution gamma-ray energy estimators in the HAWC
reconstruction of gamma-ray air showers.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We acknowledge the support from: the US National Science Foundation (NSF); the US Department of Energy Office of High-Energy Physics; the Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) program of Los Alamos National Laboratory; Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnolog\'{\'i}a (CONACyT), M{\'e}xico, grants 271051, 232656, 260378, 179588, 254964, 258865, 243290, 132197, A1-S-46288, A1-S-22784, c{\'a}tedras 873, 1563, 341, 323, Red HAWC, M{\'e}xico; DGAPA-UNAM grants AG100317, IN111315, IN111716-3, IN111419, IA102019, IN112218; VIEP-BUAP; PIFI 2012, 2013, PROFOCIE 2014, 2015; the University of Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation; the Institute of Geophysics, Planetary Physics, and Signatures at Los Alamos National Laboratory; Polish Science Centre grant DEC-2018/31/B/ST9/01069, DEC-2017/27/B/ST9/02272; Coordinaci{\'o}n de la Investigaci{\'o}n Cient\'{\'i}fica de la Universidad Michoacana; Royal Society - Newton Advanced Fellowship 180385. Thanks to Scott Delay, Luciano D\'{\'i}az and Eduardo Murrieta for technical support.
\software{threeML / hawc-hal (https://github.com/threeML, G. Vianello et. al.), AERIE-LiFF (https://github.com/rjlauer/aerie-liff, HAWC Collaboration)}
|
\section{Introduction}
Intelligent assistive systems support the daily activities and allow healthy people as well as people with impairments to continue their independent life \cite{Hoey:2010}.
To provide timely and adequate support, such systems have to recognise the user actions and intentions, track the user interactions with objects, detect errors in the user behaviour, and find the best way of assisting them \cite{Hoey:2010}.
This can be done by activity recognition (AR) approaches that utilise human behaviour models (HBM) in the form of rules.
These rules are used to generate probabilistic models with which the system can infer the user actions and goals \cite{Krueger:2014,Trafton:actr-e,Hiatt,geffner,Baker.ea:2009}.
This type of models is also known as computational state space models (CSSM) \cite{Krueger:2014}.
CSSMs perform activity recognition by treating it as a plan recognition problem.
In plan recognition given an initial state, a set of possible actions, and a set of observations, the executed actions and the user goals have to be recognised \cite{Ramirez:2009}.
CSSMs use prior knowledge to obtain the context information needed for building the user actions and the problem domain.
The prior knowledge is provided in the form of precondition-effect rules by a domain expert or by the model designer.
This knowledge is then used to manually build a CSSM.
The manual modelling is, however, time consuming and error prone process \cite{Nguyen:2013,problemsKrueger}.
To address this problem, different works propose to learn the models from sensor data \cite{Zhuo.Kambhampati:2013,Okeyo:2011}.
One problem these approaches face is that sensor data is expensive \cite{Ye:2014}.
Another problem is that sensors are not always able to capture fine-grained activities \cite{sensorsGranularity:Chen}, thus, they might potentially not be learned.
To reduce the impact of domain experts or sensor data on the model performance, one can substitute them with textual data \cite{Philipose:2004}.
In other words, one can utilise the knowledge encoded in textual instructions to learn the model structure.
Textual instructions specify tasks for achieving a given goal or performing a certain task without explicitly stating all the required steps.
This omission of certain steps makes them a challenging source for learning a model \cite{Branavan:2010}.
On the positive side, they are usually written in imperative form, have a simple sentence structure, and are highly organised.
Compared to rich texts, this makes them a better source for identifying the sequence of actions needed for reaching the goal \cite{Zhang:2012}.
There are different works that address the problem of learning models from textual instructions.
Such models are used for constructing plans of human behaviour \cite{Li:2010,Branavan:2012,Yordanova:2018KI,Yordanova:2016a}, for learning an optimal actions' execution sequence based on natural instructions \cite{Branavan:2011,Branavan:2010,Vogel:2010,Chen:2011,Babes-Vroman:2012,Benotti:2014}, for constructing machine understandable model from natural language instructions \cite{Zhang:2012,Kollar:2014}, and for automatically generating semantic annotation for sensor datasets \cite{Yordanova:2020a,Yordanova:2018a}.
Model learning from textual instructions has applications in different fields of computer science: constructing plans of terrorist attacks \cite{Li:2010}, improving tasks execution (such as navigation, computer commands following, games playing) by interpreting natural language instructions \cite{Branavan:2011,Branavan:2010,Vogel:2010,Chen:2011,Babes-Vroman:2012,Benotti:2014}, the ability of a robot or machine to interpret instructions given in natural language \cite{Zhang:2012,Kollar:2014}, or for behaviour analysis tasks based on sensor observations \cite{Yordanova:2018KI,Yordanova:2017KE}.
According to \cite{Branavan:2012}, to learn a model of human behaviour from textual instructions, the system has to:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textbf{extract the actions' semantics} from the text,
\item \textbf{learn the model semantics} through language grounding,
\item and, finally, to \textbf{translate it into computational model of human behaviour} for planning problems.
\end{enumerate}
In addition to these requirements, \cite{Yordanova:2016b} introduces 4. the need of \textbf{learning the domain ontology} that is used to abstract and / or specialise the model.
One general challenge that remains is how to empirically compare the different approaches.
Yordanova \cite{Yordanova:2018KI} proposes different measures such as correctness of the identified elements, complexity of the model, model coverage, and similarity to handcrafted models.
To compare different approaches with these metrics, however, one needs a common dataset\footnote{Providing datasets and the corresponding annotation is a problem in the community that is often underestimated but that could have negative effect on the overall performance of the system \cite{Yordanova:2018Sensors,Yordanova:2018Arduous,Yordanova:2019c}. In the case of automatically generated models for behaviour analysis the ground truth is a collection of plans that correspond to the provided textual instructions.}.
In this technical report we address the problem by introducing a dataset, consisting of 83 textual instructions on different topics from our everyday life, together with refinements of the instructions and the corresponding plans.
The dataset can be used to compare the ability of approaches for model generation from text to learn a model structure able to explain the corresponding plans.
\section{Procedure for collecting the textual instructions}
The dataset was collected within the context of the project Text2HBM\footnote{https://text2hbm.org/}.
The goal of the project is to develop methods for the automatic generation of planning operators and behaviour models from textual instructions.
To collect the dataset, we first decided on different topics from our everyday life, for which the instructions are to be collected.
The topics include cooking recipes, buying movie tickets, changing elements of house appliances, deciding on vacation plan.
For each type of instructions, we attempted to find different opinions on the execution sequence.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{POP}
\caption{Three different execution sequences or ``recipes'' for preparing chocolate cookies.}
\label{fig:pop}
\end{figure}
In other words, we collected the descriptions from different sources addressing the same process.
Concretely, we first selected a topic (e.g. – how to make chocolate cookies, how to make a cake etc.), then we asked different people to provide their way of achieving the objective.
For example, suppose we would like to make ‘chocolate cookies’.
We took three different opinions about the making process.
The three processes are depicted in Figure \ref{fig:pop}.
For each type of instruction, we have collected between one and 14 instructions to cover different variations of the same activity.
The originally collected texts are our starting point or ``raw data''.
For example, Figure \ref{fig:instructionRaw} shows the original description collected for preparing chocolate cookies.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\centering\scriptsize
\begin{verbatim}
Preheat oven to 350F.
Cover a baking sheet with a parchment paper.
Cream the butter, brown sugar, white sugar using an electric mixer.
In a separate bowl, combine the dry ingredients. Combine the flour, hot cocoa,
salt, baking soda, and baking powder.
Pour in the dry ingredients and blend on low speed for about two minutes, until
the cookie dough is a dark brown and there are no flour streaks.
Fold in the chocolate chips and marshmallows.
Cover the bowl with plastic wrap and allow the cookie dough to chill for about one hour.
Using a mini ice cream scoop, drop the cookie dough onto the baking sheet.
Bake the cookies for about 9-11 minutes, until the marshmallows melt and the
cookies slightly brown.
Allow the cookies to cool on a wire rack for about 5-7 minutes.
Serve.
\end{verbatim}
\caption{The originally collected text for preparing chocolate cookies.}
\label{fig:instructionRaw}
\end{figure}
After initial tests with approaches for model generation we found out that this form of action sentences is not suitable for generating models as each sentence is too complex.
To address this problem, we performed a refinement step where for each instruction, the sentence was simplified.
For any sentence, which consists of more than one verb or one verb with many objects to which the action is applied, we broke it into a single verb-object per sentence.
In other words, we refined the texts so that there is only one action in each step.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\centering\scriptsize
\begin{verbatim}
Heat the oven to 350F.
Cover the baking sheet with a paper.
Take the electric mixer.
Cream the butter.
Cream the brown sugar.
Cream the white sugar.
Take a separate bowl.
Combine the dry ingredients.
Combine the flour.
Combine the hot cocoa.
Combine the salt.
Combine the baking soda.
Combine the baking powder.
Pour the dry ingredients.
Blend for two minutes.
Fold the chocolate chips.
Fold the marshmallows.
Cover the bowl with plastic wrap.
Chill the cookie dough.
Put the cookie dough on sheet.
Bake the cookies for 10 minutes.
Cool the cookies for 6 minutes.
Serve.
\end{verbatim}
\caption{The text for preparing chocolate cookies after refinement.}
\label{fig:instructionRefined}
\end{figure}
In Figure \ref{fig:instructionRaw} one can see there are multiple objects, on which the same action is applied (for example, the action ``cream'' is applied to the objects ``brown sugar'', ``white sugar'', and ``butter'').
To refine it, for each sentence, we broke down the entire sentence into one action (verb) per sentence (see Figure \ref{fig:instructionRefined}).
We could have created a more structured representation of the steps by removing the articles ``a'' and ``the'', but by doing so an approach relying on natural sentences will probably not be able to parse the sentences correctly.
After refining the texts, we now needed a mechanism for validating the correctness of the generated models.
To achieve that, we manually created plans that represent every ``refined text'' instruction.
The format for the plans can be seen in Figure \ref{fig:plan}.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\centering\scriptsize
\begin{verbatim}
0,*,INITIALIZE
1,*,(heat oven F)
2,*,(cover sheet)
3,*,(take mixer)
4,*,(cream butter)
5,*,(cream sugar)
6,*,(cream sugar)
7,*,(take bowl)
8,*,(combine ingredients)
9,*,(combine flour)
10,*,(combine cocoa)
11,*,(combine salt)
12,*,(combine soda)
13,*,(combine powder)
14,*,(pour ingredients)
15,*,(blend)
16,*,(fold chips)
17,*,(fold marshmallows)
18,*,(cover bowl plastic)
19,*,(chill dough)
20,*,(put dough sheet)
21,*,(bake cookies)
22,*,(cool cookies rack)
23,*,(serve)
24,*,FINISHED
\end{verbatim}
\caption{The plan corresponding to the refined instruction for preparing cookies.}
\label{fig:plan}
\end{figure}
Here the first element is the time at which the action starts\footnote{In this case we assume instantaneous actions, such that each action takes one time step. It is however, also possible to have actions with real durations. For example see \cite{Yordanova:2019a}.}, the second element is the $*$, which tells us whether this is a new action or whether it was transferred from the previous step\footnote{This parameter is redundant in single agent behaviour, such as in our case. There are, however, applications where the behaviour of multiple agents is tracked. In such cases, when a new action starts for one agent, it is possible that the action for another agent is just transferred from the previous one. For example, see \cite{icaart,Yordanova:2014}.}, and the third element shows the concrete step of the plan in the form of action followed by objects (entities), on which the action is executed.
It can be seen, that we followed a certain structure when defining the plan steps.
After initialising, the next steps are written in a format similar to the structure of the refined sentences.
Each step starts with a verb, followed by the primary object and succeeded by the secondary object.
Usually, the secondary object is the source or destination location of the primary object.
For example, \textbf{cream (verb) butter (primary object) mixer (secondary object)}.
More generally, the form of the steps follows the formula
\textbf{N,*,(action object1/location1 object2/location2)}.
\section{Dataset}
In the following we describe the data format.
The dataset is publicly available and can be downloaded from \url{https://github.com/stenialo/Text2HBM}.
\subsection{Data format}
The entire dataset consists of various activities resulting in 83 unique descriptions.
It is separated in eleven categories: Cake, Chicken, Filter system, Movie Tickets, PC cooler, Portable AC, Vacation Plan, Cookies, French Toasts, Sushi, Washing Machine.
In each of these activities there are certain types of procedures which are categorised in terms of different names.
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Cookies} has fourteen different procedures for making some kinds of cookies.
\item \textbf{French Toast} has fourteen different procedures for making some kinds of French toasts.
\item \textbf{Sushi} has thirteen different procedures for making some kinds of sushi.
\item \textbf{Washing Machine} has five different procedures for cleaning and other stuffs related to washing machine.
\item \textbf{Vacation Plans} has eight different procedures for making some kind of trip or vacation.
\item \textbf{Cake} has ten different opinions from ten different persons for procedures of making cake.
\item \textbf{Chicken} also has ten different opinions from ten different persons for procedures of making cake.
\item \textbf{Portable Air Conditioner} has four different processes for installing.
\item \textbf{Movie Ticket} booking has two different options.
\item \textbf{House Water-Filter System} also has two different opinions.
\item \textbf{PC Cooling System} has one procedure.
\end{itemize}
Each of these procedures/opinions/processes has three types of data.
These three categories are:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Raw Data:} As the term suggests, it is the raw texts collected from different people for different kind of preparation in each of the activities mentioned. The sentences can be complex or simple depending on the amount of parts of speech in the particular context.
\item \textbf{Refined Text:} To make the Raw Data easily processable, the sentences of the steps in Raw Data needed to be simplified. This form basically starts with a main verb followed by the main object and ended by the secondary object. Usually, the last term happens to be the location of the object. But sometimes there can be cases where the location is not important. But each and every step has to follow the structure of ‘single verb and single primary object’. Also, each sentence has to be grammatically correct and meaningful. For this reason, all the required prepositions and articles can not be avoided.
\item \textbf{Plans:} To evaluate the generated models we needed particular plan data for each of the corresponding texts. After initialising the format looks like
\textbf{N,*,(action object1/location1 object2/location2)}
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Folder structure}
The dataset has the following folder structure.
\begin{itemize}
\item Textual\_Descriptions
\begin{itemize}
\item Plans
\item Raw\_Data
\item Refined\_Text
\item Refined\_Text2
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
Folder \textbf{Plans} contains the plans corresponding on the refined text. As the descriptions were collected by two people, in some of the folders there is additional folder \textbf{Refined\_Text2}. If this folder exists for the given instruction, then the plans are based on \textbf{Refined\_Text2}. Each step in a plan has the form \textbf{Time,*,(action object object)} (e.g. 1,*,(take cup table)). The time indicates the start time of the action, * indicates that the action is a new actions, and the concrete action with the involved elements of the environment is in brackets.
Folder \textbf{Raw\_Data} contains the original instructions.
Folder \textbf{Refined\_Text} contains a refinement of the original instructions from folder \textbf{Raw\_Data}. This refinement consists of making the sentences shorter, with only one verb per sentence. The sentences also start with a verb in imperative form.
Folder \textbf{Refined\_Text2} contains a refinement of the texts in folder \textbf{Refined\_Text}. As the data was collected by two persons, for some instructions the intermediate refinement was not kept, thus the final refinement is in folder \textbf{Refined\_Text}.
The dataset can be downloaded from the github repository \url{https://github.com/stenialo/Text2HBM}.
\section{Conclusion}
In this work we reported a dataset for evaluating automatically generated planning models.
These models are generated from textual instructions and can be used for various applications.
The aim of the dataset is to provide a benchmark for approaches that attempt to learn planning operators from instructional texts.
The manually built plans allow to test the validity of each generated model against the corresponding plan or even against other plans describing the same activity.
We hope that this dataset will be the first step towards identifying common metrics and data for evaluating methods for automatic generation of behaviour models.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
This work is part of the Text2HBM project, funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG), grant number YO 226/1-1.
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
|
\section{Introduction}
\setcounter{equation}{0}One of the main problems in hyperbolic systems is the {\it Riemann problem}.
This problem was proposed by Riemann considering a gas that is initially separated into two regions by a thin diaphragm.
The gases in the two regions are in different equilibrium thermodynamic states, respectively.
The question raised by Riemann is what happens when the diaphragm is put away.
In literature, by extension of this problem, the Riemann problem deals with every solution of a system of conservation laws in one-space dimension along the $x$ axis when the initial data composed of two different constant states $({\bf u}_L, {\bf u}_R)$ are connected with a jump at $x=0$.
The Riemann problem for hyperbolic conservation systems was completely solved mainly by P. Lax~\cite{Lax73}.
It was shown that the solution of the Riemann problem for hyperbolic systems of conservation laws is a combination of the rarefaction waves, contact waves, and shock waves (see e.g. \cite{Dafermos} and references therein).
A huge literature of the Riemann problem exists, in particular, many numerical results have been obtained by using the Riemann solvers (see e.g., \cite{Toro}).
For the classical Euler system, there have been enormous works (see \cite{Bressan-2000,Dafermos,Glimm-CPAM-1965,Smoller-1994} for instance). For brevity, we only list some of them: the global existence, as well as the sharp decay rate, was obtained for the entropy solutions with small amplitude in the celebrated work of Glimm and Lax \cite{Glimm-Lax-MAMS-1970}; the ``large data" global existence theorem for weak solutions was initiated by Nishida \cite{Nishida-PJA-1968}. It is well known that the Boltzmann equation is related to the systems of fluid dynamics for rarefied gas. This fact is revealed in the works such as \cite{Nicolaenko-Thurber-JM-1975,Caflisch-Nicolaenko-CMP-1982} for the shock profile solutions of the classical Boltzmann equation, \cite{Yu-CPAM-2005,Huang-Wang-Yang-CMP-2010,Huang-Wang-Wang-Yang-SIAM-2013} for the hydrodynamic limits from classical Boltzmann equation to Euler system with waves and \cite{Liu-Yang-Yu-Zhao-ARMA-2006,Ukai-Yang-Yu-CMP-2003,Ukai-Yang-Yu-CMP-2004,Xin-Yang-Yu-ARMA-2012} for the nonlinear stability of waves and boundary layers of the classical Boltzmann equation.
\smallskip
The aim of this paper is to consider the problematic of Riemann problem in the relativistic framework.
Let $V^\alpha$ and $T^{\alpha\beta}$ be the particle-particle flux and energy-momentum tensor, respectively \cite{Anile, Cercignani-Kremer, Groot-Leeuwen-Weert-1980,Taub-1967,Synge}:
\begin{align}\label{EuVT}
V^\alpha := \rho u^\alpha, \quad T^{\alpha\beta} := p h^{\alpha\beta} +\frac{e}{c^2} u^\alpha u^\beta.
\end{align}
Then, the field equations for relativistic single fluid are the conservation of particle numbers and energy-momentum tensor in Minkowski space:
\begin{align}\label{massmomenergy}
& \partial_\alpha V^\alpha = 0, \qquad
\partial_\alpha T^{\alpha\beta}= 0,
\end{align}
where $\rho = n m$ is the density, $n$ is the particle number, $m$ is the mass in rest frame, $u^\alpha \equiv (u^0 = \Gamma c, u^i= \Gamma v^i)$ is the four-velocity vector, $\Gamma=1/ \sqrt{1-{v^2}/{c^2}}$ is the Lorentz factor, $v^i$ is the velocity, $h^{\alpha \beta} = u^\alpha u^\beta /{c^2} - g^{\alpha\beta}$ is the projector tensor, $g^{\alpha\beta}$ is the metric tensor with signature $(+,-,-,-)$, $p$ is the pressure,
\begin{equation}
e= \rho(c^2+\varepsilon) \label{energia-e}
\end{equation}
is the energy, that is the sum of internal energy ($\varepsilon$ is the internal energy density) and the energy in the rest frame, $c$ is the light velocity; $\partial_\alpha = \partial / \partial x_\alpha$, $x^\alpha \equiv (x^0 = c t, x^i)$ are the space-time coordinates and the greek indices run from $0$ to $4$ while the Latin indices from $1$ to $3$ and, as usual, contract indices indicate summation.
For two dimensional space-time case, the system \eqref{massmomenergy} with \eqref{EuVT} is expressed as
\begin{align} \label{main1}
\begin{aligned}
& \partial_t\left(\frac{\rho c}{\sqrt{c^2-v^2}}\right) + \partial_x\left(\frac{\rho cv}{\sqrt{c^2-v^2}}\right)=0, \\
& \partial_t\left(\frac{(e+p)v}{c^2-v^2}\right)+\partial_x \left(\frac{(e+p)v^2}{c^2-v^2}+p\right)=0,\\
& \partial_t\left(\frac{(e+p)v^2}{c^2-v^2}+e\right)+ \partial_x \left(\frac{(e+p)c^2v}{c^2-v^2}\right)=0.
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
We need the constitutive equation
\begin{equation}\label{pre}
p \equiv p(\rho,e)
\end{equation}
to close the system \eqref{main1}. This is usually obtained, in parametric form, through the thermal and caloric equation of state
\begin{equation}\label{clter}
p\equiv p(\rho,T), \qquad e \equiv e(\rho,T),
\end{equation}
where $T$ is the temperature.
To the system \eqref{main1} with \eqref{pre} we prescribe the Riemann initial data
\begin{equation}\label{ini-data}
\mathbf{u}_0(x)=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathbf{u}_L=(\rho_L,~v_L,~e_L),\quad &x<0,\\
\mathbf{u}_R=(\rho_R,~v_R,~e_R),\quad &x>0, \end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{u}_L$ and $\mathbf{u}_R$
are two different constant states: $\mathbf{u}_L\neq \mathbf{u}_R$.
In 1948, Taub \cite{Taub-PR-1948} derived the equations (\ref{main1}) for a relativistic fluid and the Rankine-Hugoniot equations of the shock waves assuming as constitutive functions the pressure and the internal energy of polyatomic polytropic classical case:
\begin{equation}\label{state-rarepoly}
p=\frac{k_B}{m} \rho T, \quad \varepsilon=\frac{D}{2}\frac{k_B}{m} T, \quad \rightarrow \quad \varepsilon = \frac{p}{\rho (k-1)}, \quad \rightarrow \quad p=(k-1)(e - \rho c^2),
\end{equation}
where $D = 2/(k-1)$ is related to the degree of freedom and $k=c_p/c_V>1$ is the ratio of specific heats and $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant.
Smoller and Temple \cite{Smoller-Temple-CMP-1993} considered as constitutive equation $p=\sigma^2e$ ($\sigma$ is a constant) that substantially corresponds to the ultra-relativistic regime as we will see later. In this case the authors took into account only the second and third equation of the system \eqref{main1} because the first equation is independent, and established the global existence of entropy solutions to the Cauchy problem with arbitrary initial data of finite total variation (see also Wissman \cite{Wissman-CMP-2011}). Chen \cite{Chen-CPDE-1995} extended this result to the case of a constitutive equation corresponding to an isentropic classical gas for which $p=\sigma^2\rho^{k}$ and discussed the Riemann problem of the relativistic Euler system (\ref{main1}). The same author in \cite{Chen-ARMA-1997} considered as constitutive equations \eqref{state-rarepoly} that corresponds to a polyatomic classical gas.
On the other hand, for smooth solutions to the ultra-relativistic Euler system in $(3+1)$-dimensional space-time, Makino-Ukai \cite{Makino-Ukai-JMKU-1995,Makino-Ukai-KMJ-1995} established the local existence of solutions with data
away from vacuum applying Friedrichs-Lax-Kato's theory, and Lefloch-Ukai \cite{Lefloch-Ukai-KRM-2009} further extended it to the case with vacuum; the singularity formation of smooth solutions was studied by Pan-Smoller \cite{Pan-Smoller-CMP-2006}. For more works about the relativistic Euler system, we refer the interested readers to \cite{Chen-Li-JDE-2004,Chen-Li-ZAMP-2004,Li-Wang-CAM-2006,Ruan-Zhu-NA-2005} and the references therein.
\smallskip
The previous constitutive equations in \cite{Chen-CPDE-1995, Chen-ARMA-1997, Makino-Ukai-JMKU-1995, Makino-Ukai-KMJ-1995,Smoller-Temple-CMP-1993} are too much simplified, either only verified in the ultra-relativistic limit or verified in the classical limit. To have more realistic equations in the relativistic regime, at least for rarefied gas, we need to justify this at the mesoscopic scale using the kinetic theory.
If we take into account the relativistic kinetic framework, we have the Boltzmann-Chernikov equation:
\begin{equation}\label{B-C}
p^\alpha \partial_\alpha f = Q,
\end{equation}
where $f\equiv f(x^\alpha,p^\beta)$ is the distribution function, $p^\alpha $ is the four-momentum with the property $p^\alpha p_\alpha=m^2 c^2$, and $Q$ is the collisional term. Taking the first $2$-blocks of the tensorial moments, we have:
\begin{align}\label{moments3}
\begin{split}
& V^\alpha = m c \int_{\Re^3} f p^\alpha
\, d \vec{P} \, \, , \quad T^{\alpha \beta} =
c \int_{\Re^3} f p^\alpha
p^\beta \, \, d \vec{P},
\end{split}
\end{align}
with
\begin{equation*}
d \vec{P} = \frac{dp^1 \, dp^2 \,
dp^3}{p^0}.
\end{equation*}
In the case of non-degenerate gases, the constitutive equations \eqref{clter} can be calculated via kinetic theory with the J\"uttner equilibrium distribution function
\begin{equation*}
f_J= \frac{n \gamma}{ K_2(\gamma)} \frac{1}{4 \pi m^3
c^3} e^{- \frac{\gamma}{mc^2} u_\beta
p^\beta},
\end{equation*}
as follows:
\begin{align}
& p = \frac{m nc^2}{\gamma} = \frac{k_B}{m}\rho T \, ,\label{press} \\
& e= \frac{n m c^2}{ K_2(\gamma)} \left[ K_3 \left(\gamma
\right) - \frac{1}{\gamma} K_2
\left(\gamma \right) \right], \label{caloric}
\end{align}
where
$K_j(\gamma), (j=0, 1, 2, \ldots,)$ are the modified second order Bessel functions, and
$\gamma$ is a dimensionless variable defined as
\begin{equation}\label{temp}
\gamma=\frac{mc^2}{k_BT}.
\end{equation}
We recall that a fluid can be considered in a relativistic context if $\gamma$ is very small. This means that the bodies are so hot that the mean kinetic energy of particles becomes comparable with their rest energy or even surpasses that energy or the mass is extremely small. Therefore it is
of considerable interest in several areas of astrophysics and nuclear physics. The two limits $\gamma \rightarrow 0$ and $\gamma \rightarrow \infty$ correspond respectively to the ultra-relativistic limit and classical limit.
The expression of energy \eqref{caloric} is called the Synge energy \cite{Synge}. In the classical limit ($\gamma\rightarrow\infty $), by taking into account the expansion of the Bessel functions:
\begin{align*}
\begin{split}
& K_3(\gamma)= \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}} \gamma^{-1/2} e^{-\gamma} \left[ 1 +
\frac{35}{8} \, \frac{1}{\gamma} + o \left( \frac{1}{\gamma^2} \right) \right] \, , \notag\\
& K_2(\gamma)= \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}} \gamma^{-1/2} e^{-\gamma} \left[ 1 +
\frac{15}{8}\, \frac{1}{\gamma} + o \left( \frac{1}{\gamma^2} \right) \right] \, , \notag
\end{split}
\end{align*}
the Synge energy converges to
\begin{equation*}
\frac{e}{\rho}= c^2 + \varepsilon, \quad \text{with }\quad \varepsilon=\frac{3}{2}\frac{k_B}{m} T.
\end{equation*}
The expression of internal energy $\varepsilon$ shows that both classical and relativistic kinetic theories are valid only for rarefied monatomic gases. In fact, the usual expression in classical theory of internal energy (for polyatomic polytropic gas) is \eqref{state-rarepoly},
where $D= 3 + f^i$ is related to the degrees of freedom of a molecule given by the sum of the space dimension $3$ for the translational motion and the contribution from the internal degrees of freedom $f^i \geq 0$ due to the internal motion (rotation and vibration). For monatomic gases, $D=3$.
In the ultra-relativistic limit $\gamma \rightarrow 0$, the Synge energy equation \eqref{caloric} converges to $e=3p$.
In this context, we mention the work of Speck and Strain \cite{Speck-Strain-CMP-2011} where the local existence of smooth solutions to the Relativistic Euler system derived from relativistic Boltzmann equation was presented with the energy currents method introduced by Christodoulou \cite{Christodoulou-2007}.
Recently, a big effort was made to construct a Rational Extended Thermodynamics (RET) theory, in the classical framework, that goes beyond the monatomic gas case. In fact, Ruggeri and Sugiyama with coworkers gave a series of papers in these years on this subject and the results are summarized in their recent book \cite{book}.
Pennisi and Ruggeri generalized this idea to the relativistic framework for a gas with internal structure both in the case of dissipative gas \cite{Pennisi_Ruggeri} and the most simple case of Euler fluid \cite{PR2}.
They started from the classical ideas for polyatomic gases introduced first by Borgnakke and Larsen \cite{Borg}
and proposed a generalized Boltzmann-Chernikov equation that has the same form of \eqref{B-C} but has the extended distribution function $f \equiv f(x^\alpha,p^\beta,\mathcal{I})$, depending on an extra variable $\mathcal{I}$ that takes
into account the energy due to the internal degrees of freedom of a molecule.
The authors considered instead of \eqref{moments3}, the following moments:
\begin{align}\label{14n}
\begin{split}
& V^\alpha = m c \int_{\Re^3} \int_0^{+\infty} f p^\alpha
\phi(\mathcal{I}) \, d \vec{P} \, d \, \mathcal{I}, \\
& T^{\alpha \beta} =
\frac{1}{mc} \int_{\Re^3} \int_0^{+\infty} f \left( mc^2 + \mathcal{I} \right) p^\alpha
p^\beta \, \phi(\mathcal{I}) \, d \vec{P} \, d \,
\mathcal{I}.
\end{split}
\end{align}
The meaning of $\eqref{14n}_{2}$ is that the energy and the momentum in relativity are
components of the same tensor and we expect that, besides the energy at rest, there is a contribution
from the degrees of freedom of the gas due to the internal structure, as in the case of a classical polyatomic gas.
$\phi(\mathcal{I})$ is the state density of the internal mode, that is, $\phi(\mathcal{I}) \, d \mathcal{I}$ represents the number of the internal states of a molecule having the internal energy between $\mathcal{I}$ and $\mathcal{I}+d \mathcal{I}$.
In \cite{Pennisi_Ruggeri}, using the Maximum Entropy Principle (MEP), the authors found the equilibrium distribution function that generalizes the J\"uttner one:
\begin{equation}\label{5.2n}
{f_E= \frac{n \gamma}{A(\gamma) K_2(\gamma)} \frac{1}{4 \pi m^3
c^3} e^{- \frac{\gamma}{mc^2} \left[ \left( 1 + \frac{\mathcal{I}}{m c^2} \right) u_\beta
p^\beta \right]}},
\end{equation}
with $A(\gamma)$ given by
\begin{equation*}
A(\gamma)= \frac{\gamma}{K_2(\gamma)} \int_0^{+\infty} \frac{K_2( \gamma*)}{\gamma*} \,
\phi(\mathcal{I}) \, d \, \mathcal{I},
\end{equation*}
where
\begin{equation*}
\gamma^*= \gamma + \frac{\mathcal{I}}{k_B T}.
\end{equation*}
The pressure and the energy for polyatomic gases, compatible with the distribution function \eqref{5.2n} are \cite{Pennisi_Ruggeri}:
\begin{align}\label{3n}
\begin{split}
& {p = \frac{n m c^2}{\gamma} = \frac{k_B}{m} \rho T} \, , \\
& {e= \frac{n m c^2}{A(\gamma) K_2(\gamma)} \int_0^{+\infty} \left[ K_3 (\gamma^*) - \frac{1}{\gamma^*} K_2
(\gamma^*) \right] \phi(\mathcal{I}) \, d \,\mathcal{I}}.
\end{split}
\end{align}
We remark that the pressure has the same expression for a monatomic and for a polyatomic gas, while \eqref{3n}$_2$ is the generalization of the Synge energy to the case of polyatomic gases.
The macroscopic internal energy
in the classical limit, when $\gamma\rightarrow \infty$,
converges to the one of a classical polyatomic gas \eqref{state-rarepoly},
provided that the measure
\begin{equation*}
\phi(\mathcal{I}) = \mathcal{I}^a,
\end{equation*}
where the constant
\begin{equation}\label{aaa}
a= \frac{D-5}{2}.
\end{equation}
In the ultra-relativistic limit it was proved in \cite{PR2} that the generalized Synge equation \eqref{3n} for a gas with internal structure coincides with the one postulated by Smoller and Temple and other authors but with a precise value of the constant that is related to the degree of freedom
\begin{equation*}
p = \sigma^2 e , \quad \text{with} \quad \sigma^2 =\left\{\begin{array}{cll} \frac{1}{3}, &\quad & \forall \,\, -1<a \leq 2,\\ \\
\frac{1}{a+1}, & \quad & \forall \,\, a>2, \end{array}\right.
\end{equation*}
with $a$ given by \eqref{aaa}.
For $a \rightarrow -1$, the polyatomic equations converge to the monatomic ones \cite{carrisi}.
The polyatomic gas theory is very complex, but when $a =0$ we will prove that the integral in \eqref{3n} can be written in an analytical way and this case corresponds to the diatomic gas.
\bigskip
As also noted in \cite{Speck-Strain-CMP-2011}, due to complexity of constitutive equations (\ref{press}), (\ref{caloric}) (monatomic gas) or (\ref{3n}) with $a=0$ (diatomic gas) , basic issues such as the maps' invertibility between fluid dynamic variables which are expressed as functions of any two of them, and hyperbolicity of the relativistic Euler system are difficult to verify. We will show that despite the relativistic Euler system (\ref{main1}) with state relations (\ref{press}), (\ref{caloric}) (monatomic gas) or (\ref{3n}) with $a=0$ (diatomic gas) is very complicated, similar results as the Riemann problem of classical Euler system can be obtained.
\smallskip
In order to formulate the main result of the Riemann problem, as in \cite{Smoller-1994}, we defin
\begin{eqnarray*}
&\mathcal{S}_i(\mathbf{u}_L)=\left\{(p,v,S):(p,v,S)
~\text{on~i-shock~waves~from}~\mathbf{u}_L\right\},
\\
&\mathcal{R}_i(\mathbf{u}_L)=\left\{(p,v,S):(p,v,S)
~\text{on~i-rarefaction~waves~from}~\mathbf{u}_L\right\},\quad i=1,3,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\mathbf{u}_L$ is the left point on the $i-th$ wave $\mathcal{S}_i(\mathbf{u}_L)$ or $\mathcal{R}_i(\mathbf{u}_L)$. And we further define
\begin{eqnarray*}
&\mathcal{S}^p_i(\mathbf{u}_L)=\left\{(p,v):(p,v)\in ~\text{Projection~of~}
\mathcal{S}_i(\mathbf{u}_L) \right\}
,\\
&\mathcal{R}^p_i(\mathbf{u}_L)=\left\{(p,v):(p,v)\in ~\text{Projection~of~}
\mathcal{R}_i(\mathbf{u}_L) \right\} ,\\
&\mathcal{T}_i^p(\mathbf{u}_L)=\mathcal{S}^p_i(\mathbf{u}_L)\cup \mathcal{R}_i^p(\mathbf{u}_L),\quad i=1,3.
\end{eqnarray*}
The principal aim of this paper is to prove the following theorem:
\begin{theorem}\label{main theorem}
For the relativistic Euler system (\ref{main1}), let its constitutive equations be given as in (\ref{press}), (\ref{caloric}) (monatomic gas) or (\ref{3n}) with $a=0$ (diatomic gas) and its Riemann initial data be given in (\ref{ini-data}). Then a vacuum occurs in the solution of the Riemann problem if
$$\bar{r}_L<\bar{s}_R,$$
where $\bar{r}_L$ and $\bar{s}_R$ are the 1-Riemann invariant and 3-Riemann invariant corresponding to the left state $\mathbf{u}_L$ and right state $\mathbf{u}_R$, respectively.
In the opposite case, namely $\bar{r}_L\geq \bar{s}_R$, the Riemann problem admit a unique solution. As in Figure \ref{curves}, the $p-v$ plane is divided into four parts by the curves $\mathcal{T}_1^p(\mathbf{u}_L)$ and $\mathcal{T}_3^p(\mathbf{u}_L)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{riemann_plane3}
\caption{Projected wave curves on the $p-v$ plane.}
\label{curves}
\end{figure}
Before presenting the problematic of the Riemann problem in these cases, it is convenient to recall first the concept of \emph{entropy principle}, \emph{main field}, \emph{symmetrization} and \emph{entropy growth across the shock} for a general hyperbolic system of balance laws which are essential to the following analysis.
\section{Entropy principle, symmetric form and growth of entropy}\label{Ruggeri-Strumia}
The relativistic system \eqref{massmomenergy} belongs to a general
system of $N$ balance laws for the field $\mathbf{u}(x^\beta) \in \mathbb R^N$:
\begin{equation}\label{B-1}
\partial_\alpha {\bf F}^\alpha({\bf u})={\bf f}({\bf u}),
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{F}^\alpha$, $(\alpha=0,1,2,3)$ and $\mathbf{f}$ are column vectors in $\mathbb R^N$ representing densities-fluxes and production terms, respectively. Now, any theory of continuum needs
to be compatible with the entropy principle which
requires that system \eqref{B-1} has a natural entropy-entropy flux pair $h^\alpha$ satisfying a supplementary balance law:
\begin{equation}\label{B-2}
\partial_\alpha h^\alpha({\bf u})=\Sigma({\bf u}),
\end{equation}
where $\Sigma $ is the entropy production term, which is nonnegative according to the second law of thermodynamics. We also assume that $h=h^\alpha \xi_\alpha $ is a convex function of the field $\mathbf{u}=\mathbf{F^\alpha}\xi_\alpha$, where $\xi_\alpha $ is a constant time-like congruence.
\subsection{Main field and symmetric form}
In \cite{RS81}, Ruggeri and Strumia observed that \eqref{B-1} and \eqref{B-2} form a overdetermined quasilinear hyperbolic system. Thus, in order for any smooth solution of \eqref{B-1} to satisfy the entropy law \eqref{B-2}, the equation \eqref{B-2} must be obtained as a linear combination of the equations of system \eqref{B-1}: there exists a vector $\mathbf{u}'({\bf u}) \in \mathbb R^N$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{B-3}
\partial_\alpha h^\alpha({\bf u})-\Sigma({\bf u}) \equiv {\bf u}'({\bf u})\cdot(\partial_\alpha {\bf F}^\alpha({\bf u})-{\bf f}({\bf u})).
\end{equation}
Since \eqref{B-3} is an identity, by comparing the differential terms and production terms, one has:
\begin{equation}\label{B-3-1}
\textup{d}h^\alpha={\bf u}'\cdot \textup{d}{\bf F}^\alpha, \qquad \Sigma= {\bf u}'\cdot {\bf f}\ge0.
\end{equation}
Next, introduce potentials $h'^\alpha$ defined as follows:
\begin{equation*}
h'^\alpha= {\bf u}'\cdot{\bf F}^\alpha -h^\alpha.
\end{equation*}
Then, it follows from \eqref{B-3-1} that
\[d h'^\alpha=d {\bf u}'\cdot {\bf F}^\alpha.\]
Now, if one chooses ${\bf u}'$ as a new field, one has
\begin{equation}\label{2.6}
{\bf F}^\alpha =\frac{\partial h'^\alpha}{\partial {\bf u}'}.
\end{equation}
Then
\begin{equation} \label{B-3-2}
\partial_\alpha \mathbf{F}^\alpha = \partial_\alpha\left(\frac{\partial h'^\alpha}{\partial {\bf u}'}\right)=\left(\frac{\partial^2 h'^\alpha}{\partial {\bf u}'\partial {\bf u}'}\right)\partial_{\alpha} {\bf u}'.
\end{equation}
Combine \eqref{B-1} and \eqref{B-3-2} to rewrite the original system \eqref{B-1} in the form
\begin{equation}\label{symm}
\left(\frac{\partial^2 h'^\alpha}{\partial {\bf u}'\partial {\bf u}'}\right)\partial_{\alpha} {\bf u}'={\bf f}({\bf u}').
\end{equation}
Since $h'=h'^\alpha \xi_\alpha$ is the Legendre transform of $h= h^\alpha \xi_\alpha $, it follows from \eqref{B-3-1}$_1$ that
\[
dh = d(h^\alpha \xi_\alpha) = \mathbf{u}' \cdot d \mathbf{u}, \quad \leftrightarrow \quad \mathbf{u}'=\frac{\partial h} {\partial\mathbf{u}},
\]
i.e. $\mathbf{u}'$ is the dual field of (multiplying \eqref{2.6} by $\xi_\alpha$)
\[
\mathbf{u}=\frac{\partial h'}{\partial {\mathbf{u}'}}.
\]
We observe that the map $\mathbf{u}'(\mathbf{u}) $ is globall invertible (see \cite{RS81}).
Then one concludes that the original system \eqref{B-1} is expressed as the form \eqref{symm} if we choose the field $\mathbf{u}'$. This is a very special symmetric system according with the Friedrichs definition. In fact all matrices are symmetric and
\begin{equation*}
\left(\frac{\partial^2 h'^\alpha}{\partial {\bf u}'\partial {\bf u}'}\right)\xi_\alpha = \frac{\partial^2 h'}{\partial {\bf u}'\partial {\bf u}'}
\end{equation*}
is positive definite.
This result given in \cite{RS81} generalizes Boillat's symmetrization result \cite{Boillat} in covariant formalism. This symmetrization holds only for the new field ${\bf u}'$. This is why this field ${\bf u}'$ was called the \emph{main field} by Ruggeri and Strumia \cite{RS81}. The system \eqref{symm} is also frequently called as \emph{Godunov system}, since Godunov was the first one who symmetrizes the Euler system for fluids and physical systems arising from a variational principle \cite{Godunov}. The interested reader can read a brief history on the symmetrization procedure for a system compatible with an entropy principle in Chapter 2 of \cite{book}.
\subsection{Entropy growth across a shock wave}
Let $\Omega$ be a connected open set of $V^4$ and $ \mathcal{S}$ an hyper-surface cutting $\Omega$ into
two open subsets $\Omega_1$, $\Omega_2$. Let $\phi(x_\alpha) =0 $ be an equation of $\Omega$ referred to any coordinate frame: we shall identify $\Omega$ with a shock
hyper-surface for the field $\mathbf{u}$.
Then it is known that the Rankine-Hugoniot conditions must hold :
\begin{equation*}
\phi_\alpha \left[[ \mathbf{F}^\alpha(\mathbf{u})\right]] =0,
\end{equation*}
where the square bracket indicates the jump in $\Omega$:
\begin{equation*}
\left[[ \mathbf{F}^\alpha(\mathbf{u})\right]] = \mathbf{F}^\alpha(\mathbf{u}_L) - \mathbf{F}^\alpha(\mathbf{u}_R).
\end{equation*}
Formally the Rankine-Hugoniot equations are obtained from the field
equations \eqref{B-1} through the correspondence rule
\begin{equation*}
\partial_{\alpha} \quad \rightarrow \quad \phi_\alpha \left[[ \, \, \, \,\right]], \qquad
\mathbf{f} \quad \rightarrow \quad 0.
\end{equation*}
But the previous rule does not hold when it is applied on the supplementary equation \eqref{B-2} since
\begin{equation}\label{etina}
\eta= \phi_\alpha \left[[ h^\alpha\right]],
\end{equation}
is generally non vanishing.
We can decompose $\phi_\alpha = - s\, \xi_\alpha + \zeta_\alpha$ with $\xi_\alpha$ and $\zeta_\alpha$ respectively constant time-like and space-like congruences and $s$ is a shock velocity. Therefore \eqref{etina} becomes
\begin{equation*}
\eta= -s \left[[ h \right]] +\zeta_\alpha \left[[ h^\alpha\right]].
\end{equation*}
Ruggeri and Strumia proved that if $h$ is convex, then $\eta$ is an increasing function of $s$ and the positive branch (admissible shocks) requires that the shock velocity $s$ is greater than the corresponding characteristic velocity evaluated in the unperturbed equilibrium state:
\begin{equation*}
\eta >0 \qquad \text{iff} \quad s>\lambda, \quad \text{with} \quad \lambda=\lambda(\mathbf{u}_R).
\end{equation*}
\subsection{Consequences for the relativistic Euler system}
In the case of relativistic Euler fluid \eqref{massmomenergy}, \eqref{EuVT}, the entropy law is \eqref{B-2} with
\begin{equation}\label{halfa}
h^\alpha = - \rho S u^\alpha, \qquad \Sigma =0,
\end{equation}
where $S$ is the entropy density satisfying the Gibbs equation:
\begin{equation}\label{Gibbs}
T dS = d \varepsilon -\frac{p}{\rho^2} d\rho.
\end{equation}
The system is symmetric hyperbolic in the
main field \cite{RS81} :
\begin{equation}\label{main_rel}
\mathbf{u}' \equiv \frac{1}{T} \left(\left(g+c^2\right),-{u_\beta}\right),
\end{equation}
where $g$ is the chemical potential
\begin{equation*}
g=\varepsilon +\frac{p}{\rho} - T S.
\end{equation*}
In the same paper \cite{RS81} (see also \cite{Cime}), it was proved that the convexity of entropy is equivalent that the maximum characteristic velocity in the rest frame satisfies the sub-luminal condition and the specific heat at constant pressure $c_p$ is positive:
\begin{equation}\label{condQ}
p_e = \left. \frac{\partial p}{\partial e}\right|_S < 1, \qquad c_p= \frac{k_B}{m} + c_V >0,
\end{equation}
where $c_V = d\varepsilon /d T$ is the specific heat at constant volume.
The two conditions in \eqref{condQ} are equivalent to the hyperbolicity and sub-luminal conditions:
\begin{equation}\label{convcondi}
0 <p_e < 1.
\end{equation}
We will prove in the following that for relativistic Euler system with Synge energy, the inequalities \eqref{convcondi} can be verified. We can conclude that the system of relativistic Euler is symmetric hyperbolic in the main field given by \eqref{main_rel}, the entropy is convex and it grows across a shock wave.
\section{Relativistic rarefied monatomic gas}
In this section, we analyze basic properties of the relativistic Euler system (\ref{main1}) with constitutive equations (\ref{press}), (\ref{caloric}) and (\ref{num-den}). Due to the complexity of the relativistic Euler system and the modified Bessel functions, the analysis of basic properties of (\ref{main1}) such as the strict hyperbolicity and genuine nonlinearity is far from trivial.
First of all, from the property of the Bessel functions Appendix 1 \eqref{transform}, we can rewrite the constitutive equation \eqref{caloric} as the following form
\begin{equation}\label{ener-den}
e=c^2\rho\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}+3p = p\left(\gamma\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}+3\right).
\end{equation}
And it is also convenient to write the expression of $n$ as a function of $\gamma$ and entropy density $S$ (see e.g. \cite{Groot-Leeuwen-Weert-1980, Speck-Strain-CMP-2011}):
\begin{equation}\label{num-den}
n=4\pi e^4m^3c^3h^{-3}e^{\frac{-S}{k_B}}\frac{K_2(\gamma)}{\gamma}e^{\gamma\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}}.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Characteristic velocities}
The relativistic Euler system \eqref{massmomenergy} or \eqref{main1} is a particular case of a general system of conservation laws:
\begin{equation}\label{main2}
\partial_t \mathbf{u} +\partial_x \mathbf{F}(\mathbf{u})=0,
\end{equation}
with
\begin{align}\label{urrel}
\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{u}&\equiv \frac{1}{c}\left(V^0,T^{01}, c \, T^{00}\right) =
\left(
\frac{\rho c}{\sqrt{c^2-v^2}},
\frac{(e+p)v}{c^2-v^2},
\frac{e c^2+pv^2}{c^2-v^2}\right),\\
\mathbf{F}(\mathbf{u})&\equiv\left(V^1,T^{11},c \, T^{10}\right)
=\left(\frac{\rho c v}{\sqrt{c^2-v^2}},
\frac{(e+p)v^2}{c^2-v^2}+p,
\frac{(e+p) c^2 v}{c^2-v^2}\right).
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
Eigenvalues of (\ref{main2}) are
\begin{align}\label{lamdas}
\begin{aligned}
&\lambda_1=\frac{(e_{p}(p,S)-1)c^2v-\sqrt{e_{p}(p,S)}c(c^2-v^2)}{e_{p}(p,S)c^2-v^2},\\
&\lambda_2=v,\\
&\lambda_3=\frac{(e_{p}(p,S)-1)c^2v+\sqrt{e_{p}(p,S)}c(c^2-v^2)}{e_{p}(p,S)c^2-v^2},
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
with $e_p =1/p_e$.
Eigenvectors $r_i, (i=1, 2, 3)$ corresponding to $\lambda_i$ are
\begin{align} \label{eigen3}
\begin{aligned}
&r_1=\widetilde{r}\left(1,-\frac{\sqrt{e_{p}}(c^2-v^2)}{(e+p)c},0\right),\\
&r_2=(0,0,1),\\
&r_3=\widetilde{r}\left(1,\frac{\sqrt{e_{p}}(c^2-v^2)}{(e+p)c},0\right),
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
where $\widetilde{r}$ is an arbitrary scalar function to be determined later.
Denote $\bar{\lambda} =\lambda/c$ as
the characteristic velocities \eqref{lamdas} in the unity of light velocity and let $\hat{\lambda}=\bar{\lambda}|_{v=0}$, i.e. the characteristic velocity in the unity of light velocity evaluated in the rest frame. Then, from \eqref{lamdas} and reference \cite{PR2}, we have
\begin{align}\label{case44}
\begin{split}
& \hat{\lambda}_2 =0, \quad \hat{\lambda}_{1,3} =\mp \frac{1}{\sqrt{e_p}} =\mp\sqrt{p_e} = \mp \sqrt{ \frac{r+1-r ^\prime \gamma}{(r+1)(r- r^\prime \gamma)}} =\mp \sqrt{\frac{c_p}{c_V}\frac{p}{p+e}},
\\
& \text{with }\quad r= \frac{e}{p} \quad \mbox{and} \quad r ^\prime = \frac{dr(\gamma)}{d\gamma}.
\end{split}
\end{align}
\subsection{Strict hyperbolicity}
This part is devoted to the proof of the strict hyperbolicity for the system (\ref{main2}). In fact, we have the following proposition:
\begin{proposition} The system \eqref{main2} with constitutive equations \eqref{press}, \eqref{ener-den} and (\ref{num-den}) is strictly hyperbolic.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
First we prove that
\begin {equation}\label {cV}
c_V=\frac{ d\varepsilon}{d T} >0.
\end{equation}
In fact, from \eqref{energia-e} and \eqref{temp}, we have
\begin{align}\label{cV1}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\gamma}{dT}=-\frac{\gamma}{T},\qquad
\varepsilon= \rho c^2\left[\frac{K_1 \left(\gamma
\right)}{K_2 \left(\gamma
\right)}+\frac{3}{\gamma}-1\right].
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
Then we use (\ref{cV1}) and Appendix 3 (\ref{imp-ine1}) to have
\begin{align*}
\begin{aligned}
c_V=&\frac{\partial \varepsilon}{\partial T}=\rho c^2\frac{\partial}{\partial \gamma}\left[\frac{K_1 \left(\gamma
\right)}{K_2 \left(\gamma
\right)}+\frac{3}{\gamma}-1\right]\frac{\partial\gamma}{\partial T},\\
=&-\frac{k_B\rho }{ m} \left[\gamma^2\left(\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}\right)^2+3\gamma\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}- \gamma^2-3\right]>0.
\end{aligned}
\end{align*}
Then the strict hyperbolicity of the system \eqref{main2} with constitutive equations \eqref{press}, \eqref{ener-den} and (\ref{num-den}) follow from \eqref{condQ} and \eqref{case44}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Sub-luminal characteristic velocities}
We want to prove in this subsection that characteristic velocities of the system (\ref{main2}) are sub-luminal.
\begin{theorem}\label{sub-luminal} For the system (\ref{main2}) with relations (\ref{press}), (\ref{ener-den}) and (\ref{num-den}), we have
\begin{equation}\label{max-lmd}
\bar{\lambda}_{max}= \bar{\lambda}_3(\gamma,v)<1,\qquad \hat{\lambda}_{max} = \bar{ \lambda}_3(\gamma,0)<\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
From (\ref{press}), \eqref{ener-den} and (\ref{num-den}), we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{p0}
\begin{split}
&p=4\pi e^4m^4c^5h^{-3}e^{\frac{-S}{k_B}}\frac{K_2(\gamma)}{\gamma^2}e^{\gamma\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}},\\
&e=p\left(\gamma\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}+3\right).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
We use Appendix 1 (\ref{transform}) and (\ref{deriva}) to have
\begin{equation}\label{p1}
\begin{split}
&\frac{d}{d\gamma}\left(\frac{K_2(\gamma)}{\gamma^2}\right)=-\frac{4K_2(\gamma)+\gamma K_1(\gamma)}{\gamma^3},\\
&\frac{d}{d\gamma}\left(\gamma\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}\right)=\gamma\left(\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}\right)^2+4\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}-\gamma.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Applying (\ref{p1}) in (\ref{p0}) yields
$$\frac{\partial_\gamma p}{p}=\gamma\left(\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}\right)^2+3\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}-\gamma-\frac{4}{\gamma}, \qquad\mbox{and}$$
\begin{equation}\label{pz}
\begin{split}
e_{p}&=\frac{e}{p}+\frac{p}{\partial_\gamma p}\frac{d}{d\gamma}\left(\gamma\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}\right)\\
&=3+\gamma\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}+\frac{\gamma\left(\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}\right)^2+4\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}-\gamma}{\gamma\left(\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}\right)^2+3\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}-\gamma-\frac{4}{\gamma}}\\
&=3+\frac{\gamma^2\left(\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}\right)^3+4\gamma\left(\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}\right)^2-\gamma^2\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}-\gamma}{\gamma\left(\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}\right)^2+3\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}-\gamma-\frac{4}{\gamma}}>3,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
by Appendix 3 (\ref{imp-ine1}) and (\ref{imp-ine2}). Then, from \eqref{lamdas} and \eqref{pz}, we have
$$\bar{\lambda}_{max} -1=\frac{(\sqrt{e_{p}}-1)(v-\sqrt{e_p}c)(c-v)}{e_{p}c^2-v^2}<0.$$
Then we obtain the first inequality in (\ref{max-lmd}).
Moreover, we use (\ref{pz}) to have
$$\hat{\lambda}_3=\frac{1}{\sqrt{e_p}}=\sqrt{p_e}<\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}.$$
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth,angle=90]{lamdaMD2.pdf}
\caption{The behavior of $\hat{ \lambda}_3$ versus $\gamma$ for $a=-1$ (Monatomic gas) and for $a=0$ (Diatomic gas).}
%
\label{fig:lambdawuhan}
\end{figure}
From \eqref{case44}, we can plot $\hat{\lambda}_3$ versus $\gamma$ and we see also from Figure \ref{fig:lambdawuhan} (with $a=-1$) that in the ultra-relativistic limit ($\gamma \rightarrow 0$), this velocity tends to $1/\sqrt{3}$ and decays monotonically with respect to $\gamma$ .
Therefore we proved that the inequality \eqref{convcondi} can be verified and from the general results of \cite{RS81} addressed in Section \ref{Ruggeri-Strumia}, the following theorem holds:
\begin{theorem}
The system \eqref{main2} satisfies the entropy law \eqref{B-2} with \eqref{halfa} in space-time form:
\begin{equation}\label{entra-cons}
\partial_t \left(\rho S \Gamma \right) + \partial_x \left(\rho S \Gamma v \right)=0.
\end{equation}
The system is symmetric hyperbolic with respect to the main field \eqref{main_rel}:
\begin{align}
\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{u}'&\equiv \frac{1}{T}\left(\frac{e+p}{\rho}-T S, \Gamma v, \frac{\Gamma}{c}\right).\notag
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
The entropy density
\begin{equation*}
h= - \rho S \Gamma
\end{equation*}
is a convex function with respect to the field $\mathbf{u}$ given by \eqref{urrel}, and the entropy grows across the shock.
\end{theorem}
\subsection{Genuine nonlinearity}\label{sec-genui}
In this subsection, we show that $\lambda_2=v$ is linearly degenerate, while $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_3$ are genuinely nonlinear.
Denote $\nabla\lambda_2$ as the gradient of $\lambda_2$ with respect to $(p, v, S)$. Then $\lambda_2=v$ is linearly degenerate since
\begin{equation}\label{eigvec2}
\nabla\lambda_2\cdot r_2=(0,1,0)\cdot(0,0,1)^T=0.
\end{equation}
We now turn to show that $\lambda_1$ is genuinely nonlinear. Since the genuine nonlinearity of $\lambda_3$ can be done similarly, we omit the details.
The eigenvalue $\lambda_1$ satisfies
\begin{align*}
\begin{aligned}
&\nabla\lambda_1=\left(\frac{\partial\lambda_1}{\partial p},\frac{\partial\lambda_1}{\partial v},\frac{\partial\lambda_1}{\partial S}\right) = \nonumber\\
& \left(\frac{e_{pp}c(c^2-v^2)}{2\sqrt{e_{p}}(e_{p}c^2-v^2)^2}(v+\sqrt{e_{p}}c)^2,\frac{(e_{p}-1)c^2(v+\sqrt{e_{p}}c)^2}{(e_{p}c^2-v^2)^2}, \right. \\
& \qquad \left. \frac{e_{pS}c(c^2-v^2)}{2\sqrt{e_{p}}(e_{p}c^2-v^2)^2}(v+\sqrt{e_{p}}c)^2\right).
\end{aligned}
\end{align*}
Then taking into account of \eqref{eigen3}$_1$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{genui}
\begin{split}
&\nabla\lambda_1\cdot r_1 =\\
&\frac{\widetilde{r}e_{pp}c(c^2-v^2)}{2\sqrt{e_{p}}(e_{p}c^2-v^2)^2}(\sqrt{e_{p}}c+v)^2-\frac{\widetilde{r}\sqrt{e_{p}}(e_{p}-1)c(c^2-v^2)}
{(e+p)(e_{p}c^2-v^2)^2}(\sqrt{e_{p}}c+v)^2 =\\
& \qquad \frac{\widetilde{r}(\sqrt{e_{p}}c+v)^2c(c^2-v^2)}{2(e+p)\sqrt{e_{p}}(e_{p}c^2-v^2)^2}\left[(e+p)e_{pp}-2e_{p}(e_{p}-1)\right].
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\begin{proposition}\label{genuine} For any $\gamma\in(0,\infty)$, it holds that
\begin{equation}\label{negativity}
(e+p)e_{pp}-2e_{p}(e_{p}-1)<0.
\end{equation}
Then the eigenvalue $\lambda_1$ is genuinely nonlinear and we can choose the function $\widetilde{r}$ properly such that:
\begin{equation}\label{genuine0}
\begin{split}
\nabla\lambda_1\cdot r_1=1.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
Since the proof of Proposition \ref{genuine} is quite long, we put it in Appendix 4.
\subsection{Riemann invariants}
In this part, we solve Riemann invariants for each eigenvalue $\lambda_i, (i=1,2,3)$.
Noting the eigenvector of $\lambda_2$ is $(0,0,1)$ in (\ref{eigvec2}), it is trivial to find the two Riemann invariants of $\lambda_2$ are
$$v \quad\mbox{and}\quad p.$$
We now solve the Riemann invariants for $\lambda_1$. According to the definition, the corresponding Riemann invariant $w$ satisfies
\begin{align}\label{Riemann}
\begin{aligned}
0=&(w_p,w_v,w_{S})\cdot r_1\\
=&\tilde{r}_1(w_p,w_v,w_{S})\cdot\left(1,-\frac{\sqrt{e_{p}}(c^2-v^2)}{(e+p)c},0\right)\\
=&\tilde{r}_1\Big[w_p-\frac{\sqrt{e_{p}}(c^2-v^2)}{(e+p)c}w_v\Big].
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
It is straightforward to see that $S$ is one of the Riemann invariants satisfying (\ref{Riemann}). We further solve (\ref{Riemann}) to find that the other Riemann invariant should be constant along the curve determined by
\begin{equation}\label{1sp}
\frac{\sqrt{e_{p}}dp}{(e+p)c}=-\frac{dv}{c^2-v^2}.
\end{equation}
Solving this differential equation to get the other Riemann invariant $\frac12\ln\Big(\frac{c+v}{c-v}\Big)+\int\frac{\sqrt{e_{p}}dp}{(e+p)c}$. Thus the two Riemann invariants of $\lambda_1$ are
$$S\quad\mbox{and}\quad \bar{r}=\frac12\ln\Big(\frac{c+v}{c-v}\Big)+\int_0^p\frac{\sqrt{e_{p}}dp}{(e+p)c}.$$
Similarly, the two Riemann invariants of $\lambda_3$ are
$$S\quad\mbox{and}\quad \bar{s}=\frac12\ln\Big(\frac{c+v}{c-v}\Big)-\int_0^p\frac{\sqrt{e_{p}}dp}{(e+p)c}.$$
\subsection{Structure of the shock curves}
In this part, we study the structure of the shock curves. It is divided into four parts: the rigorous derivation of the Hugoniot curve; verification of the Lax entropy conditions; monotonicity of the entropy along the shock curves; monotonicity of the velocity along the shock curves.
\subsubsection{Hugoniot curve} We first rigorously derive the Hugoniot curve of the shock curves.
\begin{proposition} Denote $(n_L, e_L, p_L, v_L)$ as the proper number density, proper energy density, pressure and the velocity of the fluid in the left of the shock curve and $(n, e, p,v)$ as the corresponding variables at right. Then it holds that
\begin{equation}\label{curve}
\frac{e+p}{n^2}(e+p_L)=\frac{e_L+p_L}{n_L^2}(e_L+p).
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{remark}
It should be pointed out that (\ref{curve}) has been proved in
\cite{Taub-1967} and \cite{Chen-ARMA-1997}, and we give a different proof here.
\end{remark}
\begin{proof} Let $s$ be the shock speed. According to the Rankine-Hugoniot conditions, it holds that
\begin{align} \label{RH}
\begin{aligned}
& s\Big(\frac{c\rho}{\sqrt{c^2-v^2}}-\frac{c\rho_L}{\sqrt{c^2-v^2_L}}\Big)=\frac{c\rho v}{\sqrt{c^2-v^2}}-\frac{c\rho_Lv_L}{\sqrt{c^2-v^2_L}}, \\
& s\Big[\frac{(e+p)v}{c^2-v^2}-\frac{(e_L+p_L)v_L}{c^2-v^2_L}\Big]=\frac{(e+p)v^2}{c^2-v^2}+p-\frac{(e_L+p_L)v^2_L}{c^2-v^2_L}-p_L,\\
& s\Big[\frac{(e+p)v^2}{c^2-v^2}+e-\frac{(e_L+p_L)v^2_L}{c^2-v^2}-e_L\Big]= \\ & \frac{(e+p)c^2v}{c^2-v^2}-\frac{(e_L+p_L)c^2v_L}{c^2-v^2_L}.
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
From (\ref{RH}), it is straightforward to get
\begin{align}
\begin{aligned}
& n\Big[\frac{p-p_L}{\sqrt{c^2-v^2}}-\frac{(e_L+p_L)v_L(v_L-v)}{\sqrt{c^2-v^2}(c^2-v^2_L)}\Big]=\\
&n_L\Big[\frac{p-p_L}{\sqrt{c^2-v^2_L}}-\frac{(e+p)(v_L-v)v}{\sqrt{c^2-v^2_L}(c^2-v^2)}\Big], \nonumber\\
& n\Big[\frac{(p+e_L)v}{\sqrt{c^2-v^2}}-\frac{(e_L+p_L)v_L(c^2-vv_L)}{\sqrt{c^2-v^2}(c^2-v^2_L)}\Big]=\\
&n_L\Big[-\frac{(e+p_L)v_L}{\sqrt{c^2-v^2_L}}+\frac{v(e+p)(c^2-v_Lv)}{\sqrt{c^2-v^2_L}(c^2-v^2)}\Big].
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
Namely,
\begin{align}\label{n1}
\begin{aligned}
&n[(p-p_L)(c^2-v^2_L)+(e_L+p_L)v_L(v-v_L)]\sqrt{c^2-v^2}=\\
&n_L[(p-p_L)(c^2-v^2)+(e+p)v(v-v_L)]\sqrt{c^2-v^2_L},
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
\begin{align}\label{n2}
\begin{aligned}
&n[(p+e_L)v(c^2-v^2_L)-(e_L+p_L)v_L(c^2-vv_L)]\sqrt{c^2-v^2}=\\
&n_L[-(e+p_L) v_L(c^2-v^2)+(e+p)v(c^2-vv_L)]\sqrt{c^2-v^2_L}.
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
Applying $(\ref{n2})-v(\ref{n1})$ and $(\ref{n2})-v_L(\ref{n1})$, we have
\begin{align} \label{RH1}
\begin{aligned}
& n(e_L+p_L)(v-v_L)(c^2-vv_L)\sqrt{c^2-v^2}=\\
&n_L(e+p_L)(v-v_L)(c^2-v^2)\sqrt{c^2-v^2_L}, \\
& n(p+e_L)(v-v_L)(c^2-v^2_L){\sqrt{c^2-v^2}}=\\
&n_L(e+p)(v-v_L)(c^2-vv_L)\sqrt{c^2-v^2_L}.
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
Note that
$$(v-v_L)(c^2-vv_L)\sqrt{c^2-v^2_L}\sqrt{c^2-v^2}<0.$$
(\ref{RH1}) can be further simplified as
\begin{align} \label{RH2}
\begin{aligned}
& n(e_L+p_L)(c^2-vv_L)=
n_L(e+p_L)\sqrt{c^2-v^2}\sqrt{c^2-v^2_L}, \\
& n(p+e_L)\sqrt{c^2-v^2_L}{\sqrt{c^2-v^2}}=
n_L(e+p)(c^2-vv_L).
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
We multiply $(\ref{RH2})_1$ by $(\ref{RH2})_2$ and divide the resulting equation by $(c^2-vv_L)\sqrt{c^2-v^2_L}\sqrt{c^2-v^2}$ to have
$$n^2(e_L+p_L)(p+e_L)=n^2_L(e+p_L)(e+p).$$
Then (\ref{curve}) follows.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Lax entropy conditions} In this subsection, we show that similar to the non-relativistic Euler system \cite{Smoller-1994,Weinberg-1972}, the Lax entropy conditions are satisfied globally for the shock curves.
\begin{proposition} The Lax entropy conditions hold wholly along the shock curves for the relativistic Euler system (\ref{main1}) with constitutive equations (\ref{press}), (\ref{ener-den}) and (\ref{num-den}). Namely, for a shock curve $\mathbf{u}=\mathbf{u}(\epsilon), \epsilon\leq0$ with shock speed $s=s(\epsilon)$, one has
$$\lambda(\epsilon)<s(\epsilon)<\lambda(0),\hspace{1cm}\epsilon<0.$$
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
For brevity, we only prove the inequality $\lambda(\epsilon)<s(\epsilon)$ for the 1-shock curves since the remaining parts can be proven in a similar way. Our proof will be done by contradiction.
Assume $\epsilon_0$ be the first point such that $\lambda_1(\epsilon)=s(\epsilon), \epsilon<0$. Corresponding to our system given in the form (\ref{main2}), the jump condition is $s[[\mathbf{u}]]=[[\mathbf{F}(\mathbf{u})]]$. We differentiate it with respect to $\epsilon$, and multiply the resulted system by the left eigenvector $\ell_1(\epsilon_0)$ at $\epsilon=\epsilon_0$ to have
\begin{equation}\label{jump1}
\begin{split}
&s'[[\mathbf{u}]]+s \mathbf{u}'= dF \mathbf{u}',\\
&s'\ell_1\cdot[[\mathbf{u}]]=(\lambda_1-s)\ell_1\cdot \mathbf{u}'=0.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
$(\ref{jump1})_2$ implies $s'(\epsilon_0)=0$ or $\ell_1\cdot[[\mathbf{u}]]=0$. Now suppose $s'(\epsilon_0)=0$. Then it follows from $(\ref{jump1})_1$ that $\mathbf{u}'(\epsilon_0)=r_1(\epsilon_0)$, and
\begin{equation}\label{jump2}
(s-\lambda_1)'(\epsilon_0)=-\nabla\lambda_1(\epsilon_0)\cdot r_1(\epsilon_0)=-1.
\end{equation}
Since $(s-\lambda_1)'(0)<0$, (\ref{jump2}) implies that there exists some point $\overline{\epsilon}\in (-\epsilon_0, 0)$ such that $\lambda_1(\overline{\epsilon})=s(\overline{\epsilon})$. This contradicts with our choice of $\epsilon_0$. Therefore, our proof can be completed if we can show that
\begin{equation}\label{jump23}
\ell_1\cdot[[\mathbf{u}]]\neq0.
\end{equation}
Now we turn to proof of (\ref{jump23}). For the system (\ref{main2}) with respect to $(n, v, p)$, we can choose the left eigenvector $\ell_1= (\ell_{11}, \ell_{12}, \ell_{13})$ corresponding to $\lambda_1$ in (\ref{eigen3}):
\begin{align*}
\begin{aligned}
\ell_{11}&=\frac{(e+p)(e-pe_{p}(p, S))\sqrt{c^2-v^2}}{\rho},\\
\ell_{12}&=\left[(e+p-pe_{p})v+p\sqrt{e_{p}(p, S)}c\right]c,\\
\ell_{13}&=-\left[(e+p-pe_{p})c+p\sqrt{e_{p}(p, S)}v\right]
\end{aligned}
\end{align*}
We further choose a coordinate system in which $v_L=0$. Note that
\begin{equation}\label{10shock}
\begin{split}
&\ell_1\cdot[[\mathbf{u}]]=
\frac{(e+p)(e-pe_{p}(p, S))\sqrt{c^2-v^2}}{\rho}\Big(\frac{\rho c}{\sqrt{c^2-v^2}}-\rho_L\Big) +\\
& \Big[(e+p-pe_{p}(p, S))v+p\sqrt{e_{p}(p, S)}c\Big]\frac{(e+p)cv}{c^2-v^2}-\\
& \Big[(e+p-pe_{p}(p, S))c+p\sqrt{e_{p}(p, S)}v\Big]\Big[\frac{(e+p)v^2}{c^2-v^2}+e-e_L\Big] = \\
&(e+p)(e-pe_{p}(p, S))\Big(c-\frac{\rho_L}{\rho}\sqrt{c^2-v^2}\Big)-
\\
&(e+p-pe_{p}(p, S))(e-e_L)c
+p\sqrt{e_{p}(p, S)}[(e+p)-(e-e_L)]v.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
On the other hand, we let $v_L=0$ in $(\ref{RH})_2$ and $(\ref{RH})_3$ to have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
&\frac{(e+p)sv}{c^2-v^2}=\frac{(e+p)v^2}{c^2-v^2}+p-p_L,\\
& s\Big[\frac{(e+p)v^2}{c^2-v^2}+e-e_L\Big]=\frac{(e+p)c^2v}{c^2-v^2}.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Furthermore, we can get
\begin{equation}\label{shock-dis}
s(e-e_L)=\frac{(e+p)v(c^2-v^2)}{c^2-v^2}-(p-p_L)v=(e+p_L)v.
\end{equation}
And we let $v_L=0$ in $(\ref{RH2})$ to have
\begin{equation}\label{shock}
\begin{split}
\frac{n_L\sqrt{c^2-v^2}}{nc}=\frac{e_L+p_L}{e+p_{L}},\qquad\mbox{and}\qquad v^2=\frac{(p-p_L)(e-e_L)}{(p+e_L)(p_L+e)}c^2.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Note that $s<0$ and $v<v_L=0$. We can use (\ref{shock-dis}) and $(\ref{shock})$ to have
$$p>p_L,\qquad e>e_L \qquad \mbox{ on the 1-shock curves}.$$
Then we combine (\ref{10shock}) and (\ref{shock}) to obtain
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
&\ell_1\cdot[[\mathbf{u}]]=\\
&\frac{(e-e_L)c}{e+p_L}\Big[(e-pe_{p}(p, S))(e+p)-(e+p-pe_{p}(p, S))(e+p_L)\Big]\\
&+p(p+e_L)\sqrt{e_{p}(p, S)}v<\\
&\frac{(e-e_L)c}{e+p_L}\Big[-(p-p_L)pe_{p}(p, S)-(e+p)p_L\Big]<0.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Entropy Growth across the shock waves}
Taking into account the results of Section \ref{Ruggeri-Strumia}, and the proof that the characteristic velocities are sub-luminal, we conclude that:
\begin{corollary}
For the system of relativistic Euler fluid with Synge energy, the entropy grows across the shock waves.
\end{corollary}
Taking into account the Gibbs equation \eqref{Gibbs},
the constitutive equation \eqref{press} and the expression of $e$ given in \eqref{energia-e}, we have
\begin{equation*}
\frac{m}{k_B} d S = \left(r'(\gamma) - \frac{r(\gamma)}{\gamma}\right) d\gamma - \frac{d\rho}{\rho},
\end{equation*}
with
\begin{equation*}
r=\frac{e}{p} = \gamma \frac{K_3(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)} -1.
\end{equation*}
Then
\begin{equation}\label{entropias}
\frac{m}{k_B} S = \gamma\frac{ K_3(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)} -\ln \gamma + \ln K_2(\gamma) - \ln \rho + \text{const.}
\end{equation}
Every classical solution of the differential system \eqref{massmomenergy}, thanks to the Gibbs equation \eqref{Gibbs}, also satisfies the supplementary entropy law \eqref{B-2} with \eqref{halfa}, which is expressed as the form
(\ref{entra-cons}) in two dimensional space-time.
Without loss of generality, we let $v_L=0$. Then the entropy production along the shock \eqref{etina} becomes now
\begin{equation*}
\eta = (-s+v) \rho \Gamma S + s \rho_L S_L>0.
\end{equation*}
And taking into account the first RH condition of equations \eqref{main1}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{S13}
\eta = -s\rho_L ( S-S_L)>0\qquad \forall s>\lambda.
\end{equation}
This is exact what we want to prove. Notice that for the 1-shock curves, $s<0$ and $S>S_L$; while for the 3-shock curves, $s>0$ and $S<S_L$.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{EtaMD2.pdf}
\caption{Growth of entropy across the shock ($a=-1$: Monatomic gas, $a=0$: Diatomic gas).}
\label{fig:etarel}
\end{figure}
Taking into account \eqref{entropias}, we have definitively
\begin{equation*}
\hat{\eta} = \frac{m}{c k_B\rho_L}\eta =-\bar{s}\left\{
r(\gamma) - r(\gamma_L) + \ln \left(\frac{K_2(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma_L)} \frac{\gamma_L}{\gamma}\frac{\rho_L}{\rho}\right)\right\}>0.
\end{equation*}
By numerical solution of the RH equations, we can plot $\hat{\eta}$ as a function of $\bar{s} = s/c$. The figure is in perfect agreement with the theoretical results and we can see that $\hat{\eta}$ grows and is positive when $s > \lambda$. In this case, as in the classical Euler, the entropy growth condition is equivalent to the Lax conditions.
\subsubsection{Monotonicity of the velocity} In this subsection, we discuss the monotonicity of the velocity along the shock curves.
\begin{proposition}\label{mono-velo} For the relativistic Euler system (\ref{main1}) with constitutive equations (\ref{press}), (\ref{ener-den}) and (\ref{num-den}), $\frac{dv}{dp}<0$ for the 1-shock curves, and $\frac{dv}{dp}>0$ for the 3-shock curves.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We only prove $\frac{dv}{dp}<0$ for the 1-shock curves since $\frac{dv}{dp}>0$ for the 3-shock curves can be proved in the same way.
As in (\ref{shock}), we can choose proper coordinate system such that $v_L=0$ to have
$$v^2=\frac{(p-p_L)(e-e_L)}{(p+e_L)(p_L+e)}c^2.$$
Differentiate the above equation with respect to $p$ to have
\begin{align*}
&\frac{dv^2}{dp}=2v\frac{dv}{dp}=\\
&\hspace{1cm}\frac{c^2(e_L+p_L)}{(p+e_L)^2(p_L+e)^2}\Big[(e-e_L)(e+p_L)+(p-p_L)(p+e_L)\frac{de}{dp}\Big].
\end{align*}
Note the fact $v<v_L=0$. To show $\frac{dv}{dp}<0$, it is equivalent to derive
\begin{equation}\label{ep1}
(e-e_L)(e+p_L)+(p-p_L)(p+e_L)\frac{de}{dp}>0.
\end{equation}
On the other hand, we use (\ref{ener-den}) and (\ref{curve}) to have
$$\frac{de}{dp}=\gamma\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}+3+\Big[\gamma\Big(\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}\Big)^2
+4\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}-\gamma\Big]p\frac{d\gamma}{dp},$$
\begin{equation}\label{entr-grow2}
\begin{split}
&\frac{e_L+p_L}{n_L^2}\frac{dp}{d\gamma}=m^2c^4\frac{d}{d\gamma}\Big[\Big(\frac{1}{\gamma}\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}+
\frac{4}{\gamma^2}\Big)\Big(\gamma\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}+3+\frac{p_L}{p}\Big)\Big] =\\
&m^2c^4\Big\{\Big[\frac{1}{\gamma}\Big(\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}\Big)^2
+\frac{2}{\gamma^2}\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}-\frac{1}{\gamma}-\frac{8}{\gamma^3}\Big]
\Big(\gamma\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}+3+\frac{p_L}{p}\Big) +\\
&\Big(\frac{1}{\gamma}\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}+\frac{4}{\gamma^2}\Big)
\Big[\gamma\Big(\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}\Big)^2+4\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}-\gamma-\frac{p_L}{p}\frac{dp}{d\gamma}\Big]\Big\},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{entr-grow3}
\begin{split}
\frac{e_L+p_L}{n_L^2}=\frac{m^2c^4}{p}\Big(\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{\gamma K_2(\gamma)}+\frac{4}{\gamma^2}\Big)\frac{e+p_L}{e_L+p}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
We combine (\ref{entr-grow2}) and (\ref{entr-grow3}) to have
\begin{equation}\label{entr-grow4}
\begin{split}
\frac{1}{p}\frac{dp}{d\gamma}=&\frac{\Big[2\gamma^2\Big(\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}\Big)^3+13\gamma\Big(\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}\Big)^2+
(14-2\gamma^2)\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}-7\gamma-\frac{24}{\gamma}\Big]p
}
{\Big(\gamma\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}+4\Big)\Big(\frac{e+p_L}{e_L+p}p+p_L\Big)}+\\
&\frac{\Big[\gamma\Big(\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}\Big)^2+2\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}-\gamma-\frac{8}{\gamma}\Big]p_L}
{\Big(\gamma\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}+4\Big)\Big(\frac{e+p_L}{e_L+p}p+p_L\Big)},\\
\frac{de}{dp}=&\gamma\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}+3
+\frac{B_3(\gamma)\Big(\gamma\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}+4\Big)\Big(\frac{e+p_L}{e_L+p}p+p_L\Big)}
{\Big[2B_1(\gamma)-B_2(\gamma)\Big]p+B_2(\gamma)p_L}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Here and below, we use the following notations:
\begin{align*}
B_1(\gamma)=:&\gamma^2\Big(\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}\Big)^3+7\gamma\Big(\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}\Big)^2+
(8-\gamma^2)\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}-4\gamma-\frac{16}{\gamma},\\
B_2(\gamma)=:&\gamma\left(\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}\right)^2+2\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}-\gamma-\frac{8}{\gamma},\\
B_3(\gamma)=:&\gamma\Big(\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}\Big)^2+4\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}-\gamma.
\end{align*}
Note that from Appendix 3 Proposition \ref{eep}, one has
\begin{align}\label{B1231}
\begin{aligned}
B_1(\gamma)&=\Big[\gamma\left(\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}\right)^2
+3\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}- \gamma-\frac{4}{\gamma}\Big]\Big(\gamma\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}+4\Big)
<0,\\
B_2(\gamma)&=\Big[\gamma\left(\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}\right)^2
+3\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}- \gamma-\frac{3}{\gamma}\Big]-\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}- \frac{5}{\gamma}
<0,\\
B_3(\gamma)&=\frac{1}{(K_2(\gamma))^2}\Big[\gamma K^2_1(\gamma)+4K_1(\gamma)\Big(\frac{2K_1(\gamma)}{\gamma}+K_0(\gamma)\Big)- \\
&
\gamma\Big(\frac{2K_1(\gamma)}{\gamma}+K_0(\gamma)\Big)^2\Big] =\\
&\frac{1}{(K_2(\gamma))^2}\Big[\Big(\gamma+\frac{4}{\gamma}\Big) (K_1(\gamma))^2-\gamma (K_0(\gamma))^2\Big]
>0,
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}\label{B1232}
\begin{split}
&B_1(\gamma)-B_2(\gamma)=\\
&\gamma^2\Big(\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}\Big)^3+6\gamma\Big(\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}\Big)^2+
(6-\gamma^2)\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}-3\gamma-\frac{8}{\gamma}=\\
&\hspace{1.5cm}\gamma^2\left(\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}\right)^3+4\gamma\left(\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}\right)^2
-\gamma^2\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}-\gamma+\\
&\hspace{1.5cm}2\Big[\gamma\left(\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}\right)^2
+3\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}- \gamma-\frac{4}{\gamma}\Big]
<0,\\
B_1(\gamma)&-B_2(\gamma)-B_3(\gamma)=\\
& \Big[\gamma\left(\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}\right)^2
+3\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}- \gamma-\frac{4}{\gamma}\Big]
\Big(\gamma\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}+2\Big)
<0.
\end{split}
\end{align}
Now we use (\ref{ep1}) and (\ref{entr-grow4}) to have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
&(e-e_L)(e+p_L)+(p-p_L)(p+e_L)\times\\
&\bigg[\gamma\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}+3
+\frac{(\gamma\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}+4)B_3(\gamma)(\frac{e+p_L}{p+e_L}p+p_L)}{[2B_1(\gamma)-B_2(\gamma)]p+B_2(\gamma)p_L}\bigg]>0.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
By (\ref{B1231}) and (\ref{B1232}), the equation above can be simplified as
\begin{equation}\label{vderi1}
\begin{split}
&(p-p_L)(p+e_L)\Big\{\frac{e-e_L}{p-p_L}\frac{e+p_L}{e_L+p}B_2(\gamma)+B_3(\gamma)+\\
&\Big(\gamma\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}+3\Big)\Big(B_2(\gamma)+B_3(\gamma)\Big)\Big\}p_L+\\
& (p-p_L)(e+p_L)\Big\{\Big(\frac{e-e_L}{p-p_L}+\frac{e_L+p}{e+p_L}\frac{e}{p}\Big)[2B_1(\gamma)-B_2(\gamma)]+\\
& \Big(\gamma\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}+4\Big)B_3(\gamma)\Big\}p<0.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Before verifying \eqref{vderi1}, we first show that
\begin{equation}\label{ep11}
\frac{e-e_L}{p-p_L}>1.
\end{equation}
In fact, we differentiate (\ref{entropias}) with respect to $p$ and use \eqref{S13} to have
\begin{equation}\label{entr-grow1}
\begin{split}
\frac{m}{k_B}\frac{dS}{dp}=&-\frac{1}{p}-\frac{2}{\gamma}\frac{d\gamma}{dp}
+\Big[\frac{K'_2(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}+\frac{d}{d\gamma}\Big(\gamma\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}\Big)\Big]\frac{d\gamma}{dp}\\
=&-\frac{1}{p}+\Big[\gamma\Big(\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}\Big)^2
+3\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}-\gamma-\frac{4}{\gamma}\Big]\frac{d\gamma}{dp}>0.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Then we combine (\ref{entr-grow4}), (\ref{B1231}), (\ref{B1232}) and \eqref{entr-grow1} to have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
B_1(\gamma)\Big(\frac{e+p_L}{p+e_L}-1\Big)p
<\left[B_1(\gamma)-B_2(\gamma)\right](p-p_L).
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
That is,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\frac{e-e_L}{p-p_L}-1>\frac{B_1(\gamma)-B_2(\gamma)}{B_1(\gamma)}\frac{p+e_L}{p}>0.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
This inequality implies \eqref{ep11}. Now we use (\ref{B1232}) and \eqref{ep11} to have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
&\frac{e-e_L}{p-p_L}\frac{e+p_L}{e_L+p}B_2(\gamma)+B_3(\gamma)<B_2(\gamma)+B_3(\gamma)<0,\\
&\frac{e-e_L}{p-p_L}+\frac{e_L+p}{e+p_L}\frac{e}{p}=\frac{(ep-e_Lp_L)(e+p)}{(p-p_L)(e+p_L)p}=\\
& \hspace{0.5cm} \frac{e+p}{p}\Big(1+\frac{[(e-e_L)-(p-p_L)]p_L}{(p-p_L)(e+p_L)}\Big)>\frac{e+p}{p}=\gamma\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}+4.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Then (\ref{vderi1}) holds since $2B_1(\gamma)-B_2(\gamma)+B_3(\gamma)=2[B_1(\gamma)-B_2(\gamma)]+[B_2(\gamma)+B_3(\gamma)]<0$ by (\ref{B1232}) and Appendix 3 (\ref{imp-ine1}).
\end{proof}
\subsection{Monotonicity of the velocity on rarefaction curves}
In this subsection, we consider the monotonicity of the velocity on rarefaction curves.
\begin{proposition}\label{mono-rare} For the relativistic Euler system (\ref{main1}) with constitutive equations (\ref{press}), (\ref{ener-den}) and (\ref{num-den}), $\frac{dv}{dp}<0$ on the 1-rarefaction curves, and $\frac{dv}{dp}>0$ on the 3-rarefaction curves.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Here we also only prove the case for 1-rarefaction curves, the other case for 3-rarefaction curves can be proved similarly.
From (\ref{1sp}), we have
\begin{equation*}
\frac{dv}{dp}=-\frac{\sqrt{(c^2-v^2)e_{p}}}{{(e+p)c}}<0.
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
\section{Relativistic Euler system for Diatomic gas}
In this section, we analyze basic properties of the relativistic Euler system (\ref{main1}) in the case of gas with internal structure (polyatomic gas). Contents in this section are almost along the same line of Section 3. Therefore, we will present the corresponding results in a brief way.
For the relativistic Euler system for polyatomic gas, the corresponding constitutive equations are given in \eqref{3n} and (\ref{ener-den}). We can rewrite them also in this equivalent form:
\begin{align}
&p=k_B nT=\frac{k_B}{m}\rho T,\label{gp-pre}\\
&e=\frac{nmc^2}{A(\gamma)K_2(\gamma)}\int_0^{\infty}\Big[3\frac{K_2(\gamma^*)}{\gamma^*}+K_1(\gamma^*)\Big]\phi(\mathcal {I})d\mathcal {I},\label{gp-ener}\\
&\displaystyle n=\frac{4\pi m^3c^3h^{-3}A(\gamma)K_2(\gamma)}{\gamma}e^{\frac{-S}{k_B}}\exp\Big\{\displaystyle \int_0^{\infty}\Big[3\frac{K_2(\gamma^*)}{\gamma^*}+K_1(\gamma^*)\Big]\phi(\mathcal {I})d\mathcal {I}\Big\},\label{gp-num}
\end{align}
where
$$A(\gamma)=\frac{\gamma}{K_2(\gamma)}\int_0^{\infty}\frac{K_2(\gamma^*)}{\gamma^*}{\mathcal {I}}^a d\mathcal {I}.$$
Then for $a=0$, we use Appendix 1 (\ref{deriva}) to have
$$A(\gamma)=\frac{\gamma}{K_2(\gamma)}\int_0^{\infty}\frac{K_2(\gamma^*)}{\gamma^*}d\mathcal {I}=
\frac{\gamma}{K_2(\gamma)}\frac{mc^2}{\gamma}\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{\gamma}=\frac{mc^2K_1(\gamma)}{\gamma K_2(\gamma)}.$$
In the rest part of this paper, we focus on the case $a=0$ (diatomic gases). Namely, $\phi(\gamma)=1$ and
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
A(\gamma)&=\frac{mc^2K_1(\gamma)}{\gamma K_2(\gamma)}\\
\int_0^{\infty}\Big[3\frac{K_2(\gamma^*)}{\gamma^*}+K_1(\gamma^*)\Big]\phi(\mathcal {I})d\mathcal {I}&=\frac{mc^2}{\gamma}\Big[3\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{\gamma}+K_0(\gamma)\Big].
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Then, in our case discussed below, the constitutive equations given in (\ref{gp-pre}), (\ref{gp-ener}) and (\ref{gp-num}) take the special form:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&p=k_B nT,\label{p-pre}\\
&&e=nk_BT\left(\frac{\gamma K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}+3\right)=p\left(\frac{\gamma K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}+3\right),\label{p-ener}\\
&&n=\frac{4\pi e^4 m^4c^5h^{-3}K_1(\gamma)}{\gamma^2}e^{\frac{\gamma K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}}e^{-\frac{S}{k_B}}.\label{p-num}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{proposition} Under the relations (\ref{p-pre})-(\ref{p-num}), the system (\ref{main2}) is strictly hyperbolic and the corresponding characteristic velocities are sub-luminal.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}Corresponding to (\ref{cV}) and $(\ref{cV1})_2 $, we use (\ref{p-ener}) to have
\begin{align*}
\begin{aligned}
\varepsilon=c^2\left[\frac{K_0 \left(\gamma
\right)}{K_1 \left(\gamma
\right)}+\frac{3}{\gamma}-1\right],
\end{aligned}
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
\begin{aligned}
c_V=&\frac{d \varepsilon}{d T}=\rho c^2\frac{\partial}{\partial \gamma}\left[\frac{K_0 \left(\gamma
\right)}{K_1 \left(\gamma
\right)}+\frac{3}{\gamma}-1\right]\frac{d\gamma}{d T}=\\
&-\frac{k_B \rho}{ m} \left[\gamma^2\left(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\right)^2+\gamma\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}- \gamma^2-3\right]>0,
\end{aligned}
\end{align*}
since for $\gamma\leq 3$,
\begin{equation}\label{p-cV1}
\gamma^2\left(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\right)^2+\gamma\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}-\gamma^2-3<\gamma-3\leq0,
\end{equation}
and for $\gamma>3$,
\begin{equation}\label{p-cV2}
\begin{split}
&\gamma^2\left(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\right)^2+\gamma\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}-\gamma^2-3 \leq\\
&\hspace{1cm} \gamma^2\left(1-\frac{1}{2\gamma}+\frac{3}{8\gamma^2}\right)^2+\gamma-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{3}{8\gamma}-\gamma^2-3=\\
&\hspace{1cm}-\frac{5}{2}+\frac{9}{64\gamma^2} <0,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
by Appendix 2 (\ref{acurate}). Then $c_p>0$ and the strict hyperbolicity follows from \eqref{case44}.
To prove the characteristic velocities of the system (\ref{main2}) with constitutive equations (\ref{p-pre})-(\ref{p-num}) are sub-luminal, as in the proof of Theorem \ref{sub-luminal}, we only need to prove that $e_p>3$. In fact, As in (\ref{pz}), under the relations (\ref{p-pre})-(\ref{p-num}), we have
\begin{align*}
\begin{aligned}
e_{p}=&\gamma\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}+3+\frac{\gamma\left(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\right)^2
+2\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}-\gamma}{\gamma\left(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\right)^2
+\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}-\gamma-\frac{4}{\gamma}} =\\
&3+\frac{\gamma^2\left(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\right)^3+2\gamma\left(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\right)^2-(\gamma^2
+2)\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}- \gamma}{\gamma\left(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\right)^2
+\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}-\gamma-\frac{4}{\gamma}}>3,
\end{aligned}
\end{align*}
by (\ref{p-cV1}) (\ref{p-cV2}) and Appendix 3 (\ref{imp-inep}).
\end{proof}
The behavior of $\hat{\lambda}_3$ is plotted in Figure \ref{curves} ($a=0$).
By the same arguments in Subsection \ref{sec-genui}, we can also show that the second eigenvalue of the system (\ref{main2}) is linear degenerate under the relations (\ref{p-pre})-(\ref{p-num}). Moreover, we have the following proposition.
\begin{proposition} Under the relations (\ref{p-pre})-(\ref{p-num}), the inequality corresponding to (\ref{negativity}) holds. The first and third eigenvalues of the system (\ref{main2}) are genuinely nonlinear.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
As in the proof of Proposition \ref{genuine} in Appendix 4, we only need to show
\begin{align}\label{p-pp1}
\begin{aligned}
&(e+p)e_{pp}-2e_{p}(e_{p}-1)=\\
&e_{p}(-2e_{p}+3)+\frac{e}{p}\Big(e_{p}-\frac{e}{p}-1\Big)
+\frac{e+p}{\partial_\gamma p}\partial_\gamma\Big(\frac{p}{\partial_\gamma p}\frac{d}{d\gamma}\Big(\gamma\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\Big)\Big)
<\\
&-9+\Big(\gamma\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}+3\Big)\frac{\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}+\frac{4}{\gamma}}
{\gamma\Big(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\Big)^2
+\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}-\gamma-\frac{4}{\gamma}}+\\
&\Big(\gamma\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}+4\Big)\Bigg[\frac{\frac{1}{\gamma}}{\gamma\Big(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\Big)^2
+\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}-\gamma-\frac{4}{\gamma}}-\Big(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}+\frac{4}{\gamma}\Big)\times \\
&\frac{2\gamma\Big(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\Big)^3
+4\Big(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\Big)^2
+\Big(\frac{1}{\gamma}-2\gamma\Big)\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}-2+\frac{4}{\gamma^2}}
{\Big(\gamma\Big(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\Big)^2+3\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}-\gamma-\frac{4}{\gamma}\Big)^3}\Bigg]=\\
&-9+\frac{\Big(\gamma\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}+4\Big)\Big(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}+\frac{4}{\gamma}\Big)}
{\Big(\gamma\Big(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\Big)^2+\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}-\gamma-\frac{4}{\gamma}\Big)^3}\times\mathcal {I}_3(\gamma)
\Big]<0,
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
where $$\mathcal {I}_3(\gamma)=\gamma^2\Big[1-\Big(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\Big)^2\Big]^2-11\Big(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\Big)^2
-\frac{9}{\gamma}\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}+10+\frac{12}{\gamma^2}.$$
We first use (\ref{p-cV1}) and (\ref{p-cV2}) to have
\begin{equation}\label{p-pp2}
\gamma\left(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\right)^2+\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}-\gamma-\frac{4}{\gamma}
<\gamma\left(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\right)^2+\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}-\gamma-\frac{3}{\gamma}<0.
\end{equation}
Then we combine (\ref{p-pp1}) and (\ref{p-pp2}) to see that in order to prove (\ref{negativity}), one only need to show
\begin{equation}\label{p-nega}
\mathcal {I}_3(\gamma)>0.
\end{equation}
Now we come to prove (\ref{p-nega}). We first note the fact
\begin{align*}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal {I}_3(\gamma)\geq&-1 -\frac{9}{\gamma}+\frac{12}{\gamma^2}.\notag
\end{aligned}
\end{align*}
This inequality implies that (\ref{p-nega}) holds for $\gamma\leq \gamma_1$, where $\gamma_1=\frac{-9+\sqrt{129}}{2}>1.1789>\gamma_0$ satisfies
$$\gamma^2_1+9\gamma_1-12=0.$$
Next we show that (\ref{negativity}) holds for $\gamma\in (\gamma_1, \sqrt{2}]$. In fact, we use Appendix 1 (\ref{new1}) in Proposition \ref{new-K01p} to have
\begin{align*
\mathcal {I}_3(\gamma&)>(\gamma_0-1)^2-11\Big(1-\frac{\gamma_0-1}{\gamma}\Big)^2
-\frac{9}{\gamma}\Big(1-\frac{\gamma_0-1}{\gamma}\Big)+10+\frac{12}{\gamma^2}>\\
&-11\Big[1-\frac{2\gamma_0-2}{\gamma}+\frac{(\gamma_0-1)^2}{\gamma^2}\Big]-\frac{9}{\gamma}+\frac{9(\gamma_0-1)}{\gamma^2}+10+\frac{12}{\gamma^2}>\\
&-1+\frac{22\gamma_0-31}{\gamma}+\frac{3+9\gamma_0-11(\gamma_0-1)^2}{\gamma^2}=\\
&-1-\frac{13}{2\gamma}+\frac{25}{2\gamma^2}>2,\hspace{3cm} \gamma\in (\gamma_1, \sqrt{2}].
\end{align*}
Finally, we prove (\ref{negativity}) holds for $\gamma\in (\sqrt{2}, \infty)$. We use Appendix 2 (\ref{rough}) to obtain
\begin{align*
\mathcal {I}_3(\gamma)\geq&\gamma^2\Big(\frac{1}{2\gamma}-\frac{3}{8\gamma^2}-\frac{3}{16\gamma^3}\Big)^2\Big(2-\frac{1}{2\gamma}\Big)^2-\\
&11\Big(1-\frac{1}{2\gamma}+\frac{3}{8\gamma^2}+\frac{3}{16\gamma^3}\Big)^2-\\
&\frac{9}{\gamma}\Big(1-\frac{1}{2\gamma}+\frac{3}{8\gamma^2}+\frac{3}{16\gamma^3}\Big)+10+\frac{12}{\gamma^2}=\\
&\frac{1}{4}\Big(1-\frac{3}{4\gamma}-\frac{3}{8\gamma^2}\Big)^2\Big(4-\frac{2}{\gamma}+\frac{1}{4\gamma^2}\Big)
-\\
&11\Big(1-\frac{1}{\gamma}+\frac{1}{\gamma^2}-\frac{3}{64\gamma^4}+\frac{9}{64\gamma^5}+\frac{9}{256\gamma^6}\Big)\\
&+10-\frac{9}{\gamma}+\frac{33}{2\gamma^2}-\frac{27}{8\gamma^3}-\frac{27}{16\gamma^4}=\\
&\Big(1-\frac{1}{2\gamma}+\frac{1}{16\gamma^2}\Big)\Big(1-\frac{3}{2\gamma}-\frac{3}{16\gamma^2}+\frac{9}{16\gamma^3}+\frac{9}{64\gamma^4}\Big)\\
&-1+\frac{2}{\gamma}+\frac{11}{2\gamma^2}-\frac{27}{8\gamma^3}-\frac{75}{64\gamma^4}-\frac{99}{64\gamma^5}-\frac{99}{256\gamma^6}=\\
&\Big(\frac{3}{4}+\frac{-3+1}{16}+\frac{11}{2}\Big)\frac{1}{\gamma^2}+\Big(\frac{9}{16}-\frac{27}{8}\Big)\frac{1}{\gamma^3}\\
&+\Big(\frac{9}{64}-\frac{9}{32}-\frac{3}{256}-\frac{75}{64}\Big)\frac{1}{\gamma^4}\\
&+\Big(-\frac{9}{128}+\frac{9}{256}-\frac{99}{64}\Big)\frac{1}{\gamma^5}+\Big(\frac{9}{16\times64}-\frac{99}{256}\Big)\frac{1}{\gamma^6}=\\
&\frac{49}{8\gamma^2}-\frac{45}{16\gamma^3}-\frac{339}{256\gamma^4}-\frac{405}{256\gamma^5}-\frac{387}{1024\gamma^6}>0,
\end{align*}
for $\gamma\in (\sqrt{2}, \infty)$.
\end{proof}
Corresponding to the monotonicity of the velocity in Proposition \ref{mono-velo}, we have the following proposition.
\begin{proposition} For the relativistic Euler system (\ref{main1}) with constitutive equations (\ref{p-pre})-(\ref{p-num}), $\frac{dv}{dp}<0$ for the 1-shock curves, and $\frac{dv}{dp}>0$ for the 3-shock curves.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
As in Proposition \ref{mono-velo}, we choose proper coordinate system such that $v_L=0$. Similar to the derivation in Proposition \ref{mono-velo}, we can show that $\frac{dv}{dp}<0$ is equivalent to derive
\begin{equation}\label{p-ep1}
(e-e_L)(e+p_L)+(p-p_L)(p+e_L)\frac{de}{dp}>0.\qquad\mbox{and}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{pentr-grow4}
\begin{split}
\frac{de}{dp}=&\gamma\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}+3
+\frac{\bar{B}_3(\gamma)\left(\gamma\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}+4\right)\left(\frac{e+p_L}{e_L+p}p+p_L\right)}
{\left[2\bar{B}_1(\gamma)-\bar{B}_2(\gamma)\right]p+\bar{B}_2(\gamma)p_L}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Here and below, we use the following notations:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\bar{B}_1(\gamma)=:&\gamma^2\Big(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\Big)^3+5\gamma\Big(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\Big)^2
-\gamma^2\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}-4\gamma-\frac{16}{\gamma},\\
\bar{B}_2(\gamma)=:&\gamma\left(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\right)^2-\gamma-\frac{8}{\gamma},\\
\bar{B}_3(\gamma)=:&\gamma\Big(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\Big)^2+2\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}-\gamma.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
We use Appendix Proposition \ref{new-K01p}, \ref{K01p}, \ref{peep} to have
\begin{align}\label{pB1231}
\begin{aligned}
\bar{B}_1(\gamma)&=\Big[\gamma\left(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\right)^2
+\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}- \gamma-\frac{4}{\gamma}\Big]\Big(\gamma\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}+4\Big)
<0,\\
\bar{B}_3(\gamma)&=\gamma\Big(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\Big)^2+2\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}-\gamma>0,
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}\label{pB1232}
\begin{aligned}
&\bar{B}_1(\gamma)-\bar{B}_2(\gamma)=\\
&\hspace{1cm}\gamma^2\Big(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\Big)^3+4\gamma\Big(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\Big)^2
-\gamma^2\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}-3\gamma-\frac{8}{\gamma}=\\
&\hspace{1cm}\Big[\gamma^2\left(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\right)^3+2\gamma\left(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\right)^2-(\gamma^2
+2)\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}- \gamma\Big]+\\
&\hspace{1cm}2\Big[\gamma\left(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\right)^2
+\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}- \gamma-\frac{4}{\gamma}\Big]<0,\\
&\bar{B}_1(\gamma)-\bar{B}_2(\gamma)-\bar{B}_3(\gamma)=\\
&\hspace{1cm}\Big[\gamma\left(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\right)^2
+\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}- \gamma-\frac{4}{\gamma}\Big]\Big(\gamma\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}+2\Big)
<0.
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
Now we use (\ref{p-ep1}) and (\ref{pentr-grow4}) to have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
&(e-e_L)(e+p_L)+(p-p_L)(p+e_L)\\
&\times\bigg[\gamma\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}+3
+\frac{(\gamma\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}+4)\bar{B}_3(\gamma)(\frac{e+p_L}{p+e_L}p+p_L)}{[2\bar{B}_1(\gamma)-\bar{B}_2(\gamma)]p+\bar{B}_2(\gamma)p_L}\bigg]>0.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
By (\ref{pB1231}) and (\ref{pB1232}), the equation above can be further simplified as
\begin{equation}\label{p-velo-deri1}
\begin{split}
&(p-p_L)(p+e_L)\Big\{\frac{e-e_L}{p-p_L}\frac{e+p_L}{e_L+p}\bar{B}_2(\gamma)+\bar{B}_3(\gamma)+\\
& \Big(\gamma\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}+3\Big)\Big(\bar{B}_2(\gamma)+\bar{B}_3(\gamma)\Big)\Big\}p_L+\\
& (p-p_L)(e+p_L)\Big\{\Big(\frac{e-e_L}{p-p_L}+\frac{e_L+p}{e+p_L}\frac{e}{p}\Big)[2\bar{B}_1(\gamma)-\bar{B}_2(\gamma)]+\\
& \Big(\gamma\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}+4\Big)\bar{B}_3(\gamma)\Big\}p<0.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
By almost the same derivation of \eqref{ep1}
\begin{equation*}
\frac{e-e_L}{p-p_L}>1.
\end{equation*}
Then we further use (\ref{pB1231}), (\ref{pB1232}) to have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
&\frac{e-e_L}{p-p_L}\frac{e+p_L}{e_L+p}\bar{B}_2(\gamma)+\bar{B}_3(\gamma)<\bar{B}_2(\gamma)+\bar{B}_3(\gamma)<0,\\
&\frac{e-e_L}{p-p_L}+\frac{e_L+p}{e+p_L}\frac{e}{p}=\frac{(ep-e_Lp_L)(e+p)}{(p-p_L)(e+p_L)p}=\\
& \hspace{1cm} \frac{e+p}{p}\Big(1+\frac{[(e-e_L)-(p-p_L)]p_L}{(p-p_L)(e+p_L)}\Big)>\\
& \hspace{1cm}\frac{e+p}{p}=\gamma\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}+4.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Then (\ref{p-velo-deri1}) holds since $2\bar{B}_1(\gamma)-\bar{B}_2(\gamma)+\bar{B}_3(\gamma)=2[\bar{B}_1(\gamma)-\bar{B}_2(\gamma)]+[\bar{B}_2(\gamma)+\bar{B}_3(\gamma)]<0$ by (\ref{pB1232}).
\end{proof}
The behavior of the production of entropy across the shock is given in Figure \ref{fig:etarel} with $a=0$.
By the same arguments as in Proposition \ref{mono-rare} for the monatomic gas, we also have the monotonicity of the velocity on rarefaction curves.
\begin{proposition} For the relativistic Euler system (\ref{main1}) with constitutive equations (\ref{p-pre})-(\ref{p-num}), $\frac{dv}{dp}<0$ on the 1-rarefaction curves, and $\frac{dv}{dp}>0$ on the 3-rarefaction curves.
\end{proposition}
\section{Proof of the main theorem \ref{main theorem}}
In this section, we are devoted to the proof of the main Theorem \ref{main theorem}. We first discuss the condition under which vacuum occurs. Then for the case that no vacuum occurs, based on the analysis about the structure of shock curves and the monotonicity of the velocity on rarefaction curves in Section 3 and 4, we solve the Riemann problem of the relativistic Euler system (\ref{main1}) with constitutive equations given in (\ref{press}), (\ref{ener-den}) and (\ref{num-den}) or in (\ref{p-pre}), (\ref{p-ener}) and (\ref{p-num}).
\subsection{Vacuum condition} To give a vacuum condition, we first define vacuum. We say that vacuum occurs if
$$e=0.$$
In fact, we have obtained that the pressure $p$ is monotonic along 1-curves and 3-curves, and is constant along 2-contact discontinuity waves. Note that $e=p\left(\gamma\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}+3\right)$ for monatomic gas and $e=p\left(\gamma\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}+3\right)$ for diatomic gas. It is easy to
see that the vacuum may occur only when a 1-rarefaction wave interacts a 3-rarefaction wave.
Denote $(\bar{r}_L, \bar{s}_L)$ and $(\bar{r}_R, \bar{s}_R)$ as the Riemann invariants at $x < 0$ and $x>0$, respectively.
$\bar{r}_L, \bar{s}_L, \bar{r}_R$ and $\bar{s}_R$ can be written as
\begin{align*}
\bar{r}_L=&\frac12\ln\Big(\frac{c+v_L}{c-v_L}\Big)+\int_0^{p_L}\frac{\sqrt{e_{p}}dp}{(e+p)c}
=\\
&\frac12\ln\Big(\frac{c+v_L}{c-v_L}\Big)+\int_0^{e_L}\frac{de}{(e+p)\sqrt{e_{p}}c},\\
\bar{s}_L=&\frac12\ln\Big(\frac{c+v_L}{c-v_L}\Big)-\int_0^{p_L}\frac{\sqrt{e_{p}}dp}{(e+p)c}
=\\
&\frac12\ln\Big(\frac{c+v_L}{c-v_L}\Big)-\int_0^{e_L}\frac{de}{(e+p)\sqrt{e_{p}}c},\\
\bar{r}_R=&\frac12\ln\Big(\frac{c+v_R}{c-v_R}\Big)+\int_0^{p_R}\frac{\sqrt{e_{p}}dp}{(e+p)c}
=\\
&\frac12\ln\Big(\frac{c+v_R}{c-v_R}\Big)+\int_0^{e_R}\frac{de}{(e+p)\sqrt{e_{p}}c},\\
\bar{s}_R=&\frac12\ln\Big(\frac{c+v_R}{c-v_R}\Big)-\int_0^{p_R}\frac{\sqrt{e_{p}}dp}{(e+p)c}
=\\
&\frac12\ln\Big(\frac{c+v_R}{c-v_R}\Big)-\int_0^{e_R}\frac{de}{(e+p)\sqrt{e_{p}}c}.
\end{align*}
Note that $\bar{r}$ is a constant along a 1-rarefaction curve, velocity $v$ and pressure $p$ are constant along a 2-contact discontinuity wave, and $\bar{s}$ is a constant along a 3-rarefaction curve. Therefore, there exist states $(e_1, v_1, S_1)$ and $(e_3, v_3, S_3)$ with $v_1=v_2, S_1=S_L, S_3=S_R$ such that
\begin{align*}
\begin{aligned}
\bar{r}_L-\bar{s}_R=&\frac12\ln\Big(\frac{c+v_L}{c-v_L}\Big)+\int_0^{e_L}\frac{de}{(e+p)\sqrt{e_{p}}c}-\\
& \Big[\frac12\ln\Big(\frac{c+v_R}{c-v_R}\Big)-\int_0^{e_R}\frac{de}{(e+p)\sqrt{e_{p}}c}\Big]=\\
&\frac12\ln\Big(\frac{c+v_1}{c-v_1}\Big)+\int_0^{e_1}\frac{de}{(e+p)\sqrt{e_{p}}c}-\\
&\Big[\frac12\ln\Big(\frac{c+v_3}{c-v_3}\Big)-\int_0^{e_3}\frac{de}{(e+p)\sqrt{e_{p}}c}\Big]=\\
& \int_0^{e_1}\frac{de}{(e+p)\sqrt{e_{p}}c}+\int_0^{e_3}\frac{de}{(e+p)\sqrt{e_{p}}c}.
\end{aligned}
\end{align*}
Then $\bar{r}_L\leq\bar{s}_R$ implies that
$$\int_0^{e_1}\frac{de}{(e+p)\sqrt{e_{p}}c}+\int_0^{e_3}\frac{de}{(e+p)\sqrt{e_{p}}c}\leq0.$$
Namely, $e_1, e_3\leq0$ and vacuum occurs. Therefore, the condition that vacuum occurs is $\bar{r}_L\leq\bar{s}_R$.
\subsection{Existence of solutions to the Riemann problem}
Finally, we discuss the solutions to the Riemann problem for the case $\bar{r}_L>\bar{s}_R$. In Section 3 and Section 4, we have proved that $\frac{dv}{dp}<0$ on $\mathcal{T}_1^p(\mathbf{u}_L)$ and $\frac{dv}{dp}>0$ on $\mathcal{T}_3^p(\mathbf{u}_L)$ for the monatomic gas case and diatomic gas case, respectively. Denote
$$v=f_1(p; p_L, v_L, S_L) \quad\mbox{and}\quad v=f_3(p; p_R, v_R, S_R) $$
as the curves $\mathcal{T}_1^p(\mathbf{u}_L)$ and the backward 3-curve, respectively. Then the $p-v$ plane is divided into four parts by the curves $\mathcal{T}_1^p(\mathbf{u}_L)$ and $\mathcal{T}_3^p(\mathbf{u}_L)$. Moreover, if $(p_L, v_L)$ is above the curve $f_3(p; p_R, v_R, S_R)$, i.e.,
$$v_L>f_3(p_L; p_R, v_R, S_R),$$
the 1-curve of the Riemann problem should be a rarefaction curve; while if $(p_L, v_L)$ is below the curve $f_3(p; p_R, v_R, S_R)$,
i.e.,
$$v_L<f_3(p_L; p_R, v_R, S_R),$$ the 1-curve of the Riemann problem should be a shock curve.
Correspondingly,
the 3-curve of the Riemann problem should be a rarefaction curve if $(p_R, v_R)$ is above the curve $\mathcal{T}_1^p(\mathbf{u}_L)$, i.e.,
$$v_R>f_1(p_R; p_L, v_L, S_L),$$ and the 3-curve of the Riemann problem should be a rarefaction curve if $(p_R, v_R)$ is below the curve $\mathcal{T}_1^p(\mathbf{u}_L)$, i.e.,
$$v_R<f_1(p_R; p_L, v_L, S_L).$$
Since $\frac{dv}{dp}<0$ on $\mathcal{T}_1^p(\mathbf{u}_L)$ and $\frac{dv}{dp}>0$ on 3-curve, an intermediate state $(p_M, v_M)$ can be uniquely solved by
$$v=f_1(p; p_L, v_L, S_L), \qquad v=f_3(p; p_R, v_R, S_R).$$
Having obtained the 1-curve and 3-curve, we need to determine the 2-contact discontinuity wave to fully solve the Riemann problem. In fact, since the velocity $v$ and pressure $p$ are constants on the 2-contact discontinuity wave, we only need to obtain the entropy. Note that the entropy is a constant along a rarefaction curve and is monotonic along a shock curve. Then we can uniquely determine the entropy for the left state and right state of the 2-contact discontinuity wave by the values of $p$ on the 1-curve and 3-curve, respectively.
\section{Conclusions}
In this paper, we consider the relativistic Euler equation in one space dimension. The constitutive equations for the closure of the differential system come from the relativistic Boltzmann-Chernikov equation that involves the Synge energy in the case of a monatomic gas and the generalized Synge energy in the case of a polyatomic gas. These constitutive equations are more appropriate than the ones present in literatures to study the Riemann problem. In fact, using the Synge equation we discover the constitutive equations of previous papers listed in the introduction are valid only in the classical limit ($\gamma \rightarrow \infty$) or in the ultra-relativistic limit ($\gamma \rightarrow 0$).
Therefore our analysis is more realistic in the relativistic regime ($\gamma$ small). This more physical case is mathematically difficult because the modified Bessel functions of the second kind appear in the constitutive equations. Nevertheless, we are able to prove rigorously the well-posedness of the Riemann problem at least for monatomic and diatomic gases. For these kinds of gases, our results reduce to one of the previous studies as limit cases of the classical regime or ultra-relativistic framework.
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\section*{Appendix 1: Modified Bessel functions and properties}
In this part, we recall expressions of the modified Bessel functions and their basic properties. Moreover, with our observation, a simple corollary is also presented. Now we give the modified Bessel functions and collect their basic properties:
\begin{lemma}\cite{Groot-Leeuwen-Weert-1980,Oliver-1974,Wa}\label{def-pro}
Let
$K_j(\gamma)$ be the Bessel functions defined by
\begin{equation}\label{defini}
K_j(\gamma)=\frac{(2^j)j!}{(2j)!}\frac{1}{\gamma^j}\int_{\lambda=\gamma}^{\lambda=\infty}e^{-\lambda}(\lambda^2-\gamma^2)^{j-1/2}d\lambda,\quad(j\geq0).
\end{equation}
Then the following identities hold:
\begin{eqnarray}
&K_j(\gamma)=\frac{2^{j-1}(j-1)!}{(2j-2)!}\frac{1}{\gamma^j}\int_{\lambda=\gamma}^{\lambda=\infty}e^{-\lambda}(\lambda^2-\gamma^2)^{j-3/2}d\lambda,\quad(j>0),\nonumber\\
&K_{j+1}(\gamma)=2j\frac{K_j(\gamma)}{\gamma}+K_{j-1}(\gamma),\quad(j\geq1), \label{transform}\\
&K_j(\gamma)<K_{j+1}(\gamma),\quad (j\geq0), \notag
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
&\frac{d}{d\gamma}\left(\frac{K_j(\gamma)}{\gamma^j}\right)=-\frac{K_{j+1}(\gamma)}{\gamma^j},\quad(j\geq0),\label{deriva}\\
&\displaystyle K_{j}(\gamma)=\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2\gamma}}e^{-\gamma}\left(\gamma_{j,n}(\gamma)\gamma^{-n}+\sum_{m=0}^{n-1}A_{j,m}\gamma^{-m}\right),\quad(j\geq0,~n\geq1),\label{remainder}
\end{eqnarray}
where expressions of the coefficients in (\ref{remainder}) are
\begin{align} \label{coefficient}
\begin{aligned}
&A_{j,0}=1\\
&A_{j,m}=\frac{(4j^2-1)(4j^2-3^2)\cdots(4j^2-(2m-1)^2)}{m!8^m},\quad(j\geq0,~m\geq1), \\
&|\gamma_{j,n}(\gamma)|\leq2e^{[j^2-1/4]\gamma^{-1}}|A_{j,n}|,\quad(j\geq0,~n\geq1).
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
On the other hand, according to \cite{Wa} (in Page 80), the Bessel functions defined in (\ref{defini}) can also be written in the following form:
\begin{align}
K_0(\gamma)=&-\sum^{\infty}_{m=0}\frac{(\frac{1}{2}\gamma)^{2m}}{m!m!}\Big[\ln\Big(\frac{\gamma}{2}\Big)-\psi(m+1)\Big],\nonumber\\
K_n(\gamma)=&\frac{1}{2}\sum^{n-1}_{m=0}(-1)^m\frac{(n-m-1)!}{m!}\Big(\frac{1}{2}\gamma\Big)^{-n+2m}+\nonumber\\
&(-1)^{n+1}\sum^{\infty}_{m=0}\frac{(\frac{1}{2}\gamma)^{n+2m}}{m!(m+n)!}\times\nonumber\\
&\Big[\ln\Big(\frac{\gamma}{2}\Big)
-\frac{1}{2}\psi(n+m)-\frac{1}{2}\psi(n+m+1)\Big], \label{new-defi}\\
\psi(1)=&-C_E,\quad \psi(m+1)=-C_E+\sum^{m}_{k=1}\frac{1}{k},\quad m\geq1,\nonumber\\
K_1(\gamma)=&\frac{1}{\gamma}+\sum^{\infty}_{m=0}\frac{(\frac{1}{2}\gamma)^{2m+1}}{m!(m+1)!}
\Big[\ln\Big(\frac{\gamma}{2}\Big)-\frac{1}{2}\psi(m+1)-\frac{1}{2}\psi(m+2)\Big],\nonumber
\end{align}
where $C_E=0.5772157\ldots$ is the Euler's constant.
\end{lemma}
From Lemma \ref{def-pro}, we immediately have the following corollary:
\begin{corollary}\label{K012} For $K_j(j\geq0)$ defined in Lemma \ref{def-pro}, it holds that
\begin{equation}\label{K012-1}
K_1^2\leq3K_0K_2,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{K012-2}
3\left(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\right)^2+\frac{6}{\gamma}\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}-1\geq0.
\end{equation}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof} From (\ref{defini}), we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
&K_0(\gamma)=\int_{\lambda=\gamma}^{\lambda=\infty}e^{-\lambda}(\lambda^2-\gamma^2)^{-1/2}d\lambda,\\
&K_1(\gamma)=\frac{1}{\gamma}\int_{\lambda=\gamma}^{\lambda=\infty}e^{-\lambda}(\lambda^2-\gamma^2)^{1/2}d\lambda,\\
&K_2(\gamma)=\frac{1}{3\gamma^2}\int_{\lambda=\gamma}^{\lambda=\infty}e^{-\lambda}(\lambda^2-\gamma^2)^{3/2}d\lambda.
\end{eqnarray*}
These equations imply (\ref{K012-1}) by H$\ddot{o}$lder's inequality.
Taking $j=1$ in (\ref{transform}) and inserting it to (\ref{K012-1}) yield
$$K_1^2(\gamma)\leq 3K_0(\gamma)\left(\frac{2}{\gamma}K_1(\gamma)+K_0(\gamma)\right).$$
Then (\ref{K012-2}) follows.
\end{proof}
\section*{Appendix 2: Estimates of the ratio $\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}$}
In this subsection, we concentrate on estimates of $\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}$.
Our estimates are divided into two cases according to different expressions of $K_m (m\geq1)$ given in Lemma \ref{def-pro}: the case $\gamma\in (0, \sqrt{2}]$ by (\ref{new-defi}) and the case $\gamma\in [1.1, \infty)$ by (\ref{defini}). Here $\gamma_0=1.1229189\ldots$ is a constant satisfying
$$\ln\Big(\frac{\gamma}{2}\Big)+C_E=0.$$
We first estimate $\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}$ for the first case $\gamma\in (0, \sqrt{2}]$ by using the expressions (\ref{new-defi}).
\begin{proposition}\label{new-K01p} For $\gamma\in[\gamma_0, \sqrt{2}]$, it holds that
\begin{equation}\label{new1}
\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\leq 1-\frac{\gamma_0-1}{\gamma}.
\end{equation}
And for $\gamma\in(0, \gamma_0]$, we have $\Big(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\Big)^2+\frac{2}{\gamma}\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}-1>0$. Moreover, we have
\begin{equation}\label{low1}
\frac{\gamma}{\sqrt{\gamma^2+1}+1}\leq\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\leq \gamma\left[\frac{11}{16}-\left(\ln(\frac{\gamma}{2})+C_E\right)\right].
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We first prove (\ref{new1}). From (\ref{new-defi}), we get for $\gamma\in[\gamma_0, \sqrt{2}]$ that
\begin{equation*}
\gamma\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\leq \frac{-[\ln(\frac{\gamma}{2})+C_E]\Big[\gamma^2+\frac{\gamma^4}{4}+\frac{\gamma^6e^{\frac{\gamma^2}{28}}}{64}\Big]+\frac{\gamma^4}{4}+
-\frac{3\gamma^6 e^{\frac{\gamma^2}{28}}}{128}}
{[\ln(\frac{\gamma}{2})+C_E]\Big[\frac{\gamma^2}{2}+\frac{\gamma^4}{16}+\frac{\gamma^6e^{\frac{\gamma^2}{28}}}{32\times12}\Big]+1-\frac{\gamma^2}{4}-
\frac{5\gamma^4}{64}+
-\frac{5\gamma^6 e^{\frac{\gamma^2}{40}}}{32\times36}}.
\end{equation*}
Then, (\ref{new1}) holds if we can show
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
& [\ln(\frac{\gamma}{2})+C_E]\Big[\gamma^2+\frac{\gamma^4}{4}+\frac{\gamma^6e^{\frac{\gamma^2}{28}}}{64}\Big]+\frac{\gamma^4}{4}+
-\frac{3\gamma^6 e^{\frac{\gamma^2}{28}}}{128}\leq\\ &\Big\{[\ln(\frac{\gamma}{2})+C_E]\Big[\frac{\gamma^2}{2}+\frac{\gamma^4}{16}+\frac{\gamma^6e^{\frac{\gamma^2}{28}}}{32\times12}\Big]+1-\frac{\gamma^2}{4}-
\frac{5\gamma^4}{64}+
-\frac{5\gamma^6 e^{\frac{\gamma^2}{40}}}{32\times36}\Big\}\times\\
&(1+\gamma-\gamma_0).
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Namely,
\begin{align}\label{new2}
\begin{aligned}
f(\gamma):=&1+\gamma-\gamma_0-\frac{1}{4}(1+\gamma-\gamma_0)\gamma^2-\frac{\gamma^4}{64}[5(\gamma-\gamma_0)+21]-\\
&\Big[5(1+\gamma-\gamma_0)e^{\frac{\gamma^2}{40}}+27e^{\frac{\gamma^2}{28}}\Big]\frac{\gamma^6}{32\times36}+\\
&\Big[\ln(\frac{\gamma}{2})+C_E\Big]
\Big\{\frac{\gamma^2}{2}(3+\gamma-\gamma_0)+\frac{\gamma^4}{16}(5+\gamma-\gamma_0)+\\
&\frac{\gamma^6}{32\times12}\Big[(1+\gamma-\gamma_0)e^{\frac{\gamma^2}{40}}+6e^{\frac{\gamma^2}{28}}\Big]\Big\}\geq0
.
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
Note that for $\gamma\in [\gamma_0, \sqrt{2}]$,
\begin{align*}
f'(\gamma)=&1-\frac{1}{4}\gamma^2-\frac{\gamma}{2}(1+\gamma-\gamma_0)-\frac{\gamma^3}{16}[5(\gamma-\gamma_0)+21]
-\frac{5\gamma^4}{64}\\
&-\frac{\gamma^5}{32\times6}\Big[5(1+\gamma-\gamma_0)e^{\frac{\gamma^2}{40}}+27e^{\frac{\gamma^2}{28}}\Big]\\
&+\frac{\gamma}{2}(3+\gamma-\gamma_0)+\frac{\gamma^3}{16}(5+\gamma-\gamma_0)+\\
&\frac{\gamma^5}{32\times12}\Big[(1+\gamma-\gamma_0)e^{\frac{\gamma^2}{40}}+6e^{\frac{\gamma^2}{28}}\Big]-\\
&\frac{\gamma^6}{32\times36}\Big\{5\Big[1+\frac{\gamma(1+\gamma-\gamma_0)}{20}\Big]e^{\frac{\gamma^2}{40}}+\frac{27\gamma}{14}e^{\frac{\gamma^2}{28}}\Big]\Big\}\\
&+\Big[\ln(\frac{\gamma}{2})+C_E\Big]
\Big\{(3+\gamma-\gamma_0)\gamma+\frac{\gamma^2}{2}+\frac{\gamma^3}{4}(5+\gamma-\gamma_0)+\frac{\gamma^4}{16}+\\
&\frac{\gamma^5}{64}\Big[(1+\gamma-\gamma_0)e^{\frac{\gamma^2}{40}}+6e^{\frac{\gamma^2}{28}}\Big]\\
& +\frac{\gamma^6}{32\times12}\Big[\Big(1+\frac{\gamma(1+\gamma-\gamma_0)}{20}\Big)e^{\frac{\gamma^2}{40}}
+\frac{3\gamma}{7}e^{\frac{\gamma^2}{28}}\Big]\Big\}.
\end{align*}
We can further obtain that for $\gamma\in [\gamma_0, \sqrt{2}]$,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
f''(\gamma)=&4-\gamma_0+\gamma+\frac{(2\gamma_0-7)\gamma^2}{4}-\gamma^3-\\
&\frac{\gamma^4}{128}\Big[13(1+\gamma-\gamma_0)e^{\frac{\gamma^2}{40}}
+68e^{\frac{\gamma^2}{28}}\Big]-\\
&\frac{\gamma^6}{64}\Big\{\Big[3+\frac{3\gamma(1+\gamma-\gamma_0)}{20}\Big]e^{\frac{\gamma^2}{40}}
+\frac{27\gamma}{7}e^{\frac{\gamma^2}{28}}\Big\}-\\
&\frac{\gamma^6}{32\times36}\Big\{
\Big[\frac{1-\gamma_0+3\gamma}{4}+\frac{\gamma^2(1+\gamma-\gamma_0)}{80}\Big]e^{\frac{\gamma^2}{40}}\\
&+\Big(\frac{27}{14}+\frac{27\gamma^2}{256}\Big)e^{\frac{\gamma^2}{28}}\Big\}+\Big[\ln(\frac{\gamma}{2})+C_E\Big] \Big\{3-\gamma_0+3\gamma+\\
&+\frac{(15-3\gamma_0)\gamma^2}{4}+\gamma^3
\frac{5\gamma^4}{64}\Big[(1+\gamma-\gamma_0)e^{\frac{\gamma^2}{40}}+6e^{\frac{\gamma^2}{28}}\Big]+\\ &\frac{\gamma^5}{32}\Big[\Big(1+\frac{\gamma(1+\gamma-\gamma_0)}{20}\Big)e^{\frac{\gamma^2}{40}}
+\frac{3\gamma}{7}e^{\frac{\gamma^2}{28}}\Big]+\frac{\gamma^6}{32\times12}\times\\
&\Big\{
\Big[\frac{1-\gamma_0+3\gamma}{20}+\frac{\gamma^2(1+\gamma-\gamma_0)}{400}\Big]e^{\frac{\gamma^2}{40}}
+\\
&\Big(\frac{3}{7}+\frac{3\gamma^2}{98}\Big)e^{\frac{\gamma^2}{28}}\Big\}\Big\}
< 0.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Then we have
$$f(\gamma)\geq \min\{f(\gamma_0), f(\sqrt{2})\}$$ for $\gamma\in [\gamma_0, \sqrt{2}]$. On the other hand, we have
\begin{align*}
f(\gamma_0)=&1-\frac{\gamma_0^2}{4}-\frac{21\gamma_0^4}{64}-\frac{\gamma_0^6}{32\times36}\Big[5e^{\frac{\gamma_0^2}{40}}+27e^{\frac{\gamma_0^2}{28}}\Big]>0,\quad\mbox{and}\\
f(\sqrt{2})=&1+\sqrt{2}-\gamma_0-\frac{1+\sqrt{2}-\gamma_0}{2}-\frac{5(\sqrt{2}-\gamma_0)+21}{16}-\\
&\Big[\dfrac{5(1+\sqrt{2}-\gamma_0)}{144}e^{\frac{1}{20}}+\dfrac{27}{144}e^{\frac{1}{14}}\Big]+\Big[\ln(\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2})+C_E\Big]\times
\\
&\Big\{3+\sqrt{2}-\gamma_0+\frac{5+\sqrt{2}-\gamma_0}{4}+\\
&\frac{1}{48}\Big[(1+\sqrt{2}-\gamma_0)e^{\frac{1}{20}}+6e^{\frac{1}{14}}\Big]\Big\}>0.
\end{align*}
Then (\ref{new2}) holds.
Now we turn to the proof of (\ref{low1}). We first verify the left inequality of (\ref{low1}). For $\gamma\in(0,\gamma_0],$ we use (\ref{new-defi}) to have
\begin{equation*}
\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\geq \frac{-\left[\ln(\frac{\gamma}{2})+C_E\right]\gamma-\frac{1}{4}\left[\ln(\frac{\gamma}{2})+C_E-1\right]\gamma^3
}
{1+\frac{1}{2}\left[\ln(\frac{\gamma}{2})+C_E-\frac{1}{2}\right]\gamma^2+\frac{1}{16}\left[\ln(\frac{\gamma}{2})+C_E-\frac{5}{4}\right]\gamma^4
}.
\end{equation*}
(\ref{low1}) holds if we have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\overline{f}(\gamma)=&-\Big[\ln(\frac{\gamma}{2})+C_E\Big]\Big[1+\sqrt{\gamma^2+1}+\frac{\gamma^2(3+\sqrt{\gamma^2+1})}{4}+\frac{\gamma^4}{16}\Big]+\\
&\frac{\gamma^2(2+\sqrt{\gamma^2+1})}{4}+\frac{5\gamma^4}{64}-1
>0.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
In fact, for $\gamma\in (0,\gamma_0)$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\overline{f}'(\gamma)= & -\frac{1}{\gamma}\Big[1+\sqrt{\gamma^2+1}+\frac{\gamma^2(3+\sqrt{\gamma^2+1})}{4}+\frac{\gamma^4}{16}\Big]+\\
&\frac{\gamma^3}{4\sqrt{\gamma^2+1}}
+\frac{\gamma(2+\sqrt{\gamma^2+1})}{2} +\frac{5\gamma^3}{16}-\Big[\ln(\frac{\gamma}{2})+C_E\Big]\times\\
&\Big[\frac{\gamma}{\sqrt{\gamma^2+1}}+\frac{\gamma(3+\sqrt{\gamma^2+1})}{2}
+\frac{\gamma^3}{4\sqrt{\gamma^2+1}}+\frac{\gamma^3}{4}\Big]\\
<&(1+\sqrt{\gamma^2+1})\Big[-\frac{1}{\gamma}+\frac{\gamma}{4}+\frac{\gamma^3}{4(\gamma^2+1)}\Big]\\
&-\gamma\left[\ln(\frac{\gamma}{2})+C_E\right](3+\sqrt{\gamma^2+1})\\
<&-\frac{3(1+\sqrt{\gamma^2+1})}{5\gamma}-\gamma\left[\ln(\frac{\gamma}{2})+C_E\right](3+\sqrt{\gamma^2+1})\\
<&0.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Then $\overline{f}(\gamma)\geq\overline{f}(\gamma_0)>0$. The left inequality of (\ref{low1}) holds.
We finally treat the right inequality of (\ref{low1}). For $\gamma\in(0, \gamma_0]$, we use (\ref{new-defi}) to have
\begin{equation*}
\gamma\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\leq \frac{-\left[\ln(\frac{\gamma}{2})+C_E\right]\gamma^2-\frac{1}{4}\left[\ln(\frac{\gamma}{2})+C_E-1\right]\gamma^4e^{\frac{\gamma^2}{10}}}
{1+\frac{1}{2}\left[\ln(\frac{\gamma}{2})+C_E-\frac{1}{2}\right] \gamma^2e^{\frac{5\gamma^2}{16}}}.
\end{equation*}
To prove the right inequality of (\ref{low1}), we only need to derive the following inequality
\begin{align*}
\begin{aligned}
&-\left[\ln(\frac{\gamma}{2})+C_E\right]\gamma^2-\frac{1}{4}\left[\ln(\frac{\gamma}{2})+C_E-1\right]\gamma^4e^{\frac{\gamma^2}{10}}\leq\\
& \Big[1+\frac{1}{2}\Big(\ln(\frac{\gamma}{2})+C_E-\frac{1}{2}\Big) \gamma^2 e^{\frac{5\gamma^2}{16}}\Big]\gamma^2\left[\frac{11}{16}-\left(\ln(\frac{\gamma}{2})+C_E\right)\right]
.
\end{aligned}
\end{align*}
That is,
\begin{align}\label{001new}
\begin{aligned}
\tilde{f}(\gamma)=&\gamma^2\Big\{-\Big[\Big(\ln(\frac{\gamma}{2})+C_E\Big)-1\Big]e^{\frac{\gamma^2}{10}}
+\Big[2\Big(\ln(\frac{\gamma}{2})+C_E\Big)^2-\\
&\frac{19}{8}\Big(\ln(\frac{\gamma}{2})+C_E\Big)+\frac{11}{16}\Big]e^{\frac{5\gamma^2}{16}}\Big\}-\frac{11}{4}\leq0
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
for $\gamma\in(0, \gamma_0]$. Note the fact
\begin{align*}
\begin{aligned}
\tilde{f}'(\gamma)=&2\gamma\Big\{-\Big[\Big(\ln(\frac{\gamma}{2})+C_E\Big)-1\Big]e^{\frac{\gamma^2}{10}}
+\Big[2\Big(\ln(\frac{\gamma}{2})+C_E\Big)^2-\\
&\frac{19}{8}\Big(\ln(\frac{\gamma}{2})+C_E\Big)+\frac{11}{16}\Big]e^{\frac{5\gamma^2}{16}}\Big\}-\gamma e^{\frac{\gamma^2}{10}}-\frac{19\gamma}{8}e^{\frac{5\gamma^2}{16}}+\\
&4\Big(\ln(\frac{\gamma}{2})+C_E\Big)\gamma e^{\frac{5\gamma^2}{16}}+\frac{\gamma^3}{5}\Big[-\Big(\ln(\frac{\gamma}{2})+C_E\Big)+1\Big]e^{\frac{\gamma^2}{10}}\\
&+\frac{5\gamma^3}{8}\Big[2\Big(\ln(\frac{\gamma}{2})+C_E\Big)^2-\frac{19}{8}\Big(\ln(\frac{\gamma}{2})+C_E\Big)
+\frac{11}{16}\Big]e^{\frac{5\gamma^2}{16}}\\
\geq&\gamma\Big\{\Big(\frac{\gamma^2}{5}+1\Big)e^{\frac{\gamma^2}{10}}
+\Big[-\frac{3}{4}\Big(\ln(\frac{\gamma}{2})+C_E\Big)+\frac{55\gamma^2}{128}-1\Big]e^{\frac{5\gamma^2}{16}}\Big\}\\
>&0.
\end{aligned}
\end{align*}
Here we used the estimate $-\frac{3}{4}\Big(\ln(\frac{\gamma}{2})+C_E\Big)+\frac{55\gamma^2}{128}\geq\frac{1}{2}$ for $\gamma\in(0, \gamma_0]$.
Then we have
\begin{align*}\label{001new}
\begin{aligned}
\tilde{f}(\gamma)\leq&\gamma^2\Big(e^{\frac{\gamma^2}{10}}
+\frac{11}{16}e^{\frac{5\gamma^2}{16}}\Big)-\frac{11}{4}<0
\end{aligned}
\end{align*}
for $\gamma\in(0, \gamma_0]$. (\ref{001new}) is verified.
\end{proof}
For later use, we also need two different estimates:
\begin{proposition}\label{K01p} Let $\gamma\in(\sqrt{2}, \infty)$. Then $\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}$ satisfies:
\begin{equation}\label{rough}
1-\frac{1}{2\gamma}\leq\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\leq 1-\frac{1}{2\gamma}+\frac{3}{8\gamma^2}+\frac{3}{16\gamma^3}.
\end{equation}
Moreover, for $\gamma\in(2, \infty)$, it holds that
\begin{align} \label{acurate}
\begin{aligned}
&\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\geq 1-\frac{1}{2\gamma}+\frac{3}{8\gamma^2}-\frac{3}{8\gamma^3}+\frac{63}{128\gamma^4}-\frac{31}{20\gamma^5}, \\
&\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\leq 1-\frac{1}{2\gamma}+\frac{3}{8\gamma^2}-\frac{3}{8\gamma^3}+\frac{63}{128\gamma^4}+\frac{7}{8\gamma^5}.
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} Compared to the proof of (\ref{rough}), the proof of (\ref{acurate}) is more tedious but simpler. For brevity, we only prove (\ref{rough}).
From (\ref{coefficient}), one has
\begin{equation}\label{eff0}
\begin{split}
&A_{0,1}=-\frac{1}{8}, \quad A_{0,2}=\frac{9}{2\times8^2}, \quad A_{0,3}=-\frac{75}{2\times8^3}, \\
&A_{0,4}=\frac{3\times25\times49}{8^5}, \quad A_{0,5}=-\frac{15\times49\times81}{8^6},\quad\mbox{and}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eff1}
\begin{split}
& A_{1,1}=\frac{3}{8}, \quad A_{1,2}=-\frac{15}{2\times8^2}, \quad A_{1,3}=\frac{105}{2\times8^3}, \\
&A_{1,4}=-\frac{105\times45}{8^5}, \quad A_{1,5}=\frac{21\times45\times77}{8^6}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Moreover, for $\gamma>0$,
\begin{eqnarray}
&&r_{0,3}\leq2e^{-\frac{1}{4\gamma}}|A_{0,3}|= \frac{75e^{-\frac{1}{4\gamma}}}{8^3},\quad r_{1,3}\leq2e^{\frac{3}{4\gamma}}|A_{1,3}|= \frac{105e^{\frac{3}{4\gamma}}}{8^3},\label{rem3} \\
&&r_{0,4}\leq2e^{-\frac{1}{4\gamma}}|A_{0,4}|= \frac{75\times49e^{-\frac{1}{4\gamma}}}{4\times8^5},\nonumber\\
&&r_{1,4}\leq2e^{\frac{3}{4\gamma}}|A_{1,4}|= \frac{105\times45e^{\frac{3}{4\gamma}}}{4\times8^4}, \label{rem4} \\
&&r_{0,5}=2e^{-\frac{1}{4\gamma}}|A_{0,5}|\leq \frac{15\times49\times81}{4\times8^5}e^{-\frac{1}{4\gamma}},\nonumber \\
&&r_{1,5}=2e^{\frac{3}{4\gamma}}|A_{1,5}|\leq \frac{21\times45\times77}{4\times8^5}e^{\frac{3}{4\gamma}}. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Firstly, we show that the inequality on the left side of (\ref{rough}) is true. We use (\ref{coefficient}), (\ref{eff0}), (\ref{eff1}) and (\ref{rem3}) to have
$$\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\geq\frac{ 1-\frac{1}{8\gamma}+\frac{9}{128\gamma^2}-\frac{75}{8^3\gamma^3}e^{-\frac{1}{4\gamma}}}{1+\frac{3}{8\gamma}-\frac{15}{128\gamma^2}+\frac{105}{8^3\gamma^3}e^{\frac{3}{4\gamma}}}.$$
Then, it suffice to show that
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
&1-\frac{1}{8\gamma}+\frac{9}{128\gamma^2}-\frac{75}{8^3\gamma^3}e^{-\frac{1}{4\gamma}}\geq\\
&\left(1+\frac{3}{8\gamma}-\frac{15}{128\gamma^2}+\frac{105}{8^3\gamma^3}e^{\frac{3}{4\gamma}}\right)\left(1-\frac{1}{2\gamma}\right)=\\
&1-\frac{1}{8\gamma}-\left(\frac{3}{16}+\frac{15}{128}\right)\frac{1}{\gamma^2}+\\
&\left(\frac{105}{8^3}e^{\frac{3}{4\gamma}}+\frac{15}{256}\right)\frac{1}{\gamma^3}-\frac{105}{2\times8^3\gamma^4}e^{\frac{3}{4\gamma}}.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Namely,
\begin{align} \label{r1}
\begin{aligned}
&\frac{3}{8\gamma^2}+\frac{105}{2\times8^3\gamma^4}e^{\frac{3}{4\gamma}}\geq\left(\frac{75}{8^3}e^{-\frac{1}{4\gamma}}+\frac{105}{8^3}e^{\frac{3}{4\gamma}}+\frac{15}{256}\right)\frac{1}{\gamma^3},\\
&\gamma^2-\left(\frac{25}{64}e^{-\frac{1}{4\gamma}}+\frac{35}{64}e^{\frac{3}{4\gamma}}+\frac{5}{32}\right)\gamma+\frac{35}{128}e^{\frac{3}{4\gamma}}\geq0.
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
Denote $f_3(\gamma)=:\gamma^2-\left(\frac{25}{64}e^{-\frac{1}{4\gamma}}+\frac{35}{64}e^{\frac{3}{4\gamma}}+\frac{5}{32}\right)\gamma+\frac{35}{128}e^{\frac{3}{4\gamma}}$. It is easy to check that
$$f_3(1.1)>0,\qquad f_3'(\gamma)>0 ~~\mbox{for} ~~\gamma\geq1.$$
Then (\ref{r1}) holds for $\gamma\in [1.1,\infty)\subset (\sqrt{2}, \infty)$.
We now continue to verify the inequality on the right side of (\ref{rough}). Similarly, from (\ref{coefficient}), (\ref{eff0}), (\ref{eff1}) and (\ref{rem4}), we get
$$\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\leq\frac{ 1-\frac{1}{8\gamma}+\frac{9}{128\gamma^2}-\frac{75}{2\times8^3\gamma^3}+\frac{75\times49e^{-\frac{1}{4\gamma}}}{4\times8^4\gamma^4}}
{1+\frac{3}{8\gamma}-\frac{15}{128\gamma^2}+\frac{105}{2\times8^3\gamma^3}-\frac{105\times45e^{\frac{3}{4\gamma}}}{4\times8^4\gamma^4}}.$$
The proof can be completed if we can show the following inequality:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
&1-\frac{1}{8\gamma}+\frac{9}{128\gamma^2}-\frac{75}{2\times8^3\gamma^3}+\frac{75\times49e^{-\frac{1}{4\gamma}}}{4\times8^4\gamma^4}\leq\\
&\Big(1+\frac{3}{8\gamma}-\frac{15}{128\gamma^2}+\frac{105}{2\times8^3\gamma^3}-\frac{105\times45e^{\frac{3}{4\gamma}}}{4\times8^4\gamma^4}\Big)\times\\
&\Big(1-\frac{1}{2\gamma}+\frac{3}{8\gamma^2}+\frac{3}{16\gamma^3}\Big)=\\
&1-\frac{1}{8\gamma}+\frac{9}{128\gamma^2}+\left(\frac{3}{16}+\frac{9}{64}+\frac{15}{256}+\frac{105}{1024}\right)\frac{1}{\gamma^3}\\
&+\left(\frac{9}{128}-\frac{45}{1024}-\frac{105}{4\times8^3}-\frac{105\times45}{4\times8^4}e^{\frac{3}{4\gamma}}\right)\frac{1}{\gamma^4}\\
&+\left(\frac{-45\times4+315}{2\times8^4}+\frac{105\times45}{8^5}e^{\frac{3}{4\gamma}}\right)\frac{1}{\gamma^5}\\
&+\left(\frac{315}{4\times8^4}-\frac{315\times45}{4\times8^5}e^{\frac{3}{4\gamma}}\right)\frac{1}{\gamma^6}-\frac{315\times45}{8^6}\frac{e^{\frac{3}{4\gamma}}}{\gamma^7}.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
This inequality can be simplified as
\begin{equation}\label{right}
\begin{split}
&9\gamma^4+\left(\frac98-\frac{195}{128}-\frac{105\times45e^{\frac{3}{4\gamma}}+75\times49e^{-\frac{1}{4\gamma}}}{2\times8^3}\right)\gamma^3+\\
&\hspace{1cm}
\Big(-\frac{45}{128}+\frac{315}{8^3}+\frac{105\times45e^{\frac{3}{4\gamma}}}{4\times8^3}\Big)\gamma^2
+\\
&\hspace{1cm}\Big(\frac{315}{2\times8^3}-\frac{315\times45e^{\frac{3}{4\gamma}}}{2\times8^4}\Big)\gamma-\frac{315\times45e^{\frac{3}{4\gamma}}}{2\times8^4}\geq0.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Denote the function on the left side of (\ref{right}) as $f_4(\gamma)$. It can be verified that
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
f_4(\sqrt{2})>0,\qquad f'_4(\gamma)>0 ~~\mbox{for}~~ \gamma\in[1,\infty) .
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Therefore, (\ref{right}) holds for $\gamma\in [\frac{5}{4}, \infty)$
\end{proof}
\section*{Appendix 3: Essential estimates and solution of the conjectures in \cite{Speck-Strain-CMP-2011}}
In this part, we present estimates essential to the analysis in the rest of our paper. The estimates are also closely related to the two conjectures in \cite{Speck-Strain-CMP-2011}. For convenience of discussion, we first list these conjectures.
\begin{conjecture}\label{conj1}
The first conjecture of \cite{Speck-Strain-CMP-2011} reads:
The map $(n,\gamma)\rightarrow(\mathfrak{H}(n,\gamma),\mathfrak{P}(n,\gamma))$ is auto-diffeomorphism of the region $(0,\infty)\times(0,\infty)$, where the maps $\mathfrak{H}$ and $\mathfrak{P}$ are defined as follows:
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&S=\mathfrak{H}(n,\gamma)=k_B\ln\left(\frac{4\pi e^4m^3c^2h^{-3}K_2(\gamma)}{n\gamma}e^{\gamma\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}}\right),\\
&&p=\mathfrak{P}(n,\gamma)=\frac{nmc^2}{\gamma}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{conjecture}
With relations in (\ref{press})-(\ref{num-den}), one can deduce the local resolvability of any one of the variables $n, T, S$ and $p$ in terms of any two of the others whenever one knows that the necessary derivatives are non-zero. In fact, as in the analysis of Lemma 3.5 in \cite{Speck-Strain-CMP-2011}, the negativity of $\frac{\partial p}{\partial \gamma}\Big|_{S}$:
\begin{equation}\label{inver}
\frac{\partial_\gamma|_{S}p}{p}=\gamma\left(\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}\right)^2+3\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}-\gamma-\frac{4}{\gamma}<0,\quad \gamma>0
\end{equation}
would imply Conjecture \ref{conj1}. Here and in the rest part of this paper, we use the notation
$$\partial_X|_{Y}$$
to denote partial differentiation with respect to the variable $X$ while $Y$ is held constant.
Authors in \cite{Speck-Strain-CMP-2011} also made another conjecture which is about the speed of sound in the relativistic setting, a stronger statement than Conjecture \ref{conj1}:
\begin{conjecture} \label{conj2}
The second conjecture of \cite{Speck-Strain-CMP-2011} reads:
Under the relations (\ref{press})-(\ref{num-den}), p can be written as a smooth, positive
function of $E, S$ on the domain $(0,\infty) \times (0,\infty)$, i.e., the kinetic equation of state:
$$p=p(e, S)$$
is well-defined for all $(e, S) \in (0,\infty)\times(0,\infty)$. Furthermore, on $(0,\infty)\times(0,\infty)$, we
have that
\begin{equation}\label{sou-spe}
0<\frac{\partial p}{\partial e}\Big|_{S}(e, S)=\frac{\partial p(e, S)}{\partial e}\Big|_{S}<\frac{1}{3}.
\end{equation}
\end{conjecture}
As is noted in \cite{Speck-Strain-CMP-2011}, proving (\ref{sou-spe}) is equivalent to proving the following inequality
\begin{equation}\label{speed}
3<\frac{\partial e}{\partial p}\Big|_{S}(p, S)=3+\gamma\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}+\frac{\gamma\left(\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}\right)^2
+4\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}-\gamma}{\gamma\left(\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}\right)^2
+3\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}-\gamma-\frac{4}{\gamma}}<\infty,
\end{equation}
since $\frac{\partial p}{\partial e}\Big|_{S}(e, S)=\left(\frac{\partial e}{\partial p}\Big|_{S}(p, S)\right)^{-1}$. The speed of sound, the square of which is defined to be $\frac{\partial p}{\partial e}\Big|_{S}(e, S)$, is a fundamental quantity in the relativistic Euler system. $0<\frac{\partial p}{\partial e}\Big|_{S}(e, S)<1$ is a fundamental thermodynamic assumption for physically relevant equations of state. Moreover, in \cite{Speck-Strain-CMP-2011}, the non-negativity of $\frac{\partial p}{\partial e}\Big|_{S}(e, S)$ plays a fundamental role in the well-posedness theory of the relativistic Euler system, see Remark 2.1 there.
\begin{remark} For $\gamma\in(0,\frac{1}{10}]\cup[70,\infty)$, the authors in \cite{Speck-Strain-CMP-2011} verified (\ref{inver}) and made Conjectures \ref{conj1} and \ref{conj2} based on numerical observations in the remained region $\gamma\in(\frac{1}{10},70)$. Later, Juan \cite{Juan-2013} gave a proof of the two conjectures for any range of $\gamma$. We will present two estimates which implies the two conjectures since these estimates are basic in our analysis.
\end{remark}
In the following proposition, based on Lemma \ref{def-pro} and Corollary \ref{K012}, we present estimates more accurate than (\ref{inver}) and (\ref{speed}).
\begin{proposition}\label{eep} Let $\gamma\in(0,\infty)$ and $K_j(\gamma) (j\geq0)$ be the functions defined in Lemma \ref{def-pro}. Then it holds that
\begin{equation}\label{imp-ine1}
\gamma^2\left(\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}\right)^2+3\gamma\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}- \gamma^2-3<0,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{imp-ine2}
\gamma\left(\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}\right)^3+4\left(\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}\right)^2-\gamma\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}-1<0.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} We first prove (\ref{imp-ine1}). Its proof is divided into two cases: $\gamma\in(0,\sqrt{2}]$ and $\gamma\in(\sqrt{2},\infty)$. Firstly, by (\ref{transform}), we can rewrite (\ref{imp-ine1}) as
\begin{equation}\label{imp-ine11}
(\gamma^2+3)\left(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\right)^2+\left(\gamma+\frac{12}{\gamma}\right)\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}+\frac{12}{\gamma^2}-\gamma^2-2>0.
\end{equation}
Noting $K_0(\gamma), K_1(\gamma)>0$ for $\gamma\in(0,\infty)$ and
$$\frac{12}{\gamma^2}-\gamma^2-2>0,\quad \gamma\in(0,\sqrt{2}],$$
(\ref{imp-ine1}) holds when $\gamma\in(0,\sqrt{2}]$. For the case $\gamma\in(\sqrt{2},\infty)$, we use (\ref{rough}) to have
\begin{align*}
\begin{aligned}
&(\gamma^2+3)\left(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\right)^2+\left(\gamma+\frac{12}{\gamma}\right)\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}+\frac{12}{\gamma^2}-\gamma^2-2 \geq\nonumber\\
&(\gamma^2+3)\left(1-\frac{1}{2\gamma}\right)^2+\left(\gamma+\frac{12}{\gamma}\right)\left(1-\frac{1}{2\gamma}\right)+\frac{12}{\gamma^2}-\gamma^2-2=\\
&\gamma^2-\gamma+\frac{13}{4}-\frac{3}{\gamma}+\frac{3}{4\gamma^2}+\gamma-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{12}{\gamma}-\frac{6}{\gamma^2}-\gamma^2-2= \\
&\frac{3}{4}+\frac{9}{\gamma}-\frac{21}{4\gamma^2}>0.
\end{aligned}
\end{align*}
This yields (\ref{imp-ine11}). Then (\ref{imp-ine1}) follows.
Now we turn to prove (\ref{imp-ine2}). The proof is also done in two cases, $\gamma\in(0,\sqrt{2}]$ and $\gamma\in(\sqrt{2},\infty)$, separately. We use (\ref{transform}) again to rewrite (\ref{imp-ine2}) as
\begin{equation}\label{imp-lin21}
\left(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\right)^3+\left(\gamma+\frac{6}{\gamma}\right)\left(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\right)^2+\frac{12}{\gamma^2}\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}-\gamma-\frac{4}{\gamma}+\frac{8}{\gamma^3}>0.
\end{equation}
We first show that (\ref{imp-lin21}) is true when $\gamma\in(0,\sqrt{2})$. For this purpose, we use (\ref{K012-2}) to have
\begin{align*}
&\left(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\right)^3+\left(\gamma+\frac{6}{\gamma}\right)
\left(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\right)^2+\frac{12}{\gamma^2}\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}-\gamma-\frac{4}{\gamma}+\frac{8}{\gamma^3} =\nonumber\\ &\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\left[\left(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\right)^2+\frac{2}{\gamma}\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}-\frac{1}{3}\right]
+\\
&\left(\gamma+\frac{4}{\gamma}\right)\left[\left(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\right)^2
+\frac{2}{\gamma}\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}-\frac{1}{3}\right]+\\
&\frac{1}{3}\left(\gamma+\frac{4}{\gamma}\right)+\Big(\frac{1}{3}-2+\frac{4}{\gamma^2}\Big)
\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}-\gamma-\frac{4}{\gamma}+\frac{8}{\gamma^3}> \\
&\left(\frac{4}{\gamma^2}-\frac{5}{3}\right)\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}-\frac{2\gamma}{3}-\frac{8}{3\gamma}+\frac{8}{\gamma^3}>0,
\end{align*}
when $\gamma\in(0,\sqrt{2}]$. Here we have used the simple estimates: for $\gamma\in(0,\sqrt{2}]$,
$$\frac{4}{\gamma^2}-\frac{5}{3}>0,\quad -\frac{2\gamma}{3}-\frac{8}{3\gamma}+\frac{8}{\gamma^3}\geq0.$$
When $\gamma\in(\sqrt{2},\infty)$, similar to proof of (\ref{imp-ine1}), we use (\ref{rough}) to obtain
\begin{align}
\begin{aligned}
&\Big(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\Big)^3+\left(\gamma+\frac{6}{\gamma}\right)\left(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\right)^2
+\frac{12}{\gamma^2}\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}-\gamma-\frac{4}{\gamma}+\frac{8}{\gamma^3}\geq\nonumber\\
&\left(\gamma+1+\frac{11}{2\gamma}\right)\left(1-\frac{1}{\gamma}+\frac{1}{4\gamma^2}\right)+
\frac{12}{\gamma^2}+\frac{2}{\gamma^3}-\gamma-\frac{4}{\gamma}=\\
&\gamma+\frac{19}{4\gamma}-\frac{21}{4\gamma^2}+\frac{11}{8\gamma^3}+
\frac{12}{\gamma^2}+\frac{2}{\gamma^3}-\gamma-\frac{4}{\gamma} =\\
&\frac{3}{4\gamma}+\frac{27}{4\gamma^2}+\frac{27}{8\gamma^3}>0.
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} In the proof of Proposition \ref{eep}, instead of working on the ratio $\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}$ directly, we transformed the ratio $\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}$ into the ratio $\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}$ and divided our proof of (\ref{imp-ine1}) and (\ref{imp-ine2}) into two cases, $\gamma\in(0,\sqrt{2}]$ and $\gamma\in(\sqrt{2},\infty)$. The motivations for this are as follows: from the expansion of $K_j(\gamma)$ in (\ref{remainder}) and (\ref{coefficient}), we can see that it works well for $\gamma$ which is a little larger than $1$, and vice versa; the estimate of remained term $|r_{j,n}(\gamma)|$ seems more accurate when $j$ is smaller due to the coefficient $e^{[j^2-1/4]\gamma^{-1}}$ in the estimate, which increase more rapidly than the normal exponential function; when $\gamma$ is small, we can make use of the simple inequality (\ref{K012-2}) from the observation (\ref{K012-1}).
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
Estimates (\ref{imp-ine1}) and (\ref{imp-ine2}) are more accurate than (\ref{inver}) and (\ref{sou-spe}). Then Conjecture \ref{conj1} and \ref{conj2} are correct and the main results in \cite{Speck-Strain-CMP-2011}
can be extended to including the whole case $\gamma\in(0,\infty)$. The range for speed of sound $\sqrt{\frac{\partial p}{\partial e}\Big|_{S}(E, S)}$ is $(0,\frac{\sqrt{3}}{3})$ for $\gamma\in(0,\infty)$. Moreover, estimates (\ref{imp-ine1}) and (\ref{imp-ine2}) are of essential importance in this paper.
\end{remark}
\begin{proposition}\label{peep} Let $\gamma\in(0,\infty)$ and $K_j(\gamma) (j\geq0)$ be the functions defined in Lemma \ref{def-pro}. Then it holds that
\begin{equation}\label{imp-inep}
\gamma^2\left(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\right)^3+2\gamma\left(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\right)^2-(\gamma^2
+2)\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}- \gamma<0.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
For $\gamma\leq2,$ it is straightforward to get (\ref{imp-inep}) by the fact $\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}<1$. For the case $\gamma>2$, we use (\ref{rough}) to have
$$\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\leq 1-\frac{1}{2\gamma}+\frac{1}{2\gamma^2},$$
and
\begin{align*}
\begin{aligned}
&\gamma^2\left(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\right)^2+2\gamma\left(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\right)^2-(\gamma^2
+2)\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}- \gamma\leq\\
& \gamma\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\Big[\gamma\Big(1-\frac{1}{2\gamma}
+\frac{1}{2\gamma^2}\Big)^2+2\Big(1-\frac{1}{2\gamma}+\frac{1}{2\gamma^2}\Big)\Big]-\\
&(\gamma^2
+2)\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}- \gamma\leq\\
&\gamma\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\Big[\gamma\Big(1-\frac{1}{\gamma}
+\frac{5}{4\gamma^2}-\frac{1}{2\gamma^3}+\frac{1}{4\gamma^4}\Big)+2-\frac{1}{\gamma}+\frac{1}{\gamma^2}\Big)\Big]-\\
&(\gamma^2
+2)\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}- \gamma\leq\\
&\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\Big(\gamma-\frac{3}{4}+\frac{1}{2\gamma}+\frac{1}{4\gamma^2}\Big)-\gamma<0
.
\end{aligned}
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\section*{Appendix 4: Proof of Proposition \ref{genuine} for the genuine nonlinearity}
$\newline$
{\it{Proof of Proposition \ref{genuine}:}} We only need to prove (\ref{negativity}). If this is done, (\ref{genuine0}) follows immediately from (\ref{genui}) and (\ref{negativity}).
From (\ref{pz}), we can further obtain
\begin{align}\label{pp}
e_{pp}=&\frac{e_{p}}{p}-\frac{e}{p^2}+\frac{1}{\partial_\gamma p}\partial_\gamma\left(\frac{p}{\partial_\gamma p}\frac{d}{d\gamma}\left(\gamma\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}\right)\right)=\nonumber\\
&\frac{1}{p}\frac{\gamma\left(\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}\right)^2
+4\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}-\gamma}{\gamma\left(\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}\right)^2+3\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}
-\gamma-\frac{4}{\gamma}} +\nonumber\\
&\frac{1}{p}\frac{1}{\gamma\left(\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}\right)^2+3\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}-\gamma-\frac{4}{\gamma}}\times\\
& \frac{d}{d\gamma}\Big(\frac{\gamma\Big(\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}\Big)^2
+4\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}-\gamma}{\gamma\Big(\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}\Big)^2+3\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}
-\gamma-\frac{4}{\gamma}}\Big).\nonumber
\end{align}
Then we use (\ref{pz}) and (\ref{pp}) to have
\begin{align}\label{pp1}
\begin{aligned}
&(e+p)e_{pp}-2e_{p}(e_{p}-1)=\\
&e_{p}(-2e_{p}+3)+\frac{e}{p}\Big(e_{p}-\frac{e}{p}-1\Big)
+\frac{e+p}{\partial_\gamma p}\partial_\gamma\Big(\frac{p}{\partial_\gamma p}\frac{d}{d\gamma}\Big(\gamma\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}\Big)\Big)<
\\
&-9+\Big(\gamma\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}+3\Big)\frac{\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}+\frac{4}{\gamma}}
{\gamma\Big(\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}\Big)^2+3\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}-\gamma-\frac{4}{\gamma}}+\\
&\Big(\gamma\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}+4\Big)\Bigg[\frac{\frac{1}{\gamma}}{\gamma\Big(\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}\Big)^2
+3\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}-\gamma-\frac{4}{\gamma}}-\Big(\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}+\frac{4}{\gamma}\Big)\times\\
&\frac{\Big[2\gamma\Big(\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}\Big)^3+10\Big(\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}\Big)^2
+\Big(\frac{9}{\gamma}-2\gamma\Big)\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}-4+\frac{4}{\gamma^2}\Big]}
{\Big(\gamma\Big(\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}\Big)^2+3\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}-\gamma-\frac{4}{\gamma}\Big)^3}\Bigg]=\\
&-9+\frac{\left(\gamma\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}+4\right)\left(\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}+\frac{4}{\gamma}\right)}
{\left(\gamma\left(\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}\right)^2+3\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}-\gamma-\frac{4}{\gamma}\right)^3}\times\mathcal {I}_1(\gamma)
\Big],
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal {I}_1(\gamma)=&\gamma^2\Big(\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}\Big)^4+4\gamma\Big(\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}\Big)^3
-(2\gamma^2+9)\left(\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}\right)^2-\nonumber\\
&\Big(4\gamma+\frac{33}{\gamma}\Big)\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}+\gamma^2+12+\frac{12}{\gamma^2}.
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
Noting
$$\gamma\left(\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}\right)^2+3\frac{K_1(\gamma)}{K_2(\gamma)}-\gamma-\frac{4}{\gamma}<0,$$
in order to show (\ref{negativity}), one suffices to prove
\begin{equation}\label{p10}
\begin{split}
\mathcal {I}_1(\gamma)>0,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
in (\ref{pp1}). By using $K_2(\gamma)=\frac{2}{\gamma}K_1(\gamma)+K_0(\gamma)$, we can rewrite (\ref{p10}) as
\begin{align}\label{p01}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal {I}_2(\gamma)=&\Big(\gamma^2+12+\frac{12}{\gamma^2}\Big)\Big(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\Big)^4
+\Big(4\gamma+\frac{63}{\gamma}+\frac{96}{\gamma^3}\Big)\Big(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\Big)^3+
\\
&\Big(-2\gamma^2-9+\frac{90}{\gamma^2}+\frac{288}{\gamma^4}\Big)\Big(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\Big)^2+\\
&+\Big(-4\gamma-\frac{52}{\gamma}-\frac{12}{\gamma^3}+\frac{384}{\gamma^5}\Big)\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}+\\
&\gamma^2-\frac{52}{\gamma^2}-\frac{72}{\gamma^4}+\frac{192}{\gamma^6}>0.
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
Now we come to prove (\ref{p01}). It is easy to find that (\ref{p01}) holds for $\gamma\in (0, r_0]$.
Now we turn to show that (\ref{p01}) holds for $\gamma\in (r_0, \infty)$. Rewrite $\mathcal {I}_2(\gamma)$ as
\begin{align*}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal {I}_2(\gamma)=&\Big(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}-1+\frac{1}{2\gamma}\Big)\Big[\Big(\gamma^2+12+\frac{12}{\gamma^2}\Big)\Big(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\Big)^3\\
&+\Big(\gamma^2+\frac{7\gamma}{2}+
12+\frac{57}{\gamma}+\frac{12}{\gamma^2}+\frac{90}{\gamma^3}\Big)\Big(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\Big)^2\\
&+\Big(-\gamma^2+3\gamma+\frac{5}{4}+\frac{51}{\gamma}+\frac{147}{2\gamma^2}+{84}{\gamma^3}+\frac{243}{\gamma^4}\Big)\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\\
&
-\gamma^2-\frac{\gamma}{2}-\frac{1}{4}-\frac{13}{8\gamma}+\frac{48}{\gamma^2}+\frac{141}{4\gamma^3}+\frac{201}{\gamma^4}+\frac{525}{2\gamma^5}\Big]\\
&-\frac{3}{2\gamma}-\frac{51}{16\gamma^2}+\frac{45}{4\gamma^3}+\frac{891}{8\gamma^4}+\frac{162}{\gamma^5}+\frac{243}{4\gamma^6}=\\
&\Big(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}-1+\frac{1}{2\gamma}\Big)\Big\{\Big(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}-1+\frac{1}{2\gamma}\Big)\times\\
&\Big[\Big(\gamma^2+12+\frac{12}{\gamma^2}\Big)
\Big(\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\Big)^2+\\
&\Big(2\gamma^2+3\gamma+24+\frac{51}{\gamma}+\frac{24}{\gamma^2}+\frac{84}{\gamma^3}\Big)\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}+\\
&\gamma^2+5\gamma+\frac{95}{4}+\frac{90}{\gamma}+\frac{72}{\gamma^2}+\frac{156}{\gamma^3}+\frac{201}{\gamma^4}\Big]+\\
&4\gamma+21+\frac{153}{2\gamma}+\frac{75}{\gamma^2}+\frac{621}{4\gamma^3}+\frac{324}{\gamma^4}+\frac{162}{\gamma^5}\Big\}-\\
&\frac{3}{2\gamma}-\frac{51}{16\gamma^2}+\frac{45}{4\gamma^3}+\frac{891}{8\gamma^4}+\frac{162}{\gamma^5}+\frac{243}{4\gamma^6}
\end{aligned}
\end{align*}
Note that
$$-\frac{3}{2\gamma}-\frac{51}{16\gamma^2}+\frac{45}{4\gamma^3}+\frac{881}{8\gamma^4}+\frac{162}{\gamma^5}+\frac{243}{4\gamma^6}>0, \quad\mbox{for}~~\gamma\leq4.$$
Then (\ref{p01}) holds for $\gamma\in (0, 4]$.
Finally we show (\ref{p01}) for $\gamma>4$. For the case $\gamma>4$, we use (\ref{acurate}) to have
$$\frac{K_0(\gamma)}{K_1(\gamma)}\geq 1-\frac{1}{2\gamma}+\frac{3}{8\gamma^2}-\frac{3}{8\gamma^3}.$$
Moreover, we have
\begin{align*}
\begin{aligned}
&\Big(4\gamma+21+\frac{153}{2\gamma}\Big)\Big(\frac{3}{8\gamma^2}-\frac{3}{8\gamma^3}\Big)
-\frac{3}{2\gamma}-\frac{51}{16\gamma^2}+\\
&\frac{45}{4\gamma^3}+\frac{891}{8\gamma^4}+\frac{162}{\gamma^5}+\frac{243}{4\gamma^6}=\\
&\Big(\frac{513}{16}+\frac{45}{4}\Big)\frac{1}{\gamma^3}
+\frac{1323}{16\gamma^4}+\frac{162}{\gamma^5}+\frac{243}{4\gamma^6}>0
\end{aligned}
\end{align*}
Then we prove (\ref{p01}) for $\gamma>4$.
\bigskip
{\small
\textbf{Acknowledgments:} The work of T. Ruggeri was supported by GNFM (INdAM),
the work of Q. H. Xiao was supported by grants from Youth Innovation Promotion Association and the National Natural Science Foundation of China under contract 11871469 and the work of H. J. Zhao was supported in part by the grants from National Natural Science Foundation of China under contracts 11671309 and 11731008.}
|
\section*{Introduction}
Stochastic point processes are useful tools used to model point in time events (like earthquakes, supernova explosions, machine or organ failure, etc.). Hence, they are ubiquitous across industries as varied as cloud computing, health care, climatology, etc. Two of the core properties of point processes are the rates of event arrival (how many events per unit time) and the inter-arrival time between successive events (for example, how long is a machine expected to run before it fails).
At Microsoft Azure, we have realized that machine failures are most conveniently described by point processes and have framed our KPIs (Key Performance Indicators, numbers that serve as a common language across the organization to gauge performance) around failure rates for them. Hence, we dedicate section-I to event rates for point processes. The simplest point process for modeling these random variables, and the only one that has a constant failure rate is the Poisson point process. Hence, that process will act as our base.
Now, it is very important for us at Azure to be able to perform statistical inference on these rates (given our core KPI is devised around them) using for example, hypothesis testing. When a new feature is deployed, we want to be able to say if the failure rate is significantly worse in the treatment group that received it vis-a-vis a control group that didn't. Another field where hypothesis testing on failure rates is an active area of research is medicine (see for example, \cite{zhu}). Hence, we describe the ``uniformly most powerful test'' for comparing failure rates in section II and study its properties. In doing so, we reach some very interesting conclusions.
In hypothesis testing, we always assume some distributions for the two groups we want to compare. A common theme across the body of research on hypothesis testing appears to be a resistance to violating this expectation too much (for example, the authors in \cite{zhu} refer to the false positive rate getting inflated when the distributional assumptions are invalidated and recommend not using the test in those scenarios). However, as we know, all models are wrong. This applies to any distributional assumption we pick to model our data - we can bet on the real data diverging from these assumptions to varying degrees.
We therefore put our hypothesis test to the test by conducting some experiments where we willfully violate the distributional assumptions of our test (use a negative binomial point process instead of Poisson for example even though the test is devised with a Poisson assumption in mind) and study the consequences.
We find some scenarios (non pathological) where it turns out that violating the underlying distributional assumptions of the test to a larger extent actually makes it better (where ``better'' is defined as having a better false negative to false positive rate trade off). This is covered in section III-B. Hence, we challenge this notion that violating the distributional assumptions of the test is necessarily a bad thing to be avoided.
We also reach an interesting conclusion that if we swap out the distribution of the null hypothesis with any other distribution under the sun, the trade off between the false negative rate and false positive rate remains unchanged. This conclusion holds not just for the rate test, but any one sided test. For example, if we take the famous two sample t-test for comparing means and replace the t-distribution with (for example) some weird multi-modal distribution, the false negative to false positive rate trade off will remain unchanged. These experiments are covered in section III.
Next, we measure the performance of our test, designed for the Poisson point process on a negative binomial point process and compare it to the state of the art hypothesis test designed for negative binomial point processes and find it fairs quite well. These comparisons are covered in section IV. Finally, in section V we cover the applications to Microsoft Azure and business impact of this work. All the code is open sourced \href{https://github.com/ryu577/stochproc}{and available on Github}. For example, see \href{https://github.com/ryu577/stochproc/blob/master/plots/hypoth_tst_failure_rates/plots.py}{here} for all plots you'll find in this paper and \href{https://github.com/ryu577/stochproc/blob/master/tests/hypothesis_testing_failure_rate.py}{here} for relevant tests on the library.
\section{Failure rates and the Poisson process}
Over the years, the core KPI used to track availability within Azure has shifted and evolved. For a long time, it was the total duration of customer VM (Virtual machine - the unit leased to Azure customers) downtime across the fleet. However, there were two issues with using this as a KPI:
\begin{itemize}
\item{It wasn't normalized, meaning that if we compare it across two groups with the first one having more activity, we can obviously expect more downtime duration as well.}
\item{It wasn't always aligned with customer experience. For example, a process causing many reboots each with a short duration wouldn't move the overall downtime duration by much and hence not get prioritized for fixing. However, it would still degrade customer experience especially when their workloads were sensitive to any interruptions. Customers running gaming workloads for example tend to fall into this category.}
\item{It is much harder for our telemetry to accurately capture how long a VM was down for as opposed to simply stating that there was an interruption in service around some time frame.}
\end{itemize}
The logical thing to do would be to define the KPI in terms of interruptions and that would at least address the second and third problems. However, the issue remained that it wasn't normalized. For example, as the size of the Azure fleet grows over time, we expect the number of interruptions across the fleet to increase as well. But then, if we see the number of fleet-wide interruptions increasing over time, how do we tell how much of it is due to the size increasing and how much can be attributed to the platform potentially regressing?
To address these problems, a new KPI called the `Annual Interruption Rate' or AIR was devised, which is basically a normalized form of interruptions. Before describing it, let's take a highly relevant detour into the concept of ``hazard rate". It can be interpreted as the instantaneous rate at which events from a point process are occurring, much like velocity is the instantaneous rate at which something is covering distance.
This rate can be expressed in terms of properties of the distribution representing times elapsing between the events of interest which in this case might be VM reboots. Since this time between two successive reboots is a random variable, we will express it as an upper-case, $T$. Since this notion of rates applies to any events, that is how we will refer to these `reboots'. If we denote the probability density function (PDF) of this random variable, $T$ by $f_T$ and the survival function (probability that the random variable, $T$ will exceed some value, $t$) by $S_T(t) = P(T>t)$, then the hazard rate is given by:
\begin{equation}\label{haz_rate_def}h_T(t) = \frac{f_T(t)}{S_T(t)} \end{equation}
The way to interpret this quantity is that at any time $t$, the expected number of events the process will generate in the next small interval, $\delta t$ will be given by: $h_T(t) \delta t$. You can find a derivation of this expression in appendix A. Note again that this is an instantaneous rate, meaning it is a function of time. When we talk about the Azure KPI, we're not looking to estimate a function of time. Instead, given some interval of time (like the last week) and some collection of VMs, we want to get a single number encapsulating the overall experience. In reality, the rate will indeed probably vary from instant to instant within our time interval of interest. So, we want one estimate to represent this entire profile.
It is helpful again to draw from our analogy with velocity. If a car were moving on a straight road with a velocity that is a function of time and we wanted to find a single number to represent its average speed, what would we do? We would take the total distance traveled and divide by the total time taken for the trip. Similarly, the average rate (let's denote it by $\lambda$) over a period of time will become the number of events we are modeling divided by the total observation time interval (say $t$).
\begin{equation}\lambda = \frac{n}{t}\label{rate_def}\end{equation}
Just as it is possible to drive a car with a steady, constant velocity, making the average and instantaneous rates the same, it is also possible to have a process where the instantaneous rate is always a constant, $\lambda$ and this is what the average rate as well will become. This special point process is called the Poisson point process (the only process with this constant rate property - henceforth denoted by $PP(\lambda)$). Chapter 5 of \cite{ross} covers this extensively. As soon as we say ``give me a single rate defining the interruptions per unit time for this data'', we're essentially asking to fit the data as closely as possible to a Poisson point process and get the $\lambda$ parameter for that process.
In section 5.3.2 of \cite{ross}, Ross mentions that reason for the name of the Poisson point process. Namely, that the number of events in any interval, $t$, $N(t)$ is distributed according to a Poisson distribution with mean $\lambda t$. The probability mass function (PMF) is defined there:
\begin{equation}\label{poisson_pmf}
P(N(t)=n) = \frac{e^{-\lambda t}(\lambda t)^n}{n!}
\end{equation}
Also, the inter-arrival times of events, $T$ follows an exponential distribution (density function $f_T(t)=\lambda e^{-\lambda t}$). This makes sense since it is the \textit{only} distribution that has a constant hazard rate with time (which is its parameter, $\lambda$). This is called the `memory-less' property (the process maintains no memory - the rate remains the same regardless of what data we observed from the distribution). We now show that equation \ref{rate_def} is consistent with the Poisson process.
\begin{proposition}
If we see $n_1, n_2 \dots n_k$ point events in observation periods, $t_1, t_2, \dots t_k$ from some data, the value of the rate parameter, $\lambda$ of the Poisson process that maximizes the likelihood of seeing this data is given by:
$$\lambda = \frac{n}{t}$$
Where $n=\sum\limits_{i=1}^k n_i$ is the total interruptions observed and $t=\sum\limits_{i=1}^k t_i$ is the total time period of observation.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Per equation \ref{poisson_pmf}, the likelihood of seeing the $i$th observation becomes:
$$L_i(\lambda) = \frac{e^{-\lambda t_i}(\lambda t_i)^n_i}{n_i !}$$
Which makes the likelihood across all the data points:
$$L(\lambda) = \prod\limits_{i=1}^k\frac{e^{-\lambda t_i}(\lambda t_i)^{n_i}}{n_i !}$$
Taking logarithm on both sides we get the log-likelihood function,
$$ll(\lambda) = \sum\limits_{i=1}^k -\lambda t_i + n_i \log(\lambda t_i) -\log(n_i !)$$
To find the $\lambda$ that maximizes this likelihood, we take derivative with respect to it and set to $0$.
$$\frac{\partial ll(\lambda)}{\partial \lambda} = \sum\limits_{i=1}^k -t_i +n_i \sum\limits_{i=1}^k \frac{t_i}{\lambda t_i}=0$$
Solving for $\lambda$ we get equation \ref{rate_def} as expected when $n$ is defined as the total events and $t$ is defined as the total observation period.
\end{proof}
We can also use the fact that the inter-arrival times, $T$ are exponential to reach the same conclusion and this alternate derivation is covered in appendix B. Note that the estimator for the average rate, $\lambda$ obtained here will hold for any point process, not just $PP(\lambda)$.
\begin{proposition}
Our estimator for the rate, $\lambda$ described in equation \ref{rate_def} for a Poisson point process is unbiased and asymptotically consistent.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let's say we observe the process for a certain amount of time, $t$. The unbiased estimator of $\lambda$ will become:
$$\hat{\lambda} = \frac{N(t)}{t}$$
The expected value of this estimator is: $E(\hat{\lambda}) = \frac{E(N(t))}{t} = \lambda$ meaning it is unbiased.
And the variance of this estimator will be:
$$V(\hat{\lambda}) = \frac{V(N(t))}{t^2} = \frac{\lambda}{t}$$
For a large time frame of observation, the variance in this estimator will go to $0$, making it asymptotically consistent.
\end{proof}
The `average rate' defined here is what the `AIR' (Annual Interruption Rate) KPI used within Azure is based on. It is the projected number of reboots/ other events (like blips and pauses, etc.) a customer will experience if they rent 100 VMs and run them for a year (or rent one VM and run it for 100 years; what matters is the VM-years). So, in equation \ref{rate_def}, if we measure the number of interruptions and VM-years for any scope (ex: entire Azure, a customer within Azure, a certain hardware, etc.) we get the corresponding average rate.
This definition in equation \ref{rate_def} is almost there, but is missing one subtlety related to VMs in Azure (or any cloud environment) going down for certain intervals of time as opposed to being point-events. This means that the VM might be up and running for an interval of time and then go down and stay down for some other interval before switching back to up and so on. The way to address this is to use in the denominator, the total intervals of machine UP-time only (discounting the time the machines stay down). This way, we get a failure rate per unit time the machines are actually running, which is far more useful as a KPI. In practice, this doesn't matter too much since the total time the machines spent being down is negligible compared to the time they spend being up (else we wouldn't have a business).
\section{Hypothesis testing: closed form expressions for false positive-negative trade off}
There are many questions that can be answered within the framework of hypothesis testing (see chapter 1 of \cite{lehman}). For example, we could answer the question: are the rates from two processes ``different" in a meaningful way. This is called a two-sided test. Here, we will stay focused on answering if a treatment group (group-1) has a higher failure rate than a control group (group-0). This is called a one-sided test. This question is particularly relevant in cloud environments like Azure where new software features are getting constantly deployed and we're interested in answering if a particular deployment caused the failure rate to regress. We will reference these two groups throughout this document.
A detailed description of hypothesis testing is beyond the scope of what we're discussing here. For a comprehensive treatment, refer to \cite{lehman} and \href{https://towardsdatascience.com/hypothesis-testing-visualized-6f30b18fc78f?source=friends_link&sk=cd38bd44d242bb143cc184d6c2e6f0c1}{the blog linked here} for an intuitive, visual introduction. Instead, let's simply define some terms that will be used throughout this document (they will be re-introduced with context as the need arises in the proceeding text; this is just meant as a sort of index of terms). Some of them pertain to hypothesis testing and can be looked up in the references above or in a multitude of other sources online that cover the topic.
\begin{description}
\item[$N_0$] The number of failure events observed in data collected from group-0, the control group. We will consider multiple distributions for this variable in the proceeding discussion.
\item[$t_0$] The total observation time for group-0, the control group.
\item[$N_1$] The number of failure events observed in data collected from group-1, the treatment group. Again, multiple distributional assumptions will be considered.
\item[$t_1$] The total observation time for group-1, the treatment group.
\item[$\lambda$] The underlying failure rate of the control group. Per equation \ref{rate_def}, the unbiased estimator for this rate is: $\frac{N_0}{t_0}$
\item[$\delta \lambda$] The effect size. If we imagine that the treatment group has a worse failure rate, this is the amount by which we assume it to be worse. It is closely related the the alternate hypothesis, $H_a$ defined below.
\item[$X$] The test statistic. We take the data from the two groups and convert it to a single number. We can then observe this number from our collected data and if it's high (or low) enough, conclude a regression was caused. For example, it could be the difference in estimated rates.
\item[$H_0$] The null hypothesis of the test. We always start with the assumption of innocence and this represents the hypothesis that the treatment group does not have a worse failure rate than the control group. Further, the distributional assumptions on $N_0$ and $N_1$ made by the test are satisfied. For this paper, this will mostly mean that $N_0$ and $N_1$ are both Poisson processes, $PP(\lambda)$.
\item[$H_a$] The alternate hypothesis. In this hypothesis, we assume that the treatment group indeed has a worse failure rate than the control group. To make it concrete, we assume it's worse by the effect size, $\delta \lambda$. Like $H_0$, the distributional assumptions made by the test are assumed satisfied. This will mean for the most part that the control group follows $PP(\lambda)$ and the treatment group follows $PP(\lambda+\delta \lambda)$.
\item[$H_0'$] This is a new hypothesis we're defining. It is like $H_0$, apart from allowing the distributional assumptions on $N_0$ and $N_1$ to be different from the test. The failure rates for the two processes are still assumed to be the same for the two groups. It allows us to address the question of what happens when we use a test designed on one set of assumptions on real data that diverges from those assumptions.
\item[$H_a'$] Like $H_a$, apart from allowing the distributional assumptions on $N_0$ and $N_1$ to be different from the test. The failure rates for the two processes are still assumed to differ by $\delta \lambda$ just as with $H_a$.
\item[$X_0$] The distribution of our test statistic, $X$ under $H_0$.
\item[$X_a$] The distribution of our test statistic, $X$ under $H_a$.
\item[$Y_0$] The distribution of our test statistic, $X$ under $H_0'$.
\item[$Y_a$] The distribution of our test statistic, $X$ under $H_a'$.
\item[$\phi$] The p-value of the hypothesis test, representing the likelihood that something as or more extreme (with ``extreme" defined in the direction of $H_a$, which here means towards greater treatment failure rates) as the observed test statistic could be seen under the assumptions of $H_0$.
\item[$\hat{\alpha}$] The type-1 error rate of the test. It is the only parameter defined arbitrarily by us. Under the assumptions of $H_0$, what is the probability the test will reject it? It is the theoretical false positive rate from the test. The binary decision saying weather or not there is a regression in the treatment group is made using the indicator variable: $I(\phi < \hat{\alpha})$.
\item[$\alpha(\hat{\alpha})$] The false positive rate (FPR) for real world data when there is no difference in rates between the groups (so, under $H_0'$) and we still use $I(\phi < \hat{\alpha})$ to reject the null hypothesis. We will see in proposition \ref{prop:hat_equal} that if $H_0' \sim H_0$ then $\alpha(\hat{\alpha}) = \hat{\alpha}$.
\item[$\beta(\hat{\alpha})$] The false negative rate of our test (as a function of the type-1 error rate $\hat{\alpha}$ we arbitrarily set), defined as the probability that we will fail to reject the null hypothesis under $H_a$ or $H_a'$.
\item[$\beta(\alpha)$] The false negative rate at the value of $\hat{\alpha}$ where we get a false positive rate of $\alpha$.
\end{description}
Let's also define henceforth for a distribution $X$ (typically the test statistic in our context), $F_X(x)=P(X<x)$, the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of $X$ and $S_X(x)=P(X>x)$, the survival function of $X$.
Armed with the notation defined above, we can now describe how our hypothesis test (one sided with alternate hypothesis being that the treatment group has a higher rate) proceeds (refer to figure \ref{fig:tradeoff}):
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{alpha_beta_tradeoff.PNG}
\caption{The false positive-false negative rate trade-off. As we increase $\hat{\alpha}$, $x_t$ which is the threshold the test statistic, $X$ needs to cross for rejecting the null increases. As a result, the p-value, $\phi$ which is the blue area reduces while the false negative rate, $\beta$ which is the green area increases.}
\label{fig:tradeoff}
\end{figure}
\begin{description}
\item[Step 1:] Obtain the distribution, $X_0$ of the test statistic $X$ under the null hypothesis, $H_0$. This distribution is represented by the blue distribution in figure \ref{fig:tradeoff}.
\item[Step 2:] Observe the estimated value of the test statistic, $X=x$ in the data we collect. This value is represented by the red line in figure \ref{fig:tradeoff}. We assume that this test statistic is higher when the difference in rates between the treatment and control groups is higher.
\item[Step 3:] Find the probability of seeing something as or more extreme than $X=x$ under the assumptions of $X_0$. This is called the p-value, $\phi=P(X_0>x)$ and is represented by the blue area to the right of the red line in figure \ref{fig:tradeoff}.
\item[Step 4:] For some arbitrarily defined type-1 error rate (a common value is 5\%), $\hat{\alpha}$, reject the null and conclude there is a regression if $\phi<\hat{\alpha}$.
\end{description}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:hat_equal}
Under the assumptions of the null hypothesis (the hypothesis whose distributional assumption for the test statistic is used to calculate the p-value, $\phi$), the type-1 error rate of our test ($\hat{\alpha}$) is the same as the false positive rate ($\alpha$).
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The p-value will be given by:
\begin{equation}\phi = P(X_0>X) = S_{X_0}(X)\label{p_value_definition}\end{equation}
where $S_{X_0}(x)=P(X_0>x)$ is the survival function of the distribution, $X_0$.
The false positive rate, $\alpha(\hat{\alpha})$ then becomes the probability that the p-value will be lower than the type-1 error rate, $\hat{\alpha}$.
\begin{equation}\alpha(\hat{\alpha}) = P(\phi < \hat{\alpha}) = P(S_{X_0}(X)<\hat{\alpha}\label{false_positive_rate})\end{equation}
Under the assumptions of the null hypothesis however, the test statistic $X$ is distributed as $X_0$:
$$X \overset{H_0}{\sim} X_0$$
Substituting into equation \ref{false_positive_rate} we get:
\begin{align}
\alpha(\hat{\alpha}) = P(S_{X_0}(X_0)<\hat{\alpha}) \nonumber \\
= P(X_0 > S_{X_0}^{-1}(\hat{\alpha})) \nonumber \\
= S_{X_0}S_{X_0}^{-1}(\hat{\alpha})\nonumber \\
= \hat{\alpha} \label{hat_alpha}
\end{align}
Where in the third step, we used the fact that $S_{X_0}(x)$ is a monotonically decreasing function.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
Under the null hypothesis, the p-value ($\phi$) is uniformly distributed over $(0,1)$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
From equation \ref{false_positive_rate} and the result of proposition \ref{prop:hat_equal} we have,
$$P(\phi < \hat{\alpha}) = \hat{\alpha}$$
The only distribution that satisfies this property is the uniform distribution, $U(0,1)$.
\end{proof}
In making a binary decision on weather or not there is a regression in failure rates for the treatment group, there will be a trade off between false negative (failing to reject null when its false) and false positive (rejecting null when it's true) error rates.
To define false negative rate, we assume there is actually a difference in the failure rates for the treatment and control groups. We assumed that the test statistic follows the distribution $Y_a$ under this hypothesis. If it so happens that the distributional assumptions on $N_0$ and $N_1$ happen to be of the same form as those used to derive $X_0$ under the hypothesis $H_0$ (apart from the failure rate corresponding to $N_1$ being higher than that for $N_0$ by $\delta \lambda$), we get $Y_a \sim X_a$ but that's incidental. Referencing figure \ref{fig:tradeoff} again, we get the following proposition:
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:fnr_def}
The false negative rate of our hypothesis test described earlier as a function of the type-1 error rate we arbitrarily set is given by: $\beta = F_{Y_a}(S_{X_0}^{-1}(\hat{\alpha}))$
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Refer again to figure \ref{fig:tradeoff} where the green distribution represents $Y_a$, the hypothesis where the failure rate of the treatment group is higher than that of the control group. Our test $I(\phi<\hat{\alpha})$ translates to some threshold, $x_t$ on the observed test statistic where we reject the null if $X>x_t$. Since we have per equation \ref{p_value_definition}, $\phi = S_{X_0}(X)$, we get:
\begin{equation} x_t = S_{X_0}^{-1}(\phi) \label{test_stat_tau}\end{equation}
The false negative rate then becomes the probability of the observed test statistic being below this threshold:
$$\beta(\hat{\alpha}) = P(X<x_t) = F_{X}(x_t)$$
where $F_X(x)$ is the cumulative density function of $X$.
Substituting equation \ref{test_stat_tau} and noting $X \sim Y_a$ under current assumptions we get:
\begin{equation}
\beta(\hat{\alpha}) = F_{Y_a}S_{X_0}^{-1}(\hat{\alpha})
\label{beta_def}
\end{equation}
\end{proof}
As a special case, if in the alternate hypothesis, the distributional assumptions of $N_0$ and $N_1$ are maintained, we have $Y_a \sim X_a$ and equation \ref{beta_def} becomes:
\begin{equation}
\beta(\hat{\alpha}) = F_{X_a}S_{X_0}^{-1}(\hat{\alpha})
\label{beta_definition2}
\end{equation}
Alternately, we can also proceed as follows to prove proposition \ref{prop:fnr_def}:
\begin{proof}
The false negative rate, $\beta$ is defined as the probability of failing to reject the null hypothesis conditional on it being true. The probability of failing to reject the null is $P(\phi > \hat{\alpha})$. Using equation \ref{p_value_definition}, this becomes:
$$\beta(\hat{\alpha}) = P(S_{X_0}(X) > \hat{\alpha})$$
But, under the alternate hypothesis we have:
$$X \overset{H_a}{\sim} Y_a$$
This implies
\begin{align}
\beta(\hat{\alpha}) = P(S_{X_0}(Y_a)>\hat{\alpha}) \nonumber \\
= P(Y_a< S_{X_0}^{-1}(\hat{\alpha})) \nonumber \\
= F_{Y_a}(S_{X_0}^{-1}(\hat{\alpha})) \nonumber
\end{align}
Where in the second equation we used the fact that the survival function, $S_{X_0}$ is a decreasing function.
\end{proof}
What if we assumed some distributions for $N_0$ and $N_1$, leading to the null hypothesis, $H_0$. In real life, $N_0$ and $N_1$ follow some other distribution, while still having the same rates for the two processes. This leads to another null hypothesis, $H_0'$. The test statistic under the two hypotheses:
$$X \overset{H_0}{\sim} X_0$$
$$X \overset{H_0'}{\sim} Y_0$$
In this case, the violation of the distributional assumption causes the false positive and type-1 error rates to diverge unlike equation \ref{hat_alpha}.
\begin{proposition}
Under $H_0'$, the false positive rate as a function of the type-1 error is given by:
\begin{equation}\alpha(\hat{\alpha}) = S_{Y_0}S_{X_0}^{-1}(\hat{\alpha})
\label{alpha_general}
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Left to the reader, proceed similarly to equation \ref{hat_alpha}.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{alpha_adjustment}
If we're applying a hypothesis test that is designed under $H_0$ that involves the test statistic following a distribution given by $X_0$ where as we expect to encounter data where we know the null hypothesis is actually going to follow the distribution $Y_0$. If we're then targeting a false positive rate of $\alpha$, we should set the type-1 error rate, $\hat{\alpha}$ to:
\begin{equation}
\hat{\alpha} = S_{X_0}S_{Y_0}^{-1}(\alpha)
\end{equation}
and the probability of observing something as or more extreme than the test statistic under the distributional assumptions of $Y_0$ becomes:
\begin{equation}
\phi' = S_{X_0}S_{Y_0}^{-1}(\phi)
\end{equation}
where $\phi$ is the p-value under $H_0$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{corollary}
If the effect size, $\delta \lambda=0$, the false negative rate, $\beta(\alpha)$ as a function of the false positive rate, $\alpha$ is given by:
$$\beta(\alpha)=1-\alpha$$
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
The result follows from equations \ref{alpha_general} and \ref{beta_def} and noting that if $\delta\lambda=0$ then $Y_a \sim Y_0$ (assuming the only difference between $H_0'$ and $H_a'$ is the effect size).
\begin{align*}
\beta(\hat{\alpha}) = F_{Y_a}S_{X_0}^{-1}(\hat{\alpha}) \\
= F_{Y_0}S_{X_0}^{-1}(\hat{\alpha})\\
= 1-S_{Y_0}S_{X_0}^{-1}(\hat{\alpha})\\
=1-\alpha(\hat{\alpha})
\end{align*}
Note that this $\beta$ profile is equivalent to tossing a coin with $\alpha$ being the probability of heads and rejecting the null if we get heads.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{fnr_fpr}
Under $H_a'$, the false negative rate as a function of false positive rate is given by: $\beta(\alpha) = F_{Y_a}S_{Y_0}^{-1}(\alpha)$
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
From equation \ref{alpha_general} we have:
$$\hat{\alpha} = S_{X_0}S_{Y_0}^{-1}(\alpha)$$
Substituting into equation \ref{beta_def} we get:
\begin{align}
\beta(\alpha) = F_{Y_a}S_{X_0}^{-1}S_{X_0}S_{Y_0}^{-1}(\alpha)\nonumber \\
= F_{Y_a}S_{Y_0}^{-1}(\alpha)\label{beta_general}
\end{align}
\end{proof}
Equations \ref{beta_def} and \ref{beta_general} define the false negative rate as a function of the type-1 error rate (which we set arbitrarily) and false positive rate (which we get from the real data) respectively. We should expect:
\begin{itemize}
\item{The higher we set the type-1 error rate, $\hat{\alpha}$, the more prone to fire our hypothesis test, $I(\phi<\hat{\alpha})$ is becoming, rejecting the null hypothesis more easily. So, the false positive rate should become higher when we do this. Hence, the type-1 error rate should be an increasing function of the type-1 error rate we set.}
\item{By a similar argument, the higher we set the type-1 error rate, the lower our false negative rate should become, since the test is only more likely to reject the null.}
\item{From the above two arguments, it follows that the false negative rate should always be a decreasing function of the false positive rate.}
\end{itemize}
Here, we prove the second and third conclusions above.
\begin{proposition}
The false negative rate can only be a decreasing function of the type-1 error rate we set and false positive rate our test consequently provides.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We have from equation \ref{beta_general},
$$\beta(\alpha) = F_{Y_a}S_{Y_0}^{-1}(\alpha)$$
Differentiating with respect to $\alpha$ we get:
$$\frac{\partial \beta(\alpha)}{\partial \alpha} = \frac{\partial F_{Y_a}S_{Y_0}^{-1}(\alpha)}{\partial S_{Y_0}^{-1}(\alpha)}\frac{\partial S_{Y_0}^{-1}(\alpha)}{\partial \alpha}$$
$$=f_{Y_a}(S_{Y_0}^{-1}(\alpha))\frac{\partial S_{Y_0}^{-1}(\alpha)}{\partial \alpha}$$
Where $f_{Y_a}$ is the probability density function of $Y_a$ which will always be positive while the second term will be negative since the survival function of any distribution is always decreasing and so is its inverse. Hence we always have $\frac{\partial \beta(\alpha)}{\partial \alpha}$ being a monotonically decreasing function and we can similarly prove the same for
$\frac{\partial \beta(\hat{\alpha})}{\partial \hat{\alpha}}$
\end{proof}
Since our hypothesis test is basically an oracle, that is supposed to alert us when there is a difference and not fire when there isn't, there is a good argument to the assertion that the $\beta(\alpha)$ profile is all that matters when comparing various hypothesis tests. If a test produces a better false negative rate for any given actual false positive rate ($\alpha$) than another (everything else being equal), it should be preferred. Such a test is called ``more powerful'' since the power is defined as $1-\beta(\alpha)$.
\subsection{The most powerful test for failure rates}
As mentioned in section I, talking of failure rates is synonymous with fitting a Poisson process to whatever point process we're modeling and finding the rate, $\lambda$ of that Poisson process. This gives us a good starting point for comparing failure rates since we now have not just a statistic, but an entire point process to work with.
For comparing the rate parameters of two Poisson point processes, there exists a uniformly most powerful (UMP) test (see section 4.5 of \cite{lehman}). This test is mathematically proven to produce the best false negative rate (power) given any false positive rate, effect size and amount of data (in this context, observation period). We will describe the test here, but refer to \cite{lehman} for a detailed treatment and why this is the ``Uniformly most powerful (UMP)" test for comparing Poisson rates.
To review, we have two Poisson processes. We observe $n_1$ events in time $t_1$ from the first and $n_2$ events in time $t_2$ from the second one. Hence, the estimates for the two failure rates we want to compare are: $\lambda_1=\frac{n_1}{t_1}$ and $\lambda_2 = \frac{n_2}{t_2}$. The proceeding theorem will help convert this hypothesis testing problem into a simpler one, but we need a few Lemmas before we get to it.
\begin{lemma}\label{sum_of_poissons}
If we sum two independent Poisson random variables with means $\mu_0$ and $\mu_1$, we get another Poisson random variable with mean $\mu_0+\mu_1$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $N_0$ and $N_1$ denote the two Poisson random variables. Conditioning on the value of $N_0$,
$$P(N_0+N_1=n) = \sum\limits_{j=0}^{n}P(N_0+N_1=n|N_0=j)P(N_0=j)$$
$$=\sum\limits_{j=0}^{n} P(N_1=n-j | N_0=j)P(N_0=j)$$
Since $N_0$ and $N_1$ are independent by definition,
$$ = \sum\limits_{j=0}^{n} P(N_1=n-j)P(N_0=j)$$
$$ = \sum\limits_{j=0}^{n} \frac{e^{-\mu_1}\mu_1^{n-j}}{(n-j)!} \frac{e^{-\mu_0}\mu_0^{j}}{j!}$$
$$=\frac{e^{-(\mu_1+\mu_2)}}{n!} \sum\limits_{j=0}^{n} {n \choose j}\mu_0^j \mu_1^{n-j}$$
$$ = \frac{e^{-(\mu_0+\mu_1)} (\mu_0+\mu_1)^n}{n!}$$
\end{proof}
The Binomial distribution with parameters $n$ and $p$ is defined as the number of heads we get when we toss a coin with $p$ being its probability of heads $n$ times (represented henceforth by $B(n,p)$), we have the following lemma:
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:conditional_binom}
Given that two Poisson processes with rates $\lambda_0$ and $\lambda_1$ which we observe for periods $t_0$ and $t_1$; conditional on a total of $n$ events observed, the number of events, $N_1 = n_1$ from the second process is a Binomial distribution with parameters $n$ and $p=\frac{\lambda_1 t_1}{\lambda_0 t_0 + \lambda_1 t_1}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
$N_0$ and $N_1$ represent the random numbers describing the number of events from the two processes. We have by Bayes theorem:
$$P(N_1=j | N_0+N_1=n) = \frac{P(N_1=j \cap N_1+N_0=n)}{P(N_1+N_0=n)}$$
Since the two processes are independent,
$$=\frac{P(N_1=j)P(N_0=n-j)}{P(N_1+N_0=n)}$$
The number of events, $N(t)$ in a time interval of length $t$ from a Poisson process with rate $\lambda$ is Poisson distributed with mean $\lambda t$. Also, using the result of Lemma \ref{sum_of_poissons},
$$=\frac{\left(\frac{e^{-\lambda_0 t_0} (\lambda_0 t_0)^j}{j!}\right)\left(\frac{e^{-\lambda_1 t_1} (\lambda_1 t_1)^{n-j}}{(n-j)!}\right)}{\left(\frac{e^{-(\lambda_0 t_0+\lambda_1 t_1)} (\lambda_0 t_0+\lambda_1 t_1)^n}{ n!}\right)}$$
\begin{equation} ={n \choose j} \left(\frac{\lambda_1 t_1}{\lambda_1 t_1+\lambda_0 t_0}\right)^j \left(\frac{\lambda_0 t_0}{\lambda_1 t_1+\lambda_0 t_0}\right)^{n-j}\label{eqn:binom_cond}\end{equation}
which is the Binomial probability mass function (PMF) as required.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{null_rate_test}
If two Poisson processes have the same rate, $\lambda$ and are observed for periods $t_1$ and $t_2$, then conditional on observing $n$ events from both processes, the number of events from the first process is a Binomial distribution with parameters $n$ and $p=\frac{t_1}{t_1+t_0}$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Substitute $\lambda_1=\lambda_0$ into equation \ref{eqn:binom_cond} above.
\end{proof}
Per Corollary \ref{null_rate_test}, we've managed to get rid of rate, $\lambda$ if the two processes are identical (which is a requirement for the null hypothesis), a nuisance parameter. This ensures our hypothesis test for failure rates will work the same regardless of the base failure rate for the two processes, $\lambda$. So, conditional on the total events from the two processes being $n=n_0+n_1$ (which is something we observe), asking if the second process has a higher failure rate becomes equivalent to asking if the conditional Binomial distribution has a higher value of the parameter, $p$ than $\frac{t_1}{t_1+t_0}$ as the null hypothesis would suggest. We have thus reduced the two sample rate test to a one sample Binomial test on the probability of success, $p$.
\subsubsection{The one-sample Binomial test}
To get the p-value (probability of being able to reject the null hypothesis), we ask - ``what is the probability of seeing something as or more extreme than the observed data per the null hypothesis". Here, ``extreme" is defined in the direction of the alternate hypothesis. So, if we observe $n_1$ heads out of $n$ tosses in our data and our null hypothesis is that the probability of heads is $p$, then the p-value, $\phi$ becomes the probability of seeing $n_1$ or more heads if the probability of seeing heads in a single toss was $p$. So we get (where $X_0 \overset{H_0}{\sim} \text{B}(n,p)$):
\begin{equation}\phi = P(X_0 \geq n_1) = \sum\limits_{j=n_1}^{n}{n \choose j} p^{j}(1-p)^{n-j}\label{binom_tst}\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Back to comparing Poisson rates}
\begin{theorem}\label{rate_test}
Given two Poisson processes with rates $\lambda_0$ and $\lambda_1$, under the null hypothesis - $H_0: \lambda_0=\lambda_1$, conditional on observing a total of $n$ events and alternate hypothesis, $H_a: \lambda_1 > \lambda_0$ with a similar condition, if we observe $n_0$ events from the first process in time $t_0$ and $n_1=n-n_0$ events from the second in time $t_1$, the p-value, $\phi$ is given by:
\begin{equation}\phi = \sum\limits_{j=n_1}^{n_1+n_0}{n_1+n_0 \choose n_1} \left(\frac{t_1}{t_1+t_0}\right)^{j}\left(\frac{t_0}{t_1+t_0}\right)^{n_1+n_0-j}\label{poisson_tst}\end{equation}
We can then pick a type-1 error rate, $\hat{\alpha}$ and reject the null if $\phi<\hat{\alpha}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Per corollary \ref{null_rate_test}, conditional on observing a total of $n$ events from both processes and failure rates being the same, the distribution of events from the second process, $n_0$ is $\text{B}(n,p=\frac{t_1}{t_1+t_0})$. Substituting this into equation \ref{binom_tst}, the result follows.
\end{proof}
Note that for our simple, one-sided test, the Poisson rate test can be readily swapped with the Binomial test. However, there is some subtlety when dealing with two-sided tests and confidence intervals. This is covered in \cite{r_paper}.
\subsection{False positive negative trade off}
Now that we have described our test for comparing failure rates, we will evaluate the false positive to false negative rate trade off function ($\beta(\alpha)$) under the assumptions of the null hypothesis (the hypothesis under whose test statistic distribution, the p-value is calculated). This will give us a framework to later obtain the same trade off when the distributional assumptions are violated.
In equation \ref{beta_definition2}, we described this trade off, $\beta(\hat{\alpha}) = F_{X_a}(S_{X_0}^{-1}(\hat{\alpha}))$. Let's see what this looks like for the rate test. We have the following corollary to theorem \ref{rate_test}:
\begin{corollary}
Given the null hypothesis for the rate test in theorem \ref{rate_test} $X_0 \overset{H_0}{\sim} \text{B}(n,\frac{t_1}{t_1+t_0})$, $N_0$ describing the number of events in the control group (in observation time, $t_0$) and $N_1$ describing the same for the treatment group in observation time $t_1$, we get the false negative rate corresponding to a type-1 error rate of $\hat{\alpha}$:
$$\beta(\hat{\alpha}) = \sum\limits_{n=0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{j=0}^{S_{X_0}^{-1}(\hat{\alpha})}
P(N_0=j)P(N_1=n-j)$$
and the false negative rate corresponding to false positive rate $\alpha$:
$$\beta(\alpha) = \sum\limits_{n=0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{j=0}^{S_{Y_0}^{-1}(\alpha)}
P(N_0=j)P(N_1=n-j)$$
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Since our test conditions on the total number of events observed, $n$, we start with describing our $\beta$ under that condition as well. Denoting by $N_0$ and $N_1$ the number of events observed in groups 0 and 1 in observation times $t_0$ and $t_1$ respectively and noting that $X_a$, being the number of events from group-1 conditional on $n$ is a discrete random variable equation \ref{beta_def} becomes:
\begin{equation*}
\beta^{(n)}(\hat{\alpha}) = \sum\limits_{j=0}^{S_{X_0}^{-1}(\hat{\alpha})} P(X_a=j|N_0+N_1=n)
\end{equation*}
Since our test statistic for this particular test is simply the number of events from the first process we get $X_a \sim N_0$, making the equation above:
\begin{equation*}
\beta^{(n)}(\hat{\alpha}) = \sum\limits_{j=0}^{S_{X_0}^{-1}(\hat{\alpha})} P(N_0=j|N_0+N_1=n)
\end{equation*}
To get the overall $\beta$, we simply marginalize over all possible values of $n$ to get:
\begin{align}
\beta(\hat{\alpha}) =\sum\limits_{n=0}^{\infty}P(N_0+N_1=n) \beta^{(n)}(\hat{\alpha}) \nonumber \\
=\sum\limits_{n=0}^{\infty}P(N_0+N_1=n) \sum\limits_{j=0}^{S_{X_0}^{-1}(\hat{\alpha})} P(N_0=j|N_0+N_1=n)\label{beta_rate_1} \\
=\sum\limits_{n=0}^{\infty}P(N_0+N_1=n) \sum\limits_{j=0}^{S_{X_0}^{-1}(\hat{\alpha})} \frac{P(N_0=j\&N_0+N_1=n)}{P(N_0+N_1=n)} \nonumber \\
= \sum\limits_{n=0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{j=0}^{S_{X_0}^{-1}(\hat{\alpha})}
P(N_0=j)P(N_1=n-j)\label{beta_rate_2}
\end{align}
\end{proof}
It is sometimes convenient to use equation \ref{beta_rate_1} (especially when the conditional distribution in that equation has a nice closed form) and other times, \ref{beta_rate_2}. Under $H_0$ (the assumptions of the rate test under the null hypothesis), $N_0$ and $N_1$ follow Poisson distributions with the same means, $\lambda t_0$ and $\lambda t_1$ respectively. The second part of the proposition follows as a result of equation \ref{beta_general}.
\begin{proposition}
If we apply the uniformly most powerful rate test as described in theorem \ref{rate_test} to $H_0$ defined as both treatment and control groups following $PP(\lambda)$ and $H_a$ defined as control following $PP(\lambda)$ and treatment following $PP(\lambda + \delta \lambda)$ where $\delta \lambda > 0$, the false negative rate for any false positive rate goes to zero if we collect data from both processes for a very large period of time ($t \to \infty$).
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We will prove this for the special case, $\alpha = \frac 1 2$.
Let's assume that both groups (control and treatment) are observed for a time period, $t$.
Substituting the results of lemmas \ref{sum_of_poissons} and \ref{lem:conditional_binom} into equation \ref{beta_rate_1} we get:
\begin{multline}\beta(\alpha) = \sum\limits_{n=0}^\infty \frac{e^{-(2\lambda+\delta \lambda)t} ((2\lambda+\delta \lambda)t)^n}{n!} \\ \sum\limits_{j=0}^{S_{X_0}^{-1}(\hat{\alpha})}{n \choose j}\left(\frac{\lambda+\delta \lambda}{2\lambda+\delta \lambda}\right)^j \left(\frac{\lambda}{2\lambda+\delta \lambda}\right)^{n-j}\end{multline}
Where $X_0 \overset{D}{=} B(n,\frac{1}{2})$
$$=e^{-(2\lambda+\delta \lambda)}\sum\limits_{n=0}^\infty \frac{(\lambda t)^n}{n!}\sum\limits_{j=0}^{S_{X_0}^{-1}(\alpha)} {n \choose j} \left(1+\frac{\delta \lambda}{\lambda}\right)^j$$
We will proceed from here for the special case, $\alpha=\frac{1}{2}$. This makes $S_{X_0}^{-1}(\frac 1 2) = \left[\frac{n}{2}\right]$ (where $[n]$ is the greatest integer $\leq n$). So we get:
\begin{equation}\label{beta_rate_on_poisson}\beta \left(\frac{1}{2}\right) = e^{-(2\lambda+\delta \lambda)t}\sum\limits_{n=0}^\infty \frac{(\lambda t)^n}{n!}\sum\limits_{j=0}^{\left[\frac{n}{2}\right]} {n \choose j} \left(1+\frac{\delta \lambda}{\lambda}\right)^j\end{equation}
Now if we show for some $\eta > 0$,
\begin{equation}\label{beta_rate_on_poisson_lt}\beta \left(\frac{1}{2}\right) < e^{-(2\lambda+\delta \lambda)t}\sum\limits_{n=0}^\infty \frac{(\lambda t)^n}{n!}\left(2+\frac{\delta \lambda}{\lambda}-\eta\right)^n\end{equation}
we would have shown the result since the Taylor's expansion of $e^x$ implies:
$$\beta \left(\frac{1}{2}\right) < e^{-(2\lambda+\delta \lambda)t} e^{(2\lambda+\delta \lambda-\eta)t} = e^{-\eta t}$$
And so (in conjunction with the fact that $\beta(\alpha)\geq0 \;\; \forall \alpha \in [0,1)$),
$$\lim_{t \to \infty} \beta \left(\frac{1}{2}\right) = 0$$
Comparing equations \ref{beta_rate_on_poisson} and \ref{beta_rate_on_poisson_lt}, the inequality would certainly hold if it were possible to find an $\eta$ such that:
$$
\left(2+\frac{\delta \lambda}{\lambda}-\eta\right)^n > \sum\limits_{j=0}^{\left[\frac{n}{2}\right]} {n \choose j} \left(1+\frac{\delta \lambda}{\lambda}\right)^j \;\; \forall n
$$
Let $p=\frac{\delta \lambda}{\lambda}$ and this requirement becomes:
\begin{equation}\label{eta_req}\eta < (2+p) - \left( \sum\limits_{j=0}^{\left[\frac{n}{2}\right]} {n \choose j} \left(1+p\right)^j \right)^{\frac{1}{n}}\end{equation}
This is obviously true for any finite value of $n>1$ since the summation, $\left( \sum\limits_{j=0}^{n} {n \choose j} \left(1+p\right)^j \right)^{\frac{1}{n}}=2+p$ and the summation in equation \ref{eta_req} is missing some positive terms compared with this summation. Those terms will sum to something finite and allow us to choose some $\eta>0$. This holds for all $p>-1$.
The only concern remaining is that we might not be able to find an $\eta>0$ satisfying equation \ref{eta_req} when $n \to \infty$. And indeed, this turns out to be the case only for $p>0$.
Let's find the limit:
\begin{align*}L = \lim_{n \to \infty} \left( \sum\limits_{j=0}^{\left[\frac{n}{2}\right]} {n \choose j} \left(1+p\right)^j \right)^{\frac{1}{n}}\\
=\lim_{n \to \infty} \left(\sum\limits_{j=0}^n {2n \choose j}(1+p)^j\right)^\frac{1}{2n}
\end{align*}
Noting the inequality
$$ \binom{2n}{n}(1+p)^n \leq \sum_{j=0}^{n} \binom{2n}{j}(1+p)^j \leq n \cdot \binom{2n}{n}(1+p)^n $$
and the limit $\lim_{n\to\infty} n^{1/n} = 1$, we deduce that
$$ L = \lim_{n\to\infty} \left[ \binom{2n}{n} (1+p)^n \right]^{\frac{1}{2n}} = 2\sqrt{1+p}. $$
AM-GM inequality on $1$ and $1+p$ guarantees that $L \leq 2+p$ and the equality holds if and only if $p = 0$. Hence we see that an $\eta>0$ satisfying equation \ref{eta_req} will exist if $p>0$ but not if for example, $p = 0$. This shows an $\eta$ exists for the case we're interested in ($\delta \lambda>0$ and hence $p>0$) and concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
\section{Breaking the test}
We now have a pretty straightforward test for testing the rates of two point processes which is indeed proven to be the best possible when these are Poisson point processes. All we need is four numbers, the number of events and time period of observation in which those events were collected for two groups. But is this too simple? The Poisson point process is quite restrictive in the assumptions it makes and is almost never a good model for real-world data. Is applying a test built on it's assumptions then, naive? Let's explore this question in this section by breaking every possible underlying assumption and investigating how the test behaves.
\subsection{Swapping out the distribution of the null hypothesis}
In the construction of our hypothesis test, we used equation \ref{eqn:binom_cond}, which allowed us to condition on $n$ and use the fact that the distribution of the number of events from the second process, $n_1$, is Binomial (let's call it $X_0$). Similarly, the distribution of our test statistic, $n_1$ under the alternate hypothesis (given some effect size) is $X_a$ which happens to also be Binomial with the same number of tosses, $n$ parameter but a different probability of heads parameter, $p$.
In the spirit of finding ways to break our test, let's say we won't be using the distribution of the null hypothesis, $X_0$ anymore and will instead swap it out with another arbitrary distribution, $Z_0$, with the same support as $X_0$ (non-negative integers $\leq n$). The following result is somewhat surprising:
\begin{theorem}\label{y0_no_effect}
For any one-sided hypothesis test, if we swap out the distribution of the null hypothesis, $X_0$ with another arbitrary distribution, $Z_0$ that has the same support, we get the same false negative rate corresponding to any false positive rate.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
From equations \ref{hat_alpha} and \ref{beta_definition2}, we get the false positive rate to false negative rate trade-off function.
$$\beta(\alpha) = \beta(\hat{\alpha}) = F_{X_a}(S_{X_0}^{-1}(\alpha))$$
Now, consider the test where we replace $X_0$ with $Z_0$ (known henceforth as the ``contorted test''). First, let's obtain a relationship for the false positive rate for this test, $\alpha'(\hat{\alpha})$. Using a similar reasoning as we used to obtain equation \ref{hat_alpha},
\begin{align}
\alpha'(\hat{\alpha})= P(S_{Z_0}(X_0)<\hat{\alpha})\nonumber \\
=P(X_0>S_{Z_0}^{-1}(\hat{\alpha})) \nonumber \\
=S_{X_0}S_{Z_0}^{-1}(\hat{\alpha}) \label{hat_alpha_replace_x}
\end{align}
Note that this time, the two functions don't cancel out. So, the type-1 error ($\hat{\alpha}$) for our contorted test (with $X_0$ replaced with $Z_0$) is different from the false positive rate, $\alpha'(\hat{\alpha})$.
Now, let's explore the false negative rate of this contorted test. Using a similar approach as for proposition \ref{prop:fnr_def} we get:
\begin{align}
\beta'(\hat{\alpha}) = P(S_{Z_0}(X_a)>\hat{\alpha}) \nonumber\\
= P(X_a<S_{Z_0}^{-1}(\hat{\alpha})) \nonumber\\
= F_{X_a}S_{Z_0}^{-1}(\hat{\alpha})\label{beta_replace_x}
\end{align}
In equation \ref{hat_alpha_replace_x}, applying $S_{X_0}^{-1}$ followed by $S_{Z_0}$ to both sides we get,
$$ \hat{\alpha} = S_{Z_0}S_{X_0}^{-1}(\alpha')$$
And substituting this into equation \ref{beta_replace_x} we get the $\beta$-$\alpha$ trade off for this test:
$$\beta'(\alpha') = F_{X_a}S_{Z_0}^{-1}S_{Z_0}S_{X_0}^{-1}(\alpha')$$
$$ = F_{X_a}S_{X_0}^{-1}(\alpha')$$
Which means for the contorted test, given a false positive rate $\alpha$, the false negative rate $\beta'(\alpha)$ is
$$\beta'(\alpha) = F_{X_a}S_{X_0}^{-1}(\alpha)$$
But the above is the same as the $\beta(\alpha)$ we got from equation \ref{beta_definition2}. This shows that given a false positive rate $\alpha$, the false negative rates for the two tests, $\beta(\alpha)$ and $\beta'(\alpha)$ are equal and proves the theorem. It is also easy to see that we could have replaced $X_0$ with $Y_0$ and $X_a$ with $Y_a$ and reached the same conclusion, meaning the theorem continues to hold even when the original and contorted tests are applied to data that doesn't follow the assumptions of the test.
\end{proof}
Consider we're trying to apply the hypothesis test for failure rates described in theorem \ref{rate_test} to point processes that aren't Poisson processes. One consequence of this violation of the distributional assumption would be that the conditional (on the total number of events, $n$) distribution of the test statistic, $n_1$ will no longer be Binomial. We might consider trying to find what this distribution is and replace the Binomial distribution with it so as to devise a test more tailored to the point processes from our data. Per theorem \ref{y0_no_effect}, this would be a waste of time as far as the $\beta$-$\alpha$ trade off goes as swapping out the Binomial with any other distribution under the sun would not improve the false negative rate we get corresponding to a false positive rate.
Also note that nothing in the derivation was specific to the rate tests. The conclusion of theorem \ref{y0_no_effect} holds for any one-sided hypothesis test. In the famous two sample t-test for comparing means for instance, if we swap out the t-distribution with a normal or even some strange multi-modal distribution, the false negative to false positive trade off will remain unchanged.
\subsection{Violating assumptions}
Now, we get to scenarios where we apply the rate test as described in theorem \ref{rate_test} as-is to point processes that are not Poisson processes. For example, a core property of the Poisson point process is that the mean and variance of the count of events within any interval are the same. Many real world point processes don't depict this behavior, with variance typically being higher than mean.
What then, is the price we pay in still applying the rate test derived on the assumptions of the Poisson process to rates from these non-Poisson processes? This depends of course, on the particular point process we're dealing with. In this section, we'll consider different ways we can generalize the Poisson point process with its constant failure rate and then see what happens with the rate test applied to them. Three of these generalizations are covered in section 5.4 of \cite{ross} viz the non-homogeneous, compound and mixed Poisson processes. For a non-homogeneous Poisson process, the rate is allowed to vary with time ($\lambda(t)$), but in a way that it isn't affected by the arrivals of events. The number of events within any intervals is still Poisson distributed in this process (with mean $\int \lambda(t) dt$) and so, doesn't depart from the Poisson process in a significant way. The other two generalizations do fundamentally alter the distribution of the number of events within intervals and we'll deal with them in turn.
\subsubsection{The Compound Poisson Process}
The Compound Poisson process, covered in section 5.4.2 of [1] involves a Compounding distribution superposed on the Poisson process. We still have a Poisson process dictating event arrivals. However, each time we get an arrival from the Poisson process, we get a random number of events (the compounding random variable, $C$) instead of a single event.
This is especially relevant to failures within a cloud platform like Microsoft Azure wherein there are multiple single points of failure that have the effect of clustering machine reboots together, leading to a higher variance of event counts within time interval than mean. The most obvious one is multiple virtual machines (the units rented to customers; VMs) being co-hosted on a single physical machine (or node). If the node goes down, all the VMs will go down together. Now, the number of VMs on a node when it goes down will be a random variable itself (the compounding random variable).
Per equation (5.23) of \cite{ross} (or simply from the definition), the number of events in any interval, $t$ will be given by ($C_j$ are independent identically distributed with the same distribution as $C$):
$$M(t) = \sum\limits_{j=1}^{N(t)} C_j$$
Per equations (5.24) and (5.25) from \cite{ross}, the mean and variance of such a point process will become (assuming the underlying Poisson process has a rate, $\lambda$):
$$E[M(t)] = \lambda t E[C]$$
and,
$$ V[M(t)] = \lambda t E[C]^2 $$
This allows for our variance to be much higher than the mean and makes clear the fact that the number of events in any interval is no longer Poisson distributed.
\paragraph{Deterministic-ally compounded Poisson process}
What is the simplest kind of compounding we can do (apart from none at all)? We can have a constant number of events for each Poisson arrival. In other words, $C$ becomes a deterministic number instead of a random variable and let's say the value it takes each time is $l$ (we'll call such a process $DP(\lambda,l)$). For such a process, the number of events generated by either group must be an integer multiple of $l$. Also, per equations (5.24) and (5.25) of \cite{ross}, the mean and variance in the number of events become:
$$E[M(t)] = \lambda t l$$
$$V[M(t)] = \lambda t l^2$$
Since the variance is now higher than the mean, this is a fundamentally different point process from the Poisson point process.
\begin{lemma}
For the deterministic-ally compounded Poisson process, the probability mass function of the point process becomes:
\begin{equation}\label{d_pois_pmf}
P(M(t)=n) =
\begin{cases}
P(N(t)=k), & \text{if}\ n=lk \\
0, & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since every Poisson arrival results in exactly $l$ events, the number of events in any interval $t$ must be a multiple of $l$. And if we observe $lk$ events in any interval, then the number of Poisson arrivals must have been $k$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{properties_det_cm_poisson}
Let $Y_0$ be the distribution of the number of events in the treatment group conditional on the total events across both groups being $n$. We must have:
\begin{itemize}
\item{$n=kl \;\; \exists \;\; k \in \mathbb{Z}$}
\item{$Y_0 \overset{D}{=} l B\left(k,\frac{t_1}{t_1+t_0}\right)$}
\item{$S_{Y_0}^{-1}(\alpha) = l S_{X_0}^{-1}(\alpha)$ where $X_0 \overset{D}{=} B\left(k,\frac{t_1}{t_1+t_0}\right)$}
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For the first part, since the events from any $DP(\lambda,l)$ must be a multiple of $l$, so too must be the number of events from a sum of two of them.
For the second part, if $n=kl$ we can surmise that the number of Poisson arrivals across both groups was $k$. So, the conditional Poisson arrivals from the treatment groups is still governed by the conclusions of lemma \ref{lem:conditional_binom} and corollary \ref{null_rate_test}. And once we know the Poisson arrivals from the treatment group, the total failures will just be $l$ times that.
For the third part, the probability mass for any $k \in \mathbb{Z}$ under $X_0$ is simply moved to $kl$ under $Y_0$. Hence, if $k$ is the point where the sum of probabilities after it sum to $\alpha$ under $X_0$, this point will get scaled by $l$ as well under $Y_0$.
\end{proof}
Now, let's assume that the number of failures in our two groups follow the deterministic-ally compounded Poisson process.
Under $H_0'$, we will have both treatment and control groups following $DP(\lambda,l)$ and under $H_a'$, we add an effect size to the Poisson failure rate to the treatment group. So while the control group still follows $DP(\lambda,l)$ the treatment group now follows $DP(\lambda+\delta \lambda,l)$.
As before, $H_0$ involves both groups following a Poisson process, $PP(\lambda)$ and $H_a$ involves the control group following $PP(\lambda)$ and treatment following $PP(\lambda+\delta \lambda)$. We have the distributional assumptions for the test statistic (number of failures from treatment group conditional on total failures being $n$):
$$X \overset{H_0}{\sim} X_0 \overset{D}{=} B\left(n,\frac{t_1}{t_1+t_0}\right)$$
$$X \overset{H_a}{\sim} X_a \overset{D}{=} B\left(n,\frac{(\lambda+\delta \lambda)t_1}{(\lambda+\delta\lambda)t_1+\lambda t_0}\right)$$
$$X \overset{H_0'}{\sim} Y_0 \overset{D}{=} l \times B\left(n,\frac{t_1}{t_1+t_0}\right)$$
$$X \overset{H_a'}{\sim} Y_a \overset{D}{=} l \times B\left(n,\frac{(\lambda+\delta \lambda)t_1}{(\lambda+\delta\lambda)t_1+\lambda t_0}\right)$$
\begin{proposition}\label{deter_cmpd_same_power}
If we apply the rate test defined in theorem \ref{rate_test} to data generated under $H_0'$ as the null and $H_a'$ as the alternate hypothesis (defined above), the false negative rate for any given false positive rate is exactly the same as when we apply the test to data generated from $H_0$ as the null and $H_a$ as the alternate.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
From equation \ref{beta_rate_2}, we get under $H_0'$ and $H_a'$ the false negative rate as a function of the false positive rate:
$$\beta_M(\alpha) = \sum\limits_{n=0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{j=0}^{S_{Y_0}^{-1}(\alpha)}
P(M_1(t)=j)P(M_0(t)=n-j)$$
From the third result of lemma \ref{properties_det_cm_poisson}:
$$= \sum\limits_{n=0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{j=0}^{l S_{X_0}^{-1}(\alpha)}
P(M_1(t)=j)P(M_0(t)=n-j)$$
Setting $n=ml$, noting that both the probabilities in the summation will be $0$ when $n$ is not a multiple of $l$ (per equation \ref{d_pois_pmf}):
$$= \sum\limits_{m=0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{j=0}^{l S_{X_0}^{-1}(\alpha)}
P(M_1(t)=j)P(M_0(t)=ml-j)$$
Similarly setting $j=kl$ and applying equation \ref{d_pois_pmf} (assuming $N_0$ and $N_1$ follow $PP(\lambda)$ and $PP(\lambda+\delta \lambda)$ respectively):
$$\beta_M(\alpha)= \sum\limits_{m=0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{k=0}^{S_{X_0}^{-1}(\alpha)}
P(N_1(t)=k)P(N_0(t)=m-k)$$
Also from equation \ref{beta_rate_2} , the same rate under $H_0$ and $H_a$:
$$\beta_N(\alpha) = \sum\limits_{n=0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{j=0}^{S_{X_0}^{-1}(\alpha)}
P(N_1(t)=j)P(N_0(t)=n-j)$$
It is easy to see that $\beta_M(\alpha)=\beta_N(\alpha)$. Basically, in the summation for $\beta_M$, we simply shifted all the terms from the $\beta_N$ summation to multiples of $l$, but still ended up summing all the same terms. That is why the false negative rate remained exactly the same.
\end{proof}
Does getting the same false negative rate mean somehow that the deterministic-ally compounded Poisson process is similar to the regular Poisson process? One way to visualize how different two distributions are is with a quantile-quantile plot. A quantile of a distribution, $X$ is defined as its inverse CDF, $F_X^{-1}(q)$. If we take another distribution, $Y$ and plot $F_{Y}^{-1}(q)$ with $F_X^{-1}(q)$ for various values of $q$, we get the Q-Q plot which should be a straight line if the two distributions are the same. The idea is that we're plotting:
$$q = F_X(x) = F_Y(y)$$
or in other words,
$$y = F_Y^{-1}F_X(x)$$
If $Y \overset{D}{=}X$, the QQ plot will become the line: $y=x$. So, the closer the distributions are, the closer the plot is to the line $y=x$. Compare this to the relationship between false positive rate and type-1 error from equation \ref{alpha_general}: $\alpha(\hat{\alpha}) = S_{X_0}S_{Y_0}^{-1}(\hat{\alpha})$. Again, we expect that if $X_0 \overset{D}{=} Y_0$, we will get $\alpha=\hat{\alpha}$, a straight line. For the deterministically compounded Poisson process, we can get $\alpha(\hat{\alpha})$ in closed form.
\begin{proposition}
When the rate test from theorem \ref{rate_test} is applied to the deterministically compounded Poisson process, we get a false positive rate ($X_0\overset{D}{=}B(ml,\frac{t_1}{t_1+t_0})$):
\begin{multline*}\alpha(\hat{\alpha}) = 1-\\ \sum\limits_{m=0}^{\infty} \frac{e^{-\lambda(t_1+t_2)}(\lambda(t_1+t_2))^m}{m!} \sum\limits_{k=0}^{\left[ \frac{S_{X_0}^{-1}(\hat{\alpha})}{l} \right]} {m \choose k}p^k(1-p)^{m-k}\end{multline*}
Where $p=\frac{t_1}{t_1+t_0}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Per equation \ref{alpha_general}, we have $\alpha(\hat{\alpha}) = S_{Y_0}S_{X_0}^{-1}(\hat{\alpha})$. So conditional on a total of $n$ events from both groups, the false positive rate becomes:
\begin{align}
\alpha^{(n)}(\hat{\alpha}) = \sum\limits_{j=S_{X_0}^{-1}(\hat{\alpha})+1}^{n}P(N_0=j|N_0+N_1=n)\nonumber\\
= 1-\sum\limits_{j=0}^{S_{X_0}^{-1}(\hat{\alpha})}P(N_0=j|N_0+N_1=n)\nonumber
\end{align}
Where $N_0$ and $N_1$ follow the distributional assumptions of $H_0'$, which is deterministically compounded Poisson. Marginalizing over all $n$, we get:
\begin{equation*}
\alpha(\hat{\alpha}) = 1-\sum\limits_{n=0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{j=0}^{S_{X_0}^{-1}(\hat{\alpha})}P(N_0=j|N_0+N_1=n)P(N_0+N_1=n)
\end{equation*}
Since $N_0$ and $N_1$ follow the deterministically compounded Poisson process and $Y_0 \overset{D}{=} l \times B\left(n,\frac{t_1}{t_1+t_0}\right)$, we will only get non-zero terms in this summation when $n=ml$ and $j=kl$. Also, although $j$ will go up to $S_{X_0}^{-1}(\hat{\alpha})$, it'll only hit non-zero terms until $j=\left[\frac{S_{X_0}^{-1}(\hat{\alpha})}{l}\right]$
This gives us the result:
\begin{multline}\label{alpha_det_comp_pois}
\alpha(\hat{\alpha}) = 1-\sum\limits_{m=0}^{\infty} \frac{e^{-\lambda(t_1+t_2)}(\lambda(t_1+t_2))^m}{m!} \\ \sum\limits_{k=0}^{\left[ \frac{S_{X_0}^{-1}(\hat{\alpha})}{l} \right]} {m \choose k}p^k(1-p)^{m-k}
\end{multline}
Where,
$$p=\frac{t_1}{t_1+t_0}$$
\end{proof}
The reason we don't get the same terms unlike with $\beta(\alpha)$ is that the inner summation is now up to $S_{X_0}^{-1}(\hat{\alpha})$ instead of $S_{Y_0}^{-1}(\hat{\alpha})$. We can now use equation \ref{alpha_det_comp_pois} or simulation to obtain plots for $\alpha$ with $\hat{\alpha}$ (shown below). We see that as $l$ increases, the deterministically compounded distribution starts moving away from the Poisson process as expected. However, this deviation has no effect at all on the false negative to false positive trade-off as demonstrated earlier, which stays the same regardless of $l$. We do note that our false positive rate starts diverging from the type-1 error rate, but this can easily be corrected for, especially since we know the closed form. This should drive home the point that violating the distributional assumptions of the null hypothesis of a hypothesis test isn't a good argument for not applying it or necessarily a sign of weakness for it.
In the next distributional violation we cover, we'll take this a step further and see that violating the assumptions of the test to a larger extent actually causes the false negative to false positive trade off to become better!
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{alpha_alpha_hat_deter_cmpd_poisson.png}
\caption{Relationship between type-1 error rate and false positive rates for the deterministically compounded Poisson process with various values of compounding.}
\label{alpha_alpha_hat_deter_cmpd_poisson}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Binomially compounded Poisson process}
Next, we explore the Binomially compounded Poisson process where the compounding factor, $C$ follows a Binomial distribution with parameters $l$ and $p$. Meaning with each arrival, instead of there being just one event, we generate a binomial random variable (parameters $l$ and $p$) and that dictates the number of events. Let $M(t)$ be this compound point process and $N(t)$ the underlying Poisson process. We then get:
$$P(M(t) = j) = \sum\limits_{m=0}^\infty P(M(t)=j|N(t)=m)P(N(t)=m)$$
Conditional on $N(t)=m$, we basically end up summing $m$ binomial random variables with the same $p$ parameter. This becomes another binomial with parameters $lm$ and $p$. So we get:
$$P(M(t)=j)=\sum\limits_{m=0}^\infty {lm \choose j}p^j(1-p)^{lm-j} \left(\frac{e^{-\lambda t} (\lambda t)^m}{m!}\right)$$
Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a closed form for this summation, meaning we can't use equation \ref{beta_rate_2} to get a closed form for the $\alpha$-$\beta$ trade off either. We can however get it from simulation.
When we plot the $\beta$-$\alpha$ trade off for $p=0.7$ and various values of $l$, we see that applying the rate test to the Binomially compounded Poisson process does give us a worse $\alpha$-$\beta$ trade off curve than when it is applied to the Poisson process as expected. However, as we increase $l$, the trade off curve actually becomes better and starts approaching the one for the Poisson process.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{alpha-beta_cmpd_binom.png}
\caption{$\alpha$-$\beta$ trade off for Binomially compounded Poisson for $p=0.7$ and various values of $l$.}
\label{alpha-beta_cmpd_binom}
\end{figure}
On the other hand, when we plot the false positive rate with type-1 error rate (which as mentioned earlier, tells us how close the distributions are to each other like a QQ plot), we see that higher values of $l$ diverge more from the $\alpha=\hat{\alpha}$ line, meaning they get more ``different'' as distributions. See figure \ref{alpha_alpha_hat_deter_cmpd_poisson}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{alpha-alpha_hat_cmpd_binom.png}
\caption{$\alpha$ vs $\hat{\alpha}$ for the Binomially compounded Poisson process for various values of $l$.}
\label{alpha_alpha_hat_deter_cmpd_poisson}
\end{figure}
So, we see from figures \ref{alpha-beta_cmpd_binom} and \ref{alpha_alpha_hat_deter_cmpd_poisson} that as we increase the $l$ parameter, the distribution diverges more from Poisson while conversely, the false negative rate becomes better and approaches that of the Poisson distribution. What could be the reason for this behavior? We know that the mean of a $B(l,p)$ distribution is $lp$ while its variance is $lp-lp^2$. So as we increase $l$, the difference between the mean and variance increases, making the binomially compounded Poisson closer and closer to the deterministically compounded Poisson with compounding factor, $[lp]$. And we showed in proposition \ref{deter_cmpd_same_power} that the deterministically compounded Poisson process gets the same $\alpha$-$\beta$ trade off as a regular Poisson process.
To validate our assumption that the binomially compounded Poisson approaches the deterministically compounded Poisson as the $l$ parameter of the $B(l,p)$ distribution increases, we plot a QQ plot between them in figure \ref{qq_deter_poisson_binom_poisson}. And we see indeed that the plot becomes closer and closer to a straight line as $l$ increases.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{qq_deter_poisson_binom_poisson.png}
\caption{QQ plot between deterministically and binomially compounded Poisson. The $l$ is number of binomial tosses and $p=0.7$}
\label{qq_deter_poisson_binom_poisson}
\end{figure}
In conclusion, we saw for the Binomially compounded Poisson process that as it diverges more from the distributional assumptions of the rate test, the false negative rate corresponding to any false positive rate actually improves. Also note that since the Binomial distribution is a very reasonable assumption for compounding processes that involve a random numbers generated over integers $\leq n$, this is not a pathological edge case.
Hopefully these examples with different Compound Poisson processes have demonstrated that violating the assumptions of the null hypothesis on top of which the test is built isn't necessarily detrimental to its effectiveness. The next generalization of the Poisson process we'll cover is the mixed or conditional Poisson distribution, but that deserves a section of its own.
\section{Mixed Poisson process: starring the Negative Binomial}
As we know, the Poisson process has only one parameter, the rate $\lambda$. In generalizing the Poisson process then, we could condition on this parameter, imagining that it itself is picked from some distribution (say $L$). So conditional on $L=\lambda$, we get a Poisson process with rate $\lambda$. This is called the ``mixed Poisson process'' or ``conditional Poisson process'' and is covered in section 5.4.3 of \cite{ross} as well as \cite{mxd_poisson_paper}.
Although any distribution can be chosen for the rate $L$, a natural choice is the Gamma distribution since it is a \href{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjugate_prior}{conjugate prior}, meaning that if we choose to update $L$ once we observe some data, it will also be a (probably different) Gamma distribution. This also means that we have closed form expressions for the distributions of the number of events in interval $t$ ($N(t)$) and inter-arrival time between events ($T$) associated with the point process. Example 5.29 of \cite{ross} shows that if $L$ is Gamma distributed with parameters $\theta$ and $m$, implying a density function:
\begin{equation}\label{gamma_definition}g_L(\lambda) = \theta e^{-\theta \lambda}\frac{(\theta \lambda)^{m-1}}{(m-1)!}\end{equation}
then the distribution of $N(t)$ becomes negative binomial with probability mass function:
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:neg_binom}
P(N(t)=n)={n+m-1 \choose n} \left(\frac{\theta}{\theta+t}\right)^m \left(\frac{t}{\theta+t}\right)^n
\end{equation}
This is the number of tails required before we observe a total of $m$ heads when the probability of heads is $p=\frac{\theta}{t+\theta}$.
Henceforth, we will denote this particular mixed Poisson process by $NBP(m,\theta)$ and the distribution by $NB(m,p)$. Since the negative binomial distribution is the most common substitute to address the property of the Poisson distribution wherein its mean and variance are equal, the negative binomial process likewise addresses this and allows the variance in $N(t)$ to be greater than the mean (which is a feature we see in most real world point processes like Azure reboots, natural disasters, machine and human organ failures, etc.).
We can also obtain a closed form expression for the probability density function of the inter-arrival times ($T$):
\begin{proposition}
For a mixed Poisson process with the rate being drawn from $L$, a Gamma distribution; the distribution of the inter-arrival times, $T$ becomes Lomax (Pareto type-2).
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Since conditional on $L=\lambda$ we get a regular Poisson point process with inter-arrival times being exponentially distributed with rate $\lambda$, we marginalize out $\lambda$ to get the new inter-arrival distribution for the mixed Poisson process:
$$f_T(t) = \int\limits_0^\infty (\lambda e^{-\lambda t}) g_L(\lambda) d\lambda$$
Substituting the Gamma density from equation \ref{gamma_definition}:
$$f_T(t) = \int\limits_0^\infty (\lambda e^{-\lambda t}) \theta e^{-\theta \lambda} \frac{(\theta \lambda)^{m-1}}{(m-1)!} d\lambda$$
$$=\frac{\theta^m}{(m-1)! } \int\limits_0^\infty e^{-(t+\theta)\lambda} \lambda^m d \lambda$$
Now,
$$\int\limits_0^\infty e^{-(t+\theta)\lambda }\lambda^m d \lambda = \frac{m!}{(t+\theta)^{m+1}}$$
Which gives us:
\begin{equation}\label{lomax_def}f_T(t) = \left(\frac{\theta}{t+\theta}\right)^m\end{equation}
And this is the PDF of the Lomax distribution.
\end{proof}
The Lomax distribution is polynomially instead of exponentially decaying, meaning it has much heavier tails than the exponential distribution. It is easy to see from equation \cite{haz_rate_def} that the Lomax distribution has a decreasing hazard rate and this is consistent with an over-dispersed point process (variance higher than mean). To see this, consider dividing the time over which we observe the process into tiny slices. If each interval is small enough, we'll either see zero or one events in them, making them Bernoulli random variables. For a Poisson process, these Bernoulli random variables were independent since the event rate at one of these intervals stays the same regardless of what happens around it. For the Lomax distribution with its decreasing hazard rate on the other hand, if a long time has passed without an event occurring, the decreasing event rate makes more events unlikely as well. This makes the Bernoulli variables positively correlated, making the variance in their sum (the total number of events in our observation interval) greater than for the Poisson, leading to over-dispersion.
In fact, it can be shown that Poisson mixture models are only capable of modeling decreasing hazard rate inter-arrivals and hence over-dispersed point processes (the many examples covered in \cite{mxd_poisson_paper} for example all have this property). If we want to model an under-dispersed point process (variance lower than mean), we can choose an inter-arrival distribution that is capable of modeling increasing hazard rates. The Weibull distribution is one such candidate, capable of modeling both monotonically increasing and decreasing hazard rates and is covered in \cite{weibull_book}.
The Poisson process had the property of independent increments, meaning we can start an instance of the process and observe it for a long period of time or start many independent instances and observe them all for shorter periods. As long as the total time of observation is the same, our estimator for the failure rate has the exact same properties. Since for a mixed Poisson process, observing one interval of time gives us information about the mixing distribution and hence informs what will happen in proceeding intervals, we no longer have this independent increments property.
While equation \ref{rate_def} is still an unbiased estimator for the average failure rate ($E(L)$), it turns out that it's better to collect many small intervals than one big one. When we observe the process for one long contiguous interval, we get an estimator that isn't asymptotically consistent (meaning the variance in the estimator doesn't converge to $0$ even as the observation period becomes arbitrarily large).
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:no_consistent}
If we hzve a single observation window for the mixed Poisson process mixed with distribution $L$, the estimator of the rate will become $E(L)$ and it's variance will be bounded below by $V(L)$, meaning it won't be asymptotically consistent.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
It is a regular Poisson process when conditioned on some distribution $L(\lambda)$ of the rate, $\lambda$. Now, we're still interested in calculating the average hazard rate of this process. It's clear by definition (conditional on $L$, we get the regular Poisson process):
$$E(N(t)|L)=Lt$$
$$V(N(t)|L)=Lt$$
Using the law of total expectation:
$$E(N(t)) = t E(L)$$
Using the law of total variance:
$$V(N(t))=E(V(N(t)|L))+V(E(N(t)|L))$$
$$=E(Lt)+V(Lt)$$
$$=tE(L)+t^2V(L)$$
This means that if we observe this process for a large period of time, $t$, we can estimate the average hazard rate:
$$\hat{\lambda} = \frac{N(t)}{t} $$
$$=>E(\hat{\lambda})= E(L)$$
And the variance of this estimator becomes:
$$V(\hat{\lambda}) = \frac{V(N(t))}{t^2} = \frac{E(L)}{t}+V(L)$$
And so we have
$$\lim_{t \to \infty} V(\hat{\lambda}) \to V(L)$$.
\end{proof}
The result above makes sense since the rate, $\lambda$ itself is drawn from a distribution. If we restrict ourselves to one observation window, we only sample one $\lambda$ from this distribution. So, it makes sense that no matter how long we observe this instance for, the variance in the sampling of $\lambda$ itself is always there. This seems to suggest the following proposition:
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:nbd_consistent}
If we sample $n$ time intervals and count the number of failures across all of them, the estimator from equation \ref{rate_def} is consistent as $n$ increases.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Suppose we sample $n$ intervals, $t_1, t_2, \dots t_n$ from a mixed Poisson process and observe $N(t_i)$ failures in the interval $t_i$. The estimator from equation \ref{rate_def} will become:
$$\hat{\lambda} = \frac{\sum\limits_{i=1}^n N(t_i)}{\sum\limits_{i=1}^n t_i}$$
Now, from the properties of the mixed Poisson process we have:
$$E(N(t_i)|L) = L t_i$$
$$V(N(t_i)|L) = L t_i$$
So we get:
$$E(\hat{\lambda}) = \frac{\sum\limits_{i=1}^n E(N(t_i))}{\sum\limits_{i=1}^n t_i} = \frac{\sum\limits_{i=1}^n E(L)t_i}{\sum\limits_{i=1}^n t_i}=E(L)$$
And the variance:
\begin{align}
V(\hat{\lambda}) = \frac{\sum\limits_{i=1}^n V(N(t_i))}{\left(\sum\limits_{i=1}^n t_i\right)^2} \nonumber\\
= \frac{\sum\limits_{i=1}^n V(L)t_i^2}{\left(\sum\limits_{i=1}^n t_i\right)^2}\nonumber\\
= V(L) \frac{\sum\limits_{i=1}^n t_i^2}{\left(\sum\limits_{i=1}^n t_i^2\right)+\left(\sum\limits_{i\neq j} t_i t_j\right)}\nonumber
\end{align}
It's clear that:
$$\lim_{n \to \infty} V(\hat{\lambda}) \to 0$$
\end{proof}
\subsection{Hypothesis testing for the rate of the $NBP(m,\theta)$}
Now, let's consider that the point process for the treatment and control group are $NBP(m,\theta)$ for appropriate values of the parameters. For our null hypothesis, $H_0'$, we will assume that both treatment and control groups follow the same negative binomial process, $NBP(m,\theta)$.
For $H_a'$, we want the treatment group to have a higher average rate, $E(L)$. Since the mean of the Gamma distribution is $E(L) = \frac{m}{\theta}$, we can achieve this by either increasing $m$ or decreasing $\theta$. Since the Gamma distribution is obtained by summing $m$ exponential distributions, each with rate $\theta$, the natural choice is to reduce $\theta$. This is also the approach used in \cite{zhu}. So under $H_a'$, we will assume that the treatment group follows $NBP(m,\theta-\delta \theta)$.
From equations \ref{beta_rate_2} and \ref{eqn:neg_binom}, we get the false negative rate as a function of the chosen type-1 error rate, $\hat{\alpha}$ (where $X_0 \overset{D}{=} B\left(n,\frac{t_1}{t_1+t_0}\right)$):
$$\beta(\hat{\alpha}) = \sum\limits_{n=0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{j=0}^{S_{X_0}^{-1}(\hat{\alpha})} P(N_0=j)P(N_1=n-j)$$
\begin{multline}\label{eqn:false_neg_nbd}=>\beta(\hat{\alpha}) = \sum\limits_{n=0}^{\infty}\sum\limits_{j=0}^{S_{X_0}^{-1}(\hat{\alpha})} \left({m+j-1\choose j}p_1^m (1-p_1)^j \right)\\ \left({m+n-j-1\choose n-j}p_0^m (1-p_0)^{n-j} \right)\end{multline}
where,
$$p_1 = \frac{\theta-\delta \theta}{\theta-\delta \theta +t}$$
$$p_0 = \frac{\theta}{\theta +t}$$
The summation above doesn't seem to have a closed form. As a result of proposition \ref{prop:no_consistent}, we can expect that it won't converge to $0$ even as the observation period, $t \to \infty$. On the other hand, if we increase the number of observation periods indefinitely, it should converge to $0$ per proposition \ref{prop:nbd_consistent}. And we do see this through numerically calculating the summation above.
\begin{lemma}\label{sum_nb}
If $X\overset{D}{=}NB(m_1,p)$ and $Y \overset{D}{=}NB(m_2,p)$, then $X+Y$ is $NB(m_1+m_2,p)$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $X$ is defined as the number of tails until $m_1$ heads when a coin with probability of heads, $p$ is repeatedly tossed and $Y$ represents the number of tails until $m_2$ heads, $X+Y$ will represent the number of tails until $m_1+m_2$ heads when this same coin is repeatedly tossed.
\end{proof}
\begin{conjecture}
If we collect $a$ observation periods from the control group and $b$ observation periods from the treatment group, the $\beta(\hat{\alpha}) \to 0$ as $a,b \to \infty$. If we collect only a single observation period from each group of length $t$, then, the $\beta(\hat{\alpha})$ converges asymptotically to a non-zero value as $t \to \infty$.
\end{conjecture}
Let's consider the special case when all the observation periods, $t_i$ across both groups are of the same length, $t$. So, we get a total of $a\times t$ observation period in the control group and $b\times t$ observation period in the treatment group.
Now, the total number of events, $N_0$ in the control group is the sum of $a$ $NB(m,\frac{\theta}{\theta+t})$ random variables. So, by lemma \ref{sum_nb}, it is $NB(am, \frac{\theta}{\theta+t})$. Similarly, the number of events $N_1$ in the treatment group is $NB(b m, \frac{\theta_1}{\theta_1+t})$ where $\theta_1=\theta-\delta \theta$. By equation \ref{beta_rate_2}, we get the false negative rate:
Increasing the time periods for both groups is consistent with decreasing the values of $p_0$ and $p_1$ in equation \ref{eqn:false_neg_nbd}, while (under the assumption of equal interval lengths), increasing the number of observation time intervals is consistent with increasing the value(s) of $m$ (for $N_0$ and $N_1$). Doing the former for a type-1 error rate of $5\%$ produces figure \ref{beta_w_t_nbd} while doing the latter produces figure \ref{beta_m_nbd}.
We see that increasing the size of a single observation interval makes $\beta$ decrease, but it asymptotically approaches a finite value (about $34\%$ in this case) while increasing the size of the number of observation intervals makes $\beta$ decrease all the way to $0$.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{beta_m_nbd.png}
\caption{$\beta$ with $m$ of negative binomial}
\label{beta_m_nbd}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{beta_w_t_nbd.png}
\caption{$\beta$ with $t$, size of observation period of both groups for negative binomial}
\label{beta_w_t_nbd}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Comparison with the Wald test}
In \cite{zhu}, the authors consider hypothesis testing and sample size estimation for the negative binomial distribution for medical applications (making their work very relevant to this investigation). Although they focus more on estimating sample sizes and so, know some of the parameters in advance for that purpose, the sample size estimation has an implicit Wald test embedded therein which becomes an alternate approach to comparing failure rates. This subsection will be dedicated to a comparison of their test for comparing rates with the one we presented in equation \ref{rate_test}. Their formulation for the Negative Binomial point process is slightly different from but corresponds one to one with equation \ref{eqn:neg_binom}. We provide their formulation below as well as how it corresponds to ours. They define $Y_{ij}$ as the number of events during time $t_{ij}$ for subject $i$ in group $j$ ($j=0,1$, the control and treatment groups respectively). Then,
$$P(Y_{ij}=y_{ij}) = \frac{\Gamma(k^{-1}+y_{ij})}{\Gamma(k^{-1})y_{ij}!} \left(\frac{k \mu_{ij}}{1+k\mu_{ij}}\right)^{y_{ij}} \left( \frac{1}{1+k\mu_{ij}} \right)^{\frac{1}{k}}$$
Here, $\mu_{ij}$ is the average number of events for subject $i$ in group $j$ and $\Gamma(.)$ is the Gamma function, a generalization of factorials. For any integer $m$ we have: $\Gamma(m)=(m-1)!$.
Matching this parameterization to equation \ref{eqn:neg_binom}, we also get:
$$\frac{1}{k} = m$$
$$\frac{t_{ij}}{t_{ij}+\theta} = \frac{k \mu_{ij}}{1+k\mu_{ij}}$$
Implying,
$$\frac{t_{ij}}{\theta} = k \mu_{ij}$$
So,
$$\mu_{ij} =\frac{m t_{ij}}{\theta} =E(L) t_{ij}$$
For devising the test, $\mu_{ij}$ is modeled as:
$$\log(\mu_{ij}) = \log(t_{ij})+\beta_0+\beta_1 x_{ij}$$
Here, $x_{ij}=I(j=1)$ is $1$ only if $j=1$. In other words, they assume a rate of
\begin{equation}\label{zhu_ctrl_rate}\lambda = e^{\beta_0}\end{equation}
for the control group and
\begin{equation}\label{zhu_trmt_rate}\lambda +\delta \lambda = e^{\beta_0+\beta_1}\end{equation}
for the treatment (under the alternate hypothesis).
$\beta_1$ then becomes the difference in the log-rates and the null hypothesis is predicated on it being normally distributed with mean $0$ (if there is no difference in rates, there is no difference in log-rates either).
The variance in $\beta_1$ is then estimated in equation (14) of their paper (changed some notation to avoid conflicts with this paper):
\begin{equation}\label{variance_def}V = \frac{1+\eta^2}{\mu_t (\lambda_0 + \eta \lambda_1)}+\frac{(1+\eta)k}{\eta}\end{equation}
Here, $\eta$ is the ratio of observations between treatment and control. If we use a balanced test (equal number of samples between the two groups), $\eta=1$, $\lambda_0$ and $\lambda_1$ are the rates for the two groups, $\mu_t$ is the expected number of events for each observation period and $k=\frac{1}{m}$, the inverse of the parameter of the negative binomial representing the number of heads desired.
While $\mu_t$, $\lambda_0$ and $\lambda_1$ were easily estimated from the generated data, we weren't sure how to estimate the $k$ parameter. So, we simply plugged in the value used to generate the data in the first place. This is giving the test some information it shouldn't have (it should have access to only the data itself and nothing about the underlying process that generated said data). This is a potential flaw, but it can only help the Wald test, not hamper it.
With the variance, this hypothesis test simply becomes the standard Wald test where:
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{wald_tst_comparison.png}
\caption{The $\alpha$-$\beta$ trade off for the Wald test and rate test for observation samples from the Negative Binomial distribution.}
\label{wald_tst_comparison}
\end{figure}
\begin{itemize}
\item{Estimate the variance using equation \ref{variance_def} from the sample. Divide by sample size of control group and take square root to get standard deviation.}
\item{Find the difference in estimated log-rates from the data between treatment and control.}
\item{Find the inverse survival function of the normal distribution with mean $0$ and standard deviation calculated in step 1. This becomes the p-value of our test.}
\end{itemize}
We simulated some data from the null and alternate hypotheses as defined in table I of [3] and compared the performance of the two tests on an $\alpha$-$\beta$ curve. The result is shown in figure \ref{wald_tst_comparison}. It appears the two tests are completely on top of each other, with negligible difference in performance. We re-created this plot for various values of the free variables and the conclusion seemed to remain firmly the same. Not much to choose from between the two tests in terms of raw performance.
This still motivates the use of the rate test over the Wald test for the following reasons:
\begin{itemize}
\item{The Wald test had to be customized for the Negative Binomial distribution (in terms of estimation of the variance) while the rate ratio test was used out of the box, ``as is'' and performed similarly. If we want to extend to some other point process apart from the negative Binomial tomorrow, we'd have some work to do for the Wald test (estimating variance) while the rate ratio test would be ready for application.}
\item{As mentioned previously, the Wald test had a bit of an unfair advantage in this experiment with regard to knowing the $k$ parameter used to generate the actual data, which probably helped its performance. The rate ratio test had no such advantage and still performed similarly.}
\item{The Wald test relies on the estimation of the variance, which blows up when we have $0$ events in one of the groups. The rate ratio test on the other hand, still produces sensible p-values.}
\item{The formula of the Wald test's p-value is more complex.}
\item{For the rate test, we can use equation \ref{fnr_fpr} to get the false negative rate in a form that is amenable to efficient numerical estimation, making things like sample size estimation much faster. For the Wald test, attempting to use the same expression results in complex expressions that can only be estimated with simulation.}
\end{itemize}
\section{Results and applications}
\subsection{Improving Azure customer experience with AIR}
Since recognizing that interruptions the rate at which they occur is an excellent proxy for measuring customer pain on the platform (and direct customer feedback played a big role in this) about a year ago, Azure has used ``Annual Interruption Rate'', defined as the number of virtual machine interruptions a typical Azure customer will experience if they ran 100-VM-years worth of workloads on the platform as a KPI. This is essentially a failure rate (calculated via equation \ref{rate_def}) with the ``100 VM-years'' chosen simply as a unit for the machine run-time in the denominator, designed to make the scale of the KPI look reasonable.
This has led to prioritization of fixes that drive this number down (which might have been ignored otherwise) and indeed, figure \ref{air_improvement} shows the long way Azure has come far in that regard, with the rate improving from about 70 a year ago to close to single digits today. This has of course contributed to greater customer satisfaction with the platform (particularly for customer workloads that are very sensitive to interruptions like massive online gaming servers), since the rate at which their workloads are interrupted has been trending in the right direction.
The effective technique for comparing AIR between two groups we have discussed in this paper has played a big role in this improvement, as we will see in subsequent subsections.
\subsection{Prioritizing AIR for small slices }
Like any KPI or statistic, we never know what the true interruption rate is but estimate it from a finite sample of data. These estimates carry some variance with them and the larger the time window (in terms of total observed VM-time), the less this variance becomes. When comparing large populations like two hardwares, we have enough of a sample size to simply work with the estimated AIR numbers themselves.
However, when slicing into much smaller buckets (like a single Azure machine or node), this variance becomes quite problematic. As mentioned in the previous sub-section, the rate of interruptions we see on Azure today is about 10 in 100-VM-years (or about 36500 VM-days).
Now, if we're observing a single node for a few (say 10) days running (typically) 10 VMs, this will make for 100 VM-days. So, the number of interruptions we expect to see is: $\frac{10 \times 100}{36500}\sim 0.03$. Of course, there is no such thing as fractional interruptions. In practice, this means we will see no interruptions at all 97 out of 100 times and about one interruption the other 3. This means that those 97 times, we'll observe an AIR of $0$ while the other $3$ times, an AIR of $\frac{1\times 36500}{100}=365$. This makes the metric quite fickle and we can imagine that no ranking we produce based on the raw number will carry any kind of stability.
It is here that the methodology for comparing failure rates as detailed in theorem \ref{rate_test} comes to the rescue.
Instead of ranking on raw AIR estimates, we can take the number of reboots and observation duration (VM-time) for our small slice (treatment group) and compare with the same numbers for the past day applied to the general fleet (control group). We can then rank on the p-values we get, which tend to be much more stable ranking and help prioritize worthy issues by taking the noise as well as raw AIR estimates into account.
The simplicity of the rate test has allowed us to code it up in a query language called Kusto (the data processing system of choice in Azure), which makes the barrier to usage across the organization very low and helps drive impact.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{air_improvement.png}
\caption{The improvement over time of ``Annual interruption rate'' for the Azure platform as a result of prioritization.}
\label{air_improvement}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Statistical software testing for the cloud}
Microsoft Azure is an ever changing platform. The hardware running the machines that power it reach the end of their lives and get swapped out, the micro-code running on the chips that power the machines needs to be updated, the various agents running on those machines that help with the VM workflows need to be updated and so on. Most of these changes have the potential to cause regressions in the failure rate and for us to lose some of the ground we've covered over the past year. Since these bits are going to go to a complex cloud environment with diverse hardware configurations customer workloads, settings, etc. and with the customers running on this environment having a very high bar for platform availability and other metrics, the paradigm of traditional software testing needs to be extended along multiple fronts. The solution Azure is coming up with are pre-production testing environments that are being designed specifically to catch regressions that might occur when the payloads hit production. These environments run synthetic workloads, designed to mimic customer workloads on machines sampled from production and compare a control group without the new software change to a treatment group with it (A/B testing).
And since the core KPI we track is failure rate, the test described in theorem \ref{rate_test} holds a very important place in this effort. It is being used in some of these environments to test (for example) micro-code updates on the Intel chips that power Azure, updates to the host agent running on all Azure nodes, etc. where some issues have already been uncovered by it and are being actively investigated.
\subsection{Recommending time to wait}
Another application closely related to catching regressions with hypothesis testing is recommending the size of the test environment and the we should wait to collect data from our two groups before making a go-nogo decision on the new software bits.
Using the closed form expression for the false negative-false positive rate trade off detailed in section II and III, a simulator was created which anyone in Azure that want's to test a new feature can use for the following purposes:
\begin{itemize}
\item{Obtaining a mapping between $\alpha$ (desired FPR) and $\hat{\alpha}$ (type-1 error rate we should set), hence tuning the test to their data. This is per equation \ref{alpha_general}.}
\item{Plotting the profile of $\alpha$ vs $\beta$ to understand what trade off they will get on their data when using this test. This is per equations \ref{beta_rate_1}.}
\item{Given target effect size for failure rate regressions we want to be sensitive to, target false positive and false negative rates, how long should they wait for collecting data before making a go-nogo decision on their feature?}
\end{itemize}
For the time to wait application, using the rate test on $H_0$ and $H_a$ assuming the Poisson distribution provides a lower bound for the time to wait since the time-to-wait from a Poisson assumption will always be lower than that from real data. So, we should wait \textit{atleast} the amount of time a Poisson distributional assumption recommends for reaching certain target false positive and false negative rates for over-dispersed data.
|
\section{Introduction}
Several developments in the collection of remote sensing imagery have resulted into the availability of high-resolution aerial image datasets for exploring applications such as object detection, image retrieval, etc. Detection and recognition of objects in aerial imagery is crucial for urban planning, disaster mitigation, map making, and change detection. One of the most prominent objects that are maintained and updated are buildings. Therefore, building extraction reaps a plethora of benefits for the aforementioned applications. Because of the increasing amount of aerial imagery, automating the detection process becomes desirable. In recent years, advances of machine learning along with the development of low-cost hardware have resulted in high-performance object detection algorithms. However, building detection from remote sensing images still faces several challenges, where large variations in building appearance (varying building shapes, sizes, and colors), lighting conditions and shadows, often pose difficulties for reliable detection.
\begin{figure}[t]
\captionsetup[subfloat]{labelformat=empty}
\centering
\subfloat{\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{images/22828930_15.png}}
\hspace{0.02mm}
\subfloat{\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{images/22828930_15_results.png}}
\caption{Building segmentation results using our proposed method on Massachusetts building dataset. The colors white, black, blue and red indicate true positives, true negatives, false positives and false negatives, respectively.}
\label{fig:intro_picture}
\end{figure}
Many of the earlier approaches relied on hand-engineered features for building extraction. They exploited the features such as the structure, color and hyper-spectral data of remote sensing images to improve performance. These feature-based methods are coupled with machine learning algorithms for detection and classification \cite{forlani2006complete, frontoni2008comparative, ok2008robust}. However, due to the limitations of low-level features, these algorithms have low performance. In contrast to traditional methods, deep learning methods benefit from learning features by optimizing an objective function. The success of deep learning algorithms, such as Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), has resulted in an improved performance on various computer vision tasks. These advances in deep learning have benefited several remote sensing applications, such as aerial image object detection, image retrieval.
Building detection in remote sensing is usually posed as a segmentation problem. Recent works have obtained state-of-the-art results in semantic segmentation for remote sensing imagery. Most works have explored encoder-decoder network structures to limit the parameter increase in the bottleneck layers for semantic segmentation \cite{long2015fully, jegou2017one, ronneberger2015u}. Fully Convolutional Networks (FCNs) introduced the first encoder-decoder structure for semantic segmentation. FCNs replaced the fully connected layers with a fully convolutional layer, which reduces the number of parameters of the CNN model \cite{long2015fully}. Other work has built further on this encoder-decoder structure, while improving segmentation performance.
Apart from utilizing a sophisticated architecture, most CNN-based segmentation algorithms rely on cross-entropy or similar loss functions as the objective function. Due to the limitations imposed by cross-entropy, we explore an alternative loss function inspired by adversarial learning, that preserves structure and refines the results without the need of additional post-processing steps like Conditional Random Fields (CRFs). In particular, we explore adversarial learning in conjunction with direct per-pixel optimization utilized by cross-entropy loss \cite{goodfellow2014generative}.
\section{Related Work}
Satellite imagery has been systematically captured over the last decade and a large amount of research has been conducted by both the remote sensing and the computer vision communities. Several approaches have been proposed for segmentation of buildings and other terrestrial objects from aerial imagery.
\paragraph{Image segmentation}: In recent years, deep learning algorithms have provided state-of-the-art results for segmentation. Earlier work that relied on deep learning used fully connected layers to produce a vector that was later reshaped to a tensor \cite{mnih2010learning, saito2015building, sebastian2018bootstrapped}.
However, this has been replaced by fully convolutional layers which have removed the output size restriction. Most segmentation networks use an encoder-decoder architecture such as a Fully Convolutional Network (FCN), U-Net, etc. However, the unique nature of remote sensing imagery has fuelled the design of several custom architectures which have been also proposed for aerial image segmentation~\cite{ronneberger2015u}. Much of the work on building segmentation has been focused on improving the network architecture. The success of deep learning in computer vision has also resulted in concentrating on network architectures specifically designed for aerial image segmentation. Approaches such as attention \cite{huang2019automatic}, larger receptive fields \cite{liu2018semantic}, and other post-processing techniques are often added to existing networks to improve aerial image segmentation \cite{liu2018semantic}. Besides these aspects, a few works have also considered larger context as input for the networks \cite{DBLP:journals/corr/Marcu16, sebastian2018bootstrapped}. Context provides an understanding of the object inside and provides higher quality segmentation. However, most of these works consider per-pixel loss to improve the performance, rather than capturing the properties of aerial imagery.
\paragraph{Adversarial learning}
Adversarial learning has been primarily explored for generative models, where it is used to synthesize perceptually realistic images \cite{goodfellow2014generative}. Adversarial learning is also used to create robust models against adversarial attacks. An adversarial learning approach utilizes a discriminator network besides the generator network, to distinguish real and fake samples. Instead of post-processing techniques such as CRFs, adversarial learning provides conditioning and structure to the segmentation outputs. Few previous publications have considered adversarial learning for semantic segmentation \cite{luc2016semantic}. The general approach in the previous results deploys a pair-wise input to the discriminator, where both the generated and input images are fed to the discriminator. Finally, the direct pixel-level and adversarial losses are combined in a weighted scheme. Adding the adversarial loss fills in missing regions by learning to capture the overall structure of a building, similar to inpainting to task of from context information~\cite{sebastian2018conditional}.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{images/pipeline.png}
\end{center}
\caption{Overview of the proposed method. Dotted lines indicate combined cross entropy and adversarial loss of the generator samples, fed back to update the segmentation network parameters. The adversarial loss of both real and generated samples are used to update the discriminator parameters (not shown in this figure).}
\label{fig:pipeline}
\end{figure*}
\section{Method}
\subsection{Dataset}
For the experiments, we use the Massachusetts building dataset \cite{MnihThesis}. It consists of 151~high-resolution RGB aerial images of regions in Boston. Each image has a resolution of 1,500 $\times$ 1,500 pixels with a spatial resolution of one square meter per pixel. The regions depict primarily urban and sub-urban areas with a coverage of 340~m{$^2$}. The dataset is split into~137, 4~and 10~images for training, validation and testing. During training, each image is divided into 300 $\times$ 300 pixel patches without any overlap. Data augmentation is performed by flipping the images left-right and top-down and applying rotations of 90\degree, 180\degree and 270\degree.
\subsection{Adversarial learning}
We combine both adversarial and cross-entropy losses to jointly optimize the generator. The final loss $\mathcal{L}$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L} =
\underset{\textit{G}}{\textnormal{min }} \underset{\textit{D}}{\textnormal{max }} \mathcal{L_{\textnormal{adv}}} (\textit{G}, \textit{D}) + \mathcal{L_{\textnormal{c.e}}} (\textit{G}),
\end{equation}
\noindent
where \textit{G} is the generator network and \textit{D} is the discriminator network. Parameter $\mathcal{L_{\textnormal{adv}}}$ is the adversarial loss and $\mathcal{L_{\textnormal{c.e}}}$ is the cross-entropy loss. Losses $\mathcal{L_{\textnormal{adv}}}$ and $\mathcal{L_{\textnormal{c.e}}}$ are specified by
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L_{\textnormal{adv}}} (\textit{G}, \textit{D}) =
\underset{y\sim \mathbb{P}_{l}}
{\mathbb{E}}[\text{log}(\textit{D}(y))] +
\underset{x \sim \mathbb{P}_{r}}
{\mathbb{E}}[\text{log}(1 - \textit{D}(G({x})))] ,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{c.e}(G) = - y\cdot \log(\hat{y}) + (1 - y)\cdot \log(1 -\hat{y}),
\end{equation}
\noindent
where $\hat{y}$ denotes the output from the segmentation network $\textit{G(x)}$, parameter $y$ is the label (sampled from a real distribution $\mathbb{P}_{l}$) and $x$ (sampled from a real distribution $\mathbb{P}_{r}$) is the input RGB image. During training, the generator weights are updated based on the combination of equally weighted adversarial and cross-entropy losses.
\subsection{Network architectures}
The segmentation network acts as a generator for adversarial training. Like most adversarial training approaches, our architecture is composed of a generator and a discriminator. An overview of the method is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:pipeline}.
\subsubsection{Generator}
To test the effectiveness of adversarial learning in conjunction with cross-entropy loss, we deploy the combined loss on several existing state-of-the-art networks. We test the new loss on DeepLab~v3+ \cite{chen2018encoder}, DenseNet \cite{huang2016densely, jegou2017one}, and PSPNet \cite{zhao2017pyramid}. DeepLab~v3+ is an extension to the series of DeepLab architectures. DeepLab~v3+ consists of Atrous Spatial Pyramid Pooling, combined with the low-level features from earlier layers of a pre-trained ResNet model~\cite{he2015deep}. DenseNet is comprised of dense blocks where every layer is connected to every other layer by concatenation. PSPNet utilizes a pooling module where the final output of the network is pooled at different levels and are combined via concatenation.
\subsubsection{Discriminator}
In all experiments, we employ the same discriminator architecture. Unlike previous work, we do not have a symmetric discriminator as the generator. Our discriminator consists of 4~convolution layers (3 $\times$ 3 kernel size with~32, 64, 128, 256~filters) and 2~fully connected layers (512, 1~outputs) that classify the image as real or fake. Batch normalization~\cite{ioffe2015batch} is not applied and exponential linear units are used for training the discriminator as done in~\cite{ghafoorian2018gan}.
\subsection{Implementation details}
All the networks that are trained with cross-entropy loss using the Adam optimizer ($\beta_1$=0.9 and $\beta_2$=0.99) with a batch size of~3 for 90~epochs. Both DeepLab~v3+ and PSPNet networks are trained using a pretrained model with a learning rate of 10${^{-5}}$. DenseNet is trained without pretraining with a learning rate of 10${^{-4}}$. The networks trained with adversarial and cross-entropy losses use the same settings as above for the generator (the segmentation network). The discriminator is also trained with the Adam optimizer ($\beta_1$=0.5 and $\beta_2$=0.9) with a learning rate of 10${^{-6}}$ for DeepLab~v3+ and PSPNet, and 10${^{-5}}$ for DenseNet. The discriminator to generator training ratio is set to unity.
\subsection{Evaluation metric}
The commonly used metrics for the evaluation of detection results are the precision and recall measures. Precision and recall are also known as correctness and completeness in remote sensing literature. For evaluation, we use the Accuracy, the $F_1$ measure and the mean IoU (mIoU) metrics, to obtain valid comparisons with previous work. Accuracy is computed by
\begin{equation}
\text{Accuracy} = \frac{T.P + T.N}{T.P + T.N + F.P + F.N},
\end{equation}
\noindent
while the $F_1$ score and Precision and Recall are defined by
\begin{equation}
F_1 = 2 \cdot \frac{\text{precision} \cdot \text{recall}}{\text{precision} + \text{recall}},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\text{Precision} = \frac{T.P}{T.P + F.P} , \hspace{5mm}
\text{Recall} = \frac{T.P}{T.P + F.N} .
\end{equation}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\captionsetup[subfloat]{labelformat=empty}
\centering
\subfloat{\includegraphics[width=0.1667\linewidth]{images/results/1.png}}
\subfloat{\includegraphics[width=0.1667\linewidth]{images/results/1_DL.png}}
\subfloat{\includegraphics[width=0.1667\linewidth]{images/results/1_PSP.png}}
\subfloat{\includegraphics[width=0.1667\linewidth]{images/results/1_PSP_adv.png}}
\subfloat{\includegraphics[width=0.1667\linewidth]{images/results/1_DN.png}}
\subfloat{\includegraphics[width=0.1667\linewidth]{images/results/1_DN_adv.png}}
\vspace{-0.82\baselineskip}
\subfloat{\includegraphics[width=0.1667\linewidth]{images/results/2.png}}
\subfloat{\includegraphics[width=0.1667\linewidth]{images/results/2_DL.png}}
\subfloat{\includegraphics[width=0.1667\linewidth]{images/results/2_PSP.png}}
\subfloat{\includegraphics[width=0.1667\linewidth]{images/results/2_PSP_adv.png}}
\subfloat{\includegraphics[width=0.1667\linewidth]{images/results/2_DN.png}}
\subfloat{\includegraphics[width=0.1667\linewidth]{images/results/2_DN_adv.png}}
\vspace{-0.82\baselineskip}
\subfloat{\includegraphics[width=0.1667\linewidth]{images/results/3.png}}
\subfloat{\includegraphics[width=0.1667\linewidth]{images/results/3_DL.png}}
\subfloat{\includegraphics[width=0.1667\linewidth]{images/results/3_PSP.png}}
\subfloat{\includegraphics[width=0.1667\linewidth]{images/results/3_PSP_adv.png}}
\subfloat{\includegraphics[width=0.1667\linewidth]{images/results/3_DN.png}}
\subfloat{\includegraphics[width=0.1667\linewidth]{images/results/3_DN_adv.png}}
\vspace{-0.82\baselineskip}
\subfloat{\includegraphics[width=0.1667\linewidth]{images/results/4.png}}
\subfloat{\includegraphics[width=0.1667\linewidth]{images/results/4_DL.png}}
\subfloat{\includegraphics[width=0.1667\linewidth]{images/results/4_PSP.png}}
\subfloat{\includegraphics[width=0.1667\linewidth]{images/results/4_PSP_adv.png}}
\subfloat{\includegraphics[width=0.1667\linewidth]{images/results/4_DN.png}}
\subfloat{\includegraphics[width=0.1667\linewidth]{images/results/4_DN_adv.png}}
\vspace{-0.82\baselineskip}
\subfloat[Aerial Image]{\includegraphics[width=0.1667\linewidth]{images/results/5.png}}
\subfloat[DeepLab v3+]{\includegraphics[width=0.1667\linewidth]{images/results/5_DL.png}}
\subfloat[PSPNet]{\includegraphics[width=0.1667\linewidth]{images/results/5_PSP.png}}
\subfloat[PSPNet + adv.]{\includegraphics[width=0.1667\linewidth]{images/results/5_PSP_adv.png}}
\subfloat[FC-DenseNet]{\includegraphics[width=0.1667\linewidth]{images/results/5_DN.png}}
\subfloat[FC-DenseNet + adv.]{\includegraphics[width=0.1667\linewidth]{images/results/5_DN_adv.png}}
\caption{Building segmentation results for various segmentation networks. The +adv indicates the addition of adversarial loss with cross-entropy loss. The colors white, black, blue and red pixels indicate true positives, true negatives, false positives and false negatives, respectively.}
\label{fig:Inpaintingexamples}
\end{figure*}
\noindent
Similary, IoU is computed as
\begin{equation}
\text{IoU} = \frac{T.P}{T.P + F.P + F.N},
\end{equation}
where $T.P$, $T.N$, $F.P$, and $F.N$ are the true positives, true negatives, false positives, false negatives, respectively.
In building and road detection, the relaxed version of the $F_1$ and IoU metrics are used. The relaxed version of Precision is the fraction of predicted building pixels that are within a radius of $\rho$ pixels of the ground-truth building pixel, whereas the relaxed Recall represents the fraction of ground-truth building pixels that are within $\rho$ pixels of a predicted building pixel. The value of $\rho$ is set to $\rho$=3 in all the experiments, which is identical to previous work.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\caption{Performance of different methods on the Massachusetts Building dataset. Best results are presented in bold, second best are between [ ] brackets. Results in ( ) parenthesis are improvements with adversarial + cross-entropy loss.}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
\textbf{Network} & \textbf{Accuracy} & \textbf{Relaxed F1} & \textbf{Relaxed IoU} \\ \hline
Mnih \& Hinton & - & 92.11 & - \\ \hline
Saito et al. & - & [94.88] & - \\ \hline
ELU-FCN-CRF & - & 93.93 & 89.08 \\ \hline
Dual Path Network & - & 94.23 & - \\ \hline
DeepLab v3+ & 92.13 & 92.65 & 86.31 \\ \hline
PSPNet & 90.9 & 89.52 & 81.2 \\ \hline
PSPNet + adv. & 91.02 (+0.12) & 91.17 (+1.65) & 83.78 (+2.58) \\ \hline
FC-DenseNet & [93.18] & 94.33 & [89.27] \\ \hline
FC-DenseNet + adv & \textbf{93.45 (+0.27)} & \textbf{95.59 (+1.26)} & \textbf{91.55 (+2.28)} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\label{table:results}
\end{table}
\section{Results}
To compare the results against previous methods, we measure the performance across different metrics. The results are summarized in Table~1. From this table, it is evident that Fully Convolutional DenseNet (FC-DenseNet) with adversarial loss offers the best performance. We observe that with sufficient data augmentation, we are able to produce competitive results with other state-of-the-art methods. The addition of adversarial loss to the segmentation task consistently offers better performance across all the metrics. We observe this positive trend with both DenseNet and PSPNet. Note that the first 3~methods in Table~1 deploy CRFs as a post-processing step. Compared to dual-path networks, our method is significantly less expensive to train and run inference, since dual-path networks use parameter intensive AlexNet and VGGNet to learn global and local features. During inference, the discriminator network is not used and hence has the same computation cost of running a standard segmentation network. From qualitative results, it can be seen that the addition of the adversarial loss fills in missing regions more coherently than the standard cross-entropy loss. This effect is visualized in Figure~\ref{fig:Inpaintingexamples}. The proposed system partly acts as an inpainting network where a prior segmentation is generated simultaneously using the cross-entropy loss and is reconstructed by the adversarial loss.
\section{Conclusion}
We have proposed a loss function to train CNNs for semantic segmentation of aerial imagery. The proposed loss function, which is a combination of the adversarial and cross-entropy losses, consistently improves performance without any additional cost during inference. We have concluded that the addition of the adversarial loss improves the overall structure and produces a more coherent output taking the context into consideration. Furthermore, our method has been evaluated across commonly used metrics and a comparison with state-of-the-art methods is provided. Finally, the proposed method outperforms the state-of-the-art results on the Massachusetts building dataset with a relaxed $F_1$ of 95.59\% without any additional post-processing techniques.
{\small
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{The problem}
Einstein \cite{Einstein} introduced the cosmological constant $\Lambda$ in 1917 for having a static universe as solution of his equations of the gravitational field \cite{LL2}. What was the problem? The gravity of matter is attractive, so the matter distribution the universe is made of may first expand and then collapse --- like a stone thrown on Earth first rises and then falls, or it may expand forever, like a spacecraft on a voyage into space. In order to have an equilibrium, a repulsive force was required that acts on cosmological scales, but is otherwise too small to play a significant role. This repulsive background was provided for by Einstein's cosmological term \cite{Einstein}. Hubble's measurements \cite{Hubble} of the Doppler shift in the light coming from galaxies revealed a different picture however: the universe has been expanding at a positive rate. There was no need for an equilibrium solution. In the 1990s measurements on the light coming from certain supernovae \cite{Supernovae1,Supernovae2} became precise enough to calculate the second derivative of the expansion, which turned out to be positive, too (Fig.~\ref{expansion}). This implies that there is indeed a repulsive component to the gravitational force (more on this in Sec.~2.1). Recent measurements on the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) \cite{CMBPlanck} have established that the repulsive component takes the form of Einstein's cosmological term with constant $\Lambda$. The latest measurements on bright stars in galaxies \cite{Cepheids} seem to indicate, however, that $\Lambda$ is not constant, but has varied from the time the CMB was created to the present era. In any case, there is clear empirical evidence for the existence of the cosmological term and there are good quantitative measurements of $\Lambda$.
The state of the theory could hardly be more different. The standard prediction of $\Lambda$ from quantum field theory deviates from the observed value by 120 orders of magnitude \cite{Weinberg}. This state of affairs is reflected in the contemporary scientific term for $\Lambda$: dark energy. The term conjures up a picture of some dark force filling the universe, while in reality it just says that current theoretical physics is unable to shed light on what ``dark energy'' really is. While there are many attempts \cite{Weinberg,DarkEnergy} to derive the cosmological term, none have been fully convincing in the following sense. Physical theories do not just give quantitative explanations of measured facts, but they connect the facts across several different areas of empirical investigation. The larger the range of explanation the more valueable is the theory and the more likely it is that the theory captures a portion of the truth. The attempts of deriving the cosmological constant from theory seem to fall into two categories: either are they off by many orders of magnitude, if they originate from other known physics, or they are highly specialized and therefore highly speculative. Yet a physically well-motivated explanation \cite{Zeldovich} has been put forward right from the beginning.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=32pc]{fig1.pdf}
\caption{
\small{
Expanding universe. Measurements of the Doppler shift in the light of supernova explosions \cite{Supernovae1,Supernovae2} were sufficiently precise to infer the second derivative of the expansion factor of the universe: the cosmic acceleration. The result was a surprise. Normally, matter is gravitationally attractive, causing a negative gravitational acceleration, but a uniform repulsive background turned out to dominate the net acceleration when the matter had become sufficiently diluted. This repulsive background is described by Einstein's cosmological constant $\Lambda$ and has been called ``dark energy'' for want of a more illuminating term. About $80\%$ of matter is equally elusive and has been called ``dark matter''. This paper makes a case for explaining dark energy as a consequence of vacuum fluctuations, showing how to overcome the problems \cite{Weinberg} that had plagued such an explanation since 1968.}
\label{expansion}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Zel'dovich \cite{Zeldovich} suggested in 1968 that Einstein's cosmological term \cite{Einstein} comes from the physics of the quantum vacuum \cite{Milonni}. The quantum vacuum is the ground state of the physical fields --- the electromagnetic field and the fields of the weak and strong interaction. Fields are thought of being spanned by modes of harmonic oscillators, and the ground state of a harmonic oscillator is known to carry a zero--pointy energy and to appear with a fluctuating amplitude. An antenna put in vacuum would pick up noise that could be attributed to the fluctuating amplitudes of the modes it samples. The physics of the quantum vacuum has been well--tested and explains a huge set of phenomena, from the stickiness of materials on the nano scale to the limit trees can grow \cite{Koch}. Recent precision measurements of vacuum forces \cite{Rodriguez} including measurements of repulsive forces \cite{Levitation,CasimirEquilibrium} have tested the theory with an accuracy only limited by the knowledge of the material data involved. Zel'dovich's proposal \cite{Zeldovich} thus connects the cosmological constant to a range of completely different phenomena, which would give great strength to his theory. Unfortunately, while Zel'dovich derived the correct structure of the cosmological term, the predicted quantitative value for $\Lambda$ is in stark disagreement with the facts.
The facts are that the universe is indeed dominated by vacuum fluctuations, simply because it is rather empty, and that the spectrum of these fluctuations is almost unlimited, because of the equivalence principle of general relativity \cite{LL2}. The emptiness of space is quantified in the number for the average mass density of space on cosmological scales at the present time:
\begin{equation}
\rho\approx 10^{-27} \mathrm{g}/\mathrm{cm}^{3} \,.
\label{density}
\end{equation}
The equivalence principle \cite{LL2} states that gravity acts equally on all bodies and on all scales. In particular, it implies that gravity acts equally on all fields on all wavelengths, down to the Planck scale where --- presumably --- classical general relativity \cite{LL2} does no longer hold. The equivalence principle has been well--tested, although not to the Planck scale, but it is a principle that connects a wide range of gravitational phenomena and therefore seems to capture a significant portion of the truth. The potential limitation of the principle is characterized by two numbers worth remembering, the Planck length $\ell_\mathrm{p}$ and the Planck mass $m_\mathrm{p}$ with the expressions
\begin{equation}
\ell_\mathrm{p} = \sqrt{\frac{\hbar G}{c^3}} \approx 1.6 \times 10^{-33} \mathrm{cm} \,,\quad
m_\mathrm{p} = \sqrt{\frac{\hbar c}{G}} \approx 2.1 \times 10^{-5} \mathrm{g} \,.
\label{planck}
\end{equation}
These are the length and the mass units one can construct by taking combinations of the fundamental constants of nature, Planck's $\hbar$, Newton's gravitational constant $G$ and the speed of light $c$. Their precise physical meanings are not known yet, but one may get some insight from the thermodynamics of causal horizons \cite{Jacobson} (generalizing black--hole thermodynamics \cite{Bekenstein}). Here the entropy increment is given by the area element divided by $4\ell_\mathrm{p}^2$, which suggests that $2\ell_\mathrm{p}$ plays the role of a fundamental length scale in gravitational physics. The Planck mass follows from the classical physics of black holes \cite{LL2} as the mass of a black hole of Schwarzschild radius $2\ell_\mathrm{p}$. It would be larger by a factor of $\sqrt[4]{5120 \pi} \approx 10$ than the minimal mass required for a quantum--mechanically stable black hole \cite{LeoBook} (that is not immediately evaporated \cite{Hawking}). Vacuum modes with wavelengths comparable to the Planck length, if they were to exist, would thus immediately generate black holes and could no longer be taken as passive objects obeying the equivalence principle, but as active agents dissolving the structure of space--time.
Let me give a simple argument, based on dimensional analysis, why the numbers (\ref{density}) and (\ref{planck}) appear to be in conflict with each other. The energy density $\varepsilon_\mathrm{vac}$ of the quantum vacuum must be proportional to $\hbar$, because it is made by the zero--point energy of all the field modes combined that goes with $\hbar$. In order to get an energy one should multiply $\hbar$ by $c$ and divide by the forth power of a length. This length would correspond to the minimal wavelength of the field modes, which one may take as the Planck length. This gives
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon_\mathrm{vac} \sim \frac{\hbar c}{\ell_\mathrm{p}^4} \,.
\label{prediction}
\end{equation}
Converted into a mass density $\rho_\mathrm{vac} = \varepsilon_\mathrm{vac}\,c^{-2}$ one gets
\begin{equation}
\rho_\mathrm{vac} \sim \frac{m_\mathrm{p}}{\ell_\mathrm{p}^3}
\end{equation}
and hence, using the numerical values (\ref{density}) and (\ref{planck}) for the actual mass density $\rho$ and the Planck length and mass:
\begin{equation}
\log_{10} (\rho_\mathrm{vac}/\rho) \approx 120 \,.
\end{equation}
The elementary prediction (\ref{prediction}) of quantum field theory disagrees with astronomical observations on a truly astronomical scale. Resolving this conflict between theory and reality, while keeping Zel'dovich's connection between the cosmological constant and the quantum vacuum, requires a re--examination of the empirical evidence and the supporting theory, as follows.
\section{The evidence}
\subsection{Cosmology}
Astronomical observations have shown \cite{Survey} that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic on cosmological scales (larger than $100 \mathrm{Mpc}$). This implies \cite{LL2} that infinitesimal spatial distances can only change with a universal factor $n$ that is uniform in space but may depend on time $t$. In the spirit of optical analogues of gravity \cite{Gordon,Plebanski,Schleich,LeoPhil} we may regard the factor $n$ as a uniform refractive index that varies in time. The matter and energy in the universe at large acts, on average, as a fluid \cite{LL6}. This fluid must be at rest relative to the expanding universe, for otherwise the direction of its movement would violate the condition of isotropy. The fluid is therefore solely characterized by its energy density $\varepsilon$ and pressure $p$ where the energy density is related to the mass density by $\varepsilon=\rho c^2$. These postulates, supported by empirical evidence \cite{Survey}, constitute the cosmological principle \cite{LL2}.
One may formulate the cosmological principle in terms of a space--time metric \cite{LL2} and deduce from Einstein's equations the Friedmann equations of cosmic evolution \cite{LL2}. It is however possible --- and instructive --- to deduce the laws of cosmology almost exclusively from Newtonian physics \cite{Milne}. Take one point in space and imagine a sphere around this point filled with the cosmic fluid of uniform mass density $\rho$. Consider the Newtonian gravitational potential inside the sphere. Gauss' theorem implies that it is the potential of a harmonic oscillator with spring constant given by Newton's constant $G$ times the mass density $\rho$ multiplied by the volume $4\pi/3$ of the unit sphere. Relativity \cite{LL2} makes only one correction: in addition to the mass density the pressure also causes gravity. To be precise, relativity adds the term $3p/c^2$ to $\rho$ in the effective mass density of gravity in cosmology. One gets from the equation of motion of the harmonic oscillator:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\ddot{n}}{n} = - \frac{4\pi G}{3} \left(\rho+\frac{3p}{c^2}\right) ,
\label{newton}
\end{equation}
which is known as Newton's equation of the universe \cite{Telephone}. In the case when the pressure is much smaller than the rest energy density the gravity of matter thus establishes a restoring force with negative acceleration $\ddot{n}$. The observation \cite{Supernovae1,Supernovae2} of $\ddot{n}>0$ in the present era reveals however that there is a substantial negative pressure with $p<-\rho c^2/3$. The analysis of CMB fluctuations \cite{CMBPlanck} identifies a constant contribution of $\varepsilon_\Lambda$ to the total energy density $\varepsilon$ with
\begin{equation}
p_\Lambda = -\varepsilon_\Lambda \,.
\label{lambda}
\end{equation}
This constant negative pressure combined with the constant positive energy density $\varepsilon_\Lambda$ acts like a uniform source of repulsive gravity --- as if the matter of the universe were embedded in a uniform background of opposite gravitational charge \cite{Kolomeisky}. With increasing expansion the mass density of matter decreases such that this uniform background becomes increasingly important. At the present time $\varepsilon_\Lambda/c^2$ amounts to about $70\%$ of the total mass density (\ref{density}). This constant background is called dark energy. More prosaically --- and more accurately --- it corresponds to the cosmological constant introduced by Einstein \cite{Einstein}.
One more ingredient is needed for completing the laws of cosmic evolution, and that comes from thermodynamics \cite{LL5}. The cosmic fluid is assumed to be isentropic --- entropy is conserved, such that a change in the total energy $E$ of a volume $V$ is given by $\mathrm{d}E=-p\,\mathrm{d}V$. As the volume $V$ varies with $n^3$ and $E=\varepsilon V$ one gets the second Friedmann equation \cite{LL2}:
\begin{equation}
\dot{\varepsilon} = -3(\varepsilon + p) H
\label{f2}
\end{equation}
where $H$ denotes the Hubble constant
\begin{equation}
H=\frac{\dot{n}}{n} \,.
\label{hubble}
\end{equation}
Note that $H$ is not actually constant in general, except when the universe is exponentially expanding (in the case of de Sitter space \cite{deSitter}).
Having established the equations of motion for the expanding universe, Eqs.~(\ref{newton}) and (\ref{f2}), we integrate them. Consider the quantity $K$ defined by the relation
\begin{equation}
H^2 + \frac{K}{n^2} = \frac{8\pi G}{3c^2}\, \varepsilon
\label{f1}
\end{equation}
with $\varepsilon=\rho c^2$. Differentiating Eq.~(\ref{f1}) and making use of the Newton equation (\ref{newton}) for $\dot{H}+H^2=\ddot{n}/n$ as well as the thermodynamic relation (\ref{f2}) and the undifferentiated Eq.~(\ref{f1}) reveals that $\dot{K}=0$. In other words, $K$ is a constant. It turns out in general relativity \cite{LL2} that $K$ describes the spatial curvature; $K$ is positive for positively curved space and negative for negative spatial curvature, and in the marginal case of flat space
\begin{equation}
K = 0 \,.
\label{flat}
\end{equation}
Newtonian cosmology does account for the curvature of space in principle \cite{MM}. The analysis of CMB data \cite{CurveMeas} has shown that in practice space is approximately flat on cosmological scales such that Eq.~(\ref{flat}) holds to a good approximation. Equation (\ref{f1}) is known as the first Friedmann equation \cite{LL2}, which concludes all the cosmology we will need in this article.
\subsection{Vacuum}
Having collected the evidence from cosmology, consider now the case for forces of the quantum vacuum \cite{Forces}. Without exception, the empirical evidence for vacuum forces comes from Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics (AMO) and here from quantum fluctuations of the electromagnetic field. They appear as the van der Waals and Casimir forces \cite{Rodriguez}. The Casimir force is typically (Fig.~\ref{typical}) a force between electrically neutral bodies of refractive indices $n_i$ immersed in a uniform background with index $n_0$. Strictly speaking \cite{LL8}, dielectrics are characterized by the refractive index $n$ and the impedance $Z$; here we assume $Z=1$ for simplicity. At sufficiently low temperatures (for thermal wavelengths larger than the characteristic distances) the Casimir force originates from fluctuations of the quantum vacuum \cite{LL9}. These are in general not fluctuations of the electromagnetic field in empty space, but inside the media the bodies and the background are made of. The term ``vacuum'' is used to state that they are quantum fluctuations of the field in the ground state, given the arrangement of dielectrics. These fluctuations carry energy and exert stress that does mechanical work; the divergence $\nabla\cdot\sigma$ of the stress tensor $\sigma$ gives the force density. For an arrangement of dielectric bodies of uniform refractive indices in a uniform background (Fig.~\ref{typical}) the force density is entirely concentrated at the surfaces of the bodies, causing the Casimir force \cite{Casimir}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=20pc]{fig2.pdf}
\caption{
\small{
Typical Casimir setup. Two dielectric bodies with refractive indices $n_1$ and $n_2$ are immersed in a dielectric background of refractive index $n_0$. The Casimir effect of the quantum vacuum creates a mechanical force density at the interfaces of the bodies. Elsewhere the force is zero. Renormalization is needed in order to calculate the force. In the simplest procedure, the bare vacuum energy is renormalized by the energy one obtains when moving the bodies within the background to infinity. Taking the difference between the two gives a finite result that agrees with experiments.
}
\label{typical}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
There are various theories for the Casimir effect of the quantum vacuum. Casimir's original theory \cite{Casimir} considers the total sum $E$ of all the ground state energies $\hbar\omega_m/2$ of all electromagnetic modes involved. This theory presumes the existence of stationary modes oscillating with the circular frequencies $\omega_m$. In realistic media the concept of modes become questionable, because real materials are dissipative such that stationary modes no longer exist, strictly speaking. The theory explaining Casimir forces in realistic dielectrics, Lifshitz theory \cite{LL9,Lifshitz,LDP,Scheel} takes a different starting point: the fluctuation--dissipation theorem \cite{Scheel}. The theorem allows to express the energy density and stress tensor \cite{Pita,Burger} in terms of the electromagnetic Green functions. Lifshitz theory \cite{LL9,Lifshitz,LDP,Scheel} has become the theoretical workhorse in AMO Casimir physics \cite{Rodriguez}. There it agrees with precision experiments \cite{Levitation,CasimirEquilibrium} with an accuracy in the percent level that appears to be only limited by the spectral range and accuracy of the material data needed for calculating the force.
The theory of Casimir forces, whether it is Lifshitz theory \cite{LL9,Lifshitz,LDP,Scheel} or any other formulation \cite{Milonni,BKMM} involves one crucial step: renormalization. Without it the energy density and the stress of the quantum fluctuations are infinite. To see this in its most elementary form, consider a one--dimensional toy model, a waveguide of length $a$ with reflecting end cups. The spectrum this one--dimensional cavity supports is given by the discrete circular frequencies $\omega_m = (\pi c/a) m$ with positive integers $m$. One thus gets for the density of the total zero--point energy
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon_{\mathrm{\small 1D}} = \frac{E}{a} = \frac{1}{a}\sum_{m=1}^\infty \frac{\hbar\omega_m}{2} = \frac{\hbar c}{a^2} \frac{\pi}{4}\sum_{m=1}^\infty m = \infty \,.
\label{toy}
\end{equation}
Renormalization extracts the part of the energy and stress that does mechanical work. In the case of the one--dimensional toy model of Eq.~(\ref{toy}) one obtains \cite{BKMM} the renormalized vacuum energy density
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon_{\mathrm{vac 1D}} = -\frac{\pi}{48} \,\frac{\hbar c}{a^2}
\end{equation}
as if the sum of all positive integers were effectively $-1/12$. In its most physically convincing and numerically efficient form \cite{Reid} the renormalization is done by comparing the energy of the arrangement of dielectric bodies at finite distances with the energy they had if they were infinitely far apart. It is important to keep the immersion at the same index $n_0$, for otherwise the difference in energies would diverge. This simple renormalization procedure is consistent with Lifshitz theory \cite{Reid} and hence has been well--tested by precision experiments.
In cosmology, the expansion factor $n$ plays the role of the refractive index. Here $n$ is uniform in space but varies in time, whereas in the arrangement of dielectric bodies $n$ varies between the bodies and the background --- it varies in space and not in time. The energies and stresses of vacuum fluctuations should be just the same though, as they are both given by the energy--momentum tensor of the electromagnetic field (in the presence of the gravitational field or in media). What differs is only the way energies and stresses act. In AMO physics, the divergence of the stress produces directly the force density. In cosmology, the energy density and pressure contribute to the cosmic expansion due to their gravity, as described in the Friedmann equations (\ref{f2}) and (\ref{f1}). Yet in general relativity the entire energy and stress is supposed to gravitate, and not just the renormalized part, which produces a figure that disagrees with fact by 120 orders of magnitude, as shown in Sec.~I. In view of this obvious conflict with reality, why should we not take the empirical fact of the astronomically small mass density, Eq.~(\ref{density}), as evidence that the bare vacuum energy, for whatever reason, does not gravitate?
\section{The theory}
The bare vacuum energy and stress has not appeared in any experimental test of Casimir forces, nor does it appear in cosmology. Should we still take it as real? Or should we rather regard it as an artefact of the theory? Assume that renormalization is real, that the bare vacuum and stress always needs to be removed, even in gravity. The universe would still create a Casimir energy $\varepsilon_\mathrm{vac}$ and pressure $p_\mathrm{vac}$, because it is evolving. Instead of changing in space (on cosmological scales) the expansion factor $n$ changes in time, as if the spatial refractive index profile (Fig.~\ref{typical}) would be turned into a space--time diagram (Fig.~\ref{rot}). This time--dependent refractive--index profile produces a renormalized $\varepsilon_\mathrm{vac}$ and pressure $p_\mathrm{vac}$ that will be significantly smaller than the notorious 120 orders of magnitudes of the bare theory \cite{Weinberg}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=20pc]{fig3.jpg}
\caption{
\small{
Casimir effect in time instead of space (Fig.~\ref{typical}). Space--time diagrams of dielectrics with time--dependent refractive indices indicated by different shades of grey. Left: discrete changes of the refractive index similar to the typical Casimir setup (Fig.~\ref{typical}). Right: continuously changing index profile $n(t)$. In the latter case the Casimir effect creates a continuous force density.
}
\label{rot}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Yet there is one important subtlety to consider: the cosmic expansion $n(t)$ is continuous, it does not happen in jumps from one constant $n$ to the next, whereas in the typical setting for the Casimir effect (Fig.~\ref{typical}) the refractive index $n$ is piecewise homogenous. The Casimir force in inhomogeneous media is no longer concentrated at the surfaces of dielectric bodies --- because there are no distinct bodies one could distinctly identify in gradually varying media. The force density will be a continuous function. One might think \cite{Simpson} one could simply discretise a continuous variation of $n$ and then calculate the force at each discrete transition from one $n$ to the next. This discretisation procedure would create force densities localized at the interfaces that, in the continuum limit, approach a smooth force distribution. It has been one of the surprises in theoretical Casimir physics \cite{SimpsonSurprise} that this simple discretisation of the refractive index does not work \cite{Simpson}. It then took some time and effort to find a workable solution \cite{Grin1} for the case of planar media where $n$ varies in one direction in space.
The problem is that the physically intuitive renormalization procedure of the standard Casimir effect (Fig.~\ref{typical}) is not applicable anymore. In a continuously varying medium it is simply impossible to move the bodies of the medium to infinity, for working out their bare Casimir energy, because the medium consists of {\it one} indivisible body. A local renormalization procedure is needed. For finding this procedure, insight and intuition comes from Schwinger's source theory \cite{SchwingerSource}. Schwinger assumed here \cite{SchwingerSource} that the quantum fluctuations of fields originate from quantum fluctuations of their sources. In the case of dielectric media, these sources are the electric and magnetic polarizations of the dielectrics. Their response to the electromagnetic field forms the refractive--index profile. According to the dissipation--fluctuation theorem \cite{Scheel} the polarizations fluctuate, even at zero temperature when they are purely quantum. The fluctuating charges and currents of the medium create electromagnetic fields that propagate them in time across space. The fields are the messengers, not the sources of the quantum fluctuations. This picture agrees with the modern quantization procedure \cite{KSW,PhilbinQ1,PhilbinQ2,Buhmann,Horsley,HorsleyPhilbin} of the electromagnetic field in dispersive and dissipative media. It also agrees with the starting point of Lifshitz theory \cite{Lifshitz}: Rytov's fluctuating sources \cite{Rytov}. The picture suggests a local renormalization procedure as follows.
Each point of the medium is mentally split into two points, one is the emitter and the other the receiver of electromagnetic fields. Driven by quantum fluctuations, the emitter sends out an electromagnetic wave. The wave propagates, is partially reflected in the medium and is then picked up by the receiving end of the cell. Of course, all the other cells of the medium are also emitting electromagnetic waves the receiver is responding to. But averaged over the fluctuations, each cell can only interact with the field emitted by itself, because the different cells of the medium are not correlated, their emissions are independent from each other and random. Only the wave emitted by one and the same cell has a well--defined phase relation with itself and so, on average, only this field will have a physical effect onto the cell. The emitted field consists of two part, an outgoing wave and a scattered wave that is reflected at the inhomogeneities of the medium. The receiver does only interact with the scattered wave. Yet the theoretical description of the field does also contain the outgoing wave. In order to describe the idea that the receiver interacts only with the scattered radiation, one should subtract in the energy and stress the contribution coming from the outgoing wave. This subtraction procedure of the unphysical interaction of the point with itself corresponds to the renormalization procedure in Schwinger's picture \cite{Grin1}. It is implemented in Lifshitz theory \cite{LL9,Lifshitz,LDP,Scheel} by subtracting the outgoing Green function from the total Green function. This is how renormalization was conceived in Lifshitz', Pitaevskii's and Dzyaloshinskii's original theory \cite{LDP}, whereas the intuitive idea of comparing the Casimir energy between dielectric bodies at finite and infinite distances was Casimir's \cite{Casimir}. Casimir's method has made it into Lifshitz theory in its modern numerical implementation \cite{Reid}, whereas the original renormalization procedure in Lifshitz theory has been the tool for analytical calculations.
Now, the outgoing wave emitted at a given point in the medium depends on the dielectric environment of that point: it depends on the local refractive index $n$. Without taking the local $n$ into account, the difference between the total and the bare stress would not converge to a finite value. Lifshitz theory with the original renormalization procedure \cite{LDP} agrees with experiments \cite{Levitation,CasimirEquilibrium} where the dielectric backgrounds differ from vacuum ($n_0\neq 1$). This gives experimental evidence supporting the concept of local renormalization and ruling out any idea that renormalization amounts to subtracting the large, global energy of the bare quantum vacuum. Renormalization is local, but how local is it? The outgoing wave needs at least one cycle of oscillation for establishing itself as a wave --- the oscillating magnetic field made by the source current induces an electric field that, in turn, drives the magnetic field, which induces an electric field and so on. Therefore it seems plausible that the outgoing wave depends not only on the local value of $n$, but also on the first two derivatives of $n$. For piece--wise homogeneous media (Fig.~\ref{typical}) the dependence of the renormalization on derivatives of $n$ does not matter, as those derivatives are zero. For inhomogeneous media, the appearance of the extra derivatives explains why the naive discretisation of the medium fails to give a converging Casimir force \cite{Simpson}. For planar media, the renormalization to second order was proven \cite{Grin1} to converge. The theory \cite{Grin1} has not been tested in experiments yet, but it predicts effects \cite{Grin2} that seem measurable with current experimental techniques, and hence are testable.
The theory \cite{Grin1} of the Casimir stress inside inhomogeneous planar materials makes one more prediction that, when widely extrapolated to cosmological scales, explains why the Casimir effect might play a role in cosmology: the convergence of the renormalization relies on dispersion. Ordinary dielectric materials are dispersive in the sense that the refractive index $n$ depends on frequency. The Casimir effect is a broadband electromagnetic phenomenon \cite{Rodriguez} depending on the entire frequency window of the material. For large frequencies all materials become completely transparent, $n\rightarrow 1$. Without this feature, the renormalized stress would contain a logarithmically diverging contribution \cite{Grin1}. On the other hand, the ``material'' of general relativity --- the geometry of space and time --- acts on all frequencies equally, as a consequence of the equivalence principle \cite{LL2}. Therefore even the renormalized $\varepsilon_\mathrm{vac}$ would still diverge, although significantly weaker than the unrenormalized one. The wavelength range contributing to the forces of the quantum vacuum would go to the Planck length (\ref{planck}) where, presumably, the equivalence principle ceases to hold. So $\varepsilon_\mathrm{vac}$ would not grow with the inverse forth power of the Planck length as in Eq.~(\ref{prediction}) that produces the wrong 120 orders of magnitudes, but significantly weaker. The logarithmic divergence \cite{Grin1} is not sufficient though, for the following reason.
The divergence of the vacuum energy density and stress with the cutoff scale occurs only in inhomogeneous media. The prefactor of the divergence is therefore not a universal constant, but vanishes for constant $n$. The prefactor must depend on derivatives of $n$. In cosmology, $n$ varies on the time scale of the inverse of the Hubble constant $H$. For being able to influence the cosmic evolution described by the Friedmann equation (\ref{f1}), the energy density $\varepsilon_\mathrm{vac}$ should go like $H^2$. Being a quantum energy $\varepsilon_\mathrm{vac}$ must be proportional to $\hbar$; having the physical dimensions of an energy density suggests that $\varepsilon_\mathrm{vac}$ should go like $(\hbar/c) H^2/\ell^2$. Indeed, identifying $\ell$ with the Planck length (\ref{planck}) satisfies the Friedmann equation (\ref{f1}) for $K=0$. This simple dimensional analysis \cite{Tractatus} indicates that $\varepsilon_\mathrm{vac}$ must diverge with an inverse square length for having a case for the Casimir effect in cosmology.
In planar media \cite{Grin1} the refractive--index profile depends only on one direction of space (Fig.~\ref{typical}), in spatially--flat cosmology it depends only on time (Fig.~\ref{rot}). This apparently simple rotation of the spatial profile into a space--time diagram involves two important subtleties that distinguishes the cosmological case from the planar case: horizons and causality. Horizons are a consequence of Hubble's law \cite{LL2}: the space around a point appears to expand with a velocity that grows with the Hubble constant (\ref{hubble}) times the distance. Hubble's law is a simple kinematic feature of spatially uniform expansion where distances $r$ grow as $n(t)r$. Differentiation shows that a distant point moves away with velocity $H$ times the distance $nr$. This apparent velocity may become arbitrarily large. At the horizon the expansion speed is equal to the speed of light such that the interior of the horizon is causally disconnected from the rest of the universe. No wave from outside of the horizon can reach the point. The cosmological horizon is completely analogous \cite{Tractatus} to the event horizon of the black hole \cite{Brout}. In particular, the horizon is predicted \cite{Tractatus,GibbonsHawking} to emit the analogue of Hawking radiation \cite{Hawking} with temperature
\begin{equation}
k_\mathrm{B} T = \frac{\hbar H}{2\pi}
\label{gh}
\end{equation}
where $k_\mathrm{B}$ denotes Boltzmann's constant. Although the temperature (\ref{gh}) lies significantly below the $2.7\mathrm{K}$ of the CMB ($2\times 10^{-29}\mathrm{K}$ for the current inverse Hubble constant of about $10^{10}$ years) it turns out \cite{Tractatus} to play a dominant role in the regularization of the vacuum energy.
Another extremely subtle but crucial feature of the cosmological case is causality. Recall that in the local renormalization method each point is mentally split into two: the emitter and the receiver. While emitter and receiver can change places in space, they cannot alter their order in time: emission must precede reception. This subtle constraint from causality, combined with the radiation of the cosmological horizon, creates \cite{Tractatus} the cosmologically relevant divergence of the vacuum energy in the second--order renormalization procedure established for planar media \cite{Grin1}. The Casimir energy may become cosmologically relevant. But does it explain dark energy?
\section{The anomaly}
The characteristic feature, Eq.~(\ref{lambda}), of the cosmological constant is the negative pressure $p_\Lambda$ equal in magnitude to the positive energy density $\varepsilon_\Lambda$. Is this $\varepsilon_\Lambda$ the renormalized energy density $\varepsilon_\mathrm{vac}$ of the quantum vacuum? No, because the corresponding pressure $p_\mathrm{vac}$ must be $\varepsilon_\mathrm{vac}/3$. This is a consequence of the fact that the energy of an electromagnetic wave is equal to its momentum times the speed of light. The energy of a volume element filled with incoherent radiation must therefore be equal to the momentum transfer, {\it i.e.} the pressure, in the three directions of space, which gives $\varepsilon_\mathrm{vac}=3p_\mathrm{vac}$.
So where does $\varepsilon_\Lambda$ and $p_\Lambda$ come from? Consider the conservation of energy and momentum as expressed in the second Friedmann equation (\ref{f2}). With $p_\mathrm{vac}=\varepsilon_\mathrm{vac}/3$ one gets the differential equation $\dot{\varepsilon}_\mathrm{vac}=-4\varepsilon_\mathrm{vac}$ with the solution $\varepsilon_\mathrm{vac}\propto n^{-4}$. This would imply that $\varepsilon_\mathrm{vac}$ is only a function of the expansion factor $n$. Yet if $\varepsilon_\mathrm{vac}$ is a Casimir energy it must also depend on derivatives of $n$. The vacuum energy $\varepsilon_\mathrm{vac}$ violates energy--momentum conservation. Wald \cite{Wald} understood the root of the problem: the lack of reciprocity in the renormalization procedure. Recall the point--splitting picture: the emitter sends out fluctuating electromagnetic waves, the emitter receives the reflected waves. The outgoing waves depend on the refractive--index profile around the emitter, which differs from the profile around the receiver when $n$ varies. Emitter and receiver and not reciprocal. Wald realized that this lack of reciprocity violates the conservation of energy and momentum \cite{Wald}. Intuitively one may see this as a recoil imbalance \cite{Tractatus}: the recoil of the wave on the emitter is not the same as the recoil on the receiver.
Consider the energy density of the recoil imbalance --- just add a term $\varepsilon_\mathrm{recoil}$ to $\varepsilon_\mathrm{vac}$. The term should describe exactly the missing energy in the energy--momentum balance, {\it i.e.}\ on the left--hand side of the Friedmann equation (\ref{f2}). This is only possible if the right--hand side is not changed by the associated pressure. The recoil pressure must therefore be the exact opposite of the recoil energy, precisely as for $\varepsilon_\Lambda$ and $p_\Lambda$ in Eq.~(\ref{lambda}). One may thus identify $\varepsilon_\Lambda$ with $\varepsilon_\mathrm{recoil}$ and arrives at a physical picture for the energy of the cosmological constant --- dark energy. The energy and pressure of $\Lambda$ is created in the recoil imbalance of vacuum fluctuations emitted and received in the medium of space--time \cite{Tractatus}. The technical term for this imbalance is called trace anomaly \cite{Wald}.
Not only gives this idea a physical picture for the cosmological constant $\Lambda$, it also establishes a method for calculating $\varepsilon_\Lambda$ (and $p_\Lambda=-\varepsilon_\Lambda$). Consider for completeness the rest of matter and radiation described by some energy density $\varepsilon_\mathrm{m}$ and pressure $p_\mathrm{m}$ in addition to the energy and pressure of the quantum vacuum. The total energy density and pressure is then given by
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon = \varepsilon_\mathrm{m} + \varepsilon_\mathrm{vac} + \varepsilon_\Lambda \,,\quad
p = p_\mathrm{m} + \frac{1}{3}\, \varepsilon_\mathrm{vac} - \varepsilon_\Lambda \,.
\end{equation}
Assume for simplicity and in agreement with observation \cite{CurveMeas} that the universe is spatially flat. Differentiating the first Friedmann equation (\ref{f1}) and using the second Friedmann equation (\ref{f2}) establishes an evolution equation of the universe:
\begin{equation}
\dot{H} = -\frac{8\pi G}{c^2} \left(\varepsilon_\mathrm{m} + p_\mathrm{m} + \frac{4}{3}\,\varepsilon_\mathrm{vac}\right)
\label{evolution}
\end{equation}
similar to the Newton equation (\ref{newton}). Given $\varepsilon_\mathrm{m}$ and $p_\mathrm{m}$ as functions of $n$ and $\varepsilon_\mathrm{vac}$ as functions of $n$ and its derivatives, Eq.~(\ref{evolution}) defines an equation of motion for the universe on cosmological scales. This equation of motion is independent of the cosmological term $\varepsilon_\Lambda$. Given a solution of the cosmic dynamics, the energy density $\varepsilon_\Lambda$ follows from the Friedmann equation (\ref{f1}) with $\varepsilon = \varepsilon_\mathrm{m} + \varepsilon_\mathrm{vac} + \varepsilon_\Lambda$.
It remains to calculate $\varepsilon_\mathrm{vac}$ for spatially uniform refractive index profiles $n$ changing in time $t$. Assuming exactly the same renormalization as for refractive index profiles changing in one direction of space \cite{Grin1} but taking into account the temperature (\ref{gh}) of cosmic horizons and causality in the point--splitting method produces after renormalization the vacuum energy density \cite{Tractatus}
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon_\mathrm{vac} = - \frac{\hbar}{12\pi^2c}\,\frac{\Delta}{\ell^2}
\label{result}
\end{equation}
where $\Delta$ depends on the time derivatives of the Hubble constant $H$ and has units of $H^2$. Assuming in the renormalization procedure that the horizon temperature should be taken with respect to conformal time \cite{Tractatus}, gives \cite{Tractatus}
\begin{equation}
\Delta = \partial_t^3\frac{1}{H} + H \partial_t^2\frac{1}{H} \,.
\label{resultdelta}
\end{equation}
The energy density (\ref{result}) goes with the inverse square of the cutoff length $\ell$. Setting this length to the order of the Planck length (\ref{planck}) gives an $\varepsilon_\mathrm{vac}$ that contributes at the right level to the cosmic evolution described by Eq.~(\ref{evolution}). This vacuum energy is neither too large nor too small, neither is it off by the notorious 120 orders of magnitude nor is it as insignificant as one might expect for the Casimir force. Note that Eqs.~(\ref{result}) and (\ref{resultdelta}) hold not only in a spatially flat cosmology, but also in homogeneous and isotropic spaces with curvature \cite{Tractatus}. The calculation \cite{Tractatus} was done for electromagnetic fields. Assuming the same principal behaviour for the other fields of the Standard Model would amount to multiplying Eq.~(\ref{result}) with the number of the independent field components divided by two (the polarizations of the electromagnetic field). As the precise cutoff length is not precisely known, one can express both the multitude of fields and the cutoff in an effective constant prefactor $\eta$ and write Eq.~(\ref{result}) as
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon_\mathrm{vac} = - \frac{\hbar\eta}{12\pi^2c}\,\frac{\Delta}{\ell_\mathrm{p}^2} \,.
\label{eta}
\end{equation}
The following picture emerges from the theory \cite{Tractatus}. The cosmic evolution, described by the scaling factor $n$ and its derivatives, generates the energy density (\ref{eta}) of the quantum vacuum. The vacuum energy acts back on the cosmic dynamics as described in the evolution equation (\ref{evolution}). Consistent with this evolution is the effective cosmological constant with energy density $\varepsilon_\Lambda$ given by the Friedmann equation (\ref{f1}) with $\varepsilon = \varepsilon_\mathrm{m} + \varepsilon_\mathrm{vac} + \varepsilon_\Lambda$. The cosmological constant corresponds to a trace anomaly \cite{Wald} one may interpret as a recoil imbalance of vacuum fluctuation in the ``material'' of space--time \cite{Tractatus}. The vacuum energy of Eqs.~(\ref{resultdelta}) and (\ref{eta}) vanishes if the Hubble constant (\ref{hubble}) is indeed constant, {\it i.e.} for exponential expansion. In this case, the cosmological constant $\Lambda$ is constant as well. Otherwise it will vary, which might explain the observed variation of $\Lambda$ \cite{Cepheids}. This picture shares some features with the theory of quintessence \cite{Caldwell} but it does not require any new fields, just new concepts in fields as old as quantum electromagnetism.
\section{Conclusions}
There is no empirical evidence for the bare vacuum energy of fields. Neither does the bare vacuum energy do mechanical work \cite{Forces}, nor does it gravitate. Therefore it seems wise to take for the vacuum energy in the universe a renormalized energy density. Assuming the same renormalization procedure as for the Lifshitz theory in planar media \cite{Grin1} while taking into account cosmological horizons and causality, gives a vacuum energy density of the right order of magnitude \cite{Tractatus}. The resulting theory makes concrete predictions about the cosmic evolution, Eq.~(\ref{evolution}), apart from one parameter in Eq.~(\ref{eta}) that cannot be determined yet. The result seems encouraging, but of course it remains to be seen whether the theory reproduces the astronomical facts in detail, and not only their order of magnitude. The theory was developed \cite{Tractatus} for the electromagnetic field as carrier of vacuum fluctuations; it therefore remains to be checked whether it can be extended to other fields.
Analogues of gravity \cite{Gordon,Plebanski,Schleich,LeoPhil} have played a decisive role in developing the theory \cite{Tractatus} and analogues may be important for testing crucial components of the theory in experiments. The theory extends the renormalization procedure of the Casimir stress in inhomogeneous planar media \cite{Grin1} to spatially uniform, time--dependent materials. Direct measurements of the Casimir force inside planar media are difficult, the easiest is perhaps a test of the extreme behaviour predicted in Ref.~\cite{Grin2}. But one could emulate Casimir forces with other fluctuations, as long as they have a similar spectrum than the vacuum fluctuations, replacing the $\hbar$ in the Casimir force by an effective noise parameter of significantly larger magnitude, which would enhance the effect. Measuring Casimir forces in time--dependent media is not simple either. Here also analogues may play an important role for crucial tests.
While the physics of the Casimir effect of separate bodies is well--understood, the Casimir force inside materials has remained a fairly underdeveloped subject. There is enormous scope for research in both theory and experiment. If the Lifshitz theory of the cosmological constant \cite{Tractatus} does indeed agree with the astronomical facts in detail, either directly or after minor modifications, it would not only shed light on a rather dark subject in cosmology, but also motivate a better understanding of the forces acting on the nanoscale in the everyday world.
\newpage
\noindent
{\bf Funding.} European Research Council, Israel Science Foundation, Murray B. Koffler Professorial Chair.\\
\noindent
{\bf Acknowledgements.}
This paper would be impossible without my students (in alphabetical order)
Yael Avni,
Nimrod Nir,
Itay Griniasty,
Sahar Sahebdivan,
and
William Simpson.
I also thank Mikhail Isachenkov, Ephraim Shahmoon, and Anna and Yana Zilberg for discussions, support and inspiration.
|
\section{Introduction}
Besides the success of standard model (SM), there are still several open questions. In particular, tiny neutrino mass, baryon asymmetry of the Universe (BAU) and dark matter (DM) are the three outstanding evidences that require physics beyond SM. The discovery of neutrino oscillations \cite{Fukuda:1998mi,Ahmad:2002jz} indicate that the mass of neutrinos are at sub-eV scale, which is at least six order of magnitudes smaller than charged leptons. Known as type-I seesaw mechanism \cite{Minkowski:1977sc,Mohapatra:1979ia}, this extensively considered way to naturally incorporate neutrino masses is via introducing three right hand neutrinos $N$ together with high scale Majorana masses of $N$,
\begin{equation}
-\mathcal{L}_Y\supset y\overline{L} \widetilde{\Phi} N +\frac{1}{2}\overline{N ^c}m_{N } N + {\rm h.c.},
\end{equation}
where $\Phi$ is the SM Higgs doublet. After spontaneous electroweak symmetry breaking, neutrinos achieve masses as
\begin{equation}
m_\nu = - \frac{v^2}{2} y~ m_{N}^{-1} y^T.
\end{equation}
Typically, $m_\nu\sim\mathcal{O}(0.1)$ eV is obtained with $y\sim\mathcal{O}(1)$ and $m_N\sim\mathcal{O}(10^{14})$ GeV. Meanwhile, the heavy neutrino can also account for BAU via leptogenesis \cite{Fukugita:1986hr}. For canonical thermal leptogenesis with hierarchal right hand neutrinos, an upper limit on the CP asymmetry exists, thus a lower limit on mass of lightest right hand neutrino $M_1$ should be satisfied \cite{Davidson:2002qv},
\begin{equation}
M_1\gtrsim 5\times10^8 ~{\rm GeV} \left(\frac{v}{246~{\rm GeV}}\right)^2.
\end{equation}
Therefore, both tiny neutrino mass and leptogenesis favor high scale $N$ in type-I seesaw. However for such high scale $N$, a naturalness problem might arise \cite{Vissani:1997ys}. By requiring radiative corrections to the $m_\Phi^2 \Phi^\dag\Phi$ term no larger than $1~{\rm TeV}^2$, it is found that\cite{Clarke:2015gwa}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:M1}
M_1\lesssim3\times10^7 ~{\rm GeV} \left(\frac{v}{246~{\rm GeV}}\right)^{2/3},
\end{equation}
should be satisfied. Clearly, naturalness is incompatible with leptogenesis.
One viable pathway to overcome this is lowering the leptogenesis scale by imposing resonant leptogenesis \cite{Pilaftsis:2003gt}, ARS mechanism via neutrino oscillation \cite{Akhmedov:1998qx,Asaka:2005pn}, or from Higgs decays \cite{Hambye:2016sby,Hambye:2017elz}. All the success of these scenarios depend on the degenerate mass of right hand neutrinos \cite{Baumholzer:2018sfb}, which seems is another sense of unnatural. An alternative scenario with hierarchal right hand neutrinos is employing intrinsic low scale neutrino mass model, e.g., $\nu$2HDM \cite{Chao:2012pt,Clarke:2015hta} or Scotogenic model \cite{Ma:2006fn,Kashiwase:2012xd,Kashiwase:2013uy,Racker:2013lua,
Hugle:2018qbw,Borah:2018uci,Borah:2018rca,Mahanta:2019sfo}. In this paper, we consider the $\nu$2HDM \cite{Ma:2000cc}. Based on previous brief discussion in Ref.~\cite{Haba:2011ra,Haba:2011yc,Clarke:2015hta}, we perform a detailed analysis on leptogenesis, especially focus on dealing with the corresponding Boltzmann equations to obtain the viable parameter space.
On the other hand, dark matter accounts for more than five times the proportion of visible baryonic matter in our current cosmic material field. In principle, one can regard the lightest right hand neutrino $N_1$ at keV scale as sterile neutrino DM \cite{Dodelson:1993je,Adhikari:2016bei,Adulpravitchai:2015mna,Han:2018pek}. However, various constraints leave a quite small viable parameter space \cite{Boyarsky:2018tvu}. Meanwhile, leptogenesis with two hierarchal right hand neutrinos is actually still at high scale \cite{Hugle:2018qbw,Antusch:2011nz,Mahanta:2019gfe}.
In this paper, we further introduce a dark sector with one scalar singlet $\phi$ and one Dirac fermion singlet $\chi$, which are charged under a $Z_2$ symmetry \cite{Chianese:2019epo}. The stability of DM $\chi$ is protected by the $Z_2$ symmetry, therefore the tight X-ray limits can be avoided \cite{Boyarsky:2018tvu}. In light of the null results from DM direct detection \cite{Aprile:2018dbl} and indirect detection \cite{Ackermann:2015zua}, we consider $\chi$ as a FIMP DM \cite{Bernal:2017kxu}.
The structure of the paper is as follows. In Sec. \ref{SEC:TM}, we briefly introduce our model. Leptogenesis with hierarchal right hand neutrinos is discussed in Sec. \ref{SEC:LG}. The relic abundance of FIMP DM $\chi$ and constraint from free streaming length are considered in Sec. \ref{SEC:DM}.
Viable parameter space for leptogenesis and DM is obtained by a random scan in Sec. \ref{SEC:CA}. We conclude our work in Sec. \ref{SEC:CL}.
\section{The Model}\label{SEC:TM}
The original TeV-scale $\nu$2HDM for neutrino mass was proposed in Ref.~\cite{Ma:2000cc}. The model is extended by one neutrinophilic scalar doublet $\Phi_\nu$ with same quantum numbers as SM Higgs doublet $\Phi$ and three right hand heavy neutrino $N$. To forbid the direct type-I seesaw interaction $\overline{L}\tilde{\Phi}N$, a global $U(1)_L$ symmetry should be employed, under which $L_\Phi=0$, $L_{\Phi_\nu}=-1$ and $L_{N}=0$. Therefore, $\Phi_\nu$ will specifically couple to $N$, and $\Phi$ couple to quarks and charge leptons as in SM. For the dark sector, one scalar singlet $\phi$ and one Dirac fermion singlet $\chi$ are further introduced, which are charged under a $Z_2$ symmetry. Provided $m_\chi<m_\phi$, then $\chi$ serves as DM candidate.
The scalar doublets could be denoted as
\begin{align}
\Phi=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\phi^+\\
\frac{v+\phi^{0,r}+i \phi^{0,i}}{\sqrt{2}}
\end{array}\right),~
\Phi_\nu=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\phi^+_\nu\\
\frac{v_{\nu}+\phi^{0,r}_{\nu}+i \phi^{0,i}_{\nu}}{\sqrt{2}}
\end{array}\right).
\end{align}
The corresponding Higgs potential is then
\begin{eqnarray}
V & = & m_{\Phi}^2 \Phi^\dag \Phi + m_{\Phi_\nu}^2 \Phi^\dag_\nu \Phi_\nu
+m_\phi^2 \phi^\dag\phi+\frac{\lambda_1}{2} (\Phi^\dag \Phi)^2+\frac{\lambda_2}{2} (\Phi^\dag_\nu \Phi_\nu)^2\\ \nonumber
& & +\lambda_3 (\Phi^\dag \Phi)(\Phi^\dag_\nu \Phi_\nu)+\lambda_4(\Phi^\dag \Phi_\nu)(\Phi^\dag_\nu \Phi) - (\mu^2 \Phi^\dag\Phi_\nu +{\rm h.c.} )\\
&& +\frac{\lambda_5}{2} (\phi^\dag\phi)^2 + \lambda_6 (\phi^\dag \phi)(\Phi^\dag\Phi)+\lambda_7 (\phi^\dag \phi) (\Phi_\nu^\dag\Phi_\nu),
\end{eqnarray}
where the $U(1)_L$ symmetry is broken explicitly but softly by the $\mu^2$ term.
For the unbroken $Z_2$ symmetry, $\langle\phi\rangle=0$ should be satisfied. Meanwhile, VEVs of Higgs doublets in terms of parameters of the Higgs potential can be found by deriving the minimization condition
\begin{eqnarray}
v\left[m_{\Phi}^2+\frac{\lambda_1}{2} v^2 +\frac{\lambda_3+\lambda_4}{2}v_\nu^2\right]-\mu^2 v_\nu=0 \\
v_\nu\left[m_{\Phi_\nu}^2+\frac{\lambda_2}{2} v_\nu^2 +\frac{\lambda_3+\lambda_4}{2}v^2\right]-\mu^2 v=0.
\end{eqnarray}
Taking the parameter set
\begin{equation}
m_{\Phi}^2<0, m_{\Phi_\nu}^2>0, |\mu^2|\ll m_{\Phi_\nu}^2,
\end{equation}
we can obtain the relations of VEVs as
\begin{equation}
v\simeq \sqrt{\frac{-2 m_{\Phi}^2}{\lambda_1}}, v_\nu \simeq \frac{\mu^2 v}{m_{\Phi_\nu}^2+(\lambda_3+\lambda_4)v^2/2}.
\end{equation}
Typically, $v_\nu\sim1$ GeV is obtained with $\mu\sim10~{\rm GeV}$ and $m_{\Phi_\nu}\sim100$ GeV. Since $\mu^2$ term is the only source of $U(1)_L$ breaking, radiative corrections to $\mu^2$ are proportional to $\mu^2$ itself and are only logarithmically sensitive to the cutoff \cite{Davidson:2009ha}. Thus, the VEV hierarchy $v_\nu\ll v$ is stable against radiative corrections \cite{Morozumi:2011zu,Haba:2011fn}.
After SSB, the physical Higgs bosons are given by \cite{Guo:2017ybk}
\begin{eqnarray}
H^+=\phi^+_\nu\cos\beta-\phi^+\sin\beta&,~& A=\phi^{0,i}_\nu\cos\beta-\phi^{0,i}\sin\beta, \\
H=\phi^{0,r}_\nu\cos\alpha-\phi^{0,r}\sin\alpha&,~& h=\phi^{0,r}\cos\alpha+\phi^{0,r}\sin\alpha,
\end{eqnarray}
where the mixing angles $\beta$ and $\alpha$ are determined by
\begin{equation}\label{mix}
\tan\beta=\frac{v_\nu}{v},~\tan2\alpha\simeq2\frac{v_\nu}{v}
\frac{-\mu^2+(\lambda_3+\lambda_4)vv_\nu}{-\mu^2+\lambda_1 vv_\nu}.
\end{equation}
Neglecting terms of $\mathcal{O}(v_\nu^2)$ and $\mathcal{O}(\mu^2)$, masses of the physical Higgs bosons are
\begin{eqnarray}
m_{H^+}^2\simeq m_{\Phi_\nu}^2\!+\frac{1}{2}\lambda_3v^2,~m_A^2\simeq m_H^2\simeq m_{H^+}^2\!+\frac{1}{2}\lambda_4v^2,~ m_h^2 \simeq \lambda_1 v^2.
\end{eqnarray}
Since the mixing angles are suppressed by the small value of $v_\nu$, $h$ is almost identically to the $125$ GeV SM Higgs boson \cite{Aad:2012tfa,Chatrchyan:2012xdj}. A degenerate mass spectrum of $\Phi_\nu$ as $m_{H^+}\!=\!m_{H}\!=\!m_A\!=\!m_{\Phi_\nu}$ is adopted in our following discussion for simplicity, which is certainly allowed by various constraints ~\cite{Machado:2015sha}. Due to the unbroken $Z_2$ symmetry, the dark scalar singlet $\phi$ do not mix with the Higgs doublets.
The new Yukawa interaction and mass terms are
\begin{equation}\label{yuk}
-\mathcal{L}_Y\supset y\overline{L} \widetilde{\Phi}_\nu N +\lambda \bar{\chi}\phi N +\frac{1}{2}\overline{N ^c}m_{N } N + m_\chi \bar{\chi} \chi+ {\rm h.c.},
\end{equation}
where $\widetilde{\Phi}_\nu=i\sigma_2 \Phi_\nu^*$.
Similar to the canonical Type-I seesaw \cite{Minkowski:1977sc}, the mass matrix for light neutrinos can be derived from Eq. (\ref{yuk}) as:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:mv}
m_\nu = - \frac{v_\nu^2}{2} y~ m_{N}^{-1} y^T = U_{\text{PMNS}}\, \hat{m}_\nu U^T_{\text{PMNS}},
\end{equation}
where $\hat{m}_\nu=\mbox{diag}(m_1,m_2,m_3)$ is the diagonalized neutrino mass matrix, and $U_{\text{PMNS}}$ is the PMNS (Pontecorvo-Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata) matrix:
\begin{align}
U_{\text{PMNS}}\! =\! \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
c_{12} c_{13} & s_{12} c_{13} & s_{13} e^{i\delta}\\
-s_{12}c_{23}-c_{12}s_{23}s_{13}e^{-i\delta} & c_{12}c_{23}-s_{12}s_{23}s_{13} e^{-i\delta} & s_{23}c_{13}\\
s_{12}s_{23}-c_{12}c_{23}s_{13}e^{-i\delta} & -c_{12}s_{23}-s_{12}c_{23}s_{13}e^{-i\delta} & c_{23}c_{13}
\end{array}
\right)\!\times\!
\text{diag}(e^{i \varphi_1/2},1,e^{i\varphi_2/2})
\end{align}
Here, we use abbreviations $c_{ij}=\cos\theta_{ij}$ and $s_{ij}=\sin\theta_{ij}$, $\delta$ is the Dirac phase and $\varphi_1,\varphi_2$ are the two Majorana phases. Due to smallness of $v_\nu$, TeV scale $m_{N}$ could be viable to realise $0.1$ eV scale light neutrino masses. Using the Casas-Ibarra parametrization \cite{Casas:2001sr,Ibarra:2003up}, the Yukawa matrix $y$ can be expressed in terms of neutrino oscillation parameters
\begin{equation}\label{eq:CI}
y=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{v_\nu}U_{\text{PMNS}}\hat{m}_\nu^{1/2} R (\hat{m}_{N})^{1/2},
\end{equation}
where $R$ is an orthogonal matrix in general and $\hat{m}_N=\mbox{diag}(M_1,M_2,M_3)$ is the diagonalized heavy neutrino mass matrix. In this work, we parameterize matrix $R$ as
\begin{align}
R = \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\cos\omega_{12} & -\sin\omega_{12} & 0 \\
\sin\omega_{12} & \cos\omega_{12} & 0 \\
0 & 0& 1
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\cos\omega_{13} & 0& -\sin\omega_{13} \\
0 & 1 & 0 \\
\sin\omega_{13} & 0& \cos\omega_{13}
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \cos\omega_{23} & -\sin\omega_{23} \\
0 & \sin\omega_{23}& \cos\omega_{23}
\end{array}
\right),
\end{align}
where $\omega_{12,13,23}$ are arbitrary complex angles.
\section{Leptogenesis}\label{SEC:LG}
Now we consider the leptogenesis in this model. The lepton asymmetry is generated by the out-of-equilibrium CP-violating decays of right hand neutrino $N\to \ell_L \Phi_\nu^*,\bar{\ell}_L \Phi_\nu$. Neglecting the flavor effect \cite{Nardi:2006fx}, the CP asymmetry is given by
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_i=\frac{1}{8\pi (y^\dag y)_{ii}} \sum_{j\neq i} \text{Im}[(y^\dag y)^2_{ij}] G\left(\frac{M_j^2}{M_i^2},\frac{m_{\Phi_\nu}^2}{M_i^2}\right),
\end{equation}
where the function $G(x,y)$ is defined as \cite{Mahanta:2019gfe}
\begin{equation}
G(x,y)=\sqrt{x}\left[\frac{(1-y)^2}{1-x}+1+\frac{1-2y+x}{(1-y^2)^2} \ln
\left(\frac{x-y^2}{1-2y+x}\right)\right].
\end{equation}
Using the parametrization of Yukawa coupling $y$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:CI}), it is easy to verify
\begin{equation}\label{eq:yy}
y^\dag y = \frac{2}{v_\nu^2} \hat{m}_{N}^{1/2} R^\dag \hat{m}_\nu R
\hat{m}_{N}^{1/2}.
\end{equation}
Hence, the matrix $y^\dag y$ does not depend on the PMNS matrix, which means that the complex matrix $R$ is actually the source of CP asymmetry $\epsilon_i$.
The asymmetry is dominantly generated by the decay of $N_1$. Further considering the hierarchal mass spectrum $m_{\Phi_\nu}^2\ll M_1^2\ll M_{2,3}^2$, the asymmetry $\epsilon_1$ is simplified to
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_1\simeq -\frac{3}{16\pi(y^\dag y)_{11}}\sum_{j=2,3} \text{Im}[(y^\dag y)^2_{1j}] \frac{M_1}{M_j}
\end{equation}
Similar to the Davidson-Ibarra bound \cite{Davidson:2002qv}, an upper limit on $\epsilon_1$ can be derived
\begin{equation}\label{eq:eps1}
|\epsilon_1|\lesssim \frac{3}{16\pi}\frac{M_1 m_3}{v_\nu^2}.
\end{equation}
Comparing with the bound in type-I seesaw, the asymmetry could be enhanced due to the smallness of VEV $v_\nu$. Therefore, low scale leptogenesis seems to be viable in the $\nu$2HDM \cite{Haba:2011ra,Clarke:2015hta}. Meanwhile, the washout effect is quantified by the decay parameter
\begin{equation}
K = \frac{\Gamma_1}{H(z=1)},
\end{equation}
where $\Gamma_1$ is the decay width of $N_1$, $H$ is the Hubble parameter and $z\equiv M_1/T$ with $T$ being the temperature of the thermal bath. The decay width is given by
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_1=\frac{M_1}{8\pi}(y^\dag y)_{11}\left(1-\frac{m_{\Phi_\nu}^2}{M_1^2}\right)^2,
\end{equation}
and the Hubble parameter is
\begin{equation}
H=\sqrt{\frac{8\pi^3 g_*}{90}}\frac{T^2}{M_{pl}}=H(z=1)\frac{1}{z^2},
\end{equation}
with $g_*$ the effective number of relativistic degrees of freedom and $M_{pl}=1.2\times10^{19}$ GeV. Using Eq. (\ref{eq:yy}), one can verify
\begin{equation}
K\simeq 897 \left(\frac{v}{v_\nu}\right)^2
\frac{(\hat{m}_\nu^R)_{11}}{{\rm eV}},
\end{equation}
where $\hat{m}_\nu^R\equiv R^\dag \hat{m}_\nu R$, and thus
\begin{equation}\label{eq:mvR}
(\hat{m}_\nu^R)_{11}=m_1 |\cos\omega_{12}|^2|\cos\omega_{13}|^2+m_2 |\sin\omega_{12}|^2|\cos\omega_{13}|^2+m_3|\sin\omega_{13}|^2.
\end{equation}
It is obvious that the decay parameter $K$ does not depend on $\omega_{23}$, and it is also enhanced by smallness of $v_\nu$.
Since $(\hat{m}_\nu^R)_{11}$ is typically of the order of $m_3\sim0.1$ eV, the
decay parameter $K\simeq 5.4\times10^6$ when $v_\nu=1$ GeV. So even with maximum asymmetry $\epsilon_1^\text{max}\sim-6.0\times10^{-7}$ for $M_1=10^5$ GeV obtained from Eq.~\eqref{eq:eps1}, a rough estimation of final baryon asymmetry gives $Y_{\Delta B}\sim-10^{-3} \epsilon_1^\text{max}/K\sim1.1\times10^{-16}$ for strong washout \cite{Davidson:2008bu}, which is far below current observed value $Y_{\Delta B}^\text{obs}=(8.72\pm0.04)\times10^{-11}$ \cite{Aghanim:2018eyx}. Hence, only obtaining an enhanced CP asymmetry $\epsilon_1$ is not enough, one has to deal with the washout effect more carefully.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{K-m1-1.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{K-m1-2.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Decay parameter $K$ as a function of $m_1$ with $v_\nu=10$ GeV. Because $R$ must be a complex matrix, we have set $\omega_{ij R}=\omega_{ij I}$.}
\label{FIG:K-m1}
\end{figure}
One promising pathway is to reduce the decay parameter $K$. For instance, if weak washout condition $K\lesssim1$ is realised, then $Y_{\Delta B}\sim-10^{-3} \epsilon_1^\text{max}\sim 6.0\times10^{-10}>Y_{\Delta B}^\text{obs}$. Thus, correct baryon asymmetry can be obtained by slightly tunning $\epsilon_1$. As pointed out in Ref.~\cite{Hugle:2018qbw}, small value of $K$ can be realised by choosing small $\omega_{12,13}$. In Fig.~\ref{FIG:K-m1}, we illustrate the dependence of $K$ on lightest neutrino mass $m_1$ with $v_\nu=10$ GeV. The left panel shows the special case $\omega_{13}=0$, where Eq.~\eqref{eq:mvR} is simplified to $(\hat{m}_\nu^R)_{11}=m_1 |\cos\omega_{12}|^2+m_2|\sin\omega_{12}|^2\geq \sqrt{\Delta m_{21}^2} |\sin\omega_{12}|^2$. It is clear that the weak washout condition $K<1$ favors $|\omega_{12}|\lesssim10^{-2}$ and $m_1\lesssim10^{-6}$ eV. The right panel shows the special case $\omega_{12}=0$. Similar results are observed with left panel.
On the other hand, the $\Delta L=2$ washout processes become more significant for small $v_\nu$ \cite{Haba:2011ra,Clarke:2015hta}. Notably, for low scale seesaw, the narrow width condition $\Gamma_1/M_1\ll1$ is satisfied. Therefore, the evolution of lepton asymmetry and DM abundance actually decouple from each other \cite{Falkowski:2011xh,Falkowski:2017uya}. The evolution of abundance $Y_{N_1}$ and lepton asymmetry $Y_{\Delta L}$ are described by the Boltzmann equations
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{dY_{N_1}}{dz} &=& - D (Y_{N_1}-Y_{N_1}^{eq}),\\
\frac{dY_{\Delta L}}{dz} &=&- \epsilon_1 D (Y_{N_1}-Y_{N_1}^{eq})
- W Y_{\Delta L}.
\end{eqnarray}
The decay term is given by
\begin{equation}
D = K z \frac{\mathcal{K}_1(z)}{\mathcal{K}_2(z)}.
\end{equation}
For the washout term, two contributions are considered, i.e., $W=W_{ID}+W_{\Delta L=2}$, where the inverse decay term is
\begin{equation}
W_{ID}= \frac{1}{4} K z^3 \mathcal{K}_1(z),
\end{equation}
and the $\Delta L=2$ scattering term at low temperature is approximately \cite{Buchmuller:2004nz}
\begin{equation}
W_{\Delta L=2}\simeq \frac{0.186}{z^2} \left(\frac{246~{\rm GeV}}{v_\nu}\right)^4
\left(\frac{M_1}{10^{10}~{\rm GeV}}\right) \left(\frac{\bar{m}}{{\rm eV}}\right)^2.
\end{equation}
Here, $\bar{m}$ is the absolute neutrino mass scale, which is calculated as
\begin{equation}
\bar{m}^2=m_1^2+m_2^2+m_3^2 =3m_1^2+ \Delta m^2_{21} + \delta m^2_{31},
\end{equation}
for normal hierarchy. According to latest global fit, we use the best fit values, i.e., $\Delta m^2_{21}=7.39\times10^{-5}~{\rm eV}^2$ and $\delta m^2_{31}=2.525\times10^{-3}~{\rm eV}^2$ \cite{Esteban:2018azc}. For tiny lightest neutrino mass $m_1\ll10^{-2}$ eV, we actually have $\bar{m}\simeq\sqrt{\delta m_{31}^2}\sim0.05$ eV. Notably, the $\Delta L=2$ scattering term would be greatly enhanced when $v_\nu\ll v$, so this term is much more important than in vanilla leptogenesis.
Then, the sphaleron processes convert the lepton asymmetry into baryon asymmetry as \cite{Harvey:1990qw}
\begin{equation}
Y_{\Delta B}= \frac{28}{79} Y_{\Delta(B-L)}=-\frac{28}{51}Y_{\Delta L}.
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{YB-Z-1.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{YB-Z-2.pdf}
\\
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{YB-Z-3.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{YB-Z-4.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The washout effect of $\Delta L=2$ processes. The cyan lines are the observed value $Y_{\Delta B}^\text{obs}=8.72\times10^{-11}$.}
\label{FIG:YB-Z}
\end{figure}
Fig.~\ref{FIG:YB-Z} shows the washout effect of $\Delta L=2$ processes. In Fig.~\ref{FIG:YB-Z} (a), weak washout scenario is considered by fixing $K=10^{-2},|\epsilon_1|=10^{-6}, M_1=10^6~{\rm GeV}$ while varying $v_\nu=10,1,0.1~{\rm GeV}$. It shows that for $v_\nu=10~{\rm GeV}$, the $\Delta L=2$ effect is not obvious, but for $v_\nu=1~{\rm GeV}$, the final baryon asymmetry $Y_{\Delta B}$ is diluted by over three orders of magnitude. While for $v_\nu=0.1~{\rm GeV}$, the $\Delta L=2$ effect is so strong that the final baryon asymmetry is negligible.
The strong washout scenario with $K=10^2, |\epsilon_1|=10^{-4}, M_1=10^6~{\rm GeV}$ and varying $v_\nu=10,1,0.1~{\rm GeV}$ is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{FIG:YB-Z} (b), where the final baryon asymmetry $Y_{\Delta B}$ for $v_\nu=1~{\rm GeV}$ is decreased by about six orders comparing with the case for $v_\nu=10~{\rm GeV}$. Therefore, the $\Delta L=2$ washout effects set a lower bound on $v_\nu$, i.e., $v_\nu\gtrsim0.3~{\rm GeV}$ as suggested by Ref.~\cite{Clarke:2015hta}. Furthermore, since the $\Delta L=2$ washout term is also proportional to $M_1$, the larger $M_1$ is, the more obvious the washout effect is. The corresponding results are depicted in Fig.~\ref{FIG:YB-Z} (c) for the weak washout and Fig.~\ref{FIG:YB-Z}~(d) for the strong washout. In this way, for certain value of $v_\nu$, an upper bound on $M_1$ can be obtained. For instance, when $v_\nu=1~{\rm GeV}$, then $M_1\lesssim10^5~{\rm GeV}$ should be satisfied \cite{Haba:2011ra}.
\section{Dark Matter}\label{SEC:DM}
In our extension of the $\nu$2HDM, the right-handed heavy neutrinos $N$ also couple with fermion singlet $\chi$ and scalar singlet $\phi$ via the Yukawa interaction. The complex Yukawa coupling coefficient $\lambda$ can lead to CP violation in $N$ decays, and eventually producing asymmetric DM $\chi$ \cite{Falkowski:2011xh}. Instead, we consider another interesting scenario, i.e., the FIMP case with the real coupling $\lambda \ll1$ \cite{Falkowski:2017uya}. In this way, the interaction of DM $\chi$ is so weak that it never reach thermalization. Its relic abundance is determined by the freeze-in mechanism \cite{Hall:2009bx}, which is obtained by solving the following Boltzmann equation
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:BE}
\frac{dY_{\chi}}{dz} &=& D ~Y_{N_1} \text{BR}_\chi,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\text{BR}_\chi$ is the branching ratio of $N_1\to \chi \phi$. Due to the FIMP nature of $\chi$, the hierarchal condition $\text{BR}_\chi\ll\text{BR}_\ell\simeq1$ is easily satisfied.
The out of equilibrium condition for $N_1\to\chi\phi$ decay is $\Gamma_\chi/H(z=1)\simeq \text{BR}_\chi \Gamma_1/H(z=1)=\text{BR}_\chi K<1$.
In following studies, we mainly take $\text{BR}_\chi<10^{-2}$ and $K\lesssim10$, thus the out of equilibrium condition is always satisfied.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{YX-Z-1.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{YX-Z-2.pdf}
\caption{ Evolution of dark matter abundance with parameter $z=M_1/T$. We fix $K=10$ in the left panel and BR$_\chi=10^{-3}$ in the right panel. The dashed horizontal lines correspond to the estimated results with Eq.~\eqref{eq:yx}. DM mass $m_\chi$ is obtained by setting $\Omega_\chi h^2=0.12$ with the numerical results of $Y_\chi(\infty)$.}
\label{FIG:YX-Z}
\end{figure}
According to the above Boltzmann equation, we can estimate the asymptotic abundances of $\chi$ as \cite{Falkowski:2017uya}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:yx}
Y_{\chi}(\infty)\simeq Y_{N_1}(0)\text{BR}_{\chi}\left(1
+\frac{15\pi\zeta(5)}{16\zeta(3)}K\right).
\end{equation}
Then, the corresponding relic abundance is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ra}
\Omega_{\chi}{h^2}=\frac{m_\chi s_0 Y_\chi(\infty)}{\rho_c}h^2\simeq 0.12\times\left(\frac{m_{\chi}}{{\rm keV}}\right)
\left(\frac{\text{BR}_{\chi}}{10^{-3}}\right)\left(0.009+\frac{K}{44}\right),
\end{equation}
where $s_0=2891.2~\text{cm}^{-3}$, $\rho_c=1.05371\times10^{-5}h^2 ~{\rm GeV}~\text{cm}^{-3}$ \cite{Tanabashi:2018oca}. Typically, the observed relic abundance can be obtained with $m_\chi\sim4$ keV, $\text{BR}_\chi\sim10^{-3}$ and $K\sim10$. The evolution of DM abundances are shown in Fig.~(\ref{FIG:YX-Z}). It is clear that when the temperature goes down to $z=m_\chi/T\sim5$, the abundances $Y_\chi$ freeze in and keep at a constant. The left panel of Fig.~(\ref{FIG:YX-Z}) indicates that $m_\chi$ is inverse proportional to $\text{BR}_\chi$ when the decay parameter $K$ is a constant. For instance, sub-MeV scale light DM is obtained when $\text{BR}_\chi>10^{-6}$ with $K=10$.
Right panel of Fig.~(\ref{FIG:YX-Z}) shows the impact of decay parameter $K$.
Affected by the constant term before $K$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:ra}, we can only conclude that the smaller the $K$ is, the larger the $m_\chi$ is. Besides, we also find that the discrepancy between the numerical and analytical results of $Y_\chi(\infty)$ increases when $K$ decreases. Therefore, we adopt the numerical result of $Y_\chi(\infty)$ for a more precise calculation in the following discussion.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{rFS.pdf}
\caption{Influence of free streaming on DM mass. The red area ($r_{FS}>0.1$ Mpc), white area ($0.1~\text{Mpc}>r_{FS}>0.01$ Mpc) and blue area ($r_{FS}<0.01$ Mpc) correspond to hot, warm and cold DM scenario \cite{Merle:2013wta}, respectively.}
\label{FIG:rFS}
\end{figure}
The dominant constraint on FIMP DM $\chi$ comes from its free streaming length, which describes the average distance a particle travels without a collision \cite{Falkowski:2017uya}
\begin{equation}
r_{FS}=\int_{a_{rh}}^{a_{eq}}\frac{\langle v\rangle}{a^2H}da
\approx \frac{a_{NR}}{H_0\sqrt{\Omega_R}}
\left(0.62+\ln\left(\frac{a_{eq}}{a_{NR}}\right)\right),
\end{equation}
where $\langle v\rangle$ is the averaged velocity of DM $\chi$, $a_{eq}$ and ${a_{rh}}$ represent scale factors in equilibrium and reheating, respectively.
We use the results $H_0=67.3~\text{km}~ \text{s}^{-1}\text{Mpc}^{-1},\Omega_R=9.3\times10^{-5}$ and $a_{eq}=2.9\times10^{-4}$ obtained from Ref.~\cite{Ade:2015xua}.
The non-relativistic scale factor for FIMP DM is
\begin{equation}
a_{NR}=\frac{T_0}{2m_{\chi}}\left(\frac{g_{*,0}}{g_{*,rh}}\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}
K^{-\frac{1}{2}}.
\end{equation}
Taking $g_{*,0}=3.91$, $g_{*,rh}=106.75$ and $T_0=2.35\times 10^{-4}$ eV, finally we can get
\begin{equation}
r_{FS} \simeq2.8\times 10^{-2}\left(\frac{{\rm keV}}{m_{\chi}}\right)
\left(\frac{50}{K}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\times
\left(1+0.09\ln\left[\left(\frac{m_{\chi}}{{\rm keV}}\right)
\left(\frac{K}{50}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\right]\right) \text{Mpc}.
\end{equation}
The most stringent bound on $r_{FS} $ comes from small structure formation $r_{FS}<0.1$ Mpc \cite{Berlin:2017ftj}. The relationship between the mass of $\chi$ and its free streaming length is depicted in Fig.~(\ref{FIG:rFS}).
Basically speaking, warm DM is obtained for $m_\chi\sim10$ keV while $K\in[0.01,100]$. Meanwhile, $\chi$ becomes cold DM when $\chi$ is sufficient heavy and/or the decay parameter $K$ is large enough.
\section{Combined Analysis}\label{SEC:CA}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{DM-1.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{DM-2.pdf}
\\
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{DM-3.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{DM-4.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Viable parameter space for DM. The red, orange and blue points correspond to hot, warm and cold DM, respectively.}
\label{FIG:DM}
\end{figure}
After studying some benchmark points, it would be better to figure out the viable parameter space for success leptogenesis and DM. We then perform a random scan over the following parameter space:
\begin{eqnarray}
m_1\in[10^{-12},10^{-2}]~{\rm eV}, ~M_1\in[10^3,10^8]~{\rm GeV}, v_\nu\in[10^{-2},10^2]~{\rm GeV},\\\nonumber
\text{Re}(\omega_{12,13,23})\in[10^{-10},1],~\text{Im}(\omega_{12,13,23})\in[10^{-10},1],~
\text{BR}_\chi\in[10^{-6},10^{-2}].
\end{eqnarray}
During the scan, we have fixed $M_2/M_1=M_3/M_2=10$. The final obtained baryon asymmetry $Y_{\Delta B}$ is required to be within $3\sigma$ range of the observed value, i.e., $Y_{\Delta B}\in[8.60,8.84]\times10^{-11}$. The results are shown in Fig.~\ref{FIG:DM} and Fig.~\ref{FIG:LG} for DM and leptogenesis, respectively.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{LG-1.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{LG-2.pdf}
\\
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{LG-3.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{LG-4.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Same as Fig~\ref{FIG:DM}, but for leptogenesis.}
\label{FIG:LG}
\end{figure}
Let's consider the DM results in Fig.~\ref{FIG:DM} first. According to the dominant constraint from free streaming length $r_{FS}$, we can divide the viable samples into three scenarios in Fig.~\ref{FIG:DM} (a). Of course, the hot DM scenario is not favored by small structure formation. For warm DM, $m_\chi\in[0.3,2\times10^3]$ keV is possible. Meanwhile for cold DM, $m_\chi\in[10,2\times10^5]$ keV is allowed. And $r_{FS}$ is down to about $10^{-5}$ Mpc when $m_\chi\sim10^5$ keV. From Fig.~\ref{FIG:DM} (b), we aware that the hot DM samples correspond to those with small DM mass $m_\chi$ and very weak washout effect $K\lesssim10^{-2}$. Fig.~\ref{FIG:DM} (c) shows the samples in the $m_\chi-M_1$ plane. Three kinds of DM are all possible for certain value of $M_1$. By the way, it is interesting to obtain an upper limit on $m_\chi$ when $M_1\lesssim10^6$ GeV. This indicates that for TeV scale leptogenesis, FIMP DM should be keV to sub-MeV. The result for $\text{BR}_\chi$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{FIG:DM} (d), which tells us that warm DM requires $\text{BR}_\chi\gtrsim10^{-4}$ and cold DM requires $\text{BR}_\chi\lesssim10^{-3}$, respectively.
Then we consider the leptogenesis results in Fig.~\ref{FIG:LG}. The generalised Davidson-Ibarra bound is clearly seen in Fig.~\ref{FIG:LG} (a). The (warm and cold DM) allowed samples show that the mass of $N_1$ for success leptogenesis could be down to about 3~TeV. The viable region in the $v_\nu-M_1$ plane is shown in Fig.~\ref{FIG:LG}~(b), which is consistent with the theoretical bounds discussed in Ref.~\cite{Clarke:2015hta}. For completeness, the naturalness bound in Eq.~\eqref{eq:M1} is also shown. Therefore, natural leptogenesis is viable for $3\times10^3~{\rm GeV}\lesssim M_1\lesssim7\times10^6$ GeV with $0.4~{\rm GeV}\lesssim v_\nu\lesssim30~{\rm GeV}$. The result for decay parameter $K$ is given in Fig.~\ref{FIG:LG}~(c), which shows that $K\lesssim10$ should be satisfied when $M_1\lesssim10^8$ GeV. Actually for $M_1\lesssim10^5$ GeV, all the samples are within weak washout region. An upper bound on lightest neutrino mass $m_1$ is clearly seen in Fig.~\ref{FIG:LG}~(d). Success leptogenesis in the $\nu$2HDM requires $m_1$ must be extremely tiny, i.e., $m_1\lesssim10^{-11}$ eV for $M_1\sim10^4$ GeV.
Before ending this section, we give a brief discussion on the collider signature.
According to the results of leptogenesis in Fig.~\ref{FIG:LG}, not too small $v_\nu$ is favored. In such scenario, the branching ratios of neutrinophilic scalars are quite different from the scenario with small $v_\nu$ \cite{Guo:2017ybk,Haba:2011nb,Wang:2016vfj,Huitu:2017vye}, but are similar with type-I 2HDM \cite{Branco:2011iw}. Currently, if $m_{\Phi_\nu}$ is smaller than $m_t$, the most stringent constraint comes from $t\to b H^\pm (H^\pm\to \tau^\pm\nu)$
\cite{Sirunyan:2019hkq}, which could exclude the region $v_\nu\gtrsim18$ GeV \cite{Sanyal:2019xcp}. Meanwhile, if $m_Z+m_h\lesssim m_{\phi_\nu}\lesssim2m_t$, the channel $A\to Zh(h\to b\bar{b})$ could exclude the region $v_\nu\gtrsim 24$ GeV \cite{Aaboud:2017cxo}. For heavier additional scalars with $m_{\Phi_\nu}>2 m_t$, the signature $A/H\to t\bar{t}$ is only able to probe the region $v_\nu\gtrsim 174$ GeV \cite{Aaboud:2017hnm,Chen:2019pkq}. Therefore, the experimental bounds on neutrinophilic scalars can be easily escaped provided $m_{\Phi_\nu}$ is large enough. At HL-LHC, the signature $A\to Zh(h\to b\bar{b})$ would reach $v_\nu\sim10$ GeV \cite{Chen:2019pkq}. Then the observation of this signature will indicate $M_1\sim10^6$ GeV and $m_1\lesssim10^{-7}$ eV.
\section{Conclusion}\label{SEC:CL}
In this paper, we propose an extended $\nu$2HDM to interpret the neutrino mass, leptogenesis and dark matter simultaneously. This model contains one neutrinophilic scalar doublet $\Phi_\nu$, three right hand heavy neutrino $N$,
which account for low scale neutrino mass generation similar to type-I seesaw.
Leptogenesis is generated due to the CP-violating decays of right hand neutrino $N\to \ell_L \Phi_\nu^*,\bar{\ell}_L \Phi_\nu$. The dark sector contains one scalar singlet $\phi$ and one Dirac fermion singlet $\chi$, which are charged under a $Z_2$ symmetry. Provided $m_\chi<m_\phi$ and $\lambda\ll1$, $\chi$ is a FIMP DM candidate within this paper. The relic abundance of $\chi$ is produced by $N\to \chi \phi$. Therefore, we have a common origin, i.e., the heavy right hand neutrino $N$, for tiny neutrino mass, baryon asymmetry and dark matter.
In the frame work of $\nu$2HDM, the asymmetry $\epsilon_1$ and decay parameter $K$ are both enhanced by the smallness of $v_\nu$. By explicit calculation, we show that the decay parameter $K$ can be suppressed under certain circumstance.
The importance of $\Delta L=2$ washout process is also illustrated. As for FIMP DM, the relic abundance mainly depends on the branching ratio $\text{BR}_\chi$ and decay parameter $K$, and $m_\chi$ is typically at the order of keV to MeV scale. Meanwhile the free streaming length sets stringent bound. The viable parameter space for success leptogenesis and DM is obtained by solving the corresponding Boltzmann equations. To keep this model natural, we find $10^3~{\rm GeV} \lesssim M_1\lesssim10^6$ GeV, $0.4~{\rm GeV}\lesssim v_\nu\lesssim30~{\rm GeV}$, $m_1\lesssim10^{-5}$ eV and $K\lesssim10$ is favored by leptogenesis. Meanwhile, the warm (cold) DM mass in the range $m_\chi\in[0.3,2\times10^3]$ keV ($m_\chi\in[10,2\times10^5]$ keV) is predicted with $\text{BR}_\chi\gtrsim10^{-4}$ ($\text{BR}_\chi\lesssim10^{-3}$).
\section*{Acknowledgements}
This work is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 11805081, Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province under Grant No. ZR2019QA021 and ZR2018MA047.
|
\section{Introduction}
For $n\geq 2$, let us denote by $\H^n$ the hyperbolic space of dimension $n$, i.e., a complete, simply connected, $n-$dimensional Riemmanian manifold having constant sectional curvature $-1$. The aim in this paper is to generalize the main results obtained by the author in \cite{Nguyen2020a} to the higher order Lorentz--Sobolev spaces in $\H^n$. Before stating our results, let us fix some notation. Let $V_g, \na_g$ and $\Delta_g$ denote the volume element, the hyperbolic gradient and the Laplace--Beltrami operator in $\H^n$ with respect to the metric $g$ respectively. For higher order derivatives, we shall adopt the following convention
\[
\na_g^m \cdot = \begin{cases}
\Delta_g^{\frac m2} &\mbox{if $m$ is even,}\\
\na_g (\Delta_g^{\frac{m-1}2} \cdot) &\mbox{if $m$ is odd.}
\end{cases}
\]
Furthermore, for simplicity, we write $|\na^m_g \cdot|$ instead of $|\na_g^m \cdot|_g$ when $m$ is odd if no confusion occurs. For $1\leq p, q\leqs \infty$, we denote by $L^{p,q}(\H^n)$ the Lorentz space in $\H^n$ and by $\|\cdot\|_{p,q}$ the Lorentz quasi-norm in $L^{p,q}(\H^n)$. When $p=q$, $\|\cdot\|_{p,p}$ is replaced by $\|\cdot\|_p$ the Lebesgue $L_p-$norm in $\H^n$, i.e., $\|f\|_p = (\int_{\H^n} |f|^p dV_g)^{\frac1p}$ for a measurable function $f$ on $\H^n$. The Lorentz--Sobolev space $W^m L^{p,q}(\H^n)$ is defined as the completion of $C_0^\infty(\H^n)$ under the Lorentz quasi-norm $\|\na_g^m u\|_{p,q}:=\| |\na_g^m u| \|_{p,q}$. In \cite{Nguyen2020a}, the author proved the following Poincar\'e inequality in $W^1 L^{p,q}(\H^n)$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Poincare1}
\|\na_g u\|_{p,q}^q \geq \lt(\frac{n-1}p\rt)^q \|u\|_{p,q}^q,\quad\forall\, u\in W^1 L^{p,q}(\H^n).
\end{equation}
provided $1\leqs q \leq p$. Furthermore, the constant $(\frac{n-1}p)^q$ in \eqref{eq:Poincare1} is the best possible and is never attained. The inequality \eqref{eq:Poincare1} generalizes the result in \cite{NgoNguyenAMV} to the setting of Lorentz--Sobolev space. The first main result in this paper extends the inequality \eqref{eq:Poincare1} to the higher order Sobolev space $W^{m} L^{p,q}(\H^n)$.
\begin{theorem}\label{MAINI}
Given $n \geq 2$, $m\geq 1$ and $1 \leqs p \leqs \infty$, let us denote the following constant
\begin{equation*
C(n,m,p) = \begin{cases}
(\frac{(n-1)^2}{pp'})^{\frac m2} &\mbox{if $m$ is even,}\\
\frac {n-1}p (\frac{(n-1)^2}{pp'})^{\frac {m-1}2}&\mbox{if $m$ is odd,}
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
where $p' = \frac p{p-1}$. Then the following Poincar\'e inequality holds in $W^{m} L^{p,q}(\H^n)$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Poincarehigher}
\|\na_g^m u\|_{p,q}^q \geq C(n,m,p)^q \|u\|_{p,q}^q,\quad u\in W^m L^{p,q}(\H^n)
\end{equation}
for any $1\leqs p,q \leqs \infty$ if $m$ is even, or for any $1\leqs q \leq p\leqs \infty$ if $m$ is odd. Moreover, the constant $C(n,m,p)$ in \eqref{eq:Poincarehigher} is sharp and is never attained.
\end{theorem}
Let us give some comments on Theorem \ref{MAINI}. The Poincar\'e inequality in the hyperbolic space was proved by Tataru \cite{Tataru2001}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Tataru}
\int_{\H^n} |\na_g^m u|^p dV_g \geq C \int_{\H^n} |u|^p dV_g,\quad u\in C_0^\infty(\H^n)
\end{equation}
for some constant $C \geqs 0$. The sharp value of constant $C$ in \eqref{eq:Tataru} is computed by Mancini and Sandeep \cite{ManciniSandeep2008} when $p=2$ and by Ngo and the author \cite{NgoNguyenAMV} for arbitrary $p$ (see \cite{BerchioNA} for another proof when $m=1$). Theorem \ref{MAINI} gives an extension of the Poincar\'e inequality \eqref{eq:Tataru} with the sharp constant to the higher order Sobolev spaces $W^m L^{p,q}(\H^n)$. Similar to the case $m=1$ established in \cite{Nguyen2020a}, we need an extra condition $q \leq p$ when $m$ is odd to apply the symmetrization argument. The proof of Theorem \ref{MAINI} follows the idea in the proof of Theorem $1.1$ in \cite{NgoNguyenAMV} by using the iterate argument. The main step in the proof is to establish the inequality when $m=2$. The case $m=1$ was already done in \cite{Nguyen2020a}.
There have been many improvements of \eqref{eq:Tataru} with the sharp constant in literature. For examples, the interesting readers may consult the papers \cite{ManciniSandeep2008,BenguriaFrankLoss,BerchioNA,BerchioJFA,NguyenPS2018} for the improvements of \eqref{eq:Tataru} for $m=1$ by adding the remainder terms concerning to Hardy weights or to the $L^q-$norms with $p \leqs q \leq \frac{np}{n-p}$. For the higher order Sobolev spaces, we refer the readers to the papers of Lu and Yang \cite{LuYang2019,LuYang2019a,Hong2019,Nguyenorder2}. Especially, in \cite[Theorem $1.1$]{Nguyenorder2} the author established the following improvement of \eqref{eq:Tataru} for $p=2$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:NguyenPSorder2}
\int_{\H^n} |\Delta_g u|^2 dV_g -\frac{(n-1)^4}{16} \int_{\H^n} |u|^2 dV_g \geq S_{n,2} \lt(\int_{\H^n} |u|^{\frac{2n}{n-4}} dV_g\rt)^{\frac{n-4}n}, \quad u\in C_0^\infty(\H^n)
\end{equation}
provided $n\geq 5$ where $S_{n,k}$ denotes the sharp constant in the Sobolev inequality in Euclidean space $\R^n$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:SSRn}
\int_{\R^n} |\na^k u|^2 dx \geq S_{n,k}\lt(\int_{\R^n} |u|^{\frac{2n}{n-2k}} dx\rt)^{\frac{n-2k}{n}},\quad u\in C_0^\infty(\R^n)
\end{equation}
when $n\geqs 2k$. The constant $S_{n,1}$ was found out independently by Talenti \cite{Talenti1976} and Aubin \cite{Aubin1976}. The sharp constant $S_{n,k}, k\geq 2$ was computed explicitly by Lieb \cite{Lieb} by proving the sharp Hardy--Littlewood--Sobolev inequality which is the dual version of \eqref{eq:SSRn}.
In \cite{Nguyen2020a} the author proved the following inequality: given $n\geq 4$ and $\frac{2n}{n-1}\leq q \leq p \leqs n$, then for any $q\leq l \leq \frac{nq}{n-p}$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:PSLorentz1}
\|\na_g u\|_{p,q}^q - \lt(\frac{n-1}p\rt)^q \|u\|_{p,q}^q \geq S_{n,p,q,l}^q \|u\|_{p^*,l}^q,\quad\forall\, u\in W^1 L^{p,q}(\H^n),
\end{equation}
where $p^* = \frac{np}{n-p}$, and
\[
S_{n,p,q,l} =\begin{cases}
\lt[n^{1-\frac ql} \sigma_n^{\frac qn} \Big(\frac{(n-p)(l-q)}{qp}\Big)^{q+\frac ql -1} S\Big(\frac{lq}{l-p},q\Big)\rt]^{\frac 1q} &\mbox{if $q \leqs l \leq \frac{nq}{n-p}$,}\\
\frac{n-p}p \sigma_n^{\frac 1n}&\mbox{if $l =q$,}
\end{cases}
\]
where $\si_n$ denotes the volume of unit ball in $\R^n$ and $S\big(\frac{lq}{l-p},q\Big)$ is the sharp constant in the Sobolev inequality with fractional dimension (see \cite{NguyenPLMS}). It is interesting that the constant $S_{n,p,q,l}$ in \eqref{eq:PSLorentz1} is sharp and coincides with the sharp constant in the Lorentz--Sobolev type inequality in Euclidean space $\R^n$,
\[
\|\na u\|_{p,q}^q \geq S_{n,p,q,l}^q \|u\|_{p^*,l}^q.
\]
The previous inequality was proved by Alvino \cite{Alvino1977} for $l=q \leq p \leqs n$ and by Cassani, Ruf and Tarsi \cite{CassaniRufTarsi2018} for $l = q \geq p$. Our next aim is to improve the inequality \eqref{eq:Poincarehigher} in spirit of \eqref{eq:NguyenPSorder2} and \eqref{eq:PSLorentz1}.
\begin{theorem}\label{MAINII}
Let $n \geqs m \geq 1$ be integers, $1\leqs p\leqs \frac nm$ and $\frac{2n}{n-1}\leq q \leqs \infty$. Suppose, in addition, that $q \leq p$ if $m$ is odd. Then there holds
\begin{equation}\label{eq:LorentzPS}
\|\na_g^m u\|_{p,q}^q - C(n,m,p)^q \|u\|_{p,q}^q \geq S(n,m,p)^q \|u\|_{p_m^*,q}^q,\quad u\in W^m L^{p,q}(\H^n),
\end{equation}
where $p_i^* = \frac{np}{n-ip}$, $i =0,1,2,\ldots,$ and
\[
S(n,m,p) = \begin{cases}
\si_n^{\frac mn} \prod_{i=0}^{k-1} \frac{n (n-2p_{2i}^*)}{p_{2i}^* (p_{2i}^*)'} &\mbox{if $m = 2k$, $k\geq 1$}\\
\si_n^{\frac mn}\frac{n-p}p \prod_{i=1}^{k} \frac{n (n-2p_{2i-1}^*)}{p_{2i-1}^* (p_{2i-1}^*)'} &\mbox{if $m= 2k+1$, $k\geq 1$.}
\end{cases}
\]
\end{theorem}
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section \S2, we recall some facts on the hyperbolic spaces and the non-increasing spherically symmetric rearrangement in the hyperbolic spaces. We also prepare some auxiliary results which are important in the proof of our main results. Theorem \ref{MAINI} is proved in Section \S3 while the Section \S4 is devoted to prove Theorem \ref{MAINII}.
\section{Preliminaries}
We start this section by briefly recalling some basis facts on the hyperbolic spaces and the Lorentz--Sobolev space defined in the hyperbolic spaces. Let $n\geq 2$, a hyperbolic space of dimension $n$ (denoted by $\H^n$) is a complete , simply connected Riemannian manifold having constant sectional curvature $-1$. There are several models for the hyperbolic space $\H^n$ such as the half-space model, the hyperboloid (or Lorentz) model and the Poincar\'e ball model. Notice that all these models are Riemannian isometry. In this paper, we are interested in the Poincar\'e ball model of the hyperbolic space since this model is very useful for questions involving rotational symmetry. In the Poincar\'e ball model, the hyperbolic space $\H^n$ is the open unit ball $B_n\subset \R^n$ equipped with the Riemannian metric
\[
g(x) = \Big(\frac2{1- |x|^2}\Big)^2 dx \otimes dx.
\]
The volume element of $\H^n$ with respect to the metric $g$ is given by
\[
dV_g(x) = \Big(\frac 2{1 -|x|^2}\Big)^n dx,
\]
where $dx$ is the usual Lebesgue measure in $\R^n$. For $x \in B_n$, let $d(0,x)$ denote the geodesic distance between $x$ and the origin, then we have $d(0,x) = \ln (1+|x|)/(1 -|x|)$. For $\rho \geqs 0$, $B(0,\rho)$ denote the geodesic ball with center at origin and radius $\rho$. If we denote by $\na$ and $\Delta$ the Euclidean gradient and Euclidean Laplacian, respectively as well as $\la \cdot, \cdot\ra$ the standard scalar product in $\R^n$, then the hyperbolic gradient $\na_g$ and the Laplace--Beltrami operator $\Delta_g$ in $\H^n$ with respect to metric $g$ are given by
\[
\na_g = \Big(\frac{1 -|x|^2}2\Big)^2 \na,\quad \Delta_g = \Big(\frac{1 -|x|^2}2\Big)^2 \Delta + (n-2) \Big(\frac{1 -|x|^2}2\Big)\la x, \na \ra,
\]
respectively. For a function $u$, we shall denote $\sqrt{g(\na_g u, \na_g u)}$ by $|\na_g u|_g$ for simplifying the notation. Finally, for a radial function $u$ (i.e., the function depends only on $d(0,x)$) we have the following polar coordinate formula
\begin{equation*
\int_{\H^n} u(x) dx = n \sigma_n \int_0^\infty u(\rho) \sinh^{n-1}(\rho)\, d\rho.
\end{equation*}
It is now known that the symmetrization argument works well in the setting of the hyperbolic. It is the key tool in the proof of several important inequalities such as the Poincar\'e inequality, the Sobolev inequality, the Moser--Trudinger inequality in $\H^n$. We shall see that this argument is also the key tool to establish the main results in the present paper. Let us recall some facts about the rearrangement argument in the hyperbolic space $\H^n$. A measurable function $u:\H^n \to \R$ is called vanishing at the infinity if for any $t >0$ the set $\{|u| > t\}$ has finite $V_g-$measure, i.e.,
\[
V_g(\{|u|> t\}) = \int_{\{|u|> t\}} dV_g < \infty.
\]
For such a function $u$, its distribution function is defined by
\[
\mu_u(t) = V_g( \{|u|> t\}).
\]
Notice that $t \to \mu_u(t)$ is non-increasing and right-continuous. The non-increasing rearrangement function $u^*$ of $u$ is defined by
\[
u^*(t) = \sup\{s > 0\, :\, \mu_u(s) > t\}.
\]
The non-increasing, spherical symmetry, rearrangement function $u^\sharp$ of $u$ is defined by
\[
u^\sharp(x) = u^*(V_g(B(0,d(0,x)))),\quad x \in \H^n.
\]
It is well-known that $u$ and $u^\sharp$ have the same non-increasing rearrangement function (which is $u^*$). Finally, the maximal function $u^{**}$ of $u^*$ is defined by
\[
u^{**}(t) = \frac1t \int_0^t u^*(s) ds.
\]
Evidently, $u^*(t) \leq u^{**}(t)$.
For $1\leq p, q < \infty$, the Lorentz space $L^{p,q}(\H^n)$ is defined as the set of all measurable function $u: \H^n \to \R$ satisfying
\[
\|u\|_{L^{p,q}(\H^n)}: = \lt(\int_0^\infty \lt(t^{\frac1p} u^*(t)\rt)^q \frac{dt}t\rt)^{\frac1q} < \infty.
\]
It is clear that $L^{p,p}(\H^n) = L^p(\H^n)$. Moreover, the Lorentz spaces are monotone with respect to second exponent, namely
\[
L^{p,q_1}(\H^n) \subsetneq L^{p,q_2}(\H^n),\quad 1\leq q_1 < q_2 < \infty.
\]
The functional $ u\to \|u\|_{L^{p,q}(\H^n)}$ is not a norm in $L^{p,q}(\H^n)$ except the case $q \leq p$ (see \cite[Chapter $4$, Theorem $4.3$]{Bennett}). In general, it is a quasi-norm which turns out to be equivalent to the norm obtained replacing $u^*$ by its maximal function $u^{**}$ in the definition of $\|\cdot\|_{L^{p,q}(\H^n)}$. Moreover, as a consequence of Hardy inequality, we have
\begin{proposition
Given $p\in (1,\infty)$ and $q \in [1,\infty)$. Then for any function $u \in L^{p,q}(\H^n)$ it holds
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Hardy}
\lt(\int_0^\infty \lt(t^{\frac1p} u^{**}(t)\rt)^q \frac{dt}t\rt)^{\frac1q} \leq \frac p{p-1} \lt(\int_0^\infty \lt(t^{\frac1p} u^*(t)\rt)^q \frac{dt}t\rt)^{\frac1q} = \frac p{p-1} \|u\|_{L^{p,q}(\H^n)}.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
For $1\leq p, q \leqs \infty$ and an integer $m\geq 1$, we define the $m-$th order Lorentz--Sobolev space $W^mL^{p,q}(\H^n)$ by taking the completion of $C_0^\infty(\H^n)$ under the quasi-norm
\[
\|\na_g^m u\|_{p,q} := \| |\na_g^m u|\|_{p,q}.
\]
It is obvious that $W^mL^{p,p}(\H^n) = W^{m,p}(\H^n)$ the $m-$th order Sobolev space in $\H^n$. In \cite{Nguyen2020a}, the author established the following P\'olya--Szeg\"o principle in the first order Lorenz--Sobolev spaces $W^1L^{p,q}(\H^n)$ which generalizes the classical P\'olya--Szeg\"o principle in the hyperbolic space.
\begin{theorem
Let $n\geq 2$, $1\leq q \leq p \leqs \infty$ and $u\in W^{1}L^{p,q}(\H^n)$. Then $u^\sharp \in W^{1}L^{p,q}(\H^n)$ and
$$\|\na_g u^\sharp\|_{p,q} \leq \|\na_g u\|_{p,q}.$$
\end{theorem}
For $r \geq 0$, define
\[
\Phi(r) = n \int_0^r \sinh^{n-1}(s) ds, \quad r\geq 0,
\]
and let $F$ be the function such that
\[
r = n \si_n \int_0^{F(r)} \sinh^{n-1}(s) ds, \quad r\geq 0,
\]
i.e., $F(r) = \Phi^{-1}(r/\si_n)$. It was proved in \cite[Lemma $2.1$]{Nguyen2020a} that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:keyest}
\sinh^{q(n-1)}(F(t)) \geq \lt(\frac t{\si_n}\rt)^{q \frac{n-1}n} + \lt(\frac{n-1}n\rt)^q \lt(\frac t{\si_n}\rt)^q,\quad t \geq 0,
\end{equation}
provided $q \geq \frac{2n}{n-1}$. Moreover, we have the following result.
\begin{proposition
Let $n \geq 2$. Then it holds
\begin{equation}\label{eq:keyyeu}
\sinh^{n}(F(t)) \geqs \frac t{\si_n},\quad t\geqs 0.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Indeed, for $\rho \geqs 0$,we have
\[
n\int_0^\rho \sinh^{n-1}(s) ds \leqs n \int_0^\rho \sinh^{n-1}(s) \cosh(s) ds = \sinh^{n}(\rho).
\]
Taking $\rho = F(t), t \geqs 0$ we obtain \eqref{eq:keyyeu}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{ddtang}
Let $n\geq 2$, then the function
\[
\vphi(t) =\frac{t}{\sinh^{n-1}(F(t))}
\]
is strictly increasing on $(0,\infty)$, and
\[
\lim_{t\to \infty} \varphi(t) = \frac{n \si_n}{n-1}.
\]
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Since $ t\mapsto F(t)$ is strictly increasing function, then it is enough to prove that the function
\[
\eta(\rho) = \frac{\int_0^\rho \sinh^{n-1}(s) ds}{\sinh^{n-1}(\rho)}
\]
is strictly increasing on $(0,\infty)$. Indeed, we have
\begin{align*}
\eta'(\rho) &= 1 -(n-1) \cosh(\rho) \frac{\int_0^\rho \sinh^{n-1}(s) ds}{\sinh^{n}(\rho)}\\
&=\frac1{\sinh^n (\rho)} \lt(\sinh^n(\rho) - (n-1) \cosh(\rho) \int_0^\rho \sinh^{n-1}(s) ds\rt)\\
&=: \frac{\xi(\rho)}{\sinh^n (\rho)},
\end{align*}
and
\[
\xi'(\rho) =\cosh(\rho) \sinh^{n-1}(\rho) - (n-1) \sinh(\rho) \int_0^\rho \sinh^{n-1}(s) ds.
\]
For $\rho \geqs 0$, it holds
\[
(n-1)\int_0^\rho \sinh^{n-1}(s) ds \leqs (n-1) \int_0^\rho \sinh^{n-2}(s) \cosh(s) ds = \sinh^{n-1}(\rho),
\]
here we use $\cosh(s) \geqs \sinh(s)$ for $s \geqs 0$. Therefore, we get
\[
\xi'(\rho) \geqs \sinh^{n-1}(\rho) (\cosh(\rho) -\sinh(\rho)) \geqs 0,
\]
for $\rho \geqs 0$. Consequently, we have $\xi(\rho) \geqs \xi(0) =0$ for $\rho \geqs 0$. Hence, $\eta'(\rho) \geqs 0$ for $\rho \geqs 0$ which implies that $\eta$ is strictly increasing function on $(0,\infty)$. By L'Hospital rule, we have
\[
\lim_{\rho \to \infty} \eta(\rho) = \lim_{\rho\to \infty} \frac{\sinh^{n-1}(\rho)}{(n-1)\sinh^{n-2}(\rho) \cosh(\rho)} = \frac1{n-1}
\]
which yields the desired limit in this proposition.
\end{proof}
In the rest of this section, we shall frequently using the following one-dimensional Hardy inequality
\begin{lemma}
Let $1\leqs q \leqs p$. Then for any absolutely continuous function $u$ in $(0,\infty)$ such that $\lim_{t\to \infty} |u(t)| t^{\frac{p-q}q} =0$, it holds
\begin{equation}\label{eq:1DHardy}
\int_0^\infty |u'(t)|^q t^{p-1} dt \geq \lt(\frac{p-q}q\rt)^q \int_0^\infty |u(t)|^q t^{p-q-1} dt.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
Let $u \in C_0^\infty(\H^n)$ and $f = -\Delta_g u$. It was proved by Ngo and the author (see \cite[Proposition $2.2$]{NgoNguyenAMV}) that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:NgoNguyen}
u^*(t) \leq v(t):= \int_t^\infty \frac{s f^{**}(s)}{(n \si_n \sinh^{n-1}(F(s)))^2} ds,\quad t\geqs 0.
\end{equation}
The following results are important in the proof of Theorem \ref{MAINI} and Theorem \ref{MAINII}.
\begin{proposition}\label{order2I}
Let $n \geq 2$, $p\in (1,n)$ and $q \in (1,\infty)$. Then it holds
\begin{equation}\label{eq:order2I1}
\|\Delta_g u\|_{p,q}^q \geq \lt(\frac{p-1}p n \si_n^{\frac1n}\rt)^q\int_0^\infty |v'(t)|^q (n\si_n \sinh^{n-1}(F(t)))^qt^{q(\frac1p -\frac1n) -1} dt.
\end{equation}
Furthermore, if $q \geq \frac{2n}{n-1}$ then we have
\begin{align}\label{eq:order2I2}
\|\Delta_g u\|_{p,q}^q - &\lt(\frac{(n-1)(p-1)}p\rt)^q\int_0^\infty |v'(t)|^q (n\si_n \sinh^{n-1}(F(t)))^q t^{\frac qp -1} dt \notag\\
&\geq \lt(\frac{p-1}p n \si_n^{\frac1n}\rt)^q\int_0^\infty |v'(t)|^q (n\si_n \sinh^{n-1}(F(t)))^qt^{q(\frac1p -\frac1n) -1} dt.
\end{align}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We have
\[
v'(t) =-\frac{t f^{**}(t)}{(n \si_n \sinh^{n-1}(F(t)))^2},
\]
and hence
\begin{equation}\label{eq:dthuc}
\int_0^\infty |v'(t)|^q (n\si_n \sinh^{n-1}(F(t)))^qt^{q(\frac1p -\frac1n) -1} dt =\int_0^{\infty} \frac{(f^{**}(t))^q t^{q\frac{n-1}n}}{(n\si_n \sinh^{n-1}(F(t)))^q} t^{\frac{q}p -1} dt.
\end{equation}
Using \eqref{eq:keyyeu} and \eqref{eq:Hardy} we obtain
\begin{align*}
\int_0^\infty |v'(t)|^q (n\si_n \sinh^{n-1}(F(t)))^qt^{q(\frac1p -\frac1n) -1} dt &\leq \frac1{n^q \si_n^{\frac qn}} \int_0^\infty (f^{**}(t))^q t^{\frac{q}p -1} dt\\
&\leq \frac1{n^q \si_n^{\frac qn}} \lt(\frac{p}{p-1}\rt)^q \int_0^\infty (f^{*}(t))^q t^{\frac{q}p -1} dt\\
&=\lt(\frac1{n\si_n^{\frac1n}}\frac{p}{p-1}\rt)^q \|\Delta_g u\|_{p,q}^q,
\end{align*}
as wanted \eqref{eq:order2I1}.
We next prove \eqref{eq:order2I2}. We notice that
\[
\int_0^\infty |v'(t)|^q (n\si_n \sinh^{n-1}(F(t)))^q t^{\frac qp -1} dt =\int_0^{\infty} \frac{(f^{**}(t))^q t^{q}}{(n\si_n \sinh^{n-1}(F(t)))^q} t^{\frac{q}p -1} dt
\]
This equality together with \eqref{eq:dthuc}, the fact $q \geq \frac{2n}{n-1}$ and the inequality \eqref{eq:Hardy} implies
\begin{align*}
&(n-1)^q\int_0^\infty |v'(t)|^q (n\si_n \sinh^{n-1}(F(t)))^q t^{\frac qp -1} dt\\
&\quad + n^q \si_n^{\frac qn}\int_0^\infty |v'(t)|^q (n\si_n \sinh^{n-1}(F(t)))^qt^{q(\frac1p -\frac1n) -1} dt\\
&\leq \int_0^\infty (f^{**}(t))^q \lt(\lt(\frac t{\si_n \sinh^n(F(t))}\rt)^{q \frac{n-1}n} + \lt(\frac{n-1}n\rt)^q \lt(\frac t{\si_n\sinh^{n-1}((F(t))}\rt)^q\rt) t^{\frac qp -1} dt\\
&\leq \int_0^\infty (f^{**}(t))^q t^{\frac qp -1} dt\\
&\leq \lt(\frac{p}{p-1}\rt)^q \int_0^\infty (f^{*}(t))^q t^{\frac qp -1} dt\\
&=\lt(\frac{p}{p-1}\rt)^q \|\Delta_g u\|_{p,q}^q
\end{align*}
as wanted \eqref{eq:order2I2}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{order2II}
Let $n\geq 2$, $p\in (1,n)$ and $q \geq \frac{2n}{n-1}$. Then we have
\begin{align}\label{eq:order2II2}
\int_0^\infty |v'(t)|^q (n\si_n \sinh^{n-1}(F(t)))^q t^{\frac qp -1} dt \geq& \lt(\frac{n-1}p\rt)^q \int_0^\infty |v(t)|^q t^{\frac qp -1} dt \notag\\
&+ n^q\si_n^{\frac qn} \int_0^\infty |v'(t)|^q t^{q(\frac1p -\frac1n) + q -1} dt,
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}\label{eq:order2II3}
\int_0^\infty |v'(t)|^q (n\si_n \sinh^{n-1}(F(t)))^q t^{q(\frac 1p -\frac1n)-1} dt \geq& \lt(\frac{(n-1)(n-p)}{np}\rt)^q \int_0^\infty |v(t)|^q t^{q(\frac 1p-\frac1n) -1} dt \notag\\
&+ n^q \si_n^{\frac qn} \int_0^\infty |v'(t)|^q t^{q(\frac1p -\frac2n) + q -1} dt,
\end{align}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
If $q \geq \frac{2n}{n-1}$ then by using \eqref{eq:keyest} we have
\begin{align*}
\int_0^\infty |v'(t)|^q (n\si_n \sinh^{n-1}(F(t)))^q t^{\frac qp -1} dt \geq& (n-1)^q \int_0^\infty |v'(t)|^q t^{\frac qp +q -1} dt \notag\\
&+ n^q\si_n^{\frac qn} \int_0^\infty |v'(t)|^q t^{q(\frac1p -\frac1n) + q -1} dt,
\end{align*}
Using the one dimensional Hardy inequality \eqref{eq:1DHardy}, we have
\[
\int_0^\infty |v'(t)|^q t^{\frac qp + q -1} d t \geq \lt(\frac1 p\rt)^q \int_0^\infty |v(t)|^q t^{\frac qp -1}dt.
\]
Combining these two inequalities proves the inequality \eqref{eq:order2II2}.
Since $q \geq \frac{2n}{n-1}$ then by using again \eqref{eq:keyest}, we get
\begin{align*}
\int_0^\infty |v'(t)|^q (n\si_n \sinh^{n-1}(F(t)))^q t^{q(\frac1p-\frac1n) -1} dt \geq& (n-1)^q \int_0^\infty |v'(t)|^q t^{q(\frac 1p-\frac1n) +q -1} dt \notag\\
&+ n^q\si_n^{\frac qn} \int_0^\infty |v'(t)|^q t^{q(\frac1p -\frac2n) + q -1} dt.
\end{align*}
Using the one dimensional Hardy inequality \eqref{eq:1DHardy}, we have
\[
\int_0^\infty |v'(t)|^q t^{q(\frac 1p -\frac1n) + q -1} d t \geq \lt(\frac{n-p}{n p}\rt)^q \int_0^\infty |v(t)|^q t^{q(\frac 1p -\frac1n) -1}dt.
\]
Combining these two inequalities proves the inequality \eqref{eq:order2II3}.
\end{proof}
Combining Propositions \ref{order2I} and \ref{order2II}, we obtain
\begin{theorem}\label{keytheorem}
Let $n\geq 2$. If $p \in (1,n)$ and $q \in (1,\infty)$. For any $u \in C_0^\infty(\H^n)$ we define $v$ by \eqref{eq:NgoNguyen}. Then we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:LSorder2*}
\|\Delta_g u\|_{p,q}^q \geq \lt(\frac{n^2 \si_n^{\frac2n}}{p'}\rt)^q \int_0^\infty |v'(t)|^q t^{q(\frac1p -\frac2n) + q -1} dt,
\end{equation}
where $p' = p/(p-1)$. In particular, if $p \in (1,\frac n2)$ then it holds
\begin{equation}\label{eq:LSorder2}
\|\Delta_g u\|_{p,q}^q \geq \lt(\frac{n(n-2p)}{p p'} \si_n^{\frac 2n}\rt)^q \|u\|_{p_2^*,q}^q.
\end{equation}
Furthermore, if $p\in (1,n)$ and $q \geq \frac{2n}{n-1}$ then we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:improvedLS2}
\|\Delta_g u\|_{p,q}^q - C(n,2,p)^q \|u\|_{p,q}^q \geq \lt(\frac{n^2 \si_n^{\frac2n}}{p'}\rt)^q \int_0^\infty |v'(t)|^q t^{q(\frac1p -\frac2n) + q -1} dt.
\end{equation}
In particular, if $p\in (1,\frac n2)$ and $q \geq \frac{2n}{n-1}$ then we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:improvedLS2a}
\|\Delta_g u\|_{p,q}^q - C(n,2,p)^q \|u\|_{p,q}^q \geq \lt(\frac{n(n-2p)}{p p'} \si_n^{\frac 2n}\rt)^q \|u\|_{p_2^*,q}^q,\quad u \in C_0^\infty(\H^n).
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
It is worthing to mention here that in the Euclidean space $\R^n$, an analogue of the inequality \eqref{eq:LSorder2} was proved by Tarsi (see \cite[Theorem $2$]{Tarsi}).
\begin{proof}
Let $u \in C_0^\infty(\H^n)$ and $v$ be defined by \eqref{eq:NgoNguyen}. We know that $u^* \leq v$, then
\begin{equation}\label{eq:major}
\|u\|_{p,q}^q \leq \int_0^\infty v(t)^q t^{\frac qp -1} dt,\quad\text{\rm and }\quad \|u\|_{p_2^*,q}^q \leq \int_0^\infty v(t)^q t^{\frac q{p_2^*} -1} dt.
\end{equation}
The inequality \eqref{eq:LSorder2*} is a consequence of \eqref{eq:order2I1} and \eqref{eq:keyest}. The inequality \eqref{eq:LSorder2} is consequence of \eqref{eq:LSorder2*}, the one dimensional Hardy inequality \eqref{eq:1DHardy}
\[
\int_0^\infty |v'(t)|^q t^{q(\frac1p -\frac 2n) + q -1} d t \geq \lt(\frac{n-2p}{np}\rt)^q \int_0^\infty |v(t)|^q t^{q(\frac1p -\frac2n) -1}dt.
\]
and the second inequality in \eqref{eq:major}.
To prove \eqref{eq:improvedLS2}, we first notice by the first inequality in \eqref{eq:major} that
\[
\|\Delta_g u\|_{p,q}^q - C(n,2,p)^q \|u\|_{p,q}^q \geq \|\Delta_g u\|_{p,q}^q - C(n,2,p)^q \int_0^\infty v(t)^q t^{\frac qp -1} dt.
\]
Hence, it holds
\begin{align}\label{eq:cc}
&\|\Delta_g u\|_{p,q}^q - C(n,2,p)^q \|u\|_{p,q}^q\notag\\
\geq &\|\Delta_g u\|_{p,q}^q - \lt(\frac{n-1}{p'}\rt)^q\int_0^\infty |v'(t)|^q (n\si_n \sinh^{n-1}(F(t)))^q t^{\frac qp -1} dt\notag\\
&+ \lt(\frac{n-1}{p'}\rt)^q\lt(\int_0^\infty |v'(t)|^q (n\si_n \sinh^{n-1}(F(t)))^q t^{\frac qp -1} dt - \lt(\frac{n-1}p\rt)^q \int_0^\infty v(t)^q t^{\frac qp -1} dt\rt)\notag\\
\geq&\|\Delta_g u\|_{p,q}^q - \lt(\frac{n-1}{p'}\rt)^q\int_0^\infty |v'(t)|^q (n\si_n \sinh^{n-1}(F(t)))^q t^{\frac qp -1} dt,
\end{align}
here we use $q \geq \frac{2n}{n-1}$ and the inequality \eqref{eq:order2II2}. Using again the assumption $q \geq \frac{2n}{n-1}$ and the inequalities \eqref{eq:order2I2} and \eqref{eq:order2II3}, we obtain
\begin{align}\label{eq:cc1}
\|\Delta_g u\|_{p,q}^q - \lt(\frac{n-1}{p'}\rt)^q&\int_0^\infty |v'(t)|^q (n\si_n \sinh^{n-1}(F(t)))^q t^{\frac qp -1} dt\notag \\
&\geq \lt(\frac{n^2 \si_n^{\frac2n}}{p'}\rt)^q \int_0^\infty |v'(t)|^q t^{q(\frac1p -\frac2n) + q -1} dt.
\end{align}
Combining the estimates \eqref{eq:cc} and \eqref{eq:cc1} proves \eqref{eq:improvedLS2}. The inequality \eqref{eq:improvedLS2a} follows from \eqref{eq:improvedLS2} and the one dimensional Hardy inequality \eqref{eq:1DHardy}
\[
\int_0^\infty |v'(t)|^q t^{q(\frac1p -\frac 2n) + q -1} d t \geq \lt(\frac{n-2p}{np}\rt)^q \int_0^\infty |v(t)|^q t^{q(\frac1p -\frac2n) -1}dt.
\]
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{MAINI}}
In this section, we prove Theorems \ref{MAINI}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{MAINI}]
In the case $m =1$, Theorem \ref{MAINI} was already proved in \cite{Nguyen2020a}. So, we will only consider the case $m \geq 2$. We divide the proof into three cases as follows.
\emph{Case 1: $m=2$.} If $p \in (1,n)$ and $q\geq \frac {2n}{n-1}$ then \eqref{eq:Poincarehigher} follows from \eqref{eq:improvedLS2}. In the following, we will give a proof of \eqref{eq:Poincarehigher} for any $p, q \in (0,\infty)$. By the density, it is enough to prove \eqref{eq:Poincarehigher} for function $u\in C_0^\infty(\H^n)$, $u\not\equiv 0$. Let $f = -\Delta_g u$ and $v$ be defined by \eqref{eq:NgoNguyen}. We first notice that
\[
\int_0^\infty |v'(t)|^q t^{\frac qp + q -1} dt = \int_0^\infty \lt(\frac t{n\si_n \sinh^{n-1}(F(t))}\rt)^{2q} f^{**}(t)^q t^{\frac qp-1} dt.
\]
By Lemma \ref{ddtang}, we have
\[
\frac t{n\si_n \sinh^{n-1}(F(t))} \leqs \frac1{n-1},\quad t > 0.
\]
This inequality together with the inequality \eqref{eq:Hardy} implies
\begin{align*}
\int_0^\infty \lt(\frac t{n\si_n \sinh^{n-1}(F(t))}\rt)^{2q} f^{**}(t)^q t^{\frac qp-1} dt &\leq \lt(\frac{p'}{(n-1)^2}\rt)^q \int_0^\infty f^*(t)^q t^{\frac qp -1}dt \\
&= \lt(\frac{p'}{(n-1)^2}\rt)^q \|\Delta_g u\|_{p,q}^q.
\end{align*}
By the one dimensional Hardy inequality and the first inequality in \eqref{eq:major}, we have
\[
\int_0^\infty |v'(t)|^q t^{\frac qp + q -1} dt \geq \frac{1}{p^q} \int_0^\infty v(t)^q t^{\frac qp -1}dt \geq \frac{1}{p^q} \|u\|_{p,q}^q.
\]
Combining two previous inequalities, we obtain \eqref{eq:Poincarehigher}.
\emph{Case 2: $m =2k$, $k\geq 1$.} This case follows from the \emph{Case 1} and the iteration argument.
\emph{Case 3: $m= 2k+1$, $k\geq 1$.} Since $q \leq p$, then it was proved in \cite[Theorem $1.1$]{Nguyen2020a} that
\[
\|\na_g \Delta_g^k u\|_{p,q}^q \geq \lt(\frac{n-1}p\rt)^q \|\Delta_g^k u\|_{p,q}^q.
\]
We now apply the \emph{Case 2} to obtain the desired result.
We next check the sharpness of the constant $C(n,m,p)$ in \eqref{eq:Poincarehigher}. From Proposition \ref{ddtang}, we see that for any $\ep >0$ there exists $a> 0$ such that
\[
(n-1)s < n\si_n \sinh^{n-1}(F(s)) \leq (1+ \ep) (n-1)s,
\]
for any $s \geq a$. For $R > a$, let us define the function
\[
f_{R}(s) = \begin{cases}
a^{-\frac1p} &\mbox{if $s \in (0,a)$},\\
s^{-\frac1p} &\mbox{if $s\in [a,R)$,}\\
R^{-\frac1p} \max\{2 -s/R,0\} &\mbox{if $s \geq R$}.
\end{cases}
\]
Notice that $f_R$ is a nonnegative, continuous, non-increasing function. Following \cite[Section $2.2$]{NgoNguyenAMV}, we define two sequences of functions $\{v_{R,i}\}_{i\geq 0}$ and $\{g_{R,i}\}_{i\geq 1}$ as follows:
\begin{description}
\item (i) First, we set $v_{R,0} = f_R$,
\item (ii) then in terms of $v_{R,i}$, we define $g_{R,i+1}$ as the maximal function of $v_{R,i}$, i.e.
\[
g_{R,i+1}(t) = \frac1t \int_0^t v_{R,i}(s) ds,
\]
\item (iii) and finally in terms of $g_{R,i+1}$, we define $v_{R,i+1}$ as follows
\[
v_{R,i+1}(t) = \int_t^\infty \frac{s g_{R,i+1}(s)}{(n \si_n \sinh^{n-1}(F(s)))^2} ds,
\]
for $i= 0,1,2,\ldots$
\end{description}
Note that $v_{R,i}$ and $g_{R,i}$ are positive, non-increasing functions. Following the proof of \cite[Proposition $2.1$]{NgoNguyenAMV}, we can prove the following result.
\begin{proposition
For any $i \geq 1$, there exist function $h_{R,i}$ and $w_{R,i}$ such that
\[
v_{R,i} = h_{R,i} + w_{R,i},\quad \int_0^\infty |w_{R,i}|^q t^{\frac qp -1}dt \leq C
\]
and
\[
\frac{1}{(1+ \ep)^{2i}} \lt(\frac{pp'}{(n-1)^2}\rt)^i f_R \leq h_{R,i} \leq \lt(\frac{pp'}{(n-1)^2}\rt)^i,
\]
where we use $C$ to denote various constants which are independent of $R$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let us define the operator $T$ acting on functions $v$ on $[0,\infty)$ by
\[
T(v)(t) = \int_t^\infty \frac{s}{(n \si_n (\sinh (F(s)))^2}\lt(\frac1s\int_0^s v(r) dr\rt) ds.
\]
We shall prove that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Tnorm}
\int_0^\infty |T(v)(t)|^q t^{\frac qp -1} dt \leq \lt(\frac{p p'}{(n-1)^2}\rt)^q \int_0^\infty |v(t)|^q t^{\frac qp -1} dt.
\end{equation}
Indeed, it is enough to prove \eqref{eq:Tnorm} for nonnegative function $v$ such that
\[
\int_0^\infty |v(t)|^q t^{\frac qp -1} dt < \infty.
\]
We claim that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:claimT}
\lim_{t\to 0} T(v)(t) t^{\frac1p} = 0 = \lim_{t\to \infty} T(v)(t) t^{\frac1p}.
\end{equation}
For any $\ep >0$ there exists $t_0 >0$ such that $\int_0^{t_0} |v(t)|^q t^{\frac qp -1} dt \leq \ep^q$. For $s \leq t_0$, by using H\"older inequality, we have
\[
\frac 1s \int_0^s v(r) dr \leq \frac1s \lt(\int_0^s v(r)^q r^{\frac qp -1} dr\rt)^{\frac1q} \lt(\int_0^s r^{\frac1{q-1} -\frac{q}{p(q-1)}} dr\rt)^{\frac{q-1}q} \leq C \ep s^{-\frac1p}.
\]
This together with the inequality $n \sigma_n \sinh^{n-1}(F(s)) > (n-1)s$ implies for $t\leq t_0$ that
\begin{align*}
T(v)(t) &=\Big(\int_t^{t_0} + \int_{t_0}^\infty\Big) \frac{s}{(n \si_n (\sinh (F(s)))^2}\lt(\frac1s\int_0^s v(r) dr\rt) ds\\
&\leq C \ep \int_t^{t_0} s^{-1-\frac1p} ds + C \lt(\int_0^\infty v(r)^q r^{\frac qp -1} dr\rt)^{\frac1q}\int_{t_0}^\infty s^{-1-\frac1p} ds\\
&\leq C \ep (t^{-\frac1p} -t_0^{-\frac1p}) + C t_0^{-\frac1p} \lt(\int_0^\infty v(r)^q r^{\frac qp -1} dr\rt)^{\frac1q}.
\end{align*}
This estimate yields
\[
\limsup_{t\to 0} T(v)(t) t^{\frac1p} \leq C \ep.
\]
Since $\ep >0$ is arbitrary, then the first limit in \eqref{eq:claimT} is proved.
Similarly, for any $\ep >0$ there exists $t_1 >0$ such that $\int_{t_1}^\infty |v(t)|^q t^{\frac qp -1} dt < \ep^q$. Hence, for $s \geq t_1$, by using H\"older inequality we get
\[
\int_0^s v(r) dr = \int_0^{t_1} v(r) dr + \int_{t_1}^s v(r) dr \leq C\lt(\int_{0}^\infty |v(t)|^q t^{\frac qp -1} dt\rt)^{\frac1q} t_1^{1-\frac1p}+ C \ep s^{1-\frac1p}.
\]
Consequently, for any $t\geq t_1$ we get
\begin{align*}
T(v)(t) &\leq C \int_t^\infty \lt(\lt(\int_{0}^\infty |v(t)|^q t^{\frac qp -1} dt\rt)^{\frac1q} t_1^{1-\frac1p} s^{-2} + \ep s^{-1-\frac1p}\rt) ds\\
&\leq C \lt(\int_{0}^\infty |v(t)|^q t^{\frac qp -1} dt\rt)^{\frac1q} t_1^{1-\frac1p} t^{-1} + C \ep t^{-\frac1p}.
\end{align*}
This estimate implies
\[
\limsup_{t\to \infty} T(v)(t) t^{\frac1p} \leq C \ep.
\]
Since $\ep >0$ is arbitrary, then the second limit in \eqref{eq:claimT} is proved.
Using the integration by parts, the claim \eqref{eq:claimT} and the inequality $n\si_n \sinh^{n-1}(F(t)) > (n-1)t$, we have
\begin{align*}
\int_0^\infty T(v)(t)^q t^{\frac qp -1} dt &= \frac pq \int_0^\infty T(v)(t)^q (t^{\frac qp})' dt\\
&= p \int_0^\infty T(v)(t)^{q-1} \lt(\frac t{n \si_n \sinh^{n-1}(F(t))}\rt)^2\lt(\frac1t \int_0^t v(s) ds\rt) t^{\frac qp -1} dt\\
&\leq \frac{p}{(n-1)^2} \int_0^\infty T(v)(t)^{q-1} \lt(\frac1t \int_0^t v(s) ds\rt) t^{\frac qp -1} dt.
\end{align*}
An easy application of H\"older inequality implies
\[
\int_0^\infty T(v)(t)^q t^{\frac qp -1} dt \leq \lt(\frac p{(n-1)^2}\rt)^q \int_0^\infty \lt(\frac1t \int_0^t v(s) ds\rt)^q t^{\frac qp -1}dt.
\]
The inequality \eqref{eq:Tnorm} follows from the previous inequality and the Hardy inequality \eqref{eq:Hardy}.
Thus, with the help of \eqref{eq:Tnorm}, we can using the induction argument to prove this proposition by establishing the result for $v_{R,1}$. In fact, the decomposition for $v_{R,1}$ is already proved in the proof of Proposition $2.1$ in \cite{NgoNguyenAMV}. The estimate
\[
\int_0^\infty |w_{R,1}|^q t^{\frac qp -1} dt \leq C,
\]
is proved by the same way of the estimate $\int_0^\infty |w_{R,1}|^p dt \leq C$.
\end{proof}
We are now ready to check the sharpness of $C(n,m,p)$. The case $m=1$ was done in \cite{Nguyen2020a}. Hence, we only consider the case $m\geq 2$. We first consider the case $m =2k, k\geq 1$. Define
$$u_R(x) = v_{R,k}(V_g(B(0,d(0,x)))).$$
It is clear that $(-\Delta_g)^k u_R(x) = f_R(V_g(B(0,d(0,x))))$. Hence, there hold
\[
\|\Delta_g^k u_R\|_{p,q}^q =\int_0^\infty f_R(t)^q t^{\frac qp -1}dt = \frac pq + \ln \frac Ra + \int_1^2 (2-s)^q s^{\frac qp -1} ds,
\]
and
\begin{align*}
\|u_R\|_{p,q} &= \lt(\int_0^\infty v_{R,k}^q t^{\frac qp-1} dt\rt)^{\frac1q}\\
&\geq \lt(\int_0^\infty h_{R,k}^q t^{\frac qp-1} dt\rt)^{\frac1q} - \lt(\int_0^\infty |w_{R,k}|^q t^{\frac qp-1} dt\rt)^{\frac1q}\\
&\geq \frac1{(1+ \ep)^{2k})} \lt(\frac{pp'}{(n-1)^2}\rt)^k \lt(\int_0^\infty f_R^q t^{\frac qp-1} dt\rt)^{\frac1q} - C\\
&\geq \frac1{(1+ \ep)^{2k})} \lt(\frac{pp'}{(n-1)^2}\rt)^k \lt( \frac pq + \ln \frac Ra + \int_1^2 (2-s)^q s^{\frac qp -1} ds\rt)^{\frac1q} - C.
\end{align*}
These estimates imply
\[
\limsup_{R\to \infty} \frac{\|\Delta_g^k u_R\|_{p,q}^q}{\|u_R\|_{p,q}^q} \leq (1+ \ep)^{2kq} C(n,2k,p)^k,
\]
for any $\ep >0$. This proves the sharpness of $C(n,2k,p)$. We next consider the case $m =2k+1$, $k\geq 1$. Define
\[
u_R(x) = v_{R,k}(V_g(B(0,d(0,x)))).
\]
It is clear that $(-\Delta_g)^k u_R(x) = f_R(V_g(B(0,d(0,x))))$. It was shown in the proof of Theorem $1.1$ in \cite{Nguyen2020a} (the sharpness of $C(n,1,p)$) that
\[
\limsup_{R\to \infty} \frac{\|\na_g \Delta_g^k u_R\|_{p,q}^q}{\|\Delta_g^k u_R\|_{p,q}^q} \leq (1+\ep)^q \frac{(n-1)^q}{p^q}.
\]
This together with the estimate in the case $m=2k$ implies
\begin{align*}
\limsup_{R\to \infty} \frac{\|\na_g \Delta_g^k u_R\|_{p,q}^q}{\|u_R\|_{p,q}^q} &\leq \limsup_{R\to \infty} \frac{\|\na_g \Delta_g^k u_R\|_{p,q}^q}{\|\Delta_g^k u_R\|_{p,q}^q} \limsup_{R\to\infty}\frac{\|\Delta_g^k u_R\|_{p,q}^q}{\|u_R\|_{p,q}^q}\\
& \leq (1+\ep)^{(2k+)q} C(n,2k+1,p)^q,
\end{align*}
for any $\ep \geqs 0$. This proves the sharpness of $C(n,2k+1,p)$.
The proof of Theorem \ref{MAINI} is then completely finished.
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{MAINII}}
This section is addressed to prove Theorem \ref{MAINII}. The proof uses the results from Theorem \ref{keytheorem} and \cite[Theorem $1.2$]{Nguyen2020a}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{MAINII}]
The case $m=1$ was already proved in \cite{Nguyen2020a}. So, we only consider the case $m\geq 2$. We divide the proof into two cases as follows.
\emph{Case 1: $m=2k$, $k\geq 1$.} The case $k=1$ follows from \eqref{eq:improvedLS2a}. For $k\geq 2$, by using Theorem \ref{MAINI}, we have
\[
\|\Delta_g^k u\|_{p,q}^q - C(n,2k,p)^q \|u\|_{p,q}^q \geq \|\Delta_g^k u\|_{p,q}^q -C(n,2,p)^q \|\Delta^{k-1}_g u\|_{p,q}^q.
\]
Applying the inequality \eqref{eq:improvedLS2a} to the right hand side of the previous inequality, we obtain
\[
\|\Delta_g^k u\|_{p,q}^q - C(n,2k,p)^q \|u\|_{p,q}^q \geq \lt(\frac{n(n-2p)}{p p'} \si_n^{\frac 2n}\rt)^q \|\Delta_g^{k-1}u\|_{p_2^*,q}^q.
\]
By iterating the inequality \eqref{eq:LSorder2}, we then have
\[
\|\Delta_g^k u\|_{p,q}^q - C(n,2k,p)^q \|u\|_{p,q}^q \geq \lt(\si_n^{\frac {2k}n} \prod_{i=0}^{k-1} \frac{n (n-2p_{2i}^*)}{p_{2i}^* (p_{2i}^*)'}\rt)^q \|u\|_{p_{2k}^*,q}^q,
\]
as wanted \eqref{eq:LorentzPS}.
\emph{Case 1: $m=2k+1$, $k\geq 1$.} In this case, we have
\[
\|\na_g \Delta_g^k u\|_{p,q}^q - C(n,2k+1,p)^q \|u\|_{p,q}^q \geq \|\na_g \Delta_g^k u\|_{p,q}^q -\lt(\frac{n-1}p\rt)^q \|\Delta_g^k u\|_{p,q}^q.
\]
Since $q \leq p$ we then have from Theorem $1.2$ in \cite{Nguyen2020a} that
\[
\|\na_g \Delta_g^k u\|_{p,q}^q -\lt(\frac{n-1}p\rt)^q \|\Delta_g^k u\|_{p,q}^q \geq \lt(\frac{n-p}p \si_n^{\frac1n}\rt)^q \|\Delta_g^k u\|_{p^*,q}^q.
\]
Hence, it holds
\[
\|\na_g \Delta_g^k u\|_{p,q}^q - C(n,2k+1,p)^q \|u\|_{p,q}^q \geq \lt(\frac{n-p}p \si_n^{\frac1n}\rt)^q \|\Delta_g^k u\|_{p^*,q}^q.
\]
By iterating the inequality \eqref{eq:LSorder2}, we then have
\[
\|\na_g \Delta_g^k u\|_{p,q}^q - C(n,2k+1,p)^q \|u\|_{p,q}^q \geq \lt(\si_n^{\frac {2k+1}n}\frac{n-p}p \prod_{i=1}^{k} \frac{n (n-2p_{2i-1}^*)}{p_{2i-1}^* (p_{2i-1}^*)'}\rt)^q \|u\|_{p_{2k+1}^*,q}^q,
\]
as desired \eqref{eq:LorentzPS}.
\end{proof}
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
|
\section*{Bayesian approach}
Laplace (1814) used the Bernoulli model as an instant of scientific theory
for the sunrise problem. Let $X=(X_{1},\cdots ,X_{n})$ be independent and
identically distributed Bernoulli random variables with the success
probability $\theta .$ Once we observed data $x=(x_{1},\cdots ,x_{n}),$ we
have the likelihood
\begin{equation}
L(x,\theta )=P(X=x|\theta )=\theta ^{t}(1-\theta )^{n-t}, \label{model}
\end{equation}
where $t=\sum x_{i}$. Prior to knowing of any sunrise, suppose that one is
completely ignorant of the value of $\theta $. Laplace (1814) represented
this prior ignorance by means of a uniform prior $\pi _{0}(\theta )=1$ on $%
\theta \in \lbrack 0,1].$ Let $T_{n}=\sum X_{i}.$ To find the logical
conditional probability of $\theta $ given $T_{n}=n$, one uses the
Bayes-Laplace rule: The conditional probability distribution of $\theta $
given the data $x$ is called the posterior
\begin{equation}
P(\theta |x)=\frac{\pi _{0}(\theta )L(x,\theta )}{\int L(x,\theta )\pi
_{0}(\theta )d\theta }=\frac{\pi _{0}(\theta )L(x,\theta )}{P(x)},
\label{eq:posterior}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation*}
P(x)=\int L(x,\theta )\pi _{0}(\theta )d\theta =\int \theta ^{t}(1-\theta
)^{n-t}d\theta =b(t+1,n-t+1),
\end{equation*}
where $b(\cdot ,\cdot )$ is the beta function. Let $E$ be a particular
proposition that the sun rises tomorrow. Then,
\begin{equation*}
P(T_{n}=n)=b(n+1,1)=1/(n+1),
\end{equation*}
to give
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&P(E|\text{ It has risen }n\text{ consecutive days}) \\
&=&P(X_{n+1}=1|T_{n}=n)=\frac{n+1}{n+2}=\frac{2190001}{2190002}=0.9999995.
\end{eqnarray*}
This shows that
\begin{equation*}
P(E|T_{n}=n)\rightarrow 1\text{ as }n\rightarrow \infty .
\end{equation*}
One observation increases the probability of the particular proposition from
$n/(n+1)$ to $(n+1)/(n+2),$ so that the increment of probability is $%
(n+1)/(n+2)-n/(n+1)=1/\{(n+1)(n+2)\}.$ Thus, the probability of this
particular proposition will be eventually one. However, this is not enough
to ensure the general proposition $G$\ that the sun rises forever holds
(Senn, 2003).
The probability that the sun rises in the next $m$ consecutive days, given
the previous $n$ consecutive sunrises, is
\begin{equation*}
P(X_{n+1}=1,...,X_{n+m}=1|T_{n}=n)=P(T_{n+m}=n+m|T_{n}=n)=\frac{n+1}{n+m+1}.
\end{equation*}
As long as $n$ is finite$,$ the probability of the general proposition $G$
becomes zero because\ for all $n>0$
\begin{equation*}
P(G|T_{n}=n)=\lim_{m\rightarrow \infty }P(T_{n+m}=n+m|T_{n}=n)=0.
\end{equation*}
Consider Jeffreys's prior, which places 1/2 of probability on $\theta =1$
and puts a uniform prior on [0,1) with 1/2 probability. Then,
\begin{equation*}
P(T_{n}=n)=0.5\{1+1/(n+1)\}
\end{equation*}
to give
\begin{eqnarray*}
P(E|T_{n} &=&n)=P(T_{n+1}=n+1|T_{n}=n)=\frac{1+1/(n+2)}{1+1/(n+1)}=\frac{%
(n+1)(n+2)}{(n+2)^{2}}, \\
P(T_{n+m} &=&n+m|T_{n}=n)=\frac{1+1/(n+m+1)}{1+1/(n+1)}=\frac{(n+1)(n+m+2)}{%
(n+2)(n+m+1)}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus,
\begin{equation*}
P(G|T_{n}=n)=\frac{n+1}{n+2}.
\end{equation*}
\section*{Confidence approach}
{\normalsize Let $T$ be a continuous sufficient statistics for parameter }$%
\theta .$ Let $t$ be an observed value of $T.$ {\normalsize Define the
right-side P-value function }
\begin{equation*}
C(t,\theta )=P(T\geq t|\theta ){\normalsize .}
\end{equation*}
Given $t$, as a function of $\theta ,$ $C(t,-\infty )=0$ and $C(t,\infty )=1$
and $C(t,\theta )$ is a strictly increasing function of $\theta .$\ Thus, $%
C(t,\theta )$ behaves as if it is the cumulative distribution of $\theta $.
This leads to the confidence density for $\theta $, analogous to the
Bayesian posterior
\begin{equation*}
P(\theta |t)=dC(t,\theta )/d\theta ,
\end{equation*}
which is the fiducial probability of Fisher (1930), not using a subjective
prior. {\normalsize Schweder and Hjort (2016)} called it the confidence
density.
Fisher considered cases {\normalsize for }$T${\normalsize \ to be
continuous. However, in practical applications $T$ does not have to be
continuous. In the Bernoulli model, }$T_{n}$ is a sufficient statistics but
is discrete. {\normalsize The so-called `exact inference' from discrete data
can be expressed in terms of confidence density. }Consider the conservative
right-side P-value \
\begin{equation*}
C(t,\theta )=P(T_{n}\geq t|\theta )=\sum_{y=t}^{n}\frac{n!}{y!(n-y)!}\theta
^{y}(1-\theta )^{n-y}=\frac{\int_{0}^{\theta }x^{t-1}(1-x)^{n-t}dx}{%
b(t,n-t+1)}.
\end{equation*}
This leads to the confidence density
\begin{equation*}
P(\theta |t)=\theta ^{t-1}(1-\theta )^{n-t}/b(t,n-t+1),
\end{equation*}
which gives a conservative confidence interval (Pawitan, 2001; Chapter 5).
See Pawitan and Lee (2020) for a more thorough discussion.
Because the confidence density is analogous to the posterior, the induced
model prior is
\begin{equation*}
c_{0}(\theta )\varpropto P(\theta |t)/L(\theta )=\theta ^{-1},
\end{equation*}
which is objective because it is directly obtained solely from the model.
However, the model prior $c_{0}(\theta )\varpropto \theta ^{-1},$ namely the
$Beta(0,1)$ distribution$,$\ is improper to give $\int_{0}^{1}c_{0}(\theta
)d\theta =\infty .$ Necessary computations of $Beta(0,1)$ can be obtained as
the limit of proper $Beta(a,1)$ distribution for $a>0$. The confidence
density can be viewed as the posterior (\ref{eq:posterior}) but replacing
the confidence prior $c_{0}(\theta )$ by the Bayesian prior $\pi _{0}(\theta
)$.
This leads to
\begin{equation*}
P(T_{n}=n)=\int \theta ^{n-1}d\theta =1/n
\end{equation*}
to give
\begin{eqnarray*}
P(X_{n+1} &=&1|T_{n}=n)=\frac{P(T_{n+1}=n+1)}{P(T_{n}=n)}=\frac{n}{n+1}, \\
P(T_{n+m} &=&n+m|T_{n}=n)=\frac{P(T_{n+m}=n+m)}{P(T_{n}=n)}=\frac{n}{n+m}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Given $n,$ $P(G|T_{n}=n)=\lim_{m\rightarrow \infty
}P(T_{n+m}=n+m|T_{n}=n)=0. $ Thus, this confidence density cannot overcome
the degree of scepticism yet.
Now apply the confidence to the transformed data, by defining $Y_{i}=0$ if
the sun rises in the ith day, where $P(Y_{i}=1)=\theta ^{\ast }=1-\theta $
and $\theta $\ is the long-run frequency of sunrises. Thus, $\theta ^{\ast
}=1$ is equivalent to $\theta =0.$ Then, $Y_{i}=1-X_{i}.$ Let $T_{n}^{\ast
}=\sum Y_{i}=n-T_{n}.$ Then,
\begin{equation*}
P(Y_{n+1}=0|T_{n}^{\ast }=0)=P(X_{n+1}=1|T_{n}=n)=\lim_{a\downarrow 0}\frac{%
b(a,n+2)}{b(a,n+1)}=1,
\end{equation*}
to give
\begin{equation*}
P(G|T_{n}^{\ast }=0)=P(G|T_{n}=n)=\lim_{m\rightarrow \infty }P(T_{n+m}^{\ast
}=0|T_{n}^{\ast }=0)=1.
\end{equation*}
Because $P(G|T_{n}=n)=1$, under the transformed data, we can say that the
sun will always rise with the logical probability being one. It is a little
disturbing that the confidence statement depends upon the scale of the data $%
X_{i}$ and $Y_{i}=1-X_{i}$ to which the confidence procedure is applied. Now
we see the consequences and show that the resulting confidence procedures
are consistent.
Because the confidence interval for $\theta ^{\ast }$ is easily transformed
to that of $\theta ,$ we can readily apply the confidence to the transformed
data. This leads to the confidence density and the $Beta(1,0)$ model prior
\begin{equation*}
P(\theta |t)=P(\theta ^{\ast }|n-t)\varpropto \theta ^{t}(1-\theta )^{n-t-1}%
\text{ and }c_{0}(\theta )\varpropto P(\theta |t)/L(\theta )=(1-\theta
)^{-1}.
\end{equation*}
This model prior leads to
\begin{equation*}
P(X_{n+1}=1|T_{n}=n)=\lim_{a\downarrow 0}\frac{b(n+2,a)}{b(n+1,a)}=1,
\end{equation*}
to give
\begin{equation*}
P(G|T_{n}=n)=\lim_{m\rightarrow \infty }P(T_{n+m}=n+m|T_{n}=n)=1.
\end{equation*}
\bigskip
We can interpret a $Beta(\alpha ,\beta )$ prior with $\alpha >0$ and $\beta
>0$\ as describing the state of knowledge that \textit{a priori} we have
observed $\alpha $ successes and $\beta $ failures. Then,
\begin{equation*}
P(X_{n+1}=1|T_{n}=n)=\frac{Beta(n+1+\alpha ,\beta )}{Beta(n+\alpha ,\beta )}=%
\frac{n+\alpha }{n+\alpha +\beta }
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
P(X_{n+1}=0|T_{n}=0)=\frac{Beta(\alpha ,n+1+\beta )}{Beta(\alpha ,n+\beta )}=%
\frac{n+\beta }{n+\alpha +\beta }.
\end{equation*}
Thus, $P(X_{n+1}=1|T_{n}=n)\rightarrow 1$ as $\beta \rightarrow 0$ and $%
P(X_{n+1}=0|T_{n}=0)\rightarrow 1$ as $\alpha \rightarrow 0.$ Jaynes (2003)
argued that the Bayes-Laplace $Beta(1,1)$ prior is the state of knowledge in
which we have observed one success and one failure a priori the experiment.
Thus, we know that the experiment is a true binary one, in the sense of
physical possibility. This explains why we cannot reach a sure confidence of
the general proposition with the Bayes-Laplace uniform prior because one day
of no sunrise is assumed \textit{a priori}. Thus, it cannot be an ignorant
prior. Suppose that you were sent a coin from a manufacturer who informed
you that before sending the coin an experiment was done and found one head
and one tail in two trials. Even if you have done an experiment with heads
only for many trials, there is no way to have the sure confidence on $\theta
=1$ if you accepts the manufacturer's information.
The model priors Beta(0,1) and Beta(1,0) allow a possibility that $\theta =0$
and $\theta =1,$ respectively. The Haldane (1932) prior, namely the Beta(0,
0)$\varpropto \theta ^{-1}(1-\theta )^{-1},$ means that no success and no
failure has been observed \textit{a priori}, so that it presumes that either
$\theta =1$ or $\theta =0$ is possible. Under Haldane's prior
\begin{equation*}
P(X_{n+1}=1|T_{n}=n)=1\text{ and }P(X_{n+1}=0|T_{n}=0)=1
\end{equation*}
to give
\begin{equation*}
P(G|T_{n}=n)=1.
\end{equation*}
If you were not given any information from the manufacturer, it is natural
to have the sure confidence on $\theta =1,$ provided you have not observed a
single tail in your own experiment.
Note here that with the right-side P-value, for any $\theta \in \lbrack 0,1]$
\begin{equation*}
C(0,\theta )=P(T_{n}\geq 0|\theta )=1{\normalsize .}
\end{equation*}
This means that $\theta $ has a point mass at zero given $t=0$, leading to
the 100 \% confidence interval for $\theta ,$ given $t=0,$ is \{0\}. With
the transformed data, we can show that it has the point mass at $\theta =1$
given $t=n,$ leading to the 100 \% confidence interval for $\theta ,$ given $%
t=n,$ is $\{1\}$. The general proposition such as $\theta =0$ or 1 is
scientific because it can be falsified if a conflicting observation appears.
Sure confidence for the general proposition such as $\theta =1$ or $0$\ is
consequence of the scientific procedure, the P-value.
\section*{Oracle hypothesis testing and confidence estimation}
The induced prior $Beta(1,0)$ gives indeed simultaneous hypothesis testing
for the two hypotheses $H_{1}:\theta =1$ versus $H_{2}:\theta \neq 1$ and
estimation of the logical probability (confidence). When $T_{n}=n,$ the
confidence resolution allows that $H_{1}$ can be accepted with a sure
confidence. When $T_{n}\neq n$ $H_{2}$ is accepted with a sure confidence
and using the confidence density a confidence interval for $\theta $ can be
formed$.$ Coverage probability statements of these intervals are consistent,
which maintain the stated level as $n$ increases. Thus, when $\theta =1,$ we
can say it is true with the sure confidence provided $T_{n}=n$. When $\theta
\neq 1,$ $T_{n}$ cannot be $n$ if $n$ is sufficiently large, so that we
cannot achieve the sure confidence on $\theta =1$ with a large $n$. It is
therefore consistent whether $\theta =1$ or not. With the Haldane (1932)
prior, $Beta(0,0),$ the resulting procedure gives a simultaneous hypothesis
testing and confidence estimation: When $T_{n}=n$ ($T_{n}=0),$ $H_{1}:\theta
=1$ ($H_{2}:\theta =0)$ is accepted with 100 \% confidence interval \{1\}
(\{0\}), and when $1\leq T_{n}\leq n-1$ the hypothesis $H_{3}:\theta \in
(0,1)$ is accepted with an estimator of the logical probability (confidence
density)
\begin{equation*}
P(\theta |T_{n}=t)=\theta ^{t-1}(1-\theta )^{n-t-1}/beta(t,n-t),
\end{equation*}
which gives a consistent confidence interval. {\normalsize Schweder and
Hjort, (2016)} proposed the use of mid-point P-value, which, even though
unreported, leads to confidence density based on Jeffreys's (1939)
Beta(1/2,1/2) prior. The resulting procedure is therefore not oracle.
\end{document}
\section*{Introduction}
In the era of artificial intelligence, learning from experience (induction
from data) becomes crucial to drawing valid inferences. Induction is a form
of reasoning from particular examples to the general rule, in which one infers a
proposition based on data. Originally, the goal of science was to prove
propositions (scientific theory) such as ''all ravens are black'', or to
infer them from observational data. However, the difficulty of deriving such
inductive logics has been recognized as the problem of induction since the
Greek and Roman periods. Pyrrhonian skeptic Sextus Empiricus questioned
the validity of inductive reasoning, ''positing that a universal rule could not
be established from an incomplete set of particular instances. Specifically, to establish
a universal rule from particular instances by means of induction, either all or some
of the particulars can be reviewed. If only some of the instances are reviewed, the induction
may not be definitive as some of the instances omitted in the induction may
contravene the universal fact; however, reviewing all the instances may be nearly impossible as the instances are infinite and indefinite
(Heinemann, 1933, p. 283)''. Hume (1748) argued that inductive reasoning
cannot be justified rationally because it presupposes that the future will
resemble the past. Kant (1781) proposed a resolution to the induction problem, which involved considering the propositions as valid, absolutely \textit{a priori}%
. Popper (1959) suggested realizing the falsification of propositions instead of proving
them or trying to view them as valid. Broad (1923) stated that ''induction is
the glory of science but the scandal of philosophy''. However, induction may also be viewed as a scandal of science if there is no way to confirm scientific theories
with complete confidence via induction. Therefore, in this study, we attempt to demonstrate that
if a scientific theory on how the future data are
generated is available, an inductive reasoning can be justified rationally based on the
scientific theory, whose role is an axiom in mathematics.
The question addressed in this work is whether via scientific induction, a scientist
(or artificial intelligence) can obtain complete confidence regarding a
general proposition. We use probability as the main tool, and for the
purpose of this work, we limit ourselves to two concepts of probability.
The first concept is Kolmogorov's (1933) formal mathematical probability of
random events such as coin tossing, which relates to the long-run rate of
observable events (Von Mises, 1928); this aspect involves the P-value and coverage
probabilities of the confidence intervals. The second concept concerns the logical probability
of a proposition, developed for the scientific
induction being true. Bayes (1763) introduced a logical probability; however, he might not
have embraced the broad application scope now known as Bayesianism, which was in
fact pioneered and popularized by Laplace (1824) as an inverse probability.
Bayesianism been applied to all types of propositions in scientific and
other fields (Paulos, 2011). Savage (1954) provided an axiomatic basis
for the Bayesian probability as a subjective probability. It is of interest to
derive an objective logical probability. Fisher (1930) developed an
alternative logical probability, namely, fiducial probability, which is based on the
P-value. Neyman (1937) introduced the idea of confidence, represented by
the coverage probabilities of confidence intervals. The confidence allows
for a frequentist interpretation of the long-run rate of coverage if the confidence
intervals are repeatedly produced over different observations. {\normalsize %
Schweder and Hjort (2016)} viewed the confidence as the Neymanian
interpretation of Fisher's logical probability. Recently, there has been a
surge of renewed interest in the confidence as an estimate of the logical
probability (Xie and Singh, 2013).
An inductive logic is based on the idea that the probability represents a
logical relation between the proposition and the observations. Accordingly,
a theory of induction should explain how one can ascertain that certain
observations establish a degree of belief strong enough to confirm a given
proposition. Let $G$ be a general proposition, such as ''all ravens are
black'' or ''the sun rises forever'', and $E$ be a particular proposition or
an observation (evidence) such as ''the raven in front of me is black'' or
''the sun rises tomorrow''. Then, we can use the logical probability to
represent a deductive logic:
\begin{equation*}
P(E|G)=1\text{ \ and \ }P(\text{not }E|G)=0.
\end{equation*}
The logical probability can be quantified as a number between 0 and 1, where 0
indicates impossibility (the proposition is false) and 1 indicates certainty
(complete confidence; the proposition is true). Thus, deductive reasoning can
help attain complete confidence, provided that the basic premises such as the axioms are
true. The use of the logical probability for scientific reasoning was
proposed by Cox (1946).
The logical probability allows us to represent the inductive logic as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
P(G|\text{not }E) &=&P(\text{not }E|G)P(G)/P(\text{not }E)=0, \\
P(G|E) &=&P(E|G)P(G)/P(E)=P(G)/P(E)\geq P(G),
\end{eqnarray}
provided that the denominators are not zeros. From (1), we see that
one observation of a non-black raven can certainly falsify the general
proposition. Popper (1959) saw this falsifiability of a proposition as a
criterion for scientific theory; if a theory is falsifiable, it is
scientific, and if not, then this theory is unscientific. From (2), we see
that a particular observation can corroborate the general proposition.
Laplace (1814) elaborated on the Bayesian approach to compute the logical
probability. However, Broad (1918) indicated that Laplace's solution
involved the assignment of a zero probability to the general proposition, regardless of the number of observations made. To this end, in this study, the confidence
resolution of the induction problem was realized by demonstrating that complete confidence on
a general proposition can be achieved via induction based on a finite
number of observations. We also demonstrate that the attained complete confidence is
theoretically consistent.
\section*{Laplace solution to the sunrise problem}
The Bernoulli model was developed for random binary events such as coin
tossing. Suppose that a coin was tossed, but the outcome is unknown. The
logical probability for a general proposition would be like the probability of a coin
toss, whose outcome is unknown as the truthfulness of general proposition is unknown.
Laplace (1814) demonstrated how to compute such an actual logical
probability, based on the data. He used the Bernoulli model as an instant of
a scientific theory for the sunrise problem. Let $\theta $ be the long-run
frequency of sunrises, i.e., the sun rises on 100$\times \theta $\% of days.
Under the Bernoulli model, the general proposition $G$\ that the sun rises
forever is equivalent to the hypothesis $\theta =1.$ The general proposition
for which $\theta =1$ is then a Popper scientific theory because it can be falsified if a
conflicting observation, i.e., one day of no sunrise, occurs. With a finite
sample based on observations until now, could this Bernoulli model allow
for complete confidence on $\theta =1?$
Prior to the knowledge of any sunrise, suppose that one is completely ignorant of
the value of $\theta $. Laplace (1814) represented this prior ignorance by
means of a uniform prior $\pi _{0}(\theta )=1$ on $\theta \in \lbrack 0,1].$
This uniform prior was first proposed by Bayes (1763). Given the value of $%
\theta $ and no other information relevant to the question of whether the
sun will rise tomorrow, the probability of the particular proposition $E$\
that the sun will rise tomorrow is $\theta $. However, we do not know the true
value of $\theta $. Thus, let $T_{n}$ be the number of sunrises in $n$ days. We are provided with the observed data that the sun has risen every day on record ($%
T_{n}=n)$. Laplace, based on a young-earth creationist reading
of the Bible, inferred the number of days by considering that the universe
was created approximately 6000 years ago. The Bayes--Laplace rule defines the posterior, logical
probability given data,
\begin{equation*}
P(\theta |T_{n}=n)=\frac{\pi _{0}(\theta )\theta ^{n}}{\int \pi _{0}(\theta
)\theta ^{n}d\theta }=\frac{\theta ^{n}}{\int \theta ^{n}d\theta }%
=(n+1)\theta ^{n},
\end{equation*}
which is a proper probability for $\theta ;$ consequently, the probability statements
for $\theta $ can be established from this posterior. As described in the supplementary materials,
given $n=6000\times 365=2,190,000$
days of consecutive sunrises, the logical probability of $E$ is
\begin{equation*}
P(E|T_{n}=n)=\int \theta P(\theta |T_{n}=n)d\theta =\frac{n+1}{n+2}=\frac{%
2190001}{2190002}=0.9999995.
\end{equation*}
The probability of this particular proposition, that is, the sun rising the next day,
is eventually one as the number of observations increases. However,
this aspect is not sufficient to confirm the general proposition $G$\ that the sun rises
forever. Broad (1918) showed that $P(G|T_{n}=n)=0$ for all $n$; there is no
justification whatsoever for attaching even a moderate probability to a
general proposition if the possible instances of the rule are many times
more numerous than the instances already investigated (See Senn (2003) for a more
thorough discussion). Thus, the Bayes--Laplace rule cannot overcome the degree
of skepticism raised by Hume (1748). Popper (1959, p 383) concluded that
the presence of observations cannot alter the zero logical probability. In Carnap's
inductive logic (1950), the degree of confirmation of every universal law is
always zero. Therefore, the universal law cannot be accepted, but is not rejected until
conflicting evidence appears.
\section*{Jeffreys' resolution}
The fact that $laws$ cannot be confirmed via scientific induction based on
the Bayes--Laplace rule means that the choice of the prior had been wrong. Jaynes
(2003) argued that a beta prior density, $Beta(\alpha ,\beta )=\theta
^{\alpha -1}(1-\theta )^{\beta -1}/beta(\alpha ,\beta ),$ with $beta(\cdot
,\cdot )$ being the beta function, $\alpha >0$ and $\beta >0,$\ describes the state of knowledge that we have observed $\alpha $ successes
and $\beta $ failures prior to the experiment. The Bayes--Laplace uniform
prior $\pi _{0}(\theta )=1$ is the $Beta(1,1)$ prior, which means that the
experiment is a true binary one in the sense of physical possibility. This
phenomenon explains why we cannot attain complete confidence of $G$ by using the Bayes--Laplace
rule. The $Beta(1,1)$ prior means that a trustworthy manufacturer sent you\
a coin with information that he/she observed one head and one tail in two trials
before sending the coin. Even if you have an experiment with heads only for
many trials, there is no way to attain complete confidence on $\theta =1,$
unless you discard the manufacturer's information. In this case, Jeffreys' prior
(1939) is $Beta(1/2,1/2),$ but any prior with $\alpha >0$ and $\beta >0$
cannot overcome the degree of skepticism, i.e., $P(G|T_{n}=n)=0$.
Jeffreys' (1939) resolution was another prior, which places a mass 1/2 on
the general proposition $\theta =1$ and a uniform prior on [0,1) with
1/2 weight. Then, as described in the supplementary materials, we have
\begin{equation*}
P(E|T_{n}=n)=\frac{(n+1)(n+3)}{(n+2)^{2}}\text{\ and }P(G|T_{n}=n)=\frac{n+1%
}{n+2}.
\end{equation*}
Jeffreys' resolution produces an important innovation of the Bayes
factor for hypothesis testing (Etz and Wagenmakers, 2017). Senn (2009)
considered Jeffreys' (1939) work as ''a touch of genius, necessary to
rescue the Laplacian formulation of induction'', by allowing $P(G|T_{n}=n)>0$%
. According to Jeffrey’ resolution with a prior $P(G)=1/2$,
\begin{equation*}
P(G)=1/2<P(G|T_{1}=1)=2/3<P(G|T_{2}=2)=3/4<\cdots ,
\end{equation*}
and thus, $P(G|T_{n}=n)$ increases to one eventually. Using this resolution, a
hypothesis cannot be rejected. However, the scientific induction cannot
attain complete confidence even in this era of big data, because such a process requires infinite evidence.
\section*{Confidence resolution}
Different priors lead to different logical probabilities. Savage (1954)
interpreted these probabilities as subjective probabilities, depending upon personal
preferences. It can be controversial to allow personal preferences in
scientific induction. The question is, however, whether we can form an
objective logical probability{\normalsize \ without presupposing a prior.}
Newton and Einstein may not believe \textit{a priori} that their laws are true
with half of their personal probability.
Fisher (1930) derived, when $T_{n}${\normalsize \ is continuous}, an alternative approach using the P-value which has been widely used for scientific inferences.
As shown in the supplementary materials, we derive a logical probability
using Pawitan's (2003, Chapter 5) right-side P-value $P(T_{n}\geq t|\theta )$ for discrete $T_{n}$. This P-value leads to a logical probability
\begin{equation*}
P(E|T_{n}=n)=1,
\end{equation*}
so that
\begin{equation*}
P(G|T_{n}=n)=1.
\end{equation*}
According to this confidence resolution,
\begin{equation*}
P(G|T_{1}=1)=P(G|T_{2}=2=1)=\cdots =P(G|T_{n}=n)=1,
\end{equation*}
and $P(G|T_{i}\neq i)\leq P(G|T_{i+1}\neq i+1)=0$ for any $i\leq n.$ This
allows the realization of complete confidence even with a finite $n$. As shown in the
supplementary materials, a prior can be induced from the logical
probability, which can be obtained from the Bayes--Laplace rule
using the induced prior. The right-side P-value $P(T_{n}\geq t|\theta )$
is an unobservable random variable because the true value of $\theta $ is
unknown, and according to Pawitan and Lee (2020) the Bayes--Laplace rule is
also an update rule for the likelihood for unobservable events (Lee et al., 2017).
In the supplementary materials, we demonstrate that the confidence leads to two
potential induced priors, specifically, $Beta(0,1)$\ and $Beta(1,0)$. Although
these priors are improper, $\int \pi (\theta )d\theta =\infty ,$ they
allow a reasonable interpretation; for example, the $Beta(0,1)$ prior indicates
that only one failure is observed \textit{a priori}. Thus, if we observe all
the failures, it is legitimate to attain complete confidence on $\theta =0.$
However, even if we observe all the successes, we can never attain complete
confidence on $\theta =1$ because of the failure \textit{a priori}$.$ The $%
Beta(1,0)$ prior exhibits the contrasting property.
The confidence resolution leads to simultaneous hypothesis testing and
estimation of the confidence density (or probability) function for the confidence
intervals. As described in the supplementary materials, for example, under the induced
prior $Beta(1,0)$, the Bayes--Laplace rule leads to a posterior (confidence
density), for $t=0,1,\cdots ,n-1$
\begin{equation*}
P(\theta |T_{n}=t)=\theta ^{t}(1-\theta )^{n-t-1}/beta(t+1,n-t).
\end{equation*}
From this confidence density, we can form a confidence interval for $\theta $, and the actual coverage rates in finite sample were reported by Pawitan (2001;
Chapter 5). When $T_{n}=n,$ the discrete posterior (confidence) $%
P(\theta =1|T_{n}=n)=1$ is attained. Thus, with $T_{n}=n$, the 100\% confidence interval
for $\theta $ is \{1\}$.$ In the recent developments of the confidence theory, the
confidence density is viewed as an estimate of the true but unknown logical
probability, leading to consistent interval estimation. The coverage probability
is a long-run rate of the coverage of the confidence interval in hypothetical
repetitions. Thus, the confidence concept is a bridge between the Kolmogorov
and logical probabilities. We may view the Bayesian posteriors as estimates of
the true logical probability (confidence). In this case, the consistency of
the estimations becomes important.
\section*{Oracle hypothesis testing and confidence estimation}
Our confidence resolution provides an extension of the oracle property of a
recent interest for simultaneous hypothesis testing and point estimation
(Fan and Li, 2001). The oracle works as if it is known in advance
whether the general proposition is true or not. We may define the oracle
property as the attainment of complete confidence in finite samples. Thus, $%
P(G|T_{n}=n)=1 $ is an oracle estimator of the true logical probability. To form
an oracle procedure, Lee and Oh (2014) proposed the use of a prior such as $%
Beta(1,0),$ which is infinite and not differentiable at $\theta =1.$ An
advantage of using such a prior in the change point problem is that this
allows a simultaneously consistent estimation of the number of change
points and their locations and sizes (Ng \textit{et al}., 2018). The induced
prior $Beta(1,0)$ provides simultaneous hypothesis testing for the two
hypotheses $H_{1}:\theta =1$ versus $H_{2}:\theta \neq 1$ and estimation of
the logical probability (confidence). When $T_{n}=n,$ the confidence
resolution ensures that $H_{1}$ can be accepted with complete confidence. When $%
T_{n}\neq n$ $H_{2}$ is accepted with complete confidence, and a confidence interval for $\theta $ can be formed using the
confidence density$.$
The coverage probability statements of these intervals are consistent, which
maintain the stated level as $n$ increases. Note that Jeffreys' resolution
cannot accept $H_{1} $ with complete confidence (see supplementary materials
for detailed discussion).
In response to the skepticism raised by Hume (1748), Kant (1781) proposed
the consideration of the general proposition as absolutely valid, \textit{a priori},
which is otherwise drawn from the dubious inferential inductions.
In contrast Bayes (1763) and Laplace (1814) presumed \textit{a priori} that the
general proposition is false. Thus, Kant's proposal is consistent only if
the general proposition is true, whereas the Bayes--Laplace rule is consistent only if
the general proposition is false. It is not necessary \textit{a priori} to presume $P(G)=0$ or 1.
The term ''confirmation'' has been used in the epistemology and philosophy of
science whenever the observational data (evidence) support scientific theories.
Many Bayesian confirmation measures have been proposed. For example,
Carnap's (1950) degree of confirmation of the general proposition $G$\ by
the evidence $E$ is $C(G,E)=P(G|E)-P(G).$ Because $C(G,E)\leq 1-P(G)=P($not $%
G)\leq 1$, Popper (1959) equated the confirmability with ''refutability''. We
see that $P(G)=0$ leads to $P(G|T_{n}=n)=0$ in the sunrise problem.
In Jeffreys' (1939) resolution with $P(G)=1/2$, $%
C(G,T_{n}=n)=P(G|T_{n}=n)-P(G)=n/\{2(n+2)\}>0$, and thus the evidence $T_{n}=n$
confirms the general theory $G$ positively. However, in the confidence
resolution, although the prior $P(G)$\ is not defined, complete confidence
(confirmation) $P(G|T_{n}=n)=1$ is achieved. Both the resolutions are
consistent, regardless of whether $G$ is true or false. However, the former
is not an oracle because it cannot attain complete confidence on the general
proposition in a finite sample whereas the latter can. In this study,
the Bayesian prior, Bayes rule, Fisherian P-value, fiducial probability and
Neymanian confidence ideas are combined to resolve the induction problem,
facilitating the attainment of complete confidence.
\section*{Concluding remarks}
Through deduction, one can achieve complete confidence regarding a particular
proposition $E$
\begin{equation*}
P(E|G)=1,
\end{equation*}
provided that the general proposition $G$ is true. Through induction, we see that one can attain complete confidence regarding the general proposition
\begin{equation*}
P(G)\leq P(G|E)(=P(G|T_{n}=n))=1.
\end{equation*}
Considering the information provided by the data, we can be certain that the sun rises forever,
provided that the assumed scientific (binomial) model is true. (Of course,
in physics, the sun runs out of energy, and the solar system vanishes
eventually.) To establish the universal laws from the particular instances by means
of induction, scientists (or artificial intelligence) do not need to review
all the instances but to establish a scientific model pertaining to the generation of the instances. To confirm the validity of the general relativity theory,
the observational evidence of light bending was obtained in 1919 and the astrophysical
measurement of the gravitational redshift was obtained in 1925. Thus, a new
theory was confirmed based on a few observations. The oracle confidence
resolution shows that such an inductive reasoning is theoretically
consistent and therefore rational. More supporting evidence corroborates the
consistency of the oracle estimation of the logical probability. If a long
existing scientific theory has not been refuted by conflicting evidence, it
is theoretically consistent to claim complete confidence regarding the general
propositions derived by the existing scientific theory. The role of the
scientific theory in a scientific induction is the same as that of an axiom
in a mathematical deduction. Thus, a scientific theory can be falsified or
confirmed via induction. If one drops an apple, one can be sure that it will fall
unless the Newtonian laws suddenly stops to hold. Indeed, induction can be
the glory of both science and philosophy.
\bigskip \textbf{\noindent References and Notes}
\begin{enumerate}
\item T. Bayes, An essay toward solving a problem in the doctrine of
chance. \textit{Phil. Trans, Roy. Soc.} 370-418 (1763).
\item C. D. Broad, The relation between induction and probability. \textit{%
Mind}, \textbf{27}, 389-404 1918.
\item C. D. Broad, \textit{Scientific thought\/} (Brace and Co, New York,
1963).
\item R. Carnap, \textit{Logical Foundation of Probability}, (University of
Chicago Press, 1950)
\item R. T. Cox, Probability, frequency, and reasonable expectation.
\textit{American journal of physics. \textbf{14(1)}}, 1-13 (1946).
\item A. Etz and E. Wagenmakers, Haldane's contribution to the Bayes factor
hypothesis test. \textit{Statistical Science. }\textbf{32(2)}, 313-329.
(2017)
\item J. {\normalsize \textrm{Fan, and R. Li, R.} Variable selection via
nonconcave penalized likelihood and its oracle properties. \emph{Journal of
American Statistical Association,} \textbf{96,} 1348--1360 (2001) }
\item R. A. {\normalsize Fisher, Inverse probability. \emph{Proceedings of
the Cambridge Philosophical Society}, \textbf{26}, 528--535 \ (1930). }
\item J. B. S. Haldane, A note on inverse probability. \textit{Mathematical
Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society. \textbf{28(1)}}, 55-61
(1932).
\item W. Heinemann, \textit{Sextus Empiricus. Outlines of Pyrrhonism},
(Robert Gregg Bury, 1933)
\item D. Hume, \textit{An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding}. (P.F.
Collier \& Son, 1910) (1748)
\item E. T. Jaynes, \textit{Probability Theory: The Logic of Science.}
(Cambridge University Press, 2003)
\item H. Jeffreys, \textit{Theory of Probability}. (Oxford University
Press, 1939)
\item I. Kant, \textit{Critique of Pure Reason}. Kitcher, Patricia
(intro.); Pluhar, W. (trans.) Indianapolis: Hackett. xxviii, 1996. (1781)
\item A. N. Kolmogorov, \textit{Foundations of the Theory of Probability},
Second English Edition. Chelsea, 1956 (1933)
\item P. S. Laplace, A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities, English\textit{%
\ translation of the 6th French Edition, Dover, 1951. (1814)}
\item Y. {\normalsize \textrm{Lee, J. A. Nelder and Y. Pawitan, }\textit{%
Generalized Linear Models with Random Effects: Unified Analysis via
H-likelihood.} 2nd ed. (Chapman \& Hall, 2017).}
\item Y. {\normalsize \textrm{Lee and H. Oh A new sparse variable selection
via random-effect model. \textit{Journal of Multivariate Analysis}. \textbf{%
125}, 89-99. (2014)}}
\item J. Neyman, Note on an article by Sir Ronald Fisher''. \textit{Journal
of the Royal Statistical Society}. Series B (Methodological) 18 (2),
288-294. (1956).
\item T. Ng, W. Lee and Y. Lee, Change-point estimators with true
identification property. \textit{Bernoulli Journal}, \textbf{24}, 616-660.
(2018).
\item J. A. Paulos, \textit{The Mathematics of Changing Your Mind}, (%
\textit{New York Times} (US), 5 August 2011).
\item Y. {\normalsize Pawitan, \emph{In all likelihood: Statistical
modelling and inference using likelihood}. (Oxford University Press, 2001)}
\item Y. {\normalsize Pawitan and Y. Lee, Confidence as likelihood,
To appear \textit{Statistical Science} (2020)}
\item K. R. Popper, \textit{New Appendices to the Logic of Scientific
Discovery, 6th revised impression of the 1959 English translation,
Hutchinson, 1972.} (1959).
\item L. J. Savage, \textit{Foundations of Statistics}, (Wiley \& Son, 1954)
\item S. Senn, \textit{Dicing with Death: Chance, Risk and Health
(Cambridge University Press, 2003)}
\item S. Senn, Comments on ''Harold Jeffreys's theory of probability
revisited''. \textit{Statistical Science}. (2009)
\item T. {\normalsize Schweder and N. L. Hjort, \emph{Confidence,
Likelihood, Probability.} (Cambridge University Press, 2016)}
\item R. Von Mises, \textit{Probability, Statistics and Truth}, 2nd revised
English edition, Allen and Urwin, 1961. (1928)
\item M. Xie, M. and K. Singh, Confidence distribution, the frequentist
distribution estimator of a parameter: a review. \textit{International
Statistical Review}, 81, 3-39. (2013).
\end{enumerate}
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}
This perspective paper discusses the issue of model discrepancy --- the difference between a model's predictions and reality.
The concepts and issues we highlight are applicable to any modelling situation where governing equations are approximations or assumptions;
thus our perspective paper is intended for computational, mathematical and statistical modellers within many other fields as well as within and outside biological modelling.
The focus of our examples is cellular cardiac electrophysiology, a well-developed area of systems biology \cite{noble_how_2012}.
\subsection{Cardiac modelling}
Cardiac models are typically a collection of mathematical functions governed by systems of ordinary and/or partial (when spatial dimensions are considered) differential equations, integrated using computational techniques, which produce responses that depend on the model inputs.
Inputs can include model parameters, initial conditions, boundary conditions, and cellular, tissue or whole organ geometrical aspects.
Inputs which have physiological meaning can sometimes be obtained by direct measurement, whilst others may need to be estimated via an indirect calibration procedure using experimental data. There are many examples of such cardiac models, at a variety of different scales, discussed in the papers of this special issue.
Mathematical modelling and computational simulation
has been remarkably successful at providing insights into cardiac physiological mechanisms at cellular, tissue and whole organ scales \cite{Noble1962, Noble1992, Gray1995, Bass2009, Fink2011, Sager2014}.
In the majority of these quantitative efforts, models are derived based on simplified representations of complex biophysical systems and use {\emph{in vitro}} and {\emph{in vivo}} experimental data for calibration and validation purposes.
Quantitative cardiac models have been a crucial tool for basic research for decades, and more recently have begun to transition into safety-critical clinical and pharmaceutical development applications \cite{Relan2011, Sermesant2012, Mirams2012, Nied2018, Li2018}.
The use of cardiac mathematical models in such applications will require high levels of credibility in the predictive model outputs, as well as an accurate quantification of the uncertainty in these predictions.
Parameters in cardiac models are often uncertain, mainly due to measurement uncertainty and/or natural physiological variability \cite{Mirams2016}.
Thus, uncertainty quantification (UQ) methods are required to study uncertainty propagation in these models and help to establish confidence in model predictions.
Parametric UQ is the process of determining the uncertainty in model inputs or parameters, and then estimating the resultant uncertainty in model outputs, thus testing the robustness of model predictions given our uncertainty in their inputs, and has been applied to a variety of cardiac models \cite{Nied2011, Krish2014, Pras2013, Pras2014, Pras2018, Pras2019}.
Another major source of uncertainty in modelling is uncertainty in the model structure, i.e., the form of the governing equations.
There is always a difference between the imperfect model used to approximate reality, and reality itself; this difference is termed model discrepancy.
Assessment of the robustness of model predictions given our uncertainty in the model structure, and methods to characterise model discrepancy, has received relatively little attention in this field (and mathematical/systems biology more generally).
We have found only two published explicit treatments of discrepancy in cardiac electrophysiology models, in papers by Plumlee \emph{et al.} \cite{Plumlee2016,Plumlee2017}.
In these studies, the assumption that ion channel rate equations follow an explicit form (such as that given, as we will see later, by Eq.~(\ref{eq:rate_equation})) was relaxed, and rates were allowed to be Gaussian processes (GPs) in voltage.
A two-dimensional GP (in time and voltage) was then also added to the current prediction to represent discrepancy in current for a single step to any fixed voltage.
\subsection{Notation and terminology}
Before discussing model discrepancy in detail, we introduce some notation and terminology.
As the concepts introduced here are intended to be understood not just by a cardiac modelling audience, we provide a non-exhaustive list of terminology we have encountered in different fields to describe useful concepts relating to calibration and model discrepancy (and mathematical/computational modelling in general) in Table~\ref{tab:terminology}.
\begin{table}[tbh]
\caption{Terminology used in different fields to refer to inverse problem concepts.}
\label{tab:terminology}
\centering
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{ \begin{tabular}{lll}
\toprule
\textbf{CONCEPT} & \textbf{TERMINOLOGIES} & \\
\midrule
\multirow{5}{*}{Fitting parameters in a given model to data}
& Calibration
& Inverse problem \\
& Parameter inference
& Parameter identification \\
& Parameter estimation
& Parameter tuning \\
& Parameter fitting& Parameter optimisation \\
& Model matching/fitting
& \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{\shortstack[l]{Do data from given experiment provide sufficient \\
information to identify the model parameters?}}
& Parameter identifiability
& Practical identifiability \\
& Structural identifiability
& Well-posedness \\
\midrule
\multirow{1}{*}{Altering experiments to improve parameter identifiability}
& Experimental design
& Protocol design \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Choosing model equations}
& Model selection
& Model choice \\
& System identification
& \\ \midrule
\multirow{4}{*}{The difference between model and reality}
& Model discrepancy
& Model uncertainty \\
& Model misspecification
& Model mismatch \\
& Model inadequacy
& Model form error \\
& Structural error
& Model structure error\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{The observable measurements (data)}
& Observables
& Observable outputs \\
& Quantities of Interest (QoIs) &\\
\midrule
\multirow{3}{*}{A simplified version of the simulator/model}
& Surrogate model
& Metamodel \\
& Proxy
& Emulator \\ & Look-up table &\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Checking the performance of the fitted model}
& Validation
& Certification \\
& Qualification
& Performance estimation \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\end{table}
Here, we delve into some of those concepts in more detail.
Suppose a physiological system is modelled as $y = f(\boldsymbol{\theta}, u)$, where $f$ represents all governing equations used to model the system (also referred to as model form or model structure), $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ is a vector of parameters characterising the system, and $u$ are known externally applied conditions or control variables applied in the particular experimental procedure.
In a cardiac modelling context, these might represent a stimulus protocol, a drug concentration, or the applied voltage protocol in a simulated voltage clamp experiment.
In general, $\boldsymbol{\theta} = \{\boldsymbol{\theta}_D, \boldsymbol{\theta}_C\}$, where values of $\boldsymbol{\theta}_D$ are directly measured, and where values of $\boldsymbol{\theta}_C$ are determined by calibration using the model $f$.
Here, for simplicity of exposition, we assume $\boldsymbol{\theta}_D$ is fixed (and known) and $\boldsymbol{\theta} = \boldsymbol{\theta}_C$.
We can distinguish between external conditions used for calibration, validation, and prediction (that is, the application of the model, or context of use (CoU)), $u_C$, $u_V$, $u_{P}$, say.
Suppose we have experimental data $Y_C$ for calibration and $Y_V$ for validation.
A typical workflow, without UQ, is:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Calibration}:
estimate $\hat{\boldsymbol{\theta}} = \textrm{argmin}_{\boldsymbol{\theta} \in \boldsymbol{\Theta}} d_C \left( f(\boldsymbol{\theta}, u_C), Y_C \right)$, using some calibration distance function $d_C(\cdot,\cdot)$ (e.g.,\ a vector norm: $d_C(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y}) = \|\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{y}\|$), and some subset of parameter space $\boldsymbol{\Theta}$;
\item \textbf{Validation}:
compare $y_V = f(\boldsymbol{\hat{\boldsymbol{\theta}}}, u_V)$ against $Y_V$, either qualitatively or using a suitable validation distance $d_V(f(\boldsymbol{\hat{\boldsymbol{\theta}}}, u_V), Y_V)$; \item \textbf{Context of use}:
compute $Y_{P} = f(\boldsymbol{\hat{\boldsymbol{\theta}}},u_{P})$, or some quantity derived from this, to learn about the system or to make a model-based decision.
\end{itemize}
The calibration stage has many different names, see Table~\ref{tab:terminology}.
In practice, there a number of reasons why we cannot infer parameter values with certainty. The most commonly considered situation is when the link between the data and the model output is stochastic, e.g., because of measurement error on $Y_C$ or because of model discrepancy.
Computing the uncertainty about $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ based on noisy data $Y_C$ is referred to as `inverse UQ', and requires a statistical model of the experimental data to be specified.
For example, when considering measurement error, a common choice is to assume independent identically distributed zero-mean Gaussian errors on all data points, in which case (neglecting model discrepancy; see later) our model for the data is
\begin{equation}
Y_{C} = f(\boldsymbol{\theta}, u_C) + \boldsymbol{\epsilon}, \label{eq:iid-noise}
\end{equation}
with $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}=(\epsilon_1, \epsilon_2, \ldots)^\top$,
where ${\epsilon}_i \sim \mathcal{N}(0, \sigma^2)$.
There are many different approaches to solving inverse UQ problems (see, e.g., \cite{tarantola2005, Dashti2017}), most of which are based on inferring probability distributions to describe the relative likelihood that each different parameter set is consistent with the available data.
Though a number of different methods to solve inverse UQ problems have been applied in cardiac electrophysiology \cite{Mirams2016}, the most common is a Bayesian approach, which combines prior information about the parameters, $\pi(\boldsymbol{\theta})$, with the probability of observing the data given each parameter $\pi(Y_C \mid \boldsymbol{\theta})$ (referred to as the likelihood of $\theta$), to find a posterior distribution over the parameters:
\begin{equation}
\pi(\boldsymbol{\theta} \mid Y_{C}) = \frac{\pi(Y_C \mid \boldsymbol{\theta})\pi(\boldsymbol{\theta})}{\pi(Y_C)}.\label{eq:Gaussian}
\end{equation}
For an introduction to Bayesian methods, see \cite{Gelman2013,lambert2018BayesBook}.
For the i.i.d.\ Gaussian error model (Eq.~\ref{eq:iid-noise}), the likelihood is given by
\begin{equation}
\pi(Y_C \mid \boldsymbol{\theta}) =(2\pi \sigma^2)^{-n/2}\exp\left(-\frac{||Y_C - f(\boldsymbol{\theta}, u_C)||_2^2}{2\sigma^2}\right),\label{eq:ll}
\end{equation}
where $||x||_2^2=\sum_i x_i^2$, and $n$ is the number of data points.
Another potential source of uncertainty about $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ can occur when the parameter varies across the (or a) population.
Estimating population variability in $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ requires multiple $Y_C$ recordings, $\{Y^{(1)}_C, Y^{(2)}_C, \ldots\}$. Multilevel or hierarchical models can then be used: we assume the parameters for population $i$ are drawn from some distribution $\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(i)} \sim \pi(\boldsymbol{\theta} \mid \psi)$, and infer the population parameters $\psi$, see \cite{lei_rapid_2019-1}.
Once uncertainty in $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ (given the data) has been determined, the impact of this uncertainty on validation simulations $Y_V$ or CoU simulations $Y_{P}$ can be computed by propagating the uncertainty through the model $f$ in the validation/CoU simulations, e.g.,
$$
\pi(Y_P \mid Y_C) = \int \pi(Y_P \mid \boldsymbol{\theta})\pi(\boldsymbol{\theta} \mid Y_C) {\rm d} \boldsymbol{\theta}.
$$
This is referred to as `uncertainty propagation' or the `posterior predictive distribution'.
Uncertainty in the prediction of $Y_V$ helps provide a more informed comparison to the observed validation data (especially if experimental error in $Y_V$ is also accounted for).
Uncertainty in $Y_{P}$ enables a more informed model-based decision-making process.
\subsection{Model discrepancy}
UQ as outlined above does not account for the fact that the model is always an imperfect representation of reality, due to limited understanding of the true data-generating mechanism and perhaps also any premeditated abstraction of the system.
The model discrepancy is the difference between the model and the true data-generating mechanism, and its existence has implications for model selection, calibration and validation, and CoU simulations.
For calibration, the existence of model discrepancy can change the meaning of the estimated parameters. If we fail to account for the model discrepancy in our inference, our parameter estimates, instead of being physically meaningful quantities, will have their meaning intimately tied to the model used to estimate them (we end up estimating `pseudo-true' values; see Section \ref{sect:motivation}\ref{sect:statistics}).
The estimated parameter values depend on the chosen model form, and the uncertainty estimates obtained during inverse parameter UQ tell us nothing about where the true value is (only how confident we are about the pseudo-true values).
In other words, there is no guarantee the obtained $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ will match true physiological values of any parameters that have a clear physiological meaning.
We can try to restore meaning to the estimated parameters by including a term to represent the model discrepancy in our models.
Validation, in particular, provides an opportunity for us to identify possible model discrepancy.
In many cases, validation, rather than being considered as an activity for confirming a `model is correct', is better considered as a method for estimating the model discrepancy.
To maximise the likelihood that the validation can discern model discrepancy, the validation data should ideally be `far' from the calibration data, and as close to the CoU as possible.
\section{A motivating example of discrepancy}\label{sect:motivation}
To illustrate the concept of model discrepancy and some of its potential consequences, we have created a cardiac example inspired by previous work \cite{Brynjarsdottir2014}, using mathematical models of the action potential of human
ventricular cells. These models have a high level of electrophysiological detail, including most of the major ionic currents as well as basic calcium dynamics, and have been used to study reentrant arrhythmias.
We assume that the Ten Tusscher~\textit{et al.} ventricular myocyte electrophysiology model \cite{ten2004model} (Model~T) represents the ground truth, and use this model to generate data traces in three different situations: for {\it calibration} data we use the action potential under \SI{1}{\hertz} pacing; to generate {\it validation} data we use \SI{2}{\hertz} pacing; and for {\it context of use} (CoU) data we use \SI{1}{\hertz} pacing with the 75\% $I_\text{Kr}$\ block ($g_{Kr}$ multiplied by a scaling factor of $0.25$).
To illustrate the problem of fitting a model under model discrepancy,
we assume we do not know the ground truth model and
instead fit an alternative model, the Fink \textit{et al.} model \cite{fink2008contributions} (Model~F), to the synthetic data generated from Model~T.
Both models F and T were built for human ventricular cardiomyocytes, with Model~F being a modification of Model~T that improves the descriptions of repolarising currents, especially of the hERG (or $I_\text{Kr}$) channel (which is a major focus for Safety Pharmacology). A comparison of the differences in the current kinetics between the two models is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:tutorial-action-potential-models}, and the model equations are given in Section~\ref{supp-sec:model-t-f-equations} of the supplementary material.
Only five currents have kinetics that vary between the two models, and importantly, no currents or compartments are missing (unlike when attempting to fit a model to real data).
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{model-differences.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:tutorial-action-potential-models}
A comparison of the Ten Tusscher (Model~T \cite{ten2004model}, blue) and Fink (Model~F \cite{fink2008contributions}, green) kinetics.
These currents are voltage clamp simulations under the same action potential clamp (shown in the top row panels).
Only those currents with different kinetics are shown; the kinetics of $I_\text{Na}$, $I_\text{NaCa}$, and $I_\text{NaK}$ are identical in both models.
Two of the gates in $I_\text{CaL}$ are identical in the two models, one gate has a different formulation, and Model~F has one extra gate compared to Model~T.
The two models use different formulations for $I_\text{Kr}$ ($I_\text{Kr}$ activates during depolarization in Model~T but not Model~F),
different parameterisations of the kinetics for $I_\text{Ks}$ and $I_\text{to}$,
and different equations for $I_\text{K1}$ steady state.
Currents are normalised in this plot by minimising the squared-difference between the two models' currents such that we emphasise the differences in kinetics rather than the conductances (which are rescaled during the calibration).
Only $I_\text{CaL}$ shows what we would typically consider to be a large difference in repolarization kinetics, with the rest of the currents apparently being close matches between Model~T and Model~F.
}
\end{figure}
In this example the control variables are the stimulus current and $I_\text{Kr}$\ block, the model outputs are the membrane voltage, and the parameters of interest are the maximum conductance/current density of the ionic currents.
We use Model~T to generate synthetic current clamp experiments by simulating the different protocols (control variables) then adding i.i.d.\ Gaussian noise $\sim \mathcal{N}(0,\sigma^2)$ to the resulting voltage traces (model outputs), with $\sigma$ chosen to be \SI{1}{\milli\volt}.
We use the calibration data (\SI{1}{\hertz} pacing) to estimate eight maximal conductance/current density parameters for $I_\text{Na}$, $I_\text{CaL}$, $I_\text{Kr}$, $I_\text{Ks}$, $I_\text{to}$, $I_\text{NaCa}$, $I_\text{K1}$, and $I_\text{NaK}$ using Model~F.
We will investigate whether the calibrated Model~F makes accurate predictions in the validation and CoU situations (using the parameters estimate from the calibration data, as is commonly done in electrophysiology modelling \cite{Kaur2014,Groenendaal2015,Johnstone2016,lei_tailoring_2017,Pouranbarani2019}).
The code to reproduce all of the results in this paper are available at \url{https://github.com/CardiacModelling/fickleheart-method-tutorials}.
\subsection{Model calibration}
We calibrate the model using a train of five action potentials stimulated under a \SI{1}{\hertz} pacing protocol as the calibration data.
Before attempting to do this fitting exercise, the appropriately sceptical reader might ask whether we are attempting to do something sensible.
Will we get back information on all the parameters we want, or will we just find one good fit to the data amongst many equally plausible ones, indicating non-identifiability of the parameters?
To address these questions, we first look at inferring the parameters of the original Model~T (as well as inferring the noise model parameter, $\sigma$).
We use Eq.~(\ref{eq:iid-noise}) with Gaussian noise giving the likelihood in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Gaussian}), together with a uniform prior distribution from $0.1\times$ to $10\times$ the original parameters of Model~T.
We take two different approaches to calibration. Firstly,
we find a point estimate using a global optimisation algorithm \cite{Hansen2006} to find the optimal model parameters (with no estimate of uncertainty). Secondly, we approximate the full posterior distribution using Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC).
All inference is done using an open source Python package, PINTS \cite{Clerx2019Pints}, and simulations are performed in Myokit \cite{clerx_myokit_2016}.
The results are shown in Supplementary Figure~\ref{supp-fig:tutorial-action-potential-no-discrepancy}.
This exercise results in a narrow plausible distribution of parameters very close to the ones that generated the data, and we conclude that the model parameters are identifiable with the given data.
Additionally, Supplementary Figure~\ref{supp-fig:tutorial-action-potential-no-discrepancy} shows that when using samples of these distributions to make predictions, all of the forward simulations are very closely grouped around the synthetic data for the $I_\text{Kr}$\ block CoU.
We now attempt the fitting exercise using Model~F (i.e.,
the misspecified model).
The fitted model prediction (using the maximum a-posteriori (MAP) parameter estimate), is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:tutorial-action-potential-fitting-and-prediction}\,(Top).
The agreement between the calibrated model output and the synthetic data would be considered excellent if these were real experimental data.
Therefore, it is tempting to conclude that this calibrated model gives accurate predictions, and that the model discrepancy is minor.
But can we trust the predictive power of the model in other scenarios based solely on the result we see in Figure~\ref{fig:tutorial-action-potential-fitting-and-prediction}\,(Top)?
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\matrix (fig) [matrix of nodes]{
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{fink-2008-stim1hz-stim1hz.pdf} \\
};
\path (fig-1-1.north) -- (fig-1-1.north) node[midway,above]{Calibration};
\end{tikzpicture}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\matrix (fig) [matrix of nodes]{
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{fink-2008-stim1hz-stim2hz.pdf} &
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{fink-2008-stim1hz-hergblock-pp.png} \\
};
\path (fig-1-1.north) -- (fig-1-1.north) node[midway,above]{Validation};
\path (fig-1-2.north) -- (fig-1-2.north) node[midway,above]{Context of Use};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{\label{fig:tutorial-action-potential-fitting-and-prediction}
\textbf{Model~F fitting and validation results}.
(\textbf{Top}) Model-F is fitted to the synthetic data (generated from Model~T), using a five action potential recording under a \SI{1}{\hertz} pacing protocol.
The calibrated Model~F (blue dashed line) shows an excellent fit to the calibration data (grey solid line).
(\textbf{Bottom}) Model~F predctions for validation and context of use (CoU) data.
(\emph{Left}) The calibrated Model~F predictions closely matches the validation data (\SI{2}{\hertz} pacing), giving a (false) confidence in the model performance.
(\emph{Right}) Notably, Model~F gives catastrophic predictions for the $I_\text{Kr}$ block (CoU) experiments (suggesting the validation data are not an appropriate test given the intended model use).
The posterior predictions are model predictions made using parameter values sampled from the posterior distribution (Figure~\ref{fig:tutorial-action-potential-posterior}); here, 200 samples/predictions are shown, but they overlay and are not distinguishable by eye.
}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Discrepant model predictions}
Interestingly, the calibrated Model~F gives very accurate predictions for the \SI{2}{\hertz} pacing validation protocol (data that are not used to estimate the parameters), as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:tutorial-action-potential-fitting-and-prediction}\,(bottom, left).
Such rate-adaptation predictions are used commonly as validation evidence for action potential models.
At this stage we may be increasingly tempted to conclude that we have a good model of this system's electrophysiology.
But if one now uses the model to predict the effect of drug-induced $I_\text{Kr}$\ block, the catastrophic results are shown in the bottom right panel of Figure~\ref{fig:tutorial-action-potential-fitting-and-prediction}.
The calibrated Model~F fails to repolarise, completely missing the true $I_\text{Kr}$ block response of a modest APD prolongation.
This example highlights the need for thorough validation and the CoU-dependence of model validation, but also the difficulty in choosing appropriate validation experiments.
We can also quantify the uncertainty in parameter estimates and predictions whilst continuing to ignore the discrepancy in Model~F's kinetics.
Again, we use Eq.~(\ref{eq:Gaussian}) together with a uniform prior to derive the posterior distribution of the parameters.
The marginals of the posterior distribution, estimated by MCMC, and the point estimates obtained by optimisation are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:tutorial-action-potential-posterior}.
The posterior distribution is very narrow (note the scale), which suggests that we can be confident about the parameter values.
The resulting posterior predictions, shown in Figure~\ref{fig:tutorial-action-potential-fitting-and-prediction}\,(bottom, right), give a very narrow bound.
By ignoring model discrepancy we have become highly (and wrongly) certain that the catastrophically bad predictions are correct.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fink-2008-stim1hz-hergblock-hist.pdf}
\caption{
Marginals of the posterior distribution of the Model~F parameters, in terms of scaling factors for the conductances in Model~T ($s_i = g^\text{Model~F}_i/g^\text{Model~T}_i$).
Values of \num{1} would represent the parameters of Model~T that generated the data; note that none of the inferred parameters for Model~F are close 1.
The red dashed lines indicate the result of the global optimisation routine.
Two of these parameters, $S_{Ks}$ and $S_{NaK}$, have distributions hitting the lower bound that was imposed by the prior, indicating that the calibration process is attempting to make them smaller than 10\% of the original Model~F parameter values.
}
\label{fig:tutorial-action-potential-posterior}
\end{figure}
It is worth noting that all of the issues above arise from the fact that the model discrepancy was ignored during calibration.
In the scenario of no model discrepancy, i.e.,\ when fitting Model~T to the data, none of the issues above occurred, as shown in Supplementary Figure~\ref{supp-fig:tutorial-action-potential-no-discrepancy}.
To conclude our motivation of this paper, we can see that neglecting discrepancy in the model's equations is dangerous and can lead to false confidence in predictions for a new context of use. We discuss methods that have been suggested to remedy this in Section \ref{sect:tutorial}.
\subsection{A statistical explanation}\label{sect:statistics}
To understand what happens when we fit an incorrect model to data, let's first consider the well-specified situation where the data generating process (DGP) has probability density function (pdf) $g(y)$, and for which we have data $y_i \sim g(\cdot)$ for $i=1,\ldots, n$.
Then suppose we are considering the models $\mathcal{P}=\{p(y\mid {\boldsymbol{\theta}}): \boldsymbol{\theta}\in \boldsymbol{\Theta}\}$, i.e., a collection of pdfs parameterized by unknown parameter $\boldsymbol{\theta}$.
If the DGP $g$ is in $\mathcal{P}$, i.e., we have a well-specified model so that for some $\boldsymbol{\theta}_0\in \boldsymbol{\Theta}$, we have $g(\cdot) =p(\cdot \mid {\boldsymbol{\theta}_0})$, then asymptotically, as we collect more data (and under suitable conditions \cite{van2000}), the maximum likelihood estimator converges to the true value $\boldsymbol{\theta}_0$ almost surely:
$$
\hat{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_n =\argmax_{\boldsymbol{\theta}} \sum_{i=1}^n \log p(y_i\mid {\boldsymbol{\theta}}) \longrightarrow \boldsymbol{\theta}_0, \mbox{ almost surely as } n \longrightarrow \infty,
$$
or equivalently $p(\cdot \mid {\hat{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_n})$ converges to $g(\cdot)$. Similarly, for a Bayesian analysis (again under suitable conditions \cite{bernardo2009}), the posterior will converge to a Gaussian distribution centered around the true value $\boldsymbol{\theta}_0$, with variance that shrinks to zero at the asymptotically optimal rate (given by the Cram\'{e}r-Rao lower bound), i.e.,
$$\pi(\boldsymbol{\theta} \mid y_{1:n}) \approx \mathcal{N}\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_0, \frac{1}{n}\mathcal{I}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_0)^{-1}\right),$$
where $y_{1:n}= (y_1,\ldots,y_n)$, and $\mathcal{I}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_0)$ is the Fisher information matrix for the true parameter value $\boldsymbol{\theta}_0$.
However, when our model is misspecified, i.e., $g \not\in \mathcal{P}$ (there is no $\boldsymbol{\theta} \in \boldsymbol{\Theta}$ for which $g(\cdot)=f(\cdot \mid {\boldsymbol{\theta}})$), if we do inference for $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ ignoring the discrepancy, then we usually still get asymptotic convergence of the maximum likelihood estimator and Bayesian posterior \cite{Kleijn2006, DeBlasi2013}.
However, instead of converging to a true value (which does not exist), we converge to the {\it pseudo-true} value
$$
\boldsymbol{\theta}^{*} = \argmin_{\boldsymbol{\theta}\in\boldsymbol{\Theta}} \KL( g(\cdot) \;|| \;p(\cdot\mid {\boldsymbol{\theta}}))
$$
where $\KL(g||p) = \int g(x) \log \frac{g(x)}{p(x)} \mathrm{d} x$ is the Kullback-Leibler divergence from $p$ to $g$ (a measure of the difference between two distributions).
In other words, we converge upon the model, $p(\cdot \mid {\boldsymbol{\theta}^*})$, which is closest to the DGP as measured by the Kullback-Leibler divergence (see Figure~\ref{fig:schematic-model-discrepancy}).
Perhaps more importantly from a UQ perspective, as well as getting a point estimate that converges to the wrong value, we still usually get asymptotic concentration at rate $1/n$, i.e., the posterior variance shrinks to zero.
That is, we have found model parameters that are wrong, and yet we are certain about this wrong value.
The way to think about this is that the Bayesian approach is not quantifying our uncertainty about a meaningful physical parameter $\boldsymbol{\theta}_0$, but instead, it gives our uncertainty about the pseudo-true value $\boldsymbol{\theta}^*$.
Consequently, we can not expect our calibrated predictions
\begin{equation*}
\pi(y' \mid y) = \int p(y' \mid \boldsymbol{\theta}) \pi(\boldsymbol{\theta} \mid y_{1:n}) {\rm d} \boldsymbol{\theta}
\end{equation*}
to perform well, as we saw in the action potential example above.
This leaves us with two options.
We can either extend our model class $\mathcal{P}$ in the hope that we can find a class of models that incorporates the DGP (and which is still sufficiently simple that we can hope to learn the true model from the data), or we can change our inferential approach.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{fig4-fht.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:schematic-model-discrepancy}
\textbf{
A cartoon to illustrate the effect of model discrepancy on parameter fits in different models}.
Each cloud represents a range of possible outputs from each model, which they can reach with different parameter values.
The true data generating process (DGP) lies outside either of our imperfect model classes 1 and 2, and neither can fit the data perfectly due to model discrepancy.
When we attempt to infer parameters, we will converge upon models that generate outputs closest to the true DGP under the constraint of being in each model.
Adding more data just increases the confidence in being constrained to model parameterisations on the boundary of the particular model, i.e., we become certain about $\boldsymbol{\theta}^*$, the pseudo-true parameter value for each model.
Note that different models will have different pseudo-true parameter values.
}
\end{figure}
\section{Accounting for model discrepancy}\label{sect:tutorial}
Once we have acknowledged that a model is misspecified, we are then faced with the challenge of how to handle the misspecification.
The approach taken should depend upon the aim of the analysis.
Using the model to predict independent events, for example, a current time-series for some experimental protocol, will require a different approach to if our aim is inference/calibration, i.e., if interest lies in the physical value of a particular parameter.
In the first case (prediction), it can often suffice to fit the model to the data ignoring discrepancy, and then to correct the predictions in some way\footnote{Note, however, that jointly fitting model and discrepancy can make the problem easier, for example, by making the discrepancy a better behaved function more amenable to being modelled.}, although this may not work well if the prediction involves extrapolating into a regime far away from the data.
The latter case (calibration) is more challenging, as we need to jointly fit the model and the discrepancy model, which can lead to problems of non-identifiability.
The most common approach for dealing with discrepancy is to try to correct the simulator by expanding the model class.
The simplest approach is simply to add a flexible, non-parametric term to the simulator output, i.e., instead of assuming the data arose from Eq.~(\ref{eq:iid-noise}), to assume
\begin{equation}
y = f(\boldsymbol{\theta}, u_C)+\delta(v_C)+\epsilon.\label{eqn:KOH}
\end{equation}
Here, $\delta(v_C)$ is the model discrepancy term, and $\epsilon$ remains an unstructured white noise term.
Note that $v_C$ is used as the input to $\delta$ as it is not necessary to have the same input as the mechanistic model: $v_C$ could include some or all of $u_C$, but may also include information from internal model variables (see Section \ref{sect:tutorial}\ref{sect:3d}).
To train this model, one option is to first estimate $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ assuming Eq.~(\ref{eq:iid-noise}), and then to train $\delta$ to mop up any remaining structure in the residual.
However, a better approach is to jointly estimate $\delta$ and $\theta$ in a Bayesian approach \cite{Kennedy2001}.
Unfortunately, as demonstrated below, this often fails as it creates a non-identifiability between $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ and $\delta$ when $\delta$ is sufficiently flexible: for any $\boldsymbol{\theta}$, there exists a functional form $\delta(\cdot)$ for which Eq.~(\ref{eqn:KOH}) accurately represents the data generating process.
Brynjarsd{\'{o}}ttir et al.~\cite{Brynjarsdottir2014} suggested that the solution is to strongly constrain the functional form of $\delta(\cdot)$ using prior knowledge.
They present a toy situation in which $\delta(0)=0$ and $\delta(x) $ is monotone increasing, and show that once armed with this knowledge, the posterior $\pi(\boldsymbol{\theta} \mid y)$ more accurately represents our uncertainty about $\boldsymbol{\theta}$.
However, knowledge of this form is not available in many realistic problems.
\subsection{Ion channel model example}
We now illustrate the difficulty of accounting for model discrepancy in a tutorial example. We demonstrate that it can be hard to determine the appropriate information to include in $\delta$, and that different functional forms for $\delta$ can lead to different parameter estimates.
We consider three structurally different models: Models~A, B, and C.
We take Model~C as the ground truth model in this particular example, and use it to perform synthetic voltage clamp experiments and generate synthetic data.
The goal is to use Models~A and B to explain the generated synthetic data, assuming we have no knowledge about the ground truth Model~C.
This tutorial aims to demonstrate the importance of considering model discrepancy, jointly with model selection, to represent given data with unknown true DGP.
We use the hERG channel current as an example,
and use three different model structures (shown in Figure~\ref{fig:tutorial-ion-channel-models}).
Model~A is a variant of the traditional Hodgkin-Huxley model, described in Beattie \textit{et al.}~\cite{beattie2018sinusoidal};
Model~B is used in Oehmen \textit{et al.}~\cite{oehmen2002mathematical};
and Model~C is adapted from Di Veroli \textit{et al.}~\cite{di2012high}.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{model-structure.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:tutorial-ion-channel-models}
Markov model representation of Models A, B, and C used in the ion channel model tutorial where Model~C is taken as ground truth and used to generate synthetic data, whilst Models~A and B are candidate models that we attempt to fit and use for predictions, demonstrating the challenge of both model discrepancy and model selection.
}
\end{figure}
All three ion channel models can be expressed using a Markov model representation.
For a model with a state vector, $\boldsymbol{x} = (x_1, x_2, \cdots)^T$, then in each case $\boldsymbol{x}$ evolves according to
\begin{equation}
\frac{\text{d}\boldsymbol{x}}{\text{d}t} = \mathbf{M} \boldsymbol{x},
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{M}$ is the Markov matrix describing the transition rates between states. Markov models are linear coupled ordinary differential equations (ODEs) with respect to time, $t$, and states, $\boldsymbol{x}$.
Typically the components in the Markov matrix, $\mathbf{M}$, are nonlinear functions of voltage, $V(t)$, which in these voltage-clamp experiments is an externally prescribed function of time known as the `voltage clamp protocol' (i.e.,\ $u_C$ in Eq.~\ref{eq:iid-noise}).
The observable, the macroscopic ionic current, $I$, measured under $V(t)$, is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ion-current}
I(t, V) = g \cdot \mathcal{O} \cdot (V - E),
\end{equation}
where $g$ is the maximum conductance, $E$ is the reversal potential, and $\mathcal{O}$ is the sum of all `open states' in the model.
Take Model~B as an example.
Its state vector, $\boldsymbol{x}$, and Markov matrix, $\mathbf{M}$, can be written as
\begin{align}
\boldsymbol{x} &=
\begin{pmatrix}
x_1 \\
x_2 \\
x_3 \\
x_4
\end{pmatrix} =
\begin{pmatrix}
\text{C}_2 \\
\text{C}_1 \\
\text{O} \\
\text{I}
\end{pmatrix};
& \mathbf{M} &=
\begin{pmatrix}
-k_{1,2} & k_{2,1} & 0 & 0 \\
k_{1,2} & -k_{2,1}-k_{2,3} & k_{3,2} & 0 \\
0 & k_{2,3} & -k_{3,2}-k_{3,4} & k_{4,3} \\
0 & 0 & k_{3,4} & -k_{4,3} \\
\end{pmatrix},
\end{align}
where $x_i$ is the probability a gate is in state $i$ (or equivalently, the proportion of gates which are in state $i$), with $\sum x_i =1$. The parameters $k_{i,j}$ represent the transition rates from state $x_i$ to state $x_j$. Note that for all our models, there is just one open state so that $\mathcal{O}=\text{O}$.
For all three models, each transition rate, $k_{i,j}$, is voltage dependent and takes the form
\begin{equation}
k_{i,j}(V) = A_{i,j} \exp(B_{i,j} V), \label{eq:rate_equation}
\end{equation}
with two parameters ($A_{i,j}, B_{i,j}$) to be inferred.
This yields a total of \num{12} parameters for Model~B which we denote as $\{p_1, \dots, p_{12}\}$, together with the maximum conductance, $g$, to be found.
Similarly for Model~A, it has \num{8} parameters $\{p_1, \dots, p_{8}\}$ together with $g$, to be inferred.
\subsection{Synthetic experiments}
We let Model~C be the ground truth DGP and simulate data from it (using parameter values estimated from real room temperature data by Beattie \textit{et al.}~\cite{beattie2018sinusoidal}, where $g=204$\,\si{\nano\siemens}).
We add i.i.d.\ Gaussian noise with zero mean and standard deviation $\sigma = 25$\,\si{\pico\ampere} to the simulated data.
We generate data under three different voltage clamp protocols, $V(t)$.
These are a sinusoidal protocol (see top plot in Figure~\ref{fig:tutorial-ion-channel-prediction}) and an action potential (AP) series protocol from Beattie \emph{et al.}\ \cite{beattie2018sinusoidal} (see Figure~\ref{supp-fig:tutorial-ion-channel-prediction2a} in Supplementary Material), and the staircase protocol from Lei \emph{et al.}\ \cite{lei_rapid_2019-1, lei_rapid_2019-2} (see bottom plot in Figure~\ref{fig:tutorial-ion-channel-prediction}).
\subsection{Standard calibration ignoring model discrepancy}
To calibrate the model (without considering any model discrepancy), we assume a statistical model of the form of Eq.~(\ref{eq:iid-noise}), which has the same observation noise model as our synthetic data.
The likelihood of model parameter $\boldsymbol{\theta}$, having
observed the data $\mathbf{y}=y_{1:n}$, is given by Eq.~(\ref{eq:ll}).
We use the sinusoidal protocol (top, Fig.~\ref{fig:tutorial-ion-channel-prediction}) as the calibration protocol;
the action potential series protocol (top, Fig.~\ref{supp-fig:tutorial-ion-channel-prediction2a}) and the staircase protocol (bottom, Fig.~~\ref{fig:tutorial-ion-channel-prediction}) are used as validation data.
We use a global optimisation algorithm \cite{Hansen2006} to fit the model parameters using their maximum likelihood estimates. All inference is done using PINTS \cite{Clerx2019Pints}.
The fitting results of Models~A and B are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:tutorial-ion-channel-prediction}.
Using different starting points in the optimization gives almost exactly the same parameter sets each time.
Although both models fit the calibration data reasonably well, neither match perfectly, due to model discrepancy.
While the exact forms of the model discrepancy differs between the two models, both models notably fail to reproduce the correct form of the current decay following the step to \SI{-120}{\milli\volt} shortly after \SI{2000}{\milli\second}.
The validation predictions for the staircase protocol are also shown in Figure~\ref{fig:tutorial-ion-channel-prediction}.
Unlike in the sinusoidal protocol, where Model~A generally gives a better prediction than Model~B, in the staircase protocol different it is more evident that the model discrepancy traits are different for each model.
For example, Model~B appears to give slightly better predictions of the current during the first \SI{10000}{\milli\second}, whereas after this point Model~A begins to give better predictions.
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\matrix (fig) [matrix of nodes]{
\includegraphics[width=4.5in]{compare-sinewave-sinewave.png} \\
\includegraphics[width=4.5in]{compare-sinewave-staircase.png} \\
};
\path (fig-1-1.south west) -- (fig-1-1.north west) node[midway,above,sloped]{Calibration};
\path (fig-2-1.south west) -- (fig-2-1.north west) node[midway,above,sloped]{Validation};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{\label{fig:tutorial-ion-channel-prediction}
\textbf{(Top)} The fitted model predictions for Models~A (blue) and B (orange) for the ion channel example (i.e., model predictions for the data they were trained with). Both models have been fitted to synthetic calibration data (grey) generated using Model~C using the sinusoidal voltage clamp protocol \cite{beattie2018sinusoidal}.
\textbf{(Bottom)} Models~A (blue) and B (orange) predictions for the validation data (grey) generated from Model~C under the staircase protocol \cite{lei_rapid_2019-1} (not used in training).
Note that there are significant discrepancies around \SI{12000}{\milli\second}.
}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Calibration with model discrepancy}\label{sect:3d}
We now consider an approach that allows us to incorporate model discrepancy when doing parameter inference and making predictions.
We adapt the method proposed in \cite{Kennedy2001} and instead of assuming independent errors in Eq.~(\ref{eq:iid-noise}), which corresponds to assuming a diagonal covariance matrix for the vector of errors $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}$, we consider an additive discrepancy model of the form given by Eq.~(\ref{eqn:KOH}), giving a correlated (non-diagonal) error structure.
We consider three different choices for the discrepancy $\delta(v_C)$, and jointly infer $\theta$ and $\delta$.
Note that we allow for a different choice of input $v_C$, compared to the input of model $f$, $u_C$.
First, we model $\delta$ as a sparse-Gaussian process (GP) \cite{Rasmussen2006, quinonero2005unifying}, for which we adapted the implementation in PyMC3 \cite{salvatier2016probabilistic} using Theano \cite{2016arXiv160502688short}.
The radial basis function (RBF) were used for the results presented here;
we also tried two other GP covariance functions (the exponential covariance function and the Mat\'{e}rn 3/2 covariance function) in Supplementary Section~\ref{supp-sec:ion-channel-supp}\ref{supp-sub:GPCovFuncs}, where we found the impact of the choice of covariance functions in this problem is not as sensitive as the formulation of the discrepancy models.
We explore two possibilities: choosing $v_C$ to be either (i) $t$ (time); or (ii) $O$,$V$ (the open probability, $\mathcal{O}$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:ion-current}), and the voltage, $V$).
In fitting the model, we estimate hyperparameters associated with the GP covariance function, and condition the model on the observed discrepancies. For the $\GP(O,V)$ model, this means that we assume that the discrepancy is a function $O$ and $V$ so that we use the observed combinations of $(O,V, \delta)$ to predict future discrepancies; in the $\GP(t)$ model, it means that we assume the discrepancy process is always similarly distributed in time (which will not be a sensible assumption in many situations).
Full details are provided in the Supplementary Material, Section~\ref{supp-sec:gp-detail}.
As a third approach, we model discrepancy $\delta$ and the white noise error $\epsilon$, as an autoregressive-moving-average (ARMA) model of order $p, q$ \cite{durbin2012time}. If $e_t = \delta_t(v_c) + \epsilon_t$ is the residual at time $t$, then an $\ARMA(p, q)$ model for $e_t$ is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:arma-residual}
e_t= \nu_t + \sum_{t'=1}^p \varphi_t e_{t - t'} + \sum_{t'=1}^q\zeta_{t'} \nu_{t - t'}
\end{equation}
where $\nu_t \sim \mathcal{N}(0, \tau^2)$, and $\varphi_1,\ldots, \varphi_p$ and $\zeta_1, \ldots, \zeta_q$ are, respectively, the coefficients of the autoregressive and moving-average part of the model.
We used the StatsModels \cite{seabold2010statsmodels} implementation, and assumed $p=q=2$ throughout. Note that when using the ARMA model, we do not condition on the observed discrepancy sequence (so the mean of the ARMA process remains zero, unlike in the GP approaches), but only use it to correlate the discrepancy structure in time. In general, there is an interesting connection between GPs discretely sampled regularly in time, and autoregressive processes \cite{Rasmussen2006}, but here we treat the ARMA process differently to how we use GP discrepancies, and use the data only to estimate the ARMA parameters, not to condition the process upon the observed temporal structure, i.e.,
we use the ARMA process as a simple approach for introducing correlation into the residuals to better account for the discrepancy, not to correct the discrepancy (as is done with the GP).
The motivation is that if the mechanistic model is correct, the residuals should be uncorrelated, but for misspecified models, they will typically be correlated. For further details, please refer to the supplementary information, Section~\ref{supp-sec:arma-detail}.
For all methods, i.i.d.\ noise, $\GP(t)$, $\GP(O, V)$, and $\ARMA(2, 2)$, we infer the posterior distribution of the parameters (Eq.~\ref{eq:Gaussian}), where the priors are specified in Supplementary Material, Section~\ref{supp-sec:priors}.
We use an adaptive covariance MCMC method in PINTS \cite{Clerx2019Pints, Johnstone2016} to sample from the posterior distributions.
The trace plots of the samples are shown in Supplementary Section~\ref{supp-sec:ion-channel-supp}.
The inferred (marginal) posterior distributions for Model~A are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:tutorial-ion-channel-posteriors}, and they are used to generate the posterior predictive distributions shown in Figure~\ref{fig:tutorial-ion-channel-fitting2}.
Supplementary Figure~\ref{supp-fig:tutorial-ion-channel-posteriors-b} shows the same plots for Model~B.
Note that the choice of the discrepancy model can shift the posterior distribution significantly, both in terms of its location and spread.
In particular, the $\ARMA(2, 2)$ model gives a much wider posterior than the other discrepancy models.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{compare-model_A-sinewave-posteriors.png}
\caption{\label{fig:tutorial-ion-channel-posteriors}
Model~A inferred marginal posterior distributions for the conductance, $g$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:ion-current}), and kinetic parameters $p_1,\dots,p_8$ (a list of parameters referring to $A_{i,j}$ and $B_{i,j}$ in Eq.~\ref{eq:rate_equation}) with different discrepancy models: i.i.d.\ noise (blue), $\GP(t)$ (orange), $\GP(O, V)$ (green), and $\ARMA(2, 2)$ (red).
}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:tutorial-ion-channel-fitting2} shows the posterior predictive distributions of Model~A with the calibration protocol using the four discrepancy models (Supplementary Figure~\ref{supp-fig:tutorial-ion-channel-fitting2-b} for Model~B), i.e., predicting the data used in training.
The top panel shows the sinusoidal voltage protocol, and the panels underneath are calibrated model predictions with i.i.d.\ noise (blue), $\GP(t)$ (orange), $\GP(O, V)$ (green), and $\ARMA(2, 2)$ (red).
The calibration data are shown in grey.
Visually, we can see that the two GP models, $\GP(t)$ (orange) and $\GP(O, V)$ (green), fit the data with high accuracy; later we will see one of them is overfitting, while the other is not.
The $\ARMA(2, 2)$ model (red) increases the width of the posterior (compared to i.i.d.\ noise), but its posterior mean prediction does not follow the data as closely as the two GP models.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{compare-model_A-sinewave-sinewave-pp.png}
\caption{\label{fig:tutorial-ion-channel-fitting2}
Model~A fitted to the sinusoidal calibration protocol using the different discrepancy models: i.i.d.\ noise, $\GP(t)$, $\GP(O, V)$, and $\ARMA(2, 2)$.
The plots show the mean (solid lines) and 95\% credible intervals (shaded) of the posterior prediction for each model.
}
\end{figure}
Table~\ref{fig:tutorial-ion-channel-rmse-table} shows the root mean square errors (RMSE) of the posterior mean predictions for all of the models,
and is coloured so that yellow highlights the best performing model and red the worst.
The first row of the table shows the results for the calibration (sine wave ) protocol, and it is clear that the $\GP(t)$ and $\GP(O, V)$ models give the best RMSE values for the calibration data.
Note that the RMSE only assesses the accuracy of the point estimate (given by the posterior mean). Table~\ref{supp-fig:tutorial-ion-channel-likelihood-table} in the supplementary material gives the
posterior predictive log-likelihoods; the log-likelihood is a proper scoring rule \cite{Gneiting2007} which assesses the entire predictive distribution, not just the mean prediction. The $\ARMA(2, 2)$ and $\GP(O, V)$ models achieve the highest log-likelihood scores on the calibration data (best all round predictions when accounting for uncertainty).
\begin{table}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{compare-model_A-prediction-error-mean.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{compare-model_B-prediction-error-mean.pdf}\\
\caption{\label{fig:tutorial-ion-channel-rmse-table}
Models~A (top) and B (bottom) RMSEs with different discrepancy models: i.i.d.\ noise, $\GP(t)$, $\GP(O, V)$, and $\ARMA(2, 2)$ for each of the three voltage protocols.
Here `ODE model-only' refers to the predictions using only the calibrated ODE model under different discrepancy models (i.e., the model is calibrated assuming Eq.~\ref{eqn:KOH}, but prediction is done using only $f(\hat{\theta}, u_C)$). See also Supplementary Figures~\ref{supp-fig:tutorial-ion-channel-fitting2-model}--\ref{supp-fig:tutorial-ion-channel-prediction2b-model} for Model~A and Supplementary Figures~\ref{supp-fig:tutorial-ion-channel-fitting2-model-b}--\ref{supp-fig:tutorial-ion-channel-prediction2b-model-b} for Model~B.
}
\end{table}
Figure~\ref{fig:tutorial-ion-channel-prediction2} shows the prediction results for the staircase validation protocol for Model~A (Supplementary Figure~\ref{supp-fig:tutorial-ion-channel-prediction2-b} for Model~B) using different discrepancy models, with the same layout as Figure~\ref{fig:tutorial-ion-channel-fitting2}.
Similar figures for the action potential (AP) protocol predictions are shown in Supplementary Figures~\ref{supp-fig:tutorial-ion-channel-prediction2a} (Model~A) and~\ref{supp-fig:tutorial-ion-channel-prediction2a-b} (Model~B). The $\GP(t)$ discrepancy model is conditioned to give the same temporal discrepancy pattern as in the calibration protocal, and
is unable to change its predicted discrepancy in any way for the validation protocol; i.e., the $GP(t)$ discrepancy predicts as if it were still under the sinusoidal protocol.
Thus, there is some residual from the calibration protocol shown in the $\GP(t)$ (orange) prediction for the staircase protocol, e.g.,\ see `wobbly' current at $\sim7000$\,\si{\milli\second} as pointed at by the blue arrow.
For Model~A, it is interesting to see that the RMSE of the point prediction (the posterior mean) in Table~\ref{fig:tutorial-ion-channel-rmse-table} is best for the i.i.d.\ noise model with the $\GP(O, V)$ model only a little worse. Note that the $\GP(O, V)$ model is able to capture and accurately predict the tail current after the two activation steps, as indicated by the red arrows in Figure~\ref{fig:tutorial-ion-channel-prediction} --- a visible area of model mismatch in our calibration without model discrepancy. The uncertainty quantification in the predictions is poor for all of the discrepancy models, but from Table~\ref{supp-fig:tutorial-ion-channel-likelihood-table} we can see that when we assess the uncertainty in the prediction, the i.i.d.\ noise model is the worst performing model (as for intervals where the prediction is wrong, each error is equally surprising, whereas in correlated models, the first error in any interval makes subsequent errors more probable). The unstructured $\ARMA(2, 2)$ and $\GP(O, V)$ models score highest for their uncertainty quantification.
For Model~B, the $\GP(O, V)$ discrepancy model gives the best overall predictions for both the staircase and the AP protocols, although when we examine the contributions of the mechanistic and discrepancy models, we see that an element of non-identifiability between them has arisen (Supplementary Section~\ref{supp-sec:ion-channel-supp}\ref{supp-sub:ModelBFullResults}).
In terms of the posterior predictive log-likelihood, Table~\ref{fig:tutorial-ion-channel-rmse-table} (bottom) again highlights that the $\ARMA(2, 2)$ and $\GP(O, V)$ models tend to be better than the i.i.d.\ noise and $\GP(t)$ models.
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{compare-model_A-sinewave-staircase-pp.png}
\caption{\label{fig:tutorial-ion-channel-prediction2}
Model~A's prediction using the discrepancy models (i.i.d.\ noise, $\GP(t)$, $\GP(O, V)$, and $\ARMA(2, 2)$), trained using the staircase voltage clamp protocol \cite{lei_rapid_2019-1}.
We plot the posterior predictive mean (solid lines) with 95\% credible intervals (shaded).
The red arrows point to the tail current after the two activation steps, and mark an area of visible model mismatch: note the different performance of the four discrepancy models in this region.
The blue arrow points to an obvious artefact at $\sim7000$\,\si{\milli\second} induced by the $\GP(t)$ prediction which was trained on the sinusoidal protocol, and which doesn't take into account that we are now predicting for the staircase protocol.
}
\end{figure}
Supplementary Figures~\ref{supp-fig:tutorial-ion-channel-fitting2-residual}, \ref{supp-fig:tutorial-ion-channel-prediction2a-residual}, and \ref{supp-fig:tutorial-ion-channel-prediction2b-residual} show the model discrepancy for Model~A for the sine wave protocol, AP protocol, and staircase protocol, respectively;
Supplementary Figures~\ref{supp-fig:tutorial-ion-channel-fitting2-residual-b}, \ref{supp-fig:tutorial-ion-channel-prediction2a-residual-b}, and \ref{supp-fig:tutorial-ion-channel-prediction2b-residual-b} show the same plots for Model~B.
Supplementary Figures~\ref{supp-fig:tutorial-ion-channel-prediction2b-residual} and~\ref{supp-fig:tutorial-ion-channel-prediction2b-residual-b} in particular highlight that the $\GP(t)$ model has, by design, learnt nothing of relevance about model discrepancy for extrapolation under an independent validation protocol (in which $V(t)$, and indeed the range of $t$, differs from that of the training protocol).
Furthermore, the discrepancy model is based only on information extending to \SI{8000}{\milli\second} (the duration of the training protocol), after which the credible interval resorts to the width of the GP prior variance.
In contrast, the $\GP(O, V)$ model learns, independently of $t$, the discrepancy under combinations of $(O,V)$ present in the training data (such as the activation step to \SI{40}{\milli\volt} followed by a step to \SI{-120}{\milli\volt}), which is why it is able to better predict the tail current after the two activation steps.
Finally, the $\ARMA(2,2)$ model has zero mean with similar 95\% credible intervals to the i.i.d.\ noise model, but has correlated errors and so scores better in terms of the posterior predictive log-likelihood.
The ion channel (ODE) model-only predictions for the sine wave protocol, AP protocol, and staircase protocol are shown in Supplementary Figures~\ref{supp-fig:tutorial-ion-channel-fitting2-model}, \ref{supp-fig:tutorial-ion-channel-prediction2a-model}, and \ref{supp-fig:tutorial-ion-channel-prediction2b-model} for Model~A and Supplementary Figures~\ref{supp-fig:tutorial-ion-channel-fitting2-model-b}, \ref{supp-fig:tutorial-ion-channel-prediction2a-model-b}, and \ref{supp-fig:tutorial-ion-channel-prediction2b-model-b} for Model~B.
For a given dataset, the RMSE and log-likelihood values in Tables~\ref{fig:tutorial-ion-channel-rmse-table} \&~\ref{supp-fig:tutorial-ion-channel-likelihood-table} are comparable across models.
Note that Model~A is more accurate than Model~B on all datasets and with all discrepancy models.
With Model~A, none of the discrepancy models are able to improve the mean predictions over the i.i.d.\ noise model performance,
but the $\GP(O,V)$ comes close (in RMSE) whilst being able to capture some of the nonlinear dynamics that Model~A misses, as discussed above.
With Model~B, the $\GP(O,V)$ model gives the best mean predictions (as measured by the RMSE). The $\GP(t)$ model achieves a better score on the calibration data, but by over-fitting the data.
The $\ARMA(2,2)$ model consistently gives the best posterior predictive log-likelihood values for Models~A and~B, as it gives a wider posterior distribution compared to other methods (Figure~\ref{fig:tutorial-ion-channel-posteriors}). Over-confident predictions are heavily penalised by the log-likelihood, which explains the large differences observed in these values.
To conclude, we have used two different incorrect model structures (Models~A, B) to fit synthetic data generated from a third model (Model~C).
We considered both ignoring and incorporating discrepancy when calibrating the model. Calibrating with discrepancy improved predictions notably for Model~B, but not for Model~A.
Although our problem was a time-dependent (ODE) system, constructing the discrepancy model as a pure time-series based function is not necessarily useful in predicting unseen situations;
we found the $\GP(O, V)$ model performed best at correcting the point prediction from the models. .
\section{Discussion}
In this review and perspective piece we have drawn attention to an important and under-appreciated source of uncertainty in mechanistic models --- that of uncertainty in the model structure or the equations themselves (model discrepancy).
Focusing on cardiac electrophysiology models, we provided two examples of the consequences of ignoring discrepancy when calibrating models at the ion channel and action potential scales, highlighting how this could lead to over-confident parameter posterior distributions and subsequently spurious predictions.
Statistically, we can explicitly admit discrepancy exists, and include it in the model calibration process and predictions.
We attempted to do this by modelling discrepancy using two proposals from the literature --- Gaussian processes (GPs) trained on different inputs and an autoregressive-moving-average (ARMA) model.
We saw how GPs can achieve some success in describing discrepancy in the calibration experiment.
A two-dimensional GP in voltage and time was used previously by Plumlee \emph{et al.}\ \cite{Plumlee2016,Plumlee2017}, where it was used to extrapolate to new voltages for a given single step voltage-clamp experiment.
To use a discrepancy model to make predictions for unseen situations, it needs to be
a function of something other than time, otherwise features specific to the calibration experiment are projected into new situations.
A promising discrepancy model was our two-dimensional GP as a function of the mechanistic model's open probability and voltage, although for Model~B this led to ambiguity between the role of the ODE system and the role of the discrepancy (see Supplementary Section~\ref{supp-sec:ion-channel-supp}\ref{supp-sub:ModelBFullResults}).
The modelling community would hope to study any discrepancy model that is shown to improve predictions, and use insights from this process to iteratively improve the mechanistic model.
How we handle model discrepancy may depend on whether we are more interested in learning about what is missing in the model, or in making more reliable predictions:
both related topics are worthy of more investigation.
\subsection{Recommendations}
Very rarely do computational studies use more than one model to test the robustness of their predictions to the model form.
We should bear in mind that all models are approximations and so when we are comparing to real data, all models have discrepancy.
Here we have seen, using synthetic data from an assumed true data-generating model, how fragile the calibration process can be for models with discrepancy, and how this discrepancy manifests itself in predictions of unseen situations.
Synthetic data studies, simulating data from different parameter sets and different model structures, allow the modeller to test how well the inverse problem can be solved and how robust predictions from the resulting models are.
We strongly recommend performing such studies to learn more about the chosen, and alternative, models, as well as the effects of the model choice on parameter calibration and subsequent predictions.
To develop our field further, it will be important to document the model-fitting process, and to make datasets and infrastructure available to perform and reproduce these fits with different models \cite{Daly2018WebLab}.
\subsection{Open questions and future work}
The apparent similarity of the action potential models we looked at (summarised in Figure~\ref{fig:tutorial-action-potential-models}) is a challenge for model calibration.
A number of papers have emphasised that more information can be gained to improve parameter identifiability with careful choice of experimental measurements, in particular by using membrane resistance \cite{Kaur2014,Pouranbarani2019}, or other protocols promoting more information-rich dynamics \cite{Groenendaal2015,Johnstone2016} and some of these measurements may be more robust to discrepancy than others.
In synthetic data, fitting the model used to generate the data will recover the same parameter set from any different protocol (where there is sufficient information to identify the parameters).
But in the presence of discrepancy, fitting the same model to data from different protocols/experiments will result in different parameter sets, as the models make the best possible compromise (as shown schematically in Figure~\ref{fig:schematic-model-discrepancy}).
This phenomenon may be an interesting way to approach and quantify model discrepancy.
If the difference between imperfect model predictions represented the difference between models and reality then this may also provide a way to estimate discrepancy.
For instance, the largest difference between the ion channel Model A \& B predictions in the staircase protocol was at the point in time that both of them showed largest discrepancy (Figure~\ref{fig:tutorial-ion-channel-prediction}).
Some form of Bayesian model averaging \cite{Hoeting1999}, using variance-between-models to represent discrepancy, may be instructive if the models are close enough to each other and reality, but can be misleading if the ensemble of models is not statistically exchangeable with the data generating process \cite{Chandler2013, Rougier2013} or if there is some systematic error (bias) due to experimental artefacts \cite{lei2020b}.
In time-structured problems, rather than adding a discrepancy to the final simulated trajectory, as we have done here, we can instead change the dynamics of the model directly.
It may be easier to add a discrepancy term to the differential equations to address misspecification, than it is to correct their solution, but the downside is that this makes inference of the discrepancy computationally challenging.
One such approach is to convert the ODE to a stochastic differential equation \cite{Crucifix2009, Carson2018},
i.e., replace $\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathbf{x}}{\mathrm{d}t} = f_\theta(\mathbf{x},t)$ by $\mathrm{d}\mathbf{x} = f_\theta(\mathbf{x},t) \mathrm{d}t + \Sigma^{\frac{1}{2}} \mathrm{d}W_t$
where $W_t$ is a Brownian motion with covariance matrix $\Sigma$.
This turns the deterministic ODE into a stochastic model and can improve the UQ, but cannot capture any structure missing from the dynamics.
We can go further and attempt to modify the underlying model equations, by changing the ODE system to
\begin{equation}
\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathbf{x}}{\mathrm{d}t} = f_\theta(\mathbf{x},t) + \delta(\mathbf{x})
\end{equation}
where again $\delta(\mathbf{x})$ is an empirical term to be learnt from the data.
For example, this has been tried with a discretized version of the equations using a parametric model for $\delta$ \cite{wilkinson2011quantifying}, with GPs \cite{Frigola2013}, nonlinear autoregressive exogenous (NARX) models \cite{Worden2018}, and deep neural networks \cite{Meeds2019}.
Computation of posterior distributions for these models is generally challenging, but is being made easier by the development of automatic-differentiation software, which allows derivative information to be used in MCMC samplers, or in variational approaches to inference (e.g., \cite{Neal2011, Ryder2018}).
Ultimately, modelling our way out of trouble, by expanding the model class, may prove impossible given the quantity of data available in many cases.
Instead, we may want to modify our inferential approach to allow the best judgements possible about the parameters given the limitation of the model and data. Approaches such as approximate Bayesian computation (ABC) \cite{Sisson2018} and history-matching \cite{Craig1997, Craig2001} change the focus from learning a statistical model within a Bayesian setting, to instead only requiring that the simulation gets within a certain distance of the data.
This change, from a fully specified statistical model for $\delta$ to instead only giving an upper bound for $\delta$, is a conservative inferential approach where the aim is not to find the best parameter values, but instead rule out only obviously implausible values \cite{Wilkinson2013, Holden2018}.
For example, in the action potential model from Section \ref{sect:motivation}, instead of taking a Bayesian approach with an i.i.d.\ Gaussian noise model, we can instead merely try to find parameter values that get us within some distance of the calibration data (see Supplement and Figure~\ref{supp-fig:tradeoff1} for details).
In the Supplement, we describe a simple approach, based on the methods presented in \cite{Novaes2019}, where we find \num{1079} candidate parameter sets that give a reasonable match to the calibration data.
When we use these parameters to predict the \SI{2}{\hertz} validation data, and the 75\% $I_\text{Kr}$\ block CoU data, we get a wide range of predictions that incorporate the truth (Figure~\ref{supp-fig:tradeoff2}) --- for a small subset of 70 out of 1079, we get good predictions and not the catastrophic prediction shown in Figure~\ref{fig:tutorial-action-potential-fitting-and-prediction}.
By acknowledging the existence of model discrepancy, the use of wider error bounds (or higher-temperature likelihood functions) during the fitting process may avoid fitting parameters overly-precisely.
However, we have no way of knowing which subset of remaining parameter space is more plausible (if any) without doing these further experiments;
testing the model as close as possible to the desired context of use helps us spot such spurious behaviour.
This paper has focused on the ion channel and action potential models of cardiac electrophysiology.
There is an audit of where uncertainty appears in cardiac modelling and simulation in this issue \cite{clayton2020}.
The audit highlights many other areas where discrepancy may occur: in assumptions homogenising the subcellular scale to the models we have here; or at the tissue and organ scales in terms of spatial heterogeneity, cell coupling or mechanical models for tissue contraction and fluid-solid interaction.
All of these areas need attention if we are to prevent model discrepancy producing misleading scientific conclusions or clinical predictions.
\section{Conclusions}
In this paper we have seen how having an imperfect representation of a system in a mathematical model (discrepancy) can lead to spuriously certain parameter inference and overly-confident and wrong predictions.
We have examined a range of methods that attempt to account for discrepancy in the fitting process using synthetic data studies.
In some cases we can improve predictions using these methods, but different methods work better for different models in different situations, and in some cases the best predictions were still made by ignoring discrepancy.
A large benefit of the calibration methods which include discrepancy is that they better represent uncertainty in predictions, although all the methods we trialled still failed to allow for a wide enough range of possible outputs in certain parts of the protocols.
Methodological developments are needed to design reliable methods to deal with model discrepancy for use in safety-critical electrophysiology predictions.
\vskip6pt
\enlargethispage{20pt}
\subsection*{Data access}
Code to reproduce the results in the tutorials is available at \url{https://github.com/CardiacModelling/fickleheart-method-tutorials}.
\subsection*{Author contributions}
CLL and SG wrote the code to perform the examples in the main paper.
CLL, SG, DGW, GRM and RDW drafted the manuscript.
All authors conceived and designed the study.
All authors read and approved the manuscript.
\subsection*{Competing interests}
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
\subsection*{Funding}
This work was supported by the Wellcome Trust [grant numbers 101222/Z/13/Z and 212203/Z/18/Z];
the Engineering \& Physical Sciences Research Council [grant numbers EP/R014604/1, EP/P010741/1, EP/L016044/1, EP/R006768/1, EP/S014985/1, and EP/R003645/1];
the British Heart Foundation [grant numbers PG/15/59/31621, RE/13/4/30184, and SP/18/6/33805];
the Russian Foundation for Basic Research [grant number 18-29-13008].
CLL acknowledges support from the Clarendon Scholarship Fund; and the EPSRC, MRC and F.~Hoffmann-La~Roche Ltd.\ for studentship support.
CDC and CH were supported by the BHF.
MR acknowledges a BHF Turing Cardiovascular Data Science Award.
AVP was partially supported by RF Government Act No.\,211 of March 16, 2013, and RFBR.
RWS was supported by the Brazilian Government via CAPES, CNPq, FAPEMIG, and UFJF, and by an Endeavour Research Leadership Award from the Australian Government Department of Education.
KW would like to acknowledge the support of the UK EPSRC.
GMN was supported by CEFET-MG and CAPES.
GRM \& SG acknowledge support from the Wellcome Trust \& Royal Society via a Sir Henry Dale Fellowship to GRM.
GRM \& DGW acknowledge support from the Wellcome Trust via a Wellcome Trust Senior Research Fellowship to GRM.
The authors would like to thank the Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences for support and hospitality during the `Fickle Heart' programme.
\subsection*{Acknowledgements}
We would like to thank all the participants at the Isaac Newton Institute `Fickle Heart' programme for helpful discussions which informed this manuscript.
\bibliographystyle{ieeetr}
{\small
\section{Differences between Model~T and Model~F}\label{sec:model-t-f-equations}
Here we show the equations of the currents in Model~T \cite{ten2004model} and Model~F \cite{fink2008contributions} that are different in kinetics.
Below $g_{X}$ is the conductance (constant), $E_{X}$ is the reversal potential, $X_{o}$ is the extracellular concentration, $X_{i}$ is the intracellular concentration of ion $X$.
$V$ is the membrane voltage, $F$ is Faraday constant, $R$ is the ideal gas constant.
\newcommand{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}}
\subsection*{\texorpdfstring{$I_\text{CaL}$}{ICaL}}
\subsubsection*{Model~T\hspace{6cm}Model~F}
\begingroup\makeatletter\def\f@size{4}\check@mathfonts
\def\maketag@@@#1{\hbox{\m@th\large\normalfont#1}}
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}[t]
I_{CaL} &= \frac{g_{CaL} \cdot d \cdot f \cdot fCa \cdot 4 \cdot V \cdot F^{2}}{R \cdot 310} \\
& \times \frac{\left(Ca_{i} \cdot e^{\frac{2 \cdot V \cdot F}{R \cdot 310}}-0.341 \cdot Ca_{ o }\right)}{\left(e^{\frac{2 \cdot V \cdot F}{R \cdot 310}}-1\right)} \\
d_{\infty} &= \frac{1}{\left(1+e^{\frac{\left(-5-V\right)}{7.5}}\right)} \\
\alpha_{d} &= \left(\frac{1.4}{\left(1+e^{\frac{\left(-35-V\right)}{13}}\right)}+0.25\right) \\
\beta_{d} &= \frac{1.4}{\left(1+e^{\frac{\left(V+5\right)}{5}}\right)} \\
\gamma_{d} &= \frac{1}{\left(1+e^{\frac{\left(50-V\right)}{20}}\right)} \\
\tau_{d} &= \left(\alpha_{d} \cdot \beta_{ d }+\gamma_{ d }\right) \\
\frac{\mathrm{d} d}{\mathrm{d} t} &= \frac{\left(d_{\infty}-d\right)}{\tau_{ d }} \\
\end{aligned}\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad
\begin{aligned}[t]
I_{CaL} &= \frac{g_{CaL} \cdot d \cdot f \cdot f_2 \cdot fCass \cdot 4 \cdot \left(V-15\right) \cdot F^{2}}{R \cdot 310} \\
& \times \frac{\left(0.25 \cdot Ca_{ss} \cdot e^{\frac{2 \cdot \left(V-15\right) \cdot F}{R \cdot 310}}-Ca_{ o }\right)}{\left(e^{\frac{2 \cdot \left(V-15\right) \cdot F}{R \cdot 310}}-1\right)}\\
d_{\infty} &= \frac{1}{\left(1+e^{\frac{\left(5-V\right)}{7.5}}\right)}\\
\alpha_{d} &= \textrm{\tiny{as per Model T,}}\\
\beta_{d} &=\textrm{\tiny{as per Model T,}}\\
\gamma_{d} &=\textrm{\tiny{as per Model T,}}\\
\tau_{d} &= \textrm{\tiny{as per Model T,}}\\
\frac{\mathrm{d} d}{\mathrm{d} t} &= \textrm{\tiny{as per Model T,}}\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}[t]
f_{\infty} &= \frac{1}{\left(1+e^{\frac{\left(V+20\right)}{7}}\right)} \\
\tau_{f} &= \left(1125 \cdot e^{\frac{-\left(V+27\right)^{2}}{240}}+80+\frac{165}{\left(1+e^{\frac{\left(25-V\right)}{10}}\right)}\right) \\
\frac{\mathrm{d} f}{\mathrm{d} t} &= \frac{\left(f_{\infty}-f\right)}{\tau_{ f }} \\
\alpha_{fCa} &= \frac{1}{\left(1+\left(\frac{Ca_{ i }}{0.000325}\right)^{8}\right)} \\
\beta_{fCa} &= \frac{0.1}{\left(1+e^{\frac{\left(Ca_{ i }-0.0005\right)}{0.0001}}\right)} \\
\gamma_{fCa} &= \frac{0.2}{\left(1+e^{\frac{\left(Ca_{ i }-0.00075\right)}{0.0008}}\right)} \\
fCa_{\infty} &= \frac{\left(\alpha_{ fCa }+\beta_{ fCa }+\gamma_{ fCa }+0.23\right)}{1.46} \\
\tau_{fCa} &= 2 \\
d_{fCa} &= \frac{\left(fCa_{\infty}-fCa\right)}{\tau_{ fCa }} \\
\frac{\mathrm{d} fCa}{\mathrm{d} t} &=
\begin{cases}0;
& \text{\tiny{if }}(fCa_{\infty} > fCa)\text{\tiny{ and }}(V > -60),\\d_{ fCa }& \text{\tiny{otherwise}}.
\end{cases}
\end{aligned}\qquad\qquad\quad
\begin{aligned}[t]
f_{\infty} &= \textrm{\tiny{as per Model T,}}\\
\tau_{f} &= \frac{1}{4} \left(1102.5 \cdot e^{\frac{-(\left(\left(V+27\right)\right)^{2})}{225}}+\frac{200}{\left(1+e^{\frac{\left(13-V\right)}{10}}\right)}+\frac{180}{\left(1+e^{\frac{\left(V+30\right)}{10}}\right)}+20\right)\\
\frac{\mathrm{d} f}{\mathrm{d} t} &= \textrm{\tiny{as per Model T,}}\\
f2_{\infty} &= \left(\frac{0.75}{\left(1+e^{\frac{\left(V+35\right)}{7}}\right)}+0.25\right)\\
\tau_{f2} &= \frac{1}{2} \left(562 \cdot e^{\frac{-\left(V+27\right)^{2}}{240}}+\frac{31}{\left(1+e^{\frac{\left(25-V\right)}{10}}\right)}+\frac{80}{\left(1+e^{\frac{\left(V+30\right)}{10}}\right)}\right)\\
\frac{\mathrm{d} f_2}{\mathrm{d} t} &= \frac{\left(f2_{\infty}-f_2\right)}{\tau_{ f2 }}\\
fCass_{\infty} &= \left(\frac{0.4}{\left(1+\left(\frac{Ca_{ ss }}{0.05}\right)^{2}\right)}+0.6\right)\\
\tau_{fCass} &= \left(\frac{80}{\left(1+\left(\frac{Ca_{ ss }}{0.05}\right)^{2}\right)}+2\right)\\
\frac{\mathrm{d} fCass}{\mathrm{d} t} &= \frac{\left(fCass_{\infty}-fCass\right)}{\tau_{ fCass }}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
\endgroup
\clearpage
\subsection*{\texorpdfstring{$I_\text{to}$}{Ito}}
\subsubsection*{Model~T\hspace{5.5cm}Model~F}
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}[t]
I_{to} &= g_{to} \cdot r \cdot s \cdot \left(V-E_{K}\right)\\
s_{\infty} &= \frac{1}{\left(1+e^{\frac{\left(V+28\right)}{5}}\right)}\\
\tau_{s} &= 1000 \cdot e^{\left(\frac{-(V + 67) ^ 2 }{ 1000 } \right)} + 8\\
\frac{\mathrm{d} s}{\mathrm{d} t} &= \frac{\left(s_{\infty}-s\right)}{\tau_{s}}\\
r_{\infty} &= \frac{1}{\left(1+e^{\frac{\left(20-V\right)}{6}}\right)}\\
\tau_{r} &= \left(9.5 \cdot e^{\frac{-\left(V+40\right)^{2}}{1800}}+0.8\right)\\
\frac{\mathrm{d} r}{\mathrm{d} t} &= \frac{\left(r_{\infty}-r\right)}{\tau_{r}}
\end{aligned}
\qquad\qquad\qquad
\begin{aligned}[t]
I_{to} &= \textrm{as per Model T,}\\
s_{\infty} &= \frac{1}{\left(1+e^{\frac{\left(V+20\right)}{5}}\right)}\\
\tau_{s} &= \left(85 \cdot e^{\frac{-\left(V+45\right)^{2}}{320}}+\frac{5}{\left(1+e^{\frac{\left(V-20\right)}{5}}\right)}+3\right)\\
\frac{\mathrm{d} s}{\mathrm{d} t} &= \textrm{as per Model T,}\\
& \\
& \textrm{$r$ gate as per Model T.}\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
\clearpage
\subsection*{\texorpdfstring{$I_\text{Kr}$}{IKr}}
\subsubsection*{Model~T\hspace{5.25cm}Model~F}
\begingroup\makeatletter\def\f@size{8}\check@mathfonts
\def\maketag@@@#1{\hbox{\m@th\large\normalfont#1}}
\begin{align*}
\begin{aligned}[t]
I_{Kr} &= g_{Kr} \cdot \sqrt{\frac{K_{o}}{5.4}} \cdot X_{r1} \cdot X_{r2} \cdot \left(V-E_{K}\right)\\
xr1_{\infty} &= \frac{1}{\left(1+e^{\frac{\left(-26-V\right)}{7}}\right)}\\
\alpha_{xr1} &= \frac{450}{\left(1+e^{\frac{\left(-45-V\right)}{10}}\right)}\\
\beta_{xr1} &= \frac{6}{\left(1+e^{\frac{\left(V+30\right)}{11.5}}\right)}\\
\tau_{xr1} &= \alpha_{xr1} \cdot \beta_{xr1}\\
\frac{\mathrm{d} X_{r1}}{\mathrm{d} t} &= \frac{\left(xr1_{\infty}-X_{r1}\right)}{\tau_{xr1}}\\
xr2_{\infty} &= \frac{1}{\left(1+e^{\frac{\left(V+88\right)}{24}}\right)}\\
\alpha_{xr2} &= \frac{3}{\left(1+e^{\frac{\left(-60-V\right)}{20}}\right)}\\
\beta_{xr2} &= \frac{1.12}{\left(1+e^{\frac{\left(V-60\right)}{20}}\right)}\\
\tau_{xr2} &= \alpha_{xr2} \cdot \beta_{xr2}\\
\frac{\mathrm{d} X_{r2}}{\mathrm{d} t} &= \frac{\left(xr2_{\infty}-X_{r2}\right)}{\tau_{xr2}}
\end{aligned}
&&&&
\begin{aligned}[t]
I_{Kr} &= g_{Kr} \cdot \left(\frac{310}{35}-\frac{55}{7}\right) \cdot \sqrt{\frac{K_{o}}{5.4}} \cdot Or4 \cdot \left(V-E_{K}\right)\\
\alpha_{xr1} &= e^{\left(24.335+\left(0.0112 \cdot V-25.914\right)\right)}\\
\beta_{xr1} &= e^{\left(13.688+\left(-(0.0603) \cdot V-15.707\right)\right)}\\
\alpha_{xr2} &= e^{\left(22.746+\left(0 \cdot V-25.914\right)\right)}\\
\beta_{xr2} &= e^{\left(13.193+\left(0 \cdot V-15.707\right)\right)}\\
\alpha_{xr3} &= e^{\left(22.098+\left(0.0365 \cdot V-25.914\right)\right)}\\
\beta_{xr3} &= e^{\left(7.313+\left(-(0.0399) \cdot V-15.707\right)\right)}\\
\alpha_{xr4} &= e^{\left(30.016+\left(0.0223 \cdot V-30.888\right)\right)} \cdot \left(\frac{5.4}{K_{o}}\right)^{0.4}\\
\beta_{xr4} &= e^{\left(30.061+\left(-(0.0312) \cdot V-33.243\right)\right)}\\
\frac{\mathrm{d} Cr1}{\mathrm{d} t} &= \left(\beta_{xr1} \cdot Cr2-\alpha_{xr1} \cdot Cr1\right)\\
\frac{\mathrm{d} Cr2}{\mathrm{d} t} &= \left(\left(\alpha_{xr1} \cdot Cr1+\beta_{xr2} \cdot Cr3\right)-\left(\alpha_{xr2}+\beta_{xr1}\right) \cdot Cr2\right)\\
\frac{\mathrm{d} Cr3}{\mathrm{d} t} &= \left(\left(\alpha_{xr2} \cdot Cr2+\beta_{xr3} \cdot Or4\right)-\left(\alpha_{xr3}+\beta_{xr2}\right) \cdot Cr3\right)\\
\frac{\mathrm{d} Or4}{\mathrm{d} t} &= \left(\left(\alpha_{xr3} \cdot Cr3+\beta_{xr4} \cdot Ir5\right)-\left(\alpha_{xr4}+\beta_{xr3}\right) \cdot Or4\right)\\
\frac{\mathrm{d} Ir5}{\mathrm{d} t} &= \left(\alpha_{xr4} \cdot Or4-\beta_{xr4} \cdot Ir5\right)
\end{aligned}
\end{align*}
\endgroup
\clearpage
\subsection*{\texorpdfstring{$I_\text{K1}$}{IK1}}
\subsubsection*{Model~T\hspace{5.25cm}Model~F}
\begingroup\makeatletter\def\f@size{7}\check@mathfonts
\def\maketag@@@#1{\hbox{\m@th\large\normalfont#1}}
\begin{align*}
\begin{aligned}[t]
I_{K1} &= g_{K1} \cdot xK1_{\infty} \cdot \sqrt{\frac{K_{o}}{5.4}} \cdot \left(V-E_{K}\right)\\
\alpha_{K1} &= \frac{0.1}{\left(1+e^{0.06 \cdot \left(\left(V-E_{K}\right)-200\right)}\right)}\\
\beta_{K1}^a &= 3 \cdot e^{0.0002 \cdot \left(\left(V-E_{K}\right)+100\right)}\\
\beta_{K1}^b &= e^{0.1 \cdot \left(\left(V-E_{K}\right)-10\right)}\\
\beta_{K1} &= \frac{\beta_{K1}^a + \beta_{K1}^b}{\left(1+e^{-(0.5) \cdot \left(V-E_{K}\right)}\right)}\\
xK1_{\infty} &= \frac{\alpha_{K1}}{\left(\alpha_{K1}+\beta_{K1}\right)}
\end{aligned}
&&&&
\begin{aligned}[t]
I_{K1} &= g_{K1} \cdot \left(\frac{310}{35}-\frac{55}{7}\right) \cdot \sqrt{\frac{K_{o}}{5.4}} \cdot xK1_{\infty} \cdot \left(V-E_{K}\right)\\
Ki_{Mg} &= 2.8 \cdot e^{\frac{-\left(V-\delta \cdot E_{K}\right)}{180}}\\
Kb_{Mg} &= 0.45 \cdot e^{\frac{-\left(V-\delta \cdot E_{K}\right)}{20}}\\
Kd1_{SPM} &= 0.7 -3 \cdot e^{\frac{-\left(\left(V-\delta \cdot E_{K}\right)+8 \cdot Mg_{Buf}\right)}{4.8}}\\
Kd2_{SPM} &= 40 -3 \cdot e^{\frac{-\left(V-\delta \cdot E_{K}\right)}{9.1}}\\
X &= \left(1+\frac{Mg_{Buf}}{Kb_{Mg}}\right)\\
rec1 &= \frac{X^2}{\left(\frac{SPM}{Kd1_{SPM}}+\frac{Mg_{Buf}}{Ki_{Mg}}+X^3\right)}\\
rec2 &= \frac{1}{\left(1+\frac{SPM}{Kd2_{SPM}}\right)}\\
xK1_{\infty} &= \left(\phi \cdot rec1+\left(1-\phi\right) \cdot rec2\right)\\
Mg_{Buf} &= 0.0356\\
SPM &= 0.0014613\\
\phi &= 0.8838\\
\delta &= 1.0648
\end{aligned}
\end{align*}
\endgroup
\subsection*{\texorpdfstring{$I_\text{Ks}$}{IKs}}
\subsubsection*{Model~T\hspace{5.25cm}Model~F}
\begin{align*}
\begin{aligned}[t]
I_{Ks} &= g_{Ks} \cdot X_s^{2} \cdot \left(V-E_{Ks}\right)\\
xs_{\infty} &= \frac{1}{\left(1+e^{\frac{\left(-5-V\right)}{14}}\right)}\\
\alpha_{xs} &= \frac{1100}{\sqrt{\left(1+e^{\frac{\left(-10-V\right)}{6}}\right)}}\\
\beta_{xs} &= \frac{1}{\left(1+e^{\frac{\left(V-60\right)}{20}}\right)}\\
\tau_{xs} &= \alpha_{xs} \cdot \beta_{xs}\\
\frac{\mathrm{d} X_s}{\mathrm{d} t} &= \frac{\left(xs_{\infty}-X_s\right)}{\tau_{xs}}
\end{aligned}
&&&&
\begin{aligned}[t]
I_{Ks} &= \textrm{as per Model T,}\\
xs_{\infty} &= \textrm{as per Model T,}\\
\alpha_{xs} &= \frac{1400}{\sqrt{\left(1+e^{\frac{\left(5-V\right)}{6}}\right)}}\\
\beta_{xs} &= \frac{1}{\left(1+e^{\frac{\left(V-35\right)}{15}}\right)}\\
\tau_{xs} &= \left(\alpha_{xs} \cdot \beta_{xs}+80\right)\\
\frac{\mathrm{d} X_s}{\mathrm{d} t} &= \textrm{as per Model T.}
\end{aligned}
\end{align*}
\clearpage
\section{Modelling discrepancy using a Gaussian process}\label{sec:gp-detail}
In order to add a discrepancy term to our basic measurement model (see main text), we model the $i$\textsuperscript{th} observation as:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:gp-discrepancy}
(Y_{C})_i = f_i(\bv{\theta}}\newcommand*{\phb}{\bv{\phi}}\newcommand*{\cov}{\bv{\kappa}}\newcommand*{\yc}{\bv{Y}_C, u^i_C) + \delta_i(\phb, \bv{v}^i_C) + \epsilon_i,
\end{equation}
where $\delta_i(\boldsymbol{\phb}, \bv{v}^i_C)$ is the model discrepancy term, a function with arguments $\bv{v}_C$ and parameters $\phb$. Note that the inputs $\bv{v}_C$ can be independent from the inputs passed to the mechanistic model. We choose $v_C$ to be (1) time $t$, and (2) the open probability $O$ (i.e.\ $\mathcal{O}$ in Eq.~(\ref{main-eq:ion-current})) and the voltage $V$.
Following \cite{Kennedy2001} we place a zero mean Gaussian process prior on the discrepancy function given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:gp-prior}
\delta(\phb, \bv{v}_C) \sim \mathcal{GP}\big(0,\cov(\bv{v}_C,\bv{v}_C';\phb)\big),
\end{equation}
where $\cov(\bv{v}_C,\bv{v}_C';\phb)$ is the covariance function (also known as covariance \textit{kernel}) parameterised by $\phb$. One common choice for the covariance function is the squared exponential function given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:rbf kernel}
\cov(\bv{v}_C,\bv{v}_C';\phb)= \alpha^2 \exp\left( -\sum_{j=1}^q\frac{(v_{C_j}-v'_{C_j})^2}{2\rho^2_j}\right),
\end{equation}
where $q$ is the number of covariates, such as time or open probability as mentioned above, representing $\bv{v}_C$. The parameter $\rho_j$ quantifies the characteristic length-scale along the $j$\textsuperscript{th} covariate and $\alpha$ denotes the marginal variance of the GP prior. Together they constitute the parameter vector $\phb=\left[\alpha, \rho_1, \ldots, \rho_q\right]$.
Since our measurement noise is Gaussian with variance $\sigma^2$ we can analytically compute the discrepancy function to obtain the marginal likelihood of $N$ observations $\yc = (Y_{C})_{i=1}^N$, conditioned on the parameters $\bv{\theta}}\newcommand*{\phb}{\bv{\phi}}\newcommand*{\cov}{\bv{\kappa}}\newcommand*{\yc}{\bv{Y}_C$, $\phb$ of the mechanistic and discrepancy models respectively, as well as the calibration inputs $u_C$ and $\bv{v}_C$, given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:likelihood}
p(\yc|u_C,\bv{v}_C,\bv{\theta}}\newcommand*{\phb}{\bv{\phi}}\newcommand*{\cov}{\bv{\kappa}}\newcommand*{\yc}{\bv{Y}_C,\phb) \sim \mathcal{N}(\mathbf{f}_{\thb,u_C},\mathbf{\Sigma}_{NN} + \sigma^2 \bv{I}),
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{f}_{\thb,u_C}= [f_1(\bv{\theta}}\newcommand*{\phb}{\bv{\phi}}\newcommand*{\cov}{\bv{\kappa}}\newcommand*{\yc}{\bv{Y}_C, u_C), \ldots, f_N(\bv{\theta}}\newcommand*{\phb}{\bv{\phi}}\newcommand*{\cov}{\bv{\kappa}}\newcommand*{\yc}{\bv{Y}_C, u_C)]$ is a vector collecting the $N$ evaluations of the mechanistic model function, $\mathbf{\Sigma}_{NN}$ represents the covariance function ( Eq.~\ref{eq:rbf kernel}) evaluated on all $N \times N$ pairs of the calibrations inputs $\bv{v}_C$:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{\Sigma}_{NN} = \begin{pmatrix}
\cov(\bv{v}^1_C,\bv{v}^1_C;\phb) & \ldots & \cov(\bv{v}^1_C,\bv{v}^N_C;\phb) \\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\cov(\bv{v}^N_C,\bv{v}^1_C;\phb) & \cdots & \cov(\bv{v}^N_C,\bv{v}^N_C;\phb)
\end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}
and $\bv{I}$ is a $N \times N$ identity matrix.
\subsection*{Inference of the model and GP parameters}
We proceed by first placing suitable prior distributions, $p(\bv{\theta}}\newcommand*{\phb}{\bv{\phi}}\newcommand*{\cov}{\bv{\kappa}}\newcommand*{\yc}{\bv{Y}_C)$ and $p(\phb)$, on the model and GP parameters and then obtain the posterior distribution using Bayes theorem as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eq: posterior}
p(\bv{\theta}}\newcommand*{\phb}{\bv{\phi}}\newcommand*{\cov}{\bv{\kappa}}\newcommand*{\yc}{\bv{Y}_C,\phb|\yc, u_C, \bv{v}_C) \propto p(\yc|u_C,\bv{v}_C,\bv{\theta}}\newcommand*{\phb}{\bv{\phi}}\newcommand*{\cov}{\bv{\kappa}}\newcommand*{\yc}{\bv{Y}_C,\phb)p(\bv{\theta}}\newcommand*{\phb}{\bv{\phi}}\newcommand*{\cov}{\bv{\kappa}}\newcommand*{\yc}{\bv{Y}_C)p(\phb).
\end{equation}
Since this posterior distribution is analytically intractable due to the non-linear dependence on $\bv{\theta}}\newcommand*{\phb}{\bv{\phi}}\newcommand*{\cov}{\bv{\kappa}}\newcommand*{\yc}{\bv{Y}_C$ and $\phb$ we resort to Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) in order to obtain samples from this distribution.
\subsection*{Predictions}
Having inferred the parameters $\bv{\theta}}\newcommand*{\phb}{\bv{\phi}}\newcommand*{\cov}{\bv{\kappa}}\newcommand*{\yc}{\bv{Y}_C$ and $\phb$ we may want to predict the output of the model in Eq.~\ref{eq:gp-discrepancy} for a new set of model inputs $u_V$ and $\bv{v}_V$.
Note that these new model inputs are considered as validation inputs, denoted with subscript $V$. For the purpose of derivation here, we consider the number of validation points $M$ to be different than the number of measurement points $N$, although these numbers can be the same for specific choices of calibrations.
We denote the column vector for the corresponding $M$ predicted outputs as $\bv{Y}_V=(Y_V)_{i=1}^M$, and the model evaluations with the new inputs as $\mathbf{f}_{\thb,u_V}= [f_1(\bv{\theta}}\newcommand*{\phb}{\bv{\phi}}\newcommand*{\cov}{\bv{\kappa}}\newcommand*{\yc}{\bv{Y}_C, u_V), \ldots, f_M(\bv{\theta}}\newcommand*{\phb}{\bv{\phi}}\newcommand*{\cov}{\bv{\kappa}}\newcommand*{\yc}{\bv{Y}_C, u_V)]^T$
Furthermore, we denote the collection of calibration inputs at the $N$ training (points corresponding to the measurements) as $\bv{I}_C = ( u_C,\bv{v}_C)$, and at the prediction points as $\bv{I}_V=( u_V,\bv{v}_V)$
Note that for a fixed value of parameters, $\bv{\theta}}\newcommand*{\phb}{\bv{\phi}}\newcommand*{\cov}{\bv{\kappa}}\newcommand*{\yc}{\bv{Y}_C$ and $\phb$ respectively, we can analytically obtain the predictive distribution of $\bv{Y}_V$ given by
\begin{equation}
p(\bv{Y}_V|\bv{I}_V,\bv{I}_C,\yc,\bv{\theta}}\newcommand*{\phb}{\bv{\phi}}\newcommand*{\cov}{\bv{\kappa}}\newcommand*{\yc}{\bv{Y}_C,\phb) = \mathcal{N}(\bv{\mu_V}, \bv{\sigma^2_V}),
\end{equation}
where the mean and variance is given by \cite{Rasmussen2006}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:gp mean var}
\begin{aligned}
\bv{\mu_V} &= \mathbf{f}_{\thb,u_V} + \mathbf{\Sigma}_{MN}[\mathbf{\Sigma}_{NN}+\sigma^2\bv{I}]^{-1}(\yc-\mathbf{f}_{\thb,u_C})\\
\bv{\sigma^2_V} &= \mathbf{\Sigma}_{MM}- \mathbf{\Sigma}_{MN}[\mathbf{\Sigma}_{NN}+\sigma^2\bv{I}]^{-1}\mathbf{\Sigma}_{NM},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{\Sigma}_{MN}$ and $\mathbf{\Sigma}_{NM}$ denotes the $M \times N$ and $N \times M$ matrices of covariance function evaluations between the training and prediction inputs given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cross-covariance-1}
\mathbf{\Sigma}_{MN} = \begin{pmatrix}
\cov(\bv{v}^1_V,\bv{v}^1_C;\phb) & \ldots & \cov(\bv{v}^1_V,\bv{v}^N_C;\phb) \\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\cov(\bv{v}^M_V,\bv{v}^1_C;\phb) & \cdots & \cov(\bv{v}^M_V,\bv{v}^N_C;\phb)
\end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cross-covariance-2}
\mathbf{\Sigma}_{NM} = \begin{pmatrix}
\cov(\bv{v}^1_C,\bv{v}^1_V;\phb) & \ldots & \cov(\bv{v}^1_C,\bv{v}^M_V;\phb) \\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\cov(\bv{v}^N_C,\bv{v}^1_V;\phb) & \cdots & \cov(\bv{v}^N_C,\bv{v}^M_V;\phb)
\end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}
with inputs $\bv{v}_C$ and $\bv{v}_V$, respectively, and $\mathbf{\Sigma}_{MM}$ is the covariance evaluated at the prediction inputs $\bv{v}_V$ only:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{\Sigma}_{MM} = \begin{pmatrix}
\cov(\bv{v}^1_V,\bv{v}^1_V;\phb) & \ldots & \cov(\bv{v}^1_V,\bv{v}^M_V;\phb) \\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\cov(\bv{v}^M_V,\bv{v}^1_V;\phb) & \cdots & \cov(\bv{v}^M_V,\bv{v}^M_V;\phb)
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
Finally, to obtain the marginal (i.e. integrating out the parameters) predictive distribution:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ppc}
p(\bv{Y}_V|\bv{I}_V,\bv{I}_C,\yc) = \int \mathcal{N}(\bv{\mu_V}, \bv{\sigma^2_V}) p(\bv{\theta}}\newcommand*{\phb}{\bv{\phi}}\newcommand*{\cov}{\bv{\kappa}}\newcommand*{\yc}{\bv{Y}_C,\phb|\yc, u_C, \bv{v}_C) \operatorname{d}\bv{\theta}}\newcommand*{\phb}{\bv{\phi}}\newcommand*{\cov}{\bv{\kappa}}\newcommand*{\yc}{\bv{Y}_C \operatorname{d}\phb,
\end{equation}
we use Monte Carlo integration using the samples of $\bv{\theta}}\newcommand*{\phb}{\bv{\phi}}\newcommand*{\cov}{\bv{\kappa}}\newcommand*{\yc}{\bv{Y}_C$ and $\phb$ obtained through MCMC.
\subsection*{Sparse Gaussian Process}
The above formulation of the discrepancy model suffers from a crucial computational bottleneck stemming from the need of inverting the covariance matrix $\mathbf{\Sigma}_{NN}$ while evaluating the marginal likelihood in Eq.~\ref{eq:likelihood},
as well as drawing posterior predictions in Eq.~\ref{eq:ppc} (in turn using Eq.~\ref{eq:gp mean var}). In all the calibration problems under consideration here, we have a large number of data points (time series measurements) where $N\geq 80000$.
Thus, it becomes infeasible to apply Gaussian processes for modelling the discrepancy without tackling this excessive computational load related to repeated inversion of a large matrix.
In order to alleviate this computational bottleneck we use a sparse approximation of the true covariance function.
Qui{\~n}onero-Candela et al. \cite{quinonero2005unifying} provides an extensive review of such sparse approximations techniques.
Following \cite{quinonero2005unifying} we use a set of $P$ or inducing inputs (or pseudo-inputs) $x_C$ with associated latent function $\delta(\phb, x_C)$ representing the discrepancy function corresponding to the inducing inputs.
This inducing function is assigned a zero mean GP prior as follows:
\begin{equation}
\delta(\phb, x_C) \sim \mathcal{GP}\big(0,\cov(x_C,x_C';\phb)\big).
\end{equation}
Let us denote the vector of discrepancy function evaluations at all the training points as $\mathbf{\delta}_{\phb,u_C} = [\delta_1(\phb, u_C), \ldots,\delta_N(\phb, u_C)]^T$ and at inducing points as $\mathbf{\delta}_{\phb,x_C} = [\delta_1(\phb, x_C), \ldots,\delta_P(\phb, x_C)]^T$.
We can then write the joint prior as a product of all the training and inducing points as $p(\mathbf{\delta}_{\phb,u_C})=\mathcal{N}(\bv{0},\mathbf{\Sigma}_{NN})$ and $p(\mathbf{\delta}_{\phb,x_C})=\mathcal{N}(\bv{0},\mathbf{\Sigma}_{PP})$ respectively, where $\mathbf{\Sigma}_{PP}$ denotes the covariance evaluated at all pairs of inducing inputs:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{\Sigma}_{PP} = \begin{pmatrix}
\cov(x_C^1,x_C^1;\phb) & \ldots & \cov(x_C^1,x_C^P;\phb) \\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\cov(x_C^P,x_C^1;\phb) & \cdots & \cov(x_C^P,x_C^P;\phb)
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
We can then approximate the prior on the true discrepancy function $\mathbf{\delta}_{\phb,u_C}$ marginalising the inducing discrepancies as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
p(\mathbf{\delta}_{\phb,u_C}) \approx p(\mathbf{\delta}_{\phb,u_C}|\mathbf{\delta}_{\phb,x_C}) &= \int p(\mathbf{\delta}_{\phb,u_C}|\mathbf{\delta}_{\phb,x_C})p(\mathbf{\delta}_{\phb,x_C}) \operatorname{d}\mathbf{\delta}_{\phb,x_C}\\
&=\mathcal{N}(\mathbf{\Sigma}_{NP}\mathbf{\Sigma}_{PP}^{-1}\mathbf{\delta}_{\phb,x_C}, \mathbf{\Sigma}_{NN}-\mathbf{\Sigma}_{NP}\mathbf{\Sigma}_{PP}^{-1}\mathbf{\Sigma}_{PN}),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{\Sigma}_{NP}$, $\mathbf{\Sigma}_{PN}$ denotes the covariance matrices containing the cross-covariances between the training and inducing inputs (evaluated in the same way as in Eqs.~\ref{eq:cross-covariance-1},~\ref{eq:cross-covariance-2}).
This sparse approximation was first introduced in \cite{snelson2006sparse} to scale the GP regression model.
This approximation is widely known as the \textit{fully independent training conditional} (FITC) approximation in machine learning parlance since the introduction of these inducing inputs and corresponding function values $\mathbf{\delta}_{\phb,x_C}$ induces a conditional independence among all the elements of $\mathbf{\delta}_{\phb,u_C}$ \cite{quinonero2005unifying}, that is we have
\begin{equation}
p(\mathbf{\delta}_{\phb,u_C}|\mathbf{\delta}_{\phb,x_C}) =\prod_{i=1}^N p(\delta_i(\phb, \bv{v}^i_C)|\mathbf{\delta}_{\phb,x_C})=\mathcal{N}(\mathbf{\Sigma}_{NP}\mathbf{\Sigma}_{PP}^{-1}\mathbf{\delta}_{\phb,x_C}, \mathbf{\Sigma}_{NN}-\mathbf{\Sigma}_{NP}\mathbf{\Sigma}_{PP}^{-1}\mathbf{\Sigma}_{PN}).
\end{equation}
Using this approximate prior $p(\mathbf{\delta}_{\phb,u_C}|\mathbf{\delta}_{\phb,x_C})$ to obtain the marginal likelihood and the prediction terms we essentially approximate the true covariance $\mathbf{\Sigma}_{NN}$ as \cite{quinonero2005unifying}:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{\Sigma}_{NN}\approx\hat{\mathbf{\Sigma}} = \bv{Q} + \operatorname{diag}(\mathbf{\Sigma}_{NN} - \bv{Q}),
\end{equation}
where $\mathrm{diag}(A)$ is a diagonal matrix whose elements match the diagonal of $A$ and the matrix $\mathbf{Q}$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\bv{Q}=\mathbf{\Sigma}_{NP}\mathbf{\Sigma}_{PP}^{-1}\mathbf{\Sigma}_{PN}.
\end{equation}
$\hat{\mathbf{\Sigma}}$ has the same diagonal elements as $\mathbf{\Sigma}_{NN}$ and the off-diagonal elements are the same as for $\bv{Q}$. Thus, inversion of $\hat{\mathbf{\Sigma}}$ scales as $\mathcal{O}(NP^2)$ as opposed to $\mathcal{O}(N^3)$ for the inversion of $\mathbf{\Sigma}_{NN}$.
\clearpage
\section{Modelling residuals using an \texorpdfstring{$\ARMA(p,q)$}{ARMA(p, q)} process}\label{sec:arma-detail}
In the previous section we modelled the discrepancy as a function drawn from a GP prior. Alternatively, we can address the case of discrepancy using a correlated residual approach (see Section~$3.6.2$ in \cite{durbin2012time} for an introduction to this modelling approach).
In this case we can model the residuals between the data $(Y_C)_i$ and the mechanistic model $f_i(\bv{\theta}}\newcommand*{\phb}{\bv{\phi}}\newcommand*{\cov}{\bv{\kappa}}\newcommand*{\yc}{\bv{Y}_C, u^i_C)$ as an $\ARMA(p,q)$ process as follows:
\begin{align}\label{eq:arma-ode}
(Y_C)_i -f_i(\bv{\theta}}\newcommand*{\phb}{\bv{\phi}}\newcommand*{\cov}{\bv{\kappa}}\newcommand*{\yc}{\bv{Y}_C, u^i_C) &= e_i \nonumber\\
&= \varphi_1 e_{i-1} + \ldots + \varphi_p e_{i-p} + \nu_i + \zeta_1 \nu_{i-1} + \ldots + \zeta_q \nu_{i-1-q},\\
\shortintertext{where} \nu_i &\sim \mathcal{N}(0,\tau^2),
\end{align}
and $\bv{\varphi}=[\varphi_1,\ldots, \varphi_p]^T$, $\bv{\zeta}=[\zeta_1,\ldots, \zeta_p]^T$ are the vectors representing the $p\geq 0$ autoregressive coefficients and $q\geq 0 $ moving-average coefficients of the $\ARMA$ process.
The rationale behind this modelling approach comes from the fact that if the mechanistic model is able to explain the measurements adequately then the residuals are essentially uncorrelated measurement noise $\epsilon \sim \mathcal{N}(0,\sigma^2)$.
Note that we use a different symbol $\nu$, as opposed to $\epsilon$, to represent the noise term in order to highlight the difference in its interpretations.
However, the existence of discrepancy between the model output and the observations points to the fact that the residuals, for each data sample, has unexplained structure that can be modelled using a pre-determined correlation structure, as expressed through an $\ARMA(p,q)$ model.
\subsection*{Inference}
We first re-write the normally distributed error term $\nu_i$ as
\begin{equation}
\nu_i = (Y_C)_i - f_i(\bv{\theta}}\newcommand*{\phb}{\bv{\phi}}\newcommand*{\cov}{\bv{\kappa}}\newcommand*{\yc}{\bv{Y}_C, u^i_C) - \sum_{j=1}^p \varphi_j \{(Y_C)_{i-j} - f_{i-j}(\bv{\theta}}\newcommand*{\phb}{\bv{\phi}}\newcommand*{\cov}{\bv{\kappa}}\newcommand*{\yc}{\bv{Y}_C, u^{i-j}_C) \} - \sum_{k=1}^q \zeta_k \nu_{i-k} ,
\end{equation}
using which we can write the conditional likelihood of the observed data for $N$ measurements as \cite{wei2006}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:arma-likelihood}
p(\yc|\bv{\theta}}\newcommand*{\phb}{\bv{\phi}}\newcommand*{\cov}{\bv{\kappa}}\newcommand*{\yc}{\bv{Y}_C,\bv{\varphi},\bv{\zeta},\tau) = (2\pi \tau^2)^{N/2} \exp\bigg(-\frac{1}{2\tau^2}\sum_{i=p+1}^N \nu^2_i \bigg),
\end{equation}
where we have used $\nu_i$ for $i\geq p+1$ by assuming that $\nu_p=\nu_{p-1}=\ldots=\nu_{p+1-q}=0$, its expected value.
Note that to calculate the likelihood for all the $N$ measurements requires us to introduce extra parameter values, as latent variables, for the past history of the data as well as the error terms before measurement commences, that is for $[(Y_C)_0,(Y_C)_{-1}, \ldots, (Y_C)_{1-p}]$ and $[\nu_0,\nu_{-1},\ldots,\nu_{1-q}]$.
Alternatively, we can reformulate Eq.~\ref{eq:arma-ode} in a state space form and use the Kalman filter algorithm to evaluate the unconditional full likelihood for all $i$.
We refer the reader to \cite{durbin2012time} for the details of this approach.
We point out here that the difference between these two approaches of calculating the likelihood is insignificant for long time series, which is the case for our calibration problems with $N \geq 80000$.
Having defined the likelihood we can again adopt the Bayesian framework to infer posterior distributions of the model parameters $\bv{\theta}}\newcommand*{\phb}{\bv{\phi}}\newcommand*{\cov}{\bv{\kappa}}\newcommand*{\yc}{\bv{Y}_C$ and the set of $\ARMA$ parameters $\phb=\left[\bv{\varphi},\bv{\zeta}\right]$, by choosing suitable prior distributions $p(\bv{\theta}}\newcommand*{\phb}{\bv{\phi}}\newcommand*{\cov}{\bv{\kappa}}\newcommand*{\yc}{\bv{Y}_C)$ and $p(\phb)$ respectively and using the Bayes theorem to obtain the posterior given by
\begin{equation}
p(\bv{\theta}}\newcommand*{\phb}{\bv{\phi}}\newcommand*{\cov}{\bv{\kappa}}\newcommand*{\yc}{\bv{Y}_C,\phb|\yc) \propto p(\yc|\bv{\theta}}\newcommand*{\phb}{\bv{\phi}}\newcommand*{\cov}{\bv{\kappa}}\newcommand*{\yc}{\bv{Y}_C,\phb)p(\bv{\theta}}\newcommand*{\phb}{\bv{\phi}}\newcommand*{\cov}{\bv{\kappa}}\newcommand*{\yc}{\bv{Y}_C)p(\phb).
\end{equation}
Note that we have considered the noise variance known since its maximum likelihood estimate is given by $\tau^2=\frac{\sum_{i=p+1}^N \nu^2_i}{N-(2p+q+1)}$, which can be easily obtained once estimates of $\phb$ and $\bv{\theta}}\newcommand*{\phb}{\bv{\phi}}\newcommand*{\cov}{\bv{\kappa}}\newcommand*{\yc}{\bv{Y}_C$ are available. Similar to the GP based inference problem we again use MCMC to obtain the desired posterior distributions.
\subsection*{Predictions}
In a purely time series modelling context, where models such as the $\ARMA$ is extensively used, predictions are used to forecast ahead in time for short intervals.
In the context of our calibration problem we are generally interested in predicting outputs for a new calibration $u_V$.
However, considering the fact that we want to to predict $M$ output values corresponding to the new validation inputs, we can simply recast our predictions as one-step-ahead forecasts.
We denote the $M$ predicted outputs as $\bv{Y}_V=(Y_V)_{m=1}^M $, while $\bv{Y}_p=(Y_C)_{N-(p-1)}^N$ and $\mathbf{f}_{\thb,u_C}= [f_N(\bv{\theta}}\newcommand*{\phb}{\bv{\phi}}\newcommand*{\cov}{\bv{\kappa}}\newcommand*{\yc}{\bv{Y}_C, u_C), \ldots, f_{N-(p-1)}(\bv{\theta}}\newcommand*{\phb}{\bv{\phi}}\newcommand*{\cov}{\bv{\kappa}}\newcommand*{\yc}{\bv{Y}_C, u_C)]$ are column vectors representing the last $p$ observations and model evaluations with the calibration $u_C$. We denote the vector of the last $q$ errors as $\bv{\nu}_C = [\nu_{N-(q-1)},\ldots,\nu_{N}]^T$.
Note that in our formulation here, the $m$\textsuperscript{th}, $m=1,\ldots, M$, prediction is to be considered as the $(N+1)$\textsuperscript{th} prediction from the model in Eq.~\ref{eq:arma-ode} with the following modification: we replace $f_{N+1}(\bv{\theta}}\newcommand*{\phb}{\bv{\phi}}\newcommand*{\cov}{\bv{\kappa}}\newcommand*{\yc}{\bv{Y}_C, u^i_C)$ with $f_{1}(\bv{\theta}}\newcommand*{\phb}{\bv{\phi}}\newcommand*{\cov}{\bv{\kappa}}\newcommand*{\yc}{\bv{Y}_C, u^1_V)$. Thus, for a particular value of the parameters we have
\begin{equation}
(Y_V)_m \sim \mathcal{N}(\mathbb{E}[ (Y_V)_m|\bv{Y}_p,\bv{\nu}_C ,\bv{\theta}}\newcommand*{\phb}{\bv{\phi}}\newcommand*{\cov}{\bv{\kappa}}\newcommand*{\yc}{\bv{Y}_C,\phb], \operatorname{Var}[ (Y_V)_m|\bv{Y}_p,\bv{\nu}_C ,\bv{\theta}}\newcommand*{\phb}{\bv{\phi}}\newcommand*{\cov}{\bv{\kappa}}\newcommand*{\yc}{\bv{Y}_C,\phb]),
\end{equation}
where the mean and the variance of the one-step ahead prediction distribution is given by
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}[(Y_V)_m |\bv{Y}_p,\bv{\nu}_C ,\bv{\theta}}\newcommand*{\phb}{\bv{\phi}}\newcommand*{\cov}{\bv{\kappa}}\newcommand*{\yc}{\bv{Y}_C,\phb]&=f_m(\bv{\theta}}\newcommand*{\phb}{\bv{\phi}}\newcommand*{\cov}{\bv{\kappa}}\newcommand*{\yc}{\bv{Y}_C, u^m_V)+ \bv{\varphi}^T(\bv{Y}_p - \mathbf{f}_{\thb,u_C}) + \bv{\zeta}^T\bv{\nu}_C,\\
\operatorname{Var}[ (Y_V)_m|\bv{Y}_p,\bv{\nu}_C ,\bv{\theta}}\newcommand*{\phb}{\bv{\phi}}\newcommand*{\cov}{\bv{\kappa}}\newcommand*{\yc}{\bv{Y}_C,\phb] &= \operatorname{Var}\big[(Y_V)_m -\mathbb{E}[(Y_V)_m |\bv{Y}_p,\bv{\nu}_C ,\bv{\theta}}\newcommand*{\phb}{\bv{\phi}}\newcommand*{\cov}{\bv{\kappa}}\newcommand*{\yc}{\bv{Y}_C,\phb]\big]=\operatorname{Var}[\nu_N]=\tau^2.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
In order to quantify the uncertainty in the predictions we can integrate out the model and noise parameters \cite{marriott1996bayesian}:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:pp-arma}
p((Y_V)_m|\bv{Y}_p,\bv{\nu}_C)= \int \mathcal{N}(\mathbb{E}[ (Y_V)_m|\bv{Y}_p,\bv{\nu}_C ,\bv{\theta}}\newcommand*{\phb}{\bv{\phi}}\newcommand*{\cov}{\bv{\kappa}}\newcommand*{\yc}{\bv{Y}_C,\phb]p(\bv{\theta}}\newcommand*{\phb}{\bv{\phi}}\newcommand*{\cov}{\bv{\kappa}}\newcommand*{\yc}{\bv{Y}_C,\phb|\yc) \operatorname{d}\bv{\theta}}\newcommand*{\phb}{\bv{\phi}}\newcommand*{\cov}{\bv{\kappa}}\newcommand*{\yc}{\bv{Y}_C \operatorname{d}\phb,
\end{equation}
where we use Monte Carlo integration as in Eq.~\ref{eq:ppc}.
In order to collect the full set of $M$ predictions $\bv{Y}_V$ we simply use the one-step-ahead forecasting distribution shown above in a recursive manner.
\clearpage
\section{Choice of priors for the ion channel example}\label{sec:priors}
Here we specify the choice of priors for the ion channel example.
\begin{itemize}
\item For the ion channel ODE model parameters, we chose a uniform prior specified in Beattie \textit{et al.}~\cite{beattie2018sinusoidal} and Lei \textit{et al.}~\cite{lei_rapid_2019-1, lei_rapid_2019-2}.
\item For the $\GP$ model, we have the unbiased noise parameter $\sigma$, the length-scale $\rho_i$, the marginal variance $\alpha$:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\sigma$: Half-Normal prior with standard deviation of \num{25};
\item $\rho_i$: Inverse-Gamma prior with shape and scale being $(5, 5)$;
\item $\alpha$: Inverse-Gamma prior with shape and scale being $(5, 5)$.
\end{itemize}
\item For the $\ARMA$ model, we have the autoregressive coefficients $\varphi_i$, and moving-average coefficients $\zeta_i$:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\varphi_i$: Normal prior centred on the maximum likelihood estimates with standard deviation of \num{2.5};
\item $\zeta_i$: Normal prior centred on the maximum likelihood estimates with standard deviation of \num{2.5}.
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
\clearpage
\section{Computing and representing posterior predictive}\label{sec:CI}
To compute the posterior predictive, we follow Girolami~\cite{girolami2008bayesian} and write the posterior predictive in Eqs.~\ref{eq:ppc} \&~\ref{eq:pp-arma} as
\begin{equation}
p(Y_{V} \mid Y_{C}) = \sum_{k} p(Y_{V} \mid \boldsymbol{\theta}_k, \boldsymbol{\phi}_k, Y_{C}) p(\boldsymbol{\theta}_k, \boldsymbol{\phi}_k \mid Y_{C}),
\end{equation}
where $\boldsymbol{\theta}_k, \boldsymbol{\phi}_k$ are the $k$\textsuperscript{th} posterior sample of the parameters.
We have checked the posterior predictive of the ODE models at a given time point is symmetric and similar to a Gaussian distribution, for the sake of simplicity, we therefore use summary statistics such as the predictive mean and credible intervals computed using variance to represent the posterior predictive in this paper.
To obtain the predictive mean $\mathbb{E}[Y_{V} \mid Y_{C}]$ and variance $\operatorname{Var}[Y_{V} \mid Y_{C}]$, we use
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}[Y_{V} \mid Y_{C}] &= \sum_{k} \mathbb{E}[Y_{V} \mid \boldsymbol{\theta}_k, \boldsymbol{\phi}_k, Y_{C}] p(\boldsymbol{\theta}_k, \boldsymbol{\phi}_k \mid Y_{C}), \\
\operatorname{Var}[Y_{V} \mid Y_{C}] &= \sum_{k} \left(\operatorname{Var}[Y_{V} \mid \boldsymbol{\theta}_k, \boldsymbol{\phi}_k, Y_{C}] + \mathbb{E}[Y_{V} \mid \boldsymbol{\theta}_k, \boldsymbol{\phi}_k, Y_{C}]^2\right)p(\boldsymbol{\theta}_k, \boldsymbol{\phi}_k \mid Y_{C}) - \mathbb{E}[Y_{V} \mid Y_{C}]^2.
\end{align}
Finally, to show the 95\% credible intervals of our predictions, we plot $\mathbb{E}[Y_{V} \mid Y_{C}] \pm 1.96\sigma_{Y_{V}}$ where $\sigma_{Y_{V}}^2 = \operatorname{Var}[Y_{V} \mid Y_{C}]$.
\clearpage
\section{Supplementary results for the action potential example}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[every node/.style={anchor=north east,inner sep=0pt}, x=1mm, y=1mm]
\node (fig1) at (0, 0)
{\includegraphics[width=5in]{tnnp-2004-stim1hz-hergblock-pairwise.png}};
\node (fig2) at (3, 3)
{\includegraphics[width=3.25in]{tnnp-2004-stim1hz-hergblock-pp.png}};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{
\textbf{Matrix plot and histograms}: Posterior distribution of Model~T parameters when estimated using data from Model~T.
The dashed black lines indicate the true (data-generating) parameters;
the dashed red lines are the result of the global optimisation routine.
\textbf{Inset plot}: Posterior predictions for the `context of use' (CoU) data, for the action potential model tutorial (in the scenario of no model discrepancy).
The posterior predictions are model predictions using parameters sampled from the posterior distribution; 200 samples/predictions are shown. Model~T gives an almost-perfect prediction of the CoU data (which was not used in training).
}
\label{fig:tutorial-action-potential-no-discrepancy}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig_A.pdf}
\caption{Results obtained via Genetic Algorithm and Differential Evolution to adjust the Fink Action Potential to ten Tusscher at control, i.e., \SI{1}{\hertz}, and 0\% IKr block configuration. The Genetic Algorithm was used with a population size of 100 individuals and 10 generations. The Differential Evolution was used with 150 individuals and 15 generations. Both algorithms were implemented using the Python library Pygmo with the standard configurations. \textbf{A} From all the evaluations we selected the candidates (parameter sets) that satisfied $Error_{0\%} < 0.1$. Relative RMS errors are computed with $Error_{X}(i)=\frac{||T_X-{aF_X}(i)||_2}{||T_X||_2}$, where $T_X$ is the ten Tusscher model in scenario $X$, and $aF_X$ is the adjusted Fink model using the individual $i$ for scenario $X$. A total of 1079 candidates satisfied $Error_{0\%} < 0.1$, i.e., were below the displayed threshold. Using this metric, the best candidate had $Error_{0\%} = 1.6\%$.
\textbf{B} Testing the performance of the 1079 candidates with respect to the 2Hz scenario a total of 990 candidates satisfy $Error_{0\%} < 0.1$ and $Error_{2Hz} < 0.1$. Using these two metrics, the best candidate had $Error_{0\%} = 1.8\%$ and $Error_{2Hz} = 1.8\%$.
\textbf{C} Testing the performance of the 1079 candidates with respect to the 75\% IKr block scenario only 80 candidates satisfy $Error_{0\%} < 0.1$ and $Error_{75\%} < 0.1$. Using these two metrics, the best candidate had $Error_{0\%} = 4.5\%$ and $Error_{75\%} = 4.5\%$.
\textbf{D} Testing the performance of the 1079 candidates with respect to both 75\% IKr block and 2Hz scenarios only 70 candidates satisfy $Error_{0\%} < 0.1$, $Error_{75\%} < 0.1$, and $Error_{2Hz} < 0.1$. Using the three metrics, the best candidate had $Error_{0\%} = 4.5\%$, $Error_{2Hz} = 3.7\%$, and $Error_{75\%} = 4.5\%$.
}
\label{fig:tradeoff1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{fig_B.png}
\caption{APs obtained by the Data (ten Tusscher model) and also by the fitting process for each scenario: \textbf{A} control, i.e., \SI{1}{\hertz}, and 0\% IKr block; \textbf{B} \SI{2}{\hertz}; and \textbf{C} 75\% IKr block.
``Best $0\%$ prediction'' are the results obtained using the best candidate that satisfies $Error_{0\%} < 0.1$.
``Best $0\% + 2Hz$ prediction'' are results obtained using the best candidate that satisfies $Error_{0\%} < 0.1$ and $Error_{2Hz} < 0.1$.
``Best overall prediction'' are results obtained using the best candidate that satisfies $Error_{0\%} < 0.1$, $Error_{2Hz} < 0.1$, and $Error_{75\%} < 0.1$.
The 1079 APs that satisfy $Error_{0\%} < 0.1$ are plotted with grey lines.
The 70/1079 APs that satisfy $Error_{0\%} < 0.1$, $Error_{2Hz} < 0.1$, and $Error_{75\%} < 0.1$ are are plotted with black lines.
Note that there is no way of knowing in advance what the best candidate parameter set will be without performing the experiment, so a distribution of possibilities should generally be shown.
}
\label{fig:tradeoff2}
\end{figure}
\clearpage
\section{Supplementary results for the ion channel discrepancy example}\label{sec:ion-channel-supp}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{iid-sigma.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:iid-sigma-comparison}
A comparison of the $\sigma$ values in the i.i.d.\ model for Model~A and~B, and $\sigma_\text{true}$ refers to the value used in generating the data with Model~C.
If we consider the inferred $\sigma$ value in Eq.~\ref{main-eq:ll} in the main text as $\sigma^2_\text{inferred} = \sigma^2_\text{true} + \sigma^2_\text{discrepancy}$, then we can see that both $\sigma_\text{A}, \sigma_\text{B} > \sigma_\text{true}$.
Hence we have $\sigma^2_\text{discrepancy}$ term is non-zero for both models, which reflects the fact that there is discrepancy for both models.
One may use the size of $\sigma_\text{inferred}$ to interpret the size of the model discrepancy here.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.495\textwidth]{compare-model_A-evidence.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.495\textwidth]{compare-model_B-evidence.pdf}
\caption{
Posterior predictive log-likelihoods of fits and predictions for Models~A (left) and B (right) with different discrepancy models: i.i.d.\ noise, $\GP(t)$, $\GP(O, V)$, and $\ARMA(2, 2)$ for all three voltage protocols. The posterior predictive log-likelihood is $\pi(Y\mid Y_C) = \int \pi(Y\mid \theta) \pi(\theta \mid Y_C) {\rm d} \theta$, which we approximate by $\frac{1}{N}\sum_{n=1}^N p(Y \mid \theta_n)$ where $\theta_n$ are samples from the posterior distribution generated by MCMC.
Only relative differences within a row are meaningful, and we therefore subtract the maximum log-likehood for each dataset from the results giving the best model in each row a score of zero. Note that care is needed when interpreting the log-likelihood values for the GP models due to the FITC approximation used to approximate the full likelihood.
}
\label{fig:tutorial-ion-channel-likelihood-table}
\end{table}
\clearpage
\subsection{Model~A}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{model_A-sinewave-posteriors-traces.png}
\caption{\label{fig:tutorial-ion-channel-posteriors-b}
Trace plot of 3 independent MCMC runs for Model~A parameters (with the i.i.d.\ noise model): the conductance, $g$, and kinetic parameters $p_1,\dots,p_{8}$ (a list of parameters referring to $A_{i,j}$ and $B_{i,j}$ in Eq.~(\ref{main-eq:rate_equation})).
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{model_A-sinewave-posteriors-traces-gp.png}
\caption{\label{fig:tutorial-ion-channel-posteriors-b}
Trace plot of 3 independent MCMC runs for Model~A parameters (with the $\GP(t)$ noise discrepancy model): the conductance, $g$, and kinetic parameters $p_1,\dots,p_{8}$ (a list of parameters referring to $A_{i,j}$ and $B_{i,j}$ in Eq.~(\ref{main-eq:rate_equation})).
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{model_A-sinewave-posteriors-traces-gp-ov.png}
\caption{\label{fig:tutorial-ion-channel-posteriors-b}
Trace plot of 3 independent MCMC runs for Model~A parameters (with the $\GP(O, V)$ noise discrepancy model): the conductance, $g$, and kinetic parameters $p_1,\dots,p_{8}$ (a list of parameters referring to $A_{i,j}$ and $B_{i,j}$ in Eq.~(\ref{main-eq:rate_equation})).
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{model_A-sinewave-posteriors-traces-arma_2_2.png}
\caption{\label{fig:tutorial-ion-channel-posteriors-b}
Trace plot of 3 independent MCMC runs for Model~A parameters (with the $\ARMA(2, 2)$ noise discrepancy model): the conductance, $g$, and kinetic parameters $p_1,\dots,p_{8}$ (a list of parameters referring to $A_{i,j}$ and $B_{i,j}$ in Eq.~(\ref{main-eq:rate_equation})).
}
\end{figure}
\clearpage
\subsubsection{Model~A: Full model predictions}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{compare-model_A-sinewave-ap-pp.png}
\caption{\label{fig:tutorial-ion-channel-prediction2a}
Model~A prediction with different discrepancy models: no discrepancy (i.i.d.\ noise), $\GP(t)$, $\GP(O, V)$, and $\ARMA(2, 2)$.
The voltage clamp protocol for calibration is the action potential series protocol \cite{beattie2018sinusoidal}.
}
\end{figure}
\clearpage
\subsubsection{Model~A: Discrepancy predictions}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{compare-model_A-sinewave-sinewave-pp-only-disc.png}
\caption{\label{fig:tutorial-ion-channel-fitting2-residual}
Model~A fitting residuals of the MAP estimate accounted by different discrepancy models: no discrepancy (i.i.d.\ noise), $\GP(t)$, $\GP(O, V)$, and $\ARMA(2, 2)$.
The voltage clamp protocol for calibration is the sinusoidal protocol \cite{beattie2018sinusoidal}.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{compare-model_A-sinewave-ap-pp-only-disc.png}
\caption{\label{fig:tutorial-ion-channel-prediction2a-residual}
Model~A prediction residuals of the MAP estimate accounted by different discrepancy models: no discrepancy (i.i.d.\ noise), $\GP(t)$, $\GP(O, V)$, and $\ARMA(2, 2)$.
The voltage clamp protocol for calibration is the action potential series protocol \cite{beattie2018sinusoidal}.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{compare-model_A-sinewave-staircase-pp-only-disc.png}
\caption{\label{fig:tutorial-ion-channel-prediction2b-residual}
Model~A prediction residuals of the MAP estimate accounted by different discrepancy models: no discrepancy (i.i.d.\ noise), $\GP(t)$, $\GP(O, V)$, and $\ARMA(2, 2)$.
The voltage clamp protocol for calibration is the staircase protocol \cite{lei_rapid_2019-1}.
}
\end{figure}
\clearpage
\subsubsection{Model~A: ODE model predictions}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{compare-model_A-sinewave-sinewave-pp-only-model.png}
\caption{\label{fig:tutorial-ion-channel-fitting2-model}
Fitting of the ODE model of Model~A, using different discrepancy models: no discrepancy (i.i.d.\ noise), $\GP(t)$, $\GP(O, V)$, and $\ARMA(2, 2)$.
The voltage clamp protocol for calibration is the sinusoidal protocol \cite{beattie2018sinusoidal}.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{compare-model_A-sinewave-ap-pp-only-model.png}
\caption{\label{fig:tutorial-ion-channel-prediction2a-model}
Predictions of the ODE model of Model~A, using different discrepancy models: no discrepancy (i.i.d.\ noise), $\GP(t)$, $\GP(O, V)$, and $\ARMA(2, 2)$.
The voltage clamp protocol for calibration is the action potential series protocol \cite{beattie2018sinusoidal}.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{compare-model_A-sinewave-staircase-pp-only-model.png}
\caption{\label{fig:tutorial-ion-channel-prediction2b-model}
Predictions of the ODE model of Model~A, using different discrepancy models: no discrepancy (i.i.d.\ noise), $\GP(t)$, $\GP(O, V)$, and $\ARMA(2, 2)$.
The voltage clamp protocol for calibration is the staircase protocol \cite{lei_rapid_2019-1}.
}
\end{figure}
\clearpage
\subsection{Model~B}
\label{sub:ModelBFullResults}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{compare-model_B-sinewave-posteriors.png}
\caption{\label{fig:tutorial-ion-channel-posteriors-b}
Model~B inferred marginal posterior distributions for the conductance, $g$, and kinetic parameters $p_1,\dots,p_{10}$ (a list of parameters referring to $A_{i,j}$ and $B_{i,j}$ in Eq.~(\ref{main-eq:rate_equation})) with different discrepancy models: i.i.d.\ noise (blue), $\GP(t)$ (orange), $\GP(O, V)$ (green), and $\ARMA(2, 2)$ (red).
}
\end{figure}
\clearpage
\subsubsection{Model~B: Full model predictions}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{compare-model_B-sinewave-sinewave-pp.png}
\caption{\label{fig:tutorial-ion-channel-fitting2-b}
Model~B fitting results with different discrepancy models: i.i.d.\ noise, $\GP(t)$, $\GP(O, V)$, and $\ARMA(2, 2)$.
The voltage clamp protocol for calibration is the sinusoidal protocol \cite{beattie2018sinusoidal}.
It shows the posterior predictive with the bounds showing the 95\% credible interval.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{compare-model_B-sinewave-staircase-pp.png}
\caption{\label{fig:tutorial-ion-channel-prediction2-b}
Model~B prediction with different discrepancy models: i.i.d.\ noise, $\GP(t)$, $\GP(O, V)$, and $\ARMA(2, 2)$.
The voltage clamp protocol for calibration is the staircase protocol \cite{lei_rapid_2019-1}.
It shows the posterior predictive with the bounds showing the 95\% credible interval.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{compare-model_B-sinewave-ap-pp.png}
\caption{\label{fig:tutorial-ion-channel-prediction2a-b}
Model~B prediction with different discrepancy models: no discrepancy (i.i.d.\ noise), $\GP(t)$, $\GP(O, V)$, and $\ARMA(2, 2)$.
The voltage clamp protocol for calibration is the action potential series protocol \cite{beattie2018sinusoidal}.
}
\end{figure}
\clearpage
\subsubsection{Model~B: Discrepancy predictions}\label{sec:model-b-disc-predict}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{compare-model_B-sinewave-sinewave-pp-only-disc.png}
\caption{\label{fig:tutorial-ion-channel-fitting2-residual-b}
Model~B fitting residuals of the MAP estimate accounted by different discrepancy models: no discrepancy (i.i.d.\ noise), $\GP(t)$, $\GP(O, V)$, and $\ARMA(2, 2)$.
The voltage clamp protocol for calibration is the sinusoidal protocol \cite{beattie2018sinusoidal}.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{compare-model_B-sinewave-ap-pp-only-disc.png}
\caption{\label{fig:tutorial-ion-channel-prediction2a-residual-b}
Model~B prediction residuals of the MAP estimate accounted by different discrepancy models: no discrepancy (i.i.d.\ noise), $\GP(t)$, $\GP(O, V)$, and $\ARMA(2, 2)$.
The voltage clamp protocol for calibration is the action potential series protocol \cite{beattie2018sinusoidal}.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{compare-model_B-sinewave-staircase-pp-only-disc.png}
\caption{\label{fig:tutorial-ion-channel-prediction2b-residual-b}
Model~B prediction residuals of the MAP estimate accounted by different discrepancy models: no discrepancy (i.i.d.\ noise), $\GP(t)$, $\GP(O, V)$, and $\ARMA(2, 2)$.
The voltage clamp protocol for calibration is the staircase protocol \cite{lei_rapid_2019-1}.
}
\end{figure}
\clearpage
\subsubsection{Model~B: ODE model predictions}\label{sec:model-b-model-predict}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{compare-model_B-sinewave-sinewave-pp-only-model.png}
\caption{\label{fig:tutorial-ion-channel-fitting2-model-b}
Fitting of the ODE model of Model~B, using different discrepancy models: no discrepancy (i.i.d.\ noise), $\GP(t)$, $\GP(O, V)$, and $\ARMA(2, 2)$.
The voltage clamp protocol for calibration is the sinusoidal protocol \cite{beattie2018sinusoidal}.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{compare-model_B-sinewave-ap-pp-only-model.png}
\caption{\label{fig:tutorial-ion-channel-prediction2a-model-b}
Predictions of the ODE model of Model~B, using different discrepancy models: no discrepancy (i.i.d.\ noise), $\GP(t)$, $\GP(O, V)$, and $\ARMA(2, 2)$.
The voltage clamp protocol for calibration is the action potential series protocol \cite{beattie2018sinusoidal}.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{compare-model_B-sinewave-staircase-pp-only-model.png}
\caption{\label{fig:tutorial-ion-channel-prediction2b-model-b}
Predictions of the ODE model of Model~B, using different discrepancy models: no discrepancy (i.i.d.\ noise), $\GP(t)$, $\GP(O, V)$, and $\ARMA(2, 2)$.
The voltage clamp protocol for calibration is the staircase protocol \cite{lei_rapid_2019-1}.
}
\end{figure}
\clearpage
\subsection{GP covariance functions: RBF, OU and Matern3/2}
\label{sub:GPCovFuncs}
\subsubsection*{Full model predictions}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{compare-model_A-sinewave-sinewave-pp-gpcovs.png}
\caption{
Model~A $\GP(O, V)$ discrepancy model fitted with different GP covariance functions: radial basis function (RBF), Ornstein–Uhlenbeck (OU, also known as exponential covariance function), and Mat\'{e}rn 3/2 covariance function.
The voltage clamp protocol for calibration is the sinusoidal protocol \cite{beattie2018sinusoidal}.
It shows the posterior predictive with the bounds showing the 95\% credible interval.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{compare-model_A-sinewave-staircase-pp-gpcovs.png}
\caption{
Model~A $\GP(O, V)$ discrepancy model fitted with different GP covariance functions: radial basis function (RBF), Ornstein–Uhlenbeck (OU, also known as exponential covariance function), and Mat\'{e}rn 3/2 covariance function.
The voltage clamp protocol for calibration is the staircase protocol \cite{lei_rapid_2019-1}.
It shows the posterior predictive with the bounds showing the 95\% credible interval.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{compare-model_A-sinewave-ap-pp-gpcovs.png}
\caption{
Model~A $\GP(O, V)$ discrepancy model fitted with different GP covariance functions: radial basis function (RBF), Ornstein–Uhlenbeck (OU, also known as exponential covariance function), and Mat\'{e}rn 3/2 covariance function.
The voltage clamp protocol for calibration is the action potential series protocol \cite{beattie2018sinusoidal}.
It shows the posterior predictive with the bounds showing the 95\% credible interval.
}
\end{figure}
\clearpage
\subsubsection*{Discrepancy predictions}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{compare-model_A-sinewave-sinewave-pp-gpcovs-only-disc.png}
\caption{
Model~A with $\GP(O, V)$ discrepancy model fitting residuals of the MAP estimate accounted by different GP covariance functions: radial basis function (RBF), Ornstein–Uhlenbeck (OU, also known as exponential covariance function), and Mat\'{e}rn 3/2 covariance function.
The voltage clamp protocol for calibration is the sinusoidal protocol \cite{beattie2018sinusoidal}.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{compare-model_A-sinewave-ap-pp-gpcovs-only-disc.png}
\caption{
Model~A with $\GP(O, V)$ discrepancy model fitting residuals of the MAP estimate accounted by different GP covariance functions: radial basis function (RBF), Ornstein–Uhlenbeck (OU, also known as exponential covariance function), and Mat\'{e}rn 3/2 covariance function.
The voltage clamp protocol for calibration is the action potential series protocol \cite{beattie2018sinusoidal}.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{compare-model_A-sinewave-staircase-pp-gpcovs-only-disc.png}
\caption{
Model~A with $\GP(O, V)$ discrepancy model fitting residuals of the MAP estimate accounted by different GP covariance functions: radial basis function (RBF), Ornstein–Uhlenbeck (OU, also known as exponential covariance function), and Mat\'{e}rn 3/2 covariance function.
The voltage clamp protocol for calibration is the staircase protocol \cite{lei_rapid_2019-1}.
}
\end{figure}
\clearpage
\subsubsection*{ODE model predictions}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{compare-model_A-sinewave-sinewave-pp-gpcovs-only-model.png}
\caption{
Fitting of the ODE model of Model~A with $\GP(O, V)$ discrepancy model, using different GP covariance functions: radial basis function (RBF), Ornstein–Uhlenbeck (OU, also known as exponential covariance function), and Mat\'{e}rn 3/2 covariance function.
The voltage clamp protocol for calibration is the sinusoidal protocol \cite{beattie2018sinusoidal}.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{compare-model_A-sinewave-ap-pp-gpcovs-only-model.png}
\caption{
Fitting of the ODE model of Model~A with $\GP(O, V)$ discrepancy model, using different GP covariance functions: radial basis function (RBF), Ornstein–Uhlenbeck (OU, also known as exponential covariance function), and Mat\'{e}rn 3/2 covariance function.
The voltage clamp protocol for calibration is the action potential series protocol \cite{beattie2018sinusoidal}.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{compare-model_A-sinewave-staircase-pp-gpcovs-only-model.png}
\caption{
Fitting of the ODE model of Model~A with $\GP(O, V)$ discrepancy model, using different GP covariance functions: radial basis function (RBF), Ornstein–Uhlenbeck (OU, also known as exponential covariance function), and Mat\'{e}rn 3/2 covariance function.
The voltage clamp protocol for calibration is the staircase protocol \cite{lei_rapid_2019-1}.
}
\end{figure}
\clearpage
\bibliographystyle{ieeetr}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
\input{Sec/intro}
\section{Universal Successor Features}
\label{sec:USF}
\input{Sec/method}
\section{Empirical Studies}
\label{sec:exp}
\input{Sec/empirical_analysis}
\section{Related Work}
\label{sec:related}
\input{Sec/related}
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclude}
\input{Sec/conclusion}
\section{Overview}
\begin{itemize}
\item How do we transfer knowledge among different tasks in reinforcement learning?
\item \textbf{Existed approach}: use universal value functions as the knowledge \cite{ref1}
\begin{itemize}
\item However, learning a universal value function $V(state, goal)$ generalizing over the goals is challenging
\item Generalization occurs both on transition dynamics and reward functions
\end{itemize}
\item \textbf{Our approach}: use universal successor representations (USR) as transferable knowledge
\begin{itemize}
\item USRs generalize successor representations over goals $\vec{\psi}^{\pi}(state, goal)$
\item Generalization only occurs on transition dynamics
\item Design a deep learning architecture as USR approximator
\item Train USR by interacting with the environment
\end{itemize}
\item \textbf{Our results}
\begin{itemize}
\item USR can be effectively applied to new tasks
\item Agent initialized by the
trained USR can achieve the goal considerably faster than random initialization
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
\section{Universal Successor Representations}
\begin{itemize}
\item Factorize rewards into state representations and reward features
\[
r(s_t,a_t,s_{t+1}) = \vec{\phi}(s_t,a_t,s_{t+1})^\top {\bm{w}}
\]
\item This factorizes values into successor representations and reward features, which factorizes transition dynamics and reward functions
\[
V^\pi(s)
= \EE^\pi\left[\sum_{t=0}^\infty \vec{\phi}(S_t,A_t,S_{t+1})
\gamma^{t}|S_0=s\right]^\top {\bm{w}}
= \vec{\psi}^\pi(s)^\top {\bm{w}}
\]
where $\vec{\psi}^\pi(s)$ is defined as the \emph{successor representations} of state $s$
\item USRs generalize successor representations over goals $\vec{\psi}^{\pi}(state, goal)$
\end{itemize}
\columnbreak
\section{Training USRs}
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}[t]{.48\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Fig/dia2.png}
\caption{DL Architecture}
\label{fig:model}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{.48\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Fig/env3.png}
\caption{Four-room Grid-world}
\label{fig:env}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{USR with actor critic}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\For {each time step $t$}
\State Obtain transition $\{g,s_t,a_t,s_{t+1},r_t,\gamma_t\}$ from the environment
\State Learn reward features
via gradient descent on
\[L_w =
[r_t - \vec{\phi}(s_{t+1})^\top{\bm{w}}(g;\theta_w)]^2
\]
\State Learn successor representations via gradient descent on
\[
L_{\psi} =
\|\vec{\phi}(s_t)+\gamma_t\vec{\psi}(s_{t+1},g;\theta_\psi)
- \vec{\psi}(s_t,g;\theta_\psi)\|_2^2
\]
\State Compute advantage
\[
A_t = [\vec{\phi}(s_t)+\gamma_t\vec{\psi}(s_{t+1},g)
- \vec{\psi}(s_t,g)]^\top{\bm{w}}(g)
\]
\State Improve policy via gradient ascent on
\[ J_\pi = \log \pi(s_t,g;\theta_\pi) A_t\]
\EndFor
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\section{Experiment Environment}
\begin{itemize}
\item A four-room grid-world environment with raw pixels as state inputs
\item The agent's objective is to reach certain goal positions
\item There are 64 goals in total, 48 of which act as source goals and the rest as unseen target goals to be transfer to
\end{itemize}
\columnbreak
\section{Results\ 1: Generalization Performance on Unseen Goals}
\begin{figure}
\vskip -0.5em
\centering
\subfigure[][USR Generalization]{
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{Fig/policy3.png}
\label{subfig:policy3}
}
\subfigure[][Policy Generalization]{
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{Fig/sr3.png}
\label{subfig:sr3}
}
\label{fig:experiment}
\vskip -1em
\end{figure}
\begin{itemize}
\item USR and policy can generalize across goals
\end{itemize}
\section{Results\ 2: Trained USR as Initialization}
\begin{figure}
\vskip -0.4em
\includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{Fig/TR2.png}
\caption{Effect of Initialization}
\label{fig:ini}
\end{figure}
\begin{itemize}
\item The agent initialized with
trained USR on only a small portion of the goals can learn much faster than random initialization
\end{itemize}
\subsection{References}
\subsection{Transfer via Universal Successor Features}
\label{sec:transfer_USF}
As with \citet{kulkarni2016deep} and \citet{barreto2017successor}, we assume that the reward function $r_g(s_t,a_t,s_{t+1})$ can be factorized as
\begin{equation}
r_g(s_t,a_t,s_{t+1})=
\vec{\phi}(s_t,a_t,s_{t+1})^\top
{\bm{w}}_g,
\label{eq:rFactor}
\end{equation}
where $\vec{\phi}:{\mathcal{S}}\times\mathcal{A}\times{\mathcal{S}}\mapsto\RR^d$ represents the transitions and ${\bm{w}}_g\in\RR^d$ are goal-specific features of the reward.
Note that in this factorization only ${\bm{w}}_g$ depends on the goal.
In many situations $\vec{\phi}(s_t,a_t,s_{t+1})$ can be rewritten as $\vec{\phi}(s_{t+1})$.
To see why, consider a simple gridworld with $d$ cells.
Here $\vec{\phi}(s_t,a_t,s_{t+1})=\vec{\phi}(s_{t+1})$ can be a one-hot vector indicating the position of the agent at time $t + 1$, while ${\bm{w}}_g$ can be a $d$-dimensional vector whose $i$-th entry is the immediate reward of reaching the cell $i$ under the goal $g$.
If $\vec{\phi}(s_t,a_t,s_{t+1})$ and ${\bm{w}}_g$ are defined in this way then whatever the previous state $s_t$ and action $a_t$ are, as long as the agent ends up in $s_{t+1}$, the transition is represented by $\vec{\phi}(s_{t+1})$ and the agent will receive the corresponding reward from ${\bm{w}}_g$ for reaching that state.
In other cases where the reward depends on the whole transition, we can easily modify subsequent discussion and model architecture to accommodate this.
Using the factorization in Eq.\!~(\ref{eq:rFactor}), the action-value can be rewritten as
\[
Q_g^\pi(s,a)
= \EE^\pi\left[\sum_{t=0}^\infty \vec{\phi}(S_t,A_t,S_{t+1})
\prod_{k=1}^t \gamma_g(S_k) \middle|S_0=s,A_0=a\right]^\top {\bm{w}}_g
= \vec{\psi}_g^\pi(s,a)^\top {\bm{w}}_g
\]
where $\vec{\psi}_g^\pi(s,a)$ are the \emph{Universal Successor Features} (USFs) of $s$ and $a$ for goal $g$.
In the above gridworld example, $\vec{\psi}_g^\pi(s,a)$ would be a $d$-dimensional vector of discounted expected future state visitations that results after taking action $a$ in state $s$ and thereafter following policy $\pi$.
If ${\bm{w}}_g$ is given, then the following Bellman equations enable us to learn USFs the same way as we would learn the action-values:
\[
Q_g^\pi(s,a) = \EE^\pi[r_g(s,a,S') + \gamma_g(S') Q_g^\pi(S',A')],
\;
\vec{\psi}_g^\pi(s,a) = \EE^\pi[\vec{\phi}(s,a,S') + \gamma_g(S') \vec{\psi}_g^\pi(S',A')].
\]
We can approximate $\vec{\psi}^\pi(s,a)$ using a model $\vec{\psi}^\pi(s,a;{\bm{\theta}}_\psi)$ parameterized by ${\bm{\theta}}_\psi$, so that our method can be used with any algorithm that learns action-values using a temporal difference method\footnote{This method can also be used with any algorithm that learns state-values to learn \emph{successor representations}.}, including on-policy methods like SARSA~\citep{sutton1996generalization} and A2C~\citep{mnih2016asynchronous} as well as off-policy methods like DQN~\citep{mnih2015human} and DDPG~\citep{lillicrap2016continuous}.
One remaining problem is that we need to have ${\bm{w}}_g$ for a given $g$.
One way to accomplish this is to model ${\bm{w}}_g$ as ${\bm{w}}(g;{\bm{\theta}}_w)$ and learn the parameters ${\bm{\theta}}_w$.
In order to utilize USFs for transfer, we can learn the parameters ${\bm{\theta}} = [{\bm{\theta}}_\psi$,${\bm{\theta}}_w]$ from some ``good'' policies and their SFs for a subset of goals, then let the model generalize these learned SFs to the SFs of ``good'' policies of unseen goals.
In the next section, we describe how one could train ${\bm{\theta}}$.
\subsection{Training USFs}
\label{sec:train_USFs}
Suppose that at time $t$, we obtain a transition\footnote{Here we illustrate based on a single transition, but very often we use a mini-batch for training.} $\{g,s_t,a_t,s_{t+1},r_{t+1},\gamma_{t+1}\}$ where $r_{t+1}=r_g(s_t,a_t,s_{t+1})$ and $\gamma_{t+1}=\gamma_g(s_t,a_t,s_{t+1})$. This transition can either come directly from the environment or may be sampled from a replay buffer.
Recall that USFs can be applied to any base RL algorithm as long as it involves learning action-values using a temporal difference method.
In the case of DQN, which naturally extends to our multi-goal setting (see Appendix~\ref{app:mg_dqn} for more details), we update the parameters ${\bm{\theta}}_Q$ of the action-value function using (semi-)gradient descent on
\begin{equation}
[Q(s_t,a_t,g;{\bm{\theta}}_Q)-y_t]^2
\quad\text{where}\quad
y_t=r_{t+1} + \gamma_{t+1}\max_a Q(s_{t+1},a,g;{\bm{\theta}}_Q)
\label{eq:mgDQN}
\end{equation}
is considered a \emph{fixed} target action-value (i.e., it is treated as a constant rather than a function of ${\bm{\theta}}_Q$).
Similarly, to learn USFs' parameters ${\bm{\theta}}$ for \emph{optimal} action-values\footnote{Here we focus on optimal control. In case of on-policy evaluation for a given policy $\pi$, the next state action could be $a = \pi(s_{t+1})$ instead.}, the next-state action $a^*$ could be
\[
a^* = \mathop{\mathrm{argmax}}_{a}
\vec{\psi}(s_{t+1},a,g;{\bm{\theta}}_\psi)^\top{\bm{w}}(g;{\bm{\theta}}_w).
\]
Using this, we define the loss on $Q$ to be
\begin{equation}
L_Q\!=\!\left[\widehat{Q}_t\!-\! \vec{\psi}(s_t,a_t,g;{\bm{\theta}}_\psi)^\top{\bm{w}}(g;{\bm{\theta}}_w)\right]^2
\!\text{where}\
\widehat{Q}_t\!=\!r_{t+1}\!+
\gamma_{t+1}\vec{\psi}(s_{t+1},a^*,g;{\bm{\theta}}_\psi)^\top{\bm{w}}(g;{\bm{\theta}}_w)
\label{eq:Q_loss}
\end{equation}
is the \emph{fixed} target action-value. Similarly, we define the loss on SF to be
\begin{equation}
L_{\psi} = \left\|\widehat{\vec{\psi}}_t
- \vec{\psi}(s_t,a_t,g;{\bm{\theta}}_\psi)\right\|_2^2
\quad\text{where}\quad
\widehat{\vec{\psi}}_t = \vec{\phi}(s_t,a_t,s_{t+1})+\gamma_{t+1}\vec{\psi}(s_{t+1},a^*,g;{\bm{\theta}}_\psi)
\label{eq:psi_loss}
\end{equation}
is considered the \emph{fixed} target SF.
This loss ensures that the learned SF will satisfy its own Bellman equation.
As we will show in the experiments, this loss is resilient to the reward structure of the MDP.
Although we can separately learn ${\bm{w}}$ based on a regression loss from Eq.\!~(\ref{eq:rFactor}), it is less informative in terms of guiding the agent compared to regression based on Eq.\!~(\ref{eq:Q_loss}), the actual quantity for decision making (results in Appendix~\ref{app:objective}).
Our final loss function is $L = L_Q + \lambda\cdot L_\psi$ where $\lambda>0$ is a hyperparameter.
With this loss, we can perform updates based on the (semi-)gradient $\nabla_{\bm{\theta}} L$.
To see how we can use USFs for transfer, note that because learning is based on the optimal action, Eq.\!~(\ref{eq:Q_loss}) and (\ref{eq:psi_loss}) learn the $\vec{\psi}$ that corresponds to the \emph{optimal policy} of the given goal.
As long as the model is powerful enough, the learned USFs can directly generalize to unseen goals.
For each such goal, USFs can either produce a $\vec{\psi}$ corresponding to an optimal policy for that goal, or provide a reasonable approximation.
For the features $\vec{\phi}(s_t,a_t,s_{t+1})$, as discussed above, it is often sufficient to model it as $\vec{\phi}(s_{t+1})$.
When there exists meaningful, natural representations for states, for example, one-hot vectors in a gridworld, we can use them for state representation.
If not then we need to learn $\vec{\phi}(s)$.
One obvious way to learn $\vec{\phi}(s)$ would be to regress $r$ on $\vec{\phi},{\bm{w}}$, but, as we mentioned above, learning based on $r$ is less informative.
Unlike \citet{kulkarni2016deep} who learn the state representations separately with an auto-encoder, we embed the learning of $\vec{\phi}$ into the learning of the USFs, in particular, one hidden layer in the neural networks as shown in Fig.\!~\ref{fig:model_arch}.
\setlength\intextsep{0pt}
\begin{wrapfigure}[17]{R}{0.3\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Fig/diag_dqn_usf.png}
\caption{Model Architecture}
\label{fig:model_arch}
\end{wrapfigure}
Fig.\!~\ref{fig:model_arch} shows the neural network structure of our USFs.
This version corresponds to the finite action case.
After going through part of the USF network, a state $s$ is represented by a $d$-dimensional vector $\vec{\phi}(s)$~\citep{kulkarni2016deep}.
Then it is concatenated with a goal vector to produce a $(|\mathcal{A}|\times d)$-dimensional SF vector $\vec{\psi}(s,a,g)$ for all $|\mathcal{A}|$ actions.
On the right-most part of the network, we have a model to compute ${\bm{w}}_g$ given a goal $g$.
The inner product of $\vec{\psi}$ and ${\bm{w}}$ will be the action-value $Q$ for the corresponding action.
As a concrete example, Algo.\!~\ref{alg:USF} shows how DQN can be extended to Multi-goal DQN and how USFs can be applied to Multi-goal DQN.
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{Multi-goal DQN with USFs}\label{alg:USF}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State Initialize ${\bm{\theta}}$ and replay buffer $\mathcal{D}$
\For {each episode}
\State Get goal $g$ and initial state $s_0$
\For {each time step $t=0,\cdots,T$}
\State $a_t=$ Uniform($|\mathcal{A}|$) if Bernoulli($\epsilon$) otherwise $\mathop{\mathrm{argmax}}_a Q_g(s_t,a;{\bm{\theta}})$
\Comment{$\epsilon$-greedy}
\State Execute $a_t$ and observe next state $s_{t+1}$ and immediate reward $r_{t+1}$
\State Store transition $\{g,s_t,a_t,s_{t+1},r_{t+1},\gamma_{t+1}\}$ in $\mathcal{D}$
\State Sample random minibatch of transitions $\{g_i,s_i,a_i,s_{i+1},r_{i+1},\gamma_{i+1}\}$ from $\mathcal{D}$
\State Compute target $\widehat{Q}_i$ and $\widehat{\vec{\psi}}_i$ according to Eq.~(\ref{eq:Q_loss}) and (\ref{eq:psi_loss})
\Statex\Comment{as opposed to $y_t$ in Eq.\!~(\ref{eq:mgDQN}) in case of multi-goal DQN}
\State Perform gradient descent on $L$ w.r.t.\ ${\bm{\theta}}$ based on the targets
\Comment{as opposed to Eq.\!~(\ref{eq:mgDQN})}
\EndFor
\EndFor
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
There is an easy extension for the continuous action case. The base RL algorithm (e.g., DDPG, which also naturally extends to a Multi-goal setting) may have an additional ``actor'' component for the policy.
In such cases, our model, with some minor modifications, can accommodate this.
We elaborate on this in Appendix~\ref{app:ddpg_usf}.
\subsection{Gridworld}
\label{sec:experiment_gridworld}
We first evaluate USFs on a simple gridworld environment as shown in Fig.\!~\ref{fig:gridworld}, where the agent is trying to reach a specific goal cell.
Within this domain we consider three different reward structures:
\vspace{-1.75em}
\begin{description}
\item[constant] $-0.1$ per step, $0$ when reaching the goal
\vspace{-0.1em}\item[room] $-k/10$ per step, $0$ when reaching the goal where $k$ is the number of rooms the agent must still traverse (including the room the goal is in) to reach the goal using the optimal policy
\vspace{-0.1em}\item[mixed] at the start of each episode, randomly pick one of the two reward structures above
\end{description}
\vspace{-0.6em}
The room based reward structure is designed to provide the agent with an approximate distance to the goal while reducing the likelihood that the agent will get stuck in corners.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{.20\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{{Fig/Gridworld.pdf}}
\caption{Gridworld}
\label{fig:gridworld}
\end{subfigure}\hfill
\begin{subfigure}{.20\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{{Fig/reacher/Reacher-v1_range.pdf}}
\caption{Reacher}
\label{fig:reacher_render}
\end{subfigure}\hfill
\begin{subfigure}{.20\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{{Fig/robot_fetch.png}}
\caption{Fetch}
\label{fig:env_fetch}
\end{subfigure}\hfill
\begin{subfigure}{.20\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Fig/sphere.pdf}
\caption{Fetch Training}
\label{fig:sphere}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{(a)~Simple gridworld with the start state denoted by $S$, the goal state denoted by $G$ and the agent denoted by $A$. In each state, the agent can move in any of the four cardinal directions, but if it attempts to walk into a wall, it will instead remain in the same state. (b)~Simulated limb with two joints that tries to move its tip to a specific goal. The four red circles indicate the training regions. (c)~Simulated robotic arm that tries to reach the goal position denoted by a red dot. (4)~Training regions for FetchReach-v2. }
\label{fig:environment}
\end{figure}
In this problem, as shown in Fig.\!~\ref{fig:model_arch}, the network takes the $(x, y)$ coordinates of the current state and goal as input.
However, $\vec{\phi}$, which is the target of the USFs can either be a one-hot indicator vector as discussed in Sec.\!~\ref{sec:transfer_USF} or can be learned as described in Sec.\!~\ref{sec:train_USFs}.
We refer to the former as the \emph{one-hot representation} and the latter as the \emph{learned representation}.
We limit each episode to 31 steps, and, for each episode, the goal is randomly selected from a set of 12 goals.
To reduce the variability of goal sets and subsequently ease analysis, each set of goals is formed by randomly selecting 3 goals in each room without replacement.
After 48k timesteps of training in the first stage, the set of 12 goals is swapped out for a new, disjoint set of 12 goals formed by the same method for testing.
This allows us to determine the extent to which USFs can perform transfer learning.
We sweep over hyper-parameter settings and report results from the best performing one. Fig.\!~\ref{fig:gridworld_done_best}~(left) compares the performance when evaluation is done using the same set of goals while Fig.\!~\ref{fig:gridworld_done_best}~(right) compares the performance when evaluated on a set of hold-out goals.
This helps us analyze the generality of the algorithms or the ability of the algorithms to transfer knowledge to new, unseen tasks \emph{without learning from them}.
We provide the corresponding number of steps per episode in Appendix~\ref{app:steps}.
We make several observations regarding the aforementioned results.
(1)~During training in the first stage, Multi-goal DQN + USFs performs considerably better than Multi-goal DQN in regards to both maximizing the done rate and minimizing the number of steps per episode with all three reward structures.
The fact that this improvement is consistent across different reward structures indicates that USFs are robust against different reward structures.
(2)~For the test stage (second stage denoted by the shaded region), Multi-goal DQN + USFs can adapt at least as fast and occasionally faster.
(3)~One would expect that because the one-hot representation accurately describes the states and perfectly satisfy Eq.\!~(\ref{eq:rFactor}), Multi-goal DQN + USFs should perform better using the one-hot representation than with the learned representation.
However, this is not always the case.
As seen in the constant reward case, using fixed representations can actually decrease performance when compared with learned representations.
One reason could be that when the reward structure is more stable/consistent like with the constant reward structure, learning the representations may be a less noisy process and, as a result, more effective.
(4)~The performance difference with and without USFs is especially notable in Fig.\!~\ref{fig:gridworld_done_best}~(right) where the greedy policy learned by Multi-goal DQN is evaluated on a set of hold-out goals.
This difference in performance means that the USFs can, in fact, generalize better to new goals without even learning them, which may be one reason why it can achieve faster adaptation.
(5)~When adding USFs to Multi-goal DQN, the improvement is more significant with the room and mixed reward structures than the constant one.
This may suggest that USFs are learning the factorization as we described in Sec.\!~\ref{sec:USF} and this factorization may be helping the agent deal with reward structures that are very different between goals.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{.48\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{{Fig/Gridworld/primary_done_best_constant.png}}
\label{fig:primary_done_best_constant}
\end{subfigure}\hfill
\begin{subfigure}{.48\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{{Fig/Gridworld/secondary_done_best_constant.png}}
\label{fig:secondary_done_best_constant}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.48\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{{Fig/Gridworld/primary_done_best_room.png}}
\label{fig:primary_done_best_room}
\end{subfigure}\hfill
\begin{subfigure}{.48\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{{Fig/Gridworld/secondary_done_best_room.png}}
\label{fig:secondary_done_best_room}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.48\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{{Fig/Gridworld/primary_done_best_mixed.png}}
\label{fig:primary_done_best_mixed}
\end{subfigure}\hfill
\begin{subfigure}{.48\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{{Fig/Gridworld/secondary_done_best_mixed.png}}
\label{fig:secondary_done_best_mixed}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Done rate on the gridworld domain when evaluating on the current set of goals (left) and a tertiary set of goals (right). The three rows correspond to the constant (top), room (middle) and mixed (bottom) reward structures, respectively. Shading denotes standard error.
}
\label{fig:gridworld_done_best}
\end{figure}
\subsection{MuJoCo}
\label{sec:experiment_mujoco}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{.48\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{{Fig/reacher/zReacher-v2_Done_Rate.png}}
\caption{Done Rate}
\label{fig:reacher_done_rate}
\end{subfigure}\hfill
\begin{subfigure}{.48\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{{Fig/reacher/zReacher-v2_Mean_Squared_TD_Error.png}}
\caption{TD error}
\label{fig:reacher_const_td}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Done rate \& TD error on the Reacher-v2 environment. Shading denotes standard error.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{.48\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{{Fig/reacher/zFetchReach-v2Done_Rate.png}}
\caption{Done rate}
\label{fig:fetch_const_done}
\end{subfigure}\hfill
\begin{subfigure}{.48\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{{Fig/reacher/zFetchReach-v2Mean_Squared_TD_Error.png}}
\caption{TD error}
\label{fig:fetch_const_td}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Done rate \& TD error on the FetchReach-v2 environment. Shading denotes standard error.}
\end{figure}
In order to demonstrate the utility of USFs with continuous state/action spaces, we apply it to two environments that use the MuJoCo physics engine~\citep{todorov2012mujoco}.
The first, the Reacher-v2 environment~\citep{brockman2016openai}, is shown in Fig.\!~\ref{fig:reacher_render}.
The second, OpenAI's Gym FetchReach-v2 environment~\citep{plappert2018multi}, is shown in Fig.\!~\ref{fig:env_fetch}.
For the Reacher-v2 environment, the agent's objective is to move the joints so that the tip of the limb reaches a specific goal location.
In this environment, the goal $g$ is specified by its $(x, y)$ coordinates, the state fed to the network as input includes the position and velocity of the joints, and the actions are continuous and provide control of the joints.
In order to build a set of training and test goals for use with the Reacher-v2 environment, we partition the reachable goal space.
We use 4 spots around a 2-D platform as shown in Fig.\!~\ref{fig:reacher_render} to select training goals. Training proceeds for 45k steps.
In the second stage, we randomly select points from the remaining reachable areas for testing.
For the FetchReach-v2 environment, the agent moves a simulated robotic arm and tries to make its gripper reach a specific goal location.
The goal $g$ is specified as $(x, y, z)$ coordinates, the state fed to the network as input includes the position and velocity of the hand, and the actions are continuous and provide three-dimensional control of the hand and one-dimensional control of the hand's gripper.
To make the task harder, we lower the threshold for when the gripper has reached the goal to $0.04$.
Similarly to the Reacher-v2 environment, to build a set of training and test goals, we partition the reachable goal space. We first place the large sphere shown in Fig.\!~\ref{fig:sphere} into the reachable area of the arm. We then select the 6 highlighted spots around the sphere to select training goals. Training proceeds for 50k steps. As with the FetchReach-v2 environment, we randomly select points from the remaining reachable areas for testing.
Unlike in the gridworld experiments of Sec.\!~\ref{sec:experiment_gridworld}, in both the Reacher-v2 environment and the FetchReach-v2 environment $\vec{\phi}$ must be learned. The reward signal for both environments is the negative distance to the goal.
We show the done rate for the Reacher-v2 environment in Fig.\!~\ref{fig:reacher_done_rate} and for the FetchReach-v2 environment in Fig.\!~\ref{fig:fetch_const_done}.
We furthermore provide the corresponding number of steps per episode in Fig.\!~\ref{fig:reacher_steps_per_episode} and Fig.\!~\ref{fig:fetch_steps_per_episode} from Appendix~\ref{app:steps}.
For both the Reacher-v2 and the FetchReach-v2 environment, USFs provide a considerable advantage in the first stage, which suggests that USFs are useful when transferring between multiple tasks even in complicated environments.
When solving unseen tasks in the second stage, Multi-goal DDPG + USFs again offers an advantage over Multi-goal DDPG.
Additionally,
in Fig.\!~\ref{fig:reacher_done_rate} there is a noticeable gap in the asymptotic performance, which indicates that USFs may be less subject to bias carrying over from previous tasks.
One possible reason why Multi-goal DDPG + USFs may perform better is that USFs capture the transition dynamics of the environment, which tend to be stable among tasks.
To investigate why there exists such pronounced difference in performance, we also plot their TD errors (Eq.\!~(\ref{eq:Q_loss})) in Fig.\!~\ref{fig:reacher_const_td} and Fig.\!~\ref{fig:fetch_const_td}.
We can observe that Multi-goal DDPG + USFs tends to have a more stable temporal difference error.
This may be one of the underlying reasons for more effective learning.
|
\section{Introduction}
We define an $r$-uniform hypergraph ${\mathcal H}$ to be \emph{$r$-partite} if one can partition the vertex set into $r$ parts, say $V({\mathcal H})= P_1\sqcup \dots \sqcup P_r$, such that for all $e\in E({\mathcal H})$ and all $j\in [r]$, we have $|e\cap P_j|=1$. For $1 \leq t \leq r-1$, an $r$-uniform hypergraph is \emph{$t$-intersecting} if $|e\cap f|\ge t$ for all $e,f\in E({\mathcal H})$. We will refer to $r$-uniform $r$-partite $t$-intersecting hypergraphs as \emph{$(r,t)$-graphs} throughout.
For an $r$-uniform hypergraph ${\mathcal H}$, a set of vertices $C\subset V({\mathcal H})$ is a \emph{cover} of the hypergraph if $C\cap e \neq \emptyset$ for all $e\in E({\mathcal H})$. The \emph{cover number} of the hypergraph, denoted $\tau({\mathcal H})$, is the smallest cardinality of a cover for the hypergraph. Our goal is to bound the cover numbers of $(r,t)$-graphs.
\begin{dfn} \label{def:extremalfunction} We define the following extremal function:
\[\Ryser(r,t) = \max \, \{ \tau(\m H) : \m H \text{ is an $(r,t)$-graph} \}.\]
\end{dfn}
The problem is motivated by an old unsolved conjecture of Ryser from around 1970, first appearing in the PhD thesis of his student Henderson~\cite{Henderson71} (see~\cite{Best-Wanless18} for more on the history of this conjecture), which claims that the cover number of any $r$-uniform $r$-partite hypergraph $\m H$ satisfies $\tau(\m H) \le (r - 1) \nu(\m H)$. Here, $\nu(\m H)$ denotes the matching number of the hypergraph, that is, the size of the largest set of pairwise disjoint edges.
When $r = 2$, this is a statement about bipartite graphs, and is equivalent to the classic theorem of K\"onig~\cite{Koenig}. Although Ryser's Conjecture has attracted significant attention over the years, the only other resolved case is $r = 3$. This was proven via topological methods by Aharoni~\cite{Aharoni01}, with the extremal hypergraphs classified by Haxell, Narins and Szab\'o~\cite{HNS18}.
In this latter result, it was shown that the extremal hypergraphs with $\nu(\m H) = \nu \ge 2$ can essentially be decomposed into $\nu$ extremal intersecting hypergraphs. Thus, much research in this direction has focussed on intersecting hypergraphs.\footnote{Although recent constructions of Abu-Khazneh~\cite{Abu16}, for $\nu = 2$ and $r = 4$, and Bishnoi and Pepe~\cite{BP18}, for $\nu \ge 2$ and all $r \ge 4$ with $r-1$ a prime power, show that one cannot simply reduce the general case to the intersecting one.}
Here we have $\nu(\m H) = 1$, and Ryser's Conjecture asserts $\Ryser(r,1) \le r-1$. Further motivation for considering the intersecting case comes from a connection with a conjecture of Gy\'arf\'as~\cite{gyarfasconj} which states that the vertices of any $r$-edge-coloured clique can be covered by at most $r-1$ monochromatic trees. Indeed, this conjecture in the setting of coloured complete graphs is in fact equivalent to Ryser's conjecture for intersecting hypergraphs, see e.g.~\cite{kirsolo}.
Not much more is known even in this simpler setting; Tuza~\cite{Tuza} proved the conjecture for $r \le 5$, but it remains otherwise open. The apparent difficulty of this conjecture is perhaps explained by the abundance of extremal constructions: the classic example of truncated projective planes shows $\Ryser(r,1) \ge r-1$ whenever $r-1$ is a prime power, while Abu-Khazneh, Bar\'at, Pokrovskiy and Szab\'o~\cite{ABPS19} construct exponentially (in $\sqrt{r}$) many non-isomorphic minimal examples whenever $r-2$ is a prime power. For general $r$, Haxell and Scott~\cite{HS17} construct nearly-extremal intersecting hypergraphs; more precisely, they show $\Ryser(r,1) \ge r-4$ for all $r$ large enough.
This led Bustamante and Stein~\cite{bustastein} and, independently, Kir\'aly and T\'othm\'er\'esz~\cite{kirtot} to investigate what occurs when we impose the stricter condition of the hypergraph $\m H$ being $t$-intersecting. In this case, any subset of $r-t+1$ vertices from an edge must form a cover, and so we trivially have $\tau(\m H) \le r-t + 1$. While one can construct $r$-uniform $t$-intersecting hypergraphs attaining this bound, it was conjectured that, as in Ryser's Conjecture, one can do better when the hypergraph is also $r$-partite; that is, when considering $(r,t)$-graphs.
\begin{conj}[Bustamante--Stein~\cite{bustastein}, Kir\'aly--T\'othm\'er\'esz~\cite{kirtot}] \label{conj:weak}
For all $1 \le t \le r-1$, we have
\[\Ryser(r,t)\leq r-t.\]
\end{conj}
Note that while Ryser's Conjecture for intersecting hypergraphs is a special case ($t = 1$), it in fact implies Conjecture~\ref{conj:weak}. Indeed, $\Ryser(r, t) \leq \Ryser(r - t + 1, 1)$ since deleting $t - 1$ parts and removing the deleted vertices from each edge leaves us with an $(r - t + 1, 1)$-graph, which, by Ryser's Conjecture, should have a cover of size at most $r-t$.
Therefore, one might hope to be able to make progress on Conjecture~\ref{conj:weak} for larger values of $t$, and indeed, results have been obtained when $t$ is linear in $r$. Bustamante and Stein~\cite{bustastein} proved the conjecture for $r \le 2t + 2$, with Kir\'{a}ly and T\'{o}thm\'{e}r\'{e}sz~\cite{kirtot} extending this to $r \le 4t - 1$. With regards to lower bounds on $\Ryser(r,t)$, the conjecture is trivially tight for $t=r-1$, and Bustamante and Stein~\cite{bustastein} showed that it is also tight for $t=r-2$. However, they demonstrated that it is not always best possible by proving $\Ryser(5, 2) = 2$. More generally, they proved $\Ryser(r,t) \ge \Ryser(\floor{\frac{r}{t}}, 1)$ by observing that replacing every vertex of an $(r',1)$-graph with a set of $t$ vertices gives an $(r't, t)$-graph. Given the aforementioned results on Ryser's conjecture, this shows $\Ryser(r,t) \ge \floor{r/t} - 1$ for many pairs $(r,t)$, and Bustamante and Stein suggested this lower bound should be closer to the truth than the upper bound of Conjecture \ref{conj:weak}.
\subsection{Our results}
Our first result shows that the lower bound of Bustamante and Stein is, in fact, far from optimal. Indeed, we provide a construction, valid for all $t$ and $r$, that greatly improves on the previous lower bound when $t\geq 3$.
\begin{thm} \label{thm:lowerbound}
For all $1 \le t \le r$ we have
\[\Ryser(r,t)\geq \floor*{\frac{r-t}{2}}+1.\]
\end{thm}
We next prove a matching upper bound when $t$ is large, showing that when $r$ is less than thrice $t$, the true value of $\Ryser(r,t)$ is half the bound of Conjecture~\ref{conj:weak}.
\begin{thm} \label{thm:exactvalue}
For $t,r \in \mathbb{N}$ such that $t+1\leq r \leq 3t-1$, we have
\[\Ryser(r,t)=\floor*{\frac{r-t}{2}}+1.\]
\end{thm}
Theorem~\ref{thm:lowerbound} gives the lower bound needed for Theorem~\ref{thm:exactvalue}, and hence all that is required is a matching upper bound. In fact, using different arguments, we are able to prove a few upper bounds on $\Ryser(r,t)$. The theorem below collects
the best upper bounds (excluding the trivial $\Ryser(r,t) \le r-t+1$) that we have in various ranges of the parameters.
\begin{thm} \label{thm:upperbound}
Let $1 \le t \le r$. Then
\[\Ryser(r,t)\leq \begin{cases}
\floor*{\frac{r-t}{2}}+1 & \mbox{ if }\quad t\leq r \leq 3t-1, \\
2r-5t+2 & \mbox{ if }\quad 3t \leq r \le \frac{26t}{7}, \\
\floor*{\frac{9r-14t}{8}}+2 & \mbox{ if }\quad \frac{26t}{7} \leq r \leq 5t-2, \\
\floor*{\frac{15r-44t}{8}}+3 & \mbox{ if }\quad 5t-1\leq r \leq \frac{52t-13}{9}.
\end{cases}\]
\end{thm}
In particular, the first case of the theorem gives the upper bound needed for Theorem~\ref{thm:exactvalue}. To visualise our results, it helps to focus on the asymptotics when $t$ is linear in $r$. To this end, we define the function $f(\alpha) := \lim\limits_{r \rightarrow \infty} \frac{\Ryser(r,\alpha r)}{r}$. Theorem~\ref{thm:upperbound} can then be seen as a piecewise linear upper bound on $f(\alpha)$.
Figure~\ref{fig:asymptotics} summarises our knowledge of $f(\alpha)$: we know it exactly for $\alpha \ge \frac13$, while we can still strongly restrict $f(\alpha)$ for smaller values of $\alpha$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.084]
\draw[->] (-4,0) -- (82,0) node[right] {$\alpha$};
\draw[->] (0,-4) -- (0,82) node[above] {$f(\alpha)$};
\draw[domain=0:78,dashed,variable=\x] plot ({\x},{78-\x});
\draw[domain=0:78,smooth,variable=\x] plot ({\x},{39-0.5*\x});
\draw[domain=26:78,smooth,line width=2pt,variable=\x,gray] plot ({\x},{39-0.5*\x});
\draw[domain=21:26,smooth,line width=2pt,variable=\x,gray] plot ({\x},{156-5*\x});
\draw[domain=15.6:21,smooth,line width=2pt,variable=\x,gray] plot ({\x},{87.75-1.75*\x});
\draw[domain=13.5:15.6,smooth,line width=2pt,variable=\x,gray] plot ({\x},{146.25-5.5*\x});
\fill[gray, opacity=0.24] (0,39) -- (26,26) -- (21,51) -- (15.6,60.45) -- (15.17,62.83) -- (0,78) -- cycle;
\draw[dotted] (15.17,80) -- (15.17,0) node[below] {$\frac{7}{36}$};
\draw[dotted] (26,80) -- (26,0) node[below] {$\frac13$};
\node[below] (xint) at (78,0) {$1$};
\node[below left] (origin) at (0,0) {$0$};
\node[left] (ylower) at (0,39) {$\frac12$};
\node[left] (yupper) at (0,78) {$1$};
\draw[dashed] (85,62) -- (95,62) node[right] {Trivial upper bound ($r-t+1$)};
\draw[line width=2pt, gray] (85,53) -- (95,53) node[right,black] {Upper bound of Theorem~\ref{thm:upperbound}};
\draw (85,44) -- (95,44) node[right] {Lower bound of Theorem~\ref{thm:lowerbound}};
\fill[gray,opacity=0.24] (85,37) -- (95,37) -- (95,33) -- (85,33) -- cycle;
\node[right] (shade) at (95,35) {Possible values of $f(\alpha)$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The asymptotics of $\Ryser(r,\alpha r)$.}
\label{fig:asymptotics}
\end{figure}
In particular, we extend the results of Bustamante and Stein~\cite{bustastein} and Kir\'aly and T\'othm\'er\'esz~\cite{kirtot} by showing Conjecture~\ref{conj:weak} continues to hold for smaller values of $t$, and that it is not tight in most of these cases.
\begin{cor} \label{cor:comparisons}
Conjecture~\ref{conj:weak} holds for all but eight pairs\footnote{The exceptional pairs, for which Conjecture~\ref{conj:weak} remains open, are $(12,3), (13,3), (16,4), (17,4), (18,4), (22,5), (23,5)$ and $(28,6)$.} $(r,t)$ satisfying $r \le \frac{36t - 17}{7}$. Furthermore, the conjecture is not tight (that is, $\Ryser(r,t) \le r - t - 1$) for all but $50$ pairs where $t+3 \leq r \le \frac{36t - 25}{7}$.
\end{cor}
The value of $\frac{36t-17}{7}$ comes from comparing when the upper bound on $\Ryser(r,t)$ in the fourth range of Theorem~\ref{thm:upperbound} falls strictly below $r-t+1$, using the fact that the cover number must be an integer. This comparison describes exactly when our bounds become trivial for all large values of $r$ and $t$. However, for small values of $r$ and $t$, we may fall in other ranges and so have to check a finite number of cases for exceptions. In doing so, we note that for certain values of $(r,t)$ we must appeal to the previously mentioned result of Kir\'aly and T\'othm\'er\'esz~\cite{kirtot} who proved the conjecture whenever $r\leq 4t-1$. The range and exceptions for when the conjecture is not tight are also calculated in a similar manner, using Theorem~\ref{thm:upperbound}.
These results beg the question of what the true value of $\Ryser(r,t)$ should be; we discuss this further in Section~\ref{sec:variants}, and propose a new conjecture in Conjecture~\ref{conj:strong}.
\subsection{$k$-wise intersecting hypergraphs}
In the above results, we require that all pairwise intersections of the edges of the hypergraphs have size at least $t$. A natural stronger condition is to impose the same restriction on all $k$-wise intersections of edges, rather than just pairwise. This setting has often been studied in the extremal combinatorics literature. Frankl~\cite{frankl76} first studied such hypergraphs, determining the maximum number of edges possible when all $k$-wise intersections are non-empty. S\'os~\cite{sos73} then raised the problem of finding the largest hypergraphs where the sizes of all $k$-wise intersections lie in some set $L$, and various results in this direction were obtained by F\"uredi~\cite{furedi83}, Vu~\cite{vu97, vu99}, Grolmusz~\cite{grolmusz02}, Grolmusz and Sudakov~\cite{grolsuda02}, F\"uredi and Sudakov~\cite{furesuda04} and Szab\'o and Vu~\cite{szabovu05}.
We say a hypergraph $\m H$ is $k$-wise $t$-intersecting if, for any edges $e_1, e_2, \hdots, e_k \in E(\m H)$, we have $\card{\cap_{i=1}^k e_i} \ge t$. Following Ryser's Conjecture, we study how much smaller a cover one is guaranteed to find in $r$-uniform $r$-partite hypergraphs satisfying the more restrictive condition of being $k$-wise $t$-intersecting. In a stroke of serendipity, the range of intersection sizes for which Theorem~\ref{thm:exactvalue} holds is precisely what is needed to give an exact answer in this setting.
\begin{thm} \label{thm:kwise}
Let $\m H$ be an $r$-uniform $r$-partite $k$-wise $t$-intersecting hypergraph. If $k \ge 3$ and $t \ge 1$, or $k = 2$ and $t > \tfrac{r}{3}$, then
\[ \tau(\m H) \le \left\lfloor \frac{r-t}{k} \right\rfloor + 1, \]
and this bound is best possible.
\end{thm}
\paragraph{Organisation of the paper.}
We prove the above theorems in the following section: the lower bound of Theorem~\ref{thm:lowerbound} is derived in Section~\ref{sec:lowerboundproof}, the upper bounds of Theorem~\ref{thm:upperbound} are proven in Section~\ref{sec:upperboundproof}, and Theorem~\ref{thm:kwise} is deduced in Section~\ref{sec:kwise}. Thereafter we suggest several directions for further research in Section~\ref{sec:variants} by presenting initial results on variants of the problem where we require the hypergraphs to be strictly $t$-intersecting or we try to cover each edge of an $(r,t)$-graph at least $s$ times.
\section{Proofs of the main results}
In this section we prove our main results, Theorems~\ref{thm:lowerbound},~\ref{thm:upperbound} and~\ref{thm:kwise}, by establishing lower (Section~\ref{sec:lowerboundproof}) and upper (Section~\ref{sec:upperboundproof}) bounds on the extremal function $\Ryser(r,t)$, and then extending them to $k$-wise $t$-intersecting hypergraphs (Section~\ref{sec:kwise}).
\subsection{Lower bound construction} \label{sec:lowerboundproof}
To obtain the lower bound, and thereby prove Theorem~\ref{thm:lowerbound}, we need to construct $(r,t)$-graphs with large cover numbers. The hypergraphs we consider are of the following form.
\begin{dfn} \label{def:1levelconstruction}
For $0\leq\ell \leq r-1$, we define ${\mathcal H}^r_\ell$ to be the following $r$-uniform $r$-partite hypergraph. Let $m=\binom{r}{r-\ell}$ and fix some ordering $\binom{[r]}{r-\ell}=\{S_1,\ldots,S_m\}$ of the $(r-\ell)$-subsets of $[r]$. We define
\[V({\mathcal H}^r_\ell):= \{0,1,\ldots,m\} \times [r] \quad \mbox{ and } \quad E({\mathcal H}^r_\ell):=\{e_i: i \in[m]\},\]
where $e_i=\{(0,j):j\in S_i\}\cup \{(i,j):j\in [r]\setminus S_i\}$, for each $i\in[m]$.
\end{dfn}
Note that ${\mathcal H}^r_\ell$ is indeed $r$-partite with parts $P_j=\{(i,j):0\leq i \leq m \}$ for $1\leq j\leq r$. We now show that choosing $\ell$ appropriately gives a construction verifying Theorem \ref{thm:lowerbound}.
\begin{prop} \label{prop:lowerboundcalcs}
For $0 \le \ell \le \floor{\frac{r-1}{2}}$, $\m H^r_{\ell}$ is $(r - 2 \ell)$-intersecting with $\tau(\m H^r_{\ell}) = \ell + 1$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
To see that $\m H^r_{\ell}$ is $(r-2\ell)$-intersecting, observe that each edge of $\m H^r_{\ell}$ misses exactly $\ell$ vertices from the set $L_0 = \{(0,j) : j \in [r]\}$. It then follows that, for any two edges $e_i, e_{i'} \in E(\m H^r_{\ell})$, we have
\[ \card{e_i\cap e_{i'}} \geq \card{e_i\cap e_{i'}\cap L_0} \geq \card{L_0} - 2\ell = r-2\ell. \]
We now establish the cover number of ${\mathcal H}_\ell^r$. Assume for a contradiction that ${\mathcal H}^r_\ell$ has a cover $C\subset V({\mathcal H}^r_\ell)$ of size $c\leq \ell$. First we show that we may assume that $C\subset L_0$. Indeed, if $v = (i,j) \in C$ for some $i \ge 1$, then the only edge that could contain $v$ is $e_i$. If we replace $v$ with any vertex in $e_i\cap L_0$, the modified set $C$ has not increased in size and still covers $\m H^r_\ell$.
Since $|C|=c\leq \ell$, we have $|L_0\setminus C|\geq r-\ell$ and hence there exists an $i^*\in[m]$ such that $\{0\}\times S_{i^*}\subseteq L_0\setminus C$. Then $e_{i^*}\cap C=\emptyset$, contradicting the fact that $C$ is a cover. Thus $\tau({\mathcal H}^r_\ell)\geq \ell+1$. To see we have equality, note that any subset of $\ell+1$ vertices in $L_0$ forms a cover.
\end{proof}
The key property needed in the above proof is that, for each subset $S \subseteq L_0$ of size $r-\ell$, there is an edge of $\m H^r_\ell$ intersecting $L_0$ exactly at the vertices of $S$. Our construction is edge-minimal with respect to this key property, and further ensures that all vertices not in $L_0$ have degree at most one, leading to an easy proof of the cover number.
However, as long as the key property is maintained, there is great flexibility in how the rest of the hypergraph is constructed. For instance, one can instead make it vertex-minimal, having parts of size $\ell + 1$ rather than $\binom{r}{r-\ell} + 1$, so that each part $P_j$ also forms a minimum vertex cover. We omit the details of this construction for the sake of brevity, as we already have all we need to prove Theorem~\ref{thm:lowerbound}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:lowerbound}]
Set $\ell = \floor{\frac{r-t}{2}}$. By Proposition~\ref{prop:lowerboundcalcs}, $\m H^r_{\ell}$ is $(r - 2\ell)$-intersecting, and as $r - 2\ell \ge t$, it follows that $\m H^r_{\ell}$ is an $(r,t)$-graph. The proposition further asserts that $\tau(\m H^r_{\ell}) = \ell + 1$, and thus
\[ \Ryser(r,t) \ge \tau(\m H^r_{\ell}) = \floor*{\frac{r-t}{2}} + 1. \qedhere \]
\end{proof}
\subsection{Upper bounds} \label{sec:upperboundproof}
In this section we prove Theorem~\ref{thm:upperbound}.
These upper bounds are derived from a sequence of results obtained by considering configurations of two or three edges of the hypergraph. Before proceeding, we fix some notation that will be useful in what follows.
\begin{dfn} \label{def:degreesums}
Let ${\mathcal H}$ be an $r$-uniform $r$-partite hypergraph with parts $P_j$ for $1\leq j\leq r$. Suppose that $e_1,\ldots,e_k\in E({\mathcal H})$. Then for $v\in V({\mathcal H})$, we define
\[d(v;e_1,\ldots,e_k)=\card{\{i\in[k]:v\in e_i\}}\]
to be the degree of $v$ with respect to the $k$ edges $e_1,\ldots , e_k$. Also, given a vertex subset $C\subseteq V({\mathcal H})$ not wholly containing any part $P_j$, we define
\[\Delta_{\mathcal H}(C;e_1,\ldots,e_k) = \sum_{j=1}^r \max_{v\in P_j\setminus C}d(v;e_1,\ldots,e_k)\]
to be the maximum sum of degrees (with respect to $e_1,\ldots,e_k$) when we take one vertex from each part and avoid $C$.
\end{dfn}
The utility of this definition comes from the following easy observation, which we use repeatedly in the subsequent proofs.
\begin{obs} \label{obs:cover} Suppose that ${\mathcal H}$ is an $r$-uniform $r$-partite hypergraph, $C\subset V({\mathcal H})$ and $e_1,\ldots,e_k\in E({\mathcal H})$ are edges of ${\mathcal H}$. Now if $f\in E({\mathcal H})$ and $f\cap C=\emptyset$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:keyobs}
\sum_{i=1}^k|f\cap e_i|\leq \Delta_{\mathcal H}(C;e_1,\ldots,e_k).
\end{equation}
Consequently, if ${\mathcal H}$ is $t$-intersecting
and $\Delta_{\mathcal H}(C;e_1,\ldots,e_k)\leq kt-1$, then $C$ is a cover for ${\mathcal H}$. Indeed, there can be no $f\in E({\mathcal H})$ disjoint from $C$, as by~\eqref{eq:keyobs} and the pigeonhole principle, there would be some $i\in[k]$ for which $\card{e_i\cap f} \leq t-1$, contradicting ${\mathcal H}$ being $t$-intersecting.
\end{obs}
Armed with this observation, we can prove upper bounds on the cover numbers of $(r,t)$-graphs. In the following lemma, we begin by constructing a cover consisting of vertices lying in two edges of such a hypergraph.
\begin{lem} \label{lem:2edges}
Let ${\mathcal H}$ be an $(r,t)$-graph, let $e_1,e_2\in E({\mathcal H})$, and set $t' = |e_1\cap e_2| \geq t$. Then
\[\tau({\mathcal H})\leq \begin{cases}
\floor*{\frac{r-t'}{2}} + t'-t+1 & \mbox{ if } r-2t+1 \leq t'\leq r, \\
2r-4t-t'+2 & \mbox{ if } t\leq t'\leq r-2t.
\end{cases} \]
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let the parts of ${\mathcal H}$ be $P_j$ for $j\in[r]$. If $t'\geq r-2t+1$ then $s=\floor{\frac{r-t'}{2}} + t'-t+1$ satisfies $1 \le s \le t'$. We claim that an arbitrary set $C_1$ of $s$ vertices from $e_1\cap e_2$ is a cover. Indeed,
\[\Delta_{\mathcal H}(C_1;e_1,e_2)= \sum_{\substack{j\in[r]:\\e_1\cap P_j=e_2\cap P_j, \\
e_1\cap P_j \notin C_1}}2+ \sum_{\substack{j\in[r]:\\e_1\cap P_j\neq e_2\cap P_j}}1 = 2\card{(e_1\cap e_2)\setminus C_1}+r-t' = r + t' - 2s \leq 2t-1,\]
and thus the conclusion follows from Observation~\ref{obs:cover}.
Now consider the case where $t'\leq r-2t$. Without loss of generality, we may assume the intersection of $e_1$ and $e_2$ is contained in the first $t'$ parts, labelling the vertices of $e_1$ as $\{u_1, \dots, u_r\}$ and of $e_2$ as $\{u_1, \dots, u_{t'}, v_{t'+1}, \dots, v_r\}$, where $u_j, v_j \in P_j$ for all $j$.
Letting
\[ C_2 = \{u_1, \hdots, u_{t'}\} \cup \bigcup_{j = t' + 1}^{r - 2t + 1} \{u_j, v_j \},\]
we have $\Delta_{\m H}(C_2; e_1, e_2) = 2t - 1$. By Observation~\ref{obs:cover}, we can again deduce that $\tau(\m H) \le \card{C_2} = 2(r - 2t + 1) - t' = 2r - 4t - t' + 2$.
\end{proof}
Lemma~\ref{lem:2edges} will suffice to prove the first two parts of Theorem~\ref{thm:upperbound}. For the latter parts, we shall need to consider covers consisting of vertices lying in three edges instead. Before proceeding, though, we present a reformulation of Lemma~\ref{lem:2edges} that will be more convenient for later proofs.
\begin{cor} \label{cor:2edgeagain}
Let $\eta\in \mathbb{N}$ and let ${\mathcal H}$ be an $(r,t)$-graph such that $\tau({\mathcal H})\geq\eta+1$. Then, for all $e,f\in E({\mathcal H})$, we have that either \begin{itemize}
\item[$(i)$] $\card{e\cap f} \geq 2\eta +2t - r$, or
\item[$(ii)$] $\card{e\cap f} \leq 2r-4t-\eta+1$.
\end{itemize}
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Let $e,f\in E({\mathcal H})$ be an arbitrary pair of edges of ${\mathcal H}$ and take $t'=|e\cap f|$. If $t'\geq r-2t+1$, then we claim that in fact $t'\geq 2 \eta +2t-r$. Indeed, if $t'\leq2\eta +2t-r-1$, then Lemma~\ref{lem:2edges} implies that \[\tau({\mathcal H})\leq \floor*{\frac{r-t'}{2}}+t'-t+1\leq \frac{r + t'}{2}-t+1\leq\eta + \frac{1}{2}, \]
a contradiction.
Hence, if $(i)$ is not satisfied for $t'=\card{e\cap f}$, we must have $t'\leq r-2t$. By Lemma~\ref{lem:2edges}, it follows that $\eta + 1 \le \tau(\m H) \le 2r - 4t - t' + 2$, from which we deduce that $t' \le 2r - 4t - \eta + 1$.
\end{proof}
The following lemma is the analogue of Lemma~\ref{lem:2edges} when constructing covers from vertices that lie in three fixed edges, as opposed to only using two edges.
\begin{lem} \label{lem:3edges}
Let $r \ge 3t$, let $\m H$ be an $(r,t)$-graph, and let $e_1,e_2,e_3 \in E(\m H)$. Set $t_1 = \card{e_1\cap e_2\cap e_3}$ and $t_2 = \card{e_1\cap e_2 \setminus e_3}+\card{e_1\cap e_3 \setminus e_2}+ \card{e_2\cap e_3 \setminus e_1}$. Then
\[ \tau(\m H)\leq \begin{cases}
\frac13 (2t_1+t_2+r-3t+3) & \text{ if } r-3t+1+t_2 \leq t_1\leq r, \\
r-3t+1+t_2 & \text{ if } r-3t+1-t_2\leq t_1\leq r-3t+1+t_2, \\
3r-2t_1-t_2-9t+3 & \text{ if } 0\leq t_1\leq r-3t+1-t_2.
\end{cases} \]
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Observe that $t_1$ counts the number of vertices that are in all three edges, while $t_2$ counts the number of vertices in precisely two of the three edges. Let $T = e_1 \cap e_2 \cap e_3$ be the set of $t_1$ vertices contained in all three edges and let $D$ be the set of $t_2$ vertices contained in exactly two of the three edges.
When building a transversal of the parts that intersects $e_1, e_2$ and $e_3$ as much as possible, it is optimal to choose as many vertices from $T$ as possible, followed by vertices from $D$. Therefore, to minimise $\Delta_{\m H}(C; e_1, e_2, e_3)$, we will choose $C$ so as to first block the vertices in $T$, followed by those in~$D$.
Let us first consider the case when $t_1\geq r-3t+1+t_2$. Setting $s_1 = t_1 - \floor*{\frac13 (t_1 - t_2 - r + 3t - 1)} \le \frac13 (2t_1 + t_2 + r - 3t + 3)$, note that $1 \le s_1 \le t_1$. Taking $C_1$ to be an arbitrary subset of $T$ of size $s_1$, we have
\[ \Delta_{\m H}(C_1;e_1,e_2,e_3)= 3\card{(e_1\cap e_2\cap e_3)\setminus C_1} + 2t_2 +(r-t_1-t_2)\leq 3t-1, \]
since we cannot select a vertex of $e_1 \cup e_2 \cup e_3$ in the $s_1$ parts spanned by $C_1$. It thus follows from Observation~\ref{obs:cover} that $C_1$ is a cover for $\m H$, giving the claimed bound on $\tau(\m H)$.
Next, suppose $r-3t+1\leq t_1\leq r-3t+1+t_2$, and set $s_2=r-3t+1+t_2-t_1$, noting that $0\leq s_2\leq t_2$. Take $C_2=T \cup S_2$, where $S_2$ is a subset of $D$ of size $s_2$.
Consider a transversal of the parts that is disjoint from $C_2$. There are $t_2-s_2$ parts (those intersecting $D\setminus S_2$) in which the transversal could intersect up to two of the three edges $e_1,e_2$ and $e_3$. In all other parts the transversal can intersect at most one of the three edges and there are $t_1$ parts (those that intersect $T$) in which the transversal must be disjoint from all three edges.
Thus
\[\Delta_{\mathcal H}(C_2;e_1,e_2,e_3)=2(t_2-s_2)+(r-t_1-(t_2-s_2))=3t-1,\]
and so, by Observation~\ref{obs:cover}, $C_2$ covers $\m H$, showing $\tau(\m H) \le \card{C_2} = r - 3t + 1 + t_2$.
In the range $r-3t+1-t_2\leq t_1\leq r-3t$, set $s_3=r-3t+1-t_1$, whence $1\leq s_3\leq t_2$. We define $D'$ to be the $t_2$ vertices which are contained in exactly one of the edges $e_1, e_2$ and $e_3$ and lie in parts which intersect $D$. Now take $C_3= T \cup D \cup S_3$ where $S_3$ is an arbitrary subset of $D'$ of size $s_3$. A transversal disjoint from $C_3$ can then only meet the edges $e_1, e_2$ and $e_3$ in the $t_2 - s_3$ vertices of $D' \setminus S_3$, as well as in the $r - t_1 - t_2$ parts where the three edges are pairwise disjoint. We therefore have
\[\Delta_{\m H}(C_3;e_1,e_2,e_3)=(t_2-s_3)+(r-t_1-t_2)=3t-1, \]
and so Observation~\ref{obs:cover} implies $C_3$ is a cover of the stated size.
Finally, we are left with the case when $t_1\leq r-3t+1-t_2$, for which we set $s_4 = r - 3t + 1 - t_1 - t_2$. Take $C_4 = T \cup D \cup D' \cup S_4$, where $D$ and $D'$ are defined as above and $S_4$ consists of the $3s_4$ vertices of $e_1 \cup e_2 \cup e_3$ from $s_4$ of the parts where the edges $e_1, e_2$ and $e_3$ are pairwise disjoint. Then any transversal disjoint from $C_4$ can only meet the three edges in the $r - t_1 - t_2 - s_4$ parts not spanned by $C_4$, from which it follows that $\Delta_{\m H}(C_4; e_1, e_2, e_3) = 3t - 1$. By Observation~\ref{obs:cover}, $C_4$ is a cover of $\m H$, and so $\tau(\m H) \le \card{C_4} = t_1 + 2t_2 + 3s_4 = 3r - 2t_1 - t_2 - 9t + 3$.
\end{proof}
By applying Lemma~\ref{lem:3edges} in conjunction with Corollary~\ref{cor:2edgeagain}, we will prove the following upper bounds on the cover numbers of $(r,t)$-graphs.
\begin{prop} \label{prop:3edgeupperbound}
For all $t \ge 1$ and $r \ge 3t$, we have
\[ \Ryser(r,t)\leq \begin{cases}
\ceil*{\frac{5r-10t+2}{4}} +\ceil*{\frac{6t-r-1}{8}} & \mbox{ if } 3t\leq r \leq 5t-2, \\
\ceil*{\frac{3r-1}{4}} + \ceil*{\frac{9r-44t+13}{8}} & \mbox{ if } 5t-1 \leq r \leq \frac{52t-13}{9}.
\end{cases} \]
\end{prop}
Before proving this proposition, we observe that we have the necessary bounds to establish our main result.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:upperbound}]
We prove the theorem by induction on $r - t$. For the base case, we have $t = r$. Trivially, an $(r,r)$-graph can have at most one edge, and thus can be covered by a single vertex. Thus $\Ryser(r,r) = 1$, as stated in the first case of the theorem.
For the induction step, suppose $r - t \ge 1$, and let $\m H$ be an $(r,t)$-graph of maximum cover number, so that $\Ryser(r,t) = \tau(\m H)$. As previously stated, we shall use Lemma~\ref{lem:2edges} to prove the first two cases of the theorem. To this end, let $e_1, e_2 \in E(\m H)$ be a pair of edges with the smallest intersection. We may assume that $\card{e_1 \cap e_2} = t$, as otherwise $\m H$ is in fact an $(r,t+1)$-graph, and we are done by induction (as our upper bound on $\Ryser(r,t)$ is decreasing in $t$).
Applying Lemma~\ref{lem:2edges} with the edges $e_1$ and $e_2$, we have $t' = t$, from which it follows that
\[ \Ryser(r,t) = \tau(\m H) \le \begin{cases}
\floor*{\frac{r-t}{2}} + 1 & \mbox{ if } r - 2t + 1 \le t \le r, \\
2r - 5t + 2 & \mbox{ if } t \le r - 2t.
\end{cases} \]
Simplifying the ranges for which these bounds hold, we see that the first is valid when $r \le 3t - 1$, as required for the first case of the theorem, while the second bound above is valid provided $r \ge 3t$.
The latter two cases of the theorem are direct consequences of Proposition~\ref{prop:3edgeupperbound}, which we can apply whenever $r \ge 3t$. To simplify the bounds, we estimate the ceiling terms, obtaining
\[ \ceil*{\frac{5r-10t+2}{4}} + \ceil*{\frac{6t-r-1}{8}} \le \frac{5r - 10t + 5}{4} + \frac{6t - r + 6}{8} = \frac{9r - 14t}{8} + 2 \]
and
\[ \ceil*{\frac{3r-1}{4}} + \ceil*{\frac{9r-44t+13}{8}} \le \frac{3r + 2}{4} + \frac{9r - 44t + 20}{8} = \frac{15r - 44t}{8} + 3. \]
That is, Proposition~\ref{prop:3edgeupperbound} implies that whenever $r \ge 3t$, we have
\[ \Ryser(r,t) \le \begin{cases}
\frac{9r - 14t}{8} + 2 & \mbox{ if } 3t \le r \le 5t - 2, \\
\frac{15r - 44t}{8} + 3 & \mbox{ if } 5t - 1 \le r \le \frac{52t - 13}{9}.
\end{cases} \]
This matches the latter two cases of Theorem~\ref{thm:upperbound}. Finally, we note that the bound $\frac{9r - 14t}{8} + 2$ improves the earlier bound of $2r - 5t + 2$ whenever $r \ge \frac{26}{7}t$, justifying the endpoints of the ranges of the second and third cases in the theorem.
\end{proof}
All that remains is the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:3edgeupperbound}, which we delay no further.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:3edgeupperbound}]
In the first case, let $r$ and $t$ be such that $3t\leq r \leq 5t-2$, and define
\[x =\ceil*{\frac{5r-10t + 2}{4}} \quad \mbox{ and } \quad z =\ceil*{\frac{6t-r-1}{8}}.\]
Note that \begin{equation} \label{eq:zandt}
1\leq z \leq t \qquad \mbox{ and } \qquad 0\leq x \leq r-t,
\end{equation}
using here that $3t\leq r \leq 5t-2$.
Suppose for contradiction that $\m H$ is an $(r,t)$-graph with $\tau({\mathcal H})\geq x+z+1$. Applying Corollary \ref{cor:2edgeagain}, any pair of edges $e,f\in E({\mathcal H})$ must satisfy
\begin{equation} \label{eq:2edgerestriction}
\card{e\cap f} \geq 2x+2z +2t -r \qquad
\mbox{ or } \qquad
\card{e\cap f} \leq 2r-4t-x-z+1.
\end{equation}
Now take $e_1, e_2\in E({\mathcal H})$ to be two edges such that $\card{e_1\cap e_2}=t$ (again, we may assume such a pair exists, as otherwise $\m H$ is an $(r,t+1)$-graph and we obtain a stronger bound on $\tau(\m H)$). Let $Z\subseteq e_1\cap e_2$ be a set of $z$ vertices and $X \subseteq e_1 \setminus e_2$ a set of $x$ vertices, noting that this is possible due to~\eqref{eq:zandt}. We take $Y=X\cup Z$ and note that $Y$ intersects both $e_1$ and $e_2$ (as $z\geq 1$) and is not a cover as it has size exactly $x+z$ and we assumed that $\tau({\mathcal H})\geq x+z+1$. Therefore, there exists an edge $e_3 \in E(\m H)$ such that $e_3\cap Y=\emptyset$. We define $a,b,c \in \mathbb{N}$ as follows:
\[ a = \card{e_1\cap e_2 \setminus e_3}, \quad b = \card{e_1\cap e_3 \setminus e_2} \quad \mbox{and} \quad c = \card{e_2\cap e_3\setminus e_1}. \]
Observe that $\card{e_1\cap e_2 \cap e_3}=t-a$. Using the fact that $e_3 \cap Y=\emptyset$, we can derive some bounds on the parameters $a, b$ and $c$. Indeed, since $e_3$ is disjoint from $Z$, $a \ge z$. As $\card{e_1 \cap e_3} = b + (t-a) \ge t$, we must further have $b \ge a$, while considering $\card{e_2 \cap e_3}$ similarly shows $c \ge a$. Finally, as $e_3$ is disjoint from $X$, we must have $b \le r - t - x$. Putting this all together, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:spaceboundaries}
z \leq a \leq b \leq r-t-x \quad \mbox{and} \quad a \le c.
\end{equation}
A further restriction on the parameters comes from considering $\card{e_2\cap e_3}=(t-a)+c$. We have from~\eqref{eq:spaceboundaries} that $b \geq z$ and, since ${\mathcal H}$ is $r$-partite, in each of the $b$ parts which contain vertices of $e_1 \cap e_3 \setminus e_2$, there are no vertices which lie in $e_2 \cap e_3$. Moreover $e_3$ and $e_2$ are also disjoint in the $z$ parts which host vertices of $Z$. Thus we can conclude that
\[t+c-a= \card{e_2\cap e_3} \leq r-b-z \leq r-2z. \]
Due to the fact that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:nobigintersection}
2x+2z+2t-r\geq \frac{5r-6t+3}{4} > \frac{5r-6t+1}{4}\geq r-2z,
\end{equation}
it follows from~\eqref{eq:2edgerestriction} that we must in fact have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:smallintersection}
t+c-a= \card{e_2\cap e_3} \leq 2r-4t-x-z+1.
\end{equation}
We now look to apply Lemma~\ref{lem:3edges} to the three edges $e_1,e_2$ and $e_3$ to show that $\tau({\mathcal H}) \leq x +z$, thus reaching a contradiction. To this end, note that in the notation of Lemma~\ref{lem:3edges}, we have $t_1=t-a$ and $t_2=a+b+c$. First suppose that our parameters fall into the first range given by the upper bound in Lemma~\ref{lem:3edges}. That is, $t-a \geq r-3t+1+a+b+c$ or, rearranging,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:case1weakbound}
2a+b+c \leq 4t-r-1.
\end{equation}
We then have that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:case1bound}\tau({\mathcal H}) \leq \frac{r+b+c-a-t+3}{3} \leq \frac{3t-3a+2}{3}\leq \frac{3t+2}{3}\leq x+z, \end{equation}
using~\eqref{eq:case1weakbound} in the second inequality, the fact that $a\geq 0$ in the third and the fact that $r\geq 3t$ in the last inequality.
Now we turn to the second case of Lemma~\ref{lem:3edges} and observe that the given bound is \begin{align*}
\tau({\mathcal H})&\leq r-3t+1+a+b+c \\ &\leq r-3t+1 +a +b + (2r-5t-x-z+1+a) \\ &\leq 3r-8t+2-x-z+3b \\ &\leq 3r-8t+2-x-z+3(r-t-x)\\ &=6r-11t-4x-z+2,
\end{align*}
where we used~\eqref{eq:smallintersection} to bound $c$ in the second inequality, and the bounds $a \le b$ and $b \le r - t - x$ from~\eqref{eq:spaceboundaries} in the third and fourth inequalities respectively. One has that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:case2bound}
5x+2z\geq 5\left(\frac{5r-10t + 2}{4}\right)+2 \left(\frac{6t-r-1}{8}\right)\geq 6r-11t+2,
\end{equation}
and hence $\tau({\mathcal H})\leq x+z$ in this case too.
Finally, in the third case of Lemma~\ref{lem:3edges}, we have
\[ \tau({\mathcal H})\leq 3r-11t+3+a-b-c\leq 3r-11t+3-a \leq 3r-11t+3-z, \]
using~\eqref{eq:spaceboundaries} to bound $b, c \ge a$ in the second inequality and $a \ge z$ in the last inequality. As
\begin{equation} \label{eq:case3bound}
x+2z\geq \frac{5r-10t+2}{4}+\frac{6t-r-1}{4} = r - t + \frac14 \geq 3r-11t+3
\end{equation}
for all $r\leq 5t-2$, we can conclude that $\tau({\mathcal H})\leq x+z$ in this case as well. Therefore, we have shown $\tau({\mathcal H})\leq x+z$, providing the contradiction needed to complete the proof of the first bound.
\medskip
The proof of the second bound is almost identical to that of the first and so we omit the details. The difference here comes as we define $x$ and $z$ as follows:
\[x =\ceil*{\frac{3r-1}{4}} \quad \mbox{ and } \quad z = \ceil*{\frac{9r-44t+13}{8}}.\]
The rest of the proof goes through verbatim and one simply has to check that the inequalities~\eqref{eq:zandt},~\eqref{eq:nobigintersection}, \eqref{eq:case1bound},~\eqref{eq:case2bound} and~\eqref{eq:case3bound} all hold. One has to use the fact that $5t-1 \leq r \leq \frac{52t-13}{9}$ in order to prove~\eqref{eq:zandt},~\eqref{eq:nobigintersection} and~\eqref{eq:case1bound}. The lower bound on $r$ is necessary for~\eqref{eq:nobigintersection} to hold, whilst the upper bound on $r$ is necessary so that the upper bound on $z$ in~\eqref{eq:zandt} always holds. Given this, we can again conclude $\tau(\m H) \le x + z$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{$k$-wise intersecting hypergraphs} \label{sec:kwise}
As we shall show now, our exact results for $\Ryser(r,t)$ allow us to obtain tight bounds on the cover numbers of $k$-wise $t$-intersecting $r$-uniform $r$-partite hypergraphs.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:kwise}]
We prove the upper bound by induction on $k$. The base case, when $k = 2$ (and $t > \tfrac{r}{3}$), is the first case of Theorem~\ref{thm:upperbound}.
For the induction step, we have $k \ge 3$ and $t \ge 1$. Given $k-1$ edges $e_1, \hdots, e_{k-1} \in E(\m H)$, let $U = \cap_{i=1}^{k-1} e_i$. The $k$-wise intersection condition implies that every edge meets $U$ in at least $t$ elements. Thus, if $B$ is obtained by removing $t-1$ elements from $U$, $B$ must be a cover for $\m H$.
If there are $k-1$ edges whose intersection has size at most $\left\lfloor \frac{r-t}{k} \right \rfloor + t$, we are done. We may therefore assume $\m H$ is $(k-1)$-wise $t'$-intersecting, where $t' = \left\lfloor \frac{r-t}{k} \right\rfloor + t + 1$. Note that if $k = 3$, then
\[ t' = \left\lfloor \frac{r-t}{3} \right\rfloor + t + 1 \ge \frac{r+2t}{3} > \frac{r}{3}. \]
Hence, by induction, $\tau(\m H) \le \left \lfloor \frac{r-t'}{k-1} \right \rfloor + 1$. Define integers $a,b$ such that $0 \le b \le k-1$ and $r - t = ak + b$ and note that it follows from the definition of $t'$ that $t' = a + t + 1$. We then have
\[ \left \lfloor \frac{r-t'}{k-1} \right\rfloor + 1 = \left \lfloor \frac{ r - a - t - 1 }{k-1} \right \rfloor + 1 = \left\lfloor \frac{a(k-1) + b - 1}{k-1} \right\rfloor + 1 \le a + 1 = \left\lfloor \frac{r-t}{k} \right\rfloor + 1, \]
completing the induction.
To finish, we show that the bound is best possible. Setting $\ell = \left\lfloor \frac{r-t}{k} \right\rfloor$, consider the hypergraph $\m H_{\ell}^r$ from Definition~\ref{def:1levelconstruction}. To see that $\m H_{\ell}^r$ is $k$-wise $t$-intersecting, observe that each edge misses $\ell$ vertices of the form $(0,j)$. Hence, in the intersection of $k$ edges, we can miss at most $k \ell$ of these $r$ vertices, and thus the $k$ edges must intersect in at least $r - k \ell \ge t$ vertices, as required. By Proposition~\ref{prop:lowerboundcalcs}, $\tau(\m H_{\ell}^r) = \ell + 1 = \left\lfloor \frac{r-t}{k} \right\rfloor + 1$, matching the upper bound.
\end{proof}
\section{Further variants and open problems} \label{sec:variants}
In this paper, we have studied Ryser's Conjecture for $t$-intersecting hypergraphs. In particular, we have shown $\Ryser(r,t) = \floor{\frac{r-t}{2}} + 1$ whenever $r \le 3t - 1$, and have proved Conjecture~\ref{conj:weak} for all but finitely many pairs $(r,t)$ satisfying $r \le \frac{36t - 17}{7}$. Given these results, it is natural to ask what happens when $r$ is larger with respect to $t$.
Since the upper bounds of Theorem~\ref{thm:upperbound} are obtained by considering configurations of two and three edges (Lemmas~\ref{lem:2edges} and~\ref{lem:3edges} respectively), the obvious next step is to prove an analogous result for configurations of four edges. However, as one increases the number of edges in the configuration, the number of variables (representing the intersections of these edges) grows exponentially and one has much less control over the values that these sizes of intersections can have. Indeed, even with just four edges, we could not see a way to channel our ideas to get a stronger upper bound.
Another approach to understanding the behaviour of $\Ryser(r,t)$ is to try and determine the value of the function for small values of $r$ and $t$, using this as a testing ground for new ideas to give more general proofs. We considered the smallest open cases: $3 \le \Ryser(6,2) \le 4$ and $ 3\le \Ryser(7,2) \le 5$, where the lower bounds follow from Theorem~\ref{thm:lowerbound}, the upper bound on $\Ryser(6,2)$ follows from Theorem~\ref{thm:upperbound} and the upper bound on $\Ryser(7,2)$ follows from the work of Kir\'aly and T\'othm\'er\'esz~\cite{kirtot}. We managed to improve these upper bounds, showing that $\Ryser(6,2)=3$ and $\Ryser(7,2)\le 4$. Unfortunately, the arguments for these two new bounds required ad hoc methods and, as we doubt such arguments will lead to a significantly wider range of results, we have chosen to omit these proofs.
With regards to the broader picture, we concede that it may be challenging to resolve Conjecture~\ref{conj:weak} in full, since the case $t = 1$ is the intersecting case of Ryser's Conjecture itself. As discretion is the better part of valour, one might restrict one's attention to $t \ge 2$ and seek in these cases to prove the conjecture and, with a bit more ambition, to fully determine $\Ryser(r,t)$. In this range, given the lack of a better construction, Theorem~\ref{thm:exactvalue}, and the $k$-wise result of Theorem~\ref{thm:kwise}, we propose the following conjecture.
\begin{conj} \label{conj:strong}
For all $2 \le t \le r$,
\[ \Ryser(r,t) = \floor*{\frac{r-t}{2}} + 1. \]
\end{conj}
If we are to be honest, it is only a proper (but non-empty) subset of the authors that fully believes in this conjecture. That said, we are all happy to pose it, in the hopes of provoking the community into finding a proof or a counterexample. Should the conjecture be true, it would represent a marked difference between the intersecting and $t$-intersecting ($t \ge 2$) versions of Ryser's Conjecture. Though this may be surprising at first sight, such discrepancies are not unheard of in extremal combinatorics.
At the very least, the determination of the asymptotic behaviour of $\Ryser(r,t)$ when $t$ is linear in $r$ is an intriguing question in its own right, and even just reducing the grey area in Figure~\ref{fig:asymptotics} seems to require new ideas. This further motivates the pursuit of Ryser-type problems for various other classes of hypergraphs commonly studied in the field, some of which we outline below. We believe that the techniques and constructions used in answering these questions could shed further light on Conjecture~\ref{conj:strong} and perhaps even on Ryser's Conjecture.\footnote{For instance, our proof that $\Ryser(6,2) = 3$ reduced the problem to the strictly $2$-intersecting case, and our proof that $\Ryser(7,2) \le 4$ used a double counting argument inspired by the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:rtd_counting} below.}
\subsection{Strictly $t$-intersecting hypergraphs} \label{sec:strictly}
One advantage of the construction of Bustamante and Stein~\cite{bustastein}, in which each vertex of the truncated projective plane is replaced by a set of $t$ vertices, is that it is regular. On the other hand, in our construction for Theorem~\ref{thm:lowerbound}, while the majority of vertices are in at most one edge, some vertices have very large degree. This begs the question of whether or not one can find a regular construction matching our bound, but, as we shall now show, the great irregularity is necessary for the cover number of the hypergraph to be large.
To start, observe that if $\mc H$ is a $d$-regular $(r,t)$-graph, and $V_i$ is any one of the $r$ parts, then $\mc H$ has exactly $d \card{V_i}$ edges, since each edge meets $V_i$ in exactly one vertex. Since any set $S \subset V(\mc H)$ can cover at most $d \card{S}$ edges, it follows that $\tau(\mc H) \ge \card{V_i}$; that is, the parts are minimum covers. Therefore, maximising the cover number of $d$-regular $(r,t)$-graphs is equivalent to maximising the number of vertices in such graphs.
An upper bound was provided by Frankl and F\"uredi~\cite{frafur86}, with a short proof later given by Calderbank~\cite{calderbank87}: they proved that any regular $t$-intersecting $r$-uniform hypergraph can have at most $(r^2 - r + t)/t$ vertices. In the $r$-partite setting, it follows that we have a part of size at most $(r-1)/t + 1/r < r/t$, and hence this is an upper bound on the cover number of any regular $(r,t)$-graph. Note that for $t \ge 3$ this is significantly smaller than the lower bound of Theorem~\ref{thm:lowerbound}, showing that the added condition of regularity considerably restricts the cover number of $(r,t)$-graphs.
Frankl and F\"uredi~\cite{frafur86} and Calderbank~\cite{calderbank87} further showed that the hypergraphs achieving equality in their bound are precisely the symmetric $2$-$(v,r,t)$ designs, a class of hypergraphs we now define.
\begin{dfn} \label{def:design}
Given $v, r, t \in \mathbb{N}$, a \emph{$2$-$(v,r,t)$ design} is an $r$-uniform hypergraph on $v$ vertices with the property that any two vertices share exactly $t$ common edges. The design is \emph{symmetric} if it has exactly $v$ edges.
\end{dfn}
Note that designs are never $r$-partite, since two vertices in the same part could not have any common edges. One might therefore hope for an even smaller upper bound if the hypergraph is also $r$-partite, but the construction of Bustamante and Stein shows that there can be regular $(r,t)$-graphs with cover number $r/t - 1$, and so there is not much room for improvement in general.\footnote{Using the truncated projective plane for some prime power $q$, the Bustamante-Stein construction gives $d$-regular $(r,t)$-graphs with cover number $\tau({\mathcal H})=d=r/t-1=q$. For other values of the parameters $d, r$ and $t$, it may be possible to obtain better upper bounds, for instance in Corollary \ref{cor:regular}, which gives a stronger bound when $d<r/t-1$. }
Still, when it comes to $(r,t)$-graphs, our next result shows that one can obtain strong upper bounds on the cover number even if the condition of regularity is weakened to just having some control over the minimum and maximum degrees.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:rtd_counting}
Let $\Delta$ be the maximum degree and $\delta$ the minimum degree of an $(r, t)$-graph $\m H$.
Then
\[\tau(\m H) \leq \left(\frac{\Delta - 1}{\delta}\right) \frac{r}{t} - \frac{\Delta - \delta - 1}{\delta}.\]
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $m$ be the total number of edges in $\mc H$, and let $e$ be one such edge. Double-counting pairs $(v, f)$ where $f \in E(\mc H) \setminus \{e\}$ and $v \in e \cap f$, we get $r(\Delta - 1) \geq (m - 1)t$, or
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:rtd_dblcount}
\left( \Delta - 1 \right) \frac{r}{t} + 1 \ge m .
\end{equation}
Let $u$ be a vertex of maximum degree $\Delta$ and let $P$ be the part of the $r$-partition that contains $u$. Since every edge is incident to a unique vertex in $P$, by looking at the edges incident to each vertex in $P$ we get
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:rtd_partbound}
m \geq (|P| - 1) \delta + \Delta \ge ( \tau( \m H) - 1) \delta + \Delta,
\end{equation}
where the final inequality follows from the fact that $P$ is a vertex cover. Combining the upper and lower bounds on $m$ then gives the desired result.
\end{proof}
In particular, this restricts the cover number of $d$-regular $(r,t)$-graphs, and, if $d < r$, the bound we obtain is smaller than that derived from Frankl and F\"uredi~\cite{frafur86} and Calderbank~\cite{calderbank87}. As with their results, we can characterise the hypergraphs achieving equality, for which we require a couple more design-theoretic definitions.
\begin{dfn} \label{def:dual_resolvable}
Given a hypergraph $\m H$, the \emph{dual hypergraph} $\m H^D$ has $V(\m H^D) = E(\m H)$ and \[E(\m H^D) =~\{ \{ e~\in E(\m H) : u \in e \} : u \in V(\m H) \};\] that is, we transpose the incidence relation between vertices and edges. Also, we say a $2$-$(v,r,t)$ design is \emph{resolvable} if its edges can be partitioned into perfect matchings.
\end{dfn}
Now we can state our result for the regular setting.
\begin{cor} \label{cor:regular}
If $\m H$ is a $d$-regular $(r,t)$-graph, then
\[ \tau(\m H) \le \frac{r}{t} - \frac{r}{dt} + \frac{1}{d}, \]
with equality if and only if $\m H$ is the dual of a resolvable $2$-$(v,d,t)$ design.
\end{cor}
For example, for a prime power $q$ and dimensions $1 \le k < n$, the $k$-dimensional affine subspaces in $\mathbb{F}_q^n$ form a resolvable $2$-$(q^n, q^k, \binom{n-1}{k-1}_q)$ design,\footnote{Where $\binom{n-1}{k-1}_q = \frac{(q^{n-1}-1)(q^{n-2} - 1) \hdots (q^{n-k+1} - 1)}{(q^{k-1} - 1)(q^{k-2)-1} \hdots (q-1)}$ is the Gaussian binomial coefficient, which counts the number of $k$-dimensional spaces that contain a given pair of points.} whose dual is therefore a tight construction for Corollary~\ref{cor:regular}.\footnote{When $n = 2$, the dual is the truncated projective plane, and thus this construction generalises the classic tight construction for Ryser's Conjecture.} In fact, we have a rich and storied variety of extremal constructions, as the study of resolvable designs dates back to Kirkman's famous schoolgirl problem~\cite{kirkman} from 1857, which asked for resolvable $2$-$(15,3,1)$ designs. This was greatly generalised by Ray-Chaudhuri and Wilson~\cite{RCW1, RCW2}, who showed the existence of resolvable designs of all uniformities $r$ whenever $v$ is sufficiently large and the trivial divisibility conditions are satisfied. More recently, Keevash~\cite{keevash} resolved some long-standing conjectures by extending these results to designs of greater strength, while results of Ferber and Kwan~\cite{Ferber-Kwan19} suggest that, when $v \equiv 3 \pmod 6$, almost all of the exponentially (in $v^2$) many $2$-$(v,3,1)$ designs should be resolvable.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary~\ref{cor:regular}]
The upper bound follows immediately from Lemma~\ref{lem:rtd_counting} by substituting $\Delta = \delta = d$.
For the characterisation of equality, first observe that the inequality~\eqref{eqn:rtd_dblcount} is always tight if and only if any two edges of $\m H$ share exactly $t$ vertices, in which case we say $\m H$ is strictly $t$-intersecting. Next, we note that the inequalities in~\eqref{eqn:rtd_partbound} are always tight in the regular setting; the first because all degrees are equal to $d$, and the second because, as argued at the beginning of Section~\ref{sec:strictly}, a part is always a minimum cover in a regular $r$-partite $r$-uniform hypergraph. Thus we see that we have equality if and only if $\m H$ is strictly $t$-intersecting.
Now suppose $\m H$ is $d$-regular $(r,t)$-graph that is strictly $t$-intersecting, and consider the dual hypergraph $\m H^D$. Since every vertex of $\m H$ has degree $d$, every edge of $\m H^D$ contains $d$ vertices. Furthermore, as every pair of edges in $\m H$ shares $t$ vertices, every pair of vertices in $\m H^D$ have $t$ common edges. Thus $\m H^D$ is a $2$-$(v,d,t)$ design, where $v$ is the number of edges in $\m H$. Finally, since each edge of $\m H$ contains exactly one vertex from any of the $r$ parts, a part corresponds to a perfect matching in $\m H^D$, with every vertex covered exactly once. Hence, since $\m H$ is $r$-partite, the edges of $\m H^D$ can be partitioned into $r$ perfect matchings; that is, $\m H^D$ is resolvable.
Conversely, the same reasoning shows that the dual $\m H$ of a resolvable $2$-$(v,d,t)$ design gives a strictly $t$-intersecting $d$-regular $r$-partite $r$-uniform hypergraph with $v$ edges, where $r$ is the number of perfect matchings in the resolution of the design. From our above remarks, this implies the dual achieves equality in the upper bound on $\tau(\m H)$.
\end{proof}
In the above proof, we saw that for a regular $(r,t)$-graph to have as large a cover number as possible, it must be strictly $t$-intersecting, with every pair of edges meeting in exactly $t$ vertices. It is therefore natural to ask what happens when we drop the condition of regularity, and only require the $(r,t)$-graph be strictly $t$-intersecting. Such study has previously been carried out in the setting of Ryser's Conjecture for ($1$-)intersecting families.
Recall that Ryser's Conjecture for intersecting $r$-partite hypergraphs was proved by Tuza~\cite{Tuza} for all $r \leq 5$.
Franceti\'c, Herke, McKay and Wanless~\cite{Francetic17} showed that if we restrict ourselves to linear (that is, strictly $1$-intersecting) hypergraphs, then the conjecture is true for all $r \leq 9$.
Inspired by this, we prove Conjecture~\ref{conj:weak} for strictly $t$-intersecting hypergraphs for a much wider range of parameters $r$ and $t$ than covered by Corollary~\ref{cor:comparisons}.
\begin{thm} \label{thm:strictly}
Let $t \ge 1$ and $t < r \le t^2 + 3t - 1$ be integers. If $\mc H$ is a strictly $t$-intersecting $r$-partite hypergraph, then $\tau(\mc H) \leq r - t$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
For the sake of contradiction, suppose $\tau \geq r - t + 1$, and, for the sake of convenience, let $\delta = \delta(\mc H)$, $\Delta = \Delta(\mc H)$ and $\tau = \tau(\mc H)$.
Let $v$ be an arbitrary vertex of $\mc H$ and let $e$ be an edge through $v$.
Since $\tau \geq r-t+1$,
we have that for every set $S$ of $r - t$ vertices in $e \setminus \{v\}$, there exists an edge $f$ of $\mc H$ with $e \cap f \subseteq e \setminus S$.
Since $\mc H$ is $t$-intersecting and $|e \setminus S| = t$, we must have $e \cap f = e \setminus S$, which in particular implies that $v \in f$. This shows that $d(v) \geq \binom{r - 1}{r - t} + 1$, and, since $v$ was arbitrary, we get $\delta \geq \binom{r - 1}{r - t} + 1$.
Solving the inequality in Lemma~\ref{lem:rtd_counting} for $\Delta$, we obtain
\[\Delta \geq \frac{\delta(\tau - 1)}{r/t - 1} + 1,\]
which, upon substituting $\delta \geq \binom{r - 1}{r - t} + 1$ and $\tau \geq r - t + 1$, yields
\[\Delta \geq t\binom{r - 1}{r - t} + t + 1.\]
Now let $u$ be a vertex of degree $d(u) = \Delta$ and let $f_0$ be an edge through $u$. There are $\binom{r - 1}{t - 1} = \binom{r - 1}{r - t}$ choices of $t$-subsets of $f_0$ containing $u$, and every edge $f' \neq f_0$ through $u$ intersects $f_0$ in one of these sets. Since there are at least $t \binom{r - 1}{r - t} + t$ edges through $u$ other than $f_0$, by the pigeonhole principle there must exist a $t$-subset $S$ of $f_0$ containing $u$ for which there are at least $t + 1$ edges $f_1, \dots, f_{t + 1}$ with $f_0 \cap f_i = S$ for all $i$. Since $\m H$ is strictly $t$-intersecting, we further have $f_i \cap f_j = S$ for all $i \neq j$.
We claim that $S$ is a vertex cover. If not, there exists an edge $e$ such that $e \cap f_i \subseteq f_i \setminus S$ for all $0 \leq i \leq t + 1$. Since $f_0 \setminus S, \dots, f_{t + 1} \setminus S$ are disjoint sets, and $e$ can only contain one vertex from each part of the $r$-partition, we get $t(t + 2) \leq r - t$, contradicting our upper bound on $r$.
Thus, we have a vertex cover $S$ of size $t$.
Since Conjecture~\ref{conj:weak} is known for $r \le 2t$, it follows that $\tau \le r - t$, contradicting our original supposition that $\tau \geq r - t + 1$.
\end{proof}
Although the restriction of being strictly $t$-intersecting allows us to prove the bound from Conjecture~\ref{conj:weak} for a wider range of parameters $(r,t)$, we believe this is far from tight. Indeed, in this setting, we even lack constructions that come close to the smaller bound of Theorem~\ref{thm:lowerbound}. The best constructions we have found thus far are the duals of resolvable designs, as given in Corollary~\ref{cor:regular}. As these are also regular, their cover numbers are smaller than $\frac{r}{t}$, significantly smaller than the upper bound of Theorem~\ref{thm:strictly}.
\begin{prob}
Prove that $\tau(\m H) \le \frac{r}{t}$ for any strictly $t$-intersecting $r$-partite $r$-uniform hypergraph $\m H$, or find constructions with larger cover numbers.
\end{prob}
\subsection{$s$-covers}
Another new direction is to ask for more from our vertex covers -- rather than just intersecting each edge, we could ask for a set that meets every edge in many vertices.
\begin{dfn}
Let $\m H$ be an $(r, t)$-graph.
For $s \geq 1$, we define an $s$-cover of $\m H$ to be a set $B \subseteq V(\m H)$ such that $\card{B \cap e} \ge s$ for every $e \in E(\m H)$. We further define
\[\tau_s(\m H) = \min\{|B| : B \text{ is an } s\text{-cover of } \m H \}.\]
\end{dfn}
Observe that $\tau_1(\m H) = \tau(\m H)$.
We can then generalise Ryser's Conjecture (in the intersecting case) by asking for the maximum of $\tau_s(\m H)$ over all $(r, t)$-graphs. If $s \le t$, then, since every pair of edges intersects in at least $t$ vertices, any edge $e \in E(\m H)$ is an $s$-cover, and so we always have $\tau_s(\m H) \le r$.
However, the problem is ill-posed if $s > t$. For arbitrary $n \in \mathbb{N}$, we can take $\m H$ be the complete $r$-partite $r$-graph with parts $V_1, \hdots, V_r$, where $\card{V_1} = \hdots = \card{V_t} = 1$ and $\card{V_{t+1}} = \hdots = \card{V_r} = n$. It is then easy to see that $\tau_s(\m H) = (s-t)n + t$, and therefore $\tau_s(\m H)$ is unbounded for $(r,t)$-graphs. We shall thus require $1 \le s \le t \le r$.
\begin{dfn}
Given integers $1 \le s \le t \le r$, define
\[ \Ryser_s(r,t) = \max \{ \tau_s(\m H) : \m H \textrm{ is an } (r,t)\textrm{-graph} \}. \]
\end{dfn}
The case $s = 1$ is obviously what we have been talking about all along, and the following lemma shows how we can leverage our constructions from that case to obtain lower bounds when $s \ge 2$.
\begin{lem} \label{lem:scoverrecursive}
For all $1 \le s \le t \le r$ and $a \ge 1$,
\[ \Ryser_{s + a}(r + a, t + a) \ge \Ryser_{s}(r, t) + a. \]
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $\m H'$ be an $(r, t)$-graph with $\tau_{s}(\m H) = \Ryser_s(r,t)$.
Form $\m H$ by adding the same set $S$ of $a$ vertices to each edge of $\m H'$.
$\m H$ is then an $(r + a, t + a)$-graph.
Let $B$ be a smallest $(s+a)$-cover of $\m H$. By removing $a$ elements from $B$, including all members of $B \cap S$, we obtain an $s$-cover $B'$ of $\m H'$.
Hence we must have $\card{B'} \ge \tau_{s}(\m H') = \Ryser_s(r,t)$, and thus $\Ryser_{s + a}(r + a, t + a) \ge \tau_{s+a}(\m H) = \card{B} \ge \Ryser_{s}(r, t) + a$.
\end{proof}
The next proposition extends Theorem~\ref{thm:exactvalue} to the case when $s \ge 2$.
\begin{prop} \label{prop:scover1}
If $r \le 3t - 2s$, then
\[ \Ryser_s(r,t) = \left\lfloor \frac{r-t}{2} \right\rfloor + s. \]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The lower bound, valid for all $1 \le s \le t \le r$, is an easy consequence of Lemma~\ref{lem:scoverrecursive} and Theorem~\ref{thm:lowerbound}:
\[ \Ryser_{s}(r, t) \geq \Ryser_{1}(r - s + 1, t - s + 1) + s - 1 \ge \floor*{\frac{r-t}{2}} + s. \]
For the upper bound, let $t \ge \tfrac{r + 2s}{3}$.
Let $\m H$ be an $(r, t)$-graph, and let $t' \geq t$ be the minimum size of an intersection of two edges.
We will show $\tau_s(\m H) \le \tau' = \floor*{ \frac{r-t'}{2} } + s$. Let $e_1$ and $e_2$ be two edges intersecting in exactly $t'$ elements, and let $S = e_1 \cap e_2$. By our bound on $t$, we have $t' \ge \tau'$.
Let $B$ be a set of $\tau'$ elements from $S$. We claim that $B$ is an $s$-cover. Indeed, suppose there was some $e_3 \in E(\m H)$ with $\card{B \cap e_3} \le s-1$. Then $e_3$ can contain at most $s-1 + t' - \tau'$ elements from $S$. In all parts outside $S$, $e_3$ intersects $e_1 \cup e_2$ in at most one vertex. Thus
\[ \card{e_1 \cap e_3} + \card{e_2 \cap e_3} \le 2(s-1 + t' - \tau') + r - t' = r + 2s + t' - 2\tau' - 2 \le 2t' - 1, \]
which contradicts $e_3$ intersecting both $e_1$ and $e_2$ in at least $t'$ elements.
\end{proof}
Observe that the lower bound was proved using Lemma~\ref{lem:scoverrecursive}, reducing the problem to the $s=1$ case via $\Ryser_s(r,t) \ge \Ryser(r-s+1, t-s+1)$. When $s = t$, this also reduces the problem to the classic setting, where we have much stronger lower bounds. Here we know that, whenever $r-t$ is a prime power, $\Ryser(r-t+1,1) \ge r-t$, and thus $\Ryser_t(r,t) \ge r-1$. The constructions of Haxell and Scott~\cite{HS17} further show $\Ryser_t(r,t) \ge r-4$ for all sufficiently large $r$.
Our final result uses the construction of Bustamante and Stein~\cite{bustastein} to significantly improve the lower bound for large $r$, whenever $s > \frac{t}{2}$.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:scover2}
Let $1 \leq s \leq t$ and suppose $r = t(q + 1)$ for some prime power $q$. Then
\[ \Ryser_s(r, t) \ge s \left( \frac{r}{t} - 1 \right). \]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $\m H'$ be the truncated projective plane of order $q$, which is a $q$-regular $(q+1,1)$-graph with $q^2$ edges, and let $\m H$ be the hypergraph obtained by replacing each vertex of $\m H'$ with a set of $t$ vertices. $\m H$ is then a $q$-regular $(t(q+1), t)$-graph with $q^2$ edges.
Since each vertex covers $q$ edges, to cover all of the edges at least $s$ times, we require at least $\frac{sq^2}{q} = sq = s \left( \frac{r}{t} - 1 \right)$ vertices. Thus $\Ryser_s(r,t) \ge \tau_s(\m H) \ge s \left( \frac{r}{t} - 1 \right)$.
\end{proof}
It remains an open problem to find matching upper bounds in these ranges.
\begin{prob}
Determine $\Ryser_s(r,t)$, at least asymptotically, when $r$ is large and $1 < s < t$.
\end{prob}
\paragraph{Note added in proof} During the publication of our manuscript, it was brought to our attention that the $t=1$ case of Theorem~\ref{thm:kwise} (when $k \ge 3$) was earlier proven by Kir\'aly~\cite{kirsolo}, in the context of monochromatic components in edge-coloured hypergraphs. As observed by DeBiasio (personal communication), Kir\'aly's theorem can be used as a base case for induction on $t$, providing an alternative proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:kwise} for $k \ge 3$. For more information on various generalisations of Ryser's Conjecture, we refer the reader to the recent survey of DeBiasio, Kamel, McCourt and Sheats~\cite{DKMS20}.
|
\section{Introduction} \label{section:introduction}
In ergodic theory, one of fundamental problems is to identify if two dynamical systems are isomorphic
or not, which is known as the isomorphism problem. Inspired by the Shannon entropy in information theory,
Kolmogorov and Sinai introduced the entropy of dynamical systems and showed that the entropy is an invariant
under isomorphism; in other words, an isomorphism between two dynamical systems exists only if the entropies are equal.
Since then, the entropy has been widely used as an invariant of the isomorphism problem.
However, the entropy need not be a complete invariant, i.e., an isomorphism may not exist even if the entropies of two
dynamical systems are equal.
Then, an interesting question is under what circumstances the same entropy implies the existence of an isomorphism.
A landmark result on this problem was provided by Ornstein in \cite{Ornstein:70} (see also \cite{Ornstein:book}).
He proved that two i.i.d. random processes (Bernoulli shifts) are isomorphic to each other if the entropies are equal;
furthermore, he also characterized the class of processes that are isomorphic to the i.i.d. random processes.
See \cite{Shields-book, Shields:98} for other interactions between information theory and ergodic theory.
In the literature, most studies on the isomorphism problem have focused on ergodic dynamical systems with
some exceptions \cite{KieRah81, Sujan:82, Sujan:82b, TakVer:02}.
In \cite{KieRah81}, Kieffer and Rahe provided a sufficient condition on the existence of isomorphism
between two non-ergodic mixtures of Bernoulli shifts.
In \cite{Sujan:82, Sujan:82b}, \v{S}ujan provided a necessary condition for the existence of
isomorphism in terms of ``entropy spectra," leveraging the ergodic decomposition.
In \cite{TakVer:02}, Takens and Verbitskiy showed that the R\'enyi entropy of non-ergodic
dynamical system is given by the essential infimum of the spectrum of entropies of the ergodic decomposition.
On the other hand, in the 1990s, Han and Verd\'u developed ``information spectrum" approach
in information theory to investigate coding problems for
general non-ergodic sources/channels \cite{han:93} (see also \cite{han:book}).
Among other things, the key feature of the approach is that coding theorems are proved in two steps.
In the first step, the performance of a coding problem is characterized by
the probabilistic behavior of self-information or related quantities,
which is termed the information spectrum. This step is proved without invoking
probability theoretic theorems, such as the law of large number or the ergodic theorem.
Then, in the second step, the probability theoretic theorems are invoked to characterize the
behavior of the information spectrum in terms of information measures such as the entropy.
The main aim of this paper is to revisit the isomorphism problem
from the perspective of information spectrum approach.
More specifically, we prove that the information spectrum is invariant under isomorphisms between
random processes.\footnote{It should not be confused with the spectral isomorphism of linear operators induced by dynamical systems (eg.~see \cite{Walters:book}).}
Then, using this result together with an analysis of information spectra,
we provide an alternative proof for the aforementioned result by \v{S}ujan \cite{Sujan:82, Sujan:82b},
which is conceptually and technically much simpler than the argument given in \cite{Sujan:82, Sujan:82b}.\footnote{An advantage of the approach in \cite{Sujan:82, Sujan:82b} is that
it can be applied to random processes with countably infinite alphabet, while we use the finiteness of alphabet in our proof.}
Even though the information spectrum coincides with the entropy
spectrum under ergodic decomposition, we are intentionally distinguishing the two concepts, ``information spectrum" and ``entropy spectrum."
The former is defined directly for a given random process, and we prove the invariance of information
spectra without invoking the ergodic decomposition; the ergodic decomposition is only needed to prove that
the information spectrum coincides with the entropy spectrum. On the other hand, the argument in \cite{Sujan:82, Sujan:82b} begins with the ergodic decomposition,
and the invariance of the entropy spectrum is proved via the invariance of entropy in each
ergodic component.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section \ref{sec:preliminaries}, we introduce our notation and
review some basic facts in ergodic theory. In Section \ref{section:information-spectrum}, we state our main
results; the proofs are provided in Section \ref{section:proof-explicit-information-spectrum} and Section \ref{section:proof-spectrum-homomorphism}.
In Section \ref{sec:general-dynamical-system}, we discuss how to define the information spectrum for general dynamical systems.
In Section \ref{section:sufficient-condition}, we discuss under what circumstances the same information spectrum
implies the existence of an isomorphism.
In Section \ref{section:discussion}, we conclude the paper with some discussion on possible future research directions.
\section{Preliminaries} \label{sec:preliminaries}
In this section, we introduce our notation by reviewing some basic facts in ergodic theory.
Let $(\Omega,\mathscr{B},\mu)$ be a measure space.
A measurable map $T: \Omega \to \Omega$ is called measure-preserving transformation if
$\mu(T^{-1}A) = \mu(A)$ for every $A \in \mathscr{B}$.
The quadruple $(\Omega, \mathscr{B},\mu,T)$ is called a dynamical system.
When $\Omega = {\cal X}^{\mathbb{Z}}$, i.e.,
the set of all doubly infinite sequences
\begin{align*}
\bm{x} = (\ldots,x_{-2},x_{-1},x_0,x_1,x_2,\ldots),
\end{align*}
where each $x_i$ is an element of some finite set ${\cal X}$,
the measure-preserving transformation is given by the shift $S$,\footnote{Since the underlying space can be recognized from
the context, we denote $S$ instead of $S_{\cal X}$ to avoid cumbersome notation.}
i.e., $(S \bm{x})_i = x_{i+1}$ for $\bm{x} \in {\cal X}^{\mathbb{Z}}$; the measurable set $\mathscr{B}_{\cal X}$
is given by the $\sigma$-algebra generated by cylinder set
\begin{align}
[a_m^n] := \{ \bm{x} \in {\cal X}^{\mathbb{Z}} : x_i = a_i~\forall m \le i \le n \}
\end{align}
for $m,n\in \mathbb{Z}$.
Let us define the random process $\bm{X}=\{X_n \}_{n \in \mathbb{Z}}$ by assigning
\begin{align}
P_{X_m^n}(a_m^n) = \Pr\big( X_i = a_i : m \le i \le n \big) = \mu([a_m^n])
\end{align}
for $m,n \in \mathbb{Z}$.
Owing to the measure-preserving requirement of $S$, the random process $\bm{X}$ is stationary.
When $m=1$, we denote $P_{X_m^n}(a_m^n)$ by $P_{X^n}(a^n)$ for $a^n \in {\cal X}^n$.
In this manner, the dynamical system $({\cal X}^{\mathbb{Z}}, \mathscr{B}_{\cal X}, \mu,S)$ can be identified with the random process $\bm{X}$.
Throughout the rest of this paper except Section \ref{sec:general-dynamical-system},
we mainly consider the random process $\bm{X}$ determined by $({\cal X}^{\mathbb{Z}}, \mathscr{B}_{\cal X}, \mu,S)$;
we will come back to general dynamical systems in Section \ref{sec:general-dynamical-system}.
One of the most fundamental problems in ergodic theory is to determine if given two processes are ``equivalent" or not.
A commonly used notion of equivalence is defined as follows.
\begin{definition}
For two stationary random processes $\bm{X}=\{X_n\}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}$ and $\bm{Y}=\{Y_n\}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}$
determined by $({\cal X}^{\mathbb{Z}}, \mathscr{B}_{\cal X}, \mu,S)$ and $({\cal Y}^{\mathbb{Z}}, \mathscr{B}_{\cal Y},\nu,S)$,
respectively,
we call a measurable map $\phi: {\cal X}^{\mathbb{Z}} \to {\cal Y}^{\mathbb{Z}}$ a {\em homomorphism}\footnote{Homomorphism is also called {\em factor map} in some literature.}
if $\nu = \phi_* \mu$, i.e., $\nu(B)=\mu(\phi^{-1}(B))$ for every $B \in \mathscr{B}_{\cal Y}$,
and $\phi(Sx)=S\phi(x)$ for almost sure $\bm{x} \in {\cal X}^{\mathbb{Z}}$ under $\mu$.
Furthermore, when there exists a homomorphism $\psi:{\cal Y}^{\mathbb{Z}} \to {\cal X}^{\mathbb{Z}}$ such that
$\psi(\phi(\bm{x}))=\bm{x}$ for almost sure $\bm{x} \in {\cal X}^{\mathbb{Z}}$ under $\mu$ and $\phi(\psi(\bm{y}))=\bm{y}$ for almost sure
$\bm{y} \in {\cal Y}^\mathbb{Z}$ under $\nu$, then a pair $(\phi,\psi)$ is called an {\em isomorphism}.
When there exists an isomorphism between two stationary random processes,
those processes are said to be {\em isomorphic}.
\end{definition}
In order to determine if given two random processes are isomorphic or not,
one of the most basic criterion is the ergodicity.
\begin{definition}
A random process $\bm{X}=\{X_n\}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}$ determined by $({\cal X}^{\mathbb{Z}}, \mathscr{B}_{\cal X}, \mu,S)$ is called {\em ergodic} if,
for every $A \in \mathscr{B}_{\cal X}$ with $\mu(A \triangle S^{-1}A) = 0$, it holds that $\mu(A) =0$ or $\mu(A)=1$, where $\triangle$ is the symmetric difference
of sets.
\end{definition}
From the definition, we can readily verify that
ergodicity is an invariant under homomorphism (eg.~see \cite[Example I.2.12]{Shields-book}).\footnote{There may exist a homomorphism from
a non-ergodic process to an ergodic process.}
\begin{proposition} \label{proposition:invariance-ergodic}
For two stationary random processes $\bm{X}=\{X_n\}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}$ and $\bm{Y}=\{ Y_n\}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}$,
suppose that there exists a homomorphism from $\bm{X}$ to $\bm{Y}$.
If $\bm{X}$ is ergodic, then $\bm{Y}$ is also ergodic.
\end{proposition}
Proposition \ref{proposition:invariance-ergodic} tells us that two random processes cannot be
isomorphic if one is ergodic and the other is non-ergodic. When both processes are ergodic,
a more quantitative invariant is needed.
\begin{definition}
For a stationary random process $\bm{X}=\{X_n\}_{n\in \mathbb{Z}}$, the entropy rate is defined by
\begin{align*}
H(\bm{X})
:= \lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{n} H(X_1,\ldots,X_n),
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
H(X_1,\ldots,X_n) := \sum_{x^n \in {\cal X}^n} P_{X^n}(x^n) \log \frac{1}{P_{X^n}(x^n)}.
\end{align*}
\end{definition}
One of the fundamental results in ergodic theory is the following.
\begin{proposition}[Homomorphic monotonicity of entropy \cite{Kolmogorov:58,Sinai:59}] \label{proposition:Kolmogorov-Sinai}
For two stationary random processes $\bm{X}=\{X_n\}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}$ and $\bm{Y}=\{ Y_n\}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}$,
if a homomorphism from $\bm{X}$ to $\bm{Y}$ exists, then it holds that
\begin{align*}
H(\bm{X}) \ge H(\bm{Y}).
\end{align*}
\end{proposition}
\begin{corollary}[Isomorphic invariance of entropy]
If two stationary random processes $\bm{X}=\{X_n\}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}$ and $\bm{Y}=\{ Y_n\}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}$ are isomorphic, then it holds that
\begin{align*}
H(\bm{X}) = H(\bm{Y}).
\end{align*}
\end{corollary}
The entropy has been the most widely used invariant to determine if
two random processes are isomorphic or not. In fact, when two random processes are independently identically distributed (i.i.d.) processes,
i.e., Bernoulli shifts, then Ornstein proved that the entropy is the complete invariant, i.e.,
the two processes are isomorphic if and only if their entropies are the same \cite{Ornstein:70}.
\section{Invariance of Information Spectrum} \label{section:information-spectrum}
Let us introduce the information spectrum of a random process \cite{han:book}.
\begin{definition} \label{definition:information-spectrum}
For a stationary random process $\bm{X}=\{X_n \}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}$, the information spectrum
is the cumulative distribution function of the normalized self-information defined by
\begin{align*}
F_{\bm{X}}(\tau) := \lim_{\gamma \downarrow 0} \limsup_{n\to\infty} \Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{n} \log \frac{1}{P_{X^n}(X^n)} \le \tau + \gamma \bigg)
\end{align*}
for $\tau \in \mathbb{R}^+ := \{ a \in \mathbb{R}: a \ge 0 \}$.
\end{definition}
By the definition, $F_{\bm{X}}(\tau)$ is right-continuous. Since
\begin{align*}
\Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{n} \log \frac{1}{P_{X^n}(X^n)} > \log|{\cal X}|+\gamma \bigg) &= \sum_{x^n \in {\cal X}^n} P_{X^n}(x^n) \bol{1}\bigg[ P_{X^n}(x^n) < \frac{2^{-n\gamma}}{|{\cal X}|^n}\bigg] \\
&\le 2^{-n\gamma}
\end{align*}
for any $\gamma>0$, it follows that $F_{\bm{X}}(\tau) = 1$ for $\tau \ge \log |{\cal X}|$.
When a random process $\bm{X}$ is ergodic, the asymptotic equipartition property guarantees
\begin{align*}
\lim_{n \to \infty} \Pr\bigg( \bigg| \frac{1}{n} \log \frac{1}{P_{X^n}(X^n)} - H(\bm{X}) \bigg| \le \gamma \bigg) = 1
\end{align*}
for any $\gamma>0$. Thus, the information spectrum of the ergodic process is given as
\begin{align*}
F_{\bm{X}}(\tau) = \bol{1}\big[ H(\bm{X}) \le \tau \big],
\end{align*}
where $\bol{1}[\cdot]$ is the indicator function.
When a random process is not ergodic, the information spectrum can be computed
based on the entropy spectrum of the ergodic decomposition of the process as follows. The proof will be given in Section \ref{section:proof-explicit-information-spectrum}.
\begin{theorem} \label{theorem:explicit-information-spectrum}
When the ergodic decomposition of a stationary process $\bm{X}=\{X_n \}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}$ is given as
\begin{align*}
P_{X^n}(x^n) = \int_\Theta P_{X_\theta^n}(x^n) dw(\theta)
\end{align*}
for a family of ergodic processes $\{ \bm{X}_\theta \}_{\theta \in \Theta}$ with measure $w$ on $\Theta$,
the information spectrum of the process is given as
\begin{align} \label{eq:explicit-formula}
F_{\bm{X}}(\tau) = w(\{ \theta : H(\bm{X}_\theta) \le \tau \} ).
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
Let $\overline{H}(\bm{X})$ and $\underline{H}(\bm{X})$ be defined as
\begin{align*}
\overline{H}(\bm{X}) &:= \inf\bigg\{ \tau : \lim_{n\to\infty} \Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{n} \log \frac{1}{P_{X^n}(X^n)} > \tau \bigg) = 0 \bigg\}, \\
\underline{H}(\bm{X}) &:= \sup\bigg\{ \tau : \lim_{n\to\infty} \Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{n} \log \frac{1}{P_{X^n}(X^n)} < \tau \bigg) = 0 \bigg\},
\end{align*}
which are called the spectral sup-entropy and spectral inf-entropy \cite{han:book}.\footnote{$\overline{H}(\bm{X})$ and $\underline{H}(\bm{X})$
are given by the essential supremum and the essential infimum of the entropy spectrum under the ergodic decomposition.
The essential supremum of the entropy spectrum was used in \cite{Winkelbauer:70} to characterize the limit of
the source coding for non-ergodic processes. }
Then, we have $F_{\bm{X}}(\tau) = 1$ for $\tau \ge \overline{H}(\bm{X})$
and $F_{\bm{X}}(\tau) = 0$ for $\tau < \underline{H}(\bm{X})$.
When a process is decomposed into a finite number of ergodic components,
a behavior of the information spectrum is described in Fig.~\ref{Fig:discrete}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering{
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./discrete-spectrum.eps}
\caption{A behavior of the information spectrum when a process is decomposed into a finite number of ergodic components.}
\label{Fig:discrete}
}
\end{figure}
\begin{remark}
If the information spectrum $F_\bm{X}(\tau)$ is defined without the slack parameter $\gamma\downarrow 0$ in Definition \ref{definition:information-spectrum}, it may not
be right-continuous in general. For instance, when $\bm{X}$ is an i.i.d. process, the law of large number and the central limit theorem imply
\begin{align*}
\lim_{n\to\infty} \Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{n} \log \frac{1}{P_{X^n}(X^n)} \le \tau \bigg)
= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0 & \tau < H(\bm{X}) \\
1/2 & \tau = H(\bm{X}) \\
1 & \tau > H(\bm{X})
\end{array}
\right..
\end{align*}
\end{remark}
As an information spectrum counterpart of Proposition \ref{proposition:Kolmogorov-Sinai}, we have the following theorem,
which will be proved in Section \ref{section:proof-spectrum-homomorphism}.
\begin{theorem}[Homomorphic monotonicity of information spectrum] \label{theorem:spectrum-homomorphism}
For two stationary random processes $\bm{X}=\{X_n\}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}$ and $\bm{Y}=\{ Y_n\}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}$,
if a homomorphism from $\bm{X}$ to $\bm{Y}$ exists, then it holds that
\begin{align*}
F_{\bm{X}}(\tau) \le F_{\bm{Y}}(\tau)
\end{align*}
for every $\tau \in \mathbb{R}^+$.
\end{theorem}
Theorem \ref{theorem:spectrum-homomorphism} says that a necessary condition for the existence of
a homomorphism is that the spectrum of $\bm{X}$ ``dominates" the spectrum of $\bm{Y}$ (cf.~Fig.~\ref{Fig:dominance}).
Simpler necessary conditions are
\begin{align*}
\overline{H}(\bm{Y}) \le \overline{H}(\bm{X})
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
\underline{H}(\bm{Y}) \le \underline{H}(\bm{X}).
\end{align*}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering{
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./dominance-spectrum.eps}
\caption{Behaviors of the information spectrum of $\bm{X}$ (solid curve) and the information spectrum of $\bm{Y}$ (dashed curve) when there exists a homomorphism from $\bm{X}$ to $\bm{Y}$.}
\label{Fig:dominance}
}
\end{figure}
\begin{corollary}[Isomorphic invariance of information spectrum] \label{corollary-invariance-information-spectrum}
If two stationary random processes $\bm{X}=\{X_n\}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}$ and $\bm{Y}=\{ Y_n\}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}$ are isomorphic, then it holds that
\begin{align*}
F_{\bm{X}}(\tau) = F_{\bm{Y}}(\tau)
\end{align*}
for every $\tau \in \mathbb{R}^+$.
\end{corollary}
By combining Corollary \ref{corollary-invariance-information-spectrum} with Theorem \ref{theorem:explicit-information-spectrum}, we can recover the following result by \v{S}ujan.
\begin{corollary}[\cite{Sujan:82b}]
Suppose that a stationary random processes $\bm{X}=\{X_n\}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}$ is decomposed as
\begin{align*}
P_{X^n}(x^n) = \int_\Theta P_{X_\theta^n}(x^n) dw(\theta)
\end{align*}
for a family of ergodic processes $\{ \bm{X}_\theta \}_{\theta \in \Theta}$ with measure $w$ on $\Theta$, and
a stationary random processes $\bm{Y}=\{ Y_n\}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}$ is decomposed as
\begin{align*}
P_{Y^n}(y^n) = \int_\Xi P_{Y_\xi^n}(y^n) dv(\xi)
\end{align*}
for a family of ergodic processes $\{ \bm{Y}_\xi \}_{\xi \in \Xi}$ with measure $v$ on $\Xi$.
If the two stationary random processes $\bm{X}$ and $\bm{Y}$ are isomorphic, then it holds that
\begin{align*}
w(\{ \theta : H(\bm{X}_\theta) \le \tau \} ) = v(\{ \xi : H(\bm{Y}_\xi) \le \tau \})
\end{align*}
for every $\tau \in \mathbb{R}_+$.
\end{corollary}
Theorem \ref{theorem:spectrum-homomorphism} is a generalization
of Proposition \ref{proposition:Kolmogorov-Sinai} in the sense that the former implies the latter.
In fact, by noting the ergodic decomposition of the entropy rate \cite[Theorem 3.3]{gray:book}, the identity of the expectation \cite[Eq.~(21.9)]{billingsley-book}, and Theorem \ref{theorem:explicit-information-spectrum}, we can write
\begin{align*}
H(\bm{X}) &= \int_\Theta H(\bm{X}_\theta) dw(\theta) \\
&= \int_0^\infty w(\{ \theta : H(\bm{X}_\theta) > \tau \}) d\tau \\
&= \int_0^\infty (1-F_\bm{X}(\tau)) d\tau;
\end{align*}
and similarly for $H(\bm{Y})$.
Thus, by Theorem \ref{theorem:spectrum-homomorphism}, we have
\begin{align*}
H(\bm{X}) = \int_0^\infty (1-F_\bm{X}(\tau)) d\tau \ge \int_0^\infty (1-F_\bm{Y}(\tau) ) d\tau = H(\bm{Y}).
\end{align*}
\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{theorem:explicit-information-spectrum}} \label{section:proof-explicit-information-spectrum}
When all components are i.i.d., \eqref{eq:explicit-formula} was proved in \cite[Lemma 1.4.4]{han:book}.
Exactly the same proof applies to one direction: the left hand side is less than or equal to the right hand side in \eqref{eq:explicit-formula}.
The opposite direction of the proof also proceeds along the line of \cite[Lemma 1.4.4]{han:book}, but it requires more complicated arguments to handle ergodic components.
Let us first prove the former direction.
To that end, we first note that
\begin{align*}
\Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{n} \log \frac{1}{P_{X^n}(X^n)} \le \tau + \gamma \bigg)
= \int \Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{n} \log \frac{1}{P_{X^n}(X_\theta^n)} \le \tau + \gamma \bigg) dw(\theta).
\end{align*}
For each $X_\theta^n \sim P_{X_\theta^n}$, by the union bound, we have
\begin{align*}
\Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{n} \log \frac{1}{P_{X^n}(X_\theta^n)} \le \tau + \gamma \bigg)
&= \Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{n} \log \frac{1}{P_{X_\theta^n}(X_\theta^n)} + \frac{1}{n} \log \frac{P_{X_\theta^n}(X_\theta^n)}{P_{X^n}(X_\theta^n)} \le \tau + \gamma \bigg) \\
&\le \Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{n} \log \frac{1}{P_{X_\theta^n}(X_\theta^n)} \le \tau+2\gamma \mbox{ or } \frac{1}{n} \log \frac{P_{X_\theta^n}(X_\theta^n)}{P_{X^n}(X_\theta^n)} \le - \gamma \bigg) \\
&\le \Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{n} \log \frac{1}{P_{X_\theta^n}(X_\theta^n)} \le \tau+2\gamma \bigg) + \Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{n} \log \frac{P_{X_\theta^n}(X_\theta^n)}{P_{X^n}(X_\theta^n)} \le - \gamma \bigg).
\end{align*}
Here, the second term in the last equation can be upper bounded as
\begin{align}
\Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{n} \log \frac{P_{X_\theta^n}(X_\theta^n)}{P_{X^n}(X_\theta^n)} \le -\gamma \bigg)
&= \sum_{x^n \in {\cal X}^n} P_{X_\theta^n}(x^n) \bol{1}\bigg[ \frac{1}{n} \log \frac{P_{X_\theta^n}(x^n)}{P_{X^n}(x^n)} \le -\gamma \bigg] \nonumber \\
&\le \sum_{x^n \in {\cal X}^n} P_{X^n}(x^n) 2^{-n\gamma} \bol{1}\bigg[ \frac{1}{n} \log \frac{P_{X_\theta^n}(x^n)}{P_{X^n}(x^n)} \le -\gamma \bigg] \nonumber \\
&\le 2^{-n\gamma}. \label{eq:change-of-measure}
\end{align}
Thus, by the Fatou lemma, we have
\begin{align*}
\limsup_{n\to\infty} \Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{n} \log \frac{1}{P_{X^n}(X^n)} \le \tau + \gamma \bigg)
\le \int \limsup_{n\to\infty} \Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{n} \log \frac{1}{P_{X_\theta^n}(X_\theta^n)} \le \tau+2\gamma \bigg) dw(\theta).
\end{align*}
For each $\theta \in \Theta$ with $H(\bm{X}_\theta) > \tau + 3\gamma$, the AEP with respect to the ergodic process $\bm{X}_\theta$ implies
\begin{align*}
\limsup_{n\to\infty} \Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{n} \log \frac{1}{P_{X_\theta^n}(X_\theta^n)} \le \tau+2\gamma \bigg)
&\le \limsup_{n\to\infty} \Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{n} \log \frac{1}{P_{X_\theta^n}(X_\theta^n)} \le H(\bm{X}_\theta) - \gamma \bigg) \\
&=0.
\end{align*}
Thus, we have
\begin{align*}
\limsup_{n\to\infty} \Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{n} \log \frac{1}{P_{X_\theta^n}(X_\theta^n)} \le \tau+2\gamma \bigg) \le w(\{ \theta : H(\bm{X}_\theta) \le \tau +3\gamma \}).
\end{align*}
Since the cumulative distribution function induced by a measure is right continuous (eg.~see \cite[Sec.~14]{billingsley-book}),
by taking the limit $\gamma\downarrow 0$, we have the desired inequality.
To prove the opposite direction, we approximate each ergodic component $\bm{X}_\theta = \{ X_{\theta,n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}$ by
the $k$th order Markov process as
\begin{align*}
P^{(k)}_{X_{\theta,k+1}^n|X_{\theta,1}^k}(x_{k+1}^n | x_1^k) := \prod_{i=k+1}^n P_{X_{\theta,i}|X_{\theta,i-k}^{i-1}}(x_i | x_{i-k}^{i-1}).
\end{align*}
Note that $P_{X_{\theta,i}|X_{\theta,i-k}^{i-1}}(x_i | x_{i-k}^{i-1}) = P_{X_{\theta,k+1}|X_{\theta,1}^{k}}(x_i | x_{i-k}^{i-1})$
by stationarity of $\bm{X}_\theta$. For a given sequence $x_1^n \in {\cal X}^n$, let
\begin{align*}
Q^{(k)}_{x_1^n}(a_1^{k+1}) := \frac{|\{ i : k+1 \le i \le n, x_{i-k}^i = a_1^{k+1} \}|}{n-k}
\end{align*}
be the $k$th order Markov type (overlapping $(k+1)$-block empirical distribution).
The Markov approximation has a nice property that, when two sequences $x_1^n$ and $\tilde{x}_1^n$
have the same $k$th order Markov type $q_k=Q^{(k)}_{x_1^n}=Q^{(k)}_{\tilde{x}_1^n}$, these sequences have
the same conditional probability
\begin{align} \label{eq:same-probability}
P^{(k)}_{X_{\theta,k+1}^n|X_{\theta,1}^k}(x_{k+1}^n | x_1^k) = P^{(k)}_{X_{\theta,k+1}^n|X_{\theta,1}^k}(\tilde{x}_{k+1}^n | \tilde{x}_1^k).
\end{align}
Denote by ${\cal T}_{q_k}^n$ the set of all sequences having the $k$th order Markov type $q_k$.
Let us consider a mixture of the Markov approximations, i.e.,
\begin{align} \label{eq:mixed-markov-approximation}
P^{(k)}_{X_{k+1}^n|X_1^k}(x_{k+1}^n |x_1^k) := \int P^{(k)}_{X_{\theta,k+1}^n|X_{\theta,1}^k}(x_{k+1}^n | x_1^k) dw(\theta).
\end{align}
Since $P^{(k)}_{X_{k+1}^n|X_1^k}$ is a mixture of $k$th order Markov processes, it is invariant over a type class, i.e.,
\begin{align} \label{eq:same-probability-mixed}
P^{(k)}_{X_{k+1}^n|X_1^k}(x_{k+1}^n |x_1^k) = P^{(k)}_{X_{k+1}^n|X_1^k}(\tilde{x}_{k+1}^n |\tilde{x}_1^k)
\end{align}
for every $x_1^n, \tilde{x}_1^n \in {\cal T}_{q_k}^n$.
Let
\begin{align*}
c_k := \max_{x_1^k \in {\cal X}^k: \atop P_{X_1^k}(x_1^k)>0} \log \frac{1}{P_{X_1^k}(x_1^k)}.
\end{align*}
We first note that
\begin{align*}
\Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{n} \log \frac{1}{P_{X^n}(X^n)} \le \tau + 4\gamma \bigg)
&\ge \Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{n} \log \frac{1}{P_{X^n_{k+1}|X_1^k}(X^n_{k+1}|X_1^k)} \le \tau + 4\gamma - \frac{c_k}{n} \bigg) \\
&\ge \Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{n} \log \frac{1}{P_{X^n_{k+1}|X_1^k}(X^n_{k+1}|X_1^k)} \le \tau + 3\gamma \bigg)
\end{align*}
for sufficiently large $n$. Next, by using the above introduced mixture of Markov approximation, we have
\begin{align}
\lefteqn{ \Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{n} \log \frac{1}{P_{X^n_{k+1}|X_1^k}(X^n_{k+1}|X_1^k)} \le \tau + 3\gamma \bigg) } \nonumber \\
&= \Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{n} \log \frac{1}{P^{(k)}_{X^n_{k+1}|X_1^k}(X^n_{k+1}|X_1^k)} + \frac{1}{n} \log \frac{P^{(k)}_{X^n_{k+1}|X_1^k}(X^n_{k+1}|X_1^k)}{P_{X^n_{k+1}|X_1^k}(X^n_{k+1}|X_1^k)} \le \tau + 3\gamma \bigg)
\nonumber \\
&\ge \Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{n} \log \frac{1}{P^{(k)}_{X^n_{k+1}|X_1^k}(X^n_{k+1}|X_1^k)} \le \tau + 2\gamma \bigg)
- \Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{n} \log \frac{P^{(k)}_{X^n_{k+1}|X_1^k}(X^n_{k+1}|X_1^k)}{P_{X^n_{k+1}|X_1^k}(X^n_{k+1}|X_1^k)} \ge \gamma \bigg) \nonumber \\
&\ge \Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{n} \log \frac{1}{P^{(k)}_{X^n_{k+1}|X_1^k}(X^n_{k+1}|X_1^k)} \le \tau + 2\gamma \bigg) - 2^{-\gamma n}, \label{eq:proof-explicit-spectrum-1}
\end{align}
where the final inequality follows in a similar manner as \eqref{eq:change-of-measure}.
For each sequence $x_1^n \in {\cal X}^n$, define
\begin{align*}
\Phi(x_1^n) := \big\{ \theta \in \Theta : P^{(k)}_{X_{\theta,k+1}^n|X_{\theta,1}^k}(x_{k+1}^n|x_1^k) \le 2^{\sqrt{n}} P^{(k)}_{X_{k+1}^n|X_1^k}(x_{k+1}^n|x_1^k) \big\}.
\end{align*}
By applying the Markov inequality along with \eqref{eq:mixed-markov-approximation}, we have
\begin{align*}
w(\Phi(x_1^n)) \ge 1 - 2^{-\sqrt{n}}
\end{align*}
for every $x_1^n \in {\cal X}^n$. From \eqref{eq:same-probability} and \eqref{eq:same-probability-mixed},
$\Phi(x_1^n) = \Phi(\tilde{x}_1^n)$ for every $x_1^n,\tilde{x}_1^n \in {\cal T}_{q_k}^n$, which enables us to express $\Phi(x_1^n)$
as $\Phi(q_k)$ with $q_k = Q^{(k)}_{x_1^n}$. Let
\begin{align*}
\Phi_n^* := \bigcap_{q_k \in {\cal Q}_k} \Phi(q_k),
\end{align*}
where ${\cal Q}_k$ is the set of all $k$th order Markov types. Since the cardinality of ${\cal Q}_k$ can be bounded as (eg.~see \cite[Theorem 1.6.14]{Shields-book})
\begin{align*}
|{\cal Q}_k| \le L_{n,k} := (n-k+1)^{|{\cal X}|^{k+1}},
\end{align*}
by the union bound, we have
\begin{align} \label{eq:the-intersection-good-theta}
w(\Phi_n^*) \ge 1 - L_{n,k} 2^{-\sqrt{n}}.
\end{align}
By removing the complement of $\Phi_n^*$, we can evaluate the first term of \eqref{eq:proof-explicit-spectrum-1} as follows:
\begin{align}
\lefteqn{ \Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{n} \log \frac{1}{P^{(k)}_{X^n_{k+1}|X_1^k}(X^n_{k+1}|X_1^k)} \le \tau + 2\gamma \bigg) } \nonumber \\
&= \int \Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{n} \log \frac{1}{P^{(k)}_{X^n_{k+1}|X_1^k}(X^n_{\theta,k+1}|X_{\theta,1}^k)} \le \tau + 2\gamma \bigg) dw(\theta) \nonumber \\
&\ge \int_{\Phi_n^*} \Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{n} \log \frac{1}{P^{(k)}_{X^n_{k+1}|X_1^k}(X^n_{\theta,k+1}|X_{\theta,1}^k)} \le \tau + 2\gamma \bigg) dw(\theta) \nonumber \\
&\ge \int_{\Phi_n^*} \Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{n} \log \frac{1}{P^{(k)}_{X^n_{\theta,k+1}|X_{\theta,1}^k}(X^n_{\theta,k+1}|X_{\theta,1}^k)} \le \tau + 2\gamma -\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \bigg) dw(\theta) \nonumber \\
&\ge \int \Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{n} \log \frac{1}{P^{(k)}_{X^n_{\theta,k+1}|X_{\theta,1}^k}(X^n_{\theta,k+1}|X_{\theta,1}^k)} \le \tau + 2\gamma -\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \bigg) dw(\theta) - L_{n,k} 2^{-\sqrt{n}},
\label{eq:removing-bad-theta}
\end{align}
where the second last inequality follows from the definition of $\Phi_n^*$
and the last inequality follows from \eqref{eq:the-intersection-good-theta}.
By combining the above argument along with the Fatou lemma, we have
\begin{align}
\lefteqn{ \liminf_{n\to\infty} \Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{n} \log \frac{1}{P_{X^n}(X^n)} \le \tau + 4\gamma \bigg) } \nonumber \\
&\ge \int \liminf_{k\to\infty} \liminf_{n\to\infty} \Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{n} \log \frac{1}{P^{(k)}_{X^n_{\theta,k+1}|X_{\theta,1}^k}(X^n_{\theta,k+1}|X_{\theta,1}^k)} \le \tau + 2\gamma -\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \bigg) dw(\theta).
\label{eq:proof-explicit-spectrum-2}
\end{align}
Now, note that
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}\bigg[ \frac{1}{n-k} \log \frac{1}{P^{(k)}_{X^n_{\theta,k+1}|X_{\theta,1}^k}(X^n_{\theta,k+1}|X_{\theta,1}^k)} \bigg]
&= \mathbb{E}\bigg[ \frac{1}{n-k} \sum_{i=k+1}^n \log \frac{1}{P_{X_{\theta,k+1}|X_{\theta,1}^k}(X_{\theta,i}|X_{\theta,i-k}^{i-1})} \bigg] \\
&= H(X_{\theta,k+1}|X_{\theta,1}^k).
\end{align*}
Here, $H(X_{\theta,k+1}|X_{\theta,1}^k)$ is nondecreasing and converges to the entropy rate $H(\bm{X}_\theta)$
(cf.~\cite[Theorem 4.2.1, Theorem 4.2.2]{cover}). Thus, when $\tau \ge H(\bm{X}_\theta)$, by taking sufficiently large $k$, we have
$\tau \ge H(X_{\theta,k}|X_{\theta,1}^k)-\gamma$. For such $k$, by the ergodic theorem, we have
\begin{align*}
\lefteqn{ \liminf_{n\to\infty} \Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{n} \log \frac{1}{P^{(k)}_{X^n_{\theta,k+1}|X_{\theta,1}^k}(X^n_{\theta,k+1}|X_{\theta,1}^k)} \le \tau + 2\gamma -\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \bigg) } \\
&\ge \liminf_{n\to\infty} \Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{n} \log \frac{1}{P^{(k)}_{X^n_{\theta,k+1}|X_{\theta,1}^k}(X^n_{\theta,k+1}|X_{\theta,1}^k)} \le H(X_{\theta,k}|X_{\theta,1}^k) + \gamma -\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \bigg)
\\&=1.
\end{align*}
By combining it with \eqref{eq:proof-explicit-spectrum-2}, we have
\begin{align*}
\liminf_{n\to\infty} \Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{n} \log \frac{1}{P_{X^n}(X^n)} \le \tau + 4\gamma \bigg) \ge w(\{ \theta : H(\bm{X}_\theta) \le \tau \}).
\end{align*}
Since this inequality holds for any $\gamma>0$, we have the desired inequality. \hfill \IEEEQED
\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{theorem:spectrum-homomorphism}} \label{section:proof-spectrum-homomorphism}
Let $\bm{X}=\{X_n\}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}$ and $\bm{Y}=\{Y_n\}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}$ be stationary random processes
determined by $({\cal X}^{\mathbb{Z}}, \mathscr{B}_{\cal X}, \mu,S)$ and $({\cal Y}^{\mathbb{Z}}, \mathscr{B}_{\cal Y},\nu,S)$.
For a given homomorphism $\phi : {\cal X}^\mathbb{Z} \to {\cal Y}^\mathbb{Z}$ and integers $m,n$, we can construct a coupling
\begin{align} \label{eq:coupling}
P_{X_{-m}^m Y_{-n}^n}(x_{-m}^m,y_{-n}^n) = \mu\big( [x_{-m}^m] \cap \phi^{-1}([y_{-n}^n]) \big)
\end{align}
induced by the process $\bm{X}$ and the homomorphism $\phi$.
Since $\nu = \phi_* \mu$, the marginal of the joint distribution $P_{X_{-m}^m Y_{-n}^n}$ coincides with
the distribution induced by the process $\bm{Y}$. In the following argument, by a slight abuse of notation,
we interpret that the random variable $(X_{-m}^m,Y_{-n}^n)$ are distributed according to the joint distribution
given by \eqref{eq:coupling}.
First, we approximate an arbitrary homomorphism by using a finite function (eg.~see \cite[Theorem 3.1]{Gray:75} or \cite[Theorem 1.8.1]{Shields-book}).
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:approximation-homomorphism}
For a given homomorphism $\phi$ from $\bm{X}$ to $\bm{Y}$
and arbitrary $\varepsilon > 0$, there exists an integer $\ell=\ell(\varepsilon)$ and a finite function $f:{\cal X}^{2\ell+1}\to {\cal Y}$ such that
\begin{align}
\Pr\big( Y_0 \neq f(X_{-\ell}^\ell) \big) \le \varepsilon. \label{eq:approximation-homomorphism}
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
Let us now fix an integer $n$, and set $N=2n+1$. By stationarity, \eqref{eq:approximation-homomorphism} implies
\begin{align} \label{eq:symbol-error-probability}
\mathbb{E}\bigg[ \frac{1}{N} d_H(Y_{-n}^n, \tilde{Y}_{-n}^n) \bigg] = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=-n}^n \Pr\big( Y_i \neq \tilde{Y}_i \big) \le \varepsilon,
\end{align}
where $\tilde{Y}_i = f(X_{i-\ell}^{i+\ell})$ and $d_H(\cdot,\cdot)$ is the Hamming distance.
Furthermore, by the Markov inequality, \eqref{eq:symbol-error-probability} implies
\begin{align} \label{eq:excess-Haming-distortion}
\Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{N} d_H(Y_{-n}^n, \tilde{Y}_{-n}^n) > \beta \bigg) \le \frac{\varepsilon}{\beta}
\end{align}
for arbitrary $\beta > 0$.
The next lemma is the most key part of the proof of Theorem \ref{theorem:spectrum-homomorphism}.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:finite-bound}
For a given homomorphism $\phi$ from $\bm{X}$ to $\bm{Y}$ and arbitrary $\varepsilon>0$,
let $\ell$ and $f$ be the integer and finite function specified by Lemma \ref{lemma:approximation-homomorphism}.
For an integer $n$, set $m=n+\ell$ and $N=2n+1$. Then, we have
\begin{align*}
\Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{N} \log \frac{1}{P_{X_{-m}^m}(X_{-m}^m)} \le \tau + \gamma \bigg) \le \Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{N} \log \frac{1}{P_{Y_{-n}^n}(Y_{-n}^n)} \le \tau + 2 \gamma \bigg)
+ \frac{\varepsilon}{\beta} + 2^{-N(\gamma-h(\beta)-\beta \log |{\cal Y}|)}
\end{align*}
for any $\tau \in \mathbb{R}^+$, $\gamma>0$, and $\beta>0$, where $h(\cdot)$ is the binary entropy function.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let
\begin{align*}
{\cal S} := \bigg\{ (x_{-m}^m,y_{-n}^n) \in {\cal X}^M \times {\cal Y}^N: \frac{1}{N} \log \frac{1}{P_{X_{-m}^m}(x_{-m}^m)} \le \frac{1}{N} \log \frac{1}{P_{Y_{-n}^n}(y_{-n}^n)} - \gamma \bigg\}
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
{\cal C} := \bigg\{ (x_{-m}^m,y_{-n}^n) \in {\cal X}^M \times {\cal Y}^N : d_H(y_{-n}^n, f_{-n}^n(x_{-m}^m)) \le N\beta \bigg\},
\end{align*}
where $M=2m+1$ and $f_{-n}^n(x_{-m}^m) = (f(x_{-m}^{-n+\ell}),\ldots,f(x_{-\ell}^\ell),\ldots,f(x_{n-\ell}^m))$.
For the joint distribution given by \eqref{eq:coupling}, we have
\begin{align}
P_{X_{-m}^m Y_{-n}^n}({\cal S}) &= P_{X_{-m}^m Y_{-n}^n}({\cal S} \cap {\cal C}^c) + P_{X_{-m}^m Y_{-n}^n}({\cal S} \cap {\cal C}) \nonumber \\
&\le P_{X_{-m}^m Y_{-n}^n}({\cal C}^c) + P_{X_{-m}^m Y_{-n}^n}({\cal S} \cap {\cal C}) \nonumber \\
&\le \frac{\varepsilon}{\beta} + P_{X_{-m}^m Y_{-n}^n}({\cal S} \cap {\cal C}), \label{eq:proof-key-lemma-1}
\end{align}
where ${\cal C}^c$ is the complement of ${\cal C}$ and the last inequality follows from \eqref{eq:excess-Haming-distortion}.
To evaluate the second term of \eqref{eq:proof-key-lemma-1}, note that $(x_{-m}^m,y_{-n}^n) \in {\cal S}$ implies
\begin{align} \label{eq:proof-key-lemma-2}
P_{Y_{-n}^n}(y_{-n}^n) \le 2^{-N\gamma} P_{X_{-m}^m}(x_{-m}^m);
\end{align}
also note that, for fixed $x_{-m}^m \in {\cal X}^M$,
\begin{align} \label{eq:proof-key-lemma-3}
|\{ y_{-n}^n \in {\cal Y}^N : (x_{-m}^m,y_{-n}^n) \in {\cal C} \}| \le |{\cal Y}|^{N\beta} 2^{Nh(\beta)}
\end{align}
holds for $0 < \beta < 1/2$.
By noting these facts, we have
\begin{align}
P_{X_{-m}^m Y_{-n}^n}({\cal S} \cap {\cal C}) &= \sum_{(x_{-m}^m,y_{-n}^n) \in {\cal S}\cap {\cal C}} P_{X_{-m}^m Y_{-n}^n}(x_{-m}^m,y_{-n}^n) \nonumber \\
&\le \sum_{(x_{-m}^m,y_{-n}^n) \in {\cal S}\cap {\cal C}} P_{Y_{-n}^n}(y_{-n}^n) \nonumber \\
&\le 2^{-N\gamma} \sum_{(x_{-m}^m,y_{-n}^n) \in {\cal S}\cap {\cal C}} P_{X_{-m}^m}(x_{-m}^m) \nonumber \\
&\le 2^{-N\gamma} \sum_{x_{-m}^m \in {\cal X}^M} P_{X_{-m}^m}(x_{-m}^m) \sum_{y_{-n}^n \in {\cal Y}^N} \bol{1}[ (x_{-m}^m,y_{-n}^n) \in {\cal C}] \nonumber \\
&\le 2^{-N(\gamma-h(\beta)-\beta\log|{\cal Y}|)}, \label{eq:proof-key-lemma-4}
\end{align}
where the second inequality follows from \eqref{eq:proof-key-lemma-2}
and the last inequality follows from \eqref{eq:proof-key-lemma-3}.
Finally, note that
\begin{align}
P_{X_{-m}^m Y_{-n}^n}({\cal S}) &= \Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{N} \log \frac{1}{P_{X_{-m}^m}(X_{-m}^m)} \le \frac{1}{N} \log \frac{1}{P_{Y_{-n}^n}(Y_{-n}^n)} - \gamma \bigg) \nonumber \\
&\ge \Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{N} \log \frac{1}{P_{X_{-m}^m}(X_{-m}^m)} \le \tau + \gamma,~\frac{1}{N} \log \frac{1}{P_{Y_{-n}^n}(Y_{-n}^n)} > \tau +2 \gamma \bigg) \nonumber \\
&\ge \Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{N} \log \frac{1}{P_{X_{-m}^m}(X_{-m}^m)} \le \tau + \gamma \bigg)
- \Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{N} \log \frac{1}{P_{Y_{-n}^n}(Y_{-n}^n)} \le \tau +2 \gamma \bigg) \label{eq:proof-key-lemma-5}
\end{align}
for any $\tau \in \mathbb{R}^+$.
By combining \eqref{eq:proof-key-lemma-1}, \eqref{eq:proof-key-lemma-4}, and \eqref{eq:proof-key-lemma-5}, we have the claim of the lemma.
\end{proof}
Let $M := 2m+1 = N + 2\ell$. In order to replace $N$ with $M$ in the left hand side of the bound in Lemma \ref{lemma:finite-bound},
take $n$ sufficiently large so that $N(\tau+\gamma)/(N+2\ell) \ge \tau+\gamma/2$.
Then, the bound in Lemma \ref{lemma:finite-bound} implies
\begin{align*}
\Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{M} \log \frac{1}{P_{X_{-m}^m}(X_{-m}^m)} \le \tau + \gamma/2 \bigg) \le \Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{N} \log \frac{1}{P_{Y_{-n}^n}(Y_{-n}^n)} \le \tau + 2 \gamma \bigg)
+ \frac{\varepsilon}{\beta} + 2^{-N(\gamma-h(\beta)-\beta \log |{\cal Y}|)}.
\end{align*}
Now, take $\beta=\beta_\gamma$ sufficiently small compared to $\gamma$ so that the exponent of the last term becomes positive;
then by taking the limit of $n$ and by noting the stationarity of $\bm{X}$ and $\bm{Y}$, we have
\begin{align*}
\limsup_{n\to\infty} \Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{n} \log \frac{1}{P_{X^n}(X^n)} \le \tau + \gamma/2 \bigg) \le \limsup_{n\to\infty} \Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{n} \log \frac{1}{P_{Y^n}(Y^n)} \le \tau + 2\gamma \bigg) + \frac{\varepsilon}{\beta_\gamma}.
\end{align*}
Since this inequality holds for arbitrary $\varepsilon>0$,\footnote{Note that the other terms do not depend on $\ell$ anymore.} by taking the limit $\varepsilon \downarrow 0$, we have
\begin{align*}
\limsup_{n\to\infty} \Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{n} \log \frac{1}{P_{X^n}(X^n)} \le \tau + \gamma/2 \bigg) \le \limsup_{n\to\infty} \Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{n} \log \frac{1}{P_{Y^n}(Y^n)} \le \tau + 2\gamma \bigg).
\end{align*}
Finally, by taking the limit $\gamma\downarrow 0$, we have the desired result. \hfill \IEEEQED
\section{General Dynamical System} \label{sec:general-dynamical-system}
For a general dynamical system $(\Omega, \mathscr{B},\lambda,T)$, the entropy is defined via
homomorphism from the dynamical system to a finite alphabet random process (eg.~see \cite{gray:book}).\footnote{It is more common
to define the entropy of a dynamical system via a partition, but they are equivalent.}
Let $\phi$ be a homomorphism from $(\Omega, \mathscr{B},\lambda,T)$ to a finite alphabet random process $\bm{X}$ determined by
$({\cal X}^{\mathbb{Z}}, \mathscr{B}_{\cal X}, \mu,S)$, where $\mu = \phi_*\lambda$.
Using such a homomorphism, the entropy of the dynamical system is defined by
\begin{align*}
H(\lambda,T) := \sup_\phi H(\bm{X}),
\end{align*}
where the supremum is taken over all homomorphisms from the dynamical system $(\Omega, \mathscr{B},\lambda,T)$ to finite alphabet random processes.
Even though computing the entropy of a dynamical system is difficult in general, thanks to Proposition \ref{proposition:Kolmogorov-Sinai},
we can compute the entropy once we find an isomorphism from the dynamical system to a finite alphabet random process.
In a similar spirit, we define the information spectrum of a dynamical system as follows:
\begin{align*}
F_{\lambda,T}(\tau) := \inf_\phi F_{\bm{X}}(\tau),
\end{align*}
where the infimum is takin over all homomorphisms from the dynamical system $(\Omega, \mathscr{B},\lambda,T)$ to finite alphabet random
processes.\footnote{It may be possible that $F_{\lambda,T}(\tau) = 0$ for every $\tau \in \mathbb{R}^+$. For this reason, we also define $F_{\lambda,T}(\infty):=1$.}
Again, it is difficult to compute the information spectrum of a dynamical system in general.
However, thanks to Theorem \ref{theorem:spectrum-homomorphism}, we can compute the information spectrum
once we find an isomorphism from the dynamical system to a finite alphabet random process.
\section{Sufficient Condition} \label{section:sufficient-condition}
A stationary random process $\bm{X}$ is termed a {\em B-processes} if it is a stationary coding of an i.i.d. process,
i.e., there exists a homomorphism from an i.i.d. process to $\bm{X}$ (eg.~see \cite{Ornstein:book, Shields-book}).
In a series of papers \cite{Ornstein:70, Ornstein:71} (see also \cite{Ornstein:book}), Ornstein showed that
any ``finitely determined" process is isomorphic to an i.i.d. process having the same entropy;\footnote{Finitely determined is
a property such that approximation in the sense of the total variational distance and the entropy
implies approximation in the sense of the $\bar{d}$-distance.}
and that any B-process is finitely determined (see also \cite[Chapter IV]{Shields-book} for other characterizations of the B-process).
Consequently, the theory by Ornstein says that the class of B-processes can be classified by the entropy, i.e., two B-processes having the
same entropy are isomorphic to each other.
Then, it is tempting to extend this classification theory to mixtures of B-processes by using the information spectrum.
However, there are some pathological cases, which will be discussed later, and all mixtures of B-processes cannot necessarily be classified only by the information spectrum.
In the following, let us confine ourselves to the following class of processes.
\begin{definition}[Countable regular mixture of B-Process]
A stationary random process $\bm{X}$ determined by $({\cal X}^{\mathbb{Z}}, \mathscr{B}_{\cal X}, \mu,S)$ is termed a {\em countable regular mixture of B-processes} if
the ergodic decomposition is given by
\begin{align*}
\mu(B) = \sum_{\theta \in \mathbb{N}} w(\theta) \mu_\theta(B) ,~B \in {\cal B}_{\cal X}
\end{align*}
with a family of B-process $\{ \bm{X}_\theta \}_{\theta \in \mathbb{N}}$ determined by $({\cal X}^{\mathbb{Z}}, \mathscr{B}_{\cal X}, \mu_\theta,S)$
(with measure $w$ on the set of integers $\mathbb{N}$). Here, it is assumed that $H(\bm{X}_\theta) \neq H(\bm{X}_{\theta^\prime})$ for every $\theta \neq \theta^\prime$
(regularity condition) is satisfied.
\end{definition}
This class of processes can be classified by the information spectrum as follows:
\begin{proposition} \label{proposition:sufficiency}
Suppose that $\bm{X}$ and $\bm{Y}$ are countable regular mixtures of B-processes, and $F_{\bm{X}}(\tau) = F_{\bm{Y}}(\tau)$
for every $\tau \in \mathbb{R}_+$. Then, there exists an isomorphism between $\bm{X}$ and $\bm{Y}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $({\cal X}^{\mathbb{Z}}, \mathscr{B}_{\cal X}, \mu_\theta,S)$ with $w$ and $({\cal Y}^{\mathbb{Z}}, \mathscr{B}_{\cal Y}, \nu_\xi,S)$
with $v$ be the ergodic decompositions of $\bm{X}$ and $\bm{Y}$, respectively. Since
Theorem \ref{theorem:explicit-information-spectrum} and $F_{\bm{X}}(\tau) = F_{\bm{Y}}(\tau)$ imply
\begin{align*}
w(\{ \theta : H(\bm{X}_\theta) \le \tau \}) = v(\{ \xi : H(\bm{Y}_\xi) \le \tau \})
\end{align*}
for every $\tau \in \mathbb{R}_+$ and $\bm{X}$ and $\bm{Y}$ are regular mixtures, there exists one-to-one mapping $\kappa$ such that
$H(\bm{X}_\theta) = H(\bm{Y}_{\kappa(\theta)})$ and $w(\theta)=v(\kappa(\theta))$ for $\theta \in \mathbb{N}$. To avoid cumbersome notation,
without loss of generality, we assume that $\kappa$ is the identity in the following.
Since each component $\bm{X}_\theta$ and $\bm{Y}_\theta$ are B-processes having the same entropy, Ornstein's isomorphism theorem (cf.~\cite{Ornstein:book}) implies the existence
of an isomorphism $(\phi_\theta,\psi_\theta)$ such that $\psi_\theta(\phi_\theta(\bm{x}))=\bm{x}$
for every $\bm{x} \in C_\theta$ for some $C_\theta$ satisfying $\mu_\theta(C_\theta)=1$ and $\phi_\theta(\psi_\theta(\bm{y}))=\bm{y}$ for
every $\bm{y} \in D_{\theta}$ for some $D_\theta$ satisfying $\nu_{\theta}(D_\theta)=1$. We construct an isomorphism between $\bm{X}$ and $\bm{Y}$
by pasting these isomorphisms together.
By a well known fact on the ergodic decomposition (eg.~see \cite{Shields-book}), there exists a disjoint family $\{ A_\theta\}$ such that $A_\theta$ is shift invariant, i.e., $SA_\theta =A_\theta$,
$\mu_\theta(A_\theta)=1$, and $\mu_{\theta^\prime}(A_\theta)=0$ for $\theta^\prime \neq \theta$; similarly, there exists a disjoint family
$\{B_\theta \}$ such that $B_\theta$ is shift invariant, $\nu_\theta(B_\theta)=1$, and $\nu_{\theta^\prime}(B_\theta)=0$ for $\theta^\prime\neq \theta$.
Let $\phi_{\theta,0}(\bm{x})= (\phi_\theta(\bm{x}))_0$. Let
\begin{align*}
\phi_0(\bm{x}) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
y & \mbox{if } \bm{x} \in \cup_{\theta \in \mathbb{N}} ( A_\theta \cap \phi_{\theta,0}^{-1}(y)) \mbox{ for } y \in {\cal Y} \\
b & \mbox{if } \bm{x} \notin \cup_{\theta \in \mathbb{N}} A_\theta
\end{array}
\right.,
\end{align*}
where $b \in {\cal Y}$ is an arbitrary constant.
Since a countable union of measurable sets is measurable, $\phi_0$ defined above is measurable.
Let $(\phi(\bm{x}))_i = \phi_0(S^i \bm{x})$.
Since $A_\theta$ is shift invariant
and $S^i \bm{x} \in \phi_{\theta,0}^{-1}(y)$ implies $(\phi_\theta(S^i \bm{x}))_0 = (\phi_\theta(\bm{x}))_i=y$ for each $i \in \mathbb{Z}$,
we have $\phi(\bm{x})=\phi_\theta(\bm{x})$ for $\bm{x} \in A_\theta$.
Similarly, we can construct $\psi$ from $\{ \psi_\theta\}$ such that $\psi(\bm{y})=\psi_\theta(\bm{y})$ for $\bm{y} \in B_\theta$.
Then, for $\bm{x} \in A_\theta \cap \phi_\theta^{-1}(B_\theta) \cap C_\theta$, we have
\begin{align*}
\psi(\phi(\bm{x})) = \psi_\theta(\phi_\theta(\bm{x}))= \bm{x}.
\end{align*}
Furthermore, we have
\begin{align*}
\mu\bigg( \bigcup_{\theta \in \mathbb{N}} ( A_\theta \cap \phi_\theta^{-1}(B_\theta) \cap C_\theta) \bigg)
&= \sum_{\theta \in \mathbb{N}} \mu(A_\theta \cap \phi_\theta^{-1}(B_\theta) \cap C_\theta) \\
&= \sum_{\theta \in \mathbb{N}} w(\theta) \mu_\theta( \phi_\theta^{-1}(B_\theta) \cap C_\theta) \\
&=1,
\end{align*}
where the last equality follows from $\mu_\theta(C_\theta)=1$ and $\mu_\theta(\phi_\theta^{-1}(B_\theta))=\nu_\theta(B_\theta)=1$.
Thus, $\psi(\phi(\bm{x}))=\bm{x}$ for $\mu$ almost every $\bm{x}$. Similarly, $\phi(\psi(\bm{y}))=\bm{y}$ for $\nu$ almost every $\bm{y}$.
Finally, for $B \in \mathscr{B}_{\cal Y}$, we have
\begin{align*}
\mu(\phi^{-1}(B)) &= \sum_{\theta \in \mathbb{N}} w(\theta) \mu_\theta(\phi^{-1}(B)) \\
&= \sum_{\theta \in \mathbb{N}} w(\theta) \mu_\theta(A_\theta \cap \phi^{-1}(B)) \\
&= \sum_{\theta \in \mathbb{N}} w(\theta) \mu_\theta(A_\theta \cap \phi^{-1}_\theta(B)) \\
&= \sum_{\theta \in \mathbb{N}} w(\theta) \mu_\theta(\phi^{-1}_\theta(B)) \\
&= \sum_{\theta \in \mathbb{N}} v(\theta) \nu_\theta(B) \\
&= \nu(B),
\end{align*}
i.e., $\nu=\phi_*\mu$. Similarly, we have $\mu=\psi_*\nu$. Thus, $(\phi,\psi)$ is the desired isomorphism between $\bm{X}$ and $\bm{Y}$.
\end{proof}
It is claimed in \cite[Theorem 2]{Sujan:82b} that Proposition \ref{proposition:sufficiency} holds with
neither the countability assumption nor the regularity assumption.\footnote{More precisely, only mixtures of i.i.d. processes are
considered in \cite[Theorem 2]{Sujan:82b}, but, by virtue of the Ornstein isomorphism theorem, B-processes and i.i.d. processes are
essentially the same.}
Even though the countability assumption in Proposition \ref{proposition:sufficiency} may be dispensed
but then with more complicated arguments,\footnote{In order to handle
a mixture with uncountable ergodic components, we need to identify a universal isomorphism in the manner of \cite{KieRah81}.}
the regularity assumption, i.e., $H(\bm{X}_\theta) \neq H(\bm{X}_{\theta^\prime})$ for every $\theta \neq \theta^\prime$,
is crucial. For instance, let $\bm{X}_1$ and $\bm{X}_2$ be different ergodic processes having the same entropy
$H(\bm{X}_1)=H(\bm{X}_2)=a$, and $\bm{X}$ be a mixture of the two processes; let $\bm{Y}$ be another ergodic process with
$H(\bm{Y})= a$. Then, $\bm{X}$ and $\bm{Y}$ have the same information spectrum
$F_\bm{X}(\tau)=F_\bm{Y}(\tau)=\bol{1}[a \le \tau]$. However, these processes cannot be isomorphic since
$\bm{X}$ is non-ergodic while $\bm{Y}$ is ergodic (cf.~Proposition \ref{proposition:invariance-ergodic}).
Thus, the claim in \cite[Theorem 2]{Sujan:82b} has a flaw.
\section{Discussion} \label{section:discussion}
In this paper, we proved that the information spectrum of random processes is invariant under isomorphisms.
Our proof is based on the information spectrum approach developed in information theory.
The proof of the invariance and the analysis of the information spectrum are conducted separately in two steps:
the ergodic decomposition nor the ergodic theorem are not used in the first step, and they are only used in the second step.
In some sense, this is a first attempt of applying the information spectrum approach to ergodic theory.
On the other hand, known constructions of isomorphisms (or homomorphisms) heavily rely on the ergodic decomposition
and ergodicity of each component. Of course, since the ergodicity is preserved under isomorphisms, it is hopeless to construct
isomorphisms without using ergodicity at all. However, it is worthwhile to pursue a construction that separates the use of ergodicity
as much as possible. Such an approach will provide new insights into ergodic theory.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
The authors would like to thank Vincent Tan for comments.
\bibliographystyle{./IEEEtranS}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Let $(X,g)$ be an $m$-dimensional Riemannian manifold such that
$$
\hbox{\rm Ric}\,(g)\geq (m-1)g.
$$
Then the well-known Bishop--Gromov volume comparison says that
$$
\mathrm{vol}(X,g)\leq\mathrm{vol}(S^{m}, g_{_{S^{m}}}),
$$
and the equality holds if and only if $(X,g)$ is isometric to the standard $m$-sphere $S^m$. However, suppose in addition that $X$ has a complex structure $J$ such that $(X,g,J)$ is K\"ahler, then G. Liu \cite{L14} shows that this volume upper bound is \emph{never sharp} (unless $X={\mathbb P}} \newcommand{\RR}{\mathbb{R}^1$), in the sense that there exists a dimensional gap $\epsilon(n)>0$ such that
$$
\mathrm{vol}(X,g)\leq\mathrm{vol}(S^{m}, g_{_{S^{m}}})-\varepsilon(n).
$$
This distinguishes the K\"ahler geometry from the Riemannian case. So it is natural to ask what the optimal volume upper bound in the K\"ahler setting should be. A folklore conjecture predicts that, in the K\"ahler setting, the complex projective space equipped with the Fubini--Study metric should attain the maximal volume. Regarding this problem, a significant progress was made by K. Fujita \cite{F}, who gave an affirmative answer in the case of K\"ahler--Einstein manifolds, and whose approach is, interestingly enough, purely algebraic. K. Fujita's breakthrough was also mentioned by S.K. Donaldson in his 2018 ICM talk (cf. \cite{Don18}). However, an answer for general K\"ahler manifolds with positive Ricci curvature is still missing.
The purpose of this paper is to completely solve this problem by using some key input from algebraic geometry and convex geometry.
Our main result is stated as follows.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:vol-kahler}
Let $(X,\omega} \def\O{\Omega)$ be an $n$-dimensional K\"ahler manifold with
$
\hbox{\rm Ric}\,(\omega} \def\O{\Omega)\geq(n+1)\omega} \def\O{\Omega.
$
Then one has
$
\mathrm{vol}(X,\omega)\leq\mathrm{vol}({\mathbb P}} \newcommand{\RR}{\mathbb{R}^n,\omega_{FS}),
$
and the equality holds if and only if $(X,\omega} \def\O{\Omega)$ is biholomorphically isometric to $({\mathbb P}} \newcommand{\RR}{\mathbb{R}^n,\omega} \def\O{\Omega_{FS})$. Here $\omega} \def\O{\Omega_{FS}$ denotes the Fubini--Study metric so that $\int_{{\mathbb P}} \newcommand{\RR}{\mathbb{R}^n}\omega_{FS}^n=(2\pi)^n$.
\end{theorem}
This result gives a new characterization of the complex projective space in terms of Ricci and volume, and extends the previous works of Berman--Berndtsson \cite{BB}, F. Wang \cite{W} and K. Fujita \cite{F} (see also Y. Liu \cite{Liu18}) to general K\"ahler classes. As we shall see, while the statement of Theorem \ref{thm:vol-kahler} is differential geometric, its proof turns out to be
rather algebraic.
Indeed, K\"ahler manifolds with positive Ricci curvature are automatically Fano. These are simply connected projective manifolds with many additional algebraic properties. So in what follows, unless otherwise specified, we will always assume that $X$ is an $n$-dimensional Fano manifold. Note that the Picard group $\operatorname{Pic}(X)\cong H^2(X,{\mathbb Z}} \newcommand{\NN}{{\mathbb N})$ is a finitely generated torsion free Abelian group, hence a lattice. So the isomorphism classes of line bundles on $X$ are in one-to-one correspondence with the lattice points of $H^2(X,{\mathbb Z}} \newcommand{\NN}{{\mathbb N})$.
Also note that the \emph{K\"ahler cone} $\mathcal{K}(X)$ of $X$ coincides with its \emph{ample cone}, as $H^2(X,\RR)=H^{1,1}(X,\RR)$ by Kodaira vanishing and Hodge decomposition. So any K\"ahler class in $\mathcal{K}(X)$ can be approximated by a sequence of rational classes (corresponding to ample $\mathbb{Q}} \newcommand{\CC}{{\mathbb C}$-line bundles).
Based on this, instead of using traditional Riemannian geometry, we will prove Theorem \ref{thm:vol-kahler} from an algebraic viewpoint, which requires several tools that have been developed in the K-stability theory. First of all, we will reformulate the curvature condition in terms of Tian's \emph{greatest Ricci lower bound}, which in turn can be related to the algebraic $\delta$-invariant (see \eqref{eq:def-delta-L}) thanks to the recent result of the author \cite[Appendix]{CRZ} and independently \cite[Theorem C]{BBJ18}. Then by modifying the argument of K. Fujita \cite{F}, we get the desired volume upper bound for K\"ahler classes. The essential difficulty of Theorem \ref{thm:vol-kahler} lies in the characterization of the equality. For this, we will compute the anti-canonical Seshadri constant as in \cite{F}. However, when dealing with general K\"ahler classes, the irrationality causes some subtle issue. To overcome this, we need some key observations from convex geometry. In particular, Newton--Okounkov bodies and the positivity criterion of K\"uronya--Lozovanu \cite{KL} will be crucially used to treat the equality case of Theorem \ref{thm:vol-kahler}.
Apart from the optimal volume upper bound, quantitative volume rigidity is also an important property in geometry.
Recall that, the classical sphere gap theorem in Riemannian geometry says the following:
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:cc}\cite[Theorem A.1.10]{CC97}.
There exists $\varepsilon(m)>0$, such that if $(M,g)$ is an $m$-dimensional Riemannian manifold with
$\hbox{\rm Ric}\,(g)\geq(m-1)g$ and $\mathrm{vol}(M,g)\geq\mathrm{vol}(S^m)-\varepsilon(m)$, then
$M$ is diffeomorphic to $S^m$.
\end{theorem}
So it is satisfactory to have the following K\"ahlerian analogue, which was stated as a conjecture in an earlier version of this paper. The proof is due to Yuchen Liu (in the toric setting, this was also obtained by F. Wang \cite{W} using combinatoric methods).
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:volgap}
There exists $\varepsilon(n)>0$, such that if $(X,\omega} \def\O{\Omega)$ is an $n$-dimensional K\"ahler manifold with
$\hbox{\rm Ric}\,(\omega} \def\O{\Omega)\geq(n+1)\omega} \def\O{\Omega$ and $\mathrm{vol}(X,\omega)\geq\mathrm{vol}({\mathbb P}} \newcommand{\RR}{\mathbb{R}^n,\omega_{FS})-\varepsilon(n)$, then
$X$ is biholomorphic to ${\mathbb P}} \newcommand{\RR}{\mathbb{R}^n$.
\end{theorem}
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section \ref{sec:pre} we review some necessary notions and tools from the literature. In Section \ref{sec:rational-class} we prove Theorem \ref{thm:vol-kahler} by assuming that $[\omega} \def\O{\Omega]$ is (a multiple of) a rational class. In Section \ref{sec:Kahler}, we prove Theorem \ref{thm:vol-kahler} in full generality. In the appendix provided by Y. Liu, Theorem \ref{thm:volgap} is proved.
\begin{remark}
After completing the first draft of this paper, the author was kindly informed by Feng Wang that he had also independently obtained the inequality in Theorem \ref{thm:vol-kahler} by adopting the argument of \cite{F} to a sequence of conic KE metrics.
\end{remark}
\textbf{Acknowledgments.}
The author would like to thank Kento Fujita, Feng Wang and Chuyu Zhou for many helpful discussions. He is also grateful to Yuchen Liu for providing the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:volgap}. Thanks also go to Xiaohua Zhu and Yanir Rubinstein for valuable comments. Special thanks go to the anonymous referees whose comments helped improve and clarify this manuscript.
The author is supported by the China post-doctoral grant BX20190014.
\section{Preliminaries}
\label{sec:pre}
In this section $X$ is assumed to be an $n$-dimensional Fano manifold.
\subsection{The volume function on the N\'eron--Severi space}
\hfill\\
Note that, $H^{1,1}(X,\RR)$ can be identified with the N\'eron--Severi space $N^1(X)_\RR$, which consists of numerical equivalence classes of $\RR$-divisors on $X$. One can define a \emph{continuous} volume function $\mathrm{vol}(\cdot)$ on $N^1(X)_\RR$. When restricted to the K\"ahler cone $\mathcal{K}(X)$ (i.e., the ample cone), $\mathrm{vol}(\cdot)$ is the usual volume for K\"ahler classes (which will be treated as ample $\RR$-divisors in what follows).
Also recall that, a class $\xi\in N^1(X)_\RR$ is called \emph{nef} if for every curve $C$ on $X$
$$
\xi\cdot C\geq 0.
$$
For nef classes $\xi$, $\mathrm{vol}(\xi)$ is simply equal to the top self-intersection number $\xi^n$.
A class $\xi\in N^1(X)_\RR$ is called \emph{big} if
$$\mathrm{vol}(\xi)>0.$$
For more details on this subject, we refer the reader to the standard reference \cite{L04}.
\subsection{The greatest Ricci lower bound}
\hfill\\
Let $\mathcal{K}(X)$ denote the K\"ahler cone of $X$.
For any K\"ahler class $\xi\in\mathcal{K}(X)$, one can naturally define its
greatest Ricci lower bound $\beta(X,\xi)$ to be
\footnote{We put a factor $2\pi$ in the definition for convenience.}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:def-beta-xi}
\beta(X,\xi):=\sup\{\mu>0\ |\ \exists\text{ K\"ahler form }\omega} \def\O{\Omega\in 2\pi\xi\ \text{s.t. }\hbox{\rm Ric}\,(\omega} \def\O{\Omega)\geq\mu\omega} \def\O{\Omega \}.
\end{equation}
Note that, by the Calabi--Yau theorem, given any K\"ahler form $\alpha\in 2\pi c_1(X)$, one can always find $\omega} \def\O{\Omega\in 2\pi\xi$ such that
$
\hbox{\rm Ric}\,(\omega} \def\O{\Omega)=\alpha>0.
$
By compactness of $X$ we see
$
\hbox{\rm Ric}\,(\omega} \def\O{\Omega)\geq\epsilon\omega} \def\O{\Omega
$
for some $\epsilon>0$. So $\beta(X,\xi)$
is always a positive number. On the other hand, $\beta(X,\xi)$ is naturally bounded from above by the Seshadri constant
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:def-sashadri-L}
\epsilon(X,\xi):=\sup\{\mu>0\mid c_1(X)-\mu \xi\text{ is nef}\}.
\end{equation}
Thus we always have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:beta<=epsilon}
0<\beta(X,\xi)\leq \epsilon(X,\xi).
\end{equation}
When $\xi=c_1(L)$ for some ample $\mathbb{Q}} \newcommand{\CC}{{\mathbb C}$-line bundle $L$, we will write
$$
\beta(X,L):=\beta(X,c_1(L))
$$
for ease of notation.
\begin{remark}
When $\xi= c_1(X)$, the greatest Ricci lower bound was first studied by Tian \cite{TianGreatesLowerRicci}, although it was not explicitly defined there. It was
first explicitly defined by Rubinstein in \cite{R08,R09},
and was later further studied by Sz\'ekelyhidi
\cite{GaborGreatesLowerRicci}, Li \cite{Litoric},
Song--Wang \cite{SongWang}, Cable \cite{Cable}, et al.
\end{remark}
\subsection{The $\delta$-invariant}
\hfill\\
Let $L$ be an ample $\mathbb{Q}} \newcommand{\CC}{{\mathbb C}$-line bundle on $X$.
Following \cite{FO,BJ17}, the $\delta$-invariant of $L$ is defined by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:def-delta-L}
\delta(X,L):=\inf_{E}\frac{A_X(E)}{S_L(E)}.
\end{equation}
Here $E$ runs through all the prime divisors \emph{over} $X$ (i.e., $E$ is a divisor contained in some birational model $Y\xrightarrow{\pi}X$ over $X$).
Moreover,
$$
A_X(E):=1+\mathrm{ord}_E(K_Y-\pi^*K_X),
$$
denotes the log discrepancy, and
$$
S_L(E):=\frac{1}{\mathrm{vol}(L)}\int_0^\infty\mathrm{vol}(\pi^*L-xE)dx$$
denotes the expected vanishing order of $L$ along $E$.
Note that $\delta$-invariant is also called \emph{stability threshold} in the literature, which plays important roles in the study of K-stability and has attracted intensive research attentions. When $L=-K_X$, it was proved by the author in the appendix of his joint work with Cheltsov and Rubinstein \cite{CRZ} that
$$\beta(X,-K_X)=\min\{1,\delta(X,-K_X)\}.$$
For arbitrary ample $\mathbb{Q}} \newcommand{\CC}{{\mathbb C}$-line bundles, we have the following independent result by Berman--Boucksom--Jonsson \cite{BBJ18}, giving a geometric interpretation of $\delta$-invariants on Fano manifolds.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:beta=delta-general}
Let $L$ be an ample $\mathbb{Q}} \newcommand{\CC}{{\mathbb C}$-line bundle on a Fano manifold $X$. Then one has
$$
\beta(X,L)=\min\{\epsilon(X,L),\delta(X,L)\}.
$$
\end{theorem}
\subsection{Newton--Okounkov bodies and positivity of $\RR$-line bundles}
\hfill\\
We briefly recall the definition of Newton--Okounkov bodies; for more details we refer the reader to \cite{LM}.
Let $Y$ be an $n$-dimensional projective manifold.
Choose a flag of subvarieties
$$
Y_\bullet:\ Y=Y_0\supset Y_1\supset...\supset Y_{n-1}\supset Y_n=\{pt.\},
$$
such that each $Y_i$ is an irreducible subvariety of codimension $i$ and smooth at the point $Y_n$.
Such a flag is called \emph{admissible}.
Then any big class $\xi\in N^1(Y)_\RR$ can be associated with a convex body $\Delta_{Y_\bullet}(\xi)$ in $(\RR_{\geq0})^n$, which is called the Newton--Okounkov body of $\xi$ with respect to the flag $Y_\bullet$. This generalizes the classical polytope construction for divisors on toric varieties.
A crucial fact is that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:vol=vol}
\mathrm{vol}(\xi)=n!\mathrm{vol}_{\RR^n}(\Delta_{Y_\bullet}(\xi)).
\end{equation}
In this way one can study the volume function $\mathrm{vol}(\cdot)$ on $N^1(Y)_\RR$ using convex geometry. For more details of this construction we refer the reader to \cite{LM}.
It turns out that Newton--Okounkov bodies can also help us visualize the positivity of $\RR$-line bundles. More precisely, for any big $\RR$-divisor $\xi$, one can define its \emph{restricted base loci} by
$$
B_-(\xi):=\bigcup_A B(\xi+A),
$$
where the union is over all ample $\mathbb{Q}} \newcommand{\CC}{{\mathbb C}$-divisors $A$ on Y and $B(\cdot)$ denotes the stable base loci (cf. \cite{ELMNP}). Then it is easy to see that
\begin{equation}
\xi\text{ is nef if and only if }B_-(\xi)=\emptyset.
\end{equation}
More precisely, $B_-(\xi)$ captures the non-nef locus of $\xi$ (see \cite[Example 1.18]{ELMNP}). Indeed, suppose that there exists some curve $C$ intersecting negatively with $\xi$, then by adding a small amount of ample $\mathbb{Q}} \newcommand{\CC}{{\mathbb C}$-divisor A, one still has
$$
(\xi+A)\cdot C<0,
$$
which implies that $C\subset B(\xi+A)$ and hence
$$
C\subset B_-(\xi).
$$
The result of
K\"uronya--Lozovanu says that one can characterize the restricted base loci using Newton--Okounkov bodies.
\begin{theorem}\cite[Theorem A]{KL}
\label{thm:nef-criterion}
Let $\xi$ be a big $\RR$-divisor. Then the following are equivalent.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $q\notin B_-(\xi)$.
\item There exists an admissible flag $Y_\bullet$ with $Y_n=\{q\}$ such that the origin $0\in\Delta_{Y_\bullet}(\xi)\subset\RR^n$.
\item For any admissible flag $Y_\bullet$ with $Y_n=\{q\}$, one has $0\in\Delta_{Y_\bullet}(\xi)\subset\RR^n$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
Let us also record the following useful translation property of Newton--Okounkov bodies.
\begin{proposition}\cite[Proposition 1.6]{KL}.
\label{prop:translte-Delta}
Let $\xi$ be a big $\RR$-divisor and $Y_\bullet$ an admissible flag on $Y$. Then for any $t\in[0,\tau(\xi,Y_1))$ we have
$$
\Delta_{Y_\bullet}(\xi)_{\nu_1\geq t}=\Delta_{Y_\bullet}(\xi-tY_1)+te_1,
$$
where $\tau(\xi,Y_1):=\sup\{\mu>0|\xi-\mu Y_1\text{ is big}\}$ denotes the pseudo-effective threshold, $\nu_1$ denotes the first coordinate of $\RR^n$ and $e_1=(1,0,...,0)\in\RR^n$.
\end{proposition}
\section{Rational classes}
\label{sec:rational-class}
In this section, we will verify Theorem \ref{thm:vol-kahler} for rational classes. More precisely, we prove the following
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:main-rational}
Let $L$ be an ample $\mathbb{Q}} \newcommand{\CC}{{\mathbb C}$-line bundle on a Fano manifold $X$. Then one has
$$
\beta(X,L)^n\mathrm{vol}(L)\leq(n+1)^n,
$$
with equality if and only if $X$ is biholomorphic to ${\mathbb P}} \newcommand{\RR}{\mathbb{R}^n$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We follow the argument of K. Fujita \cite{F}.
Firstly, Theorem \ref{thm:beta=delta-general} implies that
$$
\delta(X,L)\geq\beta(X,L)\text{ and }\epsilon(X,L)\geq\beta(X,L).
$$
Pick any point $p\in X$ and let $\hat{X}\xrightarrow{\sigma}X$ be the blow-up at $p$. Let $E$ be the exceptional divisor of $\sigma$.
Then one has
$$
A_X(E)\geq \beta(X,L)S_L(E),
$$
and hence,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
n=A_X(E)&\geq \beta(X,L)S_L(E)\\
&=\frac{\beta(X,L)}{\mathrm{vol}(L)}\int_0^\infty\mathrm{vol}(\sigma^*L-xE)dx\\
&\geq\frac{\beta(X,L)}{\mathrm{vol}(L)}\int_0^{\sqrt[n]{\mathrm{vol}(L)}}(\mathrm{vol}(L)-x^n)dx\\
&=\frac{n\beta(X,L)}{n+1}\sqrt[n]{\mathrm{vol}(L)}.\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
Here we used \cite[Theorem 2.3(1)]{F}. Thus
$$\mathrm{vol}(L)\leq\frac{(n+1)^n}{\beta(X,L)^n},$$
so the desired inequality is established.
Now suppose that $\mathrm{vol}(L)=\frac{(n+1)^n}{\beta(X,L)^n}$. Then we see that the equality
$$
\mathrm{vol}(\sigma^*L-xE)=\mathrm{vol}(L)-x^n
$$
has to hold true for any $x\in[0,\frac{n+1}{\beta(X,L)}]$ (as $\mathrm{vol}(\sigma^*L-xE)$ is a continuous function in $x$). So \cite[Theorem 2.3(2)]{F} implies that
$$
\sigma^*L-\frac{n+1}{\beta(X,L)}E \text{ is nef.}
$$
Now using $\epsilon(X,L)\geq\beta(X,L)$, we find that
$$
\sigma^*(-K_X)-(n+1)E=\sigma^*\bigg(-K_X-\beta(X,L)L\bigg)+\beta(X,L)\bigg(\sigma^*L-\frac{n+1}{\beta(X,L)}E\bigg)
$$
is nef as well. Since $p\in X$ can be chosen arbitrarily, we conclude that $X\cong{\mathbb P}} \newcommand{\RR}{\mathbb{R}^n$ by \cite{CMSB,K02}.
\end{proof}
In the above proof, we actually obtained the following general inequality (cf. Blum--Jonsson \cite[Theorem D]{BJ17})
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:BJ17-thm-D}
\delta(X,L)^n\mathrm{vol}(L)\leq (n+1)^n.
\end{equation}
This inequality reveals the deep relationship between \emph{singularities} and \emph{volumes} of linear systems.
\begin{remark}
In the toric case when $L=-K_X$, the inequality
in Theorem \ref{thm:main-rational}
was first obtained by Berman--Berndtsson \cite{BB} using analytic methods, and the equality case was characterized by F. Wang \cite{W}.
\end{remark}
\section{General K\"ahler classes}
\label{sec:Kahler}
Let us attend to general K\"ahler classes.
The main result of this section is the following.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:main-general}
Let $\xi$ be a K\"ahler class of a Fano manifold $X$. Then one has
$$
\beta(X,\xi)^n\mathrm{vol}(\xi)\leq(n+1)^n,
$$
with equality if and only if $X$ is biholomorphic to ${\mathbb P}} \newcommand{\RR}{\mathbb{R}^n$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
Using Bishop--Gromov, one can quickly derive
\begin{equation*}
\label{eq:beta-V-bd}
\beta(X,\xi)^n\mathrm{vol}(\xi)\leq\frac{2^{n+1}(n!)^2(2n-1)^n}{(2n)!}.
\end{equation*}
However this bound is much worse than $(n+1)^n$ (especially when $n$ is large).
\end{remark}
The proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main-general} will be divided into several steps. We first show the inequality by approximation and then characterize the equality using Newton--Okounkov bodies. We begin with a simple observation.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:lsc-beta}
The greatest Ricci lower bound $\beta(X,\cdot)$ is a lower semi-continuous
\footnote{In fact it is proved in the author's recent work \cite{Z20} that $\beta(X,\cdot)$ is even continuous.}
function on $\mathcal{K}(X)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\{e_1,...,e_\rho\}$ be a basis of $H^{1,1}(X,\RR)$, then any K\"ahler class $\xi\in\mathcal{K}(X)$ can be
written as
$$
\xi=\sum_{i=1}^\rho a_ie_i
$$
for some $a_i\in\RR$.
For each $i\in\{1,...,\rho\}$ choose a smooth real $(1,1)$-form $\eta_i\in e_i$.
Now assume that there exists $\omega} \def\O{\Omega\in2\pi\xi$ such that
$$
\hbox{\rm Ric}\,(\omega} \def\O{\Omega)>\mu\omega} \def\O{\Omega
$$
for some $\mu>0$. For any $\vec{\epsilon}=(\epsilon_1,...,\epsilon_\rho)\in\RR^{^\rho}$ with $||\vec{\epsilon}||\ll1$, we put
$$
\omega} \def\O{\Omega_{\vec{\epsilon}}:=\omega} \def\O{\Omega+\sum_{i=1}^\rho\epsilon_i\eta_i.
$$
Then for $||\vec{\epsilon}||\ll1$ one also has
$$
\hbox{\rm Ric}\,(\omega} \def\O{\Omega_{\vec{\epsilon}})>\mu\omega} \def\O{\Omega_{\vec{\epsilon}}.
$$
So the lower semi-continuity of $\beta(X,\cdot)$ follows.
\end{proof}
As a consequence we get the following volume upper bound for general K\"ahler classes in terms of its greatest Ricci lower bound.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:beta-V-bd-for-xi}
Let $\xi$ be a K\"ahler class on an $n$-dimensional Fano manifold $X$. Then one has
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:beta-omega-bd}
\beta(X,\xi)^n\mathrm{vol}(\xi)\leq (n+1)^n.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Choose a sequence of ample $\mathbb{Q}} \newcommand{\CC}{{\mathbb C}$-line bundles $L_i$ such that
$$
L_i\rightarrow\xi \text{ in }N^1(X)_\RR.
$$
By Lemma \ref{lem:lsc-beta} we have
$$
\beta(X,\xi)\leq\liminf_i\beta(X,L_i).
$$
So for any $\epsilon>0$ and $i\gg1$, one has
$$
\beta(X,L_i)\geq \beta(X,\xi)-\epsilon.
$$
Thus Theorem \ref{thm:main-rational} implies that
$$
(\beta(X,\xi)-\epsilon)^n\mathrm{vol}(L_i)\leq(n+1)^n.
$$
Using the continuity $\mathrm{vol}(L_i)\rightarrow\mathrm{vol}(\xi)$ and sending $\epsilon\rightarrow0$, we get
$$
\beta(X,\xi)^n\mathrm{vol}(\xi)\leq (n+1)^n.
$$
\end{proof}
Therefore, to finish the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main-general}, it remains to show that the equality of \eqref{eq:beta-omega-bd} is exactly obtained by ${\mathbb P}} \newcommand{\RR}{\mathbb{R}^n$. Let us prepare the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:Fujita-ineq-Kahler-class}
Let $X$ be a projective manifold. Pick any point $p\in X$ and let $\hat{X}\xrightarrow{\sigma}X$ be the blow-up at $p$. Let $E$ be the exceptional divisor of $\sigma$. Let $\xi\in N^1(X)_\RR$ be a nef and big $\RR$-line bundle.
\begin{enumerate}
\item For any $x\in\RR_{\geq0}$, one has
$$
\mathrm{vol}(\sigma^*\xi-xE)\geq\mathrm{vol}(\xi)-x^n.
$$
\item Suppose in addition that $X$ is Fano and that $\xi$ is ample satisfying
$$
\beta(X,\xi)^n\mathrm{vol}(\xi)=(n+1)^n,
$$
then for any $x\in[0,\mathrm{vol}(\xi)^{1/n}]$,
$$
\mathrm{vol}(\sigma^*\xi-xE)=\mathrm{vol}(\xi)-x^n.
$$
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
This first part follows from \cite[Theorem 2.3(1)]{F} by approximation. Indeed, let $L_i$ be a sequence of ample $\mathbb{Q}} \newcommand{\CC}{{\mathbb C}$-line bundles such that
$
L_i\rightarrow\xi
$ in $N^1(X)_\RR$.
Then for any $x\in\RR_{\geq0}$, \cite[Theorem 2.3(1)]{F} says that
$$
\mathrm{vol}(\sigma^*(L_i)-xE)\geq\mathrm{vol}(L_i)-x^n,
$$
so the assertion follows by the continuity of $\mathrm{vol}(\cdot)$.
For the second part, we rescale $\xi$ such that
$$
\beta(X,\xi)=1 \text{ and }\mathrm{vol}(\xi)=(n+1)^n.
$$
Let $L_i$ be a sequence of ample $\mathbb{Q}} \newcommand{\CC}{{\mathbb C}$-line bundles such that
$
L_i\rightarrow\xi
$ in $N^1(X)_\RR$. For any $\epsilon>0$ and $i\gg1$, Theorem \ref{thm:beta=delta-general} and Lemma \ref{lem:lsc-beta} implies that
$$
\delta(X,L_i)\geq\beta(X,L_i)\geq 1-\epsilon.
$$
Thus we get
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
n=A_X(E)&\geq(1-\epsilon) S_{L_i}(E)\\
&=\frac{1-\epsilon}{\mathrm{vol}(L_i)}\int_0^\infty\mathrm{vol}(\sigma^*L_i-xE)dx.\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
Letting $i\rightarrow\infty$, by dominated convergence theorem and by sending $\epsilon\rightarrow 0$, we get
$$
n\geq\frac{1}{\mathrm{vol}(\xi)}\int_0^\infty\mathrm{vol}(\sigma^*\xi-xE)dx,
$$
so that (recall $\mathrm{vol}(\xi)=(n+1)^n$)
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
n&\geq\frac{1}{\mathrm{vol}(\xi)}\int_0^{\mathrm{vol}(\xi)^{1/n}}(\mathrm{vol}(\xi)-x^n)dx\\
&=\frac{n}{n+1}\mathrm{vol}(\xi)^{1/n}=n.\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
This gives
$$
\mathrm{vol}(\sigma^*\xi-xE)=\mathrm{vol}(\xi)-x^n
$$
for $x\in[0,\mathrm{vol}(\xi)^{1/n}]$ as claimed.
\end{proof}
As we have seen in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main-rational}, K. Fujita \cite[Theorem 2.3(2)]{F} says that, for ample $\mathbb{Q}} \newcommand{\CC}{{\mathbb C}$-line bundles, the condition
$$
\mathrm{vol}(\sigma^*L-xE)=\mathrm{vol}(L)-x^n,\ x\in[0,a]
$$
implies that $\sigma^*L-xE$ is nef for $x\in[0,a]$, whose proof however heavily relies on the rationality of $L$ and the ampleness criterion of \cite{dFKL}.
To prove the same assertion for general ample $\RR$-line bundles, there is some subtlety involved if we follow Fujita's original argument. To overcome this, we take an alternative approach, using Newton--Okounkov bodies.
Before stating the key result, we recall the notion of \emph{local Seshadri constant}. Given a nef $\RR$-divisor $\xi$ and a point $p\in X$, let
$$
\epsilon_p:=\inf_{C}\frac{\xi\cdot C}{\operatorname{mult}_p(C)}
$$
denote the Seshadri constant of $\xi$ at $p$ (where the inf is over all the curves passing through $p$). Assume further that $\xi$ is big and nef, then $\epsilon_p>0$ for any general point $p\in X$. Indeed, as $\xi$ is big and nef, it can be written as $\xi=A+F$, where $A$ is an ample $\RR$-divisor and $F$ is an effective $\RR$-divisor (see \cite[Proposition 2.2.22]{L04}). Then $\xi$ has positive Seshadri constant at any point $p\in X-\operatorname{supp}(F)$.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:Fujita-nef-thm-for-R-divisor}
Let $X$ be a projective manifold. Let $\xi$ be a big and nef $\RR$-divisor. Pick a point $p\in X$ such that $\xi$ has positive Seshadri constant at $p$. Let $\hat{X}\xrightarrow{\sigma}X$ be the blow-up at $p$. Let $E$ be the exceptional divisor of $\sigma$.
Suppose that there exists $a\in(0,\sqrt[n]{\mathrm{vol}(\xi)}]$ such that
$$
\mathrm{vol}(\sigma^*\xi-xE)=\mathrm{vol}(\xi)-x^n\text{ for any }x\in[0,a].
$$
Then $\sigma^*\xi-xE$ is nef for any $x\in[0,a]$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let
$\epsilon_p>0$
denote the Seshadri constant of $\xi$ at $p$. Then
$$\sigma^*\xi-x E \text{ is nef for any } x\in[0,\epsilon_p].$$
Assume that $\epsilon_p<a$, otherwise we are done.
We argue by contradiction. Suppose that $\sigma^*\xi-x_0E$ is not nef for some $x_0\in(\epsilon_p,a)$.
Then there exists some curve $C$ intersecting $\sigma^*\xi-x_0E$ negatively. Note that such $C$ necessarily intersects $E$ by the projection formula.
Thus the restricted base loci $B_-(\sigma^*\xi-x_0E)$ intersects $E$ as well.
So we can pick a point
$$
q\in B_-(\sigma^*\xi-x_0E)\cap E.
$$
Moreover, we build an admissible flag $Y_\bullet$ on $\hat{X}$ such that
$$
Y_1:=E\text{ and }Y_n:=\{q\}.
$$
This is doable because $E\cong{\mathbb P}} \newcommand{\RR}{\mathbb{R}^{n-1}$ and $Y_2\supset...\supset Y_n=\{q\}$ can be chosen to be a flag of linear subspaces in ${\mathbb P}} \newcommand{\RR}{\mathbb{R}^{n-1}$.
Then we get a Newton--Okounkov body $\Delta_{Y_\bullet}(\sigma^*\xi)$. As $\sigma^*\xi$ is nef, $B_-(\sigma^*\xi)=\emptyset$. So
Theorem \ref{thm:nef-criterion} implies that $$0\in\Delta_{Y_\bullet}(\sigma^*\xi).$$
Also note that, by our assumption,
$$
\mathrm{vol}(\sigma^*\xi-xE)=\mathrm{vol}(\xi)-x^n>0\ \text{for all } x\in[0,a).
$$
So $\sigma^*\xi-xE$ is big for all $x\in[0,a)$ and hence the pseudo-effective threshold $\tau(\xi,E)$ satisfies $\tau(\xi,E)\geq a$.
Now by Proposition \ref{prop:translte-Delta}, for any $x\in[0,a),$ the Newton--Okounkov body $\Delta_{Y\bullet}(\sigma^*\xi-xE)$ can be obtained from $\Delta_{Y_\bullet}(\sigma^*\xi)$ by truncating and translating in the first coordinate $\nu_1$ of $\RR^n$. Therefore (recall \eqref{eq:vol=vol}), for $x\in(0,a)$,
$$
\mathrm{vol}_{\RR^n}\bigg(\Delta_{Y_\bullet}(\sigma^*\xi)\cap\{0\leq \nu_1\leq x\}\bigg)=\frac{1}{n!}\bigg(\mathrm{vol}(\xi)-\mathrm{vol}(\sigma^*\xi-xE)\bigg)=\frac{x^n}{n!}.
$$
For $r\in(0,a)$, consider the slice
$$
S_r:=\Delta_{Y_\bullet}(\sigma^*\xi)\cap\{\nu_1=r\},
$$
and put
$$
A(r):=\mathrm{vol}_{\RR^{n-1}}(S_r).
$$
Then
$$
\int_0^xA(r)dr=\mathrm{vol}_{\RR^n}\bigg(\Delta_{Y_\bullet}(\sigma^*\xi)\cap\{0\leq \nu_1\leq x\}\bigg)=\frac{x^n}{n!},\ x\in(0,a),
$$
which implies that
$$
A(r)=\frac{r^{n-1}}{(n-1)!}\ \text{for }r\in(0,a).
$$
Note that the Brunn--Minkowski inequality in convex geometry says that $A(r)^{\frac{1}{n-1}}$ is concave in its support. However in our case, $A(r)^{\frac{1}{n-1}}$ is in fact \emph{linear}, so we are in the equality case of the Brunn--Minkowski inequality. This means that all the slices $S_r$ are \emph{homothetic}.
We claim that, this forces
$
\Delta_{Y_\bullet}(\sigma^*\xi)
$
to be a convex cone over the $(n-1)$-dimensional convex set $\Sigma:=\Delta_{Y_\bullet}(\sigma^*\xi)\cap\{v_1=a\}$.
Indeed, for $r\in(0,a)$, consider the cone over $S_r$:
$$
C(S_r):=\{\lambda v\ |\ \lambda\in[0,1],\ v\in S_r\}.
$$
Then $C(S_r)\subseteq\Delta_{Y_\bullet}(\sigma^*\xi)\cap\{0\leq \nu_1\leq r\}$ by convexity. On the other hand,
$$
\mathrm{vol}_{\RR^n}(C(S_r))=\int_0^r(\frac{s}{r})^{n-1}A(r)ds=\frac{r^n}{n!}=\mathrm{vol}_{\RR^n}\bigg(\Delta_{Y_\bullet}(\sigma^*\xi)\cap\{0\leq \nu_1\leq r\}\bigg).
$$
This implies that
$$
\Delta_{Y_\bullet}(\sigma^*\xi)\cap\{0\leq \nu_1\leq r\}=C(S_r),\ \text{for any }r\in(0,a).
$$
Sending $r\rightarrow a$, we find that
$
\Delta_{Y_\bullet}(\sigma^*\xi)\cap\{0\leq\nu_1\leq a\}
$ is a cone over $\Sigma$, as claimed. Now recall that $\sigma^*\xi-xE$ is nef for $x\in[0,\epsilon_p]$, so $B_-(\sigma^*\xi-xE)=\emptyset$ and hence by Theorem \ref{thm:nef-criterion},
$$
0\in\Delta_{Y_\bullet}(\sigma^*\xi-xE),\ \text{for all }x\in[0,\epsilon_p].
$$
Then by Proposition \ref{prop:translte-Delta}, $\Delta_{Y_\bullet}(\sigma^*\xi)\cap\{0\leq \nu_1\leq a\}$ contains the line segment $\{(x,0,...,0)|x\in[0,\epsilon_p]\}$,
so the cone property forces it to contain the \emph{whole} line segment
$$\{(x,0,...,0)|x\in[0,a]\}.$$
Intuitively, one has the following picture.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{Delta.PNG}
\caption{$\Delta_{Y_\bullet}(\sigma^*\xi)\cap\{0\leq\nu_1\leq a\}$}
\end{figure}
Then by Proposition \ref{prop:translte-Delta} again,
$
0\in\Delta_{Y\bullet}(\sigma^*\xi-x_0E)
$
and hence $q\notin B_-(\sigma^*\xi-x_0E)$ by Theorem \ref{thm:nef-criterion}, which contradicts our choice of $q$.
Thus $\sigma^*\xi-xE$ is nef for any $x\in[0,a]$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
We are kindly informed by a referee that, the above result also follows from \cite[Theorem 1.3]{PS}.
\end{remark}
\begin{proof}[Finishing the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main-general}] It remains to consider the equality case: $\beta(X,\xi)^n\mathrm{vol}(\xi)=(n+1)^n$. Applying Lemma \ref{lem:Fujita-ineq-Kahler-class}(2) and Proposition \ref{prop:Fujita-nef-thm-for-R-divisor},
$$
\sigma^*\xi-\frac{n+1}{\beta(X,\xi)}E\text{ is nef}.
$$
On the other hand, by \eqref{eq:beta<=epsilon},
$$
-K_X-\beta(X,\xi)\xi\text{ is nef}.
$$
So we find that
$$
\sigma^*(-K_X)-(n+1)E=\sigma^*\bigg(-K_X-\beta(X,\xi)\xi\bigg)+\beta(X,\xi)\bigg(\sigma^*\xi-\frac{n+1}{\beta(X,\xi)}E\bigg)
$$
is nef as well. Since $p\in X$ can be chosen arbitrarily, we conclude that $X\cong{\mathbb P}} \newcommand{\RR}{\mathbb{R}^n$ by \cite{CMSB,K02}.
\end{proof}
Finally, we are able to prove the main result of this paper.
\begin{theorem}
[=Theorem \ref{thm:vol-kahler}]
Let $(X,\omega} \def\O{\Omega)$ be an $n$-dimensional K\"ahler manifold with
$$
\hbox{\rm Ric}\,(\omega} \def\O{\Omega)\geq(n+1)\omega} \def\O{\Omega.
$$
Then one has
$$
\int_X\omega} \def\O{\Omega^n\leq(2\pi)^n,
$$
and the equality holds if and only if $(X,\omega} \def\O{\Omega)$ is biholomorphically isometric to $({\mathbb P}} \newcommand{\RR}{\mathbb{R}^n,\omega} \def\O{\Omega_{FS})$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Consider the K\"ahler class $\xi:=\frac{1}{2\pi}[\omega]$. Then $\beta(X,\xi)\geq(n+1)$. So $\mathrm{vol}(\xi)\leq1$
by Proposition \ref{prop:beta-V-bd-for-xi}.
In other words,
$$
\int_X\omega^n=(2\pi)^n\mathrm{vol}(\xi)\leq(2\pi)^n.
$$
And the equality holds if and only if $X\cong{\mathbb P}} \newcommand{\RR}{\mathbb{R}^n$ by Theorem \ref{thm:main-general}, in which case, the equality
$
\int_{{\mathbb P}} \newcommand{\RR}{\mathbb{R}^n}\omega} \def\O{\Omega^n=(2\pi)^n
$
implies that
$$
[\omega} \def\O{\Omega]=2\pi c_1(\mathcal{O}_{{\mathbb P}} \newcommand{\RR}{\mathbb{R}^n}(1)).
$$
So $\partial\dbar$-lemma gives some $f\in C^\infty({\mathbb P}} \newcommand{\RR}{\mathbb{R}^n,\RR)$ such that
$$
\sqrt{-1}\partial\dbar f=\hbox{\rm Ric}\,(\omega} \def\O{\Omega)-(n+1)\omega} \def\O{\Omega\geq0,
$$
which forces $f$ to be a constant. Thus $\omega} \def\O{\Omega$ satisfies the K\"ahler--Einstein equation
$$
\hbox{\rm Ric}\,(\omega} \def\O{\Omega)=(n+1)\omega} \def\O{\Omega.
$$
Now by the uniqueness of KE metrics \cite{BM}, we obtain $\omega} \def\O{\Omega=\omega} \def\O{\Omega_{FS}$ up to an automorphism.
\end{proof}
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
With recent advances in nanotechnology and our ability to produce nano-structured materials, there is now considerable interest in understanding the transport of fluids inside them~\cite{Robertson:PNAS2006,Gubbins2011,Rodr:EPJE2012}. Fluids in highly confined systems such as carbon nanotubes~\cite{Mukh:2010}, zeolites~\cite{karger1992,kumar2014,karger2015}, metal--organic frameworks~\cite{Jobic2016} and ion channels in biological membranes~\cite{Jensen2002,Rasaiah2008} exhibit single-file diffusion (SFD) in which particles cannot pass each other and the diffusion is constrained in one dimension. This geometric restriction, combined with the nature of the fundamental particles dynamics, can have a significant effect on the way the particles move. For example, the transport coefficient of a fluid along an arbitrary axis, $D_x$, can generally be calculated from the long time behavior of the mean squared displacement (MSD), which is given by the Einstein relation:
\begin{equation}
\left \langle \left (x(t)-x(0)\right )^{2} \right \rangle = \left \langle \Delta x^{2}\left (t\right ) \right \rangle \propto \alpha l (D_xt)^{\gamma} ,
\label{eq:eqn1}
\end{equation}
where $\alpha$ depends upon the distribution of jumps in the basic motion, $l$ is the ``free volume" along the $x$ axis per particle and $\gamma$ is a variable~\cite{Levitt:1973p14144}. In a fluid performing deterministic dynamics, the particles exhibit ballistic motion at short times, where $\gamma=2$, before caging and cage hopping leads to a crossover to diffusive motion at long times where $\gamma=1$, and Eq.~\ref{eq:eqn1} becomes,
\begin{equation}
\left \langle \Delta x^{2}\left (t\right ) \right \rangle=2D_{x}t \mbox{.}\\
\label{eq:msdbulk}
\end{equation}
Equation~\ref{eq:msdbulk} is valid in the bulk at long times, independent of the nature of the particle dynamics, and remains true in single file systems when the dynamics is deterministic~\cite{Hahn_Molecular_1996}. However, if the single file particles are subject to a Brownian background~\cite{Levitt:1973p14144}, or independent stochastic forces~\cite{precus:1974}, then the MSD of a tagged particle is described by an Einstein-like relation,
\begin{equation}
\left \langle \Delta x^{2}\left (t\right ) \right \rangle=2F_{x}t^{1/2}\mbox{ ,}\\
\label{eq:F}
\end{equation}
where $\gamma=1/2$, indicating the system exhibits anomalous sub-diffusion, and the diffusion coefficient has been replaced by the mobility factor $F_x$~\cite{hahn:1998,lin:2005}.
One of the most challenging tasks in the field of condensed matter is to find a relationship between the transport coefficients of a fluid and its equilibrium thermodynamics properties. Rosenfeld~\cite{Rosenfeld:1977p14198} originally proposed a scaling relation, $D_{\textup{R}} \approx 0.58 \; \textup{exp}(As^{\textup{ex}})$ between a reduced transport coefficient, $D_{\textup{R}}=DT^{-1/2}\rho^{1/3}$ ($\rho$ is number density), and the excess entropy per particle, $s^{\textup{ex}}$, where $A$ is a material dependent constant. This was later expanded to consider dilute fluids~\cite{Rosenfeld:1999p14199}. Dzugutov~\cite{Dzugutov:1996p14200} developed a similar scaling relation, $D_{\textup{D}} \approx 0.078 \; \textup{exp}(s^{\textup{ex}})$, linking the excess entropy to a diffusion coefficient, $D_{\textup{D}}=D\rho^{2/3}\Gamma_{\textup{E}}^{-1}$, that is reduced in terms of an effective Enskog inter-particle collision frequency, $\Gamma_E$, that includes contributions obtained from microscopic structural quantities such as the radial distribution function. These studies have subsequently formed the basis for scaling type approaches focused on connecting the excess entropy to dynamics in a variety of systems~\cite{Bretonnet:2002p14205,yokoyama:HTMP2011,cao:PBCM2011,cao:JAP2015,cao:RSC2016,Jakse:SR2016,samanta:PRL2004,wautelet:EJP2001,colbrook:MNRAS2017,Gioia:BLM2004,BOMONT:PA2015,Li:CPL2004,Gompper:EPJE2011,binder:EPJE2009}. Furthermore, it is important to note that entropic scaling laws, such as the Adam-Gibbs relation~\cite{adam:1965}, have also successfully described diffusion and structural relaxation in terms of the configurational entropy in supercooled liquids~\cite{sastry:2001,speedy:2001}, at least at temperatures above the observed break down in the Stokes-Einstein relation~\cite{sastry:EPJE2018}.
In the context of confined fluids, Mittal et. al.~\cite{Mittal:2006p14186} showed that the scaling relationships between the self-diffusivity, excess entropy and density remain valid for both quasi-two dimensional (particles confined between plates) and quasi-one-dimensional fluids. The same authors also found that self diffusivity of the confined systems could essentially be mapped onto the behaviour of bulk fluids through either an effective packing fraction or the excess entropy~\cite{Mittal:2007p14189}. Similarly, it has been shown that a slightly modified version of the Dzugutov scaling could account for the diffusivity in water and water-methane mixtures both in the bulk and when confined to carbon nanotubes of different diameters~\cite{sahu:jpcc2017}. This suggests that the properties of bulk materials could be used to predict the dynamics of highly confined fluids.
However, rather than use the bulk as a reference, Percus and co-workers~\cite{kalinay:2005jcp,percus:2010jsp,kalinay2011pre} have explored the possibility of mapping the dynamic properties of quasi-one-dimensional fluids to those of a truly one-dimensional ($1d$) system where it is often possible to obtain exact results, or is relatively easy to perform highly accurate numerical simulations. In particular, Percus~\cite{percus:2010jsp} developed a heuristic approach that suggests,
\begin{equation}
\left \langle \Delta x^{2}\left (t\right ) \right \rangle = K \left<\left|\Delta x(t)\right|\right>_0\mbox{,}\\
\label{eq:percus}
\end{equation}
where $\left<\left|\Delta x(t)\right|\right>_0$ contains the details of the particle motion in the strictly one-dimensional system, so is proportional to $t$ for inertial dynamics and proportional to $t^{1/2}$ in the case of anomalous sub-diffusion. For a $1d$ system of $N$ hard rods with diameter, $\sigma$, on a line of length $L$, $K=(L/N-\sigma)$, but more generally $K$ could be approximated by $kT/ P$, or $(-kT\partial L/\partial NP)^{1/2}$, where the $P$ is the pressure in the quasi-$1d$ system, $T$ is the temperature and $k$ is the Boltzmann constant. The proposed strategy is then to identify characteristics of the distribution of next nearest neighbour separations, to which $P$ is connected, that can be used to map the dynamics between the system of interest and the $1d$ reference system.
The goal of the current paper is to simply demonstrate that an effective density and effective particle diameter, obtained either from the equation of state or a direct geometric measure, is able to provide such a map between the long time dynamics of a strictly $1d$ hard rod system and the dynamics of a quasi-$1d$ system. Here, we will focus on the study of two dimensional hard discs confined to a structureless channel exhibiting deterministic dynamics as an example. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: Section~\ref{sec:method} describes the details of the model and the simulation method used to examine the dynamics. Section~\ref{sec:scaling} outlines the calculation of the effective density and particle size, and the mapping of the dynamics of the $1d$ hard rod system. We also show that the same scaling appears through the use of the excess entropy. Our conclusions are summarized in Section~\ref{sec:con}.
\section{Model and Methods}
\label{sec:method}
We consider a system of two-dimensional hard disks of diameter, $\sigma$, confined between parallel hard lines separated by a distance $H_d$. The channel length in the longitudinal direction is $L$ and the two ends obey periodic boundary conditions. The occupied volume fraction for the system is then given by,
\begin{equation}
\phi = \frac{N \pi \sigma ^{2}}{4H_{d}L}\mbox{,}\\
\label{eq:2dphi}
\end{equation}
where $N$ is the number of particles. The particle--particle and particle--wall interaction potentials are given by,
\begin{equation}
V(r_{ij})= \left\{\begin{matrix}
0 \;\;\; & r_{ij} \geqslant \sigma \\
\infty \;\;\; & r_{ij} < \sigma
\end{matrix}\right.,
\label{eq:potential}
\end{equation}
\begin {equation}
V_{w}(r_{i})= \left\{\begin{matrix}
0 \;\;\; & \left | r_{y} \right | \leqslant h_{0}/2 \\
\infty \;\;\; & \textup{otherwise}
\end{matrix}\right.,
\label{eq:wpotential}
\end{equation}
respectively, where $r_{ij}=\left | \mathbf{r_{j}-r_{i}} \right |$ is the distance between particles, $r_{y}$ is the component of the position vector for a particle perpendicular to the wall and $h_{0}=(H_{d}-\sigma)$, is the reduced channel diameter.
In the current work, we restrict our analysis to systems performing inertial dynamics, so in the long time limit the diffusion coefficient is given by Eq.~\ref{eq:msdbulk}. The MSD is obtained from event-driven molecular dynamics (EDMD) simulations~\cite{Alder:1960p258} in the canonical ($N,V,T$) ensemble where $N=30000$ particles, $V=h_{0}L$ is the total available volume of system accessible to the center of the particles and $T$ is the temperature. The units of time in the simulation are $\sigma \sqrt {m/kT}$, where $m$ is the mass of the particles, which is set equal to unity, and all lengths are in units of $\sigma$. We study channels with widths $H_{d} = 1.1$ up to ($1+\sqrt {3/4}$) which ensures that only nearest neighbors can interact and prevents the particles from passing each other.
At the start of each run, the particles are placed on a lattice at packing fraction $\phi = 0.1$ and are assigned a random distribution of velocities scaled to give $kT = 1$. At each $\phi$ studied, $200N$ collisions are used to reach equilibrium and the MSD in the longitudinal direction of the channel ($x$-axis) was measured over the next $400N$ collisions in which particle coordinates were saved 80 times, separated by $5N$ collisions. After collecting data at a given $\phi$ the system is compressed to a higher occupied volume fraction using a modified version of the Lubachevsky and Stillinger~\cite{Lubachevsky:1990p309} (LS) algorithm that ensures $H_{d}/\sigma$ remains constant as the diameter of the discs is changed ($L$ fixed), with a compression rate $ds= d\sigma/dt = 0.001$. The mean squared displacements are reported as averages over 20 independent runs performed for each channel diameter.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{Fig_1_MSD_11_tot}
\caption{The MSD along the direction of the pore axis, as a function of $t$ for $H_{d}=1.1$ at different $\phi$. The short line segments have slopes as indicated and are included as a guide to the eye.}
\label{fig:figure1}
\end{figure}
We monitor the self-diffusivity of the fluid by fitting the long-time behavior of the MSD in the longitudinal direction of the channel ($x$-axis) for the particles to the Einstein equation (Eq.~\ref{eq:eqn1}). Figure 1 shows the MSD as a function of time for the case with $H_{d} = 1.1$ at different densities (starting from $\phi =0.1$ up to $\phi = 0.5$ with steps of 0.02). We then obtain $\gamma$ by taking the numerical derivative of the data presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:figure1} to determine where we should evaluate the slope to obtain the diffusion coefficient. Figure~\ref{fig:figure2} shows $\gamma$ evolves over time. At low densities, $\gamma$ decreases slowly from its ballistic value because the particles are well separated. At higher densities, the expected diffusive behaviour is obtained quickly, but at longer times, correlations build up as a result of finite size effects~\cite{Hahn_Molecular_1996} and a non-monotonous behavior is observed. Figure~\ref{fig:figure3} shows the value of $D_x$, obtained by measuring the slope of the MSD over the time period where $\gamma\approx1$, as a function of occupied volume fraction for different channel diameters.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{Fig_2_d_MSD_ll_11_tot}
\caption{Exponent, $\gamma$, as a function of $\ln t$ for $H_{d}=1.1$ at different $\phi$.}
\label{fig:figure2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{Fig_3_D_phi}
\caption{Diffusivity, $D_x$ as a function of occupied volume fraction, $\phi$, for various channel widths.}
\label{fig:figure3}
\end{figure}
The equation of state for this quasi-$1d$ system is obtained following the transfer matrix analysis developed by Kofke and Post~\cite{Kofke:1993p3} and is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:EOS}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{Fig_4_EOS_defect_inset}
\caption{$PV/NkT$ vs. $\phi$ for different channel $H_d$, obtained using the transfer matrix method described in Ref~\cite{Kofke:1993p3}. Inset: The equilibrium fraction of defects, $\theta^*$, in the jammed states associated with the inherent structure basins sampled by the equilibrium fluid as a function $\phi$ for channel widths $H_d=1.1$ (solid line) and $H_d=1.86$ (dashed line).}
\label{fig:EOS}
\end{figure}
\section{Scaling Dynamics with a One-Dimensional Effective Density and Particle Size}
\label{sec:scaling}
The exact equation for diffusion of hard rods in a strictly one-dimensional ($1d$) system was solved by Jepsen~\cite{Jepsen:1965p14139} and is given by:
\begin{equation}
\frac{D_x}{\sigma} = \frac{(1-\phi)}{\phi (2 \pi \beta m)^{1/2}},
\label{eq:eqn2}
\end{equation}
where $\beta=(kT)^{-1}$, $m$ is the mass of a particle, and the occupied volume fraction becomes $\phi = N\sigma/L$ in $1d$. Figure~\ref{fig:figure3} compares $D_x$ for the quasi-$1d$ systems with the strictly $1d$ system as a function of occupied volume fraction for different channel diameters. At low densities, $D_x$ for the quasi-one-dimensional channels generally follows the trend of the strictly $1d$ system, but decreases with increasing $H_d$ at fixed $\phi$. At higher densities, the diffusion coefficients begin to exhibit behaviour that reflects the differences between the two. For the narrower quasi-$1d$ channels, $D_x$ decreases more rapidly than the strictly $1d$ system because $D_x$ necessary goes to zero as $\phi$ approaches $\phi_{J_{max}}<1$, the most dense packing for the system. For the wider channels, $D_x$ exhibits a plateau at intermediate densities that coincides with the plateau observed in the equation of state (see Fig~\ref{fig:EOS}). While the short ranged hard disc interaction and quasi-one-dimensional nature of the system rule out the possibility that the system has a phase transition, the fluid undergoes a significant, but continuous, structural rearrangement at intermediate densities~\cite{Kofke:1993p3,Bowles_Landscapes_2006}. The low density fluid is characterized by linear arrangements of the discs where the collisions between discs occur predominantly in the longitudinal direction, and the high density fluid is dominated by zig-zag arrangements of the discs, with disc interactions occurring across the channel. In the transition region, the effects of increasing $\phi$ are somewhat off set by these structural rearrangements so the amount of space the discs have to move in the longitudinal direction changes slowly, giving rise to the plateaus in the diffusion coefficient and the longitudinal pressure. The diffusion coefficient would be expected to decrease again at higher densities where the pressure begins to increase again, but our simulations becomes trapped in a glassy state where it is not possible to measure the equilibrium properties of the fluid.
The goal of this work is to identify a scaling that accounts for these differences and collapses $D_x$ for the quasi-$1d$ systems onto Eq.~\ref{eq:eqn2}. As the diameter of channel changes, the kinetic term in Eq.~\ref{eq:eqn2}, $(2\pi\beta m)^{-1/2}$ remains unchanged, so the focus of our task is to provide a map between the quasi-$1d$ and strictly-$1d$ systems for the density dependent term, $(1-\phi)/\phi$, which can be thought of as the mean clearance between neighbouring particles~\cite{Hahn_Molecular_1996}. One possibility is to explore this term in the context of the inherent structure paradigm~\cite{Stillinger_Systematic_1964,Stillinger_Hidden_1982}, where configurations that map to the same mechanically stable jammed structure, or inherent structure, are grouped together into local basins of attraction so that the thermodynamics and dynamics of the fluid can be described in terms of the basins sampled at equilibrium. The amount of vibrational space the particles have when sampling a given basin then goes as $(\phi_J-\phi)$. The strictly-$1d$ hard rod system has an extremely simple inherent structure landscape consisting of a single basin that jams in a state with all the rods in contact end-to-end and $\phi_J=1$. The inherent structure landscape is more complicated in higher dimensions. In two dimensions, a disc is locally locally jammed if it has at least three rigid contacts, not all in the same hemisphere. However, a configuration made up of locally jammed discs is not necessarily a mechanically stable inherent structure, or collectively jammed state, because a collective motion of the particles can lead to unjamming~\cite{Torquato_Multiplicity_2001}, highlighting the global nature of jamming phenomena.
Confining the particles within narrow quasi-$1d$ channels reduces the number of possible disc-disc contacts and prevents collective rearrangements of the particles. As a result, the complete inherent structure landscape of the current model, and how it is sampled as function of $\phi$, can be constructed by considering local packing arrangements~\cite{Yamchi:PRL2012,Ashwin:PRL2013,Yamchi:PRE2015}. The most dense structure consists of a zig-zag packing of discs contacting their two neighbours across the channel as well as the wall and the lower density jammed states are formed by introducing defects where discs form a contact with another disc along the channel (see Fig.~\ref{fig:sketch}). The jamming density of a packing is then given by~\cite{Bowles_Landscapes_2006},
\begin{equation}
\phi_{J} = \frac{\pi}{4 H_{d}\left(\theta+\left(1-\theta\right)\sqrt{H_{d}\left(2\sigma-H_{d}\right)}\right)}\mbox{,}\\
\label{eq:eqn3}
\end{equation}
where $\theta$ is the fraction of defects so that $\phi_{J}\rightarrow\phi_{J_{max}}$ as $\theta\rightarrow 0$. Noting that two defects cannot appear next to each other in a jammed configuration because the particles would not satisfy the local jamming condition, it has also been shown that the lowest density jammed structure consists of alternating dense and defect states, with $\theta=0.5$. The number of inherent structure basins is also a function of $\theta$, with the maximum number of jammed structures occurring when $\theta=1/2-\sqrt{5}/10$ and decreasing to unity as $\theta$ approaches its upper and lower limits.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{Fig_5_2D_packing_sketch}
\caption{A configuration of hard discs in a jammed packing containing discs in the most dense (red) and defect (green) local structures.}
\label{fig:sketch}
\end{figure}
At equilibrium, the fluid samples the set of basins on the inherent structure landscape that maximizes the total entropy so that at a given $\phi$ the system samples basins with the equilibrium fraction of defects $\theta=\theta^*$. The insert to Figure~\ref{fig:EOS} shows $\theta^*$ as function of $\phi$, obtained by maximizing the total entropy of the fluid~\cite{Ashwin:PRL2013,Yamchi:PRE2015}. At low $\phi$, the system samples the region of the inherent structure landscape where there is a large number of basins with a high defect fraction and low $\phi_J$. With increasing $\phi$, the system samples a smaller number of basins, and smaller defect fraction, that have a greater vibrational entropy due to their larger $\phi_J$, effectively trading a reduction of configurational entropy for increased vibrational entropy.
In the context of the current problem, this means that $\phi_J$ is a function of density, which in turn influences the amount of space the particles have move.
Equation.~\ref{eq:eqn2} can then be rewritten to account for density dependent jamming density as,
\begin{equation}
\frac{D_x}{\sigma} = \frac{(\phi_J-\phi)}{\phi (2 \pi \beta m)^{1/2}},
\label{eq:dx2d}
\end{equation}
where $(\phi_J-\phi)/\phi$ is the effective mean clearance between adjacent particles, and $\phi_J$ at each density is given by Eq.~\ref{eq:eqn3} using $\theta^*$. Figure~\ref{fig:figure5} shows the predictions of the Eq.~\ref{eq:dx2d} for different channel widths, where we have used the equilibrium value of $\theta$ to obtain $\phi_J$. While the data is somewhat linearized the slopes of the lines decrease with increasing $H_d$, which may be a result of the increased motion of the particles perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the channel that is not accounted for in our measurements of the MSD.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{Fig_6_scaledD_Eq8}
\caption{Test of Eq.~\ref{eq:dx2d} plotting $(D_x/\sigma_N)(2 \pi \beta m)^{1/2}$ as a function of $(\phi_{J}-\phi)/\phi$.}
\label{fig:figure5}
\end{figure}
The exact EOS for quasi-$1d$ systems was solved by Kofke and Post~\cite{Kofke:1993p3} using a transition matrix approach. Their approach uses the idea that when the {\it y} positions of the particles are fixed the system can be characterized as a $1d$ mixture of hard rods on a line with different contact lengths. This allow the integration in $x$ to be performed independently of the {\it y} integration when solving the partition function. The results of the integrals can be solved as an eigenvalues problem where the largest eigenvalue is used, which essentially identifies an average effective diameter of the projected hard rods.
Motivated by this, we define an effective one-dimensional interaction diameter, $\sigma_i$, between two neighbouring particles that simply depends on their relative separation in the $y$-direction, $\Delta y=|y_{i+1}-y_i|$,
\begin{equation}
\sigma_i=\sqrt{\sigma^2-\Delta y^2}\mbox{,}\\
\label{eq:edia}
\end{equation}
and reduces to $\sigma$ when $\Delta y=|y_{i+1}-y_i|=0$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig:figure6}).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{Fig_7_Diff_effective_diameter_modified}
\caption{Effective diameter, a) purely $1d$ system $\sigma = \sigma_{N}$, b) $H_{d}=1.8$ at low density and c) $H_{d}=1.8$ at high density }
\label{fig:figure6}
\end{figure}
The average effective $1d$ interaction diameter is then given by,
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{\textup{N}} =\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i} \sigma_{\textup{i}},
\label{eq:eqn4}
\end {equation}
and we can define an effective occupied volume fraction,
\begin{equation}
\phi_{\textup{eff}}=\frac{N\sigma_{\textup{N}}}{L}\mbox{,}\\
\label{eq:eqn5}
\end{equation}
that can be extracted from the equation of state of the quasi-one dimensional system and used to obtain the diffusion coefficient from Eq~\ref{eq:eqn2}. To achieve this, we assume the exact $1d$ equation of state holds for $\phi_{\textup{eff}}$:
\begin{equation}
Z = \frac{1}{1-\phi_{\textup{eff}}} ,
\label{eq:eqn6}
\end{equation}
where $Z=PV/NkT$ is the compressibility factor for the quasi-one-dimensional system. Rearranging, we obtain $\phi_{\textup{eff}}$ as,
\begin{equation}
\phi_{\textup{eff}} = \frac{Z-1}{Z} \mbox{.}\\
\label{eq:eqn7}
\end{equation}
Sububstituting eq.~\ref{eq:eqn5} into ~\ref{eq:eqn2}, gives the diffusion coefficient in terms of the effective volume fraction,
\begin{equation}
\frac{D_{x}}{\sigma_\textup{N}} = \frac{(1-\phi_{\textup{eff}})}{\phi_{\textup{eff}} (2 \pi \beta m)^{1/2}}\mbox{.}\\
\label{eq:eqn8}
\end{equation}
Figure~\ref{fig:figure7} shows Eq.~\ref{eq:eqn8} using the simulated data for the diffusion coefficient at different channel widths compared to exact analytical results for $1d$ system. The plot shows, the collapse of the data is good,
which suggests $\phi_{\textup{eff}}$ provides a good thermodynamic connection through the equation of state to $1d$ diffusion, as suggested by Percus~\cite{percus:2010jsp}. The deviation at low densities may be related to a broad distribution of effective diameters at low densities, where the particles move freely in the transverse direction and can adopt many different effective diameters. At high densities, the distribution of effective diameters is restricted more closely to the average, except in the cases where the particles are appear in defect states and $\sigma_i\approx \sigma$. In addition, the measurements of $D_x$ at the very lowest densities can be difficult because of the low frequency of particle-particle collisions and the slow convergence of $\gamma\rightarrow1$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{Fig_8_scaled_D_eq8}
\caption{Scaled self-diffusion coefficient data represented by using Eq.~\ref{eq:eqn8} by using effective volume fraction for various channel width.}
\label{fig:figure7}
\end{figure}
While $\phi_{\textup{eff}}$ is obtained from the equation of state, it can be measured geometrically. Figure~\ref{fig:Effectivediam} compares the values of $\sigma_{N}$ obtained using eq.~\ref{eq:eqn6} with the average values of the effective diameter measured during our MD simulations at different channel widths. This shows the usefulness of this quantity especially, in the cases that the exact EOS is not available.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{Fig_9_Sigma_N_Sigma_N_MD_new_NEB}
\caption{Effective diameter calculated from Eqs. ~\ref{eq:eqn5} and ~\ref{eq:eqn6} vs. those calculated from MD simulations using Eq.~\ref{eq:edia} for different $H_d$.}
\label{fig:Effectivediam}
\end{figure}
Finally, we simply demonstrate that $\phi_{\textup{eff}}$ also provides an appropriate link between the excess entropy and diffusion in these confined fluid systems.
Here, the excess entropy of a strictly one-dimensional hard rod system, relative to ideal gas, can be obtained,
\begin{equation}
s^{\textup{ex}}/Nk = -\int_{0}^{\phi} \frac{Z-1}{\phi^{'}}\textup{d} \phi^{'} ,
\label{eq:eqn9}
\end{equation}
which yields,
\begin{equation}
s^{\textup{ex}}/Nk = \ln(1-\phi)\mbox{.}\\
\label{eq:eqn10}
\end{equation}
Again, replacing $\phi$ with $\phi_{\textup{eff}}$ in Eq. \ref{eq:eqn10}, and using Eq.~\ref{eq:eqn8} yields,
\begin{equation}
D_x= \left(\sigma_{N}/\phi_{\textup{eff}}\right) (2 \pi \beta m)^{-1/2}\textup{exp}\left (s^{\textup{ex}}\right )\mbox{,}
\label{eq:eqn11}
\end{equation}
which connects the excess entropy to a reduced diffusion coefficient, $D_x\phi_{\textup{eff}}/\sigma_{N}$, in a similar form to that obtained by Rosenfeld~\cite{Rosenfeld:1977p14198} and Dzugutov~\cite{Dzugutov:1996p14200}. Figure~\ref{fig:figure8} shows the relationship between the diffusion coefficient and excess entropy in the quasi-one-dimensional system before rescaling. Then use of $\phi_{\textup{eff}}$ necessarily reproduces the same collapse observed in Fig.~\ref{fig:figure7}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{Fig_10_scaled_D_Entropy}
\caption{Scaled self-diffusion coefficient data versus negative excess entropy calculated using Eq.~\ref{eq:eqn9} for different $H_d$.}
\label{fig:figure8}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:con}
Simulation studies of both bulk and confined fluids have shown the effectiveness of scaling relationships that map the transport properties of the system to a reference state through a thermodynamic property such as the excess entropy. In the case of highly confined, quasi-one-dimensional fluids, the strictly one-dimensional fluid is an ideal reference state because results are often known exactly. This work shows that the proposed scaling can be achieved for a system of quasi-one-dimensional hard discs through an effective occupied volume fraction that is obtained directly from the equation of state or can be measured geometrically. However, the channel widths considered here are still narrow and it is likely the scaling will begin to breakdown for wider channel. It also remains to be seen how well the scaling works for longer range interactions.
\begin{acknowledgments}
We thank NSERC for financial support. We also thank WestGrid and Compute Canada for providing computational resources.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
Active galactic nuclei (AGNs) lie in the central region of galaxies, and their emission is observed from gamma rays down to radio frequencies. Most of the released energy is emitted in the optical-UV band due to accretion of gas from a disc surrounding a supermassive black hole \citep[SMBH,][]{M87}. Moreover, most AGNs are luminous in the X-ray band, and this energetic emission can be explained in terms of an inverse Compton mechanism involving seed disc photons and a distribution of thermal electrons overlying the disc, the so-called hot corona \citep[e.g.][]{haar91,haar93}. In X-rays, AGNs display a power law-like spectrum \cite[e.g.][]{Guai99b,Bian09}, which depends on the physical conditions of the coronal plasma (i.e. electron temperature and optical depth). At hard X-ray energies, an exponential cut-off is often observed \citep[e.g.][]{Fabi15,Fabi17,Tort18}, and it is interpreted as a further signature of the nuclear Comptonisation \citep{Rybi79}. The coronal emission can further interact with the SMBH surroundings, and the emerging spectra can be modified by absorption and reflection. The reprocessing of the primary emission gives rise to additional spectral features such as a Compton hump at about $\sim$30 keV \citep[e.g.][]{Matt91,George91} and a fluorescence Fe K$\alpha$ emission line. \\
\indent A detailed analysis of absorption profiles in X-ray spectra can provide additional information about the surroundings of the central engine. About 50\% of AGNs \citep{Reyn97} display soft X-ray absorption features due to ionised gas along the line of sight which are indicative of a warm absorber \citep[WA,][]{Blustin05}. Such phenomenon, first reported in \citet{Halpern1984}, consists in a spectral dip, indicating distant outflowing material covering the inner X-ray emission at $\sim$1 keV. High resolution spectroscopy provides the best way to discern and characterise the outflowing components \citep[e.g.][]{Longinotti2010,Behar17,Laha2014,Laha2016,Mao2019}, though low resolution studies still provide insights and can be applied on a larger number of sources \citep[e.g.][]{Piconcelli2005,Tomb10,Goff13,Capp16}. The ionisation parameter of the WAs is typically in the range $\log(\xi/{\rm erg~s^{-1}~cm})\simeq$0--3 and the equivalent hydrogen column density is between N$_{\rm H}$$\simeq$$10^{20}$--$10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$. The relative absorption lines and edges are often blue-shifted, indicating that the gas is outflowing with velocities from v$_{\rm out} \simeq 100$ km~s$^{-1}$ up to v$_{\rm out} \simeq 1000$ km~s$^{-1}$. \\
\indent Highly blueshifted Fe K absorption lines indicative of ultra fast outflows (UFOs) with velocities higher than 10000 km~s$^{-1}$ have been reported in the X-ray spectra of several AGNs \cite[e.g.][]{Tomb10, Goff13}. The ionisation of this outflowing plasma can be very high, in the range $\log(\xi/{\rm erg~s^{-1}~cm})\simeq$3-6 and the column density is also large, up to values of $N_H \simeq 10^{24}$~cm$^{-2}$ \cite[e.g.][]{Tomb11}. Recent studies are reporting on the presence of multi-structured disc winds. \cite{Reeves2018} found an additional component of the fast wind in PDS 456 while caught in the a low-flux state with \textit{XMM-Newton} and \textit{NuSTAR}, while the case of MCG-03-58-007 is discussed in \cite{Braito18} and \cite{Matzeu19}. Moreover, a positive correlation between the outflow velocity of the UFOs and the X-ray luminosity \citep[e.g.][]{Matzeu17,Pinto2018} has been observed, and this is expected in a radiatively driven wind scenario.
These disc winds are observed at sub-parsec scales from the central SMBH and seem to be powerful enough to affect the host galaxy environment \cite[e.g.][]{Tomb12}. Indeed, the recent detection of UFOs in some ultra-luminous infrared galaxies (ULIRGs) showed that they are likely responsible for driving the observed massive, large-scale interstellar matter (ISM) outflows \cite[e.g.][]{Tomb15,Tomb17,Feru15,Fiore17,Veil17} , and that they may quench star formation as expected from AGNs feedback models \cite[e.g.][]{Zubo12,Fauc12}. \\
\indent In this paper we focus on the X-ray analysis of 1E 0754.6+392.8 . This object is one of the two brightest AGNs in the \textit{NuSTAR} serendipitous source catalogue \citep{Lans17}, the other being HE 0436-4717 \citep{Midd18b}. 1E 0754.6+392.8 is classified by \cite{Bert15} as a local ($z=0.096$) radio quiet Narrow Line Seyfert 1 galaxy \citep[NLS1, see also][]{enya02}. For the mass of the central black hole, we adopt the single-epoch estimate by \citet{Bert15}, $\log\,$M$_{\rm{BH}}$/M$_{\odot}=8.15$, consistent with the reverberation-based value $\log\,$M$_{\rm{BH}}/M_{\odot}=8.0$ reported by \citet{Serg07}. The bolometric luminosity and Eddington ratio are estimated as $\log\,$(L$_{\rm{bol}}/\rm erg~ s^{-1})$=45.4 and $\log\,$(L$_{\rm bol}$/L$_{\rm Edd}$)=-0.85 \citep{Bert15}. Although several works discuss the optical properties of 1E 0754.6+392.8, this source is poorly studied in the X-rays. The Einstein observatory \citep{Giacconi79} observed this AGN and \citet{Gioia90} reported its flux to be F$_{\rm{0.3-3.5~keV}}$=1.8$\times$10$^{-12}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$. Throughout the paper, the standard cosmology \textit{$\Lambda$CDM} with H$_0$=70 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_m$=0.27, $\Omega_\lambda$=0.73, is adopted.
\section{Data reduction}
\begin{table}
\centering
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{.9 pt}
\caption{\small{The ID, the telescope, the net exposure and the start data of the observations here analysed are reported.}}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c}
\hline
Satellite &Instrument&Obs. ID& Net exp. &Start-date \\
&&&(ks) &yyyy-mm-dd \\
\hline
\textit{XMM-Newton} &\textit{PN}&0305990101& 13.5 & 2006-04-18 \\
\hline
\textit{XMM-Newton} &\textit{PN}&0406740101& 14.7 &2006-10-22\\
\hline
\textit{NuSTAR} &\textit{FPMA/B}&60001131002 & 45.1 &2014-09-12\\
\hline
\textit{Swift} &\textit{XRT}&00080595001 &2.7 &2014-09-12\\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
This work takes advantage of two archival \textit{XMM-Newton} observations and one \textit{Swift-NuSTAR} simultaneous observation (see the log in Tab. 1). The \textit{XMM-Newton} \citep{Jans01} observatory pointed twice 1E 0754.6+392.8 on April 18 2006 and October 22 2006. \textit{NuSTAR} \citep{Harr13} observed the source serendipitously on September 12 2014 \citep{Lans17} simultaneously with \textit{Swift}.\\
\indent \textit{XMM-Newton} data were processed using the \textit{XMM-Newton} Science Analysis System ($SAS$, Version 18.0.0). To select the extraction radius of each observation and to screen for high background time intervals we used an iterative process that maximises the Signal-to-Noise (S/N) ratio in the 3-9 keV band \citep[details in][]{Pico04}. We therefore use a 19 arcsec radius for extracting the source in Obs. 1, while a 40 arcsec of circular region was found to maximise the S/N ratio for Obs. 2. We extract the background of both the observations from a circular region of 50 arcsec radius located on a blank area of the detector close to the source. We binned all the spectra to have at least 25 counts for each bin, and not to oversample the instrumental energy resolution by a factor larger than 3.
Data from the \textit{MOS} detectors have a much lower statistics even when the spectra are co-added. Being our analysis mainly focused on the Fe K energy band, we decided to use only \textit{PN} due to the lower statistics of the co-added \textit{MOS} spectrum.\\
\indent The \textit{NuSTAR} observation was reduced in accordance with the standard procedure described in Perri et al., 2013, and using HEASOFT (v. 6.25), NuSTARDAS (v 1.8.0) and the `x20180710' version of the calibration database. Spectra were extracted for both the hard X-ray detectors \textit{FPMA/B} on the \textit{NuSTAR} focal plane. A circular extraction region with 40 arcsec radius was used for the source, while the background was obtained adopting a region of the same size in a blank area of the same chip. The \textit{NuSTAR} spectra were binned not to over-sample the instrumental resolution by a factor larger than of 2.5 and to have a S/N greater than 3 in each spectral channel.\\
\indent Finally, we used online facilities provided by the ASI Space Science Data Center (SSDC) for processing and reducing the \textit{Swift/XRT} data (multimission archive, \url{http://www.ssdc.asi.it/mma.html}). The spectrum was extracted from a circular region with a radius of 20 arcsec centered on the source while the background was sampled from an annular region extending between 40 arcsec and 80 arcsec around the source. For spectral fitting we use the source spectrum binned to a minimum of 20 counts per bin.\\
The spectra of the whole dataset, unfolded using a $\Gamma$=2 power law model with common normalisation, are shown in Fig.~\ref{unf}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{allunfolded.pdf}
\caption{\small{The unfolded spectra of 1E 0754.6+392.8 as observed by \textit{XMM-Newton} (black for Obs. 1 and red for Obs. 2), \textit{Swift} (magenta) and \textit{NuSTAR} (blue and cyan). Absorption in the soft X-rays is clearly observed and it is persistent over the years. This colour code is used throughout the paper. Finally, the underlying model consists in a power-law with $\Gamma$=2 and unitary normalisation.}\label{unf}}
\end{figure}
\section{Spectral and timing analysis}
We consider the \textit{EPIC-pn} data in the E=0.3-10 keV energy band and the \textit{NuSTAR-Swift/XRT} simultaneous observation in the 0.5-79 keV band. We point out that \textit{XMM-Newton/NuSTAR} exposures are about 8 years apart, thus their corresponding spectra are not simultaneously fitted. A Galactic column density of N$_{\rm{H}}$=5.6$\times10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$ \citep{HI4PI} is always considered when fitting the spectra. Finally, in the text errors are quoted at 90\% confidence level and errors in the plots account for 68\% uncertainties.
\subsection{\textit{Swift/XRT}-\textit{NuSTAR}: The 0.5-79 keV band}
We investigated the temporal properties of the \textit{NuSTAR} observation first. The 3-10 keV light curve reveals the presence of intra-observation variability (up to a factor of $\sim$2) while a more constant behaviour characterises the 10-30 keV band, see Fig.~\ref{Nulc}. No significant spectral variability is observed, thus we considered the source spectrum integrated over the whole observation length.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{nulc.pdf}
\caption{\small{The background subtracted \textit{NuSTAR} light curves in the 3-10 and 10-30 keV bands are showed. In the bottom panel the ratio between the two bands is displayed. The adopted time bin is 3000 s}. The blue lines account for the average counts number in the two bands and for their ratio.\label{Nulc}}
\end{figure}
To model the primary continuum, we simultaneously fit the \textit{Swift/NuSTAR} data with a power law in the 3-10 keV band. Moreover, a cross-normalisation constant is included as a free parameter to account for the different instruments involved. This crude model leads to a good fit characterised by $\chi^2$=71 for 66 d.o.f. and a corresponding $\Gamma$=1.95$\pm$0.04 and normalisation N$_{\rm{po}}$=(2.5$\pm$0.2)$\times$10$^{-3}$ photons kev$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$. The cross-calibration constants for \textit{Swift} and \textit{NuSTAR} are found to be consistent within $\sim$10\%, while the two \textit{NuSTAR} modules agree each other within a $3\%$.\\
\indent When considering the 0.5-79 keV data, the tested model turns out to be unacceptable in terms of statistics ($\chi^2$=247 for 176 d.o.f.~), mainly due to absorption affecting the soft X-rays, see Fig.~\ref{nupo}. To model this absorption, we included a detailed grid computed with the photoionisation code \textit{XSTAR} \cite[][]{Kall01}. This table takes into account absorption lines and edges for all the metals characterised by an atomic number $Z\leq$30. The \textit{XSTAR} table is calculated assuming a typical $\Gamma$=2 for describing the spectral energy distribution in the 0.1-10$^{6}$ eV band, a high energy cut-off at E$_{\rm{c}}$=100 keV, and a covering factor of 1. Elements abundance is set to the Solar one \cite[][]{Alsplund09}, and a turbulence velocity v$_{\rm{t}}\simeq$ 200 km s$^{-1}$ is considered, based on the typical values of turbulent velocity for warm absorbers \citep{Laha2014}. By letting the ionisation parameter and the column density free to vary, keeping the redshift fixed, the fit is improved by a $\Delta\chi^2$=55 for 2 d.o.f. less. The photon index of this new model is consistent within the errors with what previously obtained. The best-fit values of the WA are $\log(\xi/{\rm erg~s^{-1}~cm})$=2.1$\pm$0.2 and N$_{\rm{H}}$=(3$\pm$1)$\times$ 10$^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$.\\
\indent We further tested the current dataset adopting \textit{xillver} \citep{Garc14a,Daus16}, a self-consistent model reproducing the continuum and ionised reflection of AGNs. In the fit, the photon index, the high energy cut-off, the reflection fraction and the normalisation are left free to vary. The iron abundance A$_{\rm Fe}$ is fixed to the Solar value, while the ionisation parameter $\xi$ is set to the lowest value allowed by the model, close to neutrality. These steps lead to the best-fit ($\chi^2=$ 174 for 172 d.o.f.) showed in Fig. ~\ref{nuxi}. The photon index and the reflection parameter are $\Gamma=2.07\pm0.05$ and $R=0.5\pm0.2$, respectively. A lower limit of E$_{\rm{c}}$ > 170 keV is found for the high energy cut-off while the normalisation is N$_{\rm{xill}}$=(5.0$\pm$0.5)$\times10^{-5}$ photons kev$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$. Finally, we find that the WA parameters are still consistent within the errors with the previous fit.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{nuinit.pdf}
\caption{\small{The simultaneous \textit{Swift-NuSTAR} observation of 1E 0754.6+392.8 as fitted by a simple power-law in the 3-10 keV band. Residuals are displayed in both soft and hard X-rays. \label{nupo}}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{finale_nu.pdf}
\caption{\small{The broadband best-fit ($\chi^2$=174 for 172 d.o.f.~) to the \textit{Swift-NuSTAR} observations is shown.\label{nuxi}}}
\end{figure}
\subsection{\textit{XMM-Newton}: The 0.3-10 keV band, analysis using a phenomenological model}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=0.98\textwidth]{leda_lc.pdf}
\caption{\small{The soft (0.3-2 keV) and hard (2-10 keV) background subtracted \textit{XMM-Newton} light curves and their ratio are displayed. The straight blue lines account for the average rates. Left side panel refers to Obs. 1 while right hand graphs accounts for Obs. 2. The adopted bin is 250 seconds and panels share the same scale. A very weak intra-observation variability, is accompanied by remarkable flux variations between the pointings. In a similar fashion, hardness ratio are constant on ks timescales, while the source shows two different spectral states between Obs. 1 and Obs. 2.}\label{lc}}
\end{figure*}
Visual inspection of the \textit{XMM-Newton} light curves ( see Fig.~\ref{lc}) shows no evidence of flux and spectral variability, hence we used the averaged spectra to improve spectral statistics. On the other hand, the comparison of the hardness ratios between the \textit{XMM-Newton} Obs. 1 and Obs. 2 suggests that the source changed its spectral shape between the two \textit{XMM-Newton} visits.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=.49\textwidth]{all.pdf}
\caption{\small{Panel a: The \textit{XMM-Newton} spectra with respect to a power-law only modelling in the 4-10 keV band. Panel b: Low and high energy residuals still present after the WA was included in the modelling. Panel c: Final data-to-model ratio after the inclusion of Gaussian components. A few unmodelled features still populate the energy range between 1.5 and 2.5 keV. However some of these may be directly attributed to the detector systematics. \label{res_model}}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=.49\textwidth]{pheno_xmm.pdf}
\caption{\small{The \textit{XMM-Newton} \textit{EPIC-pn} spectra best-fitted by the phenomenological model including an absorbed power-law and 4 Gaussian components. The corresponding residuals are shown.}} \label{pheno_model}
\end{figure}
\indent The soft X-rays in the \textit{XMM-Newton} observations show signs of intense absorption (see Fig.~\ref{unf} and Fig.~\ref{res_model}, panel a), therefore, we modelled the source spectra using a power-law to reproduce the underlying nuclear continuum and a \textit{XSTAR} table to model the absorption below $\sim$2-3 keV.
In the fit, the photon index the normalisation as well as the WA column density and ionisation are free to vary and untied between Obs. 1 and Obs. 2. The \textit{XSTAR} table enhances the fit statistics by a $\Delta \chi^2/$d.o.f=2258/4 and the resulting modelling (still unacceptable in terms of statistics, $\chi^2$=283 for 179 d.o.f.) is reported in Fig.~\ref{res_model}, panel b. A prominent emission line (which its rest frame energy likely corresponds to the \ion{O}{VII} transition) remains unmodelled in both pointings. We included a Gaussian line to account for it, and by fitting its energy centroid and normalisation (untied between the pointings) a corresponding $\Delta \chi^2$=49 for 4 parameters is found. The current model provides a fit characterised by $\chi^2$=234 for 175 degree of freedom.\\ \indent The present model allows us to focus on the iron line energy band and, in particular, on the absorption/emission features left unmodelled in the 6-9 keV energy interval (see Fig.~\ref{res_model}, b panel). Besides the residuals at about $\sim$6.4 keV in emission, an absorption trough appears in the \textit{XMM-Newton} data at the energy of $\sim$7 keV. Moreover, at higher energies, the first \textit{XMM-Newton} observation shows a further absorption feature at about $\sim$8 keV. We account for these additional spectral complexities including Gaussian lines: one is used to model the Fe k$\alpha$ emission line and an other to reproduce the absorption feature at E$\simeq$6.8 keV. During the fitting procedure, we assumed that the width of both Gaussian components is zero (unresolved by the instrument resolution) and we let the energy centroid and normalisation free to vary. We find the values for both the emission and absorption lines to be consistent between the two observations. For this reason, we fit these two Gaussian components tying the energy centroid and the normalisation between the two \textit{XMM-Newton} exposures.
From a statistical point of view, the inclusion of the emission line accounting for the Fe K$\alpha$ enhances the fit by $\Delta\chi^2$= 18 for 2 d.o.f., while the absorption line at 6.8 keV leads to a fit improvement of $\Delta\chi^2$= 11 for 2 d.o.f.. These steps yield a global statistics of $\chi^2$=205 for 171 degrees of freedom.
Moreover, as shown by Fig.~\ref{res_model} panel b, a drop of counts is observed at about 8 keV in Obs.~1. We include an additional absorption line in our model to account for it. This line has a free energy centroid and normalisation while its intrinsic width is set fixed to 200 eV, which is comparable to the energy resolution of the \textit{EPIC-pn} at these energies. A $\Delta \chi^2$=8 for 2 d.o.f. indicates that this component is marginally detected.\\
\indent Best-fit parameters for the primary continuum and the Gaussian emission/absorption lines are reported in Table \ref{tabpheno}.
Significant spectral variability is found between Obs. 1 and 2, and the power-law normalisation is found about to double in the second pointing. The observed 2-10 keV fluxes are $(2.0\pm0.1)\times10^{-12}$ and (2.3$\pm0.1)\times10^{-12}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$, respectively, and in the soft X-rays (0.3-2 keV) we find (3.0$\pm0.2)\times10^{-13}$ and (7.4$\pm0.4)\times10^{-13}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$.
Within the errors, the intensity of emission line at energy $\sim$0.57 keV remains constant, and the neutral Fe K$\alpha$ is consistent with being narrow. The Fe K$\alpha$ equivalent width (EW) is also constant between the observations with an average value of $\sim$130 eV. The Gaussian line at $\sim$6.8 keV is likely associated with blueshifted \ion{Fe}{XXV}, while the marginally detected component at higher energy is more likely associated with a highly blueshifted \ion{Fe}{XXVI}.\\
\indent In panel c of Fig.\ref{res_model} and in Fig.\ref{pheno_model} we notice the presence of further features not reproduced by the current phenomenological model, especially between 1.5-2.5 keV. Some of these features in this band may be directly attributed to the detector calibration uncertainties (e.g. Si K-edge 1.84 keV), and at the Au M-edge ($\sim$2.4 keV) \citep[see][for discussions and comparisons]{Kaas11,DiGe15,Ursi15,Capp16,Middei18}. We notice that modelling these features with Gaussian lines or ignoring the spectra in the 1.5-2.5 keV band do not affect the values reported in Table 2.
\begin{table}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{4.5pt}
\caption{\small{Parameters for the best-fit model including fully covering ionised absorption and Gaussian lines. The power law normalisation (normalised at 1 keV) is in units of photons keV$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$, while units for the column density and ionisation parameter are 10$^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$ and erg s$^{-1}$ cm, respectively. The normalisation of emission and absorption lines are in photons cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$. Finally, a $\dagger$ is used to identify the parameters kept frozen during the fit while the $\star$ specifies the component whose parameters were tied between the observations.}\label{tabpheno}}
\label{fitnoline}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c}
\hline
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{1.pt}
Component & Parameter & Obs. 1& Obs. 2 \\
\\
\hline
\hline
TBabs & N$_{\rm{H}}\dag$ & 0.056 & 0.056 \\
\hline
power-law & $\Gamma$ &1.66$\pm$0.04 &2.05$\pm$0.10 \\
& Norm ($\times$10$^{-3}$) &0.64$\pm$0.1 &1.4$\pm$0.2\\
\hline
WA &$\log\xi$ &2.00$\pm$0.04&1.75$\pm$0.15 \\
&$N_{\rm{H}}$ &7.9$\pm$0.9 &5.4$\pm$0.4 \\
&$z\dag$ &0.096& \\
&$\Delta\chi^2$/d.o.f. &642/2&1616/2\\
\hline
zgauss (Emi) &E (keV) &0.56$\pm$0.02& 0.59$\pm$0.02 \\
&$z\dag$ &0.096& - \\
&Norm ($\times10^{-4}$) &1.4$\pm$0.4&2.6$\pm$1.0 \\
&EW (eV) &70$\pm$30& 45$\pm$25 \\
&$\Delta\chi^2$/d.o.f. &18/2&31/2\\
\hline
zgauss (Emi)$\star$ &E (keV) & 6.30$\pm$0.8 & \\
&$z\dag$ &0.096& \\
&Norm ($\times$10$^{-6}$) &5.0$\pm$2.0& \\
&EW (eV) &130$\pm$90&125$\pm$80 \\
&$\Delta\chi^2$/d.o.f. &18/2&\\
\hline
zgauss (Abs)$\star$ &E (keV) &6.80$\pm$0.07 & \\
&$z\dag$ &0.096& \\
&Norm ($\times$10$^{-6}$) &-3.5$\pm$1.2& \\
&EW (eV) &-100$\pm$50&-100$\pm$50 \\
&$\Delta\chi^2$/d.o.f. &11/2&\\
\hline
zgauss (Abs) &E (keV) &8.2$\pm$0.2& \\
&$\sigma\dag$ (eV) &200& - \\
&$z\dag$ &0.096& - \\
&Norm ($\times10^{-6}$) &-5.4$\pm$3.1& - \\
&EW (eV) &-220$\pm$120& - \\
&$\Delta\chi^2$/d.o.f. &8/2&\\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection{\textit{XMM-Newton}: The 0.3-10 keV band, analysis using a physical model}
As a subsequent step we reanalysed the \textit{EPIC-pn} spectra using a self-consistent emission model (\textit{xillver}). Such a model simultaneously fits the source emission and its associated ionised reflection component. Moreover, we accounted for the absorption troughs in the 6.5-8.5 keV energy band including two \textit{XSTAR} tables. One, Abs1, is used to reproduce the absorption at E$\sim$6.8 keV, while, the other, Abs2 is included to model the absorption at 8 keV.
The fit was performed allowing the photon index, the reflection fraction and the normalisation to vary also between the two pointings. The high energy cut-off is kept frozen to $E_{\rm{c}}$=100 keV, while the ionisation parameter is free to vary but tied between Obs. 1 and Obs. 2. Concerning the ionised absorbers, we fit the ionisation parameter and column density in both the observations. The table accounting for the drop at 6.8 keV was fitted tying its parameters between the two \textit{XMM-Newton} observations, while the grid accounting for Abs2 was only included in Obs. 1. Finally, we considered the redshift of all the tables (z$_{\rm{obs}}$) as being a free parameter in order to constrain the possible velocity shift.\\ \indent The steps just described lead to the best-fit in Fig.~\ref{best_xillver}. The fit has a statistics of $\Delta\chi^2$=170 for 168 d.o.f.~ and the corresponding best-fit values of the various parameters are reported in Table ~\ref{xstartab}. As already shown by the phenomenological model, spectral variability characterises the primary continuum of 1E 0754.6+392.8. The nuclear emission normalisation increases by a factor $\sim$1.25 between the two \textit{XMM-Newton} visits, while the reflection fraction $R$ is found to be $\sim$1 and constant within the uncertainties. The WA component varies both in column density and ionisation in the range 3$\times10^{22} \rm cm^{-2}\lesssim$ N$_{\rm{H}}\lesssim7\times10^{22} \rm cm^{-2}$ and 1.5$\lesssim\log(\xi/{\rm erg~s^{-1}~cm})\lesssim$2.1, respectively. These values, though slightly smaller, are consistent within the errors with those of the phenomenological model. Higher ionisations states and column densities characterise both Abs1 and Abs2. The physical parameters of these two components are marginally constrained by the current dataset and in Fig.~\ref{abs12} we show the confidence regions for the $\log\xi$ vs N$_{\rm H}$ parameters. Using the redshift best-fit values, we can only found an upper limit of v$_{\rm out}\leq$1500 km s$^{-1}$ for the WA.
Abs1 is consistent with being in outflow with a velocity v$_{\rm out}$ in the range 4400-6200 km s$^{-1}$, while a v$_{\rm{out}}$=(0.23$\pm$0.02)$c$ ($c$ being the speed of light) is estimated for the possible Abs2 component.
These physical quantities for various absorbers in 1E 0754.6+392.8 are compatible with what is found by other authors \citep[e.g.][]{Tomb10,Tomb13} with the exception of the WA column density that appears to be larger than typical values, but it could be related to a more equatorial inclination of this AGN \citep[see also][]{Krolik_2001,Behar17}.
\begin{table}
\centering
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{2.pt}
\caption{\small{Values and corresponding uncertainties for the best-fit parameters are shown. The overall fit statistics is $\Delta\chi^2$=170 for 168 d.o.f. . The $\Delta \chi^2$ and the corresponding variation of degrees of freedom are also reported}. For Abs1 and Abs2 the turbulence velocities are 300 km s$^{-1}$ and 10000 km s$^{-1}$, respectively}\label{xstartab}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c}
\hline
Model & Parameter& Obs. 1& Obs. 2 \\
\\
\hline
\hline
TBabs & N$_{\rm{H}}\dag$ & 0.056 & 0.056 \\
\hline
xillver
&$\Gamma$&1.66$\pm$0.04&2.07$\pm$0.06\\
&$\log\xi\dag$&1.3$^{+0.1}_{-0.2}$&\\
&R&1.0$\pm$0.5&1.0$\pm$0.4\\
&Norm ($\times$10$^{-5}$)&1.5$\pm$0.2&2.0$\pm$0.1\\
\hline
WA & $\log\xi$&2.00$\pm$0.05&1.50$\pm$0.07\\
&N$_{\rm{H}}$ ($\times$10$^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$)
&7.0$\pm$1.0&4.0$\pm$0.5\\
&v$_{out}$/$c$&<0.005&<0.004\\
&v$_{out}$ (km s$^{-1}$)&<1500&<1100\\
&$\Delta\chi^2/d.o.f.$&482/3&1171/3\\
\hline
Abs1 $\star$ & $\log\xi$&3.4$\pm$0.1&\\
&N$_{\rm{H}}$ ($\times$10$^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$)
&2.6$^{+2.2}_{-1.8}$&\\
&v$_{out}$/$c$&0.017$\pm$0.04&\\
&v$_{out}$ (km s$^{-1}$)&5300$\pm$900&\\
&$\Delta\chi^2/d.o.f.$&23/3&\\
\hline
Abs2& $\log\xi$&3.4$\pm$0.3&-\\
&N$_{\rm{H}}$ ($\times$10$^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$)
&1.3$^{+1.0}_{-0.8}$&-\\
&v$_{out}$/$c$&0.23$\pm$0.02&-\\
&v$_{out}$ (km s$^{-1}$)&74000$\pm$10000&\\
&$\Delta\chi^2/d.o.f.$&14/3&-\\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{abs12.pdf}
\caption{\small{The contours at 99\% (green), 90\%(red) and 68\% (black) confidence level computed for Abs1 (solid lines) and Abs2 (dashed lines).}\label{abs12}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{finale_xillver.pdf}
\caption{\small{The best-fit model to the two \textit{XMM-Newton} observations of the model including three different \textit{XSTAR } tables and \textit{xillver}.}\label{best_xillver}}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Comparison between \textit{XMM-Newton} and \textit{Swift/NuSTAR} data}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{allwa.pdf}
\caption{\small{The 68\% (black), 90\% (red) and 99\% (green) confidence level contours are plotted for the column density and ionisation state of the WA component in 1E 0754.6+392.8, respectively. Such a component is clearly monthly variable and, though with higher uncertainties due to the poorer statistics of the \textit{XRT} observation, over the years.}\label{contours}}
\end{figure}
The current dataset covers a $\sim$8 years long time interval, thus it is suitable for variability studies. As showed in Fig.~\ref{unf}, the spectra of 1E 0754.6+392.8 varied both in shape and amplitude. The observed flux in the 0.5-2 keV band exhibits a change between the \textit{XMM-Newton} exposures and in the subsequent \text{Swift-NuSTAR} pointing in which it increased by a factor larger than 10. On the other hand, the observed 3-10 keV flux is fairly consistent with F$_{\rm{3-10~keV}}\sim2\times$10$^{-12}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ in Obs. 1 and Obs. 2, while the source doubled the flux in the same band during the \text{Swift-NuSTAR} observation. It is worth noting that the reflection fraction $R$ is higher when the 3-10 keV flux is lower, suggesting a constant reflected emission.
Intense absorption in the soft X-rays is the major component that shapes the source spectrum.\\ \indent The WA varies in ionisation and column density. For the physical parameters of this component and using the self-consistent models in Sect. 3.1 and 3.3 we computed the confidence regions showed in Fig.~\ref{contours}. These contour plots have been calculated by assuming the redshift of the \textit{XSTAR} tables fixed at its best-fit value. In Fig.~\ref{contours}, the low statistics of the \textit{XRT} data and the \textit{FPMA\&B} bandpass explain the poor constraints on the WA in the 2014 observation.\\
\indent Moreover, we tested \textit{Swift-NuSTAR} data for the presence of absorption lines. We started with the phenomenological model presented in Sect. 3.1 to which we have added Gaussian components in absorption: a narrow line with an energy centroid of 6.8 keV; a 200 eV width absorption line centered at 8.2 keV. The fit to the data does not require a Gaussian component at 6.8 keV. On the other hand, the other line provides a weak improvement of the fit ($\Delta\chi^2$/d.o.f.=6/2) and the absorption line is characterised by E=8.9$\pm$0.3 keV, N=(6.2$\pm$4.0)$\times$10$^{-6}$ photons cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ EW=-100$\pm$60 eV. However, the statistics of the available \textit{Swift-NuSTAR} exposure is not suitable for adequately searching for faint absorption features.
\section{Statistical significance of the absorption features}
In order to assess the statistical significance of the two absorption features at $\sim$6.8 and $\sim$8 keV, we performed Monte Carlo simulations. These simulations are particularly suitable for quantifying the correct significance of any absorption/emission component detected with a blind search over a certain energy interval \citep[e.g.][]{Porquet2004,Miniutti2006,Markowitz2006,Tomb10,Goff13,Tombesi2014,Marinucci2018,Smith2019}.
Therefore, we used the \textit{fakeit} command in \textit{XSPEC} to generate a set of 1000 synthetic spectra for each of the two exposures. To simulate these fake spectra, we used the background and response files of the real data and the same exposure time of the observations. The underlying model considered for the simulations is the one presented in Sect. 3.2 but without the emission and absorption lines. Finally, the simulated data were binned in the same way as those observed. After that, we add a new narrow (or with a width of 200 eV, for the candidate UFO) Gaussian line whose normalisation was initially set to zero and free to vary in the range between -1 and +1. The energy centroid was free to vary between 6.5 and 9 keV for both the features, in order to sample the searched energy interval. We used the \textit{steppar} command in \textit{XSPEC} to map the $\Delta\chi^2$ using 100 eV steps, and the resulting variation where recorded. \\
\indent Defining N as the number of simulations in which a chance improvement of the $\chi^2$ is found to be equal or larger than the one on the real data and S being the total number of simulated spectra, we estimated the Monte Carlo statistical significance of the detections to be 1-N/S. Following this definition, we obtained N=16 with S=1000 for the absorption line at 6.8 keV. Hence the significance of this feature in accordance with the simulations is 98.4\%, this corresponding to a 2.4$\sigma$ detection. For the candidate UFO at E$\sim$8 keV, we find N=39 which corresponds to a significance of 96.1\% i.e. 2.06$\sigma$. We note that the Monte Carlo statistical significance of these features is higher than the threshold of 95\% typically used in extensive searches of Fe K features \citep[e.g.][]{Tomb10,Tomb14,Goff13}.
\section{Conclusions and summary}
\indent We reported on the first X-ray broadband (0.3-79 keV) spectroscopic analysis of the NLSy1 galaxy 1E 0754.6+392.8 based on two 2006 \textit{XMM-Newton} observations (taken 6 months apart) and on a \textit{NuSTAR}-\textit{Swift} simultaneous snapshot performed in 2014. The spectra of 1E 0754.6+392.8 are well described by a variable power-law spectrum with a photon index between 1.65 and 2.07. This spectral variability is observed from months to years, while down to hours the source exhibits a constant behaviour as suggested by the hardness ratios in Fig.~\ref{Nulc} and Fig.~\ref{lc}). Long term flux variations mainly affect the soft X-rays (0.3-2 keV), whose flux doubles in six months and increases more than a factor 10 in 8 years . On the other hand, the continuum emission at higher energies is less affected by variations on monthly timescales, but, over the years, the observed 2-10 keV flux increased by a factor $\sim$2.5. \\
\indent Two significant emission lines are detected at $\sim$6.4 keV and $\sim$0.57 keV, respectively. The former is interpreted as fluorescent emission of K-shell iron in a low-ionisation state. Its width is unresolved in both the observations (upper limits $\sigma_{\rm{\ion{Fe} K\alpha}}$<0.19 keV), and this may rule out an origin in the inner parts of the accretion disc. Furthermore, such emission feature has a constant equivalent width and normalisation. The reflected flux is consistent with being constant over the years and it is likely originating in distant material. The other feature in emission observed at about $\sim$0.57 keV may result from \ion{He}-like oxygen triplet emission arising from the same low-ionisation state plasma responsible for the iron K emission line. However, such line may also be produced in a much farther region from the SMBH (e.g. the Narrow Line Region) and it is more easily detected due to the presence of the WA itself \citep[][]{Pico04}.\\
\indent The main spectral feature in the spectrum is an intense absorption affecting the soft X-ray band. In particular, data show a variable WA that is persistent over the years. This component is consistent with being at the same redshift of the source and at pc scales with respect to the central SMBH. The physical quantities derived for the WA are shown in Fig.~\ref{contours} for the different observations. The change in column density and/or ionisation state of this component can be the result of a clumpy or filamentary inhomogeneous absorber \citep[e.g.][]{Gaspari2017,Seraf19}. \\
\indent The iron line energy band shows further signatures of absorption likely due to highly ionised and high column density matter crossing our line of sight. Though, these components have only a low significance ($\sim$98\% for \ion{Fe}{XXV} and $\sim$96\% for \ion{Fe}{XXVI} assessed using Monte-Carlo simulations). The Fe K absorber Abs1 is observed in both XMM-Newton observations and is consistent with a \ion{Fe}{XXV}.
Abs2, a candidate UFO, is characterised by a mildly outflowing velocity (v$_{\rm{out}}$=(0.23$\pm$0.03)$c$) and its ionisation and column density are compatible with what often observed for UFOs \citep{Tomb11,Parker17,Reeves2018,Parker18,Braito18,Seraf19,Matzeu19}.
\\ \indent The presence/absence of the Abs2 component in the analysed data is consistent with SMBH winds being variable as it has been repeatedly confirmed through ensemble studies or single object analyses. For instance, \cite{Tomb10} reported on the variability of such winds using a sample of Seyfert galaxies and found a detection rate of the order of 50$\pm$20\% for these components \citep[see also][]{Tomb11,Goff13}.\\
\indent It is worth noticing that the various types of absorbers can be part of a single large-scale multiphase outflow seen at different distances from the SMBH \citep[e.g.][]{Tomb13}. The properties of the WAs, the UFOs and the highly ionised non-UFO absorbers (like as our Abs1) have been found to show significant trends: the closer the absorber is to the central BH, the higher the ionisation, column, outflow velocity. Within this context, the possible simultaneous presence of three different types of absorbers suggests 1E 0754.6+392.8 to be a fantastic laboratory in which to study the relations between the different absorbing phases. In fact, though being rarely observed so far, the presence of multiple phases allows unprecedented insights on the outflows structure and physics \citep[e.g.][]{Seraf19}.\\
\indent In conclusion, the current data, despite the low S/N, suggest that 1E 0754.6+392.8, clearly hosting a variable WA, may have further absorbing phases characterised by much higher outflow velocities. Only longer exposures or the higher sensitivity of an X-ray calorimeter (e.g. XRISM and Athena) will allow us to put firmer conclusions on the putative multiphase outflows possibly present on this source and to better assess for the presence of its accretion disc wind component.
\begin{acknowledgements}
We thank the referee for her/his suggestions which improved the manuscript. RM thanks Valentina Braito and James Reeves for useful discussions and comments. RM acknowledges support from the Faculty of the European Space Astronomy Centre (ESAC), Fondazione Angelo Della Riccia for financial support and Universit\'e Grenoble Alpes and the high energy SHERPAS group for welcoming him at IPAG. FT acknowledges support by the Programma per Giovani Ricercatori - anno 2014 “Rita Levi Montalcini”. Part of this work is based on archival data, software or online services provided by the Space Science Data Center - ASI. SB and AZ acknowledge financial support from ASI under grants ASI-INAF I/037/12/0 and n. 2017-14-H.O. RS acknowledges financial contribution from the agreement ASI-INAF n.2017-14-H.0. POP thanks financial support by the french CNES agency. GAM is supported by European Space Agency (ESA) Research Fellowships. This work is based on observations obtained with: the NuSTAR mission, a project led by the California Institute of Technology, managed by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and funded by NASA; XMM-Newton, an ESA science mission with instruments and contributions directly funded by ESA Member States and the USA (NASA).
\end{acknowledgements}
\thispagestyle{empty}
\bibliographystyle{aa}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec-intro}
\subsection{Motivation and context}
The study of high-dimensional norms, the convex bodies that describe their level sets,
and other high-dimensional geometric structures
are central themes in geometric functional analysis \cite{MilSchGAFA04},
and the
burgeoning field of asymptotic geometric analysis \cite{ArtGiaMil15}.
Several results in these fields have
shown that the presence of high dimensions often
imposes a certain regularity that has a probabilistic flavor.
A significant result of this type is the
central limit theorem (CLT) for convex sets \cite{Kla07} which, roughly speaking,
says that if $X^n$ is a high-dimensional random vector
uniformly distributed on an isotropic convex body (namely, a compact convex set with non-empty interior whose normalized volume measure has zero mean and identity covariance matrix), its one-dimensional scalar
projections $\langle X^n, \theta^n\rangle$ along most directions $\theta^n$ on
the unit $(n-1)$-dimensional sphere $\mathbb{S}^{n-1}$ in ${\mathbb R}^n$ have
Gaussian fluctuations.
In fact, this result holds for the larger class of isotropic logconcave measures
as well as more general high-dimensional measures \cites{Sud78,vonWei97,Mec12b}.
Of particular interest is the geometry of $\ell^n_p$ spaces, which has been classically studied using the law of large numbers, CLTs and concentration results \cites{Bob03,GueMil11,Schechtman90,Schmuck01}.
These constitute beautiful universality results that suggest that random projections
of the uniform measure on a convex body behave in some aspects like sums of
independent random variables.
On the other hand, they also imply the somewhat negative
conclusion that fluctuations of lower-dimensional random projections do not
yield much information about high-dimensional measures.
It is therefore natural to ask whether such random projections
also satisfy other properties exhibited by sums of independent
random variables, in particular those that
capture non-universal
features that would yield useful information about
high-dimensional measures from their more tractable projections.
With this objective, large deviation principles (LDP) were
established for suitably normalized one-dimensional random projections of $\ell_p^n$-balls in \cites{GanKimRam16,GanKimRam17}. The works \cites{GanKimRam16,GanKimRam17}
established both quenched LDPs, conditioned
on the sequence $\theta = (\theta^n)_{n \in {\mathbb N}}$ of projection
directions, as well as annealed LDPs, which average over the randomness of the projection directions.
Subsequently, quenched LDPs
for multidimensional projections were obtained in \cite{skim-thesis}, and
annealed large deviation results for norms of $\ell_p^n$-balls and their multidimensional random projections were established
in \cites{Alonso18,Kabluchko17,KabProTha19b,KimLiaRam19}, with \cite{KabProTha19b} also considering
moderate deviations (see also \cite{ProThaTur19} for a recent survey).
Going beyond the setting of $\ell_p^n$ balls (and measures with a similar
representation), annealed LDPs were obtained for norms of
multidimensional projections
of more general sequences of high-dimensional random vectors
$(X^n)_{n \in {\mathbb N}}$ that satisfy a so-called asymptotic thin shell condition
in \cite{skim-thesis,KimLiaRam19}.
All these LDPs are indeed non-universal, in that both the associated speeds and rate functions
encode properties of the high-dimensional measures.
However, although LDPs (in contrast to concentration results or large deviation upper bounds)
identify the precise asymptotic exponential
decay rate and allow for the identification of conditional limit laws \cite{KimRam18},
they have the drawback that in general they only provide approximate estimates of the
probabilities, characterizing only the limit of the logarithms of the
tail probabilities, as the dimension $n$ goes to infinity.
Thus, existing LDPs for random projections cannot be applied directly to
provide accurate estimates of tail probabilities or develop efficient algorithms
that distinguish between two given high-dimensional measures,
tasks that are of importance in statistics, data analysis and computer science
\cite{Diaconis84}.
\subsection{Discussion of results}
Our broad goal is to establish sharp (quenched) large deviation results of high-dimensional measures
that not only capture the precise asymptotic exponential decay rate
of tail probabilities of random projections, but also their
``prefactors" (or the constants in front of the exponential), so as to provide more accurate quantitative estimates
in finite dimensions, much in the spirit of the local theory of Banach spaces.
In addition, we aim to identify additional geometric information that sharp large deviation
estimates provide over LDPs.
In this article, we focus on one-dimensional projections of
$\ell_p^n$ spheres and obtain estimates of tail probabilities that are asymptotically exact as the dimension goes to infinity.
Specifically, for $p \in (1,\infty)$, we consider independent sequences of random vectors
$(X^{(n,p)})_{n \in {\mathbb N}}$ and projection directions
$(\theta^n)_{n \in {\mathbb N}}$, where each $\theta^n$ is distributed according to the
normalized surface measure
on $\mathbb{S}^{n-1}$,
and each $X^{(n,p)}$ is distributed according to the normalized cone measure
on the unit $\ell_p^n$-sphere
(for a precise definition of cone and surface measures, see Section~\ref{subs-not}).
It is worthwhile to mention that
for the Euclidean norm of a random vector distributed on an isotropic convex body,
sharp large deviation upper bounds were obtained in several works
(see, for example, \cite{Kla07,FleAIHP10,Pao10,GueMil11} and references therein).
While these estimates have the very nice feature that they are
universal (in that they apply for all isotropic convex bodies or, more generally,
logconcave measures), that very feature also makes them not tight for
many specific sub-classes of convex bodies.
As a consequence, our proof techniques are different from those used in the latter works,
and may be of independent interest.
In addition, we develop and analyze importance sampling algorithms
to compute geometric quantities such as the volume fraction of small $\ell_p^n$-spherical caps in the direction
$\theta^n$, which would be infeasible to compute with reasonable accuracy using standard Monte Carlo estimation
since the quantities are vanishingly small.
We expect that such computational approaches based on large deviations
may be useful more generally in the study of
high-dimensional geometric structures.
We now describe some of the challenges in obtaining such estimates and comment on our proof technique. Our results can be viewed as
a geometric generalization of classical sharp large deviation
estimates in the spirit of Bahadur and Ranga Rao \cite{BahRao93},
which we now briefly recall.
Given a sequence of independent and identically distributed
(i.i.d.) random variables $(X_i)_{i \in {\mathbb N}}$, for each $n \in {\mathbb N}$,
let $S^n$ denote the corresponding empirical mean:
\begin{equation}
\label{rep-sn}
S^n := \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n X_i^n = \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \left\langle X^n, \mathfrak{I}^n \right\rangle,
\end{equation}
where $X^n := (X_1, \ldots, X_n)$ and $\mathfrak{I}^n:=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}(1,1,\cdots,1)\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$.
Under suitable assumptions on the (marginal) distribution of $X_1$ it was shown in
\cite{BahRao93} that
\begin{equation}\label{BRR}
\mathbb{P}\left(S^n \geq a\right)=\frac{e^{-n\mathbb{I}(a)}}{\sigma_a\tau_a\sqrt{2\pi n}}\left(1+o(1)\right).
\end{equation}
Key ingredients of the proof in \cite{BahRao93} include identification
of a ``tilted'' measure (that is absolutely continuous
with respect to the original product measure) under which the rare event
on the left-hand side of \eqref{BRR} becomes typical, and
a quantitative CLT for the sequence $(S^n)_{n \in {\mathbb N}}$ under the tilted measure.
In the case of i.i.d.\ sums,
this tilted measure is also another product measure \cite{BahRao93},
and so the second step follows from the standard CLT and associated
Edgeworth expansions, once the second and third
moments of $S^n$ under the tilted measure are identified.
In this article we
obtain analytical estimates of tail probabilities of
the scaled random projection
\begin{equation}\label{W}
W^{(n,p)} := \frac{n^{1/p}}{n^{1/2}} \left\langle X^{(n,p)}, \theta^n \right\rangle = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n \left(n^{1/p}X^{(n,p)}_i\right)\left(n^{1/2}\theta^n_i\right),
\end{equation}
with $(X^{(n,p)})_{n \in {\mathbb N}}$ and $(\theta^n)_{n \in {\mathbb N}}$ as defined above
for some
$p \in (1,\infty)$,
conditioned on the sequence of projection directions
$\theta = (\theta^n)_{n \in {\mathbb N}}$.
While (quenched) sharp large deviations of sums of weighted
i.i.d.\ random variables with i.i.d.\ weights
have been considered in more recent work \cite{Bovier15},
comparing the expressions for $W^{(n,p)}$ and $S^n$ in \eqref{W} and \eqref{rep-sn}, respectively,
we see that $W^{(n,p)}$ is a randomly weighted sum of random variables that are not independent,
with random weights that are also not independent.
Thus, the analysis in this case is significantly more challenging
and requires several new ingredients.
We will instead exploit a known probabilistic representation for the cone
measure on $\ell^n_p$-spheres \cite{Schechtman90} to rewrite the tail event
$\{W^{(n,p)} \ge a)$ as the probability that a certain two-dimensional random vector lies
in a certain domain in ${\mathbb R}^2$ (see Section \ref{subs-reform}),
and then establish
sharp large deviation estimates for the latter.
This transformation turns out to be useful even though
sharp large deviations in multiple dimensions
are more involved, and none of the existing results
(see, e.g., \cites{Andriani97,Barbe05,Joutard17} and references therein)
apply to this setting. We use Fourier analysis and a change
of measure argument to obtain an asymptotic expansion for the quenched two-dimensional density (see Proposition \ref{prop-mainest} and Section \ref{sec-pfdens})
and then integrate it over the appropriate domain.
To identify the appropriate change of measure or ``tilted'' measure, we first show (in Lemma \ref{inf_ratefunc}) that the quenched large deviation rate function obtained in~\cite{GanKimRam17} admits a simpler expression, and use that to deduce that the rate function is strictly convex, and thus have a unique minimizer.
Along the way, we also establish quantitative central limit theorems under the change
of measure (see Lemma \ref{clt_expansion}),
which may be of independent interest.
As elaborated in Remark \ref{rem-geom},
our analytical sharp large deviation
estimates do indeed capture additional geometric
information beyond the large deviation rate function.
In order to provide evidence of the accuracy of our analytical estimates, we compare them with numerical approximations of the tail probabilities. We use the tilted measure identified in the sharp large deviations analysis to propose an importance sampling scheme that numerically simulates the tail probabilities. We then compare the results of importance sampling with analytical sharp large deviation estimates for a range of $n$.
\subsection{Outline. }
A precise statement of the results and an outline of the proofs is given in Section \ref{sec-res}. The main
analytical result, Theorem \ref{main_lp} for $\ell_p^n$ spheres, is proved
in Sections \ref{sec-pfmain}.
The proposed importance sampling algorithm for calculating the tail probability and the simulation is given in Section~\ref{IS-algorithm}.
The proof relies on several auxiliary results, including
a multi-dimensional reformulation of the
rare event of interest, which is introduced in Section \ref{subs-reform}, and
an asymptotic independence result for the weights established
in Section~\ref{subs-prep}.
The third, most important, ingredient is a certain asymptotic expansion
for the joint density of a two-dimensional random vector stated as
Proposition \ref{prop-mainest}, whose proof is deferred to Section \ref{sec-pfdens}.
Proofs of several technical results used in the analysis are deferred to
Appendices \ref{apsec-infrfn}--\ref{subs-geoinfo}
First, in Section \ref{subs-not}
we introduce some common notation used throughout this article.
\subsection{Notation and definitions}
\label{subs-not}
We use the notation $\mathbb{N}$, $\mathbb{R}$ and $\mathbb{C}$ to denote the set of positive integers, real numbers and
complex numbers, respectively. For a complex number $z\in\mathbb{C}$, we denote $\operatorname{Re}\{z\}$ to be the real part of $z$. For a set $A$, we denote its complement by $A^c$.
Given a twice differentiable function $f: {\mathbb R}^d \to {\mathbb R}$, we use
$\hess f$ to denote the $d\times d$ Hessian matrix of $f$. Also, given a $m\times d$ matrix $A$,
let $A^T$ denote its transpose and when $m=d$, let
${\rm det} A$ denote its determinant.
For $q\in\mathbb{N}$, define the function space $\mathbb{L}_q(\mathbb{R}^d)$ to be
\[
\mathbb{L}_q(\mathbb{R}^d):=\left\{f:\mathbb{R}^d\to\mathbb{R}:\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\abs{f}^qdx<\infty \right\}.
\]
For $p\in (1,\infty)$ and $n\in\mathbb{N}$, let $\|\cdot\|_{n,p}$ denote
the $p$-th norm in $\mathbb{R}^n$, that is, for $x=(x_1,\ldots,x_n)\in\mathbb{R}^n$,
\[
\norm{x}_{n,p}:=\left(x_1^p+\cdots+x_n^p \right)^{1/p}.
\]
Let $\mathbb{S}^{n-1}_p$ and $B^n_p$ denote the unit $\ell^n_p$ sphere and ball, respectively:
\begin{equation}\label{p-sphere}
\mathbb{S}^{n-1}_p:=\{x \in {\mathbb R}^n: \norm{x}_{n,p} = 1\}\quad\text{and}\quad B^n_p:=\{x \in {\mathbb R}^n:\norm{x}_{n,p} \leq1\}.
\end{equation}
For the special case $p = 2$, we use just $\|\cdot\|$ to denote $\|\cdot\|_{n,2}$, the Euclidean norm on $\mathbb{R}^n$,
and $\mathbb{S}^{n-1}$ to denote $\mathbb{S}^{n-1}_2$.
Also, define the cone measure on $\ell^{n}_p$ as follows: for any Borel measurable set $A\subset\ell^{n}_p$,
\begin{equation}\label{cone-meas}
\mu_{n,p}(A) := \frac{{\rm vol}([0,1]A)}{{\rm vol}(B^n_p)},
\end{equation}
where $[0,1]A:=\{xa\in\mathbb{R}^n: x\in[0,1], a\in A \}$, and ${\rm vol}$ denotes Lebesgue measure.
Note that when $p = 2$, the (renormalized) cone measure coincides with the (renormalized) surface measure,
and is equal to the unique rotational invariant measure on $\mathbb{S}^{n-1}$ with total mass $1$.
We end this section with the definition of a large deviations principle (LDP); we refer to~\cite{DemZeiBook}
for general background on large deviation theory. For $d \in {\mathbb N}$, let $\mathcal{P}({\mathbb R}^d)$ denote
the space of probability measures on ${\mathbb R}^d$, equipped with the topology of weak convergence, where recall
that for $\eta, \eta_n \in {\mathcal P}({\mathbb R}^d)$, $n \in {\mathbb N}$, $\eta_n$ is said to converge weakly to
$\eta$ as $n \rightarrow \infty$, denoted $\eta_n \Rightarrow \eta$, if $\int_{{\mathbb R}^d} f(x) \eta_n(dx) \rightarrow \int_{{\mathbb R}^d} f(x) \eta (dx)$ as $n \rightarrow \infty$ for every bounded and continuous function $f$ on ${\mathbb R}^d$.
\begin{definition}[Large deviation principle]
The sequence of probability measures $(\eta_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\subset\mathcal{P}({\mathbb R})$ is said to satisfy a large deviation principle with (speed $n$ and) a good rate function $\mathbb{I}:\mathbb{R}\to[0,\infty]$ if $\mathbb{I}$ is lower semicontinuous and for any measurable set $A$,
\[
-\inf_{x\in A^\mathrm{o}}\mathbb{I}(x)\leq\liminf_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{n}\log \eta_n(A)\leq\limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{n}\log \eta_n(A)\leq-\inf_{x\in {\rm cl}(A)}\mathbb{I}(x),
\]
where $A^\mathrm{o}$ and ${\rm cl}(A)$ denote the interior and closure of $A$, respectively.
Moreover, we say that $\mathbb{I}$ is a good rate function if it has compact level sets.
A sequence of random variables $(V_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ is said to satisfy an LDP if the corresponding sequence of laws $(\mathbb{P}^{-1}\circ V_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ satisfies an LDP.
\end{definition}
\section{Statement of main results}
\label{sec-res}
Fix $p \in (1,\infty)$. Consider a probability space $(\Omega, {\mathcal F}, {\mathbb P})$ on which are defined
two independent sequences $\Theta = (\Theta^n)_{n \in {\mathbb N}}$ and $X = (X^{(n,p)})_{n \in {\mathbb N}}$, where $\Theta$ takes values in the sequence space $\mathbb{S} := \otimes_{n\in\mathbb{N}} \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$,
with $\Theta^n\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$ denoting
the $n$-th element of
that sequence and each $X^{(n,p)}$ is distributed according to the cone
measure $\mu_{n,p}$ on the unit $\ell_p^n$ sphere, as defined in \eqref{cone-meas}.
We assume that $\Theta$ has distribution $\sigma$, where $\sigma$ is any probability measure
on ${\mathbb S}$ whose image under the mapping $\theta \in {\mathbb S} \mapsto \theta^n \in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$ coincides with $\mu_{n,2}$,
the unique rotation invariant measure on $\mathbb{S}^{n-1}$.
The dependence between the random vectors $\Theta^n$ for different $n \in {\mathbb N}$ can be
arbitrary.
For $\theta\in\mathbb{S}$, denote $\mathbb{P}_\theta$ to be the probability measure ${\mathbb P}$ conditioned on $\Theta = \theta$, and let ${\mathbb E}$ and ${\mathbb E}_{\theta}$
denote expectation
with respect to ${\mathbb P}$ and ${\mathbb P}_{\theta}$, respectively.
For $n\in\mathbb{N}$, let $W^{(n,p)}$ be the normalized scalar projection of $X^{(n,p)}$ along $\Theta^n$
defined as
\begin{equation}\label{W_p}
W^{(n,p)} := \frac{n^{1/p}}{n^{1/2}} \sum_{i=1}^n X_i^{(n,p)}\Theta_i^n.
\end{equation}
First, in Section \ref{subs-quenchedLDP} we recall the
quenched LDP for $\ell_p^n$ balls of \cite{GanKimRam17} and obtain an important
simplification of the quenched LDP rate function obtained therein, which in particular
shows that it is convex and has a unique minimum.
The latter property will be crucial for our analysis. We then present our sharp large deviation
results for projections of $\ell_p^n$ spheres in Sections \ref{subs-analres}. Finally, in Section \ref{subs-reform} we provide a brief
outline of the proof, and present a more detailed comparison of our results
with classical Bahadur-Raga Rao bounds.
\subsection{Simplification of the Quenched LDP rate function}
\label{subs-quenchedLDP}
We now state our main analytical (quenched) sharp large deviation estimate.
Fix $p \in (1,\infty)$.
We first state a quenched LDP for the sequence $(W^{(n,p)})_{n \in {\mathbb N}}$.
Let $\gamma_p \in\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{R})$ be the probability measure of the generalized $p$-th Gaussian distribution with density
\begin{align}\label{pNormal}
f_p (y):=\frac{1}{2p^{1/p}\Gamma(1+\frac{1}{p})}e^{-\abs{y}^p/p}, \quad y\in\mathbb{R},
\end{align}
where $\Gamma$ is the Gamma function. For $t_1,t_2\in \mathbb{R}$, define
\begin{align} \label{logmgf_lp}
\Lambda_p(t_1,t_2) := \log\left( \int_\mathbb{R} e^{t_1y+t_2\abs{y}^p}\gamma_p(dy)\right),
\end{align}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{psi}
\Psi_p(t_1,t_2) := \int_\mathbb{R} \Lambda_p(ut_1,t_2)\gamma_2(du).
\end{equation}
Also, let $\Psi^*_p$ be the Legendre transform of $\Psi_p$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Psi}
\Psi^*_p(t_1,t_2) := \sup_{s_1,s_2\in\mathbb{R}} \{t_1s_1 + t_2 s_2 - \Psi_p(s_1,s_2)\}, \quad t_1,t_2\in \mathbb{R}.
\end{equation}
It follows from Theorem 2.5, Lemma 3.1 and Lemma 3.4 of \cite{GanKimRam17} that
for $\sigma$-a.e.\ $\theta$, under $\mathbb{P}_\theta$, the sequence $(W^{(n,p)})_{n \in{\mathbb N}}$
satisfies an LDP with (speed $n$ and)
a quasiconvex good rate function
\begin{equation}\label{rate_func}
\mathbb{I}_{p}(t) = \inf_{\tau_1\in\mathbb{R},\tau_2>0:\tau_1\tau_2^{-1/p}=t}\Psi^*_p(\tau_1,\tau_2),
\end{equation}
where recall that a quasiconvex function is a function whose level sets are convex. Note that the rate function is insensitive to the projection directions,
in the sense that it is the same for $\sigma$-a.e. $\theta$.
We show in the following lemma that the infimum in \eqref{rate_func} is attained uniquely at $(t,1)$,
yielding a simpler form for the rate function that shows that
it is strictly convex and has a unique minimizer.
The latter is a crucial property for both obtaining
sharp large deviation estimates and developing importance sampling algorithms.
\begin{lemma}\label{inf_ratefunc}
For $p \in (1,\infty)$ and $a>0$ such that $\Psi^*_p(a,1)<\infty$,
\[
\inf_{\tau_1\in\mathbb{R},\tau_2>0:\tau_1\tau_2^{-1/p}=a}\Psi^*_p(\tau_1,\tau_2) =\Psi^*_p(a,1) = \sup_{s_1,s_2\in\mathbb{R}}\left\{ as_1+s_2-\Psi_p(s_1,s_2)\right\}.
\]
\end{lemma}
The proof of Lemma \ref{inf_ratefunc} is relegated to Appendix~\ref{apsec-infrfn}; when combined
with Theorem 2.5, Lemma 3.1 and Lemma 3.4 of \cite{GanKimRam17}, it yields the following simpler
form of the quenched LDP.
\begin{theorem}
\label{LDP_p}
Fix $p \in (1,\infty)$. For $\sigma$-a.e. $\theta$, under $\mathbb{P}_\theta$, the sequence $(W^{(n,p)})_{n \in {\mathbb N}}$ satisfies an LDP with the strictly
convex, symmetric, good rate function $\mathbb{I}_{p}$ given by
\begin{equation}
\label{rate-fn}
\mathbb{I}_{p}(a) :=\Psi^*_p(a,1) = \sup_{s_1,s_2\in\mathbb{R}}\left\{ as_1+s_2-\Psi_p(s_1,s_2)\right\}.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\subsection{Results on projections of $\ell_p^n$ spheres}
\label{subs-analres}
We now introduce notation to state the sharp large deviation estimate for $W^{(n,p)}$. Recall from~\eqref{eq:Psi} that $\Psi_p^*$ is the Legendre transform of $\Psi_p$. Define
$\mathbb{J}_p\subset\mathbb{R}^2$ to be the effective domain of $\Psi_p^*$:
\begin{equation}\label{def-Jp}
\mathbb{J}_p:=\{(x_1,x_2)\in\mathbb{R}^2:\Psi_p^*(x_1,x_2)<\infty\}.
\end{equation}
Since by ~\cite[Lemma 5.8]{GanKimRam17},
$\Lambda_p$ defined in~\eqref{logmgf_lp} is strictly convex on its effective domain, which we denote by $\mathbb{D}_p$,
$\Psi_p$ is also strictly convex on $\mathbb{D}_p$.
For $x=(x_1,x_2)\in\mathbb{J}_p$, let $\lambda_x = (\lambda_{x,1}, \lambda_{x,2}) \in\mathbb{R}^2$ be the unique point that attains the supremum in the definition of $\Psi^*_p$,
\begin{equation}\label{lambda_x}
\Psi^*_p(x)=\langle x,\lambda_x\rangle-\Psi_p(\lambda_x),
\end{equation}
By Lemma 5.9 in~\cite{GanKimRam17}, $\Psi_p$ is essentially smooth, lower-semicontinuous and hence closed. By Lemma 5.8 in~\cite{GanKimRam17}, we further see that $\Psi_p$ is strictly convex. Therefore by Theorem 26.5 of~\cite{RocBook70}, $\nabla \Psi_p$ is one-to-one and onto from the domain of $\Psi_p$ to $\mathbb{J}_p$. Thus, there exists a unique $\tilde{\lambda}_x$ such that $\nabla \Psi_p(\tilde{\lambda}_x)=x$, which in turn implies that $\tilde{\lambda}_x$ uniquely achieves the supremum in~\eqref{eq:Psi}. By \eqref{eq:Psi} and~\eqref{lambda_x}, we see that $\tilde{\lambda}_x=\lambda_x$. Hence, we conclude that
\begin{equation}\label{gradPsi}\nabla \Psi_p(\lambda_x) = x.\end{equation}
Define ${\mathcal H}_x = {\mathcal H}_{p,x}$, where
\begin{equation}\label{gamma_x}
{\mathcal H}_{p,x} := (\hess \Psi_p)(\lambda_x),
\end{equation}
where we suppress the dependence on $p$ from $\lambda_x$ and ${\mathcal H}_x$.
Also, fix $a>0$ such that $\mathbb{I}_p(a)<\infty$.
With some abuse of notation, we write $\lambda_a = \lambda_{a^*}$ and
${\mathcal H}_a = {\mathcal H}_{a^*}$,
where $a^* = (a,1)$.
Note that then
$\lambda_a=(\lambda_{a,1},\lambda_{a,2})\in\mathbb{R}^2$
is the unique maximizer in~\eqref{rate-fn}, that is,
\begin{equation}\label{lambdaa}
\Psi_p^*(a,1) = a\lambda_{a,1}+\lambda_{a,2}-\Psi_p(\lambda_{a,1},\lambda_{a,2}),
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{Gammaa}
{\mathcal H}_{a} :=\left(\hess \Psi_p \right)(\lambda_a).
\end{equation}
Next, define the positive constants $\xi_{a} = \xi_{p,a}$ and $\kappa_a = \kappa_{p,a}$
via the relations
\begin{align}
\label{def-sigmapa}
\xi^2_{a} &:= \langle {\mathcal H}_{a} \lambda_a, \lambda_a \rangle, \\
\label{def-kappapa}
\kappa_{a}^2 &:= 1 - \frac{\abs{\lambda_{a,2}^2({\mathcal H}_{a})^{-1}_{11}-2\lambda_{a,1}\lambda_{a,2}({\mathcal H}_{a})^{-1}_{12}+\lambda_{a,1}^2({\mathcal H}_{a})^{-1}_{22}}(a^2+p^2)^{3/2}}{(\lambda_{a,1}^2+\lambda_{a,2}^2)^{3/2}p(p-1)a}.
\end{align}
Finally, also define the following functions: for $x \in {\mathbb R}$,
\begin{equation}
\label{f_pa}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\ell_a(x) & := & \Lambda_p(x\lambda_{a,1},\lambda_{a,2}), \\
\ell_{a,1}(x) & := & x \partial_{1}\Lambda_p(x\lambda_{a,1},\lambda_{a,2}), \\
\ell_{a,2}(x) & := & \partial_{2}\Lambda_p(x\lambda_{a,1},\lambda_{a,2}).
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Note that the dependence on $p$ of these functions is again not explicitly notated.
\begin{remark}
Although it is not obvious that the right-hand side of~\eqref{def-kappapa} is positive, this will be apparent from the proof of Theorem \ref{main_lp}.
\end{remark}
We are now ready to state the sharp large deviation estimate for scaled projections of $\ell_p^n$ spheres.
\begin{theorem}\label{main_lp}
Fix $p \in (1,\infty)$ and $a > 0$ such that $\mathbb{I}_p(a)<\infty$. Then
the following statements hold:
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*)]
\item \label{main_lp_1}
For $n \in {\mathbb N}$, there exist mappings $R_a^n = R_{p,a}^n: \mathbb{S}^{n-1} \to {\mathbb R}$ and
$c_a^n = c_{p,a}^n: \mathbb{S}^{n-1} \to {\mathbb R}^2$ such that
for $\sigma$-a.e.\ $\theta$,
\begin{align}\label{tail_prob}
\mathbb{P}_\theta\left(W^{(n,p)}>a\right) =
\frac{C^n_a(\theta^n)}{ \kappa_a \xi_{a}\sqrt{2\pi n} }
e^{-n\mathbb{I}_{p}(a) + \sqrt{n} R^n_{a}(\theta^n)}(1+o(1)),
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}\label{Cna}
C^n_a(\theta^n) :=
\exp\left( \norm{{\mathcal H}_{a}^{-1/2}c^n_{a}(\theta^n)}^2 \right),
\end{align}
and $\xi_{a} = \xi_{p,a}$ and $\kappa_{a} = \kappa_{p,a}$ are the constants defined in
\eqref{def-sigmapa} and \eqref{def-kappapa}, respectively.
\item \label{main_lp_2}
Moreover, there exist sequences of random variables
$(r_n=r^n_{p,a})_{n \in {\mathbb N}}$, $(s_n=s^n_{p,a})_{n \in {\mathbb N}}$, and
$(t_{n,i}=t^n_{p,a,i})_{n \in {\mathbb N}}$, $i = 1, 2$, (defined on some common probability space)
such that for each $n \in {\mathbb N}$,
\begin{align}\label{equiv-Rc}
\left(R^n_{a}(\Theta^n),c^n_{a}(\Theta^n)\right)&\buildrel (d) \over = \left(r_n + \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}s_n+o\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\right),(t_{n,1}+o(1),t_{n,2}+o(1))\right),
\end{align}
and as $n \rightarrow \infty$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& \left(r_n,s_n,t_{n,1},t_{n,2}\right)\Rightarrow (\mathfrak{R},\mathfrak{S},\mathfrak{T}_1,\mathfrak{T}_2),
\end{eqnarray*}
where
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& (\mathfrak{R},\mathfrak{S},\mathfrak{T}_1,\mathfrak{T}_2):=\\
&& \qquad \left(\widetilde{\mathfrak{A}}-\frac{1}{2} \mathbb{E}[\ell'_a(Z)Z]\widetilde{\mathfrak{D}},
\frac{1}{8}\mathbb{E}[\ell''_a(Z)Z^2]\widetilde{\mathfrak{D}}^2,
\widetilde{\mathfrak{E}}- \frac{1}{2}\mathbb{E}\left[\ell_{a,1}'(Z)Z \right]\widetilde{\mathfrak{D}},\widetilde{\mathfrak{G}}-\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{E}\left[\ell_{a,2}'(Z)Z \right]\widetilde{\mathfrak{D}}\right),
\end{eqnarray*}
and $Z$ is a standard Gaussian random variable and $(\widetilde{\mathfrak{A}},\widetilde{\mathfrak{D}},\widetilde{\mathfrak{E}},\widetilde{\mathfrak{G}})$ are jointly Gaussian with mean $0$ and
covariance matrix $\Sigma_{a} = \Sigma_{p,a}$ that takes the following explicit form:
\begin{align}\label{cov_p}
\left(
\begin{array}{llll}
\mathrm{Cov}(\ell_a(Z),\ell_a(Z)) & \mathrm{Cov}(\ell_a(Z),Z^2) & \mathrm{Cov}(\ell_a(Z),\ell_{a,1}(Z)) & \mathrm{Cov}(\ell_a(Z),\ell_{a,2}(Z))\\
\mathrm{Cov}(Z^2,\ell_a(Z)) & \mathrm{Cov}(Z^2,Z^2) & \mathrm{Cov}(Z^2,\ell_{a,1}(Z)) & \mathrm{Cov}(Z^2,\ell_{a,2}(Z))\\
\mathrm{Cov}(\ell_{a,1}(Z),f_a(Z)) & \mathrm{Cov}(\ell_{a,1}(Z),Z^2) & \mathrm{Cov}(\ell_{a,1}(Z),\ell_{a,1}(Z)) & \mathrm{Cov}(\ell_{a,1}(Z),\ell_{a,2}(Z))\\
\mathrm{Cov}(\ell_{a,2}(Z),\ell_a(Z)) & \mathrm{Cov}(\ell_{a,2}(Z),Z^2) & \mathrm{Cov}(\ell_{a,2}(Z),\ell_{a,1}(Z)) & \mathrm{Cov}(\ell_{a,2}(Z),\ell_{a,2}(Z))\\
\end{array}
\right).
\end{align}
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}\label{rem-prefactor}
We will refer to the term $\frac{C^n_a(\theta^n)}{ \kappa_a \xi_{a}\sqrt{2\pi n} }
e^{\sqrt{n} R^n_{a}(\theta^n)}$ as the ``prefactor" since it provides the refinement of the term $e^{-n\mathbb{I}_p(a)}$ that follows from the LDP.
\end{remark}
An outline of the proof of Theorem~\ref{main_lp} is given in Section~\ref{subs-reform}, with full details provided in Sections \ref{subs-mainproof2} and \ref{subs-mainproof};
the precise definitions of the functions $c_a^n$ and $R_a^n$ are
given in \eqref{def-cnhessn} and \eqref{Rn}, respectively. As a corollary,
combining the two parts of Theorem~\ref{main_lp}, we obtain an alternative
expression for the (distribution of the random) tail probability.
\begin{corollary}\label{alt-form}
Fix $p \in (1,\infty)$ and $a > 0$ such that $\mathbb{I}_p(a)<\infty$. For $n\in\mathbb{N}$, recall the definitions of $(r_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$, $(s_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ and $(t_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ in Theorem~\ref{main_lp}~\ref{main_lp_2}, and that of ${\mathcal H}_a$ from \eqref{Gammaa}. Then
\[
\mathbb{P}_\Theta\left(W^{(n,p)}>a\right) \buildrel (d) \over=
\frac{M_n}{ \kappa_a \xi_{a}\sqrt{2\pi n} }
e^{-n\mathbb{I}_{p}(a) + \sqrt{n} r_n}(1+o(1)),
\]
where
\begin{equation}\label{Mn}
M_n:=\exp\left( s_n+\norm{{\mathcal H}_{a}^{-1/2}t_n}^2 \right).
\end{equation}
Moreover, as $n\to\infty$,
\begin{align}\label{joint-conv}
\left(M_n,r_n\right) \Rightarrow
\left(\exp\left(\mathfrak{S}+
\norm{{\mathcal H}_{a}^{-1/2}\mathfrak{T}}^2\right), \mathfrak{R} \right),
\end{align}
where
$(\mathfrak{R},\mathfrak{S},\mathfrak{T}_1,\mathfrak{T}_2)$ is defined as in Theorem~\ref{main_lp}\ref{main_lp_2}.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
By~\eqref{tail_prob},~\eqref{Cna} and~\eqref{equiv-Rc}, the tail probability can be written as
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{P}_\Theta\left(W^{(n,p)}>a\right) &\buildrel (d) \over= \frac{e^{\norm{{\mathcal H}_{a}^{-1/2}t_n}^2+o(1)}}{ \kappa_a \xi_{a}\sqrt{2\pi n} }
e^{-n\mathbb{I}_{p}(a) + \sqrt{n} r_n+s_n+o(1)}(1+o(1))\\
& = \frac{M_n}{ \kappa_a \xi_{a}\sqrt{2\pi n} }
e^{-n\mathbb{I}_{p}(a) + \sqrt{n} r_n}(1+o(1)),
\end{align*}
since $\exp(o(1)) = o(1)$.
Also, from the relation~\eqref{Mn}, the mapping $(r_n,s_n,t_{n,1},t_{n,2})\mapsto (M_n,r_n)$ is continuous. Therefore,
we may apply the continuous mapping theorem to the last display, and invoke
Theorem~\ref{main_lp}\ref{main_lp_2} to obtain the joint convergence stated in~\eqref{joint-conv}.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
\label{rem-geom}
Note that while the asymptotic exponential decay rate of the
tail probability is
insensitive to the projection
direction sequence in the sense that for
$\sigma$-a.e. $\theta \in {\mathbb S}$,
the large deviation rate function under ${\mathbb P}_{\theta}$
is the same, and equal to $\mathbb{I}_p$,
the ``prefactor" in the sharp large deviation
estimate in Theorem~\ref{main_lp} do exhibit a
dependence on $\theta$ via the additional factors
$R^n_a(\cdot)$ and $C_a^n(\cdot)$.
Indeed, these factors
vanish when $p = 2$ (reflecting the symmetry of the $\ell_2^n$-sphere),
and it can be shown that for $p>2$,
the maximum of $R^n_{p,a}$ on $\mathbb{S}^{n-1}$ is attained
at the vectors $(\pm 1, \ldots, \pm 1)/\sqrt{n}$, while
the minimum is attained on the basis vectors $\{\pm e_j, j=1, \ldots, n\}$,
with the opposite true for $p < 2$.
Indeed, these results can be deduced
from the definition of
$R^n_a = R^n_{p,a}$ given in \eqref{Rn}, and Proposition \ref{p-dependence}, and reflect the difference in
geometry of $\ell^n_p$ spheres for $p < 2$ and $p > 2$.
More broadly,
this observation motivates obtaining sharp large deviation estimates
for projections of more general high-dimensional objects
to uncover new geometric information about these objects.
For the case of $\ell^n_p$ balls and multi-dimensional projections, this is carried out in \cite{LiaRam21}. In particular, Theorem 3.4 and 3.6 of \cite{LiaRam21} shows that the sharp estimate for the $\ell^n_p$ ball differs from the sphere, thus further emphasizing the usefulness of sharp large deviation over LDPs.
\end{remark}
\subsection{ A reformulation and the proof outline}
\label{subs-reform}
Fix $p\in (1,\infty)$.
As mentioned in the introduction, one of the reasons the estimate
\eqref{tail_prob} is challenging to establish is that
$W^{(n,p)}$ is a weighted sum of random variables that are not independent, where the
random weights are also themselves not independent.
In this section
we provide a brief outline of our proof and additional insight into the form of the sharp large deviation
estimates, contrasting them with existing results,
and explaining the role of various constants.
The first step of the proof is to reformulate the probability of the rare event in terms of a certain
two-dimensional random vector
$\bar{S}^{(n,p)}$ using
a well-known probabilistic representation
for the random vector $X^{(n,p)}$ that we now recall.
Assume without loss of generality that the probability space
$(\Omega, {\mathcal F}, {\mathbb P})$ is large enough to also support
an i.i.d.\ sequence of generalized $p$-th Gaussian random variables
$(Y_i^{(p)})_{i \in {\mathbb N}}$,
independent of
$\Theta$,
and define the
$n$-dimensional random vector $Y^{(n,p)} := (Y_1^{(p)}, \ldots, Y_n^{(p)})$,
where each $Y_j^{(p)}$ has density $f_p$ defined in~\eqref{pNormal}.
Then, it follows from~\cite[Lemma 1]{Schechtman90} (see also a statement of this property at the bottom of p.\ 548 in \cite{Bor90}) that
\begin{equation}\label{equv_relation}
X^{(n,p)} \buildrel (d) \over =\frac{Y^{(n,p)}}{\norm{Y^{(n,p)}}_{n,p}}, \qquad n \in{\mathbb N},
\end{equation}
where recall that $\|x\|_{n,p}$ denotes the $p$-norm in ${\mathbb R}^n$.
Define the $\mathbb{R}^2$-valued random vector
\begin{equation} \label{joint_pdf}
\bar{S}^{(n,p)}:=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n\left(\sqrt{n} \Theta^n_jY^{(p)}_j,\abs{Y^{(p)}_j}^p \right).
\end{equation}
In view of~\eqref{W_p} and~\eqref{equv_relation}, for $a >0$ and $\theta \in {\mathbb S}$, we may rewrite
the tail probability on the left-hand side of \eqref{tail_prob} as
\begin{align}
\notag
\mathbb{P}_\theta\left(W^{(n,p)}>a\right) &=
\mathbb{P}\left(\frac{n^{1/p}}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n\frac{\sqrt{n}\theta^n_jY_j^{(p)}}{\norm{Y^{(n,p)}}_{n,p}}>a\right) \\
\notag
&= \mathbb{P}\left(\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n\sqrt{n}\theta^n_jY^{(p)}_j>a\left(\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n\abs{Y^{(p)}_j}^p \right)^{1/p}\right)\\
\label{eq-reform}
& = \mathbb{P}_\theta \left(\bar{S}^{(n,p)}\in \bar{D}_{p,a}\right),
\end{align}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{def-doma}
\bar{D}_{p,a} :=\left\{(x,y)\in\mathbb{R}^2: y>0,x>ay^{1/p} \right\}.
\end{equation}
While several results on sharp large deviations in multiple dimensions
have been obtained (see, e.g., \cite{Andriani97,Joutard17} as well as \cite{Barbe05} for a comprehensive
list of references), none of these cover the cases of
interest in \eqref{eq-reform}.
In particular,
the work \cite{Andriani97} considers empirical means of
i.i.d.\ random vectors whereas, under ${\mathbb P}_{\theta}$,
$\bar{S}^{(n,p)}$ is the empirical mean of non-identical random vectors,
and further, the results of \cite{Joutard17} also
do not apply since Assumption (A.2) of \cite{Joutard17} therein
is not satisfied here. In particular, we see that we have an additional $\sqrt{n}$ factor in the exponent of~\eqref{tail_prob} compared with~\cite[Equation (3)]{Joutard17}.
Instead, our proof proceeds by first exploiting quantitative asymptotic independence results of
the weights $(\Theta^n_i)_{j=1,\ldots,n}$ obtained
in Section \ref{subs-prep}, and combing them with new
asymptotic estimates for certain Laplace-type integrals (in Section \ref{sec-pfmain}).
\begin{remark}
\label{rem-mainres}
Comparing the estimate in \eqref{tail_prob}
with the sharp large deviation estimate
for the projection of an i.i.d.\ sum
on to the $\mathfrak{I}^n = (1,1,\ldots,1)/\sqrt{n}$
direction given in ~\eqref{BRR}, we
see that $\xi_a$ here plays a role similar to $\sigma_a \tau_a$ in \eqref{BRR}.
On the other hand, the additional constant $\kappa_a$ in \eqref{tail_prob} arises due to the geometry of the
domain $\bar{D}_{p,a}$ defined in~\eqref{def-doma} and the fact that we obtain this estimate by considering first a two-dimensional sharp
large deviations.
From a technical point of view, the additional $\theta^n$-dependent
terms $R^n_a(\theta^n)$ and $C^n_a(\theta^n)$ arise because we are
considering (quenched) sharp large deviations of a vector $\bar{S}^{(n,p)}$ whose independent summands
are not identically distributed under ${\mathbb P}_\theta$ on account of the different weights
arising from the coordinates of $\theta^n$.
From their exact definitions given in~\eqref{Rn} and~\eqref{def-cnhessn},
it is easy to see that both terms would vanish if we considered $\theta \in {\mathbb S}$ such that
$\theta^n = \mathfrak{I}^n = (1,1,\ldots,1)/\sqrt{n}$.
\end{remark}
\section{An Importance Sampling Algorithm}\label{IS-algorithm}
To numerically compute the tail probability
${\mathbb P}_\theta (W^{(n,p)} > a) = \mathbb{E}_\theta[1_{\left\{W^{(n,p)} >a\right\}}]$
using standard Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC),
for any $\theta^n \in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$, one would have to generate independent
samples of $X^{(n,p)}$ from the cone measure $\mu_{n,p}$ defined in~\eqref{cone-meas},
and use the empirical mean as an estimate of the expectation.
However, since the probability is very small, this is inefficient or computationally
infeasible for even moderate values of $n$.
In this section, we propose an alternative importance (IS) sampling
algorithm to more efficiently
compute the tail probability numerically, for a range of values of $n$,
and compare this with the analytical estimate obtained in Theorem \ref{main_lp}.
For $a>0$, fix $p \in (1,\infty)$ and recall the constant $\lambda_a$ defined in~\eqref{lambdaa}.
Also, recall the definition of the density $f_p$ in \eqref{pNormal}.
Given $n \in {\mathbb N}$
let $\widetilde{Y}^{(n,p)}_j$, $j= 1,\ldots, n,$ be
random variables defined on $(\Omega, {\mathcal F}, {\mathbb P})$ such that for each $\theta \in {\mathbb S}$, under ${\mathbb P}_\theta$, they are independent and
$\widetilde{Y}^{(n,p)}_j$ has density
\begin{equation}\label{tilt_pdf}
\widetilde{f}_{p,j}^{n}(y) := \exp\left(\left\langle \lambda_a,\left(\sqrt{n}\theta^n_jy,\abs{y}^p\right)\right\rangle-\Lambda_p\left(\sqrt{n}\theta^n_i\lambda_{a,1},\lambda_{a,2}\right)\right) f_p(y),
\quad y \in {\mathbb R},
\end{equation}
where we suppress the explicit dependence of $\widetilde{f}_{p,j}^{n}$ on $\theta^n$, and also set
\begin{equation}\label{Wtilde}
\widetilde{W}^{(n,p)} :=\frac{n^{1/p}}{n^{1/2}}\sum_{j=1}^n
\frac{\widetilde{Y}^{(n,p)}_j \Theta^n_j}{\norm{\widetilde{Y}^{(n,p)}}_{n,p}}.
\end{equation}
In view of \eqref{tilt_pdf} and \eqref{Wtilde},
it then follows that
\begin{equation}
\label{imp-samp}
\mathbb{P}_\theta(W^{(n,p)}>a) =
\mathbb{E}_\theta\left[1_{\left\{\widetilde{W}^{(n,p)}>a\right\}}\prod_{j=1}^n\exp\left(-\left\langle \lambda_a,\left(\sqrt{n}\theta^n_j\widetilde{Y}^{(p)}_j,\abs{\widetilde{Y}^{(p)}_j}^p\right)\right\rangle+\Lambda_p\left(\sqrt{n}\theta^n_i\lambda_{a,1},\lambda_{a,2}\right)\right)\right ].
\end{equation}
The IS algorithm
estimates the tail probability on the left-hand side of \eqref{imp-samp},
by sampling from i.i.d.\ vectors, $\widetilde{Y}^{(n,p)}:=(\widetilde{Y}^{p}_1,\ldots,\widetilde{Y}^{p}_n)$ with each $\widetilde{Y}^{p}_j$ having density $\widetilde{f}^n_{p,j}$,
to approximate the expectation on the right-hand side of \eqref{imp-samp}.
Lastly, the direction sequence is sampled such that $\{\theta^n\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ is an independent sequence.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.4\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{p3_a01.jpg}
\caption{$a=0.1$.}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.4\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{p3_a07.jpg}
\caption{$a=0.7$.}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{$p=3$. Log scale.}
\label{p3}
\end{figure}
The results are displayed in
Figures $1$--$2$ and Tables $1$--$2$.
In each case, the IS estimate is computed as above, the
LDP estimate is $e^{-n \mathbb{I}_p(a)}$ along (i.e., with $1$ as a prefactor),
and the sharp large deviation (SLD) estimate is computed from the right-hand side of
\eqref{tail_prob}, ignoring the $o(1)$ term.
We take $p=3$ with only $100$ samples since we do not have close forms for various functions needed in the simulation of importance sampling, thus requiring greater computational effort per sample.
First, we see from Figure~\ref{p3} that the LDP estimate is not a good enough approximation,
but the sharp large deviation (SLD) estimate does a much better job.
For large $a$, namely $a = 0.7$, in Figure~\ref{p3}(B)
and Table~\ref{table-p3a07}, we
see that the SLD and IS estimates match pretty well even for
small $n$ (namely, even $n = 20$).
In Table~\ref{table-p3a07} we also calculate
the confidence interval of the
IS estimate and tabulate the relative distance between the SLD and IS estimates, computed as
$\left(\text{SLD}-\text{IS}\right)\times100/\text{IS}$.
However, this is not the case for $a$ small,
namely $a = 0.1$. In this case, see Figure~\ref{p3}(A) and Table~\ref{table-p3a01}, the
SLD estimate appears to achieve the same accuracy only for much larger $n$,
which reflects the dependence of the $o(1)$ term in \eqref{tail_prob} on $a$.
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ |c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$n$ & SLD & IS & Relative distance & Confidence Interval\\
\hline
$20$ & $6.8707\times10^{-6}$ & $5.3317\times10^{-6}$ &$27.18\%$& $[3.4203\times10^{-6},7.2430\times10^{-6}]$\\
$80$ & $2.5403\times10^{-18}$ & $3.4245\times10^{-18}$ &$-25.82\%$& $[1.5542\times10^{-18},5.2948\times10^{-18}]$\\
$140$ & $6.9378\times10^{-31}$ & $6.1856\times10^{-31}$ &$12.16\%$& $[2.5305\times10^{-31},9.8407\times10^{-31}]$\\
$200$ & $2.8813\times10^{-43}$ & $1.6547\times10^{-43}$ &$74.13\%$& $[4.0920\times10^{-44},2.9002\times10^{-43}]$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{$p=3$ and $a=0.7$. The sample size for IS is $100$.}
\label{table-p3a07}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ |c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$n$ & SLD & IS & Relative distance& Confidence Interval\\
\hline
$20$ & $6.9193\times10^{-1}$ & $3.2004\times10^{-1}$ &$116.20\%$& $[2.5636\times10^{-1},3.8372\times10^{-1}]$\\
$420$ & $1.1317\times10^{-2}$ & $8.3597\times10^{-3}$ &$35.38\%$& $[5.6085\times10^{-3},1.1110\times10^{-2}]$\\
$820$ & $6.0651\times10^{-4}$ & $5.2198\times10^{-4}$ &$16.19\%$& $[3.2412\times10^{-4},7.1985\times10^{-4}]$\\
$1220$ & $3.7235\times10^{-5}$ & $4.4306\times10^{-5}$ &$15.96\%$& $[2.8312\times10^{-5},6.0299\times10^{-5}]$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{$p=3$ and $a=0.1$. The sample size for IS is $100$.}
\label{table-p3a01}
\end{table}
Finally, we also ran simulations for different randomly sampled direction sequences $\theta$.
We can see from Figure~\ref{compare} that different direction sequences result
in fluctuations around the basic sharp large deviation
estimate, including the pre-factor, but ignoring the $\theta^n$-dependent
corrections in the exponential on the right-hand side of
\eqref{tail_prob}. As shown in Theorem~\ref{main_lp}\ref{main_lp_2}, this fluctuation converges in distribution to
functionals of a multidimensional Gaussian vector with an explicit covariance matrix.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[scale=0.2]{compare3_07.jpg}
\caption{$p=3$. $a=0.7$. Log scale. Solid line is $1/\kappa_a \xi_a \sqrt{2 \pi n} e^{-n\mathbb{I}_p(a)}$. Scatter points are SLD estimates for different direction sequences.}
\label{compare}
\end{figure}
\section{Asymptotic Independence Results for the Weights}
\label{subs-prep}
Recall that $\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{R})$ is the set of probability measures on $\mathbb{R}$.
For $p\in[1,\infty)$, denote
\[\mathcal{P}_p(\mathbb{R}):=\left\{\nu\in\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{R}): \int_\mathbb{R} \abs{u}^p\nu(du)<\infty \right\},\]
and equip $\mathcal{P}_p(\mathbb{R})$ with the $p$-Wasserstein distance defined to be
\begin{equation}\label{wass}
\mathcal{W}_p(\nu,\nu') := \inf_{\pi\in\Pi(\nu,\nu')}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}\abs{x-y}^p\pi(dx,dy), \quad \nu,\nu'\in\mathcal{P}_p(\mathbb{R}).
\end{equation}
where $\Pi(\nu,\nu')$ denotes the set of couplings of $\nu$ and $\nu'$ or equivalently,
the set of probability measures on $\mathbb{R}^2$ whose first and second marginals coincide with $\nu$ and $\nu'$, respectively.
We now define a function with polynomial growth in the natural way.
\begin{definition}
\label{def-polygrowth}
Given $m \in {\mathbb N}$, we say that a function $f:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$ has polynomial growth of degree $m$ if there exist $T\in\mathbb{R}$ and $C\in(0,\infty)$ such that
\[
\abs{f(t)} \leq C\left(\abs{t}^m+1\right),\quad \text{for}\quad \abs{t} > T.
\]
We say a function $f:\mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$ has polynomial growth if
it has polynomial growth of degree $m$ for some $m \in {\mathbb N}$.
\end{definition}
Then we recall that the $p$-Wasserstein distance characterizes the following convergence of integrals.
\begin{lemma} [Definition 6.8 and Theorem 6.9 of~\cite{Villani08}]\label{wass-conv}
Let $(\nu^n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\subset\mathcal{P}_p(\mathbb{R})$ and $\nu\in\mathcal{P}_p(\mathbb{R})$. Then the following two statements are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\mathcal{W}_p(\nu^n,\nu)\to 0$.
\item For all continuous $\phi:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$ that has polynomial growth of degree $p$
\[
\int_\mathbb{R}\phi(x)\nu^n(dx)\to\int_\mathbb{R}\phi(x)\nu(dx).
\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
For each $n \in {\mathbb N}$ and $\theta \in {\mathbb S}$, let $L_\theta^n$
denote the empirical measure of the coordinates of the scaled projection direction $\sqrt{n} \theta^n$:
\begin{align}\label{emp_L}
L^n_{\theta} := \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n\delta_{\sqrt{n}\theta^n_i}.
\end{align}
We first recall a strong law of large numbers for $(L^n_{\theta})_{n \in {\mathbb N}}$ that was established
in~\cite[Lemma 5.11]{GanKimRam17}. Recall that $\gamma_2$ denotes the standard normal distribution.
\begin{lemma}[Lemma 5.11 of \cite{GanKimRam17}]
\label{slln}
For $p\in (1,\infty)$, for $\sigma$-a.e.\ $\theta \in {\mathbb S}$,
\[
\mathcal{W}_p\left(L^n_{\theta},\gamma_2\right)\to 0, \quad \text{ as } n \rightarrow \infty.
\]
\end{lemma}
Next, we establish a central limit theorem refinement of Lemma \ref{slln}.
Given
an i.i.d.\ array
$\{Z^n = (Z_j^n, j = 1 \ldots, n)\}_{n \in {\mathbb N}}$ of standard normal random variables, for any twice continuously differentiable function $\phi$, define
\begin{equation}
\label{def-sn}
\hat{s}_n(\phi) :=\sum_{j=1}^n\frac{\phi''(Z^n_j)}{2}\left( \frac{\sqrt{n}Z^n_j}{\norm{Z^n}_{n,2}}-Z^n_j\right)^2,
\end{equation}
and set
\begin{align}
\label{def-rn}
\hat{r}_n (\phi) & := \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\sum_{j=1}^n \left[\phi (Z^n_j)
- \int_{{\mathbb R}} \phi(x) \gamma_2(dx)
+ \phi'(Z^n_j)\left( \frac{\sqrt{n}Z^n_j}{\norm{Z^n}_{n,2}}-Z^n_j\right)\right].
\end{align}
For any probability measure $\pi\in\mathcal{P}({\mathbb R})$, define $\pi(F):=\int_{{\mathbb R}}F(x)\pi(dx)$, for any Borel measurable function $F:{\mathbb R}\to{\mathbb R}$.
\begin{lemma} \label{clt_expansion}
Given a thrice continuously differentiable function $F:{\mathbb R} \to {\mathbb R}$ and two twice continuously differentiable functions $G_1,G_2:{\mathbb R}\to{\mathbb R}$ such that $F'''$, $G_1''$ and $G_2''$ have polynomial growth in the sense of Definition \ref{def-polygrowth}, we have the following expansion,
\begin{align*}
& \sqrt{n} \left( L^n_\Theta (F) - \gamma_2 (F),
L^n_\Theta (G_1) -\gamma_2 (G_1),L^n_\Theta (G_2) - \gamma_2 (G_2) \right) \\
&\qquad \buildrel (d) \over = \left(\hat{r}_n(F)+\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\hat{s}_n(F)+o\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\right), \hat{r}_n(G_1) +o(1),\hat{r}_n(G_2) +o(1)\right),
\end{align*}
where $\hat{s}_n$ and $\hat{r}_n$ are as defined in \eqref{def-sn} and \eqref{def-rn},
and as $n \rightarrow \infty$,
\begin{align*}
&(\hat{r}_n(F),\hat{s}_n(F),\hat{r}_n(G_1),\hat{r}_n(G_2))\\
&\qquad\Rightarrow \left(\widetilde{\mathfrak{A}}-\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{E}[F'(Z)Z]\widetilde{\mathfrak{D}},\frac{1}{8}\mathbb{E}[F''(Z)Z^2]\widetilde{\mathfrak{D}}^2,\widetilde{\mathfrak{E}}-\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{E}\left[G_1'(Z)Z \right]\widetilde{\mathfrak{D}},\widetilde{\mathfrak{G}}-\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{E}\left[G_2'(Z)Z \right]\widetilde{\mathfrak{D}}\right)
\end{align*}
where $(\widetilde{\mathfrak{A}},\widetilde{\mathfrak{D}},\widetilde{\mathfrak{E}},\widetilde{\mathfrak{G}})$ is jointly Gaussian with mean $0$ and covariance matrix
\begin{align*}
\left(
\begin{array}{llll}
\mathrm{Cov}(F(Z),F(Z)) & \mathrm{Cov}(F(Z),Z^2) & \mathrm{Cov}(F(Z),G_1(Z)) &\mathrm{Cov}(F(Z),G_2(Z)\\
\mathrm{Cov}(Z^2,F(Z)) & \mathrm{Cov}(Z^2,Z^2) & \mathrm{Cov}(Z^2,G_1(Z)) & \mathrm{Cov}(Z^2,G_2(Z))\\
\mathrm{Cov}(G_1(Z),F(Z)) &\mathrm{Cov}(G_1(Z),Z^2) & \mathrm{Cov}(G_1(Z),G_1(Z)) & \mathrm{Cov}(G_1(Z),G_2(Z))\\
\mathrm{Cov}(G_2(Z),F(Z)) &\mathrm{Cov}(G_2(Z),Z^2) & \mathrm{Cov}(G_2(Z),G_1(Z)) & \mathrm{Cov}(G_2(Z),G_2(Z))
\end{array}
\right),
\end{align*}
where $Z$ is a standard normal random variable.
\end{lemma}
This result is similar in spirit to~\cite[Theorem 1.1]{Kabluchko17}, which establishes a central limit theorem
for the sequence of $q$-norms of $\sqrt{n}\theta^n$, $n \in {\mathbb N}$.
Here, we obtain fluctuation estimates
for suitable joint functionals of $\sqrt{n}\theta^n$, for which we
we first apply a Taylor expansion to the functionals.
The proof of Lemma \ref{clt_expansion} is deferred to Appendix~\ref{subs-clt}.
\section{Proof of the sharp large deviation estimate for spheres}
\label{sec-pfmain}
Throughout this section, fix $p \in (1,\infty)$, $\theta \in \mathbb{S}$, and for $n \in {\mathbb N}$,
recall from Section \ref{subs-reform} the definition of the two-dimensional
random vector $\bar{S}^{n} :=\bar{S}^{(n,p)}= \frac{1}{n} \sum_{j=1}^n (\sqrt{n} \Theta_j^n Y_j, |Y_j|^p)$,
where $(Y_j)_{j \in {\mathbb N}}$ is an i.i.d. sequence of random variables with common density $f_p$ as in
\eqref{pNormal},
and for $\theta \in {\mathbb S}$, let $\bar{h}^n_\theta$ denote the (joint) density of $\bar{S}^{n}$ under ${\mathbb P}_{\theta}$, where in this section we will typically
suppress the dependence of $\bar{h}^n_\theta$, $\bar{S}^{n}$ and $Y_j$ and other quantities on $p$.
In view of
\eqref{eq-reform},
we then have
\begin{equation}
\label{integral}
\mathbb{P}_\theta\left(W^{(n,p)}>a\right) = \int_{\bar{D}_a} \bar{h}^n_\theta (x,y) dx dy,
\end{equation}
where $\bar{D}_a = \bar{D}_{p,a}$ is the domain defined in \eqref{def-doma}.
\begin{remark}
\label{rem-notcon}
Note that $\bar{h}_\theta^n$ depends on $\theta$ only through $\theta^n$. For notational
simplicity we will
adopt this convention throughout, namely for quantities that depend on both $n$ and $\theta^n$,
we will use a superscript $n$ to denote the former dependence and a subscript $\theta$ instead of
$\theta^n$ to denote the dependence on $\theta^n$.
\end{remark}
To estimate the tail probability in~\eqref{integral},
we obtain a key asymptotic expansion for the joint density
$\bar{h}^n_\theta$ in Proposition \ref{prop-mainest} of
Section \ref{subs-densest}, and then use this result
in Sections \ref{subs-mainproof2} and \ref{subs-mainproof} to prove Theorem \ref{main_lp}.
The proof of Proposition \ref{prop-mainest} is rather involved, and hence,
deferred to Section \ref{sec-pfdens}.
We first state a preliminary result
in Section \ref{subs-prep2}.
\subsection{Estimates on the joint logarithmic moment generating function}
\label{subs-prep2}
We obtain an estimate on the growth of the log moment generating function $\Lambda_p$ of $(Y_j,\abs{Y_j}^p)$
defined in~\eqref{logmgf_lp}, which will be useful in the subsequent discussion.
The following expression was established in~\cite[Lemma 5.7]{GanKimRam17}:
\begin{equation}
\label{lambda-est}
\Lambda_p(t_1,t_2) = -\frac{1}{p}\log(1-pt_2)+\log M_{\gamma_p}\left(\frac{t_1}{(1-pt_2)^{1/p})} \right),
\end{equation}
for
\begin{equation}\label{dom-Lambda}
(t_1,t_2)\in \mathbb{D}_p:=\left \{(t_1,t_2)\in\mathbb{R}^2:t_2<1/p \right \},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation} \label{mgf_p}
M_{\gamma_p}(t):=\mathbb{E}\left[e^{tY_j} \right],\quad t \in \mathbb{R},
\end{equation}
is the moment generating function of $Y_j$.
In order to understand the growth in $t_1$ of the derivatives of $\Lambda_p$, it suffices to understand the derivatives of $\log M_{\gamma_p}$.
\begin{lemma} \label{growth_lmgf}
For $1<p<\infty$, let $M_{\gamma_p}$ and $\Lambda_p$ be as defined in~\eqref{mgf_p} and~\eqref{logmgf_lp}, respectively. Then for every $k\in\mathbb{N}\cup\{0\}$,
\[
t\mapsto\frac{d^k}{dt^k} \log M_{\gamma_p}(t),
\]
exists and
has at most polynomial growth, in the sense of Definition~\ref{def-polygrowth}. Therefore, for $j,k\in\mathbb{N}\cup\{0\}$,
\[
\partial_1^j\partial_2^k\Lambda_p(t_1,t_2)
\]
has at most polynomial growth in $t_1$.
\end{lemma}
The proof of Lemma~\ref{growth_lmgf} involves conceptually straightforward (though detailed) estimates, and is thus
deferred to Appendix~\ref{pf_growth}.
\subsection{An asymptotic expansion for the joint density}
\label{subs-densest}
The main result of this section is Proposition \ref{prop-mainest}, which
provides an asymptotic expansion for the joint density $\bar{h}^n_\theta$ of the two-dimensional random vector
$\bar{S}^{n}$ under ${\mathbb P}_{\theta}$.
To state the result, for $n\in\mathbb{N}$,
define
\begin{align}\label{Znj}
\bar{V}^n_{j}:=(\sqrt{n} \Theta^n_jY_j,\abs{Y_j}^p), \qquad j = 1, \ldots, n.
\end{align}
For $t=(t_1,t_2)\in\mathbb{C}^2$, the Laplace transform of $\left(Y_j,\abs{Y_j}^p\right)$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{phi_p}
\Phi_p(t_1,t_2):= \mathbb{E}\left[ e^{t_1 Y_j+t_2\abs{Y_j}^p} \right].
\end{equation}
The observation $|e^{t_1 Y_j+t_2\abs{Y_j}^p}| = e^{\operatorname{Re}\{t_1\}Y_j+\operatorname{Re}\{t_2\}\abs{Y_j}^p}$ shows that $\Phi_p$ is finite precisely when $\operatorname{Re}\{t_2\}<1/p$, or equivalently, $(\operatorname{Re}\{t_1\},\operatorname{Re}\{t_2\})$ lies in $\mathbb{D}_p$, the effective domain of $\Lambda_p$ defined in \eqref{dom-Lambda}.
For $t=(t_1,t_2)\in\mathbb{D}_p$
and $\theta \in {\mathbb S}$,
also define
\begin{align}\label{psin_p}
\Psi^{n}_{p,\theta}(t) := \frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n\log\Phi_p(\sqrt{n}\theta^n_jt_1,t_2) = \int_\mathbb{R}\log\Phi_p(ut_1,t_2)L^n_{\theta}(du),
\end{align}
where $L^n_{\theta}$ is the empirical measure of the coordinates of
$\sqrt{n} \theta^n$, as defined in~\eqref{emp_L}.
\begin{remark}
\label{psipn}
Since $\log\Phi_p = \Lambda_p$ on $\mathbb{D}_p$, for $(t_1,t_2)\in\mathbb{D}_p$, ${\mathbb R}\ni u\mapsto\log\Phi_p(ut_1,t_2)$ is continuous and has polynomial growth by Lemma~\ref{growth_lmgf}. Hence, Lemma \ref{slln} shows that for $\sigma$-a.e. $\theta$, as $n\to\infty$,
\[
\Psi^{n}_{p,\theta}(t)\to\int_{\mathbb R}\log\Phi_p(ut_1,t_2)\gamma_2(du)=\Psi_p(t),
\]
where the last equality holds by the definition of $\Psi_p$ given in~\eqref{psi}.
\end{remark}
Next, recall the definition of $\mathbb{J}_p$ from
\eqref{def-Jp} and for $x \in \mathbb{J}_p$, also define
for $\theta \in {\mathbb S}$,
\begin{align}
\label{def-cnhessn}
c^n_{x}(\theta^n) :=\sqrt{n}\nabla\left(\Psi^{n}_{p,\theta}(\lambda_x)-\Psi_p(\lambda_x) \right),\qquad \qquad
{\mathcal H}^n_{x}(\theta^n) :=\hess \Psi^{n}_{p,\theta}(\lambda_x),
\end{align}
and
\begin{equation}\label{Rn}
R^n_{x}(\theta^n):=\sqrt{n}(\Psi^{n}_{p,\theta}(\lambda_x)-\Psi_p(\lambda_x)),
\end{equation}
where we drop the explicit dependence on $p$ from $c^n_{x}$, ${\mathcal H}^n_{x}$ and $R^n_x$, and note that the right-hand sides above do indeed depend on $\theta$ only through $\theta^n$ (see Remark \ref{rem-notcon}).
Also, for $a > 0$, with the same abuse of notation
used for ${\mathcal H}_a$ earlier, we will use $c_a^n$ and $R_a^n$ to denote
the functions $c_{a^*}^n$ and $R_{a^*}^n$, respectively, where $a^* = (a,1)$.
We will show in Section \ref{subs-com} that $c^n_{x}(\theta^n)$ and ${\mathcal H}^n_{x}(\theta^n)$ are the mean and
covariance matrix, respectively, of $\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\sum_{j=1}^n (\bar{V}_{j}^n -x)$, with $\bar{V}_j^n$ as in~\eqref{Znj},
under a certain quenched tilted measure; see \eqref{cn} and~\eqref{Gammanx}.
\begin{proposition} \label{prop-mainest}
Fix $p \in (1,\infty)$, and recall the
definitions of $\Psi_p, \Psi_p^*, {\mathbb J}_p$ and
$\Psi^n_{p,\theta}$ given in \eqref{psi}, \eqref{eq:Psi}, \eqref{def-Jp}
and \eqref{psin_p}, respectively, and for
$x \in {\mathbb J}_p$, recall the definitions of
${\mathcal H}_{x}$, $c^n_{x}(\cdot)$ and $R^n_x(\cdot)$ from
~\eqref{gamma_x},~\eqref{def-cnhessn} and \eqref{Rn},
respectively.
Then for $\sigma$-a.e. $\theta$,
\begin{align} \label{gn_est}
\bar{h}^n_\theta(x) = \frac{n}{2\pi}\bar{g}^n_\theta (x)e^{-n\Psi^*_p(x)}(1+o(1)),
\end{align}
where $\bar{g}^n_\theta$ is a once differentiable function defined to be
\begin{equation}
\label{def-gn}
\bar{g}^n_\theta(x) := \det{\mathcal H}_{x}^{-1/2} e^{\sqrt{n} R^n_x(\theta^n)}e^{\norm{{\mathcal H}_{x}^{-1/2}c^n_{x}(\theta^n)}^2},
\end{equation}
and the expansion in \eqref{gn_est} is uniform on any compact subset of $\mathbb{J}_p$.
\end{proposition}
Section \ref{sec-pfdens} is devoted to
establishing Proposition \ref{prop-mainest}, with the
final proof given in Section \ref{sec-proppf}.
First, in the next two sections,
we show how this result can be used
to prove Theorem~\ref{main_lp}.
Since the proof of the first assertion of Theorem~\ref{main_lp}
requires estimates on $R^n_x(\theta^n)$ and $c^n_x(\theta^n)$,
we will start by proving
the second assertion of Theorem~\ref{main_lp}.
\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{main_lp}\ref{main_lp_2}}
\label{subs-mainproof2}
We start by obtaining expansions for $R^n_{a}(\Theta^n)$ and $c^n_a(\Theta^n)$.
First, note that
the functions $\ell_a$, $\ell_{a,1}$ and $\ell_{a,2}$ defined in~\eqref{f_pa} and their derivatives up to second order (for $\ell_{a,1}$ and $\ell_{a,2}$) and third order (for $\ell_a$) are continuous and have at most polynomial growth by Lemma~\ref{growth_lmgf}.
Therefore, setting
\[
r_n :=\hat{r}_n(\ell_a), \quad s_n:=\hat{s}_n(\ell_a), \quad t_{n,1} :=\hat{r}_n(\ell_{a,1}), \quad t_{n,2:}=\hat{r}_n(\ell_{a,2}),
\]
where $\hat{r}_n$ and $\hat{s}_n$ are defined in \eqref{def-rn} and \eqref{def-sn}, respectively, we can apply \eqref{def-cnhessn}, \eqref{Rn} and Lemma~\ref{clt_expansion} to obtain
\begin{align*}
R^n_{a}(\Theta^n) &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\sum_{i=1}^n\left(\ell_a(\sqrt{n}\Theta^n_i)-\mathbb{E}[\ell_a(Z)]\right) \\
&\buildrel (d) \over = r_n+\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}s_n+o\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\right), \\
c^n_a(\Theta^n)&=
\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\sum_{i=1}^n\left (
\begin{array}{l}
\ell_{a,1}(\sqrt{n}\Theta^n_i)-\mathbb{E}[\ell_{a,1}(Z)] \\
\ell_{a,2}(\sqrt{n}\Theta^n_i)-\mathbb{E}[\ell_{a,2}(Z)]
\end{array}
\right)
\\
&\buildrel (d) \over = \left (
\begin{array}{l}
t_{n,1} \\
t_{n,2}
\end{array}
\right) +o(1).
\end{align*}
Moreover, Lemma~\ref{clt_expansion} also shows that
we have the convergence
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& (r_n,s_n,t_{n,1},t_{n,2})\Rightarrow \\
&& \qquad \left(\widetilde{\mathfrak{A}}-\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{E}[\ell'_a(Z)Z]\widetilde{\mathfrak{D}},\frac{1}{8}\mathbb{E}[\ell''_a(Z)Z^2]\widetilde{\mathfrak{D}}^2,\widetilde{\mathfrak{E}}-\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{E}\left[\ell_{a,1}'(Z)Z \right]\widetilde{\mathfrak{D}},\widetilde{\mathfrak{G}}-\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{E}\left[\ell_{a,2}'(Z)Z \right]\widetilde{\mathfrak{D}}\right),
\end{eqnarray*}
where $(\widetilde{\mathfrak{A}},\widetilde{\mathfrak{D}},\widetilde{\mathfrak{E}},\widetilde{\mathfrak{G}})$ is jointly Gaussian with mean $0$ and covariance matrix~\eqref{cov_p}.
\begin{remark}
\label{rem-on}
Note that the above calculations show that $\sqrt{n}R^n_x(\theta^n)$ and
$||{\mathcal H}_{x}^{-1/2}c^n_{x}(\theta^n)||^2$ are both $o(n)$ for $\sigma$-a.e. $\theta$,
\end{remark}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{main_lp}\ref{main_lp_1}}
\label{subs-mainproof}
We are now ready to prove the main estimate \eqref{tail_prob}.
Fix $p \in (1,\infty)$ and $a > 0$
such that $\mathbb{I}_p(a) < \infty$ and recall the definition of the domain $\bar{D}_a = \bar{D}_{p,a}$ given in~\eqref{def-doma}.
By \eqref{rate_func}, Lemma~\ref{inf_ratefunc} and the fact that $\mathbb{I}_p(a)$ is increasing for $a\in{\mathbb R}_+$,
\begin{align*}
\inf_{x\in \bar{D}_a}\Psi_p^*(x) &= \inf_{t> a}\mathbb{I}_p(t)
=\mathbb{I}_p(a)
= \inf_{\tau_1\in\mathbb{R},\tau_2>0:\tau_1\tau_2^{-1/p}=a}\Psi^*_p(\tau_1,\tau_2)
=\Psi^*_p(a,1).
\end{align*}
Hence, the infimum of $\Psi_p^*$ in the closure ${\rm cl}(\bar{D}_a)$ of $\bar{D}_a$
is attained at $a^*:=(a,1)$.
Moreover due to \eqref{rate-fn}, the assumption $\mathbb{I}_p(a)<\infty$ implies $\Psi^*_p(a,1)<\infty$, and hence,
$a^* = (a,1)\in\mathbb{J}_p$, defined in~\eqref{def-Jp}. Further, by \eqref{def-doma}, $a^*$ is a point on the boundary
$\partial \bar{D}_a$ of $\bar{D}_a$ where the boundary is smooth.
Let $U$ be any open neighborhood
of $a^*$ such that $U \subset {\mathbb R}^2_{>} := \{(x,y) \in{\mathbb R}^2: x > 0, y > 0\}$,
and note that the boundary of $U\cap \bar{D}_a$ is also smooth at $a^*$.
Then, for $\theta \in {\mathbb S}$,
we can split the probability of interest into two parts:
\begin{align}\label{split}
\mathbb{P}_\theta\left(\bar{S}^{n}\in \bar{D}_a\right) = \mathbb{P}_\theta\left(\bar{S}^{n}\in \bar{D}_a\cap U\right) +\mathbb{P}_\theta\left(\bar{S}^{n}\in \bar{D}_a\cap U^c\right).
\end{align}
The proof will proceed in two steps.
In the key first step, we will
estimate the first term on the right-hand side of \eqref{split}
by integrating the estimate of the density
$\bar{h}^n_\theta$ of $\bar{S}^{n}$ obtained
in Proposition \ref{prop-mainest} over the domain $\bar{D}_a \cap U$,
and then analyze the asymptotics of the resulting Laplace type integral, as $n \rightarrow \infty$.
The second step will involve using
the LDP for $(\bar{S}^{n})_{n \in {\mathbb N}}$ to show that the second term on the right-hand side
of \eqref{split} is negligible.
{\bf Step 1.} Using the expressions for $\bar{h}_\theta^n$ and $\bar{g}^n_\theta$
from~\eqref{gn_est} and \eqref{def-gn}, respectively,
and the fact that the domain $\bar{D}_a \cap U$ is bounded, we have for $\sigma$-a.e. $\theta$,
\begin{align}
\mathbb{P}_\theta\left(\bar{S}^{n}\in \bar{D}_a\cap U\right) &=
\int_{\bar{D}_a\cap U}\bar{h}^n_\theta(x)dx = \frac{n}{2 \pi} {\mathcal I}^n_\theta(1+o(1)),
\label{split11}
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
\label{split1-1}
{\mathcal I}^n_{\theta} &:= \int_{\bar{D}_a\cap U} \bar{g}^n_\theta (x) e^{-n\Psi^*_p(x)} dx.
\end{align}
To estimate the Laplace-type integral
${\mathcal I}^n_\theta$ we will invoke the following lemma. Recall the definition of
Weingarten maps, for example, from~\cite[Section 4]{Andriani97}.
Also, for a map $L$, let $L^{-1}$ denote its inverse and
recall that $\det (A)$ denotes
the determinant of a matrix $A$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem-Laplace}
Let ${\mathcal D} \subset {\mathbb R}^d$ be a bounded domain whose boundary is a differentiable $(d-1)$-dimensional hypersurface.
Also, suppose $(g^n)_{n \in {\mathbb N}}$ are differentiable functions such that
$g^n(x)=o(e^{nx})$ on a neighborhood
of ${\mathcal D}$,
and $f$ is a nonnegative twice
differentiable function defined on a neighborhood of ${\mathcal D}$ such that $f$
achieves its minimum on ${\rm cl}({\mathcal D})$, the closure of ${\mathcal D}$,
at a unique point $x^* \in \partial {\mathcal D}$.
Then
\[ {\mathcal I}^n := \int_{{\mathcal D}} g^n (x) e^{-nf(x)} dx = \frac{(2\pi)^{(d-1)/2}\det(L_1^{-1}(L_1-L_2))^{-1/2}}{n^{(d+1)/2}\langle\hess f^{-1}(x^*) \nablaf(x^*),\nablaf(x^*)\rangle^{1/2}}g^n(x^*) e^{-nf(x^*)}(1+o(1)), \]
where for $i = 1, 2$, $L_i$ is the Weingarten map at $x^* \in \partial D$
of the surface ${\mathscr C}_i$, where
\[ {\mathscr C}_1 := \{y: f (y) = f (x^*) \} \qquad \mbox{ and } \qquad
{\mathscr C}_2 := \partial D.
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The proof will make use of arguments in \cite{Bleistein86} as well as a result from \cite{Andriani97}.
Note that ${\mathcal I}^n$ coincides with the integral in \cite[Equation (8.31)]{Bleistein86} when
$\lambda, n, \phi$ and $g_0$ therein are replaced with $n, d$, $-f$ and $g^n$ here.
By the stated properties of ${\mathcal D}$, there exists a local chart of a coordinate system,
$\mathcal{G}:\mathcal{N}_x\to\mathcal{U}$, of $\mathcal{N}_x\subset\partial{\mathcal D}$ around $x^*$, for some subset $\mathcal{U}\subset{\mathbb R}^{d-1}$.
Let ${\mathscr J}_*$ be the Jacobian matrix of the transformation $\mathcal{G}$
at $x^*$, and let ${\mathscr J}_*^T$ denote its transpose.
Then, under the stated conditions on $f, {\mathcal D}$ and $g^n$, the same arguments used to arrive at
\cite[Equation (8.3.63)]{Bleistein86} can be used to deduce that
\[ {\mathcal I}^n = \frac{(2\pi)^{(d-1)/2}
\left|{\rm det}({\mathscr J}_*^T {\mathscr J}_*)\right|^{1/2}}{n^{(d+1)/2} |\det\hess(f\circ\mathcal{G}(x^*))|^{1/2} |\nabla f (x^*)|}g^n(x^*)e^{-nf(x^*)}(1+o(1)).
\]
Strictly speaking, the results of \cite{Bleistein86} apply only when $g^n$ does not vary
with $n$, but a careful inspection of the argument therein shows that it remains valid when
$g^n$ depends on $n$, as long as
the additional growth assumption $g^n(x) = o(e^{nx})$ is satisfied.
Next, to further simplify the expression in the last display, by \cite[Equations (4.5) and (4.6)]{Andriani97}, it follows that under the aforementioned conditions,
\[ \frac{ \left|{\rm det}({\mathscr J}_*^T {\mathscr J}_*)\right|^{1/2}}{|\det\hess(f\circ\mathcal{G}(x^*))|^{1/2} |\nabla f (x^*)|}
= \frac{\det(L_1^{-1}(L_1-L_2))^{-1/2}}{\langle\hess f^{-1}(x^*) \nablaf(x^*),\nablaf(x^*)\rangle^{1/2}},
\]
with $L_1, L_2$ as in the lemma. The lemma then follows on combining the last two displays.
\end{proof}
To apply this lemma to~\eqref{split1-1}, replace $d$, $g^n$, $f$, $x^*$ and ${\mathcal D}$ with $2$, $\bar{g}^n_\theta$, $\Psi^*_p$, $a^*$ and $\bar{D}_a\cap U$, respectively, for $\theta \in \mathbb{S}$, and note that then ${\mathcal I}^n$ corresponds to ${\mathcal I}^n_\theta$.
To see that the assumptions of the lemma are satisfied,
note that the domain $\bar{D}_a\cap U$ is bounded with smooth boundary,
$\bar{g}^n_\theta$ is differentiable by Lemma~\ref{prop-mainest} and Remark \ref{rem-on} implies that
for $\sigma$-a.e.\ $\theta$,
$\sqrt{n}R^n_x(\theta^n)$ and $||{\mathcal H}_{x}^{-1/2}c^n_{x}(\theta^n)||^2$ are both $o(n)$, and hence by~\eqref{def-gn}
$\bar{g}^n_\theta(x)$ is $o(e^{nx})$ on a neighborhood of $\bar{D}_a\cap U$.
Now, note that by \eqref{psi}, \eqref{lambda-est} and Lemma \ref{growth_lmgf}, $\Psi_p$ is twice
(in fact infinitely) differentiable on $\mathbb{D}_p = {\mathbb R} \times \{t_2: t_2 < 1/p\}$.
Hence, by the duality of the
Legendre transform~\cite[Section III.D]{Zia09}, it follows that $\Psi_p^*$
is twice differentiable at the point $a^*$, which lies in $\mathbb{J}_p$, the effective domain of $\Psi_p^*$ and achieves its minimum uniquely
at $a^* \in \partial(\bar{D}_a\cap U)$. The nonnegativity of $\Psi_p^*$ follows since $\Psi_p^*$ is a rate function. Further, again by the duality of the Legendre transform,
and the definition of $\lambda_{a,j}$ in \eqref{lambdaa}, we have
\[
\partial_j\Psi^*_p(a^*) = \lambda_{a,j}, \quad \text{for}\quad j=1,2,
\]
and $(\hess\Psi_p^*)(a^*)$ is the inverse of $(\hess\Psi_p)(\lambda_a)$. Since $(\hess\Psi_p)(\lambda_a)={\mathcal H}_a$ by \eqref{Gammaa}, we conclude from Lemma~\ref{lem-Laplace} that
\begin{align}
{\mathcal I}^n_{\theta}= \frac{(2\pi)^{1/2}}{n^{3/2}}\frac{(L^{-1}_{a,1}(L_{a,1}-L_{a,2}))^{-1/2}}{\langle {\mathcal H}_{a}\lambda_a,\lambda_a\rangle^{1/2}}\bar{g}^n_\theta(a^*)e^{-n\Psi^*_p(a^*)}(1+o(1)),\label{split12}
\end{align}
where $L_{a,1}$ and $L_{a,2}$ are the Weingarten maps of the curves ${\mathcal C}_1 : = \{x\in\mathbb{R}^2:\Psi^*_p(x)=\Psi^*_p(a,1)\}$ and ${\mathcal C}_2 := \{x\in\mathbb{R}^2:x_1= ax_2^{1/p}\}$, evaluated at $a^* = (a,1)$.
To further simplify \eqref{split12}, note that it follows from ~\cite[Example 4.3]{Andriani97} that in $\mathbb{R}^2$, the Weingarten map is reduced to multiplication by the inverse of the radius of the osculating circle, which is equal to the absolute value of the curvature.
Recall that for a curve in ${\mathbb R}^2$ defined by the equation $T(x,y)=0$ for a sufficiently smooth map $T:{\mathbb R}^2 \to {\mathbb R}$,
the curvature at a point $x^*$ on the curve is given by
the formula
\[
\frac{T_y^2T_{xx}-2T_xT_yT_{xy}+T_x^2T_{yy}}{(T_x^2+T_y^2)^{3/2}} (x^*).
\]
Thus, to calculate the curvature of the curve ${\mathcal C}_1$ at $a^*$, use
the above formula with $T(x,y) = \Psi^*_p(x,y) - \Psi^*_p(a,1)$ and $x^* = a^*$, and substitute the relations
$\partial_j\Psi^*_p(a^*) = \lambda_{a,j}$, $j=1,2$, and the definition of ${\mathcal H}_a$ mentioned above to
conclude that
\begin{align}
L_{a,1}&=\frac{\abs{\lambda_{a,2}^2({\mathcal H}_{a})^{-1}_{11}-2\lambda_{a,1}\lambda_{a,2}({\mathcal H}_{a})^{-1}_{12}+\lambda_{a,1}^2({\mathcal H}_{a})^{-1}_{22}}}{(\lambda_{a,1}^2+\lambda_{a,2}^2)^{3/2}}.
\end{align}
On the other hand, the curvature of the graph of a function $y=\widetilde{T}(x)$ at the point $(x,\widetilde{T}(x))$
for sufficiently smooth $\widetilde{T}: {\mathbb R} \to {\mathbb R}$ is given by
$\abs{\widetilde{T}''(x)}/(1+(\widetilde{T}')^2(x))^{3/2}.$
Recalling the definition of $\bar{D}_a$ from \eqref{def-doma}, we can apply this with $\widetilde{T}(x) = (x/a)^p$ to
compute the curvature of ${\mathcal C}_2 = \partial \bar{D}_a$ at $a^*$ as:
\begin{equation}
L_{a,2} = \frac{p(p-1)a}{(a^2+p^2)^{3/2}}.
\end{equation}
Substituting these calculations back into the expressions ~\eqref{split11}, \eqref{split1-1} and~\eqref{split12}, and
recalling the definition of $\xi_a$ and $\kappa_a$ from \eqref{def-sigmapa} and \eqref{def-kappapa}, we conclude that
\begin{align}\label{split1}
\mathbb{P}_\theta\left(\bar{S}^{n} \in \bar{D}_a\cap U\right) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi n}\xi_a \kappa_a}\bar{g}^n_\theta(a^*)e^{-n\Psi^*_p(a^*)}(1+o(1)).
\end{align}
\noindent
{\bf Step 2.} We now turn to the second term in~\eqref{split}.
Note that there exists $\eta >0$ such that
\[
\inf_{y\in \bar{D}_a\cap U^c}\Psi^*_p(y)>\Psi^*_p(a^*)+\eta.
\]
By the refinement in Lemma~\ref{inf_ratefunc} of the (quenched) large deviation principle for
$\bar{S}^{n}$ established in \cite[Proposition 5.3]{GanKimRam17}, $\Psi_p^*$ achieves its unique minimum in $\bar{D}_a$ at $a^*=(a,1)$. Thus, for $\sigma$-a.e.\ $\theta$,
\begin{align}\label{split2}
\limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{n}\log \mathbb{P}_\theta\left(\bar{S}^{n}
\in \bar{D}_a\cap U^c\right)\leq -\Psi^*_p(a^*)-\eta,
\end{align}
which shows that the term in~\eqref{split2} is negligible with respect to~\eqref{split1}.
When combined, \eqref{Cna}, \eqref{Rn}, \eqref{def-gn}, \eqref{split}, \eqref{split1} and \eqref{split2}
together yield~\eqref{tail_prob}. This completes the proof of Theorem \ref{main_lp_1}.
\section{The joint density estimate}
\label{sec-pfdens}
This section is devoted to the proof of the density estimate
obtained in Proposition \ref{prop-mainest}.
As usual, throughout
fix $p \in (1,\infty)$. In Section \ref{subs-asymptotics}
an identity for the joint density is established in
terms of an integral. This integral is then shown in Section \ref{subs-com}
to admit an alternative
representation as an expectation
with respect to a tilted measure.
The latter representation is used in Section \ref{subs-integrand}
to obtain certain asymptotic estimates.
These results are finally combined in Section \ref{sec-proppf} to
prove Proposition \ref{prop-mainest}.
\subsection{An integral representation for the joint density}
\label{subs-asymptotics}
\begin{lemma} \label{g_est}
Fix $n \in {\mathbb N}$ and $\theta \in {\mathbb S}$, and recall the definitions of $\Psi_p$, $\mathbb{J}_p$, $\lambda_x$, $\Phi_p$ and $\Psi^{n}_{p,\theta}$ in \eqref{psi}, \eqref{def-Jp}, \eqref{lambda_x}, \eqref{phi_p} and \eqref{psin_p}, respectively,
and recall that $\bar{h}^n_\theta$ is the density, under ${\mathbb P}_{\theta}$, of $\bar{S}^{n}$
defined in~\eqref{joint_pdf}. Then for all sufficiently large $n$, and $x\in\mathbb{J}_p$, the following identity holds,
\begin{align}\label{hn}
\bar{h}^n_\theta(x) = \left(\frac{n}{2\pi}\right)^2e^{-n\Psi^*_p(x)}e^{n(\Psi^{n}_{p,\theta}(\lambda_x)-\Psi_p(\lambda_x))}
\mathcal{I}^n_\theta(x),
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}\label{In}
\mathcal{I}^n_\theta(x):=\int_{\mathbb{R}^2} e^{-i\langle t,nx \rangle}\prod_{j=1}^n\frac{\Phi_p(\sqrt{n}\theta^n_j(\lambda_{x,1}+it_1),\lambda_{x,2}+it_2)}{\Phi_p(\sqrt{n}\theta^n_j\lambda_{x,1},\lambda_{x,2})}dt.
\end{align}
Moreover, there exists $s>1$ such that $(t_1,t_2)\mapsto(\prod_{j=1}^n\Phi_p(\sqrt{n}\theta^n_j(\lambda_1+it_1),\lambda_2+it_2))^{s/n}$ lies in $\mathbb{L}_1({\mathbb R}^2)$ for all sufficiently large $n$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\mathbb{D}_p$ be as in \eqref{dom-Lambda}, fix $x\in\mathbb{J}_p$
and omit the subscript $x$ from $\lambda_x\in\mathbb{D}_p\subset{\mathbb R}^2$ and the superscript $p$ from many quantities for notational simplicity.
Recall the definition of $\bar{V}^n_{j}$ in~\eqref{Znj} and
for $\theta\in\mathbb{S}$,
let
$\bar{l}^n_\theta$ be the density of the sum $\sum_{j=1}^n\bar{V}^n_{j}$ under ${\mathbb P}_{\theta}$.
The moment generating function of this sum is given by
\begin{align*}
\int_{{\mathbb R}^2}e^{\langle \lambda,x\rangle}\bar{l}^n_\theta(x)dx&= \mathbb{E}_\theta\left[e^{\langle \lambda, \sum_{j=1}^n\bar{V}^n_j\rangle}\right]\\
&=\prod_{j=1}^n\mathbb{E}_\theta\left [e^{\lambda_1\sqrt{n}\theta^n_jY_j+\lambda_2\abs{Y_j}^p} \right]<\infty,
\end{align*}
where $Y_1,\ldots,Y_n$ are i.i.d. with density $f_p$ defined in~\eqref{pNormal} and the finiteness follows because $\lambda\in\mathbb{D}_p$ and thus $\lambda_2<1/p$.
Then the Fourier transform of
the integrable function $x \mapsto e^{\langle \lambda,x\rangle}\bar{l}^n_\theta(x)$ is given as follows: for $t\in\mathbb{R}^2$,
\begin{align}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^2} e^{\langle \lambda+it,x\rangle}\bar{l}^n_\theta(x)dx&=\mathbb{E}_{\theta}\left[e^{\langle\lambda+it,\sum_{j=1}^n\bar{V}^n_{j}\rangle} \right]\nonumber\\
& = \prod_{j=1}^n\mathbb{E}_{\theta}\left[e^{\langle\lambda+it,\bar{V}^n_{j}\rangle} \right]\nonumber\\
& = \prod_{j=1}^n\Phi_p(\sqrt{n}\theta^n_j(\lambda_1+it_1),\lambda_2+it_2).\label{prod_Z}
\end{align}
Note that we use the convention for characteristic functions and thus put $i$ in place of $-2\pi i$ in the Fourier transform.
We now make the following claim:\\
{\bf Claim.}
{\it There exists $s>1$ such that for all $\lambda\in \mathbb{D}_p$, $t\in{\mathbb R}^2$ and any $j,k\in\{1,\ldots,n\}$, $j\neq k$, if $\bar{\upsilon}=\bar{\upsilon}^{n,j,k}_\theta$ denote the density of $\bar{V}^n_j+\bar{V}^n_k$, the Fourier transform of ${\mathbb R}^2\ni z\mapsto e^{\langle \lambda, z\rangle}\bar{\upsilon}(z)$ lies in $\mathbb{L}_s(\mathbb{R}^2)$,
that is, recalling the definition of the function space $\mathbb{L}_s$ from Section~\ref{subs-not}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{integrability}
K^{n,j,k}_\theta(\lambda,t):=\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}\abs{\Phi_p(\sqrt{n}\theta^n_k(\lambda_1+it_1),\lambda_2+it_2)\Phi_p(\sqrt{n}\theta^n_j(\lambda_1+it_1),\lambda_2+it_2)}^sdt<\infty.
\end{equation}}
We defer the proof of the claim, first showing how the lemma follows from the claim.
By H\"older's inequality, the claim and the boundedness of the moment generating function $\Phi_p$, the product on the right-hand side of~\eqref{prod_Z} lies in $\mathbb{L}_1(\mathbb{R}^2)$ for all sufficiently large $n$, which proves the second assertion of the lemma. We may then apply the inverse Fourier transform formula and obtain, for all sufficiently large $n$,
\begin{align}\label{f_est}
\bar{l}^n_\theta(x) = \left(\frac{1}{2\pi}\right)^2\int_{\mathbb{R}^2} e^{-\langle \lambda+it,x\rangle}\prod_{j=1}^n\Phi_p(\sqrt{n}\theta^n_j(\lambda_1+it_1),\lambda_2+it_2)dt.
\end{align}
Recall that for any $x\in\mathbb{J}_p$, $\lambda$ is chosen so that~\eqref{lambda_x} is satisfied.
Now, by~\eqref{joint_pdf} and~\eqref{Znj},
\[
\bar{S}^{n} = \frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n\bar{V}^n_{j}.
\]
Hence, using \eqref{f_est},~\eqref{lambda_x} and~\eqref{psin_p} we see that the density $\bar{h}^n_\theta$ of $\bar{S}^{n}$
under ${\mathbb P}_\theta$ is given by
\begin{align*}
\bar{h}^n_\theta(x)& = n^2\bar{l}^n_\theta(nx)\\
&= \left(\frac{n}{2\pi}\right)^2\int_{\mathbb{R}^2} e^{-\langle \lambda+it,nx\rangle}\prod_{j=1}^n\Phi_p(\sqrt{n}\theta^n_j(\lambda_1+it_1),\lambda_2+it_2)dt\\
&= \left(\frac{n}{2\pi}\right)^2e^{-n\Psi^*_p(x)}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2} e^{n(\Psi^*_p(x)-\langle\lambda,x\rangle)}e^{-i\langle t,nx \rangle}\prod_{j=1}^n\Phi_p(\sqrt{n}\theta^n_j(\lambda_1+it_1),\lambda_2+it_2)dt\\
& = \left(\frac{n}{2\pi}\right)^2e^{-n\Psi^*_p(x)}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2} e^{-n\Psi_p(\lambda)}e^{-i\langle t,nx \rangle}\prod_{j=1}^n\Phi_p(\sqrt{n}\theta^n_j(\lambda_1+it_1),\lambda_2+it_2)dt\\
& =\left(\frac{n}{2\pi}\right)^2e^{-n\Psi^*_p(x)}e^{n(\Psi^n_{p,\theta}(\lambda)-\Psi_p(\lambda))}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2} e^{-i\langle t,nx \rangle}\prod_{j=1}^n\frac{\Phi_p(\sqrt{n}\theta^n_j(\lambda_1+it_1),\lambda_2+it_2)}{\Phi_p(\sqrt{n}\theta^n_j\lambda_1,\lambda_2)}dt,
\end{align*}
for $x\in\mathbb{J}_p$.
Since the right-hand side coincides with the definition of $\bar{h}^n_\theta$ given in~\eqref{hn} and~\eqref{In}, this proves the first part of the lemma given the claim.
It only remains to prove the claim.
\noindent
{\bf Proof of Claim.}
Fix $n\in{\mathbb N}$, $j,k\in\{1,\ldots,n\}$, $j\neq k$, and let $\bar{\upsilon}=\bar{\upsilon}^{n,j,k}_\theta$ be as in the claim and set set $\theta_1:=\theta^n_j$ and $\theta_2:=\theta^n_k$.
By the Hausdorff-Young inequality~\cite[Theorem 8.21]{Folland99}, it suffices to show that the function ${\mathbb R}^2\ni z\mapsto e^{\langle \lambda, z\rangle}\bar{\upsilon}(z)$
lies in $\mathbb{L}_{1+r}(\mathbb{R}^2)$ for some $r>0$.
To this end, we start by establishing an expression for $\bar{\upsilon}$. Note from~\eqref{Znj} that $\bar{V}^n_{j}+\bar{V}^n_k=T(Y_j,Y_k)$, where $(Y_j)_{j\in{\mathbb N}}$ are i.i.d. with common density $f_p$ and $T:=T^{n,j,k}$ is the transformation given by, for $(y_1,y_2)\in{\mathbb R}^2$,
\[
T(y_1,y_2) = (\sqrt{n}(\theta_1y_1+\theta_2y_2),\abs{y_1}^p+\abs{y_2}^p).
\]
Note from the definition that $T$ is differentiable. Given $(z_1,z_2)\in{\mathbb R}^2$, we solve for $(z_1,z_2)=T(y_1,y_2)$. We see that $z_2$ should be positive for there to be a solution. On the other hand, for $z_2>0$, consider the plots $\{y\in{\mathbb R}^2:z_1=\sqrt{n}(\theta_1y_1+\theta_2y_2)\}$ and $\{y\in{\mathbb R}^2:z_2=\abs{y_1}^p+\abs{y_2}^p\}$. The solution of $(z_1,z_2)=T(y_1,y_2)$ is the intersection of the two plots above, which are a line and an $\ell^2_p$ ball, respectively, Hence, there are two solutions when $\abs{z_1}< z_2^{1/p}\sqrt{n}(\abs{\theta_1}^{p/(p-1)}+\abs{\theta_2}^{p/(p-1)})^{(p-1)/p}=:M(z_2)$, one solution when $|z_1|=M(z_2)$ and no $y\in{\mathbb R}^2$ such that $T(y)=(z_1,z_2)$ and when $\abs{z_1}> M(z_2)$.
For $\abs{z_1}<M(z_2)$, we define $y^+$ and $y^-$ to be the two points such that $T(y^+)=T(y^-)=(z_1,z_2)$. Then by the change of variables formula and the differentiability of $T$, we may write the density $\bar{\upsilon}$ as
\begin{align*}
\upsilon(z_1,z_2) &= \left(f_p(y^+_1)f_p(y^+_2)\abs{\frac{\partial(y^+_1,y^+_2)}{\partial(z_1,z_2)}}+f_p(y^-_1)f_p(y^-_2)\abs{\frac{\partial(y^-_1,y^-_2)}{\partial(z_1,z_2)}}\right)1_{\{z_2>0,\abs{z_1}<M(z_2)\}}\\
&=\left(\abs{\frac{\partial(y^+_1,y^+_2)}{\partial(z_1,z_2)}}+\abs{\frac{\partial(y^-_1,y^-_2)}{\partial(z_1,z_2)}}\right)e^{-z_2/p}1_{\{z_2>0,\{\abs{z_1}<M(z_2)\}},
\end{align*}
where $|\partial(y_1,y_2)/\partial(z_1,z_2)|$ is the Jacobian of the transformation $T$. A simple calculation yields
\begin{align}\label{jacob}
\abs{\frac{\partial(y_1,y_2)}{\partial(z_1,z_2)}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}p}\abs{\frac{1}{\theta_2\text{sgn}(y_1)\abs{y_1}^{p-1}-\theta_1\text{sgn}(y_2)\abs{y_2}^{p-1}}},
\end{align}
where $\text{sgn}(\cdot)$ denotes the sign function.
For $r>0$, we see that
\begin{align*}
&\int_{{\mathbb R}^2} \abs{e^{\lambda_1z_1+\lambda_2z_2}\bar{\upsilon}(z_1,z_2)}^{1+r}dz_1dz_2 \\
&\qquad =
\int_{{\mathbb R}^2} \abs{e^{\lambda_1z_1+\lambda_2z_2-z_2/p}}^{1+r}\left(\abs{\frac{\partial(y^+_1,y^+_2)}{\partial(z_1,z_2)}}+\abs{\frac{\partial(y^-_1,y^-_2)}{\partial(z_1,z_2)}} \right)^{1+r}1_{\{z_2>0,\abs{z_1}<M(z_2)\}}dz_1dz_2\\
&\qquad \leq 2^{r}\int_{{\mathbb R}^2} \abs{e^{\lambda_1z_1+\lambda_2z_2-z_2/p}}^{1+r}\left(\abs{\frac{\partial(y^+_1,y^+_2)}{\partial(z_1,z_2)}}^{1+r}+\abs{\frac{\partial(y^-_1,y^-_2)}{\partial(z_1,z_2)}}^{1+r} \right)1_{\{z_2>0,\abs{z_1}<M(z_2)\}}dz_1dz_2\\
&\qquad =2^{r}\int_{{\mathbb R}^2} \abs{e^{\lambda_1\sqrt{n}(\theta_1y_1+\theta_2y_2)+\left(\lambda_2-\frac{1}{p}\right)\left(\abs{y_1}^p+\abs{y_2}^p)\right)}}^{1+r}\abs{\frac{\partial(y_1,y_2)}{\partial(z_1,z_2)}}^{r}dy_1dy_2,
\end{align*}
where the inequality follows from $(a+b)^{1+r}\leq 2^r(a^{1+r}+b^{1+r})$ for $a,b\in{\mathbb R}_+$.
Let $\mathcal{N}\subset{\mathbb R}^2$ be a neighborhood of the origin. Then
\begin{align*}
&\int_{{\mathbb R}^2} \abs{e^{\lambda_1z_1+\lambda_2z_2}\bar{\upsilon}(z_1,z_2)}^{1+r}dz_1dz_2 \\
&\qquad =
2^r\int_{{\mathbb R}^2\cap \mathcal{N}} \abs{e^{\lambda_1\sqrt{n}(\theta_1y_1+\theta_2y_2)+\left(\lambda_2-\frac{1}{p}\right)\left(\abs{y_1}^p+\abs{y_2}^p)\right)}}^{1+r}\abs{\frac{\partial(y_1,y_2)}{\partial(z_1,z_2)}}^{r}dy_1dy_2\\
&\quad\qquad +
2^r\int_{{\mathbb R}^2\cap \mathcal{N}^c}\abs{e^{\lambda_1\sqrt{n}(\theta_1y_1+\theta_2y_2)+\left(\lambda_2-\frac{1}{p}\right)\left(\abs{y_1}^p+\abs{y_2}^p)\right)}}^{1+r}\abs{\frac{\partial(y_1,y_2)}{\partial(z_1,z_2)}}^{r}dy_1dy_2.
\end{align*}
Since $p \in (1,\infty)$ and $x \in {\mathbb J}_p$ implies $p\lambda_2=p\lambda_{x,2}<1$, it follows that $e^{\lambda_1\sqrt{n}(\theta_1y_1+\theta_2y_2)+\left(\lambda_2-\frac{1}{p}\right)\left(\abs{y_1}^p+\abs{y_2}^p)\right)}$ lies in $\mathbb{L}_r({\mathbb R}^2)$ for any $r>0$.
Moreover, by\eqref{jacob}, there exists $r_1>0$ small enough such that the Jacobian lies in $\mathbb{L}_{r_1}(\mathcal{N})$. On the other hand, there exists $0<r_2<\infty$ large enough such that the Jacobian lies in $\mathbb{L}_{r_2}(\mathcal{N}^c)$.
Thus, by H\"older's inequality, there exists $r>0$ such that the last display is finite. This proves the claim.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Representation of the integrand in terms of a tilted measure}
\label{subs-com}
We next obtain a representation for the integrand of the integral $\mathcal{I}^n_\theta$ in~\eqref{In} using a change of measure.
From Section~\ref{subs-reform}, recall the i.i.d.\ sequence of random variables
$(Y_j)_{j \in {\mathbb N}}$ defined on $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},\mathbb{P})$ that have density $f_p$ and are independent of
$\Theta=(\Theta^n)_{n\in{\mathbb N}}$.
Fix $a>0$ such that $\mathbb{I}_p(a)<\infty$, recall the definition of $\lambda=\lambda_a$ from~\eqref{lambda_x}. Fix $n \in {\mathbb N}$, consider a ``tilted'' measure $\widetilde{\mathbb{P}}^n=\widetilde{\mathbb{P}}^{n,a}$
on $(\Omega,\mathcal{F})$ such that the (marginal) distribution of $\Theta^n$
remains
unchanged but conditioned on $\Theta = \theta \in {\mathbb S}$,
$\{Y^n_j, j = 1, \ldots, n\}$ are still independent, but not
identically distributed, with $Y_j^n$ having
density $\widetilde{f}^{n}_j=\widetilde{f}^{n,a}_{\theta,j}$ given by
\begin{equation}\label{tilt_density}
\widetilde{f}^n_j(y) := \exp\left(\left\langle \lambda_a,\left(\sqrt{n}\theta^n_jy,\abs{y}^p\right)\right\rangle-\Lambda_p\left(\sqrt{n}\theta^n_i\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2}\right)\right) f_p(y),
\quad y \in {\mathbb R},
\end{equation}
with $\Lambda_p$ as defined in~\eqref{logmgf_lp} and as before we omit the explicit dependence and other quantities of $\widetilde{f}^n_j$ on $p$ and $a$. For $\theta\in{\mathbb S}$, denote by $\widetilde{\mathbb{P}}^n_\theta$ and $\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^n_{\theta}$ the probability and the expectation taken with respect to $\widetilde{\mathbb{P}}^n$, conditioned on $\theta$, and likewise, let $\widetilde{\mathrm{Var}}^n_\theta(\cdot)$ and $\widetilde{\mathrm{Cov}}^n_\theta(\cdot,\cdot)$ denote the conditional variance and conditional covariance, respectively, under $\widetilde{P}^n_\theta$.
Recall from~\eqref{logmgf_lp} and~\eqref{phi_p} that $\Lambda_p(t)=\log \Phi_p(t)$ for $t\in\mathbb{R}^2$.
Then, by \eqref{Znj}, \eqref{phi_p} and \eqref{tilt_density}, it follows that for $j=1, \ldots, n$ and $\beta = (\beta_1, \beta_2) \in {\mathbb R}^2$,
\begin{equation}
\label{tilt_mgf}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^n_{\theta} \left[ e^{\langle \beta, \bar{V}^n_{j} \rangle} \right]
&= & \frac{\Phi_p(\sqrt{n}\theta_j^n (\beta_{1} + \lambda_1), \beta_{2} + \lambda_2)}{\Phi_p(\sqrt{n}\theta_j^n \lambda_1, \lambda_2)},
\end{array}
\end{equation}
and hence,
\begin{equation}
\label{tilt_mean}
\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^n_{\theta}\left[\bar{V}^n_{j}\right] = \nabla_{\beta} \left.
\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^n_{\theta} \left[ e^{\langle \beta, \bar{V}^n_{j} \rangle} \right]\right|_{\beta =(0,0)}
= \nabla\log \Phi_p(\sqrt{n}\theta_j^n \lambda_1, \lambda_2).
\end{equation}
Denoting $\bar{V}^n_j=\left(\bar{V}^n_{j,1},\bar{V}^n_{j,2}\right)$, by~\eqref{tilt_mgf}, we also have for $k,l=1,2$,
\begin{align}
\widetilde{\mathrm{Cov}}^n_\theta\left(\bar{V}^n_{j,k},\bar{V}^n_{j,l}\right)& =
\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^n_\theta\left[\bar{V}^n_{j,k}\bar{V}^n_{j,l}\right]-\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^n_\theta\left[\bar{V}^n_{j,k}\right]\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^n_\theta\left[\bar{V}^n_{j,l}\right]\nonumber\\
&=\partial^2_{\beta_k,\beta_l}\left.\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^n_{\theta} \left[ e^{\langle \beta, \bar{V}^n_{j} \rangle} \right]\right|_{\beta =(0,0)}-
\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^n_\theta\left[\bar{V}^n_{j,k}\right]\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^n_\theta\left[\bar{V}^n_{j,l}\right]\nonumber\\
&=\partial_{k,l}^2 \log \Phi_p(\sqrt{n}\theta_j^n \lambda_1, \lambda_2). \label{tilt_cov}
\end{align}
For $x\in\mathbb{J}_p$, define $\widehat{V}^n_{x}$ to be
\begin{equation}\label{Zbar}
\widehat{V}^n_{x}:=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\sum_{j=1}^n\left(\bar{V}^n_{j}-x\right).
\end{equation}
\begin{lemma}\label{conv_c_gamma}
For $x\in\mathbb{J}_p$ and $\theta\in\mathbb{S}$, recall the definitions of $\bar{V}^n_{j}$, $\Phi_p$, $c^n_{x}$, ${\mathcal H}^n_{x}$ and $\widehat{V}^n_x$ given in~\eqref{Znj}~\eqref{phi_p},~\eqref{def-cnhessn} and~\eqref{Zbar}. Then
\begin{align}
c^n_{x}(\theta^n) &= \widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^n_\theta\left[\widehat{V}^n_{x} \right],\label{cn}\\
\left\langle {\mathcal H}^n_{x}\left(\theta^n\right) t, t\right\rangle &= \widetilde{{\rm Var}}_{\theta}^n \left(\left \langle t, \widehat{V}^n_{x} \right\rangle\right)
, \quad \mbox{ for all } t \in {\mathbb R}^2. \label{Gammanx}
\end{align}
Moreover, for $t=(t_1,t_2)\in\mathbb{R}^2$,
\begin{equation} \label{mu_hat}
\hat{\mu}^n_{x,\theta}(t):=\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^n_\theta\left[e^{i\left\langle t,\sqrt{n}\widehat{V}^n_{x}\right\rangle} \right]=e^{-i\langle t,nx \rangle}\prod_{j=1}^n\frac{\Phi_p(\sqrt{n}\theta^n_j(\lambda_{x,1}+it_1),\lambda_{x,2}+it_2)}{\Phi_p(\sqrt{n}\theta^n_j\lambda_{x,1},\lambda_{x,2})}.
\end{equation}
Furthermore, for $\sigma$-a.e. $\theta$, as $n \rightarrow \infty$,
${\mathcal H}^n_{x}(\theta^n)$ converges to the quantity ${\mathcal H}_{x}$ defined in~\eqref{gamma_x}.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We fix $\theta \in {\mathbb S}$ and $x$ in the domain $\mathbb{J}_p$ of $\Psi^*_p$ defined in~\eqref{def-Jp} and omit the subscript $x$ from $\lambda_x$ for notational simplicity.
By~\eqref{tilt_mean}, \eqref{Zbar}, the definition of $\Psi_{p,\theta}^n$ in \eqref{psin_p} and \eqref{gradPsi},
we have,
\begin{align}
\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^n_\theta\left[\widehat{V}^n_{x} \right]
=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\sum_{j=1}^n\left(-x+\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}_{\theta}^n
[\bar{V}_{j}^n] \right)
&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\sum_{j=1}^n\left(-x+\nabla \log \left(\Phi_p(\sqrt{n}\theta^n_j\lambda_1,\lambda_2)\right)\right)\nonumber\\
& = \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\left(-nx+n\nabla\Psi^n_{p,\theta}(\lambda)\right) \nonumber\\
&=\sqrt{n}\nabla\left(\Psi^n_{p,\theta}(\lambda)-\Psi_p(\lambda)\right)\nonumber.
\end{align}
When combined with \eqref{def-cnhessn}, this proves \eqref{cn}.
Similarly, by the independence of $\bar{V}^n_{j}, j = 1, \ldots, n,$ under $\widetilde{\mathbb{P}}^n_{\theta}$, \eqref{tilt_cov}, the definition of $\Psi^n_{p,\theta}$ in \eqref{psin_p} and the definition of ${\mathcal H}^n_x$ in~\eqref{def-cnhessn}, it follows that
\begin{align*}
\widetilde{{\rm Var}}_{\theta}^n \left( \left\langle t, \widehat{V}^n_{x} \right\rangle\right)
&= \frac{1}{n} \sum_{j=1}^n \widetilde{{\rm Var}}_{\theta}^n \left(\left\langle t, \bar{V}^n_{j}\right \rangle\right)
= \langle {\mathcal H}^n_{x}(\theta^n) t, t\rangle,
\end{align*}
which proves \eqref{Gammanx}.
Also, by the definitions of $\hat{\mu}^n_{x,\theta}$ and $\widehat{V}^n_x$ in~\eqref{mu_hat} and \eqref{Zbar}, respectively, the independence of $\bar{V}^n_{j}, j = 1, \ldots, n,$ under $\widetilde{\mathbb{P}}^n_{\theta}$ and the relation
\eqref{tilt_mgf}, it follows that
for $t\in\mathbb{R}^2$,
\begin{align*}
\hat{\mu}^n_{x,\theta}(t)& = e^{-i\langle t,nx \rangle}\prod_{j=1}^n\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^n_\theta\left[e^{i\langle t,\bar{V}^n_{j}\rangle} \right]
= e^{-i\langle t,nx \rangle}\prod_{j=1}^n
\frac{\Phi_p(\sqrt{n}\theta^n_j(\lambda_1+it_1),\lambda_2+it_2)}{\Phi_p(\sqrt{n}\theta^n_j\lambda_1,\lambda_2)},
\end{align*}
which proves \eqref{mu_hat}.
It only remains to
establish the convergence stated in the last assertion of the lemma. By~\eqref{def-cnhessn} and \eqref{psin_p}, it follows that for each $i,j = 1,2$, there exists $\alpha, \beta\in{\mathbb N}$ such that the entry $({\mathcal H}^n_{x}(\theta^n) )_{ij}$ can be written as
\begin{align*}
\left({\mathcal H}^n_{x}(\theta^n) \right)_{ij}&= \frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n(\sqrt{n}\theta^n_j)^\alpha\partial_1^{\alpha}\partial_2^{\beta}\log\Phi_p(\sqrt{n}\theta^n_j\lambda_1,\lambda_2)\\
& = \int_\mathbb{R}u^{\alpha}\partial_1^{\alpha}\partial_2^{\beta}\log\Phi_p(u\lambda_1,\lambda_2)L^n_{\theta}(du)
\end{align*}
Since, the moment generating function $\Phi_p$ is smooth, the mapping $u\mapsto\phi(u):=u^{\alpha}\partial_1^{\alpha}\partial_2^{\beta}\log\Phi_p(u\lambda_1,\lambda_2)$ is continuous. Moreover, $\phi$ has polynomial growth by Lemma~\ref{growth_lmgf}.
Since Lemma~\ref{slln} implies that $\mathcal{W}_p\left(L^n_{\theta},\gamma_2\right)\to 0$ as $n\to\infty$, it follows that
\begin{align*}
\left({\mathcal H}^n_{x}(\theta^n) \right)_{ij}\to\int_\mathbb{R}u^{\alpha}\partial_1^{\alpha}\partial_2^{\beta}\log\Phi_p(u\lambda_1,\lambda_2)\gamma_2(du)=\left({\mathcal H}_x\right)_{ij},
\end{align*}
where from Lemma \ref{wass-conv}(2) that, as $n$ tends to infinity, the last equality follows by the definition of ${\mathcal H}_x$ in~\eqref{gamma_x}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Estimates of the integrand}
\label{subs-integrand}
\begin{lemma}\label{moment-est}
Fix $x\in\mathbb{J}_p$. Recall the definitions of $\widehat{V}^n_{x}$ and
$(\bar{V}^n_{j})_{j=1,\ldots,n}$ given in \eqref{Zbar} and \eqref{Znj}, respectively. There exist constants $\widetilde{C}<\infty$ such that for all $n\in{\mathbb N}$ and for $\sigma$-a.e.\ $\theta$,
\begin{align}\label{moment-bnd}
\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^n_\theta\left[ \norm{\bar{V}^n_{j}-\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^n_\theta[\bar{V}^n_{j}]}^3\right] < \widetilde{C}, \quad \frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^n_\theta\left[ \norm{\bar{V}^n_{j}-\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^n_\theta[\bar{V}^n_{j}]}^4\right] < \widetilde{C},
\end{align}
and for all $n\in{\mathbb N}$,
\begin{align}\label{moment-bnd2}
\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^n_\theta\left[ \norm{\widehat{V}^n_{x} - \widetilde{\mathbb{E}}_{\theta}^n[\widehat{V}^n_{x}}^3\right]
< \widetilde{C}.
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Due to the following standard inequalities,
$(a^2+b^2)^{3/2}\leq C'(\abs{a}^3+\abs{b}^3)$ and
$ \frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n|a_j|^3 \leq (\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n\abs{a_j}^4)^{3/4}$,
to show \eqref{moment-bnd} it suffices to show the boundedness of
\[
\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^n_\theta\left[\left(\bar{V}^n_{j,1}-\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^n_\theta\left[\bar{V}^n_{j,1}\right] \right)^4\right]
\quad \text{and} \quad
\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^n_\theta\left[\left(\bar{V}^n_{j,2}-\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^n_\theta\left[\bar{V}^n_{j,2}\right] \right)^4\right].
\]
We show boundedness of just the first term; boundedness of the second can be shown analogously. Using following relation between cumulants and central moments, by simple calculation we have
\begin{align}
&\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^n_\theta\left[\left(\bar{V}^n_{j,1}-\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^n_\theta\left[\bar{V}^n_{j,1}\right] \right)^4\right] \nonumber\\
&\quad= \frac{3}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^n_\theta\left[\left(\bar{V}^n_{j,1}-\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^n_\theta\left[\bar{V}^n_{j,1}\right] \right)^2\right]+\int_\mathbb{R}\partial^4_1(\log\Phi_p(u\lambda_{x,1},\lambda_{x,2}))L^n_{\theta}(du)\nonumber\\
&\quad = 3\widetilde{\rm Var}^n_\theta\left (\widehat{V}^n_{x,1}\right)+\int_\mathbb{R}\partial^4_1(\log\Phi_p(u\lambda_{x,1},\lambda_{x,2}))L^n_{\theta}(du).\label{cumu-central}
\end{align}
Now, by \eqref{Gammanx}, $\widetilde{\rm Var}^n_\theta (\widehat{V}^n_{x,1})=\left({\mathcal H}^n_{x}(\theta^n)\right)_{11}$ and so by the last assertion of Lemma \ref{conv_c_gamma}, for $\sigma$-a.e. $\theta$, as $n\to\infty$, $\widetilde{\rm Var}^n_\theta (\widehat{V}^n_{x,1})$ converges to $({\mathcal H}_x)_{11}$. Also, since the function ${\mathbb R}\ni \mapsto \partial^4_1(\log\Phi_p(u\lambda_{x,1},\lambda_{x,2}))$ is continuous and has polynomial growth (the latter by Lemma \ref{growth_lmgf}), Lemma \ref{slln} and Lemma \ref{wass-conv}(2) together show that for $\sigma$-a.e. $\theta$, the second term on the right-hand-side of \eqref{cumu-central} also has a finite limit as $n\to\infty$. Therefore, for $\sigma$-a.e. $\theta$, the sum of the two terms is uniformly bounded.
Next, we deal with the second inequality. By~\eqref{Zbar}, we have
\[
\widehat{V}^n_{x} - \widetilde{\mathbb{E}}_{\theta}^n[\widehat{V}^n_{x}] = \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\sum_{j=1}^n \left(\bar{V}^n_j-\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^n_\theta[\bar{V}^n_{j}]\right).
\]
By Jensen's inequality, we further obtain
\begin{align*}
&\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^n_\theta\left[ \norm{\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\sum_{j=1}^n \left(\bar{V}^n_j-\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^n_\theta[\bar{V}^n_{j}]\right)}^3\right] \\
&\qquad\leq \left(\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^n_\theta\left[ \norm{\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\sum_{j=1}^n \left(\bar{V}^n_j-\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^n_\theta[\bar{V}^n_{j}]\right)}^4\right]\right)^{3/4}\\
&\qquad\leq \left(\frac{2}{n^2}\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^n_\theta\left[ \left(\sum_{j=1}^n \left(\bar{V}^n_{j,1}-\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^n_\theta[\bar{V}^n_{j,1}]\right)\right)^4\right]+\frac{2}{n^2}\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^n_\theta\left[ \left(\sum_{j=1}^n \left(\bar{V}^n_{j,2}-\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^n_\theta[\bar{V}^n_{j,2}]\right)\right)^4\right]\right)^{3/4}
\end{align*}
Now, to show the boundedness of the last display, it suffices to show the boundedness of
\[
\frac{1}{n^2}\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^n_\theta\left[ \left(\sum_{j=1}^n \left(\bar{V}^n_{j,m}-\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^n_\theta[\bar{V}^n_{j,m}]\right)\right)^4\right]
\quad \text{for} \quad m=1,2.
\]
We show the boundedness of the first term above, and the second follows similarly.
For $m\in\{1,2\}$, by the independence of $(\bar{V}^n_{j,1})_{j=1,\ldots,n}$, we have
\begin{align*}
&\frac{1}{n^2}\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^n_\theta\left[ \left(\sum_{j=1}^n \left(\bar{V}^n_{j,m}-\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^n_\theta[\bar{V}^n_{j,m}]\right)\right)^4\right]\\
&\qquad= \frac{1}{n^2}\sum_{j=1}^n\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^n_\theta\left[ \left(\bar{V}^n_{j,m}-\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^n_\theta[\bar{V}^n_{j,m}]\right)^4\right]+\frac{6}{n^2}\sum_{1\leq i<j\leq n}\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^n_\theta\left[ \left(\bar{V}^n_{i,1}-\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^n_\theta[\bar{V}^n_{i,1}]\right)^2\right]\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^n_\theta\left[ \left(\bar{V}^n_{j,m}-\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^n_\theta[\bar{V}^n_{j,m}]\right)^2\right]\\
&\qquad \leq \frac{1}{n^2}\sum_{j=1}^n\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^n_\theta\left[ \left(\bar{V}^n_{j,m}-\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^n_\theta[\bar{V}^n_{j,m}]\right)^4\right]+
6\left(\frac{2}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^n_\theta\left[ \left(\bar{V}^n_{j,m}-\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^n_\theta[\bar{V}^n_{j,m}]\right)^4\right]\right)^2
\end{align*}
which is bounded above by \eqref{moment-bnd}. This proves \eqref{moment-bnd2}
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{mu_est}
Fix $x\in\mathbb{J}_p$ and recall the definitions of ${\mathcal H}_x$ $\Phi_p$, $c^n_{x}$, ${\mathcal H}^n_{x}$, $\widehat{V}^n_{x}$ and
$\hat{\mu}^n_{x,\theta}$ given in \eqref{gamma_x}, \eqref{phi_p}, \eqref{def-cnhessn} \eqref{Zbar} and \eqref{mu_hat}, respectively. Then for $\sigma$-a.e. $\theta$ and every neighborhood $U\subset\mathbb{R}^2$ of the origin, there exist a neighborhood $\widetilde{U}$ of $x$ and a constant $C\in(0,1)$ such that for all sufficiently large $n$,
\begin{equation} \label{sup_ct}
\sup_{t\in U^c} \abs{\hat{\mu}^n_{y,\theta}(t)}^{1/n}< C, \quad y\in \widetilde{U}.
\end{equation}
Furthermore, for $\sigma$-a.e. $\theta$, there exist a neighborhood $U\subset\mathbb{R}^2$ of the origin and a neighborhood $\widetilde{U}$ of $x$ such that for all sufficiently large $n$,
\begin{align}
\abs{\hat{\mu}^n_{y,\theta}\left(\frac{t}{\sqrt{n}}\right)e^{-itc^n_{y}(\theta^n)}} \leq\exp\left(-\frac{1}{2}\left\langle ({\mathcal H}_y -\varepsilon I)t,t\right\rangle \right),\quad y\in\widetilde{U},\quad t\in U.\label{l2_bound}
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We omit the subscript $x$ of $\lambda_x$ for notational simplicity.
Now, for $\theta \in {\mathbb S}$, and $t\in{\mathbb R}^2$, the relation \eqref{tilt_mgf} yields the inequality
\begin{equation}
\label{ineq1}
\abs{\frac{\Phi_p(\sqrt{n}\theta^n_j(\lambda_1+it_1),\lambda_2+it_2)}{\Phi_p(\sqrt{n}\theta^n_j\lambda_1,\lambda_2)}} =\abs{\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^n_\theta\left[e^{i\langle t, \bar{V}^n_{j}\rangle}\right]}\leq \widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^n_\theta\left[\abs{e^{i\langle t, \bar{V}^n_{j}\rangle}}\right]\leq 1.
\end{equation}
Noting from~\eqref{phi_p} that $\Phi_p(t)$ is the Fourier transform of the joint density of $(Y_1,|Y_1|^p)$, evaluated at $+it$, we can apply the Riemann-Lebesgue lemma~\cite[Theorem 8.22]{Folland99} to obtain
\[
\norm{(\sqrt{n}\theta^n_j(i\lambda_1-t_1),i\lambda_2-t_2)}\to\infty \quad
\Rightarrow \quad \abs{\Phi_p(\sqrt{n}\theta^n_j(\lambda_1+it_1),\lambda_2+it_2)}\to 0.
\]
Now for $\theta^n_j \neq 0$,
$\norm{t}\to \infty$ implies $||(\sqrt{n}\theta^n_j(i\lambda_1-t_1),i\lambda_2-t_2)||\to\infty$. Thus, under the assumption that $\theta^n_j \neq 0$, we see that
\[
\lim_{\norm{t}\to\infty} \abs{\frac{\Phi_p(\sqrt{n}\theta^n_j(\lambda_1+it_1),\lambda_2+it_2)}{\Phi_p(\sqrt{n}\theta^n_j\lambda_1,\lambda_2)}}=0.
\]
Since $\Phi_p$ is a moment generating function which converges to $0$ at infinity, $\Phi_p$ is strictly smaller than $1$ other than at the origin. For any neighborhood of the origin $U\subset\mathbb{R}^2$ and any $0<K<\infty$, there exists $0<r<1$ such that for all $t\in U^c$, if $K^{-1}\leq\abs{\sqrt{n}\theta^n_j}\leq K$ and $\theta^n_j\neq 0$, then
\[
\abs{\frac{\Phi_p(\sqrt{n}\theta^n_j(\lambda_1+it_1),\lambda_2+it_2)}{\Phi_p(\sqrt{n}\theta^n_j\lambda_1,\lambda_2)}} < r.
\]
This implies
\[
\abs{\frac{\Phi_p(\sqrt{n}\theta^n_j(\lambda_1+it_1),\lambda_2+it_2)}{\Phi_p(\sqrt{n}\theta^n_j\lambda_1,\lambda_2)}} < r^{1_{\left\{K^{-1}\leq\abs{\sqrt{n}\theta^n_j}\leq K,\theta^n_j\neq0\right\}}}.
\]
Combining this with~\eqref{mu_hat} yields the inequality
\begin{align*}
\sup_{t\in U^c}\abs{\hat{\mu}^n_{x,\theta}(t)}^{1/n} &\leq r^{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n1_{\left\{K^{-1}\leq\abs{\sqrt{n}\theta^n_j}\leq K,\theta^n_j\neq 0\right\}}}.
\end{align*}
Since
$\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n1_{\{K^{-1}\leq\abs{\sqrt{n}\theta^n_j}\leq K\}}= L^n_\theta([K^{-1}, K]\setminus \{0\})$
whose limit, as $n \rightarrow \infty$,
is dominated by $c_K := \gamma_2 \left([K^{-1},K]\right) > 0$ due to
Lemma \ref{slln}, we have for $\sigma$-a.e. $\theta$,
\[
\limsup_{n \rightarrow \infty} \sup_{t\in U^c}\abs{\hat{\mu}^n_{x,\theta}(t)}^{1/n}\leq r^{c_K} < 1.
\]
Thus, for $\sigma$-a.e. $\theta$, we have a uniform bound $0<C<1$ such that for all sufficiently large $n$,
\begin{equation} \label{sup_hmu}
\sup_{t\in U^c}\abs{\hat{\mu}^n_{x,\theta}(t)}^{1/n} < C.
\end{equation}
Since $\Phi_p$ is uniformly continuous in $\lambda_x$
by definition and $\lambda_x$ is a smooth function of $x$ by the inverse function theorem applied to~\eqref{lambda_x}, we may choose a neighborhood $\widetilde{U}$ of $x$ such that for $y\in\widetilde{U}$,
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{t\in U^c}\abs{\hat{\mu}^n_{y,\theta}(t)}^{1/n} < C,
\end{equation*}
i.e., for $\sigma$-a.e. $\theta$ and all sufficiently large $n$ (possibly depending on $\theta$), \eqref{sup_ct} holds.
Next, note that by \eqref{mu_hat} and \eqref{cn}, for $t \in {\mathbb R}^2$,
\[
\hat{\mu}^n_{x,\theta}\left(\frac{t}{\sqrt{n}}\right)e^{-i\langle t,c^n_{x}(\theta^n)\rangle} =
\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^n_\theta\left[e^{i \left\langle t, \widehat{V}^n_{x} - \widetilde{\mathbb{E}}_{\theta}^n[\widehat{V}^n_{x}] \right\rangle}\right].
\]
Thus, for $\theta\in\mathbb{S}$, by \eqref{Gammanx} and~\cite[Lemma 3.3.7]{Durrett10},
we have the following expansion:
\begin{align*}
\abs{\hat{\mu}^n_{x,\theta}\left(\frac{t}{\sqrt{n}}\right)e^{-i\langle t,c^n_{x}(\theta^n)\rangle}-1+\frac{1}{2}\langle {\mathcal H}^n_{x}(\theta^n) t,t\rangle}& \leq\widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^n_\theta\left[ \abs{\langle t,\widehat{V}^n_{x} - \widetilde{\mathbb{E}}_{\theta}^n[\widehat{V}^n_{x}]\rangle}^3\right]\\
&\leq\norm{t}^3 \widetilde{\mathbb{E}}^n_\theta\left[ \norm{\widehat{V}^n_{x} - \widetilde{\mathbb{E}}_{\theta}^n[\widehat{V}^n_{x}]}^3\right].
\end{align*}
For $\varepsilon >0$, by \eqref{moment-bnd2} of Lemma~\ref{moment-est}, we may choose a neighborhood $U\subset {\mathbb R}^2$ of the origin with small enough radius so that the right-hand-side of the last display is bounded by $\varepsilon||t||^2$ for $t\in U$.
On the other hand, by the convergence of ${\mathcal H}^n_{x}(\theta^n)$ to ${\mathcal H}_x$ established in Lemma~\ref{conv_c_gamma}, for $\sigma$-a.e. $\theta$, there exists $\varepsilon>0$ such that ${\mathcal H}^n_{x}(\theta^n)-\varepsilon I$ is positive definite for all sufficiently large $n$ (possibly depending on $\theta$) and for $t\in U$,
\begin{align*}
\abs{\hat{\mu}^n_{x,\theta}\left(\frac{t}{\sqrt{n}}\right)e^{-i\langle t,c_x^n(\theta^n)\rangle}}\leq 1-\frac{1}{2}\langle ({\mathcal H}^n_{x}(\theta^n)-\varepsilon I) t,t\rangle &\leq \exp\left(-\frac{1}{2}\langle ({\mathcal H}^n_{x}(\theta^n)-\varepsilon I)t,t\rangle \right).
\end{align*}
Note that the right-hand side of the last display converges to the integrable function
$\exp(-\frac{1}{2}\langle ({\mathcal H}_x -\varepsilon I)t,t\rangle)$ as $n$ tends to infinity.
Similar to the proof of~\eqref{sup_ct}, the uniformity of the bound in~\eqref{l2_bound} follows from the definition in~\eqref{def-cnhessn},~\eqref{psin_p} and the aforementioned uniform continuity of $\Phi_p$ in $x$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of the joint density estimate} \label{sec-proppf}
We now combine the lemmas established in Sections \ref{subs-asymptotics}--\ref{subs-integrand}
to prove the estimate for the density $\bar{h}^n_\theta$ of $\bar{S}^{n}$ obtained
in Proposition \ref{prop-mainest}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{prop-mainest}]
Fix $n\in{\mathbb N}$. Combining Lemma~\ref{g_est}, \eqref{Rn} and \eqref{mu_hat} of Lemma~\ref{conv_c_gamma}, we see that for $x\in\mathbb{J}_p$ and $\sigma$-a.e. $\theta$,
\begin{equation}\label{int_gn}
\bar{h}^n_\theta(x) = \frac{n}{2\pi}e^{-n\Psi^*_p(x)}e^{\sqrt{n}R^n_{x}(\theta^n)}\frac{n}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}\hat{\mu}^n_{x,\theta}(t)dt.
\end{equation}
When compared with~\eqref{gn_est} and \eqref{def-gn}, to prove the proposition, it suffices to show that
\[
\frac{n}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}\hat{\mu}^n_{x,\theta}(t)dt=\det{\mathcal H}_{x}^{-1/2}\exp\left(\norm{{\mathcal H}_{x}^{-1/2}c^n_{x}(\theta^n)}^2 \right)(1+o(1)),
\]
with the approximation uniformly for $x$ in any compact set of $\mathbb{J}_p$.
Let $U\subset \mathbb{R}^2$ be a neighborhood of the origin. We split the integral in the last display into two parts
\begin{equation}\label{int_split}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^2} \hat{\mu}^n_{x,\theta}(t)dt = \int_U \hat{\mu}^n_{x,\theta}(t)dt+\int_{U^c} \hat{\mu}^n_{x,\theta}(t)dt.
\end{equation}
Now, by the estimate~\eqref{sup_ct} in Lemma~\ref{mu_est}, we have for $C\in(0,1)$ and $s>1$,
\begin{equation}\label{int_Vc}
\abs{\int_{U^c}\hat{\mu}^n_{x,\theta}(t)dt} \leq \int_{U^c}\abs{\hat{\mu}^n_{x,\theta}(t)}dt\leq C^{n-s}\int_{U^c}\abs{\hat{\mu}^n_{x,\theta}(t)}^{s/n}dt.
\end{equation}
From the definition of $\hat{\mu}^n_{x,\theta}$ in~\eqref{mu_hat} and Lemma \ref{g_est}, we see that $|\hat{\mu}^n_{x,\theta}(t)|^{s/n}$ is integrable. Hence, the right hand side of \eqref{int_Vc} tends to zero exponentially fast as $n$ tends to infinity. Moreover, the convergence is uniform in a neighborhood of $x$ by~\eqref{sup_ct} from Lemma~\ref{mu_est}.
Recall the definition of $\hat{\mu}^n_{x,\theta}$ in~\eqref{mu_hat}. By~\eqref{Zbar} and~\eqref{cn}, the characteristic function of $\widehat{V}^n_x$ is given by $\hat{\mu}^n_{x,\theta}\left(\frac{t}{\sqrt{n}}\right)e^{-itc^n_{x}(\theta^n)}$. Since the sequence $(\widehat{V}^n_x)_{n\in{\mathbb N}}$ satisfies the Lyapunov-type condition stated in~\eqref{moment-bnd} of Lemma~\ref{moment-est}, the central limit theorem implies that it converges weakly to a centered Gaussian distribution with covariance matrix ${\mathcal H}_x$.
Thus, the corresponding characteristic functions satsify
\begin{align} \label{limit_ct}
\hat{\mu}^n_{x,\theta}\left(\frac{t}{\sqrt{n}}\right)e^{-itc^n_{x}(\theta^n)} \to \exp\left(-\frac{1}{2}\langle {\mathcal H}_{x} t,t\rangle \right).
\end{align}
Now, by~\eqref{l2_bound} of Lemma~\ref{mu_est} and~\eqref{limit_ct}, we may apply the dominated convergence theorem, and use \eqref{limit_ct} to obtain for $\sigma$ a.e. $\theta$,
\begin{align}
\int_U\hat{\mu}^n_{x,\theta}(t)dt & = \frac{1}{n}\int_{\sqrt{n}U}\hat{\mu}^n_{x,\theta}\left(\frac{t}{\sqrt{n}}\right)dt\nonumber\\
& = \frac{1}{n}\int_{\sqrt{n}U}\exp\left(itc^n_x(\theta^n)-\frac{1}{2}\langle {\mathcal H}_{x} t,t\rangle \right)dt \nonumber\\
&\quad+ \frac{1}{n}\int_{\sqrt{n}U}e^{itc^n_x(\theta^n)}\left(\hat{\mu}^n_{x,\theta}\left(\frac{t}{\sqrt{n}}\right)e^{-itc^n_{x}(\theta^n)}-\exp\left(-\frac{1}{2}\langle {\mathcal H}_{x}(\theta^n) t,t\rangle \right)\right) dt\nonumber\\
&= \frac{1}{n}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}\exp\left(itc^n_{x}(\theta^n)-\frac{1}{2}\langle {\mathcal H}_{x} t,t\rangle \right)dt(1+o(1)),
\end{align}
with ${\mathcal H}_x$ as in~\eqref{gamma_x}. Using standard properties of Gaussian integrals, this implies that
\begin{align}
\int_U\hat{\mu}^n_{x,\theta}(t)dt = \frac{2\pi}{n}\det{\mathcal H}_{x}^{-1/2}\exp\left(\norm{{\mathcal H}_{x}^{-1/2}c^n_{x}(\theta^n)}^2 \right)(1+o(1)),\label{int_V}
\end{align}
Combining~\eqref{def-gn}, \eqref{int_gn}, \eqref{int_split},~\eqref{int_V} and the estimate of the integral over $U^c$ in~\eqref{int_Vc},
we conclude that the asymptotic expansion for the density $\bar{h}^n_\theta(x)$ given in \eqref{gn_est}
holds uniformly for $x$ in any compact subset of $\mathbb{J}_p$.
Finally, by the definition of $\lambda_x$ in \eqref{lambda_x} and the inverse function theorem, the mapping $x\mapsto\lambda_x$ is differentiable. Therefore, combining \eqref{def-gn}, \eqref{gamma_x}, \eqref{def-cnhessn} and \eqref{Rn}, we conclude $\bar{g}^n_\theta$ is differentiable.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:introduction}}
\IEEEPARstart{O}{cclusion} occurs in many real world images.
For human vision system, recognizing partially occluded objects is not a tough mission.
In computer vision domain, however, this is still a highly challenging task even for deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs) which have achieved huge success in many computer vision tasks recently~\cite{krizhevsky2012imagenet, he2018learning, zhang2018bpgrad, wei2017cross, han2017cnns, xu2019adversarially}.
The state-of-the-art CNNs usually involve over tens of millions of parameters \cite{szegedy2015going, he2016deep, simonyan2014very, ma2018mdcn} such that a vast amount of data are required in training even for the classification of occlusion-free images.
For the classification of occluded images, the training dataset has to be enlarged multiple times to cover the variations caused by occlusion.
To collect a very large number of occluded images is, however, difficult in real applications.
A popular choice is to train the networks directly on an occlusion-free dataset or a dataset containing few occluded images.
Unfortunately, the deep features generated by most CNN networks are sensitive to occlusion.
As a consequence, little benefit can be gained to the classification of occluded images.
In a typical application of classification, the training dataset usually contains much fewer occluded images than occlusion-free images, and sometimes, one may have some occluded images irrelevant to the task-specified categories.
To address the classification of occluded images for this kind of scenario, this paper addresses the problem of classifying partially occluded images by exploiting the help of a set of extra image pairs.
Each extra image pair includes an occlusion-free image and an occluded image.
The occluded image is contaminated with an occlusion pattern involved in the occluded query images.
Under such a setting, the extra image pairs can provide auxiliary information about the occlusions of the occluded query images.
Examples of an occluded query image and extra image pairs are shown in \figurename{~\ref{fig:extraimg_errorillustration}} (a) and (b), respectively.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\fontsize{8}{8}\selectfont
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{./figures/jpeg/Cyb_fig1.jpg}
\caption{(a) Example of an occluded query image. (b) Examples of extra image pairs.
(c)Illustration of $||\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_i||_2$ and $||\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_i||_0$ of an occluded image with respect to occlusion ratio. The DFVs are extracted by using the ResNet-152 network \cite{he2016deep} and then normalized to have unit $l_2$-norm. To make a fair comparison, $||\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_i||_2$ and $||\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_i||_0$ are normalized with respect to $||\mathbf{v}_{0i}||_2$ and the number of the DFV entries $m$, respectively.}
\label{fig:extraimg_errorillustration}
\end{figure}
The research is originally motivated by cloud-based deep learning applications \cite{hosseini2016cloud,Deng2013Recent,Polishetty2017A, cen2019dictionary}.
With the development of deep neural network accelerator chips \cite{isscc_2016_chen_eyeriss}, the CNN-based feature extraction, used to be conducted at the cloud or server end due to its high computational complexity, are gradually shifting to the terminal or mobile end.
To save the bandwidth of transmission in such a situation, only the deep features, which have less bandwidth consumption and safer in terms of protection of private information, rather than the images will be sent to the cloud for further processing, such as classification, identification, and object detection.
Accordingly, we have to tackle the occlusion in the deep feature space at the cloud end.
Therefore, in this paper, instead of removing occlusion in the image space, we focus on alleviating the negative impact of occlusion on classification in the deep feature space.
Let $\mathbf{v}_{0i}$ be the deep feature vector (DFV) of the $i$th occlusion-free image $\mathbf{y}_{0i}$ and $\mathbf{v}_i$ the DFV of the occluded image $\mathbf{y}_i$
acquired by contaminating the image $\mathbf{y}_{0i}$ with a contiguous patch $\mathbf{z}$.
Then, we have
\begin{equation}\label{equ:dpvec_dcmp}
\mathbf{v}_i=\mathbf{v}_{0i}+\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_i,
\end{equation}
where $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_i$ denotes the occlusion error vector (OEV) reflecting the variation caused by the occlusion.
A simple and intuitive solution to recognize the occluded image with a classifier trained on occlusion-free images is first estimating $\mathbf{v}_{0i}$ from $\mathbf{v}_i$ and then feeding $\hat{\mathbf{v}}_{0i}$, the estimation of $\mathbf{v}_{0i}$, into the classifier to determine the category.
Recovering $\mathbf{v}_{0i}$ from $\mathbf{v}_i$ is, however, a challenge work.
Even though many efforts have been made to understand the deep representations \cite{bau2017network,zeiler2014visualizing,mahendran2015understanding,alain2016understanding}, the correspondence between the occlusion and the changes in the DFV is still far from being clear.
The CNNs is actually a nonlinear and holistic transformation from the image space to the deep feature space.
Any small local variations in the image space can cause large holistic changes in the deep feature space.
As can be seen in \figurename{~ \ref{fig:extraimg_errorillustration}}(c), even for $5\%$ occlusion, a small amount of occlusion, around $95\%$ entries of $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_i$ are nonzero and the $l_2$-norm of $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_i$ is close to $50\%$ $l_2$-norm of $\mathbf{v}_{0i}$, a very high level of relative energy.
In this paper, we observe that in the deep feature space, $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_i$ is a structured error clustering at a place outside the \emph{class subspace}, the linear span of the DFVs of occlusion-free images.
This indicates that $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_i$ lies in a low-dimensional subspace, named \emph{occlusion error subspace}, nearly independent of the \emph{class subspace}.
Inspired by this observation, we propose a subspace decomposition based estimation (SDBE) to extract $\mathbf{v}_{0i}$ by finding a constrained projection of $\mathbf{v}_i$ onto the \emph{class subspace} along the \emph{occlusion error subspace}.
In practice, we use the linear span of the DFVs of a training set, named class dictionary (CD), to approximate the \emph{class subspace} and the linear span of the OEVs of the extra image pairs, named occlusion error dictionary (OED), to roughly represent the \emph{occlusion error subspace}.
The $l_1$-norm and the squared $l_2$-norm regularizations are studied to constrain the projection and least-squares (LS) optimization is employed to compute the constrained projection.
Based on the proposed SDBE approaches, a classification scheme is developed in this paper.
In the proposed SDBE-based classification scheme, a base CNN is employed to map the image to a deep feature space linearly separable for the occlusion-free images, and then, the proposed SDBE approaches are applied to project the DFV onto the \emph{class subspace}.
The base CNN can be trained on publicly available large-scale datasets or task-specified datasets and the SDBE is applicable to both occluded images and occlusion-free images (corresponding to zero occlusion).
Therefore, the proposed SDBE-based classification scheme is a unified scheme for the classification of both occluded images and occlusion-free images over any image datasets.
Our main contributions are summarized as follows.
\begin{enumerate}
\item We observe that the DFVs and OEVs lie in distinct low-dimensional subspaces. This observation provides a useful clue to fully understanding the representation learned by the CNNs.
\item We propose a novel SDBE to compute the DFV of the the original occlusion-free image and introduce two implementations for the SDBE: the $l_1$-norm LS minimization and the squared $l_2$-norm LS minimization.
\item Based on the proposed SDBE approaches, we propose an SDBE-based classification scheme and present extensive experiments on publicly available small-scale and large-scale datasets.
The experimental results demonstrate significant improvement over the state-of-the-art conventional CNN-based schemes. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study exhibiting impressive classification results for occluded images on a general purpose large-scale image dataset.
\item Although end-to-end learning is pursued in many research works, the successful integration of the CNNs and the classical learning approaches provides a new perspective to other similar problems.
We also introduce an implementation in linear network layer form for the squared $l_2$-norm based SDBE approach to facilitate the adaption of the proposed scheme to many pervasive implementation frameworks of the CNNs.
\end{enumerate}
The rest of this paper is organized as follows.
Section \ref{sec:Relatedwork} briefly reviews the related works.
Section \ref{sec:Proposedscheme} describes the proposed SDBE approaches and SDBE-based classification scheme in detail.
Section \ref{sec:Exps} presents the experimental results.
Section \ref{sec:further_discussion} compares two implementations of the proposed SDBE in detail.
Finally the paper is concluded in Section \ref{sec:Conclusion}.
\section{Related works}\label{sec:Relatedwork}
The work in this paper is partially related to the works in the following fields.
\subsection{Signal recovery}
In signal processing community, compressed sensing is an extensively studied signal recovery approach.
However, it is unable to apply the compressed sensing straightforwardly to estimate $\mathbf{v}_{0i}$.
In most compressed sensing research works, the $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_i$ is assumed to be a random noise term.
For random noise, the existing theory \cite{donoho2006stable,nguyen2013robust,ben2010cramer,ben2010coherence} suggests that the $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_i$ needs to be either sparse or small, which is in contradiction to the observation in \figurename{~\ref{fig:extraimg_errorillustration}}(c).
The closely related theoretical works in compressed sensing include \cite{studer2012recovery,studer2014stable}, where the noise term is assumed to be structured noise.
These works, however, only focused on signal recovery and pursued a sparsest solution.
Unlike the signal recovery, the goal of classification is not an exact recovery of original signal but rather an estimation leading to correct classification.
This target implies that an estimation even with pretty large deviation from the original signal can be acceptable for the classification.
\subsection{Sparse representation-based classification}
The most popular approach robustifying the occluded image classification in computer vision is sparse representation-based classification, proposed by Wright \textit{et al.} \cite{wright2009robust}.
In their work, the occluded face image was first coded via $l_{1}$-norm minimization as a sparse linear combination of the expanded dictionary.
Then, the classification is conducted by searching for which class of training samples could result in a minimum reconstruction error with the sparse coding coefficients.
Following Wright's work, many researchers worked towards improving the sparse representation-based classification accuracy under various conditions \cite{deng2012extended,ou2014robust,zhang2015mixed,zhao2016corrupted} .
The weaknesses of these works lie in that they are focused on the image space or the linear transformation of the image space and are only shown to be effective in face recognition, a narrow subfield of image classification, over small-scale datasets.
\subsection{Generative model}
With the rapid development of deep learning, a lot of effort has been made to apply deep generative model to cope with partially occluded or partially missing image recently.
In~\cite{pathak2016context,yeh2016semantic,nguyen2017plug,yang2017high,yu2018generative}, deep dilated convolution networks were used to yield the missing portion of an image based on the framework of generative adversarial networks (GANs) and combined with a loss function related to the reconstruction error.
In~\cite{bao2017cvae}, variational auto-encoder and GAN were combined to generate the missing portion of an image.
In~\cite{van2016pixel}, pixel recurrent neural networks were proposed for image completion.
These approaches, however, need to know the shape and position of the missing portion in advance.
In~\cite{tang2010gated,Tang2012Robust}, restricted Boltzman machine based models were used to learn the structure of the occluders.
In~\cite{xie2012image,cheng2015robust}, denoising auto-encoder based models were exploited to map a corrupted image to a corruption-free image.
In~\cite{zhao2018robust}, a robust LSTM-autoencoders model is combined with GAN to produce the occluded portion of the face image for face recognition.
The weaknesses of these works lie in the following aspects.
First, these works only yielded improved results in face recognition and did not exhibit promising results for general occluded images.
Second, these works are not suited to future cloud-based applications since they attempt to restore images in the image space.
Third, these works usually require a large number of partially occluded or missing images and a time-consuming training procedure to train the generative model.
Finally, for new occlusion patterns, these works require a re-training or fine-tuning, usually complex and time-consuming, of the generative model.
In contrast, the proposed SDBE-based classification scheme handles the occlusion in the deep feature space and requires much fewer occluded images for training. It can be easily adapted to new occlusion patterns, and exhibits superior classification results for general occluded images.
\subsection{Deep feature manipulation}
Understanding the relationship between the changes in the image space and the consequences in the deep feature space is still a challenge.
Some research effort has been made to manipulate the deep features to tackle the variation in the image space~\cite{wen2016latent, upchurch2017deep,chen2017stylebank,chen2018facelet, gao2016novel}, recently.
Wen \textit{et al.}~\cite{wen2016latent} introduced a latent factor fully connected (LF-FC) layer (a linear transformation matrix) to extract the age-invariant deep features from convolutional features for aging face recognition.
Li \textit{et al.}~\cite{li2017perceptual} proposed to use the GAN in deep feature space to generate super-resolved representation for small object detection.
Chen \textit{et al.}~\cite{chen2017stylebank} fed the intermediate deep feature into multiple convolution filter banks to perform image style transfer.
Chen \textit{et al.}~\cite{chen2018facelet} employ multiple fully convolutional layers to manipulate the middle-level convolutional representations for face portrait transfer.
Although these works did not directly relate to the classification of occluded images, they showed a trend to cope with the variation of an image in the deep feature space.
In these works, however, the transformation or mapping of the deep feature is achieved by using neural network layers, which are trained with back-propagation algorithms, thereby requiring a large number of images in training.
In contrast, the proposed SDBE approaches are based on a theoretical basis and adopt a simpler learning approach, requiring much fewer training images.
\section{Proposed scheme}\label{sec:Proposedscheme}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\fontsize{6}{8}\selectfont
\includegraphics[width=0.65\linewidth]{./figures/jpeg/Cyb_fig2.jpg}
\caption{Flowchart of the proposed SDBE-based classification scheme.
The proposed SDBE is inserted into the processing chain of classification between the base CNN and the classifier as a post-processing procedure for the DFVs.
}
\label{fig:clsfct_scheme}
\end{figure*}
The proposed SDBE-based classification scheme is shown in \figurename{~\ref{fig:clsfct_scheme}}.
A base CNN (excluding the prob layer and the last fully connected linear layer of the original CNN network) is employed to extract the DFVs.
In the training phase, a CD and an OED are constructed by using the DFVs extracted from the training images and extra image pairs, respectively.
In the testing phase, the SDBE, as a post-processing procedure for the DFV, is employed to mitigate the error, induced by occlusion, of the DFV $\mathbf{v}_i$ with the help of the CD and OED.
Following the SDBE, a classifier will determine the category of the DFV $\hat{\mathbf{v}}_{0i}$ estimated by the SDBE.
The classifier training procedure is optional since the classifier can be any conventional classifiers, such as support vector machine (SVM), softmax, and nearest neighbor (NN) \cite{duda2001pattern}, trained by using either the column vectors of the CD or other DFVs extracted from a task-specified image dataset, or the original softmax classifier of the base CNN, which is actually trained along with the base CNN.
The base CNN can be trained on large-scale publicly available datasets or a task-specified dataset for a better separability of the deep feature space.
It can be constructed with any modern network structures, such as ResNet~\cite{he2016deep}, GoogLeNet~\cite{szegedy2015going}, and VGG~\cite{simonyan2014very}, as long as it is well trained for classification.
The details of construction and training of the base CNNs are out of the scope of this paper.
Let the size of input image and the number of the entries of the output DFV be $h\times w$ and $m$, respectively.
The base CNNs perform a nonlinear mapping from three-channel color image space to the deep feature space, $f:\mathbb{R}^{h\times w\times 3}\longmapsto \mathbb{R}^{m}$.
Then, we have $\mathbf{v}_i=f(\mathbf{y}_i)$ and $\mathbf{v}_{0i}=f(\mathbf{y}_{0i})$.
We should note that the OEV $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_i$ is not a mapping of the occlusion patch $\mathbf{z}$, i.e., $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_i\neq f(\mathbf{z})$\footnote{$\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_i$ is associated with not only the physical occlusion errors in the image but also the image, since the deep feature is a kind of nonlinear holistic feature.}.
\subsection{SDBE}\label{sec:SDBE}
Suppose that we have a training set with $n_{\mathbf{A}}=\sum_{i=1}^{K_{\mathbf{A}}}n_i$ images collected from $K_{\mathbf{A}}$ categories and a set of extra image pairs with $p_{\mathbf{B}}=\sum_{i=1}^{K_{\mathbf{B}}}p_i$ image pairs associated with $K_{\mathbf{B}}$ occlusion patterns.
Here, $n_{i}$ is the number of training images belonging to the $i$th category and $p_{i}$ the number of extra image pairs associated with the $i$th occlusion pattern.
The occlusion pattern is defined as the occlusions with the same texture, shape, size, and location on the image.
Let $\mathbf{u}_{ij}\in\mathbb{R}^{m}, j=1,2,\cdots,n_{i}$ be the DFV of the $j$th training image in the $i$th category.
The extra image pairs each consists of an occlusion-free image and an occluded image.
Let $\mathbf{w}_{ij}^f\in\mathbb{R}^{m}$ and $\mathbf{w}_{ij}^o\in\mathbb{R}^{m}, j=1,2,\cdots,p_{i}$ be the DFVs of the occlusion-free image and occluded image of the $j$th extra image pair associated with the $i$th occlusion pattern, respectively.
Then, the OEV between $\mathbf{w}_{ij}^o$ and $\mathbf{w}_{ij}^f$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{equ:wij_dfn}
\mathbf{w}_{ij}=\mathbf{w}_{ij}^o-\mathbf{w}_{ij}^f\;.
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Class subspace vs. occlusion error subspace}
It is easy to observe that, extracted from a well trained base CNN, the DFVs of the occlusion-free images in each category usually locate in a compact low-dimensional cluster, called class cluster.
Let $\mathcal{A}_i$ denote the linear span of the $i$th class cluster and $\mathcal{A}=\sum_i \mathcal{A}_i$ the sum over all the categories used in a classification task.
Then, $\mathcal{A}$ can be regarded as a low-dimensional subspace, called \emph{class subspace}
\footnote{The \emph{class subspace} can be determined by using the principal component analysis (PCA), as shown in \figurename{~\ref{fig:relationship_A_B}\subref{fig:pca_A_B}}}.
In addition, we assume that the OEVs incurred by the same occlusion pattern fall into a low-dimensional subspace.
Let $\mathcal{B}_i$ denote the subspace associated with the $i$th occlusion pattern and $\mathcal{B}=\sum_i \mathcal{B}_i$ the sum of all the subspaces associated with the occlusion patterns involved in the set of extra image pairs.
Obviously, the $\mathcal{B}$ spans a subspace, named \emph{occlusion error subspace}.
For simplicity, hereinafter we reuse, without ambiguity in context, the notation of a subspace to denote the basis of that subspace, e.g., the $\mathcal{A}$ can also stand for the basis of the subspace $\mathcal{A}$.
\subsubsection{Decomposition over class subspace and occlusion error subspace}
Suppose that $\mathcal{A}$ is linearly independent of $\mathcal{B}$ and the DFV $\mathbf{v}_i$ of the query image lies in the subspace $\mathcal{V}=\mathcal{A}\oplus\mathcal{B}$, where $\oplus$ denotes direct sum.
Then, $\mathbf{v}_i$ has a unique decomposition with the form of \cite[Theorem 1.5]{roman2007advanced}
\begin{equation}\label{equ:subspace_dcmpstn}
\mathbf{v}_i=\mathcal{A}\boldsymbol{\alpha}+\mathcal{B}\boldsymbol{\beta},
\end{equation}
where $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ and $\boldsymbol{\beta}$ are decomposition coefficient vectors.
The class part $\mathcal{A}\boldsymbol{\alpha}$, a projection of $\mathbf{v}_i$ onto $\mathcal{A}$ along $\mathcal{B}$, is equal to $\mathbf{v}_{0i}$.
Model (\ref{equ:subspace_dcmpstn}) is, however, almost practically unrealizable.
The reasons are as below:
first, figuring out the exact spans or bases of the \emph{class subspace} and \emph{occlusion error subspace} is unattainable in real applications;
second, for real image data, $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ are not exactly independent.
In this paper, instead of finding the exact spans or bases, we utilize the linear span of $\mathbf{A}_i=[\mathbf{u}_{i1},\mathbf{u}_{i2},...,\mathbf{u}_{in_{i}}]\in\mathbb{R}^{m\times n_i}$ and the linear span of $\mathbf{B}_i=[\mathbf{w}_{i1},\mathbf{w}_{i2},...,\mathbf{w}_{ip_{i}}]\in\mathbb{R}^{m\times p_i}$
to approximate $\mathcal{A}_i$ and $\mathcal{B}_i$, respectively.
Apparently, with such an approximation, error will be introduced into the decomposition.
To explicitly account for the error, we add a noise term $\mathbf{n}$ to model (\ref{equ:subspace_dcmpstn}).
Then, we have
\begin{equation}\label{equ:approx_subspace_dcmpstn}
\mathbf{v}_i=\mathbf{A}\boldsymbol{\alpha}+\mathbf{B}\boldsymbol{\beta}+\mathbf{n}
\end{equation}
with $\boldsymbol{\alpha}=[\boldsymbol{\alpha}_1^T,...,\boldsymbol{\alpha}_i^T,...,\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{K_{\mathbf{A}}}^T]^T$ and $\boldsymbol{\beta}=[\boldsymbol{\beta}_1^T,..., \boldsymbol{\beta}_i^T,...,\boldsymbol{\beta}_{K_{\mathbf{B}}}^T]^T$, where $\mathbf{A}=[\mathbf{A}_1,...,\mathbf{A}_i,...,\mathbf{A}_{K_{\mathbf{A}}}]$ and $\mathbf{B}=[\mathbf{B}_1,..., \mathbf{B}_i, ...,\mathbf{B}_{K_{\mathbf{B}}}]$ are the CD and OED, respectively, and $\boldsymbol{\alpha}_i$ and $\boldsymbol{\beta}_i$ are the vectors of decomposition coefficients related to $\mathbf{A}_i$ and $\mathbf{B}_i$, respectively.
Then, $\mathbf{v}_{0i}$ can be estimated by
\begin{equation}\label{equ:dfv_rcvry}
\hat{\mathbf{v}}_{0i}=\mathbf{A}\boldsymbol{\alpha}.
\end{equation}
In a more concise form, equation (\ref{equ:approx_subspace_dcmpstn}) can be written as
\begin{equation} \label{equ:prblm_frmltn_rewriting}
\mathbf{v}_i=\mathbf{D}\boldsymbol{\omega}+\mathbf{n}
\end{equation}
with the concatenated dictionary $\mathbf{D}=[\mathbf{A}\; \mathbf{B}]$ and the stacked vector $\boldsymbol{\omega}_i=[\boldsymbol{\alpha}^T\; \boldsymbol{\beta}^T]^T$.
In \figurename{~\ref{fig:relationship_A_B}}, we use a toy example to explain the preceding description on the \emph{class subspace} and \emph{occlusion error subspace}.
From \figurename{~\ref{fig:relationship_A_B}\subref{fig:pca_A_B}}, we can easily observe that the column vectors of $\mathbf{A}$ cluster together (blue cluster) and the column vectors of each $\mathbf{B}_i$ forms a cluster (green clusters).
This observation indicates that the subspace $\mathbf{A}$ is distinct from the subspace $\mathbf{B}$ and $\mathbf{B}$ has fine-grained low-dimensional structures.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\fontsize{8}{8}\selectfont
\subfloat[]{
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{./figures/jpeg/Cyb_fig3.jpg}
}\\
\subfloat[]{\label{fig:pca_A_B}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{./figures/jpeg/sec3/PCA_analysis_IEEEcyb.jpg}
}
\subfloat[]{\label{fig:correlation_A_B_AB}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{./figures/jpeg/sec3/Corr_analysis_IEEEcyb.jpg}
}
\caption{Illustration of linear independence between \emph{class subspace} and \emph{occlusion error subspace}. (a) Four occlusion patches used to construct $\mathbf{B}$ and examples of occluded images.
(b) Projection of column vectors of $\mathbf{A}$ and $\mathbf{B}_k$'s onto the first two largest principle components of $\mathbf{D}$, $x_1$ and $x_2$.
The CD $\mathbf{A}$ comes from the experiment of $25\%$ occlusion in Section \ref{exp:hyprprmtr} and OED $\mathbf{B}$ is construct by using the occlusion patches in (a) with the same setting as the OED in the experiment of $25\%$ occlusion in Section \ref{exp:hyprprmtr} .
$\mathbf{B}_k$ is associated with the $k$th occlusion patch in (a).
(c) Probability density function (PDF) of $\rho_{ij}(\mathbf{A},\mathbf{B})$.
}
\label{fig:relationship_A_B}
\end{figure}
In \figurename{~\ref{fig:relationship_A_B}\subref{fig:correlation_A_B_AB}}, due to lack of proper method to measure the degree of linear independence, we adopt the correlation between two vectors to approximately indicate the degree of linear independence on account of the equivalence between uncorrelation and independence for two vectors~\cite{rodgers1984linearly}.
The correlation is measured with the Pearson correlation coefficient.
Let $\mathbf{X}\in \mathbb{R}^{m\times n_x}$ and $\mathbf{Y}\in \mathbb{R}^{m\times n_y}$ be two matrices and $\mathbf{x}_i=[\cdots,x_{li},\cdots]^T$ and $\mathbf{y}_i=[\cdots,y_{li},\cdots]^T$ be the $i$th column vectors of $\mathbf{X}$ and $\mathbf{Y}$, respectively.
The Pearson correlation coefficient $\rho_{ij}(\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y})$ between $\mathbf{x}_i$ and $\mathbf{y}_i$ can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{equ:correlation_def}
\rho_{ij}(\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y})=\frac{\sum_{l=1}^{m}(x_{li}-\bar{x}_i)(y_{lj}-\bar{y}_j)}{\sqrt{\sum_{l=1}^{m}(x_{li}-\bar{x}_i)^2}\sqrt{\sum_{l=1}^{m}(y_{lj}-\bar{y}_j)^2}},
\end{equation}
where $\bar{x}_i=\frac{1}{m}\sum_{l=1}^{m}x_{li}$ and $\bar{y}_j=\frac{1}{m}\sum_{l=1}^{m}y_{lj}$ are the sample means of $\mathbf{x}_i$ and $\mathbf{y}_j$, respectively.
A high magnitude of $\rho_{ij}(\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y})$ indicates a strong correlation between $\mathbf{x}_i$ and $\mathbf{y}_i$.
As can be seen in \figurename{~\ref{fig:relationship_A_B}\subref{fig:correlation_A_B_AB}}, $\rho_{ij}(\mathbf{A},\mathbf{B})$ locates around zero with a mean magnitude of $0.0514$.
This indicates that the $\mathbf{A}$ and $\mathbf{B}$ are close to be uncorrelated and independent.
These results substantiate our assumption that the DFVs and OEVs locate in distinct and linearly independent low-dimensional subspaces.
Although the assumption of independence does not hold strictly in practice, close to independence can occur with high probability, owing to the different value ranges for the DFV elements and OEV elements.
The value range for the DFV elements is asymmetric, whereas that for the OEV elements is symmetric.
For instance, the ReLU layer has a non-negative range of output, as a result, the output DFV of the ReLU layer only has non-negative elements.
On the contrary, the elements of the OEV can take both positive and negative values since no constraint is set on the range of the values.
A popular method to solve equation (\ref{equ:prblm_frmltn_rewriting}) is the LS estimates~\cite{schmidt2005least}.
Generally, equation (\ref{equ:prblm_frmltn_rewriting}) has multiple solutions \footnote{In typical applications, the column rank of $\mathbf{D}$ is smaller than $n_\mathbf{A}+p_\mathbf{B}$}, not all of which can improve the performance.
Nevertheless, by imposing proper restriction on the decomposition coefficients, a solution with the class part $\mathbf{A}\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ close to $\mathbf{v}_{0i}$ and falling into the correct class cluster can be achieved, since $\mathbf{A}$ and $\mathbf{B}$ closely satisfy the preceding assumption on subspace and linear independence.
Regularization is a common approach to constrain the coefficients.
With the regularization, the solution of equation (\ref{equ:prblm_frmltn_rewriting}) can be written in a general form as
\begin{equation}\label{equ:general_cnstrnt_decompsition}
\hat{\boldsymbol{\omega}}=\operatorname*{argmin}_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\{||\mathbf{v}_i-\mathbf{D}\boldsymbol{\omega}||_2^2+\lambda g(\boldsymbol{\omega})\},
\end{equation}
where $\lambda$ is a positive hyperparameter and $g(\boldsymbol{\omega})$ the regularization function.
By using $\hat{\boldsymbol{\omega}}$, we can estimate $\mathbf{v}_{0i}$ with equation (\ref{equ:dfv_rcvry}).
\subsubsection{Regularization}\label{sec:regularization}
$l_1$-norm and squared $l_2$-norm are two commonly selected regularization functions.
The $l_1$-norm leads to a sparse solution \cite{tropp2006just}\cite{donoho2008fast} with high computational cost,
while the squared $l_2$-norm has analytical solution and low computational complexity.
Both of them are studied in this paper.
For $l_1$-norm regularization, we name the approach SDBE\_L1 and equation (\ref{equ:general_cnstrnt_decompsition}) becomes
\begin{equation}\label{equ:l1norm_cnstrnt_decompsition}
\hat{\boldsymbol{\omega}}=\operatorname*{argmin}_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\{||\mathbf{v}_i-\mathbf{D}\boldsymbol{\omega}||_2^2+\lambda ||\boldsymbol{\omega}||_1\}.
\end{equation}
Many fast implementations have been proposed for $l_1$-norm regularized LS estimate recently, such as the interior-point method \cite{kim2007interior} and DALM \cite{yang2013fast}.
Even with these fast implementation, the $l_1$-norm regularized LS estimate is still computationally expensive.
For squared $l_2$-norm regularization, we name the approach SDBE\_L2 and equation (\ref{equ:general_cnstrnt_decompsition}) becomes
\begin{equation}\label{equ:l2norm_cnstrnt_decompsition}
\hat{\boldsymbol{\omega}}=\operatorname*{argmin}_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\{||\mathbf{v}_i-\mathbf{D}\boldsymbol{\omega}||_2^2+\lambda ||\boldsymbol{\omega}||_2^2\},
\end{equation}
Equation (\ref{equ:l2norm_cnstrnt_decompsition}) has an analytical solution which can be easily derived as
\begin{equation}
\label{equ:l2norm_sltn}
\hat{\boldsymbol{\omega}}=\mathbf{P}\mathbf{v}_i ,
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{P}=\left(\mathbf{D}^{T}\mathbf{D}+\lambda\mathbf{I}\right)^{-1}\mathbf{D}^{T}$.
Evidently, $\mathbf{P}$ is independent of $\mathbf{v}_i$ and can thus be calculated in advance as a procedure of the training process.
The computational complexity of (\ref{equ:l2norm_sltn}) is just proportional to the number of rows of $\mathbf{P}$, hence $\mathcal{O}(n)$.
Due to the low computational cost, the squared $l_2$-norm regularization is more suitable for the large-scale CD and OED.
In \figurename{~\ref{fig:SDBE_illustration}}, to illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed SDBE to estimate the DFVs of the original occlusion-free images for the occluded images, we apply the SDBE\_L2 approach to the DFVs of the occluded "Beaver" images.
The experiment setting for the SDBE\_L2 approach is the same as the evaluation at $25\%$ occlusion ratio with the OED of case 1 in Section \ref{exp:estmt_accrcy}.
From the results, we can observe that most of the estimations (solid red square markers) fall into the vicinity of the class cluster of the "Beaver" category (red cross markers).
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{./figures/jpeg/tsne/Cyb_fig4.jpg}
\end{center}
\caption{2-D illustration of DFVs of occluded images and occlusion-free images for Caltech-101 dataset. To make a clear presentation, only four categories each with 30 images are shown. The suffix "\_occlusion" denotes the DFV of occluded images and the suffix "\_SDBE" the DFV estimated by using the SDBE\_L2 approach. The base CNN is the ResNet-152 network and the SDBE\_L2 approach is employed to estimate the DFVs of the occlusion-free images. The t-SNE algorithm \cite{maaten2008visualizing} is used to map the DFVs from original $2048$-D to $2$-D for visualization. }
\label{fig:SDBE_illustration}
\end{figure}
The implementation of SDBE-based classification is summarized in Algorithm~\ref{tab:lnnorm_algrthm}.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{The proposed SDBE\_L1 and SDBE\_L2 based classification algorithms}
\label{tab:lnnorm_algrthm}
{\bf Training Process}
\begin{enumerate}
\item\textbf{Input}: a set of training images and a set of extra image pairs.
\item For each image, use CNNs to extract the DFV.
\item Calculate $\mathbf{w}_{ij}$ by using (\ref{equ:wij_dfn}).
\item Construct $\mathbf{D}$ by using all $\mathbf{u}_{ij}$'s and $\mathbf{w}_{ij}$'s.
\item Normalize each column of $\mathbf{D}$ to have unit $l_2$-norm (optional).
\item For SDBE\_L2, calculate $\mathbf{P}=\left(\mathbf{D}^{T}\mathbf{D}+\lambda\mathbf{I}\right)^{-1}\mathbf{D}^{T}$.
\item Train the classifier $\mathcal{C}$ with the column vectors of $\mathbf{A}$ (optional).
\item \textbf{Output}: $\mathbf{D}$ (for SDBE\_L1) or $\mathbf{P}$ (for SDBE\_L2) and $\mathcal{C}$.
\end{enumerate}
{\bf Testing Process}
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textbf{Input}: $\mathbf{D}$ (for SDBE\_L1) or $\mathbf{P}$ (for SDBE\_L2), $\mathcal{C}$ and a query image $\mathbf{y}_{i}$.
\item Use CNNs to extract the DFV of the query image and obtain $\mathbf{v}_i$.
\item Normalize $\mathbf{v}_i$ to have unit $l_2$-norm (optional).
\item For SDBE\_L1, solve least-squares estimation problem (\ref{equ:l1norm_cnstrnt_decompsition}) and obtain $\hat{\boldsymbol{\omega}}=[\hat{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}^T\; \hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}}^T]^T$.\\
For SDBE\_L2, calculate $\hat{\boldsymbol{\omega}}$ via
$\hat{\boldsymbol{\omega}} = \mathbf{P}\mathbf{v}_i$.
\item Estimate $\mathbf{v}_{0i}$ by
$\hat{\mathbf{v}}_{0i}=\mathbf{A}\hat{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}$
\item Normalize $\hat{\mathbf{v}}_{0i}$ to have unit $l_2$-norm (optional).
\item Predict the class of $\hat{\mathbf{v}}_{0i}$ with the classifier $\mathcal{C}$.
\item \textbf{Output}: The class of $\hat{\mathbf{v}}_{0i}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{algorithm}
For some classifiers, e.g., SVM, the input feature vector needs to have unit $l_2$-norm to achieve better performance, whereas, for other classifiers, e.g., the original softmax classifier of the ResNet-152 network, which is trained on unnormalized feature vectors, the input feature vector does not need to have unit $l_2$-norm.
Therefore, the step (5) in the training phase and the step (3) and (6) in the testing phase are optional.
For a classifier requiring a normalized input, these steps will be conducted.
Otherwise, these steps will be skipped.
In addition, since in some application scenarios, for instance the experiments in Section \ref{exp:imagenet}, original softmax classifier of the CNN networks can be applied directly, the step (7) in the training phase is optional.
It is worthwhile to mention that the proposed scheme is generic for the classification of both occluded images and occlusion-free images, as demonstrated in Section \ref{exp:caltech_comprehensive} and \ref{exp:imagenet}.
The occlusion-free image corresponds to $\boldsymbol{\beta}=0$.
\section{Experiments}
\label{sec:Exps}
In this section, we extensively evaluate the proposed SDBE-based classification scheme on two publicly available datasets: Caltech-101 \cite{fei2007learning} and ImageNet \cite{ILSVRC15}.
The Caltech-101 dataset contains images of objects grouped into 101 categories, each with the number of images from 31 to 800, and embedded in cluttered backgrounds with different scales and poses.
The ImageNet is a comprehensive large-scale dataset.
A subset of ImageNet dataset, the ImageNet Large-Scale Visual Recognition Challenge 2012 (ILSVRC2012) \cite{ILSVRC15} classification dataset consisting of 1000 classes, is adopted for evaluation.
Each dataset is split into two set: \emph{class set} and \emph{extra set}.
The training images and the query images of occlusion-free version are drawn from the \emph{class set}.
The occlusion-free images of the extra image pairs are drawn, unless otherwise specified, from the \emph{extra set}.
The ResNet-152 network \cite{he2016deep} pre-trained on the ILSVRC2012 dataset \cite{ILSVRC15} is adopted as the base CNN in the experiments (see supporting document for the experimental results for the pre-trained GoogLeNet\cite{szegedy2015going}).
The activations of the penultimate fully-connected layer, which is of 2048-D for the ResNet-152, are used as the DFV.
Several classifiers including NN, softmax, SVM, and the original softmax classifier of the ResNet-152 are adopted in different experiments to verify the improvement in classification accuracy.
The LIBLINEAR implementation~\cite{fan2008liblinear} of $l_2$-regularized $l_2$-loss linear SVM is adopted for the SVM classifier in all the experiments and the penalty parameter of the linear SVM is selected from a grid set $\Theta=\{2^{-15},\dots,2^0,\dots,2^{15}\}$.
To match the input size of the base CNNs, all of the images are resized to $224\times 224$.
For the evaluations on the Caltech-101 dataset, the image is directly resized to $224\times 224$.
For the evaluations on the ImageNet dataset, the image is a center 224x224 crop from resized image with shorter side equal to 256 and the occluded image is generated by superimposing the occlusion patch onto the crop.
Since there are no suitable publicly available natural images datasets designed for the evaluation of the occluded image classification, we synthesize the occluded images by superimposing the occlusion patch on the resized images for evaluation.
For the experiments on the Caltech-101 dataset, the procedures of $l_2$ normalization (the step (5) in the training phase and the steps (3) and (6) in the testing phase in Algorithm \ref{tab:lnnorm_algrthm}) are adopted.
For the experiments on the ILSVRC2012 dataset, these procedures are skipped, since the original softmax classifier of the base CNN is not trained over the $l_2$ normalized DFVs.
In the experiments,
the DALM \cite{yang2013fast} is adopted for the implementation of $l_1$-norm regularized LS minimization for the SDBE\_L1 approach.
The hyperparameter $\lambda$ is selected from a grid set $\boldsymbol{\Lambda}=\{10^{-6},\dots,0.5,1,\dots,10\}$.
The MatConvNet~\cite{vedaldi15matconvnet} implementation of the ResNet-152 network is used for evaluation.
Unless otherwise specified, the experiments are conducted on a PC with 16GB memory and an i7 CPU and without GPU acceleration.
\subsection{Evaluation on Caltech-101 dataset}\label{exp:caltech101dataset}
The Caltech-101 dataset excluding the "background" category is used to evaluated the basic properties of the proposed SDBE approaches.
In the experiments, the \emph{class set} includes $80$ categories with the names from "accordion" to "schooner" in alphabet order.
The remaining $21$ categories are treated as the \emph{extra set}.
The images of the training set consisting of $80$ categories are randomly drawn from each category of the \emph{class set}.
Except for the experiments in Section \ref{sec:size_cd}, each category of the training set contains $30$ images (the largest popular number of training images recommended on the website of the Caltech-101 dataset~\cite{caltech101website}).
For the evaluations at each occlusion ratio (except $0\%$ occlusion), the OED is formed by stacking the OEVs associated just with the testing occlusion ratio, e.g., for $25\%$ occlusion, only the OEVs associated with $25\%$ occlusion are included in the OED.
For the evaluations at $0\%$ occlusion, the same OED as that for $25\%$ occlusion is employed.
For clarity, the evaluated classification schemes are termed as a name combination of the proposed SDBE approach and the exploited classifer, e.g. "SDBE\_L1+SVM" indicates that the propsed SDBE\_L1 approach is followed by a linear SVM classifier.
\subsubsection{Estimation accuracy}\label{exp:estmt_accrcy}
This experiment is designed to show the estimation accuracy of the proposed SDBE approaches with respect to the occlusion ratio and the selection of occlusion-free extra images.
Two kinds of occlusion-free extra images are evaluated,
\begin{itemize}
\item Case 1: the occlusion-free extra images are drawn from the \emph{extra set};
\item Case 2: the occlusion-free extra images are drawn from the training images.
\end{itemize}
For a fair comparison, the OEDs of both cases are kept in similar size.
We randomly draw $30$ images from each category of the \emph{extra set} in case $1$ and $8$ images from each category of the training images in case $2$.
In the experiment, all of the occluded images are contaminated at the respective image centers.
Four occlusion patches collected from the outside of the \emph{class set} and extra set, as shown in \figurename{~\ref{fig:Inc_cntr_occ}}(a), are used to synthesize the occluded images.
Only the first one is used to produce the query images, while all of four occlusion patches are employed to generate the occluded extra images.
Therefore, in the OED, the last three occlusion patches in \figurename{~\ref{fig:Inc_cntr_occ}}(a) are
regarded as the interferences.
Eventually, for each evaluation, the OED includes $30*21*4=2520$ OEVs for case 1 and $8*80*4=2560$ OEVs for case 2.
In order to eliminate the impact of the error caused by \emph{class subspace} approximation and assess the estimation error directly, the occluded query images are synthesized by corrupting the training images.
In the experiment, the estimation error is measured with the Euclidean distance, i.e., $||\mathbf{v}_{0i}-\hat{\mathbf{v}}_{0i}||_2$.
An NN classifier is adopted to determine the category of the query image.
The best results with respect to $\lambda\in\boldsymbol{\Lambda}$ for each occlusion ratio are shown in \figurename{~\ref{fig:Inc_cntr_occ}}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\fontsize{8}{8}\selectfont
\subfloat[]{
\begin{minipage}{0.10\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{./figures/jpeg/occ_imgs/257_0002.jpg}\\
1
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.10\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{./figures/jpeg/occ_imgs/baboon.jpg}\\
2
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.10\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{./figures/jpeg/occ_imgs/ILSVRC2012_val_00002789.jpg}\\
3
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.10\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{./figures/jpeg/occ_imgs/ILSVRC2012_val_00003961.jpg}\\
4
\end{minipage}
}\\
\subfloat[]{
\begin{minipage}{0.10\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{./figures/jpeg/occ_samples/image_0011-257-1-5.jpg}\\
$5\%$
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.10\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{./figures/jpeg/occ_samples/image_0011-257-1-10.jpg}\\
$10\%$
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.10\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{./figures/jpeg/occ_samples/image_0011-257-1-15.jpg}\\
$15\%$
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.10\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{./figures/jpeg/occ_samples/image_0011-257-1-20.jpg}\\
$20\%$
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.10\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{./figures/jpeg/occ_samples/image_0011-257-1-25.jpg}\\
$25\%$
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.10\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{./figures/jpeg/occ_samples/image_0011-257-1-30.jpg}\\
$30\%$
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.10\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{./figures/jpeg/occ_samples/image_0011-257-1-35.jpg}\\
$35\%$
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.10\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{./figures/jpeg/occ_samples/image_0011-257-1-40.jpg}\\
$40\%$
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.10\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{./figures/jpeg/occ_samples/image_0011-257-1-50.jpg}\\
$50\%$
\end{minipage}
}
\\
\subfloat[]{
\begin{minipage}{0.48\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{./figures/jpeg/dct_incld_tst/ResNet-152-incld-tst-inclsv-exclsv-trn_accuracy_graph.jpg}
\end{minipage}
}
\subfloat[]{
\begin{minipage}{0.48\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{./figures/jpeg/dct_incld_tst/ResNet-152-incld-tst-inclsv-exclsv-trn_meanerror_graph.jpg}
\end{minipage}
}
\caption{Comparison of classification accuracies and estimation errors with respect to occlusion ratio for different classification schemes. (a) Four occlusion patches used in the experiment. (b) The examples of occluded images with various occlusion ratios.
(c) Classification accuracies and (d) estimation errors for the pre-trained ResNet-152 base CNN.
SDBE\_L1 mean error and SDBE\_L2 mean error are the mean estimation errors of the proposed SDBE\_L1 and SDBE\_L2, respectively, and the original mean error is the mean distance between $\mathbf{v}_i$ and $\mathbf{v}_{0i}$ for the query images occluded with testing occlusion ratio.
}
\label{fig:Inc_cntr_occ}
\end{figure}
From \figurename{~\ref{fig:Inc_cntr_occ}}, we have the following observations.
\begin{enumerate}
\item For both of the cases, the mean estimation errors of the SDBE\_L1 and SDBE\_L2, except for zero occlusion, are much smaller than the original mean errors.
\item For both of the cases, except for zero occlusion, the SDBE\_L1 and SDBE\_L2, though with pretty large mean estimation errors, significantly improve the classification accuracy, especially at the high occlusion ratios.
\item The SDBE\_L2 in case 2 achieves higher classification accuracy with larger estimation error than the SDBE\_L1 in case 1.
\item The SDBE\_L1 leads to much smaller estimation error and much higher classification accuracy than the SDBE\_L2 for each case.
\item For zero occlusion, the classification scheme with either the SDBE\_L1 or the SDBE\_L2 achieves the same classification accuracy as that without the proposed SDBE approaches. The SDBE\_L1 can keep the DFV almost intact for zero occlusion.
\item The OED of case 2 achieves higher classification accuracy than the OED of case 1.
\end{enumerate}
The first observation demonstrates the effectiveness of the proposed SDBE approaches to estimate the DFV of the original occlusion-free image.
The second and third show that the target of classification differs from that of signal recovery.
In classification, the estimation with larger error can be acceptable as long as it gives rise to a better classification result.
For the fourth, it is mainly because the CD $\mathbf{A}$ contains $\mathbf{v}_{0i}$ such that the sparsest solution, $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ with just one nonzero entry corresponding to $\mathbf{v}_{0i}$, becomes the best solution.
Nevertheless, in a more frequently encountered situation that $\mathbf{A}$ does not include $\mathbf{v}_{0i}$, the difference between the SDBE\_L1 and the SDBE\_L2 can be very small, even unnoticeable, in terms of classification accuracy, given a powerful classifier.
The fifth observation indicates that the proposed SDBE\_L1 and SDBE\_L2 are generic for
the classification of both occluded query images and occlusion-free query images (corresponding to zero occlusion).
This property is also demonstrated in the following experiments.
The sixth observation is because the OEVs generated by using the images drawn from the categories of the query images are related more tightly to the OEVs of the occluded query images.
Nevertheless, case 1 is more frequently encountered in practice, since the occluded images of specified categories are more difficult to collect than those of arbitrary categories.
Furthermore, since the performance of case 2 is obviously superior to that of case 1, it is reasonable to assume that a greater improvement is able to be achieved by substituting the OED of case 2 for the OED of case 1.
Therefore, in the following experiment, we just consider the OED of case 1.
\subsubsection{Hyperparameter $\lambda$}\label{exp:hyprprmtr}
This experiment is designed to show the performance variations of the proposed SDBE approaches with respect to the hyperparameter $\lambda$ in terms of classification accuracy.
In the experiment, all of the settings except for the query images and the classifier are the same as case 1 in Section \ref{exp:estmt_accrcy}.
A maximum of 50 images for each category are randomly drawn to synthesize the occluded query images from the \emph{class set} excluding the training images.
Since the occluded query images are synthesized by using the images outside the training set, two more powerful classifiers, linear SVM and softmax, are employed for evaluation.
Two occlusion ratios, $15\%$ and $25\%$, are tested in the experiment.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\fontsize{8}{8}\selectfont
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{./figures/jpeg/lambda/ResNet-152_lambda_Graph.jpg}
\caption{Classification accuracy with respect to $\lambda$ for ResNet-152. The classification results of linear SVM and softmax without the proposed SDBE methods are also shown for comparison.}
\label{fig:hyperpara_lambda}
\end{figure}
The experimental results are shown in \figurename{~\ref{fig:hyperpara_lambda}}.
From the results, we can observe that the performance variations are pretty small in the ranges of $[10^{-6}, 0.1]$ for the SDBE\_L1 and $[10^{-6}, 1]$ for the SDBE\_L2.
In addition, as can be seen, for distinct occlusion ratios, the $\lambda$'s for best results are very similar.
Therefore, the proposed SDBE approaches are not very sensitive to $\lambda$ with respect to occlusion ratio, which can extend the application scenarios of the proposed SDBE approaches.
\subsubsection{OED Size}\label{sec:size_oed}
This experiment is designed to show the classification accuracy with respect to the size setting of the OED.
In the experiment, the settings for the training images, occlusion patches, and query images are the same as those used in Section \ref{exp:hyprprmtr}.
The occlusion-free extra images are randomly drawn from those used in Section \ref{exp:hyprprmtr} according to the size setting of the OED.
Suppose that the occlusion pattern used to contaminate the query images is the $j$th occlusion pattern.
The best experimental result with respect to $\lambda$ for each setting is shown in \tablename{~\ref{tab:cltch101_oed_setting_ResNet}}, where $p_j$, $N_c$, and $N_I$ denote the number of the OEVs associated with the $j$th occlusion pattern, the number of image categories, and the number of occlusion-free extra images per category, respectively, and $p_j=N_c*N_I$.
Since three occlusion patches involved in the construction of OED are taken as the interferences, the overall number of the OEVs in the OED is four times $p_j$.
\begin{table}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\caption{Comparison of OED settings in terms of classification accuracy (\%) for ResNet-152. OR: occlusion ratio.}
\centering
\fontsize{8}{8}\selectfont
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c}
\hline
OR&\multicolumn{3}{c|}{OED} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{SDBE\_L1+} &\multicolumn{2}{c}{SDBE\_L2+} \\
\cline{2-8}
& $p_j$&$N_c$ & $N_I$& SVM &softmax &SVM & softmax \\
\hline
& $21$&$1$ & $21$& 80.3 &76.9 & 79.6& 76 \\
\cline{2-8}
& $21$&$21$ & $1$& 80 &76.7 &80.1 & 76.9 \\
\cline{2-8}
& $105$&$5$ & $21$& 80.7 &77.9 &80.6 & 77 \\
\cline{2-8}
$15\%$&$105$&$7$ & $15$& 81 &78 &80.9 & 77 \\
\cline{2-8}
& $105$&$15$ & $7$& 80.9 &\textbf{79.3} &81.0 & 77.4 \\
\cline{2-8}
& $105$&$21$ & $5$& 80.9 &78.2 &80.7 & \textbf{77.8} \\
\cline{2-8}
& $210$&$21$ & $10$& 81.2 &78.3 &\textbf{81.1} & 77.5 \\
\cline{2-8}
& $630$&$21$ & $30$& \textbf{81.6} &78.4 &80.7 & 77 \\
\hline
& $21$&$1$ & $21$& 66.3 &62.5 &66.5 & 60.3 \\
\cline{2-8}
& $21$&$21$ & $1$& 67.1 &64.1 &66.1 & 62 \\
\cline{2-8}
& $105$&$5$ & $21$& 67.4 &64 &66.9 & 62.1 \\
\cline{2-8}
$25\%$&$420$&$7$ & $15$& 67.8 &64.8 &67.4 & 62.6 \\
\cline{2-8}
& $105$&$15$ & $7$& 67.9 &63.6 &68.1 & 62.9 \\
\cline{2-8}
& $105$&$21$ & $5$& 67.7 &63.3 &67.3 & \textbf{63.6} \\
\cline{2-8}
& $210$&$21$ & $10$& 68.7 &\textbf{66} &68 & \textbf{63.6} \\
\cline{2-8}
& $630$&$21$ & $30$& \textbf{69.3} &\textbf{66} &\textbf{68.4} & 62.8 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:cltch101_oed_setting_ResNet}
\end{table}
From \tablename{~\ref{tab:cltch101_oed_setting_ResNet}}, we can observe that the classification accuracy increases primarily with $p_j$, e.g., $p_j=21,105,210$ and gradually approaches to stable, e.g., $p_j=210,630$,
while, the diversity of the categories does not considerably affect the classification accuracy, e.g., the differences between the classification accuracies are smaller than $1.3\%$ and $1.1\%$ for $N_c=1, 21$ and $N_c=5,7,15,21$, respectively.
The saturation with respect to $p_j$ indicates that the linear span of the OEVs is not effectively extended by excessive OEVs.
The small discrepancy with respect to the diversity of the categories shows that the relative positions between the DFVs of the occluded images and the DFVs of the original occlusion-free images are similar for different categories in the \emph{extra set}.
Therefore, in practice, we do not need to collect too much extra image pairs for each occlusion pattern and less consideration is required on the diversity of the categories when collecting the extra image pairs.
\subsubsection{CD Size}\label{sec:size_cd}
This experiment is designed to show the influence of the size of the CD on the classification accuracy.
In the experiment, two occlusion ratios, $15\%$ and $25\%$, are considered for evaluation.
For the evaluations at each occlusion ratio, the OED, query images, and training images used to train the classifiers are the same as those used for the evaluations at each respective occlusion ratio in Section \ref{exp:hyprprmtr}.
The training images used to construct the CD are randomly drawn from the training images used to train the classifiers according to the size of the CD.
The best classification results with respect to $\lambda$ for each occlusion ratio are shown in \figurename{~\ref{fig:exp_size_cd}}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\fontsize{8}{8}\selectfont
\subfloat[]{
\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{./figures/jpeg/size_cd/Variant-CD-ResNet152-15occ-graph.jpg}
\end{minipage}
}
\subfloat[]{
\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{./figures/jpeg/size_cd/Variant-CD-ResNet152-25occ-graph.jpg}
\end{minipage}
}
\caption{Comparison of classification accuracies with respect to the CD size for different classification schemes with the ResNet-152 network. Each training category contains the same number of images $n_i$. Two occlusion ratios, (a) $15\%$ and (b) $25\%$, with the center contamination are evaluated.}
\label{fig:exp_size_cd}
\end{figure}
From \figurename{~\ref{fig:exp_size_cd}}, we can learn that the CD of extremely small size, e.g., $n_i=1$, leads to a degradation in classification accuracy due to the large error in the approximation of the \emph{class subspace} induced by the extremely under-sample of the CD over the class space.
Fortunately, the classification accuracies, however, increase rapidly with the size of CD, e.g., for $n_i=5$, the classification accuracies of the schemes with the proposed SDBE approaches are much higher than those without, and eventually, the classification accuracies saturate, e.g., for $n_i\geqslant 10$ , the classification accuracies increase very small with the size of the CD.
As analyzed in Section \ref{sec:regularization}, the computational load of the proposed SDBE approaches will rise with the sizes of the CD and the OED.
So, the experiments in Section \ref{sec:size_oed} and \ref{sec:size_cd} reveal that, in practical applications, we can make an optimal trade-off between the classification accuracy and the sizes of the CD and the OED to fulfill a classification accuracy requirement within a limited computational cost.
\subsubsection{Comprehensive classification}\label{exp:caltech_comprehensive}
This experiment is designed to evaluate the proposed SDBE approaches in a comprehensive situation.
In the experiment, for the evaluation at each occlusion ratio, $40$ occlusion patterns, which involve ten occlusion patches manually segmented from the images in the background category, as shown in \figurename{~\ref{fig:cltch_cmprhnsv_example_images}}, each with $4$ random occlusion positions, are employed to construct the OED and synthesize the occluded query images.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\fontsize{6}{8}\selectfont
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{./figures/jpeg/comprehensive_evluation/Cyb_figx-0.jpg}
\caption{Examples of occlusion patches and occluded query images used in the comprehensive experiment on Caltech-101 dataset. For each occlusion ratio, the examples of two occlusion patches are presented so as to show that the random occlusion positions for each occlusion patch are independently sampled.
}
\label{fig:cltch_cmprhnsv_example_images}
\end{figure*}
For the OED, we set $N_c=21$ and $N_I=5$.
The occlusion-free extra images are randomly drawn from each category of the \emph{extra set}.
Then, we have $21*5*40=4200$ OEVs in the OED for the evaluation at each occlusion ratio.
The occlusion-free query images used to synthesize the occluded query images are the same as those used in Section \ref{exp:hyprprmtr}.
The examples of the occluded query images are shown in \figurename{~\ref{fig:cltch_cmprhnsv_example_images}}.
The regularization parameter of the linear SVM and the hyperparameter $\lambda$ of the proposed SDBE approaches are determined by using a $3$-folder cross-validation method.
For a thorough comparison, three conventional classification schemes, of which the classifiers are trained with different training sets, are evaluated.
The first, denoted as 'orginal', is a case frequently encountered in practice, i.e., the training set merely consists of the occlusion-free images, which is the same as those for the proposed SDBE approaches.
The second and third contain the occlusion-free training images used for the first scheme plus occluded training images.
The second, denoted as 'org-full', corresponds to an ideal situation that one can be aware of the information about all occlusion patterns for each occlusion-free training image, i.e., the occluded training images are generated by contaminating each occlusion-free training image with each occlusion pattern.
Such an ideal situation is, however, rarely encountered in practical applications due to the difficulty in collecting real occluded images.
The third, denoted as 'org-partial', employs a training set containing the same number of occluded images as that in the \emph{extra set} used for the proposed SDBE approaches, i.e., the occluded training images are produced by applying each occlusion pattern to a small subset of occlusion-free training images, which consists of $21$ categories each with $5$ images randomly drawn from the occlusion-free training set.
Therefore, in the third case, the classifiers can acquire the same amount of knowledge about the occlusion patterns as the proposed SDBE approaches.
Eventually, in the second and the third case, the training sets are composed of $96000$ and $4200$ occluded training images, respectively.
From \tablename{~\ref{tab:Caltech-101_comprehensive}}, we observe that the 'org-full' schemes achieve the best classification results for the occluded images, but with over $1.3\%$ loss in classification accuracy for the occlusion-free images.
While, the 'org-partial' schemes only show small improvements at the large occlusion ratios ($25\%$ and $35\%$ occlusions for linear SVM classifier and $35\%$ occlusion for softmax classifier).
These results are attributed to inconsistency between the statistics of the training samples and query samples.
For instance, in the 'org-full' schemes, the training sets include much more occluded images than the occlusion-free images and a compromise is made between the occlusion-free and the occluded training images for the classification boundary.
Consequently, for the evaluations at the zero occlusion, where no occluded images are involved in the query images, the performance is degraded.
\begin{table*}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
\centering
\fontsize{8}{8}\selectfont
\begin{tabular}{c|l|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c}
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{OR} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{0\%} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{5\%} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{15\%} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{25\%} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{35\%} \\ \hline
& & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$R$(\%)} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$E$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$R$(\%)} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$E$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$R$(\%)} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$E$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$R$(\%)} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$E$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$R$(\%)} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$E$} \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{orginal} & SVM & 94.89 & 0 & 91.63 & 0.444 & 74.25 & 0.689 & 50.17 & 0.827 & 30.45 & 0.921 \\ \cline{2-12}
& softmax & 93.50 & 0 & 89.65 & 0.444 & 72.30 & 0.689 & 48.84 & 0.827 & 29.37 & 0.921 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{org-partial} & SVM & 94.36 & 0 & 90.76 & 0.444 & 71.95 & 0.689 & 51.15 & 0.827 & 36.53 & 0.921 \\ \cline{2-12}
& sofmax & 93.58 & 0 & 89.88 & 0.444 & 68.75 & 0.689 & 44.08 & 0.827 & 30.58 & 0.921 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{org-full} & SVM & 93.58 & 0 & 93.11 & 0.444 & 88.09 & 0.689 & 81.65 & 0.827 & 74.11 & 0.921 \\ \cline{2-12}
& softmax & 92.15 & 0 & 91.93 & 0.444 & 86.35 & 0.689 & 79.43 & 0.827 & 71.05 & 0.921 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{SDBE\_L1+} & SVM & 95.02 & 0.35 & 92.68 & 0.483 & 85.51 & 0.569 & 74.71 & 0.636 & 62.66 & 0.683 \\ \cline{2-12}
& softmax & 93.12 & 0.495 & 90.86 & 0.483 & 83.12 & 0.569 & 71.58 & 0.636 & 58.09 & 0.686 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{SDBE\_L2+} & SVM & 95.23 & 0.351 & 92.56 & 0.481 & 84.72 & 0.573 & 73.56 & 0.645 & 61.88 & 0.696 \\ \cline{2-12}
& softmax & 93.37 & 0.358 & 90.01 & 0.484 & 81.42 & 0.58 & 69.33 & 0.648 & 55.93 & 0.696 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Comparison of classification accuracies and mean errors with respect to occlusion ratio for different schemes on Caltech-101 dataset. OR: occlusion ratio. $R$: classification accuracy. $E$: magnitude of mean error. For the proposed SDBE\_L1 and SDBE\_L2, mean error is the mean estimation error, and for the conventional schemes, original, org-partial, and org-full, mean error is the mean distance between $\mathbf{v}_i$ and $\mathbf{v}_{0i}$. The pre-trained ResNet-152 network is adopted as the base CNN.}
\label{tab:Caltech-101_comprehensive}
\vspace{-5pt}
\end{table*}
On the contrary, by estimating the DFVs of the occlusion-free images at the testing phase, the proposed SDBE approaches do not change the statistic of the training set and thus, maintain the performance for occlusion-free images and drastically boost the classification accuracy for the occluded images.
For instance, in \tablename{~\ref{tab:Caltech-101_comprehensive}}, at $35\%$ occlusion, the SDBE\_L1 achieves $32.21\%$ and $28.72\%$ increase over the 'original' and $26.13\%$ and $27.51\%$ increase over the 'org-partial' in classification accuracy for the linear SVM and softmax classifier, respectively.
In the meantime, the SDBE\_L1 merely introduce slight changes ($0.13\%$ increase for linear SVM and $0.38\%$ reduction for softmax) under the zero occlusion.
Therefore, for the situation that only a small-scale set of occluded images are available in the training phase, the proposed SDBE-based classification scheme is a better choice than the conventional classification scheme.
By comparing the results for the SDBE\_L1 and SDBE\_L2 in \tablename{~\ref{tab:Caltech-101_comprehensive}}, we can learn that the SDBE\_L1 usually achieves smaller estimation errors and better classification accuracies.
However, with a powerful classifier, such as the linear SVM, which is better than the softmax for small-scale training sets, the SDBE\_L2 achieves similar performance as the SDBE\_L1.
For instance, at the $35\%$ occlusion, the estimation error gaps between the SDBE\_L1 and SDBE\_L2 for the linear SVM and softmax are almost the same, while, the classification accuracy gap for the linear SVM is reduced from $2.19\%$ for the softmax to $0.78\%$.
The major drawback of the SDBE\_L1 as mentioned in the above sections is the high computational complexity.
\subsection{Evaluation on ImageNet dataset}\label{exp:imagenet}
The experiments in this section are designed to evaluate the proposed SDBE approaches on the ILSVRC2012 classification dataset.
The original "fc1000" and "prob" layers of the pre-trained ResNet-152 network, which actually constitute a softmax classifier, are adopted as the classifier in the experiments.
In the experiments, the \emph{class set} consists of $900$ categories randomly drawn from all $1000$ categories and the \emph{extra set} contains $20$ categories randomly drawn from the remaining $100$ categories.
The occlusion patches are segmented from the images of the rest $80$ categories.
The training images used to produce the CD are randomly drawn from the ILSVRC2012 training images of each category in the \emph{class set}.
Two occlusion ratios, $10\%$ and $20\%$, are tested in the experiments.
Unlike the experiments on the Caltech-101 dataset, only one OED is constructed for the testings at different occlusion ratios in this case.
The occlusion-free extra images used to construct the OED have $20$ categories each with $5$ images randomly drawn from the images of the \emph{extra set}.
Two experiments are conducted in this section.
The first experiment focuses on demonstrating the improvements of the SDBE\_L1 and SDBE\_L2 over the original network.
Due to the rapid increase in computational complexity with the sizes of the CD and OED for the SDBE\_L1, the CD and OED of small size are adopted to make the evaluation time tolerable in the first experiment.
The CD consists of $900$ categories each with $5$ DFVs and the OED involving $16$ occlusion patterns is made up of $1600$ OEVs associated with $20$ categories each with $80$ OEVs.
The $16$ occlusion patterns are produced with $4$ occlusion patches, as shown in \tablename{~\ref{tab:ILSVRC_exp1}}, each with two random occlusion positions at each of the two occlusion ratios.
The second experiment aims at showing the scalability of the SDBE\_L2 to handle a large number of occlusion patterns, and thus, only the original network and SDBE\_L2 are evaluated in the second experiment.
The number of the occlusion patterns is extended to $120$ and the number of DFVs in the CD for each category to $20$.
The $120$ occlusion patterns are constituted by $12$ occlusion patches including $4$ occlusion patches used in the first experiment, as shown in \figurename{~\ref{fig:massive_patchs_list}}, each with a center and four random occlusion positions at each of the two occlusion ratios.
Eventually, the CD and OED are composed of $18000$ DFVs and $12000$ OEVs, respectively.
\begin{table}[]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
\centering
\fontsize{8}{8}\selectfont
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{./figures/jpeg/comprehensive_evluation/Cyb_figx-1.jpg}\\
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c|c}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{OR} & \multirow{2}{*}{method} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{occlusion patch} & \multirow{2}{*}{Avg.} \\ \cline{3-6}
& & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & \\ \hline
\multirow{3}{*}{0\%} & Original &\textemdash&\textemdash&\textemdash&\textemdash& 75.39 \\ \cline{2-7}
& SDBE\_L1 &\textemdash&\textemdash&\textemdash&\textemdash& 74.92 \\ \cline{2-7}
& SDBE\_L2 &\textemdash&\textemdash&\textemdash&\textemdash& 74.89 \\ \hline
\multirow{3}{*}{10\%} & Original & 53.56 & 11.08 & 56.32 & 55.39 & 44.09 \\ \cline{2-7}
& SDBE\_L1 & 64.60 & 52.32 & 62.70 & 64.53 & 61.04 \\ \cline{2-7}
& SDBE\_L2 & 64.60 & 52.32 & 62.69 & 64.50 & 61.03 \\ \hline
\multirow{3}{*}{20\%} & Original & 29.70 & 1.77 & 36.89 & 39.42 & 26.94 \\ \cline{2-7}
& SDBE\_L1 & 57.84 & 33.90 & 50.59 & 54.50 & 49.21 \\ \cline{2-7}
& SDBE\_L2 & 57.84 & 33.90 & 50.59 & 54.48 & 49.20 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Comparison of classification accuracy (\%) for different classification schemes on ILSVRC2012 dataset. Four occlusion patches used in the experiment are shown above the table (OR: occlusion ratio). The pre-trained ResNet-152 network is adopted as the base CNN.}
\label{tab:ILSVRC_exp1}
\end{table}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\fontsize{8}{8}\selectfont
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{./figures/jpeg/comprehensive_evluation/Cyb_figx-2.jpg}\\
(a)\\
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{./figures/jpeg/comprehensive_evluation/Cyb_figx-2-1.jpg}\\
(b)
\caption{Examples of the occlusion patches and occluded query images used in the second experiment on ILSVRC dataset. (a) Occlusion patches. (b) examples of the occluded query images. For each occlusion ratio, the examples of two occlusion patches are presented for the random occlusion positions so as to show that the random occlusion positions of each occlusion patch are independently sampled.
}
\label{fig:massive_patchs_list}
\end{figure*}
{ The validation images of the ILSVRC2012 dataset in the \emph{class set} are adopted as the zero occlusion query images for both experiments. In the first experiment, to reduce the workload for the evaluation of the occluded query images, a subset of the zero occlusion query images, $5$ images per category randomly drawn from the zero occlusion query images, are employed to synthesize the occluded query images.
In the second experiment, all of the zero occlusion query images are used to generate the occluded query images.
The examples of the occluded query images for the second experiment are shown in \figurename{~\ref{fig:massive_patchs_list}}.
The hyperparameter $\lambda$ for the proposed SDBE approaches is fixed to $0.005$ for both experiments.}
The results of the first experiment are tabulated in \tablename{~\ref{tab:ILSVRC_exp1}}.
It is evident that the proposed SDBE approaches significantly boost the classification accuracy, e.g., around $22.25\%$ increase in the classification accuracy for $20\%$ occlusion.
We can also observe that for zero occlusion, the SDBE\_L1 and SDBE\_L2 have very small drops ($0.47\%$ and $0.5\%$, respectively) compared to the original network.
This result again demonstrate that the proposed SDBE-based classification scheme is a unified scheme for both occluded and occlusion-free images.
In \tablename{~\ref{tab:ILSVRC_exp1}}, the SDBE\_L1 and SDBE\_L2 show almost the same classification accuracies.
This is because the original softmax classifier of the ResNet-152 network is a very powerful classifier, since it is trained on the large-scale training set of the ILSVRC 2012 dataset.
{The results of the second experiment are reported in \tablename{~\ref{tab:ILSVRC_exp2}}. It can be seen that
SDBE\_L2 achieves $21.8\%$ and $12.62\%$ performance increases at $20\%$ and $10\%$ occlusion, respectively.
The significant improvements demonstrate that the proposed SDBE\_L2
approach is able to deal with a large number of occlusion patterns on a large-scale dataset.}
\begin{table*}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
\centering
\fontsize{8}{8}\selectfont
\begin{tabular}{l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{OR} & \multirow{2}{*}{method} & \multicolumn{12}{c|}{occlusion patch} & \multirow{2}{*}{Avg.} \\ \cline{3-14}
& & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 9 & 10 & 11 & 12 & \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{0\%} & original &\textemdash&\textemdash&\textemdash&\textemdash&\textemdash&\textemdash&\textemdash &\textemdash&\textemdash&\textemdash&\textemdash&\textemdash& 75.39 \\ \cline{2-15}
& SDBE\_L2 &\textemdash&\textemdash&\textemdash&\textemdash&\textemdash&\textemdash&\textemdash&\textemdash&\textemdash &\textemdash&\textemdash&\textemdash& 74.82 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{10\%} & original & 49.56 & 10.29 & 53.52 & 50.62 & 52.53 & 50.43 & 49.37 & 41.31 & 57.90 & 59.68 & 54.05 & 61.36 & 49.22 \\ \cline{2-15}
& SDBE\_L2 & 62.10 & 51.46 & 59.82 & 61.51 & 63.14 & 62.43 & 61.74 & 60.50 & 64.79 & 65.65 & 62.15 & 65.98 & 61.77 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{20\%} & original & 23.86 & 1.75 & 36.39 & 38.50 & 27.38 & 18.05 & 23.99 & 15.62 & 32.40 & 38.21 & 24.08 & 42.70 & 26.91 \\ \cline{2-15}
& SDBE\_L2 & 49.65 & 33.28 & 49.43 & 52.64 & 48.27 & 44.88 & 50.40 & 45.12 & 52.92 & 55.80 & 49.20 & 52.92 & 48.71 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Comparison of classification accuracy (\%) for the conventional scheme and the proposed SDBE\_L2 scheme on ILSVRC2012 dataset (OR: occlusion ratio). The pre-trained ResNet-152 network is adopted as the base CNN. The occlusion patches are shown in \figurename{\ref{fig:massive_patchs_list}(a)}}
\label{tab:ILSVRC_exp2}
\end{table*}
We should also note that, in the above experiments, the classification accuracy of the original ResNet-152 network for the occlusion-free query images is slightly worse than the result reported in \cite{he2016deep}.
This may be caused by the inaccuracy in the re-implementation of the ResNet-152 network in MatConvNet \cite{vedaldi15matconvnet}.
Nevertheless, such a small difference does not devalue the merits of the proposed SDBE-based classification scheme.
\section{Comparison between SDBE\_L1 and SDBE\_L2} \label{sec:further_discussion}
We have introduced two SDBE approaches: SDBE\_L1 and SDBE\_L2.
In this section, to provide a useful guidance for practical applications, we will make a comparison between these two approaches from two aspects: classification accuracy and computaional complexity.
\subsection{Classification accuracy}
We consider two factors in the comparison of classification accuracy.
The first is the set of extra image pairs used to construct the OED.
For case 2 in Section \ref{exp:estmt_accrcy}, the SDBE\_L1 achieves better results than the SDBE\_L2.
The second is the classifier following the SDBE procedure.
For a weak classifier, such as the NN used in Section \ref{exp:estmt_accrcy} and the softmax used in Section \ref{exp:caltech101dataset}, the SDBE\_L1 achieves better classification results, while for a powerful classifier, such as the linear SVM used in Section \ref{exp:caltech101dataset} and the softmax trained on the ILSVRC2012 training set and used in Section \ref{exp:imagenet}, the SDBE\_L2 achieves almost the same (or slightly better in some test points) classification results as the SDBE\_L1.
This can be attributed to the powerfulness of the classifier.
The powerful classifier can generate the category boundaries with a large margin to the training DFVs such that small discrepancy between the SDBE\_L1 estimation and the SDBE\_L2 estimation will not lead to a noticeable difference in the classification results.
\subsection{Computational complexity}
Although, in many cases of the above experiments, the SDBE\_L2 a little bit underperforms the SDBE\_L1 in terms of classification accuracy, it has much lower computational complexity.
As mentioned in Section \ref{sec:regularization}, the SDBE\_L2 has a computational complexity of $\mathcal{O}(n)$ for the testing process.
For instance, in the first experiment of Section \ref{exp:imagenet}, the average execution time per query image for the SDBE\_L2 without GPU acceleration is around $0.005$s, as a comparison, the SDBE\_L1 costs around $10$s.
In addition, the SDBE\_L2 can be implemented as a fully connected linear network layer.
Rewrite $\mathbf{P}$ as $\mathbf{P}=[\mathbf{P}_{\alpha}^T\; \mathbf{P}_{\beta}^T]^T$, where $\mathbf{P}_{\alpha}\in\mathbb{R}^{n_{\mathbf{A}}\times m}$ and $\mathbf{P}_{\beta}\in\mathbb{R}^{p_{\mathbf{B}}\times m}$.
Accordingly, equation (\ref{equ:l2norm_sltn}) becomes $\hat{\boldsymbol{\omega}}=[\hat{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}^T\; \hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}}^T]^T=[(\mathbf{P}_{\alpha}\mathbf{v}_i)^T\; (\mathbf{P}_{\beta}\mathbf{v}_i)^T]^T$.
Then, according to equation (\ref{equ:dfv_rcvry}), $\mathbf{v}_{0i}$ can be estimated by
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:v0i_networklayer}
\hat{\mathbf{v}}_{0i}=\mathbf{A}\mathbf{P}_{\alpha}\mathbf{v}_i.
\end{equation}
Actually, this equation can be implemented as a fully connected layer with connection weight matrix $\mathbf{W}=\mathbf{A}\mathbf{P}_{\alpha}$.
{The weight maxtrix $\mathbf{W}$ can be computed in advance during the training process, and thus, the processing time and memory consumption of the SDBE\_L2 for each query image are independent of the sizes of the CD and OED.
By using the linear network layer implementation and accelerating with a GeForce GTX 1080 Ti GPU, the average execution time per query image for the SDBE\_L2 procedure is less than $0.002$s for the second experiment in Section \ref{exp:imagenet}, on which $\mathbf{W}$ has the largest number of rows ($18000$) in all the experiments.
Another advantage of this implementation is that the computational complexity of the testing process is independent of the size of the OED.}
Low computational complexity is an attribute preferred in the classification of large-scale datasets.
Therefore, for large-scale datasets, where sufficient training images are available to train a powerful classifier, the SDBE\_L2 is a better choice.
On the contrary, for the classification of small-scale datasets or a task insensitive to execution time, the SDBE\_1 can be selected to achieve better classification results.
\section{Conclusion}\label{sec:Conclusion}
In this paper, we have proposed an SDBE-based classification scheme.
The proposed SDBE-based classification scheme has the following characteristics.
\begin{enumerate}
\item It is a unified scheme for the classification of both occluded and occlusion-free images on any image datasets and can significantly boost the classification performance of the occluded images.
\item Dealing with the occlusion in the deep feature space requires a small number of occluded images for training.
A dozen of occluded images for each occlusion pattern are able to improve the classification accuracy significantly.
\item It requires less effort to accommodate new occlusion patterns.
To adapt to a new occlusion pattern, it does not require to re-train or fine-tune the base CNN and only needs to insert the OEVs associated with the new occlusion pattern into the OED.
Re-training or fine-tuning the base CNN is not only time-consuming but also expensive in some applications since, for instance, delivery of the updated CNN model to client ends is expensive, and sometimes unacceptable, in cloud based applications.
\end{enumerate}
{Although the above experiments were conducted with all the occlusion patterns in the query images available to the OED, the proposed SDBE approaches can consistently improve the classification accuracy for the occlusion patterns unseen to the OED (see Section S.II in the supporting document for additional experiments on such a situation).
This means that the proposed SDBE approach can work with any occluded images and it is able to be plugged into any well-trained CNNs.
However, lots of effort is still required towards real applications, such as the optimization of the CD and OED, enhancement of the performance for the occlusion patterns unavailable to the OED (see Section S.II in the supporting document for some clues), and the extension of the proposed approach to other tasks, such as object detection.}
{
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{#1}
\setcounter{equation}{0}}
\renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}
\newcommand{\nlimsup}{\operatornamewithlimits{\overline{lim}}}
\newcommand{\nliminf}{\operatornamewithlimits{\underline{lim}}}
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}[section]
\newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}
\newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition}
\newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}
\theoremstyle{definition}
\newtheorem{assumption}{Assumption}[section]
\newtheorem{definition}{Definition}[section]
\theoremstyle{remark}
\newtheorem{remark}{Remark}[section]
\newtheorem{example}{Example}[section]
\newcommand{\tr}{\text{\rm tr}\,}
\newcommand{\loc}{\text{\rm loc}}
\makeatletter
\def\dashint |
\section{Introduction}
Given a table-top scene containing nuts, screws, washers and placeholders, we aim to tell the location and heading of the nuts (Figure \ref{fig:original_problem}). Since our only source of depth sensor is a static RGB-D camera, which is located at the left side of the table, a left nut tends to block the view of a right nut and so on. Therefore, we cannot assume that the point clouds will cover the whole nuts. Additionally, the quality of the point clouds that we receive is only useful in finding the centroid of the nut, not estimating the pose of the whole nut. Therefore, relying exclusively on the input point clouds to register the nut and estimate the pose is prone to errors. In this report we present a solution by matching edges detected in that photo to projected 3D edges from rendered models of the nut. Note that in this problem, we only have two inputs dataset, as the setup of the challenge is fixed.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{fig1.jpg}
\caption{}
\label{subfig:original_problem_left}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{fig7.jpg}
\caption{}
\label{subfig:original_problem_right}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{The scenes where we try to detect poses of the nuts}
\label{fig:original_problem}
\end{figure}
\section{Our Approach}
In this section we detail our method to solve the position matching of nuts and screws with a limited number of training samples, which is given through bagfiles. Since a bagfile gives point cloud messages separately at unknown time, the complete information about a nut segmentation is not available until the end of the bagfile. To avoid estimating a centroid with uncompleted point clouds, we only calculate the centroid after $N=11$ messages, $N$ is the number of point cloud messages in our bagfile.
\subsection{Data preprocessing}
First, from the bagfile, we only take in account the point clouds whose centroid lies between a lower and upper threshold on the table and satisfies a number of parameters that we have defined as follow:
\paragraph{\texttt{min\_points}} Minimum number of points per cluster. This parameter serves to reduce noisy point clouds taken from the camera without discarding tiny bits of information. In our experiment, \texttt{min\_points} should not be larger than eight to ensure that we take in to account information of all nuts.
\paragraph{\texttt{min\_heights}} Minimal height of points with respect to the support plane in meters. \texttt{min\_heights} should be large enough to reduce unnecessary noise on the surface of the table. A too large value leads to reduced amount of points in the point cloud. In this experiment, we find the value of 0.008 gives the best result.
\paragraph{\texttt{max\_heights}} Maximal height of points with respect to the support plane in meters. We want to include the whole screws here for better filtering. Since the lower end of a screw has a similar shape to a nut, setting an incorrect value can make the program recognize the end of a screw as a nut. \texttt{max\_heights} should be a value larger than the height of a screw (0.12 meters) to ensure that we can differentiate between objects by their dimensions (Screws, washers, nuts).
\paragraph{\texttt{distance\_tolerance}} If the distance between two closest point in two point clouds is smaller than a value, these two point clouds can be merged together. There are cases that a screw comes in two separated point clouds, which leads to difficulties in distinguishing between nuts and screws, so it is desirable to merge these.
We then further compute a minimal bounding box around each point cloud to get its $x,y,z$ dimensions. We filter out point clouds by comparing their dimension size to a reference value which is taken from a real nut (Figure \ref{fig:before_after}). If the distance between two centroids is small enough, we merge these point clouds.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.2]{fig2.jpg}
\caption{Left: Original point cloud data. Right: Filtered point cloud data.}
\label{fig:before_after}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Nuts pose detection}
Since our only data are from RGB-D caption of scene in Figure \ref{fig:original_problem}, we exploiting the symmetry of a nut and notice that the pose of a nut
is periodic in an interval of $60^\circ$. Therefore, from a given viewpoint and a centroid of a nut, we iterate through yaws from $[0^\circ$,$60^\circ] \approx [0,1.05]$ radian, with
an interval of 0.15 radian and render a nut with that yaw using a given CAD
model of a real nut. In this current yaw rotation setting, the maximum yaw
error is 0.075 radian (half of the rotation interval).
We use the Scharr edge-detector and thresholding we generate a binary image of edges out of the camera photo (e.g. Figure \ref{fig:original_problem}). We then build a model of a nut (Figure \ref{fig:nut}) and project it to the binary image, varying the pose to maximize the score as in Algorithm \ref{alg:myalgo}. The result is in Figure \ref{fig:project_to_bin_img}
\begin{figure}[htpb]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.6]{fig3.jpg}
\caption{Modeled nut using the method described in \cite{choi}. The meaning of points is as follow. Blue points: Boundary edges. Green points: Occluding edges. Red points: Occluded edges. Yellow points: High curvature edges}
\label{fig:nut}
\end{figure}
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Edge ranking algorithm}
\label{alg:myalgo}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Function{EdgeRanking}{$occluding\_edges, boundary\_edges, high\_curv\_edges$} \funclabel{alg:a} \label{alg:a-line}
\For {edge \textbf{in} $occluding\_edges, boundary\_edges, high\_curv\_edges$}
\For {point \textbf{in} edge}
\State {score=(\Call{E}{$x \pm 1,y$}+\Call{E}{$x,y \pm 1$}+\Call{E}{$x \pm 1,y \pm 1$}+\Call{E}{$x,y$}) / 9}
\If {score $\geq$ threshold}
\State hits++
\Else
\State miss++
\EndIf
\EndFor
\EndFor
\State \Return hits / (hits+miss)
\EndFunction
\Statex
\Function{E}{$x,y$} \funclabel{alg:b}
\If {there is an edge pixel in threshold image at location($x$,$y$)}
\State\Return 1
\Else
\State\Return 0
\EndIf
\EndFunction
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{fig4.jpg}
\caption{Projected 3d nuts to image}
\label{fig:project_to_bin_img}
\end{figure}
\section{Result}
Our result is depicted in Table \ref{tbl:left} and Table \ref{tbl:right}. As can be seen in the picture, the occluded edge (The red points in Figure \ref{fig:nut}) is not showed in the 2D image, so we remove them from consideration. We rank all remaining kinds of edges to find the best score.
\begin{table}
\centering
\ra{1.3}
\caption{Score of every nut from Figure \ref{subfig:original_problem_left}}
\label{tbl:left}
\begin{tabular}{@{}lccccc@{}}
\toprule
& Occluding edges & Boundary edges & High curvature edges & Score & Yaw \\
\midrule
Nut 1 & 0.770833 & \textbf{0.524126} & 0.527473 & 0.625914 & 0.15 \\
Nut 2 & 0.676259 & 0.419966 & 0.455598 & 0.641664 & 0.75 \\
Nut 3 & 0.224638 & 0.259197 & \textbf{0.554656} & 0.236202 & 0.3 \\
Nut 4 & 0.666667 & 0.430017 & 0.532075 & 0.605821 & 0.3 \\
Nut 5 & \textbf{0.877863} & 0.448336 & 0.506306 & \textbf{0.730623} & 0.9 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\centering
\ra{1.3}
\caption{Score of every nut from Figure \ref{subfig:original_problem_right}}
\label{tbl:right}
\begin{tabular}{@{}lccccc@{}}
\toprule
& Occluding edges & Boundary edges & High curvature edges & Score & Yaw \\
\midrule
Nut 1 & \textbf{0.95679} & 0.528044 & \textbf{0.700269} & \textbf{0.728368} & 0.15\\
Nut 2 & 0.643243 & 0.415829 & 0.40479 & 0.487954 & 0.6 \\
Nut 3 & 0.50303 & 0.389349 & 0.454321 & 0.4489 & \textbf{0.75}\\
Nut 4 & 0.645349 & \textbf{0.535885} & 0.669963 & 0.617066 & 0.3 \\
Nut 5 & 0.486188 & 0.506477 & 0.506767 & 0.49981 & 0.45 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
As can be seen in Figure \ref{fig:bad_dist} the point cloud of the nut in the middle has a shifted centroid. Thus, the projected edges are also shifted and edge matching is unfeasible. Testing has revealed, that when the score is too low, rendering the nuts yield unreliable results. Due to a lack of testing data, it is still hard to determine an absolute lower bound for the score.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{fig5.jpg}
\caption{Bad distribution of points causes the middle nut to shift along the y-axis in the middle nut}
\label{fig:bad_dist}
\end{figure}
The distribution of the points in the point cloud is affected by the location of the RGB-D camera. In our lab, the camera is at the left side in front of the table, so the point clouds do not cover each nut completely. That makes the calculated centroid of a point cloud to differ greatly from the objects actual position. Therefore, we set the $z$-coordinate of every centroid to the known sum of the table and half of a nut’s height. That position of the camera also explains why the point cloud representation of the two left nuts leads to good results while problems arise in the case of other three nuts. The computed centroids of those nuts are shifted compared to their supposed position. This deviation propagates by projecting the nuts to the edge image. So altogether we have not achieved a reliable edge matching.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.45\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.22]{fig7.jpg}
\caption{}
\label{subfig:last_sample_left}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.45\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.22]{fig6.jpg}
\caption{}
\label{subfig:last_sample_right}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{The result of our method when applying to Figure \ref{subfig:original_problem_right}}
\label{fig:last_sample}
\end{figure}
In case of Figure \ref{fig:last_sample}, the beam emitted by the infrared sensor causes a visible pattern on the camera image, which leads to a tremendous amount of noises. These noises causes falsely edge matching and render the edge image useless for ranking. Because of the noises in this image, Table \ref{tbl:right} shows a pretty good score value for the projected nuts that should not match with the edge image. Still, the perspective of Figure \ref{fig:last_sample} is desirable for detecting the correct pose of a nut because from this viewpoint one can see the complete contours of a nut.
\section{Conclusion}
To improve the results of our projection and edge matching approach, it is unavoidable to rely on additional sensor data. The point clouds are, naturally, important to find out the correct centroid of a nut. Furthermore the quality of the image which is taken for edge detection should be noiseless enough to not worsening the edge matching process. It takes a while to generate every position of the nut. We can improve that by storing all the prerendered nut in a file and access to them, rather than try to rerender everything from scratch. After that we can even lower the yaw-interval to get a more precise result.
Although there has been some improvements, our method is still sensitive to shift variant. That explains the poor result of the middle nut when its point cloud suggests a shifted centroid on the $y$-axis (Figure \ref{fig:bad_dist}). Another improvement would be using the RGB-D camera to take depth in- formation from several positions. Due to lack of additional depth information we could not investigate this any further.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{section: intro}
Coding has been proposed as an effective tool to speed up computations of distributed computing networks. Examples include Coded Distributed Computing (CDC) for MapReduce-like distributed computing platforms \cite{li2018fundamental} and coded data shuffling used in distributed machine learning applications \cite{attia2019shuffling,elmahdy2018shuffling,wan2018fundamental}, where codes are designed to significantly minimize the communication load by increasing the computation capability and/or the storage size on each machine. Another example is to use codes to mitigate the straggler effect in applications such as matrix multiplications \cite{lee2017speeding,yu2018straggler}, where any subset of machines with a cardinality larger than the recovery threshold can recover the matrix multiplication. This eliminates the need to wait for the computation of slow machines.
Similar to straggler mitigation coded computing designs, Coded Elastic Computing (CEC) was introduced by Yang {\it et al.} in 2019 to mitigate {\it preempted} machines \cite{yang2018coded}. In this framework, a storage limited computing network performs computations over many time steps. Between each time step an elastic event may occur where machines become preempted (unavailable) or become available again. Computations are performed on a set of data, for example a matrix, and the computations change each time step. For example, in each time step the data matrix may be multiplied with a different vector. In each time step, the goal becomes to assign computations among the available machines. A naive approach is to assign each machine a non-overlapping part of the data. However, this is inefficient as the storage has to be redefined with each elastic event.
The idea of CEC is to use a Maximum Distance Separable (MDS) code to distribute coded data among the machines. The data is split into $L$ equal sized, disjoint data sets and each machine stores a coded combination of these sets. In this way, each machine only stores an equivalent of an $\frac{1}{L}$ fraction of the data. Furthermore, any computation can be resolved by combining the coded computation results of $L$ machines. Then, given a set of available machines the coded computations are assigned to the machines such that each computation is assigned to $L$ machines. In the original CEC scheme of \cite{yang2018coded}, the authors proposed a ``cyclic" computation assignment such that each machine is assigned the same number computations.
The recent work \cite{dau2019optimizing} also studies CEC and aims to maximize the overlap of the task assignments between computation time steps. With each elastic event, the computation assignment must change. In the cyclic approach in \cite{yang2018coded}, the assignments in the current time step are independent of assignments in previous time steps. In \cite{dau2019optimizing}, the authors design assignment schemes to minimize the changes in the assignments between time steps. In some cases, the proposed assignment schemes were shown to achieve zero transition waste, or minimize the amount of new local computations at the machines. However, both \cite{yang2018coded} and \cite{dau2019optimizing} only study homogeneous computing networks.
In this paper, we propose a CEC framework optimized for a heterogenous network where machines have varying computation speeds. In this setting, more computations are assigned to faster machines and less computations to slower machines to minimize the maximum local computation time among the machines. This assignment problem is non-trivial since by the MDS code design we still require that each computation is assigned to $L$ machines. We propose and solve an optimization problem to find the optimal computation load, or amount of computations assigned to each machine. We then show an assignment exists that yields this computation load and design a low complexity algorithm
to find such an assignment.\footnote{ The CEC assignment algorithm is adapted from our heterogeneous private information retrieval (PIR) storage placement algorithm of \cite{woolsey2019optimal}.} Our proposed CEC design works for an arbitrary set of machine speeds and requires a number of computation assignments at most equal to the number of available machines.
\paragraph*{Notation Convention}
We use $|\cdot|$ to represent the cardinality of a set or the length of a vector
and $[n] := [1,2,\ldots,n]$.
\section{Network Model and Problem Formulation}
\label{sec: Network Model and Problem Formulation}
We consider a set of $N$ machines. Each stores a coded matrix derived from a $q\times r$ data matrix, $\boldsymbol{X}$. The coded matrices are defined by an $N\times L$ MDS generator matrix $\boldsymbol{G}=(g_{n,\ell})$
such that any $L$ rows of $\boldsymbol{G}$ are invertible. The data matrix, $\boldsymbol{X}$, is row-wise split into $L$ disjoint, $\frac{q}{L}\times r$ matrices, $\boldsymbol{X}_1,\ldots ,\boldsymbol{X}_L$. Each machine $n\in[N]$ stores the $\frac{q}{L}\times r$ coded matrix
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{\tilde{X}}_n = \sum_{\ell=1}^{L}g_{n,\ell}\boldsymbol{X}_\ell.
\end{equation}
The machines collectively perform matrix-vector computations over multiple times steps. In a given time step only a subset of the $N$ machines are available to perform matrix computations. More specifically, in time step $t$, a set of available machines $\mathcal{N}_t \subseteq [N]$ aims to compute
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{y}_t = \boldsymbol{X}\boldsymbol{w}_t
\end{equation}
where $\boldsymbol{w}_t$ is some vector of length $r$. The machines of $[N]~\setminus~\mathcal{N}_t$ are preempted and we assume the number of available machines $N_t=|\mathcal{N}_t| \geq L$ as at least $L$ machines are assumed to be available in each time step.
The machines of $\mathcal{N}_t$ do not compute $\boldsymbol{y}_t$ directly. Instead, each machine $n\in \mathcal{N}_t$ computes the set
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{V}_{n} = \left\{ v = \boldsymbol{\tilde{X}}_n^{(i)}\boldsymbol{w}_t : i \in \mathcal{W}_{n} \right\}
\end{equation}
where $\boldsymbol{\tilde{X}}_n^{(i)}$ is the $i$-th row of $\boldsymbol{\tilde{X}}_n$ and $\mathcal{W}_{n}\subseteq\left[ \frac{q}{L}\right]$ is the set of rows assigned to machine $n$ in time step $t$. Furthermore, we define the computation load vector, $\boldsymbol{\mu}$, such that
\begin{equation} \label{eq: compload_vector}
\mu[n] = \frac{|\mathcal{W}_{n}|}{
\left( \frac{q}{L} \right)}, \;\; \forall n \in \mathcal{N}_t
\end{equation}
is the fraction of rows computed by machine $n$ in time step $t$. Note that, $\boldsymbol{\mu}$, $\mathcal{V}_{n}$ and $\mathcal{W}_{n}$ change with each time step, but reference to $t$ is omitted for ease of disposition. Moreover, the machines have varying computation speeds defined by the strictly positive vector, $\boldsymbol{s}$, which is fixed over all time steps. Here, computation speed is the number of row multiplications per unit time. The computation time is dictated by the machine that takes the most time to perform its assigned computations such that the computation time in a particular time step is
\begin{equation}
c(\boldsymbol{\mu}) = \max_{n\in \mathcal{N}_t} \frac{\mu[n]}{s[n]}.
\end{equation}
In a given time step, for each $i\in\left[ \frac{q}{L}\right]$, $L$ machines perform the vector-vector multiplication with the $i$-th row of their local coded matrix and $\boldsymbol{w}_t$. The results are sent to a master node which can resolve the elements of $\boldsymbol{y}_t$ by the MDS code design. To assign each row to $L$ machines, we define $F$ disjoint sets of rows, $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}_t = (\mathcal{M}_{1},\ldots,\mathcal{M}_{F} )$ whose union is $\left[ \frac{q}{L}\right]$. Then, $F$ sets of $L$ machines, $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{P}}_t = (\mathcal{P}_{1} , \ldots , \mathcal{P}_{F} )$, are defined such that $\mathcal{P}_f \subseteq\mathcal{N}_t$ and $|\mathcal{P}_f|=L$ for all $f\in [F]$. The rows of $\mathcal{M}_{f}$ are assigned to the machines of $\mathcal{P}_{f}$. The rows computed by machine $n\in \mathcal{N}_t$ in time step $t$ are in the set
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{W}_{n} = \bigcup \left\{ \mathcal{M}_f : f\in[F], n \in \mathcal{P}_{f}\right\}
\end{equation}
and $\boldsymbol{\mu}$ is a function of $\left(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}_t, \boldsymbol{\mathcal{N}}_t \right)$. The sets $\mathcal{M}_{1},\ldots,\mathcal{M}_{F}$ and $\mathcal{P}_{1} , \ldots , \mathcal{P}_{F}$ and $F$ may vary with each time step.
In a given time step $t$, our goal is to define the computation assignments, $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}_t$ and $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{P}}_t $, such that the resulting computation load vector defined in (\ref{eq: compload_vector}) has the minimum computation time.
In time step $t$, given $\mathcal{N}_t$ and $\boldsymbol{s}$, the optimal computation time, $c^*$, is the infimum of computation time defined by all possible computation assignments, $\left(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}_t, \boldsymbol{\mathcal{P}}_t \right)$, such that
\begin{align}
c^* = &\inf_{\left(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}_t, \boldsymbol{\mathcal{P}}_t \right)}c\left(\boldsymbol{\mu}\left(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}_t, \boldsymbol{\mathcal{N}}_t \right)\right) \nonumber\\
&\text{s.t. }\bigcup_{\mathcal{M}_f \in \boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}_t}\mathcal{M}_f=\left[ \frac{q}{L}\right],\label{eq: optprob_assign}\\
&\;\;\;\;\;\; |\mathcal{P}_f|= L \;\; \forall \mathcal{P}_f \in \boldsymbol{\mathcal{P}}_t,\nonumber\\
&\;\;\;\;\;\; |\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}_t|=|\boldsymbol{\mathcal{P}}_t|. \nonumber
\end{align}
It can be seen that the optimization problem (\ref{eq: optprob_assign}) is combinatorial such that the optimal solution and the optimal value are non-trivial. In Sections~\ref{sec: compload} and \ref{sec: compassign}, we solve this combinatorial optimization problem by decomposing it into two sub-problems: 1) a convex optimization problem to find an optimal $\boldsymbol{\mu}$ without the consideration of a specific computation assignment and 2) a computation assignment problem. Moreover, we show that an optimal assignment, $\left(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}_t, \boldsymbol{\mathcal{P}}_t \right)$, can be found via a low complexity algorithm.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\centering \includegraphics[width=18.25cm]{ElasticFig1_v3.pdf}
\put(-155,59.5){a) no preempted machines, $t=1$}
\put(-63.5,59.5){b) one preempted machine, $t=2$}
\put(-155,25){c) two preempted machines, $t=3$}
\put(-63.5,25){d) three preempted machines, $t=4$}
\put(-98,-3){e) legend}
\put(-128.5,14.5){{\large$\mathcal{M}_1$}}
\put(-114.75,14.5){{\large$\mathcal{M}_2$}}
\put(-101,14.5){{\large$\mathcal{M}_3$}}
\put(-87.25,14.5){{\large$\mathcal{M}_4$}}
\vspace{-0.cm}
\caption{~\small Optimal computation assignments over $4$ times steps on a heterogeneous CEC network.}
\label{fig: exp1}
\vspace{-0.4cm}
\end{figure*}
\section{An Example}
\label{sec: example}
There are a total of $N=6$ machines where each has the storage capacity to store $\frac{1}{3}$ of a data matrix $\boldsymbol{X}$. In time step $t$, the machines have the collective goal of computing $\boldsymbol{y}_t=\boldsymbol{X}\boldsymbol{w}_t$ where $\boldsymbol{w}_t$ is some vector. In order to allow for preempted machines, $\boldsymbol{X}$ is split row-wise into $L=3$ sub-matrices, $\boldsymbol{X}_1$, $\boldsymbol{X}_2$, and $\boldsymbol{X}_3$ and a MDS code is used to define the matrices $\{\boldsymbol{\tilde{X}}_n : n\in[N] \}$ which are stored among the machines.
This placement is designed such that any element of $\boldsymbol{y}_t$ can be recovered by obtaining the corresponding coded computation from any $3$ machines. For example, the first element of $\boldsymbol{y}_t$ can be recovered from the results of machines $1$, $3$ and $5$ multiplying the top row of their respective coded matrix with $\boldsymbol{w}_t$. To recover the entirety of $\boldsymbol{y}_t$, we split the coded matrices into sets of rows, such that each set is used for computation at $L=3$ machines.
The machines have relative computation speeds defined by
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{s} = [\;2,\;\;2,\;\;3,\;\;3,\;\;4,\;\;4\;].
\end{equation}
Machines $5$ and $6$ are the fastest machines and can perform row computations twice as fast as machines $1$ and $2$. Machines $3$ and $4$ are the next fastest machines and can perform matrix computations $1.5$ times as fast as machines $1$ and $2$. Our goal is to assign computations, or rows of the coded matrices, to the machines to minimize the overall computation time such that each computation is assigned to $3$ machines.
In time step $1$, there are no preempted machines and $\mathcal{N}_1~=~\{1,\ldots, 6 \}$. We assign fractions of the rows to the machines defined by the computation load vector
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{\mu} = \left[\;\frac{1}{3},\;\;\frac{1}{3},\;\;\frac{1}{2},\;\;\frac{1}{2},\;\;\frac{2}{3},\;\;\frac{2}{3}\;\right]
\end{equation}
such that machines $1$ and $2$ are assigned $\frac{1}{3}$, machines $3$ and $4$ are assigned $\frac{1}{2}$ and machines $5$ and $6$ are assigned $\frac{2}{3}$ of the rows of their respective coded matrices. We define $\boldsymbol{\mu}$ such that it sums to $L=3$ and each row can be assigned to $3$ machines. Furthermore, based on the machine computation speeds, the machines finish at the same time to minimize the overall computation time. In Section \ref{sec: compload}, we will discuss
the systematic approach to determine $\boldsymbol{\mu}$. Next, given $\boldsymbol{\mu}$, the rows of the coded matrices must be assigned. We define sets of rows, $\mathcal{M}_{1}$, $\mathcal{M}_{2}$, $\mathcal{M}_{3}$, and $\mathcal{M}_{4}$ which are assigned to sets of machines $\mathcal{P}_{1}$, $\mathcal{P}_{2}$, $\mathcal{P}_{3}$, and $\mathcal{P}_{4}$, respectively. These sets are depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig: exp1}(a) where $\mathcal{M}_{1}$ contains the first $\frac{1}{3}$ of the rows which are assigned to machines $\mathcal{P}_{1} = \{ 1,5,6\}$ and $\mathcal{M}_{2}$ contains the next $\frac{1}{3}$ of the rows and is assigned to machines $\mathcal{P}_{2}=\{2,3,4\}$. Moreover, $\mathcal{M}_{3}$ contains the next $\frac{1}{6}$ of the rows are assigned to machines $\mathcal{P}_{3}=\{3,5,6\}$ and $\mathcal{M}_{4}$ contains the final $\frac{1}{6}$ of the rows are assigned to machines $\mathcal{P}_{4}=\{4,5,6\}$. Later in Section \ref{sec: compassign}, we present Algorithm \ref{algorithm:1}, which defines the computation assignment for general $\boldsymbol{\mu}$. By this assignment, the fraction of rows assigned to machine $i$ sums to $\mu[i]$ and each row is assigned to $L=3$ machines so that the entirety of $\boldsymbol{y}_1$ is recovered.
In time step $2$, $N_t=5$ as machine $4$ is preempted and is no longer available to perform computations. Therefore, the computations must be reassigned. First, we define
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{\mu} = \left[\;\frac{2}{5},\;\;\frac{2}{5},\;\;\frac{3}{5},\;\;0,\;\;\frac{4}{5},\;\;\frac{4}{5}\;\right]
\end{equation}
which sums to $L=3$ and minimizes the overall computation time. Given $\boldsymbol{\mu}$, we then use Algorithm \ref{algorithm:1}, which aims to assign computations to a machine with the least remaining rows to be assigned and $L-1=2$ machines with the most remaining rows to be assigned. For example, in the first iteration, $\mathcal{M}_{1}$ is defined to contain the first $\frac{2}{5}$ rows and is assigned to machines $\mathcal{P}_{1}= \{ 1,5,6\}$. After this iteration, machines $3$, $5$ and $6$ require $\frac{2}{5}$ of the total rows to still be assigned to them and machine $3$ requires $\frac{3}{5}$ of the total rows. In the next iteration, $\mathcal{M}_{2}$ contains the next $\frac{1}{5}$ of the rows and is assigned to $\mathcal{P}_{2}=\{ 2,3,6\}$. Note that, only $\frac{1}{5}$ of the rows could be assigned in this iteration otherwise there would only be two machines, $3$ and $5$, which still require assignments and therefore, the remaining rows cannot be assigned to three machines. In the final two iterations, $\mathcal{M}_{3}$ and $\mathcal{M}_{4}$ contain $\frac{1}{5}$ of the previously unassigned rows and are assigned to the machines of $\mathcal{P}_{3} = \{2,3,5 \}$ and $\mathcal{P}_{4} = \{3,5,6 \}$, respectively. These assignments are depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig: exp1}(b).
Next, in time step $3$, machines $4$ and $6$ are preempted. Similar to previous examples it is ideal to have machines $3$ and $5$ compute $1.5\times$ and $2\times$ the number of computations, respectively, compared to machines $1$ and $2$. However, this is not possible since each machine can be assigned at most a number of rows equal to the number of rows of the coded matrices. In this case, we assign all rows to the fastest machine, machine $5$, and assign fractions of the rows to the remaining machines which sum up to $2$. As a result, we define
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{\mu} = \left[\;\frac{4}{7},\;\;\frac{4}{7},\;\;\frac{6}{7},\;\;0,\;\;1,\;\;0\;\right].
\end{equation}
Then, Algorithm \ref{algorithm:1} defines, $\mathcal{M}_{1}$, $\mathcal{M}_{2}$ and $\mathcal{M}_{3}$, disjoint sets containing $\frac{3}{7}$, $\frac{1}{7}$ and $\frac{3}{7}$ of the rows respectively. Moreover, these row sets are assigned to the machines of $\mathcal{P}_{1}= \{ 1,3,5\}$, $\mathcal{P}_{2}= \{ 1,2,5\}$ and $\mathcal{P}_{3}= \{ 2,3,5\}$, respectively. These assignments are depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig: exp1}(c).
Finally, in time step $4$, machines $1$, $4$ and $6$ are preempted. To assign all the rows to $L=3$ machines, each available machine is assigned all of the rows and
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{\mu} = \left[\;0,\;\;1,\;\;1,\;\;0,\;\;1,\;\;0\;\right].
\end{equation}
In other words, $\mathcal{M}_{1}$ contains all rows and $\mathcal{P}_{1}=\{2,3,5 \}$. This is depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig: exp1}(d).
\section{Optimal Computation Load Vector}
\label{sec: compload}
In this section, we introduce a relaxed optimization problem of (\ref{eq: optprob_assign}) that is convex and solve it to find the optimal computation load vector $\boldsymbol{\mu^*}$ directly from the speed vector $\bold s$ without considering the computation assignment $(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}_t,\boldsymbol{\mathcal{P}}_t)$ explicitly. In Section \ref{sec: compassign}, we will show that there exists a computation assignment $(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}_t,\boldsymbol{\mathcal{P}}_t)$ that yields the optimal computation load vector $\boldsymbol{\mu^*}$ found by the relaxed optimization problem.
Throughout the remainder of this paper, without loss of generality, we assume that $\mathcal{N}_t = \{1,2,\ldots , N_t \}$ where $N_t $ is the number of available machines in time step $t$. We ignore the computation load of any preempted or unavailable machine which is simply $0$.
\subsection{A Relaxed Convex Optimization Problem}
Given a computation speed vector $\bold s$, we define the optimal computation load vector $\boldsymbol{\mu}^*$ to be the solution to the following relaxed optimization problem:
\begin{align}
\boldsymbol{\mu}^* = \;&\underset{\boldsymbol{\mu}}{\mathrm{argmin}}\max_{n\in [N_t]}\frac{\mu[n]}{s[n]} \nonumber\\
&\;\text{s.t.} \sum_{n\in [N_t]}\mu[n] = L \label{eq: optprob}\\
&\;\;\;\;\; 0 \leq \mu[n] \leq 1, \forall n \in [N_t] \nonumber,
\end{align}
which can be shown to be convex.
While computation assignments, $(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}_t,\boldsymbol{\mathcal{P}}_t)$, are not explicitly considered in (\ref{eq: optprob}), we note that the key constraint of $\sum_{n\in [N_t]}\mu[n] = L$ is a relaxed version of that requirement on the computation assignment that each row should be assigned to $L$ machines.
When $N_t=L$, the solution to (\ref{eq: optprob}) is $\boldsymbol{\mu}^* = [1,\dots, 1]$. The analytical solution to (\ref{eq: optprob}) when $N_t>L$ is presented in Theorem \ref{th: load_assignment}.
\begin{theorem}\label{th: load_assignment}
Assume that $N_t>L$ and $s[1] \leq s[2] \leq \cdots \leq s[N_t]$.
The optimal solution $\boldsymbol \mu^*$ to the optimization problem of (\ref{eq: optprob}) must take the following form
\begin{equation}
\mu^*[n]=\begin{cases}
\hat c^* s[n] & \text{if } 1\le n \le k^*\\
1 & \text{if } k^*+1 \le n \le N_t,
\end{cases}
\label{eq:optimal_form}
\end{equation}
where $k^*$ is the largest integer in $[N_t-L+1, N_t]$ such that
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{s[k^*+1]} < \hat c^* = \frac{k^*+L-N_t}{\sum_{n=1}^{k^*}s[n]} \leq \frac{1}{s[k^*]}.
\label{eq: c_bounds-fork}
\end{equation}
Here, ${\hat c}{^*}=c(\boldsymbol \mu^*)$ is the maximum computation time among the $N_t$ machines given the computation load assignment $\boldsymbol \mu^*$.
The left side of (\ref{eq: c_bounds-fork}) is ignored when $k^*=N_t$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{IEEEproof}
\begin{claim}\label{cl: 1}
If $\boldsymbol \mu^*$ is an optimal solution to (\ref{eq: optprob}), then for every $n\in[N_t]$ we must have either $ \mu^*[n] =\hat{c}^* s[n] $ or $1\!=\!\mu^*[n]<\hat{c}^* s[n]$, where ${\hat c}{^*}=c(\boldsymbol \mu^*)$.
\end{claim}
We prove Claim \ref{cl: 1} by contradiction.
Since $\hat c^*=\text{max}_{n \in N_t}\frac{\mu^*[n]}{s[n]}$, we define two disjoint sets $\mathcal{T}_0 \bigcup \mathcal{T}_1=[N_t]$ such that \begin{equation}
\mathcal{T}_0=\{n\in[N_t]:\mu^*[n]=\hat{c}^* s[n]\}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{T}_1=\{n\in[N_t]:\mu^*[n]<\hat{c}^* s[n]\}.
\end{equation}
Assume for there exists some $i\in[N_t]$ such that $ i \in \mathcal{T}_1$ and $\mu^*[i] < 1$.
Define $\boldsymbol{\mu}'$ such that
\begin{align}
\mu'[n] = \left\{ \begin{array}{cc}
\mu^*[n] + \epsilon \hspace{5mm} &\text{if }n=i, \\
\mu^*[n] - \frac{\epsilon}{|\mathcal{T}_0|} \hspace{5mm} &\text{if } n\in\mathcal{T}_0, \\
\mu^*[n] \hspace{5mm} &\text{if } n \in \mathcal{T}_1 \setminus i\\
\end{array} \right.
\end{align}
where $\epsilon >0$ is sufficiently small such that
\begin{equation}
\frac{\mu'[i]}{s[i]} = \frac{\mu^*[i]+\epsilon}{s[i]} < \hat{c}^*
\end{equation}
and for all $n \in \mathcal{T}_0$
\begin{equation}
\mu^*[n] - \frac{\epsilon}{|\mathcal{T}_0|} > 0.
\end{equation}
One can verify that we have $\frac{\mu'[n]}{s[n]} < \hat{c}^*$ for any $n \in [N_t]$ and thus we obtain $c(\mu') < \hat{c}^*$. This contradicts with the assumption that $\boldsymbol{\mu}^*$ is optimal. Thus, it follows that if $n \notin \mathcal{T}_0$, then we must have $n\in \mathcal{T}_1$ and $\mu^*[n]=1$.
\begin{claim}\label{cl: 2}
If $j \in \mathcal{T}_0 $ and $i \in \mathcal{T}_1$, then
$s[j] < s[i]$.
\end{claim}
This follows from
\begin{equation}\label{eq: pfeq1}
\frac{\mu^*[i]}{s[i]}=\frac{1}{s[i]} < \hat{c}^*= \frac{\mu^*[j]}{s[j]} \leq \frac{1}{s[j]}.
\end{equation}
Combining Claims \ref{cl: 1} and \ref{cl: 2}, we find that the optimal solution must take the form of
\begin{equation}
\mu^*[n]=\begin{cases}
\hat c_k^* s[n] & \text{if } 1\le n \le k\\
1 & \text{if } k+1 \le n \le N_t,
\end{cases}
\label{eq:optimal_form_k}
\end{equation}
where $k=|\mathcal{T}_0|$. Next, we will optimize $k$ such that $\hat c_k^*$ is minimized.
Combining (\ref{eq:optimal_form_k}) and (\ref{eq:optimal_form_k}) we obtain (\ref{eq: c_bounds-fork}) since
\begin{align}
L = \sum_{n=1}^{N_t}\mu^*[n]
&= N_t - k + \sum_{n=1}^{k}\mu^*[n] \\
&= N_t - k + \hat{c}_k^*\sum_{n=1}^{k}s[n].
\end{align}
The left-most inequality of (\ref{eq: c_bounds-fork}) follows from $k \in \mathcal{T}_0$ and $\mu^*[k] \le 1$. The right-most inequality of (\ref{eq: c_bounds-fork}) follows from $k+1 \in \mathcal{T}_1$ and $\mu^*[k+1] = 1$.
Since $\bold s$ is an increasing sequence, we see from (\ref{eq: c_bounds-fork}) that $\hat c_k^*$ is maximized when $k$ is chosen to be $k^*$, the largest value in $[N_t-L+1, N_t]$ such that (\ref{eq: c_bounds-fork}) is satisfied.
\end{IEEEproof}
\begin{remark}
The two cases in (\ref{eq:optimal_form}) are determined by whether a machine $n$ satisfies $ \mu^*[n]=\hat c^* s[n]$ or $ \mu^*[n]< \hat c^* s[n]$. For $1 \le n \le k^*$, the equality is achieved and we must have $0< \mu^*[n]\le 1$. When $k^*+1 \le n \le N$, we have the strict inequality and $ \mu^*[n]=1$.
The equality in (\ref{eq: c_bounds-fork}) ensures that $\sum_{n=1}^{N_t} \mu^*[n]=L$; the right-most inequality ensures that $\mu^*[n] \le \mu^*[k^*]=\hat c^* s[k^*] \le 1,$ for any $1\le n \le k^*$; the left-most inequality ensures that for any $k^*+1 \le n \le N$, we have
$ \mu^*[n]< \hat c^* s[n]$. Hence, the worst computation time $\hat c^*$ is induced by the $k^*$ slowest machines.
\end{remark}
Since the optimization problem of (\ref{eq: optprob}) aims to minimize a convex function on a closed and convex set, the existence of an optimal solution is guaranteed. This ensures the existence of
some $k \in [N_t-L+1, N_t]$ such that (\ref{eq: c_bounds-fork}) is satisfied. In the following, we provide a numerical procedure to find $k^*$. First, it is straightforward to verify that if the right-hand-side (RHS) inequality ``$\le $'' of (\ref{eq: c_bounds-fork}) is violated for $k=i$, then the left-hand-side (LHS) inequality ``$<$'' of (\ref{eq: c_bounds-fork}) must hold for $k=i-1$. In other words, for any $i=N_t, \!\cdots, \!N_t\!-\!L+2$,
\begin{equation}
\text{If } \hat c_i^* > \frac{1}{s[i]}, \text{then } \frac{1}{s[i]} < \hat c_{i-1}^*.
\label{eq:equivalent}
\end{equation}
To demonstrate the existence of such a $k$, we first check $k=N_t$. If the RHS of (\ref{eq: c_bounds-fork}) holds, then we have $k^*=N_t$. Otherwise, it follows from (\ref{eq:equivalent}) that the LHS of (\ref{eq: c_bounds-fork}) must hold for $k=N_t-1$. If the RHS of (\ref{eq: c_bounds-fork}) also hold for $k=N_t-1$, then we have $k^*=N_t-1$. Otherwise, it follows from (\ref{eq:equivalent}) that the LHS of (\ref{eq: c_bounds-fork}) must hold for $k=N_t-2$. We continue this process by decreasing $k$ until we find one value of $k$ for which both sides of (\ref{eq: c_bounds-fork}) hold. This process is guaranteed to terminate before reaching $k=N_t-L+1$ for which the RHS of (\ref{eq: c_bounds-fork}) always hold. Hence, this establishes the procedure to find $k^*$ directly using (\ref{eq: c_bounds-fork}).
\subsection{Computation Load Examples}
We return to the first example and explain how to find the optimal computation load vector. When $t=1$, we have $N_t=6, L=3$.
Given $\boldsymbol{s} = [2,\;2,\;3,\;3,\;4,\;4]$, one can verify that the largest $k$ that satisfies (\ref{eq: c_bounds-fork}) is $k^*=6$, and thus $\hat c^*=1/6$, $\boldsymbol{\mu^*}= \hat c^* \boldsymbol{s}=\left[\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{2}{3},\frac{2}{3}\right]$.
Similarly, for $t=2$, since machine 4 preempts, we have now $N_t=5$, and $\boldsymbol{s} = [2,\;2,\;3,\;4,\;4]$ (we ignore any preempted machines). In this case, we have $k^*=5$, and thus $\hat c^*=1/5$, $\boldsymbol{\mu^*}= \hat c^* \boldsymbol{s}=\left[\frac{2}{5},\frac{2}{5},\frac{3}{5}, \frac{4}{5},\frac{4}{5}\right].$
Similarly, for $t=3$, we have $N_t=4$, and $\boldsymbol{s} = [2,\;2,\;3,\;4]$ because machines 4 and 6 preempts.
Here, we have $k^*=3$, $\hat c^*=2/7$, and $\boldsymbol{\mu^*}=\left[\frac{4}{7},\frac{4}{7},\frac{6}{7}, 1\right].$
Note that, similar to the optimization problem of (\ref{eq: optprob}), the computation load of the preempted machines are ignored since they are simply $0$, presenting a slight difference between the optimal computation load vectors presented in Section \ref{sec: example}.
\section{Optimal Computation assignment}
\label{sec: compassign}
In this section, we show that a computation assignment, $(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}_t,\boldsymbol{\mathcal{P}}_t)$, exists that yields the computation load vector, $\boldsymbol{\mu}^*$, and therefore is an optimal assignment. Moreover, we will provide an iterative algorithm to define such an assignment.
Our goal is to assign computations among the machines such that each computation is assigned to $L$ machines and the assignments satisfy $\boldsymbol{\mu}^*$. This is equivalent to the filling problem (FP) introduced in \cite{woolsey2019optimal} and necessary and sufficient conditions were derived for the existence of the solution.
In particular, a solution exists {\it if and only if}
\begin{align}
\mu^*[n] \leq \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{N_t}\mu^*[i]}{L}
\end{align}
for all $n \in [N_t]$. In this case, we see that $\sum_{i=1}^{N_t}\mu^*[i]=L$ and $\mu^*[n]\leq 1$ for all $n \in [N_t]$. Therefore, an optimal computation assignment exists. Moreover, we provide Algorithm \ref{algorithm:1} to define the optimal computation assignment, $\left(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}_t, \boldsymbol{\mathcal{P}}_t \right)$.\footnote{Algorithm \ref{algorithm:1} is adapted from our previous work \cite{woolsey2019optimal} for storage placement in private information retrieval. More details of Algorithm \ref{algorithm:1} are found in \cite{woolsey2019optimal}.}
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Computation Assignment: Heterogeneous CEC}
\label{algorithm:1}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\item[ {\bf Input}: $\boldsymbol{\mu}^*$, $N_t$, $L$, and $q$ ]
\item $\boldsymbol{m} \leftarrow \boldsymbol{\mu}^*$
\item $f \leftarrow 0$
\While {$\boldsymbol{m} > \boldsymbol{0}$}
\State $f \leftarrow f+1$
\State $L' \leftarrow \sum_{n=1}^{N_t}m[n]$
\State $\boldsymbol{\ell} \leftarrow$ indices of non-zero elements of $\boldsymbol{m}$ from smallest to largest
\State $N'\leftarrow$ number of non-zero elements in $\boldsymbol{m}$
\State $\mathcal{P}_{f} \leftarrow\{\ell [1], \ell [N'-L+2] , \ldots , \ell [N'] \}$
\If {$N' \geq L+1$}
\State $\alpha_f \leftarrow \min \left(\frac{L'}{L} - m[\ell[N' - L + 1]], m[\ell[1]]\right)$
\Else
\State $\alpha_f \leftarrow m[\ell[1]]$
\EndIf
\For {$n \in \mathcal{P}_{f}$}
\State $m[n] \leftarrow m[n] - \alpha_f$
\EndFor
\EndWhile
\item $F \leftarrow f$
\State Partition rows $[\frac{q}{L}]$ into $F$ disjoint row sets: $\mathcal{M}_{1}, \ldots , \mathcal{M}_{F}$ of size $\frac{\alpha_1 q}{L},\ldots,\frac{\alpha_{F}q}{L}$ rows respectively
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{remark}
In \cite{woolsey2019optimal}, Algorithm \ref{algorithm:1} was shown to take at most $N_t$ iterations to complete. Therefore, $F \leq N_t$ and at most there are $N_t$ computations assignments.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Example Using Algorithm \ref{algorithm:1}}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\centering \includegraphics[width=8cm]{elastic_comp_table.pdf}
\put(-75,43.2){$f$}
\put(-67.5,43.2){$\alpha_f$}
\put(-60,43.2){$m[1]$}
\put(-51.5,43.2){$m[2]$}
\put(-43,43.2){$m[3]$}
\put(-34.5,43.2){$m[4]$}
\put(-26,43.2){$m[5]$}
\put(-17.5,43.2){$m[6]$}
\put(-8,43.2){$L'$}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\caption{~\small Task assignment by Algorithm \ref{algorithm:1} for example of \ref{sec: example} $(t=2)$.}
\label{table: example}
\vspace{-0.4cm}
\end{figure}
We return to the example of Section \ref{sec: example} and use Algorithm \ref{algorithm:1} to derive the computation (row) assignments for $t=2$. The steps of the algorithm are shown in Fig.~\ref{table: example}. In the first iteration, $f=1$, $\boldsymbol{m}=\boldsymbol{\mu}$ as no computations have been assigned yet. Rows of the respective coded matrices are assigned to machine $1$, which is a machine with the least remaining computations to be assigned, and machines $5$ and $6$ with the most remaining computations to be assigned. Moreover,
\begin{equation}
m[1] = \frac{2}{5} \leq \frac{L'}{L} - m[3] = 1 - \frac{3}{5}=\frac{2}{5}
\end{equation}
where machine $3$ is the machine with the most remaining rows to be assigned that is not included in $\mathcal{P}_1=\{1,5,6\}$. Therefore, a fraction $\alpha_1=\frac{2}{5}$ of the rows are assigned to machines ${1,5,6}$. Then, $\boldsymbol{m}$ is adjusted to reflect the remaining computations to be assigned and $L'=3-3\alpha_1 = \frac{9}{5}$.
In the second iteration, $f=2$, machine $2$ is a machine with the least remaining rows to be assigned. Computations are assigned to machine $2$ and machines $3$ and $6$ which are a pair of machines with the most remaining computations to be assigned. Ideally, we would like to assign all the remaining rows to machine $2$. However,
\begin{equation}
m[2] = \frac{2}{5} > \frac{L'}{L} - m[5] = \frac{3}{5} - \frac{2}{5}=\frac{1}{5}
\end{equation}
and assigning the remaining rows to machine $2$ in this iteration will prevent a valid solution going forward. Therefore, $\alpha_2=\frac{1}{5}$ and after this iteration $\boldsymbol{m}$ and $L'$ are adjusted accordingly.
In the third iteration, $f=3$,
\begin{equation}
m[2] = \frac{1}{5} \leq \frac{L'}{L} - m[6] = \frac{2}{5} - \frac{1}{5} = \frac{1}{5}
\end{equation}
and an $\alpha_3=\frac{1}{5}$ of the rows are assigned to machines ${2,3,5}$. $\boldsymbol{m}$ and $L'$ are adjusted accordingly. Finally, in the fourth iteration, $f=4$, the three machines with remaining assignments, machines ${3,5,6}$ are assigned an $\alpha_4=\frac{1}{5}$ of the rows. After the $4$ iterations, $m[n]=0$ for all $n\in{1,2,3,4}$ and the computation assignment is complete.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec: conclusion}
In this work, we study coded elastic computing where machines store MDS coded data and have varying computation speed. Given a set of available machines with arbitrary relative computation speeds, we derive an optimal computation load among the machines. Then, we show the existence of a computation assignment which yields the optimal computation load. The assignment makes use of the MDS code design by assigning computations to $L\in\mathbb{Z}^+$ machines. Moreover, we present a low complexity algorithm to define the computation assignments with at most a number of iterations equal to the number of available machines. Our coded elastic computing design has the potential to perform computations faster than the state-of-the-art design which was developed for a homogeneous computing network.
\appendices
\bibliographystyle{IEEEbib}
|
\subsubsection*{\bibname}}
\bibliographystyle{unsrtnat}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage[hidelinks]{hyperref}
\usepackage{url}
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{amsfonts}
\usepackage{nicefrac}
\usepackage{microtype}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{subfigure}
\usepackage{floatrow}
\usepackage{float}
\usepackage{wrapfig}
\usepackage[font=small]{caption}
\usepackage{appendix}
\newcommand{\arabic{algorithm}}{\arabic{algorithm}}
\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb}
\usepackage{amsfonts}
\usepackage{bm}
\include{math_shorthand}
\usepackage{color}
\newcommand{\todo}[1]{{\color{red} TODO: #1}}
\setlength{\floatsep}{8pt plus 4pt minus 4pt}
\setlength{\textfloatsep}{8pt plus 4pt minus 3pt}
\begin{document}
\runningtitle{POPCORN: Partially Observed Prediction Constrained Reinforcement Learning}
\setlength{\abovedisplayskip}{2pt plus 3pt}
\setlength{\belowdisplayskip}{2pt plus 3pt}
\twocolumn[
\aistatstitle{POPCORN: Partially Observed \\ Prediction Constrained Reinforcement Learning}
\aistatsauthor{Joseph Futoma \And Michael C. Hughes \And Finale Doshi-Velez}
\aistatsaddress{Harvard SEAS \And Tufts University, Dept. of Computer Science \And Harvard SEAS}
]
\vspace{-0.25in}
\begin{abstract}
Many medical decision-making tasks can be framed as partially observed Markov decision processes (POMDPs).
However, prevailing two-stage approaches that first learn a POMDP and then solve it often fail because the model that best fits the data may not be well suited for planning.
We introduce a new optimization objective that (a) produces both high-performing policies and high-quality generative models, even when some observations are irrelevant for planning, and (b) does so in batch off-policy settings that are typical in healthcare, when only retrospective data is available.
We demonstrate our approach on synthetic examples and a challenging medical decision-making problem.
\end{abstract}
\vspace{-0.2in}
\section{Introduction}
\vspace{-0.08in}
Reinforcement learning (RL) has the potential to assist sequential decision-making in healthcare, especially in settings lacking strong evidence-based guidelines.
For example, in this work we will focus on the task of managing patients in an intensive care unit (ICU) with acute hypotension, a life-threatening emergency in which a patient's blood pressure drops dangerously low.
In situations like this in critical care, it is often unclear which treatment will be most effective for a given patient, and in what amount, frequency, and duration~\citep{garcia2015effects}.
RL might help answer these questions, but applying RL in healthcare is challenging, as highlighted by~\citet{gottesman2019GuidelinesReinforcementLearning}, and we are still far from integration into the clinic.
Two key challenges for most clinical decision-making problems, including ours, are:
\vspace{-0.1in}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Medical environments are \emph{partially observable}: a patient's current physiological state alone is insufficient to make good decisions, and we need other context about their history.
\item We must learn in a \emph{batch} setting, given only a single batch of retrospective (usually observational) data.
\end{enumerate}
\vspace{-0.1in}
In this work we focus on pushing the limits of \emph{model-based} RL, using \emph{discrete} hidden state representations.
Generative models can of course help us learn to recommend good actions (our primary goal), but they also have many other important benefits.
For instance, we can use them to predict future observations (a form of validation), they can learn in the presence of missing data (pervasive in clinical settings), and they are generally more sample-efficient than competing model-free approaches (important as many medical problems are data-limited).
Building directly inspectable models via simple, discrete structures further enables easy inspection for clinical sensibility, a task much harder and sometimes impossible to accomplish from more complicated black-box models (e.g. deep learning).
We propose POPCORN\footnote{An implementation of POPCORN can be found online at \url{https://github.com/dtak/POPCORN-POMDP}, along with code to reproduce our experiments.}, or Partially Observed Prediction Constrained Reinforcement learning, a new optimization objective for the well-known partially observable Markov decision process (POMDP)~\citep{kaelbling1998}.
POMDPs have been traditionally trained in a two-stage process, where the first stage learns a generative model by maximizing the likelihood of observations and is not tied to the decision-making task.
However, this approach can fail to find good policies when the model is (inevitably) misspecified; in particular, a maximum likelihood model may spend capacity modeling irrelevant information rather than signal important for the task at hand.
We demonstrate this effect and show how POPCORN, which constrains maximum likelihood training of the POMDP model so that the value of the model's induced policy achieves satisfactory performance, can overcome these issues.
\vspace{-.1in}
\section{Related Work}
\label{sec:related_work}
\vspace{-.1in}
\textbf{RL in Healthcare.}
Healthcare applications of RL have proliferated in recent years, in diverse clinical areas such as schizophrenia~\citep{shortreedInformingSequentialClinical2011}, sepsis~\citep{komorowski2018artificial,raghuContinuousStateSpaceModels2017a}, mechanical ventilation~\citep{prasadReinforcementLearningApproach2017}, HIV~\citep{ernst2006clinical}, and dialysis~\citep{martin-guerreroReinforcementLearningApproach2009}. However, most works use model-free approaches, ostensibly because learning accurate models from noisy biological data is challenging. All of these works further assume full-observability, which is often not accurate.
A few prior works in this applied space have explicitly modeled partial observability. POMDPs have been applied to heart disease management~\citep{hauskrechtPlanningTreatmentIschemic2000}, sepsis treatment in off-policy or simulated settings~\citep{liActorSearchTree2018,oberstCounterfactualOffPolicyEvaluation2019,peng2018improving}, and HIV management~\citep{parbhoo2017combining}. All of these approaches take a two-stage approach to learning. In contrast, our approach is \emph{decision-aware} throughout the optimization process.
\textbf{Imperfect Models in RL}
Model-based RL is a long-standing area of research, and work as early as \citet{abbeel2006} looked at learning misspecified models that are still useful for RL.
More broadly, ``end-to-end'' optimization methods directly incorporate a downstream decision-making task during model training, and are growing in popularity across machine learning, from graphical models~\citep{lacoste-julienApproximateInferenceLosscalibrated2011} to submodular optimization~\citep{wilderMeldingDataDecisionsPipeline2019}.
Within RL, recent decision-aware optimization efforts have explored partially-observed problems in both model-free~\citep{QMDP-net} and model-based settings~\citep{Igl2018}.
These RL efforts differ from ours in two key respects. First, they exclusively focus on on-policy settings for simulated environments such as Atari. Second, they rely heavily on black-box neural networks for feature extraction, which are not generally sample-efficient or easily interpreted. In many cases (e.g.~\citet{QMDP-net}), the model is treated as an abstraction and there is no way to set the importance of the model's ability to accurately generate trajectories. Perhaps closest in spirit to our approach is theoretical work on value-aware model learning in RL~\citep{farahmand2018iterative}.
\vspace{-0.1in}
\section{Background}
\label{sec:background}
\vspace{-0.1in}
\textbf{POMDP Model.}
We consider a POMDP with $K$ discrete latent states (e.g. physiological conditions of patients), $A$ discrete actions (e.g. possible treatments), $D$-dimensional observations (e.g. clinical measurements), and deterministic rewards (e.g. how ``good'' or ``bad'' the treatments were).
The entire generative model for states $s_t \in \{1, 2, \ldots K \}$ and observations $o_t \in \mathbb{R}^D$ across timesteps $t \in \{0, 1, \ldots T\}$ is given by:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:iohmm}
p(s_0=k)
&\triangleq \tau_{0k}, \\ \notag
p(s_{t+1}=k | s_t=j, a_t=a)
&\triangleq \tau_{ajk}, \\ \notag
p(o_{t+1,d} | s_{t+1}\text{=}k, a_t\text{=}a)
&\triangleq \mathcal{N}(\mu_{akd}, \sigma_{akd}^2 ). \notag
\end{align}
We define the model parameters as $\theta \equiv \{ \tau, \mu, \sigma, R\}$.
$\tau$ describes the transition probability of moving to the next (unobserved) state $s_{t+1}$, given current state $s_t$ and action $a_t$.
We model each observation $o_t$ as Gaussian, with emission parameters $\mu$ and $\sigma^2$ denoting the mean and variance when in state $s_t$ after taking action $a_{t-1}$.
Although any (tractable) distribution is possible, we choose to use independent Gaussians across the $D$ dimensions for simplicity.
Completing the POMDP specification is the deterministic reward function $R(s,a)$, specifying the reward from taking action $a$ in state $s$.
A dataset consists of $N$ trajectories (e.g. decisions made about a patient's care, along with clinical observations). We index each trajectory by $n \in \{1, \ldots, N\}$, with the length of trajectory $n$ given by $T_n \leq T$.
Given a POMDP with parameters $\theta$, we can compute the \emph{belief} $b_t \in \Delta^K$,
a vector in the simplex $\Delta^K \triangleq \{ q \in \mathbb{R}^K | \sum_{k=1}^K q_k = 1, q_k \geq 0\}$.
The belief defines the posterior over state $s_t$ given all past actions and observations: $b_{tk} \triangleq p(s_t=k | o_{0:t}, a_{0:t-1})$, is a sufficient statistic for the entire history, and can be computed efficiently via forward filtering~\citep{rabiner1989hmm}. We can \emph{solve} the POMDP using a planning algorithm to learn a policy $\pi_\theta: \Delta^K \to \Delta^A$, mapping any belief to a distribution over actions (or a single action for deterministic policies). The goal is to find a policy with high value (the expected sum of discounted rewards): $V^\pi = \sum_{t=0}^T \gamma^t \mathbb{E}[ r_t ]$, with $\gamma \in (0,1)$ the discount.
\textbf{Learning Parameters: Input-Output HMM.}
The model in Eq.~\eqref{eq:iohmm} is an input-output hidden Markov model (IO-HMM)~\citep{bengio1995ioHMM}, where actions are inputs and observations are outputs.
The model parameters $\{\tau, \mu, \sigma\}$ that maximize the marginal likelihood of observed trajectories can be efficiently computed using the EM algorithm for HMMs~\citep{rabiner1989hmm,chrisman1992baumwelchForPOMDPs}.
For Bayesian approaches, efficient algorithms for sampling from the posterior over POMDP models also exist \citep{doshivelezThesis2012}. The deterministic reward function $R$ is estimated separately by minimizing squared errors with the observed rewards (see Appendix \ref{app:learning-rewards} for additional details).
\textbf{Solving for the Policy.}
The value function of a discrete-state POMDP can be modeled arbitrarily closely as the upper envelope of a finite set of linear functions of the belief \citep{sondik1978pomdp}. However, exact value iteration is intractable even for very small POMDPs. In this work, we use point based value iteration (PBVI) \citep{Pineau2003}, an approximate algorithm that is significantly more efficient (see \citet{shani2013survey} for a survey of related algorithms and extensions). Rather than perform Bellman backups over all valid beliefs $b \in \Delta^K$, PBVI only performs backups at a specific (small) set of beliefs. For the modest state spaces in our applications ($K << 100$), PBVI is an efficient solver. However, we require two key innovations beyond standard PBVI. First, we adapt ideas from \citet{Hoey2005} to handle continuous observations. Second, we relax the algorithm so that each step is differentiable. See Appendix \ref{app:pbvi} for details.
\textbf{Off-Policy Value Estimation.}
Let $\pi_{\theta}$ be the (near-optimal) policy obtained from PBVI for the given model parameters $\theta = \{\tau, \mu, \sigma, R\}$. The fact that $\pi_{\theta}$ is optimal for a specific model $\theta$ does not mean it is optimal in practice (e.g. in the clinic), because our generative model is almost certainly misspecified. If we have access to an environment simulator, we can evaluate $\pi_\theta$ via standard Monte Carlo rollouts. However, in the \emph{batch} setting, we lack the ability to interact with the environment and must turn to \emph{off policy evaluation} (OPE) to \emph{estimate} a policy's value.
Let $\pi_{\text{beh}}$ denote the behavior policy under which the observed data were collected (e.g. clinician treatment tendencies).\footnote{In our experiments with simulated environments, we assume $\pi_{beh}$ is given. In the real data setting, we estimate the behavior policy via the k-nearest neighbors approach of \citet{raghu2018behaviour}. See Appendix \ref{app:mimic:behavior} for details.} Let $\mathcal{D}$ denote a set of $N$ trajectories collected under $\pi_{\text{beh}}$. In this work, the specific OPE technique we use is consistent weighted per-decision importance sampling (CWPDIS, \citep{thomas2015phdthesis}) which estimates the value of a policy $\pi_{\theta}$ as:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:cwpdis}
V^{\text{CWPDIS}}(\pi_{\theta}) & \triangleq
\sum_{t=1}^T \gamma^{t}
\frac
{
\sum_{n \in \mathcal{D}}
r_{nt}
\rho_{nt}( \pi_\theta )
}
{
\sum_{n \in \mathcal{D}}
\rho_{nt}( \pi_\theta )
}, \\ \notag
\rho_{nt}(\pi_\theta) &\triangleq \prod_{s=0}^t
\frac
{\pi_{\theta}(a_{ns}|o_{n,0:s}, a_{n,0:s-1})}
{\pi_{\text{beh}}(a_{ns}|o_{n,0:s},a_{n,0:s-1})}.
\end{align}
In general, importance sampling (IS) estimators such as CWPDIS have lower bias than other approaches but suffer from higher variance. Another class of OPE methods learn a separate model to simulate trajectories in order to estimate policy values (e.g. \citet{chow2015robust}), but may suffer from unacceptably high bias in real-world, noisy settings.
\vspace{-0.1in}
\section{Prediction-Constrained POMDPs}
\label{sec:POPCORN}
\vspace{-0.1in}
We now introduce POPCORN, our proposed \emph{prediction-constrained} optimization framework for learning POMDPs. We seek to learn parameters $\theta$ that will both assign high likelihood to the observed data while also yielding a policy $\pi_{\theta}$ with high (estimated) value.
As noted in Sec.~\ref{sec:related_work}, previous approaches for learning POMDPs generally fall into two categories. Two-stage methods (e.g.~\citet{chrisman1992baumwelchForPOMDPs}) that first learn a model and then solve it often fail to find good policies under severe model misspecification. End-to-end methods (e.g. ~\citet{QMDP-net}) that focus only on the ``discriminative'' task of policy learning typically fail to produce accurate generative models of the environment. They also lack the ability to handle missing observations, which is especially problematic in medical contexts where missing data is pervasive.
Our approach offers a \emph{balance} between these purely maximum likelihood-driven (generative) and purely reward-driven (discriminative) extremes. We retain the strengths of the generative approach---the ability to plan under missing observations, simulate accurate dynamics, and inspect model parameters to inspire scientific hypotheses---while benefiting from model parameters that are directly informed by the decision task as in end-to-end frameworks.
\vspace{-0.1in}
\subsection{POPCORN Objective}
\vspace{-0.1in}
Our proposed framework seeks a POMDP $\theta$ that maximizes the log marginal likelihood $\mathcal{L}_{\text{gen}}$ of the observed data $\mathcal{D}$, while enforcing that the solved policy's (estimated) value $V(\pi_\theta)$ is high enough to be useful.
Formally, we seek a $\theta$ that maximizes the constrained optimization problem:
\begin{align}
\max_{\theta} \mathcal{L}_{\text{gen}}( \theta ), \qquad \text{subject to:}~ V(\pi_\theta) \geq \epsilon,
\label{eq:pc-pomdp-objective-constrained}
\end{align}
with the functions $\mathcal{L}_{\text{gen}}$ and $V$ defined below.
The tolerance $\epsilon$ defines a minimum acceptable policy value (e.g. as determined by a domain expert).
Setting practical optimization considerations aside, we would prefer the constrained formulation of Eq.~\eqref{eq:pc-pomdp-objective-constrained} as it best expresses our model-fitting goals: as good a generative model as possible, but we will not accept poor decision-making.
This objective is similar to the \emph{prediction-constrained} objective used by~\citet{hughes2018pc} for optimizing supervised topic models; here we apply similar ideas to batch, off-policy RL settings.
In practice, solving constrained problems is challenging, so we transform to an equivalent unconstrained objective using a Lagrange multiplier $\lambda > 0$:
\begin{align}
\max_{\theta} \quad \mathcal{L}_{\text{gen}}( \theta ) + \lambda V(\pi_\theta).
\label{eq:pc-pomdp-objective-unconstrained}
\end{align}
Setting $\lambda = 0$ recovers classic two-stage training, while the limit $\lambda \rightarrow \infty$ approximates end-to-end approaches. In our experiments, we compare against both of these baseline approaches, referring to the $\lambda=0$ case as ``2-stage'', and the $\lambda \rightarrow \infty$ case as ``Value-only'' (for this case, in practice we optimize $V(\pi_\theta)$ and ignore $\mathcal{L}_{\text{gen}}$).
\textbf{Computing the Generative Term.}
We define $\mathcal{L}_{\text{gen}}(\theta)$ as the log marginal likelihood of observations, given the actions in $\mathcal{D}$ and parameters $\theta$:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{\text{gen}}(\theta)=
\textstyle \sum_{n \in \mathcal{D}}
\log p(o_{n,0:T_n} | a_{n,0:T_n-1}, \theta).
\end{equation}
This IO-HMM likelihood marginalizes over uncertainty about the hidden states, can be computed efficiently via dynamic programming~\citep{rabiner1989hmm}, and is also amenable to automatic differentiation w.r.t. $\theta$.
\textbf{Computing the Value Term.}
Computation of $V(\pi_{\theta})$ entails two distinct parts: solving for the policy $\pi_{\theta}$ given $\theta$, and then estimating the value of this policy using OPE and $\mathcal{D}$. We require both to be differentiable to permit gradient-based optimization.
To solve for the policy, we apply a differentiable relaxation of PBVI (see Appendix \ref{app:pbvi:softmax-relax} for full details). Although standard PBVI returns a deterministic policy, we relax this as well and learn stochastic policies as they are generally easier to evaluate with OPE. We emphasize that our framework is general and other solvers are possible as long as they can be made differentiable.
To compute the estimated policy value, we use the CWPDIS estimator in Eq.~\eqref{eq:cwpdis}. As it is a \emph{differentiable} function of $\theta$, our unconstrained objective in Eq.~\eqref{eq:pc-pomdp-objective-unconstrained} can be optimized via first-order gradient ascent.
\vspace{-0.1in}
\subsection{Optimizing the Objective}
\vspace{-0.1in}
We optimize using gradients computed from the full dataset (we do not use subsample to avoid extra variance). We optimize with Rprop \citep{rprop} with default settings. Our objective is challenging due to non-convexity, as even the generative term alone admits many local optima. To improve solution quality in all experiments and for all methods, prior to final evaluation we take the best of 25 random restarts as measured by training objective value.
\textbf{Stabilizing the Off-Policy Estimate.}
Although our OPE estimate (using CWPDIS) was reliable in simulated environments, on our real dataset it had unusably high variance, as is common with IS estimators. We address this in two ways.
First, we add an extra term in the objective encouraging larger effective sample size (ESS) and hence lower variance, following \citet{metelliPolicyOptimizationImportance2018}. Our final objective includes an ESS penalty with weight $\lambda_{\text{ESS}} > 0$:
\begin{align}
\max_{\theta} \quad \mathcal{L}_{\text{gen}}(\theta) + \lambda \cdot \left[ V(\pi_\theta) .- \frac{\lambda_\text{ESS}}{\sqrt{\text{ESS}(\theta)} } \right].
\end{align}
As the CWPDIS estimator in Eq.~\ref{eq:cwpdis} is the weighted sum of a sequence of $T$ IS estimators (the average discounted reward at each $t$), we sum all these stepwise $\text{ESS}_t$ values to yield the final $\text{ESS}(\theta)$ term.
$\text{ESS}_t$ is approximated given IS weights $\{\rho_{nt}\}_{n=1}^N$ as $\frac{(\sum_n \rho_{nt})^2}{\sum_n \rho_{nt}^2}$~\citep{kongNoteImportanceSampling1992}.
Second, we restrict the support of $\pi_\theta$ and then renormalize to only allow actions where there was at least $\delta$ probability under $\pi_{\text{beh}}$.
This forces strong overlap between the support of $\pi_{\text{beh}}$ and $\pi_\theta$ and often substantially reduces the variance of the final OPE estimate.
This also provides a soft notion of ``safety'', as now rare or unknown actions are prohibited.
\textbf{Hyperparameters.}
The key hyperparameter for POPCORN is the scalar tradeoff $\lambda > 0$. We try a range of 5 $\lambda$'s per environment spaced evenly on a log scale.
We also rescale $\mathcal{L}_{\text{gen}}(\theta)$ by the total number of observed scalars ($D (\sum_n T_n)$ if there is no missing data), so that the magnitude of $\lambda$ has roughly consistent impact across datasets. We also try 5 ESS penalty weights $\lambda_{\text{ESS}}$ evenly spaced on a log scale, but this term was only necessary for the real data experiments.
\vspace{-0.1in}
\section{Simulated Environments}
\label{sec:experimental_results}
\vspace{-0.1in}
We first evaluate POPCORN on three simulated environments to validate its utility across a range of possible model misspecification scenarios. We later evaluate on a more difficult medical simulator. For all experiments in this section, everything is conducted in the batch, off-policy setting. The simulator is only used to produce the initial data set and to evaluate the final policy after training concludes. We separate each experiment into a description of procedure and highlights of the results.
Recall that our goal is to learn simple---and therefore interpretable---models that perform robustly in misspecified settings. As such, we compare against an approach that does not attempt to model the dynamics (``value term only''), an approach that first learns the model and then plans (``2-stage''), and a known optimal solution (when available). In all cases, we are interested in how these methods trade off between explaining the data well (log marginal likelihood of data) and making good decisions (policy value).
\vspace{-0.1in}
\subsection{Synthetic Domains with Misspecification}
\vspace{-0.1in}
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\begin{tabular}{c c c}
\includegraphics[height=0.18\textwidth]{figs/tiger_figs/TigerMultiDims_ValueVsLikelihood_2Dims_noLegend.png}
&
\includegraphics[height=0.18\textwidth]{figs/tiger_figs/TigerMissing_ValueVsLikelihood_PercMissing80_noLegend.png}
&
\includegraphics[height=0.18\textwidth]{figs/tiger_figs/TigerGMM_ValueVsLikelihood.png}
\end{tabular}
\caption{
Solutions from all competitor methods in the 2D fitness landscape (policy value on y-axis; log marginal likelihood on x-axis).
An ideal method would score in the top right corner of each plot.
\emph{Left}: Results from Tiger with Irrelevant Noise Dimensions.
\emph{Middle}: Results from Tiger with Missing Data.
\emph{Right}: Results from Tiger with Wrong Likelihood.
POPCORN is robust to all three types of model misspecification tested, and consistently learns better policies than 2-stage and better models than value-only.
}
\label{fig:Tiger_results}
\end{figure*}
We demonstrate how POPCORN overcomes various kinds of model misspecification in the context of the classic POMDP tiger problem \citep{kaelbling1998}. The tiger problem consists of a room with 2 doors: one door is safe, and the other door has a tiger behind it. The agent has 3 possible actions: either open one of the doors, thereby ending the episode, or listen for noisy evidence of which door is safe to open. Revealing a tiger gives $-5$ reward, the safe door yields $+1$ reward, and listening incurs $-0.1$ reward. The goal is to maximize rewards over many repeated trials, with the ``safe'' door's location randomly chosen each time.
We set $\gamma = 0.9$ to encourage the agent to act quickly.
We collect training data from a random policy that first listens for 5 time steps, and then randomly either opens a door or listens again.
We train in the \emph{batch setting} given a single collection of 1000 trajectories of length 5-15.
After optimization, we evaluate each policy via an additional 1000 Monte Carlo rollouts.
\textbf{Tiger with Irrelevant Noise: Finding dimensions that signal reward.}
In this setting, whenever the agent listens for the tiger, it receives an observation $o_t$ with $D = 2$ dimensions. The first dimension provides a noisy signal as to the location of the safe door.
We set this ``signal'' dimension $o_{t1} \sim \mathcal{N}(i_{\text{safe}}, 0.3^2)$, where the mean is the safe door's index $i_{\text{safe}} \in \{0,1\}$.
The second dimension is irrelevant to the safe door's location, and we set $o_{t2} \sim \mathcal{N}(j, 0.1^2)$, with $j \sim \mbox{Unif}(\{0,1\})$ in each trial. Thus, $K=4$ total states would be needed to explain perfectly both the relevant and irrelevant signals for all possible values of $(i_{\text{safe}}, j)$.
We measure performance allowing only $K=2$ states to assess how each method spends its limited capacity across the generative and reward-seeking goals.
We expect the 2-stage baseline will identify the irrelevant states indexed by $j$, as they have lower standard deviation (0.1 vs. 0.3 for the signal dimension) and thus are more important to maximize likelihood. In contrast, we expect POPCORN will focus on the relevant signal dimension and recover high-value policies.
\textbf{Tiger with Missing Data: Finding relevant dimensions when some data is missing.}
This next scenario extends the previous setting in which the listen action produces $D=2$ observations, where the first signals the safe door's location and the second is irrelevant. However, now the dimension with the relevant signal is often missing. Specifically, $o_{t1} \sim \mathcal{N}(i_{\text{safe}}, 0.3^2)$ and $o_{t2} \sim \mathcal{N}(j, 0.3^2)$, but we select 80\% of signal observations $o_{t1}$ to be \emph{missing} uniformly at random. This (coarsely) simulates clinical settings where some measurements may be infrequent but important (e.g. relevant lab tests), while others are common but not directly useful (e.g. routine vitals).
The expected outcome with $K=2$ states is that a 2-stage approach driven by maximizing likelihood would prefer to model the always-present irrelevant dimension. In contrast, POPCORN should learn to favor the signal dimension even though it is rarely available and contributes less overall to the likelihood. This ability to gracefully handle missing dimensions is a natural property of generative models and would not be easily done with a model-free approach.
\textbf{Tiger with Wrong Likelihood: Overcoming a misspecified density model.}
Finally, we consider a situation in which our generative model's \emph{density family} cannot match the true observation distribution. This time, the listen action produces a $D=1$ dimensional observation $o_t$. The true distribution of this observation signal is a \emph{truncation} of a mixture of two Gaussians, denoted $\text{GMM}(o) = 0.5 \mathcal{N}(o | 0, 0.1^2) + 0.5\mathcal{N}(o | 1, 1.0^2)$. If the first door is safe, listening results in strictly negative observations: $p(o) \propto \delta(o < 0) \text{GMM}(o)$. If the second door is safe, listening results in strictly positive observations: $p(o) \propto \delta(o > 0) \text{GMM}(o)$.
While the the true observation densities are \emph{not} Gaussian, we will fit POMDP models with Gaussian likelihoods and $K=2$ states. We expect POPCORN to still deliver high-value policies, even though the likelihood will be suboptimal.
See Appendix \ref{app:tiger} for more details on the overall setup of all three tiger environments as well as additional results.
\vspace{-0.1in}
\subsection{Conclusions from Synthetic Domains}
\vspace{-0.1in}
Across all variants of the Tiger problem, we observe many common conclusions from Fig.~\ref{fig:Tiger_results}. Together, these results demonstrate how POPCORN is robust to many different kinds of model misspecification.
\textbf{POPCORN learns consistently better policies than 2-stage.}
Across all 3 panels of Fig.~\ref{fig:Tiger_results}, POPCORN (red) delivers higher value $V(\pi_{\theta})$ (y-axis) than the 2-stage baseline (purple).
\textbf{Value-only learns poor generative models.}
In 2 of 3 panels, the value-only baseline (green) has noticeably worse likelihood $\mathcal{L}_{\text{gen}}(\theta)$ (x-axis) than POPCORN. The far right panels shows indistinguishable performance. Notably, optimizing this objective is significantly less stable than the full POPCORN objective. This aligns with findings from \citet{levine2013guided}, who also observed that policy learning via direct optimization of IS estimates of policy value is challenging.
\textbf{POPCORN solutions are consistent with manually-designed solutions.}
In all 3 panels, POPCORN (red) is the closest method to the ideal manually-designed solution (gray).
\vspace{-0.1in}
\subsection{Sepsis Simulator: Medically-motivated environment with known ground truth.}
\vspace{-0.1in}
We now move from simple toy problems---each designed to demonstrate a particular robustness of our method---to a more challenging simulated domain. In real-world medical decision-making tasks, it is impossible to evaluate the value of a learned policy using data collected under that policy's decisions. However, in a simulated setting, we can evaluate any given policy to assess its true value.
We emphasize $\theta$ is still learned in the batch setting, as only after optimization do we use the simulator to allow for accurate evaluation of policy values.
We use the simulator from \citet{oberstCounterfactualOffPolicyEvaluation2019}, which is a coarse physiological model for sepsis with $D=5$ discrete observations: 4 ordinal-valued vitals (e.g. ``low''/``normal''/``high''), and a binary indicator for diabetes. The true simulator is governed by an underlying known Markov decision process (MDP), which has 1440 possible discrete states. There are 8 actions (3 different binary actions), and trajectories are at most 20 timesteps. Rewards are sparse, with 0 reward at intermediate time steps and $-1$ or $+1$ at termination.
To make this simulator similar to our other environments with continuous-valued observations, we add independent Gaussian noise with standard deviation $0.3$ to each observation. This measurement error also makes the environment partially observable so that modeling it as a POMDP is reasonable. Although \citet{oberstCounterfactualOffPolicyEvaluation2019} used structural causal models to simulate counterfactual trajectories and explicitly address causal questions, our POMDP construction implicitly assumes no hidden confounding. Our work skirts causality, as we view POMDPs solely as a convenient way to summarize trajectory histories. Our use of this simulator hence differs substantially from its original use, where it was used to create strong (known) hidden confounding in order to illustrate failure modes of OPE\footnote{We refer interested readers to recent related work in \citet{tennenholtz2020} that specifically proposes a new technique for performing OPE with POMDPs where there is hidden confounding. This differs from \citet{oberstCounterfactualOffPolicyEvaluation2019} who focus solely on a new approach to generating counterfactual trajectories under a proposed policy.}.
The true discrete-state MDP is easily solved via exact value iteration. We generate $2500$ trajectories under an $\epsilon$-greedy behavior policy, with $\epsilon=0.14$ so each non-optimal action has a $.02$ probability of being taken. Given observed trajectories, we learn POMDPs assuming $K=5$ (we obtained similar qualitative results for other $K$), and evaluate policies via an additional $2500$ Monte Carlo rollouts. See Appendix \ref{app:sepsis} for full details.
\textbf{Results and Conclusions.}
Figure~\ref{fig:sepsis} shows POPCORN again learns higher-value policies than 2-stage.
Additionally, while the value-term-only baseline learns a policy on par with POPCORN, its likelihood is substantially lower. While all policies are far from optimal, this unsurprising given the small state space, modest observation noise, and high $\epsilon$ for the behavior policy.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/sepsis_results.png}
\caption{
Quantitative results from the sepsis simulator. An ideal method would score in the top right corner. No methods recover a fully optimal policy (grey line), but POPCORN consistently learns better policies than 2-stage and better models than value-only. A policy which takes actions uniformly at random has a value of $-0.72$, so the 2-stage policy barely outperforms this.
}
\label{fig:sepsis}
\end{figure}
\vspace{-0.1in}
\section{Real Data Application: Hypotension}
\label{sec:hypotension_application}
\vspace{-0.1in}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.01cm}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/hypotension_results.png}
\caption{
Quantitative results from the hypotension data, showing the trade-offs between policy value and likelihood (ESS is in legend). POPCORN again learns much better models than value-only and better policies than 2-stage.
}
\label{fig:hypo-tradeoff}
\end{figure}
To showcase the utility of our method on a real-world medical decision making task, we apply POPCORN to the challenging problem of managing acutely hypotensive patients in the ICU. Although hypotension is associated with high morbidity and mortality \citep{jones2006emergency}, management of these patients is difficult and treatment strategies are not standardized, in large part because there are many underlying potential causes of hypotension. Previosuly, \citet{girkar2018predicting} attempted to predict the efficacy of fluid therapy for hypotensive patients with only mixed success. We apply POPCORN to this problem and first study the same trade-offs between generative and reward-seeking performance as in Sec.~\ref{sec:experimental_results}. We further perform an in-depth evaluation of the learned policy and our confidence in it (via effective sample sizes and qualitative checks).
\textbf{Cohort.} We use 10,142 ICU stays from MIMIC-III \citep{johnson2016mimic}, filtering to adult patients with at least 3 abnormally low mean arterial pressure (MAP) values in the first 72 hours of ICU admission. Our observations consist of 9 vitals and laboratory measurements: MAP, heart rate, urine output, lactate, Glasgow coma score, serum creatinine, FiO$_2$, total bilirubin, and platelets count. We discretized time into 1-hour windows, and setup the RL task to begin 1 hour after ICU admission to ensure a sufficient amount of data exists before starting a policy. Trajectories end either at ICU discharge or at 72 hours into the ICU admission, so there are at most 71 actions taken. This formulation was made in consultation with a critical care physician, who advised most acute cases of hypotension would present early during an ICU admission. We expressly do \emph{not} impute missing observations: only observed measurements contribute to the overall likelihood.
\textbf{Setup.} Our action space consists of the two main treatments for acute hypotension: fluid bolus therapy and vasopressors, both of which are designed to quickly raise blood pressure and increase perfusion to the organs. We discretize fluids into 4 actions (none, low, medium, high), and discretize vasopressors into 5 actions (none, low, medium, high, very high) for a total of 20 discrete actions.
To assign rewards to individual time steps, we use a piecewise-linear function created in consultation with a critical care physician. A MAP of 65mmHg is a common target~\citep{asfar2014high}, so if an action is taken and the next MAP is 65 or higher, the next reward is +1, the highest possible value. Otherwise, rewards decrease as MAP values drop, with MAP $\leq 30$ delivering a reward of 0, the smallest possible value.
Further details on the action space discretization, a plot of the reward function, and other preprocesssing can be found in Appendix \ref{app:mimic}.
We split the dataset into 5 distinct test sets for cross-validation, and throughout present results on the test sets, with standard errors across folds where appropriate. We set $\lambda_{\text{ESS}}=4$ and set $\delta=0.03$, which prohibits all actions assigned less than $3\%$ probability by our estimated behavior policy. Lastly, we study several possible values for the Lagrange multiplier, $\lambda \in \{10^{-2.5}, 10^{-1.5}, 10^{-0.5}\}$.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.01cm}
\begin{tabular}{c c c}
\includegraphics[height=.14\textwidth]{figs/forecasting_res/hypotension_forecasting_results_zoomedout_map.png}
&
\includegraphics[height=.14\textwidth]{figs/forecasting_res/hypotension_forecasting_results_map_noLegend.png}
&
\includegraphics[height=.14\textwidth]{figs/forecasting_res/hypotension_forecasting_results_lactate_noLegend.png}
\\
\includegraphics[height=.14\textwidth]{figs/forecasting_res/hypotension_forecasting_results_zoomedout_urine.png}
&
\includegraphics[height=.14\textwidth]{figs/forecasting_res/hypotension_forecasting_results_urine_noLegend.png}
&
\includegraphics[height=.14\textwidth]{figs/forecasting_res/hypotension_forecasting_results_hr_noLegend.png}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Forecasting results. \emph{Top to bottom, left to right}: MAP (scale zoomed out); MAP (value-only out of pane); lactate; urine output (scale zoomed out); urine output (value-only out of pane); heart rate. 2-stage performs the best throughout, but for smaller values of $\lambda$ POPCORN is often not much worse. Value-only constantly makes wildly inaccurate predictions, as its forecast errors are often several orders of magnitude worse (see MAP and urine results in first column).}
\label{fig:hypo-forecast}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.01cm}
\begin{tabular}{c c c}
\includegraphics[height=0.185\textwidth]{figs/model_viz/final_map_viz_lambd0p000_fold0.pdf}
&
\includegraphics[height=0.185\textwidth]{figs/model_viz/final_map_viz_lambd0p032_fold0.pdf}
&
\includegraphics[height=0.185\textwidth]{figs/model_viz/final_map_viz_lambdinf_fold0.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\caption{
Visualization of learned MAP distributions.
\emph{Left:} 2-stage.
\emph{Middle:} POPCORN, $\lambda=0.032$.
\emph{Right:} Value-only.
Each subplot visualizes all $100$ learned distributions of MAP values for a given method, across $20$ actions and $K=5$ states. Each pane in a subplot corresponds to a different action, and shows distributions across the $5$ states. Vasopressors vary across rows, and fluids vary across columns. 2-stage learns states that are mostly homogeneous, value-only learns states that are differentiated and often far apart, while POPCORN is somewhere in between.
}
\label{fig:MAP-dists}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.01cm}
\begin{tabular}{c c}
\includegraphics[height=0.28\textwidth]{figs/hypotension_global_fluid_results.png}
&
\includegraphics[height=0.28\textwidth]{figs/hypotension_global_vasopressor_results_noLegend.png}
\end{tabular}
\caption{
Action probabilities for the behavior policy, a value-only policy, a POPCORN policy with $\lambda=0.316$, and a 2-stage policy. Actions are split from the full 20-dimensional space by type. \emph{Left:} Action probabilities for the 4 doses of IV fluids, and \emph{Right:} for the 5 doses of vasopressors.
}
\label{fig:hypo-global-probas}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.01cm}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{figs/highlactate_reward_respec_results.png}
\caption{
Results from reusing previously learned models from each approach, and solving them to learn new policies given a different reward function based on lactate values. 2-stage and POPCORN learn models that are able to transfer reasonably well to the new task, while value-only does not.
}
\label{fig:reward-respec}
\end{figure}
\vspace{-0.1in}
\subsection{Conclusions from ICU Application}
\textbf{POPCORN achieves the best balance of high-performing policies and high likelihood models.}
As in earlier results, Figure \ref{fig:hypo-tradeoff} shows how POPCORN balances generative and decision-making performance well, with darker red indicating higher $\lambda$'s and thus improved policy values. The policy values for the 2-stage baseline and the likelihood scores for the value-only baseline both substantially underperform POPCORN.
\textbf{POPCORN has reasonably accurate forecasts.} To demonstrate the ability of models to predict future observations, Figure~\ref{fig:hypo-forecast} shows results from a forecasting experiment. Each method is given the first 12 hours of a trajectory, and then must predict future observations up to 12 hours in the future. Importantly, only \emph{measured} observations are used to calculate the mean absolute error between model predictions and true values. Unsurprisingly 2-stage generally performs the best, although POPCORN for small values of $\lambda$ often performs similarly. On the other hand, the value-only baseline fares significantly worse. For some observations (MAP and urine output; see left-most column of Figure~\ref{fig:hypo-forecast}), it makes nonsensical predictions far outside the range of observed data, with errors several orders of magnitudes worse than POPCORN and 2-stage.
\textbf{POPCORN enables inspection if learned models are clinically sensible.} We visualize the learned emission distributions for MAP across the $K=5$ states and $20$ actions for each method in Figure~\ref{fig:MAP-dists}.
Note that densities may appear non-Gaussian, as they are back-transformed to the original scale of the data but were modeled on a log-scale.
POPCORN's distributions are more spread out and better differentiate between states compared to the 2-stage baseline, which learns very similar states with high overlap.
As a result, the 2-stage policy will end up recommending similar actions for most patients.
Value-only learns states that are even more diverse, allowing it to learn an effective policy but at the expense of not modeling the observed data well.
See Appendix \ref{app:mimic:results} for similar results for lactate, urine output, and heart rate.
Although these results are exploratory, these simple visualizations of what the models have learned are only possible due to the white-box nature of our HMM-based approach, compared with e.g. deep reinforcement learning methods.
Figure~\ref{fig:hypo-global-probas} visualizes the action probabilities for the behavior policy, a value-only policy, a POPCORN policy, and a 2-stage policy. In general, the POPCORN policy most closely aligns with the behavior, although it is also quite similar to value-only. On the other hand, the 2-stage policy seems in general more conservative and tends to have lower probabilities on more aggressive actions. In future work we plan to work with clinical partners to explore individual patient trajectories and understand how and why these treatment policies differ.
\textbf{POPCORN learns models that transfer to other tasks.} Figure~\ref{fig:reward-respec} shows results testing how well models transfer to solving a new task. We use a new reward function that penalizes high lactate values (see Appendix \ref{app:mimic:rewards} for a plot). For each method, we freeze $\tau, \mu, \sigma$ from the previous optimization, but learn a new $R$. Then we solve these new models to learn new policies, and estimate their values. We find that the POPCORN and two-stage models transfer reasonably well, whereas value-only is substantially worse especially given its high original estimated value in Figure~\ref{fig:hypo-tradeoff}.
\vspace{-0.15in}
\section{Discussion}
\vspace{-0.15in}
We proposed POPCORN, an optimization objective for off-policy batch RL with partial observability.
POPCORN balances the trade-off between learning a model with high likelihood and a model well-suited for planning, even in batch off-policy settings.
Synthetic experiments demonstrate POPCORN achieves good policies and decent models even in the face of misspecification (in the number of states, the choice of the likelihood, or the availability of data).
Performance on a clinical decision-making task suggests we may be able to learn a policy on par or even slightly better than the observed clinician behavior policy.
Future directions include scaling to environments with more complex state structures or long-term temporal dependencies, investigating semi-supervised settings where not all sequences have rewards, better leveraging that the behavior policy is not terribly sub-optimal, and learning Pareto-optimal policies that balance multiple competing goals. We hope methods such as ours ultimately become integrated into clinical decision support tools to assist physicians in improving the treatment of critically ill patients.
\subsubsection*{Acknowledgements}
FDV and JF acknowledge support from NSF Project 1750358. JF additionally acknowledges Oracle Labs, a Harvard CRCS fellowship, and a Harvard Embedded EthiCS fellowship. MCH acknowledges support from NSF Project HDR-1934553. The authors also thank David Sontag, Omer Gottesman, Leo Anthony Celi, Ryan Kindle, and the anonymous reviewers for thoughtful and constructive feedback.
|
\section{Introduction}
For fully automated self-driving vehicles, the driver is no longer required to engage in the driving task, hence, the driver becomes a passive passenger or occupant, however, it may cause undesirable motion sickness. Since the motion sickness is a condition of the conflict between visually perceived movement and the vestibular system's sense of movement [1-2]. The human organs of balance are in essence biological accelerometers and this means that they are sensitive to accelerations. The vehicle’s acceleration and jerk, which is the time derivatives of the acceleration, can significantly impact on occupant’s comfort. Careful and appropriate control of the acceleration, braking, and steering action of the vehicle can improve the comfort of the occupants. We define an Occupant Preference Metric (OPM) based on the significant parameters of a vehicle motion, which defining a preferred lateral and longitudinal accretion region with maximum allowable jerk for autonomous vehicles, from smooth driving to aggressive driving. Furthermore, we proposed an integrated control system for enabling human driver-like maneuvering of autonomous vehicles to provide a personalized comfortable driving experience to users. The proposed overall control system and whole planning strategies are implemented into a real autonomous vehicle to validate the proposed OPM-aware control system via experiments.
\section{Modeling Occupant’s Preference Metric}
Through the review of the previous studies which is related with the comfort criterion of passengers and drivers, we designed the Occupant’s Preference Metric (OPM) defining a preferred lateral and longitudinal acceleration region with maximum allowable jerk. It is employed the five significant parameters which are directly related with a vehicle motions as follow,
\begin{equation}
OPM=\left\{{a_{(+)x}}_{opm},{a_{(-)x}}_{opm},\left|{a_y}_{opm}\right|,\left|{z_x}_{opm}\right|,\left|{z_y}_{opm}\right|\right\}
\end{equation}
where the ${a_{(+)x}}_{opm}$ is the occupant’s discomfort threshold of the longitudinal acceleration, ${a_{(-)x}}_{opm}$ is the longitudinal deceleration threshold, is the lateral acceleration threshold, $|{z_x}_{opm}|and |{z_y}_{opm}|$ is the maximum allowable longitudinal and lateral jerks.
A large acceleration or jerk can make the passenger discomfort even the short periods of time. For example, in the comfort criterion of the public transportation, which is presented with blue region in Figure 1, the average freestanding of passenger in the subway measured within a constant acceleration of $0.93 m/s^2$, and largest jerk average presented about $0.6 m/s^3$ [3]. When those values get too high the passenger in a moment, it is difficult to maintain their postures.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{fig1.png}
\caption{Proposed occupant’s preference metric (OPM).}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{fig2.png}
\caption{Occupant’s preference metric (OPM) displayed on the G–G diagram along with friction circle and performance envelop of the vehicle. Note that the units of the x- and y-axes are in m/s2, instead of acceleration of gravity units.}
\end{figure}
For the longitudinal acceleration, the discomfort threshold presented around $0.93m/s^2$, ranging up to $1.47m/s^2$. The jerk threshold for discomfort presented about $0.3m/s^3$, ranging up to $0.9m/s^3$. An autonomous car only carries a seated occupant, normally, accelerations might be reasonable to set the limit value around $2m/s^2$ and jerk to $0.9m/s^3$. Particularly, in vehicle deceleration, human driving tests revealed that $99\%$ of braking maneuvers are approximately ranging from $-0.5m/s^2$ to $-2m/s^2$. Moon et. al categorized the braking comfort region within $-2m/s^2$ based on the human manual driving test for design of cruise control deceleration algorithm [4]. In addition, Moon’s human driving data shows that the maximum deceleration and the maximum acceleration values were measured in the test are $-5.08m/s^2$ and $3.07m/s^2$, respectively. These thresholds of the longitudinal acceleration and deceleration values could be overlapped with the boundaries of G-G diagram of Bosetti’s [5]. Moreover, they reported that the jerk is also limited, typically, it does not exceed $2m/s^3$, except emergency braking.
According to [6], the longitudinal accelerations are combined with much higher lateral accelerations, up to about $4m/s^2$. And, it was also recommended the lateral and the longitudinal acceleration thresholds related to nominal driver preference are $0.4g$ and $0.2g$ in case of both passenger car and heavy truck. Maximum acceleration is estimated around $-5.1m/s^2$ to prevent an emergency situation [1] in emergency braking region of Fig. 1. As above mentioned the previous human driving studies, we can classify the four-representative driving type such as the public transportation, normal, aggressive, and extremely aggressive style as shown in Fig. 1.
The basic approach of the proposed control system is that the driving motion of the autonomous vehicle must below the OPM threshold values as a preference setting of occupants which can be acceptable of comfort criteria for the personalized driving experience. The lateral and longitudinal acceleration profiles displayed on G-G diagram represents the combined results of driver’s preferences and perceived risk level corresponding to the dynamic motion at a given environment. Racing drivers manipulate the vehicular dynamics almost up to the end-range of the performance envelop, whereas normal drivers cannot utilize the full available capability of the vehicular performance. Normal drivers may fear for vehicular instability, and it is thus difficult to brake and turn at the same time. Typical criteria for longitudinal and lateral acceleration parameters for proposed cautious, normal, aggressive, and extremely aggressive drivers, are plotted on the G–G diagram, shown in Fig. 2.
\section{Occupant’s Preference Metric-aware Control System}
Fig. 3 describes an outline of the proposed system for occupant's preference-aware autonomous vehicle. Through the proposed system, a personalized autonomous driving service can be provided to car passengers. If we assume that an occupant of the fully autonomous self-driving vehicle can select his/her driving preference, the favorite driving style can be interpreted as a preference metric that the occupant might want for experience during riding a car. Firstly, at the preference metric selection stage, the occupant or passenger selects a preference-range of accelerations and jerks based on the proposed OPM. Once the time optimal velocity is calculated, this velocity profile is used for the reference input for controlling the velocity at the global path. This structure has the advantage of being able to correspond to the preference parameters for the motion planning while driving. On the curved road, the longitudinal velocity has a significant role because the value of the lateral acceleration largely depends on the longitudinal velocity of the vehicle.
The integrated longitudinal and the lateral controller is required to track the planned trajectory with the desired speed for various driving states of the autonomous vehicle. The proposed integrated vehicular control system generates steering control and throttle/brake maneuver inputs for the vehicles in order to perform simultaneous path and speed tracking, while ensuring the dynamic stability and tracking performance of the autonomous vehicle. More details on the integrated longitudinal and lateral control system, can be invoked from refs [7-8].
To satisfy the lateral acceleration preference, it is necessary to plan the cornering velocity according to the curvature of the road with respect to the lateral acceleration preference. For the appropriate velocity planning, we propose a time optimization method that satisfies the OPM constraint when the reference path is given from the starting point to the destination. The optimization problem is a well- known issue in robotics, to find optimal solution that minimizes the user defined cost of all possible solutions within constraints. The minimum time approach is one of the widely used methods for optimization problems. The minimum time optimization can be obtained by discretizing the continuous time model using the interior-point- method (IPM) based simultaneous approach [9]. We defined a nonlinear problem (NLP) to minimize the total travel time through the summation of the discrete time element duration. We propose a lane change path generation algorithm that satisfies the OPM condition while maintaining the current speed of vehicle since the sudden change of speed can cause discomfort to occupant. Fig. 4 shows the algorithm for proposed lane change path generation. First, if the lane change command is transmitted, it should be confirmed whether the lane change is possible or not. If the lane change maneuver is possible, the path planner selects a target point for the lane change and generates a continuous-curvature path. The path generation method and the target point selection had been studied in the previous works [7, 10].
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{fig3.png}
\caption{Outline of the proposed system architecture for user preference-aware autonomous vehicles.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{fig4.png}
\caption{Proposed path generation and lane change algorithm.}
\end{figure}
\section{Simulation and Experimental Results}
To evaluate the feasibility of the proposed control system, we simulated the autonomous vehicle controller using Simulink and Carsim, and then implemented an experimental autonomous vehicle. Overall structure of the proposed upper-level control system is simple, easy to implement, and can be effectively applied to autonomous vehicles.
The vehicular parameters used for simulations are listed in Table 1. In the simulation we used a bicycle steering model for the vehicle. The vehicle mass and the wheelbase were $1,740kg$ and $3.05m$, respectively. In addition, the controllable front steering angle was limited within $\pm32^\circ$ considering the nonholonomic constraints of the vehicle. All acquired data were synchronized at the frequency of $10Hz$ during simulations.
\begin{table}
\caption{Vehicular parameters used in the simulation.}
\label{sample-table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lll}
\toprule
\cmidrule(r){1-3}
Parameters & Notation & Value \\
\midrule
Vehicle mass & $m$ & $1740 kg$ \\
Vehicle yaw moment & $I_z$ & $3000 kg{\cdot}m^2$ \\
Front-c.g. distance & $l_f$ & $1.4 m$ \\
Rear-c.g. distance & $l_r$ & $1.65 m$ \\
Cornering stiffness of front tires & $C_{af}$ & $81000 N/\circ$ \\
Cornering stiffness of rear tires & $C_{ar}$ & $81000 N/\circ$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
We conducted simulations for two different types of occupants, one with a cautious driving style, and the other for a dynamic driving style, with the following respective preferences,
\begin{equation}
OPM\#1=\left\{0.9,0.9,\left|0.9\right|,\left|0.6\right|,\left|0.6\right|\right\}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
OPM\#2=\left\{2.2,-2.5,\left|3.5\right|,\left|1.5\right|,\left|1.5\right|\right\}
\end{equation}
Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 display the simulated results of the velocity profile, lateral distance error during the route driving, longitudinal and lateral accelerations of the vehicle, and longitudinal and lateral accelerations on the G–G diagram for the reference route shown in Fig. 5. There is a lag in the simulated velocity compared to the calculated velocity. The longitudinal and lateral control block generated the thread maneuver that is input to the vehicle, and was used by the trajectory planning block to calculate the velocity to meet the OPM criterion. The delay of the vehicle’s response to the thread command caused a temporal delay between the calculated and the simulated values.
The results show that the lateral distance error does not exceed $5cm$, as shown in Fig. 6 (b) and Fig. 7 (b), both for cautious and aggressive driving conditions. The simulated accelerations and jerks could also be bounded within the OPM constraints. Depending on the OPM criterion, the difference of lap time is $122s$ between the cautious and the aggressive driving schemes. While the aggressive driving lasted for $145s$, the smooth comfort driving period lasted approximately $274s$.
As shown in Fig. 6 (c) and Fig. 7 (c), the driving pattern of the simulated self-driving vehicle yields a driving style that is similar to the heuristic pattern of deceleration-steering-acceleration. Human drivers normally decelerate when they approach a curved road. The simulated longitudinal and lateral acceleration profiles displayed on the G–G diagram show that some points are outside the borderline set by the criterion. In the case of the driving simulation for the OPM \#1, $88.3\%$ of the sampled data were inside the OPM acceleration constraints in the case of cautious driving, while in the case of OPM \#2, approximately $81.4\%$ of simulated data satisfied the OPM criterion. Even though most of the simulated longitudinal velocity did not surpass the boundary value, some of the lateral acceleration values were located outside the margins set by the criterion. The delay in the response of the vehicle’s velocity was the main reason for which the data points were outside the borderline, especially for the cases when the vehicle approached the curvy sections of the route. To improve the performance of the system, a faster response time for the overall control system is required. Although the proposed system could not completely control the vehicle to drive in compliance with the set OPM criterion throughout the entire driving path, the values that were outside the border were not far from the set criterion margins.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{fig5.png}
\caption{Reference path for the simulation.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{fig6.png}
\caption{Simulated results of the OPM criterion $(OPM\#1={+0.9, -0.9, |0.9|, |0.6|, |0.6|})$. (a) Planned and simulated velocity, (b) simulated lateral distance error during driving, (c) simulated longitudinal and lateral acceleration, and (d) simulated longitudinal and lateral acceleration displayed on the G–G diagram.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{fig7.png}
\caption{Simulated results of a typical aggressive driver’s OPM criterion $(OPM\#1={+2.2, -2.5, |3.5|, |1.5|, |1.5|})$. (a) Planned and simulated velocity, (b) simulated lateral distance error during driving, (c) simulated longitudinal and lateral acceleration, and (d) simulated longitudinal and lateral acceleration displayed on the G–G diagram.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{fig8.png}
\caption{Photograph of the autonomous vehicle used for real-road experiments.}
\end{figure}
For the experimental test of the proposed control system on a real road, we modified the commercial vehicle RAY from Kia motors to an autonomous vehicle that was equipped with sensors, actuators, and the proposed controller, as shown in Fig. 8. In spite of the compactness of the car, the modified test vehicle provided enough space for all on-board equipment. This vehicle has a gasoline-powered engine, front-wheel drive, and motor-driven power steering (MDPS). The control commands of the steering angle and throttle maneuver to the vehicle were input to the vehicle through the CAN gateway network to control the vehicular actuators, such as the MDPS, and the throttle value. There was a separated actuator interface, but it was controlled by the CCU for maneuvering the gear shift lever and pressing brake pedal.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{fig9.png}
\caption{Experimental results in a case of OPM criterion for $(OPM ={+0.6, -0.6, |1.5|, |0.6|, |0.6|})$. (a) Satellite map of the test route, (b) measured accelerations of the vehicle, (c) measured front-steering angle, (d) velocity profile obtained from in-vehicle CAN during real-road tests.}
\end{figure}
We conducted experiments on the real-road course, where, the testing course was $1.3km$ long and which is useful to evaluate the performance of the proposed controller because of 4 turning course with/without traffic signals. In the real-road test, we set the OPM criterion to match the various passenger driving styles. Fig. 9 shows the measured results of the field test for autonomous driving experiments in a case of specific OPM criterion for the typical normal driving style, $(OPM =\left\{+0.6, -0.6, |1.5|, |0.6|, |0.6|\right\})$. The acceleration data were acquired by the IMU sensor, and velocity and steering angle data were obtained through a CAN interface during the test. Measured experimental data illustrate that vehicular velocity followed the planed velocity during driving. The measured acceleration and velocity profiles of the self-driving vehicle indicate a driving style that is similar to the heuristic pattern of deceleration-steering-acceleration. Fig. 9 (b) shows the recorded longitudinal and lateral accelerating profiles, where the vehicle decelerates while it approaches an intersection, and makes a turn before it accelerates again.
The measured lateral acceleration profile shows four overshoots coincident with the events associated with changing steering angles for right turns at intersections. We found that the measured values for lateral acceleration at the overshooting points were equal to $1.93 m/s^2$ for the first turn, and ranged from $1.5$ to $1.6m/s^2$ for the other turns. The measured value of the lateral acceleration seemed to be limited, but the values exceeded the given OPM criterion during turning maneuvers. Additionally, there were glitches in the measured longitudinal acceleration, but the overall values were regulated not to grow beyond the given criterion. This measured trend of the longitudinal and lateral acceleration values at the curved section of the route was consistent with the simulated results since only the lateral acceleration results slightly exceeded the criterion limit, while the longitudinal acceleration was within the set OPM boundary. Owing to a latency in the vehicle’s velocity response with respect to the desired input velocity, the vehicular speed during turning was slightly higher than the planned velocity required to meet the criterion of lateral acceleration. This might be the main reason for which the lateral acceleration value was marginally outside the border line.
The OPM criterion included lateral and longitudinal jerks. However, we could not measure jerk in the experiments using the IMU sensor because of the measurement noise in the acceleration data acquisition. Jerk is the derivative of acceleration, and even low-noise amplitudes in the acceleration data can cause spikes in the estimation of jerk owing to the temporal derivative of the data. Although various studies have been conducted for the improvement of jerk sensor, to the best of our knowledge, on-vehicle lateral or longitudinal jerk sensors for robust data acquisitions have not been commercialized thus far. Therefore, in the proposed controller, the jerk term can be taken into account only at the stage of the planning of the desired velocity.
\section{Discussions and Concluding Remarks}
In this work, we proposed the occupant’s preference-aware control system for the personalized autonomous driving service. For this purpose, we designed the occupant preference metric defining a preferred lateral and longitudinal accretion region with the maximum allowable jerk for the autonomous vehicle users. The proposed controller is based on the motion control parameters enabling integrated lateral and longitudinal control via preference-aware maneuvering of autonomous vehicles. The overall control system and whole planning strategies are verified using the real autonomous driving vehicle in the urban roadway including lane change maneuvers. The simulations and experimental results of the implemented OPM-aware controller demonstrated that the proposed system controlled the self-driving vehicle according to the specified criterion of admissible acceleration and jerk.
\section*{References}
\small
[1] M. Elbanhawi, M. Simic, and R. Jazar. "In the passenger seat: investigating ride comfort measures in autonomous cars," IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine 7(3), 4–17, (2015)
[2] M. Turner, and G. Michael, "Motion sickness in public road transport: the effect of driver, route and vehicle," Ergonomics 42(12), 1646–1664, (1999)
[3] D. Martin, and D. Litwhiler, "An Investigation of Acceleration and Jerk Profiles of Public Transportation Vehicles," presented at the American Society for Engineering Education, AC 2008-1330, (2008)
[4] S. Moon, and K. Yi, "Human driving data-based design of a vehicle adaptive cruise control algorithm," Vehicle System Dynamics 46(8), 661–690, (2008)
[5] P. Bosetti, L. Mauro, and S. Andrea, "On curve negotiation: From driver support to automation," IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 2082-2093, (2015)
[6] P. Bosetti, L. Mauro, and S. Andrea, "On the human control of vehicles: an experimental study of acceleration," European Transport Research Review, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 157-170, (2014)
[7] I. Bae, J. Kim, J. Moon, and S. Kim, "Lane Change Maneuver based on Bezier Curve providing Comfort Experience for Autonomous Vehicle Users," , IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), October (2019)
[8] I. Bae, J. Moon, and J. Seo, “Toward a Comfortable Driving Experience for a Self-Driving Shuttle Bus,” pp. No. 8, Electronics (2019)
[9] B. Li, and S. Zhijiang, "Simultaneous dynamic optimization: A trajectory planning method for nonholonomic car-like robots," Advances in Engineering Software, pp. 30-42, (2015)
[10] I Bae, J Moon, S Kim, "Driving Preference Metric-Aware Control for Self-Driving Vehicles", International Journal of Intelligent Engineering and Systems 12 (6), 157-166, (2019)
\end{document} |
\section{Introduction} \label{number of section:introduction}
In the space-time cylinder $Q := [0,T]\times\Omega$, where
$\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^N (N\geq 1)$ is a bounded domain with
smooth boundary $\partial\Omega$ and $T>0$ is a fixed final time,
consider the system
\begin{equation}
u_t - \Delta u =h(u,v) \quad \text{in} \; Q
,\label{1.1}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} v_t -\kappa \Delta v+ \partial I(u;v) \ni g(u,v) \quad \text{in}
\; Q , \label{1.2}\end{equation}
\begin{equation}u =v= 0 \quad \text{on}
\; (0,T)\times\partial\Omega , \label{1.3}\end{equation}
\begin{equation}u(x,0) = u(x,T)
, \quad v(x,0) = v(x,T) \quad \text{on} \; \Omega .
\label{1.4}\end{equation}
Here, $I(u;\cdot)$ is the
indicator function of the interval $[f_*(u), f^*(u)]$, $\partial
I(u;\cdot)$ is its subdifferential in the sense of convex analysis, $h, g, f_*, f^*$ are given
functions with the properties specified in the next section, $\kappa>0$ is a given constant.
\hspace{0.6cm} For convenience, denote system
$(\ref{1.1})$--$(\ref{1.4})$ by $(P)$. System $(P)$ can be regarded as a dynamical model of a phase transition process between two distinct phases (such as solid-liquid) placed in the container $\Omega$.
The state variables $u=u(t,x)$
and $v=v(t,x)$ are then interpreted as the relative temperature and the order parameter (phase fraction of an individual phase), respectively. Eq. $(\ref{1.2})$ with $g\equiv 0$ and $\kappa=0$
models a continuous hysteresis operator of generalized play type generated by the
curves $v=f_*(u)$ and $v=f^*(u)$, see \cite{BS, Krejci, Visintin}
for details. The introduction of the latter operator to the model
accounts for hysteretic relationship between $u$ and $v$, playing in
this case the roles of the input and output functions, respectively.
\hspace{0.6cm} Recent years have seen a considerable amount of works on partial differential equations with hysteresis. In particular, the questions on existence, uniqueness and large time behaviour of solutions to Cauchy problems for systems with state-dependent constraints, relevant to $(\ref{1.1})$--$(\ref{1.3})$ were addressed in a number of papers (see, e.g., \cite{KKV, KeV, KeKM, CKK, KMO, Kubo, KTT, AT}, and references therein). Periodic problems for systems with hysteresis describing phase transitions have also received a keen attention. Among related contributions, we mention the works \cite{Krejci1, Krejci2, Krejci3} studying periodic processes in elastoplastic bodies, \cite{GHM} dealing with the Stefan problem in a one-dimensional spatial domain, that involves a relay hysteresis operator, and \cite{comwa} which considers the system $(\ref{1.1})$--$(\ref{1.4})$ with $h(u,v)=v$, $g\equiv 0$, and $\kappa=0$. We note, however, that the requirements on the functions $f_*$ and $f^*$ in \cite{comwa}: $f_*, f^*\in C^2(\mathbb{R})\cap L^\infty(\mathbb{R})$ are non-decreasing Lipschitz continuous, $f_*(u)=f^*(u)$ for $u\in (-\infty, a]\cup[b, +\infty)$ with $a<0<b$, $f_*$ is convex on $(-\infty, b)$ and $f^*$ is concave on $(a, +\infty)$, which are indispensable for the proof in \cite{comwa}, appear to be too demanding.
In our paper, we dispense with these assumptions on the functions $f_*$ and $f^*$ retaining only the Lipschitz continuity. In this respect, as a byproduct of our analysis, we also improve the results on the existence of a solution to the Cauchy problem from \cite{CKK} by removing the assumptions of smoothness, monotonicity and boundedness on the functions $f_*$ and $f^*$. Moreover, the convergences of approximate solutions which the authors obtain in \cite[The proof of Theorem 2.1]{comwa} would not be sufficient to treat general nonlinear right-hand sides as in $(\ref{1.1})$, $(\ref{1.2})$. Another advance of our paper is that we allow a diffusion effect for $v$ assuming the coefficient of the interfacial energy $\kappa$ to be nonzero.
\hspace{0.6cm} Here, we would like to mention that hysteresis curves encountered in the practice of physical measurements, stress-strain hysteresis loops in shape memory alloy wires, load-displacement hysteresis curves in composite structures, magnetic hysteresis curves of nano-minerals may genuinely occur to lack the smoothness. Also, we add that for the completed relay operator and the truncated play operators employed to approximate the former (see \cite{Visintin}) the curves describing the corresponding hysteresis regions are piecewise linear but nonsmooth.
\hspace{0.6cm} The purpose of the present paper is to prove the existence of a solution to system $(P)$ with sufficiently general $h$, $g$, $f_*$, and $f^*$. In our approach to establish the existence for
problem $(P)$, first, we construct a family of suitable approximate problems based on the Yosida
regularization $\partial I^\lambda(u;\cdot)$, $\lambda>0$, of
the subdifferential $\partial I(u;\cdot)$. We then further regularize the nonsmooth functions $f_*$ and $ f^*$ describing $\partial I^\lambda(u;\cdot)$ by sequences of mollifiers depending on a regularizing parameter $\varepsilon>0$. Next, we rewrite thus obtained approximate problem $(P)_{\lambda,\varepsilon}$ as a single abstract differential equation with a general nonlinearity subject to periodic condition. Applying a standard for such equations technique invoking a fixed point argument we find a solution of the abstract equation which provides us with a solution to the approximate problem $(P)_{\lambda,\varepsilon}$.
After that, we establish a priori estimates independent of
$\varepsilon$ for solutions of the approximate problems and performing a limiting procedure as $\varepsilon\to 0$ we obtain an intermediate approximate problem $(P)_{\lambda}$ depending now on the parameter $\lambda$ only. Deriving uniform estimates with respect to $\lambda$ for the latter system, we finally
prove the existence of a solution to problem $(P)$ through the
passage-to-the-limit procedure when $\lambda\to 0$. We note that in order to get
suitable compactness properties and, thus, to
legitimate this passage-to-the-limit we exploit essentially the
properties derived from the specific structure of the
approximate equations for $(\ref{1.2})$. This also allows us,
inter alia, to treat general nonlinearities in Eqs.
$(\ref{1.1})$, $(\ref{1.2})$.
\section{Preliminaries and hypotheses on the data} \label{section2}
In this section, we recall some notions which we use in the paper and posit assumptions on the
data describing Problem $(P)$.
\hspace{0.6cm} Throughout the paper, we denote by $H$ the Hilbert
space $L^2(\Omega)$ with the standard inner product
$\langle\cdot,\cdot \rangle_H$, and by $V$ the Sobolev space $H^1(\Omega)$.
\hspace{0.6cm} Given a Hilbert
space $X$ with the inner product
$\langle\cdot,\cdot \rangle_X$ and a convex, lower semicontinuous function $\varphi:
X \to {\mathbb R}\cup \{+\infty\}$ which is not identically
$+\infty$, the subdifferential $\partial \varphi (x)$ of $\varphi$ at a
point $x\in X$ is, in general, a set defined by the rule
$$
\partial\varphi (x)=\{h\in X; \; \langle h,y-x\rangle_X\leq
\varphi(y)-\varphi(x) \;\; \forall y\in X\}.
$$
\hspace{0.6cm} Let $f_*, f^*$ be two Lipschitz continuous functions
defined on $\mathbb{R}$. Then, the subdifferential of the
indicator function $I(u;\cdot)$, $u\in \mathbb{R}$,
\begin{equation*} I(u;v):= \left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
0 &\mbox{if} \;\; \; f_{*}(u)\leq v\leq f^{*}(u) , \\
+\infty &\mbox{otherwise} ,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation*} of the
interval $[f_{*}(u), f^{*}(u)]$ has the form:
\begin{equation}\partial I(u;v)= \left\{ \begin{array}{ccl}
\emptyset &\mbox{if}& v \notin [f_{\ast}(u),f^{\ast}(u)] ,\\
{[}0,+\infty) &\mbox{if}& v = f^{\ast}(u)> f_{\ast}(u),\\
\{0\} &\mbox{if}& f_{\ast}(u)< v < f^{\ast}(u) ,\\
(-\infty, 0{]} &\mbox{if}& v = f_{\ast}(u)< f^{\ast}(u),\\
(-\infty, +\infty) &\mbox{if}& v = f_{\ast}(u)= f^{\ast}(u).
\end{array}
\right. \label{2.1}
\end{equation}
For $\lambda>0$, the Yosida regularization of $\partial I(u;v)$ is
the function
\begin{equation}\partial I^\lambda(u;v)= \frac{1}{\lambda}[v-f^*(u)]^+-\frac{1}{\lambda}[f_*(u)-v]^+ , \quad u,v\in \mathbb{R}.\label{2.2}
\end{equation}
\hspace{0.6cm} Let $f:\mathbb{R}\to \mathbb{R}$ be a Lipschitz continuous function. For $\varepsilon>0$, denote by $f_{\varepsilon}(u)$, $u\in \mathbb{R}$, the following
regularization of the function $f_{\varepsilon}(u)$:
\begin{align}
f_\varepsilon(u):=\int_{\mathbb{R}}f(s)\rho_\varepsilon(u-s)\, ds =\int_{\mathbb{R}}f(u-\varepsilon s)\rho(s)\, ds , \label{2.3}
\end{align}
where $\rho\in C^\infty(\mathbb{R})$ is such that $\rho\geq 0$,
$\rho(s)=0$ when $|s|\geq 1$, $\rho(s)=\rho(-s)$,
$\int_{\mathbb{R}}\rho(s) \,ds=1$,
$\rho_\varepsilon(s):=\varepsilon^{-1}
\rho\left(\frac{s}{\varepsilon}\right)$.
\hspace{0.6cm} The lemma below follows directly from the
definition of $f_\varepsilon(u)$ and the properties of
$\rho_\varepsilon(s)$.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma2.1} The function $f_\varepsilon(u)$
possesses the following properties:
\begin{itemize}
\item[{$(1)$}] $f_\varepsilon(u)\in C^\infty(\mathbb{R});$
\item[{$(2)$}] $f_\varepsilon(u)$ is Lipschitz continuous with the
same Lipschitz constant as $f(u);$
\item[{$(3)$}] $f_\varepsilon(u)\to f(u)$ as $\varepsilon\to 0$
uniformly on $\mathbb{R};$
\item[{$(4)$}] $|f_\varepsilon|_\infty \leq |f|_\infty.$
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\hspace{0.6cm} Problem $(\ref{1.1})$--$(\ref{1.4})$ is considered
under the following hypotheses:
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\textbf{(H1)}}] the functions $h, g:\mathbb{R}^2\to \mathbb{R}$ are locally Lipschitz continuous, the function $h$ is bounded, and the Lipschitz constant in the variable $v$ of $g$: $L_*<\kappa/C_P$, where $C_P$ is the best constant of the Poincar\'{e} inequality on $\Omega$;
\item[{\textbf{(H2)}}] the functions $f_*, f^*:\mathbb{R}\to \mathbb{R} $ are locally Lipschitz continuous, $f_*(u)\leq f^*(u)$ for all $u\in \mathbb{R}$, and there exist constants $a, b$, $a<b$, such that $f_*(u)= f^*(u)$ for $u\in \mathbb{R}\setminus (a,b)$.
\end{itemize}
\hspace{0.6cm} Next, we define a notion of solution to our Problem
$(P)$.
\begin{definition} \label{def2.1} A pair $\{u,v\}$ is called a solution of
system $(\ref{1.1})$--$(\ref{1.4})$ if
\begin{itemize}
\item[$(i)$] $ u, v\in W^{1,2}(0,T;H)\cap
L^\infty(0,T;V)\cap L^2(0,T;H^2 (\Omega ))$;
\item[$(ii)$] $u'-\Delta u = h(u,v)$ \; in $H$ a.e. on $[0,T]$;
\item[$(iii)$] $ v'-\kappa \Delta v+ \partial I(u;v)\ni g(u,v)$
\; in $H$ a.e. on $[0,T]$;
\item[$(iv)$] $u=v=0$ on $\partial\Omega$ $($in the sense of traces$)$ a.e. on $[0,T]$;
\item[$(v)$] $u(0)=u(T)$, $v(0)=v(T)$ \; in $H$,
\end{itemize}
where the prime denotes the derivative with respect to $t$.
\end{definition}
\hspace{0.6cm} We note that in view of the variational characterization of subdifferential, the part $(iii)$ of the above definition implies that
\begin{equation} f_*(u)\leq v \leq f^*(u) \;\; \text{a.e. in } \; Q(T)\label{2.4}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation} \langle v'(t)-\kappa \Delta v(t)- g(u(t),v(t)),
v(t)-z\rangle_H\leq 0\label{2.5}
\end{equation}
for all $z\in H$ with $f_*(u(t))\leq z \leq f^*(u(t))$ a.e. in $\Omega$ for a.e. $t\in [0,T]$.
\section{Approximate problems} \label{section4}
First, we note that if $(u,v)$ is a solution to Problem $(P)$, then $(\ref{1.1})$, $(\ref{1.3})$, $(\ref{1.4})$, and Hypothesis $(H1)$ imply that $|u|_{L^\infty(Q)}\leq M_1$, where $M_1>0$ is a constant depending on $|h|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^2)}$ and $T$ only (see, e.g., \cite[Proposition 10]{Quittner}). By virtue of this estimate, from Hypothesis $(H2)$ and $(\ref{2.4})$ we see that also $|v|_{L^\infty(Q)}\leq M_2$ for a constant $M_2>0$ depending on $M_1$ and the Lipschitz constants of $f_*, f^*$. Therefore, we may now assume (cutting off outside the set where $u$ and $v$ are bounded, if necessary) that the functions $h, g, f_*, f^*$ are all bounded and globally Lipschitz continuous.
\hspace{0.6cm} In order to prove the existence of a solution to our Problem $(P)$, we approximate the latter by a family of suitable
problems depending on two approximation parameters which we
introduce next.
\hspace{0.6cm} Let $\varepsilon>0$ and ${f}_{*\varepsilon}(u)$ and ${f}^*_\varepsilon(u)$ be the regularizations as in $(\ref{2.3})$ of the functions ${f}_*(u)$ and ${f}^*(u)$, respectively.
\hspace{0.6cm} For $\lambda, \varepsilon>0$, we consider the following
approximate periodic problem denoted by $(P)_{\lambda,\varepsilon}$:
\begin{equation}
u' -\Delta u =h(u,v) \quad \text{in } H \; \text{a.e. on } [0,T]
,\label{3.1}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} v'-\kappa\Delta v+ \partial {I}^{\lambda}_{\varepsilon}(u;v)= g(u,v) \quad \text{in } H \; \text{a.e. on } [0,T] , \label{3.2}\end{equation}
\begin{equation}u = v=0 \quad \text{on } \partial\Omega \;\; \text{a.e. on } [0,T], \label{3.3}\end{equation}
\begin{equation}u(0) =
u(T), \quad v(0) = v(T) \quad \text{in } H ,
\label{3.4}\end{equation}
where $\partial {I}^{\lambda}_{\varepsilon}(u;v)$ is defined as $\partial {I}^{\lambda}(u;v)$ in $(\ref{2.2})$ with ${f}_*$ and ${f}^*$ replaced by ${f}_{*\varepsilon}$ and ${f}^*_\varepsilon$, respectively.
\hspace{0.6cm} A pair of functions $\{u,v\}$ is called a solution to
$(P)_{\lambda,\varepsilon}$ if $u,v\in W^{1,2}(0,T;H)\cap L^\infty(0,T;V)\cap
L^2(0,T;H^2 (\Omega ))$ and $(\ref{3.1})$--$(\ref{3.4})$ hold.
\hspace{0.6cm} In this section, we prove the existence of solutions for
problems $(P)_{\lambda,\varepsilon}$, $\lambda,\varepsilon>0$. To this aim, first, for convenience, we rewrite $(P)_{\lambda,\varepsilon}$ as the following equivalent to $(P)_{\lambda,\varepsilon}$ periodic problem for a single abstract nonlinear differential equation in the Hilbert space $\mathbf{H}:=H\times H$:
\begin{equation} z'(t)+ \partial \varphi(z(t))= F(z(t)) \quad \text{in } \mathbf{H} \quad \text{for a.e. } t\in [0,T] , \label{3.5}\end{equation}
\begin{equation}z(0) =
z(T) \quad \text{in } \mathbf{H}.
\label{3.6}\end{equation}
Here, $z:=(u,v)\in\mathbf{H}$,
\begin{equation}\varphi(z):= \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{ \frac{1}{2}|\nabla u|_H^2+\frac{\kappa}{2}|\nabla v|_H^2 +\frac{1}{2\lambda}|v|_H^2}&\mbox{if } z \in H_0^1(\Omega)\times H_0^1(\Omega) ,\\
+\infty &\mbox{otherwise},
\end{array}
\right. \label{3.7}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} F(z):= \left( \begin{array}{c}
h(u,v) \\
g(u,v)+\displaystyle{\frac{1}{\lambda}J_uv}
\end{array}
\right), \label{3.8}
\end{equation}
where $J_uv:=\max\{\min\{v,{f}^*_\varepsilon(u)\},{f}_{*\varepsilon}(u)\}$ is the projection of $v$ onto the set $K(u):=\{v\in H: \; v(x)\in [{f}_{*\varepsilon}(u(x)),{f}^*_\varepsilon(u(x))] \mbox{ for a.e. } x\in \Omega\}$ (cf. $(\ref{2.2})$). Then, $\varphi:\mathbf{H}\to [0,+\infty]$ is a proper, convex, lower semicontinuous function,
\begin{equation} \partial\varphi(z)= \left( \begin{array}{c}
-\Delta u \\
-\kappa\Delta v+\displaystyle{\frac{1}{\lambda}v}
\end{array}
\right), \domain \partial\varphi=(H_0^1(\Omega)\times H_0^1(\Omega))\cap (H^2(\Omega)\times H^2(\Omega)), \label{3.9}
\end{equation}
and the notion of a solution to $(\ref{3.5})$, $(\ref{3.6})$ (as well as to $(\ref{3.10})$, $(\ref{3.11})$ below) naturally extends from Definition 2.1.
\hspace{0.6cm} Given a function $f\in L^2(0,T;\mathbf{H})$ consider the following periodic problem associated with $(\ref{3.5})$, $(\ref{3.6})$:
\begin{equation} z'(t)+ \partial \varphi(z(t))= f(t) \quad \text{in } \mathbf{H} \quad \text{for a.e. } t\in [0,T] , \label{3.10}\end{equation}
\begin{equation}z(0) =
z(T) \quad \text{in } \mathbf{H}.
\label{3.11}\end{equation}
It is a standard matter to show that the function $\varphi$ defined by $(\ref{3.7})$ satisfies the assumptions $(A.1)$--$(A.3)$ of \cite{Yamada}. Moreover, since the subdifferential $\partial\varphi$ (see $(\ref{3.9})$) of this function is obviously strictly monotone operator, \cite[Theorem 1.4]{Yamada} (see, also, \cite[\S 2.3]{Kenmochi}) implies that there exists a unique solution $z=z(f)$ of $(\ref{3.10})$, $(\ref{3.11})$.
\hspace{0.6cm} Next, define the solution operator $\mathcal{T}:L^2(0,T;\mathbf{H})\to C([0,T];\mathbf{H})$
which with each $f\in L^2(0,T;\mathbf{H})$ associates the unique solution $z=\mathcal{T}(f)$ of
Problem $(\ref{3.10})$, $(\ref{3.11})$.
\begin{proposition} \label{Proposition 3.1}
The operator $\mathcal{T}:L^2(0,T;\mathbf{H})\to C([0,T];\mathbf{H})$
is weak-strong continuous in the sense that if $f_n\to f$ weakly in $L^2(0,T;\mathbf{H})$ for $f, f_n\in L^2(0,T;\mathbf{H})$, $n\geq 1$, then $\mathcal{T}(f_n)\to \mathcal{T}(f)$ strongly in $C([0,T];\mathbf{H})$.
\end{proposition}
\bpf{Proof} Let $f_n\to f$ weakly in $L^2(0,T;\mathbf{H})$ and $z_n:=\mathcal{T}(f_n)$, $n\geq 1$. Then, we have
\begin{equation} z_n'(t)+ \partial \varphi(z_n(t))= f_n(t) \quad \text{in } \mathbf{H} \quad \text{for a.e. } t\in [0,T] , \label{3.12}\end{equation}
\begin{equation}z_n(0) =
z_n(T) \quad \text{in } \mathbf{H}.
\label{3.13}\end{equation}
Testing Eq. (\ref{3.12}) by $ z'_{n}(t)$ and applying Young's inequality we obtain (cf. $(\ref{3.7})$)
\begin{equation} |z'_{n}|_\mathbf{H}^2+\frac{d}{dt}\langle \partial \varphi(z_n), z_n\rangle_\mathbf{H} \leq C_1 \quad \text{ a.e. on} \;
[0,T],
\label{3.14}\end{equation}
where $C_1:=\sup\limits_{n\geq 1}|f_n|^2_\mathbf{H}$, $|\cdot|_\mathbf{H}$ and $\langle \cdot, \cdot\rangle_\mathbf{H}$ are the norm and inner product in $\mathbf{H}$, respectively. Similarly, testing Eq. (\ref{3.12}) by $\partial \varphi(z_n)$ we have
\begin{equation} \frac{d}{dt}\langle \partial \varphi(z_n), z_n\rangle_\mathbf{H} +|\partial \varphi(z_n)|_\mathbf{H}^2\leq C_1\quad \text{ a.e. on} \;
[0,T].
\label{3.15}\end{equation}
Now, we test $(\ref{3.12})$ by $z_{n}$ and invoke the Poincar\'{e} inequality to obtain
\begin{equation*} \frac{d}{dt}|z_{n}|^2_\mathbf{H} + \langle \partial \varphi(z_n), z_n\rangle_\mathbf{H}\leq C_2 \quad \text{a.e. on} \; [0,T], \label{}\end{equation*}
where $C_2>0$ is a constant depending on $C_1$, $\lambda$ and the constant of the Poincar\'{e} inequality. Integrating this inequality from $0$ to $T$ and taking account of the periodicity condition $(\ref{3.13})$ we deduce that
\begin{equation} \int_0^T\langle \partial \varphi(z_n(\tau)), z_n(\tau)\rangle_\mathbf{H} d\tau\leq C_2 T.\label{3.16}\end{equation}
Next, to show that the sequence
\begin{equation} \{\langle \partial \varphi(z_n), z_n\rangle\}_{n\geq 1} \;\;\text{ is bounded in } L^\infty(0,T;\mathbf{H})\label{3.17}\end{equation}
we note that $z_n$, $n\geq 1$, are $T$-periodic and we can thus consider their periodic extensions onto the whole real axis. Then, we take $t\in[T,2T]$, $\tau\in (0,T)$, and integrate the inequality
\begin{equation*} \frac{d}{dt}\langle \partial \varphi(z_n), z_n\rangle_\mathbf{H}\leq C_1 \quad \text{a.e. on} \; [0,T], \label{}\end{equation*}
obtained from $(\ref{3.15})$, from $\tau$ to $t$ to get
\begin{equation*} \langle \partial \varphi(z_n(t)), z_n(t)\rangle_\mathbf{H} \leq \langle \partial \varphi(z_n(\tau)), z_n(\tau)\rangle_\mathbf{H} +2C_1 T .\label{}\end{equation*}
Integrating this inequality over $\tau$ from $0$ to $T$ and using $(\ref{3.16})$ we obtain $(\ref{3.17})$.
\hspace{0.6cm} Integrating $(\ref{3.14})$, $(\ref{3.15})$ from $0$ to $T$ and taking account of the periodicity condition $(\ref{3.13})$ we see in view of $(\ref{3.7})$ that the following uniform with respect to $n\geq 1$ estimates hold for the components $u_n, v_n$ of the solution $z_n$ of $(\ref{3.12})$, $(\ref{3.13})$:
\begin{align} \nonumber
|u_{n}'|_{L^2(0,T;H)}&+|\Delta u_{n}|_{L^2(0,T;H)}
+|\nabla u_{n}|_{L^\infty(0,T;H)}\\+
|v_{n}'|_{L^2(0,T;H)}&+|\Delta v_{n}|_{L^2(0,T;H)}
+|\nabla v_{n}|_{L^\infty(0,T;H)}\leq C_3,\label{3.21}
\end{align}
for a positive constant $C_3$ independent of $n\geq 1$. On account of these uniform estimates, by weak and
weak-star compactness results, there exists a subsequence (still indexed by $n$) of the sequence
$z_n$, $n\geq 1$, and a function $z\in W^{1,2}(0,T; \mathbf{H}) \cap L^{\infty}(0,T;V\times V) \cap
L^2(0,T;H^2(\Omega)\times H^2(\Omega))$ such that
\begin{align}
& \left. \begin{array}{lc} & {z}_{n} \to z \quad
\mbox{weakly in } W^{1,2}(0,T; \mathbf{H}) \cap
L^2(0,T;H^2(\Omega)\times H^2(\Omega)) \vspace{0.1cm}\\
& \*\hspace{3cm} \mbox{and weakly-star in } L^{\infty}(0,T;V\times V).
\end{array}
\right. \label{3.22}
\end{align}
In particular, we also have
\begin{equation} {z}_{n} \to z \quad \mbox{in } C([0,T];\mathbf{H}).\label{3.23}\end{equation}
The convergences $(\ref{3.22})$, $(\ref{3.23})$ imply that $z$ satisfies $(\ref{3.10})$, $(\ref{3.11})$. Therefore, $z=\mathcal{T}(f)$
and the claim of the proposition follows.
\epf
\hspace{0.6cm} From Hypotheses $(H1), (H2)$, Lemma 2.1 (2), (4), and $(\ref{3.8})$ we see that the mapping $F:C([0,T];\mathbf{H})\to L^2(0,T;\mathbf{H})$ is continuous and there exists a constant $R>0$ such that
\begin{equation} |F(z)|_\mathbf{H} \leq R \quad \mbox{for all } z\in \mathbf{H}.\label{3.24}\end{equation}
We now introduce the set
\begin{equation*}
S_R=\{f\in L^2(0,T;\mathbf{H}): \;|f(t)|_\mathbf{H}\leq R
\quad\text{for a.e.} \; t\in [0,T]\}, \label{}
\end{equation*}
and define the superposition $F\circ \mathcal{T}: S_R\to L^2(0,T;\mathbf{H})$ of the solution operator $\mathcal{T}$ and
$F$:
\begin{equation*}
F\circ \mathcal{T}(f)=F(\mathcal{T}(f)). \label{}
\end{equation*}
From Proposition 3.1 and $(\ref{3.24})$ it follows that
$F\circ \mathcal{T}:S_R\to S_R$ is weak-weak continuous.
Since the set $S_R$ is obviously convex and compact in the weak topology of
the space $L^2(0,T;\mathbf{H})$, from the Schauder fixed point theorem we
conclude that there exists a fixed point $f_*\in S_R$ of the
operator $F\circ \mathcal{T}$:
\begin{equation*} f_*=F(\mathcal{T}(f_*)) .\label{}\end{equation*}
Setting $z_*:=\mathcal{T}(f_*)$
we see that $z_*$ is a solution to the periodic problem $(\ref{3.5})$, $(\ref{3.6})$, which provides the desired solution of Problem $(P)_{\lambda, \varepsilon}$, $\lambda, \varepsilon>0$.
\section{Well-posedness of problem $(P)$}
In this section, first we derive uniform a priori estimates independent of the parameter $\varepsilon>0$ for solutions $\{u_{\lambda \varepsilon},v_{\lambda \varepsilon}\}$ of the approximate periodic Problem $(P)_{\lambda, \varepsilon}$, which will allow us to derive the convergence of $\{u_{\lambda \varepsilon},v_{\lambda \varepsilon}\}$ as $\varepsilon\to 0$ to a solution $\{u_{\lambda},v_{\lambda}\}$ of an intermediate approximate problem depending on the parameter $\lambda$ only. Then, we establish uniform bounds independent of the parameter $\lambda$ for solutions $\{u_{\lambda},v_{\lambda}\}$ of the latter system and finally pass to the limit as $\lambda\to 0$ to obtain a solution to our original periodic problem $(P)$.
\subsection{Passage-to-the-limit: $\varepsilon\to 0$}
Fix $\lambda>0$. Repeating the reasoning in derivation of $(\ref{3.21})$ from $(\ref{3.12})$, $(\ref{3.13})$, using Hypothesis $(H1)$ we obtain from $(\ref{3.1})$, $(\ref{3.3})$ the following uniform with respect to the parameter $\varepsilon>0$ estimates for the first component of solutions $(u_{\lambda \varepsilon}, v_{\lambda \varepsilon})$ of the approximate periodic problems $(P)_{\lambda \varepsilon}$:
\begin{align}
|u_{\lambda \varepsilon}'|_{L^2(0,T;H)}&+|\Delta u_{\lambda \varepsilon}|_{L^2(0,T;H)}
+|\nabla u_{\lambda \varepsilon}|_{L^\infty(0,T;H)}\leq R_1,\label{4.1}
\end{align}
for a positive constant $R_1$ depending on $|h|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^2)}$ and the Lebesgue measure of $\Omega$, but independent of $\varepsilon$. On account of these uniform estimates, by weak and
weak-star compactness results, there exists a null sequence
$\varepsilon_n$, $n\geq 1$, in $(0,1]$ and a function $u_\lambda$ such that
\begin{align}
& \left. \begin{array}{lc} & {u}_{\lambda \varepsilon_n} \to u_\lambda \quad
\mbox{weakly in } W^{1,2}(0,T; H) \cap
L^2(0,T;H^2(\Omega)) \vspace{0.1cm}\\
& \*\hspace{3cm} \mbox{and weakly-star in } L^{\infty}(0,T; V).
\end{array}
\right. \label{4.2}
\end{align}
In particular, we also have
\begin{equation} {u}_{\lambda \varepsilon_n} \to u_\lambda \quad \mbox{in } C([0,T];H).\label{4.3}\end{equation}
Invoking the Poincar\'{e} inequality from $(\ref{4.1})$ we obtain
\begin{equation} \int_0^T|u_{\lambda \varepsilon}(\tau)|^2_H d\tau\leq C_P^2 R_1.\label{4.4}\end{equation}
\hspace{0.6cm} In order to derive uniform estimates for ${v}_{\lambda \varepsilon}$, we recall first the following result.
\begin{lemma}[{\cite[Lemma 4.1]{CKK}}] Let $(u, v)$ be a solution of $(\ref{3.1})$, $(\ref{3.2})$. Then, the function
\begin{equation} t\mapsto {I}^{\lambda}_\varepsilon(u;v)(t)=\frac{1}{2\lambda}\left|[v(t)-{f}^*_\varepsilon(u(t))]^+\right|^2_H +\frac{1}{2\lambda}\left|[{f}_{*\varepsilon}(u(t))-v(t)]^+\right|^2_H \label{4.5}\end{equation}
is absolutely continuous on $[0,T]$ and
\begin{equation*} \frac{d}{dt} {I}_\varepsilon^{\lambda}(u;v)\leq \langle \partial {I}_\varepsilon^{\lambda}(u;v),v'\rangle_H+L_0|u'|_H |\partial {I}_\varepsilon^{\lambda}(u;v)|_H \label{}\end{equation*}
a.e. in $(0,T)$, where $L_0$ is a common Lipschitz constant of $f_*$ and $f^*$ $($see Lemma $2.1 (2))$. \qed
\end{lemma}
\hspace{0.6cm} Now, testing Eq. (\ref{3.2}) by $ v'_{\lambda \varepsilon}$ we see in view of Lemma 4.1 that
\begin{align} \nonumber\frac{1}{2}|v'_{\lambda \varepsilon}|_H^2&+\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{\kappa}{2}|\nabla v_{\lambda \varepsilon}|_H^2 +{I}^\lambda_\varepsilon(u_{\lambda\varepsilon};v_{\lambda\varepsilon})\right)\\ &\leq
L_0^2 |u'_{\lambda \varepsilon}|_H^2+\frac{1}{4}\left|\partial{I}^\lambda_\varepsilon(u_{\lambda\varepsilon};v_{\lambda\varepsilon})\right|_H^2+R_2
\label{4.6}\end{align}
a.e. on $(0,T)$, where $R_2>0$ is a constant independent of $\varepsilon$. Then, testing Eq. (\ref{3.2}) by $-\kappa\Delta v_{\lambda \varepsilon}$ yields
\begin{align} \nonumber \kappa^2|\Delta v_{\lambda \varepsilon}|_H^2+\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{\kappa}{2}|\nabla v_{\lambda \varepsilon}|_H^2\right) &\leq \left\langle \kappa\Delta v_{\lambda \varepsilon},\partial{I}^\lambda_\varepsilon(u_{\lambda\varepsilon};v_{\lambda\varepsilon})\right\rangle_H \\ &+\frac{1}{2}\kappa^2 |\Delta v_{\lambda \varepsilon}|_H^2+ 4R_2
\label{4.7}\end{align}
a.e. on $(0,T)$. We evaluate the first term on the right-hand side of this inequality as follows
\begin{align*} &\left\langle \partial{I}^\lambda_\varepsilon(u_{\lambda\varepsilon};v_{\lambda\varepsilon}), \kappa\Delta v_{\lambda \varepsilon}\right\rangle_H = \\
&\left\langle \frac{\kappa}{\lambda} \left[v_{\lambda \varepsilon}-{f}^*_\varepsilon(u_{\lambda\varepsilon})\right]^+,\Delta \left(v_{\lambda\varepsilon}-{f}^*_\varepsilon(u_{\lambda\varepsilon})\right)\right\rangle_H
+\left\langle \frac{\kappa}{\lambda} \left[v_{\lambda \varepsilon}-{f}^*_\varepsilon(u_{\lambda\varepsilon})\right]^+,\Delta {f}^*_\varepsilon(u_{\lambda\varepsilon})\right\rangle_H +
\\
&\left\langle \frac{\kappa}{\lambda} \left[{f}_{*\varepsilon}(u_{\lambda\varepsilon})-v_{\lambda \varepsilon}\right]^+,\Delta \left({f}_{*\varepsilon}(u_{\lambda\varepsilon})-v_{\lambda\varepsilon}\right)\right\rangle_H
+\left\langle \frac{\kappa}{\lambda} \left[{f}_{*\varepsilon}(u_{\lambda\varepsilon})-v_{\lambda \varepsilon}\right]^+,-\Delta {f}_{*\varepsilon}(u_{\lambda\varepsilon})\right\rangle_H
\\
&=-\frac{\kappa}{\lambda} \left|\nabla\left[v_{\lambda \varepsilon}-{f}^*_\varepsilon(u_{\lambda\varepsilon})\right]^+\right|_H^2
+\left\langle \frac{\kappa}{\lambda} \left[v_{\lambda \varepsilon}-{f}^*_\varepsilon(u_{\lambda\varepsilon})\right]^+,\Delta {f}^*_\varepsilon(u_{\lambda\varepsilon})\right\rangle_H
\\
&\*\hspace{0.3cm}-\frac{\kappa}{\lambda} \left|\nabla\left[{f}_{*\varepsilon}(u_{\lambda\varepsilon})-v_{\lambda \varepsilon}\right]^+\right|_H^2
+\left\langle \frac{\kappa}{\lambda} \left[{f}_{*\varepsilon}(u_{\lambda\varepsilon})-v_{\lambda \varepsilon}\right]^+,-\Delta {f}_{*\varepsilon}(u_{\lambda\varepsilon})\right\rangle_H
\\
&\leq\frac{1}{8\lambda^2} \left\{\left|\left[v_{\lambda \varepsilon}-{f}^*_\varepsilon(u_{\lambda\varepsilon})\right]^+\right|_H^2+\left|\left[{f}_{*\varepsilon}(u_{\lambda\varepsilon})-v_{\lambda \varepsilon}\right]^+\right|_H^2\right\} \\
&\*\hspace{4.6cm} +2\kappa^2\left(\left|\Delta {f}^*_\varepsilon(u_{\lambda\varepsilon})\right|_H^2 +\left|\Delta {f}_{*\varepsilon}(u_{\lambda\varepsilon})\right|_H^2\right)
\\
&\leq\frac{1}{8} \left|\partial{I}^\lambda_\varepsilon(u_{\lambda\varepsilon};v_{\lambda\varepsilon})\right|_H^2 +2\kappa^2\left(\left|\Delta {f}^*_\varepsilon(u_{\lambda\varepsilon})\right|_H^2 +\left|\Delta {f}_{*\varepsilon}(u_{\lambda\varepsilon})\right|_H^2\right).
\label{}\end{align*}
Observing that $\Delta f(u)=f''(u)|\nabla u|_H^2+f'(u)\Delta u$ and invoking the Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality from the last inequality we obtain
\begin{align*} &\left\langle \partial{I}^\lambda_\varepsilon(u_{\lambda\varepsilon};v_{\lambda\varepsilon}), \kappa\Delta v_{\lambda \varepsilon}\right\rangle_H
\leq\frac{1}{8} \left|\partial{I}^\lambda_\varepsilon(u_{\lambda\varepsilon};v_{\lambda\varepsilon})\right|_H^2 +2\kappa^2 R_3\left(|u_{\lambda\varepsilon}|_H^2+|\Delta u_{\lambda\varepsilon}|_H^2\right)
\label{}\end{align*}
for a constant $R_3>0$ independent of $\varepsilon$, so that (\ref{4.7}) implies that
\begin{align} \nonumber \kappa^2|\Delta v_{\lambda \varepsilon}|_H^2+\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{\kappa}{2}|\nabla v_{\lambda \varepsilon}|_H^2\right) &\leq \frac{1}{8} \left|\partial{I}^\lambda_\varepsilon(u_{\lambda\varepsilon};v_{\lambda\varepsilon})\right|_H^2 \\ & + 2\kappa^2 R_3\left(|u_{\lambda\varepsilon}|_H^2+|\Delta u_{\lambda\varepsilon}|_H^2\right)
\label{4.8}\end{align}
a.e. on $(0,T)$. Similarly, testing Eq. (\ref{3.2}) by $\partial{I}^\lambda_\varepsilon(u_{\lambda\varepsilon};v_{\lambda\varepsilon})$ and using Lemma 3.1 we see that
\begin{align} \nonumber \frac{1}{2} \left|\partial{I}^\lambda_\varepsilon(u_{\lambda\varepsilon};v_{\lambda\varepsilon})\right|_H^2
&+ \frac{d}{dt} {I}^\lambda_\varepsilon(u_{\lambda\varepsilon};v_{\lambda\varepsilon})\leq L_0^2|u'_{\lambda \varepsilon}|_H^2\\
&+2\kappa^2 R_3\left(|u_{\lambda\varepsilon}|_H^2+|\Delta u_{\lambda\varepsilon}|_H^2\right)+4R_2
\label{4.9}\end{align}
a.e. on $(0,T)$.
\hspace{0.6cm} Next, taking the sum of the inequalities $(\ref{4.6})$, $(\ref{4.8})$, and $(\ref{4.9})$, then integrating the result from $0$ to $T$ we see in view of $(\ref{3.4})$, $(\ref{4.1})$, and $(\ref{4.4})$ that
\begin{align}
|v_{\lambda \varepsilon}'|_{L^2(0,T;H)}+\kappa|\Delta v_{\lambda \varepsilon}|_{L^2(0,T;H)}
+\left|\partial{I}^\lambda_\varepsilon(u_{\lambda\varepsilon};v_{\lambda\varepsilon})\right|_{L^2(0,T;H)}\leq R_4 \label{4.10}
\end{align}
for a constant $R_4>0$ independent of $\varepsilon$.
\hspace{0.6cm} In view of $(\ref{4.10})$, similarly to $(\ref{3.16})$ we obtain
\begin{equation*} \frac{\kappa}{2}\int_0^T|\nabla v_{\lambda \varepsilon}(\tau)|^2_H d\tau\leq R_5, \label{}\end{equation*}
where $R_5>0$ is a constant independent of $\varepsilon$. Invoking the Poincar\'{e} inequality we further derive
\begin{equation} \frac{\kappa}{2}\int_0^T| v_{\lambda \varepsilon}(\tau)|^2_H d\tau\leq R_5 C_P. \label{4.13}\end{equation}
Then, from $(\ref{4.5})$, $(\ref{4.4})$, and $(\ref{4.13})$ we see that
\begin{equation} \int_0^T I_\lambda^{\varepsilon}(u_{\lambda \varepsilon}(\tau),v_{\lambda \varepsilon}(\tau)) d\tau \leq \frac{1}{\lambda}R_6, \label{4.14}\end{equation}
where $R_6>0$ is a constant independent of $\varepsilon$ and $\lambda$. Taking account of $(\ref{4.6})$, $(\ref{4.8})$, $(\ref{4.9})$, $(\ref{4.1})$, $(\ref{4.5})$, $(\ref{4.14})$ and reasoning as in derivation of $(\ref{3.17})$ we infer that
\begin{equation} |\nabla v_{\lambda \varepsilon_n}|_{L^\infty(0,T:H)}\leq R(\lambda) \label{4.15}\end{equation}
for a positive constant $R(\lambda)$ dependent on $\lambda$, $\kappa$, $L_0$, $T$, $R_1$, $R_2$, $R_3$, but independent of $\varepsilon$.
\hspace{0.6cm} As before, the estimates $(\ref{4.10})$, $(\ref{4.15})$ imply the existence of a null sequence $\{\varepsilon_n\}_{n\geq 1}$ and a function $v_\lambda$ such that
\begin{align}
& \left. \begin{array}{lc} & {v}_{\lambda \varepsilon_n} \to v_\lambda \quad
\mbox{weakly in } W^{1,2}(0,T; H) \cap
L^2(0,T;H^2(\Omega)) \vspace{0.1cm}\\
& \*\hspace{3cm} \mbox{and weakly-star in } L^{\infty}(0,T; V).
\end{array}
\right. \label{4.16}
\end{align}
In particular, we also have
\begin{equation} {v}_{\lambda \varepsilon_n} \to v_\lambda \quad \mbox{in } C([0,T];H).\label{4.17}\end{equation}
\hspace{0.6cm} Now, from the convergences $(\ref{4.2})$, $(\ref{4.3})$, $(\ref{4.16})$, $(\ref{4.17})$, Lemma 2.1 (2), (3), and the Arzela--Ascoli theorem we see that the pair $\{u_\lambda,v_\lambda\}$, $\lambda>0$, is a solution of the following system, which we denote by $(P)_\lambda$:
\begin{equation}
u' -\Delta u =h(u,v) \quad \text{in } H \; \text{a.e. on } [0,T]
,\label{4.18}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} v'-\kappa\Delta v+ \partial {I}^{\lambda}(u;v)= g(u,v) \quad \text{in } H \; \text{a.e. on } [0,T] , \label{4.19}\end{equation}
\begin{equation}u =v= 0 \quad \text{on } \partial\Omega \;\; \text{a.e. on } [0,T], \label{4.20}\end{equation}
\begin{equation}u(0) =
u(T), \quad v(0) = v(T) \quad \text{in } H ,
\label{4.21}\end{equation}
where $\partial {I}^{\lambda}(u;v)$ is defined in $(\ref{2.2})$.
\hspace{0.6cm} A solution to
$(P)_{\lambda}$ is a pair of functions $\{u,v\}$ such that $u, v\in W^{1,2}(0,T;H)\cap L^\infty(0,T;V)\cap
L^2(0,T;H^2 (\Omega ))$ and $(\ref{4.18})$--$(\ref{4.21})$ hold.
\hspace{0.6cm} We note that the validity of the periodic condition $(\ref{4.21})$ follows from $(\ref{3.4})$ and $(\ref{4.3})$, $(\ref{4.17})$.
\subsection{Passage-to-the-limit: $\lambda\to 0$}
We now derive a priori estimates uniform with respect to the parameter $\lambda>0$ for solutions $(u_{\lambda}, v_{\lambda})$ of Problem $(P)_{\lambda}$.
\hspace{0.6cm} To this aim, we note that the constants $R_1$, $R_4$, and $R_5$ in the uniform estimates of the previous subsection do not depend on $\lambda$. Hence, for a solution $(u_\lambda,v_\lambda)$ of Problem $(P_\lambda)$ from $(\ref{4.1})$, $(\ref{4.10})$, and $(\ref{4.13})$ we have
\begin{align*}
|u_{\lambda}'|_{L^2(0,T;H)}&+|\Delta u_{\lambda}|_{L^2(0,T;H)}
+|\nabla u_{\lambda}|_{L^\infty(0,T;H)}\\ &+|v_{\lambda }'|_{L^2(0,T;H)}+\kappa|\Delta v_{\lambda }|_{L^2(0,T;H)}
+\left|\partial{I}^\lambda(u_{\lambda};v_{\lambda})\right|_{L^2(0,T;H)}\leq R_7
\end{align*}
and
\begin{equation}|v_{\lambda }|_{L^2(0,T;H)}\leq R_7, \label{4.22}\end{equation}
for a constant $R_7>0$ independent of $\lambda$. In particular, as above we conclude that there exists a null sequence
$\lambda_n$, $n\geq 1$, in $(0,1]$ and functions $u, v$ such that
\begin{align}
& \left. \begin{array}{lc} &\*\hspace{-1cm} u_{\lambda_n} \to u \quad
\vspace{0.1cm}\mbox{weakly in } W^{1,2}(0,T; H) \cap
L^2(0,T;H^2(\Omega))\\
& \*\hspace{1.8cm} \mbox{and weakly-star in } L^{\infty}(0,T; V)
\vspace{0.1cm}\\
& \*\hspace{2.3cm}\mbox{and, thus, strongly in } C([0,T];H),
\end{array}
\right. \label{4.23}\\
&\*\hspace{-0.1cm}v_{\lambda_n} \to v\quad \mbox{weakly in }
W^{1,2}(0,T; H) ,\label{4.24}
\\
&\*\hspace{-0.6cm}\kappa\Delta v_{\lambda_n} \to \kappa\Delta v\quad \mbox{weakly in }
L^{2}(0,T; H) ,\label{4.25}
\\
&\*\hspace{-0.6cm}\partial {I}^{\lambda_n}(u_n,v_n) \to \xi\quad \mbox{weakly in }
L^{2}(0,T; H) \label{4.26}
\end{align}
for some function $\xi\in L^{2}(0,T; H)$.
\hspace{0.6cm} Below, we show that along with the convergences $(\ref{4.23})$--$(\ref{4.26})$ we also have
\begin{equation} v_{\lambda_n} \to
v \quad \mbox{strongly in } C([0,T];H).\label{4.27}\end{equation}
To this end, take two arbitrary $i,j\geq 1$ with $i\neq j$ and denote $u_i:=u_{\lambda_i}$, $v_i:=v_{\lambda_i}$. Then, from $(\ref{4.19})$ it follows that
$$v'_{j}-v'_{i}-\kappa(\Delta v_{j}-\Delta v_{i})+\partial {I}^{\lambda_j}(u_j;v_j)-\partial {I}^{\lambda_i}(u_i;v_i)=g(u_j,v_j)-g(u_i,v_i),$$
Testing this equality by $v_j-v_i$, using the Lipschitz continuity
of $g$ and invoking Young's inequality we have
\begin{align}\nonumber \frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}|v_{j}-v_{i}|_H^2&+\kappa|\nabla(v_{j}-v_{i})|_H^2+\langle\partial {I}^{\lambda_j}(u_j;v_j)-\partial {I}^{\lambda_i}(u_i;v_i),v_j-v_i\rangle_H \\ & \leq L_g|u_j-u_i|_H|v_j-v_i|_H+L_*|v_j-v_i|^2_H,\label{4.28}\end{align}
where $L_g$ and $L_*$ are the Lipschitz constants of $g$ in $u$ and $v$, respectively.
Setting
\begin{align}S_{ij}^\lambda=\langle\partial {I}^{\lambda_j}(u_j;v_j)-\partial {I}^{\lambda_i}(u_i;v_i),v_j-v_i \rangle_H.\label{4.29}\end{align}
we see from $(\ref{2.2})$ that
\begin{align*}
S_{ij}^\lambda=\bigg\langle&\frac{1}{\lambda_j}[v_j-{f}^*(u_j)]^+-\frac{1}{\lambda_j}[{f}_*(u_j)-v_j]^+\\-&\frac{1}{\lambda_i}[v_i-{f}^*(u_i)]^++\frac{1}{\lambda_i}[{f}_*(u_i)-v_i]^+,v_j-v_i\bigg\rangle_H.
\end{align*}
We have nine
possible cases to estimate the value of $S_{ij}^\lambda$ from below. First, assuming that $v_j\geq
{f}^*(u_j)$, $v_i\geq {f}^*(u_i)$ we obtain
\begin{align*}
S_{ij}^\lambda=\bigg\langle\langle&\frac{1}{\lambda_j}(v_j-{f}^*(u_j))-\frac{1}{\lambda_i}(v_i-{f}^*(u_i)),\\
&\lambda_j\frac{1}{\lambda_j}(v_j-{f}^*(u_j))-\lambda_i\frac{1}{\lambda_i}(v_i-{f}^*(u_i))+{f}^*(u_j)-{f}^*(u_i)\bigg\rangle_H
\\ \geq \lambda_j& |\partial {I}^{\lambda_j}(u_j;v_j)|_H^2+\lambda_i |\partial
{I}^{\lambda_i}(u_i;v_i)|_H^2-(\lambda_j+\lambda_i) |\partial
{I}^{\lambda_j}(u_j;v_j)|_H |\partial {I}^{\lambda_i}(u_i;v_i)|_H\\
&- (|\partial {I}^{\lambda_j}(u_j;v_j)|_H +|\partial
{I}^{\lambda_i}(u_i;v_i)|_H)|{f}^*(u_j)-{f}^*(u_i)|_H.\end{align*}
Second, when $v_j\geq {f}^*(u_j)$, ${f}_*(u_i)\leq v_i< {f}^*(u_i)$ we
see that
\begin{align*}
S_{ij}^\lambda=\bigg\langle\frac{1}{\lambda_j}(v_j-{f}^*(u_j)),v_j-v_i\bigg\rangle_H \geq
-|\partial {I}^{\lambda_j}(u_j;v_j)|_H
|{f}^*(u_j)-{f}^*(u_i)|_H.\end{align*}
Third, if $v_j\geq {f}^*(u_j)$, $ v_i< {f}_*(u_i)$, then
\begin{align*}
S_{ij}^\lambda&=\bigg\langle\frac{1}{\lambda_j}(v_j-{f}^*(u_j))+\frac{1}{\lambda_i}({f}_*(u_i)-v_i),v_j-v_i\bigg\rangle_H
\\ &\geq -\left(|\partial {I}^{\lambda_j}(u_j;v_j)|_H+|\partial
{I}^{\lambda_i}(u_i;v_i)|_H\right) |{f}^*(u_j)-{f}^*(u_i)|_H.\end{align*}
The reasoning in the remaining cases:
\begin{align*}
{f}_*(u_j)< v_j&< {f}^*(u_j), \; v_i\geq {f}^*(u_i)\\
{f}_*(u_j)< v_j&< {f}^*(u_j), \; {f}_*(u_i)\leq v_i< {f}^*(u_i)\\
{f}_*(u_j)< v_j&< {f}^*(u_j), \; v_i< {f}_*(u_i) \\
v_j&\leq {f}_*(u_j), \; v_i\geq {f}^*(u_i)\\
v_j&\leq {f}_*(u_j), \; {f}_*(u_i)\leq v_i< {f}^*(u_i)\\
v_j&\leq {f}_*(u_j), \; v_i< {f}_*(u_i) \\
\end{align*}
is fully symmetric and is left to the reader. Consequently, we always have
\begin{align} \nonumber
S_{ij}^\lambda&\geq -(\lambda_j+\lambda_i) |\partial
{I}^{\lambda_j}(u_j;v_j)|_H |\partial {I}^{\lambda_i}(u_i;v_i)|_H\\ \nonumber
&- (|\partial {I}^{\lambda_j}(u_j;v_j)|_H +|\partial
{I}^{\lambda_i}(u_i;v_i)|_H)\left(|{f}^*(u_j)-{f}^*(u_i)|_H+|{f}_*(u_j)-{f}_*(u_i)|_H\right)\\
& =: -\delta_{ij}^\lambda. \label{4.30}\end{align}
\hspace{0.6cm} For convenience, denote $\bar{u}:=u_j-u_i$, $\bar{v}:=v_j-v_i$. Then, from $(\ref{4.28})$--$(\ref{4.30})$ we infer that
\begin{align*}\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}|\bar{v}|_H^2+\kappa|\nabla \bar{v}|_H^2\leq L_g|\bar{u}|_H|\bar{v}|_H+L_*|\bar{v}|^2_H+\delta_{ij}^\lambda.\label{}\end{align*}
Invoking the Poincar\'{e} inequality, from this inequality we obtain
\begin{align*}\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}|\bar{v}|_H^2\leq -\left(\frac{\kappa}{C_P}-L_*\right)|\bar{v}|^2_H+ L_g|\bar{u}|_H|\bar{v}|_H+\delta_{ij}^\lambda.\label{}\end{align*}
Denote $\displaystyle c_0:=\frac{\kappa}{C_P}-L_*$ ($c_0>0$ by Hypothesis $(H1)$). We further have
\begin{align*}\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\left(e^{2c_0 t}|\bar{v}|_H^2\right)\leq 2 e^{2c_0 t}\left(L_g|\bar{u}|_H|\bar{v}|_H+\delta_{ij}^\lambda\right).\label{}\end{align*}
Integrating this inequality from $0$ to $t\in (0,T]$ and using H\"{o}lder's inequality we see in view of $(\ref{4.22})$ that
\begin{align}\nonumber |\bar{v}(t)|_H^2 &\leq e^{-2c_0 t}|\bar{v}(0)|_H^2+2\int_0^t \left(L_g|\bar{u}(\tau)|_H|\bar{v}(\tau)|_H+\delta_{ij}^\lambda(\tau)\right) d\tau \\
&\leq e^{-2c_0 t}|\bar{v}(0)|_H^2+4L_g R_7|\bar{u}|_{L^2(0,T;H)}+2\int_0^t \delta_{ij}^\lambda(\tau) d\tau.\label{4.31}\end{align}
Taking $t=T$ in $(\ref{4.31})$ and substituting the resulting inequality, using the fact that $\bar{v}(T)=\bar{v}(0)$, into $(\ref{4.31})$ we obtain
\begin{align*} |\bar{v}(t)|_H^2 \leq \frac{2e^{2c_0 T}}{e^{2c_0 T}-1}\left(2L_g R_7|\bar{u}|_{L^2(0,T;H)}+\int_0^T \delta_{ij}^\lambda(\tau) d\tau\right).\label{}\end{align*}
Applying Gronwall's inequality to this inequality we conclude in view of the convergence $(\ref{4.23})$ that $v_i$, $i\geq 1$, is a Cauchy sequence in the space $C([0,T];H)$. Hence, according
to $(\ref{4.24})$ we obtain the convergence $(\ref{4.27})$.
\hspace{0.6cm} To show that $v\in L^\infty(0,T;V)$, we note that $(\ref{4.19})$ implies that
\begin{equation*}
g(u(t),v(t))- v'(t)-\partial I^\lambda(u(t),v(t))+ v(t)\in \partial\psi(v(t)) \quad\mbox{for a.e.} \; t\in [0,T], \label{}
\end{equation*}
where
\begin{equation*}\psi(v):= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{1}{2}|v|_H^2 +\frac{1}{2}|\nabla v|_H^2 & \mbox{if} \;v \in V ,\\
+\infty & \mbox{if} \;v \in H\setminus V,
\end{array}\right. \quad \partial\varphi(v)=v-\Delta v.
\label{}\end{equation*}
Since all the functions on the left-hand side of the inclusion above
belong to $L^2(0,T;H)$, from \cite[Lemma
3.3]{Brezis} it follows that the function
$$t\to \varphi(v(t))=\frac{1}{2}|v(t)|_H^2
+\frac{1}{2}|\nabla v(t)|_H^2$$ is absolutely continuous. Consequently, the function
$
t\to |v(t)|_V=(|v(t)|_H^2
+|\nabla v(t)|_H^2)^{1/2}
$
is continuous. Hence, the set $\{v(t): \; t\in [0,T]\}$ is
bounded in the space $V$. Since the embedding $H
\hookrightarrow V'$ is dense, the function $t\to v(t)$ which is
continuous from $[0,T]$ to $H$ is also continuous from $[0,T]$ to
$\omega$-$V$. Since in a reflexive Banach space the
weak convergence coupled with the convergence of norms implies
the norm convergence, we conclude that the function
$t\to v(t)$ is continuous from $[0,T]$ to $V$. In particular, $v\in L^\infty(0,T;V)$.
\hspace{0.6cm} Given the convergences
$(\ref{4.23})$--$(\ref{4.27})$, to finish the proof that the pair $\{u,v\}$ is a
solution to Problem $(P)$ it remains to show that
\begin{equation} \xi\in \partial I(u;v) \quad \hbox{a.e. on} \
(0,T).\label{4.32}\end{equation}
To this end, let $z$ be an arbitrary
function from $L^2(0,T;H)$ such that $z\in[{f}_*(u),{f}^*(u)]$ a.e.
on $Q$. For every $n\geq 1$, define $z_n$ to be the pointwise projection of $z$ onto the set $[{f}_*(u_n),{f}^*(u_n)].$
Then, $z_n\in [{f}_*(u_n),{f}^*(u_n)]$ a.e. on $Q$, $n\geq 1$, and
$z_n\to z$ in $L^2(0,T;H)$ as $n\to\infty$. Consequently, since the operator $\partial {I}^{\lambda_n}(u_n;\cdot)$ is the subdifferential of the function ${I}^{\lambda_n}(u_n;\cdot)$, from the definition of subdifferential we have
\begin{equation} \langle\partial {I}^{\lambda_n}(u_n;v_n), z_n-v_n\rangle_H \leq {I}^{\lambda_n}(u_n;z_n)-{I}^{\lambda_n}(u_n;v_n)\leq -{I}^{\lambda_n}(u_n;v_n)\leq 0, \label{4.33}\end{equation}
$ n\geq 1.$ On the other hand, from the uniform boundedness of $\{\partial I^{\lambda_n}(u_n;v_n)\}$, $n\geq 1$, in $L^2(0,T;H)$ and $(\ref{2.2})$ we see that
$$[v_n-{f}^*(u_n)]^+ +[{f}_*(u_n)-v_n]^+=\lambda_n \left|\partial {I}^{\lambda_n}(u_n;v_n)\right|\to 0$$
in $L^2(0,T;H)$ as $n\to\infty$. Therefore, we infer that $v\in[{f}_*(u), {f}^*(u)]$ a.e. on $Q$. Passing now to the limit as
$n\to\infty$ in $(\ref{4.33})$ we conclude that $(\ref{4.32})$ holds
and $\{u,w\}$ is thus a solution to problem $(P)$.
\hspace{0.6cm} Finally, we note that the periodicity condition $(iv)$ in Definition 2.1 follows from $(\ref{4.21})$, $(\ref{4.23})$, and $(\ref{4.27})$.
\vspace{0.5cm}
\textbf{Acknowledgements.} The authors want to thank the
anonymous referees for their valuable suggestions and remarks
which helped to improve the manuscript.
\bibliographystyle{amsplain}
|
\section{Introduction}
In recent years, various kinds of astronomical observations strongly reveal that black holes do exist in our universe. The evidences so far are not limited to gravitational wave detections by LIGO and Virgo, but also include the images of black holes by Event Horizon Tecescope (EHT) \cite{Akiyama:2019cqa, Akiyama:2019brx,Akiyama:2019sww,Akiyama:2019bqs,Akiyama:2019fyp,Akiyama:2019eap}. However, compared to the precision of LIGO and Virgo, the pictures of black holes captured by EHT are not clear enough. One way to improve the accuracy and sharpness of the image is to vastly enhance the resolution of EHT by developing the optical interference technology, telescope technology and the like. On the other hand, it is also necessary to study the possible factors that may influence the shadow of a black hole in our universe.
The theoretical calculations of the black hole shadow began with Synge \cite{Synge:1966okc} who originally introduced the concept of \lq\lq{}escape cone\rq\rq{} which is known as the complement of the shadow of Schwarzschild black hole nowadays. He pointed out the edge of the shadow is rounded and also gave the formula of the angular radius for a static observer at infinity. In the following creative paper \cite{Bardeen:1973}, Bardeen extended the concept of black hole shadow to spinning black holes, and he found that the shape of the photon ring of the Kerr black hole could be deformed when the rotating parameter $a$ is not vanishing (the result can also be found in Chandrasekhar’s book \cite{Chandrasekhar:1992}). In particular, a portion of the photon ring\rq{}s edge becomes a vertical line segment, which is called NHEK-line for (near) extremal Kerr black hole. Straight after this work, Bardeen and Cunningham took an indepth study on the optical appearance of a star orbiting an extremal Kerr black hole by concentrating on the apparent position and the energy flux of the brightest images as seen by distant observers \cite{Cunningham:1972,Cunningham:1973} \footnote{For recent developments on this aspect, one can see \cite{Porfyriadis:2016gwb,Gralla:2017ufe, Guo:2018kis, Gates:2018hub, Long:2018tij,Yan:2019etp, Igata:2019pgb, Kapec:2019hro, Igata:2019hkz,Guo:2019lur,Guo:2019pte}.}. Along these lines, a number of works have been made to enrich our understanding of black hole shadows in general relativity and the modified gravity theory over the past four decades, see the examples in \cite{Grenzebach:2014fha,Amir:2016cen,Grenzebach:2015oea,Abdujabbarov:2016hnw,Dastan:2016vhb,Younsi:2016azx,Wang:2017hjl, Cunha:2018acu, Wang:2018eui, Hennigar:2018hza,Ovgun:2018tua,Haroon:2018ryd, Wang:2018prk,Wei:2019pjf, Kumar:2019ohr, Shaikh:2019fpu,Bambi:2019tjh,Konoplya:2019sns,Contreras:2019nih,Jusufi:2019nrn,Vagnozzi:2019apd,Zhu:2019ura, Ovgun:2019jdo, Contreras:2019cmf,Konoplya:2019goy,Konoplya:2019fpy, Das:2019sty, Lu:2019zxb,Chang:2019vni, Feng:2019zzn, Kumar:2019pjp, Ma:2019ybz, Kumar:2020hgm,Allahyari:2019jqz,Chang:2020miq}. In addition, we would like to stress that the key point in the calculations of the shadow among these works is to define a static observer in a static spacetime or a local rest static observer in a stationary spacetime. In other words, one cannot directly apply the standard methods proposed by Synge and Bardeen to a dynamical black hole or a black hole embedded in a time-dependent spacetime.
However, on the one hand, black holes are generically not always eternal, since the matters keep falling into the black holes. It is interesting to investigate the shadow in the process that matters collapse to form a black hole. On the other hand, it has been found that the universe we live is constantly expanding. These facts compel us to study the shadows beyond static or stationary black holes. Akash Mishra \cite{Mishra:2019trb} has tried to understand the photon sphere and the black hole shadow in dynamically evolving spacetimes, including the
Vaidya, the RN-Vaidya and the de-Sitter Vaidya spacetimes, as well as the slowly rotating Kerr-Vaidya spacetime. Regarding a black hole embedded in an expanding universe, the authors in \cite{Perlick:2018iye} heuristically studied the Schwarzschild black hole shadow in an expanding universe only driven by a positive cosmological constant analytically. Their work has been extended to the multi-component universe in \cite{Bisnovatyi-Kogan:2018vxl} by using an approximation method and in \cite{Tsupko:2019mfo} by using an analytic method. Based on these works, it was proposed that the shadows of high-redshift black holes may be useful in the cosmological studies \cite{Tsupko:2019pzg, Qi:2019zdk, Vagnozzi:2020quf}. All these studies have been focused on the spherical black holes without rotation. But almost all the black holes in our universe are spinning, and should be described by the Kerr spacetime and its cousins. Thus, it is necessary and important to study the shadow of the Kerr black hole in an expanding universe in order to have a better match with the images taken by the EHT in the future.
With such a purpose, in this paper we would like to study the effect of the expansion of our universe on the shadow of a spinning black hole. We begin our study on the expanding universe driven by a positive cosmological constant. In this case, we find an exact form of the shadow of the Kerr-dS black hole seen by a comoving observer following the trick in \cite{Perlick:2018iye}. Strictly speaking, the notion of a comoving observer in the FLRW universe is not well-defined in the presence of a spinning black hole, since the spinning locally breaks the isotropy of the universe. In other words, the Kerr-dS spacetime cannot be foliated into spacelike slices which are conformally flat. Nevertheless, the comoving observer is approximately well-defined at the large distance away from the black hole. This fact allows us to use the following treatment: we first consider the shadow of Kerr-dS black hole observed by a locally static observer and then calculate the angular radius of the shadow of the Kerr black hole for the comoving observer with the cosmic expansion by using the standard aberration formula. We find that even though the black hole size seen by the static observer tends to vanishing, the size seen by the comoving observer is not vanishing, due to the magnification effect of the cosmic expansion.
Next we consider the multi-component FLRW universe and investigate the shadow of a Kerr black hole in it. We apply the approximate method proposed in \cite{Bisnovatyi-Kogan:2018vxl}. In this case, based on the size of the Kerr black hole shadow observed by a large distance local rest static observer, the effective proper size of the shadow can be found using the angular diameter redshift relation. In our work, we focus on the Kerr black hole, and discuss the influence of the rotating parameter $a$ and different inclination angles between the observer and the rotation axis of the black hole on the shadow.
The paper is organized as follows. In section \ref{section2}, we give a short review of calculating the shadow in the Kerr-dS spacetime as seen by a locally static observer, and introduce some characteristic angular diameters which are essential in the discussion. This is a necessary preparation for the following sections. In section \ref{section3}, we move to the core of this article, namely, the shadow in the Kerr-dS spacetime as seen by a comoving observer. In section \ref{section4}, we explore the shadow of the Kerr black hole embedded in an expanding universe driven by different components. We give a summary in section \ref{summary}.
In this work, we have set the fundamental constants $c$ and $G$ to unity, and we will work in the convention $(-, +, +, +)$.
\section{Shadow in the Kerr-dS spacetime as seen by a local observer}\label{section2}
In this section we first give a review on the computations of the shadow of a Kerr-dS black hole observed by a locally non-rotating observer. The discussion here is mainly based on the instructive paper \cite{Grenzebach:2014fha}, but we also slightly add some supplements and present the necessary details for completeness and future calculations.
In terms of the Boyer-Lindquist(BL) coordinates $(t, r, \theta, \phi)$, the Kerr-dS metric is
written in the following compact form \cite{Akcay:2010vt}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Kerr-dSmetric}
d s^2 = - \frac{\Delta_r}{\Sigma} \left[ \frac{d t}{\Xi \text{}} - a
\sin^2 \theta \frac{d \phi}{\Xi \text{}} \right]^2 + \frac{\Sigma}{\Delta_r}
d r^2 + \frac{\Sigma}{\Delta_{\theta}} d \theta^2 + \frac{\Delta_{\theta}
\sin^2 \theta}{\Sigma} \left[ \frac{a d t}{\Xi \text{}} - (r^2 + a^2)
\frac{d \phi}{\Xi \text{}} \right]^2,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\Sigma & = & r^2 + a^2 \cos^2 \theta, \\
\Delta_r & = & (r^2 + a^2) \left( 1 - \frac{\Lambda}{3} r^2 \right) - 2 m r, \label{Deltar}\\
\Delta_{\theta} & = & 1 + \frac{a^2 \Lambda}{3} \cos^2 \theta, \\
\Xi & = & 1 + \frac{a^2 \Lambda}{3} .
\end{eqnarray}
Note that $\Delta_r$ is a fourth-order polynomial of $r$, so formally we can
write it as
\begin{equation}
\Delta_r= (r - r_+) (r - r_-) (r - r_C) \left( r - r_{- \, -} \right) .
\end{equation}
In general, the four roots of $\Delta_r=0$ are not all necessarily real. But in this paper
we only consider the case that the parameters $(\Lambda, m, a)$ take appropriate values
such that the equation $\Delta_r=0$ yields four real roots. Here $r_{\pm}$ are the
outer and inner black hole horizons, $r_C$ is the cosmological horizon and $r_{-\,-}< 0_{}$
is the other cosmological horizon ``inside'' the singularity. To satisfy the
condition we just imposed, the bound on the value of $\Lambda$ is easily obtained as $0<m^2 \Lambda <1/9\simeq 0.11$,
when $a=0$. For simplicity and without loss of generality, we choose the angular momentum of the black hole to be non-negative, that is to say, we always have $a\geq0$. If $a>0$ , then the upper bound of $m^2\Lambda$ is
slightly larger than $0.11$. In turn, the presence of $\Lambda$ enlarges the
range of $a$ such that the upper bound of $a$ can be slightly larger than $m$.
For example, when $\Lambda$ is very small, which is close to the reality world, we can easily obtain the four real roots analytically up to the next-to-leading order in $\Lambda$,
that is
\begin{equation}\label{rrc}
r_C=\sqrt{\frac{3}{\Lambda}}-1,\quad r_{- \, -}=-\sqrt{\frac{3}{\Lambda}}-1,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
r_\pm=m\pm\sqrt{m^2-a^2}+\frac{\Lambda}{3} m \left(4 m^2 \left(1\pm\frac{m}{\sqrt{m^2-a^2}}\right)
-a^2 \left(1\pm\frac{3 m}{\sqrt{m^2-a^2}}\right)\right).
\end{equation}
Note that the expressions of $r_\pm$ does not allow us to find the upper bound of the rotation parameter, namely the analogue of the Kerr bound.
This is because when deriving $r_\pm$, $a$ was already assumed to be independent of $\Lambda$, so the upper bound is just $a\leq m$. In fact, the upper bound of $a$ up to the linear order of $\Lambda$ can be read directly from
(\ref{Deltar}): $a_{max}=m+m^3\Lambda/3$.
In the region between the outer black hole horizon $r_+$ and the cosmological horizon $r_C$, one finds the vector $\partial_r$ is spacelike and $\partial_t$ is the timelike Killing vector, thus this
region is the so-called {\em domain of outer communication}. This region guarantees the causality of the spacetime, thus a static observer beyond this region is not well-defined. However, for
comoving observers with respect to the cosmic expansion, this is not true. Even after crossing the cosmological horizon \footnote{We are thankful to anonymous referee for pointing out that this is event horizon which differs from the particle horizon. }, a
comoving observer can still receive light signals from the {\em domain of outer communication}.
The null geodesic equations are completely integrable, since it admits four constants along the motion of each photon:
(1) the mass $ g_{\mu \nu} p^{\mu}
p^{\nu}=0$,
(2) the total energy $E = - p \cdot \partial_t$,
(3) the angular momentum $L = p \cdot \partial_{\phi}$, and
(4) the Carter constant $Q$, respectively.
With the help of these constants along the motion, the geodesic equations can be written
in the first-order form \cite{Grenzebach:2014fha}
\begin{eqnarray}
\Sigma \dot{t} & = & \frac{a \sin^2 \theta (L - a E \sin^2
\theta)}{\Delta_{\theta} \sin^2 \theta} + \frac{(\Sigma + a^2 \sin^2 \theta)
((\Sigma + a^2 \sin^2 \theta) E - a L)}{\Delta_r}, \\
\Sigma \dot{\phi} & = & \frac{L - a \sin^2 \theta}{\Delta_{\theta} \sin^2
\theta} + \frac{a (\Sigma + a^2 \sin^2 \theta) E - a L}{\Delta_r}, \\
\Sigma^2 \dot{\theta}^2 & = & \Delta_{\theta} (Q + (L - a E)^2) - \frac{(a
\sin^2 \theta E - L)^2}{\sin^2 \theta},\label{thetadot} \\
\Sigma^2 \dot{r}^2 & = & ((\Sigma + a^2 \sin^2 \theta) E - a L)^2 -
\Delta_r (Q + (L - a E)^2) \nonumber\\
&\equiv& \mathcal{R} (r),
\end{eqnarray}
where we have defined a radial function $\mathcal{R} (r)$.
In the Kerr-dS spacetime there are unstable spherical photon orbits with $r
=$constant. All such orbits occupy a region which is known as the photon region. Since the
photon orbits are independent of the energy, we introduce the following
dimensionless quantities to characterize the photon orbits
\begin{equation}
\xi = \frac{L}{E}, \quad \eta = \frac{Q}{E^2} .
\end{equation}
The spherical orbits occur when $\mathcal{R} = \dot{\mathcal{R}} = 0$, then we can
express the above two rescaled quantities in terms of the radius of the orbit,
\begin{eqnarray}
\xi & = & \frac{r^2 + a^2}{a} - \frac{4 r \Delta_r}{a \Delta_r'}, \label{xi}\\
\eta & = & \frac{16 r^2 \Delta_r}{(\Delta_r')^2} - \left( \frac{r^2}{a} -
\frac{4 r \Delta_r}{a \Delta_r'} \right)^2 .\label{eta}
\end{eqnarray}
Plugging these expressions into (\ref{thetadot}), we find an inequality that determines the photon region
\begin{equation}(4 r \Delta_r - \Sigma \Delta_r')^2 \leq 16 a^2 r^2 \Delta_r
\Delta_{\theta} \sin^2 \theta .\label{inequality}
\end{equation}
For $\Lambda = 0$, the radial range of the photon region
is determined by the roots of $\eta = 0$,
\begin{equation}
r \in [r_{p -}, r_{p +}], \end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
r_{p \pm}=2 m \left( 1 + \cos \varphi_\pm \right),\quad \varphi_\pm=\frac{2}{3}\cos^{-1}\left(\pm\frac{a}{m}\right).\label{rpp}
\end{equation}
The presence of a non-vanishing $\Lambda$ will slightly change the range of the photon region. In this case, the
inequality \eqref{inequality} is still a third order polynomial of $r$, so it can be solved
analytically. For example, let us consider the small $\Lambda$ case, then
up to the linear order of $\Lambda$, the corrections to $r_{p\pm}$ are given by
\begin{equation}
\delta r_{p \pm} = -2am \Lambda\left[a+3a \cos\varphi_\pm+\frac{(27m^2-25a^2)\sin\varphi_\pm}{9\sqrt{m^2-a^2}}\right].\label{drpp}
\end{equation}
In the non-rotating case $a = 0$, the above inequality degenerates
into an equality,
\begin{equation}
4 r \Delta_r = \Sigma\, \Delta_r',
\end{equation}
and the photon region degenerates into a photon sphere
with $r_p = 3 m$. This result is independent of $\Lambda$.
Next, we move to the calculation of the critical curve (which is also known as the contour of the black hole shadow, or vaguely called the photon ring) of the Kerr-dS black hole as seen by a locally static observer. First of all, we assume that the observer is located in the frame in the following form
\begin{eqnarray}\label{et}
\hat{e}_{(t)} & = & \sqrt{\frac{g_{\phi \phi}}{g_{t \phi}^2 - g_{t t} g_{\phi
\phi}}} \left( \partial_t - \frac{g_{t \phi}}{g_{\phi \phi}} \partial_{\phi}
\right),\label{et}\\
\hat{e}_{(r)} & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{g_{r r}}} \partial_r,\\
\hat{e}_{(\theta)} & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{g_{\theta \theta}}} \partial_{\theta},\\
\hat{e}_{(\phi)} & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{g_{\phi \phi}}} \partial_{\phi},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\hat{e}_{(t)}$ is timelike in the {\em domain of outer communication} and the
rest bases are spacelike vectors. It is easy to check that these bases are normalized
and orthogonal to each other. We can assign the four-velocity of the
observer as $\hat{e}_{(t)}$, that is, $\hat{u}\equiv \hat{e}_{(t)}$, in this case the observer is locally static in the
given frame. Moreover, since $\hat{e}_{(t)} \cdot \partial_{\phi} = 0$ the observer in this local rest frame has zero angular momentum with respect to infinity.
Hence this frame is sometimes called the ZAMO reference frame, standing for
the zero angular momentum observers.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=105mm,angle=0]{referenceframe.png}
\end{center}
\vspace{-5mm}
\caption { The projection of the photon's momentum $\vec{P}$ in the observer's frame and the solid angles $(\alpha, \beta)$. }\label{referenceframe}
\end{figure}
For the null geodesics, the four-momentum $p^{\mu}$ can be projected onto the
four bases of the observer's frame. This is called a local measurement, giving the quantities measured by the observer
\begin{eqnarray}
p^{(t)} & = & - p_{\mu} \hat{e}_{(t)}^{\mu}, \\
p^{(i)} & = & p_{\mu} \hat{e}_{(i)}^{\mu}, \quad i = r, \theta, \phi.
\end{eqnarray}
On the other hand, since the photon is massless, in the observer's frame, one
has $| \vec{P} | = p^{(t)}$, and we can introduce the observation angles $(\alpha,
\beta)$, by \cite{Cunha:2016bpi}
\begin{eqnarray}
p^{(r)} & = & | \vec{P} | \cos \alpha \cos \beta, \\
p^{(\theta)} & = & | \vec{P} | \sin \alpha, \\
p^{(\phi)} & = & | \vec{P} | \cos \alpha \sin \beta ,
\end{eqnarray}
as is shown in Fig. \ref{referenceframe}. From the geodesic equations we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\sin \alpha& =& \frac{p^{(\theta)}}{p^{(t)}}=\pm\frac{1}{\zeta-\gamma \xi}
\sqrt{\frac{\Delta_\theta\sin^2\theta(\eta+(\xi-a)^2)-(a\sin^2\theta-\xi)^2}{\Sigma \Delta_\theta\sin^2\theta}}\Bigg|_{(r_O,\theta_O)} ,\label{angles1} \\
\tan \beta &=& \frac{p^{(\phi)}}{p^{(r)}}=\frac{\xi \sqrt{\Sigma \Delta_r}}
{\sqrt{g_{\phi\phi}}\sqrt{((\Sigma+a^2\sin^2\theta)-a\xi)^2-\Delta_r(\eta+(\xi-a)^2)}}\Bigg|_{(r_O,\theta_O)},\label{angles2}
\end{eqnarray}
where we have used the abbreviations $\zeta= \hat{e}_{(t)}^t$ and $\gamma=\hat{e}_{(t)}^\phi$ to simplify the expression.
Note that in the expressions, only $(\xi, \eta)$ depend on the radius of the photon region, on the other hand, all $(r, \theta)$ take values at the position of the
observer, i.e. $(r_O, \theta_O)$, where $\theta_O$ is the inclination angle between the observer and the direction of the rotation axis of the black hole.
Furthermore, we can introduce the Cartesian coordinate $(x, y)$ for the apparent position on the plane of the sky of the observer by \footnote{In the literatures \cite{Bardeen:1973, Chandrasekhar:1992}, the Cartesian coordinates are defined by
$x \equiv - r_O \cos \alpha \sin\beta$, $y \equiv r_O \sin \alpha $. Our definition is similar to the one in \cite{Cunha:2016bpi}.}
\begin{equation}
x \equiv - r_O \beta, \quad y \equiv r_O \alpha .\label{xy}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=160mm,angle=0]{varythetao.pdf}
\par\end{centering}
\caption{Examples of shadows of the Kerr-dS black hole for different rotation parameters and inclination angles. From left panel to the right panel, the inclination angle $\theta_O$ takes $0$, $\pi/4$ and $\pi/2$, respectively.}\label{variousangles}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=75mm,angle=0]{inofla.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace{-5mm}
\caption {Shadows of the Kerr-dS black hole as seen by a locally static observer with different values of the cosmological constant. The dots on the $x$ axis denote the points at which $\alpha=0$ and the dots along the vertical direction correspond to the position at which $\alpha$ takes maximum value. }\label{ShdaowKerrdS}
\end{figure}
The boundary curve of the shadow corresponds to the null geodesics \ that
asymptotically approach the photon region. So these null geodesics are
characterized by the two constants of motion $(\xi, \eta)$, whose relations
with the photon region are given by Eqs. (\ref{xi}) and (\ref{eta}). Inserting Eqs. (\ref{xi}) and (\ref{eta}) into
Eq. (\ref{xy}), we then obtain the boundary curve of the shadow on the
observer's sky parameterized with the radius of the photon region.
In Fig. \ref{variousangles} we show the shadows of the Kerr-dS black hole for several rotation parameters and inclination angles, where we fix $m=1, r_O=100$. Qualitatively, they share similar features with the shadow of the Kerr black hole. For example, with the increase of the angular momentum, the shape of the shadow gradually becomes non-circular. But for the observer staying at the north of the black hole, i.e. $\theta_O=0$, the shadow will always be circular. The difference between the shadows of the spinning and the static black holes becomes the most significant when the spinning black hole is extremal and when the observer lies in the equator plane of the black hole.
In addition, in Fig. \ref{ShdaowKerrdS}, we show the effect of the cosmological constant on the black hole shadow, where we take $\theta_O=\pi/2$ and $a=0.998$. One can observe the critical curve becomes smaller when the cosmological constant is not vanishing. To explain this, we consider that the static observer is located far away from the black hole, i.e. $r_+\ll r_O \leq r_c$. To take such limit, the cosmological constant $\Lambda$ must be very small such that the cosmological horizon is large enough, otherwise the locally static observer would exceed the cosmological horizon. In the next section we will restrict ourself to this particular case. From Eqs. (\ref{angles1}) and (\ref{angles2}), we obtain the asymptotic form of the observation angles
\begin{eqnarray}\label{sima}
\sin \alpha& \to& \pm
\frac{\sqrt{1-\frac{\Lambda}{3} r_O^2}\sqrt{\eta+(a-\xi )^2 -(\xi \csc \theta_O-a \sin \theta_O)^2}}{r_O},\\\label{simb}
\tan \beta &\to& \frac{\xi \sqrt{1-\frac{\Lambda}{3} r_O^2}}
{ r_O \sin\theta_O}.
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=90mm,angle=0]{varyro.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace{-5mm}
\caption { The shadows vary with respect to the distance of the observer $r_O$. We have choosen $m=1, a=0.998, \Lambda=10^{-4}, \theta_O=\pi/2$, and the corresponding cosmological horizon is $r_c\simeq 172.2$. }\label{varyro}
\end{figure}
Combining with Eq. (\ref{xy}), we have
\begin{equation}
x^2+y^2=(1-\frac{\Lambda}{3}r_O^2)(\xi^2+\eta+a^2\cos^2\theta_O)
\end{equation}
When the observer is located at $(r_O, \theta_O=\frac{\pi}{2})$ and if we pay our attention to the edge of the critical curve on the $x$ axis, the above equation gives
\begin{equation}
(x^2+y^2)|_{r=r_{p\pm}+\delta r_{p \pm}}=(1-\frac{\Lambda}{3}r_O^2)\xi^2|_{r=r_{p\pm}+\delta r_{p \pm}}=(1-\frac{\Lambda}{3}r_O^2)\xi^2|_{r=r_{p\pm}}+\mathcal{O}(\Lambda^2).
\end{equation}
This explains why the size of shadow becomes smaller when the cosmological constant is nonvanishing.
Moreover, from Eqs. (\ref{sima}) and (\ref{simb}), we may conclude that when the observer is approaching the cosmological horizon $r_O\to r_c\simeq\sqrt{3/\Lambda}$,
\begin{eqnarray}
r_O \sin \alpha \to0,\quad r_O \tan \beta \to 0.
\end{eqnarray}
In Fig. \ref{varyro}, we show the shadow sizes versus the distance of the observer. In contrast, as we will see in the next section, the size of the black hole shadow as seen by an observer comoving with the cosmic expansion is finite even the observer is far away from the black hole.
This interesting phenomenon was first found in \cite{Perlick:2018iye} for the Schwarzschild
black hole.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=65mm,angle=0]{angleradii.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace{-5mm}
\caption { Angular radii of the shadow of a spinning black hole. The horizontal axis is $-\beta$ and the vertical axis
is $\alpha$. }\label{angleradii}
\end{figure}
In the non-rotational case, the silhouette of the shadow is a circle. However in the presence of the rotation, the shape is no longer
a circle, so it cannot be trivially characterized by a single angular radius. In
this case, we follow the strategy used in \cite{Grenzebach:2015oea} to characterize the size
of the shadow in terms of the horizontal and vertical angular diameters of the
shadow. From the analytical formulas for the boundary curve of the shadow we
can find the expressions for the horizontal and vertical angular diameters of
the shadow, as shown in Fig. \ref{angleradii} and marked in Fig. \ref{ShdaowKerrdS}. Due to the symmetry, the angular diameters $\Delta h$ and $\Delta
v$ are determined by three radii $\rho_{h 1}$, $\rho_{h 2}$ and $\rho_v$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta h & = & \rho_{h 1} + \rho_{h 2}, \label{horizontalang}\\
\Delta v & = & 2 \rho_v,\label{verticalang}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\rho_{h i}$, $i = 1, 2$ are the absolute values $-\beta$ takes when $\alpha =
0$, and $\rho_v$ is the maximum value $\alpha$ takes. Formally, we can denote the corresponding photon region radius as $r_{hi}$ and $r_{v}$. In general, we find the angular radii
of the shadow cannot be obtained in a closed form, because the corresponding values of the photon region radius are the zeros of a polynomial of higher than fourth order. So the angular radii
of the shadow have to be found numerically.
However, in some particular cases, it is feasible to get the analytical formulas for the angular radii. For example, for the observer in the
equatorial plane, i.e. $\theta_O=\pi/2$, $\alpha=0$ is equivalent to
\begin{equation}\label{Dethorizonangles}
(4 r \Delta_r - r^2 \Delta_r')^2= 16 a^2 r^2 \Delta_r.
\end{equation}
The solutions to this equation are just the bounds of the photon regions in the radial direction, which for the small $\Lambda$ case are simply given by (\ref{rpp}) and (\ref{drpp}), i.e. $r_{h1}=r_{p-}+\delta r_{p-}$ and $r_{h2}=r_{p+}+\delta r_{p+}$. Plugging these into Eqs. (\ref{xi}) and (\ref{eta}), and further into Eqs. (\ref{angles1}) and (\ref{angles2}) we then obtain the angular radii of the shadow as functions of the observer's position $r_O$.
Another particular case is the non-rotating limit $a=0$, in which case the solution to the equation (\ref{Dethorizonangles}) is just $r_{hi} = 3 m$ and the horizontal angular radii of the
shadow are given by
\begin{equation} \label{shadowSchdS}
\sin^2 \rho_{h 1} = \sin^2 \rho_{h 2} =\frac{9 m^2 \left(6 m+\Lambda r_O^3-3r_O\right)}{r_O^3 \left(9 \Lambda m^2-1\right)}.
\end{equation}
This reproduces the result found by Stuchlik and Hledik \cite{Stuchlik:1999qk} and when $\Lambda=0$ it reduces to the well-known result calculated by Synge for the shadow of a Schwarzschild black
hole \cite{Synge:1966okc}. Moreover, in this case the angular size of the shadow for static observers at large distance, i.e. $r_O\gg m$, is simplified to
\begin{equation}
\sin^2 \rho_{h 1} = \sin^2 \rho_{h 2} \simeq\frac{27 m^2}{r_O^2 }
\left(1-\frac{\Lambda r_O^2}{3}\right),
\end{equation}
which is the same as the result in \cite{Perlick:2018iye}. As we mentioned before, the large distance limit is taken under the condition $\Lambda m^2 \ll 1$.
On the other hand, $\alpha$ takes a maximum at
\begin{equation}
\left( \frac{p^{(\theta)}}{p^{(t)}} \right)' = 0,
\end{equation}
where the prime denotes the derivative with respect to the photon region radius. For $\theta_O=\pi/2$,
the solution to this equation is given by
\begin{equation}\label{rofalphamax}
r_v = \frac{9 m r_O \left(a^2+r_O^2\right)}{a^4 \Lambda r_O+a^2 \left(12 m+\Lambda r_O^3+3 r_O\right)+3r_O^3}.
\end{equation}
The explicit expression for $\sin \rho_v$ is still complicated so we shall not show it here. But in the non-rotating limit, the result simplifies to be the same as (\ref{shadowSchdS}), as expected.
\section{Shadow in the Kerr-dS spacetime as seen by a comoving observer}\label{section3}
In this section, we would like to investigate the influence of a cosmic expansion on the shadow of the spinning
black hole. We will study the shadow as seen by a comoving observer. Our treatment is inspired by the one in \cite{Perlick:2018iye} in which the shadow of non-spinning black holes was studied. In \cite{Perlick:2018iye}, based on the connection between the Schwarschild-dS black hole and the McVittie metric \cite{McVittie:1933}, the black hole shadow as seen by a comoving observer with the cosmic expansion was analytically calculated. The McVittie metric describes a non-rotational black hole embedding in an expanding universe. If the cosmic expansion is driven by a cosmological constant only, then through a coordinate transformation, the Schwarschild-dS metric can be related to the McVittie metric and the black hole shadows for different observers are related as well. Here we generalize the study in \cite{Perlick:2018iye} to the rotating black hole case.
To our knowledge, there are several solutions describing a spinning black hole
embedded in an expanding universe, such as the one constructed by Vaidy \cite{Vaidya:1977zza},
the metric proposed by Thakurta \cite{Thakurta:1981} and so on. All these solutions share the
same property: when the mass of the black hole is vanishing, the solution
reduces to a FLRW metric, and when the scale factor is equal to unity, the
solution become the Kerr metric.
If the expanding universe is totally driven by a positive cosmological constant, then the FLRW metric with vanishing curvature
is given by \footnote{In this work, we focus on the flat FLRW universe. }
\begin{equation}\label{FLRW}
d s^2 = - d \bar{t}^2 + a^2 d\bar{r}^2 + a^2 \bar{r}^2 (d \bar{\theta}^2 + \sin^2 \bar{\theta} d \bar{\phi}^2),
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
a(\bar{t}) = e^{H_0 \bar{t}},\quad H_0 = \sqrt{\frac{\Lambda}{3}}.
\end{equation}
Now we would like to study the relation between the Kerr-dS metric and the metric of the cosmological spinning black hole. The starting point, as we mentioned
before, is that the metric of the cosmological spinning black hole should reduce to (\ref{FLRW}) when the mass is
zero and reduce to the Kerr metric when $H_0=0$.
\subsection{Coordinate transformation}
It is well known that the metric of the de Sitter spacetime is given by
\begin{equation}
d s^2 = - \left( 1 - H_0^2 R^2 \right) d T^2 + \frac{d
R^2}{\left( 1 - H_0^2 R^2 \right)} + R^2 d \Theta^2 + R^2
\sin^2 \Theta d \Phi^2.
\end{equation}
Now we will show that the de Sitter metric can be related to the FLRW metric (\ref{FLRW}) via a simple
coordinate transformation. First, let us introduce
\begin{equation}
T = \bar{t} + f (R),\quad
f' (R) =\frac{H_0^{} R}{1 - H_0^2 R^2}.
\end{equation}
Plugging this into the de Sitter metric leads to
\begin{equation}
d s^2 = - (1 - H_0^2 R^2) d \bar{t}^2 + 2 H_0^{} R d \bar{t} d R + d R^2 + R^2 (d
\Theta^2 + \sin^2 \Theta d \Phi^2) .
\end{equation}
Furthermore introducing
\begin{equation}
R = a (\bar{t})\, \bar{r},\quad \bar{\theta}=\Theta,\quad \bar{\phi}=\Phi,
\end{equation}
then one finds that the de Sitter metric reduces to the standard FLRW metric (\ref{FLRW}).
Therefore, we find the coordinate transformation that relates the de Sitter metric with the FLRW metric, viz.,
\begin{eqnarray}
d \bar{t} & = & d T - \frac{H_0^{} R}{1 - H_0^2 R^2} d R,\label{coorTrans1} \\
e^{H_0 \bar{t}} d \bar{r} & = & - H_0 R d T + \frac{1}{1 - H_0^2 R^2} d R.\label{coorTrans2}
\end{eqnarray}
Equivalently, the coordinate transformation can be rewritten in terms of the coordinate
basis vectors as
\begin{eqnarray}
\partial_{\bar{t}} & = & \frac{1}{1 - H_0^2 R^2} \partial_T + H_0 R \partial_R,\label{ptbar} \\
e^{- H_0 \bar{t}} \partial_{\bar{r}} & = & \frac{H_0 R}{1 - H_0^2 R^2} \partial_T +
\partial_R .
\end{eqnarray}
Next, we notice that the Kerr-dS metric (\ref{Kerr-dSmetric}) in the vanishing mass limit, i.e. $m=0$, becomes
\begin{eqnarray}\label{KerrdS_massless}
d s^2 & = &(r^2 + a^2 \cos^2 \theta) \left[ \frac{d r^2}{(r^2 + a^2) \left( 1 -
H_0^2r^2 \right)} + \frac{d \theta^2}{1 +
\frac{a^2 \Lambda}{3} \cos^2 \theta} \right] \nonumber\\
& & + \frac{\left( 1 + a^2 H_0^2\cos^2 \theta \right) \sin^2
\theta}{r^2 + a^2 \cos^2 \theta} \left[ \frac{a d t-(r^2 + a^2)d \phi}{1+a^2
H_0^2} \right]^2 \nonumber\\
& & - \frac{(r^2 + a^2) \left(1-H_0^2 r^2 \right)}{r^2 +
a^2 \cos^2 \theta} \left[ \frac{d t- a
\sin^2 \theta d \phi}{1+a^2 H_0^2}\right]^2 .
\end{eqnarray}
Actually, this is essentially the de Sitter metric, which is realized by performing the following coordinate transformations \cite{Akcay:2010vt}:
\begin{eqnarray}
d T & = & \frac{d t}{\Xi },\label{Tf_KerrdS_m_0a} \\
\Phi & = & \phi - \frac{a t}{ \Xi\text{}}H_0^2,\label{Tf_KerrdS_m_0b} \\
R \cos \Theta & = & r \cos \theta,\label{Tf_KerrdS_m_0c} \\
R^2 & = & \frac{1}{\Xi \text{}^{} \text{}} [r^2 \Delta_{\theta} + a^2 \sin^2
\theta].\label{Tf_KerrdS_m_0d}
\end{eqnarray}
Obviously, this transformation becomes trivial as $a=0$, since the BL coordinates become the ordinary Schwarzschild coordinates in this case. Moreover, if $\Lambda=0$, then this transformation relates the ellipsoidal coordinates with the
Schwarzschild coordinates. Thus, in the vanishing mass limit, the Kerr-dS metric is just the de Sitter metric and can be related to the FLRW metric through the coordinate
transformations (\ref{coorTrans1}) and (\ref{coorTrans2}).
The above discussion may help us to find the metric describing a cosmological spinning black hole. Firstly, if the coordinate transformations (\ref{Tf_KerrdS_m_0a}), (\ref{Tf_KerrdS_m_0b}),
(\ref{Tf_KerrdS_m_0c}) and (\ref{Tf_KerrdS_m_0d}) are applied to the general Kerr-dS metric (\ref{Kerr-dSmetric}) instead of its massless limit (\ref{KerrdS_massless}), and the coordinate transformations (\ref{coorTrans1}) and (\ref{coorTrans2}) are carried out subsequently, then we would obtain a metric which in the massless limit reduces to the FLRW metric (\ref{FLRW}), and in the limit $\Lambda=0$ reduces to the Kerr metric in the Schwarzschild-like coordinate system.
This metric describes essentially a spinning black hole embedded in an expanding universe driven by a positive cosmological constant
If $a=0$, the constructed metric describes a non-spinning cosmological black hole. However, the reduced metric is different from the solution found by McVittie in 1933 \cite{McVittie:1933}. The McVittie metric was obtained in the isotropic coordinates, which are naturally the privileged comoving coordinates used to describe an isotropic universe. In these coordinates, the time coordinate basis vector can be assigned as the four-velocity of a comoving observer with respect to the cosmic expansion. It seems impossible to express the above constructed metric for the cosmological spinning black hole in similar isotropic coordinates, because the Kerr spacetime is a priori axisymmetric. Even if corotating with the Kerr black hole, the observer would not perceive an isotropic space. In other words, the universe cannot be foliated into spacelike slices such that each three-dimensional slice is conformally flat \cite{Garat:2000pn}. Therefore there is no comoving observer near the cosmological spinning black hole.
Nevertheless, as we will show in the next subsection the notion of the comoving observer can be well defined at least at large distance. In that case, the spacetime near the observer is not spinning any more, so the observer can be set to comoving with cosmic expansion. From a practical point of view, the observer on the earth is sufficiently far away from the massive black holes in the universe, so it seems reasonable to take the approximation that the comoving observer lies at large distance with respect to the observable black hole.
\subsection{Shadow for comoving observer at large distance}
Since the cosmological black hole is derived from the original Kerr-dS black hole via some coordinate transformations, different coordinate systems represent different reference frames. An event that occurs in the spacetime of the cosmological black hole can be observed in the frame moving with a velocity $v$ with respect to the locally static observer in the Kerr-dS spacetime. According to the Lorentz transformation formula in special relativity, the 3-velocity of the moving reference satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{LT}
{\hat U}_{stat} \cdot {\hat U}_{mov} = - \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - v^2}},
\end{equation}
where $\hat{U}$'s denote the four-velocities of the observers. From (\ref{et}), we can assign the four-velocity of the locally static observer in the Kerr-dS spacetime to be the normalized timelike vector $\hat{e}_{(t)}$, viz.,
\begin{equation}\label{Ustat}
\hat{U}_{stat} = \sqrt{\frac{g_{\phi \phi}}{g_{t \phi}^2 - g_{t t} g_{\phi
\phi}}} \left( \partial_t - \frac{g_{t \phi}}{g_{\phi \phi}} \partial_{\phi}\right).
\end{equation}
As we mentioned before, the locally static observer have to stay in the {\em domain of outer communication}, however, as we will show in the following, there is no such restriction for the comoving observer in an expanding universe.
Next we need to find the four-velocity $U_{mov}$ of the comoving observer at large distance. First of all, at large distance, i.e. $r \gg \mathrm{max}(m, a,\Lambda)$, the
Kerr-dS metric becomes
\begin{eqnarray}\label{largerlimit}
d s^2 & = & - \frac{\left( 1 - H_0^2 a^2 \sin^2 \theta -
H_0^2 r^2 \right)}{\left( 1 + a^2 H_0^2 \right)^2
\text{}} d t^2 + \frac{d r^2}{\left(1-H_0^2 a^2 -
H_0^2 r^2 \right)} \nonumber\\
& & + \frac{r^2 d \theta^2}{1+H_0^2 a^2 \cos^2 \theta} +
\frac{r^2 \sin^2 \theta d \phi^2}{\left(1+a^2 H_0^2
\right)^{} \text{}} - \frac{2 a H_0^2 \sin^2 \theta r^2}{ \left( 1 +
a^2 H_0^2 \right)^2 \text{}} d t d \phi.
\end{eqnarray}
Note that in order not to miss the nontrivial effect from the cosmological constant, in the above formula the subleading terms in the large $r$ limit have been kept. For example, if $H_0=0$, this expression correctly reproduces the Minkowski metric and let $a=0$ then it gives the de Sitter metric. Therefore, (\ref{largerlimit}) allows us to find the four-velocities of observers in the two separated regions within and beyond the {\em domain of outer communication}. For the locally static observer, the large distance limit has to be taken within the {\em domain of outer communication}, which requires that $r_C\gg r_+$. In this case, $H_0^2 a^2\ll1$ and (\ref{largerlimit}) is further simplified to be the de Sitter metric. So the four-velocity of the locally static observer at large distance becomes
\begin{equation}\label{Ustatlarger}
\hat{U}_{stat} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-H_0^2r^2}} \left( \partial_t +a H_0^2 \partial_{\phi}\right).
\end{equation}
Another notable thing is that in the large $r$ limit, the massless limit of the Kerr-dS metric (\ref{KerrdS_massless}) behaves exactly the same as the above formula, which means that (\ref{largerlimit}) can be related to the de Sitter metric and further be transformed into the form of the FLRW metric (\ref{FLRW}) in the large distance limit. So finally we build the connection between the Kerr-dS metric and the FLRW metric at least in the large distance limit. Naturally we can define the four-velocity of the comoving observer at large distance as
\begin{equation}
\hat{U}_{mov} = N \partial_{\bar{t}},
\end{equation}
where $N$ is a normalization constant coefficient such that $\hat{U}_{mov}^2=-1$.
From the coordinate transformations (\ref{ptbar}), (\ref{Tf_KerrdS_m_0a}) and (\ref{Tf_KerrdS_m_0d}), in terms of the BL coordinates $ \hat{U}_{mov}$ can be expressed as
\begin{equation}\label{Umov}
\hat{U}_{mov} = \frac{(1+a^2 H_0^2)^2}{1+a^2 H_0^2 \cos ^2\theta - H_0^2 r^2 \left(1+a^2H_0^2 \cos ^2\theta \right)} \partial_t
+ H_0 r \partial_r.
\end{equation}
Clearly, in contrast to the locally static observer, the comoving observer can locate beyond the {\em domain of outer communication}. Although according to the relation (\ref{LT}), the locally static observer cannot exceed the {\em domain of outer communication}, the comoving observer of interest here is subject to this constraint as well. However, we would like to stress that the above formula and the final formula for the shadow as seen by a
comoving observer in the following is not limited in the {\em domain of outer communication}, since it can be safely applied for the region
beyond the cosmological horizon too. Similar situation occurs for the comoving observers in the McVittie spacetime \cite{Perlick:2018iye}. In this case, the four-velocity of the
comoving observer simplifies as
\begin{equation}\label{Umovlarger}
U_{mov} = \frac{1}{1- H_0^2 r^2}\partial_t
+ H_0 r \partial_r,
\end{equation}
which is the same as the one for comoving observer in the McVittie spacetime at large distance \cite{Perlick:2018iye}.
Plugging (\ref{Ustatlarger}) and (\ref{Umovlarger}) into (\ref{LT}) we obtain
\begin{equation}
- \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - v^2}} = - \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - H_0^2
r^2}},
\end{equation}
which gives
\begin{equation}
v = H_0 r.
\end{equation}
As expected, this result is independent of the rotation of the black hole, since the large distance limit is taken in such a way that the spacetime is described by the de Sitter metric.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=75mm,angle=0]{shadowcom.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace{-5mm}
\caption { Plot showing the shadows of a spinning black hole as seen by a comoving observer with different distances.
The parameters are taken as $m=1, a=0.998, \Lambda=10^{-4}$ and $\theta_O=\pi/2$ }\label{shadowcom}
\end{figure}
With the relation (\ref{LT}) between the locally static and comoving observers, we can find the angular size $\theta_{mov}$ of the black hole shadow seen by a comoving observer. The angular size $\theta_{stat}$ of the black hole shadow for the locally static observer has been calculated in the preceding section. Then $\theta_{mov}$ can be obtained by using the standard aberration formula
\begin{equation}\label{abformula}
\sin^2\theta_{mov}=(1-v^2)\frac{ \sin^2\theta_{stat}}{(1-v \cos\theta_{stat})^2}.
\end{equation}
To use this formula we should first know the behavior of the solid angles $(\alpha, \beta)$ at large distance within the {\em domain of outer communication}. From (\ref{sima}) and (\ref{simb}) we obtain the solid angles in the comoving observer's frame
\begin{equation}
\sin \alpha_{mov}=\pm\frac{(1+H_0 r_O)\sqrt{\eta+(a-\xi )^2 -(\xi \csc \theta_O-a \sin \theta_O)^2}}{r_O}
,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\sin \beta_{mov}=\frac{\xi (1+H_0 r_O) }
{ r_O \sin\theta_O}.
\end{equation}
Fig. \ref{shadowcom} shows the shadows of a spinning black hole embedding in an expanding universe driven by the positive cosmological constant as seen by a comoving observer with different distances. One can see that the black hole size would not becomes vanishing when the observer is moving away from the black hole. This is very different from the locally static observer. It is essentially a magnification effect of the cosmic expansion on the shadow size.
Of course the aberration formula applies to the horizontal and vertical angular diameters of the
shadow as well. That is,
\begin{equation}\label{comovingsolidanglesa}
\sin \rho_v=\frac{(1+H_0 r_O)\sqrt{\eta+(a-\xi )^2 -(\xi \csc \theta_O-a \sin \theta_O)^2}}{r_O}\Big|_{r=r_{v}}
,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{comovingsolidanglesb}
\sin \rho_{h1}=\frac{\xi (1+H_0 r_O) }
{ r_O \sin\theta_O}\Big|_{r=r_{h1}},\quad\sin \rho_{h2}=-\frac{\xi (1+H_0 r_O) }
{ r_O \sin\theta_O}\Big|_{r=r_{h2}}.
\end{equation}
From above formulas, we find that for a distant comoving observer, the angular size goes to a non-zero value since the comoving observer can live beyond the {\em domain of outer communication}. Specifically, from (\ref{shadowSchdS}) and (\ref{abformula}) we obtain the angular size of the shadow for distant observers in the case of $a=0$, that is
\begin{equation}
\sin \rho_{h1}=\sin \rho_{h2}=3\sqrt{3}H_0 m+ \frac{3\sqrt{3}m\sqrt{1-27H_0^2m^2}}{r_O},
\end{equation}
which agrees with the result of distant comoving observers in the McVittie spacetime \cite{Perlick:2018iye}.
Also, we can see that the amplification effect due to the cosmic expansion acts equally on the two characteristic angular sizes of the shadow. It's useful to introduce two new parameters, i.e. the difference between the horizontal and vertical angular diameters of the shadow
\begin{equation}
D_{vh}\equiv \left|2\rho_v-(\rho_{h1}+\rho_{h2})\right|,
\end{equation}
and the oblateness \footnote{We would like to thank the anonymous referee for helping us clarify this point.}
\begin{equation}
\delta_{vh}\equiv \frac{2\rho_v}{\rho_{h1}+\rho_{h2}}.
\end{equation}
As a result, from Eqs. (\ref{comovingsolidanglesa}) and (\ref{comovingsolidanglesb}) we find that
\begin{eqnarray}
D_{vh}&=&(1+H_0r_O)D_{vh}^0,\\
\delta_{vh}&=&\delta_{vh}^0,
\end{eqnarray}
for a distant observer, where $D_{vh}^0$ and $\delta_{vh}^0$ denote the difference and oblateness respectively, when the cosmological constant is vanishing. These results tell us the difference may become large when the observer is far away from the black hole, while the shape of the shadow remains unchanged. In the next section we will see this point generally.
\section{Shadow of a spinning black hole in an expanding universe\label{section4}}
In the previous section, we only considered the spinning black hole shadow in an expanding universe driven by the positive cosmological constant. In this section we extend the study to an expanding multi-component universe (with matter, radiation and dark energy). We will employ the approximate method proposed in \cite{Bisnovatyi-Kogan:2018vxl} to calculate the shadow of a Kerr black hole in the expanding FLRW universe as seen by a comoving observer \footnote{In a subsequent paper \cite{Tsupko:2019mfo}, the authors of \cite{Bisnovatyi-Kogan:2018vxl} developed a new method to calculate analytically the angular size of black hole shadow in the McVittie metric as seen by a comoving observer. The result of that paper is valid within the entire range of possible positions of observer, not only for large distance. }. This approximate method applies to the situation that the observer is very far from the black hole, the cosmic expansion is perceived only at very large scales and can be neglected near the black hole. The approximation is essentially the same as we used in the preceding section, so we expect that the two results are equal when the cosmic expansion is driven by the positive cosmological constant.
We now describe the approximate method adopted in \cite{Bisnovatyi-Kogan:2018vxl}. First, let us introduce a radial coordinate $r_I$ which obeys
\begin{equation}\label{rIrO}
r_+ \ll r_I \ll r_O .
\end{equation}
Clearly, $r_I$ bears two properties: one is that it is far enough away from the spinning
black hole such that the gravity of the black hole can be neglected, the other one is that
$r_I$ is small enough in comparison with the observer's position such that the effect of the
cosmic expansion can be neglected. Therefore, in the region $r\leq r_I$, we just need to calculate the shadow size of
the Kerr black hole and find the asymptotic form at large distance. Then in the region
$r>r_I$, the effect of the cosmic expansion has to be taken into account, which is implemented by applying the angular size redshift relation to the shadow size.
The shadow of a Kerr black hole for the locally static observer was calculated in section \ref{section2}.
From Eqs. (\ref{sima}) and (\ref{simb}) with $\Lambda=0$, we know the solid angles in the frame of the observer located at ($r_I$, $\theta_I$) are given by
\begin{equation}\label{Kerrangluarsize}
\sin \alpha \simeq \pm \frac{\sqrt{\eta + a^2 \cos^2 \theta_I -
\xi^2 \cot^2 \theta_I}}{r_I}, \quad \tan \beta \simeq
\frac{\xi}{\sin^{} \theta_I\, r_I^{}} .
\end{equation}
As we have known, since the shape of the Kerr black hole is not a perfect circle, we can use the
horizontal and vertical angular diameters of the shadow to characterize its angular size. The
horizontal angular diameter $\Delta h$ (\ref{horizontalang}) is determined by the zeroes of
$\alpha$ and the vertical angular diameter $\Delta v$ (\ref{verticalang}) corresponds to the position at which $\alpha$ takes a maximum. As we mentioned before, in general for a given $\theta_I$ they can only be obtained numerically. In the following we just show the result for $\theta_I=\pi/2$ in which case the
horizontal and vertical angular diameters of the shadow can be analytically found. For $\theta_I=\pi/2$ the zeroes of $\alpha$ just correspond to $\eta=0$ and the solution to which is given by (\ref{rpp}),
so we have
\begin{equation}
\sin \rho_{h1}=\frac{\xi}{ r_I^{}}\Big|_{r=r_{p-}},\quad \sin \rho_{h2}=-\frac{\xi}{ r_I^{}}\Big|_{r=r_{p+}},
\end{equation}
where the explicit expression of $\xi$ is given in (\ref{xi}) and we have taken into account that for large $r_I$, $\sin\beta\simeq \tan\beta$. Moreover, for $\theta_I=\pi/2$, from Eq. (\ref{rofalphamax}) with $\Lambda=0$, it is easy to see that for the observer located at $r_I$, $\alpha$ takes maximum at $r=3m$. Then the vertical angular radius of the shadow is
\begin{equation}
\sin \rho_v=\frac{\sqrt{\eta }}{r_I}\Big|_{r=3m}=\frac{\sqrt{27}m}{r_I}.
\end{equation}
Note that this result is the same as the angular radius of the Schwarzschild black hole shadow.
Furthermore, we can formally define the linear size of the black hole shadow as seen by the observer at radius $r_I$ as
\begin{equation}\label{linearsize}
R_h=r_I \sin \frac{\Delta h}{2}\simeq\frac{\xi}{2\sin^{} \theta_I\, }\Big|_{r=r_{h1}}-\frac{\xi}{2\sin^{} \theta_I\, }\Big|_{r=r_{h2}},
\quad R_v=\sqrt{\eta + a^2 \cos^2 \theta_I -
\xi^2 \cot^2 \theta_I}\Big|_{r=r_{v}}.
\end{equation}
Obviously, the above formulas are independent of $r_I$. In the non-rotating case, one has
$R_h=R_v=3\sqrt{3}m$.
In the region $r>r_I$, a distant observer located at $r_O$ finds the image of the black hole shadow with linear size characterized by $R_h$ and $R_v$ as well. But in the meantime, the null geodesic extending from the black hole out to the observer suffers from the cosmic expansion. As a result the shadow size measured by the observer on earth should be different. The angular size redshift formula relates the linear size measured without the cosmic expansion to the angular size of the object as viewed by the observer, thus can be directly used for the shadow. Let the observer located on earth be the position with zero redshift, then the shadow of the black hole is situated at the redshift $z$.
The angular size redshift formula is not valid for the black hole shadow if the observer is close to the black hole such that the gravity of the black hole is dominant than the cosmic expansion. This is why the relation (\ref{rIrO}) is necessary.
According to the definition, the angular diameter distance is given by
\begin{equation}
d_A = \frac{l}{\Delta \theta},
\end{equation}
where $l$ is the physical size of the object, and $\Delta \theta$ is the angular size of the object as viewed from earth.
For an object at the redshift $z$, the angular diameter distance can be expressed in terms of the comoving distance $\chi$ as
\begin{equation}
d_A (z) = \frac{S_k(\chi)}{(1 + z) }.
\end{equation}
where $S_k(\chi)$ is the FLRW coordinate. When the universe is flat, we have $S_k(\chi)=\chi$ and the comoving distance is explicitly given by
\begin{equation}\label{chiz}
\chi(z) = \int_0^z \frac{d z'}{H_0\sqrt{\Omega_{m 0} (1 + z')^3 + \Omega_{r 0} (1 + z')^4 +
\Omega_{\Lambda 0}}} ,
\end{equation}
where $H_0$ is the present day value of the Hubble parameter $H (t)$, and $\Omega_{m
0}$, $\Omega_{r 0}$, $\Omega_{\Lambda 0}$ are the present day values of
the density parameters for matter, radiation and dark energy respectly. So
the angular size of the black hole shadow as seen by the observer on earth can be expressed as a function of the redshift
\begin{equation}
\Delta \theta = \frac{l (1 + z)}{\chi(z)}.
\end{equation}
In this formula, the physical size $l$ corresponds to the horizontal and vertical linear sizes of the black hole shadow $R_h$ and $R_v$, so we have respectively
\begin{equation}\label{hzvz}
\Delta \theta_{h} (z) = R_{h}\frac{ (1 + z)}{\chi(z)},\quad \Delta\theta_{v} (z) = R_{v}\frac{(1 + z)}{\chi(z)}.
\end{equation}
Here for the observer on earth the angle $\theta_I$ should be replaced by the inclination angle $\theta_O$ between the observer and the direction of the rotation axis of the black hole.
This formula allows to calculate the size of the shadow as a function of the redshift of the observed
black hole with given parameters $H_0$, $\Omega_{m 0}$,
$\Omega_{r 0}$, $\Omega_{\Lambda 0}$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=120mm,angle=0]{a0vsa99.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace{-5mm}
\caption {The change of $\Delta\theta_h$ and $\Delta\theta_v$ with respect to the rotating parameter $a$, by choosing $\theta_O=\frac{\pi}{2}$.}\label{a0vsa99}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{De Sitter universe} First of all, let us consider that the expanding universe is totally driven by the cosmological constant.
For such de Sitter universe, we have $\Omega_{\Lambda0}=1$ and $\chi(z)=z/H_0$. Therefore, the angular sizes of the black hole as seen by a comoving observer are given by
\begin{equation}\label{linearsizecom}
\Delta \theta_{h} (z) = R_{h}\frac{ H_0 (1 + z)}{z},\quad \Delta\theta_{v} (z) = R_{v}\frac{ H_0 (1 + z)}{z}.
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=130mm,angle=0]{a0vsa991.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace{-5mm}
\caption { The change of $\Delta\theta_h$ with respect to the rotating parameter $a$ in de Sitter universe, the matter-dominated universe and the real multicomponent universe respectively, by choosing $\theta_O=\frac{\pi}{2}$. }\label{a0vsa991}
\end{figure}
Remember that in section \ref{section3} we have calculated the shadow of the spinning black hole embedded in the de Sitter universe as seen by a comoving observer at large distance. As we will show in the following, these two different methods lead to the same result. To prove that, a key step is to relate $r_O$ in Eqs. (\ref{comovingsolidanglesa}) and
(\ref{comovingsolidanglesb}) with the redshift $z$. At large distance $r_O\gg r_+$ and for small $H_0$, we know the relation between the static coordinate $r_O$ and the comoving coordinate $\bar{r}$
\begin{equation}
r_O=\bar{r}\, e^{H_0 \bar{t}}.
\end{equation}
Moreover, the comoving coordinate and the redshift has the following connection
\begin{equation}
\bar{r}= \frac{1}{e^{H_0 \bar{t}}}\frac{z}{H_0}.
\end{equation}
From these two formulas we can easily find that
\begin{equation}\label{relambda}
\frac{1+H_O r_O}{r_O}=\frac{ H_0 (1 + z)}{z}.
\end{equation}
Then compare Eqs. (\ref{comovingsolidanglesa}) and
(\ref{comovingsolidanglesb}) with (\ref{linearsizecom}), one can find that they are identical.
\paragraph{Matter-dominated universe} In this universe, we have $\Omega_{m0}=1$, $\Omega_{r0}=0$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda0}=0$.
Then from (\ref{chiz}) and (\ref{hzvz}) we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{rematter}
\Delta \theta_{h} (z) = R_{h}\frac{ (1 + z)}{2[1-(1+z)^{-1/2}]},\quad \Delta\theta_{v} (z) = R_{v}\frac{ (1 + z)}{2[1-(1+z)^{-1/2}]}.
\end{equation}
As found in \cite{Bisnovatyi-Kogan:2018vxl}, in this universe the angular size increases unboundedly with increase of the black hole redshift.
\paragraph{Real multicomponent universe}
The formula (\ref{hzvz}) allows us to calculate the angular size of the black hole shadow in the real universe with multiple components. For example we choose $\Omega_{\Lambda0}=0.7$ and $\Omega_{m0}=0.3$ with vanishing $\Omega_{r0}$, then the
pictures in this case are plotted in Figs. \ref{a0vsa99} and \ref{a0vsa991}.
Since the cosmic expansion appears as a multiplicative factor in the formula (\ref{hzvz}), the influence of different spin and inclination angle on the angular radii will be the same as that for a locally static observer, which has been clearly discussed in section \ref{section2}.
From Fig. \ref{a0vsa99}, one can see that with the increase of the redshift the difference between the horizontal radius and the vertical one caused by the high spin of the black hole becomes significant and the inclination is $\pi/2$. In other words, the size of the black hole caused by the spin is magnified by the redshift. However, the ratio of the two radii keeps invariant, due to the fact that the magnification effect of the cosmic expansion acts on them equally as can be seen from (\ref{hzvz}). Therefore the shape and the oblateness of the deformed shadow of a spinning black hole are unchanged with respect to the cosmic expansion. In addition, it might be possible to extract the information of the spin of the black hole from the observation of its shadow's deformation, as proposed by Tsupko in \cite{Tsupko:2017rdo}. Our study shows that it might be easier to achieve this goal for supermassive black holes at high redshift as long as the resolution of EHT is high enough. This is because the measurement of the angular radii would be easier due to the amplification of the cosmic expansion, so the accuracy of the oblateness of the shadow would be improved as well. Of course, this is purely a theoretical point of view. In realistic universe, the observation of shadows of high redshift supermassive black holes is far beyond the ability of the current technology, see the concerns in \cite{Vagnozzi:2020quf}.
In Fig. \ref{a0vsa991} we show the effect of the comic expansion caused by different components on the horizontal radius of the shadow. One can see that the difference between the high spin one and the non-spinning one becomes the most significant when the component is purely matter.
\section{Summary}\label{summary}
In this paper, we studied the effect of the cosmic expansion on the shadow of the spinning black hole. We started from the Kerr-dS spacetime. We may still define a distant observer comoving with the cosmic expansion in the Kerr-dS spacetime. Using the usual method of calculating the shadow of a stationary black hole as seen by a locally static observer and the standard aberration formula, we obtained the shadow of the Kerr black hole for a comoving observer, see Eqs. (\ref{comovingsolidanglesa}) and (\ref{comovingsolidanglesb}). We found the shadow of the Kerr black hole seen by a locally static observer is very different from the one seen by a comoving observer. As for the former, the angular size of the Kerr-dS shadow becomes smaller as the observer moves further away from the black hole. Thus for a distant static observer, the angular size goes to be invisible, while for the comoving observer, the angular size of the shadow tends to a
constant. The existence of this difference gives us a reason to believe that this is indeed the size of the Kerr black hole shadow for a comoving observer with the cosmic expansion.
Furthermore, we considered the problem in the general expanding FLRW universe, beyond the $\Lambda$-driven expansion. We applied the approximate method proposed by \cite{Bisnovatyi-Kogan:2018vxl}. We first concentrated on the $\Lambda$-driven case, and found the consistent result with the one from the the direct computation. Then we turned to multi-component case.
The main results are presented in Eq. (\ref{hzvz}),(\ref{linearsizecom}) and (\ref{rematter}), and the corresponding graph in Fig. \ref{a0vsa991}. The results show that the difference between the horizontal and vertical radii of the black hole shadow becomes significant in the case that the supermassive black hole is at a high redshift, but the shape is unaltered.
We conclude this paper with some outlooks. First of all, in our paper, we did not include the influences of complex environments outside the black holes, such as the plasma, the jets or the accretion disc. It is definitely very interesting to consider these effects in the future works, since the light rays are usually refracted by the medium before they reach our eyes. Secondly, in the propagation of lights, the photon fields may interact with other fields, like axion etc. which is also worth considering in future. In the end, we have been focusing on the shape and the size of a black hole shadow in this work. Another important observable, the brightness of edges of the shadows, has not been studied here. As we know, in the EHT experiment, the factor of luminosity is crucial as well. It should be considered carefully in further studies.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We thank Zhong-Ying Fan, Canbin Liang and Xiaoning Wu for useful discussions. The work is in part supported by NSFC Grant No. 11335012, No. 11325522, No. 11735001 and No. 11847241. MG and PCL are also supported by NSFC Grant No. 11947210. And MG is also funded by China National Postdoctoral Innovation Program 2019M660278.
|
\section{Introduction} \label{Introduction}\MDG{no separate headings in PRL -- they take up too much space}
\section{Introduction}
Partial differential equations are formally infinite-dimensional, but the presence of dissipation (through viscosity or diffusion, for example) leads to the expectation that the long-time dynamics collapse onto a finite-dimensional invariant manifold \cite{Hopf1948a}. Specifically, for some systems, including the Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equation (KSE) that we consider here, it can be proven that all initial conditions exponentially approach an \emph{inertial manifold} $\mathcal{M}$ of finite dimension $d_\mathcal{M}$ \cite{Foias1988a}, on which the long time dynamics evolve.
For states on the IM, $v\in \mathcal{M}$, one can in principle find a coordinate transformation $h=\chi(v)$ to coordinates $h$ on the inertial manifold, a change of coordinates $v=\check{\chi}(h)$ back to the full space, and a dynamical system $h(t+\tau)=F(h(t))$ on $\mathcal{M}$. (Alternately, one could represent the dynamical system in differential form $dh/dt=G(h)$.) This dynamical system is an exact reduced-order model (ROM). Such a model can be practically useful, for computationally efficient simulations of a complex process, and may also be fundamentally important, since the coordinates $h$ represent the key dynamical variables for the phenomenon of interest.
In the present work, we use ``data'' in the form of chaotic solutions to the KSE with periodic boundary conditions, to find neural-network (NN) representations of the functions $\chi, \check{\chi}$, and $F$. Many prior studies of inertial manifolds, and approximations thereof, take the inertial manifold to be the graph of a function $\Phi$ such that $\mathcal{M}:=\{v_++\Phi(v_+)\}$, where $v_+=Pv$ is a projection onto the $d_\mathcal{M}$ leading eigenfunctions of the linear operator for the PDE \cite{Zelik2013,Foias1988,Graham:1993wv}. The present work is not subject to this restriction. Furthermore, our formalism explicitly accounts for the important physical features of translation invariance and energy conservation found in this system, and reproduces, very well, with a minimal number of degrees of freedom, key dynamic and statistical features of the attractor.
A standard machine learning method for nonlinear dimension reduction is the undercomplete autoencoder \cite{Hinton:2006bg,Goodfellow2016}. This is a pair of neural networks, one mapping from a high-dimensional space to a low-dimensional one, and the second doing the reverse. The networks take data $u$ as input, compute an output $\tilde{u}$ and are trained to minimize a loss function $L=||u-\tilde{u}||^2$ summed over a batch of data vectors $u$.
Autoencoders have been used for nonlinear dimension reduction in many applications \citep{Hinton:2006bg}, including turbulent flow fields \cite{Omata:2019ho,Milano2002}. For dynamical systems, autoencoders have been used to explicitly yield coordinate transformations on which the dynamics are linear \citep{Otto2019,Lusch:2018ex} (e.g.~to determine eigenmodes of the Koopman operator) or have a sparse representation \citep{Champion:2019vx}. Gonzalez et al.~\citep{Gonzalez:2018tj} have combined autoencoders with nonlinear time-evolution models for reconstruction of dynamics of isotropic turbulence and lid-driven cavity flow. Lee and Carlberg \citep{Lee2019} give an overview of nonlinear model reduction with NNs and application to transient dynamics of Burgers equation. The physical interpretation of NN representations of physical phenomena has been explored in Iten et al. \cite{Iten2020}.
Other studies have focused on developing NNs for evolving equations with chaotic dynamics without nonlinear dimension reduction. \ALrevise{An early example of this is Gonz\'alez-Garc\'ia et al. \citep{Gonzalez-Garcia1998}, who used a NN to predict the right hand side of the discretized KSE. Specificallly, they input the full state of the KSE and its derivatives into a NN to predict the parameters of a Runge-Kutta method for time integration. More recently larger NN have been used for prediction.} For example, Pathak et al. \citep{Pathak:2018dg} showed that a reservoir network trained with time-evolution ``data" from the KSE was capable of making excellent predictions of future time-evolution. No explicit model reduction was performed. In \citep{Lui2019}, proper orthogonal decomposition (POD) and a spectral version (SPOD), both linear dimension reduction techniques, were used to reduce the dimension of fluid flow data that were then used to train a NN for time-evolution.
Vlachas et al.~\citep{Vlachas:2018gc} combined various linear dimension reduction approaches with a long-short term memory NN and mean stochastic modeling to keep trajectories on the attractor. Similarly, in \citep{Wan:2018ga} a long-short term memory NN was used in a nonlinear Galerkin approach to estimate the nonlinearity, a task often achieved by assuming lower modes evolve slowly, and iteratively solving for the higher modes \citep{Titi1990,Foias1988b,Jolly1990,Graham:1993wv,Matthies2003}.
Although methods exist for modeling dynamics on an IM, estimating $d_\mathcal{M}$ remains a difficult problem. In \cite{Kuptsov2019}, an autoencoder is used to estimate $d_\mathcal{M}$ from data for the dynamics of the complex Ginzburg-Landau (CGL) equation; however the dynamics on $\mathcal{M}$ are not modeled.
A dynamical approach to determining $d_\mathcal{M}$ was taken in \citep{Yang2009}, where the covariant Lyapunov vectors of trajectories the KSE and the CGL were found to decompose into ``physical" and ``isolated" modes. Physical modes are entangled, in the sense that tangencies between them result in perturbations of a single mode effecting other modes, whereas isolated modes lack tangencies with physical or isolated modes. This suggests the number of physical modes corresponds to $d_\mathcal{M}$. Expanding on that work, Ding et al. \citep{Ding2016} found the dimension for the KSE in similar ways using Floquet vectors from an ensemble of unstable periodic orbits that are close to the chaotic attractor.
The present work combines data-driven dimension reduction and time evolution using an efficient autoencoder structure that incorporates translation symmetry and energy conservation.
\section{Formulation}
Our testbed for this approach is the KSE,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:KSE}
\partial_t v=-v\partial_x v-\partial_{xx} v-\partial_{xxxx} v,
\end{equation}
with periodic boundary conditions in the domain $x\in[0,L]$. We select $L=22$, $44$, and $66$ because these domain sizes yield increasingly chaotic dynamics, and $d_\mathcal{M}$ is known at $L=22$ \cite{Ding2016}. Solutions to this equation are only unique to within a translation that we will represent with a phase variable $\phi\in \mathbb{R}$. This equation has an energy conservation principle: when time-averaged, the energy production rate $\mathcal{P}=\left<\partial_x v\partial_x v\right>$ balances the dissipation rate $\varepsilon=\left< \partial_{xx} v\partial_{xx} v\right>$. Here $\langle\cdot\rangle$ represents averaging over $x$.
These properties are incorporated into the dimension reduction formulation as detailed below. Trajectories of \eqref{eq:KSE} were generated using a Fourier spectral method in space and a fourth-order time integration scheme \cite{Kassam2005} with the code available from Cvitanovi\'c et al. \cite{ChaosBook}.
The solution $v(x)$ is represented on a uniformly-spaced mesh of $d=64$ points; we denote the solution on this mesh as $u\in\reals^d$, so $d$ is the dimension of the full state space in the present system.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[trim=0 0 0 0,width=8.6 cm,clip]{Model_Full.pdf}
\captionsetup{justification=raggedright}
\caption{Block diagram for the hybrid autoencoder and time-evolution scheme. NNs are pink (light gray).}
\label{fig:Framework}
\vspace{-5mm}
\end{figure}
\section{Methodology and Results}
Figure \ref{fig:Framework} illustrates our framework for finding the inertial manifold and the dynamical system on it. The first step of the process exploits translation invariance: the solution $u$ at every time instant is transformed into a pattern $\hat{u}\in\mathbb{R}^d$ and a phase $\phi$ using an approach called the ``method of slices" \citep{Budanur2015b,Budanur2015}. Factoring out the phase leads to a more compact representation of the data by eliminating the need of training redundant weights for translated signals. (E.g., the representation will not need to separately represent $\sin 2\pi x/L$ and all of its translations.) Furthermore, such ``symmetry reduction" methods have been found to help elucidate the state space structure in fluid mechanics problems such as pipe flow \citep{Willis2013}.
The method of slices involves taking the discrete Fourier transform $\mathcal{F}$ of the data in $x$ to yield $a(t)=\mathcal{F}\left\{u(t)\right\}$. With the data in Fourier space, the phase of the first Fourier mode $a_1(t)$ is found using
$
\phi(t)=\text{atan2}(\text{Im}(a_{1}(t)),\text{Re}(a_{1}(t))).
$
Now we can construct a phase-aligned solution $\hat{u}(t)$ so that its first Fourier mode is a pure cosine:
$
\hat{u}(t)=\mathcal{F}^{-1}\left\{a(t)e^{-i k \phi(t)}\right\}.
$
Storage of $\phi$ for each time instant allows conversion of $\hat{u}$ back to $u$ (i.e.~$u(t)$ contains both $\phi(t)$ and $\hat{u}(t)$). Times when $a_1(t)$ approaches zero require special treatment, as was recognized by Budanur et al. \citep{Budanur2015b}. We use the solution they proposed, which is to stretch time according to $\Delta \hat{t}=\Delta t / |a_{1}(t)|$. The rescaled time $\hat{t}$ is called ``in-slice" time. Given any $u(t)$ we can always find $\hat{u}(t)$, $\phi(t)$ and $a_1(t)$, so it is always possible to move back and forth between the original and phase-aligned solutions and between real and in-slice time.
The data used for training the NNs were $\sim4-5\cdot 10^5$ solutions $u$ separated by $\Delta \hat{t}=0.2$ ``in-slice" time units, which corresponds to $\Delta t\approx0.023$ time units on average for $L=22$. Data was gathered after the dynamics had settled onto the attractor.
Given the phase-aligned pattern data $\hat{u}$, the first machine learning task is to find the manifold $\mathcal{M}$, of dimension $d_\mathcal{M}$, on which this data lives, or equivalently the coordinate tranformations $h=\chi(\hat{u})$ and $\hat{u}=\check{\chi}(h)$. Because the phase of any given data vector $u$ is arbitrary, the phase information is not needed for this step. The coordinates $h(t)$ and the phase $\phi(t)$ completely describe the state of the system so the dimension of the attractor in the unreduced state space will be $d_\mathcal{M}+1$. (For further discussion of invariant manifolds in translation-symmetric systems, see Ref. \cite{Budanur2015}.) Indeed, phase alignment allows more efficient representation of the data, because phase information need not be encoded -- it is captured separately as noted above.
To find $\chi$ and $\check{\chi}$, we use a variant of a standard undercomplete autoencoder, shown as the ``$\tau=0$" branch of architecture shown in Figure \ref{fig:Framework}. This variant uses a NN to represent the \emph{difference} between the data and its projection onto the basis arising from principal components analysis (PCA) of the data set \cite{Strang2019}. PCA is widely used for linear dimension reduction because it yields the projection of dimension $d_h$ that minimizes the mean squared deviation from the original data. Let $U$ be a square orthogonal matrix whose columns are the PCA basis vectors, and $P_{d_h}U^\mathrm{T}$ and $P_{d-d_h}U^\mathrm{T}$ the projection onto the first $d_h$ and last $d-d_h$ such vectors, respectively. The encoding step learns the function $E(U^\mathrm{T}\hat{u}(t))$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:hidden}
E(U^\mathrm{T}\hat{u}(t))=h(t)-P_{d_h}U^\mathrm{T}\hat{u}(t).
\end{equation}
This structure is shown inside the blue (upper) box in Figure \ref{fig:Framework}. It must be emphasized that there is no approximation in choosing this representation. Furthermore, $U$ need not come from PCA; for example, $U$ could be the discrete Fourier transform operator or simply the identity, the latter corresponding to using the solution values on the mesh points.
\begin{table}
\captionsetup{justification=raggedright}
\caption{Architectures of the NNs. ``Shape" indicates the dimension of each layer, and ``activation" the corresponding activation functions (S is the sigmoid activation) \cite{Goodfellow2016}. Decoder1 refers to domains $L=22$ and $44$. Decoder2 refers to $L=66$.}
\resizebox{.45\textwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{l*{6}{c}r}
& Function & Shape & Activation \\
\hline
Encoder & $E$ & $d:500:d_h$ & S:tanh \\
Decoder1 & $D$ & $d_h:500:d$ & S:linear \\
Decoder2 & $D$ & $d_h:500:500:d$ & S:linear \\
Evolution & $F_h$ & $d_h:200:200:d_h$ & S:S:linear \\
Evolution & $F_\phi$ & $d_h:500:50:500:1$ & S:S:S:linear \\
\label{Table}
\end{tabular}}
\vspace{-5mm}
\end{table}
The decoding step takes the data $h(t)\in\mathbb{R}^{d_h}$ in the inertial manifold coordinates and transforms it back to the full space, as shown in the yellow (lower) box in Figure \ref{fig:Framework}.
Again one can think of learning a difference: the decoder learns a function $D(h(t))$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Autoencoder}
D(h(t))=U^\mathrm{T}\tilde{\hat{u}}(t) -\begin{bmatrix}
{h(t)} \\ 0
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{equation}
Taking $E(U^\mathrm{T}\hat{u}(t))=0$ recovers the original IM formulation, but precludes the representation of curved manifolds that do not have a one-to-one mapping from a linear projection. An example of such a manifold is the Archimedean spiral, whose Cartesian representation is $(x,y)=(\phi\cos\phi,\phi\sin\phi$). The autoencoder architecture used here is able to represent this manifold with $d_h=1$.
Finally, inserting Eq.~\ref{eq:hidden} into Eq.~\ref{eq:Autoencoder}, solving for $\tilde{\hat{u}}_t$, and noting that this can be written $\tilde{\hat{u}}(t) =U \left[P_{d_h}U^\mathrm{T}\hat{u}(t), {P_{d-d_h}U^\mathrm{T}\hat{u}(t)}\right]^\mathrm{T}$,
shows that the exact solution satisfies $E(U^\mathrm{T}\hat{u}(t))+D_{d_h}(h(t))=0$, where $D_{d_h}$ contains the first $d_h$ components of $D$.
This constraint can be satisfied approximately by adding a penalty term to the autoencoder loss function so it becomes
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Loss}
L=||\hat{u}(t)-\tilde{\hat{u}}(t)||^2+\alpha ||E(\hat{u}(t))+D_{d_h}\left(h(t)\right)||^2.
\end{equation}
With this structure, we can in principle achieve an exact representation (within the approximation error of the functions $E$ and $D$) of data on a manifold of dimension $d_\mathcal{M}$ for all $d_h\geq d_\mathcal{M}$. \ALrevise{In general, the functions $E$ and $D$, or more generally $\chi$ and $\breve{\chi}$, need not come from NNs. Other approaches to nonlinear dimension reduction and function approximation (e.g.~tSNE, diffusion maps, kernel regression \citep{vanDerMaaten2008,vanDerMaaten2009}) might be useful as well. The overall structure of our approach would be the same.}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[trim=0 0 0 0,width=8.6 cm,clip]{MSEvdh.pdf}
\captionsetup{justification=raggedright}
\caption{MSE of test data for various $d_h$ for $L=22$. The legend is described in the text.}
\label{fig:Autoencoder}
\vspace{-5mm}
\end{figure}
Autoencoders of the above structure, which we denote hybrid neural networks (HNN) were trained (i.e.~the functions $E$ and $D$ were determined) using the phase aligned data. At a given value of $d_h$, twenty HNNs (each initialized with different initial guesses for the weights), with $\alpha=1$ were trained for $1000$ epochs with an Adam optimizer using Keras \cite{chollet2015keras}. This process was repeated for a range of $d_h$. Results are reported for the model with the lowest MSE at each value of $d_h$.
For comparison we trained three variations on the HNN to evaluate the effect of the linear projection ($P_{d_h}$), the PCA change of basis ($U^\mathrm{T}$), and phase alignment steps. In the first variation, denoted PCANN, we built a NN without the ``Trunc" and ``Expand" blocks in Fig. \ref{fig:Framework}, which corresponds to using the PCA basis, but using $E$ and $D$ to learn the whole nonlinear coordinate tranformation rather than just the difference from PCA. The next variation builds upon the previous and removes the ``PCA" block in Figure \ref{fig:Framework}, which leaves it in the original basis, so we denote it ONN. Then, the last variation is to remove the phase shift (No Shift). Both the PCANN and the ONN are trained with the loss $L=||\hat{u}-\tilde{\hat{u}}||^2$, while the unsifted variation is trained with $L=||u-\tilde{u}||^2$. Hyperparameter tuning of the NN architectures was performed manually by varying width, depth, and activation functions. \ALrevise{All of these variations used the same architecture, shown in Table \ref{Table}, for functions $E$ and $D$.}
Figure \ref{fig:Autoencoder} shows the mean squared error (MSE) on a separate test dataset for the NN methods described above and PCA for $L=22$. At low $d_h$, the HNN, PCANN, and ONN all perform similarly, and in all three cases the MSE drops significantly at $d_h=7$. For the case of no shifting, the drop appears at $d_h=8$ because the continuous translation symmetry has not been factored out. All NNs perform orders of magnitude better than PCA. On continuing to increase $d_h$, the MSE for the HNN continues to improve while the others stagnate, because the HNN only needs correct coefficients of the less relevant higher PCA modes, while the other methods modify all of them. Notably, the abrupt drop in MSE at $d_h=7$ coincides with the true dimension $d_\mathcal{M}$ of the attractor as found in \citep{Ding2016}. The remaining error for $d_h\geq 7$ for the HNN is small, at $O(10^{-7})$, which follows from the fact that at this dimension an exact coordinate transformation exists, so the remaining error is approximation error.
Having in hand the coordinate representation for points on $\mathcal{M}$, we now use NNs to learn the dynamical system (``exact" reduced-order model) on the manifold, corresponding to the ``$\tau\neq0$" branch in Figure \ref{fig:Framework}. This approach will be denoted ``HNN ROM''.
We construct discrete time mappings
\begin{equation}
h(t+\hat{\tau})=F_h(h(t)),~~ \Delta\phi\equiv\phi(t+\hat{\tau})-\phi(t)=F_\phi(h(t)),\label{eq:dynamics}
\end{equation}
where $F_h$ and $F_\phi$ have the architectures shown in Table \ref{Table}. We use the symbol $\hat{\tau}$ instead of $\tau$ to emphasize that the discrete time mappings use in-slice time. We chose $\hat{\tau}=2$, which reproduces trajectories well, by allowing for the signal to change an appreciable amount, but not too much, in one time interval. Setting $\hat{\tau}$ much smaller or larger results in poor model predictions.
Recall that the energy balance for the KSE requires that the production and dissipation rates $\mathcal{P}$ and $\varepsilon$ must balance on average. We incorporate this fact in the training of the dynamic models as follows. We compute the projection of the data onto $\mathcal{P}$ and $\varepsilon$, as shown in Figure \ref{fig:PvD}. The relation between $\mathcal{P}$ and $\varepsilon$ is narrowly distributed around the line $\mathcal{P}=\varepsilon$, with a sharp boundary, and we can find maximum and minimum dissipation rates $\varepsilon_{\text{max}}$ and $\varepsilon_{\text{min}}$ associated with a given value of $\mathcal{P}$. We then add a penalty for crossing this boundary to the loss function $L_F$ for $F_h$ and $F_\phi$, as follows:
\begin{multline} \label{eq:Loss3}
L_F=||u(t+\hat{\tau})-\tilde{u}(t+\hat{\tau})||^2 \\
+\beta \max(\max (0,\tilde{\varepsilon}\!-\!\varepsilon_{\text{max}}(\tilde{\mathcal{P}})),\varepsilon_{\text{min}}(\tilde{\mathcal{P}})\!-\!\tilde{\varepsilon}),
\end{multline
where $\tilde{\mathcal{P}}$ and $\tilde{\varepsilon}$ are calculated from $\tilde{u}$. We selected $\beta=0.1$ so the second term contributed the same order of error to the loss as the first term. For each $d_h$, the best dimension reduction model was chosen, and fifty time-evolution models were trained for 200 epochs. Results are reported for the best models, as determined at a given $d_h$ based on producing low errors in both short and long-time statistics.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[trim=0 0 0 0,width=8.6 cm,clip]{PvD.pdf}
\captionsetup{justification=raggedright}
\caption{$\mathcal{P}$ vs. $\varepsilon$ state-space projection for the data at $L=22$ and HNN ROM prediction with $d_h=7$.}
\label{fig:PvD}
\vspace{-5mm}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[trim=0 0 0 0,width=8.6 cm,clip]{Temp_Cor.pdf}
\captionsetup{justification=raggedright}
\caption{Time-correlation function for the data at $L=22$, and HNN ROM prediction with $d_h=7$.}
\label{fig:Temp}
\vspace{-5mm}
\end{figure}
To illustrate the performance of this approach, which we denote HNN ROM, on predicting dynamics, we first present short-time tracking results and then long-time statistics. All trajectories are evolved from a given initial condition $u(0)$ on the manifold, from which we find $\hat{u}(0)$ and $\phi(0)$ by phase alignment and then set $h(0)=\chi(\hat{u}(0))$. This initial condition in the manifold coordinates is evolved forward in in-slice time with Eq.~\ref{eq:dynamics}. For validating the performance of the short-time tracking we need a timescale for comparison. Here we consider the integral timescale $T_I=\int_0^\infty C(t)\;dt \approx 19$, where
\begin{equation*}
C(t)=\frac{\langle u(0)u(t)\rangle}{\langle u(0)^2\rangle}
\end{equation*}
is the temporal autocorrelation, and the Lyapunov time $T_L\approx 21$ \cite{Ding2016}. Figure \ref{fig:Temp} shows the temporal autocorrelation of the data and the HNN ROM at $d_h=d_\mathcal{M}$ are in good agreement for $t\lesssim 30$. Likewise, typical trajectories show close tracking for 30 or more real time units. This comparison appears in Fig. \ref{fig:Traj}, where Fig. \ref{fig:Traja} and \ref{fig:Trajc} show the evolution of two initial conditions of test data using the dynamical system found with $d_h=d_\mathcal{M}=7$, and the ``exact" results are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:Trajc} and \ref{fig:Trajd} obtained from solving the KSE.
These results indicate predictive capability for time scales longer than $T_I$ or $T_L$, and thus represent very good performance for prediction of chaotic dynamics.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\captionsetup[subfigure]{labelformat=empty}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{8.6 cm}
\includegraphics[trim=0 0 0 0,width=\textwidth,clip]{Example_Trajectory.pdf}
\begin{picture}(0,0)
\put(-79,294){\contour{white}{ \textcolor{black}{a)}}}
\put(-79,231){\contour{white}{ \textcolor{black}{b)}}}
\put(-79,168){\contour{white}{ \textcolor{black}{c)}}}
\put(-79,105){\contour{white}{ \textcolor{black}{d)}}}
\end{picture}
\caption{}
\vspace{-10mm}
\label{fig:Traja}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0\textwidth}\caption{}\vspace{-10mm}\label{fig:Trajb}\end{subfigure}\begin{subfigure}[b]{0\textwidth}\caption{}\vspace{-10mm}\label{fig:Trajc}\end{subfigure}\begin{subfigure}[b]{0\textwidth}\caption{}\vspace{-10mm}\label{fig:Trajd}\end{subfigure}
\vspace{-1.5\baselineskip}
\captionsetup{justification=raggedright}
\caption{(a) and (c) trajectories (color contours of $u(x,t)$ with solid lines at $u=1$ and dashed lines at $u=-1$) evolving from different initial conditions according to the HNN ROM; $L=22$. (c) and (d) true trajectories corresponding to (b) and (d).}
\label{fig:Traj}
\vspace{-5mm}
\end{figure}
Next, we evaluate the ability of our dynamic model to reproduce key long-time statistical properties of the attractor, focusing on the quantities $u_x$ and $u_{xx}$ that determine the energy production and dissipation in the KSE. We examine predictions both for $d_h=d_\mathcal{M}$ and for values of $d_h$ either larger or smaller than $d_\mathcal{M}$. The trajectories considered here cover approximately $9\cdot 10^3$ real time units.
Figures \ref{fig:Spat} and \ref{fig:PvD}, respectively, show the spatial autocorrelation function (averaged over space and time) and the energy balance ($\mathcal{P}$ vs.~$\varepsilon$) of the HNN ROM for $d_h=d_\mathcal{M}$ and for data, illustrating close agreement of these quantities. These statistics show that long-time trajectories do not diverge from the attractor and that the HNN ROM prediction stays within the envelope of the energy balance, which was the intent of the penalty in the loss for the time-evolution training, Eq.~\ref{eq:Loss3}. These predictions deteriorate when $d_h<d_\mathcal{M}$.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[trim=0 0 0 0,width=8.6 cm,clip]{Spat_Cor.pdf}
\captionsetup{justification=raggedright}
\caption{Spatial correlation function for the data and HNN ROM prediction with $d_h=7$, $L=22$.}
\label{fig:Spat}
\vspace{-5mm}
\end{figure}
A more detailed representation of the attractor is the joint probability density function (PDF) of the pointwise values of $u_x$ and $u_{xx}$.
Figure \ref{fig:PDF_Dat} shows this PDF, on a log scale, as determined from the data. At $d_h=d_\mathcal{M}=7$, the HNN ROM prediction, Fig. \ref{fig:PDF_HL7}, is very close to the exact PDF. To highlight the effect of the nonlinear autoencoder, we also consider predictions with linear dimension reduction from PCA (i.e.~$E=D=0$), and NNs for the dynamics; we denote this approach PCA ROM. At the same dimension, Fig. \ref{fig:PDF_PCA7} shows that the PCA ROM prediction yields much poorer results. Figure \ref{fig:PDF_Comp} shows how the relative $L_2$ difference between the true PDF and the model predictions varies with $d_h$. For $d_h=5$, the predictions are poor for both cases, but for $d_h\geq 7$,the error is small and nearly unchanging for the HNN ROM case, which is unsurprising since $d_\mathcal{M}=7$. On the other hand, it takes $d_h=14$ for the PCA ROM to yield a comparable model to the HNN ROM at $d_h=7$. This result might be expected based on Whitney's embedding theorem, which states that any manifold of dimension $k$ can be embedded in $\reals^{2k}$ \cite{Guillemin:2000ti}.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\captionsetup[subfigure]{labelformat=empty}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{12.9 cm}
\includegraphics[trim=0 0 0 0,width=\textwidth,clip]{L22PDF.pdf}
\begin{picture}(0,0)
\put(-173,312){a)}
\put(18,312){b)}
\put(-173,158){c)}
\put(18,158){d)}
\end{picture}
\caption{}
\vspace{-10mm}
\label{fig:PDF_Dat}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0\textwidth}\caption{}\vspace{-10mm}\label{fig:PDF_HL7}\end{subfigure}\begin{subfigure}[b]{0\textwidth}\caption{}\vspace{-10mm}\label{fig:PDF_Comp}\end{subfigure}\begin{subfigure}[b]{0\textwidth}\caption{}\vspace{-10mm}\label{fig:PDF_PCA7}\end{subfigure}
\captionsetup{justification=raggedright}
\caption{ (a) joint PDF of data, $L=22$, and (b) joint PDF of HNN ROM prediction, both plotted on a logarithmic scale. (c) Relative error in PDF vs dimension. \ALrevise{The PDF from data is denoted $f$, and that from the model prediction is $\tilde{f}$.}
\vspace{-5mm}
\end{figure*}
To investigate the generality of this method, we examine its performance for larger domains, $L=44$ and $L=66$. For $L=22$ there is one positive Lyapunov exponent \citep{Ding2016,Edson2019}, whereas the dynamics at $L=44$ and $L=66$ are more chaotic\MDGrevise{; at these values, Edson et al. \citep{Edson2019} report four and seven positive Lyapunov exponents, respectively.} Data gathering and NN training were performed in the same way as for $L=22$. Initial trials for the $L=66$ showed poor results, so the capacity of the decoder was increased,as noted in Table \ref{Table}. Figure \ref{fig:Drop} shows the MSE on a test data set of HNNs with the lowest MSE at various $d_h$ for $L=44$ and $66$. The horizontal axis is centered around the $d_\mathcal{M}$ of each domain size inferred from the drop in the MSE. This corresponds to $d_\mathcal{M}=17$ and $d_\mathcal{M}=27$ for $L=44$ and $L=66$. Increasing dimension still shows a distinct drop in MSE, however it becomes less substantial with increased domain size. The $L=66$ autoencoder performs better has lower MSE than $L=44$ because of the increased capacity.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\captionsetup[subfigure]{labelformat=empty}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{17.2 cm}
\includegraphics[trim=0 0 0 0,width=\textwidth,clip]{Linear.pdf}
\begin{picture}(0,0)
\put(-240,150){a)}
\put(0,150){b)}
\end{picture}
\caption{}
\vspace{-10mm}
\label{fig:Drop}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0\textwidth}\caption{}\vspace{-10mm}\label{fig:DvL}\end{subfigure}
\captionsetup{justification=raggedright}
\caption{ (a) MSE vs the difference between $d_h$ and the predicted $d_\mathcal{M}$. (b) Dimension $d_\mathcal{M}+1$ of the unreduced IM for different domain sizes: ``HNN" denotes the current results, ``PM" the number of physical modes from \cite{Yang2009}, and ``PM Fit" a linear fit of the PM curve.
\vspace{-5mm}
\end{figure*}
The results at these domain sizes suggests that there is a linear scaling of $d_\mathcal{M}$ with $L$. This observation agrees well with results of Yang et al. \citep{Yang2009} where they show the number of physical modes (PM) scales linearly with domain size. Figure \ref{fig:DvL} shows $d_\mathcal{M}+1$ (the dimension in the unreduced state space) against the domain size for both our results and their results, along with the extrapolation of their results to smaller domains. The excellent agreement between these results provides additional computational evidence that the dimension of the IM for the KSE scales linearly with $L$.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\captionsetup[subfigure]{labelformat=empty}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{17.2 cm}
\includegraphics[trim=0 0 0 0,width=\textwidth,clip]{L4466PDF.pdf}
\begin{picture}(0,0)
\put(-235,293){a)}
\put(-45,293){b)}
\put(98,293){c)}
\put(-235,153){d)}
\put(-45,153){e)}
\put(98,153){f)}
\end{picture}
\caption{}
\vspace{-10mm}
\label{fig:PDF_Dat44}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0\textwidth}\caption{}\vspace{-10mm}\label{fig:PDF16}\end{subfigure}\begin{subfigure}[b]{0\textwidth}\caption{}\vspace{-10mm}\label{fig:PDF17}\end{subfigure}\begin{subfigure}[b]{0\textwidth}\caption{}\vspace{-10mm}\label{fig:PDF_Dat66}\end{subfigure}\begin{subfigure}[b]{0\textwidth}\caption{}\vspace{-10mm}\label{fig:PDF26}\end{subfigure}\begin{subfigure}[b]{0\textwidth}\caption{}\vspace{-10mm}\label{fig:PDF27}\end{subfigure}
\captionsetup{justification=raggedright}
\caption{ (a) and (d) joint PDF of data for $L=44,66$. (b), (c), (e), and (f) joint PDF of HNN ROM prediction at $d_\mathcal{M}-1$ and $d_\mathcal{M}$ for $L=44,66$.}
\vspace{-5mm}
\end{figure*}
Finally, we show the attractor recreation with the joint PDFs of $u_x$ and $u_{xx}$. Figure \ref{fig:PDF_Dat44} and \ref{fig:PDF_Dat66} show these for $L=44$ and $L=66$ for trajectories of approximately $8\cdot 10^3$ and $6\cdot 10^3$ real time units, respectively. Model predictions for $d_h=d_\mathcal{M}-1$, Fig. \ref{fig:PDF16} and \ref{fig:PDF26}, and $d_Hd_\mathcal{M}$ degrees of freedom, Fig. \ref{fig:PDF17} and \ref{fig:PDF27}, are shown for comparison. Unlike with $L=22$, where models with too few dimensions tended to land on periodic orbits, here, with more degrees of freedom, models with too few dimensions maintain chaos. However, the PDFs for $d_\mathcal{M}-1$ are more diffuse, less accurately recreating the data. In both cases, when the models retain $d_\mathcal{M}$ dimensions the joint PDF agrees well with the data, the main discrepancy being a broader tail of the model PDF, i.e.~ a higher, but still very low, probability of large excursions.
\section{Conclusion}
We have shown here a framework for data-driven ``exact'' reduction of a dynamical system onto a low dimensional invariant manifold and time-evolution on that manifold. Translation symmetry and energy conservation, two important features of many systems of interest, are incorporated naturally into the framework. By observing the model reduction error as a function of dimension, the dimension $d_\mathcal{M}$ of the invariant manifold can be determined, and once $d_\mathcal{M}$ is known, highly accurate model predictions can be obtained. In particular, key statistical quantities in a chaotic system can be well-approximated, indicating that the model dynamics capture the shape of the attractor. \ALrevise{In this work, the NNs can be trained on a single processor in a couple days, and time-evolution over $10^4$ time units takes only minutes. At present, it is difficult to predict how network size and training time will scale for more complex problems, especially given that it is not even known in general how $d_\mathcal{M}$ scales.} Extensions to systems with higher-dimensional dynamics are underway. Systematizing this method could provide a straightforward, data-driven means of approximating the dimension of manifolds and constructing reduced order models, a difficult task for high-dimensional chaotic systems like turbulence.
\begin{acknowledgments}
This work was supported by AFOSR FA9550-18-1-0174 and ONR N00014-18-1-2865 (Vannevar Bush Faculty Fellowship). Code is available at https://github.com/alinot5/KSNN.git.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
The notion of holomorphic motion was introduced by Ma\~n\'e-Sad-Sullivan, in their work \cite{masadsul1983} on the dynamics of rational maps in order to construct conjugacies based on perturbations of the inclusion map of a subset of the sphere. Since then, this concept has been applied as a powerful tool in the field of holomorphic dynamics.
A holomorphic motion in $\ensuremath{{\widehat{\mathbb C}}}$ can be described as a family of holomorphic functions
with disjoint graphs over some domain $\Lambda\subset\ensuremath{{\widehat{\mathbb C}}}$
parametrized by the fiber over some point $\lambda_0\in\Lambda$.
More precisely, for a domain $\Lambda$ in $\ensuremath{{\widehat{\mathbb C}}}$, a point $\lambda_0\in\Lambda$ , and a subset $E$ of $\ensuremath{{\widehat{\mathbb C}}}$,
the map $H:\Lambda\times E\rightarrow\ensuremath{{\widehat{\mathbb C}}}$ is called
\textit{a holomorphic motion of $E$}, parametrized by $\Lambda$,
with base point $\lambda_0$, if and only if the following conditions hold:
\begin{itemize}
\item[i.] $H(\lambda_0,z)=z$ for all $z\in E$,
\item[ii.] $H$ is vertically injective, i.e., for every fixed $\lambda\in\Lambda$, $H_{\lambda}:z\mapsto H(\lambda,z)$ is injective, and
\item[iii.] $H$ is horizontally holomorphic, i.e., for every fixed $z\in E$, $H^z:\lambda\mapsto H(\lambda,z)$ is holomorphic.
\end{itemize}
There are two famous extension results for holomorphic motions:
\textit{the $\lambda$-Lemma}, states that any given holomorphic motion $H:\Lambda\times E\rightarrow\ensuremath{{\widehat{\mathbb C}}}$ has a unique extension to a holomorphic motion of the closure $\overline{E}$, parametrized by $\Lambda$. The second well known result, called \textit{the extended $\lambda$-Lemma} or \textit{the S{\l}odkowski's Theorem} states that for simply connected $\Lambda\subset\ensuremath{{\widehat{\mathbb C}}}$, any holomorphic motion $H:\Lambda\times E\rightarrow\widehat{\mathbb{C}}$, extends to a holomorphic motion $H:\Lambda\times \widehat{\mathbb{C}}\rightarrow\widehat{\mathbb{C}}$.
Moreover, for $\Lambda$ a hyperbolic disk and for every parameter $\lambda\in\Lambda$,
the extension $H_{\lambda}$ is a quasiconformal homeomorphism,
whose dilatation is bounded by $e^{d_{\Lambda}(\lambda_0,\lambda)}$,
where $d_{\Lambda}(\cdot,\cdot)$ denotes the hyperbolic distance in $\Lambda$ \cite{Slodkowski}.
Let $\Lambda^{*}\subseteq\mathbb{C}$ be a domain with a puncture at $\lambda^{*}$,
i.e., having an isolated boundary point $\lambda^{*}\in\mathbb{C}$.
Given a holomorphic motion $H:\Lambda^{*}\times E\rightarrow\mathbb{C}$, when we consider the extension of $H$ to $\lambda^{*}$, either holomorphicity of the functions $H^z$,
or injectivity of $H_{\lambda^{*}}$ may fail.
Moreover, dynamical information may be lost in such an extension,
if $H$ is compatible with some dynamics.
In this paper, we investigate the extension properties of $H$ to
$\Lambda:=\Lambda^{*}\cup\{\lambda^{*}\}$, when $E$ is connected.
Moreover, we study the local representation
$H^z(\lambda)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} a_n(z)(\lambda-\lambda^{*})^n$ near $\lambda^{*}$,
when the functions $H^z$ extend holomorphically to $\lambda^*$
and thus define an extension of $H$ to $\Lambda$.
We see that if $z\mapsto a_0(z)$ is injective,
then the extension of $H$ is a holomorphic motion parametrized by $\Lambda$.
We show that if $a_0$ is not injective, then it is necessarily constant
and hence the moving set $E$ shrinks to a point at $\lambda^{*}$.
We call the latter type of extension a \textit{holomorphic explosion}
and we study the properties of holomorphic explosions.
We prove that for any holomorphic explosion
there exists an underlying holomorphic motion
$\widehat{H}:\Lambda\times E\rightarrow\mathbb{C}$, $n\geq 0$, and a polynomial $P$ of degree $d\leq n-1$ such that the local representation of a holomorphic explosion is $H_z(\lambda)=P(\lambda-\lambda^{*})+(\lambda-\lambda^{*})^{n}\widehat{H}(\lambda,z)$.
The organization of this article is as follows: In Section \ref{sufcon}, we discuss extension properties of holomorphic motions to isolated boundary points of the parameter domain. This discussion leads to the introduction of the notion of holomorphic explosions. In the following two sections we give applications of this new concept to holomorphic dynamics.
This work was supported by Marie Curie RTN 035651-CODY and Roskilde University.
\section{Main Extension Results of a Holomorphic Motion}\label{sufcon}
Suppose a holomorphic motion $H$ in $\mathbb{C}$ is parametrized by a domain $\Lambda^{*}$, which has isolated boundary point $\lambda^{*}$
such that $\Lambda=\Lambda^{*}\cup\{\lambda^{*}\}\subset\mathbb{C}$.
We show that under mild conditions,
the map $H$ \emph{extends horizontally holomorphically} to $\Lambda$.
That is, each function $H^z$ extends to a holomorphic function
$H^z : \Lambda \to \mathbb{C}$ and so defines an extension of $H$ to $\Lambda$.
This is the subject of the following theorem.
\begin{thm}\label{thmextension}
Let $E\subset \mathbb{C}$ be connected, and $\Lambda^{*}$ be a domain with an isolated boundary point $\lambda^{*}$ such that $\Lambda = \Lambda^{*}\cup\{\lambda^{*}\}\subset\mathbb{C}$.
Let $H:\Lambda^{*}\times E\rightarrow\mathbb{C}$ be a holomorphic motion
over $\Lambda^{*}$ with base point $\lambda_0\in\Lambda^{*}$.
Suppose there exist two distinct points $z_0,z_1\in E$,
such that $H^{z_0}$ and $H^{z_1}$ extend holomorphically to $\Lambda$.
Then $H$ extends horizontally holomorphically to $\Lambda$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Define
\begin{equation}\label{tildeH}
\ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}(\lambda,z):=z_0+(z_1-z_0)\frac{H(\lambda,z)-H(\lambda,z_0)}{H(\lambda,z_1)-H(\lambda,z_0)}.
\end{equation}
Then $\ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}(\lambda,z_1)\neq \ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}(\lambda,z_0)$ for all $\lambda\in\Lambda^{*}$,
as $z_1\neq z_0$.
Thus for every $z\in E$, $\ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}^{z}=\ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}(\cdot,z)$ is holomorphic in $\Lambda^{*}$.
Moreover, for every $\lambda\in \Lambda^{*}$, $ \ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}_{\lambda}=\ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}(\lambda,\cdot)$ is injective,
since $\ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}_{\lambda}$ is obtained from $H_{\lambda}$
by post-composition with an injective affine map, which is the identity for $\lambda=\lambda_0$.
So $\ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}$ is also a holomorphic motion in $\mathbb{C}$ of $E$, parametrized by $\Lambda^{*}$
and with base point $\lambda_0$.
Also $\ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}(\lambda,z_i)\equiv z_i$ for $i=0,1$ by construction.
Then $\ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}$ fixes the two distinct points $z_0,z_1$ in $\mathbb{C}$.
Hence, for every $z\in E\setminus\{z_0,z_1\}$ the holomorphic function $\ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}^z$
takes its values in $\mathbb{C}\setminus\{z_0, z_1\}$. And so the point $\lambda^{*}$
is a removable singularity for $\ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}^z$ by Picard's Theorem.
That is, $\ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}^{z}$ extends meromorphically to $\Lambda$ for every $z\in E$.
This defines a horizontally meromorphic extension of $\ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}$ to $\Lambda\times E$.
We show that this extension of $\ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}$ is in fact horizontally holomorphic.
That is, there is no point $z\in E$, such that $\ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}^z(\lambda^*) = \infty$.
Set $U:=\{z\in E;\;\;\ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}(\lambda^{*},z)=\infty\}$. We prove that $U$ is the empty set.
To this end, we will show that $U$ is both open and closed in the topology of $E$.
Then as $E$ is connected by hypothesis and $z_0, z_1\in E\setminus U$
we conclude that $U=\emptyset$.
For each $j$ the subset $E_j := E\setminus\{z_j\}$ is a relatively open subset of $E$ containing $U$. Let $\gamma$ denote a negatively oriented closed circular arc with center $\lambda^*$ bounding a disk $\Gamma\subset\Lambda$.
Define two functions
$n_j : E_j \to\mathbb{Z}$ for $j=0,1$ by
\begin{equation*}\label{argprinciple}
n_j(z):=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\oint_{\gamma}\frac{\frac{\partial}{\partial\lambda}\ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}(\lambda,z)}{\ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}(\lambda,z)-z_j}d\lambda
\end{equation*}
Then each $n_j$ is continuous, since $\gamma\subset\Lambda^*$, $z_j = \ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}(\lambda,z_j)$ for all $\lambda$
and $\ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}_\lambda$ is injective for all $\lambda\in\Lambda^*$.
Hence each $n_j$ is locally constant in $E_j$ as it takes values in the discrete set $\mathbb{Z}$.
Moreover, by the Argument Principle, the function $n_j$
counts the number of poles minus the number of zeroes (with multiplicity)
of $\lambda\mapsto\ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}(\lambda, z)-z_j$ in $\Gamma$.
And the only possible zero or pole is at $\lambda^{*}$.
So that $n_j(z)$ is the order of $\lambda^*$ as a pole of $\ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}^z$ if $n_j(z) >0$,
$-n_j(z)$ is the order of $\lambda^*$ as a zero of $\ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}^z$ if $n_j(z) < 0$ and
$n_j(z) = 0$ precisely if $z_j\not=\ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}^z(\lambda^*)\in\mathbb{C}$.
To see that $U$ is open, let $z\in U$ be arbitrary.
Then $z\not= z_0$, $n_0(z) > 0$ and there exists a relatively open
neighbourhood $\omega\subset E_0$ of $z$ such that
$n_0(w) = n_0(z) > 0$ for all $w\in\omega$, since $n_0$ is locally constant.
As $z\in U$ was arbitrary, the set $U$ is open in $E\setminus\{z_0\}$ and thus in $E$.
To see that $U$ is closed, we prove that $E\setminus U$ is open in $E$.
Since each $E_j$ is open in $E$ and $E= E_0\cup E_1$ it suffices to prove
that each subset $E_j\setminus U$ is open.
Let $z\in E_j\setminus U$ for some $j$. Then $n_j(z)\leq 0$ and there exists a relatively open
neighbourhood $\omega\subset E_0$ of $z$ such that
$n_0(w) = n_0(z) \leq 0$ for all $w\in\omega$, since $n_j$ is locally constant.
As $z\in E_j\setminus U$ was arbitrary the latter is open in $E_j$ and thus in $E$.
So $E\setminus U = (E_0\setminus U)\cup(E_1\setminus U)$ is also open.
To conclude, since $\widetilde{H}$ has a horizontally holomorphic extension to $\lambda^{*}$, so does $H$.
\end{proof}
\begin{compl}\label{complementformofH}
With the hypotheses of Theorem \ref{thmextension} the map
$\ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}$ defined by \eqref{tildeH} extends to a holomorphic motion of $E$
over $\Lambda$, that is $\ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}_{\lambda^*}$ is injective. Moreover there exist two holomorphic functions $f, g:\Lambda\rightarrow\mathbb{C}$ with $f(\lambda_0)=0$, and $g(\lambda_0)=1$, $g$ never vanishing in $\Lambda^{*}$, such that
\begin{equation}\label{formH}
H(\lambda, z)=f(\lambda)+g(\lambda)\cdot\ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}(\lambda,z).
\end{equation}
\end{compl}
\begin{proof}
Let us first prove that the horizontally holomorphic extension of $\ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}$ to $\Lambda$, i.e., across $\lambda^*$ is continuous on $\Lambda\times E$. Since it is an extension of a holomorphic motion over $\Lambda^*$ of $E$ we only need to prove continuity at the points $(\lambda^*,z)$, where $z\in E$. However this follows from $\ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}$ being horizontally holomorphic. More precisely with $\Gamma$ a round disk in $\Lambda$ around $\lambda^*$ with negatively oriented boundary $\gamma$ as in the proof above we have
$$
\ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}(\lambda,z) = -\frac{1}{2\pi i}\oint_{\gamma}\frac{\ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}(\lambda',z)}{\lambda'-\lambda}d\lambda'
$$
Thus $\ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}$ is continuous on $\Gamma\times E$, since it is continuous on $\gamma\times E$.
Suppose towards a contradiction that there exist two distinct points $w_0, w_1\in E$ such that $\ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}_{\lambda^*}(w_0) = \ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}_{\lambda^*}(w_1) = w$. Our aim is to show that $U_w := \{z\in E|\;\;{\widetilde{H}_{\lambda^*}}(z) = w\}$ is the empty set. To do so, we shall show that $U_w$ is both open and closed in the topology on $E$. Since $\ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}_{\lambda^*}$ is continuous it is closed. Thus we only need to prove it is also open.
Suppose $U_w$ is not open. Then there exists a point $w_{\infty}\in U_w$ and a sequence $\{w_k\} \subset E\backslash U_w$ such that $w_k\rightarrow w_{\infty}$. Moreover either $w_\infty\not=w_0$ or
$w_\infty\not=w_1$. We shall consider the first case, the second being similar. Define
\begin{equation*}
B(\lambda,z):=\ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}(\lambda,z)-\ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}(\lambda,w_0).
\end{equation*}
on $\Lambda\times E$. Clearly, $\ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}(\lambda,z)$ being a holomorphic motion over $\Lambda^{*}$, $B(\lambda,z)$ vanishes at $\lambda^*$ only for $z\in U_w\backslash\{w_0\}$.
Let
\begin{equation}\label{balambda}
\epsilon=\inf_{\lambda\in\gamma}|B(\lambda,w_{\infty})|.
\end{equation}
Since $B(\lambda,z)$ is continuous, and since $w_k\rightarrow w_\infty$, there exists $N\in\mathbb{N}$, such that for all $j\geq N$,
\begin{equation}\label{ba}
\forall\lambda\in\gamma:\;\;\;\;|B(\lambda,w_{\infty})-B(\lambda,w_j)|<\epsilon.
\end{equation}
By assumption, $B(\lambda,w_j)$ has no zero at $\lambda^{*}$ for all $j\geq N$. Considering (\ref{balambda}) and (\ref{ba}), $B(\lambda,w_j)$ and $B(\lambda,w_{\infty})$ have the same number of zeroes in $\Gamma$, counted with multiplicity, by the Rouch\'e's Theorem. This assures that, $B(\lambda, w_j)$ has at least one zero in $\Gamma$, which is not $\lambda^{*}$. This implies there exists $\lambda'\neq\lambda^{*}$ in $\Gamma$, such that $B(\lambda',w_j)=0$, i.e., $\ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}(\lambda',w_j)=\ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}(\lambda',w_0)$. But this contradicts the fact that the map $\ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}_{\lambda'}$ is injective for $\lambda'\neq \lambda^{*}$, being a holomorphic motion in $\Lambda^{*}\times E$. This proves that there is no sequence $\{w_k\}\subset E\backslash U_w$, with $w_k\rightarrow w_{\infty}\in U_w\backslash\{w_0\}$. Therefore, $U_w\backslash\{w_0\}$ is open. In case $w_{\infty}=w_0$, we apply the same procedure for $w_{\infty}\neq w_1$, and we similarly show that $U_w\backslash\{w_1\}$ is open. Therefore $U_w=(U_w\backslash\{w_0\})\bigcup (U_w\backslash\{w_1\})$ is open.
Obviously, the set $E\backslash U_w$ is nonempty, as it contains either $z_0$, $z_1$, or both. Moreover it is open and closed by the above. And since $E$ is connected, $U_w=\emptyset$.
Now defining
\begin{align}\label{fandg}
f(\lambda)&:=H(\lambda,z_0)-\frac{z_0}{z_1-z_0}(H(\lambda, z_1)-H(\lambda,z_0))\nonumber\\
g(\lambda)&:=\frac{H(\lambda, z_1)-H(\lambda,z_0)}{z_1-z_0}
\end{align}
in (\ref{tildeH}), we obtain (\ref{formH}).
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}\label{corollaryz_0z_1}
Given $z_0,z_1\in E$:
\begin{itemize}
\item[i.] If $H(\lambda^{*},z_0)\neq H(\lambda^{*},z_1)$, then $g(\lambda^{*})\neq 0$, and hence the extension of $H$ to $\Lambda\times E$ is a holomorphic motion.
\item[ii.] If $H(\lambda^{*},z_0)=H(\lambda^{*},z_1)=z^{*}\in \mathbb{C}$, then
$g(\lambda^{*})=0$ and $f(\lambda^{*})=z^{*}$, that is, for all $z\in E$, $H(\lambda^{*},z)=z^{*}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{cor}
\begin{rem}\label{Hsimpleform}
In the form \eqref{formH}
neither of the functions $f$ or $g$, nor the holomorphic motion $\ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}$ in the representation of $H$ in (\ref{formH}) is unique.
Also the map $\ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}(\lambda^*,E)$ is only unique up to post-composition by a non-constant affine map.
However let $n$ denote the order of $\lambda^*$ as a zero of $g$.
Then $n$ is unique and the Taylor polynomial of $f$ around $\lambda^*$ is unique. Indeed, $g$ can be written as $g(\lambda)=(\lambda-\lambda^{*})^{n}\cdot\widehat{g}(\lambda)$, where $\widehat{g}$ is a nonvanishing holomorphic function on $\Lambda$. Let $P(\lambda-\lambda^{*})$ denote the first $n$ terms in the Taylor series of $f(\lambda)$ around $\lambda^{*}$. Then $f(\lambda)=P(\lambda-\lambda^{*})+(\lambda-\lambda^{*})^{n}\cdot\widehat{f}(\lambda)$, where $\widehat{f}$ holomorphic in $\Lambda$. Then defining $\ensuremath{{\widehat{H}}}(\lambda,z):=\widehat{f}(\lambda)+\widehat{g}\cdot\ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}(\lambda, z)$
\begin{equation}\label{formofexplosioneq}
H(\lambda, z)= P(\lambda-\lambda^{*})+\left(\lambda-\lambda^{*}\right)^n\cdot\ensuremath{{\widehat{H}}}(\lambda,z)
\end{equation}
Obviously $\ensuremath{{\widehat{H}}}$ can be reparametrized as a holomorphic motion over $\Lambda$ with base point $\lambda^{*}$, of the set $E^{*}=\ensuremath{{\widehat{H}}}(\lambda^{*}, E)$.
Observe that the polynomial $P$ of degree less than $n$ and the holomophic motion $\ensuremath{{\widehat{H}}}$ are unique.
\end{rem}
\rem
The assumption that the set $E$ is connected is essential for the conclusion of the Theorem \ref{thmextension} and its complement.
In fact let $\Lambda=\mathbb{D}$, $\lambda^*=0$, so that $\Lambda^* = {\mathbb{D}^*}$.
Let $\lambda_0 = 1/e$, set $E_H = \{0,1/e, e\}$, $E_G = \{0, 1/e, 1/e^2\}$ and define two holomorphic motions over $\Lambda^*$
$$
H(\lambda,z) =
\begin{cases}
0,\qquad &z=0,\\
\lambda,\qquad &z=1/e,\\
1/\lambda,\qquad &z =e.
\end{cases}
\quad\textrm{and}\quad
G(\lambda,z) =
\begin{cases}
0,\qquad &z=0,\\
\lambda,\qquad &z=1/e,\\
\lambda^2,\qquad &z =1/e^2.
\end{cases}
$$
Then both $H$ and $G$ satisfies all the hypothesies in Theorem~\ref{thmextension}~except that the sets $E_H$ and $E_G$ are not connected.
Moreover the function $H^e$ has a pole at $0$. Thus $H$ extends horizontally meromorphically, but not horizontally holomorphically to $\mathbb{D}$.
That is $H$ does not satisfy the conclusion in Theorem~\ref{thmextension}.
And $G$ does satisfy the conclusion of Theorem~\ref{thmextension}, but does not satisfy the conclusion of Complement~\ref{complementformofH}.
\endrem
\rem
The assumption in Theorem~\ref{thmextension} that for two distinct points $z_0, z_1\in E$ the holomorphic functions $H^{z_0}$ and $H^{z_1}$ extend holomorphically to $\Lambda$ is essential for the conclusion of the Theorem.
Let $E=\mathbb{C}$, $\Lambda=\mathbb{D}$, $\lambda^*=0$, so that $\Lambda^* = {\mathbb{D}^*}$ and define two holomorphic motions over $\Lambda^*$
$$
H(\lambda,z) = (e^{1/\lambda}-e^{1/\lambda^*}) + z
\quad\textrm{and}\quad
G(\lambda,z) = e^{(1/\lambda-1/\lambda^*)}\cdot z
$$
Then neither $H$ nor $G$ satisfies the conclusion of Theorem~\ref{thmextension}.
\endrem
\begin{prop}\label{1}
Let $E\subset\mathbb{C}$ be a connected set containing at least two points, and let $H:\mathbb{C}\times E\rightarrow\mathbb{C}$ be a holomorphic motion of $E$ over $\mathbb{C}$ with base point $\lambda_0$. Then there exist two holomorphic functions $f,g:\mathbb{C}\rightarrow\mathbb{C}$ with $f(\lambda_0)=0$, $g$ non-vanishing and $g(\lambda_0)=1$, such that $H$ has an expression
\begin{equation}\label{whenparametersetisC}
H(\lambda,z)=f(\lambda)+g(\lambda)\cdot z
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $z_0,z_1\in E$ be distinct points. Consider the equation (\ref{formH}), where $\widetilde{H}$ is defined as in (\ref{tildeH}) from $z_0, z_1$.
Recall that $\ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}$ fixes both points $z_0, z_1$.
Hence for any $z\in E\setminus\{z_0, z_1\}$ the horizontal map
$\ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}^z:\mathbb{C}\to\mathbb{C}$ avoids the two points $z_0, z_1$ and thus is constant by the Picard's Little Theorem.
Hence $\widetilde{H}(\lambda,z) = z$ on $E\times\mathbb{C}$. Taking $f$ and $g$ as in \eqref{fandg} we obtain (\ref{whenparametersetisC}).
\end{proof}
Motivated by Theorem~\ref{thmextension}~and its Complement~\ref{complementformofH} we define the notion of a \emph{Holomorphic Explosion}, which is a relative of holomorphic motions.
\begin{defn} (Holomorphic Explosion) Let $\Lambda\subsetneq\ensuremath{{\widehat{\mathbb C}}}$ be a domain and $E^*\subset\mathbb{C}$, let $(\lambda^{*},z^{*})\in\Lambda\times\mathbb{C}$ and let $n>0$ be an integer.
An order $n$ holomorphic explosion of $E^*$ in $\mathbb{C}$ from $(\lambda^{*},z^{*})$
is a horizontally holomorphic map
$H:\Lambda\times E^*\rightarrow\mathbb{C}$ which can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{formHexp}
H(\lambda, z)=f(\lambda)+g(\lambda)\cdot\ensuremath{{\widehat{H}}}(\lambda,z),
\end{equation}
where $\ensuremath{{\widehat{H}}}$ is a holomorphic motion of $E^*$ over $\Lambda$ with base point $\lambda^*$, and $f, g:\Lambda\rightarrow\mathbb{C}$ are holomorphic functions such that $f(\lambda^*)=z^*$ and $g$ admits $\lambda^*$ as a zero of order $n$. We call $\lambda^{*}$, \textit{the explosion parameter}.
\end{defn}
Note that in the definition above
\begin{itemize}
\item
The motion domain $\Lambda$ can contain more than just one explosion parameter $\lambda^*$.
\item
The explosion parameter $\lambda^{*}$ can be infinity.
In this case the formula (\ref{formHexp}) can be replaced by
(see also Remark~\ref{Hsimpleform})
$
H(\lambda, z)=P(\frac{1}{\lambda-\lambda'})+\frac{1}{(\lambda-\lambda')^{n}}\cdot\ensuremath{{\widehat{H}}}(\lambda,z).
$
where $P$ is a polynomial of degree at most $n-1$ and $\lambda'\notin\Lambda$.
In particular if $0\notin\Lambda$ we can take $\lambda'=0$ and have
\begin{equation}\label{formHexpatinfty}
H(\lambda, z)=P(\frac{1}{\lambda})+\frac{1}{\lambda^{n}}\cdot\ensuremath{{\widehat{H}}}(\lambda,z).
\end{equation}
\item
Another more complicated, but also more flexible formulation of
an order $n$ holomorphic explosion $H$ of the set $E^*$ is as follows. The map $H$ is a horizontally analytic map
$H:\Lambda\times E^*\rightarrow\mathbb{C}$,
which can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{formHexptwo}
H(\lambda, z)=f(\lambda)+g(\lambda)\cdot\ensuremath{{\widehat{H}}}(\lambda,\psi(z)),
\end{equation}
where $\ensuremath{{\widehat{H}}}$ is a holomorphic motion of a set $E_0\subset\mathbb{C}$ over $\Lambda$ with base point $\lambda_0\in\Lambda$, $\ensuremath{{\widehat{H}}}(\lambda^*,E_0) = E^*$, $\psi(z) = (\ensuremath{{\widehat{H}}}_{\lambda^*})^{-1}$ and $f, g:\Lambda\rightarrow\mathbb{C}$ are holomorphic functions such that $f(\lambda^*)=z^*$, $g$ admits $\lambda^*$ as a zero of order $n$ and $g(\lambda_0)\not=0$.
\end{itemize}
A simple application of the classical $\lambda$-Lemma shows that at similar conclusion holds for holomorphic explosions, that is
the closure $\overline{E^*}$ of $E^*$ in $\mathbb{C}$ also exhibits a holomorphic explosion.
\begin{lem}\label{lambdalemma}($\lambda$-Lemma for holomorphic explosions) Let $E^*\subset\mathbb{C}$ and let $\Lambda\subsetneq\ensuremath{{\widehat{\mathbb C}}}$ be a domain. Suppose $H:\Lambda\times E^*\rightarrow\mathbb{C}$ is a holomorphic explosion from $(\lambda^{*},z^{*})$. Then $H$ uniquely extends to a holomorphic explosion from $(\lambda^{*},z^{*})$ of the closure $\overline{E^*}$ and parametrized by $\Lambda$.
\end{lem}
\section{Application I}
Consider the one parameter family of transcendental entire maps
\begin{equation*}
f_a(z)=a(e^z(z-1)+1),\qquad a\in\mathbb{C}^*.
\end{equation*}
This family parametrizes the space of affine conjugacy classes
of entire transcendental maps with two singular values, one of which coincides with a critical fixed point and the other being asymptotic.
We denote by $A_a$ the basin of the superattracting fixed point $0$.
And we denote by $A_a^0$ the immediate basin, that is the connected component of $A_a$ which contains $0$.
The asymptotic value of $f_a$ is at $z=a$.
The main hyperbolic component $\mathcal{C}^0$ in parameter space is the set of parameters for which the asymptotic value is contained in $A_a^0$,
that is,
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{C}^0=\{a,\;a\in A_a^0\}.
\end{equation*}
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=5cm,width=5cm]{parameterplane.eps}\qquad
\caption{\label{parameterplane_exp}\small{parameter plane in $[10,10]\times[10,10]$ - blue component in the center is $\mathcal{C}^0$.}}\label{parameterplane1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
It is proven in \cite{deniz2013} that $\mathcal{C}^0$ is bounded, connected and $\mathcal{C}^0\cup\{0\}$ is simply connected.
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=.25]{37_05.eps}\qquad
\includegraphics[scale=.25]{1633_1866.eps}
\caption{\label{dynamicalplanes}\small{left: dynamical plane for $a=3.7+0.5i$; right: dynamical plane for $a=16.33+1.866i$ in $[10,10]\times[10,10]$ - blue component in the center is $A_a^0$. Both dynamical planes are generated with parameters from $\mathbb{C}\backslash\overline{\mathcal{C}^{0}}$.}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The B\"{o}ttcher coordinate $\phi_a$ -associated to the fixed point $z=0$
is the unique conformal conjugacy between $f_a$ and $z\mapsto z^2$
in some neighborhood of $0$. It has the form
\begin{equation}\label{bot1}
\phi_a(z)=\frac{a}{2}z+O(z^2).
\end{equation}
The conjugacy $\phi_a$ depends holomorphically on $(a,z)$
and extends to the whole immediate basin $A_a^0$
if and only if $a\notin A_a^0$, or equivalently $a\notin {\mathcal{C}}^{0}$.
Denote by $\psi_a$ the local inverse of $\phi_a$ mapping $0$ to $0$.
Then for $a\notin{\mathcal{C}}^{0}$ the map $\psi_a$ uniquely extends as a biholomorphic map $\psi_a:\mathbb{D}\to A_a^0$ which we denote a B\"{o}ttcher parameter.
Let ${\mathcal{U}}^{*}$ be the unbounded connected component of $\mathbb{C}\setminus\overline{{\mathcal{C}}^0}$.
Then the B\"{o}ttcher parameters $\psi_a(z)$ depends holomorphically on $(a,z)\in{\mathcal{U}}^*\times\mathbb{D}$.
Fix $a_0\in{\mathcal{U}}^{*}$ and define a holomorphic motion $H$ of $A_{a_0}^0$, parametrized by ${\mathcal{U}}^{*}$ and with base point $a_0$
via the B\"{o}ttcher coordinates and parameters as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{holmotfortheimmediatebasin}
H:\mathcal{U}^{*}\times A_{a_0}^0&\rightarrow&\mathbb{C}\label{eq}\\
H(a,z)&=&\psi_a\circ\phi_{a_0}(z),\;\;\; \notag
\end{eqnarray}
so that $H(a,A_{a_0}^0)=A_a^0$.
Observe that it follows from \eqref{bot1} that
\begin{equation}\label{equationofH}
H(a,z)=\frac{a_0}{a}z+O(z^2).
\end{equation}
Moreover note that $\infty$ is an isolated boundary point of the motion domain $\mathcal{U}^{*}$. Set $\mathcal{U}:=\mathcal{U}^{*}\cup\{\infty\}$.
Our first application of holomorphic explosions is to $H$. Recall that a simply connected domain $A\subsetneq\mathbb{C}$ is called a $K$-quasi-disk, if there exists a $K$-quasi-conformal map
$\psi:\mathbb{C}\to\mathbb{C}$ with $\psi(\mathbb{D}) = A$.
\begin{thm}\label{immediatebasinisaquasidisk} For $a\in \mathcal{U}^{*}$, $A_{a}^0$ is a $K$-quasidisk where
\begin{equation}\label{formulaofK}
K:=e^{d_{{\mathcal{U}}}(\infty,a)}=\frac{1+|k|}{1-|k|},
\end{equation}
and where $d_{\mathcal{U}}(\cdot,\cdot)$ denotes the hyperbolic distance in ${\mathcal{U}}$.
\end{thm}
This theorem strengthens a result in \cite{deniz2013}, where it is shown with a different approach that for all $a_0\in\mathcal{U}$ the domain $A_a^0$ a quasidisk.(observe Figure \ref{dynamicalplanes}).
The proof uses that the holomorphic motion given by (\ref{holmotfortheimmediatebasin}) exhibits a holomorphic explosion at $\infty$. This is the content of the following Proposition.
\begin{prop}\label{shrinkto0}
The holomorphic motion $H:\mathcal{U}^{*}\times A_{a_0}^0\rightarrow\mathbb{C}$ can be reparametrised in the vertical direction as a holomorphic explosion
\begin{equation*}
{\mathcal{H}}:\mathcal{U}\times \mathbb{D}\rightarrow\mathbb{C}
\end{equation*}
from $(\infty,0)$ of order $1$.
More precisely, there exists a holomorphic motion
$\ensuremath{{\widehat{H}}}:\mathcal{U}\times \mathbb{D}\rightarrow\mathbb{C}$ with base point $\infty$ such that
$$
H(a,\psi_{a_0}(z)) = {\mathcal{H}}(a,z) = \frac{2}{a}\cdot\ensuremath{{\widehat{H}}}(a,z),
$$
where $\ensuremath{{\widehat{H}}}_{a_0} = \psi_{a_0}$ is conformal.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Define $\ensuremath{{\widehat{H}}} : {\mathcal{U}}^*\times\mathbb{D} \to \mathbb{C}$ by $\ensuremath{{\widehat{H}}}(a,z) := \frac{a}{2}H(a,\psi_{a_0}(z)) =
\frac{a}{2}\psi_a(z) =: {\widehat{\psi}}_a(z)$.
We shall show that $\ensuremath{{\widehat{H}}}$ extends to a holomorphic motion
of $\mathbb{D}$ over ${\mathcal{U}}$ with base point $\infty$.
Then as $a\mapsto \frac{2}{a}$ has a simple zero at $\infty$ the theorem will follow.
Notice at first that $\ensuremath{{\widehat{H}}}$ is a holomorphic function of the pair of variables $(a,z)$
and that it is vertically univalent with
$$\ensuremath{{\widehat{H}}}(a,0) = 0\qquad\textrm{and}\qquad
\frac{\partial}{\partial z}\ensuremath{{\widehat{H}}}(a,z)|_{z=0} = {\widehat{\psi}}'_a(0)= 1.
$$
By the K{\oe}be distortion estimates for univalent maps,
we have
$$
\forall z\in\mathbb{D}, \forall a\in{\mathcal{U}}^*\;\;\;
|{\widehat{\psi}}_a(z)| \leq \frac{|z|}{(1-|z|)^2}
$$
so that each map $\ensuremath{{\widehat{H}}}^z$ is uniformly bounded near $\infty$ and so extends holomorphically to ${\mathcal{U}}$. That is $\ensuremath{{\widehat{H}}}$ extends horizontally holomorphically to $\infty$.
Moreover the univalent functions on $\mathbb{D}$ fixing $0$ with derivative $1$ form a compact family.
It follows that the extension ${\widehat{\psi}}_\infty := \ensuremath{{\widehat{H}}}_\infty :\mathbb{D}\to \mathbb{C}$ is univalent. Thus the extension is also vertically injective. In order to show that $\ensuremath{{\widehat{H}}}$ is a holomorphic motion with base point $\infty$ we need only show that ${\widehat{\psi}}_\infty = Id$.
Or equivalently that the functions ${\widehat{\psi}}_a$ converge uniformly to the identity, as $a\to\infty$. To this end note that ${\widehat{\psi}}_a$ conjugates $z\mapsto z^2$ to
$$
g_a(z) := \frac{a}{2}\cdot f_a(\frac{2z}{a}) = z^2 + {\mathcal{O}}(|4z^3/3a|).
$$
In fact a standard but tedious computation shows that
$$
|g_a(z)-z^2| \leq \left|\frac{4z^3}{3a}\right|e^{|2z/a|}.
$$
So $g_a$ converges to $g_\infty(z) := z^2$ locally uniformly in $\mathbb{C}$.
By continuity, ${\widehat{\psi}}_\infty$ is the B\"{o}ttcher parameter for $g_\infty$ at $0$
and hence ${\widehat{\psi}}_\infty = Id$.
This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{immediatebasinisaquasidisk}]
The holomorphic motion $\ensuremath{{\widehat{H}}}$ extends to a holomorphic motion of ${\overline{\mathbb{D}}}$
by the $\lambda$-Lemma and to a holomorphic motion of
the Riemann sphere $\ensuremath{{\widehat{\mathbb C}}}$ by S{\l}odkowski's Theorem.
We denote by $\ensuremath{{\widehat{H}}}$ also such an extension.
By the general properties of holomorphic motions
over a simply connected domain such as ${\mathcal{U}}$,
the real dilation of the vertical mapping $\ensuremath{{\widehat{H}}}_a$ is bounded by
$K_a := e^{d_{\mathcal{U}}(a,\infty)}$, when $\infty\in{\mathcal{U}}$ is the base point.
Thus $A_a^0 = \frac{2}{a}\ensuremath{{\widehat{H}}}(a,\mathbb{D})$ is a $K_a$-quasi disk.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
The holomorphic explosion ${\mathcal{H}}$ extends uniquely to the holomorphic explosion ${\mathcal{H}}:\mathcal{U}\times \overline{\mathbb{D}}\rightarrow\mathbb{C}$, by Lemma \ref{lambdalemma}.
\end{rem}
Let $\{z_i\}_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}$ be the solution set of the equation $f_a(z)=0$, ordered in increasing order of $\Im(z_i)$ with $z_0=0$. Let $A_a^{1,i}$ denote the connected component of $f_a^{-1}(A_a^{0})$ which contains $z_i$. We call the point $z_i$, the center of $A_a^{1,i}$. Notice that these centers do not depend on the parameter.
\begin{prop}
For each $i\in\mathbb{Z}\setminus\{0\}$, there is a holomorphic explosion ${\mathcal{H}}^{i}:{\mathcal{U}}\times{\overline{\mathbb{D}}}\to\mathbb{C}$ from $(\infty,z_i)$ of order $2$ with
$$
{\mathcal{H}}^{i}(a,{\overline{\mathbb{D}}}) = \overline{A}_a^{1,i}.
$$
In particular all of the components $A_a^{1,i}$ of the basin of $0$ for $f_a$ are also $K$-quasi-disks with
$$
K = e^{d_{{\mathcal{U}}}(\infty,a)}.
$$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
For each $a\in{\mathcal{U}}^*$ and $i\in\mathbb{Z}\setminus\{0\}$ let
$k_{a}^{i}$ be the inverse branch of $f_a$ defined on $\overline{A}_a^0$, which satisfies $k_{a}^{i}(0)=z_i$.
And define
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\mathcal{H}}^i:{\mathcal{U}}\times \mathbb{D}&\rightarrow&\mathbb{C}\\
{\mathcal{U}}^*\times\mathbb{D}\ni(a,z)&\mapsto&k_a^{i}\circ \mathcal{H}(a,z)\\
\{\infty\}\times\mathbb{D}\ni(\infty,z)&\mapsto&z_i.
\end{eqnarray*}
This gives the desired holomorphic explosions. From the series form of ${\mathcal{H}}^{i}$ near $0$
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{H}^{i}(a,z)=k_a^{i}(\mathcal{H}(a,z))=z_i+\frac{2}{a^{2}e^{z_i}z_i}\widehat{H}(a,z)+O(\frac{1}{a^{4}}),
\end{equation*}
we see that the order is $2$. Here $\ensuremath{{\widehat{H}}}$ is as in \propref{shrinkto0}.
\end{proof}
\section{Application II }
We are interested in the moduli space ${\mathcal{M}_2}$ of quadratic rational maps modulo
{{M{\"o}bius}}-conjugacy. Every quadratic rational map $R$ has counting multiplicity three
fixed points with multipliers
which we generically denote by $\lambda, \mu$ and $\gamma$.
Denote by $\sigma_1(R) = \lambda +\mu + \gamma$, $\sigma_2(R) = \lambda\mu+\lambda\gamma+\mu\gamma$
and $\sigma_3 = \lambda\mu\gamma$ the three elementary symmetric functions of $\lambda$, $\mu$ and $\gamma$.
Following Milnor \cite{milnor1993}, we endow ${\mathcal{M}_2}$ with the affine structure given by $(\sigma_1,\sigma_2)$. In more detail
$\sigma_3(R) = \sigma_1(R)-2$ and any
pair of numbers $(\sigma_1,\sigma_2)\in\mathbb{C}^2$ defines a unique equivalence class in ${\mathcal{M}_2}$, so that $(\sigma_1,\sigma_2):{\mathcal{M}_2}\to\mathbb{C}^2$ is biholomorphic \cite[Lemma 3.1]{milnor1993}. For each $\lambda\in\mathbb{C}$ the curve
$$
{\operatorname{Per}}_1(\lambda) = \{\; [R]\; \bigm|\; R~\textrm{has a fixed point of multiplier}~\lambda\;\}
$$
is a straight line in this affine structure, \cite[Lemma 3.4]{milnor1993}. And moreover $\sigma(\lambda,R):= \mu(R)\gamma(R)$ defines an isomorphism between ${\operatorname{Per}}_1(\lambda)$ and $\mathbb{C}$, \cite[Remark 6.9]{milnor1993}.
For $\lambda\in\mathbb{D}$ we consider the connectedness locus ${\Mbrot_\la}$ in ${\operatorname{Per}}_1(\lambda)$
$$
{\Mbrot_\la} = \{\; [R] \in{\operatorname{Per}}_1(\lambda)\;\bigm|\; J_R \textrm{ is connected }\},
$$
where $J_R$ denotes the Julia set of $R$.
The special line ${\operatorname{Per}}_1(0)$ also equals the moduli space for quadratic polynomials
$$
{\operatorname{Per}}_1(0) = \{\; [Q_c]\;\bigm|\; Q_c(z) = z^2 + c, c\in\mathbb{C}\;\}
$$
for which $\sigma(Q_c)= 4c$, so that $\sigma({\mathrm{M}}_0) = 4\cdot{\mathrm{M}}$ where ${\mathrm{M}}$ is the Mandelbrot set. The external class of each $R$ with $ [R] \in{\operatorname{Per}}_1(\lambda)$ is given by the
Blaschke product $B_\lambda(z) = z\frac{z+{\overline{\lambda}}}{1+\lambda z}$.
\begin{thm}\label{MQRapp}
There is a natural dynamically defined holomorphic motion
{\mapfromto H {\mathbb{D}\times(4\cdot{\mathrm{M}})} \mathbb{C}} over $\mathbb{D}$ with base point $0$
of the Mandelbrot set scaled by a factor $4$ such that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
For each $\lambda\in\mathbb{D}$ : $H(\lambda,\sigma(0,{\mathrm{M}}_0)) = \sigma(\lambda, {\Mbrot_\la})$.
\item
For each $c\in{\mathrm{M}}$ and $\lambda\in\mathbb{D}$, any quadratic rational map $R\in\sigma_{\lambda}^{-1}(H(\lambda,4c))$
has a polynomial like restriction, hybridly equivalent to a restriction of $Q_c$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
For $\lambda\in\ensuremath{{\mathbb C}^*}$ and $B\in\mathbb{C}$ the quadratic rational map
$z\mapsto \frac{1}{\lambda}(z+B+1/z)$ admits $\infty$
as a fixed point with multiplier $\lambda$, and thus represents an element of ${\operatorname{Per}}_1(\lambda)$.
Moreover the maps with the same $\lambda$ but with $+B$ and $-B$ are conjugate by $z \mapsto -z$, and thus represents the same element of ${\operatorname{Per}}_1(\lambda)$.
Therefore for each $\lambda\in\ensuremath{{\mathbb C}^*}$ and $A\in\mathbb{C}$ such that $B=\sqrt{A}$, the map
$$
(\lambda,A)\mapsto [{G_{\lambda,A}}], \qquad {G_{\lambda,A}}(z) := \frac{1}{\lambda}(z+\sqrt{A}+1/z)
$$
is well defined without specifying which square root is being used. When a specific choice of square root is relevant, it will be clear from the context, how it is chosen. The maps ${G_{\lambda,A}}$ admits $\pm 1$ as critical points and a simple computation
shows that the product of the two remaining fixed point eigenvalues is given by
\REFEQN{sigmaArelation}
{\bm\si}_{\lambda}(A) = {\bm\si}(\lambda,A) = \sigma(\lambda,[{G_{\lambda,A}}])=\sigma_{\lambda}([{G_{\lambda,A}}]) = \frac{(\lambda-2)^2-A}{\lambda^2}
\end{equation}
\cite[page 73, column 1]{milnor1993}(Milnor uses the symbol $\tau$ for $\sigma$, $a^2$ for $A/\lambda^2$ and $\mu$ for $\lambda$.)
It follows that for each fixed $\lambda\in\ensuremath{{\mathbb C}^*}$ the map
$$
A\mapsto [{G_{\lambda,A}}] : \mathbb{C} \longrightarrow {\operatorname{Per}}_1(\lambda)
$$
is an isomorphism. We denote by ${\bm A_\lambda}$ the inverse of this isomorphism and for $\lambda\in{\mathbb{D}^*}$ we write
\begin{equation*}
{\widehat{\Mbrot}}_\lambda := {\bm A_\lambda}({\mathrm{M}}_\lambda)
\end{equation*}
for the connectedness locus of the family ${G_{\lambda,A}}, A\in\mathbb{C}$. Equivalently ${\widehat{\Mbrot}}_\lambda$ is the set of parameters $A$ for which, either $1$, or $-1$ has bounded orbit under ${G_{\lambda,A}}$. Note that for any $\lambda$ the map $G_{\lambda,0}$ is conjugate to itself under $z\mapsto -z$ and thus $0\notin{\widehat{\Mbrot}}_\lambda$ for any $\lambda\in{\mathbb{D}^*}$. In Figure \ref{connectednessloci}, connectedness loci are shown with different $\lambda$ values.
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=7cm,width=7cm]{eva.eps}
\caption{\label{connectednessloci}{Connectedness loci in $A$-plane with $\lambda$ parameter values top left: $0.4-0.35i$; top right $0.4+0.35i$; bottom left $e^{-1}$; bottom right $0.2+0.2i$, in $[1,5]\times[-2,2]$.}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Since the external class of the maps $R$ with $[R]\in{\operatorname{Per}}_1(\lambda)$ is $B_\lambda$, it follows from Yoccoz inequality for polynomial-like maps, \cite{Petersen}[Cor. D2] that for any $r<1$ the map $\sigma_{\lambda}$ is bounded on
$$
\bigcup_{\lambda, ||\lambda|| < r}{\mathrm{M}}_\lambda.
$$
It thus follows immediately from (\ref{sigmaArelation}) that $\textbf{A}_\lambda$ converge to $4$ uniformly on ${\mathrm{M}}_\lambda$, when $\lambda\to 0$.
Holomorphic motion of the connectedness loci ${\widehat{\Mbrot}}_{\lambda}$ with the parameter $\lambda$ was the subject of the master's thesis of Uhre. We adopt the following result from her thesis. The interested reader can see \cite[Chapter 8.1-8.3]{uhre2004} for a proof.
\begin{thm}\label{thmevamot}
There exists a dynamically defined holomorphic motion of the connectedness locus ${\widehat{\Mbrot}}_{e^{-1}}$
over ${\mathbb{D}^*}$ with base point $e^{-1}$:
$$
\mathbb{A}: {{\mathbb{D}^*}\times{\widehat{\Mbrot}}_{e^{-1}}}\rightarrow\mathbb{C}\qquad\textrm{with}\qquad
\mathbb{A}_\lambda({\widehat{\Mbrot}}_{e^{-1}})={\widehat{\Mbrot}}_{\lambda}.
$$
More precisely for each fixed pair $(\lambda, A)$ with $\lambda\in{\mathbb{D}^*}$ and $A\in{\widehat{\Mbrot}}_{e^{-1}}$,
there exists a global quasi-conformal mapping
$h_{\lambda,A}:\ensuremath{{\widehat{\mathbb C}}}\rightarrow\ensuremath{{\widehat{\mathbb C}}}$
conjugating $G_{e^{-1},A}$ to $G_{\lambda,{\mathbb{A}}(\lambda,A)}$
and which restricts to a hybrid conjugacy between quadratic like restrictions of the two maps.
\end{thm}
In \cite{uhre2004}, the proof was made for the connectedness locus for the family given by the formula
\begin{equation*}
R_{\lambda,\mu}(z)=z\frac{z+\mu}{1+\lambda z}
\end{equation*}
which is conjugate to $G_{\lambda,A}$,
where
\begin{equation}\label{my-A-relation}
A=(\lambda-2)^{2}-\lambda^{2}\mu\frac{2-\lambda-\mu}{1-\lambda\mu}
\end{equation}
by the affine map
\begin{equation*}
\phi_{\lambda,\mu}(z)=\frac{\lambda z+1}{\sqrt{1-\lambda\mu}}.
\end{equation*}
Note that
\begin{equation}\label{Milnormultformula}
\mu\frac{2-\lambda-\mu}{1-\lambda\mu} = \sigma
\end{equation}
i.e., the product of the two other (than $\lambda$) fixed point eigenvalues.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{MQRapp}]
This is now a straight forward application of \corref{corollaryz_0z_1} to the result of \thmref{thmevamot}.
This approach provides an alternative to \cite[Chapter 8.4]{uhre2004}.
Notice that the extension to $0$ corresponds to the case where $\infty$ is a superattracting fixed point.
Since ${\bm\si}_\lambda(A) = {\bm\si}(\lambda,A) = \sigma(\lambda,[{G_{\lambda,A}}]) =
\sigma(\lambda,{\bm A_\lambda}^{-1}(A)) = \sigma_\lambda({\bm A_\lambda}^{-1}(A))$ is holomorphic as a function of the two variables
and injective, in fact affine in the second variable, (see \eqref{sigmaArelation}) the holomorphic motion ${\mathbb{A}}$
is equivalent to the holomorphic motion of $\sigma_{e^{-1}}({\mathrm{M}}_{e^{-1}})$ over
${\mathbb{D}^*}$ with base point $e^{-1}$:
\REFEQN{sigmaDstarmotion}
{\mapfromto \ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}} {{\mathbb{D}^*}\times\sigma_{e^{-1}}({\mathrm{M}}_{e^{-1}})} \mathbb{C}}
\qquad
\ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}(\lambda,\tau) = {\bm\si}_\lambda\circ{\mathbb{A}}(\lambda,{\bm\si}_{e^{-1}}^{-1}(\tau))
\end{equation}
This relation is illustrated by the following diagram:
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzcd}
{\widehat{\Mbrot}}_{e^{-1}}\arrow{r}{\mathbb{A}}\arrow[dd,bend right=90, swap, "{\bm\si}_{e^{-1}}"] &{\widehat{\Mbrot}}_{\lambda}\arrow[dd,bend left=90, pos=0.49, "{\bm\si}_{\lambda}"] \\
{\mathrm{M}}_{e^{-1}}\arrow{u}{\bm{A}_{e^{-1}}}\arrow{d}{\sigma_{e^{-1}}} & {\mathrm{M}}_{\lambda}\arrow{u}{\bm{A}_{\lambda}}\arrow{d}{\sigma_{\lambda}}\\
\sigma_{e^{-1}}({\mathrm{M}}_{e^{-1}})\arrow{r}{\ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}} &\sigma_{\lambda}({\mathrm{M}}_{\lambda})
\end{tikzcd}
\end{center}
The holomorphic motion $\ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}$ has two special points, whose motions are easy to follow.
The center, for which one of the fixed points is persistently super attracting, i.e., it has multiplier $0$ so that this trajectory is the constant $0$.
The other is the root corresponding to the two remaining fixed points persistently coalesce to form a parabolic fixed point of multiplier $1$ so that this trajectory is the constant $1$. That is, the motions of the points $0$ and $1$ under $\ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}$ are constants. Thus by \corref{corollaryz_0z_1}, $\ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}$ extends to a holomorphic motion over $\mathbb{D}$. We denote thsi extension also by $\ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}$. We write $E=\ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}(0,\sigma_{e^{-1}}({\mathrm{M}}_{e^{-1}}))$ and denote by
{\mapfromto H {\mathbb{D}\times E} \mathbb{C}} its reparametrization from $0$:
\REFEQN{thesigmamotion}
H(\lambda,\tau) = \ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}(\lambda,\ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}_{0}^{-1}(\tau)).
\end{equation}
To prove \thmref{MQRapp} we just need to show that in fact $E = 4\cdot{\mathrm{M}}$.
To see this note that $[{G_{\lambda,A}}]$ contains both of the maps $R_{\lambda,\mu}$ for which $\mu$ is a solution of the equation \eqref{my-A-relation}, which is quadratic in $\mu$.
When $\lambda\to 0$ the maps $R_{\lambda,\mu}$ converge to quadratic polynomials of the form $\mu z+ z^2$ uniformly on the sphere.
For any fixed $\tau={\bm\si}_{e^{-1}}(A')\in\sigma(e^{-1},M_{e^{-1}})$ and any $\lambda\in{\mathbb{D}^*}$, let $\mu(\lambda,\tau)$ be a solution of
the quadratic equation \eqref{my-A-relation} with $A = \mathbb{A}(\lambda, A')$. Then the class $[G_{\lambda,{\mathbb{A}}(\lambda,A')}]$
contains $R_{\lambda,\mu(\lambda,\tau)}$. Thus for a continuous choice of $\mu(\lambda,\tau)$ this function converge to $\mu_0$ such that for the quadratic polynomial $\mu_0z+z^2$ the product of the two finite multipliers is $\tau_0=\ensuremath{{\widetilde{H}}}(0,\tau)$.
This polynomial is affinely conjugate to $z^2 + c$ with
$4c = \tau_0$ and has connected filled-in Julia set.
Thus $E\subset 4\cdot{\mathrm{M}}$. Also this polynomial is the unique quadratic polynomial for which $R_{\lambda,\mu(\lambda,\tau)}$ and $G_{\lambda,{\mathbb{A}}(\lambda,A')}$ are hybridly equivalent according to \cite[Prop. 14 page 313]{douadyandhubbard}.
To complete the proof of \thmref{MQRapp} we need to show surjectivity, i.e $E=4\cdot{\mathrm{M}}$.
For this we appeal to the \propref{general_straightening} below.
It follows from the Proposition that for every $\tau_0=4c \in4\cdot{\mathrm{M}}$ there exists $A'\in{\widehat{\Mbrot}}_{e^{-1}}$ such that is $G_{e^{-1},A'}$ is hybridly equivalent to $Q_c$.
Thus $\tau_0\in E$, i.e., $4\cdot{\mathrm{M}}\subset E$.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}\label{general_straightening}
For every $c\in{\mathrm{M}}$ there exists $A\in{\widehat{\Mbrot}}_{e^{-1}}$ such that
$Q_c$ and $G_{e^{-1},A}$ are hybridly equivalent.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
This is a particular case of \cite[Prop. 5 page 301] {douadyandhubbard} applied to a quadratic like restriction of $Q_c$ and the external class $B_{e^{-1}}$.
\end{proof}
Then reapplying \eqref{sigmaArelation} again or applying \corref{corollaryz_0z_1}
directly to ${\mathbb{A}}$ we find
\begin{cor}
The holomorphic motion ${\mathbb{A}}$ of ${\widehat{\Mbrot}}_{e^{-1}}$ over ${\mathbb{D}^*}$
is a quasi-conformal reparametrization of a holomorphic explosion over $\mathbb{D}$ from $(0,4)$.
Indeed writing $A(\tau) = {\bm\si}_{e^{-1}}^{-1}\circ H({e^{-1}},\tau)$,
then for any $\tau\in {\mathrm{M}}_0$ we have
\REFEQN{MbrotAext}
{\mathbb{A}}(\lambda,A(\tau)) = (\lambda-2)^2 - \lambda^2 H(\lambda,\tau),
\end{equation}
where $H$ is the holomorphic motion in \thmref{MQRapp} as given by \eqref{thesigmamotion}.
\end{cor}
|
\section{Introduction}
We consider the dynamics of $N$ bosonic particles interacting with a quantized phonon field described by the Fr\"ohlich model in a mean field regime. The underlying Hilbert space is
\begin{align}
\mathcal{H}^{(N)} = L^2_s\left( \mathbb{R}^{3N} \right) \otimes \mathcal{F}_s ,
\end{align}
where the $N$ particles are described by states in $L^2_s(\mathbb R^{3N})$, the subspace of all complex-valued square integrable $N$-particle wave functions that are symmetric under the exchange of any pair of the coordinates $(x_1,...,x_N)$, and where the phonon field is represented by elements in the bosonic Fock space
$
\mathcal{F}_s = \bigoplus_{n \geq 0} L^2_s(\mathbb{R}^{3n}).
$
The time evolution of the system is governed by the Schr\"odinger equation
\begin{align}
\label{eq: Schroedinger equation}
i \partial_t \Psi_{N,t} = H_{N,\alpha}^{\rm F} \Psi_{N,t}
\end{align}
with Fr\"ohlich Hamiltonian
\begin{align}
\label{eq: Froehlich Hamiltonian quadratic form}
H_{N,\alpha}^{\rm F} &= \sum_{j=1}^N \left[ - \Delta_j + \sqrt{\frac{\alpha}{N}} \int d^3k \, \abs{k}^{-1}
\left( e^{ikx_j} a_k + e^{-ikx_j } a^*_k \right) \right] + \mathcal{N} .
\end{align}
Here, $\Delta_j$ is the Laplacian acting on the $j$th particle with coordinate $x_j$, $a_k$ and $a_k^*$ denote the usual bosonic annihilation and creation operators satisfying the canonical commutation relations
\begin{align}
\label{eq: canonical commutation relation}
[a_k, a^*_l ] &= \delta(k-l), \quad
[a_k, a_l ] =
[a^*_k, a^*_l ] = 0,
\end{align}
and $\mathcal N$ is the number operator defined by $\mathcal N= \int d^3 k\, a_k^* a_k$. The coupling parameter $\sqrt{\alpha/N}$ is introduced to scale the strength of the interaction between the particles and the phonon field. If the number of phonons is of order $N$ and $\alpha >0$ is fixed, the factor $N^{-1/2}$ and the fact that the creation and annihilation operators scale like $\sqrt{N}$ (they are bounded by $\left(\mathcal{N} + 1 \right)^{1/2}$, see \eqref{eq: bound for annihialtion and creation operators}) ensure that the kinetic and potential energy are of the same order for large $N$.
We note that the expression \eqref{eq: Froehlich Hamiltonian quadratic form} is somewhat formal, since the form factor $\vert k\vert^{-1}$ in the interaction term is not square integrable. By a well-known argument going back to Lieb and Yamazaki \cite{liebyamazaki} (cf. Lemma \ref{lemma: bounds for the interaction term}), the right side of \eqref{eq: Froehlich Hamiltonian quadratic form} defines a closed bounded from below quadratic form with domain given by the form domain of $H_{N,0}^{\rm F}$. The self-adjoint operator that corresponds to this form is called Fr\"ohlich Hamiltonian and denoted by $H_{N,\alpha}^{\rm F}$. We refer to \cite{griesemerwuensch} for a detailed description of its domain $\mathcal D(H_{N,\alpha}^{\rm F})$ (see also Lemma~\ref{lemma representation of H_F}).
\allowdisplaybreaks
If the number $N$ of particles is large, we show for a particular class of initial states that the solution of the many-body Schr\"odinger equation \eqref{eq: Schroedinger equation} can be approximated by Pekar product states, i.e., states of the form
\begin{align}\label{eq: Pekar-State}
\Psi_{N,t} = \psi_t^{\otimes N}\otimes W(\sqrt N \varphi_t) \Omega,
\end{align}
where $\Omega$ is the vacuum state in $\mathcal F_s$, $W$ denotes the Weyl operator and $(\psi_t,\varphi_t) \in L^2(\mathbb R^3) \times L^2(\mathbb R^3)$ solve the time-dependent Landau--Pekar equations
\begin{align}
\label{eq: Landau Pekar equations}
\begin{cases}
i \partial_t \psi_t(x) & = \ \ \left[ - \Delta_x + \sqrt{ \alpha} \Phi(x,t) \right] \psi_t(x), \\[2mm]
i \partial_t \varphi_t(k) & = \ \ \varphi_t(k) + \sqrt{ \alpha } \abs{k}^{-1} \int d^3x \, e^{-ikx} \abs{\psi_t(x)}^2
\end{cases}
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
\Phi(x,t) &=
\int d^3k \, \abs{k}^{-1}
\left( e^{ikx} \varphi_t(k) + e^{-ikx} \overline{\varphi_t(k)} \right).
\end{align}
The Weyl operator is defined for any $f\in L^2(\mathbb R^3)$ by
\begin{align}
\label{eq: Weyl operator}
W(f) = \exp \left( \int d^3k \, \big( f(k) a^*_k - \overline{f(k)} a_k \big) \right).
\end{align}
In the Pekar product state \eqref{eq: Pekar-State}, the phonons are in the coherent state $W (\sqrt N \varphi_t) \Omega$ with average number of excitations of order $N$, and the bosonic particles form a pure Bose--Einstein condensate with condensate wave function $\psi_t$. According to the Landau--Pekar equations, the one-particle condensate wave function $\psi_t$ evolves in the potential $\sqrt\alpha \Phi(x,t)$ created by the phonons, while the phonon field couples to the particles via the source term involving the density $\abs{\psi_t(x)}^2$.
Our main result can be summarized as follows: Given an initial wave function $\Psi_{N,0}$ that is close to a Pekar product state $\psi_0^{\otimes N}\otimes W(\sqrt N \varphi_0)\Omega$ (close in an appropriate sense that will be specified in the next section), then the time evolved state $e^{-iH_{N,\alpha}^{\rm F} t}\Psi_{N,0}$ remains close to the time evolved Pekar state \eqref{eq: Pekar-State} when $N\gg 1$.
The Landau--Pekar equations were originally introduced in \cite{landaupekar} to approximate the time evolution of a single polaron in the strong coupling limit. In our notation, the strong coupling regime corresponds to the Hamiltonian $H_{1,\alpha}^{\rm F}$ with $\alpha \gg 1$. Partial results concerning a rigorous derivation of the Landau--Pekar equations in the strong coupling limit were obtained in \cite{frankschlein, frankgang, griesemer, LRSS} (for a detailed comparison between the different results we refer to \cite[Chapter 2]{LRSS}). In these works, the Landau--Pekar equations are justified for short times, namely at most for times of order $\alpha^{-\varepsilon}$ with $\varepsilon >0$ arbitrary small.\footnote{It should be noted that results about the polaron in the strong coupling limit are usually formulated in strong coupling units and that times of order $\alpha^2$ in the stated references correspond to times of order one in the units of the present paper.} A derivation for times of order one, the time scale in the strong coupling limit at which the back-reaction of the phonons that are created during the time evolution is of leading order, remains an open problem. The emergence of classical radiation in the strong coupling limit is expected to rely on the adiabatic decoupling between the relatively fast moving (w.r.t. $\alpha$) electron and the radiation field. For results on adiabatic theorems of the Landau--Pekar equations in one and three dimensions we refer to \cite{frankgang2} and \cite{LRSS}.
In the many-particle mean-field limit considered in this work, the creation of coherent radiation happens for a different reason than in the strong coupling regime, namely because there are many particles in the same quantum state that simultaneously create the phonons. In this regard, the present work is related to \cite{ammarifalconi, falconi, leopoldpetrat, leopoldpickl, leopoldpickl2}, where many-body mean-field limits of the renormalized Nelson model, the Nelson model with ultraviolet cutoff and the (bosonic) Pauli--Fierz model are considered. In particular, we mention \cite{ammarifalconi} where the Schr\"odinger--Klein--Gordon equations were derived by the Wigner measure approach as a limit of the renormalized Nelson model.
In \cite{ginibrenironivelo, CCFO, CFO}, effective equations for the Nelson, Pauli--Fierz and Fr\"ohlich model were derived in a partially classical limit. There, the number of particles is kept fixed while the number of excitations of the quantum field tends to infinity and the coupling constant approaches zero in a suitable sense. The effect of the excitations that are created during time evolution is negligible in this limit and the quantum field can thus be approximated by a classical field that evolves freely or remains constant in time.
To the best of our knowledge, the present work provides the first derivation of the Landau--Pekar equations in a limit in which the back-reaction of the phonons that are created during time evolution is of leading order. Moreover, our results include explicit error estimates.
In order to derive our results, we follow \cite{leopoldpickl2}, which combines the methods from \cite{pickl1} and \cite{rodnianskischlein}. The new technical challenge in comparison with \cite{leopoldpickl2} is to show that the high momentum phonons do not obstruct the expected mean-field behavior. This requires several nontrivial modifications. First, it is crucial to introduce a measure for the excitations around the condensate resp.\ around the coherent state that involves the canonical transformation due to Gross and Nelson (see \eqref{eq: definition Gross transform}). In particular, we use the representation of the Fr\"ohlich Hamiltonian in \cite{griesemerwuensch}. The most difficult part is to control the interaction between the ultraviolet modes of the phonon field and the fraction of particles not in the condensate. To this end, we restrict our consideration to a subclass of the initial states which have small fluctuations in the energy per particle observable and combine estimates similar to \cite[Sect. VIII.1]{leopoldpickl} with an operator bound that is motivated by \cite[Lemma 10]{frankschlein}. The idea of using this restriction in order to treat the singular interaction between quantum fields and particles in the mean field regime was already used in \cite{leopoldpickl}.
The article is organized as follows. In the next section, we state our main results. In Theorem \ref{theorem: main theorem}, we consider initial states in the domain of the Fr\"ohlich Hamiltonian, while Theorem \ref{theorem: main theorem: 2} is about initial states in the domain of the noninteracting model (including, in particular, product states). In Section \ref{sec: Notation and basic estimates}, we introduce useful notation and discuss the representation of the Fr\"ohlich Hamiltonian via the Gross transformation. The key steps of the proof of our main result are summarized in Section \ref{section: Proof of the Main Theorem} in terms of several lemmas. The proofs of these are given in Sections \ref{section: variance of the energy bound}--\ref{sec: remaining proofs}.
\section{Main results}
For notational convenience, we set the coupling constant $\alpha = 1$ from now on and denote $H_N^{\rm F} = H_{N,1}^{\rm F}$. All statements and proofs that follow are, however, equally true for any $\alpha >0$ independent of $N$.
In order to state our main results we define for $\Psi_N\in \mathcal{H}^{(N)}$ the one-particle reduced density matrix
\begin{align}
\label{eq: definition reduced one-particle matrix charged particles}
\gamma_{\Psi_N}^{(1,0)} = \text{Tr}_{2,\ldots, N} \otimes \text{Tr}_{\mathcal{F}_s} \ket{\Psi_{N}} \bra{\Psi_{N}}
\end{align}
on the Hilbert space $L^2(\mathbb{R}^3)$.
Here, $\text{Tr}_{2,\ldots, N}$ denotes the partial trace over the coordinates $x_2,\ldots, x_N$ and $\text{Tr}_{\mathcal{F}_s}$ the trace over Fock space. The particles of a many-body state $\Psi_{N}$ are said to exhibit complete Bose--Einstein condensation if there exists
$\psi \in L^2(\mathbb{R}^3)$ with $\norm{\psi}_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^3)}=1$ such that
\begin{align}
\label{eq: convergence reduced one-particle matrix charged particles}
\text{Tr}_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^3)} \abs{\gamma_{\Psi_N}^{(1,0)} - \ket{\psi} \bra{\psi}} \rightarrow 0
\end{align}
as $N \rightarrow \infty$. In this case $\psi$ is called the condensate wave function. Moreover, we define (for $\left(\psi , \varphi \right) \in L^2(\mathbb{R}^3) \times L^2(\mathbb{R}^3)$ and $\Psi_{N}\in \mathcal{D} \left( H_N^{\rm F} \right)$)
\begin{align}
a(\Psi_{N},\psi) & = \textnormal{Tr}_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^3)} \abs{\gamma^{(1,0)}_{\Psi_{N }} - \ket{\psi } \bra{\psi}} , \label{DEF:AN}\\[1mm]
b(\Psi_{N},\varphi) &= N^{-1} \scp{W^* (\sqrt{N} \varphi) \Psi_{N }}{\mathcal{N} \, W^* (\sqrt{N} \varphi) \Psi_{N}} , \label{DEF:BN} \\[1mm]
c(\Psi_{N}) &= \norm{N^{-1} \left( H_N^{\rm F} - \scp{\Psi_{N}}{ H_N^{\rm F} \Psi_{N}} \right) \Psi_{N}}^2 . \label{DEF:CN}
\end{align}
For $m \in \mathbb{N}$, let $H^m(\mathbb{R}^3)$ denote the Sobolev space of order $m$ and $L_m^2(\mathbb{R}^3)$ a weighted $L^2$-space with norm $\| \varphi\| _{L_m^2(\mathbb{R}^3)} = \| ( 1 + \abs{\,\cdot\,}^2 )^{m/2} \varphi \|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^3)}$.
We will use the following result which was proven in \cite{frankgang}.
\begin{proposition}[Lemma~C.2 in \cite{frankgang}]\label{prop: solution theory for LPeq}
The Landau--Pekar equations \eqref{eq: Landau Pekar equations} are globally well-posed in $ H^2(\mathbb{R}^3) \times L_1^2(\mathbb{R}^3)$. For all $t \in \mathbb{R}$ we have
\begin{align}
\norm{\psi_t}_{H^2(\mathbb{R}^3)} &\leq C \left( 1 + \abs{t} \right)
\quad \text{and} \quad
\norm{\varphi_t}_{L_1^2(\mathbb{R}^3)} \leq C \left( 1 + \abs{t} \right) \label{BOUNDS:LP:SOLUTIONS}
\end{align}
where $C$ is a constant depending only on the initial data.
\end{proposition}
We are now ready to state our main theorem.
\begin{theorem}
\label{theorem: main theorem}
Let $(\psi, \varphi) \in H^2(\mathbb{R}^3) \times L_1^2(\mathbb{R}^3)$ s.t. $\norm{\psi}_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^3)} = 1$, and $\Psi_{N} \in \mathcal{D} ( H_N^{\rm F} )$ s.t. $\norm{\Psi_{N}} = 1$ and $E_0 = \sup_{N \in \mathbb{N}} \big\vert N^{-1} \scp{\Psi_{N }}{H_N^{\rm F} \Psi_{N }} \big\vert <\infty $.
Let $(\psi_t, \varphi_t)$ be the unique solution of \eqref{eq: Landau Pekar equations} with initial datum $(\psi, \varphi)$ and $\Psi_{N,t}= e^{-iH_N^{\rm F} t}\Psi_{N}$. Then, there exists a constant $C >0$ (depending only on $\norm{\varphi }_{L_1^2(\mathbb{R}^3)}$, $\norm{\psi }_{H^2(\mathbb{R}^3)}$ and $E_0$) such that
\begin{align}
\textnormal{Tr}_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^3)} \abs{\gamma^{(1,0)}_{\Psi_{N,t}} - \ket{\psi_t} \bra{\psi_t}} & \leq \sqrt{ a(\Psi_{N},\psi) + b(\Psi_{N},\varphi) + c(\Psi_{N}) + N^{-1/2}} e^{C (1+\abs{t})^3 } ,\label{MAIN:BOUND:TRACE:NORM:1:0}
\\[3mm]
&\hspace{-4cm} N^{-1} \scp{W^* (\sqrt{N} \varphi_t) \Psi_{N,t}}{\mathcal{N} \, W^* (\sqrt{N} \varphi_t) \Psi_{N,t}} \label{MAIN:BOUND:TRACE:NORM:0:1} \\[1mm]
& \leq \left( a(\Psi_{N},\psi) + b (\Psi_{N },\varphi ) + c(\Psi_{N }) + N^{-1/2} \right) e^{C ( 1 + \abs{t})^3 } .\nonumber
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
The proof is given in Section \ref{section: Proof of the Main Theorem}.
\begin{remark}
If one considers initial many-body states in which the particles are in a Bose--Einstein condensate, the phonons are in a coherent states and the energy has small fluctuations around its mean value, i.e.
\begin{align}\label{eq: a+b+c to 0}
\lim_{N \rightarrow \infty} \left( a(\Psi_{N},\psi) + b(\Psi_{N},\varphi) + c(\Psi_{N}) \right) = 0
\end{align}
it follows from Theorem \ref{theorem: main theorem} that
\begin{align}
\lim_{N \rightarrow \infty} \textnormal{Tr}_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^3)} \abs{\gamma^{(1,0)}_{\Psi_{N,t}} - \ket{\psi_t} \bra{\psi_t}}
&=0 \quad \text{and}
\nonumber \\
\lim_{N \rightarrow \infty}
N^{-1} \scp{W^* (\sqrt{N} \varphi_t) \Psi_{N,t}}{\mathcal{N} \, W^* (\sqrt{N} \varphi_t) \Psi_{N,t}} &=0 .
\end{align}
Our result consequently shows the stability of the condensate and the coherent state during the time evolution.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
The condition $c(\Psi_{N}) \rightarrow 0$ as $N \rightarrow \infty$ restricts the initial data to many-body states $\Psi_{N}$ whose energy per particle has small fluctuations around its mean value. In our proof, this is important to obtain sufficient control on the singular ultraviolet behavior of the interaction term in $H_N^{\rm F}$. We give a detailed explanation of this point in Section \ref{section: variance of the energy bound}. In the presence of an ultraviolet cutoff in the Fr\"ohlich Hamiltonian, the estimates \eqref{MAIN:BOUND:TRACE:NORM:1:0} and \eqref{MAIN:BOUND:TRACE:NORM:0:1} hold without the appearance of $c(\Psi_{N})$ on the right hand side, but with a cutoff dependent constant $C$. In this simpler case, the statement could be proven in close analogy to \cite{falconi, leopoldpickl2} where the Nelson model was considered with ultraviolet cutoff.
\end{remark}
Next, we give examples of initial states that satisfy \eqref{eq: a+b+c to 0}. The quantities $a(\Psi_N,\psi)$ and $b(\Psi_N,\varphi)$ are identically zero for Pekar product states $\Psi_{N}=\psi^{\otimes N} \otimes W(\sqrt{N} \varphi) \Omega$ with $(\psi, \varphi) \in H^2(\mathbb{R}^3) \times L_1^2(\mathbb{R}^3)$. However, such Pekar states are in the domain $\mathcal D(H_N^0) = \big( H_s^2(\mathbb{R}^{3N}) \otimes \mathcal{F}_s \big) \cap \mathcal{D} (\mathcal{N} )$ of the free Hamiltonian
\begin{align}\label{def: free hamiltonian}
H_N^0 = -\sum_{j=1}^N \Delta_{j} + \mathcal N,
\end{align}
and thus, as shown in \cite{griesemerwuensch}, can not be elements of $\mathcal{D} ( H_N^{\rm F} )$. As a consequence, $c(\Psi_{N})$ would be infinite in this case.
To specify states that satisfy \eqref{eq: a+b+c to 0}, we introduce the Gross transform
\begin{align}
\label{eq: definition Gross transform}
U_{K} = \exp \Bigg[ N^{-1/2} \sum_{j=1}^N \int d^3k \,
\left( \overline{B_{K,x_j}(k)} a_k - B_{K,x_j}(k) a_k^* \right) \Bigg],
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
\label{eq: definition B-K-N}
B_{K,x }(k) &= \frac{-1}{\abs{k} (1 + k^2)} e^{-ikx } \mathds{1}_{\abs{k} \geq K}(k)
\end{align}
for $0 < K< \infty$. The Gross transform, which goes back to Gross and Nelson \cite{gross,nelson}, relates the domains of $H_N^0$ and $H_N^{\rm F}$ to each other.\footnote{The Gross transform adds correlations between the bosons and phonon modes with momentum $\vert k \vert \ge K$. This leads to a better ultraviolet behavior of the radiation field.}
In Lemma \ref{lemma representation of H_F} we show that there is a $\widetilde K>0$ such that for all $K\ge \widetilde K$ and all $N\ge 1$, the domains satisfy
\begin{align}\label{DOMAIN:H:NF}
\mathcal{D} \left( H^{\rm F}_N \right) &= U_K^* \mathcal{D} \left( H_N^0 \right).
\end{align}
If we choose $K$ as an $N$-dependent sufficiently rapidly growing sequence $(K_N)_{N\ge 1}$, then the Gross transform $U_{K_N}$ has negligible effect on the condensate and the coherent state structure. This is summarized in the next proposition.
\begin{proposition}
\label{proposition: initial bounds for gross transformed product}
Assume $K\ge c $ for some $c > 0 $ and consider the state $\Psi_{N} = U_K^*\ \big( \psi^{\otimes N} \otimes W(\sqrt N \varphi) \Omega\big)$
with $(\psi, \varphi) \in H^2(\mathbb{R}^3) \times L_1^2(\mathbb{R}^3)$ and $\norm{\psi}_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^3)} = 1$. Then there exists a $C>0$ such that $\sup_{N\in \mathbb N} \big\vert N^{-1}\scp{\Psi_{N}}{H_N^{\rm F} \Psi_{N}} \big\vert \le C$ and
\begin{align}
a(\Psi_{N},\psi) & \le \frac{C}{K^{3/2}},\quad b(\Psi_{N},\varphi) \le \frac{C}{K^3}, \quad c(\Psi_{N}) \le C \Big( K^{-1} + N^{-1} + \frac{K}{N^2} \Big) \label{INITIAL:BOUND:CN}
\end{align}
with $a(\Psi_{N},\psi)$, $b(\Psi_{N},\varphi)$ and $c(\Psi_N)$ defined as in Theorem \ref{theorem: main theorem}.
\end{proposition}
We prove this proposition in Section \ref{sec: initial states}.
As an immediate consequence of Proposition \ref{proposition: initial bounds for gross transformed product} (with $K=cN$) and Theorem \ref{theorem: main theorem} one finds
\begin{equation}
\label{eq: redyced density bound product state with Gross transform}
\textnormal{Tr}_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^3)} \abs{\gamma^{(1,0)}_{\Psi_{N,t}} - \ket{\psi_t} \bra{\psi_t}}
\leq N^{-1/4} e^{C ( 1+ \abs{t} )^3 }
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\frac 1 N \scp{W^*(\sqrt{N} \varphi_t) \Psi_{N,t}}{ {\mathcal N} \, W^* (\sqrt{N} \varphi_t) \Psi_{N,t}}
\leq N^{-1/2} e^{C ( 1+ \abs{t} )^3 }
\end{equation}
for initial states of the form $\Psi_N = U_{cN}^* ( \psi^{\otimes N}\otimes W(\sqrt N \varphi)\Omega)$.
Since the quantities $b(\Psi_{N},\varphi)$ and $c(\Psi_{N})$ appearing on the right side of \eqref{MAIN:BOUND:TRACE:NORM:1:0} and \eqref{MAIN:BOUND:TRACE:NORM:0:1} are expectation values of unbounded operators, it is not possible to generalize Theorem \ref{theorem: main theorem} to initial states $\Psi_{N} \notin \mathcal D( H_N^{\rm F})$ via a simple density argument. Using the Gross transform, however, it is possible to obtain a similar result for initial states in a subset of $\mathcal{D} ( H_N^0 )$. This follows from Theorem \ref{theorem: main theorem} in combination with \eqref{DOMAIN:H:NF} and the fact that $U_{K}$ converges strongly to the identity operator for $K\to \infty$.
The precise statement is as follows.
\begin{theorem}
\label{theorem: main theorem: 2} Let $K_N \geq c N^{5/6}$ for some $c >0$. Let $(\psi, \varphi) \in H^2(\mathbb{R}^3) \times L_1^2(\mathbb{R}^3)$ with $\norm{\psi}_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^3)} = 1$, and $\Psi_{N} \in \mathcal{D} ( H_{N}^0 )$ such that $\norm{\Psi_{N}} = 1$ and
\begin{align}
E_0 = \sup_{N \in \mathbb{N}} \big\vert N^{-1} \scp{\Psi_{N}}{U_{K_N} H_N^{\rm F} U^*_{K_N} \Psi_{N}} \big\vert <\infty.
\end{align}
Let $(\psi_t, \varphi_t)$ be the unique solution of \eqref{eq: Landau Pekar equations} with initial datum $(\psi, \varphi)$ and $\Psi_{N,t}= e^{-iH_N^{\rm F} t}\Psi_{N}$. Then, there exists a constant $C >0$ (depending only on $c$, $\norm{\varphi}_{L_1^2(\mathbb{R}^3)}$, $\norm{\psi}_{H^2(\mathbb{R}^3)}$ and $E_0$) such that
\begin{align}
\textnormal{Tr}_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^3)} \abs{\gamma^{(1,0)}_{\Psi_{N,t}} - \ket{\psi_t} \bra{\psi_t}} & \le \sqrt{ a( \Psi_{N},\psi) + b(\Psi_{N},\varphi) + c (U_{K_N}^* \Psi_{N}) + N^{-1/2}} e^{C (1+\abs{t})^3 } ,\label{MAIN:BOUND:TRACE:NORM:1:0:THEOREM:2} \\[4mm]
& \hspace{-4cm} \scp{W^* (\sqrt{N} \varphi_t) \Psi_{N,t}}{ \sqrt{ \tfrac{\mathcal N}{N} } \, W^* (\sqrt{N} \varphi_t) \Psi_{N,t}} \nonumber \\[1mm]
& \le \sqrt{ a(\Psi_{N},\psi) + b(\Psi_{N},\varphi) + c (U_{K_N}^* \Psi_{N}) + N^{-1/2}} e^{C (1+\abs{t})^3 } \label{MAIN:BOUND:TRACE:NORM:0:1:THEOREM:2}.
\end{align}
In particular, for the Pekar initial state $\Psi_{N} = \psi^{\otimes N} \otimes W(\sqrt{N} \varphi) \Omega$ we have the bounds
\begin{align}
\label{eq: redyced density bound product state}
\textnormal{Tr}_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^3)} \abs{\gamma^{(1,0)}_{\Psi_{N,t}} - \ket{\psi_t} \bra{\psi_t}}
& \leq N^{-1/4} e^{C ( 1+ \abs{t} )^3 } ,
\\[1mm]
\scp{W^* (\sqrt{N} \varphi_t) \Psi_{N,t}}{ \sqrt{ \tfrac{\mathcal N}{N} } \, W^* (\sqrt{N} \varphi_t) \Psi_{N,t}}
& \leq N^{-1/4} e^{C ( 1+ \abs{t} )^3 }. \label{eq: redyced density bound product state line 2}
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
The proof is given in Section \ref{section: proof of the proposition for free domain}.
\begin{remark} The restriction $K_N \geq c N^{5/6}$ was chosen in order to minimize the error terms in \eqref{MAIN:BOUND:TRACE:NORM:1:0:THEOREM:2} and \eqref{MAIN:BOUND:TRACE:NORM:0:1:THEOREM:2}.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark} Note that in \eqref{MAIN:BOUND:TRACE:NORM:0:1:THEOREM:2} we only control the time evolution of $\sqrt{N^{-1} \mathcal N}$, while in \eqref{MAIN:BOUND:TRACE:NORM:0:1} we estimate the operator $N^{-1}\mathcal N$.
\end{remark}
\section{Preliminaries}\label{sec: Notation and basic estimates}
\subsection{Notation and basic estimates}
We introduce the usual bosonic creation and annihilation operators
\begin{align}
a(f) &= \int d^3k \, \overline{f(k)} a_k, \quad
a^*(f) = \int d^3k \, f(k) a^*_k , \quad f \in L^2(\mathbb{R}^3),
\end{align}
as well as the field operators
\begin{align}
\Phi(f) &= a(f) + a^*(f) ,
\quad
\Pi(f) = \Phi(if) = i \big( - a(f) + a^*(f) \big) .
\end{align}
They satisfy the bounds
\begin{align}
\label{eq: bound for annihialtion and creation operators}
\norm{a(f) \Psi_{N}} & \leq \norm{f}_{L^2(\mathbb R^3)} \norm{\mathcal{N}^{1/2} \Psi_N}, \quad
\norm{a^*(f) \Psi_{N}} \leq \norm{f}_{L^2(\mathbb R^3)} \norm{\left(\mathcal{N} + 1 \right)^{1/2} \Psi_N},
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}\label{eq: bound for Pi}
\norm{\Phi(f) \Psi_{N}} &\leq 2 \norm{f}_{L^2(\mathbb R^3)} \norm{\left(\mathcal{N} + 1 \right)^{1/2} \Psi_N}, \quad
\norm{\Pi(f) \Psi_{N}} \leq 2 \norm{f}_{L^2(\mathbb R^3)} \norm{\left(\mathcal{N} + 1 \right)^{1/2} \Psi_N}
\end{align}
for any $\Psi_N\in \mathcal{H}^{(N)}$.
For $K >0$, we define the classical fields
\begin{align}
\Phi_{K}(x,t) &=
\int_{\abs{k} \, \leq K} d^3k \, \abs{k}^{-1}
\left( e^{ikx} \varphi_t(k) + e^{-ikx} \overline{\varphi_t(k)} \right) ,
\nonumber \\[1mm]
\Phi_{\geq K}(x,t) &=
\int_{\abs{k} \, \ge K} d^3k \, \abs{k}^{-1}
\left( e^{ikx} \varphi_t(k) + e^{-ikx} \overline{\varphi_t(k)} \right).
\end{align}
Moreover, it is useful to define the functions
\begin{align}
\label{eq: definition G-x-j}
G_{x}(k) &= e^{-i k x} \abs{k}^{-1} ,
\quad \quad
G_{K, x}(k) = e^{-i k x} \abs{k}^{-1} \mathds{1}_{\abs{k} \leq K}(k),
\end{align}
and $B_{K,x}(k) =\frac{-1}{\abs{k} (1 + k^2)} e^{-ikx } \mathds{1}_{\abs{k} \geq K}(k)$ as in \eqref{eq: definition B-K-N}. The bounds
\begin{align}
\label{eq: bounds for G}
\norm{G_{K,x}}_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^3)}^2 &= 4 \pi K,\quad
\norm{B_{K,x}}_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^3)}^2 \leq 4 \pi K^{-3}
, \quad
\norm{ \abs{ \cdot} B_{K,x}}_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^3)}^2 \leq 4 \pi K^{-1}
\end{align}
are straightforward to verify and will be frequently used in the rest of the article.
We also have
\begin{align}\label{eq: bound for Phi K}
\abs{\Phi_K(x,t)} \leq \sqrt{32 \pi} \norm{\varphi_t}_{L_1^2(\mathbb{R}^3) },\quad \norm{ \Phi (G_{K,x_j}) \Psi_N} &\leq \sqrt{16 \pi K} \norm{\left(\mathcal{N} + 1 \right)^{1/2} \Psi_N}
\end{align}
for $j\in \{1,...,N\}$.\\
\noindent \textbf{Notation:}
The functions $k\mapsto k G_{K,x}(k)$ and $k\mapsto k B_{K,x}(k)$ will frequently be denoted by $k G_{K,x}$ and $kB_{K,x}$, respectively. Depending on the context $\norm{\cdot}$ and $\scp{\cdot}{\cdot}$ will refer to the norm and scalar product either of $\mathcal{H}^{(N)}$ or $L^2(\mathbb{R}^3)$. If the spaces $L_m^2(\mathbb{R}^3)$ and $H^m(\mathbb{R}^3)$ (with $m \in \mathbb{N}$) appear as subscripts we will abbreviate them by $L_m^2$ and $H^m$.
\subsection{Weyl operators and Gross transform }
The Weyl operator $W(f)$ defined in \eqref{eq: Weyl operator} is unitary, i.e., $W^*(f) = W^{-1}(f)$, and satisfies the relations
\begin{align}
\label{eq: Weyl operators product}
W^{-1}(f)= W(-f), \quad W(f) W(g) = W(g) W(f) e^{-2 i \Im \langle f , g\rangle} = W(f+g) e^{-i \Im \langle f , g \rangle }
\end{align}
as well as the shift property
\begin{align}
\label{eq: Weyl operators shift property}
W^*(f) a_k W(f) = a_k + f(k).
\end{align}
This immediately implies that the Gross transform, as defined in
\eqref{eq: definition Gross transform}, is unitary. Moreover, it has the properties
\begin{align}\label{eq: product structure Gross transform}
U_K &= W \Big( - N^{-1/2} \sum_{j=1}^N B_{K,x_j} \Big)
= \prod_{j=1}^N W \Big( - N^{-1/2} B_{K,x_j} \Big)
\end{align}
(which holds since $\Im \scp{B_{K,x}}{B_{K,y}}=0$ for all $x,y\in \mathbb R^3$) and
\begin{align}
\label{eq: Gross transform shift property}
U_K a_k U^*_K
&= a_k + N^{-1/2} \sum_{j=1}^N B_{K, x_j}(k) .
\end{align}
\subsection{The Fr\"ohlich Hamiltonian}
\label{section: construction of the Froehlich Hamiltonian}
In \cite{griesemerwuensch}, Griesemer and W\"unsch give an explicit representation of $H_N^{\rm F}$ with the aid of the Gross transform when $N=1$. Below, we state the analogous representation for $N>1$, which will be useful for the proof of our main theorem. Considering $N>1$ does not impose additional difficulties compared to \cite{griesemerwuensch}.
\begin{definition}
\label{definition: Gross transformed Froehlich Hamiltonian} With $B_{K,x}$ and $G_{K,x}$ defined in \eqref{eq: definition B-K-N} and \eqref{eq: definition G-x-j}, respectively, we set
\begin{align}
\label{eq: Definition of V-K-N}
A_{K,x} &= - 2 i N^{-1/2} \Big( \nabla_x \cdot
a \big( k B_{K,x} \big)
+ a^* \big( k B_{K,x} \big) \cdot \nabla_x \Big)
+ N^{-1} \Phi\big( k B_{K,x} \big)^2,
\\[2mm]
V_{K}(x-y) & = N^{-1} \Big( \scp{B_{K,x}}{B_{K,y}}
+ 2 \Re \scp{G_{x}}{B_{K,y}} \Big) ,
\\[0.5mm]
H_{N,K}^{\rm F} &= \sum_{j=1}^N \left[ - \Delta_j + N^{-1/2} \Phi(G_{K,x_j}) \right] + \mathcal{N},
\end{align}
and define the Gross transformed Fr\"ohlich Hamiltonian as
\begin{align}\label{GROSS:TRANSFORMED:HAM}
H^{\rm G}_{N,K}
&= H_{N,K}^{\rm F} + \sum_{j=1}^N A_{K,x_j} + \sum_{j,l=1}^N V_K(x_j-x_l).
\end{align}
\end{definition}
Note that \eqref{eq: bounds for G} immediately implies the bound
\begin{align}\label{eq: bound for V_K}
\vert V_K(x_j-x_l) \vert \le C K^{-1}N^{-1}
\end{align}
for suitable $C>0$.
The following result, which is the generalization of \cite[Theorem 3.7]{griesemerwuensch} to $N\ge 2$, justifies denoting $H_{N,K}^{\rm G}$ as Gross transformed Fr\"ohlich Hamiltonian.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma representation of H_F}
The operator $H^{\rm G}_{N,K}$ is self-adjoint on $\mathcal{D} (H_N^0 )$ for all $K >0$. Moreover, there exists a $\widetilde{K}\ge 0$ such that for all $K \geq \widetilde{K}$ and $N \in \mathbb{N}$, the self-adjoint operator $H_N^F$ associated to the quadratic form defined by \eqref{eq: Froehlich Hamiltonian quadratic form} has the representation
\begin{align} \label{REPRESENTATION:H:F}
H_N^{\rm F} = U^*_{K} H_{N,K}^{\rm G} U_{K},
\quad \mathcal{D}(H_N^{\rm F}) = U^{*}_{K} \mathcal D(H_N^0) .
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
We shall comment on the proof of this lemma in Appendix \ref{appendix: interaction bounds}.
For use below, we also note that there is $\widetilde K,C>0$, such that for all $K\ge \widetilde K$ and $N\ge 1$,
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{2} H_{N}^0 - C N & \le H_{N}^{\rm F} \le \frac{3}{2} H_{N}^0 + C N \label{eq: bound H^F vs H^0},\\[1mm]
\frac{1}{2} H_{N}^0 - C N & \le H_{N,K}^{\rm G} \le \frac{3}{2} H_{N}^0 + C N \label{eq: bound H^G vs H^0}
\end{align}
hold as inequalities on the Hilbert space $L^2(\mathbb R^{3N}) \otimes \mathcal F_s$ without symmetry constraints on the particles. This will be useful later in order to estimate expectation values w.r.t. wave functions that are not permutation symmetric in all particle coordinates, as e.g.\ in \eqref{eq: variance lemma first bound}. The derivation of \eqref{eq: bound H^F vs H^0} and \eqref{eq: bound H^G vs H^0} is postponed to Appendix \ref{appendix: interaction bounds}.
\section{Proof of the Main Theorem}
\label{section: Proof of the Main Theorem}
We first state three preliminary lemmas from which the proof of Theorem \ref{theorem: main theorem} then follows easily. The proofs of the lemmas are postponed to later sections.
If we take the limit $K\to \infty$, the Gross transform has only negligible effect on the one-particle reduced density and the coherent structure of the phonon field. This is quantified in the following lemma, whose proof is given in Sec.~\ref{SEC:PROOF:LEMMA:CLOSENESS:GAMMA}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{LEMMA:CLOSENESS:GAMMA} Assume $K \ge \widetilde K>0$ such that Lemma \ref{lemma representation of H_F} holds. Let $\varphi \in L^2(\mathbb{R}^3)$, $\Psi_N \in \mathcal D((H_N^{\rm F})^{1/2})$ with $\norm{\Psi_N}=1$, and the Gross transform $U_{K}$ defined as in \eqref{eq: definition Gross transform}. Then,
\begin{align}
\textnormal{Tr}_{L^2(\mathbb R^3)} \Big\vert \gamma^{(1,0)}_{\Psi_N} - \gamma^{(1,0)}_{U_{K} \Psi_N} \Big\vert & \le \frac{C}{K^{3/2}} \norm{ \Big( \frac{H_N^{\rm F} + C N}{N}\Big)^{1/2} \Psi_N } \label{BOUND:CLOSENESS:GAMMA:1:0}
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
& N^{-1} \abs{ \scp{ W^*(\sqrt N \varphi) \Psi_{N} }{ \big( \mathcal N - U_K^* \mathcal N U_K \big) W^* (\sqrt N \varphi) \Psi_N } }\nonumber \\
& \hspace{6cm} \le \frac{C (1+ \norm{\varphi}_2)}{K^{3/2}} \norm{ \Big( \frac{H_N^{\rm F} + C N}{N}\Big)^{1/2} \Psi_N }\label{BOUND:CLOSENESS:GAMMA:0:1}
\end{align}
for some $C>0$.
\end{lemma}
Next, we define a functional to compare $U_{K}\Psi_{N,t}$ with the Pekar state $\psi_t^{\otimes N}\otimes W(\sqrt N \varphi_t)\Omega$. To this end, we introduce for $j \in \{1,...,N\} $ the projections $p^\psi_j : L^2(\mathbb{R}^{3N}) \rightarrow L^2(\mathbb{R}^{3N})$ and $q_j^{\psi} : L^2(\mathbb{R}^{3N}) \rightarrow L^2(\mathbb{R}^{3N})$, given by
\begin{align}
p_j^{\psi} f_N(x_1, \ldots , x_N)
&= \psi (x_j) \int d^3 x_j' \, \overline{ \psi(x_j')} f_N(x_1,\ldots x_{j-1},x_j',x_{j+1},\ldots , x_N)
\end{align}
for $f_N \in L^2(\mathbb{R}^{3N})$, and $q_j^{\psi} = 1 - p_j^{\psi}$. (More compactly, in bracket notation: $p^\psi_j = \vert \psi \rangle \langle \psi \vert_j$).
\begin{definition}
Let $K>0$ and $\left(\psi , \varphi \right) \in L^2(\mathbb{R}^3) \times L^2(\mathbb{R}^3)$ with $\norm{\psi}=1$ and $\Psi_{N}\in \mathcal{D} \left( H_N^{\rm F} \right)$, $\norm{\Psi_{N}} = 1$. We define $\beta^a_K : \mathcal{D} ( H_N^{\rm F} ) \times L^2(\mathbb{R}^3) \rightarrow \mathbb{R}_0^+$,
$\beta^b_K: \mathcal{D} ( H_N^{\rm F} ) \times L^2(\mathbb{R}^3) \rightarrow \mathbb{R}_0^+$ and
$\beta^c: \mathcal{D} ( H_N^{\rm F} ) \rightarrow \mathbb{R}_0^+$
by
\begin{align}
\beta^a_K \left( \Psi_{N }, \psi \right)
&= \scp{\Psi_{N }}{U^*_K \left( q_1^{\psi} \otimes \mathds{1}_{\mathcal{F}_s} \right) U_K \Psi_{N }} ,
\\[1mm]
\beta^b_{K} \left( \Psi_{N }, \varphi\right)
&=
N^{-1} \scp{ W^*(\sqrt N \varphi) U_K \Psi_{N} }{\mathcal N W^*(\sqrt N \varphi) U_K \Psi_N }
\\[1mm]
\beta^c(\Psi_{N }) &= \norm{N^{-1} \left( H_N^{\rm F} - \scp{\Psi_{N }}{ H_N^{\rm F} \Psi_{N }} \right) \Psi_{N }}^2.
\end{align}
Moreover, we define $\beta_{K} : \mathcal{D} \left( H_N^{\rm F} \right) \times L^2(\mathbb{R}^3) \times L^2(\mathbb{R}^3) \rightarrow \mathbb{R}_0^+$ by
\begin{align}
\beta_K(\Psi_N,\psi,\varphi) & = \beta^a_K(\Psi_N,\psi) + \beta^b_K(\Psi_N,\varphi) + \beta^c(\Psi_N) .
\end{align}
For solutions $\Psi_{N,t}$ and $(\psi_t,\varphi_t)$ of the Schr\"odinger equation \eqref{eq: Schroedinger equation} and the Landau--Pekar equations \eqref{eq: Landau Pekar equations}, respectively, we use the shorthand notations
\begin{align*}
\beta_K(t) & = \beta_K(\Psi_{N,t},\psi_t,\varphi_t),\ \
\beta^a_K(t) = \beta^a_K (\Psi_{N,t},\psi_t), \ \
\beta^b_K(t) = \beta^b_K (\Psi_{N,t},\varphi_t), \ \
\beta^c(t) = \beta^c (\Psi_{N,t}) .
\end{align*}
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
Note that
\begin{align}
\beta^b_K \left( \Psi_{N }, \varphi\right) = \int d^3k \, \norm{\left( N^{-1/2} a_k - \varphi (k) \right) U_K \Psi_{N }}^2.
\end{align}
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
$\beta_K(t)$ being small compared to one ensures that
\begin{itemize}
\item the $N$-particle component of $U_K \Psi_{N,t}$ is approximately given by the product $\psi_t^{\otimes N}$ -- more precisely, $\beta^a_K(t)$ measures the relative number of particles not in $\psi_t$,
\item the phonon component of $U_K \Psi_{N,t}$ is close to the coherent state $W(\sqrt N \varphi_t)\Omega$ -- more, precisely, $\beta^b_K(t)$ measures the relative number of excitations w.r.t.\ to the coherent state $W(\sqrt N \varphi_t)\Omega$,
\item the variance of $N^{-1} H_N^{\rm F}$ w.r.t.\ $\Psi_{N,t}$ is small compared to one -- this will be used to control the singular ultraviolet behavior of the phonon field (for a detailed explanation of this point, see the beginning of Section \ref{section: variance of the energy bound}). Also note that $\beta^c (\Psi_{N,t}) = \beta^c(\Psi_{N})$ is a conserved quantity, and thus requiring $\beta^c$ to be small only poses a restriction on the initial state. Since $\beta^c(\Psi_{N}) = c(\Psi_N)$, Proposition \ref{proposition: initial bounds for gross transformed product} shows that $\beta^c$ is small for initial states of the form $\Psi_N = U_K^* \psi^{\otimes N}\otimes W(\sqrt N \varphi)\Omega$ with $K=K_N$ large enough.
\end{itemize}
The functional $\beta_K(t)$ can consequently be used to monitor whether the condensate of the particles and the coherent state of the phonons is stable during the time evolution. Its definition is motivated by a previous work on the derivation of the Maxwell-Schr\"odinger equations \cite{leopoldpickl}. In addition it is necessary to include the Gross transform in the definition of $\beta^a_K(t)$ and $\beta^b_K(t)$. This induces correlations between the electron and the phonons and effectively regularizes the interaction. In this sense, the Gross transform has a similar role as the Bogoliubov transformation in the derivation of the time-dependent Gross-Pitaevskii equation (see for instance \cite{pickl2, jeblickleopoldpickl, benedikterschlein, brenneckeschlein}).
\end{remark}
The trace norm of the difference $\gamma^{(1,0)}_{U_K \Psi_{N,t}} - \vert \psi_t \rangle \langle \psi_t \vert$ and the quantity $\beta^a_K(t)$ are related by
\begin{align}
\label{eq: relation between beta and reduced density matrices 1}
\beta^a_K (t) &\leq \textnormal{Tr}_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^3)} \abs{\gamma_{U_K \Psi_{N,t}}^{(1,0)} - \ket{\psi_t} \bra{\psi_t}} \leq 4 \sqrt{\beta^a_K(t)} ,
\end{align}
which is the content of the following lemma when $\Psi_N = U_K \Psi_{N,t}$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma: relation between beta and reduced density matrices}
Let $\psi \in L^2(\mathbb{R}^3)$ with $\norm{\psi}=1$ and $\Psi_{N} \in \mathcal{H}^{(N)}$ with $\norm{\Psi_N}=1$. Then,
\begin{align}
\label{eq: relation between beta and reduced density matrices 1}
\scp{\Psi_{N }}{ \big( q_1^{\psi} \otimes \mathds{1}_{\mathcal{F}_s} \big) \Psi_{N }} &\leq \textnormal{Tr}_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^3)} \abs{\gamma_{\Psi_{N}}^{(1,0)} - \ket{\psi} \bra{\psi}} \leq 4 \sqrt{\scp{\Psi_{N }}{ \big( q_1^{\psi} \otimes \mathds{1}_{\mathcal{F}_s} \big) \Psi_{N }} } .
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The lemma is a consequence of the identity
\begin{align}\label{eq: dual identity}
\textnormal{Tr}_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^3)} \abs{\gamma_{\Psi_{N}}^{(1,0)} - \ket{\psi} \bra{\psi}} = \sup_{\norm{A}_{op}=1} \abs{ \scp{\Psi_N}{A_{1} \Psi_N } - \scp{\psi}{A \psi} }
\end{align}
where the supremum is taken over all bounded operators $A:L^2(\mathbb R^3) \to L^2(\mathbb R^3)$ and
\begin{align}
A_1 = \big( A \otimes \underbrace{\mathds{1}_{L^2(\mathbb R^3)} \otimes ... \otimes \mathds{1}_{L^2(\mathbb R^3)}}_{ N -1\ \text{times}} \big) \otimes \mathds{1}_{\mathcal{F}_s}
\end{align}
acts non-trivially only on the variable $x_1$. (Note that \eqref{eq: dual identity} holds because the space of bounded operators is the dual of the space of trace-class operators). The first bound then follows from\footnote{From now on we omit the product with the identity and write $q_i^\psi$ and $p_i^\psi$ instead of $q_i^\psi \otimes \mathds{1}_{\mathcal F}$ and $p_i^\psi \otimes \mathds{1}_{\mathcal F}$.}
\begin{align}
\scp{\Psi_{N }}{ \big( q_1^{\psi} \otimes \mathds{1}_{\mathcal{F}_s} \big) \Psi_{N }} = \scp{ \Psi_N }{ q_1^\psi \Psi_N} = \abs{ \scp{ \Psi_N}{ p_1^\psi \Psi_N} - \scp{\psi}{p^\psi \psi}},
\end{align}
while for the second bound, one inserts $1=p_1^\psi+q_1^\psi$ on the left and right of $A_{1}$ and uses
\begin{align}
p_1^\psi A_{1} p_1^\psi - \scp{\psi}{A \psi} = q_1^\psi \scp{\psi}{A \psi}
\end{align}
together with the Cauchy--Schwarz inequality for the remaining terms.
\end{proof}
The main ingredient of the proof of Theorem \ref{theorem: main theorem} is the following estimate for $\beta_K(t)$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma: Gronwall bound for beta}
Assume $K \ge \widetilde K>0$ such that Lemma \ref{lemma representation of H_F} holds. Let $\Psi_{N,t} = e^{-iH_N^{\rm F} t }\Psi_{N} $ with $\Psi_{N} \in \mathcal{D} ( H_N^{\rm F} )$ such that $\norm{\Psi_{N}} = 1$ and $E_0 = \sup_{N \in \mathbb N} \abs{ N^{-1} \scp{\Psi_{N}}{ H_N^{\rm F} \Psi_{N}} } <\infty $. Let further $(\psi_t, \varphi_t)$ be a solution of \eqref{eq: Landau Pekar equations} with $(\psi, \varphi) \in H^2(\mathbb{R}^3) \times L^2_{1}({\mathbb{R}^3})$ such that $\norm{\psi}= 1$. Then, there exists a constant $C > 0 $ only depending on $\norm{\varphi}_{L_1^2 }$, $\norm{\psi}_{H^2}$, and $E_0$, such that
\begin{align}
\abs{ \frac{d}{dt} \beta_K(t)}
&\leq C \left( 1 + t^2 \right) \left( \beta_K(t ) + K N^{-1} + K^{-1} \right) . \label{BOUND:BETA:TIME:DERIVATIVE}
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
The proof is given in Section \ref{section: Estimates on the time derivative}.
Putting the above statements together, we obtain the proof of Theorem \ref{theorem: main theorem}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{theorem: main theorem}] We first apply Gr\"onwall's argument to \eqref{BOUND:BETA:TIME:DERIVATIVE} in order to obtain
\begin{align}\label{BOUND:BETA}
\beta_K(t ) &\leq e^{C ( 1+ \abs{t} )^3} \left( \beta_K(0 ) + K N^{-1} + K^{-1} \right).
\end{align}
Next, set $K = K_N = \widetilde KN^{1/2}$ with $\widetilde K>0$ as in Lemma \ref{lemma representation of H_F}, and compute
\begin{align}
\text{Tr}_{L^2(\mathbb R^3)} \Big\vert \gamma^{(1,0)}_{\Psi_{N,t}} - \vert \psi_t \rangle \langle \psi_t \vert \Big\vert & \le \text{Tr}_{L^2(\mathbb R^3)} \Big\vert \gamma^{(1,0)}_{U_{K_N}\Psi_{N,t}} - \vert \psi_t \rangle \langle \psi_t \vert \Big\vert + CN^{-3/4}
\nonumber \\[2.5mm]
& \le 4 \sqrt{\beta^a_{K_N}(t)} + C N^{-3/4}
\nonumber \\[2.5mm]
& \le 4 \sqrt{ \beta_{K_N}(t)} + C N^{-3/4}
\nonumber \\[2.5mm]
& \le \sqrt{\beta_{K_N}(0) + N^{-1/2}} e^{C(1+ \abs{t})^3},
\end{align}
where we used inequality \eqref{BOUND:CLOSENESS:GAMMA:1:0} in the first step, Lemma \eqref{lemma: relation between beta and reduced density matrices} in the second and \eqref{BOUND:BETA} in the last one. The estimate \eqref{MAIN:BOUND:TRACE:NORM:1:0} then follows from $\beta^c(0) = c(\Psi_{N})$ and
\begin{align}
\beta^a_{K_N}(0) + \beta^b_{K_N}(0) \le a(\Psi_{N},\psi) + b(\Psi_{N},\varphi) + C N^{-3/4},
\end{align}
which in turn holds because of \eqref{eq: relation between beta and reduced density matrices 1} and Lemma \ref{LEMMA:CLOSENESS:GAMMA}.\medskip
Using \eqref{BOUND:CLOSENESS:GAMMA:0:1}, we can similarly estimate
\begin{align}
& \hspace{-1cm} N^{-1} \scp{ W^*(\sqrt N \varphi_t) \Psi_{N,t} }{\mathcal N W^*(\sqrt N \varphi_t) \Psi_{N,t} }
\nonumber \\[2mm]
& \le N^{-1} \scp{W^*(\sqrt N \varphi_t) U_{K_N} \Psi_{N,t} }{\mathcal N W^*(\sqrt N \varphi_t) U_{K_N} \Psi_{N,t} } + C (1+\norm{\varphi_t}) N^{-3/4}
\nonumber \\[2mm]
& = \beta^b_{K_N}(t) + C (1+\norm{\varphi_t}) N^{-3/4}
\nonumber \\[2mm]
& \le \big( \beta_{K_N}(0) + N^{-1/2}\big) e^{C( 1 + \abs{t})^3}
\nonumber \\[2mm]
& \le \big( a(\Psi_{N},\psi) + b(\Psi_{N},\varphi) + c(\Psi_{N}) + N^{-1/2} \big) e^{C( 1+ \abs{t})^3}.
\end{align}
This completes the proof of the theorem.
\end{proof}
The proofs of Proposition \ref{proposition: initial bounds for gross transformed product} and Theorem \ref{theorem: main theorem: 2} are postponed to Sections \ref{sec: initial states} and \ref{section: proof of the proposition for free domain}, respectively.
\section{Bound on $\| \nabla_2 q_1^{\psi} U_{K} \Psi_{N}\|$}
\label{section: variance of the energy bound}
In this section, we state and prove a bound that is a crucial ingredient in the proof of Lemma \ref{lemma: Gronwall bound for beta}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma: variance of the energy bound}
Assume $K\ge \widetilde K>0$ such that Lemma \ref{lemma representation of H_F} holds. Let $(\psi, \varphi) \in H^2(\mathbb{R}^3) \times L_1^2(\mathbb{R}^3)$ and $ \Psi_{N} \in \mathcal{D} ( H_N^{\rm F} ) $ with $\norm{\Psi_N}=1$, and set $E_N^{\rm F}(\Psi_N) = N^{-1} \scp{\Psi_N}{H_N^{\rm F}\Psi_N}$. Then
\begin{align}
\label{eq: variance of the energy bound}
\norm{\nabla_2 q_1^{\psi} U_{K} \Psi_{N}}^2
&\leq g(\Psi_N,\psi,\varphi) \left( \beta_K(\Psi_N,\psi,\varphi) + N^{-1} K^{-1} + N^{-2} K \right),
\end{align}
where $g(\Psi_N,\psi,\varphi) = C (\norm{\psi}_{H^2}^2 + \norm{\varphi}_{L_1^2}^2 + \vert E_N^{\rm F}(\Psi_N) \vert )$ for some $C>0$.
\end{lemma}
Before we give its proof, we explain the importance of the above estimate.
The main technical difficulty for controlling the time-derivative of $\beta_K(t)$ arises from the singular ultraviolet behavior of the phonon field. In particular, if we want to estimate $\frac{d}{dt}\beta^b_K(t)$, we have to bound the following term (cf.\ Section \ref{subsection time derivative of beta-b})
\begin{align}
\eqref{eq: time derivative beta-b 4}
&= - 2 \Im \scp{U_{K} \Psi_{N,t}}{\int_{\abs{k} \leq K}
d^3k \, \abs{k}^{-1} e^{ikx_1} q_1^{\psi_t} \left( N^{-1/2} a_k - \varphi_t(k) \right) U_{K} \Psi_{N,t}}
\end{align}
by an $N$-independent constant times the functional $\beta_K(t)$. A naive estimate using the Cauchy--Schwarz inequality would give the bound
\begin{align}\label{eq: naive estimate}
\abs{\eqref{eq: time derivative beta-b 4}}
&\leq C K^{1/2} \sqrt{\beta^a_{K}(t) \beta^b_{K}(t) },
\end{align}
which is not sufficient for $K \gg 1$. The reason for the bad behavior for large $K$ clearly comes from the careless estimate of the form factor $\vert k \vert^{-1}$.
The most obvious strategy for a better estimate is to apply the well-known commutator method of Lieb and Yamazaki \cite{liebyamazaki}, which utilizes the particle momentum in order to obtain a better ultraviolet behavior of the phonon field. More precisely, one writes the exponential $e^{ik x_1}$ in terms of a commutator with the gradient $i\nabla_{x_1}$,
\begin{align}
e^{ik x_1} = \big( 1 + \abs{k}^{2} \big)^{-1} \left( e^{ik x_1} - k \cdot \big [ i \nabla_{x_1}, e^{ik x_1} \big] \right),
\end{align}
which suggests a better decay for large $\vert k \vert$ provided that one has some control of the regularity of the particle with coordinate $x_1$. Using this identity together with $p_1^{\psi_t} + q_1^{\psi_t} =1$, we find by a straightforward computation that \eqref{eq: time derivative beta-b 4} can be written as
\begin{align}
- 2 \Im \int_{\abs{k} \leq K}
d^3k \, \abs{k}^{-1} \big( 1 &+ \abs{k}^{2} \big)^{-1} \cdot \bigg(
\scp{e^{-ikx_1} \left( N^{-1/2} a_k^* - \overline{\varphi_t(k)} \right) U_{K} \Psi_{N,t}}{
q_1^{\psi_t} U_{K} \Psi_{N,t}}
\nonumber \\
&\; -
\scp{e^{-ikx_1} \left( N^{-1/2} a_k^* - \overline{\varphi_t(k)} \right) k \cdot i \nabla_1 p_1^{\psi_t} U_{K} \Psi_{N,t}}{ q_1^{\psi_t} U_{K} \Psi_{N,t}}
\nonumber \\
&\; -
\scp{e^{-ikx_1} k \cdot i \nabla_1 q_1^{\psi_t} U_{K} \Psi_{N,t}}{ \left( N^{-1/2} a_k - \varphi_t(k) \right) q_1^{\psi_t} U_{K} \Psi_{N,t}}
\nonumber \\
&\; +
\scp{e^{-ikx_1} \left( N^{-1/2} a_k^* - \overline{\varphi_t(k)} \right) U_{K} \Psi_{N,t}}{ k \cdot i \nabla_1 q_1^{\psi_t} U_{K} \Psi_{N,t}}
\bigg).
\end{align}
With the aid of the Cauchy--Schwarz inequality and the canonical commutation relations this implies the bound
\begin{align}
\abs{\eqref{eq: time derivative beta-b 4}}
&\leq C\left( \norm{\psi_t}_{H^1} \sqrt{\beta^a_K(t)} + \norm{\nabla_1 q_1^{\psi_t} U_{K} \Psi_{N,t}} \right) \sqrt{\beta^b_K(t) + N^{-1}}.
\end{align}
Contrary to \eqref{eq: naive estimate}, there is no more divergence for large $K$. However, the above inequality contains the new term $\| \nabla_1 q_1^{\psi_t} U_{K} \Psi_{N,t} \| $.
Thus if we want to apply Gr\"onwall's inequality we would have to show that this term is small compared to one or bounded by a constant times $\sqrt{\beta_{K}(t)}$.\footnote{We note that the quantity $\| \nabla_1 q_1^{\psi_t} U_{K} \Psi_{N,t} \|^2$ can be related to the Sobolev trace norm difference between the one-particle reduced density matrix and the condensate wave function (see \cite[Proof of Theorem 2.8]{mitrouskaspetratpickl}
and \cite[Lemma 7.1]{leopoldpickl2}).}
It is not clear how to derive such a bound, however, and hence, we are forced to estimate $\abs{\eqref{eq: time derivative beta-b 4}}$ in a different way.
A possible solution to this problem is to use a combination of the estimates from \cite[Chapter VIII.1]{leopoldpickl} with an operator bound that is motivated by \cite[Lemma 10]{frankschlein} (see Section \ref{section: Estimates on the time derivative} for the detailed argument). In short, we use the symmetry of the wave function and an estimate that is similar in spirit to the commutator method of Lieb and Yamazaki to obtain
\begin{align}
\abs{\eqref{eq: time derivative beta-b 4}}
&\leq C \left( \beta^a_{K}(t) + \beta^b_{K}(t) + N^{-1} K + \norm{\nabla_2 q_1^{\psi_t} U_{K} \Psi_{N,t}}^2 \right) .
\end{align}
As shown in Lemma \ref{lemma: variance of the energy bound}, the new quantity $\| \nabla_2 q_1^{\psi_t} U_{K} \Psi_{N,t} \| ^2$ can be bounded by $\beta_{K}(t)$ and errors proportional to $N^{-1}K^{-1}$ and $N^{-2}K$.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{lemma: variance of the energy bound}] Using the symmetry of $\Psi_{N}$ and $- \Delta_1 \geq 0$, we can bound
\begin{align}\label{eq: variance lemma first bound}
\norm{\nabla_2 q^\psi_1 U_K \Psi_{N}}^2
& = (N-1)^{-1} \sum_{j=2}^N \scp{q_1^\psi U_K \Psi_{N}}{(-\Delta_j)q_1^\psi U_K \Psi_{N} }\nonumber \\[-1mm]
& \leq \frac{2}{N} \sum_{j=1}^N \scp{q_1^\psi U_K \Psi_{N}}{(-\Delta_j)q_1^\psi U_K \Psi_{N} }.
\end{align}
With $-\sum_{j=1}^N \Delta_{j} \le H_N^0$ and \eqref{eq: bound H^G vs H^0}, we thus have
\begin{align}
\norm{\nabla_2 q_1^\psi U_K \Psi_{N}}^2 \le C \beta^a_K(\Psi_N,\psi) + 4 N^{-1} \scp{q_1^\psi U_K \Psi_{N}}{ H_{N,K}^{\rm G} q_1^\psi U_K \Psi_{N} } .
\end{align}
By using
$
q_1^\psi H_{N,K }^{\rm G} q_1^\psi = q_1^\psi H_{N,K }^{\rm G} - q_1^\psi H_{N,K}^{\rm{G}} p_1^\psi
$
and recalling Definition \eqref{definition: Gross transformed Froehlich Hamiltonian}, we get
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\norm{\nabla_2 q_1^\psi U_K \Psi_{N}}^2
&\leq C \Big( \beta^a_K(\Psi_N,\psi) + N^{-1} \abs{ \scp{q_1^\psi U_K \Psi_{N}}{ H_{N,K}^{\rm G} U_K \Psi_{N} } } \label{LINE:Q:HG} \\[1.5mm]
&\quad + N^{-1} \abs{\scp{U_K \Psi_{N}}{q_1^\psi \left( - \Delta_1 \right) p_1^\psi U_K \Psi_{N}}}\label{LINE:Q:DELTA:P} \\[1.5mm]
&\quad + N^{-3/2} \abs{\scp{U_K \Psi_{N}}{q_1^\psi \Phi(G_{K,x_1}) p_1^\psi U_K \Psi_{N}} } \label{LINE:Q:PHI:P} \\[1.5mm]
&\quad + N^{-1} \abs{\scp{U_K \Psi_{N}}{q_1^\psi A_{K ,x_1} p_1^\psi U_K \Psi_{N}} } \label{LINE:Q:V:P} \\[1.5mm]
&\quad + \abs{\scp{U_K \Psi_{N}}{ q_1^\psi V_K(x_1-x_2) p_1^\psi U_K \Psi_{N}} } \Big) . \label{LINE:Q:C:P}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
In the following, we shall bound the various terms on the right hand side. \\ \\
\textbf{Line \eqref{LINE:Q:HG}}. In the second summand in this line, we add and subtract $E_N^{\rm F}(\Psi_N) \beta^a_K(\Psi_N,\varphi)$,
to obtain
\begin{align}
&N^{-1}\abs{ \scp{q_1^\psi U_K \Psi_{N}}{ H_{N,K}^{\rm G} U_K \Psi_{N} } }
\nonumber \\[1mm]
& \quad \quad \le \abs{ \scp{q_1^\psi U_K \Psi_{N}}{ \left( N^{-1} H_{N,K}^{\rm G} - E_N^{\rm F}(\Psi_N) \right) U_K \Psi_{N} } } + E_N^{\rm F}(\Psi_N) \beta^a_K(\Psi_N,\psi).
\end{align}
With the aid of the Cauchy--Schwarz inequality and \eqref{REPRESENTATION:H:F}, we find
\begin{align}
\abs{\eqref{LINE:Q:HG}} \le C (1+ \vert E_N^{\rm F}(\Psi_N) \vert ) \left( \beta_K^a(\Psi_N,\psi) + \beta^c(\Psi_N) \right) .
\end{align}
\textbf{Line \eqref{LINE:Q:DELTA:P}.} One readily obtains
\begin{align}
\eqref{LINE:Q:DELTA:P} & \leq N^{-1} \norm{\left( - \Delta_1 \right) p_1^\psi U_K \Psi_{N} } \norm{q_1^\psi U_K \Psi_{N}} \leq \frac 12 \norm{\psi}_{H^2} \left( \beta^a_K(\Psi_N,\psi) + N^{-2} \right) .
\end{align}
\textbf{Line \eqref{LINE:Q:PHI:P}.} Using \eqref{eq: bound for Phi K}, we find
\begin{align}
\eqref{LINE:Q:PHI:P} & \leq N^{-3/2} \norm{q_1^\psi U_K \Psi_{N}} \norm{ \Phi \left( G_{K,x_1} \right) p_1^\psi U_K \Psi_{N}}
\nonumber \\[1mm]
& \leq C N^{-3/2} K^{1/2} \sqrt{\beta^a_K(\Psi_N,\psi)\, \scp{U_K \Psi_{N}}{( \mathcal{N} +1) U_K \Psi_{N}}}
\end{align}
and hence, using \eqref{eq: bound H^G vs H^0}, \eqref{REPRESENTATION:H:F} and $\mathcal N \le H_N^0$, we have
\begin{align}
\eqref{LINE:Q:PHI:P} & \leq C (1 + \vert E_N^{\rm F}(\Psi_N) \vert ) \left( KN^{-2} + \beta^a_K(\Psi_N,\psi) \right) .
\end{align}
\textbf{Line \eqref{LINE:Q:V:P}.} We recall the definition of $A_{K,x}$ in \eqref{eq: Definition of V-K-N} and estimate the term with $a^*(kB_{K,x}) \cdot \nabla_x$ by
\allowdisplaybreaks
\begin{align}
& \abs{ \SCP{U_K \Psi_{N}}{q_1^\psi N^{-1/2} a^*(kB_{K,x_1}) \cdot \nabla_1 p_1^\psi U_K \Psi_{N}} }
\nonumber \\[2mm]
&\quad \le \int d^3k \ \abs{ \SCP{q_1^\psi \Big( N^{-1/2} a_k - \varphi(k) + \varphi(k) \Big) U_K \Psi_{N}}{ k B_{K,x_1}(k) \cdot \nabla_1 p_1^\psi U_K \Psi_{N}} } \nonumber \\[1mm]
&\quad \le \norm{\nabla_1 p_1^\psi U_K \Psi_{N}} \int d^3k \left( \abs{ k B_{K,x} (k)} \norm {\Big( N^{-1/2} a_k - \varphi(k) \Big) U_K \Psi_{N}} + \abs{k B_{K,x} (k) \varphi(k)} \right) \nonumber\\[1mm]
&\quad \le \norm{\psi}_{H^1 } \left( \norm{ \abs{\cdot} B_{K,x} } \, \sqrt{\beta_K^b(\Psi_N,\varphi) } + \norm{ B_{K,x} } \, \norm{\abs{\cdot}\varphi } \right) \nonumber\\
&\quad \le C \norm{\psi}_{H^1 } \left( K^{-1/2} \sqrt{ \beta^b_K(\Psi_N,\varphi)} + K^{-3/2} \norm{\varphi}_{L_1^2} \right).
\label{eq: nabla a term in AK}
\end{align}
Using $q_1^\psi = 1-p_1^\psi$ and $-\Delta_1\le N^{-1} H_N^0$ as quadratic forms on $L^2_s(\mathbb R^{3N}) \otimes \mathcal{F}_s $, together with \eqref{eq: bound H^G vs H^0}, we find
\begin{align}\label{eq: bound for nabla_1 q_1}
\norm{\nabla_1 q_1^\psi U_K \Psi_{N}}^2 \le 2 \left( \norm{\nabla_1 p_1^\psi U_K \Psi_{N}}^2 + \norm{\nabla_1 U_K \Psi_{N}}^2\right ) \le C \left( \norm{\psi}_{H^1 }^2 + \vert E_N^{\rm F} (\Psi_N) \vert + 1\right).
\end{align}
With this at hand, we can proceed for the term with $\nabla_x \cdot a(kB_{K,x})$ similarly as in \eqref{eq: nabla a term in AK}, with the result that
\begin{align}
& \abs{ \SCP{U_K \Psi_{N} }{q_1^\psi
\nabla_1 \cdot N^{-1/2} a(kB_{K,x_1}) p_1^\psi U_K \Psi_{N} } }
\nonumber \\[1mm]
& \le \norm{\nabla_1 q_1^\psi U_K \Psi_N} \int d^3k \left( \abs{kB_{K,x}(k)} \norm{ \Big( N^{-1/2}a_k - {\varphi(k)} \Big) U_K \Psi_{N} } + \abs{k B_{K,x}(k) \varphi(k) } \right)
\nonumber \\[1mm]
& \le C \sqrt{\norm{\psi}_{H^1 }^2 + \vert E_N^{\rm F} (\Psi_N) \vert } \left( K^{-1/2} \sqrt{ \beta^b_K(\Psi_N,\varphi)} + K^{-3/2} \norm{\varphi}_{L_1^2} \right).
\end{align}
Next, we estimate the term in line \eqref{LINE:Q:V:P} with $\Phi(kB_{K,x})^2$,
\begin{align}
\abs{ \SCP{U_K \Psi_{N} }{q_1^\psi N^{-1} \Phi( kB_{K,x_1} )^2 p_1^\psi U_K \Psi_{N} } } & \le N^{-1} \norm{ \Phi( kB_{K,x_1} ) q_1^\psi U_K\Psi_{N}} \, \norm{ \Phi( kB_{K,x_1} ) p_1^\psi U_K \Psi_{N}}
\nonumber \\[2mm]
& \le C N^{-1} \norm{\abs{\cdot} B_{K ,x}}^2 \scp{ U_K \Psi_{N}}{(\mathcal N+1) U_K \Psi_N } \nonumber \\[2.5mm]
& \le C K^{-1} N^{-1} \Big( \scp{U_K \Psi_{N}}{ ( H_{N,K }^{\rm G} +C N ) U_K \Psi_{N} } + 1 \Big)
\nonumber \\[2mm]
& \le C \left( \vert E_N^{\rm F}(\Psi_N) \vert + 1 \right) K^{-1} .
\end{align}
By summing up the terms, we obtain the bound
\begin{align}
& \abs{\scp{U_K \Psi_N}{ q_1^\psi A_{K,x_1} p_1^\psi U_K \Psi_N} }
\nonumber \\[1mm]
&\hspace{1cm} \le C \big(\norm{\psi}_{H^1}^2 + \norm{\varphi}_{L_1^2}^2 + \vert E_N^{\rm F}(\Psi_N) \vert \big) \left( K^{-1} + \beta_K^b(\Psi_N,\varphi) \right) .\label{eq: bound for pAq}
\end{align}
\textbf{Line \eqref{LINE:Q:C:P}.} Using \eqref{eq: bound for V_K},
\begin{align}
\abs{ \scp{U_K\Psi_{N}}{ q_1^\psi V_K(x_1-x_2) p_1^\psi U_K \Psi_{N}} } & \le \sqrt{ \beta^a_K(\Psi_N, \psi) } \norm{V_K(x_1-x_2) p_1^\psi U_K \Psi_{N}} \nonumber \\[2mm]
& \le C\big( \beta^a_K(\Psi_N,\psi) + N^{-2} K^{-2}\big) .\label{eq: bound for V(x1-x2)}
\end{align}
This completes the proof of the lemma.
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of Lemma \ref{lemma: Gronwall bound for beta} (time derivative of $\beta_K(t)$)}
\label{section: Estimates on the time derivative}
We first observe that
\begin{align}
\label{eq: time evolution Gross transformed state}
\frac{d}{dt} U_{K} \Psi_{N,t}
&= - i U_{K} H^{\rm F}_N \Psi_{N,t}
= - i U_{K} H^{\rm F}_N U_{K}^* U_{K} \Psi_{N,t}
= - i H_{N,K}^{\rm G} U_{K} \Psi_{N,t},
\end{align}
from which it follows readily that $\frac{d}{dt}\beta^c(t) = 0$. The time-derivatives of $\beta^a_K(t)$ and $\beta^b_K(t)$ are estimated in the next two sections. Throughout both sections, we use the abbreviation $E_N^{\rm F}(\Psi_{N}) =N^{-1} \scp{\Psi_N}{H_N^{\rm F}\Psi_N} $.
\allowdisplaybreaks
\subsection{Time derivative of $\beta^a_K(t)$}
For $q_1^t= q_1^{\psi_t} = 1 - p_1^{\psi_t}$, we have
\begin{align}
\frac{d}{dt} q_1^{t} = - \frac{d}{dt}p_1^{t} = i \big[-\Delta_1 + \Phi(x_1,t) , p_1^{t}\big] = - i \big[-\Delta_1 + \Phi(x_1 ,t) , q_1^{t}\big] .
\end{align}
Using this together with \eqref{eq: time evolution Gross transformed state}, we compute
\begin{align}
\frac{d}{dt}\beta^a_K (t) & = \frac{d}{dt} \SCP{U_K \Psi_{N,t}}{q_1^t U_K\Psi_{N,t}}\nonumber \\[1.5mm]
& = - 2\Im \scp{U_K \Psi_{N,t}}{ \left( H_{N,K}^{\rm G} + \Delta_1 - \Phi(x_1,t) \right) q_1^t U_K \Psi_{N,t}}\nonumber \\[1.5mm]
& = - 2\Im \scp{U_K \Psi_{N,t}}{ p_1^t\left( H_{N,K}^{\rm G} + \Delta_1 - \Phi(x_1,t) \right) q_1^t U_K \Psi_{N,t}} , \label{VI.3}
\end{align}
where we inserted $1= p_1^t+q_1^t$ and used that the term with $q_1^t$ on both sides is real. Recall Definition \ref{definition: Gross transformed Froehlich Hamiltonian}. Using $\Phi(x_1,t) = \Phi_{K}(x_1,t) + \Phi_{\ge K}(x_1,t)$, $p_1^tq_1^t = 0$ and the symmetry of $\Psi_N$, we can rewrite \eqref{VI.3} as
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\frac{d}{dt}\beta^a_K (t) & = - 2\Im \scp{U_K \Psi_{N,t}}{ p_1^t\left( N^{-1/2} \Phi(G_{K,x_1} ) - \Phi_{K}(x_1,t) \right) q_1^t U_K \Psi_{N,t}} \label{EST:TD:BETA:A:a}\\[2mm]
& \quad + 2\Im \scp{U_K \Psi_{N,t}}{ p_1^t \Phi_{\ge K}(x_1,t) q_1^t U_K \Psi_{N,t}} \label{EST:TD:BETA:A:b} \\[3.5mm]
& \quad - 2\Im \scp{U_K \Psi_{N,t}}{ p_1^t A_{K,x_1} q_1^tU_K \Psi_{N,t}}\label{EST:TD:BETA:A:c}\\[3.5mm]
& \quad - 2\Im \scp{U_K \Psi_{N,t}}{ p_1^t (N-1) V_K(x_1-x_2) q_1^t U_K \Psi_{N,t}} .\label{EST:TD:BETA:A:d}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The various terms will be bounded as follows. \\ \\
\noindent \textbf{Line \eqref{EST:TD:BETA:A:a}.}
We bound
\begin{align}
\abs{\eqref{EST:TD:BETA:A:a} } & \leq 2 \abs{ \scp{\int_{\vert k \vert \le K } d^3k \, \vert k \vert^{-1} e^{- ikx_1} \left( N^{-1/2} a^*_k - \overline{\varphi_t(k)} \right) p_1^t U_K \Psi_{N,t}}{ q_1^t U_K \Psi_{N,t}} }
\nonumber \\
& + 2 \abs{ \scp{ \int_{\vert k \vert \le K } d^3k \, \abs{k}^{-1} e^{ikx_1} \left( N^{-1/2} a_k - \varphi_t(k) \right) p_1^t U_K\Psi_{N,t}}{ q_1^t U_K \Psi_{N,t}} }
\nonumber \\
& \le 2 \beta^a_K (\Psi_{N,t},\psi_t)
+ \norm{\int_{\vert k \vert \le K } d^3k
\, \abs{k}^{-1} e^{-ikx_1} \left( N^{-1/2} a_k^* - \overline{\varphi_t(k)} \right) p_1^t U_K \Psi_{N,t}}^2
\nonumber \\
&\quad + \norm{ \int_{\vert k \vert \le K } d^3k \, \abs{k}^{-1} e^{i kx_1} \left( N^{-1/2} a_k - \varphi_t(k) \right) p_1^t U_K \Psi_{N,t} }^2.\label{EST:TD:BETA:A:a:SECOND:LINE}
\end{align}
For the second summand, we use
\begin{align}
& \norm{\int_{\vert k \vert \le K } d^3k \, \abs{k}^{-1} e^{-ikx_1} \left( N^{-1/2} a_k^* - \overline{\varphi_t(k)} \right) p_1^t U_K \Psi_{N,t}}^2 \nonumber \\
& \hspace{2.5cm} \le \frac{C K}{N} + \norm{ \int_{\vert k \vert \le K } d^3 k \, \vert k \vert^{-1} e^{ikx_1} \left( N^{-1/2} a_k - \varphi_t(k) \right) p_1^t U_K \Psi_{N,t} }^2 ,
\end{align}
which follows directly from the canonical commutation relations. By the shift property \eqref{eq: Weyl operators shift property}, the last summand in \eqref{EST:TD:BETA:A:a:SECOND:LINE} can be written as
\begin{align}
N^{-1} \norm{ a \left( G_{K,x_1} \right) p_1^t W^*(\sqrt{N} \varphi_t) U_K \Psi_{N,t} }^2 .
\end{align}
In order to estimate this expression, we use \cite[Lemma 10]{frankschlein} which implies the bound
\begin{align}
a^*\left( G_{K,x_1} \right) a \left( G_{K,x_1} \right)
&\leq C_{G} \, \left( 1 - \Delta_1 \right) \mathcal{N} ,\label{eq: bound for a*a analogous to Fran and Schlein}
\end{align}
with
\begin{align}\label{eq: integral rearrangement}
C_G = \sup_{p\in \mathbb R^3} \int_{\mathbb R^3} \frac{d^3k}{k^2(1+(p+k)^2)}=\int_{\mathbb R^3} \frac{d^3k}{k^2(1+k)^2} <\infty.
\end{align}
The latter is obtained via a rearrangement inequality. In combination, we thus have
\begin{align}
\abs{
\eqref{EST:TD:BETA:A:a} }
&\leq C \left( \beta^a_K (t) + K N^{-1} \right) + C_G \, N^{-1} \norm{\left( 1 - \Delta_1 \right)^{1/2} p_1^t \mathcal{N}^{1/2} W^* ( \sqrt{N} \varphi_t ) U_K \Psi_{N,t}}^2
\nonumber \\[1mm]
&\leq C \left( \beta^a_K(t ) + K N^{-1} \right) + C_G \, \norm{\psi_t}^2_{H^1} N^{-1} \norm{ \mathcal{N}^{1/2} W^* ( \sqrt{N} \varphi_t ) U_K \Psi_{N,t}}^2
\nonumber \\[1mm]
&\leq C \norm{\psi_t}^2_{H^1} \left( \beta^a_K(t ) + \beta^b_K(t ) + K N^{-1} \right).
\end{align}
\noindent \textbf{Line \eqref{EST:TD:BETA:A:b}.} This term can be estimated as
\begin{align}
\abs{\eqref{EST:TD:BETA:A:b}} &\leq C
\sup_x \abs{\Phi_{\ge K}(x,t)} \norm{q_1^t U_K \Psi_{N,t}}
\nonumber \\[1.8mm]
&\leq C \sqrt{\beta^a_K (t)} \int_{\abs{k} \geq K} d^3k \abs{k}^{-1} \abs{\varphi_t}
\nonumber \\[-0.8mm]
&\leq C \sqrt{\beta^a_K (t)} \norm{\varphi_t}_{L_1^2}
\left(\int_{\abs{k} \geq K} d^3k \abs{k}^{-4} \right)^{1/2} \leq C \norm{\varphi_t}_{L_1^2} \sqrt{\beta^a_K (t)}
K^{-1/2}.
\end{align}
\noindent \textbf{Line \eqref{EST:TD:BETA:A:c}.} It follows from \eqref{eq: bound for pAq} that
\begin{align}
\abs{\eqref{EST:TD:BETA:A:c} } \le C \Big( \norm{\psi_t}_{H^1}^2 + \norm{\varphi_t}_{L_1^2}^2 + \vert E_N^{\rm F}(\Psi_{N,t}) \vert \Big) \left( K^{-1} + \beta_K^b(t) \right).
\end{align}
\textbf{Line \eqref{EST:TD:BETA:A:d}.} In analogy to \eqref{eq: bound for V(x1-x2)} one finds
\begin{align}
\abs{\eqref{EST:TD:BETA:A:d}} \le C \big( \beta^a_K(t ) + K^{-2}\big) .
\end{align}
In combination, we have thus shown that
\begin{align}\label{eq: summary time derivative beta a}
\abs{\frac{d}{dt}\beta^a_K (t)} \le C \left( \norm{\psi_t}_{H^1}^2 + \norm{\varphi_t}_{L_1^2}^2 + \vert E^{\rm F}_N(\Psi_{N,t}) \vert \right) \left( \beta_K^a(t) + \beta^b_K(t) + \frac{K}{N} + K^{-1} \right).
\end{align}
\subsection{Time derivative of $\beta^b_K(t)$}
\label{subsection time derivative of beta-b}
From \eqref{eq: time evolution Gross transformed state} we get
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\label{eq: time derivative of beta-b product rule a}
& \hspace{-0.25cm} \frac{d}{dt} \beta_K^b(\Psi_{N,t},\varphi_t) = \nonumber \\
& = \int d^3k \, \frac{d}{dt} \scp{\left( N^{-1/2} a_k - \varphi_t(k)\right) U_K \Psi_{N,t}}{\left( N^{-1/2} a_k - \varphi_t(k) \right) U_K \Psi_{N,t}}
\nonumber \\
&= - 2 \Re \int d^3k \, \scp{ \left( N^{-1/2} a_k^* - \overline{\varphi_t(k)} \right) \left( N^{-1/2} a_k - \varphi_t(k) \right) U_K \Psi_{N,t}}{ i H_{N,K}^{\rm G} U_K \Psi_{N,t}}
\\
\label{eq: time derivative of beta-b product rule b}
&\quad
- 2 \Re \int d^3k \, \scp{\left( \partial_t \varphi_t(k) \right) U_K \Psi_{N,t}}{\left( N^{-1/2} a_k - \varphi_t(k) \right) U_K \Psi_{N,t}} ,
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
which is a slightly formal computation, since the use of the product rule of differentiation is not completely obvious here. We clarify the difficulty and justify the above identity in detail in Appendix \ref{section: rigorous derivation of the time derivative}. Next, we write the first line in terms of the commutator as
\begin{align}
\label{eq: use of commutator}
\eqref{eq: time derivative of beta-b product rule a}
& = - i \int d^3k \, \scp{ \big[ H_{N,K}^{\rm G} , \big( N^{-1/2} a_k^* - \overline{\varphi_t(k)} \big) \big( N^{-1/2} a_k - \varphi_t(k) \big) \big] U_K \Psi_{N,t}}{ U_K \Psi_{N,t}} .
\end{align}
Let us remark that the right hand side is well defined since the commutator of $H_{N,K}^{\rm G}$ and
\begin{align}
L_N = N^{-1} W \big( \sqrt{N} \varphi_t \big) \mathcal{N} W^* \big( \sqrt{N} \varphi_t \big)
= \int d^3k \, \big( N^{-1/2} a_k^* - \overline{\varphi_t(k)} \big) \big( N^{-1/2} a_k - \varphi_t(k) \big)
\end{align}
defines a bounded operator from $\mathcal{D} \big( H_{N,K}^{ \rm G} \big) = \mathcal{D} \big( H_N^{0} \big)$ to $\mathcal{H}^{(N)}$. This fact is a direct consequence of the B.L.T. theorem because $\big[ H_{N,K}^{\rm G}, L_N \big]$ is a bounded operator from $\mathcal{D} \big( (H_N^0 )^2 \big)$ to $\mathcal{H}^{(N)}$ and the estimate
\begin{align}
\norm{\big[ H_{N,K}^{\rm G}, L_N \big] \Psi_N} \leq C_{N,K} \norm{\big(1 + H_{N}^0 \big) \Psi_N}
\end{align}
holds for all $\Psi_N \in \mathcal{D} \big( (H_N^0)^2 \big)$ and some constant $C_{N,K}$. The latter is straightforward to verify with the aid of
\begin{align}
\label{eq: commutator H a}
\left[ H_{N,K}^{\rm G} , a_k \right]
&= 2 N^{-1/2} \sum_{j=1}^N B_{K,x_j}(k)
k \cdot \left( i \nabla_j - N^{-1/2} \Phi \big( k B_{K,x_j} \big) \right)
\nonumber \\
&\quad - a_k
- N^{-1/2} \sum_{j=1}^N \abs{k}^{-1} \mathds{1}_{\abs{k} \leq K}(k) e^{-ikx_j}
\end{align}
and the basic estimates from Section \ref{sec: Notation and basic estimates}.
Hence, we can proceed by using \eqref{eq: use of commutator} and \eqref{eq: commutator H a} together with the Landau--Pekar equations \eqref{eq: Landau Pekar equations} and the symmetry of the many-body wave function in order to obtain
\small
\begin{align}
\label{eq: derivative of beta-b link}
&\frac{d}{dt} \beta^b_K (\Psi_{N,t}, \varphi_t)
\nonumber \\
&\quad= - 2 \int_{\abs{k} \leq K} d^3k \, \abs{k}^{-1} \Im \scp{e^{-ikx_1} U_K \Psi_{N,t}}{\left( N^{-1/2} a_k - \varphi_t(k) \right) U_K \Psi_{N,t}}
\nonumber \\
&\qquad + 2 \int d^3k \, \abs{k}^{-1} \Im \scp{ \int d^3y \, e^{-iky} \abs{\psi_t(y)}^2 U_K \Psi_{N,t}}{\left( N^{-1/2} a_k - \varphi_t(k) \right) U_K \Psi_{N,t}}
\nonumber \\
&\qquad + 4 \int d^3k \, \Im \scp{ B_{K,x_1}(k) k \cdot
\left( i \nabla_1 - N^{-1/2} \Phi(k B_{K,x_1}) \right) U_K \Psi_{N,t}}{\left( N^{-1/2} a_k - \varphi_t(k) \right) U_K \Psi_{N,t}} .
\end{align}
\normalsize Finally, inserting the identity $e^{ikx_1} = p_1^t e^{ikx_1} p_1^t + q_1^t e^{ikx_1} p_1^t + e^{ikx_1} q_1^t$ leads to
\footnotesize
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
& \frac{d}{dt} \beta^b_K(\Psi_{N,t}, \varphi_t) =
\nonumber \\
\label{eq: time derivative beta-b 1}
&\quad \hspace{-0.4cm} = - 2 \int_{\abs{k} \leq K} d^3k \, \abs{k}^{-1} \Im \scp{ U_K \Psi_{N,t}}{ \Big( p_1^t e^{ikx_1} p_1^t - \int d^3y \, e^{iky} \abs{\psi_t(y)}^2 \Big) \left( N^{-1/2} a_k - \varphi_t(k) \right) U_K \Psi_{N,t}}
\\
\label{eq: time derivative beta-b 2}
&\qquad \hspace{-0.4cm} +
2 \int_{\abs{k} \geq K} d^3k \, \abs{k}^{-1}
\Im \scp{U_K \Psi_{N,t}}{\int d^3y \, e^{iky} \abs{\psi_t(y)}^2 \left( N^{-1/2} a_k - \varphi_t(k) \right) U_K \Psi_{N,t}}
\\
\label{eq: time derivative beta-b 3}
&\qquad \hspace{-0.4cm} - 2 \int_{\abs{k} \leq K} d^3k \, \abs{k}^{-1}
\Im \scp{U_K \Psi_{N,t}}{q_1^t e^{ikx_1} p_1^t \left( N^{-1/2} a_k - \varphi_t(k) \right) U_K \Psi_{N,t}}
\\
\label{eq: time derivative beta-b 4}
&\qquad\hspace{-0.4cm} - 2 \int_{\abs{k} \leq K}
d^3k \, \abs{k}^{-1} \Im \scp{U_K \Psi_{N,t}}{e^{ikx_1} q_1^t \left( N^{-1/2} a_k - \varphi_t(k) \right) U_K \Psi_{N,t}}
\\
\label{eq: time derivative beta-b 5}
&\qquad \hspace{-0.4cm} +
4 \int d^3k \, \Im
\scp{B_{K,x_1}(k) k \cdot \left( i \nabla_1 - N^{-1/2} \Phi \big( k B_{K,x_1} \big) \right) U_K \Psi_{N,t}}{\left( N^{-1/2} a_k - \varphi_t(k) \right) U_K \Psi_{N,t}}.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\normalsize
In the following, we estimate each term on the r.h.s. separately.\\
\\
\noindent \textbf{Line \eqref{eq: time derivative beta-b 1}.} The first term is the most important because it is the one where the particle density cancels the source term of the Landau--Pekar equations.
We first note that
\begin{align}
p_1^t e^{ikx_1} p_1^t - \int d^3y \, e^{iky} \abs{\psi_t(y)}^2
= \left( p_1^t - 1 \right) \int d^3y \, e^{iky} \abs{\psi_t(y)}^2
= - q_1^t \scp{\psi_t}{ e^{ ik \cdot} \psi_t}.
\end{align}
We then use
$
e^{ikx} = \frac{1 - i (k \cdot \nabla_x)}{1 + k^2} e^{ikx}
$
and integrate by parts to obtain the bound
\begin{align}
\label{eq: Lieb Yamazaki for expectation value of e-ikx}
\abs{\scp{\psi_t}{e^{ik \cdot} \psi_t}}
& \leq \abs{\scp{\frac{1 - i ( k \cdot \nabla) }{1 + k^2} \psi_t}{e^{ik \, \cdot \,} \psi_t} }
+ \abs{\scp{\psi_t}{e^{ik \, \cdot \,} \frac{ i ( k \cdot \nabla)}{1 + k^2} \psi_t} }
\nonumber \\[1mm]
& \leq 2 (1 + k^2)^{-1} \left( 1 + \abs{k} \norm{\nabla \psi_t} \right)
\leq 2 \norm{\psi_t}_{H^1} (1 + k^2)^{-1} \left( 1 + \abs{k} \right) .
\end{align}
Hence,
\begin{align}
\abs{ \eqref{eq: time derivative beta-b 1} }
&\leq 4 \norm{\psi_t}_{H^1} \int d^3k \, \frac{(1+ \abs{k})}{\abs{k} ( 1 + k^2)}
\abs{\scp{q_1^t U_K \Psi_{N,t}}{\left( N^{-1/2} a_k - \varphi_t(k) \right) U_K \Psi_{N,t}}}
\nonumber \\
&\leq 4 \norm{\psi_t}_{H^1} \sqrt{\beta^a_K(t)} \Big( \int d^3k \, \frac{(1+ \abs{k})^2}{\abs{k}^2 (1+ k^2)^2} \Big)^{1/2}
\Big( \int d^3k \, \norm{\left( N^{-1/2} a_k - \varphi_t(k) \right) U_K \Psi_{N,t}}^2 \Big)^{1/2}
\nonumber \\[1mm]
&\leq C \norm{\psi_t}_{H^1} \beta_K(t) .
\end{align}
\noindent \textbf{Line \eqref{eq: time derivative beta-b 2}.} We again use \eqref{eq: Lieb Yamazaki for expectation value of e-ikx}
and estimate
\begin{align}
\eqref{eq: time derivative beta-b 2}
&\leq 2 \int_{\abs{k} \geq K} d^3k \, \abs{k}^{-1}
\abs{\scp{\psi_t}{e^{ik \cdot} \psi_t}} \abs{\scp{U_K \Psi_{N,t}}{\left( N^{-1/2} a_k - \varphi_t(k) \right) U_K \Psi_{N,t}}}
\nonumber \\
&\leq C \norm{\psi_t}_{H^1} \int_{\abs{k} \geq K} d^3k \, \frac{(1+ \abs{k})}{\abs{k} ( 1 + k^2)}
\norm{\left( N^{-1/2} a_k - \varphi_t(k) \right) U_K \Psi_{N,t}}
\nonumber \\
&\leq C \norm{\psi_t}_{H^1} \left( \beta_K^b(t) +
\int_{\abs{k} \geq K} d^3k \, \frac{(1+ \abs{k})^2}{\abs{k}^2 ( 1 + k^2)^2} \right)
\nonumber \\
&\leq C \norm{\psi_t}_{H^1} \left( \beta_K^b(t) + K^{-1} \right) .
\end{align}
\noindent \textbf{Line \eqref{eq: time derivative beta-b 3}.} Writing \eqref{eq: time derivative beta-b 3} as
\begin{align}
2 \int_{\abs{k} \leq K} d^3k \, \abs{k}^{-1} \Im \scp{e^{ikx_1} \left( N^{-1/2} a_k - \varphi_t(k) \right) p_1^t U_K \Psi_{N,t}}{q_1^t U_K \Psi_{N,t}}
\end{align}
shows that this is exactly the same expression as the second line in \eqref{EST:TD:BETA:A:a:SECOND:LINE}.
We consequently have
\begin{align}
\abs{\eqref{eq: time derivative beta-b 3}}
&\leq C \norm{\psi_t}_{H^1}^2 \left( \beta^a_K (t) + \beta^b_K (t) \right).
\end{align}
\noindent \textbf{Line \eqref{eq: time derivative beta-b 4}.} To find a suitable bound for \eqref{eq: time derivative beta-b 4} is the most difficult step in the proof.
We start by estimating
\allowdisplaybreaks
\begin{align}
\abs{ \eqref{eq: time derivative beta-b 4} }
&\leq
2 \int_{\abs{k} \leq K}
d^3k \, \abs{k}^{-1} \Big| \scp{U_K \Psi_{N,t}}{e^{ikx_1} q_1^t \left( N^{-1/2} a_k - \varphi_t(k) \right) U_K \Psi_{N,t}} \Big|
\nonumber \\
& = 2 \int_{\abs{k} \leq K} d^3k \, \abs{k}^{-1}
\Big| \scp{U_K \Psi_{N,t}}{N^{-1} \sum_{j=1}^N e^{ikx_j} q_j^t \left( N^{-1/2} a_k - \varphi_t(k) \right) U_K \Psi_{N,t}} \Big|
\nonumber \\
&\leq 2 \int_{\abs{k} \leq K} d^3k \, \abs{k}^{-1}
\Big\| N^{-1} \sum_{j=1}^N q_j^t e^{-ikx_j} U_K \Psi_{N,t} \Big\|
\norm{\left( N^{-1/2} a_k - \varphi_t(k) \right) U_K \Psi_{N,t}}
\nonumber \\
&\leq \beta^b_K(t) + \int_{\abs{k} \leq K} d^3k \, \abs{k}^{-2}
\Big\| N^{-1} \sum_{j=1}^N q_j^t e^{-ikx_j} U_K \Psi_{N,t} \Big\|^2 .
\end{align}
The last term is bounded by
\begin{align}
&\int_{\abs{k} \leq K} d^3k \, \abs{k}^{-2}
\Big\| N^{-1} \sum_{j=1}^N q_j^t e^{-ikx_j} U_K \Psi_{N,t} \Big\|^2
\nonumber \\
&\quad \le 4 \pi N^{-1} K + \int_{\abs{k} \leq K} d^3k \, \abs{k}^{-2}
\abs{ \Re \, \scp{q_2^t e^{-ikx_2} U_K \Psi_{N,t}}{q_1^t e^{- ik x_1} U_K \Psi_{N,t}} } .
\end{align}
With
$O_{1,2} = \left( 1- \Delta_2 \right)^{-1/2} e^{ikx_2} \left( 1 - \Delta_1 \right)^{1/2} q_2^t $ one
has
\begin{align}
e^{ ikx_2} q_2^t q_1^t e^{- ikx_1}
+ e^{ ikx_1} q_1^t q_2^t e^{- ikx_2}
&= O_{2,1}^* O_{1,2}
+ O_{1,2}^* O_{2,1}
\leq O_{1,2}^* O_{1,2} + O_{2,1}^* O_{2,1}.
\end{align}
Thus, using the symmetry of the wave function and $e^{-ikx_2} ( 1 - \Delta_2 )^{-1} e^{ikx_2} = ( ( - i \nabla_2 + k )^2 + 1 )^{-1}$, we obtain the bound
\begin{align}
&\int_{\abs{k} \leq K} d^3k \, \abs{k}^{-2}
\abs{ \Re \, \scp{q_2^t e^{-ikx_2} U_K \Psi_{N,t}}{q_1 e^{- ik x_1} U_K \Psi_{N,t}} }
\nonumber \\
&\quad \leq
\int_{\abs{k} \leq K} d^3k \, \abs{k}^{-2}
\scp{U_K \Psi_{N,t}}{q_2^t \left( 1 - \Delta_1 \right)^{1/2} e^{- ikx_2} \left( 1 - \Delta_2 \right)^{-1} e^{ ikx_2} \left( 1 - \Delta_1 \right)^{1/2} q_2^t U_K \Psi_{N,t}}
\nonumber \\
&\quad =
\scp{ \left( 1 - \Delta_1 \right)^{1/2} q_2^t U_K \Psi_{N,t}}{ \int_{\abs{k} \leq K} d^3k \, \abs{k}^{-2} \left( \left( - i \nabla_2 + k \right)^2 + 1 \right)^{-1} \left( 1 - \Delta_1 \right)^{1/2} q_2^t U_K \Psi_{N,t}}.
\end{align}
In combination with
\begin{align}
\norm{\int_{\abs{k} \leq K} d^3k \, \abs{k}^{-2} \left( \left( - i \nabla_2 + k \right)^2 + 1 \right)^{-1}}_{\mathrm{op}}
&= \sup_{p\in \mathbb R^3} \int_{\abs{k} \leq K} d^3k \, \abs{k}^{-2} \left( \left( p + k \right)^2 + 1 \right)^{-1}
< \infty
\end{align}
(compare with \eqref{eq: integral rearrangement}) and Lemma \ref{lemma: variance of the energy bound} this gives
\begin{align}
\abs{ \eqref{eq: time derivative beta-b 4} }
& \leq C \left( \beta^b_K(t) + N^{-1} K +
\norm{(1 - \Delta_2)^{1/2} q_1^t U_K \Psi_{N,t}}^2
\right)
\nonumber \\
&\leq C \left( \beta^a_K (t) + \beta^b_K (t) + N^{-1} K + \norm{\nabla_2 q_1^t U_K \Psi_{N,t}}^2 \right)
\nonumber \\[2mm]
&\leq C \left( \norm{\psi_t}_{H^2}^2
+ \norm{\varphi_t}_{L_1^2}^2 + \vert E_N^{\rm{F}}(\Psi_{N,t}) \vert \right)
\left( \beta_K(t) + N^{-1} K^{-1} + N^{-1} K \right) .
\end{align}
\noindent \textbf{Line \eqref{eq: time derivative beta-b 5}.} We have
\begin{align}
\abs{\eqref{eq: time derivative beta-b 5}}
&\leq 4 \int d^3k \, \abs{k} \abs{B_{K,x}(k)}
\norm{\left( N^{-1/2} a_k - \varphi_t(k) \right) U_K \Psi_{N,t}}
\nonumber \\
&\qquad \times \norm{ \left( i \nabla_1 - N^{-1/2} \Phi \big( k B_{K,x_1} \big) \right) U_K \Psi_{N,t}}
\nonumber \\[1mm]
&\leq C \sqrt{\beta^b_K(t)} \norm{ \left( i \nabla_1 - N^{-1/2} \Phi \big( k B_{K,x_1} \big) \right) U_K \Psi_{N,t}}
\| \abs{\cdot} B_{K,x} \| .
\end{align}
By using \eqref{eq: bounds for G}, the symmetry of the wave function and \eqref{eq: bound H^G vs H^0}, we get
\begin{align}
\abs{\eqref{eq: time derivative beta-b 5}}
&\leq C \left( \norm{\nabla_1 U_K \Psi_{N,t}} + \norm{\abs{\cdot} B_{K,x_1}} \norm{N^{-1/2} \left( \mathcal{N} +1 \right) U_K \Psi_{N,t}} \right) \left( \beta^b_K(t) + K^{-1} \right)
\nonumber \\[1mm]
&\leq C \left( \scp{U_K \Psi_{N,t}}{N^{-1} H_N^0 U_K \Psi_{N,t}}^{1/2} + 1 \right)
\left( \beta^b_K(t) + K^{-1} \right)
\nonumber \\[1mm]
&\leq C \left( \scp{U_K \Psi_{N,t}}{ ( N^{-1} H_{N,K}^{\rm G} +C) U_K \Psi_{N,t}}^{1/2} + 1 \right) \left( \beta^b_K(t) + K^{-1} \right).
\end{align}
In total, we thus arrive at
\begin{align}\label{eq: summary time derivative beta b}
\abs{\frac{d}{dt} \beta^b_K(\Psi_{N,t}, \varphi_t)}
&\leq C \left( \norm{\psi_t}_{H^2}^2
+ \norm{\varphi_t}_{L_1^2}^2 + \vert E_N^{\rm{F}}(\Psi_{N,t}) \vert \right)
\left( \beta_K(t) + K^{-1} + \frac{K}{N} \right).
\end{align}
\noindent \textbf{Conclusion:}\ We combine $\frac{d}{dt}\beta^c(t) = 0$, \eqref{eq: summary time derivative beta a} and \eqref{eq: summary time derivative beta b} with Proposition \eqref{prop: solution theory for LPeq} and $\vert E_N^{\rm F}(\Psi_{N,t}) \vert = \vert E_N^{\rm F}(\Psi_N) \vert \le E_0$ in order to obtain \eqref{BOUND:BETA:TIME:DERIVATIVE}.\hfill$\square$
\section{Remaining proofs\label{sec: remaining proofs}}
\subsection{Proof of Lemma \ref{LEMMA:CLOSENESS:GAMMA}}
\label{SEC:PROOF:LEMMA:CLOSENESS:GAMMA}
To show the inequality \eqref{BOUND:CLOSENESS:GAMMA:1:0}, we use $\gamma^{(1,0)}_{U_K\Psi_N} = \gamma^{(1,0)}_{U_{K,x_1}\Psi_N}$ with $U_{K,x_1} = \exp(i N^{-1/2} \Pi(B_{K ,x_1}))$, which follows directly from \eqref{eq: product structure Gross transform} and the definition of the reduced density matrix.
Hence,
\begin{align}
\text{Tr}_{L^2(\mathbb R^3)} \Big\vert \gamma^{(1,0)}_{\Psi_N} - \gamma^{(1,0)}_{U_K\Psi_N} \Big\vert \le 2 \norm{(U_{K,x_1}-1) \Psi_{N}}.
\end{align}
Using $\norm{(U_{K,x_1}-1) \Psi_{N}} = \norm{(U_{K,x_1}-1) U_K \Psi_{N}}$, we obtain \eqref{BOUND:CLOSENESS:GAMMA:1:0} from the bound
\begin{align}\label{BOUND:STRONG:CONV:GROSS:TRAFO}
\norm{ ( U_{K,x_1} -1) U_K \Psi_N } \le 2 \norm{B_{K,x}} \, \norm{\Big(\frac{\mathcal N+1}{N} \Big)^{1/2} U_K \Psi_N }
\end{align}
together with $\mathcal N \le H_N^0$, \eqref{eq: bound H^G vs H^0} and \eqref{REPRESENTATION:H:F}. Inequality \eqref{BOUND:STRONG:CONV:GROSS:TRAFO} follows from the spectral calculus for self-adjoint operators, using $1-U_{K,x}=f(N^{-1/2}\Pi(B_{K,x}))$ with $f(s) = 1-\exp(i s)$ in combination with $\vert f(s) \vert \le \vert s \vert $.
Using the properties of the Weyl operator (in particular \eqref{eq: Weyl operators product} together with \eqref{eq: product structure Gross transform}) and
\begin{align}
U_K\mathcal{N} U^*_K
&= \mathcal{N} + N^{-1} \sum_{i,j=1}^N \scp{B_{K,x_i}}{B_{K,x_j}}
+ N^{-1/2} \sum_{j=1}^N \left( a ( B_{K, x_j} ) + a^* ( B_{K, x_j} ) \right),
\end{align}
we have
\begin{align} \nonumber
&N^{-1} \abs{ \scp{ W^*(\sqrt N \varphi) \Psi_{N} }{ \big( \mathcal N - U_K^* \mathcal N U_K \big) W^* (\sqrt N \varphi) \Psi_N } } \\[1.5mm]
&\quad =
N^{-1} \Big| \scp{ W^*(\sqrt N \varphi) U_K \Psi_{N} }{\big( U_K \mathcal N U^*_K -\mathcal N \big) W^*(\sqrt N \varphi) U_K \Psi_N } \nonumber \\
&\quad\leq \norm{B_{K,x}}^2
+ 2 N^{-3/2} \sum_{j=1}^N \norm{a\left( B_{K,x_j} \right) W^*(\sqrt{N} \varphi) U_K \Psi_N}
\nonumber \\
&\quad \leq
\norm{B_{K,x}}^2
+ 2 \norm{B_{K,x}} \norm{\varphi}
+ 2 N^{-1/2} \norm{B_{K,x}} \norm{\mathcal{N}^{1/2} U_K \Psi_N} .
\label{eq: bound for the difference of the coherent states calculation}
\end{align}
An application of \eqref{eq: bounds for G} and \eqref{eq: bound H^G vs H^0} then leads to
\begin{align}
\eqref{eq: bound for the difference of the coherent states calculation}
&\leq C (1+\norm{\varphi}) \norm{B_{K,x}}
\big( 1 + \scp{U_K \Psi_N}{N^{-1} H_N^0 U_K \Psi_N}^{1/2} \big)
\nonumber \\[2mm]
&\leq C K^{-3/2} ( 1+\norm{\varphi}) \scp{U_K \Psi_N}{ ( N^{-1} H_{N,K}^{\rm G} + C ) U_K \Psi_N }^{1/2}.
\end{align}
In combination with \eqref{REPRESENTATION:H:F}, this shows \eqref{BOUND:CLOSENESS:GAMMA:0:1}.
\hfill$\square$
\subsection{Proof of Proposition \ref{proposition: initial bounds for gross transformed product} \label{sec: initial states}}
Throughout this section, we set $\xi_N = \psi^{\otimes N}\otimes W(\sqrt N \varphi) \Omega$.
The bound on the energy follows from
\begin{align}
\scp{\Psi_{N}}{H_N^{\rm F} \Psi_N} = \scp{\xi_{N}}{H_{N,K}^{\rm G} \xi_{N} }
= \scp{\xi_{N}}{ \Big( H_{N,K}^{\rm F} + \sum_{j=1}^N A_{K,x_j} + \sum_{j,l=1}^N V_{K}(x_j-x_l) \Big) \xi_{N}}
\end{align}
in combination with \eqref{eq: bound for V_K}, \eqref{eq: bound for A_K} and
\begin{align}\label{eq: bound for exp val wrt xi}
\abs{ \scp{\xi_{N}}{ H_{N,K}^{\rm F} \xi_{N}} }
& = N \abs{ \scp{\psi}{\left( - \Delta + \Phi_{K}(\cdot,0) \right) \psi} + \norm{\varphi}^2 } \leq C N \left( \norm{\psi}_{H^1}^2 + \norm{\varphi}^2 \right).
\end{align}
In \eqref{eq: bound for exp val wrt xi}, we used the shift property of the Weyl operators \eqref{eq: Weyl operators shift property}.
For the bound on $a(\Psi_{N},\psi)$, we note that
\begin{align}
\text{Tr}_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^3)} \abs{\gamma^{(1,0)}_{\Psi_{N}} - \ket{\psi} \bra{\psi}} = \text{Tr}_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^3)} \abs{\gamma^{(1,0)}_{\Psi_{N}} - \gamma^{(1,0)}_{ U_K \Psi_{N}} }
\end{align}
since $\ket{\psi} \bra{\psi} = \gamma^{(1,0)}_{\xi_{N}}$ and $\xi_{N} = U_K\Psi_{N}$. Applying Lemma \eqref{LEMMA:CLOSENESS:GAMMA}, we obtain the stated estimate.
The bound on $b(\Psi_{N},\varphi)$ follows readily from
\eqref{eq: Gross transform shift property},
\begin{align}
b(\Psi_{N},\varphi ) &= N^{-1} \int d^3k \, \norm{a_k \, U^{*}_K ( \psi^{\otimes N} \otimes \Omega ) }^2
\leq \norm{B_{K,x}}^2 \leq C K^{-3} .
\end{align}
We are thus left with the bound for $c(\Psi_{N})$, which we write with the aid of \eqref{REPRESENTATION:H:F} as
\begin{align}
c(\Psi_{N}) = \norm{ N^{-1} \left( H_{N,K}^{\rm G} - \scp{\xi_{N}}{ H_{N,K}^{\rm G} \xi_{N}} \right) \xi_{N}}^2.
\end{align}
Recalling Definition \ref{definition: Gross transformed Froehlich Hamiltonian} and using the triangle inequality, we get
\begin{align}
\norm{ \left( H_{N,K}^{\rm G} - \scp{\xi_{N}}{ H_{N,K}^{\rm G} \xi_{N}} \right) \xi_{N}} &\le \norm{\left( H_{N,K}^{\rm F} - \scp{\xi _{N}}{ H_{N,K}^{\rm F} \xi_{N}} \right) \xi_{N}}
\nonumber \\[2mm]
& + 2 \norm{ \sum_{j=1}^N A_{K,x_j} \xi_{N}} + 2 \norm{\sum_{j,l=1}^NV_K(x_j-x_l) \xi_N} .
\end{align}
After a lengthy but straightforward computation, using the shift property \eqref{eq: Weyl operators shift property} and the fact that $\Delta_x$ commutes with $W(\sqrt N \varphi)$, we find that
\allowdisplaybreaks
\begin{align}
\label{eq: variance of H_K computation}
& \frac 1 N \norm{ \left( H_{N,K}^{\rm F} - \scp{\xi_{N}}{ H_{N,K}^{\rm F} \xi_{N}} \right) \xi_{N}}^2
\nonumber \\[2mm]
& = \norm{\varphi}^2 + \scp{\psi}{(-\Delta)^2\psi} - \scp{\psi}{(-\Delta)\psi}^2 + N^{-1} \scp{\psi}{\norm{G_{K,x}}^2\psi} \nonumber \\[2mm]
& +(1-N^{-1}) \norm{ \scp{\psi}{G_{K,x}\psi} }^2 + 4 \scp{\psi}{ (\Re\scp{G_{K,x}}{\varphi})^2\psi} - 4 \scp{\psi}{ \Re \scp{G_{K,x}}{\varphi}\psi}^2 \nonumber \\[4mm]
& +2 \Re \scp{\psi}{\scp{\varphi}{G_{K,x}}\psi} + 2 \big( \scp{\psi}{(-\Delta_x)\Re \scp{G_{K,x}}{\varphi} \psi} + \text{c.c.} \big)
- 4 \scp{\psi}{(-\Delta)\psi} \scp{\psi}{\Re \scp{G_{K,x}}{\varphi} \psi} .
\end{align}
We shall show that the right hand side is bounded from above by a constant times $1+K N^{-1}$, with the constant depending only on $\norm{\psi}_{H^2}$ and $\norm{\varphi}_{L^2_1}$. For the first four summands (i.e., the terms in the first line), this is obvious (recall \eqref{eq: bounds for G}). In the fifth summand, we can use \eqref{eq: Lieb Yamazaki for expectation value of e-ikx} to conclude that
\iffalse
we use the commutator trick by Lieb and Yamazaki \cite{liebyamazaki} in order to improve the $K$-dependence of the upper bound. For that, write
\begin{align}
G_{K,x} = G_{1,x} + (G_{K,x}-G_{1,x}),
\end{align}
abbreviate $g_{K,x} = \vert k \vert^{-2} G_{K,x}(k)$, and use partial integration to estimate
\begin{align}
\norm{ \scp{\psi}{(G_{K,x}-G_{1,x}) \psi} }^2 & = \norm{ \scp{\psi}{ \big( k\cdot \nabla_x (g_{K,x}-g_{1,x})\big) \psi} }^2
\nonumber \\[2mm]
& \le 4 \norm{\psi}_{H_1}^2\, \norm{\abs{ \cdot} (g_{K,x}-g_{1,x})}^2 \le C \norm{\psi}_{H_1}^2
\end{align}
independently of $K$. Since $\norm{ \scp{\psi}{ G_{1,x} \psi} }^2 \le \norm{G_{1,x}}^2 \le C$, we have
\fi
$\norm{ \scp{\psi}{G_{K,x}\psi} }^2\le C$ independently of $K$. For each of the remaining terms on the right side of \eqref{eq: variance of H_K computation}, we use
\begin{equation}
\abs{\scp{G_{K,x}}{\varphi}} \le \norm{ (1+ \abs{\,\cdot \, })^{-1} G_{K,x} }_2 \, \norm{ (1+ \abs{\,\cdot\,}) \varphi},
\end{equation}
\iffalse
\begin{align}
\abs{\scp{G_{K,x}}{\varphi}} & \le \abs{\scp{G_{1,x}}{\varphi}} + \abs{\scp{(G_{K,x}-G_{1,x})}{\varphi}} \le C \norm{\varphi}+ \norm{\abs{\cdot }^{-1} (G_{K,x}-G_{1,x}) }_2 \, \norm{\abs{\cdot}\varphi},
\end{align}
\fi
which is bounded by $C \norm{\varphi}_{L_1^2}$. Hence, we find
\begin{align}
\norm{N^{-1} \left( H_{N,K}^{\rm F} - \scp{\xi_{N}}{ H_{N,K}^{\rm F} \xi_{N}} \right) \xi_{N}}^2 \le C\big( N^{-1} + KN^{-2} \big) .
\end{align}
Next, we use
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{N} \norm{\sum_{j=1}^N A_{K,x_j} \xi_N} \le \norm{A_{K,x_1}\xi_N},
\end{align}
and recalling \eqref{eq: Definition of V-K-N} we estimate (with $\widetilde \Psi_N = \psi^{\otimes N}\otimes \Omega$)
\begin{align}
& \norm{ N^{-1/2}\nabla_1 \cdot
a \big( k B_{K,x_1} \big) W (\sqrt{N} \varphi) \widetilde \Psi_N} \nonumber \\[2mm]
& = \norm{ \nabla_1 \cdot
\int dk\, k \overline{B_{K,x_1}(k) } \varphi(k) \widetilde \Psi_N} \nonumber \\[2mm]
& \le \norm{ \int dk \, k^2 \overline{B_{K,x_1}(k) } \varphi(k) \widetilde \Psi_N} + \norm{ \int dk\, k \overline{B_{K,x_1}(k) } \varphi(k) \nabla_1 \widetilde \Psi_N} \nonumber \\[4mm]
& \le \norm{ \abs{\cdot} B_{K, x } }_2 \big( \norm{\abs{\cdot} \varphi } + \norm{\varphi} \norm{\psi}_{H^1} \big) \le CK^{-1/2}.
\end{align}
Similarly also
\begin{align}
\norm{ N^{-1/2}
a^* \big( k B_{K,x_1} \big) \cdot \nabla_1 W (\sqrt{N} \varphi) \widetilde \Psi_N} & = \norm{
\int dk \,k \, B_{K_N,x_1}(k) \big( N^{-1/2}a_k^* + \overline{\varphi(k)}\big) \cdot \nabla_1 \widetilde \Psi_N} \nonumber \\[3mm]
& \le \norm{ \abs{\cdot} B_{K,x}} \big( N^{-1/2} \norm{\psi}_{H^1} + \norm{\varphi } \norm{\nabla \psi}\big) \le C K^{-1/2} .
\end{align}
In order to estimate the term containing $\Phi(kB_{K,x})^2$, consider
\begin{align}
W^*(\sqrt N \varphi) \Phi(k B_{K ,x_1}) W(\sqrt N \varphi) & = \Phi(k B_{K ,x_1}) + 2 \sqrt N\Re \scp{kB_{K ,x_1}}{\varphi},
\end{align}
and thus
\begin{align}
& \norm{ N^{-1 }\Phi(k B_{K,x_1})^2 W(\sqrt{N}\varphi) \widetilde \Psi_N}
\nonumber \\[2mm]
& = N^{-1} \norm{\Big( \Phi(k B_{K ,x_1}) + 2 \sqrt N\Re \scp{ k B_{K ,x_1}} {\varphi}\Big)^2 \widetilde \Psi_N}
\nonumber \\[2mm]
& \le 2 N^{-1 }\norm{ \Phi(k B_{K ,x_1})^2 \widetilde \Psi_N}
+ 8 \vert \scp{ {|} k B_{K ,x_1} {|} } { {|} \varphi {|}} \vert^2.
\end{align}
In the last line, we use \eqref{eq: bounds for G} to obtain
\begin{equation}
\norm{ \Phi(k B_{K, {x_1}})^2 \widetilde \Psi_N} = \sqrt{3} \norm{k B_{K , {x}}}^2 \leq C K^{-1}.
\end{equation}
\iffalse
\begin{align}
\norm{ \Phi(k B_{K, {x_1}})^2 \widetilde \Psi_N} & = \norm{ \Phi(k B_{K ,x_1}) a^*(k B_{K, {x_1}}) \widetilde \Psi_N}
\nonumber \\[2mm]
& \le 2 \norm{k B_{K ,x}}\ \norm{ \sqrt{\mathcal N+1} a^*(k B_{K , {x_1}}) \widetilde \Psi_N}
\nonumber \\[2mm]
& \le 2\sqrt 2 \norm{k B_{K , {x}}}\ \norm{ a^*(k B_{K , {x_1}}) \widetilde \Psi_N} \le 2\sqrt 2 \norm{k B_{K , {x}}}^2.
\end{align}
With \eqref{eq: bounds for G} we have
\begin{align}
\norm{N^{-1} \Phi(k B_{K,x_1})^2 \widetilde \Psi_N} \le CK^{-1}.
\end{align}
\fi
Finally, using \eqref{eq: bound for V_K}, we estimate
\begin{align}
N^{-1} \norm {\sum_{j,l=1}^N V_K(x_j-x_l) \xi_N } \le N^{-1} \sum_{j,l=1}^N\norm{V_K(x_j-x_l) \xi_N} \le C K^{-1},
\end{align}
which completes the proof of the proposition.
\hfill$\square$
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{theorem: main theorem: 2}}
\label{section: proof of the proposition for free domain}
Given Theorem \ref{theorem: main theorem}, \eqref{MAIN:BOUND:TRACE:NORM:1:0:THEOREM:2} follows from \eqref{BOUND:CLOSENESS:GAMMA:1:0}
together with the bound
\begin{align}\label{eq: strong convergence of U}
\norm{(1-U_K) \Psi_{N}} \le \frac{C N}{ K^{3/2} } \norm{\Big( \frac{H_{N,K}^{\rm G} + C N }{N}\Big)^{1/2} \Psi_{N}},\quad \Psi_N \in \mathcal{D} ( H_N^0 ).
\end{align}
The latter follows from $\mathcal N \le H^0_N$, \eqref{eq: bound H^G vs H^0} and the functional calculus for self-adjoint operators, using $1-U_K = f( N^{-1/2} \sum_{j=1}^N \Pi(B_{K,x_j} ) )$ with $f(s) = 1-\exp(is)$ and the bound $\vert f(s) \vert \le \vert s \vert$. In more detail, let $\Psi_{N,t}$ as in Theorem \ref{theorem: main theorem: 2} and denote $\Phi_{N,t} = e^{- i H_N^{\rm F} t} U^*_K \Psi_{N,0}$. Then, using \eqref{eq: strong convergence of U},
\begin{align}
\textnormal{Tr}_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^3)} \abs{ \gamma^{(1,0)}_{\Psi_{N,t}} - \gamma^{(1,0)}_{\Phi_{N,t} } } \le 2 \norm{e^{-iH_N^{\rm F} t } (\Psi_{N,0} - \Phi_{N,0} )} = 2 \norm{(1-U_K) \Psi_{N,0}} \le \frac{CN}{K^{3/2}},
\end{align}
and the triangle inequality,
\begin{align}
\textnormal{Tr}_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^3)} \abs{\gamma^{(1,0)}_{\Psi_{N,t}} - \ket{\psi_t} \bra{\psi_t} } \le \frac{C N}{K^{3/2}} + \textnormal{Tr}_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^3)} \abs{\gamma^{(1,0)}_{\Phi_{N,t} } - \ket{\psi_t} \bra{\psi_t} }.
\end{align}
Since $\Phi_{N,0} \in \mathcal{D} ( H_N^{\rm F} )$ and
$E_0 = \sup_{N \in \mathbb{N}} \vert N^{-1} \scp{\Phi_{N,0}}{H_N^{\rm F} \Phi_{N,0}} \vert < \infty$ by assumption, we infer with Theorem \ref{theorem: main theorem} that
\begin{align}
& \textnormal{Tr}_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^3)} \abs{\gamma^{(1,0)}_{\Phi_{N,t}} - \ket{\psi_t} \bra{\psi_t} } \nonumber \\[1mm]
&\quad \quad \le \sqrt{a (\Phi_{N,0 },\psi) + b (\Phi_{N,0},\varphi) + c (\Phi_{N,0}) + N^{-1/2} } e^{C(1 + \abs{t})^3}.
\end{align}
Using Lemma \ref{LEMMA:CLOSENESS:GAMMA}, we have
\begin{align}\label{eq: bounds a,b,c}
a(\Phi_{N,0},\psi) \leq a(\Psi_{N,0 },\psi) + C K^{-3/2} , \quad b(\Phi_{N,0 },\varphi ) \leq b(\Psi_{N,0} ,\varphi ) + CK^{-3/2},
\end{align}
which proves the first bound in Theorem \ref{theorem: main theorem: 2} if we set $K=K_N\ge c N^{5/6}$.
In order to prove \eqref{MAIN:BOUND:TRACE:NORM:0:1:THEOREM:2}, we estimate
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
& \scp{W^* (\sqrt{N} \varphi_t) \Psi_{N,t}}{\sqrt{ \tfrac{\mathcal N}{N} } \, W^* (\sqrt{N} \varphi_t) \Psi_{N,t}} \nonumber \\[2mm]
& \quad \quad \quad \le \big\vert \scp{W^{*} (\sqrt{N} \varphi_t) \Psi_{N,t}}{ \sqrt{ \tfrac{\mathcal N}{N} } \, W^{*} (\sqrt{N} \varphi_t) \Phi_{N,t}} \big\vert \\[1mm]
& \quad \quad \quad + \big\vert \scp{W^{*} (\sqrt{N} \varphi_t) \Psi_{N,t}}{\sqrt{ \tfrac{\mathcal N}{N} } \, W^{*} (\sqrt{N} \varphi_t) (\Psi_{N,t}-\Phi_{N,t} ) } \big\vert \label{eq: proof of sqrt N line 2}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
with $\Phi_{N,t}$ defined as above. In the first line, we use the Cauchy--Schwarz inequality and apply Theorem \ref{theorem: main theorem} to $\Phi_{N,t}$, i.e.,
\begin{align}
\norm{\sqrt{ \frac{\mathcal N}{N} } W^*(\sqrt N \varphi_t) \Phi_{N,t} }^2 & \le \Big( a (\Phi_{N,0},\psi) + b (\Phi_{N,0},\varphi) + c(\Phi_{N,0}) + N^{-1/2} \Big) e^{C(1 + \abs{t})^3}
\nonumber \\
& \le \Big( a (\Psi_{N,0},\psi) + b (\Psi_{N,0},\varphi) + c(\Phi_{N,0}) + K^{-3/2} + N^{-1/2} \Big) e^{C(1 + \abs{t})^3},
\end{align}
where we made use of \eqref{eq: bounds a,b,c} in the second step. In \eqref{eq: proof of sqrt N line 2}, we estimate
\begin{align}
\norm{\Psi_{N,t} - \Phi_{N,t}} \le \norm{(1-U_{K}) \Psi_{N,0}} \le \frac{C N}{ K^{3/2} } \norm{\Big( \frac{H_{N,K}^{\rm G} +C N }{N}\Big)^{1/2} \Psi_{N,0}},
\end{align}
together with
\begin{align}\label{eq: bound sqrt N}
\norm{\sqrt{ \frac{\mathcal N}{N} } W^*(\sqrt N \varphi) \Psi_{N,t}} \le C\Bigg( \norm{\Big( \frac{H_{N,K}^{\rm G} +C N}{N} \Big)^{1/2} \Psi_{N,0}} + \norm{\varphi_t}\Bigg),
\end{align}
which for $K=K_N\ge c N^{5/6}$ proves \eqref{MAIN:BOUND:TRACE:NORM:0:1:THEOREM:2}. In order to show \eqref{eq: bound sqrt N}, we use the commutation relations \eqref{eq: Weyl operators shift property} and $2 \Phi(\sqrt N \varphi_t) \le \mathcal N + N\norm{\varphi_t}^2$, in order to find
\begin{align}
\scp{W^*(\sqrt N \varphi_t) \Psi_{N,t}}{ \mathcal N W^*(\sqrt N \varphi_t) \Psi_{N,t}} \le 2 \big( \scp{ \Psi_{N,t}}{ \mathcal N \Psi_{N,t}} + N \norm{ \varphi_t }^2 \big).
\end{align}
Using \eqref{eq: bound H^F vs H^0} in combination with \eqref{eq: bound H^G vs H^0} leads to
\begin{align}
\mathcal N \le H_N^0 \le 2 H_N^{\rm F} + C N & = e^{- iH_N^{ \rm F} t} (2 H_N^{\rm F} + C N) e^{i H_N^{\rm F} t } \le C e^{- iH_N^{ \rm F} t} ( H_{N,K}^{\rm G} + C N) e^{i H_N^{\rm F} t }.
\end{align}
It remains to show \eqref{eq: redyced density bound product state} and \eqref{eq: redyced density bound product state line 2}: For the Pekar state $\Psi_{N} = \psi^{\otimes N} \otimes W(\sqrt{N} \varphi) \Omega$, we have
\begin{align}
a(\Psi_{N},\psi ) = 0, \quad b(\Psi_{N},\varphi ) =0, \quad c( U_{K}^* \Psi_{N} ) \leq C \Big(N^{-1} + K^{-1} + \frac{K}{N^2} \Big),
\end{align}
where the last bound was proven in Proposition \ref{proposition: initial bounds for gross transformed product}. Thus, if we choose $K= K_N = c N$, we obtain \eqref{eq: redyced density bound product state} and \eqref{eq: redyced density bound product state line 2}.
\hfill$\square$
|
\section{Cumulant amplitudes $\tilde C^{(\beta)}_k$ as a function of $\beta$}
Let us recall the formula given in the text for the coefficients $\tilde C^{(\beta)}_k$
which enter in the cumulants of the PDF for $\delta {\cal N}_m$, namely, for
$\beta = 2 s/r$, with $s,r$ mutually prime and $k \geq 2$
\begin{equation} \label{Cbeta2}
\tilde C^{(\beta)}_k = \frac{d^k}{dt^k}|_{t=0} \log ( A_{\beta}(t) A_{\beta}(-t) )
\end{equation}
\begin{eqnarray} \label{AB2}
&& A_{\beta}(t) =r^{-t^2/2} \prod_{\nu=0}^{r-1} \prod_{p=0}^{s-1}\frac{G(1-\frac{p}{s}+\frac{\nu+i t\sqrt{\frac{2}{\beta}}}{r})}
{G\left(1-\frac{p}{s}+\frac{\nu}{r}\right)}
\end{eqnarray}
To obtain more explicit expressions we use that for $k \geq 2$
\begin{equation} \label{eqG}
\frac{d^k }{d y^k} \log G(x+ y) |_{y=0} = \phi_k(x) := (k-1) \psi^{(k-2)}(x) + (x-1) \psi^{(k-1)}(x) - \delta_{k,2}
\end{equation}
where $\psi^{(k)}(x) = \frac{d^{k+1}}{dx^{k+1}} \log \Gamma(x)$.
Hence, for even $k=2 p$, defining $p=s-q$ we obtain
\begin{equation} \label{s1}
\tilde C^{(\beta)}_{2p} = (-1)^p \frac{2}{(r s)^p}
\sum_{\nu=0}^{r-1} \sum_{q=1}^{s} \phi_{2p}(\frac{\nu}{r}+\frac{q}{s}) - 2 \log r \delta_{p,1}
\end{equation}
and we recall that odd cumulants vanish.
Since any real $\beta$ can be reached by a sequence $\beta=2 s_n/r_n$ of arbitrary large $s_n,r_n$ we
can obtain an alternative expression valid for any $\beta$ in terms of a convergent infinite series.
We need to distinguish two cases:\\
{\bf Cumulants $C_{2p}$ with $p \geq 2$}. In that case we see that the large $s,r$ behavior in \eqref{s1} is dominated
by the divergence of $\phi_k(x)$ near $x=0$. We use that
\begin{equation}
\phi_{2p}(x) = - \frac{(2p-1)!}{x^{2 p}} + O(1)
\end{equation}
One finds for $k=2 p$ with $p \geq 2$
\begin{equation} \label{s2}
\tilde C^{(\beta)}_{2p} = (-1)^{p+1} 2 (2 p-1)!
\sum_{\nu=0}^{\infty} \sum_{q=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{(\nu \sqrt{\frac{\beta}{2}} + q
\sqrt{\frac{2}\beta})^{2 p} }
\end{equation}
One of the sum can be carried out leading to two equivalent "dual" expressions
\begin{equation} \label{s3}
\tilde C^{(\beta)}_{2p} = (-2)^{1-p}
\beta^p \sum_{\nu=0}^{\infty} \psi^{(2 p-1)}(1 + \frac{\beta \nu}{2}) = (-2)^{p+1} \frac{1}{\beta^p}
\sum_{q=1}^{\infty} \psi^{(2 p-1)}(\frac{2 q}{\beta})
\end{equation}
where we have used that $\psi^{(2p-1)}(1)= (2 p-1)! \zeta(2p)$. The above series are
convergent for $p \geq 2$, since at large $x$ one
has $\psi^{(2 p-1)}(x) \simeq \frac{(2p-2)!}{z^{2p-1}}$. Hence the result is
analytic in $\beta>0$. This asymptotics can be used
to obtain the large $\beta$ expansion
\begin{equation} \label{s4}
\tilde C^{(\beta)}_{2p} = (-2)^{1-p}
(2 p-1)! \zeta(2p) \beta^p + (-1)^{p+1} 2^p
(2p-2)! \zeta(2p-1) \frac1{\beta^{p-1}} + O(\beta^{-p})
\end{equation}
as well as the small $\beta$ expansion
\begin{equation}
\tilde C^{(\beta)}_{2p} \simeq (-1)^{p+1} 2^{2-p} (2p-2)! \zeta(2p-1) \beta^{p-1} \quad , \quad \beta \ll 1
\end{equation}
\medskip
As an example we give more explicitly the fourth cumulant
\begin{eqnarray} \label{C4ser}
\tilde C^{(\beta)}_4 = - 12 \sum_{\nu=0}^{\infty} \sum_{q=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{(\nu \sqrt{\frac{\beta}{2}} + q
\sqrt{\frac{2}\beta})^4 } = - \frac{8}{\beta^2} \sum_{q=1}^{\infty} \psi^{(3)}(\frac{2 q}{\beta})
= - \frac{1}{2} \beta^2 \sum_{\nu=0}^{\infty} \psi^{(3)}(1 + \frac{\beta \nu}{2})
\end{eqnarray}
One can then check that this formula, valid for any $\beta$, correctly reproduces for
the cases $\beta=2 s/r$, with $s,r$ mutual primes, the same result as the original formula \eqref{s1}, for instance one finds
\begin{equation}
\tilde C^{(\beta=2)}_4 = -12 \zeta (3) \quad , \quad \tilde C^{(\beta=1)}_4 = \frac{\pi ^4}{4}-24 \zeta (3)
\quad , \quad \tilde C^{(\beta=4)}_4 = -24 \zeta (3)-\frac{\pi ^4}{4}
\end{equation}
Let us also give more detailed asymptotics at large and small $\beta$
\begin{eqnarray} \label{asympt1}
&& \tilde C^{(\beta)}_4 = -\frac{1}{30} \pi ^4 \beta ^2
-\frac{8 \zeta (3)}{\beta }+\frac{4 \pi ^4}{15 \beta
^2}-\frac{32 \zeta (5)}{\beta
^3}+O( \beta^{-4} ) \\
&& = -2 \beta \zeta (3)-\frac{\pi ^4 \beta
^2}{60}-\frac{\beta ^3 \zeta (5)}{2}+O\left(\beta
^5\right)
\end{eqnarray}
The fourth cumulant is plotted as a function of $\beta$ in the Figure \ref{Fig1},
together with the large and small $\beta$ asymptotics which, as we
see, are quite accurate.
{\bf Second cumulant $\tilde C^{(\beta)}_2$}. The second cumulant reads, for $\beta = 2 s/r$
\begin{equation} \label{s4}
\tilde C^{(\beta)}_{2} = - \frac{2}{r s}
\sum_{\nu=0}^{r-1} \sum_{q=1}^{s} \phi_{2}(\frac{\nu}{r}+\frac{q}{s}) - 2 \log r
\end{equation}
To study the limit where both $r,s \to +\infty$ with a fixed (more precisely, converging) ratio $\beta=2 s/r$,
it is useful to decompose $\phi_2(x)= - \frac{1}{x^2} + \tilde \phi_2(x)$, where $\tilde \phi_2(x)$
is regular at $x=0$, and to introduce $\sum_{\nu=0}^{r-1} \frac{1}{1+ \nu} = H_r \simeq
\log r + \gamma_E + O(1/r)$. Then one has in that limit
\begin{equation}
- \frac{2}{r s}
\sum_{\nu=0}^{r-1} \sum_{q=1}^{s} \tilde \phi_{2}(\frac{\nu}{r}+\frac{q}{s}) \to -2 \int_0^1 dx \int_0^1 dy
\, \tilde \phi_2(x+y) = - 2 ( \int_0^1 ds s \tilde \phi_2(s) + \int_1^2 ds (2-s) \tilde \phi_2(s) )
= 2 \log 2
\end{equation}
Hence need to evaluate the limit
\begin{eqnarray} \label{C200}
&& \tilde C^{(\beta)}_{2} \simeq 2 \log 2 + 2 \gamma_E + 2
\sum_{\nu=0}^{r-1} [ \sum_{q=1}^{s} \frac{\beta/2}{(\nu \frac{\beta}{2} + q)^{2} } - \frac{1}{1+ \nu} ] \\
&& = 2 \log 2 + 2 \gamma_E + 2
\sum_{\nu=0}^{r-1} [ \frac{\beta}{2} \psi^{(1)}(1 + \frac{\beta \nu}{2}) -
\frac{\beta}{2} \psi^{(1)}(1 + s + \frac{\beta \nu}{2}) - \frac{1}{1+ \nu} ]
\end{eqnarray}
where we have used that $\sum_{q=1}^s \frac{1}{(q+a)^2} = \psi^{(1)}(1 + a)- \psi^{(1)}(1 + s + a)$.
Now one can check that
\begin{equation}
\lim_{r \to + \infty} \sum_{\nu=0}^{r-1} \frac{\beta}{2} \psi^{(1)}(1 + \frac{\beta}{2} r + \frac{\beta \nu}{2}) \simeq
\lim_{r \to + \infty} \sum_{p=r}^{2 r-1} \frac{1}{\frac{2}{\beta} + p} = \log 2
\end{equation}
where the second line is obtained writing $p=r + \nu$ and using $\psi^{(1)}(x) \sim 1/x$ at large $x$, but
the full equivalence has also been confirmed numerically. Hence we can take the
large $r,s$ limit in \eqref{C200}, the factors $\log 2$ cancel, and we finally obtain the second cumulant for any $\beta$ as the following convergent "dual"
series
\begin{eqnarray} \label{C2000}
\tilde C^{(\beta)}_{2} = 2 \gamma_E + 2
\sum_{\nu=0}^{+\infty} [ \sum_{q=1}^{+\infty} \frac{\beta/2}{(\nu \frac{\beta}{2} + q)^{2} } - \frac{1}{1+ \nu} ]
& = &
2 \gamma_E + 2
\sum_{\nu=0}^{+\infty} [ \frac{\beta}{2} \psi^{(1)}(1 + \frac{\beta \nu}{2}) - \frac{1}{1+ \nu} ] \\
& = & 2 \gamma_E + 2 \log (\beta/2) + 2 \sum_{q=1}^{\infty} ( \frac{2}{\beta} \psi^{(1)}(\frac{2 q}{\beta}) - \frac{1}{q} )
\end{eqnarray}
Note the non trivial term $2 \log(\beta/2)$ in the last expression, arising from the replacement $-2 \log r = -2 \log s + 2 \log (\beta/2)$ in \eqref{s4}. For $\beta=2$ one recovers $\tilde C^{(\beta=2)}_{2}=2 + 2 \gamma_E$. We also
find either from \eqref{C2000}, or from the original formula \eqref{s4}
\begin{equation}
\tilde C^{(\beta=1)}_{2}=2+2 \gamma_E -\frac{\pi ^2}{4} \quad , \quad
\tilde C_2^{(\beta=4)} = 2+2 \gamma_E +\frac{\pi ^2}{4}+\log (4)
\end{equation}
One obtains the series at large and small $\beta$
\begin{eqnarray} \label{asympt2}
&& \tilde C^{(\beta)}_{2} = \frac{\pi ^2 \beta }{6}+2 \gamma_E -\frac{\pi ^2}{3 \beta }+\frac{4 \zeta (3)}{3 \beta
^2}-\frac{16 \zeta (5)}{15 \beta ^4}+O(\beta^{-5}) \\
&& = 2 \log (\beta/2) + 2 \gamma_E
+ \frac{\pi ^2 \beta }{12}+\frac{\beta ^2 \zeta (3)}{12}-\frac{\beta ^4 \zeta
(5)}{240}+O\left(\beta ^5\right)
\end{eqnarray}
Note that the leading term agrees with \eqref{s4} although that result assumed $p \geq 2$.
The second cumulant is plotted as a function of $\beta$ in the Figure \ref{Fig1}
together with the large and small $\beta$ asymptotics which, as we
see, are again quite accurate.
\begin{figure}[hb]
\includegraphics[width = 0.4\linewidth]{plotnew444.pdf}
\includegraphics[width = 0.4\linewidth]{plotnew222.pdf}
{\caption{Left: fourth cumulant amplitude $\tilde C^{(\beta)}_{4}$ plotted (in blue)
as a function of $\beta$ from \eqref{C4ser}. Dotted and dashed lines are small and large $\beta$ asymptotics, \eqref{asympt1} respectively.
Right: same for second cumulant amplitude $\tilde C^{(\beta)}_{2}$ (in blue) from
\eqref{C2000} and \eqref{asympt2}.}\label{Fig1}}
\end{figure}
\section{Cumulant amplitudes $C_k(\ell)$}
Let us recall the result given in the text for the amplitudes $C_k(\ell)$ for
$\ell=2 \pi$ and $\ell \ll 1$. For any $k \geq 2$
\begin{eqnarray} \label{restot}
&& C_k(2 \pi) = (-1)^k \frac{d^k}{dt^k}|_{t=0} \log \bigg[
\frac{\Gamma(1+ t )^2 G(2-2 t)}{G(2-t)^3 G(2+t)} \bigg] \\
&& C_k(\ell) \simeq 2 \log \ell \, \delta_{k,2} + (-1)^k \frac{d^k}{dt^k}|_{t=0} \bigg[
\frac{2 \Gamma(1+ t )^2 G(2-2 t)}{G(2+t)^2 G(2-t)
G(4-t)} \bigg]
\end{eqnarray}
We now use Eq. \eqref{eqG}, and we also use that $\psi^{(k)}(1)=(-1)^{k+1} k! \zeta(k+1)$ and
$\psi^{(k)}(2)=\psi^{(k)}(1) + (-1)^{k} k!$ and $\psi^{(k)}(4)=\psi^{(k)}(1) + (-1)^{k} k!(1+ 2^{-k-1} + 3^{-k-1})$. We obtain for the full circle
\begin{eqnarray}
&& C_2(2 \pi) = \frac{\pi^2}{3} \quad , \quad C_3(2 \pi) = 2 \pi^2 - 8 \zeta(3) \quad , \quad C_4(2 \pi) = \frac{14}{15} \pi^4 - 72 \zeta(3) \\
&&
C_k(2 \pi) = \left(\left(1-(-2)^k+3 (-1)^k\right) \zeta
(k-1)+\left(1+(-2)^k-3 (-1)^k\right) \zeta
(k)\right) \Gamma (k) \quad , \quad k \geq 3 \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
and for the mesoscopic interval $\ell \ll 1$
\begin{eqnarray}
&& C_2(\ell)= 2 \log \ell + \frac{9}{4}
\quad , \quad C_3(\ell) = - \frac{17}{4} + \frac{8 \pi^2}{3} - 8 \zeta(3) \quad , \quad
C_4(\ell) =\frac{99}{8} + \frac{4}{5} \pi^4 - 72 \zeta(3)
\\
&&
C_k(\ell) =
6^{-k} \left(\left(-(-12)^k+(-3)^k 2^{k+1}+2^{k+1}
3^k\right) \zeta (k-1)+(-6)^k \left(2^k-4\right)
\zeta (k)+(-3)^k \left(2^{k+1}+1\right)\right)
\Gamma (k) ~,~ k \geq 3 \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\section{{Distribution of the maximum over a mesoscopic interval $\frac{1}{N} \ll \ell \ll 2 \pi$}}
Here we sketch the derivation of our second main result,
\eqref{ltinterval}.
To this end we set $\phi_a = \theta_A + \ell x_a$, with
$x_a \in [0,1]$, and recall $\ell=\theta_B-\theta_A$.
Eq \eqref{Zn}
gives
\begin{eqnarray} \label{Zn2}
&& \mathbb{E}[Z_b^n] \simeq
\left(\frac{N \ell}{2 \pi}\right)^n (N \ell)^{b^2 (n + n^2) }
|A_{\beta}(b)|^{2n} |A_{\beta}(b n)|^{2} \prod_{a=1}^n \int_{0}^{1} d x_a
\prod_{1 \leq a < c \leq n}
|x_a-x_c|^{- 2 b^2}
\prod_{1 \leq a \leq n}
x_a^{2 n b^2}
\end{eqnarray}
One recognizes now the Selberg integral \cite{ForresterWarnaar} in the form
which arises in the study of the fBm0 on an interval
\cite{FLD2016,CaoPathologies}. Using the known expression for its analytical
continuation (see Eq. (239) in \cite{FLD2016}) and following the
same steps as for the full circle presented in the text, we obtain the DSLT in the high temperature phase $b<1$
with $t=-n b$ as \cite{footnoteF}
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \mathbb{E} \left(e^{- 2 \pi\sqrt{\frac{\beta}{2}} \left({\cal F}-\tilde{{\cal F}}_1\right) t} \right) \simeq (N \ell)^{- t Q + t^2}
|A_{\beta}(-t)|^{2} \Gamma(1+ t b)
\frac{G_b(Q)^2 G_b(Q-2 t)
G_b(2Q)}{G_b(Q+t)^2 G_b(Q-t)
G_b(2 Q-t)}
\label{eq10}
\end{eqnarray}
The duality invariance can be similarly checked and from the FDC we find that
the DSLT in the low temperature phase $b>1$
is given again by \eqref{rel} with our second
main result, i.e. Eq. \eqref{ltinterval} of the main text.
\section{Verification of relation eq.(\ref{eq5})}
Our starting point is the characteristic polynomial defined in the text, which we rewrite
\[
\xi_N(\theta) = \prod_j\left( 1 - e^{ i (\theta_j-\theta)} \right)=\prod_j e^{ i (\theta_j-\theta-\pi)/2}\, 2\sin{\frac{\theta_j-\theta}{2}}
\]
\begin{equation} \label{xiSM}
=e^{-i\frac{N(\pi+\theta)}{2}+\frac{i}{2}\sum_{j=1}^N\theta_j}\prod_{j=1}^N\,
\mbox{sgn}\left[\sin{\frac{\theta_j-\theta}{2}}\right]\prod_{j=1}^N
2\left|\sin{\frac{\theta_j-\theta}{2}}\right|
\end{equation}
Further using
\[
\prod_{j=1}^N\,
\mbox{sgn}\left[\sin{\frac{\theta_j-\theta}{2}}\right]=\prod_{j=1}^N\,
\mbox{sgn}(\theta_j-\theta)=(-1)^{\#(\theta_j<\theta)}=e^{i\pi \#(\theta_j<\theta)}
\]
where $\#(\theta_j<\theta):=\sum_{j=1}^N \chi(\theta - \theta_j)$ is the number of $\theta_j$ not exceeding the value $\theta$, we see that
\begin{equation}
{\rm Im} \log \xi_N(\theta) =-\frac{N}{2}(\pi+\theta)+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}\theta_j+\pi\#(\theta_j<\theta)
\end{equation}
implying via the definition (\ref{defcount})
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{\pi} {\rm Im} \log \xi_N(\theta) -\frac{1}{\pi} {\rm Im} \log \xi_N(\theta_A)=-\frac{N}{2\pi}(\theta-\theta_A)+
\#(\theta_j<\theta)-\#(\theta_j<\theta_A):=\delta {\cal N}_{\theta_A}(\theta)
\end{equation}
exactly as claimed in (\ref{eq5}).
\section{Deficiency of the log-correlated Gaussian approximation for characterising the maximum of $\delta {\cal N}_{\theta_A}(\theta)$.}
Let us demonstrate that naively replacing the difference $\delta {\cal N}_{\theta_A}(\theta)$ with its Gaussian approximation $\frac{1}{\pi}\left[ W_{\beta}(\theta)-W_{\beta}(\theta_A)\right]$ is not sufficient for the purpose of characterizing the maximum of the process. For this end, we make the corresponding replacement
in the expression (first line of \ref{15}) for the integer moments of $Z_b$, yielding
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}[Z_b^n]=\left(\frac{N}{2 \pi}\right)^n \int_{\theta_A}^{\theta_B}
\, \mathbb{E} \left[ e^{2 b \sqrt{\beta/2} \left(\sum_{a=1}^n W_{\beta}(\phi_a)-nW_{\beta}(\theta_A)\right)} \right]\, \prod_{a=1}^n d \phi_a \label{firstline}
\end{equation}
where now the expectation is over the mean-zero Gaussian process $W_{\beta}(\theta)$ with the covariance given by
(\ref{covcharpol}) and the variance $\mathbb{E}( W(\theta)^2)=\beta^{-1}\log{N}$. Due to Gaussian nature of the process the expectation is readily taken via the identity
\[\mathbb{E} \left[ e^{2 b \sqrt{\beta/2} \left(\sum_{a=1}^n W_{\beta}(\phi_a)-nW_{\beta}(\theta_A)\right)} \right]=
e^{\beta b^2\left[n(n+1)\mathbb{E}\left( W(\theta_A)^2\right)+2\sum_{a<c}^n\mathbb{E}\left( W(\phi_a)W(\phi_c)\right) -2n\sum_{a=1}^n\mathbb{E}\left( W(\phi_a) W(\theta_A)\right)\right] }
\]
Substituting here the value
(\ref{covcharpol}) for the covariance and the associated variance
and recalling that $4 \sin^2\left(\frac{\theta_1-\theta_2}{2}\right)=|e^{i\theta_1}-e^{i\theta_2}|^2$
we immediately arrive at the expression for the moments:
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \mathbb{E}[Z_b^n] \simeq
\left(\frac{N}{2 \pi}\right)^n N^{b^2 n(n+1) }
\int_{\theta_A}^{\theta_B}
\prod_{1 \leq a < c \leq n}
|1- e^{i (\phi_a-\phi_c)}|^{- 2 b^2} \\
&&
\times \prod_{1 \leq a \leq n}
|1- e^{i (\phi_a- \theta_A)}|^{2 n b^2}\, \prod_{a=1}^n d \phi_a \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
which misses exactly the factor $|A_{\beta}(b)|^{2n} |A_{\beta}(b n)|^{2}$ when compared to the formula (\ref{momasy}). As those factors contribute to the cumulants for the maximum of the process, the Gaussian approximation is clearly insufficient for this purpose.
\section{DSLT in the complex plane}
The formulas \eqref{eq1}, \eqref{ltcircle}, \eqref{ltinterval}, of the main text
for the DSLT
were obtained for real values of the parameter $t$. We expect
them to extend to a domain around $t=0$ in the complex plane.
For real $t$ this domain cannot contain $t=Q/2$ for $b>1$
and $t=1$ for $b \leq 1$, which is the location of a termination point transition
for the pinned fBm0 (it corresponds to events when the minimum is
at $\theta_m \approx \theta_A$), analyzed in \cite{CaoPathologies,CaoOPELiouville}.
The domain should also be contained within ${\rm Im}(t) < 1/2$ (for $\beta=2$) because
of the integer nature of the field ${\cal N}(\theta)$.
Extending the formula beyond remains open.
However, results from \cite{DeiftItsKrasovsky2009,AbanovIvanovQian2011} for
$\beta=2$, suggest that, treating $n b=-t$ and $b$ as
independent variables, the integrand in \eqref{Zn} can be extended
formally to a sum over $b n \to b n + i \mathbb{Z}$, $b \to b + i \mathbb{Z}$.
Investigating these properties is left for future studies.
\section{Moments of the position of the maximum}
As to the position of the maximum $\theta_m \in [\theta_A,\theta_B]$,
we recall that its statistics for the fBm0 on an interval has been investigated in \cite{FLD2016}
by calculating those of
the Jacobi ensemble of random matrices and performing the continuation to $n=0$.
Defining
$y_m = (\theta_m - \theta_A)/\ell$, the moments $\mathbb{E}(y_m^k)$
are thus the ones given in \cite{FLD2016} (in Eqs. (129-130) for $k=2,4$
and Eqs. (101),(98-100), and Appendix C for general $k$).
Extending that calculation to treat the case of the mesoscopic interval,
one checks that the additional factors in \eqref{Zn2} do not contribute,
and arrives at the results mentioned in the Letter.
\section{Joint moments of the position and the value of the maximum}
{\it Preliminary remark}. Consider two random variables $X_1$ and $X_2$. By definition the connected moments (also called bivariate cumulants) are given by
\begin{equation} \label{multi}
\mathbb{E}_c(X_1^{q_1} X_2^{q_2}) = \partial^{q_1}_{t_1}|_{t_1=0} \partial^{q_2}_{t_2}|_{t_2=0} \log \mathbb{E}(e^{t_1 X_1 + t_2 X_2})
\end{equation}
Let us define the following biased average
\begin{equation}
\langle f(X_2) \rangle_{t_1}=
\frac{\mathbb{E}(f(X_2) e^{t_1 X_1})}{\mathbb{E}(e^{t_1 X_1})}
\end{equation}
Expanding the r.h.s of \eqref{multi} in powers of $t_2$ we see that
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}_c(X_2 X_1^{q}) = \partial^{q}_{t_1}|_{t_1=0} \langle X_2 \rangle_{t_1} \quad , \quad \mathbb{E}_c(X_2^2 X_1^{q}) = \partial^{q}_{t_1}|_{t_1=0} (\langle X_2^2 \rangle_{t_1} -
\langle X_2 \rangle_{t_1}^2)
\end{equation}
and so on, which is also equivalent (upon multiplying by $1/q!$ and summing over $q$) to
the following formula for the generating functions of the bivariate cumulants of lowest
order in $X_2$
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}_c(X_2 e^{t_1 X_1}) = \langle X_2 \rangle_{t_1} = \frac{\mathbb{E}(X_2 e^{t_1 X_1})}{\mathbb{E}(e^{t_1 X_1})}
\quad , \quad
\mathbb{E}_c(X_2^2 e^{t_1 X_1}) = \langle X_2^2 \rangle_{t_1} -
\langle X_2 \rangle_{t_1}^2
\end{equation}
which will be useful below.
\subsection{Mesoscopic interval}
Let us discuss first the mesoscopic interval.
Let us denote, as in the text, $y= \frac{\theta - \theta_A}{\ell} \in [0,1]$,
and $ \langle y^k \rangle$ the $k$-th moment of the random variable $y$ with respect to
the Gibbs measure associated to $Z_b$ defined in \eqref{Zb}, for a fixed random
configuration of the eigenvalues $\theta_i$. One can evaluate the following ratio of averages w.r.t.
the measure CUE$_\beta$ for the eigenvalues
\begin{eqnarray} \label{fr}
\frac{ \mathbb{E}[ \langle y^k \rangle Z_b^n ] }{\mathbb{E}[Z_b^n ]} = \langle y^k \rangle_{\beta,a,b,n}|_{(\beta,a,b)\to (b,2 n b^2, 0)} = M_k(t=-bn, b)
\end{eqnarray}
The numerator in the l.h.s. of \eqref{fr} equals Eq. \eqref{Zn2} of the text with $x_a \to y_a$
and $y_1^k$ inserted in the integrand. The corresponding ratio is thus
the $k$-th moment of the Jacobi ensemble denoted $\langle y^k \rangle_{\beta,a,b,n}$
in \cite{FLD2016} with the identification of parameters corresponding to fBm0
(see Eqs. (56,57) there). Note that the extra factors containing $A_\beta(z)$ in
\eqref{Zn2}, not present in the fBm0, drop out in the ratio. The expression
for the $\langle y^k \rangle_{\beta,a,b,n}$ were obtained in \cite{FLD2016} and
we denote $M_k(t=-bn, b)$ these expressions, which are rational fractions of
the variables $t=-b n$ and $b$. We thus obtain
\begin{equation} \label{qq}
\mathbb{E}( \langle y^k \rangle e^{- 2 \pi \sqrt{\frac{\beta}{2} } t {\cal F}} ) = M_k(t,b) \mathbb{E}(e^{- 2 \pi \sqrt{\frac{\beta}{2} } t {\cal F}} )
\end{equation}
which is valid in the high temperature phase $b<1$.
The simplest examples are the first two moments $k=1,2$. From (107) and (190) in \cite{FLD2016} we obtain
\begin{equation}
M_1(t,b) = \frac{1}{2} - \frac{t b}{2 (1+ b^2)} \quad , \quad
M_2(t,b) = \frac{\left(b^2-b t+1\right) \left(b \left(b \left(4
b^2-b t+t^2+9\right)-t\right)+4\right)}{2 \left(6
b^6+19 b^4+19 b^2+6\right)}
\end{equation}
These expressions are duality invariant, i.e. does not change under $b \to 1/b$.
All moments
$M_k(t,b)$ share this property \cite{FLD2016}
(their explicit expressions are given in (91-92) there).
Hence the freezing duality conjecture (FDC) allows to continue \eqref{qq} for $b>1$. As in the text, the r.h.s. is duality invariant if
multiplied by $\Gamma(1+ \frac{t}{b})$, hence the value of the l.h.s, as a function of $b$, freezes at $b=1$.
Taking $b \to +\infty$ we obtain
\begin{equation} \label{kkk1}
\mathbb{E}(y_m^k e^{- 2 \pi \sqrt{\frac{\beta}{2} } t \delta {\cal N}_m} ) = M_k(t,1) \mathbb{E}(e^{- 2 \pi \sqrt{\frac{\beta}{2} } t \delta {\cal N}_m} )
\end{equation}
where $y_m$ is the position of the maximum. Setting $t=0$ yields the results for the moments
$\mathbb{E}(y_m^k)$ quoted in the text. Let us denote the centered variables
\begin{equation}
\tilde y_m = y_m - \mathbb{E}(y_m) \quad , \quad
\delta \tilde {\cal N}_m=
\delta {\cal N}_m-\mathbb{E}(\delta {\cal N}_m)
\end{equation}
Consider \eqref{kkk1} for $k=1$. Using that $\mathbb{E}(y_m)
=\frac{1}{2}$, this can be written as
\begin{equation} \label{a11}
\mathbb{E}( \tilde y_m e^{- 2 \pi \sqrt{\frac{\beta}{2} } t
\delta \tilde {\cal N}_m
} ) = - \frac{t}{4} \, \mathbb{E}(e^{- 2 \pi \sqrt{\frac{\beta}{2} } t \delta \tilde {\cal N}_m} ) \quad \Leftrightarrow
\quad \langle \tilde y_m \rangle_t = - \frac{t}{4}
\end{equation}
where it is useful to define the following averages
\begin{equation}
\langle f(\tilde y_m) \rangle_t := \frac{\mathbb{E}( f(\tilde y_m) e^{- 2 \pi \sqrt{\frac{\beta}{2} } t
\delta \tilde {\cal N}_m} ) }{\mathbb{E}(e^{- 2 \pi \sqrt{\frac{\beta}{2} } t \delta \tilde {\cal N}_m} )}
\end{equation}
which represent averages under a biased probability
$e^{- 2 \pi \sqrt{\frac{\beta}{2} } t \delta \tilde {\cal N}_m} \times
{\cal P}(\delta \tilde {\cal N}_m)$, where ${\cal P}$ is the
PDF of $\delta \tilde {\cal N}_m$. Here $t<0$ corresponds to biasing the values of
the maximum towards the positive values and leads to positive values
on average for $\tilde y_m$. Expansion in powers of $t$ in \eqref{a11} yields the relations, valid for any $p \geq 0$
\begin{equation} \label{a2}
\mathbb{E}\big(\tilde y_m (\delta \tilde {\cal N}_m)^p \big)
= \frac{p}{4} \frac{1}{2 \pi \sqrt{\beta/2}} \mathbb{E}\big( (\delta \tilde {\cal N}_m)^{p-1} \big)
= p \, \mathbb{E}\big(\tilde y_m \delta \tilde {\cal N}_m \big) \times
\mathbb{E}\big( (\delta \tilde {\cal N}_m)^{p-1} \big)
\end{equation}
In particular
\begin{equation} \label{a3}
\mathbb{E}\big( \tilde y_m (\delta \tilde {\cal N}_m)^p \big)
= \frac{1}{(2 \pi \sqrt{\beta/2})^p} \times \begin{cases}
\frac{1}{4} \quad , \quad p=1 \\
0 \quad , \quad p=2 \\
\frac{3}{4} (2 \log N \ell + \frac{9}{4}) \quad , \quad p=3 \\
(- \frac{17}{4} + \frac{8 \pi^2}{3} - 8 \zeta(3) ) \quad , \quad p=4
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
The result for $p=1$ shows that positions of maximum $y_m>1/2$ correlate with
values of the maximum larger than the average, consistent with the pinning at $y=0$, i.e.
$\delta {\cal N}(\theta=\theta_A)=0$,
while the boundary condition at $y=1$ is free. Since $\delta {\cal N}_m-\mathbb{E}(\delta {\cal N}_m)$
is typically $\sim \sqrt{\log N \ell}$ the correlation with the Gaussian part of the fluctuations of
the value of the maximum is absent in the correlation for $p=1$ (which is $O(1)$). Now, it is easy to see
that \eqref{a2} and \eqref{a11} imply that {\it all higher bi-variate cumulants vanish}, i.e.
the information contained in \eqref{a11} can be summarized as
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \mathbb{E}\big( \tilde y_m \delta \tilde {\cal N}_m \big)
= \frac{1}{4} \frac{1}{2 \pi \sqrt{\beta/2}} \\
&& \mathbb{E}_c\big( \tilde y_m (\delta \tilde {\cal N}_m)^p \big) = 0 \quad , \quad p \geq 2
\end{eqnarray}
consistent with \eqref{a3} which is the sum of all {\it disconnected} averages.
For $k=2$ we obtain
\begin{equation} \label{a1}
\mathbb{E}(y_m^2 e^{- 2 \pi \sqrt{\frac{\beta}{2} } t
\delta \tilde {\cal N}_m
} ) = \frac{1}{100} (2-t) \left(17 - 2 t + t^2\right) \, \mathbb{E}(e^{- 2 \pi \sqrt{\frac{\beta}{2} } t \delta \tilde {\cal N}_m} )
\quad \Leftrightarrow
\quad \langle y_m^2 \rangle_t = \frac{1}{100} (2-t) \left(17 - 2 t + t^2\right)
\end{equation}
For $t=0$ we obtain the result given in the text
$\mathbb{E}(y_m^2)=\frac{17}{50}$. Expansion of the first equation in powers of
$t$ allows to obtain all joint moments of the form $\mathbb{E}(y_m^2 (\delta \tilde {\cal N}_m)^p )$ using our results for the cumulants of the value of the maximum (given in the text).
Alternatively we may write the bi-variate cumulants (see preliminary remark above)
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}_c(y_m^2 e^{- 2 \pi \sqrt{\frac{\beta}{2} } t \delta \tilde {\cal N}_m} )
= \langle y_m^2 \rangle_t - \langle y_m \rangle_t^2 = \frac{1}{400} (4-t^2) (9+4 t)
\end{equation}
Expanding in powers of $t$ on both sides we see that for $k=2$, only the first three connected
moments are non zero.
\subsection{Full circle}
Consider now the average of $\cos k \phi$ with respect to the Gibbs measure associated to $Z_b$,
defined in \eqref{Zb}, on the full circle, i.e. with $\theta_A=-\pi$ and $\theta_B=\pi$. Again one
can evaluate the ratio of averages w.r.t.
the measure CUE$_\beta$ for the eigenvalues
\begin{eqnarray} \label{fr2}
\frac{ \mathbb{E}[ \langle \cos k \phi \rangle Z_b^n ] }{\mathbb{E}[Z_b^n ]} =
\langle \cos(k \phi) \rangle_{\beta,\mu,n}
= (-1)^k \langle y^k \rangle_{\beta,a,b,n}|_{(\beta,a,b)\to (b,-1-b^2,2 n b^2)} = \tilde M_k(t=-bn, b)
\end{eqnarray}
The numerator in the l.h.s. of \eqref{fr2} equals Eq. \eqref{Zn} of the text with
$\cos k \phi_1$ inserted in the integrand. The second equality is the conjecture obtained in
Eqs. (157-158) in \cite{FLD2016} (where $\langle \cos(k \phi) \rangle_{\beta,\mu,n}$
denotes the l.h.s. in (158) there, with $\kappa=-\beta^2 \to - b^2$ and $\mu \to n b^2$)
which relates the moments in the circular ensemble to those on the interval, i.e the moments
$\langle y^k \rangle_{\beta,a,b,n}$ already used in the previous section. The different
specialisations of the parameters leads to other rational functions $\tilde M_k(t=-bn, b)$.
From (107) and (91-92) in \cite{FLD2016} we obtain
\begin{equation}
\tilde M_1(t,b) = - \frac{t b}{1+ b^2} \quad , \quad
\tilde M_2(t,b) = \frac{b t \left(b^4+2 b^3 t-b^2 t^2+3 b^2+2 b t+1\right)}{\left(b^2+1\right)
\left(b^2+2\right) \left(2 b^2+1\right)}
\end{equation}
These expressions are again duality invariant. From the FDC we obtain
\begin{equation} \label{kkk}
\mathbb{E}(\cos(k \theta_m) e^{- 2 \pi \sqrt{\frac{\beta}{2} } t \delta {\cal N}_m} ) = \tilde M_k(t,1) \mathbb{E}(e^{- 2 \pi \sqrt{\frac{\beta}{2} } t \delta {\cal N}_m} )
\end{equation}
where $\theta_m$ is the position of the maximum of $\delta {\cal N}(\theta)$ on the full circle. We can check that for $t=0$ all
$\mathbb{E}(\cos(k \theta_m))=0$, $\theta_m$ has a uniform distribution on the circle.
For $k=1$ we obtain
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}(\cos(\theta_m) \delta \tilde {\cal N}_m ) = \frac{1}{2} \frac{1}{2 \pi \sqrt{\beta/2}}
\end{equation}
which shows that higher values of the maximum correlate with $\cos(\theta_m) >0$,
i.e. $\theta_m$ being closer to $0$ than to $\pm \pi$, the point at which its value is pinned to zero.
Again we see that all connected correlations $\mathbb{E}_c(\cos(\theta_m) (\delta \tilde {\cal N}_m)^p )$
vanish. For $k=2$ we obtain
\begin{equation} \label{a6}
\mathbb{E}(\cos(2 \theta_m) e^{- 2 \pi \sqrt{\frac{\beta}{2} } t
\delta \tilde {\cal N}_m
} ) = \frac{1}{18} (5-t) t (t+1) \, \mathbb{E}(e^{- 2 \pi \sqrt{\frac{\beta}{2} } t \delta \tilde {\cal N}_m} )
\end{equation}
which, upon expanding in $t$ yields all joint moments of the form $\mathbb{E}(\cos(2 \theta_m)
(\delta \tilde {\cal N}_m)^p)$. \\
\end{widetext}
\end{document}
|
\section*{Introduction}
The theory of linear representations of the braid group $\mathbf{B}_{n}$ is a very large topic. One of the most famous representations is the Burau representation \cite{burau}, which
is non faithful for $n \ge 5$.
For a long period, it was an open problem whether $\mathbf{B}_{n}$ was linear until the independent works of Bigelow \cite{bigelowbraid}, Krammer \cite{KrammerLK} and Lawrence \cite{lawrencehomological} showing a faithful representation. Since the braid group $\mathbf{B}_{n}$
is an ubiquitous object in mathematics it is natural to ask whether other generalizations are linear too,
but except some cases (for instance Artin groups of type $B$ and $D$, braid groups of the sphere and of the projective plane) this question remains widely open.
In this work note we focus on welded braid groups, which, as braid groups, admit several different definitions,
for instance in terms of configuration spaces of (euclidean) circles, as automorphisms of free groups, or as \emph{tubes} in $\mathbb{R}^4$.
The representation theory for these groups is just at the beginning: Burau representation extends, in terms of Fox derivatives and Magnus expansion,
to welded braid groups \cite{Bardakovthestructure} and few other results are known on representations arising from braided vector spaces \cite{KMRW} and on extensions of representations of $\mathbf{B}_{n}$ to particular subgroups of
welded braid groups \cite{BKMR19}.
The main idea of this work is to extend Long-Moody procedure \cite{BirmanLongMoody, Long1, Long2, Long3, soulie1, soulie2}
to $\mathbf{wB}_{n}$: in \S \ref{S1} we recall briefly the interpretation of welded braid groups in terms of fundamental groups of configuration spaces of circles
and as automorphisms of free groups through Artin homomophism; this latter interpretation will be extended to other possible representations, extending Wada representations of the classical braid group $\mathbf{B}_{n}$. In \S \ref{sec:linrep} we recall and compare different
Burau representations for $\mathbf{wB}_{n}$, the reducible one (Proposition \ref{def:burau}), the reduced one (Proposition \ref{def:redburau}), and the dual version
(Proposition \ref{def:dualburau}). Then we introduce Tong-Yang-Ma representations of $\mathbf{wB}_{n}$ (Proposition \ref{def:TYM}) and extending the heuristic approach proposed in \cite{TYM} we show that Burau and Tong-Yang-Ma representations are the only representations allowing a certain diagram to commute (Proposition \ref{def:unique}). The main results are given in \S \ref{sec:LM}, where we adapt to welded braid groups the Long-Moody procedure for obtaining iterated linear representations. At the first step we obtain the Burau representation (Theorem \ref{thm:recbur}) as in the case of $\mathbf{B}_{n}$. Surprisingly
at the second iteration we do not obtain any new information, since we get the tensor product of two Burau representations (Theorem \ref{thm:iter}), while in the case of $\mathbf{B}_{n}$ we recover this way Lawrence-Krammer representation (see \cite[Section 2.3.1]{soulie1}). This result can be also compared with the fact that the "trivial" extension of Bigelow representation to $\mathbf{wB}_{n}$ (associating to "braid" generators corresponding Bigelow matrices and to
"permutation" generators the corresponding permutations matrices)
is not well defined (see \cite{Bardakovthestructure, KMRW}). Finally, once more contrarily to the case of $\mathbf{B}_{n}$, we show
in Theorem \ref{impossiblerecoverTYM} that it is not possible to recover the Tong-Yang-Ma representation
for $\mathbf{wB}_{n}$ by a Long-Moody construction and we conclude with some further possible directions on the study of linear representations for $\mathbf{wB}_{n}$. In a further paper, we intend to study the Long-Moody iteration on the Tong-Yang-Ma representation, but here we focus on the two above interesting facts.
\subsubsection*{Acknowledgements}
The authors were partially supported by the ANR Project AlMaRe (ANR-19-CE40-0001-01). The first author was also partially supported by the project ARTIQ (ERDF/RIN). The second author was also partially supported by the ANR Project ChroK (ANR-16-CE40-0003). The authors are deeply grateful to Emmanuel Wagner for his suggestions and ideas all along the writing of this paper. They also thank Markus Szymik for helpful discussions on that topic.
\paragraph{Notations and conventions.}
Throughout this work, for a group defined by a (finite) presentation, we take the convention to read from the right to the left for the group operation.
\section{State of the art of welded braid groups representations}\label{S1}
\subsection{Recollections on welded braid groups}\label{sec:recollectionswelded}
We refer the reader to \cite{damiani2017journey} for a complete and unified presentation of the various definitions of welded braid groups, which correspond to (unextended) loop braid groups in this reference. In the following we will use essentially the interpretation of welded braid groups in terms of automorphisms of free groups and fundamental groups of configuration spaces of circles.
In this work, we focus on a 3-dimensional analogue of $\mathbf{B}_{n}$: it is the fundamental group of all configurations of $n$
unlinked Euclidean circles lying on planes that are parallel to a fixed one
(called \emph{untwisted rings} in \cite{BrendleHatcher}). According to \cite{BrendleHatcher}
we will denote by $\mathcal{UR}_n$ the space of configurations of $n$
unlinked Euclidean circles being all parallel to a fixed plane
and by $UR_n$ its fundamental group (called \emph{group of rings} in \cite{BrendleHatcher}).
The group $UR_n$ is generated by $2$ types of moves (see Figure \ref{fig:moves}).
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center} \input{pic-circles-02a.tex} \qquad \qquad
\input{pic-circles-02b.tex} \qquad
\caption{The moves $\tau_i$ and $\sigma_i$.
\label{fig:moves}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The move $\tau_i$ is the path permuting the $i$-th and the $i+1$-th circles by passing over (or around)
while $\sigma_i$ permutes them by passing the $i$-th circle through the $i+1$-th (let us remark that our notation is different from the one of \cite{BrendleHatcher}, where $\tau_i$ was denoted by $\sigma_i$ and $\sigma_i$ by $\rho_i$; here we change the notation because
$\sigma_i$'s generate a subgroup isomorphic to $\mathbf{B}_{n}$).
The fundamental group $UR_n$ is here denoted by $\mathbf{wB}_n$, and it is called
welded braid group.
Note that the convention of reading from the right to the left for the group operation is coherent with the interpretation of $\mathbf{wB}_{n}$ as the fundamental group of the space of configurations of $n$ unlinked Euclidean circles being all parallel to a fixed plane: this convention corresponds to the composition of morphisms. We abuse the notation throughout this work, identifying $\lambda\circ\lambda'=\lambda\lambda'$ for all elements $\lambda$ and $\lambda'$ of $\mathbf{wB}_{n}$.
In \cite{BrendleHatcher} was proven that the welded braid group on $n$ generators $\mathbf{wB}_{n}$
admits a presentation with generators $\left\{ \sigma_{i},\tau_{i}\mid i\in\left\{ 1,\ldots,n-1\right\} \right\}$
together with relations:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:relations}
\begin{cases}
\sigma_{i}\sigma_{k}=\sigma_{k}\sigma_{i} & \textrm{if \ensuremath{\mid i-k\mid\geq2},}\\
\sigma_{i}\sigma_{i+1}\sigma_{i}=\sigma_{i+1}\sigma_{i}\sigma_{i+1} & \textrm{if \ensuremath{i\in\left\{ 1,\ldots,n-2\right\} },}\\
\tau_{i}\tau_{k}=\tau_{k}\tau_{i} & \textrm{if \ensuremath{\mid i-k\mid\geq2},}\\
\tau_{i}\tau_{i+1}\tau_{i}=\tau_{i+1}\tau_{i}\tau_{i+1} & \textrm{if \ensuremath{i\in\left\{ 1,\ldots,n-2\right\} },}\\
\tau_{i}^{2}=1 & \textrm{if \ensuremath{i\in\left\{ 1,\ldots,n-1\right\} },}\\
\sigma_{i}\tau_{k}=\tau_{k}\sigma_{i} & \textrm{if \ensuremath{\mid i-k\mid\geq2},}\\
\tau_{i}\sigma_{i+1}\sigma_{i}=\sigma_{i+1}\sigma_{i}\tau_{i+1} & \textrm{if \ensuremath{i\in\left\{ 1,\ldots,n-2\right\} },}\\
\sigma_{i}\tau_{i+1}\tau_{i}=\tau_{i+1}\tau_{i}\sigma_{i+1} & \textrm{if \ensuremath{i\in\left\{ 1,\ldots,n-2\right\} }.}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
The map $\mathcal{UR}_{n} \to \mathcal{UR}_{n+1}$ which adds a circle on the left induces an (injective) homomorphism
from $\mathbf{wB}_{n}$ to $\mathbf{wB}_{n+1}$.
Let $\mathcal{PUR}_n$ be the space of configurations of $n$
ordered unlinked Euclidean circles being all parallel to a fixed plane; the fundamental group of
$\mathcal{PUR}_n$ is usually denoted by $ \mathbf{wP}_{n}$ and called welded pure braid group.
The map $\mathcal{PUR}_{n+1} \to
\mathcal{PUR}_{n}$ which forgets the first circle is a fibration and the long exact sequence in homotopy provides the following (splitting) sequence:
$$\xymatrix{1\ar@{->}[r] & \mathbf{D}_{n}\ar@{->}[r] & \mathbf{wP}_{n+1}\ar@{->}[r] & \mathbf{wP}_{n}\ar@{->}[r] & 1,}
$$
where $\mathbf{D}_{n}$ consists of configurations with $n$ circles in a fixed position and the first circle varying \cite{BrendleHatcher}.
Let now $\mathcal{UR}_{1,n}$ be the orbit space
$\mathcal{PUR}_{n+1}/\mathfrak{S}_{n}$ where the symmetric group $\mathfrak{S}_{n}$ acts by permutation on last $n$ circles. We will denote
by $\mathbf{wB}_{1,n}$ its fundamental group.
As in previous case we have a splitting sequence:
$$\xymatrix{1\ar@{->}[r] & \mathbf{D}_{n}\ar@{->}[r] & \mathbf{wB}_{1,n}\ar@{->}[r] & \mathbf{wB}_{n}\ar@{->}[r] & 1.}
$$
\subsection{Artin homomorphism}\label{Artin homomorphism}
In the following we will use another interpretation of $\mathbf{wB}_{n}$, this time in terms of automorphisms of free groups.
Let $\mathbf{F}_{n}$ be the free group on $n$ generators $\left\langle x_{1},\ldots,x_{n}\right\rangle $. We call {\em Artin homomorphism} the map $a_n\colon \mathbf{wB}_{n}\rightarrow\mathrm{Aut}\left(\mathbf{F}_{n}\right)$ defined as follows:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sigma_{i} & \longmapsto & \begin{cases}
x_{i}\longmapsto x_{i+1}\\
x_{i+1}\longmapsto x_{i+1}^{-1}x_{i}x_{i+1}\\
x_{j}\longmapsto x_{j} \quad j \notin \{i, i+1\}
\end{cases}\\
\tau_{i} & \longmapsto & \begin{cases}
x_{i}\longmapsto x_{i+1}\\
x_{i+1}\longmapsto x_{i}\\
x_{j}\longmapsto x_{j} \quad j \notin \{i, i+1\}
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray*}
This map is well defined: the relations involving only generators $\left\{ \sigma_{i}\mid i\in\left\{ 1,\ldots,n-1\right\} \right\}$
are verified since it is the usual Artin representation of $\mathbf{B}_{n}$ in $\mathrm{Aut}\left(\mathbf{F}_{n}\right)$. The same remark holds for
relations involving only generators $\left\{ \tau_{i}\mid i\in\left\{ 1,\ldots,n-1\right\} \right\}$ (permutation automorphisms),
therefore the only relations that we have to verify are relations involving generators of both type $\sigma_i$ and $\tau_i$.
We check here relations $\tau_{i}\sigma_{i+1}\sigma_{i}=\sigma_{i+1}\sigma_{i}\tau_{i+1}$
and $\tau_{i+1}\tau_{i}\sigma_{i+1}=\sigma_{i}\tau_{i+1}\tau_{i}$; commutation relations are
evidently verified (see also \cite{FennRimanyiRourke}).
$$a_{n}\left(\sigma_{i+1}\sigma_{i}\tau_{i+1}\right)=\begin{cases}
x_{i}\longmapsto x_{i+2}\\
x_{i+1}\longmapsto x_{i+2}^{-1}x_{i+1}x_{i+2}\\
x_{i+2}\longmapsto x_{i+1}^{-1}x_{i}x_{i+1}\\
x_j \longmapsto x_j \quad j \notin \{i, i+1, i+2\}
\end{cases}=a_{n}\left(\tau_{i}\sigma_{i+1}\sigma_{i}\right)$$
$$a_{n}\left(\sigma_{i}\tau_{i+1}\tau_{i}\right)=\begin{cases}
x_{i}\longmapsto x_{i+2}\\
x_{i+1}\longmapsto x_{i+1}\\
x_{i+2}\longmapsto x_{i+1}^{-1}x_{i}x_{i+1}\\
x_j \longmapsto x_j \quad j \notin \{i, i+1, i+2\}
\end{cases}=a_{n}\left(\tau_{i+1}\tau_{i}\sigma_{i+1}\right)$$
Geometrically, we are associating to any
generator of $\mathbf{wB}_{n} $ the corresponding action on the fundamental group of the ball $B^3$ less $n$ trivial circles,
which is a free group on $n$ generators. We refer to \cite{damiani2017journey} for a rigorous proof of this construction and of the fact that
Artin homomorphism is injective. Moreover,
the image of the group $\mathbf{wB}_{n}$ in $\mathrm{Aut}\left(\mathbf{F}_{n}\right)$ is the subgroup of those automorphisms of $\mathbf{F}_{n}$ that send each generator of $\mathbf{F}_{n}$ to a conjugate of some generator \cite{FennRimanyiRourke}.
Notice also that the homomorphism
from $\mathbf{wB}_{n}$ to $\mathbf{wB}_{n+1}$ previously defined ("add a circle on the left")
becomes here the restriction of the map $id_{1}\ast-:\textrm{Aut}\left(\mathbf{F}_{n}\right)\hookrightarrow \textrm{Aut}\left(\mathbf{F}_{n+1}\right)$.
In other words, $id_{1}\ast\sigma_{i}=\sigma_{i+1}$ and $id_{1}\ast\tau_{i}=\tau_{i+1}$.
The group $\mathbf{D}_{n}$ previously defined is isomorphic to the group generated by automorphisms
$\left\{ \epsilon_{i,1} , \epsilon_{1,i} \mid i\in\left\{ 2,\ldots,n+1\right\} \right\}$ \cite{Bardakovconjugatingautomorphisms},
where
\begin{eqnarray*}
\epsilon_{1,i} & \longmapsto & \begin{cases}
x_{i}\longmapsto x_{1}^{-1} x_{i} x_{1}\\
x_{j}\longmapsto x_{j} \quad j \not= i
\end{cases}\\
\epsilon_{i,1} & \longmapsto & \begin{cases}
x_{1}\longmapsto x_{i}^{-1} x_{1} x_{i}\\
x_{j}\longmapsto x_{j} \quad j \not= 1
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray*}
Note that $\left\{ \epsilon_{i,1} \right\}$ generate a free group of order $n$ and $\left\{ \epsilon_{1,i} \right\}$ a free abelian group of rank $n$ \cite{Bardakovconjugatingautomorphisms}, but $\mathbf{D}_{n}$ is not finitely presented when $n\ge 3$ \cite{Pe}.
\paragraph{Alternative to Artin homomorphism.}\label{sec:Wada}
Wada \cite{wada1992group} found several \emph{local} representations of $\mathbf{B}_{n}$ in $\mathrm{Aut}\left(\mathbf{F}_{n}\right)$ of the following form:
any generator (and therefore its inverse) of $\mathbf{B}_{n}$ acts trivially on generators of $\mathbf{F}_{n}$ except a pair of generators:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sigma_i \cdot x_i=u(x_i, x_{i+1}) \, ,\\
\sigma_i \cdot x_{i+1}=v(x_i, x_{i+1}) \, , \\
\sigma_i \cdot x_j= x_j &\qquad j \not= i, i+1 \, ,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $u$ and $v$ are now words in the generators $x_i, x_{i+1}$, with $\langle x_i, x_{i+1} \rangle \simeq \mathbf{F}_{2}$. Wada found seven families of representations of local type (see Section 4 of \cite{BBrep} for a short survey on these representations), up to the dual equivalence (corresponding to the involution of $\mathbf{F}_{n}$ given by simultaneously replacing all $x_i$ with $x_i^{-1}$) and inverse equivalence (derived from the involution of $\mathbf{B}_{n}$ defined by sending $\sigma_{i}$ to $\sigma_{i}^{-1}$):\footnote{In \cite{BBrep} and \cite{wada1992group}, the action described here is the one for $\sigma_i^{-1}$. However, we choose to write the inverse symmetry equivalent here to be consistent with respect to the above Artin representation $a_n$
and with the fact that we compose elements from the right to the left.}
\begin{itemize}
\item Type 1, $\psi_1$: $u(x_i, x_{i+1})= x_i$ and $v(x_i, x_{i+1})= x_{i+1} $;
\item Type 2, $\psi_2$: $u(x_i, x_{i+1})= x_{i+1}^{-1}$ and $v(x_i, x_{i+1})= x_i$;
\item Type 3, $\psi_3$: $u(x_i, x_{i+1})= x_{i+1}^{-1}$ and $v(x_i, x_{i+1})= x_i^{-1} $;
\item Type 4, $\psi_{4,h}$: $u(x_i, x_{i+1})= x_{i+1}$ and $v(x_i, x_{i+1})= x_{i+1}^{-h} x_{i} x_{i+1}^{h}$;
\item Type 5, $\psi_5$: $u(x_i, x_{i+1})= x_{i+1} $ and $v(x_i, x_{i+1})= x_{i+1}x_{i}^{-1} x_{i+1}$;
\item Type 6, $\psi_6$: $u(x_i, x_{i+1})= x_{i+1}^{-1}$ and $v(x_i, x_{i+1})= x_{i+1} x_{i} x_{i+1}$;
\item Type 7, $\psi_7$: $u(x_i, x_{i+1})= x_{i}x_{i+1}^{-1}x_{i}^{-1}$ and $v(x_i, x_{i+1})= x_{i}x_{i+1}^{2}$.
\end{itemize}
We can try to extend Wada representations to welded braid groups
associating to any generator $\sigma_i$ the Wada representation of type $k$ and to any generator $\tau_i$
the corresponding permutation automorphism. We will say that a Wada representation extends to $\mathbf{wB}_{n}$
if the map defined as above on generators of $\mathbf{wB}_{n}$ is actually a homomorphism.
Type 1 does not extend, while Type 2 and Type 3 extend to $\mathbf{wB}_{n}$ but these extensions are not interesting since the image of the group generated by $\sigma_i$'s
in $\mathrm{Aut}\left(\mathbf{F}_{n}\right)$ is trivial or isomorphic to $\mathfrak{S}_{n}$. Between the other four representations it is easy to check (see \cite{BardakovBellingeri1}) that only Type 4 and Type 5 representations extend this way to a representation; let denote these two representations respectively by
$\chi_1$ and $\chi_2$. These two representations are not equivalent meaning that
there are no automorphisms
$\phi \in \mathrm{Aut}\left(\mathbf{F}_{n}\right)$ and $\mu : \mathbf{wB}_{n} \to \mathbf{wB}_{n}$ such that
$$
\phi^{-1} \, \chi_1(\beta ) \, \phi = \chi_2(\mu(\beta )) ,
$$
for any $\beta \in \mathbf{wB}_{n}$ (see \cite{BardakovBellingeri1}).
\subsection{Known linear representations for welded braid groups}\label{sec:linrep}
We present in this section the linear representations of welded braid groups which can be straightforwardly derived from those of braid groups. In particular, we extend heuristic procedure on matrices. For the remainder of \S\ref{sec:linrep}, fix a natural number $n\geq2$.
Beforehand we indicate that we study here in the "specific" representations of welded braid groups, not those which factor through symmetric groups. Namely, recall that sending both $\sigma_{i}$ and $\tau_{i}$ in the transposition $(i,i+1)$ for $i\in\left\{ 1,\ldots,n-1\right\}$
we obtain the short exact sequence:
$$\xymatrix{1\ar@{->}[r] & \mathbf{wP}_{n}\ar@{->}[r] & \mathbf{wB}_{n}\ar@{->}[r] & \mathfrak{S}_{n}\ar@{->}[r] & 1.}$$
Therefore, all representations of the symmetric group $\mathfrak{S}_{n}$ lift to $\mathbf{wB}_{n}$, but we will not consider them since we loose too many informations on welded braid groups.
\subsubsection{The Burau representations}
The family of \emph{Burau} representations for braid groups were first introduced in \cite{burau} and has been intensively studied. We refer the reader to \cite{kasselturaev} for a complete presentation.
These representations can be extended to welded braid groups in the following way.
\begin{prop}\label{def:burau}
The following assignment defines a representation $Bur:\mathbf{wB}_{n}\rightarrow GL_{n}\left(\mathbb{Z}[t^{\pm1}]\right)$ called the Burau representation of the welded braid group $\mathbf{wB}_{n}$:
$$\sigma_{i}\mapsto Id_{i-1}\oplus\left[\begin{array}{cc}
0 & t\\
1 & 1-t
\end{array}\right]\oplus Id_{n-i-1}\,\textrm{ and }\,\tau_{i}\mapsto Id_{i-1}\oplus\left[\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1\\
1 & 0
\end{array}\right]\oplus Id_{n-i-1}$$
for all natural numbers $i\in\left\{ 1,\ldots,n-1\right\} $.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The matrices for $\sigma_{i}$ and $\tau_{i}$ define representations of braid groups and symmetric groups respectively. It follows from the relations of $\mathbf{wB}_{n}$ of \eqref{eq:relations} that we just have to check the mixed relations between the braid and symmetric generators: this is done by straightforward computations.
\end{proof}
\paragraph{Reduced version.}
As for the case of braid groups, the Burau representation is reducible and we can define an irreducible version.
\begin{prop}\label{def:redburau}
The following assignment defines a representation $\overline{Bur}:\mathbf{wB}_{n}\rightarrow GL_{n-1}\left(\mathbb{Z}[t^{\pm1}]\right)$ called the reduced Burau representation of the welded braid group $\mathbf{wB}_{n}$:
$$\sigma_{1}\mapsto\left[\begin{array}{cc}
-t & t\\
0 & 1
\end{array}\right]\oplus Id_{n-3}\,\textrm{ and }\,\tau_{1}\mapsto\left[\begin{array}{cc}
-1 & 1\\
0 & 1
\end{array}\right]\oplus Id_{n-3};$$
$$\sigma_{n-1}\mapsto Id_{n-3}\oplus\left[\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0\\
1 & -t
\end{array}\right]\,\textrm{ and }\,\tau_{n-1}\mapsto Id_{n-3}\oplus\left[\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0\\
1 & -1
\end{array}\right];$$
$$\sigma_{i}\mapsto Id_{i-2}\oplus\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & 0\\
t & -t & 1\\
0 & 0 & 1
\end{array}\right]\oplus Id_{n-i-2}\,\textrm{ and }\,\tau_{i}\mapsto Id_{i-2}\oplus\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & 0\\
1 & -1 & 1\\
0 & 0 & 1
\end{array}\right]\oplus Id_{n-i-2}$$
for all natural numbers $i\in\left\{ 2,\ldots,n-2\right\} $. Moreover we have a short exact sequence of $\mathbf{wB}_{n}$-representations
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sesburau}
\xymatrix{0\ar@{->}[r] & \overline{Bur}\ar@{->}[r] & Bur\ar@{->}[r] & \mathbb{Z}\left[t^{\pm1}\right]\ar@{->}[r] & 0}
\end{equation}
where $\ensuremath{\mathbf{wB}_{n}}$ acts trivially on the kernel $\mathbb{Z}\left[t^{\pm1}\right]$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The matrices for $\sigma_{i}$ define the reduced Burau representations of braid groups (see \cite[Section 3.3]{kasselturaev}) and those for $\tau_{i}$ define the standard representation of symmetric groups. Again the compatibility with respect to the mixed relations of $\mathbf{wB}_{n}$ are checked by straightforward computations.
Let $r_{n}$ be the $n\times n$-matrix with coefficients $r_{i,j}=1$ if $j\leq i$ and $r_{i,j}=0$ otherwise. Then
$$r_{n}\circ Bur\left(\sigma_{i}\right)\circ r_{n}^{-1}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
\overline{Bur}\left(\sigma_{i}\right) & C_{i}\\
0 & 1
\end{array}\right]$$
where $C_{i}=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}0 & \cdots & 0 & \delta_{i,n-1} & 1\end{array}\right]^{T}$ (where the label $^{T}$ means the transpose matrix) and $\delta_{i,n-1}$ denotes the Kronecker delta: this defines the short exact sequence \eqref{eq:sesburau}.
\end{proof}
\begin{rmk}
Since Burau representation for $\mathbf{B}_{n}$ is not faithful when $n\ge 5$, it follows that also its extension is not faithful;
indeed, the Burau representation for $\mathbf{wB}_{n}$ has non trivial kernel even for $n=2$ (see Lemma 6 of \cite{Bardakovextendingautomorphisms}).
\end{rmk}
\paragraph{Dual versions.}
Actually, there are two non-equivalent versions of the Burau representation for braid groups: the one which matrices are given in Proposition \ref{def:burau}, and its dual which matrices are the transpose of the inverse of these matrices. This dual version also lifts to the welded braid group:
\begin{prop}\label{def:dualburau}
Assigning $Bur^{*}\left(\sigma_{i}\right)=Bur^{T}\left(\sigma_{i}^{-1}\right)$ and $Bur^{*}\left(\tau_{i}\right)=Bur^{T}\left(\tau_{i}^{-1}\right)$ for all natural numbers $i\in\left\{ 1,\ldots,n-1\right\} $ defines a representation $Bur^{*}:\mathbf{wB}_{n}\rightarrow GL_{n}\left(\mathbb{Z}[t^{\pm1}]\right)$ called the dual Burau representation.
It induces a dual reduced Burau representation $\overline{Bur}^{*}:\mathbf{wB}_{n}\rightarrow GL_{n-1}\left(\mathbb{Z}[t^{\pm1}]\right)$ which is defined by $\overline{Bur}^{*}\left(\sigma_{i}\right)=\overline{Bur}^{T}\left(\sigma_{i}^{-1}\right)$ and $\overline{Bur}^{*}\left(\tau_{i}\right)=\overline{Bur}^{T}\left(\tau_{i}^{-1}\right)$ for all natural numbers $i\in\left\{ 1,\ldots,n-1\right\} $, and defines the short exact sequence of $\mathbf{wB}_{n}$-representations
\begin{equation}\label{eq:dualsesburau}
\xymatrix{0\ar@{->}[r] & \mathbb{Z}\left[t^{\pm1}\right]\ar@{->}[r] & Bur^{*}\ar@{->}[r] & \overline{Bur}^{*}\ar@{->}[r] & 0}
\end{equation}
where $\ensuremath{\mathbf{wB}_{n}}$ acts trivially on the kernel $\mathbb{Z}\left[t^{\pm1}\right]$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Taking the transpose of the inverse of a multiplication of matrices keeps the order of the multiplication. Therefore all the relations of \eqref{eq:relations} are therefore straightforwardly satisfied and proves that $Bur^{*}$ is a representation. The reduced version $\overline{Bur}^{*}$ is induced by taking the transpose of the inverse of the short exact sequence \eqref{eq:sesburau}: taking the inverse keeps the direction of the arrows, whereas the transpose reverses this direction (since it exchanges lines and columns of matrices) and we obtain \eqref{eq:dualsesburau}.
\end{proof}
The dual Burau representation was already introduced in \cite[Section 4]{Vershinin}.
\subsubsection{The Tong-Yang-Ma procedure and associated representations.}
In 1996, Tong, Yang and Ma \cite{TYM} investigated the representations of $\mathbf{B}_{n}$ where the $i$-th generator is sent to a non-singular matrix of the form
$$Id_{i-1}\oplus \left[\begin{array}{cc}
a & b\\
c & d
\end{array}\right]\oplus Id_{n-i-1}.$$In particular, they proved that there exist (up to equivalence and dual) only two non trivial representations of this type: the unreduced Burau representations and a new irreducible representation, called the \emph{Tong-Yang-Ma} representation. This last family lifts to define two families of linear representations of the welded braid group $\mathbf{wB}_{n}$.
\begin{prop}\label{def:TYM}
The following assignment defines a representation $TYM:\mathbf{wB}_{n}\rightarrow GL_{n}\left(\mathbb{Z}[t^{\pm1}]\right)$ called the Tong-Yang-Ma representation of the welded braid group $\mathbf{wB}_{n}$:
$$\sigma_{i}\mapsto Id_{i-1}\oplus\left[\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1\\
t & 0
\end{array}\right]\oplus Id_{n-i-1}\,\textrm{ and }\,\tau_{i}\mapsto Id_{i-1}\oplus\left[\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1\\
1 & 0
\end{array}\right]\oplus Id_{n-i-1}$$
for all natural numbers $i\in\left\{ 1,\ldots,n-1\right\} $. Taking the transpose of the inverse of the above matrices defines the dual Tong-Yang-Ma representation $TYM^{*}:\mathbf{wB}_{n}\rightarrow GL_{n}\left(\mathbb{Z}[t^{\pm1}]\right)$ (which is obviously not equivalent to $TYM$).
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
As above for the Burau representations, we just have to check the compatibility with respect to the mixed relations \eqref{eq:relations} between the braid and symmetric generators of $\mathbf{wB}_{n}$: this is done by straightforward computations.
\end{proof}
In addition, we can carry out the analogous heuristic approach to \cite{TYM} for the welded braid groups. For all $i\in\left\{ 1,\ldots,n-1\right\} $, we denote by $\textrm{incl}_{i}^{n}:\mathbf{wB}_{2}\cong\mathbb{Z}\times\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}\hookrightarrow\mathbf{wB}_{n}$ the inclusion morphism induced by $\textrm{incl}_{i}^{n}\left(\sigma_{1}\right)=\sigma_{i}$ and $\textrm{incl}_{i}^{n}\left(\tau_{1}\right)=\tau_{i}$.
\begin{prop}\label{def:unique}
Let $\eta_{n}:\mathbf{wB}_{n}\longrightarrow GL_{n}$ be a representation. Assume that for all $i\in\left\{ 1,\ldots,n-1\right\} $ the following diagram is commutative:$$\xymatrix{\mathbf{wB}_{n}\ar@{->}[rr]^{\eta_{n}} & & GL_{n}\left(\mathbb{Z}\left[t^{\pm1}\right]\right)\\
\mathbf{wB}_{2}\ar@{->}[rr]_{\eta_{2}}\ar@{->}[u]^{\textrm{incl}_{i}^{n}} & & GL_{2}\left(\mathbb{Z}\left[t^{\pm1}\right]\right).\ar@{->}[u]_{id_{i-1}\oplus-\oplus id_{n-i-1}}
}$$Then $\eta_{n}$ is equivalent or dual to the trivial representation, or to the (unreduced) Burau representation $Bur$, or to the Tong-Yang-Ma representation $TYM$, or else to the specialisation at $t=1$ of the Burau representation.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Restricting along the natural inclusion $\mathbf{B}_{n}\hookrightarrow\mathbf{wB}_{n}$, it follows from \cite[Part II]{TYM} that three only possible matrices (up to equivalence and dual) on which the braid generators $\left\{ \sigma_{i}\right\} _{i\in\left\{ 1,\ldots,n-1\right\} }$ can be sent to are the trivial, Burau and Tong-Yang-Ma matrices.
Note that the only non-trivial representation $\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}\rightarrow GL_{2}\left(\mathbb{Z}\left[t^{\pm1}\right]\right)$ is the permutation sending the non-trivial element of $\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$ to the permutation matrix.
There are thus two choices for the symmetric generators $\left\{ \tau_{i}\right\} _{i\in\left\{ 1,\ldots,n-1\right\} }$. First the relation $\tau_{i}\tau_{i+1}\tau_{i}=\tau_{i+1}\tau_{i}\tau_{i+1}$ of \eqref{eq:relations} implies that all these generators are sent to either a non-trivial matrix or the trivial matrix. Then it follows from the relation $\tau_{i}\sigma_{i+1}\sigma_{i}=\sigma_{i+1}\sigma_{i}\tau_{i+1}$ of \eqref{eq:relations} that the symmetric generators are sent to the identity matrix if the braid generators are, and to the permutation matrices otherwise.
\end{proof}
\section{The Long-Moody construction for welded braid groups}\label{sec:LM}
In $1994$, Long and Moody \cite{Long1} gave a method to construct a new linear representation of $\mathbf{B}_{n}$ from a representation of $\mathbf{B}_{n+1}$, complexifying in a sense the initial representation. For instance, it reconstructs the unreduced Burau representation from a one dimensional representation. It was studied from a functorial point of view and extended in \cite{soulie1} and then generalised to other families of groups \cite{soulie2}. In particular, the underlying framework of this method, called the \emph{Long-Moody construction}, naturally arises considering representations of \emph{welded} braid groups: the aim of this section is the study of this construction in this case. We fix a natural number $n\geq3$ all along \S\ref{sec:LM}.
\subsection{The theoretical setting of the Long-Moody construction}\label{sec:theoretical}
We detail here the required tool and present the abstract definition of the Long-Moody construction.
\paragraph{Tool.}
Recall that $\mathbf{F}_{n}=\left\langle x_{1},\ldots,x_{n}\right\rangle $ is the free group on $n$ generators.
The key ingredient to define the Long-Moody construction for welded braid groups is to find a group morphisms $\alpha_{n}\colon \mathbf{wB}_{n}\rightarrow\mathrm{Aut}\left(\mathbf{F}_{n}\right)$ and $\xi_{n}\colon\mathbf{F}_{n}\rightarrow\mathbf{wB}_{n+1}$ such that:
\begin{itemize}
\item the morphism $\mathbf{F}_{n}*\mathbf{wB}_{n}\rightarrow\mathbf{wB}_{n+1}$ given by the coproduct of $\xi_{n}$ and $id_{1}*-$ factors across the canonical surjection to the semidirect product $\mathbf{F}_{n}\underset{\alpha_{n}}{\rtimes}\mathbf{B}_{n}$;
\item the following diagram is commutative
\begin{equation}\label{eq:diagram}
\xymatrix{\mathbf{F}_{n}\ar@{^{(}->}[r]\ar@{->}[dr]_{\xi_{n}} & \mathbf{F}_{n}\underset{\alpha_{n}}{\rtimes}\mathbf{wB}_{n}\ar@{->}[d] & \mathbf{wB}_{n}\ar@{_{(}->}[l]\ar@{->}[dl]^{id_{1}*-}\\
& \mathbf{wB}_{n+1},
}
\end{equation}
where the vertical morphism $\mathbf{F}_{n}\underset{\alpha_{n}}{\rtimes}\mathbf{wB}_{n}\rightarrow\mathbf{wB}_{n+1}$ is induced by the coproduct of $\xi_{n}$ and $id_{1}*-$ morphism $\mathbf{F}_{n}*\mathbf{B}_{n}\rightarrow\mathbf{B}_{n+1}$.
\end{itemize}
In other words, we require that for all elements $\lambda\in \mathbf{wB}_{n}$ and
$x\in \mathbf{F}_{n}$ the morphism $\xi_{n}$ satisfies the following equality in $\mathbf{wB}_{n+1}$:
\begin{equation}
\left(id_{1}*\lambda\right)\circ\xi_{n}\left(x\right)=\xi_{n}\left(\alpha_{n}\left(\lambda\right)\left(x\right)\right)\circ\left(id_{1}*\lambda\right).\label{eq:cond1}
\end{equation}
\paragraph{Definition.} The Long-Moody construction is defined as follows. We fix an abelian group $V$. We denote by $\mathcal{I}_{\mathbf{F}_{n}}$ the augmentation ideal of the group ring $\mathbb{Z}\left[\mathbf{F}_{n}\right]$. Note that the action $\alpha_{n}$ canonically induces an action of $\mathbf{wB}_{n}$ on $\mathcal{I}_{\mathbf{F}_{n}}$ (that we denote in the same way for convenience).
Let $\rho:\mathbf{wB}_{n+1}\rightarrow Aut_{\mathbb{Z}}\left(V\right)$ be a linear representation. Precomposing by the morphism $\xi_{n}$, $\rho$ gives the module $V$ a $\mathbf{F}_{n}$-module structure. Then the Long-Moody construction
$$\mathbf{LM}\left(\rho\right):\mathbf{wB}_{n}\rightarrow Aut_{\mathbb{Z}}\left(\mathcal{I}_{\mathbf{F}_{n}}\underset{\mathbf{F}_{n}}{\varotimes}V\right)$$
is the map defined by:
\[
\mathbf{LM}\left(\rho\right)\left(\lambda\right)\left(i\underset{\mathbf{F}_{n}}{\varotimes}v\right)=\left(\alpha_{n}\left(\lambda\right)\left(i\right)\underset{\mathbf{F}_{n}}{\varotimes}\rho\left(id_{1}\ast\lambda\right)\left(v\right)\right)
\]
for all $\lambda\in \mathbf{wB}_{n}$, $i\in\mathcal{I}_{\mathbf{F}_{n}}$ and $v\in V$. For sake of completeness, we detail that:
\begin{lem}\cite[Section 2.2.4]{soulie2} The representation $\mathbf{LM}\left(\rho\right)$ is well-defined.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We consider elements $\lambda\in\mathbf{wB}_{n}$, $x\in\mathbf{F}_{n}$, $v\in V$ and $i\in\mathcal{I}_{\mathbf{F}_{n}}$.
First, since $\rho$ is a morphism, we deduce from \eqref{eq:cond1} that
$$\mathbf{LM}\left(\rho\right)\left(\lambda\right)\left(i\underset{\mathbf{F}_{n}}{\varotimes}\rho\left(\xi_{n}\left(x\right)\right)\left(v\right)\right)=\mathbf{LM}\left(\rho\right)\left(\lambda\right)\left(i\cdot x\underset{\mathbf{F}_{n}}{\varotimes}v\right),$$
which gives the compatibility of the assignment $\mathbf{LM}\left(\rho\right)$ with respect to the tensor product over $\mathbb{Z}\left[\mathbf{F}_{n}\right]$. Then this assignment $\mathbf{LM}\left(\rho\right)$ defines a morphism on $\mathbf{wB}_{n}$ follows from the fact that $\alpha_{n}$ and $\rho$ are themselves morphisms.
\end{proof}
The natural candidate for the morphism $\alpha_{n}$ is the Artin homomorphism $a_{n}$ recalled in \S\ref{Artin homomorphism} and we fix the assignment $\alpha_{n}=a_{n}$ from now on. We could use another Wada representation for $a_{n}$ (recalled in \S\ref{sec:Wada}), but we prove in \S\ref{impossiblerecoverTYM} that this is actually not relevant for welded braid groups.
There is always the choice of the trivial morphism $\mathbf{F}_{n}\rightarrow 0\rightarrow \mathbf{wB}_{n+1}$ as $\xi_{n}$ so that relation \eqref{eq:cond1} is satisfied. However the construction is much more interesting using a non-trivial morphism for this parameter. Indeed applying the Long-Moody construction with the trivial $\xi_{n}$ to a one-dimensional representation provides the permutation representation of $\mathbf{wB}_{n}$ (sending both the symmetric and braid generators on the permutation matrix). Moreover, the iteration of this Long-Moody construction gives the tensor powers of that permutation representation. We refer the reader to \cite[Section 2.2.5]{soulie2} for further details on that point. For that reason, the main point consists in finding non-trivial $\xi_{n}$ such that the diagram \eqref{eq:diagram} is commutative, which is the aim the following section.
\subsection{The natural example for welded braids}
We give in this section a first example of a (non-trivial) Long-Moody construction for welded braid groups. It relies on the following natural candidate for the choice of the required morphism $\xi_{n}$.
Let $\xi_{n,1}:\ensuremath{\mathbf{F}_{n}}\hookrightarrow\mathbf{wB}_{n+1}$ be the injective morphism defined by
$$x_{i}\longmapsto\left(\tau_{i-1}\cdots\tau_{2}\tau_{1}\right)^{-1}\left(\sigma_{i}\tau_{i}\right)\left(\tau_{i-1}\cdots\tau_{2}\tau_{1}\right).$$
It is natural in the sense that it identifies the free group $\mathbf{F}_{n}$ with the free subgroup of order $n$ of $\mathbf{D}_{n}$ (see \S\ref{Artin homomorphism}) generated by the elements $\left\{ \epsilon_{j,1}\right\} _{2\leq j\leq n+1}$. They are also similar to the analogous parameter for the original construction for braid groups (see \cite[Example 2.7]{soulie1}). Moreover they satisfy the key condition to define a Long-Moody construction:
\begin{lem}
The morphism $\xi_{n,1}$ satisfies the equality \eqref{eq:cond1}.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Since
$$\sigma_{i+1}\sigma_{i}\tau_{i}\sigma_{i+1}^{-1}=\tau_{i}\sigma_{i+1}\sigma_{i}\tau_{i+1}\tau_{i}\sigma_{i+1}^{-1}=\tau_{i}\sigma_{i+1}\tau_{i+1}\tau_{i}$$
then
$$\xi_{n,1}\left(a_{n}\left(\sigma_{i}\right)\left(x_{i}\right)\right)=\sigma_{i+1}\xi_{n,1}\left(x_{i}\right)\sigma_{i+1}^{-1}.$$
Also, note that
$$\tau_{i}\sigma_{i+1}\tau_{i+1}\tau_{i}\sigma_{i+1}\tau_{i}\sigma_{i+1}\tau_{i+1}\tau_{i}=\sigma_{i+1}\sigma_{i}\sigma_{i+1}\tau_{i+1}\tau_{i}=\sigma_{i}\sigma_{i+1}\tau_{i+1}\tau_{i}\sigma_{i+1}$$
then
$$\tau_{i}\tau_{i+1}\sigma_{i+1}^{-1}\tau_{i}\sigma_{i}\sigma_{i+1}\tau_{i+1}\tau_{i}=\sigma_{i+1}\tau_{i}\sigma_{i+1}\tau_{i+1}\tau_{i}\sigma_{i+1}^{-1}$$
hence
$$\xi_{n,1}\left(a_{n}\left(\sigma_{i}\right)\left(x_{i+1}\right)\right)=\sigma_{i+1}\xi_{n,1}\left(x_{i+1}\right)\sigma_{i+1}^{-1}.$$
\end{proof}
We thus define a Long-Moody construction associated with this parameter $\xi_{n,1}$ and denote it by $\mathbf{LM}_{1}$. The condition \eqref{eq:cond1} is however quite restrictive and the current example follows the spirit of the original Long-Moody construction \cite{Long1}: we therefore focus on the study of $\mathbf{LM}_{1}$ in this paper. By the way we do not claim to be exhaustive here concerning the study of other possible Long-Moody constructions defined by some other compatible parameters $\alpha_{n}$ and $\xi_{n}$.
\subsection{Applications}
In addition to recovering the unreduced Burau representation, the second iteration of the original Long-Moody construction recovers the Lawrence-Krammer representation \cite{bigelowbraid,KrammerLK,lawrencehomological} as a subrepresentation (see \cite[Corollary 2.10]{Long1} or \cite[Section 2.3.1]{soulie1}). The linearity of the welded braid groups being an open problem, there was a hope to construct an analogue of the Lawrence-Krammer representation for these groups. Unfortunately, if we can reconstruct the unreduced Burau representation (see \S\ref{sec:recoverBurau}), the construction $\mathbf{LM}_{1}$ does not produce something new at the second iteration (see \S\ref{sec:iterationBurau}).
On another note, the variants of the Long-Moody construction introduced in \cite{soulie1} allow to recover the Tong-Yang-Ma representation for braid groups (see \cite[Section 2.3.2]{soulie1}). However, we prove in \S\ref{sec:iterationBurau} that it is impossible to reconstruct the Tong-Yang-Ma representation for welded braid groups using \emph{any} Long-Moody construction.
\begin{notation}
Let $R$ be a ring and $r$ an invertible element of $R$. We denote by $r:\mathbf{wB}_{n}\rightarrow R^{\times}$ the one-dimensional representation defined by $r\left(\sigma_{i}\right)$ is the multiplication by $r$ and $r\left(\tau_{i}\right)$ is the identity for all $i\in\left\{ 1,\ldots,n-1\right\} $. Also for $\rho:\mathbf{wB}_{n}\rightarrow GL_{R}\left(V\right)$ a representation, we denote by $r\rho:\mathbf{wB}_{n}\rightarrow GL_{R}\left(V\right)$ the tensor representation $r\underset{R}{\otimes}\rho$.
\end{notation}
\subsubsection{Recovering the Burau representation}\label{sec:recoverBurau}
We start from the one-dimensional representation $t:\mathbf{wB}_{n}\rightarrow \mathbb{Z}\left[t^{\pm1}\right]^{\times}$. We obtain that:
\begin{thm}\label{thm:recbur}
The representation $t^{-1}\mathbf{LM}_{1}\left(t\right)$ is equivalent to $Bur$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
The key point to determine the form of the matrices of $t^{-1}\mathbf{LM}_{1}\left(t\right)$ is to understand the Artin homomorphism on the augmentation ideal. We compute that for all $i\in\left\{ 1,\ldots,n-1\right\}$ and $j\in\left\{ 1,\ldots,n\right\} $, $a_{n}\left(\sigma_{i}\right)$ sends $x_{j}-1$ to
$$\begin{cases}
x_{i+1}-1 & \textrm{if \ensuremath{j=i}}\\
\left(x_{i}-1\right)x_{i+1}+\left(x_{i+1}-1\right)\left(1-x_{i+1}^{-1}x_{i}x_{i+1}\right) & \textrm{if \ensuremath{j=i+1}}\\
x_{j}-1 & \textrm{if \ensuremath{j\notin\left\{ i,i+1\right\}}}
\end{cases}$$
and $a_{n}\left(\tau_{i}\right)$ sends $x_{j}-1$ to $$\begin{cases}
x_{i+1}-1 & \textrm{if \ensuremath{j=i}}\\
x_{i}-1 & \textrm{if \ensuremath{j=i+1}}\\
x_{j}-1 & \textrm{if \ensuremath{j\notin\left\{ i,i+1\right\} \textrm{.}}}
\end{cases}$$
Moreover, for all $k\in\left\{ 1,\ldots,n\right\}$, we denote $\mathbb{Z}\left[t^{\pm1}\right]{}_{k}=\mathbb{Z}\left[\left(x_{k}-1\right)\right]\underset{\mathbb{Z}\left[\mathbf{F}_{n}\right]}{\varotimes}\mathbb{Z}\left[t^{\pm1}\right]$ associated to the generator $x_{k}$ of $\mathbf{F}_{n}$. Since the augmentation ideal $\mathcal{I}_{\mathbf{F}_{n}}$ is a free $\mathbf{F}_{n}$-module on the set $\left\{ x_{k}-1,k\in\left\{ 1,\ldots,n\right\} \right\} $, we thus define an isomorphism
$$\begin{array}{ccc}
\varLambda:\mathcal{I}_{\mathbf{F}_{n}}\underset{\mathbf{F}_{n}}{\varotimes}\mathbb{Z}\left[t^{\pm1}\right] & \longrightarrow & \bigoplus_{k=1}^{n}\mathbb{Z}\left[t^{\pm1}\right]_{k}\\
\left(x_{k}-1\right)\underset{\mathbf{F}_{n}}{\varotimes}v & \longmapsto & \left(0,\ldots,0,\overset{\overset{k\textrm{-}th}{\overbrace{}}}{v},0,\ldots,0\right).
\end{array}$$
Note that $t\left(\xi_{n,1}\left(x_{i}\right)\right)=t$ for all $i\in\left\{ 1,\ldots,n\right\}$. Then result then directly follows from writing the obtained matrix through $\varLambda$.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Iteration on the Burau representations}\label{sec:iterationBurau}
We follow here the iteration procedure of \cite{Long1}. In particular, an attempt to define an analogue of the Lawrence-Krammer requires to consider one more variable compared to the Burau representation, i.e. to work on the ring of Laurent polynomials in two variables $\mathbb{Z}\left[t^{\pm1},q^{\pm1}\right]$. For that purpose, we iterate $\mathbf{LM}_{1}$ on the tensor product of the Burau representation with a one-dimensional representation in the new variable.
Also, from now on, we specify by an index in the notation which parameter we consider (i.e. $t$ or $q$) and the dimension of the welded braid group we consider for the Burau representation.
Finally, for convenience of computations reasons, we prefer to use the dual version of Burau representation $Bur^{*}_{n+1,t}$ as input representation and consider $q^{-1}\mathbf{LM}_{1}\left(qBur_{n+1,t}^{*}\right)$. We explain below why this choice does not impact the results presented here. We denote by $\left\{ e_{i}\right\} _{i\in\left\{ 1,\ldots,n+1\right\} }$ the basis for the matrices of the representation $Bur^{*}_{n+1,t}$.
First we prove that this iterate of the Long-Moody construction automatically admits the Burau representation as subrepresentation.
\begin{prop}\label{subrepLM}
The submodule of $\mathcal{I}_{\mathbf{F}_{n}}\underset{\mathbf{F}_{n}}{\varotimes}\mathbb{Z}\left[t^{\pm1},q^{\pm1}\right]^{\oplus n}$ generated by the elements $\left\{ \left(x_{k}-1\right)\otimes e_{1}\right\} _{k\in\left\{ 1,\ldots,n\right\} }$ is closed under the action of $\mathbf{wB}_{n}$. The induced subrepresentation is isomorphic to $Bur_{n,qt}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
First of all, note that $qBur_{n+1,t}^{*}\left(\sigma_{i+1}\right)\left(e_{1}\right)=qBur_{n+1,t}^{*}\left(\tau_{i+1}\right)\left(e_{1}\right)=e_{1}$ for all $i\in\left\{ 1,\ldots,n\right\}$. Therefore the action of Artin homomorphism gives that $q^{-1}\mathbf{LM}_{1}\left(qBur_{n+1,t}^{*}\right)\left(\sigma_{i}\right)\left(\left(x_{k}-1\right)\otimes e_{1}\right)$ is equal to
$$\begin{cases}
\left(x_{i+1}-1\right)\otimes e_{1} & \textrm{if \ensuremath{j=i}}\\
\left(x_{i}-1\right)\otimes qBur_{n+1,t}^{*}\left(\xi_{n}\left(x_{i+1}\right)\right)e_{1}\\
+\left(x_{i+1}-1\right)\otimes qBur_{n+1,t}^{*}\left(\xi_{n}\left(1-x_{i+1}^{-1}x_{i}x_{i+1}\right)\right)e_{1} & \textrm{if \ensuremath{j=i+1}}\\
\left(x_{j}-1\right)\otimes e_{1} & \textrm{otherwise}
\end{cases}$$
and$$q^{-1}\mathbf{LM}_{1}\left(qBur_{n+1,t}^{*}\right)\left(\tau_{i}\right)\left(\left(x_{k}-1\right)\otimes e_{1}\right)=\begin{cases}
\left(x_{i+1}-1\right)\otimes e_{1} & \textrm{if \ensuremath{j=i}}\\
\left(x_{i}-1\right)\otimes e_{1} & \textrm{if \ensuremath{j=i+1}}\\
\left(x_{j}-1\right)\otimes e_{1} & \textrm{if \ensuremath{j\notin\left\{ i,i+1\right\} \textrm{.}}}
\end{cases}$$
The result thus follows from the fact that $qBur_{n+1,t}^{*}\left(\xi_{n}\left(x_{j}\right)\right)=qt$ for all $j\in\left\{ 1,\ldots,n\right\} $ and the use of the canonical isomorphism $\varLambda$ (see the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:recbur}).
\end{proof}
It remains to identify the quotient of $q^{-1}\mathbf{LM}_{1}\left(qBur_{n+1,t}^{*}\right)$ by the subrepresentation $Bur_{n,qt}$. For that purpose, let us first study the case of $n=3$. The matrix of the morphism $q^{-1}\mathbf{LM}_{1}\left(qBur^{*}_{4,t}\right)\left(\sigma_{1}\right)$ is
$$\left[\begin{array}{cccccccccccc}
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & qt & q\left(1-t\right) & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & q\left(1-t\right) & qt & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & q & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & q & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1-qt & qt^{-1}\left(1-t-t^{2}+t^{3}\right) & qt\left(1-t\right) & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1-t & t & 0 & 0 & \left(1-q\right)\left(1-t\right) & t\left(1-q\right) & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1-q & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1-q & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1-t & t & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1
\end{array}\right]$$
and the one of $q^{-1}\mathbf{LM}_{1}\left(qBur^{*}_{4,t}\right)\left(\sigma_{2}\right)$ is
$$\left[\begin{array}{cccccccccccc}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1-t & t & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & qt & 0 & q\left(1-t\right) & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & q & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & q\left(1-t\right) & qt\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & q & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1-qt & 0 & qt^{-1}\left(1-t-t^{2}+t^{3}\right) & qt\left(1-t\right)\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1-q & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1-t & t & 0 & 0 & \left(1-q\right)\left(1-t\right) & t\left(1-q\right)\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1-q & 0
\end{array}\right].$$
Those for $\tau_{1}$ and $\tau_{2}$ are the analogues with $t=q=1$. Then the quotient by the subspace $\left\{ e_{1},e_{5},e_{9}\right\} $ gives the matrices
$$\left[\begin{array}{ccccccccc}
0 & 0 & 0 & q\left(1-t\right) & qt & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & q & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & q & 0 & 0 & 0\\
1-t & t & 0 & \left(1-q\right)\left(1-t\right) & t\left(1-q\right) & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
1 & 0 & 0 & 1-q & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1-q & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1-t & t & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1
\end{array}\right]$$
$$\left[\begin{array}{ccccccccc}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1-t & t & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & q & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & q\left(1-t\right) & qt\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & q & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1-q & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1-t & t & 0 & \left(1-q\right)\left(1-t\right) & t\left(1-q\right)\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1-q & 0
\end{array}\right].$$
Writing down the matrices of the tensor product of representations
$$Bur_{3,t}^{*}\underset{\mathbb{Z}\left[t^{\pm1},q^{\pm1}\right]}{\otimes}Bur_{3,q}$$
for the generators of the welded braid group, we then recognise the above matrices: we thus identify the quotient of the Long-Moody construction to a tensor product of two Burau representations.
The situation for any $n\geq 3$ works in the same way: indeed consecutive generators $\left(\sigma_{i},\tau_{i}\right)$ and $\left(\sigma_{i+1},\tau_{i+1}\right)$ in $\mathbf{wB}_{n}$ can be identified to $\mathbf{wB}_{3}$. Then the matrices for the quotient of $q^{-1}\mathbf{LM}_{1}\left(qBur^{*}_{n+1,t}\right)$ are similar to the above ones, except that there are more diagonal matrix blocks given by $Bur_{3,t}$. Hence we proved that the iteration of the Long-Moody construction does not construct any new representation of $\mathbf{wB}_{n}$; more precisely we have that:
\begin{thm}\label{thm:iter}
Applying the Long-Moody construction $\mathbf{LM}_{1}$ to the representation $Bur^{*}_{n+1,t}$ gives the short exact sequence of $\mathbf{wB}_{n}$-representations:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sesiterateburau}
\xymatrix{0\ar@{->}[r] & Bur_{n,qt}\ar@{->}[r] & q^{-1}\mathbf{LM}_{1}\left(qBur^{*}_{n+1,t}\right)\ar@{->}[r] & Bur_{3,t}\underset{\mathbb{Z}\left[t^{\pm1},q^{\pm1}\right]}{\otimes}Bur_{3,q}^{*}\ar@{->}[r] & 0}.
\end{equation}
\end{thm}
\paragraph{Cases of the dual and reduced versions.}
The main conclusion on the iteration of the Long-Moody construction of Theorem \ref{thm:iter} remains true if we apply $\mathbf{LM}_{1}$ to the other versions $Bur_{n+1,t}$ and $\overline{Bur}_{n+1,t}$ of the Burau representation.
For the dual Burau representation $Bur_{n+1,t}$, it is defined at the level of the matrices by the transpose of the inverse of $Bur^{*}_{n+1,t}$. Therefore the $\left(n+1\right)\times\left(n+1\right)$-blocks of $q^{-1}\mathbf{LM}_{1}\left(qBur_{n+1,t}\right)$ are the transpose of those of $q^{-1}\mathbf{LM}_{1}\left(qBur^{*}_{n+1,t}\right)$. Recall that $\left\{ e_{i}\right\} _{i\in\left\{ 1,\ldots,n+1\right\} }$ denotes the basis for the matrices of the representation $Bur^{*}_{n+1,t}$. Then the analogue of Proposition \ref{subrepLM} shows that the submodule of $\mathcal{I}_{\mathbf{F}_{n}}\underset{\mathbf{F}_{n}}{\varotimes}\mathbb{Z}\left[t^{\pm1},q^{\pm1}\right]^{\oplus n}$ generated by the elements $\left\{ \left(x_{k}-1\right)\otimes e_{j}\right\} _{\left(k,j\right)\in\left\{ 1,\ldots,n\right\} \times\left\{ 2,\ldots,n\right\} }$ is closed under the action of $\mathbf{wB}_{n}$ by $q^{-1}\mathbf{LM}_{1}\left(qBur_{n+1,t}\right)$. Moreover repeating mutatis mutandis the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:iter}, we prove that there is a short exact sequence of $\mathbf{wB}_{n}$-representations:
$$\xymatrix{0\ar@{->}[r] & Bur_{3,t}^{*}\underset{\mathbb{Z}\left[t^{\pm1},q^{\pm1}\right]}{\otimes}Bur_{3,q}\ar@{->}[r] & q^{-1}\mathbf{LM}_{1}\left(qBur_{n+1,t}\right)\ar@{->}[r] & Bur_{n,qt}^{*}\ar@{->}[r] & 0}.$$
For the reduced Burau representation $\overline{Bur}_{n+1,t}$, note that we have for all $i\in\left\{ 1,\ldots,n-1\right\} $
$$r_{n+1}\circ Bur^{*}_{n+1,t}\left(\sigma_{i}\right)\circ r_{n+1}^{-1}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
\overline{Bur}^{*}_{n+1,t}\left(\sigma_{i}\right) & 0\\
L_{i} & 1
\end{array}\right]$$
where $L_{i}=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}0 & \cdots & 0 & \delta_{i,n} & 1\end{array}\right]$ and $r_{n+1}$ is the $n\times n$-matrix with coefficients $r_{i,j}=1$ if $j\leq i$ and $r_{i,j}=0$. Therefore, along the injection $id_{1}*-:\mathbf{wB}_{n}\hookrightarrow\mathbf{wB}_{n+1}$, the short exact sequence \eqref{eq:dualsesburau} splits as a short exact sequence of $\mathbf{wB}_{n}$-representations. Then it follows from the freeness (and a fortiori flatness) of the augmentation ideal $\mathcal{I}_{\mathbf{F}_{n}}$ as a $\mathbb{Z}\left[\mathbf{F}_{n}\right]$-module that we have an isomorphism of $\mathbf{wB}_{n}$-representations:
$$\ensuremath{q^{-1}\mathbf{LM}_{1}\left(qBur_{n+1,t}^{*}\right)}\cong q^{-1}\mathbf{LM}_{1}\left(q\overline{Bur}_{n+1,t}^{*}\right)\oplus q^{-1}\mathbf{LM}_{1}\left(q\mathbb{Z}\left[t^{\pm1}\right]\right).$$
The representation $q^{-1}\mathbf{LM}_{1}\left(q\overline{Bur}_{n+1,t}^{*}\right)$ is thus determined by the short exact sequence \eqref{eq:sesiterateburau}.
\subsubsection{On the impossibility to recover the Tong-Yang-Ma representation}\label{sec:notrecoverTYM}
We detail in \S\ref{sec:theoretical} that a Long-Moody construction is equivalent to the setting of two parameters $a_{n}:\mathbf{wB}_{n}\rightarrow Aut\left(\mathbf{F}_{n}\right)$ and $\xi_{n}:\mathbf{F}_{n}\rightarrow\mathbf{wB}_{n+1}$ satisfying the compatibility condition \eqref{eq:diagram}. So far, we have used the Artin homomorphism for the action $a_{n}$ and this parameter determines the shape of the obtained matrices (see \S\ref{sec:recoverBurau} and \S\ref{sec:iterationBurau}).
In \cite[Section 2.3.2]{soulie1}, the Tong-Yang-Ma representation for braid groups is recovered by playing on the choice of this morphism. However, we prove that it is not the case for welded braid groups in the following result. In particular, we call the representation which space is $\mathbb{Z}\left[t^{\pm1}\right]^{\oplus n}$ and on which $\mathbf{wB}_{n}$ acts trivially the \emph{trivial $n$-dimensional representation} of $\mathbf{wB}_{n}$.
\begin{thm}\label{impossiblerecoverTYM}
Let $\mathbf{LM}$ be the Long-Moody construction associated with a Wada representation for a welded braid groups and an abstract compatible $\xi_{n}$. Then $t^{-1}\mathbf{LM}\left(t\right)$ is equivalent either to the Burau representation $Bur$ (or its dual $Bur^{*}$), or to the permutation representation extended to $\mathbf{wB}_{n}$, or to the trivial $n$-dimensional representation of $\mathbf{wB}_{n}$.
In particular, the Tong-Yang-Ma representation (or its dual) cannot be recovered by any Long-Moody construction for welded braid groups.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
We recall from \S\ref{sec:Wada} that we can only consider four Wada representations (Types 2, 3, 4 and 5). First of all, restricting to $\mathbf{B}_{n}$, \cite[Section 2.3.2]{soulie1} automatically implies that:
\begin{itemize}
\item with the Type $3$ Wada representation, $t^{-1}\mathbf{LM}\left(t\right)$ is equivalent to the permutation representation extended to $\mathbf{wB}_{n}$;
\item with the Type $4$ or $5$ Wada representation, $t^{-1}\mathbf{LM}\left(t\right)$ is equivalent the Burau representation.
\end{itemize}
\cite[Section 2.3.2]{soulie1} uses the Type $2$ Wada representation to obtain the representation $TYM$ for braid groups. Nevertheless, with the extension to $\mathbf{wB}_{n}$, it follows from the compatibility condition \eqref{eq:cond1} that $\tau_{2}\xi_{n}\left(x_{1}\right)\tau_{2}=\xi_{n}\left(x_{2}\right)=\sigma_{2}^{-1}\xi_{n}\left(x_{1}\right)\sigma_{2}$ and that $\xi_{n}\left(x_{2}^{-1}\right)=\sigma_{2}\xi_{n}\left(x_{1}\right)\sigma_{2}^{-1}$. We deduce that $\xi_{n}\left(x_{2}^{-1}\right)=\sigma_{2}^{-2}\xi_{n}\left(x_{1}\right)\sigma_{2}^{2}$ and that $\xi_{n}\left(x_{1}\right)=\left(\tau_{2}\sigma_{2}\right)^{-1}\xi_{n}\left(x_{1}\right)\tau_{2}\sigma_{2}$. Hence we obtain that:$$\xi_{n}\left(x_{1}\right)=\sigma_{2}^{-1}\tau_{2}^{2}\sigma_{2}^{-1}\xi_{n}\left(x_{1}\right)\sigma_{2}\tau_{2}^{2}\sigma_{2}=\xi_{n}\left(x_{1}^{-1}\right).$$
Then $\left(t\circ\xi_{n}\right)^{2}=1$ since $t$ and $\xi_{n}$ are morphisms. The only order $2$ elements of $\mathbb{Z}\left[t^{\pm1}\right]$ are $1$ and $-1$ and it follows from the definition of $t$ that $-1$ is not in its image. A fortiori the composite $t\circ\xi_{n}$ is the trivial morphism $\mathbf{F}_{n}\rightarrow\mathbf{wB}_{n+1}$. Then it follows from a straightforward computation of the matrices that $t^{-1}\mathbf{LM}\left(t\right)$ is equivalent to the permutation representation extended to $\mathbf{wB}_{n}$.
Note that a Long-Moody construction multiplies by $n$ the dimension of an input representation. Therefore the only way to construct the Tong-Yang-Ma representation would be to start from a one-dimensional representation. Also, the form of the matrix
$$Id_{i-1}\oplus\left[\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1\\
t & 0
\end{array}\right]\oplus Id_{n-i-1}
$$
for each braid generator $\sigma_{i}$ implies that the parameter $\alpha_{n}$ of the Long-Moody construction which would recover the Tong-Yang-Ma representation has to be a Wada representation.
Therefore the above study of $t^{-1}\mathbf{LM}\left(t\right)$ proves that no Long-Moody construction can recover the Tong-Yang-Ma representation.
\end{proof}
Therefore, Artin and, more generally, Wada representations do not seem to be a useful tool to obtain interesting linear representations for welded braid groups,
at least in the framework of Long-Moody procedure; a possible lead should be to consider other free groups embedded in $\mathbf{wB}_{n}$
or other actions. For instance, recently in \cite{DFM} was constructed a lift of Artin representation to an action at the $\pi_2$-level (remind that $B^3$ less $n$ trivial circles is not aspherical) and it seems interesting to adapt Long-Moody procedure in this framework. It seems also clear that a deeper understanding of $\mathbf{wB}_{n}$ and of its subgroup $\mathbf{D}_{n-1}$ in terms of \emph{motion groups} of circles \cite{damiani2017journey} could provide new perspectives. On another hand, an homological approaches to construct linear representations of welded braid groups is set in \cite{souliepalmer}: the connection with the representations of the present paper would deserve to be explored.
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}
Let $R$ be a group and let $S$ be a subset of $R$. The \textit{Cayley digraph} on $R$ with
connection set $S$, denoted by $\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R, S)$
in this paper, is the digraph with vertex-set $R$ and with
$(g, h)$ being an arc if and only if $gh^{-1} \in S$. Actually, $\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R, S)$ is a graph if and only if $S$ is inverse-closed (that is, $S^{-1}:=\{s^{-1}\mid s\in S\}=S$), in which
case it is called a \textit{Cayley graph}. It was already observed by Cayley that the group $R$ acts regularly as a
group of automorphisms on $\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R, S)$ by right multiplication. Therefore, we may identify $R$ as a subgroup of the automorphism group $\mathop{\mathrm{Aut}}(\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R,S))$ of $\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R,S)$.
When $R$ equals $\mathop{\mathrm{Aut}}(\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R,S))$, $\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R, S)$
is called a \textit{DRR} (for \textit{digraphical regular representation}). A DRR which is a graph
is called a \textit{GRR} (for \textit{graphical regular representation}).
DRRs and GRRs have been widely studied~\cite{babai1,Godsil,IW,nowitz1,nowitz2,nowitz3,nowitz4,W2,W3}, together with their friends: ORRs~\cite{morrisspiga,morrisspiga1,spiga} (oriented regular representations), TRRs~\cite{babai2} (tournament regular representations) and DFRs/GFRs~\cite{WT1,spiga0,spiga1} (digraphical/graphical Frobenius representations).
The aim of this paper is to formulate ``running conjectures'' for the classification of the bipartite DRRs and bipartite GRRs and to make some progress towards these conjectures. We start by discussing some motivation for embarking into this task. The main techniques developed in the DRR and GRR classification (see for instance~\cite{babai1,Godsil,Hetzel}) involve a local analysis on the neighbourhood of a Cayley (di)graph. The easiest instance of this situation is probably in~\cite{babai1}; in this paper, for most finite groups $R$, Babai constructs a subset $S$ of $R$ with the property that $\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R,S)$ is connected and with the property that the subgraph induced by $\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R,S)$ on the neighbourhood of the identity is asymmetric. These two conditions imply that $\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R,S)$ is a DRR, see for instance~\cite{nowitz1}. Then Babai is left to deal with the exceptional groups where his subset $S$ cannot be constructed. Broadly speaking, the same idea is constant throughout the investigation of GRRs, TRRs and ORRs. The investigation of DFRs and GFRs does not follow this pattern and require more algebraic tools. Similarly, the classification of bipartite DRRs and GRRs cannot follow this idea because the subgraph induced by $\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R,S)$ on the neighbourhood of the identity is the empty graph, which brings no information. Therefore, besides the natural interest in our opinion in classifying bipartite DRRs and bipartite GRRs (after all they are natural classes of graphs), we propose this problem for testing the new techniques that have been developed over the last 50 years in the study of graphical representations of groups.
After a long series of papers, Godsil~\cite{Godsil} has proved that, besides an explicit list of exceptions, a group $R$ admits a GRR if and only if $R$ does not admit a non-identity automorphism $\varphi$ with $g^\varphi\in \{g,g^{-1}\}$, for every $g\in R$. Clearly, groups admitting such an automorphism $\varphi$ cannot admit a GRR because $\varphi$ is a non-identity automorphism for every Cayley graph $\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R,S)$ over $R$. Therefore, having a non-identity automorphism $\varphi$ with $g^\varphi\in \{g,g^{-1}\}$, for every $g\in R$, is a natural obstruction for a finite group $R$ for having a GRR. The GRR classification shows that this is indeed the only obstruction, besides a short list of small groups. It turns out that the only groups $R$ admitting such an automorphism are abelian groups of exponent greater than $2$ and generalised dicyclic groups. We believe that the same pattern holds for bipartite GRRs.
Let $R$ be a finite group and let $M$ be a subgroup of $R$ having index $2$. We say that the pair $(R,M)$ admits a bipartite GRR if there exists an inverse-closed subset $S$ of $R\setminus M$ with $R=\mathop{\mathrm{Aut}}(\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R,S))$. If $R$ has a non-identity automorphism $\varphi$ with $g^\varphi\in \{g,g^{-1}\}$, for every $g\in R\setminus M$, then $(R,M)$ cannot admit a bipartite GRR because $\varphi$ is a non-identity automorphism for every bipartite Cayley graph $\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R,S)$ over $R$ having bipartition $\{M,R\setminus M\}$. In particular, this is a natural obstruction for $(R,M)$ for admitting a bipartite GRR. The first main result of our paper classifies the pairs $(R,M)$ satisfying this obstruction and hence not admitting a bipartite GRR. (We refer to Notation~\ref{notnot:1} for unexplained notation or terminology.)
\begin{theorem}\label{thrm:11}
Let $R$ be a finite group and let $M$ be a subgroup of $R$ with $|R:M|=2$. There exists a non-identity automorphism $\varphi$ of $R$ with $g^\varphi\in \{g,g^{-1}\}$, for every $g\in R\setminus M$, if and only if one of the following holds:
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{thrmeq:1} $M$ is abelian and $R$ is not generalized dihedral on $M$;
\item\label{thrmeq:2} $M$ contains an abelian subgroup $Z$ with $|M:Z|=2$ and there exists $a\in R\setminus M$ with $a^2\ne 1$, $a^2\in Z\cap \Zent R$ and $z^a=z^{-1}$, for every $z\in Z$.
\item\label{thrmeq:3}$|M:\Zent M|=4$ and $\gamma_2(M)=\langle a^2\rangle$ for some $a\in R\setminus M$ such that $o(a)=4$, $z^a=z^{-1}$ for every $z\in \Zent M$, and $o(am)\ne 2$ for some $m\in M\setminus \Zent M$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
Based on some extensive computer computations (see Remark~\ref{remark1} for details on these computations) we dare to propose the following conjecture:
\begin{conjecture}\label{conj:1}{\rm
Let $R$ be a finite group with a subgroup $M$ having index $2$. Then one of the following holds:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $(R,M)$ admits a bipartite GRR, or
\item $(R,M)$ satisfies part~\eqref{thrmeq:1},~\eqref{thrmeq:2} or~\eqref{thrmeq:3} in Theorem~\ref{thrm:11}, or
\item $R$ is one of the groups listed in Table~\ref{table:2}.
\end{enumerate}}
\end{conjecture}
The first column in Table~\ref{table:2} gives the order of $R$ and the second column gives the number of $R$ in the database of \texttt{SmallGroups} in the computer algebra system \textsf{GAP}, version 4.7.6.
\begin{table}[!ht]
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}\hline
Grp. Order& Grp. Name\\\hline
4& 2\\
6& 1 \\
8& 3, 5\\
10& 1 \\
12& 4 \\
14& 1 \\
16& 7, 8, 11, 13, 14\\
18& 4 \\
20& 3, 4 \\
24& 13\\
32& 6, 7, 8, 11, 15, 22, 31, 34, 37\\
& 38, 43, 44, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51\\
36&9, 13 \\
48& 46 \\
54& 10\\
64&197, 198, 199, 200, 210, 214, 220, 222\\
& 223,
224,
225, 229, 230, 232, 235, 237\\
& 238,
239,
240,
244,
245, 267\\\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Exceptional small groups not admitting a bipartite GRR\label{table:2}}
\end{table}
From Theorem~\ref{thrm:11} part~\eqref{thrmeq:1}, we see that when $M$ is abelian, $(R,M)$ has no bipartite GRR unless (possibly) when $R$ is generalised dihedral on
$M$. Next, in this paper we take a closer look at these pairs and we investigate the existence of bipartite DRRs.
\begin{theorem}\label{thrm:1}Let $R$ be a finite group with an abelian subgroup $M$ having index $2$. The number of subsets $S$ of $R\setminus M$ such that $\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R,S)$ is a bipartite $\mathrm{DRR}$ is at least $$2^{\frac{|R|}{2}}-5\cdot 2^{\frac{3|R|}{8}+\log_2|R|\cdot (\log_2(|R|/2))}.$$
\end{theorem}
Since $R\setminus M$ has $2^{|R\setminus M|}=2^{\frac{|R|}{2}}$ subsets, from Theorem \ref{thrm:1} we immediately obtain the following corollary.
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:1}For every positive real number $\varepsilon>0$, there exists a natural number $n_\varepsilon$ such that, for every finite group $R$ of order at least $n_\varepsilon$ and for every abelian subgroup $M$ of $R$ having index $2$, we have
$$\frac{|\{S\mid S\subseteq R\setminus M, \mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R,S) \,\mathrm{is\,a\, DRR}\}|}{|\{S\mid S\subseteq R\setminus M\}|}\ge 1-\varepsilon.$$
\end{corollary}
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:2}Let $R$ be a finite group with an abelian subgroup $M$ having index $2$. Then, either there exists a subset $S$ of $R\setminus M$ such that $\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R,S)$ is a bipartite $\mathrm{DRR}$ or $R$ is one of the $22$ groups in the second column of Table~$\ref{table:1}$ and $M$ is one of the groups in the third column in Table~$\ref{table:1}$ subject to being abelian.
\end{corollary}
Exactly as for the bipartite GRR pairs, based on the evidence provided by Corollary~\ref{cor:2} and on some extensive computer computations (see again Remark~\ref{remark1} for some details on these computations) we propose the following conjecture:
\begin{conjecture}\label{conj:2}{\rm
Let $R$ be a finite group with a subgroup $M$ having index $2$. Then one of the following holds:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $(R,M)$ admits a bipartite DRR, or
\item $R$ is one of the $22$ groups listed in Table~\ref{table:1}.
\end{enumerate}}
\end{conjecture}
\begin{table}[!ht]
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}\hline
Order& Group $R$& Subgroup
$M$\\\hline
4& $C_2\times C_2$&any subgroup
\\
6& $D_3=\langle x,y\mid x^3=y^2=1,x^y=x^{-1}\rangle$&$\langle y\rangle$\\
8& $D_4=\langle x,y\mid x^4=y^2=1,x^y=x^{-1}\rangle$& $\langle x\rangle$\\
& $Q_8$&any subgroup\\
&$C_4\times C_2=\langle x\rangle\times\langle y\rangle$&$\langle x^2,y\rangle$\\
&$C_2\times C_2\times C_2$&any subgroup\\
10& $D_5=\langle x,y\mid x^5=y^2=1,x^y=x^{-1}\rangle$&$\langle x\rangle$\\
12& $\langle x,y\mid x^6=y^4=1, x^3=y^2, y^{-1}xy=x^{-1}\rangle$&$\langle x\rangle$\\
&$D_6=\langle x,y\mid x^6=y^2=1,x^y=x^{-1}\rangle$&$\langle x\rangle$\\
14& $D_7=\langle x,y\mid x^7=y^2=1,x^y=x^{-1}\rangle$&$\langle x\rangle$\\
16& $C_4\times C_2\times C_2$&any subgroup\\
& $D_4\times C_2=\langle x,y\rangle\times \langle z\rangle$&subgroups containing $\langle x^2,z\rangle$\\
&$Q_8\times C_2$&any subgroup\\
&$\langle x,y,z\mid x^2=y^4=z^4=1,y^x=y^{-1},z^x=z^{-1},y^2=z^2,y^z=y^{-1}\rangle$ &$Q_8\cong \langle y,z\rangle$\\
&$C_2\times C_2\times C_2\times C_2$&any subgroup\\
18& $\langle x,y,z\mid x^2=y^3=z^3=1,yz=zy,y^x=y^{-1},z^x=z^{-1}\rangle$&$\langle y,z\rangle$\\
& $\langle x,y\mid x^6=y^3=1,xy=yx\rangle$&$\langle x^2,y\rangle$\\
32&$C_4\times C_2\times C_2\times C_2=\langle x\rangle\times\langle y\rangle\times\langle z\rangle\times \langle t\rangle$&$\langle x^2,y,z,t\rangle$\\
&$D_4\times C_2\times C_2=\langle x,y\rangle\times \langle z\rangle\times\langle t\rangle$& $\langle x,z,t\rangle$\\
&$Q_8\times C_2\times C_2=\langle x,y\rangle\times \langle z\rangle\times\langle t\rangle$& subgroups containing $\langle x^2,z,t\rangle$\\
&$C_2\times C_2\times C_2\times C_2\times C_2$&any subgroup\\
64&$C_2\times C_2\times C_2\times C_2\times C_2\times C_2$&any subgroup\\\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Small groups not admitting a bipartite DRR\label{table:1}}
\end{table}
We conclude this introductory section observing that in our companion paper~\cite{DFS} we have studied the asymptotic enumeration of bipartite graphs over abelian groups $A$. When $A$ has exponent greater than $2$, $A$ cannot admit a bipartite GRR in view of Theorem~\ref{thrm:11}. The work in~\cite{DFS} shows that, when $A$ has exponent greater than $2$, most bipartite graphs over $A$ have Cayley index $2$.
\subsection{General comments}
\begin{notation}\label{notnot:1}{\rm Our notation is standard. Given a group $G$, we denote by $\Zent G$ the center of $G$ and by $\gamma_2(G)$ the commutator subgroup of $G$. Given $g\in G$, we write $o(g)$ for the order of the element $g$. Given an automorphism $\varphi$ of $G$, we write
\begin{align*}
\cent G\varphi&:=\{g\in G\mid g^\varphi=g\},\\
\centm G\varphi&:=\{g\in G\mid g^{\varphi}=g^{-1}\}.
\end{align*}
We say that a group $D$ is a generalised dihedral group on $A$, if $A$ is an abelian
subgroup of index $2$ in $D$ and there exists an involution $\iota \in D \setminus A$ with $a^\iota = a^{-1}$, for
every $a \in A$. Note that, in this case, $a^x = a^{-1}$, for every $a \in A$ and every $x \in D \setminus A$.}
\end{notation}
\begin{remark}\label{remark1}{\rm There is a fair amount of computer computations involved in this paper. These computations are rather time consuming but entirely naive. For every group $R$ with $|R|< 1\, 024$, we have determined the subgroups $M$ of $R$ having index $2$. Then, for each pair $(R,M)$, we have tried to construct a bipartite DRR for $R$ with bipartition $\{M,R\setminus M\}$. Our approach for doing this is rather naive: for each pair $(R,M)$, we have randomly selected $10\,000$ subsets $S$ of $R\setminus M$ and we have checked whether the Cayley digraph $\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R,S)$ was indeed a DRR. (For most pairs, $10$ iterations were sufficient to witness a subset $S\subseteq R\setminus M$ with $\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R,S)$ a DRR.) There were only $22$ groups $R$ with $R$ having order less then $1\, 024$ that did not pass this test and the largest of these groups $R$ is the elementary abelian $2$-group of order $64$. For these $22$ exceptional groups, we have checked exhaustively all the subsets $S$ of $R\setminus M$ and we confirmed in each case that there is no bipartite DRR for $R$ with bipartition $\{M,R\setminus M\}$. These $22$ groups (together with the subgroups $M$) are in Table~\ref{table:1}.
Table~\ref{table:2} was determined in a similar manner and the only difference is that we used Theorem~\ref{thrm:1} in our algorithm.
For every group $R$ with $|R|< 512$(there should be 640 consistent with in the ``Proof of Corollary 1.5"), we have determined the subgroups $M$ of $R$ having index $2$. Then, we have discarded the pairs $(R,M)$ satisfying parts~\eqref{thrmeq:1},~\eqref{thrmeq:2} or~\eqref{thrmeq:3} in Theorem~\ref{thrm:1}, because there exists no bipartite GRR over $R$ with bipartition $\{M,R\setminus M\}$. In light of Theorem~\ref{thrm:1} this task is pretty straighforward and fast to perform. For the remaining pairs, we have tried to construct a bipartite GRR for $R$ with bipartition $\{M,R\setminus M\}$. Our approach for doing this is as above: we have randomly selected $10\,000$ inverse-closed subsets $S$ of $R\setminus M$ and we have checked whether the Cayley graph $\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R,S)$ was indeed a GRR. (For most pairs, $500$ iterations were sufficient to witness an inverse-closed subset $S\subseteq R\setminus M$ with $\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R,S)$ a GRR.) The groups $R$ that did not pass this test (for some subgroup $M$ having index $2$ and with $(R,M)$ not satisfying parts~\eqref{thrmeq:1},~\eqref{thrmeq:2} or~\eqref{thrmeq:3} in Theorem~\ref{thrm:1}) are reported in Table~\ref{table:2}. We are not reporting the subgroups $M$ in Table~\ref{table:2} because, for some groups $R$, there are many choices for $M$, which would make difficult to compile the table in a ready to use way. Finally, for these exceptional groups, we have checked exhaustively all the inverse-closed subsets $S$ of $R\setminus M$ and we confirmed in each case that there is no bipartite GRR for $R$ with bipartition $\{M,R\setminus M\}$.
}
\end{remark}
In what follows we use repeatedly the following facts.
\begin{facts}{\rm
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{fact1} Let $X$ be a finite group. Since a chain of subgroups of $X$ has length at most $\lfloor\log_2|X|\rfloor$, $X$ has a generating set of cardinality at most $\lfloor \log_2|X|\rfloor\le \log_2|X|$.
\item\label{fact2} Any automorphism of $X$ is uniquely determined by the images of the elements of a generating set for $X$. Therefore $|\mathop{\mathrm{Aut}}(X)|\le |X|^{\lfloor \log_2|X|\rfloor}\le 2^{(\log_2|X|)^2}$.
\item\label{fact3} Any subgroup $Y$ of $X$ is determined by a generating set, which has cardinality at most $\lfloor \log_2|Y|\rfloor\le \lfloor \log_2|X|\rfloor$. Therefore $X$ has at most
$|X|^{\lfloor\log_2|Y|\rfloor}\le 2^{\log_2|Y|\log_2|X|}$ subgroups of cardinality $|Y|$ and $X$ has at most $2^{(\log_2|X|)^2}$ subgroups.
\end{enumerate}}
\end{facts}
\section{
route to the proof of Theorem~\ref{thrm:1} and Corollaries~\ref{cor:1} and~\ref{cor:2}}\label{part:1}
\begin{lemma}\label{l:3}
Let $R$ be a group and let $M$ be a subgroup of $R$ having index $2$. The number of subsets $S$ of $R\setminus M$ with $\langle S\rangle $ a proper subgroup of $R$ is at most $2^{\frac{|R|}{4}+(\log_2|R|)^2}$; moreover, when $R$ is solvable, this upper bound can be improved to $2^{\frac{|R|}{4}+\log_2|R|}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Set $N:=|\{
S\subseteq R\setminus M\mid
\langle S\rangle < R\}|$.
Clearly,
\begin{align*}
\{S\subseteq R\setminus M\mid \langle S\rangle<R\}&=\bigcup_{\substack{C<M\\C\textrm{ maximal in }M}}\{S\subseteq R\setminus M\mid \langle S\rangle\le C \}.
\end{align*}
Since $\{S\subseteq R\setminus M\mid \langle S\rangle \le C\}=\{S\mid S\subseteq C\setminus (C\cap M)\}$, we have
$$|\{S\subseteq R\setminus M\mid \langle S\rangle \le C\}|=2^{|C|-|C\cap M|}\le 2^{\frac{|C|}{2}}\le 2^{\frac{|R|/2}{2}}=2^{\frac{|R|}{4}}.$$
Therefore
\begin{align*}
N&
\le |\{C\le G\mid C \textrm{ is a maximal subgroup of }G\}|\cdot 2^{\frac{|R|}{4}}.
\end{align*}
Tim Wall in 1961~\cite{Wall} has proved that the number of maximal subgroups of a finite solvable group $R$ is less than the group order $|R|=2^{\log_2|R|}$. In particular, our proof is completed in the case of solvable groups. Whereas the general bound $2^{|R|/4+(\log_2|R|)^2}$ follows from Fact~\eqref{fact3}.
\end{proof}
Liebeck, Pyber and Shalev have proven~\cite[Theorem~1.3]{LPSLPS} a polynomial version of Wall's theorem for arbitrary finite groups: there exists an absolute constant $c$ such that, every finite group $R$ has at most $c|R|^{3/2}=2^{\log_2(c|R|^{3/2}) }$ maximal subgroups. Hence, if one minds so, the general bound $2^{\frac{|R|}{4}+(\log_2|R|)^2}$ can be improved to $2^{\frac{|R|}{4}+\log_2(c|R|^3/2)}$, for some absolute constant $c$.
\begin{lemma}\label{l:1}Let $R$ be a finite group with an abelian subgroup $M$ having index $2$ and let $\varphi$ be a non-identity automorphism of $R$ with $M^\varphi=M$. The number of subsets $S$ of $R\setminus M$ with $S^\varphi=S$ is at most $2^{\frac{3|R|}{8}}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $M$ is $\varphi$-invariant, so is $R\setminus M$. Let $O_1,\ldots,O_\ell$ be the orbits of $\langle\varphi\rangle$ on $R\setminus M$. If $S\subseteq R\setminus M$ is $\varphi$-invariant, then $S$ is a union of some of $O_1,\ldots,O_\ell$ and hence
\begin{equation}\label{eq:1vai}
|\{S\subseteq R\setminus M\mid S^\varphi=S\}|=2^\ell.
\end{equation}
The orbits of $\langle\varphi\rangle$ on $R$ of cardinality one correspond exactly to the elements of $\cent R{\varphi}:=\{a\in R\mid a^\varphi=a\}$, whereas the orbits of $\langle\varphi\rangle$ on $R\setminus \cent R \varphi$ have cardinality at least $2$. Now, observing that $|\cent R\varphi|\le |R|/2$ and that
\[
|\cent R\varphi\cap(R\setminus M)|=
\begin{cases}
0&\textrm{ when }\cent R\varphi\le M,\\
|\cent R \varphi \cap M|=|\cent R\varphi|/2&\textrm{ when }\cent R\varphi\nleq M,
\end{cases}
\] we get
\begin{align}\label{eq:2vai}
\ell&\le
|\cent R{\varphi}\cap (R\setminus M)|
+
\frac{
|(R\setminus M)\setminus (\cent R{\varphi}\cap (R\setminus M))|}{2}
=\frac{|\cent R{\varphi}\cap (R\setminus M)|}{2}+\frac{|R\setminus M|}{2}\\\nonumber
&= \frac{|\cent R{\varphi}\cap (R\setminus M)|}{2}+\frac{|R|}{4}\le \frac{|\cent R\varphi|}{4}+\frac{|R|}{4}\le \frac{|R|/2}{4}+\frac{|R|}{4}=\frac{3}{8}|R|.
\end{align}
The proof now follows from \eqref{eq:1vai} and \eqref{eq:2vai}.
\end{proof}
The next lemma is somehow more technical but relevant for the proof of Theorem~\ref{thrm:1}.
\begin{lemma}\label{l:4}Let $R$ be a finite group with an abelian subgroup $M$ having index $2$. Then the number of subsets $S\subseteq R\setminus M$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R,S)$ is connected, and
\item $R<\mathop{\mathrm{Aut}}(\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R,S))$, and
\item $\nor{\mathop{\mathrm{Aut}}(\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R,S))}R=R$, and
\item $R<\nor{\mathop{\mathrm{Aut}}(\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R,S))}M$
\end{itemize}
is at most $2^{\frac{|R|}{3}+\log_2(|R|/2)+(\log_2(|R|/2))^2}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $S$ be a subset of $R\setminus M$ and suppose that $R<\mathop{\mathrm{Aut}}(\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R,S))$, $\nor {\mathop{\mathrm{Aut}}(\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R,S))}R=R$ and $R<\nor {\mathop{\mathrm{Aut}}(\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R,S))}M$. Choose $G\le \nor{\mathop{\mathrm{Aut}}(\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R,S))}{M}$ with $R<G$ and with $R$ maximal in $G$: this is of course possible because $R<\nor{\mathop{\mathrm{Aut}}(\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R,S))}{M}$. Observe that $\nor GM=G$ and $\nor GR=R$.
Fix $\varphi\in G_1\setminus R$. As $\nor G R=R$, we have $R^\varphi\ne R$. Since $R$ is maximal in $G$, we have $G=\langle R,R^\varphi\rangle$. Observe that in $G/M=\langle R/M,R^\varphi/M\rangle$, the groups $R/M$ and $R^\varphi/M$ have order $2$ and hence $G/M$ is a dihedral group. Since $R/M$ is maximal in $G/M$, we deduce that $G/M$ is a dihedral group of order $2p$, for some odd prime number $p$. Since $G=RG_1$, we deduce that $G_1=\langle \varphi\rangle$ is cyclic of prime order $p\ge 3$.
We now set some notation. The elements in $R$ can simultaneously represent the vertices of the digraph $\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R,S)$ as well as the translation automorphisms. Given $d\in R$, we denote by $\varphi^{-1}d\varphi$ the automorphism of $\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R,S)$ obtained by applying first $\varphi$, then the right translation by $d$ and then $\varphi$. Whereas, we denote by $d^\varphi$ the image of the vertex $d$ under the automorphism $\varphi$. This notation is consistent with the work of Godsil in this area, see~\cite{Godsil}.
Consider $a\in M$. Then $\varphi^{-1}a\varphi\in M$ because $\varphi$ normalises $M$. Since $\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R,S)$ is connected, $\{M,R\setminus M\}$ is the only bipartion of $\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R,S)$ and hence $a^\varphi\in M$. Moreover, $1^{\varphi^{-1} a\varphi}=(1^{\varphi^{-1}})^{a\varphi}=1^{a\varphi}=a^\varphi=1^{a^\varphi}$. Therefore, $\varphi^{-1}a\varphi$ and $a^\varphi$ are two elements of $M$ mapping the vertex $1$ to the same vertex. Since $M$ acts semiregularly, these two elements must be equal and hence $$\varphi^{-1}a\varphi=a^\varphi,\quad\forall a\in M.$$
Fix $d\in R\setminus M$. For every $a\in M$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:silly}
(da)^\varphi=1^{da\varphi}=1^{d\varphi \varphi^{-1}a\varphi}=(1^{d\varphi})^{\varphi^{-1}a\varphi}=(1^{d\varphi})a^\varphi=d^\varphi a^\varphi.
\end{equation}
This means that the mapping $\varphi:R\to R$ is uniquely determined by the image of $d$ and by the restriction $\varphi_{|M}$ of $\varphi$ to $M$. Since we have $|R\setminus M|=|M|$ choices for the image of $d$ and since we have $|\mathop{\mathrm{Aut}}(M)|$ choices for $\varphi_{|M}$, we have at most $|M||\mathop{\mathrm{Aut}}(M)|\le 2^{\log_2|M|+(\log_2|M|)^2}$ choices for $\varphi$.
Let us now count the number of subsets $S\subseteq R\setminus M$ invariant by $\varphi$. Clearly, $S$ is a union of $\langle\varphi\rangle$-orbits. Suppose first that $\varphi$ has no fixed points on $R\setminus M$. Since $\varphi$ has prime order $p\ge 3$, we obtain that each orbit of $\langle\varphi\rangle$ on $R\setminus M$ has cardinality at least $3$ and hence the number of choices for $S$ is at most
$$2^{\frac{|R\setminus M|}{3}}=2^{\frac{|R|}{6}}.$$
Suppose now that $\varphi$ fixes some point in $R\setminus M$. Without loss of generality, we may suppose that $d$ is fixed by $\varphi$ and hence $d^\varphi=d$. Now,~\eqref{eq:silly} gives $(da)^\varphi=da^\varphi,$
which shows that $da$ is fixed by $\varphi$ if and only if $a\in \cent M \varphi$. If $\varphi$ centralises $M$, then $\varphi$ fixes each vertex of $\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R,S)$, contrary to our assumption that $\varphi\ne 1$. Thus $\cent M\varphi\ne M$ and hence $|M:\cent M\varphi|\ge 2$. Therefore the number of choices for $S$ is at most
$$2^{|\cent M \varphi|+\frac{|M\setminus \cent M\varphi|}{3}}=2^{\frac{|M|}{3}+\frac{2|\cent M\varphi|}{3}}\le \
2^{\frac{|M|}{3}+\frac{2(|M|/2)}{3}}
\le 2^{\frac{|M|}{3}+\frac{|M|}{3}}=2^{\frac{|R|}{3}}.$$
Now the proof follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{l:5}Let $R$ be a finite group with an abelian subgroup $M$ having index $2$. The number of subsets $S\subseteq R\setminus M$ such that the stabiliser in $\mathop{\mathrm{Aut}}(\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R,S))$ of the bipartition $\{M,R\setminus M\}$ does not act faithfully on $M$ is at most $2^{\frac{|R|}{4}+(\log_2(|R|/2))^2}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $S$ be a subset of $R\setminus M$ and suppose that the stabiliser in $\mathop{\mathrm{Aut}}(\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R,S))$ of the bipartition $\{M,R\setminus M\}$ does not act faithfully on $M$. For simplicity we write $G:=\mathop{\mathrm{Aut}}(\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R,S))$ and we denote by $G^+$ the stabiliser of the bipartition $\{M,R\setminus M\}$ of $\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R,S)$. Clearly, $|G:G^+|=2$.
Let $K_1$ be the kernel of the action of $G$ on $M$ and let $K_2$ be the kernel of the action of $G$ on $R\setminus M$. Set $K:=K_1\times K_2$. Clearly, $K\unlhd G$ and by hypothesis $K\ne 1$. Now define $H:=RK$ and observe that $H\ne R$ because $R$ acts regularly on the graph, but $K$ has non-identity permutations fixing some vertex.
Since $K\unlhd H$, the orbits of $K$ form a system of imprimitivity for the action of $H$. This system of imprimitivity is also a system of imprimitivity for $R$ because $R\le H$. Since $R$ acts regularly, this system of imprimitivity consists of the cosets of a certain subgroup $L$ of $R$. In particular, $d^K=dL$, for every $d\in R$. We have $L\le M$ because $K$ preserves the bipartition $\{M,R\setminus M\}$ of the graph. Moreover, $L\ne 1$ because $K\ne 1$.
We claim that $S$ is a union of $L$-cosets. To this end, it suffices to show that, for every $s\in S$, we have $sL\subseteq S$. Let $s\in S\subseteq R\setminus M$. Since the stabiliser $H_1$ of the vertex $1$ contains $K_2$ and since $H$ acts as a group of automorphisms of $\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R,S)$, we have $s^{K_2}\subseteq s^{H_1}\subseteq S$. Since the elements in $K_1$ fix $M$ pointwise, $s^{K_2}=s^{K_1\times K_2}=s^{K}=sL$.
From the previous paragraph, when the subgroup $L$ of $M$ is given, the number of choices for $S$ is at most
$$2^{\frac{|R\setminus M|}{|L|}}\le 2^{\frac{|R|}{4}},$$
because $|L|\ge 2$. The number of choices of $L$ is at most $|M|^{\log_2|M|}$ by Fact~\eqref{fact3}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~$\ref{thrm:1}$]
Let $R$ be a finite group with an abelian subgroup $M$ having index $2$ and let
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{S}:=\{S\subseteq R\setminus M\mid \mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R,S) \textrm{ is not a DRR}\}.
\end{equation*}
We partition the set $\mathcal{S}$ in various subsets. First,
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{S}_1:=\{S\in\mathcal{S}\mid \mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R,S) \textrm{ is not connected}\}.
\end{equation*}
By Lemma~\ref{l:3}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq1:1}
|\mathcal{S}_1|\le 2^{\frac{|R|}{4}+\log_2|R|}.
\end{equation}
Observe that, if $S\in\mathcal{S}\setminus \mathcal{S}_1$, then $\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R,S)$ is connected and hence $\{M,R\setminus M\}$ is the only bipartition of $\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R,S)$. In particular, every automorphism of $\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R,S)$ either fixes $M$ setwise, or maps $M$ to $R\setminus M$.
Then, we set
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{S}_2:=\{S\in\mathcal{S}\setminus \mathcal{S}_1\mid \nor{\mathop{\mathrm{Aut}}(\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R,S))}R>R\}.
\end{equation*}
If $S\in\mathcal{S}_2$, then there exists a non-identity automorphism $\varphi\in \nor{\mathop{\mathrm{Aut}}(\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R,S))}R$ with $1^\varphi=1$. Clearly, $M^\varphi=M$ and $\varphi$ is an automorphism of $R$. By Lemma~\ref{l:1}, we have at most $2^{3|R|/8}$ choices for $S$ when $\varphi$ is fixed. Fix $d\in R\setminus M$. The automorphism $\varphi$ of $R$ is uniquely determined by the image of $d$ (which is an element of $R\setminus M$ because $M^\varphi=M$) and by the restriction $\varphi_{|M}$ of $\varphi$ to $M$. Therefore, we have at most $|M||\mathop{\mathrm{Aut}}(M)|$ choices for $\varphi$. By Fact~\eqref{fact2}, we have
$$|M||\mathop{\mathrm{Aut}}(M)|\le 2^{\log_2|M|+(\log_2|M|)^2}=2^{(\log_2|R|)(\log_2(|R|/2))}.$$
It follows that
\begin{equation}\label{eq1:2}
|\mathcal{S}_2|\le 2^{\frac{3|R|}{8}+(\log_2|R|)(\log_2(|R|/2))}.
\end{equation}
For every $S\in\mathcal{S}\setminus (\mathcal{S}_1\cup\mathcal{S}_2)$, $\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R,S)$ is connected and $R$ is self-normalising in $\mathop{\mathrm{Aut}}(\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R,S))$.
Then, we set
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{S}_3:=\{S\in\mathcal{S}\setminus (\mathcal{S}_1\cup \mathcal{S}_2)\mid \nor{\mathop{\mathrm{Aut}}(\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R,S))}M>R\}.
\end{equation*}
By Lemma~\ref{l:4}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq1:3}
|\mathcal{S}_3|\le 2^{\frac{|R|}{3}+\log_2(|R|/2)+(\log_2(|R|/2))^2}.
\end{equation}
Now, for every $S\in\mathcal{S}\setminus (\mathcal{S}_1\cup\mathcal{S}_2\cup\mathcal{S}_3)$, we have that $\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R,S)$ is connected, $R$ is self-normalising in $\mathop{\mathrm{Aut}}(\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R,S))$ and the normaliser of $M$ in $\mathop{\mathrm{Aut}}(\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R,S))$ is $R$.
We set
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{S}_4:=\{S\in\mathcal{S}\setminus (\mathcal{S}_1\cup \mathcal{S}_2\cup \mathcal{S}_3)\mid& \textrm{ the stabilizer in }\mathop{\mathrm{Aut}}(\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R,S)) \textrm{ of the bipartition}\\
&\{M,R\setminus M\} \textrm{ does not act faithfully on }M\}.
\end{align*}
By Lemma~\ref{l:5}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq1:4}
|\mathcal{S}_4|\le 2^{\frac{|R|}{4}+(\log_2(|R|/2))^2}.
\end{equation}
We set
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{S}_5:=\mathcal{S}\setminus (\mathcal{S}_1\cup \mathcal{S}_2\cup \mathcal{S}_3\cup \mathcal{S}_4).
\end{align*}
Now, for every $S\in\mathcal{S}_5$, we have that $\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R,S)$ is connected, $R$ is self-normalising in $\mathop{\mathrm{Aut}}(\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R,S))$, the normaliser of $M$ in $\mathop{\mathrm{Aut}}(\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R,S))$ is $R$ and the stabiliser in $\mathop{\mathrm{Aut}}(\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R,S))$ of the bipartition $\{M,R\setminus M\}$ acts faithfully on $M$ (and hence also on $R\setminus M$).
For every $S\in\mathcal{S}\setminus (\mathcal{S}_1\cup\mathcal{S}_2\cup\mathcal{S}_3\cup\mathcal{S}_4)$, choose a subgroup $G^+$ of the stabiliser in $\mathop{\mathrm{Aut}}(\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R,S))$ of the bipartition $\{M,R\setminus M\}$ with $M$ maximal in $G^+$. Strictly speaking, we should use a notation for $G^+$ witnessing that it depends on $S$, but for not making the notation too cumbersome to use we avoid that. Observe that $\nor {G^+}M=M$ and that $G^+$ acts faithfully on $M$ and on $R\setminus M$.
In particular, we are in the position to apply~\cite[Theorem~$3.2$]{DSV}, which we report below with our current notation.
\begin{theorem}{{~\cite[Theorem~$3.2$]{DSV}}}\label{thm:main}
Let $G^+$ be a permutation group on $\Delta$ with a maximal abelian regular subgroup $M$ such that $\nor {G^+} M = M$. Let $(G^+)_\delta$ be the stabiliser of the point $\delta\in \Delta$, let $N$ be the core of $M$ in $G^+$. Then there exist a prime $p$ and $Q$ and $W$ with $Q\neq 1\neq W$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $G^{+}/N\cong (G^+)_\delta N/N \rtimes M/N$ acts faithfully as an affine primitive group on the cosets of $M$ in $G^{+}$, \label{yam}
\item $N=\Z {G^+}=Q\times \cent W {(G^+)_\delta}$, \label{yi}
\item $(G^+)_\delta\times Q$ is the unique Sylow $p$-subgroup of $G^+$, \label{yu}
\item $\nor {G^+} {(G^+)_\delta}=\cent {G^+} {(G^+)_\delta}=(G^+)_\delta\times N$, \label{yog}
\item for all $s,s'\in G^{+}\setminus \nor {G^+} {(G^+)_\delta}$, we have $(G^+)_\delta (G^+)_{\delta^s}=(G^+)_\delta (G^+)_{\delta^{s'}}$. \label{youm}
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
Consistent with the notation in Theorem~\ref{thm:main}, we let $N$ be the core of $M$ in $G^+$. We now partition the set $\mathcal{S}_5$ in two subsets:
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{S}_5'&:=\{S\in\mathcal{S}_5\mid (G^+)_1=(G^+)_d, \textrm{ for some }d\in R\setminus M\},\\
\mathcal{S}_5''&:=\mathcal{S}_5\setminus \mathcal{S}_5'.
\end{align*}
\smallskip
\noindent\textsc{Claim: }Fix $d\in R\setminus M$. For every $S\in\mathcal{S}_5'$, there exists a maximal subgroup $K'$ of $M$ and a minimal subgroup $H'$ of $K'$ such that $S\setminus dK'$ is a union of $H'$-cosets.
\smallskip
\noindent
Let $S\in \mathcal{S}_5'$, that is, $(G^+)_1=(G^+)_d$, for some $d\in R\setminus M$.
We apply Theorem~\ref{thm:main} for the action of $G^+$ on $\Delta:=R\setminus M$ and with $\delta:=d$. Observe that from Theorem~\ref{thm:main}, $(G^+)_d$ is a $p$-group and hence $(G^+)_x$ is a $p$-group for every $x\in R$ because $|(G^+)_d|=|(G^+)_x|$.
Let $T:=\nor {G^+}{(G^+)_d}$. By Theorem~\ref{thm:main}~(\ref{yi}), (\ref{yu}) and~(\ref{yog}), $T$ contains the unique Sylow $p$-subgroup of $G^+$ and hence $(G^+)_y\leq T$ for every $y\in \Delta=R\setminus M$. Since $(G^+)_d$ is normal in $T$, it follows that $(G^+)_d(G^+)_y=(G^+)_d(G^+)_y$ is a subgroup of $T$ and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:tofu}(G^+)_1(G^+)_y=(G^+)_d(G^+)_y=(G^+)_y(G^+)_d=(G^+)_y(G^+)_1.
\end{equation}
Let $s\in G^+\setminus T$ and let $$H:=(G^+)_1(G^+)_{d^s}\cap M.$$ By Theorem~\ref{thm:main}~(\ref{youm}) and~\eqref{eq:tofu}, $H$ does not depend on the choice of $s$. Assume $H=1$. As $M$ acts regularly on $M$ and on $R\setminus M$, we have $G^+=M(G^+)_1=M(G^+)_{d^s}$. Therefore, for every $x\in (G^+)_1$, there exists $a\in M$ and $y\in (G^+)_{d^s}$ with $x=ay$. Thus $xy^{-1}=a\in (G^+)_1(G^+)_{d^s}\cap M=H=1$ and hence $x=y$. Since $x$ is an arbitrary element in $(G^+)_1$, this yields $(G^+)_1=(G^+)_{d^s}$, that is, $(G^+)_d=(G^+)_1=(G^+)_{d^s}=((G^+)_d)^s$ and $s\in \nor {G^+}{(G^+)_d}=T$, which is a contradiction. Therefore $H\neq 1$.
Let $K:=N$. By Theorem~\ref{thm:main}~(\ref{yog}), $T\cap M = ((G^+)_d\times N)\cap M=((G^+)_d\cap M)\times N = N= K$ and hence $H\leq K<M$.
Let $x$ in $M\setminus K$. Since $T\cap M=K$, we have $x\notin T$ and $H=(G^+)_1(G^+)_{dx}\cap M$. Since $(G^+)_1(G^+)_{dx}=(G^+)_d(G^+)_{dx}$ is a subgroup containing $(G^+)_d$, it follows that $(dx)^{(G^+)_1(G^+)_{dx}}$ is a block of imprimitivity for $G^+$ and hence also for $M$. Moreover, $(G^+)_1(G^+)_{dx}$ is the stabiliser of this block in $G^+$, hence $(G^+)_1(G^+)_{dx}\cap M=H$ is the stabiliser of this block in $M$, therefore $(dx)^{(G^+)_1(G^+)_{dx}}$ is an $H$-coset, that is, $(dx)^{(G^+)_1(G^+)_{dx}}=dxH$. On the other hand, $(dx)^{(G^+)_1}=(dx)^{(G^+)_{dx}(G^+)_1}=(dx)^{(G^+)_1(G^+)_{dx}}=dxH$. We have shown that every $(G^+)_1$-orbit on $\Delta\setminus dK=(R\setminus M)\setminus dK$ is an $H$-coset. In particular, our set $S\setminus dK$ is a union of $H$-cosets.
Fix now a maximal subgroup $K'$ of $M$ with $K\le K'$ and $H'$ a minimal subgroup of $H$ with $H'\le H$. Since $S\setminus dK$ is a union of $H$-cosets, $S\setminus dK'$ is a union of $H'$-cosets.~$_\blacksquare$
\smallskip
Given $H'$ and $K'$ subgroups of $M$ with $1<H'\le K'<M$, the number of subsets $S$ of $R\setminus M$ such that $S\setminus dK'$ is a union of $H'$-cosets is at most
\begin{equation*
2^{|K|+\frac{|M\setminus K|}{|H|}}=2^{\frac{|M|}{|H|}+|K|\left(1-\frac{1}{|H|}\right)}\le 2^{\frac{|M|}{|H|}+\frac{|M|}{2}\left(1-\frac{1}{|H|}\right)}=2^{\frac{|M|}{2}+\frac{|M|}{2|H|}}\le 2^{\frac{|M|}{2}+\frac{|M|}{4}}=2^{\frac{3|R|}{8}}.
\end{equation*}
The number of maximal subgroups $K'$ of an abelian group $M$ is at most $|M|$ and the number of minimal subgroups $H'$ of a group $K'$ is at most $|K'|\le |M|/2$.
In particular, from Claim, we deduce
\begin{equation}\label{lastlast}|\mathcal{S}_5'|\le 2^{\frac{3|R|}{8}+\log_2(|R|/2)+\log_2(|R|/4)}=2^{\frac{3|R|}{8}+2\log_2|R|-3}.
\end{equation}
\smallskip
It remains to estimate the cardinality of the set $\mathcal{S}_5''$.
Given a finite group $X$, we write $$f(X):=|\{Y\le X\mid |Y| \textrm{ is prime}\}|$$
and similarly, given a positive integer $n$, we write
$$f(n):=\max\{f(X)\mid X\textrm{ is a group of order }n\}.$$
Let $S\in\mathcal{S}_5''$, that is, there is no $d\in R\setminus M$ with $(G^+)_1= (G^+)_d$. Let $d\in R\setminus M$. From Theorem~\ref{thm:main}~\eqref{yam} and~\eqref{yog}, we see that $(G^+)_d\times N$ is a normal subgroup of $G^+$, from which it follows that $G^+$ fixes setwise each $N$-orbit on $R\setminus M$.
Let $d\in R\setminus M$. From Theorem~\ref{thm:main}~\eqref{yu}, $(G^+)_d\times Q$ is the unique Sylow $p$-subgroup of $G^+$. As $(G^+)_1$ is a $p$-group, $(G^+)_1$ is contained in $(G^+)_d\times Q\le (G^+)_d\times N$. In particular, $(G^+)_1$ fixes each $N$-orbit.
For each $d\in R\setminus M$, the action induced by $(G^+)_d\times N$ on $d^N=dN$ is regular (given by the subgroup $N$) and hence the action induced by $(G^+)_1$ on $d^N$ is semiregular and given by some subgroup $X(d)$ of $N$, because $(G^+)_1\le (G^+)_d\times N$. (Observe that $X(d)$ depends on the vertex $d$.) Since $(G^+)_1\ne (G^+)_d$, for every $d\in R\setminus M$, $(G^+)_1$ has no fixed point on $R\setminus M$ and hence $X(d)\ne 1$.
Let $d_1,\ldots,d_{|M:N|}$ be the representatives of the $N$-orbits on $R\setminus M$ and, for every $i\in \{1,\ldots,|M:N|\}$, let $Y(d_i)$ be any subgroup of $X(d_i)$ having prime order.
Since the set $S$ is $(G^+)_1$-invariant, $S\cap d_i^{N}$ is $X(d_i)$-invariant, for every $i\in \{1,\ldots,|M:N|\}$. In particular, $S\cap d_i^N$ is also $Y(d_i)$-invariant. When the subgroup $Y(d_i)$ of $N$ is given, the number of possibilities for $S\cap d_i^{N}$ is at most $2^{|N|/|Y(d_i)|}\le 2^{|N|/2}$, because $|Y(d_i)|\ne 1$.
When the subgroup $N$ of $M$ is given, we have at most $f(N)2^{|N|/2}\le f(|N|)2^{|N|/2}$ choices for $S\cap d_i^N$. In particular, when the subgroup $N$ of $M$ is given, since with have $|M|/|N|$ choices for $i$, the number of choices for $S$ is at most
$$(f(|N|)2^{|N|/2})^{|M|/|N|}=2^{|M|\frac{\log_2(f(|N|))}{|N|}+\frac{|M|}{2}}.$$
Given a divisor $n$ of $|M|$, the number of subgroups $N$ of $M$ having order $n$ is at most $|M|^{\log_2|n|}$ by Fact~\eqref{fact3}. Therefore,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:last}
|\mathcal{S}_5''|\le \sum_{\substack{n\mid |M|\\ 1<n<|M|}}2^{|M|\frac{\log_2(f(n))}{n}+\frac{|M|}{2}+\log_2|M|\log_2n}.
\end{equation}
Observe now that $f(p)=1$, for every prime number $p$. In general, $f(n)\le n-1$, for every $n$. We consider the auxiliary real function $F:[2,|M|/2]\to \mathbb{R}$ defined by $$x\mapsto F(x):=\frac{\log_2(x-1)}{x}|M|+\log_2 x\log_2|M|.$$
We have
\begin{align*}
F'(x)&=\left(\frac{1}{(x-1)x}-\frac{\log(x-1)}{x^2}\right)\frac{|M|}{\log 2}+\frac{\log_2 |M|}{\log 2\cdot x}\ge
\left(\frac{1}{(x-1)x}-\frac{\log(x-1)}{x^2}\right)\frac{\log_2|M|}{\log 2}+\frac{\log_2 |M|}{\log 2\cdot x}\\
&=\frac{\log_2|M|}{\log 2\cdot x^2}\left(\frac{x}{x-1}-\log(x-1)+x\right)\ge 0,
\end{align*}
where the last inequality follows with an easy computation. In particular, $F(x)$ is an increasing function of $x$ and hence
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{\log_2(f(n))}{n}|M|+\log_2|M|\log_2n&\le& 2\log_2(|M|/2)+\log_2|M|\log_2(|M|/2)\\
&=&\log_2|M|-2+(\log_2|M|)^2.
\end{eqnarray*}
From this and from~\eqref{eq:last}, we deduce
\begin{eqnarray}\label{lastlastlast}
|\mathcal{S}_5''|&\le& \sum_{\substack{n\mid |M|\\1<n<|M|}}2^{\frac{|M|}{2}+\log_2|M|-2+(\log_2|M|)^2}
\le 2^{\frac{|M|}{2}+\log_2|M|-2+(\log_2|M|)^2}\cdot 2\sqrt{|M|}\\\nonumber
&=& 2^{\frac{|R|}{4}+\frac{3}{2}\log_2|R|-\frac{5}{2}+(\log_2(|R|/2))^2},
\end{eqnarray}
where the second inequality follows from the fact that $|M|$ has at most $2\sqrt{|M|}=2^{1+(\log_2|M|)/2}$ divisors.
In~\eqref{eq1:1},~\eqref{eq1:2},~\eqref{eq1:3},~\eqref{eq1:4},~\eqref{lastlast} and~\eqref{lastlastlast}, we have estimated the cardinalities of the sets $\mathcal{S}_1,\mathcal{S}_2,\mathcal{S}_3,\mathcal{S}_4,\mathcal{S}_5'$ and $\mathcal{S}_5''$. The main contribution comes from the estimate of $\mathcal{S}_2$ in~\eqref{eq1:2} and hence we obtain
$$|\mathcal{S}|\le 5\cdot 2^{\frac{3|R|}{8}+\log_2|R|\cdot (\log_2(|R|/2))}.~\qedhere$$
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary~$\ref{cor:2}$]
Let $R$ be a finite group with an abelian subgroup $M$ having index $2$. If
$$2^{\frac{|R|}{2}}>5\cdot 2^{\frac{3|R|}{8}+\log_2|R|\cdot (\log_2(|R|/2))},$$
then by Theorem~\ref{thrm:1} there exists a subset $S$ of $R\setminus M$ with $\mathop{\mathrm{Cay}}(R,S)$ a DRR. A computation shows that this inequality holds whenever $|R|\ge 640$.
When $|R|< 640$(there should consistent with Remark~\ref{remark1}), the proof follows with a computer computation, see Remark~\ref{remark1}.
\end{proof}
\section{A
route to the proof of Theorem~\ref{thrm:11}}\label{enroute2}
\begin{lemma}\label{example:1}
Let $R$ be a group and let $M$ be an abelian subgroup of $R$ with $|R:M|=2$. Then, there exists a non-identity automorphism $\varphi$ of $R$ with $g^\varphi\in \{g,g^{-1}\}$, for every $g\in R\setminus M$, if and only if $R$ is not generalised dihedral on $M$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Suppose there exists a non-identity automorphism $\varphi$ of $R$ with $g^\varphi\in \{g,g^{-1}\}$, for every $g\in R\setminus M$. If $R$ is generalised dihedral on $M$, then $g^\varphi=g$, for every $g\in R\setminus M$, because the elements in $R\setminus M$ are involutions. Therefore, $\varphi$ fixes $R\setminus M$ pointwise and hence $\varphi$ is the identity automorphism, which is a contradiction.
Conversely, suppose that $R$ is not generalised dihedral on $M$ and fix $a\in R\setminus M$. Let $\psi:R\to R$ be the mapping defined by $$m^\psi=m^{-1}\,\,\textrm{ and }\,\,(ma)^\psi=m^{-1}a^{-1},\quad \forall m\in M.$$ We prove that $\psi$ is an automorphism, that is, $(g_1g_2)^\psi=g_1^\psi g_2^\psi$, for every $g_1,g_2\in R$. Let $m_1$ and $m_2$ be in $M$. Since $M$ is abelian, we have $(m_1m_2)^\psi=(m_1m_2)^{-1}=m_1^{-1}m_2^{-1}=m_1^{\psi}m_2^{\psi}$. Similarly, since $(m_1a)(m_2a)\in M$ and since $a^{-1}m_2^{-1}a^{-1}\in M$, we have $$((m_1a)(m_2a))^\psi=(m_1am_2a)^{-1}=a^{-1}m_2^{-1}a^{-1}m_1^{-1}=m_1^{-1}a^{-1}m_2^{-1}a^{-1}=g_1^\psi g_2^{\psi}.$$
Clearly, we have $$(m_1(m_2a))^\psi=(m_1m_2a)^\psi=(m_1m_2)^{-1}a^{-1}=m_1^{-1}(m_2^{-1}a^{-1})=m_1^\psi (m_2a)^{\psi}.$$
Finally, since $m_2^{a^{-1}}=am_2a^{-1}\in M$ and $a^{-2}\in M$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
((m_1a)m_2)^\psi&=&(m_1m_2^{a^{-1}}a)^\psi=m_1^{-1}(m_2^{a^{-1}})^{-1}a^{-1}=m_1^{-1}am_2^{-1}a^{-1}a^{-1}\\
&=&m_1^{-1}am_2^{-1}a^{-2}=m_1^{-1}aa^{-2}m_2^{-1}=m_1^{-1}a^{-1}m_2^{-1}=(m_1a)^\psi m_2^\psi.
\end{eqnarray*}
Therefore $\psi$ is indeed a group automorphism. Let $\iota_a:R\to R$ denote the inner automorphism of $R$ given by the conjugation via $a$ and let $\varphi:=\psi\iota_a$.
For every $m\in M$, we have $$(ma)^\varphi=(ma)^{\psi\iota_a}=(m^{-1}a^{-1})^{\iota_a}=a^{-1}m^{-1}=(ma)^{-1}$$ and hence $g^\varphi=g^{-1}$, for every $g\in R\setminus M$. The automorphism $\varphi$ is the identity automorphism if and only if $\psi=\iota_{a^{-1}}$,
that is, $m^{-1}=m^\psi=m^{a^{-1}}$,
for each $m\in M$, and $a^{-1}=a^\psi=a^{a^{-1}}=a$.
Thus $\varphi$ is the identity automorphism if and only if $R$ is the generalised dihedral group on $M$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:1}
Let $R$ be a finite group and let $M$ be a subgroup of $R$ with $|R:M|=2$. Suppose that $M$ contains an abelian subgroup $Z$ with $|M:Z|=2$ and there exists $a\in R\setminus M$, with $a^2\ne 1$, $a^2\in Z\cap \Zent R$ and $z^a=z^{-1}$, for every $z\in Z$. Then there exists a non-identity automorphism $\varphi$ of $R$ with $g^\varphi\in \{g,g^{-1}\}$, for every $g\in R\setminus M$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $|R:M|=|M:Z|=2$ and $a\notin M$, we have $Z\unlhd M$ and $R=\langle M,a\rangle$. As $a$ normalises $Z$, we obtain $Z\unlhd R$. As $a^2\in Z$, we have $a^2=(a^2)^a=(a^2)^{-1}$ and hence $$a^4=1.$$
Observe also that $x^2=a^2$ and $z^x=z^{-1}$, for every $x\in Za$.
Fix $m\in M\setminus Z$. Since $a^2\in Z$ and $a\notin M$, we see that $Z$, $Za$, $Zm$, $Zam$ are the cosets of $Z$ in $R$. We define
$A:=\langle Z,a\rangle$ and $C:=\langle Z,am\rangle$. Observe that $A$, $C$ and $M$ are the three maximal subgroups of $R$ containing $Z$.
We define a mapping $\varphi:R\to R$ by
\[
g^\varphi=
\begin{cases}
g&\textrm{if }g\in C=Z\cup Zam,\\
g^{-1}&\textrm{if }g\in Za=A\setminus Z,\\
a^2g&\textrm{if }g\in Zm=M\setminus Z.\\
\end{cases}
\]
We prove that $\varphi$ is an automorphism of $R$, that is, for every $g_1,g_2\in R$, $(g_1g_2)^\varphi=g_1^\varphi g_2^{\varphi}$. For every $g\in R\setminus Zm$, from the definition of $\varphi$, it is readily seen that $(g^\varphi)^{-1}=(g^{-1})^\varphi$. If $g\in Zm$, then $(g^{-1})^\varphi=a^2g^{-1}$ and $(g^\varphi)^{-1}=(a^2g)^{-1}=g^{-1}a^{-2}$. Since $a^4=1$ and $a^2\in \Zent R$, we deduce that $(g^{-1})^\varphi=(g^{-1})^\varphi$ also in this case. In particular, the equality
\begin{equation}\label{eq:0}
(g^{-1})^\varphi=(g^{-1})^\varphi
\end{equation} holds for every $g\in R$.
The restriction $\varphi_{|C}$ of $\varphi$ to $C$ is the identity mapping, which is an automorphism of $C$.
We show that the restriction $\varphi_{|A}$ of $\varphi$ to $A$ is also an automorphism of $A$. If $g_1,g_2\in Z$, then $(g_1g_2)^\varphi=g_1g_2=g_1^\varphi g_2^{\varphi}$. If $g_1\in Z,g_2\in Za$, then $g_1g_2\in Za$ and hence $$(g_1g_2)^\varphi=(g_1g_2)^{-1}=g_2^{-1}g_1^{-1}=(g_1^{-1})^{g_2}g_2^{-1}=g_1g_2^{-1}=g_1^\varphi g_2^\varphi.$$ If $g_1\in Za$ and $g_2\in Z$, then $g_1g_2\in Za$ and hence
$$(g_1g_2)^\varphi=(g_1g_2)^{-1}=g_2^{-1}g_1^{-1}=g_1^{-1}(g_2^{-1})^{g_1^{-1}}=g_1^{-1}g_2=g_1^\varphi g_2^\varphi.$$
Finally, if $g_1,g_2\in Za$, then $g_1g_2\in Z$ and hence $$(g_1g_2)^\varphi=g_1g_2=(g_1^{-1}g_1^2)(g_2^{-1}g_2^{2})=g_1^{-1}a^2g_2^{-1}a^2=g_1^{-1}g_2^{-1}a^4=g_1^{-1}g_2^{-1}=g_1^\varphi g_2^\varphi.$$
We show that the restriction $\varphi_{|M}$ of $\varphi$ to $M$ is an automorphism. If $g_1,g_2\in Z$, then $(g_1g_2)^\varphi=g_1g_2=g_1^\varphi g_2^{\varphi}$. If $g_1\in Zm$ and $g_2\in Z$, then $g_1g_2\in Zm$; since $a^4=1$ and $a^2$$\in \Zent R$,
we obtain $$(g_1g_2)^\varphi=a^2g_1g_2=(a^2g_1)g_2=g_1^\varphi g_2^\varphi.$$ If $g_1\in Z$ and $g_2\in Zm$, then $g_1g_2\in Zm$ and $$(g_1g_2)^\varphi=a^2(g_1g_2)=g_1(a^2g_2)=g_1^\varphi g_2^\varphi.$$ Finally, if $g_1,g_2\in Zm$. Then $g_1g_2\in Z$ and hence $$(g_1g_2)^\varphi=g_1g_2=a^4g_1g_2=(a^2g_1)(a^2g_2)=g_1^\varphi g_2^\varphi.$$
For the rest of the proof we may suppose that $g_1,g_2$ are not both in $A$, or in $M$, or in $C$. Moreover, using~\eqref{eq:0}, we may reduce to consider only the following cases:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[Case 1:]$g_1\in Za$ and $g_2\in Zm$,
\item[Case 2:]$g_1\in Za$ and $g_2\in Zam$,
\item[Case 3:]$g_1\in Zm$ and $g_2\in Zam$.
\end{enumerate}
\smallskip
\noindent\textsc{Case 1: }$g_1=z_1a$ and $g_2=z_2m$, for some $z_1,z_2\in Z$.
\smallskip
\noindent Here, $g_1g_2\in Zam$ and hence $(g_1g_2)^\varphi=g_1g_2=z_1az_2m=z_1z_2^{a^{-1}}am=z_1z_2^{-1}am$, $g_1^\varphi=g_1^{-1}=a^{-1}z_1^{-1}$ and $g_2^\varphi=a^2g_2=a^2z_2m$. Therefore
$$g_1^\varphi g_2^\varphi=a^{-1}z_1^{-1}a^2z_2m=z_1z_2^{-1}a^{-1}a^2m=
z_1z_2^{-1}am=g_1g_2=(g_1g_2)^\varphi.$$
\smallskip
\noindent\textsc{Case 2: }$g_1=z_1a$ and $g_2=z_2am$, for some $z_1,z_2\in Z$.
\smallskip
\noindent Here, $g_1g_2\in Zm$ and hence
$$(g_1g_2)^\varphi=a^2g_1g_2=a^2z_1az_2am=a^{-1}z_1^{-1}z_2am=g_1^{-1}g_2=g_1^\varphi g_2^\varphi.$$
\smallskip
\noindent\textsc{Case 3: }$g_1=z_1m$ and $g_2=z_2am$, for some $z_1,z_2\in Z$.
\smallskip
\noindent Here, $g_1g_2\in Za$ and hence
$$(g_1g_2)^\varphi=g_2^{-1}g_1^{-1}=
m^{-1}a^{-1}z_2^{-1}m^{-1}z_1^{-1}.$$
Now, the element $a':=m^{-1}a^{-1}z_2^{-1}m^{-1}$ lies in $Za$ and hence it acts by conjugation on $Z$ inverting its elements. In particular, $a'z_1^{-1}=z_1a'$ and hence
$$(g_1g_2)^\varphi=z_1m^{-1}a^{-1}z_2^{-1}m^{-1}.$$
Since $a'\in Za$, we have $a'^2=a^2$ and hence $a'=a^2a'^{-1}=a^2mz_2am$.
In particular, we deduce
\begin{eqnarray*}
(g_1g_2)^\varphi=a^2z_1maz_2m=(a^2z_1m)(z_2am)=g_1^\varphi g_2^\varphi.
\end{eqnarray*}
\smallskip
Summing up, $\varphi$ is an automorphism of $R$. By construction, $Zam\subseteq \{g\in R\mid g^\varphi=g\}$ and $Za\subseteq \{g\in R\mid g^\varphi=g^{-1}\}$ and hence $g^\varphi\in \{g,g^{-1}\}$, for every $g\in R\setminus M$.
If $\varphi$ is the identity automorphism of $R$, then by the definition of $\varphi$ we infer $a^2g=g$, for every $g\in Zm$, that is, $a^2=1$. However, this contradicts the hypothesis that $a^2\ne 1$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:3}
Let $R$ be a finite group, let $M$ be a subgroup of $R$ with $|R:M|=2$, $|M:\Zent M|=4$ and $\gamma_2(M)=\langle a^2\rangle$ for some $a\in R\setminus M$ such that $o(a)=4$, $z^a=z^{-1}$ for every $z\in \Zent M$, and $o(am)\ne 2$ for some $m\in M\setminus \Zent M$. Then there exists a non-identity automorphism $\varphi$ of $R$ with $g^\varphi\in \{g,g^{-1}\}$, for every $g\in R\setminus M$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $Z:=\Zent M$. Write $M=Zm_0\cup Zm_1\cup Zm_2\cup Zm_3$, with $m_0:=1$ and for some $m_1,m_2,m_3\in M$. We define a mapping $\varphi:R\to R$ by
\[g^\varphi=
\begin{cases}
a^{-1}g^{-1}a^{-1}&\textrm{if }g\in M\setminus Z=Zm_1\cup Zm_2\cup Zm_3,\\
g&\textrm{if }g\in Z\cup Za,\\
g^{-1}&\textrm{if }g\in Zm_1a\cup Zm_2a\cup Zm_3a.
\end{cases}
\]
From the definition of $\varphi$, we have $Za\subseteq \cent R\varphi$ and $Zm_1a\cup Zm_2a\cup Zm_3a\subseteq \centm R \varphi$ and hence
$R\setminus M=Za\cup Zm_1a\cup Zm_2a\cup Zm_3a\subseteq \cent R\varphi\cup \centm R\varphi$. Therefore it remains to show that $\varphi$ is a non-identity automorphism of $R$.
Since $\langle a^2\rangle=\gamma_2(M)$ and $o(a^2)=2$, we have $a^2\in \Zent M$. Therefore, for every $g\in M$, we have $a^2g=ga^2$, that is, $aga=a^{-1}ga^{-1}$. From this it follows that, for every $g\in M\setminus Z$, we have $(g^\varphi)^{-1}=(a^{-1}g^{-1}a^{-1})=aga=a^{-1}ga^{-1}=(g^{-1})^\varphi$. In all other cases it is readily seen from the definition of $\varphi$ that this equality is also satisfied and hence
\begin{equation}\label{eq:-1}
(g^{-1})^\varphi=(g^\varphi)^{-1},\quad \forall g\in R.
\end{equation}
Define $A:=Z\cup Za$. Observe that $\varphi_{|A}$ is the identity mapping and hence it is an automorphism of $A$.
Next, we show that $\varphi_{|M}$ is an automorphism of $M$. If $g_1,g_2\in Z$, then $g_1g_2\in Z$ and hence $(g_1g_2)^\varphi=g_1g_2=g_1^\varphi g_2^\varphi$. If $g_1\in Z$ and $g_2\in M\setminus Z$, then $g_1g_2\in M\setminus Z$ and hence $(g_1g_2)^\varphi=a^{-1}(g_1g_2)^{-1}a^{-1}=a^{-1}g_2^{-1}g_1^{-1}a^{-1}$. Since $g_1\in Z=\Zent M$ and $g_1^{a}=g_1^{-1}$, we deduce
$$(g_1g_2)^\varphi=a^{-1}g_1^{-1}g_2^{-1}a^{-1}=g_1a^{-1}g_2^{-1}a^{-1}=g_1^\varphi g_2^\varphi.$$
If $g_1\in M\setminus Z$ and $g_2\in Z$, then the equality $(g_1g_2)^{\varphi}=g_1^\varphi g_2^\varphi$ holds by the previous case and by~\eqref{eq:-1}. Finally, suppose $g_1,g_2\in M\setminus Z$, that is,
$g_1=z_1m_i$ and $g_2=z_2m_j$, for some $z_1,z_2\in Z$ and for some $i,j\in \{1,2,3\}$. Let us
first consider the case that $i=j$. Then $g_1g_2\in Z$ and hence $(g_1g_2)^\varphi=g_1g_2$. On the
other hand, as $a^2\in \Zent M$, $o(a)=4$ and $(g_2g_1)^a=(g_2g_1)^{-1}$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
g_1^\varphi g_2^\varphi &=&
a^{-1}g_1^{-1}a^{-1}a^{-1}g_2^{-1}a^{-1}
=
a^{-1}g_1^{-1}a^{-2}g_2^{-1}a^{-1}=a^{-1}g_1^{-1}g_2^{-1}a^{-3}\\
&=&
a^{-1}(g_2g_1)^{-1}a=g_2g_1=g_1g_2=(g_1g_2)^\varphi.
\end{eqnarray*}
Suppose
now that $i\ne j$ and let $k$$\in \{1,2,3\}$
with $\{1,2,3\}=\{i,j,k\}$. Now, $g_1g_2\in Zm_k$ and hence
\begin{eqnarray*}
(g_1g_2)^\varphi&=&
a^{-1}g_2^{-1}g_1^{-1}a^{-1}=a^{-1}m_j^{-1}z_2^{-1}m_i^{-1}z_1^{-1}a^{-1}\\
&=&a^{-1}m_j^{-1}m_i^{-1}z_1^{-1}z_2^{-1}a^{-1}=a^{-1}m_j^{-1}m_i^{-1}a^{-1}z_1z_2.
\end{eqnarray*}
Since the commutator subgroup of $M$ is $\langle a^2\rangle$, we obtain that $m_j^{-1}m_i^{-1}m_jm_i=a^2$ and hence
$m_j^{-1}m_i^{-1}=a^2m_i^{-1}m_j^{-1}$. Thus
$$(g_1g_2)^\varphi=am_i^{-1}m_j^{-1}a^{-1}z_1z_2.$$
On the other hand, with similar computations we obtain
\begin{eqnarray*}
g_1^\varphi g_2^\varphi&=a^{-1}m_i^{-1}z_1^{-1}a^{-2}m_j^{-1}z_2^{-1}a^{-1}=
am_i^{-1}m_j^{-1}z_1^{-1}z_2^{-1}a^{-1}=
am_i^{-1}m_j^{-1}a^{-1}z_1z_2=(g_1g_2)^\varphi.
\end{eqnarray*}
This shows that $\varphi_{|M}$ is an automorphism of $M$.
For the rest of the proof we may suppose that $g_1 , g_2$ are not both in $A$ or in $M$. Moreover,
using~\eqref{eq:-1}, we may reduce to consider only the following cases:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[Case 1:]$g_1\in Zm_1\cup Zm_2\cup Zm_3$ and $g_2\in Za$,
\item[Case 2:]$g_1\in Zm_1\cup Zm_2\cup Zm_3$ and $g_2\in Zam_1\cup Zam_2\cup Zam_3$,
\item[Case 3:]$g_1\in Zam_1\cup Zam_2\cup Zam_3$ and $g_2\in Zam_1\cup Zam_2\cup Zam_3$,
\item[Case 4:]$g_1\in Zam_1\cup Zam_2\cup Zam_3$ and $g_2\in Za$.
\end{enumerate}
\smallskip
\noindent\textsc{Case 1: }$g_1=z_1m_i$ and $g_2= z_2a$, for some $z_1,z_2\in Z$ and for some $i\in \{1,2,3\}$.
\smallskip
\noindent Here, $g_1g_2\in Zm_ia\subseteq Zam_1\cup Zam_2\cup Zam_3$ and hence $(g_1g_2)^{\varphi}=g_2^{-1}g_1^{-1}=a^{-1}z_2^{-1}m_i^{-1}z_1^{-1}$. Moreover, $g_1^\varphi=a^{-1} g_1^{-1}a^{-1}=a^{-1}m_i^{-1}z_1^{-1}a^{-1}$ and $g_2^\varphi=g_2=z_2a$. Thus
$$g_1^\varphi g_2^\varphi=a^{-1}m_i^{-1}z_1^{-1}a^{-1}z_2a=a^{-1}m_i^{-1}z_1^{-1}z_2^{-1}=a^{-1}z_2^{-1}m_i^{-1}z_1^{-1}=(g_1g_2)^\varphi.$$
\smallskip
\noindent\textsc{Case 2: }$g_1=z_1m_i$ and $g_2= z_2am_j$, for some $z_1,z_2\in Z$ and for some $i,j\in \{1,2,3\}$.
\smallskip
\noindent Clearly, $g_1g_2\in Zm_iam_j$. Suppose first $i$ and $j$ are such that $m_iam_j\in Za$. In particular, there exists $z\in Z$ with $m_iam_j=za$. Then $g_1g_2\in Za$ and hence $$(g_1g_2)^\varphi=g_1g_2=z_1m_i z_2am_j=z_1z_2m_iam_j=z_1z_2za.$$ Moreover,
$g_1^\varphi=a^{-1}g_1^{-1}a^{-1}=a^{-1}m_i^{-1}z_1^{-1}a^{-1}$ and $g_2^{\varphi}=g_2^{-1}=m_j^{-1}a^{-1}z_2^{-1}$. Thus
\begin{eqnarray*}
g_1^\varphi g_2^\varphi=a^{-1}m_i^{-1}z_1^{-1}a^{-1}m_j^{-1}a^{-1}z_2^{-1}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Since $m_iam_j=za$, we have $m_j^{-1}a^{-1}m_i^{-1}=a^{-1}z^{-1}$ and so $m_j^{-1}a^{-1}=a^{-1}z^{-1}m_i$ and hence
\begin{eqnarray*}
g_1^\varphi g_2^\varphi&=&
a^{-1}m_i^{-1}z_1^{-1}a^{-1}(a^{-1}z^{-1}m_i)z_2^{-1}=
a^{-1}m_i^{-1}z_1^{-1}a^{-2}z^{-1}m_iz_2^{-1}
=a^{-3}z_1^{-1}z^{-1}z_2^{-1}\\
&=&az_1^{-1}z_2^{-1}z^{-1}=z_1z_2za=(g_1g_2)^\varphi.
\end{eqnarray*}
Suppose next that $i$ and $j$ are such that $m_iam_j\in Zam_1\cup Zam_2\cup Zam_3$ and hence $m_iam_j=zam_k$, for some $z\in Z$ and for some $k\in \{1,2,3\}$. Then $g_1g_2\in Zam_1\cup Zam_2\cup Zam_3$ and hence $(g_1g_2)^\varphi=(g_1g_2)^{-1}=m_j^{-1}a^{-1}z_2^{-1}m_i^{-1}z_1^{-1}$. Moreover, $g_1^\varphi=a^{-1}g_1^{-1}a^{-1}=a^{-1}m_i^{-1}z_1^{-1}a^{-1}$ and $g_2^{\varphi}=g_2^{-1}=m_j^{-1}a^{-1}z_2^{-1}$.
Thus
$$(g_1g_2)^\varphi=m_j^{-1}a^{-1}z_2^{-1}m_i^{-1}z_1^{-1}=m_j^{-1}a^{-1}m_i^{-1}z_1^{-1}z_2^{-1}.$$
Now, as $a^{-1}m_j^{-1}a^{-1}\in M$, we obtain $z_1^{-1}(a^{-1}m_j^{-1}a^{-1})=(a^{-1}m_j^{-1}a^{-1})z_1^{-1}$ and hence
\begin{eqnarray*}
g_1^\varphi g_2^\varphi&=&a^{-1}m_i^{-1}z_1^{-1}a^{-1}m_j^{-1}a^{-1}z_2^{-1}=a^{-1}m_i^{-1}a^{-1}m_j^{-1}a^{-1}z_1^{-1}z_2^{-1}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Now, we apply the commutator formula $xy=yx[x,y]$ with $x:=m_i^{-1}$ and $y:=a^{-1}m_j^{-1}a^{-1}$ (for simplicity set $z':=[m_i^{-1},a^{-1}m_j^{-1}a^{-1}]$). We get
\begin{eqnarray*}
g_1^\varphi g_2^\varphi&=&a^{-1}(a^{-1}m_j^{-1}a^{-1})m_i^{-1}z'z_1^{-1}z_2^{-1}=a^{-2}m_j^{-1}a^{-1}m_i^{-1}z'z_1^{-1}z_2^{-1}\\
&=&m_j^{-1}a^{-1}m_i^{-1}z_1^{-1}z_2^{-1}z'a^{-2}=(g_1g_2)^\varphi z'a^{-2}.
\end{eqnarray*}
From this it follows that $(g_1g_2)^\varphi=g_1^\varphi g_2^\varphi$ if and only if $z'=a^2$, that is, $[m_i^{-1},a^{-1}m_j^{-1}a^{-1}]=a^2$. Since $\gamma_2(M)=\langle a^2\rangle$, this happens if and only if $a^{-1}m_j^{-1}a^{-1}\notin Zm_i$, that is, $a^{-1}m_j^{-1}a^{-1}m_i^{-1}\notin Z$. Recall that $m_iam_j\in Zam_k$ and hence $a^{-1}m_j^{-1}a^{-1}m_i^{-1}\in a^{-1}(Zm_k)a\ne Z$, because $k\in \{1,2,3\}$.
\smallskip
\noindent\textsc{Case 3: }$g_1=z_1am_i$ and $g_2= z_2am_j$, for some $z_1,z_2\in Z$ and for some $i,j\in \{1,2,3\}$.
\smallskip
\noindent Here, $g_1g_2\in Zam_iam_j\subseteq M=Z\cup Zm_1\cup Zm_2\cup Zm_3$. We distinguish two cases depending on whether $am_iam_j\in Z$ or $am_iam_j\in Zm_1\cup Zm_2\cup Zm_3$. We start with the first case: $am_iam_j=z$, for some $z\in Z$. Thus $g_1g_2\in Z$ and hence $$(g_1g_2)^\varphi=g_1g_2=z_1am_iz_2am_j=z_1am_iam_jz_2^{-1}=z_1zz_2^{-1}.$$
On the other hand, $g_1^{\varphi}=g_1^{-1}$ and $g_2^\varphi=g_2^{-1}$ and hence
\begin{eqnarray*}
g_1^\varphi g_2^\varphi&=&m_i^{-1}a^{-1}z_1^{-1}m_j^{-1}a^{-1}z_2^{-1}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Since $am_iam_j=z$, we get $m_j^{-1}a^{-1}=z^{-1}am_i$ and hence
\begin{eqnarray*}
g_1^\varphi g_2^\varphi&=&m_i^{-1}a^{-1}z_1^{-1}(m_j^{-1}a^{-1})z_2^{-1}=
m_i^{-1}a^{-1}z_1^{-1}(z^{-1}am_i)z_2^{-1}\\
&=&m_i^{-1}(z_1^{-1}z^{-1})^am_iz_2^{-1}
=
m_i^{-1}z_1zm_iz_2^{-1}=z_1zz_2^{-1}=(g_1g_2)^\varphi.
\end{eqnarray*}
Finally, suppose that $am_iam_j=zm_k$, for some $k\in \{1,2,3\}$. In this case, we have $g_1g_2\in Zm_k$ and hence $(g_1g_2)^\varphi=a^{-1}(g_1g_2)^{-1}a^{-1}$ and hence
\begin{eqnarray*}
(g_1g_2)^\varphi&=&a^{-1}m_j^{-1}a^{-1}z_2^{-1}m_i^{-1}a^{-1}z_1^{-1}a^{-1}=a^{-1}m_j^{-1}a^{-1}z_2^{-1}m_i^{-1}(z_1^{-1})^aa^{-2}\\
&=&a^{-1}m_j^{-1}a^{-1}m_i^{-1}z_1z_2^{-1}a^{-2}.
\end{eqnarray*}
On the other hand,
$g_1^{\varphi}=g_1^{-1}$ and $g_2^\varphi=g_2^{-1}$ and hence
\begin{eqnarray*}
g_1^\varphi g_2^\varphi&=&m_i^{-1}a^{-1}z_1^{-1}m_j^{-1}a^{-1}z_2^{-1}=
m_i^{-1}a^{-1}m_j^{-1}a^{-1}z_1z_2^{-1}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Now, we apply the commutator formula $xy=yx[x,y]$ with $x:=m_i^{-1}$ and $y:=a^{-1}m_j^{-1}a$; for simplicity write $z':=[m_i^{-1},a^{-1}m_j^{-1}a^{-1}]$. We obtain
\begin{eqnarray*}
g_1^\varphi g_2^\varphi&=&m_i^{-1}(a^{-1}m_j^{-1}a^{-1})z_1z_2^{-1}=(a^{-1}m_j^{-1}a^{-1})m_i^{-1}z'z_1z_2^{-1}\\
&=&a^{-1}m_j^{-1}a^{-1}m_i^{-1}z_1z_2^{-1}z'=(g_1g_2)^\varphi a^{-2}z'.
\end{eqnarray*}
From this it follows that $(g_1g_2)^\varphi=g_1^\varphi g_2^\varphi$ if and only if $z'=a^2$, that is, $[m_i^{-1},a^{-1}m_j^{-1}a^{-1}]=a^2$. Since $\gamma_2(M)=\langle a^2\rangle$, this happens if and only if $a^{-1}m_j^{-1}a^{-1}\notin Zm_i$, that is, $a^{-1}m_j^{-1}a^{-1}m_i^{-1}\notin Z$. Recall that $am_iam_j\in Zm_k$ and hence $m_j^{-1}a^{-1}m_i^{-1}a^{-1}\in Zm_k$; therefore $a^{-1}m_j^{-1}a^{-1}m_i^{-1}=(m_j^{-1}a^{-1}m_i^{-1}a^{-1})^a\notin Z$, because $k\in \{1,2,3\}$.
\smallskip
\noindent\textsc{Case 4: }$g_1=z_1am_i$ and $g_2= z_2a$, for some $z_1,z_2\in Z$ and for some $i\in \{1,2,3\}$.
\smallskip
\noindent Here, $g_1g_2\in Z\cup Zm_1\cup Zm_2\cup Zm_3=M$. Set $g_1':=g_1$ and $g_2':=g_2m_1$. We have $(g_1'g_2')^\varphi=g_1'^\varphi g_2'^\varphi$, from Case~3 applied to $g_1'$ and $g_2'$. Moreover, $g_2'^\varphi=(g_2m_1)^\varphi=g_2^\varphi m_1^\varphi$, from Case~1 and~\eqref{eq:-1}. Since $g_1g_2=(g_1'g_2')m_1^{-1}$ and $g_1'g_2'\in Z\cup Zm_1\cup Zm_2\cup Zm_3$, we deduce from the fact that $\varphi_{|M}$ is an automorphism that
\begin{align*}
(g_1g_2)^\varphi&=(g_1'g_2')^\varphi (m_1^{-1})^\varphi=g_1'^\varphi g_2'^\varphi(m_1^{-1})^\varphi=g_1^\varphi g_2^\varphi m_1^\varphi(m_1^{-1})^\varphi=g_1^\varphi g_2^\varphi.
\end{align*}
Summing up we have shown that $\varphi$ is an automorphism of $G$ and it remains to show that $\varphi$ is not the identity. If $\varphi$ is the identity automorphism, then $g^{-1}=g$, for every $g\in Zam_1\cup Zam_2\cup Zam_3$. However, this contradicts the fact that $o(am)\ne 2$, for some $a\in M\setminus \Zent M$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~$\ref{thrm:11}$]
From Lemmas~\ref{example:1},~\ref{lemma:1} and~\ref{lemma:3}, we see that, if part~\eqref{thrmeq:1},~\eqref{thrmeq:2} or~\eqref{thrmeq:3} holds, then $R$ admits a non-identity automorphism $\varphi$ of $R$ with $g^\varphi\in \{g,g^{-1}\}$, for every $g\in R\setminus M$. We now need to prove the converse and hence we suppose there exists a non-identity automorphism $\varphi$ of $R$ with $g^\varphi\in \{g,g^{-1}\}$, for every $g\in R\setminus M$.
In particular, $R=M\cup \cent R \varphi\cup\centm R\varphi$. Assume first that $\cent R\varphi\le M$. Then $R=M\cup \centm R\varphi$ and hence
$$|\centm R\varphi|\ge |R\setminus M|=|R|/2.$$
In particular, $R$ is a group admitting an automorphism inverting at least half of its elements. In~\cite{F,HeMa,LM,Potter}, these groups are refereed to as $1/2$-groups. Strictly speaking, we do not need the classification of the $1/2$-groups arising from the work in~\cite{F,HeMa,LM,Potter}, however our elementary argument owns a great deal to some of the arguments therein.
Let $a\in R\setminus M$ and let $m\in M$. Since $\varphi$ inverts each element in $R\setminus M$, we deduce
$$m^\varphi=(maa^{-1})^\varphi=(ma)^\varphi(a^{-1})^\varphi=a^{-1}m^{-1}a.$$
In particular, the restriction $\varphi_{|M}$ of $\varphi$ to $M$ is given by the mapping defined by $m\mapsto a^{-1}m^{-1}a$, for every $m\in M$. Since $\varphi_{|M}$ does not depend upon $a\in R\setminus M$, we deduce that$$a_1^{-1}m^{-1}a_1=m^\varphi=a_2^{-1}m^{-1}a_2,\quad \forall a_1,a_2\in R\setminus M,\forall m\in M.$$ Therefore, $a_2a_1^{-1}$ centralises $M$. Since $a_1$ and $a_2$ are two arbitrary elements of $R\setminus M$ and since $|R:M|=2$, we deduce that $a_2a_1^{-1}$ is an arbitrary element of $M$ and hence $M$ is abelian. Therefore, Lemma~\ref{example:1} shows that $R$ is not generalised abelian over $M$ and we obtain part~\eqref{thrmeq:1}.
\smallskip
Assume then $\cent R \varphi\nleq M$. As $\varphi$ is not the identity automorphism, we also have $M\nleq \cent R \varphi$.
For simplicity, we set $C:=\cent R \varphi$ and $C^-:=\centm R\varphi$ and we define $$Z:=M\cap C.$$
\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{tikzpicture}[node distance = 1cm ]
\node(A){$R=MC$};
\node[below=of A](B){$M$};
\node[right=of B](C){$C$};
\node[below=of C](D){$Z=M\cap C$};
\draw(A)--node[left]{$2$}(B);
\draw(A)--node[right]{$\kappa$}(C);
\draw(D)--node[left]{$\kappa$}(B);
\draw(D)-- node[right]{$2$}(C);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Subgroup lattice for $R$}\label{fig:1}
\end{figure}
In particular, $Z$ is a proper subgroup of $C$ and of $M$. Since $C\nleq M$, there exists $a\in C\setminus Z$ and hence $R=M\langle a\rangle$. Let $m\in M\setminus Z$. Then $ma\in R\setminus M\subseteq C\cup C^-$. Since $a\in C$ and $m\notin C$, we deduce $ma^{-1}\in C^-$ and hence
$(ma^{-1})^\varphi=am^{-1}$. On the other hand, since $\varphi$ is an automorphism, we have $(ma^{-1})^\varphi=m^\varphi (a^{-1})^\varphi=m^\varphi a^{-1}$. From this, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq:1}
m^\varphi=am^{-1}a,\qquad\forall m\in M\setminus Z, \forall a\in A\setminus Z.
\end{equation}
Let $m\in M\setminus Z$ and let $z\in Z$. Applying~\eqref{eq:1} with $m$ replaced by $mz$, we obtain $(mz)^\varphi=az^{-1}m^{-1}a$. On the other hand, since $\varphi$ is an automorphism, $(mz)^\varphi=m^\varphi z^\varphi=am^{-1}az$. It follows that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:2}
(am)z(am)^{-1}=z^{-1},\qquad\forall z\in Z, \forall m\in M\setminus Z.
\end{equation}
From~\eqref{eq:2}, $Z$ is abelian because the automorphism given by the conjugation via $am$ inverts each of its elements. Now, fix for the rest of the proof $a\in A\setminus Z$.
Let $\kappa:=|M:Z|$ and let $m_0,m_1,\ldots,m_{\kappa-1}$ be a set of representatives for the cosets of $Z$ in $M$ with $m_0:=1$. For every $i,j\in \{1,\ldots,\kappa-1\}$ with $i\ne j$ and for every $z_i,z_j\in Z$, we have $m_iz_i,m_jz_j,m_iz_i(m_jz_j)^{-1}\in M\setminus Z$ and hence, from~\eqref{eq:1}, we obtain $$(m_iz_iz_j^{-1}m_j^{-1})^{\varphi}=am_jz_jz_i^{-1}m_i^{-1}a.$$ Since $\varphi$ is an automorphism, we have $$(m_iz_i(m_jz_j)^{-1})^\varphi=(m_iz_i)^\varphi ((m_jz_j)^{-1})^\varphi=az_i^{-1}m_i^{-1}a^{2}m_jz_ja.$$ Therefore
$m_jz_jz_i^{-1}m_i^{-1}=z_i^{-1}m_i^{-1}a^{2}m_jz_j$. Rearranging the terms of this equality, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq:3}
a^2=[(m_iz_i)^{-1},(m_jz_j)^{-1}],\qquad \forall i,j\in \{1,\ldots,\kappa-1\} \textrm{ with }i\ne j, \forall z_i,z_j\in Z.
\end{equation}
Observe that the right hand side of~\eqref{eq:3} does not depend on $z_i$ and $z_j$, or on $i,j\in \{1,\ldots,\kappa-1\}$ with $i\ne j$.
\smallskip
Suppose $\kappa=2$. From~\eqref{eq:2} we have $z^{am_1}=z^{-1}$, for every $z\in Z$. Moreover, since $M/Z$ and $C/Z$ are two distinct subgroups of $R/Z$, we deduce that $R/Z$ is not cyclic and hence $(am_1)^2\in Z$.
If $(am_1)^2=1$, then, for every $z\in Z$, by~\eqref{eq:2} we deduce $$(am_1z)^{\varphi}=(am_1z)^{-1}=z^{-1}m_1^{-1}a^{-1}=z^{-1}(am_1)^{-1}=z^{-1}(am_1)=(am_1)z=am_1z,$$ that is, $\varphi$ fixes $Zam_1$ pointwise. Thus $\varphi$ centralises $Zam_1$ and $Za$ and hence also $\langle Z,am_1,a\rangle=R$, contradicting the fact that $\varphi$ is not the identity automorphism. Therefore $(am_1)^2\ne 1$.
From~\eqref{eq:2} and from $(am_1)^2\ne 1$, it follows that all elements in $Zam_1$ square to $(am_1)^2$. As $|R:\langle Z,am_1\rangle|=2$, we deduce $\langle Z,am_1\rangle\unlhd R$. In particular, for every $g\in R$, $(am_1)^g\in Zam_1$ and hence $(am_1)^g$ squares to $(am_1)^2$, that is, $((am_1)^\varphi)^2=((am_1)^2)^g=(am_1)^2$. Therefore, $(am_1)^2\in \Zent R$.
We have shown that part~\eqref{thrmeq:2} holds (with the element $a$ in the statement of Theorem~\ref{thrm:1} part~\eqref{thrmeq:1} replaced by $am_1$ here). In particular, for the rest of the proof we may suppose that $$\kappa\ge 3.$$
\smallskip
Applying~\eqref{eq:3} with $z_j=1$ and using the commutator formula $[xy,z]=[x,z]^y[y,z]$, we obtain
$$a^2=[z_i^{-1}m_i^{-1},m_j^{-1}]=[z_i^{-1},m_j^{-1}]^{m_i^{-1}}[m_i^{-1},m_j^{-1}]=[z_i^{-1},m_j^{-1}]^{m_i^{-1}}a^2,$$
and hence $[z_i^{-1},m_j^{-1}]=1$. Since $i$ is an arbitrary index in $\{1,\ldots,\kappa-1\}$, we deduce that $z_i\in \Zent M$ and since $z_i$ is an arbitrary element in $Z$, we deduce that $$Z\le \Zent M.$$
Recall the commutator formula $[y,x]=[x,y]^{-1}$. From~\eqref{eq:3} we deduce $$a^2=[m_2^{-1},m_1^{-1}]=[m_1^{-1},m_2^{-1}]^{-1}=(a^{2})^{-1}$$
and hence $o(a)\in \{2,4\}$.
As $Z\le \Zent M$, if $a^2=1$, then~\eqref{eq:3} yields that $M$ is abelian. In particular, part~\eqref{thrmeq:1} holds from Lemma~\ref{example:1}. Therefore, we may suppose $$o(a)=4.$$ Now,~\eqref{eq:3} yields $$Z=\Zent M\textrm{ and }\gamma_2(M)=\langle a^2\rangle.$$
Assume there exists $i\in \{1,\ldots,\kappa-1\}$ with $m_i^2\notin Z$. Then $m_i^2z=m_j$, for some $j\in \{1,\ldots,\kappa-1\}$ and for some $z\in Z$. As $Z= \Zent M$,~\eqref{eq:3} yields $a^2=[m_i^{-1},m_j^{-1}]=[m_i^{-1},z^{-1}m_i^{-2}]=[m_i^{-1},m_i^{-2}]=1$, contradicting the fact that $a^2\ne 1$. Therefore $m_i^2\in Z$, for every $i\in \{1,\ldots,\kappa-1\}$ and hence $M/Z$ is an elementary abelian $2$-group and $\kappa$ is a power of $2$. In particular, $\kappa\ge 4$.
Suppose $\kappa> 4$. Choose $i,j,k\in \{1,\ldots,\kappa-1\}$ such that $m_i,m_j,m_im_j^{-1}$ are in distinct $Z$-cosets: observe that this is possible because $\kappa> 4$. Now~\eqref{eq:3} yields
\begin{eqnarray*}
a^2=[(m_im_j^{-1})^{-1},m_k^{-1}]=[m_jm_i^{-1},m_k^{-1}]=[m_j,m_k^{-1}]^{m_i^{-1}}[m_i^{-1},m_k^{-1}]=(a^2)^{m_i^{-1}}a^2
\end{eqnarray*}
and hence $a^2=1$, which is a contradiction. Therefore, $\kappa=4$. If $o(am)=2$ for every $m\in M$, then~\eqref{eq:1} yields $M\le \cent G\varphi= C$, which is a contradiction. Therefore, part~\eqref{thrmeq:3} holds.
\end{proof}
The core of our argument for the proof of Theorem~\ref{thrm:1} is the work in~\cite{DSV} on the automorphism group of Cayley graphs over abelian groups. We find that this is a useful paper for this type of investigations and recently it was also used for investigating the distinguishing number of certain Cayley graphs, see~\cite{BSS}.
\thebibliography{10}
\bibitem{babai1}L.~Babai, Finite digraphs with given regular automorphism groups, \textit{Periodica Mathematica Hungarica} \textbf{11} (1980), 257--270.
\bibitem{babai2}L.~Babai, W.~Imrich, Tournaments with given regular group, \textit{Aequationes Mathematicae} \textbf{19} (1979), 232--244.
\bibitem{BSS}N.~Balachandran, S.~Padinhatteeri, P.~Spiga, Vertex transitive graphs $G$ with $\chi_D(G)>\chi(G)$ and small automorphism group, \textit{Ars Math. Contemporanea}, to appear.
\bibitem{DSV}E.~Dobson, P.~Spiga, G.~Verret, Cayley graphs on abelian groups, \textit{Combinatorica} \textbf{36} (2016), 371--393.
\bibitem{WT1}J.~K.~Doyle, T.~W.~Tucker, and M.~E.~Watkins, Graphical Frobenius Representations, \textit{J. Algebraic Combin. }\textbf{48} (2018), 405--428.
\bibitem{DFS}J.-L.~Du, Y.~-Q.~Feng, P.~Spiga, On the existence and the enumeration of bipartite regular representations of Cayley graphs over abelian groups, \textit{submitted}.
\bibitem{F}P.~Fitzpatrick, Groups in which an automorphism inverts precisely half of the elements, \textit{Proc. Roy. Irish. Acad. Sect. A} \textbf{86} (1986), 81--89.
\bibitem{Godsil}C.~D.~Godsil, GRRs for nonsolvable groups, Algebraic methods in graph theory, Vol. I, II
(Szeged, 1978), pp. 221–239, Colloq. Math. Soc. J\'{a}nos Bolyai, Amsterdam-New York, 1981.
\bibitem{HeMa}P.~Hegarty, D.~MacHale, Two-groups in which an automorphism inverts precisely half of the elements, \textit{Bull. London Math. Soc. }\textbf{30} (1998), 129--135.
\bibitem{Hetzel}D.~Hetzel, \"{U}ber regul\"{a}re graphische Darstellung von aufl\"{o}sbaren Gruppen, Technische Universit\"{a}t, Berlin, 1976.
\bibitem{IW}W. Imrich, M. Watkins, On graphical regular representations of cyclic extensions of groups, \textit{Pacific J. Math. }\textbf{54} (1974), 1--17.
\bibitem{LM}H.~Liebeck, D.~MacHale, Groups with automorphisms inverting most elements, \textit{Math. Z.} \textbf{124} (1972), 51--63.
\bibitem{morrisspiga}J.~Morris, P.~Spiga, Every Finite Non-Solvable Group admits an Oriented Regular Representation, \textit{Journal of Combinatorial Theory Series B} \textbf{126} (2017), 198--234.
\bibitem{morrisspiga1}J.~Morris, P.~Spiga, Classification of finite groups that admit an oriented regular representation, \textit{Bull. London Math. Soc.} \textbf{50} (2018), 1--21.
\bibitem{nowitz1}L.~A.~Nowitz, Graphical regular representations of non-abelian groups. I. \textit{Canadian J. Math.} \textbf{24} (1972), 993--1008.
\bibitem{nowitz2}L.~A.~Nowitz, Graphical regular representations of non-abelian groups. II. \textit{Canadian J. Math.} \textbf{24} (1972), 1009--1018.
\bibitem{nowitz3}L.~A.~Nowitz, M.~E.~Watkins, On graphical regular representations of direct products of groups, \textit{Monatsh. Math.} \textbf{76} (1972), 168--171.
\bibitem{LPSLPS}M.~W.~Liebeck, L.~Pyber, A.~Shalev, On a conjecture of G. E. Wall, \textit{J. Algebra} \textbf{317} (2007), 184--197.
\bibitem{Potter}W.~M.~Potter, Nonsolvable groups with an automorphism inverting many elements, \textit{Archiv der Mathematik} \textbf{50} (1988), 292--299.
\bibitem{spiga}P. Spiga, Finite groups admitting an oriented regular representation, \textit{J. Comb. Theory Series A} \textbf{153} (2018), 76--97.
\bibitem{spiga0}P.~Spiga, On the existence of Frobenius digraphical representations, \textit{Electron. J. Combin. }\textbf{25} (2018), no. 2, Paper~2.6, 19~pp.
\bibitem{spiga1}P.~Spiga, On the existence of graphical Frobenius representations and their asymptotic enumeration: an answer to the GFR conjecture, \textit{submitted}.
\bibitem{Wall}G.~E.~Wall, Some applications of the Eulerian functions of a finite group, \textit{J. Aust. Math. Soc.} \textbf{2} (1961), 35--59.
\bibitem{nowitz4}M.~E.~Watkins, On the action of non-Abelian groups on graphs, \textit{J. Combinatorial Theory Ser. B} \textbf{11} (1971), 95--104.
\bibitem{W2}M. E. Watkins, On graphical regular representations of $C_n \times Q$, in: Y. Alavi, D. R. Lick and A. T. White (eds.), Graph Theory and Applications, Springer, Berlin, volume 303 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics, pp.305--311, 1972, proceedings of the Conference at Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan, May 10-13, 1972 (dedicated to the memory of J. W. T. Youngs).
\bibitem{W3} M. E. Watkins, Graphical regular representations of alternating, symmetric, and miscellaneous small groups, \textit{Aequationes Math.} \textbf{11} (1974), 40--50.
\end{document}
[ 4, 2 ]
[ 6, 1 ]
[ 8, 2 ]
[ 8, 3 ]
[ 8, 4 ]
[ 8, 5 ]
[ 10, 1 ]
[ 12, 1 ]
[ 12, 4 ]
[ 14, 1 ]
[ 16, 10 ]
[ 16, 11 ]
[ 16, 12 ]
[ 16, 13 ]
[ 16, 14 ]
[ 18, 4 ]
[ 18, 5 ]
[ 32, 45 ]
[ 32, 46 ]
[ 32, 47 ]
[ 32, 51 ]
[ 64, 260 ]
[ 64, 261 ]
[ 64, 262 ]
[ 64, 267 ]
[ 4, 2 ]
[ 6, 1 ]
[ 8, 3 ]
[ 8, 5 ]
[ 10, 1 ]
[ 12, 4 ]
[ 14, 1 ]
[ 16, 7 ]
[ 16, 8 ]
[ 16, 11 ]
[ 16, 13 ]
[ 16, 14 ]
[ 18, 4 ]
[ 20, 3 ]
[ 20, 4 ]
[ 24, 13 ]
[ 32, 6 ]
[ 32, 7 ]
[ 32, 8 ]
[ 32, 11 ]
[ 32, 15 ]
[ 32, 22 ]
[ 32, 31 ]
[ 32, 34 ]
[ 32, 37 ]
[ 32, 38 ]
[ 32, 43 ]
[ 32, 44 ]
[ 32, 46 ]
[ 32, 48 ]
[ 32, 49 ]
[ 32, 50 ]
[ 32, 51 ]
[ 36, 9 ]
[ 36, 13 ]
[ 48, 46 ]
[ 54, 10 ]
[ 64, 56 ]
[ 64, 122 ]
[ 64, 197 ]
[ 64, 198 ]
[ 64, 199 ]
[ 64, 200 ]
[ 64, 201 ]
[ 64, 210 ]
[ 64, 214 ]
[ 64, 220 ]
[ 64, 222 ]
[ 64, 223 ]
[ 64, 224 ]
[ 64, 225 ]
[ 64, 228 ]
[ 64, 229 ]
[ 64, 230 ]
[ 64, 232 ]
[ 64, 233 ]
[ 64, 235 ]
[ 64, 237 ]
[ 64, 238 ]
[ 64, 239 ]
[ 64, 240 ]
[ 64, 244 ]
[ 64, 245 ]
[ 64, 261 ]
[ 64, 263 ]
|
\section{Introduction}
While there is growing excitement about the accuracy of modern predictive algorithms in many domains, this excitement has been tempered by the {\em domain adaptation} problem. In particular, certain predictive algorithms are highly sensitive to differences between the training data used to fit the algorithm and current data needing to be classified. One may observe excellent out-of-sample predictive accuracy based on randomly splitting an initial data set, but then this accuracy can plummet when applying the classifier to new data collected under similar conditions but with a somewhat different distribution. For example, in automatic medical diagnosis, a classifier is initially trained using data from a particular medical center or range of dates. The classifier is meant to be used for future patients whose data may differ in subtle ways from the training patients. Many classifiers, such as nearest neighbors, random forests, and deep neural networks, can be very sensitive to such differences, leading to poor accuracy on the new patients.
There is an increasing literature on addressing such domain shift problems, typically under one of two scenarios:
(1) {\em Covariate shift} - a type of selection bias in which the marginal distribution of the covariates $X$ changes while the conditional response distribution $Y\mid X$ remains the same \citep{heckman1990varieties, cochran1973controlling, tucker2010selection};
(2) {\em Prior/label/target shift} - the marginal distribution of $Y$ differs but the conditional $X\mid Y$ does not \citep{zhang2013domain, guan2019prediction, storkey2009training, lipton2018detecting}.
A variety of approaches have been proposed including likelihood-based methods \citep{heckman1990varieties, chan2005word}, Bayesian meta analysis \citep{storkey2009training}, and kernel embeddings \citep{zhang2013domain}. A common challenge of these approaches is reliance on density estimation, which is infeasible for high-dimensional and complex predictors. Our goal is to bypass the need for density estimation.
Bootstrap aggregating, or bagging \citep{breiman1996bagging}, is routinely used for improving stability and accuracy of arbitrary base classifiers, ranging from random forests \citep{breiman2001random} to $k$-nearest neighbors \citep{hall2008choice}. The goal of this article is to develop a domain adaptive version of bagging, referred to as DA-bagging. The key idea is to draw bootstrap samples from the training data using a novel iterative nearest neighbor sampler to guarantee that these samples have the same distribution as new test data under the prior shift scenario discussed above. Domain adaptive bagging can also handle anomalies in the test data whose labels cannot be predicted accurately as there are no close neighbors in the training data.
\section{Domain Adaptive Bagging}\label{sec:DA-bagging}
\subsection{Notation and Preliminaries}
A classifier $C: \mathbb{R}^p \to \{1,\dots, L\}$ outputs labels $C(X) \in \{1,\dots,L\}$ for features $X \in \mathbb{R}^p$.
Suppose we have $n$ training data $\mathcal{D}_{tr} = \{(X^{tr}_1,Y^{tr}_1), \dots, (X^{tr}_n, Y^{tr}_n)\}$, and
$m$ testing data $\mathcal{D}_{te} = (X^{te}_1,\dots, X^{te}_m)$, with each $X^{te}_i$ having a corresponding unobserved $Y^{te}_i$.
Samples of $(X,Y) \in \mathbb{R}^p\times\{ 1,\dots, L\}$ are independent and identically distributed within the training and test groups.
We suppose the marginal distribution of the training and testing data follow different mixture distributions as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:model:mix}
f_{tr}(x) = \sum_{\ell=1}^L p_\ell f_\ell(x), \quad f_{te}(x) = \sum_{\ell=1}^L q_\ell f_\ell(x),
\end{equation}
where $f_\ell$, $\ell=1,\dots,L$, are shared densities of $x$ from class $\ell$,
$0<p_\ell\leq 1$ is the label proportion for training data satisfying $\sum_{\ell=1}^L p_\ell =1$, and $0\leq q_\ell \leq 1$ is the label proportion for test data with $\sum_{\ell=1}^L q_\ell =1$. In the literature, (\ref{eq:model:mix}) is referred to as prior/label shifting, in the sense that the prior probabilities of the classes are different,
but the conditional feature distributions are shared.
\subsection{Methodology}\label{sec:DA-bagging}
Key to our proposed domain adaptive bagging algorithm is a novel iterative nearest neighbor sampler to generate bootstrap samples from training data
$\mathcal{D}_{tr}$ with the guidance of test data $\mathcal{D}_{te}$, so that the samples are equal in distribution to the test data.
Let $\|\cdot \|$ be a metric defined on the separable metric space $\mathbb{R}^p$.
For any $X^{te} \sim f_{te}(x)$, we reorder the samples in $\mathcal{D}_{tr}$ as
$
\big\{X_{(1)}(X^{te}), Y_{(1)}(X^{te})\big\}, \dots, \big\{X_{(n)}(X^{te}), Y_{(n)}(X^{te})\big\},
$ such that
$$
\|X^{te}- X_{(1)}(X^{te})\| \leq \dots \leq \|X^{te}- X_{(n)}(X^{te})\|,
$$
and define its $k$-nearest neighbors in $\mathcal{D}_{tr}$ as $\mathcal{N}_{X^{te}}^{k}=\big\{X_{(1)}(X^{te}), \dots, X_{(k)}(X^{te})\big\}$.
For each $X_j^{te}$ ($j=1,\dots,m$), we obtain a stratified bootstrap sample $\mathcal{D}_{tr,j}^{(1)}$ of size $\ceil{n/m}$ from $\mathcal{N}_{X_j^{te}}^k$ using
the $L$ classes as strata with weights $\pi_j = (\pi_{j1},\ldots,\pi_{jL})$ where
\begin{equation}\label{eq:bootstrap}
\pi_{j, \ell} = \frac{1}{k}\#\big\{Y^{tr}_i = \ell\; |\; X^{tr}_i \in \mathcal{N}_{X^{te}_j}^{k} , i=1,\dots,n.\big\} \quad \mbox{for } \ell=1,\dots,L.
\end{equation}
Repeating for $j=1,\dots, m$, we have new training data $\mathcal{D}_{tr}^{(1)}=(\mathcal{D}_{tr,1}^{(1)},\dots, \mathcal{D}_{tr,m}^{(1)})$.
We repeat the above procedure to obtain $\mathcal{D}_{tr}^{(2)}$ and so on for $T$ iterations to obtain $\mathcal{D}_{tr}^{(T)}$. We stop iterating when the proportions of observations within each class differ from $\mathcal{D}_{tr}^{(T-1)}$ to $\mathcal{D}_{tr}^{(T)}$ by less than a small threshold.
Figure \ref{fig:example} (a) provides an illustrative example. In Figure \ref{fig:example} (a), blue and green dots represent data points in class $\{1\}$ and class $\{2\}$. For each point in the test data, shown as black circles in the training data, we find its nearest neighbor in the training data and draw $\ceil{n/m}$ samples from class $\{\ell\}$, where $\ell$ is the label of its nearest neighbor. In the sampled data plot, larger circles correspond to repeated data points. Figure \ref{fig:example} (b) shows histograms of the training data, test data and first to fifth samples.
\begin{figure}\label{fig:example}
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.90\textwidth]{figure/combine.pdf}\\
\caption{(a) Flowchart of the nearest neighbor sampler. (b) Illustrative figure of the histogram of samples by iterative nearest neighbor sampler. (c) Flowchart of the domain adaptive sampling schedule. }\label{fig:example}
\end{figure}
Let $\xi$ be a randomization parameter controlling the mapping from the initial $\mathcal{D}_{tr}$ to the sampled $\mathcal{D}_{tr}^{(T)}$ under the above procedure.
Implementing the procedure $B$ times, we obtain randomizations $\xi_1,\dots, \xi_B$ and corresponding datasets $\mathcal{D}_{tr}^{\xi_1}, \dots, \mathcal{D}_{tr}^{\xi_B}$.
Parameters $\xi_1,\dots, \xi_B$ are conditionally independent and identically distributed given $\mathcal{D}_{tr}$ and $\mathcal{D}_{te}$.
Based on each $\mathcal{D}_{tr}^{\xi_b}$, we construct a base classifier
$
C^{\xi_b}_n(X)
= C_n(X; \mathcal{D}_{tr}, \mathcal{D}_{te}, \xi_b).
$
Our domain adaptive bagging ensemble classifier $C_n^{DA}$ is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:voting}
C_n^{DA}(X) =\mathop{\mathrm{argmax}}_\ell \#\{b\in \{1,\cdots, B\} : C^{\xi_b}_n (X)=\ell\}.
\end{equation}
Figure \ref{fig:example} (c) shows the flowchart of the domain adaptive sampling schedule. The detailed steps are summarized in Algorithm 1.
\begin{algorithm}[h]\label{alg:rbagging}
1. \For{Parallel $b=1, \dots, B$}{
\For{Parallel $t=1,\dots, T-1$}{
\For{Parallel $j=1,\dots, m$}{
(a) For $X_j^{te}$, find its $k$-nearest neighbor in $\mathcal{D}_{tr}^{b*,(t)}$, denoted as $\{\mathcal{N}_{X^{te}_i}^{k}\}$. \\
(b) Define $\pi_{j} = (\pi_{j,1},\dots, \pi_{j,L})$ with $\pi_{j,\ell}$ defined as
$$
\pi_{j, \ell} = \frac{1}{k}\#\big\{Y^{tr}_i = \ell\; |\; X^{tr}_i \in \mathcal{N}_{X^{te}_j}^{k} \big\} \quad \mbox{for } \ell= 1,\dots,L.
$$
(c) Sample $(n_{j1},\dots, n_{jL})$ from Multinomial$(\ceil{n/m}, \pi_{j})$.\\
(d) For $\ell= 1,\cdots, L$, draw $n_{j\ell}$ bootstrap samples with replacement from the $\ell$-th class in $\mathcal{D}_{tr}^{b*,(t)}$.
}
Denote the $\{n_{j\ell}\}$ samples together as $\mathcal{D}_{tr}^{b*,(t+1)}$.
}
Define $\mathcal{D}_{tr}^{b*,(T)}$ as $\mathcal{D}_{tr}^{\xi_b}$, and construct the classifier $C^{\xi_b}_n(\cdot) = C_{n,\mathcal{D}_{tr}^{\xi_b}}(\cdot)$.
}
2. Build the ensemble classifier as the majority voting in (\ref{eq:voting}).
\caption{Domain adaptive bagging }
\end{algorithm}
\section{Theoretical Results}\label{sec:theory}
\subsection{Consistency of resampling algorithm}
We study properties of domain adaptive bagging using $k=1$ in Algorithm 1. To simplify the presentation, we consider binary classification with labels equal to $1$ or $2$. Then model (\ref{eq:model:mix}) can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:model:two_class}
f_{tr}(x) = p_1 f_1(x) + p_2f_2(x) \quad \quad\textrm{and} \quad \quad f_{te}(x) = q_1f_1(x) + q_2 f_2 (x),
\end{equation}
where $p_1 = {\rm{pr}}(Y^{tr} =1)$, $p_2= 1-p_1 ={\rm{pr}}(Y^{tr} =2)$, $q_1= {\rm{pr}}(Y^{te} = 1)$ and $q_2%
= {\rm{pr}}(Y^{te}=2)$.
We aim to show that the bootstrapped data $\mathcal{D}_{tr}^{\xi_1}, \dots, \mathcal{D}_{tr}^{\xi_B}$ can represent the testing data with probability 1. Further, we establish the generalization error of general classifiers based on domain adaptive bagging, and characterize the algorithmic convergence.
Letting $k=1$ and $L=2$ in Algorithm 1, the steps can be simplified as in Algorithm 2.
For each $X_j^{te}\in \mathcal{D}_{te}$, if its nearest neighbor in $\mathcal{D}_{tr}$ is from class $\ell \in \{1,2\}$, we randomly sample $\ceil{n/m}$ data from class $\ell$ with replacement. Repeat this procedure for all $m$ testing samples to obtain data $\mathcal{D}_{tr}^{1*,(1)}$, where $1*$ represents the $1$st bootstrap copy, and $(1)$ means the first iteration in that bootstrap copy. Viewing $\mathcal{D}_{tr}^{1*,(1)}$ as the new training data, we repeat this procedure, obtaining $\mathcal{D}_{tr}^{1*,(t)}$ at the $t$th iteration. In Theorem \ref{thm:sample:dist}, we show that for $X\in \mathcal{D}_{tr}^{1*,(t)}$, the corresponding density $f^{(t)}(x)$ approaches $f_{te}(x)$ as $t$ increases.
\begin{algorithm}[h]\label{alg:rbagging:1nn}
1. \For{Parallel $b=1, \dots, B$}{
\For{Parallel $t=1,\dots, T-1$}{
\For{Parallel $j=1,\dots, m$}{
(a) For $X_j^{te}\in \mathcal{D}_{te}$, find its nearest neighbor in $\mathcal{D}_{tr}^{b*,(t)}$, denoted as $X_{(1)}$, and the corresponding label as $Y_{(1)}$. \\
(b) Bootstrap $n_{j}= \ceil{n/m}$ samples with replacement from the $\ell$-th class in $\mathcal{D}_{tr}^{b*,(t)}$, where $\ell = Y_{(1)}$.
}
Collect the $n_{1},\dots, n_{m}$ samples together as $\mathcal{D}_{tr}^{b*,(t+1)}$.
}
Denote $\mathcal{D}_{tr}^{b*,(T)}$ as $\mathcal{D}_{tr}^{\xi_b}$. Construct the classifier $C^{\xi_b}_n(\cdot) = C_{n,\mathcal{D}_{tr}^{\xi_b}}(\cdot)$.
}
2. Ensemble the classifiers based on $\mathcal{D}_{tr}^{\xi_1},\cdots, \mathcal{D}_{tr}^{\xi_B}$ as the majority voting
$$C_n^{DA}(X) =\mathop{\mathrm{argmax}}_\ell \#\{b\in \{1,\cdots, B\} : C^{\xi_b}_n(X)=\ell\}.$$
\caption{DA-bagging based on 1-NN with $L=2$}
\end{algorithm}
Let $X^{te} \sim f_{te}(x)$ with $\{X_i\}_{i=1,\dots,n}$ independent and identically distributed from $f_{tr}(x)$.
Denote the nearest neighbor of $X^{te}$ in $\{X_1,\cdots, X_n\}$ as $X_{(1)}(X^{te})$ so that
$
\min_{i\in\{ 1,\dots, n\}} \|X_i-X^{te}\| = \|X_{(1)}(X^{te})- X^{te}\|.
$
We denote the corresponding label of $X_{(1)}(X^{te})$ as $Y_{(1)}(X^{te})$.
We first show that, under the distributional shift from $f_{tr}$ to $f_{te}$ defined in (\ref{eq:model:mix}), for any $X^{te}\in \mathcal{D}_{te}$, its nearest neighbor $X_{(1)}(X^{te})$ in $\mathcal{D}_{tr}$ converges to $X^{te}$ with probability one.
\begin{Lemma}\label{le:convergence}
Suppose $f_{tr}(x)$ and $f_{te}(x)$ follow $(\ref{eq:model:mix})$. Let $X^{te} \sim f_{te}(x)$ with $\{X_i\}$ independent and identically distributed from $f_{tr}(x)$.
Then $X_{(1)}(X^{te})\to X^{te}$ with probability 1.
\end{Lemma}
\begin{Theorem}\label{thm:sample:dist}
Consider model $(\ref{eq:model:two_class})$. Assume ${\rm{pr}}_{f_1} \big( X: f_1(X)= f_2(X)\big) = 0$. Under Algorithm S1, denote $\mathcal{D}_{tr}^{\xi_b} = \big\{ (X^{\xi_b}_1, Y^{\xi_b}_1), \dots, (X^{\xi_b}_n, Y^{\xi_b}_n)\big\}$. Denote the
conditional density of $X_i^{\xi_b} \mid Y_i^{\xi_b}=\ell$ as $f^{(T)}_\ell(x)$, and the marginal distribution of $X^{\xi_b}_i$ as $f^{(T)}$. Then
$\{(X_i^{\xi_b}, Y_i^{\xi_b})\}$ are independent and identically distributed,
${\rm{pr}}(Y_i^{\xi_b}=\ell)= q_\ell$, $f^{(T)}_\ell(x)=f_\ell(x)$, and hence,
$
f^{(T)}(x) = \lim_{t\to \infty} f^{(t)} (x) = \sum_{\ell=1}^L q_\ell f_\ell(x).
$
\end{Theorem}
Here ${{\rm{pr}}}_{f_1}$ refers the probability measure of $X\sim f_1(x)$.
Theorem \ref{thm:sample:dist} shows that each sample in the bootstrap dataset $\mathcal{D}_{tr}^{\xi_b}$ follows the same distribution as the testing data, that ${{\rm{pr}}}(Y^{te}= \ell)= q_\ell$, $X^{te}\mid Y^{te}= \ell \sim f_\ell$ and the
marginal density $f_{te}(x)= \sum_{\ell=1}^L q_\ell f_\ell(x)$.
\subsection{Prediction error based on domain adaptive bagging}
In this section, we analyze the testing error of basic classifiers based on domain adaptive bagging. To distinguish between different sources of randomness, we denote ${\rm{pr}}(\cdot\mid \mathcal{D}_{tr}, \mathcal{D}_{te}), \bE(\cdot\mid \mathcal{D}_{tr}, \mathcal{D}_{te})$ as the probability and expectation respectively, taken over the randomness from $\xi_1,\dots, \xi_B$ conditional on the observed training and test data $(\mathcal{D}_{tr}, \mathcal{D}_{te})$. We define ${\rm{pr}}, \bE$ as the probability and expectation taken over all random quantities.
Considering model (\ref{eq:model:two_class}), the test error of a classifier $C$ is defined as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:test:error}
R(C) : = q_1 \int \mathds{1}_{\{C(x)= 2\}} f_1(x)dx + q_2 \int \mathds{1}_{\{C(x)=1\}} f_2(x) dx.
\end{equation}
$R(C)$ is minimized by the Bayes classifier defined as
$C^{Bayes} (x) : = 1$ if $\eta(x)\geq 1/2$ and $2$ otherwise,
where $\eta(x) = {{\rm{pr}}} (Y^{te}=1 | X^{te} = x) = q_1 f_1(x)/\{q_1f_1(x) + q_2 f_2(x)\}$. The corresponding Bayes risk for $C^{Bayes}$ is
$$R(C^{Bayes}) = \mathbb{E}_{X\sim f_{te}} [\min\{\eta(X), 1-\eta(X)\}] = \int \min\{q_1 f_1(x), q_2 f_2(x)\} dx.$$
Given a base classifier $C$ and the new training samples $\mathcal{D}_{tr}^{\xi_b}$ ($b=1,\dots, B$) obtained in Algorithm 2, we have a sequence of trained classifiers $C_n^{\xi_1},\dots, C_n^{\xi_B}$. We define $\Lambda_n(x) = \frac{1}{B}\sum_{b=1}^B \mathds{1}_{\{C_n^{\xi_b}(x)=1\}}$, and the ensemble classifier $C_n^{DA}$ based on domain adaptive bagging as
$C_n^{DA} (x) = 1$ if $\Lambda_n(x)\geq 1/2$ and $0$ otherwise.
In Theorem \ref{thm:pred:error}, we show the test excess risk, the difference between expected test error of $C_n^{DA}$ and the Bayes risk, can be controlled by the expected test excess risk of the classifier $C_n^{\xi_b}$ based on a single sample $\xi_b$.
\begin{Theorem}\label{thm:pred:error}
Assume model (\ref{eq:model:two_class}) holds. Based on Algorithm S1,
for $1\leq b \leq B$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:pred:bound}
\bE \{R(C_n^{DA})\} - R(C^{Bayes}) \leq 2 [\bE \{R(C_n^{\xi_b})\} - R(C^{Bayes})].
\end{equation}
\end{Theorem}
Theorem \ref{thm:pred:error} provides a general bound for different base classifiers.
By Theorem \ref{thm:sample:dist}, the marginal distribution of $X_i^{\xi_b}$ follows $f_{te}(x)$ defined in (\ref{eq:model:two_class}). By definition (\ref{eq:test:error}), calculating $R(C^{Bayes})$ only involves the density function $f_{te}$. Therefore, viewing $\mathcal{D}_{tr}^{\xi_b}$ as the training data, the distributional shift is removed from the
upper bound in (\ref{eq:pred:bound}). Hence, existing results on performance of base classifiers can
be used to provide explicit bounds on the expected test excess risk.
In Corollary \ref{cor:knn}, we bound the excess risk in (\ref{eq:pred:bound}) using $k$-nearest neighbors as the base classifier.
Given $X^{te}\in\mathbb{R}^p$ generated from the density $f_{te}(x)$, we first order the data in $\mathcal{D}_{tr}^{\xi_b}$ as $(X^{\xi_b}_{(1)}, Y^{\xi_b}_{(1)}), \dots, (X^{\xi_b}_{(n)}, Y^{\xi_b}_{(n)})$ such that
$
\|X^{\xi_b}_{(1)}-X^{te}\|\leq \dots \leq \|X^{\xi_b}_{(n)} - X^{te}\|$, with ties split at random.
The $k$-nearest neighbor classifier is defined as
$C_n^{\xi_b}(X^{te}) = 1$ if $\frac{1}{k}\sum_{i=1}^k \mathds{1}_{\{Y^{\xi_b}_{(i)}=1\}}\geq 1/2$ and $2$ otherwise.
\cite{hall2008choice} established the rate of convergence of the excess risk with the optimal choice of $k$. Combining with Theorem \ref{thm:pred:error}, we have the following Corollary.
\begin{Corollary}\label{cor:knn}
Suppose $X\in \mathbb{R}^p$ is a random variable with density $f_{te}(x)$ in $(\ref{eq:model:two_class})$. Under regularity conditions, if $k$ is chosen as $O(n^{4/(p+4)})$, we have
$$
\bE \{R(C_n^{DA})\} - R(C^{Bayes}) \leq 2 \big[\bE \{R(C_n^{\xi_b})\} - R(C^{Bayes})\big] = O(n^{-4/(p+4)}).
$$
\end{Corollary}
We next focus on the algorithmic randomness introduced by $\xi_b$ given the observations $(\mathcal{D}_{tr}, \mathcal{D}_{te})$.
Algorithmic convergence has been studied for randomized ensembles to analyze the effect of the ensemble size $B$ on prediction error; see \cite{cannings2017random} and \cite{lopes2020estimating}. Define $\mu_n (X^{te}) = \bE\{\Lambda_n(X^{te})\mid \mathcal{D}_{tr}, \mathcal{D}_{te}\} = {\rm{pr}}\{C_n^{\xi_1}(X^{te})=1 \mid \mathcal{D}_{tr}, \mathcal{D}_{te}\}$. Intuitively, $\mu_n (X^{te})$ represents infinite bootstrap samples with $B\to \infty$. Define the classifier with infinite ensemble size as
$C_n^{DA*}(X^{te}) = 1$ if $\mu_n(X^{te})\geq 1/2$ and $2$ otherwise.
In Theorem \ref{thm:alg}, we characterize
how the test error of $C_n^{DA}$ based on an ensemble of size $B$ converges to the ideal level of an infinite ensemble of $C_n^{DA*}$, in terms of the algorithmic randomness introduced by $\xi_b$.
We first introduce an assumption regarding the distribution of $\mu_n(X^{te})$.
Define the distribution functions of $\mu_n(X^{te})$ conditional on $Y^{te}$ as $\mathcal{L}_{\mu_n,\ell}( t \mid \mathcal{D}_{tr}, \mathcal{D}_{te}, Y^{te}=\ell)$ for $\ell =1,2$. That is,
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{L}_{\mu_n,1}( t \mid \mathcal{D}_{tr}, \mathcal{D}_{te}, Y^{te}=1) = &{\rm{pr}}[\{X^{te}\in \mathbb{R}^p: \mu_n(X^{te})\leq t\} \mid \mathcal{D}_{tr}, \mathcal{D}_{te}, Y^{te}=1], \\
\mathcal{L}_{\mu_n,2}( t \mid \mathcal{D}_{tr}, \mathcal{D}_{te}, Y^{te}=2) = &{\rm{pr}}[\{X^{te}\in \mathbb{R}^p: \mu_n(X^{te})\leq t\} \mid \mathcal{D}_{tr}, \mathcal{D}_{te}, Y^{te}=2].
\end{align*}
\begin{Assumption}\label{assump:random}
For $\ell\in\{1,2\}$, $\mathcal{L}_{\mu_n,\ell}( t \;|\; \mathcal{D}_{tr}, \mathcal{D}_{te}, Y^{te}=\ell)$
is twice differentiable at $t= 1/2$.
\end{Assumption}
\begin{Theorem}\label{thm:alg}
Under model (\ref{eq:model:two_class}), Algorithm S1, and Assumption \ref{assump:random}, as $B\to \infty$,
\begin{align*}
\bE\{R(C_n^{DA})\mid \mathcal{D}_{tr}, \mathcal{D}_{te}\} - R(C_n^{DA*}) = & \frac{\gamma_n}{B} + o(B)\\
\lim_{B\to \infty} B \var\{R(C_n^{DA})\mid \mathcal{D}_{tr}, \mathcal{D}_{te}\} \leq 1/4\bar{g}_n^2(1/2),
\end{align*}
where
$\gamma_n = \{1/2 - (B/2 - \floor{B/2})\}\{q_1 g_{n,1}(1/2) - q_2 g_{n,2}(1/2)\}+ \frac{1}{8} \{q_1 \dot{g}_{n,1}(1/2)-q_2 \dot{g}_{n,2}(1/2)\}$, and $\bar{g}_n(1/2) = q_1 g_{n,1}(1/2) + q_2 g_{n,2}(1/2)$. Here $g_{n,\ell}$ and $
\dot{g}_{n,\ell}$ are the first and second order derivative of $\mathcal{L}_{\mu_n,\ell}( t \mid \mathcal{D}_{tr}, \mathcal{D}_{te}, Y^{te}=\ell)$ for $\ell=1,2$.
\end{Theorem}
Theorem \ref{thm:alg} shows that the bias and variance of the test error are of order $O(1/B)$.
The proof of Theorem \ref{thm:alg} follows from Theorem 1 in \cite{cannings2017random}.
\section{Domain adaptive bagging with anomalies }\label{sec:robust_DA-bagging}
In this section, we consider the situation in which anomalous samples are present in the testing data, with `anomalous' meaning that these samples would be considered as outliers if they were observed in the training sample. In particular, we consider the model
\begin{equation}\label{eq:model:outlier}
f_{tr}(x) = \sum_{\ell=1}^L p_\ell f_\ell(x), \quad f_{te}(x) = \sum_{\ell=1}^L q_\ell f_\ell(x) + \epsilon f_{out}(x),
\end{equation}
where $p_\ell>0$ satisfying $\sum_{\ell=1}^L p_\ell =1$ and $q_\ell \geq 0, \epsilon\geq 0$ satisfying $\sum_{\ell=1}^L q_\ell + \epsilon =1$. Denote ${\rm{pr}}_\ell$ as the probability measure of $X\sim f_\ell(x)$ for $\ell=1,\dots, L$, and ${\rm{pr}}_{0}$ as the probability measure of $X\sim f_{out}(x)$.
This model allows not only changes in the mixture proportions between training and test but also an additional mixture component for the test data corresponding to anomalous observations that may be dissimilar to any of the training samples.
We first detect the anomalies before conducting domain adaptive resampling.
Denote $\mathcal{D}_{tr}= (\mathcal{D}_{tr,1},\dots, \mathcal{D}_{tr,L})$, where $\mathcal{D}_{tr,\ell}$ only contain the training data with label $\{\ell\}$, having sample size $|\mathcal{D}_{tr,\ell}|= n_\ell$. For any $x$, define the squared distance between $x$ and its $k$-nearest neighbors in $\mathcal{D}_{tr,\ell}$ as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:emp:dtm}
\widehat{d}^2_\ell(x) = \frac{1}{k}\sum_{X_i \in \mathcal{N}_{x}^{k,\ell}} \|X_i - x\|^2,
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{N}_{x}^{k,\ell}$ are the $k$-nearest neighbors of $x$ in $\mathcal{D}_{tr,\ell}$.
Intuitively,
if $x$ is an anomaly, then for any $\ell\in \{1,\dots, L\}$, $\widehat{d}^2_\ell(x)$ is large.
A population version of $\widehat{d}^2_\ell(x)$ is called the distance to measure \citep{chazal2011geometric,chazal2017robust} defined as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:dtm}
d^2_\ell(x) = \frac{1}{m_\ell} \int_0^{m_\ell} r_{\ell,t}(x) dt,
\end{equation}
where $m_\ell=k/n_\ell$ is called resolution and $r_{\ell,t}(x) = \mathop{\mathrm{argmin}}\{r: {\rm{pr}}_\ell\big(\|X-x\|^2 \leq r\big)>t\}$. By equation (\ref{eq:dtm}), a relatively large distance to measure happens in two situations: (1) $x$ is a tail sample from $f_\ell(x)$; (2) $x$ is an anomaly.
Letting ${\rm{pr}}_{n_\ell}$ be the empirical probability measure that puts mass $1/n_{\ell}$ on each $X_i\in\mathcal{D}_{tr,\ell}$, the distance to measure ${\rm{pr}}_{n_\ell}$ at resolution $m_\ell$ is exactly equation (\ref{eq:emp:dtm}).
Observing this, for each $X^{te}\sim f_{te}(x)$, we construct a statistic for anomaly detection as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:test_anomaly}
T(X^{te}) = \prod_{\ell=1}^L \mathds{1}_{\{\widehat{d}_\ell (X^{te}) > c_\ell\}},
\end{equation}
where $c_\ell$ is a constant threshold that will be specified later.
In Lemma S3,
we show that $\widehat{d}_\ell (x)$ is a consistent estimator of $d_\ell(x)$. Then for any $X^{te}\in \mathcal{D}_{te}$, $T(X^{te})=1$ if and only if $d_\ell(X^{te})>c_\ell$, that is, $\widehat{d}_\ell(X^{te})>c_\ell$, for all $\ell\in \{1,\dots, L\}$.
Given $X^{te}\in \mathcal{D}_{te}$ with unobserved label $Y^{te}$, we propose a detection rule as $\Psi(X^{te})=\mathds{1}_{\{T(X^{te})>c\}}$ for $0<c<1$.
The type I error is the probability of wrongly detecting the anomaly, ${\rm{pr}}\{T(X^{te})>c \mid Y^{te}\in \{1,\dots, L\}\}$.
The power of $\Psi(X^{te})$ is ${\rm{pr}}\{T(X^{te})>c \mid Y^{te}\not\in \{1,\dots, L\}\}.$
In Theorem \ref{thm:test}, we show that the type I error can be controlled at a nominal level $\alpha$ by properly choosing thresholds $c_\ell$s, while guaranteeing high power. Before the formal statement of Theorem \ref{thm:test}, we first state some assumptions regarding the distribution of the distance to measure and separation between the normal and abnormal samples.
\begin{Assumption}\label{assump:1}
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\alph*)]
\item For each $\ell= 1,\dots, L$, given a nominal level $\alpha$ where $0< \alpha <1$, there exists a positive finite constant $c_\ell$ satisfying $c_\ell= \mathop{\mathrm{argmin}}[ c: {\rm{pr}}_\ell\{X: d_\ell(X) \leq c\}\geq 1-\alpha ]$.
\label{assump:a}
\item
For any $\delta\in (0,1)$, denote $\beta_{n\ell} = \sqrt{(4/n_\ell)\{(p+1)\log(2n_\ell) + \log (8/\delta)\}}$. There exists a constant $M$ satisfying $M \geq 2 c_\ell + C \beta_{n\ell} (\beta_{n\ell} + \sqrt{m_\ell})$, such that given the anomaly $x_{out}$ sampled from ${\rm{pr}}_0$, ${\rm{pr}}_\ell(\|X-x_{out}\|^2 \leq M) \leq \epsilon$, where $C$ is a constant and $\epsilon < m_\ell/2$. \label{assump:b}
\end{enumerate}
\end{Assumption}
Assumption \ref{assump:1} \ref{assump:a} defines a safety zone for $X\sim {\rm{pr}}_\ell$, that is, $\mathcal{A}_\ell = \{X: X\sim f_\ell(x), \; d_\ell(X) \leq c_\ell\}$. Based on $\mathcal{A}_\ell$, Assumption \ref{assump:1} \ref{assump:a} separates $X\sim {\rm{pr}}_\ell$ into two parts based on the distance to measure being smaller or larger than
$c_\ell$.
Assumption \ref{assump:1} \ref{assump:b} requires that the distance between anomalies sampled from $f_{out}$ and samples from $f_\ell$ can be lower bounded with large probability.
\begin{Assumption}\label{assump:2}
(a) There exist positive constants $C = C ({\rm{pr}}_\ell)$ and $\varepsilon_0 = \varepsilon_0({\rm{pr}}_\ell)$, such that for all $0< \varepsilon < \varepsilon_0$ and $\eta \in \mathbb{R}$, for any $x$, and $0< t < m$,
$
{\rm{pr}}_\ell \big\{\|X-x\|\leq r_{\ell,t}(x) + \eta \big\} - {\rm{pr}}_\ell \big\{ \|X-x\| \leq r_{\ell,t}(x) \big\}\leq \varepsilon,
$
$|\eta| < C \varepsilon $.
(b) For any $x \sim {\rm{pr}}_\ell$, if $\kappa < C \varepsilon$, then
$
{\rm{pr}}_\ell \big\{ d_\ell (x) > c_\ell - \kappa\} - {\rm{pr}}_\ell\{d_\ell(x) > c_\ell\big\} \leq \varepsilon.
$
\end{Assumption}
Assumption \ref{assump:2} implies that ${\rm{pr}}_\ell$ has non-zero probability around the boundary of
the ball centered at $x$ with radius $r_{\ell,t}(x)$.
\begin{Theorem} \label{thm:test}
Consider model (\ref{eq:model:outlier}). Suppose Assumptions \ref{assump:1} and \ref{assump:2} hold.
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\alph*)]
\item As $n\to \infty$, for $X^{te}\in \mathcal{D}_{te}$ with unobserved label $Y^{te}\in \{1,\dots, L\}$, for $0<c<1$, ${\rm{pr}}\{T(X^{te})>c \mid Y^{te}\in\{1,\dots, L\}\}
\leq \alpha$.\label{thm:test:size}
\item For $X^{te}\in \mathcal{D}_{te}$, $0<c<1$, we have ${{\rm{pr}}}\{T(X^{te})>c \mid \; Y^{te}\not\in \{1,\dots, L\} \} \geq 1-L\delta $, where $\delta$ is specified in Assumption \ref{assump:1} \ref{assump:b}.
\label{thm:test:power}
\end{enumerate}
\end{Theorem}
In practice, we cannot directly calculate $c_\ell$ since it depends on the unknown density $f_\ell$. Instead, we use a data splitting method summarized in Algorithm \ref{alg:anomaly} to approximate the cutoff and detect anomalies. These anomalies are removed before applying domain adaptive bagging.
\begin{algorithm}[h!]\label{alg:anomaly}
Input: labeled training data $D_{tr,\ell}$, testing data $\mathcal{D}_{te}$, $k$, $\alpha$ : \\
1. \For{Parallel $\ell=1, \dots, L$}{
Split $D_{tr,\ell}$ as $D_{tr,\ell}^{(1)}$ and $D_{tr,\ell}^{(2)}$. \\
\For{Parallel $i=1,\dots, |D_{tr,\ell}^{(1)}|$}{
For each $z_i \in D_{tr,\ell}^{(1)}$, find its $k$-NN in $D_{tr,\ell}^{(2)}$ denoted as $\mathcal{N}_{z_i}^k$, and calculate
$$
\widehat{d}^2_\ell(z_i) = \frac{1}{k} \sum_{X_j\in \mathcal{N}_{z_i}^k}\|X_j - z_i\|^2.
$$
}
Set $\widehat{c}_\ell$ as the $(1-\alpha)$-th quantile of $(\widehat{d}_\ell(z_1),\dots, \widehat{d}_\ell(z_{|D_{tr,\ell}^{(1)}|}))$.
}
2. \For{$i=1,\dots, |\mathcal{D}_{te}|$}{
Find the $k-$NN of $X_i^{te}\in \mathcal{D}_{tr}$ denoted as $\mathcal{N}^k_{X_i^{te}}$, and calculate
$$
\widehat{d}_\ell^2(X_i^{te}) = \frac{1}{k}\sum_{X_j\in \mathcal{N}^k_{X_i^{te}}} \|X_j - X_i^{te}\|^2.
$$
Calculate the test statistics $T(X_i^{te}) = \prod_{\ell=1}^L \mathds{1}_{\{\widehat{d}_\ell (X_i^{te})> \widehat{c}_\ell\}}$.\\
Set $X_i^{te}\in \mathcal{D}_0$ if $T(X_i^{te})= 1$.
}
\caption{Anomaly Detection}
\end{algorithm}
\section{Simulation Study}\label{sec:simulation}
\subsection{An illustrative example}
We first consider a toy example to compare domain adaptive and classical bagging when a distribution shift occurs.
We generate training data with sample size $n=300$ from
$f_{tr}(x,y) = {\rm{pr}}(Y^{tr}=y)f(x| Y=y) = \frac{1}{3} f_y(x)$ for $y=1,2,3$, with $f_1$ the density function of $N((1,1)^\top, \Sigma)$, $f_2$ the density of $N((1,4)^\top, \Sigma)$, and $f_3$ the density of $N((1,7)^\top, \Sigma)$. We set $\Sigma$ as a $2\times 2$ matrix with diagonal entries 1 and off-diagonal entries $0.2$.
We generate testing data with sample size $m=300$
from $f_{te}(x,y) = {\rm{pr}}(Y^{te}=y)f(x| Y=y) = {\rm{pr}}(Y^{te}=y) f_y(x)$ with ${\rm{pr}}(Y^{te}=1)= {\rm{pr}}(Y^{te}=2)= 10/21$ and ${\rm{pr}}(Y^{te}=3)= 1/21$.
Hence, the test data have different class proportions. We use multinomial regression as the base classifier.
We implement domain adaptive bagging using Algorithm 1 with $k=5$ and $B=10$.
Figure \ref{figure:exp1} (a) and (b) show the generated training and testing data. Figure \ref{figure:exp1} (c) shows one replicate of the iterative nearest neighbor sampler with
$T=5$. Clearly, the sampled data approximates the testing data.
We further compare the decision boundaries. The solid lines in Figure \ref{figure:exp1} (d) are the averaged decision boundaries via classical bagging; clearly performance is suboptimal. The colored regions are the decision regions based on the Bayes classifier assuming the distribution of ${\rm{pr}}(Y^{te}|X=x)$ is known.
The dashed lines in Figure \ref{figure:exp1} (d) are learned from domain adaptive bagging, and are closer to the Bayesian rule for the testing data.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.00\textwidth]{figure/motivating_example.pdf}
\caption{ (a) training data; (b) testing data; (c) bootstrap samples based on INNs in Algorithm 1 with $k=5$; (d) the dashed lines are the decision boundaries based on DA-bagging; and the solid lines are the averaged decision boundaries from classic bagging; the colored region are the decision regions based on Bayes classifier. } \label{figure:exp1}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Simulation study without outliers}\label{sec:sim:inlier}
In the simulated experiments, we assess the empirical performance of domain adaptive bagging combined with four base classifiers including logistic regression, classification and regression trees , random forests, and linear discriminant analysis.
We compare our method with two popular domain adaptation methods under the above four base classifiers. The first is kernel mean matching \citep{zhang2013domain}.
The second is balanced and conformal optimized prediction sets \citep{guan2019prediction}.
We also compare with the base classifiers without considering domain adaptation.
We use classification and regression trees as the default classifier in bagging. We keep the tuning parameters for each classifier the same when coupled with different data adaptation approaches. For example, we fix the number of trees and variables to possibly split at in each node in the random forest classifier for different methods. In domain adaptive bagging, we stop iterating when the class proportions differ from $\mathcal{D}_{tr}^{(T-1)}$ to $\mathcal{D}_{tr}^{(T)}$ by no more than $0.01$. We set $B=500$ for both bagging methods.
We consider two design scenarios. In each scenario, we generate the training data from two classes: $\{1\}$ and $\{2\}$ with equal proportions, and hence,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sim:train}
f_{tr}(x) = 0.5 f_1(x) + 0.5 f_2(x).
\end{equation}
Testing data are generated with the same labels $\{1\}, \{2\}$ but with different percentages,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sim:test}
f_{te}(x) = q_1 f_1(x) + (1-q_1) f_2(x),
\end{equation}
where we vary the value of $q_1$ from $(1/2,1/3,\dots,1/10)$ in a decreasing order to present different magnitudes of distribution shift. For each scenario, we generate training and test data with sample size $500$, and set $X\in \mathbb{R}^{10}$. Testing accuracy is calculated via applying the trained classifier on the testing data. We repeat the simulation $20$ times and report the mean and standard deviation of the testing accuracy.
{\bf{Setting I: Sparse class boundaries.}}
We consider both $f_1$ and $f_2$ as mixture density functions with
\begin{equation}
X\sim
\begin{cases}
\frac{1}{2}N_p(\mu_0,\Sigma) + \frac{1}{2}N_p(-\mu_0, \Sigma) & \; \textrm{if}\; Y=1, \label{eq:sim:case1:f1} \\
\frac{1}{2}N_{p}(\mu_1, \Sigma) + \frac{1}{2}N_p(-\mu_1, \Sigma)& \; \textrm{if}\; Y=2,
\end{cases}\\
\end{equation}
where $p=10$, $\Sigma=I_{10\times 10}$, $\mu_0=(2,-2,0,\dots,0)^\top\in \mathbb{R}^{10}$, and $\mu_1=(2,2,0,\dots,0)^\top\in \mathbb{R}^{10}$.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.08\textwidth]{figure/sim_1.pdf}
\caption{Simulation setting I (a)-(d): testing accuracy under different approaches. RF, random forest; Bagging, bootstrap aggregation; LR, logistic regression; LDA, linear discriminant analysis; DA-bagging, domain adaptive bagging; BCOPS, \cite{guan2019prediction}'s method; KMM, \cite{zhang2013domain}'s method; $A+B$ refers to $A$ method equipped with $B$ base classifier.} \label{fig:sim1}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:sim1} illustrates the test accuracy based on different approaches. \cite{zhang2013domain}'s methods have stable performance for different classifiers but the improvement is not significant over the base classifiers without considering domain adaptation. The performance of \cite{guan2019prediction} varies under different classifiers since the algorithm highly depends on the classifier's ability to detect domain changes. Their method equipped with random forests and bagging significantly improve the test accuracy when $q_1 = 1/2,1/3,1/4,1/5$; however the accuracy drops dramatically when the testing data are highly unbalanced with $q_1<1/5$. For \cite{guan2019prediction} with logistic regression, the accuracy even drops below the baseline classifier. \cite{guan2019prediction} uses a data-splitting strategy to estimate the testing data proportion, which partly explains its unstable performance. Our method has the highest accuracy for different classifiers and performs stably even for very unbalanced data.
{\bf Setting II: Rotated sparse normal.}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.08\textwidth]{figure/sim_2.pdf}
\caption{Simulation setting II (a)-(d): testing accuracy under different approaches.
} \label{fig:sim2}
\end{figure}
We consider $f_y(x)$, for $y=1,2$, as multivariate Gaussians with the covariance matrix multiplied by a random rotation matrix, that is,
\begin{equation}
X\sim
\begin{cases}
N_p(\Omega_p \mu_0, \Omega_p\Sigma_0 \Omega_p^\top) & \; \textrm{if}\; Y=1, \label{eq:sim:case2:f1} \\
N_p(\Omega_p \mu_1, \Omega_p\Sigma_1 \Omega_p^\top) & \; \textrm{if}\; Y=2,
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $p=10$, $\mu_0=(1,1,1,0,\dots,0)^\top$, $\mu_1=(0,0,0,0,\dots,0)^\top$, and $\Omega_p$ is a $p\times p$ rotation matrix sample according to a Haar measure;
$\Omega_p$ is sampled once and kept as fixed in each replication; $\Sigma_0$ is a block diagonal matrix with two blocks $\Sigma_0^{(1)} = {\rm diag}\{\frac{3}{2}\} + \frac{1}{2} \mathbf{1}_3 \mathbf{1}_3^\top$ and $\Sigma_0^{(2)} = {\rm diag}\{\frac{1}{2}\} + \frac{1}{2} \mathbf{1}_{p-3} \mathbf{1}_{p-3}^\top$; $\Sigma_1$ is also a block diagonal matrix with two blocks $\Sigma_1^{(1)} = {\rm diag}\{\frac{1}{2}\} + \frac{1}{2} \mathbf{1}_3 \mathbf{1}_3^\top$ and $\Sigma_1^{(2)} = \Sigma_0^{(1)}$.
As shown in Figure \ref{fig:sim2}, all the three domain adaptive methods significantly improve the test accuracy when the testing data differ from the training data.
Our proposed methods show the highest accuracy and lowest variance when $q_1$ ranges from $1/2$ to $1/10$ for different classifiers.
\subsection{Simulation with anomaly detection}
We accommodate anomalies in the testing data, and consider the model
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sim:outlier:model}
f_{tr}(x) = 0.5 f_1(x) + 0.5 f_2(x), \quad f_{te}(x) = q_1 f_1(x) + q_2 f_2(x) + \epsilon f_{out}(x).
\end{equation}
We set $f_1(x)$, $f_2(x)$ as in Section \ref{sec:sim:inlier} for two different scenarios. Training data are generated as in Section \ref{sec:sim:inlier} with sample size $n=500$.
We also generate the testing dataset with sample size $500$ for $q_1$ ranging from $0.9\times(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{3}\dots,\frac{1}{10})$, $q_2=0.9-q_1$, and $\epsilon=0.1$, randomly generating $10\%$ outliers from an alternative distribution. The outlier distribution $f_{out}(x)$ will be specified later.
Since \cite{zhang2013domain} is not able to detect the outliers, we compare our proposed method with \cite{guan2019prediction} with four base classifiers considered in Section \ref{sec:sim:inlier}.
We set the nominal level as $\alpha=0.1$ for anomaly detection in Algorithm \ref{alg:anomaly}, and compare the empirical type I error and power performance. The empirical type I error is calculated as the percentage of non-outlying data points that are falsely detected, and the empirical power is calculated as the percentage of outliers detected in the testing data. We repeat the simulation $100$ times and report the averaged empirical type I error and power.
{\bf Setting I: Sparse class boundaries with anomalies.}
In model (\ref{eq:sim:outlier:model}), we generate $X$ from the conditional densities $f_1(x)$ and $f_2(x)$ as in (\ref{eq:sim:case1:f1}). We further generate the anomaly $X_{out}$ with $f_{out}$ the density function of $N_{p}(\mu, \Sigma)$,
where $p=10$, $\mu = (4,4,0,\dots,0)$ and $\Sigma$ is a diagonal matrix with first two entries as $0.5$ and the remaining $1$.
Table \ref{tab:1b} compares the type I error and power under different approaches. Domain adaptive bagging controls the type I error at the nominal level while maintaining high detection power; performance is stable under different values of $q_1$. In contrast, \cite{guan2019prediction}'s method has inflated type I error, and the empirical power decreases with $q_1$. The low power can be explained as a sacrifice of their data-splitting procedure.
\begin{table}[h!]
\begin{tabular}{lllrrrrrrrrr}
\\
& &$q_1/0.9$ & 1/2 & 1/3 & 1/4 & 1/5 & 1/6 & 1/7 & 1/8 & 1/9 & 1/10 \\
\multirow{2}{*}{Setting I} &\multirow{2}{*}{DA-bagging}& type I& 0.06 & 0.06 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 0.04 & 0.05 \\
& & power & 1.00 & 0.99 & 1.00 & 0.99 & 1.00 & 1.00 & 0.99 & 0.99 & 1.00 \\
%
& \multirow{2}{*}{BCOPS+RF} &type I & 0.34 & 0.25 & 0.23 & 0.21 & 0.20 & 0.18 & 0.16 & 0.16 & 0.17 \\
& & power & 0.97 & 0.96 & 0.96 & 0.93 & 0.91 & 0.92 & 0.86 & 0.87 & 0.86 \\
%
& \multirow{2}{*}{BCOPS+Bagging} & type I & 0.33 & 0.27 & 0.21 & 0.18 & 0.17 & 0.17 & 0.12 & 0.11 & 0.12 \\
& & power & 1.00 & 0.99 & 0.96 & 0.95 & 0.95 & 0.93 & 0.87 & 0.86 & 0.81 \\
%
& \multirow{2}{*}{BCOPS+LR}&type I & 0.33 & 0.24 & 0.22 & 0.20 & 0.20 & 0.17 & 0.16 & 0.18 & 0.16 \\
& & power & 0.99 & 0.98 & 0.99 & 0.97 & 0.95 & 0.94 & 0.92 & 0.92 & 0.89 \\
& \multirow{2}{*}{BCOPS+LDA}&type I & 0.34 & 0.28 & 0.22 & 0.18 & 0.17 &0.14 & 0.15 & 0.13 & 0.15\\
& & power & 0.99 & 0.98& 0.97& 0.93& 0.94& 0.89& 0.92& 0.87& 0.88 \\
\multirow{2}{*}{Setting II}&\multirow{2}{*}{DA-bagging}& type I& 0.06 & 0.05 & 0.04 & 0.04 & 0.04 & 0.04 & 0.04 & 0.04 & 0.04 \\
& &power & 0.58 & 0.55 & 0.52 & 0.53 & 0.57 & 0.56 & 0.53 & 0.55 & 0.54 \\
& \multirow{2}{*}{BCOPS+RF}&type I & 0.23 & 0.21 & 0.22 & 0.23 & 0.26 & 0.23 & 0.21 & 0.21 & 0.23 \\
& &power & 0.37 & 0.36 & 0.41 & 0.41 & 0.43 & 0.35 & 0.30 & 0.39 & 0.36 \\
%
& \multirow{2}{*}{BCOPS+Bagging}& type I & 0.19 & 0.19 & 0.18 & 0.16 & 0.17 & 0.18 & 0.20 & 0.18 & 0.18 \\
& &power & 0.45 & 0.46 & 0.36 & 0.33 & 0.29 & 0.35 & 0.31 & 0.30 & 0.28 \\
& \multirow{2}{*}{BCOPS+LR}&type I & 0.21 & 0.19 & 0.21 & 0.22 & 0.23 & 0.22 & 0.20 & 0.21 & 0.21 \\
& &power & 0.31 & 0.29 & 0.33 & 0.35 & 0.37 & 0.31 & 0.24 & 0.32 & 0.31 \\
%
& \multirow{2}{*}{BCOPS+LDA}&type I & 0.18 & 0.16& 0.15 & 0.16 & 0.16 & 0.21& 0.20& 0.18 & 0.20 \\
& &power & 0.31 & 0.32 & 0.30 & 0.33 & 0.25 & 0.34 & 0.35 & 0.34 & 0.32 \\
%
\end{tabular}
\caption{Setting I, II with anomaly: type I error and power based on different approaches. DA-bagging, domain adaptive bagging; BCOPS+RF, BCOPS+Bagging, BCOPS+LR, BCOPS+LDA, refers to \cite{guan2019prediction}'s method with base classifier as random forest, bagging, logistic regression and linear discriminant analysis, respectively. }
\label{tab:1b}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.08\textwidth]{figure/sup_1.pdf}
\caption{Simulation Setting I (with anomaly) (a)-(d): testing accuracy after anomaly detection under different approaches. RF, random forest; Bagging, bootstrap aggregation; LR, logistic regression; LDA, linear discriminant analysis; DA-bagging, domain adaptive bagging; BCOPS, \cite{guan2019prediction}'s method; KMM, \cite{zhang2013domain}'s method; $A+B$ refers to $A$ method equipped with $B$ base classifier.
}\label{fig:sim1b}
\end{figure}
{\bf Setting II: Rotated sparse normal with anomalies.}
Following model (\ref{eq:sim:outlier:model}), we generate $X$ from $f_1(x)$ and $f_2(x)$ as in (\ref{eq:sim:case2:f1}). We further generate anomalies $X_{out}$ from $f_{out}$, the density function of $N_p(\Omega_p \mu_2, \Omega_p I_{p\times p} \Omega_p^\top)$,
where $\mu_2 = (0,0,2,2,0,\dots,0)$ and $\Omega_p$ is the rotation matrix defined in Setting 2(a).
As shown in Table \ref{tab:1b}, type I error is controlled under the nominal level for domain adaptive bagging. The power is lower compared with Setting I since the outliers' distribution $f_{out}$ is less distinguishable from $f_1$ and $f_2$. The empirical power performance of domain adaptive bagging is still stable for different $q_\ell$. \cite{guan2019prediction}'s approach has inflated type I error, implying over sensitivity in selecting outliers; the power performance of \cite{guan2019prediction}'s method is unsatisfactory and unstable with respect to different classifiers and class proportions.
After removing $10\%$ of the data points as possible outliers, we compare different approaches in terms of accuracy on the test sample. As shown in Figures \ref{fig:sim1b} and \ref{fig:sim2b}, our method still has the highest accuracy for each of different base classifiers. For \cite{guan2019prediction}'s method, the variance increases as $q_1$ decreases. When the testing data have a similar distribution as the training data, the accuracy of \cite{guan2019prediction} drops below the baseline due to the extra error brought by the inaccurate estimate of the distributional change.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.08\textwidth]{figure/sup_2.pdf}
\caption{Simulation Setting II (with anomaly) (a)-(d): testing accuracy under different approaches after anomaly detection. RF, random forest; Bagging, bootstrap aggregation; LR, logistic regression; LDA, linear discriminant analysis; DA-bagging, domain adaptive bagging; BCOPS, \cite{guan2019prediction}'s method; KMM, \cite{zhang2013domain}'s method; $A+B$ refers to method $A$ equipped with base classifier $B$.}\label{fig:sim2b}
\end{figure}
\section{Breast Cancer Data Analysis}\label{sec:real_data}
We apply our method to the Wisconsin
Breast Cancer Dataset available at the University of California,
Irvine machine learning repository. The dataset contains
nine features of tumors in 699 patients, with 241 malignant and
458 benign. Since the data are collected in different time periods, we use the data originally collected in January 1989 with sample size 367 as the training data, including $200$ benign samples and $167$ malignant samples.
We use the subsequent 332 data collected from October 1989 to November 1991 as our testing data, which include $258$ benign samples and $74$ malignant samples. The percentage of malignant samples in the testing data is $22.3\%$ which is significantly lower than the percentage, $45.5\%$, of malignant samples in the training data. We use three baseline classifiers including random forest, bagging with classification and regression trees, and logistic regression, as the original classifiers without considering distribution shift. We further equip our approach, \cite{guan2019prediction} and \cite{zhang2013domain}'s methods with these classifiers.
The tuning parameters are as in the simulation examples.
To examine the performance of domain adaptive bagging under different training sample sizes, we vary the training data via randomly sampling from the candidate training dataset with sample size $n^{tr}= 50, 100$ and $200$ respectively. The sample size of the test dataset is $n^{te}=332$. Since $n^{te}> n^{tr}$, we first randomly sample $n^{tr}$ data points from the training set, then follow Algorithm S1 for prediction on the test data. We report the test accuracy as the number of wrongly predicted data points in the whole test dataset. As shown in Table \ref{tab:real2}, our method performs the best compared with other approaches, and the prediction error is stable under different training sample sizes.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cccccc}
%
& Classifier & DA-bagging & KMM & BCOPS & Original\\
\multirow{4}{*}{$n^{tr} = 50$} &
RF & 5.00 & 9.00 & 15.00 & 13.00 \\
& Bagging & 5.00 & 10.00 & 13.00 & 14.00 \\
& LDA & 5.00 & 9.00 & 21.00 & 14.00 \\
& LR & 5.00 & 15.00 & 22.00 & 14.00 \\
& & DA-bagging & KMM & BCOPS & Original\\
\multirow{4}{*}{$n^{tr} = 100$} &
RF & 4.00 & 7.00 & 10.00 & 8.00 \\
& Bagging& 4.00 & 8.00 & 9.00 & 11.00 \\
& LDA & 4.00 & 9.00 & 15.00 & 7.00 \\
& LR & 4.00 & 15.00 & 14.00 & 7.00 \\
%
& & DA-bagging & KMM & BCOPS & Original\\
\multirow{4}{*}{$n^{tr} = 200$} &
RF & 4.00 & 5.00 & 5.00 & 8.00 \\
&Bagging & 4.00 & 8.00 & 6.00 & 8.00 \\
&LDA & 4.00 & 8.00 & 8.00 & 6.00 \\
&LR & 4.00 & 9.00 & 7.00 & 6.00 \\
\end{tabular}\label{tab:real2}
\caption{Breast cancer dataset: number of wrongly predicted data points in the testing set under different training sample sizes. RF, random forest; Bagging, \cite{breiman1996bagging}'s method; LDA, linear discriminant analysis; LR, logistic regression. DA-bagging, domain adaptive bagging; KMM, kernel mean matching proposed in \cite{zhang2013domain}. BCOPS, \cite{guan2019prediction}'s method. }
\end{center}
\end{table}
\subsection{MNIST Data}
We analyze the MNIST handwritten digit dataset \citep{lecun2010}. We randomly select $500$ images labeled as $\{5\}$ and $500$ images labeled as $\{6\}$ together as the training data. For the testing data, we randomly sample $900q_1$ images labeled as $\{5\}$ and $900(1-q_1)$ images labeled as $\{6\}$ without overlapping with the training set. We set $q_1$ as $\{1/2, 1/5, 1/10\}$ to present different levels of heterogeneity between the training and test data. Then we randomly sample $100$ images with labels in $\{0,1,2\}$ as the new digits unobserved in the training data. We set the nominal level $\alpha=0.1$ in Algorithm 2. Figure \ref{fig:real2} evaluates the empirical type I and type II error.
Clearly, compared with \cite{guan2019prediction}, domain adaptive bagging has higher power given any fixed type I error.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.08\textwidth]{figure/sup_3.pdf}
\caption{Type I and Type II error for MNIST data set.}\label{fig:real2}
\end{figure}
In addition, we remove $10\%$ of the testing data points with the largest distance to measure for domain adaptive bagging and with the smallest conformal score for \cite{guan2019prediction}'s method. Then we compare the testing accuracy on the remaining data points. In domain adaptive bagging, we choose the number of iterations $T$ based on the threshold $\varepsilon_T=0.01$. We set $B=500$ for both DA-bagging and bagging.
We use Random Forest as the baseline classifier. \cite{guan2019prediction}'s method equipped with random forest shows a lower accuracy due to the high error rate in detecting the outliers. For example, when $q_1= 1/2, 1/5$, many inliers are falsely removed, its classification accuracy drops below the accuracy of the random forest baseline classifier without considering distribution shifting.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
$q_1$ & DA-bagging+RF &BCOPS+RF& RF \\
1/2 & 0.924 & 0.849 & 0.885 \\
1/5 & 0.940 & 0.860 & 0.881 \\
1/10 & 0.938 & 0.908 & 0.879 \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{MNIST dataset: testing accuracy. DA-bagging+RF, domain adaptive bagging with random forest as base classifier; BCOPS+RF, \cite{guan2019prediction}'s method with random forest; RF, random forest.}
\label{tab:real3}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\section{Discussion}\label{sec:discussion}
Domain adaptive bagging is a promising general approach for improving classification performance when there is a distributional shift between the training and test data. Such shifts are common in practice, and methods that fail to adjust can have poor performance. In this article, we have focused on a particular type of distributional shift, and there are several natural next steps that are of substantial interest. The first general direction is to accommodate different types of distributional shifts. For example, instead of only allowing the label proportions to vary, one can also allow the density of the features within each class to vary. In doing this, it is important to include some commonalities between training and test sets. One possibility is represent the different feature densities with a common set of kernels, but with the weights varying not just due to variation in the label proportions but due to other unknown factors.
Another possibility, which is particularly natural for high-dimensional and geometrically structured features, is to suppose that there is some lower-dimensional structure in the data. For example, the features may tend to be concentrated close to a lower-dimensional manifold. If this lower-dimensional structure tends to be largely preserved between training and test data, then it is natural to leverage on manifold learning or other dimensionality reduction algorithms in constructing relevant distances to be used in applying an appropriate variant of the iterated nearest neighbor sampler within domain adaptive bagging.
The ideas behind domain adaptive bagging can be applied to related problems in which one wants to improve reproducibility but does not have a specific test set to focus on. If data are collected under a complex sample survey design and sampling weights are available, then resampling can be modified to produce bootstrap samples from the training data that are population-representative instead of representative of the test data. Alternatively, if such sampling weights are unavailable, one can generate bootstrap samples that are designed to be highly heterogeneous across covariates groups. Ideally, this would improve generalizability to a variety of distributional shifts that may occur in future test datasets that are as of yet unobserved.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{se:intro}
Let $f : \Omega \to \text{\sets C}$ be a function where $\Omega\subset \text{\sets C}$ is a domain. We say that $f$ is a (homeomorphic and orientation preserving) mapping of finite distortion if following conditions are satisfied.
\smallskip
(i) $f \in W^{1,1}_{loc}(\Omega)$.
\smallskip
(ii) $f:\Omega\to f(\Omega)$ is a homeomorphism with $J_f\geq 0$ a.e.
\smallskip
(iii) $|Df|^2 = K_f(z) J(z,f)$ for a.e. $z \in \text{\sets C}$, where $K_f$ is a measurable function that is finite almost everywhere.
\smallskip
In an analogous way one may define mappings of finite distortion on subdomains of $\text{\sets R}^d$. In this article we only consider mappings of finite distortion on the plane.
A planar mapping of finite distortion satisfies a Beltrami equation
\[
\overline{\partial}f(z) = \mu_f(z) \partial f(z),
\]
where $\mu_f$ is a measurable function with $|\mu_f(z)|<1$ for a.e. $z$. One has $|\mu_f(z)|=\frac{K_f(z)-1}{K_f(z)+1}$. Here and henceforth we employ the standard notation $\overline{\partial}:=\frac{d}{d\overline{z}}=\frac{1}{2}(\partial_x+i\partial_y)$ and $\partial:=\frac{d}{dz}=\frac{1}{2}(\partial_x-i\partial_y)$.
An important subclass is formed by mappings of finite exponential distortion which have the property that for some positive constant $p>0$ one has
\begin{equation}\label{eq:fed}
e^{pK_f(z)}\in L^1_{loc}.
\end{equation}
A natural version of the measurable Riemann mapping theorem, Stoilow factorization theorem, and many other basic features of the standard quasiconformal theory generalise to these classes.
For a good account of the theory we refer the reader to \cite[Chapter 20]{AIM}. Improving on earlier results \cite{FKZ} (which has result valid also in $n$ dimensions), it was shown in \cite{AGRS} that for a mapping of exponentially integrable distortion satisfying \eqref{eq:fed} there is the regularity
\begin{equation}\label{eq:fed2}
|Df|^2\log^{\beta}(e+|Df|)\in L^1_{loc}\qquad \textrm{for}\quad \beta<p-1,
\end{equation}
and this is not necessarily true for $\beta=p-1.$ Note that in the above results one is interested only in the local regularity of mappings of finite distortion with exponentially integrable distortion. Similarly, in our work it is enough to consider only the regularity of principal maps near the origin since local regularity results may then be transferred by the Stoilow factorisation theorem to maps that are defined on subdomains. Let us recall that a principal map $f:\text{\sets C}\to\text{\sets C}$ is conformal (i.e. $\mu_f(z) = 0$) outside the unit disk $\mathbb{D}$
and $f(z) = z + O(1/|z|)$ near infinity.
For (standard) $K$-quasiconformal maps (i.e. $K_f(z)\leq K<\infty$, where $K$ is a constant), the optimal area distortion \cite{As} implies that $Df\in L_{loc}^p$ for $p<\frac{2K}{K-1}$, but this fails in general in the borderline case $p=\frac{2K}{K-1}$. There is a substitute \cite[Cor. 13.2.5]{AIM} in the form of inclusion in the weak space $Df\in L_{loc}^{\frac{2K}{K-1},\infty}$. Another kind of result in the borderline case was given in \cite[Theorem 3.5]{AIPS1} stating that a $K$-quasiconformal map satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{eq:qc1}
(K-K_f(z))|Df|^{\frac{2K}{K-1}}\in L^1_{loc},
\end{equation}
which gives \emph{strongly localized regularity} information on the map, especially $\int_{K_f\leq K-\varepsilon}|Df|^{\frac{2K}{K-1}} <\infty$ for all $\varepsilon >0$. For further basic results on planar maps of exponentially integrable distortion we refer e.g. to \cite{BrJe,RSY, IKM, K, GKT} and the references therein.
The principal aim of the present note is to establish a strongly localized regularity result for mappings of finite distortion analogous to \eqref{eq:qc1}. Our main result states the following:
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:main1}
Assume that $f$ is a planar (homeomorphic) mapping of exponentially integrable distortion satisfying \eqref{eq:fed} with $p=1$. Then it holds that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:mfd3}
\int_A \frac{1}{\log^{4+\varepsilon}\left(e+K_f\right)} |D f|^2 < \infty \qquad \textrm{for any}\quad \varepsilon>0
\end{equation}
for any compact subset $A\subset \Omega$.
\end{theorem}
Arguments in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main1} also give the following result.
\begin{theorem}\label{co:3}
With $f$ a mapping of integrable distortion satisfying \eqref{eq:fed} for some $p>0$ we have
$$
|Df|^2\log^{p-1}(e+|Df|)[\log\log(|Df|+10)]^{-(1+3p+\varepsilon)}\in L^1_{loc}\qquad \textrm{for any}\quad \varepsilon>0.
$$
\end{theorem}
In the radial case, one can improve both Theorems \ref{thm:main1} and \ref{co:3}:
\begin{theorem}\label{th:radial}
{\rm (i)}\quad Let $f: \text{\sets C} \to \text{\sets C}$ be a planar and radial homeomorphic mapping of finite distortion with exponentially integrable distortion satisfying \eqref{eq:fed} with $p=1$.
Then
\[
\int_{A}\frac{1}{\log^{1+\varepsilon}\left(e+K_f\right)} |D f|^2 < \infty \qquad \textrm{for any}\quad \varepsilon>0
\]
and any compact subset $A\subset \text{\sets C}$.
\smallskip
\noindent {\rm (ii)}\quad For radial maps of $p$-integrable distortion with $p>0$ we have
$$
|Df|^2\log(e+|Df|)^{p-1}\log\log(|Df|+10)^{-(1+\varepsilon)}\in L^1_{loc}\qquad \textrm{for any}\quad \varepsilon>0.
$$
\end{theorem}
Our next result considers mapping that in a sense lie in between mappings of exponentially integrable distortion and standard quasiconformal maps.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:main2}
Assume that $f$ is a planar homeomorphic mapping of finite distortion satisfying the integrability
\begin{equation}\label{eq:fed4}
e^{(K_f(z))^\alpha}\in L^1_{loc}\nonumber
\end{equation}
for some $\alpha >1$. Then it holds that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:mfd5}
\int_\mathbb{D} |D f|^2\exp\big(\log^\beta(e+|D f|)\big) < \infty
\end{equation}
for any $\beta<1-1/\alpha$. The result is optimal in the sense that the conclusion fails for $\beta >1-1/\alpha$
\end{theorem}
\noindent Sharpness of the previous theorem is shown by the map
$$
f(z)= c_\alpha \frac{z}{|z|}\exp\big(-{\textstyle\frac{2}{1-1/\alpha}}\log^{1-1/\alpha}(e+1/|z|)\big)
$$
for $|z|<1$, and identity outside $\mathbb{D}$. We expect that the extremal maps for Theorems {\rm \ref{thm:main1}} and {\rm\ref{co:3}} are also given by radial maps,
so it is natural to state:
\begin{conjecture}\label{con:1} The conclusions of Theorem {\rm \ref{th:radial}} remain true without assuming that the map is radial.
\end{conjecture}
Theorem \ref{th:radial} is sharp up to the possible borderline case. For any $0 < \varepsilon < 1$, we can choose $g_\varepsilon : \text{\sets C} \to \text{\sets C}$ to be
\[
g_\varepsilon(z) := \frac{z}{|z|} \left[ \log \left( e + \frac{1}{|z|} \right) \right]^{-p/2} \left[ \log \log \left( e + \frac{1}{|z|} \right) \right]^{- \varepsilon / 2} \qquad \textrm{for}\quad |z| < 1
\]
and $g_{\varepsilon} (z) := cz$ elsewhere for some constant $c$. Then one directly verifies that $g_\varepsilon$ is a (radial) mapping of finite distortion satisfying \eqref{eq:fed} with $p$ but we have for general $p$
\[
\int_\mathbb{D} |D(g_\varepsilon)|^2\log(e+|D(g_{\varepsilon})|)^{p-1}\log\log(|D(g_\varepsilon)|+10)^{-1+\varepsilon} = \infty
\]
and for $p=1$ we have
\[
\int _\mathbb{D} \frac{1}{\log^{1-\varepsilon}\left(e+K_{g_\varepsilon}\right)} |D(g_\varepsilon)|^2 = \infty.
\]
Section \ref{se:mainproof} below contains the proof of Theorems \ref{thm:main1} and \ref{co:3} assuming the quantitative estimate of Lemma \ref{le:kaksi}. Next, Section \ref{se:neumann} gives careful quantitative estimates for the decay of the Neumann series associated with the Beltrami equation. Then in Section \ref{sec:proofoflemma2} we are ready to accomplish the proof of Lemma \ref{le:kaksi}, and also to complete the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main2}. Finally, Section \ref{se:radialproof} treats the case of radial mappings, i.e. Theorem \ref{th:radial}.
\bigskip
\noindent{\bf Acknowledgements:}\quad We are grateful for the anonymous referees for careful reading of the paper and their thoughtful comments that led to substantial improvements in the presentation of the paper.
\section{Proof of Theorems \ref{thm:main1} and \ref{co:3}}\label{se:mainproof}
In this section we prove Theorem \ref{thm:main1} as well as Theorem \ref{co:3} assuming Lemma \ref{le:kaksi} whose proof we provide later. It is useful to note the general comparison for mappings of finite distortion $|\partial f| \leq |Df| \leq 2 |\partial f |$.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main1}]
Our basic assumption is that $f$ is a principal mapping of finite distortion with
\begin{equation}\label{eq:-1}
\int_\mathbb{D} e^{K_f}\leq \widetilde C <\infty,
\end{equation}
and we denote by $\mu$ the Beltrami coefficient of $f$.
However, we first consider the class of quasiconformal $f$ that satisfy \eqref{eq:-1} with a fixed $\widetilde C$. After obtaining uniform estimates for this class, we then at the end of the proof use approximation to deduce results for maps of finite distortion.
We next fix $0<\varepsilon < 1/2$ and for any $w$ with $0 \leq \Re w \leq 1$ we let $f_w$ be the unique principal solution to the Beltrami equation
\[
\overline{\partial}f_w(z) = \nu_w(z) \partial f_w (z),
\]
where
\[
\nu_w(z) := \frac{\mu(z)}{|\mu(z)|}|\mu(z)|^{w+\varepsilon}.
\]
A main idea in the proof is to consider the functions
$$
g_w = (1-|\mu|)^{(1-w)/2}\partial f_w
$$
and apply the analytic interpolation theorem, or actually a very special case of it that reduces to a vector-valued Phragm\'en-Lindel\"of type maximum principle.
To accomplish this, note that since the dependence $w\mapsto \nu_w$ is analytic, we deduce by the Ahlfors-Bers theorem that the dependence $w\mapsto f_w$ (as an $L^2(\mathbb{D})$-valued function) is analytic over the closed strip, and hence also $g$ depends analytically on $w$. Especially, the map $w \mapsto g_w$ is continuous in the strip and analytic in the interior. Moreover, by a standard application of the Neumann series and the definition of $g$ we see that $\|g_w\|_{L^2(\mathbb{D})} \leq C(\widetilde C)$ for all $w$ in the closed strip $\{0 \leq \Re w \leq 1\}$. Fix $h \in C_0^\infty(\mathbb{D})$ with $\|h\|_{L^2(\mathbb{D})} = 1$. A fortiori, the function $w \mapsto \int_{\mathbb{D}} g_w(z)h(z) \, dm(z)$ is a continuous and bounded analytic function in the closed strip and analytic in the interior. If we denote
\[
\widetilde M_r := \sup_{\Re w = r} \left|\int_{\mathbb{D}} g_w(z)h(z) \, dm(z) \right|,
\]
and
\[
M_r := \sup_{\Re w = r} \|g_w\|_{L^2(\mathbb{D})},
\]
then we have by a classical version of the Hadamard's three lines theorem that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:apu0}
\widetilde M_\theta \leq \widetilde M_0^{1-\theta} \widetilde M_1^\theta \leq M_0^{1-\theta} M_1^\theta\nonumber .
\end{equation}
Since $h \in C_0^\infty(\mathbb{D})$ is arbitrary we in fact have for any $\theta\in (0,1)$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:apu1}
M_\theta \leq M_0^{1-\theta} M_1^\theta.
\end{equation}
In order to continue the proof we need several auxiliary results.
\begin{lemma}\label{le:yksi}
For any $w$ with $\Re w = 0$ we have
$
\displaystyle \int_{\mathbb{D}} |g_w|^2 \leq {C}{\varepsilon}^{-1}
$
with a universal constant $C$. In particular, $M_0 \leq {C_0}{\varepsilon^{-1/2}}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
As $f_w$ is a quasiconformal principal mapping, we obtain by the Bieberbach area formula
\[
\int_{\mathbb{D}} J(z,f_w) = |f(\mathbb{D})| \leq \pi.
\]
To use this, note first that as $J(z,h) = |\partial h|^2 - |\overline{\partial}h|^2$, we have by the definition of $g$ for any $w$ with $\Re w=0$
\[
\int_{\mathbb{D}} |g_w|^2 = \int_{\mathbb{D}} (1-|\mu|)|\partial f_w|^2 = \int_{\mathbb{D}} \frac{1-|\mu|}{1-|\nu_w|^2} J(z,f_w)
\leq \int_{\mathbb{D}} \frac{1-|\mu|}{1-|\mu|^{2\varepsilon}} J(z,f_w).
\]
As $x \mapsto x^{2\varepsilon}$ is a concave function whose derivative at $x=1$ equals $2\varepsilon$, we have $x^{2\varepsilon} \leq 1 + 2\varepsilon(x-1)$ for all $x>0$. This implies that
\[
\frac{1-|\mu|}{1-|\mu|^{2\varepsilon}} \leq \frac{1-|\mu|}{2\varepsilon(1-|\mu|)} = \frac{1}{2\varepsilon},
\]
finishing the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{le:kaksi}
For any $w$ with $\Re w = 1$ it holds that
$
\displaystyle \int_{\mathbb{D}} |g_w|^2 \leq {C}{\varepsilon}^{-4}.
$
The constant $C$ depends only on $\widetilde C$ in \eqref{eq:-1} . In particular, $M_1 \leq {C_0}{\varepsilon^{-2}}$.
\end{lemma}
\noindent We postpone the proof of this lemma to Section \ref{sec:proofoflemma2} as it needs more preparation, especially one needs to carefully check the dependence of constants in certain arguments of \cite{AGRS}.
In order to continue the proof we choose $\theta = 1- \varepsilon$ in \eqref{eq:apu1} and note that $f_{1-\varepsilon}=f $ in order to obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq:jep}
\int_{\mathbb{D}} (1-|\mu(z)|)^{\varepsilon} |\partial f |^2 \, dm(z) \;=\; \int_{\mathbb{D}} (1-|\mu(z)|)^{\varepsilon} |\partial f_{1-\varepsilon}(z)|^2 \, dm(z)\; \leq \;\frac{C}{\varepsilon^4}.
\end{equation}
Up to now we have considered the case where $f$ is quasiconformal and satisfies \eqref{eq:-1}. We then choose a sequence of quasiconformal maps that converge to $f$ locally uniformly and satisfy the condition \eqref{eq:-1}. In order to find such a sequence one may e.g. use the factorization (see \cite[Corollary 4.4]{AGRS})
$f=g\circ h$, where $g$ is (say) 5-quasiconformal and $\int_\mathbb{D} e^{5K_h}\leq \widetilde C+\pi e^5$. In this situation one may approximate $h$ by quasiconformal maps $h_n$ by truncating its dilatation in a standard way and one defines $f_n:=g\circ h_n$, and then the sequence $f_n$ satisfies \eqref{eq:-1} with possibly slightly increased $\widetilde C$, but uniformly in $n$. That we have the convergence $h_n\to h$ locally uniformly is deduced by the fact that in this regime the Neumann-series of $h_n$ converges in $L^2$ with uniform bounds for $k$:th term, and clearly we have convergence in $L^2$ for each individual term of the Neumann-series. Thus $Dh_n\to Dh$ in $L^2_{loc}$, which implies local convergence in $VMO$ for the maps $h_n$, and the uniform convergence then follows by the known uniform modulus of continuity estimates for mappings of exponentially integrable distortion.
Since $f_n\to f$ locally uniformly, we obtain that $f_n\to f$ in the sense of distributions, and hence $\partial f_n\to \partial f$ in the sense of distributions. Let us then fix $p<2$. We have by \eqref{eq:fed2} that $\int_{B} |\partial f_n|^p\leq C$ uniformly in $n$ for any fixed ball, and the same inequality holds also for $f$ instead of $f_n$. This verifies (by using the density of test functions in $L^q$) that the convergence in distributions upgrades to weak convergence $\partial f_n\overset{w}{\to} \partial f$ in $L^p(\mathbb{D}).$ This immediately implies the weak convergence in $L^p(\mathbb{D})$ of $(1-|\mu(z)|)^{\varepsilon/p}\partial f_n$ to $(1-|\mu(z)|)^{\varepsilon/p}\partial f$, and we obtain by the basic properties of weak $L^p$-convergence and the uniform estimate \eqref{eq:jep} that
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\int_{\mathbb{D}} (1-|\mu(z)|)^{\varepsilon} |\partial f |^p \, dm(z) \\ &\leq& \liminf_{n\to\infty}\int_{\mathbb{D}} (1-|\mu(z)|)^{\varepsilon} |\partial f_n |^p \, dm(z)
\; \leq\; \liminf_{n\to\infty}\int_{\mathbb{D}} (1-|\mu(z)|)^{\varepsilon} |\partial f_n |^2 \, dm(z) \; +\pi \\
&\leq&\frac{C'}{\varepsilon^4}.
\end{eqnarray*}
By letting $p\nearrow 2$ we finally obtain for the general $f$ the desired inequality
\begin{equation}\label{eq:apu5}
\int_{\mathbb{D}} (1-|\mu(z)|)^{\varepsilon} |\partial f|^2 \leq \frac{C'}{\varepsilon^4},
\end{equation}
and again, the constant $C'$ in \eqref{eq:apu5} does not depend on $\varepsilon$.
The inequality \eqref{eq:apu5} already provides a non-trivial localization result because we may consider small values of $\varepsilon$. However, as we have all values $\varepsilon\in(0,1/2)$ at our disposal, the result can be improved on by invoking the following observation:
\begin{lemma}\label{le:apu3}
Let $h$ and $W$ be non-negative functions on $\mathbb{D}$, with $W(z) \leq 1$ for all $z$. Let also $\varepsilon_0\in (0,1/2)$, $\alpha,C>0$ be positive constants. Assume that for any $0<\varepsilon<\varepsilon_0$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:apu10}
\int_{\mathbb{D}} (W(z))^{\varepsilon} h(z) \, dm(z) \leq \frac{C}{\varepsilon^\alpha}.
\end{equation}
Then there is a constant $C_1=C_1(\varepsilon_0, \alpha, C)$ such that for $0<\eta\leq 1$
\[
\int_{\mathbb{D}} \frac{1}{\left(\log\left(e + \frac{1}{W(z)}\right)\right)^{\alpha+\eta}} h(z) \, dm(z) \leq \frac{C_1}{\eta}.
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The assumption remains valid if $W$ is replaced by $\min(W, 1/2)$ and the conclusion obtained in this case yields the original one, in view of the assumption. We may hence assume that $W(z)\in [0,1/2]$ for all $z$. From \eqref{eq:apu10} it immediately follows that if $0< \eta \leq 1$, then
\[
\int_0^{\varepsilon_0} \varepsilon^{\alpha-1+\eta} \int_{\mathbb{D}} (W(z))^{\varepsilon}h(z) \, dm(z)\, d\varepsilon \leq C \int_0^{\varepsilon_0} \varepsilon^{\eta-1} \, d\varepsilon = \frac{C}{\eta} \varepsilon_0^{\eta}.
\]
On the other hand, we can use Fubini's theorem to conclude that
\[
\int_0^{\varepsilon_0} \varepsilon^{\alpha-1+\eta} \int_{\mathbb{D}} (W(z))^{\varepsilon}h(z) \, dm(z)\, d\varepsilon = \int_{\mathbb{D}} h(z) \int_0^{\varepsilon_0} \varepsilon^{\alpha-1+\eta} (W(z))^{\varepsilon} d\varepsilon \, dm(z).
\]
For those $z$ with $W(z)=0$, the inner integral is $0$. Let now $0<a:=W(z)\leq 1/2$. Then the inner integral is equal to
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\int_0^{\varepsilon_0} x^{\alpha+\eta-1} a^{x} \, dx = \frac{1}{\left(\log\left(\frac{1}{a}\right)\right)^{\alpha+\eta-1}} \int_0^{\varepsilon_0} \left(\log\left(\frac{1}{a}\right)x\right)^{\alpha+\eta-1} e^{-\left(\log\left(\frac{1}{a}\right)x\right)} \, dx \\&=& \frac{1}{\left(\log\left(\frac{1}{a}\right)\right)^{\alpha+\eta}} \int_0^{\varepsilon_0\log\left(\frac{1}{a}\right)} s^{\alpha+\eta-1} e^{-s} \, ds.
\end{eqnarray*}
The last integral factor approaches $\Gamma(\alpha+\eta)$ uniformly on $\eta\in [0,1]$ as $a \to 0$. The positive function $\phi: (0,1/2] \times [0,1] \to \text{\sets R}$,
\[
\phi(a,\eta) := \frac{\left(\log\left(e + \frac{1}{a}\right)\right)^{\alpha+\eta}}{\left(\log\left(\frac{1}{a}\right)\right)^{\alpha+\eta}} \int_0^{\log\left(\frac{1}{a}\right)\varepsilon_0} s^{\alpha+\eta-1} e^{-s} \, ds,
\]
extends therefore to a continuous positive function on $[0,1/2]\times [0,1]$.
Therefore there is a positive constant $c>0$ so that for all $z$ we have
\[
\int_0^{\varepsilon_0} \varepsilon^{\alpha-1+\eta} (W(z))^{\varepsilon} d\varepsilon \geq \frac{c}{\left(\log\left(e + \frac{1}{W(z)}\right)\right)^{\alpha+\eta}}
\]
which finishes the proof.
\end{proof}
Theorem \ref{thm:main1} is obtained by applying Lemma \ref{le:apu3} in conjunction with inequality \eqref{eq:apu5} using the choices $W(z):=(1-|\mu(z)|)$ and $\alpha=4.$
\end{proof}
\noindent \textbf{Remark.} Generalizing Theorem \ref{thm:main1} for values $p \neq 1$ appears to require interpolating in Orlicz space settings instead of $L^2$ with suitable counterparts of Lemma \ref{le:yksi} and Lemma \ref{le:kaksi}. We have not attempted to carry out the necessary details for the generalisations since it would considerably increase the technicality of the paper.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{co:3}] Following the argument of the proof of Lemma \ref{le:kaksi} and keeping track of the dependence of constant factors, we obtain under the assumption \eqref{eq:fed} that instead of the result stated in Lemma \ref{le:kaksi} we obtain for general $p$ that
$$
\int_\mathbb{D} |Df|^2\log(e+|Df|)^{p-1}\log^{-\varepsilon}\big(e+|Df|\big) \leq C\varepsilon^{-(1+3p)}.
$$
Then, as before the statement follows by an application of Lemma \ref{le:apu3}.
\end{proof}
\textbf{Remark.}
We note that one may apply Lemma \ref{le:apu3} again directly on the result stated in Theorem \ref{thm:main1} and this yields that the integral
\begin{equation*}
\int_A \frac{1}{\log^{4+\varepsilon}\left(e+K_f\right)} |D f|^2
\end{equation*}
is bounded by $\frac{C}{\varepsilon}$. Thus taking $\alpha=1$ in Lemma \ref{le:apu3} we obtain a statement of the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:mfd4}
\int_\mathbb{A} \frac{1}{\log^{4}\left(e+K_f\right)(\log\log\left(10+K_f\right))^{1+\varepsilon}} |D f|^2 < \infty \qquad \textrm{for any}\quad \varepsilon>0\nonumber.
\end{equation}
An industrious reader may refine this result by iterating the lemma, obtaining estimates for weights with more iterations of logarithms.
\section{Decay of the Neumann series}\label{se:neumann}
For the proof of Lemma \ref{le:kaksi} we need quantitative versions of several auxiliary results in \cite{AGRS}. In this section we establish decay estimates for the Neumann series that suffice both for Theorem \ref{thm:main1} and for Theorem \ref{thm:main2}. Our proof follows rather closely the ideas of \cite{Da,AGRS} but keeping track of the dependence of the constants is somewhat non-trivial even in the case $\alpha=1$ which relates to that considered in \cite{Da,AGRS}.
The Beurling operator $\mathcal{S}$ is the singular integral
\[
\mathcal{S} \phi(z) := -\frac{1}{\pi} \int_{\text{\sets C}} \frac{\phi(\tau)}{(z-\tau)^2}d\tau .
\]
Recall that in the context of quasiconformal mappings, the classical Beltrami equation in $W^{1,2}_{loc} (\text{\sets C})$
\[
\overline{\partial} f (z) = \mu(z) \partial f(z)
\]
has a unique principal solution $f(z) = z + O(1/z)$ -- for this and other basic facts on quasiconformal maps we refer the reader to \cite{Ah,AIM}. We can use the identity $\partial f - 1 = \mathcal{S} ( \overline{\partial} f)$ to write the Beltrami equation equivalently for $\omega = \overline{\partial} f$
\[
\omega(z) = \mu(z)(\mathcal{S}\omega(z) + 1),
\]
which is solved by the Neumann series
\[
\omega = (\mathbb{I} - \mu\mathcal{S})^{-1} \mu = \mu + \mu \mathcal{S} \mu + \mu \mathcal{S} \mu \mathcal{S} \mu + \cdots.
\]
The series converges absolutely when $|\mu(z)| \leq k < 1$ almost everywhere because $\mathcal{S}$ is a unitary operator in $L^2(\text{\sets C})$. This is no longer true if only $|\mu(z)|<1$, but we have as substitute the estimates of Lemma \ref{le:Neumann}. We state here a refined (in the case $\alpha=1$) and generalized (for $\alpha>1$) version of \cite[Theorem 3.1]{AGRS} needed for our purposes. Its proof is adapted from the original proof in \cite{AGRS}.
\begin{lemma}\label{le:Neumann} Let $|\mu(z)| < 1$ almost everywhere, with $\mu(z) \equiv 0$ for $|z|>1$. Assume that the distortion function $K(z) = \frac{1+|\mu(z)|}{1-|\mu(z)|}$ satisfies
\[
e^{K^\alpha} \in L^p(\mathbb{D}), \quad\textrm{for some}\quad p > 0 \;\;\textrm{and}\;\;\alpha \geq 1
\]
In case $\alpha >1$ we have for every $p>0$ and $\beta\in [p/2,p)$
\[
\int_{\text{\sets C}} |(\mu \mathcal{S})^n \mu|^2 \leq C \exp\left( -2(\beta/2)^{1/\alpha}\frac{1}{1-1/\alpha}\big((n+\beta/4+1)^{1-1/\alpha}-(\beta/4+1)^{1-1/\alpha}\big)\right) , \quad n \in \text{\sets N},
\]
where by denoting $\delta:= \frac{(p-\beta)^2}{\beta(p+\beta)}$, \; $ \widetilde C:=\frac{8p}{p-\beta}\left( \int_\mathbb{D} e^{pK^\alpha}\right)^{(p-\beta)/2p},$ $b:=(\beta/2)^{1/\alpha}$, and\\ $B:=\max\Big(\frac{ b}{1-1/\alpha}\left((2b/\delta)^{\alpha-1}-(1+\beta/4)^{1-1/\alpha}\right),0\Big)$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:est1}
C:=(4\delta^{-2} \widetilde Ce^{2B}+1).
\end{equation}
In the case $\alpha=1$ one instead has
\[
\int_{\text{\sets C}} |(\mu \mathcal{S})^n \mu|^2 \leq C_0 \Big(\frac{n+\beta/4+1}{\beta/4+1}\Big)^{-\beta} , \quad n \in \text{\sets N},
\]
where
\begin{equation}\label{eq:est2}
C_0:=12^{\beta+3}(p/\beta-1)^{-(5+2\beta)}\left( \int_\mathbb{D} e^{pK}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}(1-\beta/p)}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We first note that a simple computation shows that the case $\alpha=1$ follows from the case $\alpha>1$ by first assuming that $\|\mu\|_\infty <1$ and letting $\alpha\to 1^{+}$ in estimate \eqref{eq:est1}. Hence we may assume that $\alpha >1$ and start by fixing
$0 < \beta < p$. For $n \in \text{\sets N}$ divide the unit disk into two sets
\[
B_n = \left\lbrace z \in \mathbb{D} : |\mu(z)| > 1 - \frac{2\beta^{1/\alpha}}{(4n)^{1/\alpha} + \beta^{1/\alpha}} \right\rbrace
\]
and
\[
G_n = \mathbb{D} \setminus B_n.
\]
By Chebychev's inequality,
\[
|B_n| \leq \Big(\int_{\mathbb{D}} e^{pK^\alpha}\Big) e^{-4np/\beta}.
\]
The terms of the Neumann series $\psi_n = (\mu \mathcal{S})^n \mu$ and the auxiliary terms $g_n$ are obtained inductively
\[
\psi_n = \mu \mathcal{S}(\psi_{n-1}), \qquad \psi_0 = \mu
\]
and
\[
g_n = \chi_{G_n} \mu \mathcal{S}(g_{n-1}), \qquad g_0 = \mu.
\]
For $g_n$ we can estimate by using the fact that $\mathcal{S}$ is $L^2$-isometry to see that
\[
\|g_n\|_{L^2}^2 = \int_{G_n} |\mu S(g_{n-1})|^2 \leq \left( 1 - \frac{2\beta^{1/\alpha}}{(4n)^{1/\alpha} + \beta^{1/\alpha}} \right)^2 \|g_{n-1}\|_{L^2}^2,
\]
and therefore
\[
\|g_n\|_{L^2} \leq \prod_{j=1}^n \left( 1 - \frac{2\beta^{1/\alpha}}{(4j)^{1/\alpha} + \beta^{1/\alpha}} \right)\|g_0\|_{L^2} = \exp\left(\sum_{j=1}^n \log\left( 1 - \frac{2\beta^{1/\alpha}}{(4j)^{1/\alpha} + \beta^{1/\alpha}} \right) \right) \|\mu\|_{L^2}.
\]
As $\log(1-x) \leq -x $ for $x<1$, and $\|\mu\|_{L^2} \leq \sqrt{\pi}$, it follows that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|g_n\|_{L^2} &\leq& \exp\left(-2^{1-2/\alpha}\beta^{1/\alpha}\sum_{j=1}^n \frac{1}{j^{1/\alpha} + (\beta/4)^{1/\alpha}} \right) \pi^{1/2}\\
&\leq& \exp\left(-2^{-1/\alpha}\beta^{1/\alpha}\sum_{j=1}^n \frac{1}{(j+\beta/4)^{1/\alpha}} \right) \pi^{1/2},
\end{eqnarray*}
where we applied the inequality $(j)^{1/\alpha} + (\beta/4)^{1/\alpha}\leq 2^{1-1/\alpha}(j+\beta/4)^{1/\alpha}.$
The sum inside the exponential can be estimated by an integral
\begin{align}\label{eq:integral}
\sum_{j=1}^n \frac{1}{(j+\beta/4)^{1/\alpha}} \geq \int_{1}^{n+1} \frac{dx}{(x+\beta/4)^{1/\alpha} }
= \frac{(n+1+\beta/4)^{1-1/\alpha}-(1+\beta/4)^{1-1/\alpha}}{(1-1/\alpha)} ,
\end{align}
so that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:aa}
\|g_n\|_{L^2} \leq \exp \left( -2^{-1/\alpha}\beta^{1/\alpha} \frac{(n+1+\beta/4)^{1-1/\alpha}-(1+\beta/4)^{1-1/\alpha}}{1-1/\alpha} \right).
\end{equation}
The difference of $\psi_n$ and $g_n$ is
\[
\psi_n-g_n = \chi_{G_n} \mu \mathcal{S}(\psi_{n-1}-g_{n-1}) + \chi_{B_n} \mu \mathcal{S}(\psi_{n-1}).
\]
For the norms, this gives
\[
\|\psi_n-g_n\|_{L^2} \leq \left(1- \frac{2\beta^{1/\alpha}}{(4j)^{1/\alpha} + \beta^{1/\alpha}} \right) \|\psi_{n-1}-g_{n-1}\|_{L^2}+ \sqrt{R(n)}
\]
with
\[
R(n) = \|\chi_{B_n} \mu \mathcal{S}(\psi_{n-1})\|_{L^2}^2 = \int_{B_n} |(\mu \mathcal{S})^n\mu|^2.
\]
By induction and estimating like in \eqref{eq:integral} we deduce
\begin{align}\label{eq:a}
\|\psi_n-g_n\|_{L^2} &\leq \left(1- \frac{2\beta^{1/\alpha}}{(4n)^{1/\alpha} + \beta^{1/\alpha}} \right) \|\psi_{n-1}-g_{n-1}\|_{L^2}+ \sqrt{R(n)}\nonumber\\
& \leq \sum_{j=1}^n \sqrt{R(j)} \prod_{k=j+1}^n \left(1- \frac{2\beta^{1/\alpha}}{(4k)^{1/\alpha} + \beta^{1/\alpha}} \right)\nonumber\\
&= \sum_{j=1}^n \sqrt{R(j)} \exp\left(\sum_{k=j+1}^n \log \left(1- \frac{2\beta^{1/\alpha}}{(4k)^{1/\alpha} + \beta^{1/\alpha}} \right)\right)\nonumber\\
& \leq \sum_{j=1}^n \sqrt{R(j)} \exp\left(-2^{1-2/\alpha}\beta^{1/\alpha} \sum_{k=j+1}^n \frac{1}{k^{1/\alpha}+(\beta/4)^{1/\alpha}}\right)\nonumber\\
& \leq \sum_{j=1}^n \sqrt{R(j)}\exp\left( -2^{-1/\alpha}\beta^{1/\alpha} \frac{(n+1+\beta/4)^{1-1/\alpha}-(j+1+\beta/4)^{1-1/\alpha}}{1-1/\alpha} \right)\nonumber\\
& = \exp\left( -2^{-1/\alpha}\beta^{1/\alpha}\frac{1}{1-1/\alpha}\big((n+1)^{1-1/\alpha}-(1+\beta/4)^{1-1/\alpha}\big)\right) \times
\nonumber
\\& \times\sum_{j=1}^{n} \exp\left(2^{-1/\alpha}\beta^{1/\alpha}\frac{1}{1-1/\alpha}\big((j+1+\beta/4)^{1-1/\alpha}-(1+\beta/4)^{1-1/\alpha}\big)\right) \sqrt{R(j)}.
\end{align}
We next recall that in \cite{AGRS} the Astala area distortion result $|f^\lambda(E)|\leq \pi M|E|^{1/M}$ for quasiconformal maps was used to estimate $R(n)$ by considering the solution $f = f^\lambda$ to the Beltrami equation
\[
\overline{\partial}f = \lambda \mu \partial f,
\]
with $|\lambda|<1$ via expressing the term $(\mu \mathcal{S})^n \mu$ of the Neumann series
$
\overline{\partial}f^\lambda = \sum_{n=0}^\infty \lambda^{n+1} (\mu \mathcal{S})^n \mu.
$
by a Cauchy integral
\[
(\mu \mathcal{S})^n \mu = \frac{1}{2\pi i} \int_{|\lambda|= \rho} \frac{1}{\lambda^{n+2}} \overline{\partial}f^\lambda d\lambda,
\]
multiplying by the characteristic function $\chi_{B_n}$ and by forcing the Jabobian to appear under the integral. This yielded (see \cite[p. 8]{AGRS}) for any $\mu$ with just $\|\mu\|_\infty \leq 1$, any $M > 1$, and any $E\subset \mathbb{D}$
the general estimates
\begin{align}\label{eq:old}
\|\chi_{E}\psi_{n}\|^2_{L^2}
&\leq \pi \left( \frac{M+1}{M-1} \right)^{2n} \frac{(M+1)^2}{4}|E|^{1/M}\qquad\textrm{and}
\end{align}
\begin{align}\label{eq:old'}
\|\chi_{E} \mathcal{S}(\psi_{n})\|^2_{L^2}
&\leq \pi \left( \frac{M+1}{M-1} \right)^{2n+2} \frac{(M+1)^2}{4}|E|^{1/M}.
\end{align}
Choosing $E=B_n$ this yields
\begin{align*}
\sqrt{R(n)}
&\leq \sqrt{\pi} \left( \frac{M+1}{M-1} \right)^{n} \frac{(M+1)}{2}|B_n|^{1/2M}\\
&\leq \sqrt{\pi} \left( \frac{M+1}{M-1} \right)^{n} \frac{(M+1)}{2}\left( \int_\mathbb{D} e^{pK^\alpha} \right)^{1/2M}e^{-2np/(\beta M)}.
\end{align*}
In our situation we may actually slightly improve this by invoking the Eremenko and Hamilton form of the area distortion estimate stating for any measurable $E \subset \mathbb{D}$ the inequality
\begin{equation}\label{eq:area_old}
|g(E)| \leq M^{1/M}\pi^{1-1/M}|E|^{1/M} \leq \pi e^{1/(\pi e)} |E|^{1/M}.
\end{equation}
This leads to
\begin{align*}
\sqrt{R(n)} & \leq \sqrt{\pi} e^{1/(2\pi e)} \left( \frac{M+1}{M-1} \right)^{n} \sqrt{\frac{(M+1)^2}{4M}}\left( \int_\mathbb{D} e^{pK^\alpha} \right)^{1/2M}e^{-2np/(\beta M)}.
\end{align*}
We want to choose $M>1$ in order to force $R(n)$ to decay exponentially. For that we need to have
\[
\log\left( \frac{M+1}{M-1} \right) - \frac{2}{M} \frac{p}{\beta} \leq-\delta < 0.
\]
Choose $M=2p/(p-\beta)$ and estimate
\begin{align*}
\log\left( \frac{M+1}{M-1} \right) - \frac{2}{M} \frac{p}{\beta} &\leq \frac{2}{M-1} - \frac{2}{M} \frac{p}{\beta}
= \frac{2(p-\beta)}{p+\beta} - \frac{2(p-\beta)}{2\beta}\\
&= -\frac{(p-\beta)^2}{\beta(p+\beta)}
\;\; =:\;-\delta.
\end{align*}
Noting that $\frac{(M+1)^2}{4M}\leq M$ and $ \sqrt{\pi} e^{1/(2\pi e)} \leq 2$ this yields
\begin{equation}\label{eq:R}
\sqrt{R(n)} \leq \widetilde C e^{-\delta n}\qquad \textrm{with}\quad \widetilde C:= \sqrt{\frac{8p}{p-\beta}}\left( \int_\mathbb{D} e^{pK^\alpha}\right)^{(p-\beta)/4p}.\nonumber
\end{equation}
Hence, if we denote $b:=2^{-1/\alpha}\beta^{1/\alpha}$, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\sum_{j=1}^{n} \exp\left(2^{-1/\alpha}\beta^{1/\alpha}\frac{1}{1-1/\alpha}\Big((j+1+\beta/4)^{1-1/\alpha}-(1+\beta/4)^{1-1/\alpha}\Big)\right) \sqrt{R(j)}\\
&\leq& \widetilde Ce^{\widetilde B}\sum_{j=1}^\infty e^{-j\delta/2}\;\leq\; 2\delta^{-1} \widetilde Ce^{\widetilde B},
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\widetilde B:=\sup_{j\geq 1}\Big(\frac{b}{1-1/\alpha}\big((j+1+\beta/4)^{1-1/\alpha}-(1+\beta/4)^{1-1/\alpha}\big)-(\delta/2)j\Big).$ An elementary computation where one simply differentiates with respect to $j$ shows that
$$
\widetilde B\leq B:=\max\Big(\frac{ b}{1-1/\alpha}\left((2b/\delta)^{\alpha-1}-(1+\beta/4)^{1-1/\alpha}\right),0\Big).
$$
In view of \eqref{eq:a} we then obtain
\begin{eqnarray*}\|\psi_n-g_n\|_{L^2} &\leq&
2\delta^{-1} \widetilde Ce^B\exp\left( -2^{-1/\alpha}\beta^{1/\alpha}\frac{1}{1-1/\alpha}\big((n+1+\beta/4)^{1-1/\alpha}-(\beta/4)^{1-1/\alpha}\big)\right).
\end{eqnarray*}
Together with \eqref{eq:aa} this proves the lemma.
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of Lemma \ref{le:kaksi} and Theorem \ref{thm:main2}}\label{sec:proofoflemma2}
We start with an area distortion result that generalizes \cite[Cor. 3.2 and Thm. 5.1]{AGRS} to the range $\alpha \geq1$. In case $\alpha=1$ we need to keep careful track of the constants, which is somewhat non-trivial in this situation, and hence for the readers sake we give the details here although the basic idea of the proof follows that in \cite{Da,AGRS}. Thus for $\alpha=1$ the novelty of the statement as compared to \cite[Thm 5.1]{AGRS} is in a precise estimation of the dependencies of the constant terms. This is a crucial technical ingredient needed for our main results.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:area} Let $\mu$ and $0<\beta < p$ and $f$ be as in Lemma \ref{le:Neumann}.
\smallskip
\noindent {\bf (i)}\quad
In case $\alpha>1$ we have the area distortion estimate
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ad1}
|f(E)|\leq c\exp\big(-c'\log^{1-1/\alpha}(e+1/|E|)\big)
\end{equation}
with some constants $c,c'>0$.
\smallskip
\noindent {\bf (ii)}\quad
In case $\alpha=1$, under the additional assumption $1/2<\beta<p<4$, it holds that
\begin{equation}
|f(E)| \;\leq\; A_2|E|^{\frac{\delta}{24}}+ A_2\delta^{-3\beta}\log^{-\beta}(e
+1/|E|)\left( \int_\mathbb{D} e^{pK}\right)^{1/2}, \qquad E \subset \mathbb{D},
\end{equation}
where we denoted $\delta:=p-\beta$ and $A_2$ is a universal constant.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{prop:area}]
We start by observing that our maps are Sobolev homeomorphisms that satisfy Lusin's condition $\mathcal{N}$. Especially, we obtain (using the notation of the previous section)
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:ukk}
|f(E)| &=& \int_E |\partial f|^2 - |\overline{\partial} f|^2 \leq 2|E|+2\int_E |\partial f-1|^2 = 2|E|+2\|\chi_E \big(\partial f-1\big)\|_2^2\\
&\leq & 2|E| +2\Big(\sum_{n=0}^\infty\|\chi_ES\psi_n\|_2\Big)^2.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
We estimate the last written sum in two parts, and fix to that end an index $m\geq 1$ that will be specified later on. First of all, using \eqref{eq:old} with $M=3$ yields
\begin{align}\label{eq:osayks}
\sum_{n=0}^{m-1} \|\chi_ES\psi_n\|_2 \leq \sum_{n=0}^{m-1} \sqrt{\pi} 2^{n+2} |E|^{1/6}
\leq 2^{m+3} |E|^{1/6}.
\end{align}
In case $\alpha >1$ we choose $\beta=p/2$ in Lemma \ref{le:Neumann} and obtain with small work the estimate
$$
\sum_{n=m}^{\infty} \|\chi_ES\psi_n\|_2\leq c_1\exp(-c_2m^{1-1/\alpha}).
$$
Here and later $c_j$:s are constants that may depend on $\beta,p,\alpha$, and whose exact value is of no interest to us. By choosing $m= \lfloor 2+\frac{1}{12\log 2}\log 1/|E| \rfloor$ we obtain in view of \eqref{eq:ukk} and the previous estimates
\begin{align*}
|f(E)|\leq 2|E|+c_3|E|^{1/12}+ 4c_1\exp\big(-c_4\log^{1-1/\alpha}(e+1/|E|)\big),
\end{align*}
which proves part (i).
In case (ii) we have $\alpha=1$. In this case we first assume that $2<\beta <p$ and an application of Lemma \ref{le:Neumann} yields in this case
\begin{align*}
\Big(\sum_{n=m}^{\infty} \|\chi_E\psi_n\mu\|_2\Big)^2\leq C_0 \left(\sum_{n=m}^{\infty} \Big(\frac{n+\beta/4+1}{\beta/4+1}\Big)^{-\beta/2}\right)^2\leq \frac{4C_0(\beta/4+1)^2}{(\beta-2)^2}\Big(\frac{m+\beta/4}{\beta/4+1}\Big)^{2-\beta}
\end{align*}
where the expression for the constant $C_0=C_0(\beta,p)$ is given in \eqref{eq:est2}. In view of \eqref{eq:osayks} we thus have
\[
|f(E)| \leq 2|E|+ 2^{2m+7} |E|^{1/3}+ \frac{8C_0(\beta/4+1)^2}{(\beta-2)^2}\Big(\frac{m+\beta/4}{\beta/4+1}\Big)^{2-\beta} .
\]
Choosing $m=\big\lceil\dfrac{1}{12\log 2}\log(1+1/|E|)\big\rceil$ and noting that $|E|\leq 4|E|^{1/6}$ and $12\log 2\leq 9$ yields
\begin{align}\label{eq:first area}
|f(E)|\leq 2000|E|^{1/6}+ \frac{8C_0(\beta/4+1)^2}{(\beta-2)^2}\Big(\frac{\log((1/|E|+1)^{1/9})+\beta/4}{1+\beta/4}\Big)^{2-\beta}
\end{align}
Our next step is to apply G. David's factorisation trick to improve the above bound and extend it to all values of $p$. We assume thus that $f$ is as in the statement of the proposition (with the general assumption $1/2<\beta<p<4$) and
recall from \cite{AGRS} that for any $M\geq 1$ we may factorise $f$ as $f = g \circ F$, where $g$ and $F$ are principal mappings, $g$ is $M$-quasiconformal and $F$ satisfies
\[
I_M:=\int_\mathbb{D} e^{pMK(z,F)} \leq e^M \int_\mathbb{D} e^{pK(z,f)}.
\]
Denote $\beta_0:=( p+\beta)/2$, and $M=2/(\beta_0-\beta)=4/(p-\beta)\geq 1$.
We will apply \eqref{eq:first area} with parameters $(M\beta_0,Mp)$ instead of $(\beta,p)$ in order to estimate $|F(E)|$. This is possible since by the assumption $p<4$ we have $2<2+\beta M=\beta_0M<pM$. Thus,
\[
|F(E)|\leq 2000|E|^{1/6}+ \frac{8C_0(M\beta_0,Mp,I_M)(M\beta_0/4+1)^2}{(M\beta_0-2)^2}\Big( \frac{\log((1+1/|E|)^{1/9})+M\beta_0/4}{1+M\beta_0/4}\Big)^{2-M\beta_0}.
\]
Above the notation $C_0(M\beta_0,Mp,I_M)$ recalls the dependences of the constant $C_0$.
As $g$ is a principal quasiconformal mapping, we obtain from the standard area distortion estimate \eqref{eq:area_old}
$$
|f(E)| = |g \circ F(E)| \leq 4|F(E)|^{1/M} .
$$
By noting that $2-M\beta_0=-M\beta$, and $M\beta_0/4= \frac{1}{2}\frac{p+\beta}{p-\beta}>(p/\beta-1)^{-1}$, combing the last two inequalities leads to
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:uuu}
&&|f(E)|
\;\leq\; 8000|E|^{1/6M}+\nonumber\\
&&+ 4\cdot8^{1/M}\Big(\frac{C_0(M\beta_0,Mp,I_m)(M\beta_0/4+1)^2}{(M\beta)^2}\Big)^{1/M}\Big( \frac{(\log(1+1/|E|))^{1/6}+(p/\beta-1)^{-1}}{1+(p/\beta-1)^{-1}}\Big)^{-\beta}.
\end{eqnarray}
Here, since $Mp/M\beta_0-1= (p-\beta)/(p+\beta)\geq (p-\beta)/2p$ and $(p/\beta_0-1)/2M\leq 1/2$ we obtain by recalling \eqref{eq:est2} and easy estimates
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&8^{1/M}\Big(\frac{C_0(M\beta_0,Mp,I_m)(M\beta_0/4+1)^2}{(M\beta)^2}\Big)^{1/M} \; \leq\;
A_1(p/\beta-1)^{-2\beta}\left( \int_\mathbb{D} e^{pK}\right)^{1/2},
\end{eqnarray*}
where $A_1$ is an absolute constant. In the simplification we applied our assumption on the range of $p$ and $\beta$ and observed that $(p-\beta)^{-(p-\beta)}$ has a universal upper bound. We also observe in \eqref{eq:uuu} that $(p/\beta-1)^\beta$ has a universal upper bound, and by increasing $A_1$ we may replace $\log(1+1/|E|)^{1/6}$ by $\log(1+1/|E|)$. In addition, in our situation $p/\beta-1\asymp (p-\beta)$. Combining these estimates
completes the proof of part (ii).
\end{proof}
We then turn to the goals stated in the title of this section. As expected, we will first estimate the integrability of the Jacobian using the estimates for area-distortion we just proved. For that purpose we will first state a general lemma that yields (essentially optimal) integrability estimates from estimates of area distortion.
\begin{lemma}\label{le:HLP} Assume that $f$ is a principal mapping of finite distortion and $g:[0,\pi)\to [0,\infty)$ is concave with $g(0)=0$, satisfying for any measurable subsets $E\subset B(0,1)$ the area distortion estimate
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ad}
|f(E)|\leq g(|E|).
\end{equation}
Then for any convex and increasing $H$ on $[0,\infty)$ it holds that
$$
\int_{B(0,1)}H(J_f(z))dA(z)\leq \int_0^{\pi}H(g'(t))dt.
$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Let us denote by $h:(0,\pi)\to \text{\sets R}_+$ the decreasing rearrangement of $J_f$. By assuming first that $g$ is differentiable on $(0,\pi)$, our assumption may be rewritten as
$$
\int_0^xh(t)dt\leq \int_0^xg'(t)dt\qquad\textrm{for all} \;\,x\in (0,\pi).
$$
The statement now follows from a continuous version of the Hardy-Littlewood P\'olya (or Karamata) inequality, see \cite[Theorem 2.1]{C} or \cite{HLP}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main2}] It follows from Lemma \ref{le:HLP} and Proposition \ref{prop:area}(i) that in our situation the higher integrability of $J_f$ is at least as good as that of the derivative $h'$ on the interval $(0,\pi)$ where
$$
h(x):=\exp\big(-c'\log^{1-1/\alpha}(e+1/x)\big) $$
on the interval $(0,\pi)$. Namely, $h$ is clearly decreasing near the origin which is enough for us in order to apply Lemma \ref{le:HLP}. We may safely leave to the reader to check that $\phi(h')$ is integrable near the origin with $\phi(y):=y\exp(\log^\beta (e+y))$ for $\beta<1-1/\alpha.$ In other words, we have
\begin{equation*}\label{eq:alpha_jacob}
\int_\mathbb{D} J_f\exp(\log^\beta (e+J_f))<\infty \qquad\textrm{for}\quad \beta<1-\alpha^{-1}.
\end{equation*}
By recalling that $|Df|^2=KJ_f$, the stated integrability of the derivative follows immediately by the elementary inequality
$$
xy\exp\big(\log^{\beta'} (e+xy)\big)\leq C\Big(\exp(px^{\alpha})+ y\exp\big(\log^\beta (e+y)\big)\Big), \qquad x,y\geq 1.
$$
for any $0<\beta'<\beta<1$ and $p>0$, and where $C=C(p,\beta,\beta',\alpha).$ The latter inequality follows easily by examining separately the cases $x<\exp((1/2)\log^\beta(e+y))$ and $x\geq\exp((1/2)\log^\beta(e+y))$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{le:kaksi}]
Easy estimates that just apply differentiation show that the function
$$
x\mapsto (1+\delta\log(1+1/x))^{-\beta}
$$
is concave for $x>0$ as soon as $\delta <(1+\beta)^{-1}$, which in our situation holds at least if $\delta<1/5.$ We now fix $p=1+2\varepsilon$, $\beta=1+\varepsilon$, with $\varepsilon\in (0,1/10)$ in Proposition \ref{prop:area} (ii) and note that Lemma \ref{le:HLP} yields the integrability
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_\mathbb{D} J(z,f) \log(e + J(z,f)) \leq \int_0^\pi h'(x)\log(e + h'(x))dx,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $h(x):= A_2x^{\frac{\varepsilon}{24}}+ A_2\varepsilon^{-3-3\varepsilon}\Big(\log(1+1/x)\Big)^{-1-\varepsilon}\left( \int_\mathbb{D} e^{pK}\right)^{1/2}$ . Hence, if we denote $A_3:=A'_2\left( \int_\mathbb{D} e^{pK}\right)^{1/2}$ with another universal constant $A'_2$ we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
&h'(x)\le &A_3 \bigg(\varepsilon x^{-1+\frac{\varepsilon}{24}}+\frac{\varepsilon^{-3}}{x}\Big(\log(1+1/x)\Big)^{-2-\varepsilon} \bigg),
\end{eqnarray*}
Obviously $\log h'(x)\leq \log (A_3)+3\log(1/\varepsilon)+ 3\log(10/ x),$
so that noting that $\int_0^\pi h'(x)dx =h(\pi)\leq 10A_3\varepsilon^{-3}$ we obtain that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_\mathbb{D} J(z,f) \log(e + J(z,f)) &\leq &\int_0^\pi h'(x)\log(e + h'(x))dx\\
&\leq &10A_3\varepsilon^{-3}\big( \log (A_3)+\log(1/\varepsilon)\big)\\
& & \,+\,3A_3\int_0^\pi \bigg(\varepsilon x^{-1+\frac{\varepsilon}{24}}+\frac{\varepsilon^{-3}}{x}\Big(\log(1+1/x)\Big)^{-2-\varepsilon} \bigg)\log(10/x)dx\\
&\leq& A_3\log(A_3)10^6\varepsilon^{-4}.
\end{eqnarray*}
In the estimation of the last written integral we noted that $\int_0^\pi\varepsilon x^{-1+\frac{\varepsilon}{100}}\log(10/x)dx\leq 10^5\varepsilon^{-1}$ and estimated the second integral from the above by
$
2\log (20)\Big(\varepsilon^{-3}\int_0^{1/2}\log(1/x)^{-1-\varepsilon}\frac{dx}{x}+ 3\varepsilon^{-3} )\leq 40\varepsilon^{-4}.
$
We next note the well-known inequality stating that for any $\varepsilon\in (0,1)$ and reals $x,y>0$ it holds that
\[
xy \leq x \log(e+x) + e^{(1+\varepsilon) y}
\]
(one simply checks that is true for $\varepsilon=0$). The choice $x=J_j(z)$, $y=K:=K_f(z)$, and integration over $\mathbb{D}$ finally yields that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:crucial}
\int_\mathbb{D} |Df|^2 &\leq& A_4 \left( \int_\mathbb{D} e^{(1+\varepsilon)K}\right)^{1/2}\log \left( \int_\mathbb{D} e^{(1+\varepsilon)K}\right) \varepsilon ^{-4} + \int_\mathbb{D} e^{(1+\varepsilon)K}
\leq
A_5 \varepsilon ^{-4}\int_\mathbb{D} e^{(1+\varepsilon)K},
\end{eqnarray}
where $A_4,A_5$ are universal constants.
We are now ready to complete the proof of Lemma \ref{le:kaksi}. To that end we need to establish for any $w$ with $\Re w = 1$ the key estimate
\[
\int_{\mathbb{D}} | g_w|^2 \leq \frac{C}{\varepsilon^4},
\]
with constant $C$ does not depend on $\varepsilon$. Note that
this estimate implies the bound $M_1 \leq \frac{C_1}{\varepsilon^{2}}$ for some constant $C_1$. Moreover, estimating the integrability of $|g_w|$ reduces to that of $|\partial(f_w)|$ because $|g_w|=|\partial(f_w)|$ a.e. since we have $\Re w = 1.$
Let us first estimate the distortion $K(z,f_w)$.
Assume that $\varepsilon\in (0,1/2)$ and consider the function $r(x):=1-x^{1+\varepsilon}-(1+\varepsilon/2)(1-x).$ We claim that $r(x)\geq 0$ for $x\in [1/2,1]$. As $r$ is concave with $r(1)=0$ and $r'(1)=-\varepsilon/2 <0$, it is enough to check that $r(1/2)\geq 0, $ or equivalently that
$1+\varepsilon/2\leq 2-2^{-\varepsilon}$. In turn this follows from the concavity of $\varepsilon\mapsto R(\varepsilon):=2-2^{-\varepsilon}-(1+\varepsilon/2)$ and by noting that $R(0)=R(1/2)=0$.
We thus have that $1-|\nu(z)|^{1+\varepsilon}\geq (1+\varepsilon/2)(1-|\nu(z)|)$ assuming that $|\nu(z)|\geq 1/2$, and we may estimate the distortion as follows:
\begin{align*}
K(z,f_w) &= \frac{1+|\nu(z)|^{1+\varepsilon}}{1-|\nu(z)|^{1+\varepsilon}} = -1 + \frac{2}{1-|\nu(z)|^{1+\varepsilon}} \leq -1 + \frac{2}{\min((1+\varepsilon/2)(1-|\nu(z)|),1-1/2^{1+\varepsilon})}\\
& \leq -1 + \frac{2}{(1+\varepsilon/2)(1-|\nu(z)|)} + \frac{2}{1-1/2^{1+\varepsilon}} \leq 3 + \frac{2}{(1+\varepsilon/2)(1-|\nu(z)|)} \\
&= \frac{1}{1+\varepsilon/2} \left( -1 + \frac{2}{1-|\nu(z)|} \right) + 3 + \frac{1}{1+\varepsilon/2} \leq \frac{K(z,f)}{1+\varepsilon/2} + 4.
\end{align*}
It follows that $\int_{\mathbb{D}} e^{(1+\varepsilon/2)K(z,f_w)} \leq \int_{\mathbb{D}} e^{K(z,f)+4+2\varepsilon} \leq e^{5}\int_{\mathbb{D}} e^{K(z,f)}$.
In conclusion, an application of inequality \eqref{eq:crucial} (with $\varepsilon/4$ in place of $\varepsilon$) yields the desired uniform bound
\[
\int_{\mathbb{D}} |\partial(f_w)|^2 \leq \int_{\mathbb{D}} |Df_w|^2 \leq \frac{C}{\varepsilon^4}.
\]
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{th:radial}}\label{se:radialproof}
Throughout this section we assume that $f:\mathbb{D}\to\mathbb{D}$ is a radial homeomorphism of the form
$$
f(z)=\frac{z}{|z|}\phi(z),
$$
where $\phi:[0,1]\to[0,1]$ is an increasing homeomorphism. We also assume that $f$ is a map with exponentially integrable distortion (satisfying \eqref{eq:fed}). By the Lusin condition this implies that $\phi$ is absolutely continuous, and the assumed exponential integrability of $K_f$ can expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:ehto2}
\int_0^1\Big(e^{p\frac{r\phi'(r)}{\phi(r)}}+e^{p\frac{\phi(r)}{r\phi(r)}}\Big)rdr =C_0<\infty.
\end{eqnarray}
Our aim is to first prove an area distortion estimate for these maps.
\begin{proposition}\label{pr:area3}
Let $f:\mathbb{D}\to\mathbb{D}$ be a radial homeomorphism of exponentially integrable distortion $($see \eqref{eq:fed}$)$. Then for any measurable subset $E\subset \mathbb{D}$.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:area3}
|f(E)|\leq C\big(\log(1+1/|E|)\big)^{-p}.\nonumber
\end{equation}
The constant $C=C(p,C_0)$ is uniform for fixed $C_0$ and $p\in[1,2].$
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We shall denote by $C$ constants whose actual size if of no interest to us, and their value may change from line to line. We call the set $E\subset \mathbb{D}$ `radial' if one has that $z\in E$ if and only if $ |z|\in E$.
By a standard approximation argument it is enough to prove the claim in the case where $E$ is a disjoint union of sets of the form $\{a<|z|<b,\; \alpha_0<{\rm arg}(z)<\alpha_1\}$, and this case is easily reduced to the case of radial sets. Thus, we may assume that $E=\{|z|\in F,\}$ where $F\subset (0,1)$ is a disjoint union of open intervals.
For $n=1,2,\ldots$ we denote the dyadic annuli $A_n:=\{2^{-n}\leq |z|\leq 2^{1-n}\}.$ Our first goal is to estimate $\phi(r)$ from the above. To that end, fix $n\geq 1$ and note that by \eqref{eq:ehto2} and Jensen's inequality applied on the probability measure $r^{-1}dr$ on $(e^{-n}, e^{1-n})$ and on the convex function $x\mapsto e^{p/x}$ yields
\begin{eqnarray*}
\log\big(\phi(e^{1-n})/\phi(e^{-n})\big) &=&\int_{e^{-n}}^{e^{1-n}}\frac{r\phi'(r)}{\phi(r)}\frac{dr}{r}\geq p\left(\log\left(\int_{e^{-n}}^{e^{1-n}}\exp\bigg(p\frac{\phi(r)}{r\phi'(r)}\bigg)\frac{dr}{r}\right)\right)^{-1}\\
&\geq&p\left(\log\left(e^{2n}\int_{e^{-n}}^{e^{1-n}}\exp\bigg(p\frac{\phi(r)}{r\phi'(r)}\bigg)rdr\right)\right)^{-1}\\
&\geq & \frac{p}{\log C_0+2n}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Applying this for first $n$ annuli yields
\begin{equation}\label{eq:obtain1}
\phi(e^{-n})\leq \exp \left(\sum_{k=1}^n\frac{p}{\log C_0+2n}\right)\leq Cn^{-p/2}.
\end{equation}
We next produce a very crude estimate of area distortion for radial sets $E\subset A_n$. Write $E=\{|z|\in F,\}$ where $F\subset (e^{-n},e^{1-n})$ and note that $|F|\leq e^n|E|.$ Let us observe first that \eqref{eq:ehto2}, Jensen's inequality and the convexity of the map $x\mapsto\exp(p\sqrt{x+1})$ on $[0,\infty)$ yield that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_{e^{-n}}^{e^{1-n}}\Big(\frac{r\phi'(r)}{\phi(r)}\Big)^2\frac{dr}{r}&\leq& \left(\frac{1}{p}\log\left(\int_{e^{-n}}^{e^{1-n}}\exp\bigg(p\sqrt{\Big(\frac{r\phi'(r)}{\phi(r)}\Big)^2+1}\bigg)\frac{dr}{r}\right)\right)^2-1\\
&\leq&\left(\frac{1}{p}\log\left(e^{2n}\int_{e^{-n}}^{e^{1-n}}\exp\bigg(p\frac{r\phi'(r)}{\phi(r)}+p\bigg)rdr\right)\right)^{2}-1\\
&\leq & p^{-2}(\log C_0+2n+p)^2\;\leq \; Cn^2.
\end{eqnarray*}
We may then compute using the above estimate, the bound \eqref{eq:obtain1} and Cauchy-Schwarz to obtain for radial subsets of $E\subset A_n$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:obtain2}
|f(E)|&=&2\pi \int_{F}\phi(r)\phi'(r)dr\leq 2\pi (\phi(e^{n+1}))^2\int_{F}\frac{r\phi'(r)}{\phi(r)}\frac{dr}{r}\nonumber\\
&\leq& \frac{C}{n^p} \sqrt{\int_{F}\frac{dr}{r}}\sqrt{\int_{e^{-n}}^{e^{1-n}}\Big(\frac{r\phi'(r)}{\phi(r)}\Big)^2\frac{dr}{r}}\nonumber\\
&\leq& \frac{C}{n^p} \sqrt{|F|}e^{n/2}n\; \leq Cn^{1-p}e^n\sqrt{E}.
\end{eqnarray}
We finally observe that in the general case we may assume that $|E|=e^{-4N}$ for some integer $N\geq 1$. By using the estimates \eqref{eq:obtain1} and \eqref{eq:obtain2} it follows that
\begin{eqnarray*}
|f(E)|&\leq& |f(\{ |z|\leq e^{-N}\})|+ \sum_{n=1}^{N}|f(E\cap A_n)|\leq \pi(\phi(e^{-N}))^2+C\sum_{n=1}^N
e^nn^{1-p}\sqrt{e^{-4N}}\\
& \leq & \frac{C}{N^p}+ Ne^{-N}
\leq \frac{C'}{4N^p},
\end{eqnarray*}
as was to be shown.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{th:radial}] One simply applies the area distortion estimate we just proved and obtains the analogue of \eqref{eq:crucial} now with term $1/\varepsilon$ instead of $1/\varepsilon^4$. The first part follows then directly from Lemma \ref{le:apu3}. Similarly, part (ii) follows by keeping the track of the dependence of constant factors under this area distortion estimate.
\end{proof}
\bibliographystyle{amsplain}
|
\section{Related Work}
Existing efforts to compress BERT model can be broadly categorized into four lines: knowledge distillation, parameter sharing, pruning and quantization.
For knowledge distillation based methods, in \cite{tang2019distilling}, BERT is distilled into a simple BiLSTM and achieves comparable results with ELMo.
A dual distillation is proposed to reduce the vocabulary size and the embedding size in \cite{zhao2019extreme}.
PKD-BERT \cite{sun2019patient} and DistilBERT \cite{sanh2019distilbert} distill BERT into shallow Transformers in the fine-tune stage and the pre-train stage respectively.
TinyBERT \cite{jiao2019tinybert} further distills BERT with a two-stage knowledge distillation.
For parameter sharing based methods, the multi-head attention is compressed into a tensorized Transformer in \cite{ma2019tensorized}.
AlBERT \cite{lan2019albert} leverages cross-layer parameter sharing to speed up the training.
Different from these existing methods, the proposed AdaBERT incorporates both task-oriented knowledge distillation and efficiency factor, and automatically compresses BERT into task-adaptive small structures instead of a task-independent structure in existing methods.
For pruning and quantization based methods, \cite{Michel2019aresixteen} and \cite{wang2019structured} prune attention heads and weight matrices respectively.
Q8BERT \cite{zafrir2019q8bert} quantizes matrix multiplication operations into 8-bit operations, while Q-BERT \cite{shen2019qbert} quantizes BERT with Hessian based mix-precision.
These methods and the proposed AdaBERT compress BERT from different aspects that are complementary, that is, one can first distill BERT into a small model, and then prune or quantize the small model.
\section{Methodology}
\label{sec:method}
\subsection{Overview}
\begin{figure}[tp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{fig/overview-single.pdf}
\caption{The overview of AdaBERT.}
\label{fig:overview}
\end{figure}
As shown in Figure \ref{fig:overview}, we aim to compress a given large BERT model into an effective and efficient task-adaptive model for a specific task. The structures of the compressed models are searched in a differentiable manner with the help of task-oriented knowledge from the large BERT model while taking the model efficiency into consideration.
Formally, let's denote a BERT model fine-tuned on the target data $\mathcal{D}_t$ as $BERT_t$, an architecture searching space as $\mathcal{A}$. Our task is to find an optimal architecture $\alpha \in \mathcal{A}$ by minimizing the following loss function:
\begin{equation}
\label{equ:overall-loss}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L} = & (1-\gamma) \mathcal{L}_{CE}(\alpha, w_\alpha, \mathcal{D}_t)~ + \\ &\gamma \mathcal{L}_{KD}(\alpha, w_\alpha, BERT_t) + \beta\mathcal{L}_{E}(\alpha),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $w_\alpha$ is the trainable network weights of the architecture $\alpha$ (e.g., weights of a feed forward layer), $\mathcal{L}_{CE}$, $\mathcal{L}_{KD}$, and $\mathcal{L}_E$ are losses for the target task, task-oriented knowledge distillation and efficiency respectively. Specifically, $\mathcal{L}_{CE}$ is the cross-entropy loss w.r.t. labels from the target data $\mathcal{D}_t$, $\mathcal{L}_{KD}$ is the task-oriented knowledge distillation (KD) loss that provides hints to find suitable structures for the task, and $\mathcal{L}_E$ is the efficiency-aware term to provide constraints to help search lightweight and efficient structures. $\gamma$ and $\beta$ are hyper-parameters to balance these loss terms.
\subsection{Search Space $\mathcal{A}$}
\label{sec:space}
Most neural architecture search methods focus on cell-based micro search space \cite{zoph2017neural,pham2018efficient,liu2019darts}.
That is, the searching target is a cell and the network architecture is stacked by the searched cell over pre-defined $K_{max}$ layers, where the cell structure parameter $\alpha_c$ is shared for all layers.
In this work, we consider a \textit{macro search space} over the entire network to enhance the structure exploration.
Specifically, besides for searching shared cell parameter $\alpha_c$ for stacking, we also search the number of stacking layers $K \in [1, 2, \dots, K_{max}]$.
The $K$ is crucial for finding a trade-off between model expressiveness and efficiency, as a larger $K$ leads to higher model capacity but slower inference.
\begin{figure}[]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.64\linewidth]{fig/search-space-small.pdf}
\caption{Search space including stacked layers and stacked cells.}
\label{fig:search-space}
\end{figure}
As depicted in Figure \ref{fig:search-space}, the searched cell is represented as a directed acyclic graph.
Each node within the cell indicates a latent state $h$ and the edge from node $i$ to node $j$ indicates operation $o_{i,j}$ that transforms $h_i$ to $h_j$.
For the cell at $k$-th layer ($k > 1$), we define two input nodes $c_{k-2}$ and $c_{k-1}$ as layer-wise residual connections, and an output node $c_{k}$ that is obtained by attentively summarized over all the intermediate nodes.
For the cell at first layer, node $0$ and node $1$ are task-dependent input embeddings.
Formally, let's denote $\mathcal{O}$ as the set of candidate operations. We assume a topological order among $N$ intermediate nodes, i.e., $o_{i,j} \in \mathcal{O}$ exists when $i < j$ and $j > 1$, and the search space $\alpha$ can be formalized as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\alpha &= \{K, \alpha_c\}, ~~ K \leq K_{max}, \\
\alpha_c &=[o_{0,2}, o_{1,2}, \dots, o_{i,j}, \dots,
o_{N+1,N+2}].
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Task-oriented Knowledge Distillation}
\label{sec:knowledge loss}
To encourage the learned structure to be suitable for the target task, we introduce the task-oriented knowledge distillation loss, denoted as $\mathcal{L}_{KD}$ in Equation (\ref{equ:overall-loss}), to guide the structure search process.
\paragraph{Task-useful Knowledge Probe.}
We leverage a set of probe classifiers to hierarchically decompose the task-useful knowledge from the teacher model $BERT_t$, and then distill the knowledge into the compressed model.
Specifically, we freeze the parameters of $BERT_t$, and train a Softmax probe classifier for each hidden layer w.r.t. the ground-truth task labels. In total we have $J$ classifiers, ($J=12$ in BERT-base), and the classification logits of $j$-th classifier can be regarded as the learned knowledge from $j$-th layer.
Given an input instance $m$, denote $C_{j,m}^T$ as the hidden representation from the $j$-th layer of $BERT_t$, $C_{i,m}^S$ as the attentively summed hidden state on $i$-th layer of the compressed student model,
we distill the task-useful knowledge (classification logits) as:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{KD}^{i,m} = -P^T_j(C_{j,m}^T) \cdot log(P^S_i(C_{i,m}^S)/T),
\end{equation}
where $T$ is the temperature value, $P^T_j$ is the $j$-th teacher probe classifier, $P^S_i$ is the trainable student probe on $i$-th layer of the compressed model. Clearly ${L}_{KD}^{i,m}$ represents the mastery degree of teacher knowledge from the $i$-th layer of the compressed model, i.e., how similar are the logits of the two models predict for the same input $m$.
Here we set $j$ to be proportional to the layers of the two models, i.e., $j = \lceil i\times J/K \rceil $, such that the compressed model can learn the decomposed knowledge smoothly and hierarchically.
\paragraph{Attentive Hierarchical Transfer.}
The usefulness of each layer of BERT is varied for different tasks as shown in \cite{liu2019linguistic}.
Here we attentively combine the decomposed knowledge for all layers as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{KD} &= \sum_{m=0}^{M}\sum_{i=1}^{K} w_{i,m} \cdot \mathcal{L}_{KD}^{i,m}, \\
w_{i,m} &= \frac{\exp[y_m \cdot logP^T_j(C_{j,m}^S)]}{\sum_{i'} \exp[y_m \cdot logP^T_{j'}(C_{j',m}^S)]},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $M$ is the total number of training instances, $y_m$ is the label of instance $m$. $w_{i,m}$ is set as the normalized weight according to the negative cross-entropy loss of the teacher probe $P^T_j$, so that probe classifiers making preciser predictions (smaller loss) gain higher weights.
Besides, to enrich task-useful knowledge, we perform data augmentation on target task datasets with the augmentation process used in \cite{jiao2019tinybert}, which uses BERT to replace original words.
\subsection{Efficiency-Aware Loss}
\label{sec:efficiency loss}
Recall that we aim to compress the original BERT model into efficient compressed models. To achieve this, we further incorporate model efficiency into loss function from two aspects, i.e., parameter size and inference time.
To be specific, for searched architecture $\alpha_c$ and $K$, we define the efficiency-aware loss in Equation (\ref{equ:overall-loss}) as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_E = \frac{K}{K_{max}} \sum_{o_{i,j} \in \alpha_c}
SIZE(o_{i,j})+FLOPs(o_{i,j}),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $K_{max}$ is the pre-defined maximum number of layers, $SIZE(\cdot)$ and $FLOPs(\cdot)$ are the normalized parameter size and the number of floating point operations (FLOPs) for each operation.
The sum of FLOPs of searched operations serves as an approximation to the actual inference time of the compressed model.
\subsection{Differentiable Architecture Searching}
\label{sec:search algo}
A major difference between the proposed method and existing BERT compression methods is that the proposed AdaBERT method seeks to find task-adaptive structures for different tasks. Now we will discuss the task-adaptive structure searching via a differentiable structure search method with the aforementioned loss terms.
\subsubsection{Search Space Setting}
Before diving into the details of the search method, we first illustrate the search space for our method in Figure~\ref{fig:search-space}. To make it easy to stack cells and search for network layers, we keep the same shapes for input and output nodes of each layer. In the first layer, we adopt different input settings for single text tasks such as sentiment classification and text pair tasks such as textual entailment. As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:search-space}, the inputs $c_{k-2}$ and $c_{k-1}$ are set as the same text input for single text tasks, and set as two input texts for text pair tasks. This setting helps to explore self-attention or self-interactions for single text task, and pair-wise cross-interactions for text pair tasks.
For the candidate operations in the cell, we adopt lightweight CNN-based operations as they are effective in NLP tasks \cite{bai2018empirical}, and CNN-based operations have shown inference speed superiority over RNN-based models and self-attention based models \cite{shen2018bidirectional} due to the fact that they are parallel-friendly operations.
Specifically, the candidates operation set $\mathcal{O}$ include $convolution$, $pooling$, $skip$ (identity) connection and $zero$ (discard) operation.
For $convolution$ operations, both $1$D standard convolution and dilated convolution with kernel size $\{3, 5, 7\}$ are included, among which the dilated convolution can be used to enhance the capability of capturing long-dependency information and each convolution is applied as a Relu-Conv-BatchNorm structure.
$Pooling$ operations include averaging pooling and max pooling with kernel size $3$.
The $skip$ and $zero$ operations are used to build residual connection and discard operation respectively, which are helpful to reduce network redundancy.
Besides, for both convolution and pooling operations, we apply the ``SAME" padding
to make the output length as the same as the input.
\begin{table*}[tp]
\centering
\small
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{Method} & \multirow{2}{*}{\# Params} & Inference & \multirow{2}{*}{SST-2} & \multirow{2}{*}{MRPC} & \multirow{2}{*}{QQP} & \multirow{2}{*}{MNLI} & \multirow{2}{*}{QNLI} & \multirow{2}{*}{RTE} & \multirow{2}{*}{Average}\\
& & Speedup & & & & & & & \\
\midrule
BERT$_{12}$ & \multirow{2}*{109M} & \multirow{2}*{1x} & 93.5 & 88.9 & 71.2 & 84.6 & 90.5 & 66.4 & 82.5\\
BERT$_{12}$-T & & & 93.3 & 88.7 & 71.1 & 84.8 & 90.4 & 66.1 & 82.4\\
\midrule
BERT$_6$-PKD & 67.0M & 1.9x & \underline{92.0} & 85.0 & \underline{70.7} & 81.5 & \textbf{89.0} & \textbf{65.5} & \textbf{80.6}\\
BERT$_3$-PKD & 45.7M & 3.7x & {87.5} & {80.7} & {68.1} & {76.7} & {84.7} & {58.2} & 76.0 \\
DistilBERT$_4$ & 52.2M & 3.0x & 91.4 & 82.4 & 68.5 & 78.9 & 85.2 & 54.1 & 76.8\\
TinyBert$_4$ & 14.5M & \underline{9.4x} & \textbf{92.6} & \textbf{86.4} & \textbf{71.3} & \textbf{82.5} & \underline{87.7} & {62.9} & \textbf{80.6}\\
BiLSTM$_{SOFT}$ & \underline{10.1M} & 7.6x & {90.7} & - & {68.2} & {73.0} & {-} & {-} & -\\
\midrule
AdaBERT & \textbf{6.4M $\sim$ 9.5M} & \textbf{12.7x $\sim$ 29.3x} & {91.8} & \underline{85.1} & \underline{70.7} & \underline{81.6} & {86.8} & \underline{64.4} & \underline{80.1}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{The compression results including model efficiency and accuracy from the GLUE test server, and the MNLI result is evaluated for matched-accuracy (MNLI-m).
BERT$_{12}$ indicates the results of the fine-tuned BERT-base from \protect\cite{devlin2019bert} and BERT$_{12}$-T indicates the results of the fine-tuned BERT-base in our implementation.
The results of BERT-PKD are from \protect\cite{sun2019patient}, the results of DistilBERT$_4$ and TinyBERT$_4$ are from \protect\cite{jiao2019tinybert}, and the results of BiLSTM$_{SOFT}$ is from \protect\cite{tang2019distilling}.
The number of model parameters includes the embedding size, and the inference time is tested with a batch size of $128$ over $50,000$ samples.
The bold numbers and underlined numbers indicate the best and the second-best performance respectively.}
\label{tab-overall}
\end{table*}
\begin{table}[tp]
\small
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c c c c}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{Task} & \multirow{2}{*}{$K$} & \multirow{2}{*}{\# Params} & Inference \\
& & & Speedup \\
\midrule
SST-2 & 3 & 6.4M & 29.3x \\
MRPC & 4 & 7.5M & 19.2x \\
QQP & 5 & 8.2M & 16.4x \\
MNLI & 7 & 9.5M & 12.7x \\
QNLI & 5 & 7.9M & 18.1x \\
RTE & 6 & 8.6M & 15.5x \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{The number of layers, parameters and inference speedups of searched structures by AdaBERT for different tasks.}
\label{tab-inference}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{Search Algorithm}
Directly optimizing the overall loss $\mathcal{L}$ in Equation (\ref{equ:overall-loss}) by brute-force enumeration of all the candidate operations is impossible, due to the huge search space with combinatorial operations and the time-consuming training on its $w_{\alpha}$ w.r.t. $\alpha$.
Here we solve this problem by modeling searched architecture $\{K, o_{i,j}\}$ as discrete variables that obey discrete probability distributions $P_K = [\theta^K_1, \dots, \theta^K_{K_{max}}]$ and $P_o = [\theta^o_1, \dots, \theta^o_{|\mathcal{O}|}]$. $K$ and $o_{i,j}$ are thus modeled as one-hot variables and sampled from layer range $[1,K_{max}]$ and candidate operation set $\mathcal{O}$ respectively.
However, $\mathcal{L}$ is non-differentiable as the discrete sampling process makes the gradients cannot propagate back to the learnable parameters $P_K$ and $P_o$.
Inspired by \cite{xie2019snas,wu2019fbnet}, we leverage Gumbel Softmax technique \cite{jang2017categorical,chris2017concrete} to relax the categorical samples into continuous sample vectors $y^K \in R^{K_{max}}$ and $y^o \in R^{|\mathcal{O}|}$ as:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:gumbel_softmax}
\begin{aligned}
y_{i}^K &= \frac{\exp[(log(\theta_{i}^K) + g_{i})/\tau]}{\sum_{j=1}^{K_{max}} \exp[(log(\theta_{j}^K) + g_{j})/\tau]}, \\
y_{i}^o &= \frac{\exp[(log(\theta_{i}^o) + g_{i})/\tau]}{\sum_{j=1}^{|\mathcal{O}|} \exp[(log(\theta_{j}^o) + g_{j})/\tau]},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $g_{i}$ is a random noise drawn from Gumbel(0, 1) distribution, $\tau$ is the temperature to control the degree of approximating Gumbel-Softmax to \textit{argmax}, i.e., as $\tau$ approaches 0, the samples become one-hot.
By this way, $y^K$ and $y^o$ are differentiable proxy variables to discrete samples, and then we can efficiently optimize $\mathcal{L}$ directly using gradient information.
Specifically, we use one-hot sample vectors $argmax(y^K)$ and $argmax(y^o)$ in the forward stage while use continuous $y^K$ and $y^o$ in the back-propagation stage, which is called Straight-Through Estimator \cite{bengio2013estimating} and makes the forward process in training consistent with testing.
Note that the optimization of the overall loss $\mathcal{L}$ can be regarded as learning a parent graph defined by the search space $\alpha$ as described in Section \ref{sec:space}, whose weights of candidate operations $w_{\alpha}$ and architecture distribution $P_{\alpha}$ are trained simultaneously. In the training stage, the randomness introduced by $P_{\alpha}$ enhances the exploring for suitable contextual encoders that mimic task-specific teacher $BERT_t$ under resource constraints.
After the training of the parent graph, we can derive an efficient and task-adaptive child graph by applying $argmax$ on $P_{\alpha}$ as the compressed model.
Also note that in $\mathcal{L}$, the knowledge distillation loss $\mathcal{L}_{KD}$ provides regularization for the architecture sampling on $P_{\alpha}$, while the efficiency-aware loss $\mathcal{L}_E$ promotes sparse structures that make the model compact and efficient.
\section{Experiments}
\subsection{Setup}
\paragraph{Datasets.}
We evaluate the proposed AdaBERT method on six datasets from GLUE \cite{wang2018glue} benchmark.
Specifically, we consider three types of NLP tasks, namely sentiment classification, semantic equivalence classification, and entailment recognition.
\textit{SST-2}
is adopted for sentiment classification, whose goal is to label movie reviews as positive or negative.
\textit{MRPC}
and
\textit{QQP}
are adopted for semantic equivalence classification, whose sentence pairs are extracted from news sources and online website respectively.
\textit{MNLI}, \textit{QNLI} and \textit{RTE}
are adopted for textual entailment recognition, whose premise-hypothesis pairs vary in domains and scales.
\paragraph{Baselines.}
We compare the proposed AdaBERT method with several state-of-the-art BERT compression methods including BERT-PKD~\cite{sun2019patient}, DistilBERT~\cite{sanh2019distilbert}, TinyBERT~\cite{jiao2019tinybert} and BiLSTM$_{SOFT}$~\cite{tang2019distilling}.
Since our approach searches architecture from a space including the number of network layers $K$, here we also compare with several different versions of these baselines with the different number of layers for a comprehensive comparison.
\paragraph{AdaBERT Setup.}
We fine-tune the BERT-base model~\cite{devlin2019bert} on the six adopted datasets respectively as teacher models for knowledge distillation.
For input text, following~\cite{lan2019albert}, we factorize the WordPiece embedding of $BERT_t$ into smaller embeddings whose dimension is $128$ and set the max input length as $128$.
For the optimization of operation parameters, we adopt SGD with momentum as $0.9$ and learning rate from 2e-2 to 5e-4 scheduled by cosine annealing.
For the optimization of architecture distribution parameters $P_\alpha$, we use Adam with a learning rate of 3e-4 and weight decay of 1e-3.
For AdaBERT, we set $\gamma=0.8$, $\beta=4$, $T=1$, inner node $N=3$ and search layer $K_{max}=8$.
We search $P_\alpha$ for 80 epochs and derive the searched structure with its trained operation weights.
\begin{table*}[htp]
\centering
\small
\begin{tabular}{|c| c| c c| c c c|}
\hline
Structure $\backslash$ Task & SST-2 & MRPC & QQP & MNLI & QNLI & RTE \\
\hline
AdaBERT-SST-2 & \textbf{91.9} & 78.1 & 58.6 & 64.0 & 74.1 & 53.8 \\
\hline
AdaBERT-MRPC & 81.5 & \textbf{84.7} & {68.9} & {75.9} & {82.2} & {60.3} \\
AdaBERT-QQP & 81.9 & 84.1 & \textbf{70.5} & 76.3 & 82.5 & 60.5 \\
\hline
AdaBERT-MNLI & 82.1 & 81.5 & 66.8 & \textbf{81.3} & 86.1 &63.2 \\
AdaBERT-QNLI & 81.6 & 82.3 & 67.7 & 79.2 & \textbf{87.2} & 62.9 \\
AdaBERT-RTE & 82.9 & 81.1 & 66.5 & 79.8 & 86.0 & \textbf{64.1} \\
\hline
Random & 80.4 $\pm$ 4.3 & 79.2 $\pm$ 2.8 & 61.8 $\pm$ 4.9 & 69.7 $\pm$ 6.7 & 78.2 $\pm$ 5.5 & 55.3 $\pm$ 4.1 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Accuracy comparison on the dev sets with the searched compression structures applying to different tasks. For Random, 5-times averaging results with standard deviations are reported.
}
\label{tab-structure-adapt}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Overall Results}
\subsubsection{Compression Results}
\label{exp:overall-res}
The compression results on the six adopted datasets, including parameter size, inference speedup and classification accuracy, are summarized in Table \ref{tab-overall}. Detailed results of AdaBERT method for different tasks are reported in Table \ref{tab-inference}.
Overall speaking, on all the evaluated datasets, the proposed AdaBERT method achieves significant efficiency improvement while maintaining comparable performance.
Compared to the BERT$_{12}$-T, the compressed models are 11.5x to 17.0x smaller in parameter size and 12.7x to 29.3x faster in inference speed with an average performance degradation of $2.79\%$. This demonstrates the effectiveness of AdaBERT to compress BERT into task-dependent small models.
Comparing with different Transformers-based compression baselines,
the proposed AdaBERT method is 1.35x to 3.12x faster than the fastest baseline, TinyBERT$_4$, and achieves comparable performance with the two baselines that have the best averaged accuracy, BERT$_6$-PKD and TinyBERT$_4$.
Further, as shown in Table \ref{tab-inference}, AdaBERT searches suitable layers and structures for different tasks, e.g., the searched structure for SST-2 task is lightweight since this task is relatively easy and a low model capacity is enough to mimic task-useful knowledge from the original BERT. This observation confirms that AdaBERT can automatically search small compressed models that adapt to downstream tasks.
Comparing with another structure-heterogeneous method, BiLSTM$_{SOFT}$, AdaBERT searches CNN-based models and achieves much better improvements, especially on the MNLI dataset.
This is because AdaBERT searches different models for different downstream tasks (as Table \ref{tab-inference} shows), and adopts a flexible searching manner to find suitable structures for different tasks while BiLSTM$_{SOFT}$ uses a Siamese structure for all different tasks. This shows the flexibility of AdaBERT to derive task-oriented compressed models for different tasks, and we will investigate more about this in the following part.
\subsubsection{Adaptiveness Study}
\label{exp:structure-study}
\paragraph{Cross-Task Validation.}
In order to further examine the adaptiveness of searched structures by AdaBERT, we apply the searched compression model structures across different downstream tasks. For example, the searched structure for task SST-2 (we denote this searched structure as AdaBERT-SST-2) is applied to all different tasks. For such cross-task validation, we randomly initialize the weights of each searched structure and re-train its weights using corresponding training data to ensure a fair comparison. The results of cross-task validation is summarized in Table \ref{tab-structure-adapt}.
From Table \ref{tab-structure-adapt}, we can observe that:
The searched structures achieve the best performance on their original target tasks compared with other tasks, in other words, the performance numbers along the diagonal line of this table are the best.
Further, the performance degradation is quite significant across different kinds of tasks (for example, applying the searched structures of sentiment classification tasks to entailment recognition task, or vice verse),
while the performance degradations within the same kind of tasks (for example, MRPC and QQP for semantic equivalence classification) are relatively small, since they have the same input format (i.e., a pair of sentences) and similar targets.
All these observations verify that AdaBERT can search task-adaptive structures for different tasks with the guidance of task-specific knowledge.
We also conduct another set of experiment: for each task, we randomly sample a model structure without searching, and then train such structures on the corresponding datasets.
From the last row of Table \ref{tab-structure-adapt}, we can see that the randomly sampled structures perform worse than the searched structures and their performances are not stable. This shows the necessity of the proposed adaptive structure searching.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\subfloat [Sentiment Classification, SST-2]{
\includegraphics[height=0.6in,width=3in]{fig/structure1}
\label{fig:structure1}
}
\vfil
\subfloat [Equivalence Classification, MRPC]{
\includegraphics[height=0.63in,width=2.7in]{fig/structure2}
\label{fig:structure2}
}
\vfil
\subfloat [Entailment Recognition, QNLI]{
\includegraphics[height=0.73in,width=2.8in]{fig/structure3}
\label{fig:structure3}
}
\caption{The searched basic cells for three kinds of NLP tasks.}
\label{fig:structure}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Architecture Study.}
In order to examine the adaptiveness of searched structures, we also visualize the basic cells of searched structures for different tasks in Figure \ref{fig:structure}.
By comparing the structure searched for single-text task such as sentiment classification (Figure~\ref{fig:structure1}) with the one for sentiment equivalence classification task (Figure~\ref{fig:structure2}), we can find that the former searched structure has more aggregation operations (\textit{max\_pool1d\_3}) and smaller feature filters (\textit{std\_conv\_3} and \textit{dil\_conv\_3}) since encoding local features are good enough for the binary sentiment classification task, while the latter searched structure has more interactions between the two input nodes as it deals with text pairs.
For text-pair tasks, compared with sentiment equivalence classification task (Figure \ref{fig:structure2}), the searched structure for the entailment recognition task (Figure \ref{fig:structure3}) has more diverse operations such as \textit{avg\_pool\_3} and \textit{skip\_connect}, and more early interactions among all the three subsequent nodes (node $0$, $1$ and $2$).
This may be justified by the fact that textual entailment requires different degrees of reasoning and thus the searched structure has more complex and diverse interactions.
The above comparisons among the searched structures for different tasks confirm that AdaBERT can search task-adaptive structure for BERT compression.
Next, we conduct ablation studies to examine how knowledge losses and efficiency-ware loss affect the performance of AdaBERT.
\begin{table}[bt]
\small
\centering
\begin{tabular}{p{1.3cm} c c c c c c c}
\toprule
& SST-2 & MRPC & QQP & MNLI & QNLI & RTE \\
\midrule
Base-KD & {86.6} & {77.2} & 63.9 & 75.2 & {82.0} & {56.7} \\
~ + Probe & {88.4} & {78.7} & 67.3 & 77.8 &{83.3} & {58.1} \\
~ + DA & {91.4} & {83.9} & 70.1 & 80.7&{86.5} & {63.2} \\
+$\mathcal{L}_{CE}$(All) & {91.9}& {84.7} &70.5 & 81.3 & {87.2} & {64.1} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{The effect of knowledge loss terms. }
\label{tab-kg-ablation}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[bt]
\small
\centering
\begin{tabular}{p{0.54cm} c c c c c c}
\toprule
& SST-2 & MRPC & QQP & MNLI& QNLI & RTE \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}*{$\beta$ = 0} & {91.8} & {84.5} & 70.3 & 81.2 & 87.1 & {63.9} \\
& (7.5M) & (7.8M) & (8.6M) & (9.6M) & (8.3M) &(9.1M) \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}*{$\beta$ = 4} & \textbf{91.9} & \textbf{84.7} & \textbf{70.5} & \textbf{81.3} &\textbf{87.2} & \textbf{64.1} \\
& (6.4M) & (7.5M) & (8.2M) & (9.5M) &(7.9M)& (8.6M) \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}*{$\beta$ = 8} & {91.3} & {84.2} & 68.9 & 79.6 & 86.4& {63.3} \\
& (5.3M) & (6.4M) & (7.3M) & (7.1M) & (7.2M)& (7.8M) \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{The effect of efficiency loss term. }
\label{tab-l3-ablation}
\end{table}
\subsection{Ablation Study}
\label{exp:ablation-res}
\subsubsection{Knowledge Losses}
We evaluate the effect of knowledge distillation ($\mathcal{L_{KD}}$) and the supervised label knowledge ($L_{CE}$) by conducting experiments on different tasks. The results are shown in Table \ref{tab-kg-ablation}.
The Base-KD (line 1 in Table \ref{tab-kg-ablation}) is a naive knowledge distillation version in which only the logits of the last layer are distilled without considering hidden layer knowledge and supervised label knowledge.
By incorporating the probe models, the performance (line 2 in Table \ref{tab-kg-ablation}) is consistently improved, indicating the benefits from hierarchically decomposed task-oriented knowledge.
We then leverage Data Augmentation (DA) to enrich task-oriented knowledge and this technique also improves performance for all tasks, especially for tasks that have a limited scale of data (i.e., MRPC and RTE).
DA is also adopted in existing KD-based compression studies \cite{tang2019distilling,jiao2019tinybert}.
When taking the supervised label knowledge ($\mathcal{L}_{CE}$) into consideration, the performance is further boosted, showing that this term is also important for AdaBERT by providing focused search hints.
\subsubsection{Efficiency-aware Loss}
Last, we test the effect of efficiency-aware loss $\mathcal{L}_E$ by varying its corresponding coefficient, including the standard case ($\beta=4$), without efficiency constraint ($\beta=0$), and strong efficiency constraint ($\beta=8$).
The model performance and corresponding model size are reported in Table \ref{tab-l3-ablation}.
On the one hand, removing the efficiency-aware loss ($\beta=0$) leads to the increase in model parameter size, on the other hand, a more aggressive efficiency preference ($\beta=8$) results in the small model size but degraded performance, since a large $\beta$ encourages the compressed model to adopt more lightweight operations such as $zero$ and $skip$ which hurt the performance.
A moderate efficiency constraint ($\beta=4$) provides a regularization, guiding the AdaBERT method to achieve a trade-off between the small parameter size and the good performance.
\section{Conclusion}
In this work, motivated by the strong need to compress BERT into small and fast models, we propose AdaBERT, an effective and efficient model that adaptively compresses BERT for various downstream tasks.
By leveraging Neural Architecture Search, we incorporate two kinds of losses, task-useful knowledge distillation loss and model efficiency-aware loss, such that the task-suitable structures of compressed BERT can be automatically and efficiently found using gradient information.
We evaluate the proposed AdaBERT on six datasets involving three kinds of NLP tasks.
Extensive experiments demonstrate that AdaBERT can achieve comparable performance while significant efficiency improvements, and find task-suitable models for different downstream tasks.
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Nowadays, pre-trained contextual representation encoders, such as ELMo \cite{peters2018deep}, BERT and \cite{devlin2019bert}, and RoBERTa \cite{liu2019roberta}, have been widely adopted in a variety of Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks.
Despite their effectiveness, these models are built upon large-scale datasets and they usually have parameters in the billion scale. For example, the BERT-base and BERT-large models are with $109$M and $340$M parameters respectively.
It is difficult to deploy such large-scale models in real-time applications that have tight constraints on computation resource and inference time.
To fulfill the deployment in real-time applications, recent studies compress BERT into a relatively small model to reduce the computational workload and accelerate the inference time.
BERT-PKD \cite{sun2019patient} distills BERT into a small Transformer-based model that mimics intermediate layers from original BERT.
TinyBERT \cite{jiao2019tinybert} uses two-stage knowledge distillation and mimics attention matrices and embedding matrices of BERT.
And in \cite{Michel2019aresixteen}, the authors propose a method to iteratively prune the redundant attention heads of BERT.
However, these existing studies compress BERT into a task-independent model structure, i.e., the same compressed BERT structure for all different tasks.
Recall that BERT learns various knowledge from the large-scale corpus, while only certain parts of the learned knowledge are needed for a specific downstream task \cite{tenney2019bertRedis}.
Further, \cite{liu2019linguistic} show that different hidden layers of BERT learned different levels of linguistic knowledge, and \cite{clark2019does} demonstrates that the importance degrees of attention heads in BERT vary for different tasks.
All these findings shed light on the task-adaptive BERT compression: different NLP tasks use BERT in different ways, and it is necessary to compress large-scale models such as BERT for specific downstream tasks respectively.
By doing so, the task-adaptive compressed BERT can remove task-specific redundant parts in original large-scale BERT, which leads to better compression and faster inference.
Motivated by this, we propose a novel \textbf{Ada}ptive \textbf{BERT} compression method, \textit{AdaBERT}, that leverages differentiable Neural Architecture Search (NAS) to automatically compress BERT into task-adaptive small models for specific tasks.
We incorporate a task-oriented knowledge distillation loss that depends on the original BERT model to provide search hints, as well as an efficiency-aware loss based on network structure as search constraints. These two loss terms work together and enable the proposed compression method to achieve a good trade-off between efficiency and effectiveness for different downstream tasks.
To be specific, we adopt a lightweight CNN-based search space and explicitly model the efficiency metrics with respect to searched architectures, which has not been considered in previous BERT compression studies.
Further, we hierarchically decompose the learned general knowledge of BERT into task-oriented useful knowledge with a set of probe models for knowledge distillation loss, such that the architecture search space can be reduced into a small task-oriented sub-space.
Finally, by relaxing the discrete architecture parameters into continuous distribution, the proposed method can efficiently find task-adaptive compression structures through the gradient-based optimization.
To evaluate the proposed method, we compress BERT for several NLP tasks including sentiment classification, entailment recognition, and semantic equivalence classification.
Empirical results on six datasets show that the proposed compression method can find task-adaptive compression models that are 12.7x to 29.3x faster than BERT in inference time and 11.5x to 17.0x smaller than BERT in terms of parameter size while maintaining comparable performance.
|
\section{Introduction}
The Nonlinear Schr\"odinger Equation (NLSE) with concentrated nonlinearity in $d=2$ is the subject of several recent papers, finalizing a research program developed over the last twenty years (see \cite{AT-JFA01,ADFT-ANIHPC03,ADFT-ANIHPC04,CFN-JMAA17} for the NLSE with concentrated nonlinearity and also \cite{CFT-Non19} and \cite{CCNP-SIMA17} for the fractional case and the Dirac equation, respectively).
Such a research line was originally motivated by some mesoscopic physical models. For instance, in semiconductor theory the effect of electronic charge accumulation in a resonant tunneling in a double barrier heterostructure \cite{JLPS-APHY95} is typically studied using a concentrated NLSE.
More recently, other applications have been suggested: the spontaneous formation of quantum coherent non-dissipative patterns in semiconductor heterostructures with nonlinear properties \cite{BKB-PRB96}; the dynamics of the mixed states of statistical physics \cite{N-Non98}; the appearance of quantum turbulence in the probability density \cite{AZ-99}; the scattering in nuclear physics models for the disexcitation of isomeric states and also the production of weakly bounded states in heavy nuclei close to the instability; the analysis of resonant tunneling diodes, which exhibits intrinsic instability \cite{WCGBZ-03} or the fabrication of semiconductor superlattices, for the estimate of the time decay rates for the solutions to the Schr\"odinger-Poisson equations in the repulsive case \cite{BNR-06,SASO-04}.
In \cite{CCT-ANIHPC19} and \cite{CFT-JFA17} the local well-posedness is established, i.e., the problem of existence and uniqueness of the solution for short times, as well as the mass and energy conservation. Global existence is also proven in the defocusing case irrespective of the power of the nonlinearity. In \cite{ACCT-18} it is studied the occurrence of a blow-up phenomenon for a focusing nonlinearity, with two peculiar features: first, the energy threshold under which all solutions blow up is strictly negative and coincides with the infimum of the energy of standing waves; second, there is no critical power nonlinearity, i.e., for every power there exist blow up solutions. We remark that such a behavior is anomalous compared to the conventional NLSE, also because such anomalies are not a direct consequence of the dimension, or of the concentrated nonlinearity. In fact, there is a critical power for standard nonlinearities in dimension two \cite{MR-AnMath05}, and there is also a critical power for concentrated nonlinearities in dimension one and three \cite{ADFT-ANIHPC03,AT-JFA01}. In the present paper we investigate further whether such peculiarities also show up in the stability of stationary states.
Let us preliminary recall the results on the standard NLSE \cite{SUSU-99}: consider the Cauchy problem for a focusing NLSE, where the word focusing refers to the attractive character of the nonlinearity, with initial data in the energy space
\[
\imath\partial_{t}\psi(t,x)+\triangle\psi+|\psi|^{2\sigma}\psi=0,\qquad \psi(0,x)=\psi_{0}(x)\in\,H^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{d}).
\]
In \cite{CL-CMP82} , using a variational characterization, it was established the orbital stability of the ground-states in the subcritical case, i.e., for $\sigma<2\backslash d$. For the general case, using results contained in \cite{SS-CMP85,GSS-87,W-CMP86}
it is possible to generalize the result on the stability of the ground state solitary waves, extending the Vakhitov-Kolokolov criterion from spectral stability to the orbital stability. The result provides an alternative proof of orbital stability for the subcritical solitary waves and shows the orbital instability in the critical and supercritical case ($\sigma d\geqslant 2$).
It turns out that there is a strict relation between blow-up and orbital stability of standing waves \cite{St-PD91}. The NLSE admits blow-up solutions if and only if its solitary waves are orbitally unstable. This behavior has some relevant exceptions as in the case of NLSE in bounded domains or in \cite{SF-NON08} where the key feature of all this models is always the absence of translational invariance in space.
The analysis of stationary states stability for concentrated nonlinearities traces back to \cite{AN-CMP13,ANO-JMP13,ANO-DCDS16}. For the concentrated NLSE in dimension $2$ the scenario is different and, in some sense, surprising. As it will be illustrated in Section
\ref{focusing} there are, at any fixed value of the mass, two branches of stationary states, distinguished by the value of the frequency $\omega$, with opposite orbital stability behavior. To the best of our knowledge, there is no similar behavior for a standard Schr\"odinger equation on $\mathbb{R}^{d}$, but some analogy exists with the 1d NLSE in the presence of a point interaction \cite{FOO-05} and with NLSE on compact domains \cite{NTV-19,PV-17}. In all these cases, the nonlinearity is supercritical.
As for the case of concentrated NLSE in the defocusing case, the scenario is really puzzling. In Section \ref{defocusing} the analysis of stationary waves reveals that they are stable and moreover that they are ground states.
\subsection{Setting and known results}
The problem under investigation can be formally written as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-cpform}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle\i\f{\partial\psi}{\partial t}=\big(-\Delta+\beta|\psi|^{2\sigma}\delta_{\mathbf{0}}\big)\psi, & \text{in }\mathbb{R}^+\times\mathbb{R}^2,\\[.4cm]
\psi(0)=\psi_0, & \text{in }\mathbb{R}^2,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
where $\sigma>0$, $\beta\in\mathbb{R}$ and $\delta_{\mathbf{0}}$ is a Dirac delta function centered at the origin of $\mathbb{R}^2$. As extensively explained in \cite{ACCT-18,CCT-ANIHPC19}, the ground state problem in \eqref{eq-cpform} can be rigorously formulated in the following weak form:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-cpweak}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle\i\f{d}{dt}\scal{\chi}{\psi(t)}=\scal{\nabla\chi_\lambda}{\nabla\psi(t)}+\lambda(\scal{\chi_\lambda}{\phi_\lambda(t)}-\scal{\chi}{\psi(t)})+\th\big(|q(t)|\big)q_\chi^*q(t),\quad\forall \chi\in V\\[.4cm]
\psi(0)=\psi_0,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
where $\scal{\cdot}{\cdot}$ is the usual scalar product in $L^2(\mathbb{R}^2)$, $\th_\lambda:\mathbb{R}^+\to\mathbb{R}$ is defined as
\[
\th_{\lambda}(s):=\f{\log(\sqrt{\lambda}/2)+\gamma}{2\pi}+\beta s^{2\sigma}
\]
(with $\gamma$ the Euler-Mascheroni constant) and $V$ is the energy space, i.e.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-ensp}
V:=\left\{\chi\in L^2(\mathbb{R}^2):\chi=\chi_\lambda+q\mathcal{G}_\lambda,\,\chi_\lambda\in H^1(\mathbb{R}^2),\,q\in\mathbb{C}\right\},
\end{equation}
with $\lambda>0$ and $\mathcal{G}_\lambda$ denoting the Green's function of $-\Delta+\lambda$ in $\mathbb{R}^2$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-green}
\mathcal{G}_\lambda(\mathbf{x}):=\f{K_0(\sqrt{\lambda}\mathbf{x})}{2\pi}=\f{1}{2\pi}\mathcal{F}^{-1}[(|\k|^2+\lambda)^{-1}](\mathbf{x}),
\end{equation}
(recall that $K_0$ is the Macdonald function of order zero given, e.g., in \cite{AS-65} and $\mathcal{F}$ is the unitary Fourier transform of $\mathbb{R}^2$). Note also that, the parameter $\lambda$ does not affect the definition of $V$ nor the Cauchy problem \eqref{eq-cpweak}. Indeed, it is possible to rewrite the space $V$ without the parameter $\lambda$, as
\begin{equation}\label{vi}
V=\left\{ \chi\in L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{2}),\, \chi=\chi_{0}-q\frac{\log |x|}{2\pi},\,\chi_{0}\in \dot{H}^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{2}), \,\, q\in \mathbb{C}\right\}
\end{equation}
where $\dot{H}^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{2})$ is the homogeneous Sobolev space. It is important to remark however that the parameter $q$ appearing in the decomposition above does not coincide with the analogous parameter in (\ref{eq-ensp}). Furthermore, (\ref{vi}) is not easily implemented in the expression of the energy, so that we shall keep using (\ref{eq-ensp}). Coherently with this choice, we shall decompose the solution $\psi(t)$ as
\begin{equation}\label{decomp}
\psi(t)=\phi_{\lambda}(t)+q(t)\,G_{\lambda},\quad\phi_{\lambda}(t)\in H^{1}(\mathbb{R}), q(t)\in\mathbb{C}\end{equation}
and refer to $\phi_{\lambda}(t)$, $q(t)G_{\lambda }$ and $q(t)$ as to the regular part, the singular part and the charge, respectively.
The decomposition \eqref{decomp} makes sense, as it has been proven in \cite{ACCT-18,CCT-ANIHPC19} that, for $\sigma\geq1/2$, \eqref{eq-cpweak} is locally well-posed in $V$ (with the additional assumption $\phi_{\lambda}(0)\in H^{1+\eta}$, $\eta>0$) and that the mass
\[
\mathrm{M}(t)=\mathrm{M}\big(\psi(t)\big):=\|\psi(t)\|^2,
\]
$\|\cdot\|$ denoting the usual norm in $L^2(\mathbb{R}^2)$, and the energy
\begin{multline}
\label{eq-energy}
\mathrm{E}(t)=\mathrm{E}\big(\psi(t)\big):=\\
=\|\nabla\phi_\lambda(t)\|^2+\lambda\big(\|\phi_\lambda(t)\|^2-\|\psi(t)\|^2\big)+\bigg(\f{\beta|q(t)|^{2\sigma}}{\sigma+1}+\f{\log(\sqrt{\lambda}/2)+\gamma}{2\pi}\bigg)|q(t)|^2,
\end{multline}
which is independent of $\lambda$ as well, are preserved along the flow. In addition, when $\beta>0$, i.e., in the defocusing case, the solution is global in time, whereas when $\beta<0$, i.e., in the focusing case, the solution blows up in a finite time. In order to prove these results, one has to require \cite{ACCT-18} that $\phi_{\lambda}(0)$ belongs to the Schwartz space, which is only a technical hypothesis, and, more important, its energy satisfies
\[
\mathrm{E}(\psi_0)<\Lambda=\Lambda(\sigma,\beta):=-\f{\sigma}{4\pi(\sigma+1)(-4\pi\sigma\beta)^{1/\sigma}}.
\]
In the following sections we study the problem of the stability of stationary states separately in the focusing and defocusing case.
\section{Focusing case}\label{focusing}
In the focusing case, i.e., for $\beta<0$, \eqref{eq-cpweak} admits (see \cite{ACCT-18}) a unique family of standing waves of the form
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-stan1}
\psi_\omega(t,\mathbf{x}):=\exp^{\i\omega t}\,\exp^{\i\eta}\,u_\omega(\mathbf{x}),\qquad\eta\in\mathbb{R},\quad \omega\in(\wt{\omega},+\infty), \quad \wt{\omega}:=4\exp^{-2\gamma},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-stan2}
u_\omega(\mathbf{x}):=q(\omega)\mathcal{G}_\omega(\mathbf{x}),\qquad q(\omega):=\bigg(-\f{\log\big(\sqrt{\omega}/2\big)+\gamma}{2\pi\beta}\bigg)^{1/2\sigma}.
\end{equation}
The behavior of $q(\omega)$ is depicted in Figure \ref{fig-val1}(a).
Now, plugging \eqref{eq-stan2} into \eqref{eq-energy}, one finds that the energy of the standing waves as a function of the frequency $\omega$ reads
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-Eomega}
\mathrm{E}(\omega):=\mathrm{E}(u_\omega)=\bigg(\f{\sigma\log\big(\sqrt\omega/2 \big)+\gamma\sigma}{2\pi(\sigma+1)}-\frac{1}{4\pi}\bigg)\bigg(-\f{\log\big(\sqrt{\omega}/2\big)+\gamma}{2\pi\beta}\bigg)^{1/\sigma},\qquad\forall \omega\in(\wt{\omega},+\infty).
\end{equation}
The behavior of $E(\omega)$ is represented in Figure \ref{fig-val1}(b). In addition,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-ommin}
\min_{\omega\in(\wt{\omega},+\infty)}\mathrm{E}(\omega)=\mathrm{E}(\ov{\omega})=\Lambda,\qquad\text{where}\quad \ov{\omega}:={4\exp^{-2\gamma+1/\sigma}}.
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
\subfloat[][Behavior of $q(\omega)$.]
{\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth]{fig1}}
\hspace{1cm}
\subfloat[][Behavior of $\mathrm{E}(\omega)$.]
{\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth]{fig3}}
\caption{Plots of $q(\omega)$ and $\mathrm{E}(\omega)$ for $ \omega \in (\wt{\omega},+\infty)$, when $\sigma=1$ and $\beta=-1$. Here $\wt{\omega}\approx1.26$, $\ov{\omega}\approx3.43$, $\ov{q}\approx0.2$ and $\Lambda\approx-0.0016$.}
\label{fig-val1}
\end{figure}
On the other hand, noting that $q(\wt{\omega})=0$ and that $q(\cdot)$ is smooth and strictly increasing on $(\wt{\omega},+\infty)$, one can take the inverse $q(\omega)$ of the function
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-omdiq}
\omega(q):=4\,\exp^{-2\gamma-4\pi\beta q^{2\sigma}},\qquad q>0,
\end{equation}
and plug it into \eqref{eq-Eomega}, to obtain the energy as a function of $q$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-Eq}
\mathrm{E}(q)={-\f{q^2}{4\pi}-\f{\sigma\beta q^{2\sigma+2}}{\sigma+1}}.
\end{equation}
The behaviors of $\omega(q)$ and $\mathrm{E}(q)$ are depicted in Figure \ref{fig-val2}(a) and \ref{fig-val2}(a), respectively. This alternative form can be useful in computation since \eqref{eq-Eq} is more manageable than \eqref{eq-Eomega}. Furthermore,
\[
\inf_{q>0}\mathrm{E}(q)=\mathrm{E}(\ov{q})=\Lambda < 0,\qquad\text{where}\quad \ov{q}:=q(\ov{\omega})=(-4\pi\sigma\beta)^{-1/2\sigma}.
\]
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\subfloat[][Behavior of $\log(\omega(q))$.]
{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig2}}
\hspace{1cm}
\subfloat[][Behavior of $\mathrm{E}(q)$.]
{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig4}}
\caption{Plots of $\omega(q)$ and $\mathrm{E}(q)$ for $q \in \mathbb{R}^+$, when $\sigma=1$ and $\beta=-1$.}
\label{fig-val2}
\end{figure}
The natural question arising at this point is about the stability of the standing waves. In view of the application of Grillakis-Shatah-Strauss theory \cite{GSS-87}, it is first necessary to compute the mass $\mathrm{M}$ as a function of $\omega$ and $q$.
Exploiting \eqref{eq-green}, one has that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-massom}
\mathrm{M}(\omega):=\mathrm{M}(u_\omega)=\f{q^2(\omega)}{4\pi\omega}=\f{1}{4\pi\omega}\bigg(-\f{\log(\sqrt{\omega}/2)+\gamma}{2\pi\beta}\bigg)^{1/\sigma}.
\end{equation}
On the other hand, one can easily check that
\[
\mathrm{M}'(\omega)=\f{q^2(\omega)}{4\pi\omega^2}\underbrace{\bigg[\f{\left(\log(\sqrt{\omega}/2)+\gamma\right)^{-1}}{2\sigma}-1\bigg]}_{=:h(\omega)},
\]
whence
\begin{align}
\label{eq-mass-mon}
\mathrm{M}'(\omega)>0\quad\text{(resp. $\mathrm{M}'(\omega)<0$)}\qquad & \Longleftrightarrow \qquad h(\omega)>0 \quad\text{(resp. $h(\omega)<0$)}\nonumber\\[.2cm]
\qquad & \Longleftrightarrow \qquad \wt{\omega}<\omega<\ov{\omega}\quad\text{(resp. $\omega>\ov{\omega}$)}.
\end{align}
In addition, as $\lim_{\omega\to\wt{\omega}}\mathrm{M}(\omega)=\lim_{\omega\to+\infty}\mathrm{M}(\omega)=0$, there results
\[
\sup_{\omega\in(\wt{\omega},+\infty)}\mathrm{M}(\omega)=\mathrm{M}(\ov{\omega})=\f{\exp^{2\gamma-1/\sigma}}{16\pi(-4\pi\sigma\beta)^{1/\sigma}}=:\ov{\mu}.
\]
As a consequence, for every value of the mass $\mu\in(0,\ov{\mu})$ (or, alternatively, of the energy $\mathrm{E}\in(\Lambda,0)$) there exists two distinct families of standing waves $u_{\omega_1},\,u_{\omega_2}$, such that $\mathrm{M}(\omega_1)=\mathrm{M}(\omega_2)=\mu$, with $\omega_1\in(\wt{\omega},\ov{\omega})$ and $\omega_2\in(\ov{\omega},+\infty)$.
Analogous results can be obtained writing the mass of the standing waves in terms of $q$ in place of $\omega$, so that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-massq}
\mathrm{M}(q)=\f{q^2\exp^{2\gamma+4\pi\beta q^{2\sigma}}}{16\pi}
\end{equation}
and
\[
\sup_{q>0}\mathrm{M}(q)=\mathrm{M}(\ov{q})=\ov{\mu}.
\]
The qualitative behavior of $\mathrm{M}(\omega)$ and $\mathrm{M}(q)$ is depicted in Figure \ref{fig-val3}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\subfloat[][Behavior of $\mathrm{M}(\omega)$.]
{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig9}}
\hspace{1cm}
\subfloat[][Behavior of $\mathrm{M}(q)$.]
{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig10}}
\caption{Plots of $\mathrm{M}(\omega)$ and $\mathrm{M}(q)$ when $\sigma=1$ and $\beta=-1$.}
\label{fig-val3}
\end{figure}
For any $\mu>0$ there is no ground state of mass $\mu$, i.e., no global minimizer of the energy constrained on
\[
V_\mu:=\{\psi\in V:\mathrm{M}(\psi)=\mu\}.
\]
This can be easily seen if one defines a sequence $\{u_n\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ such that
\[
u_{n}(x):=2\sqrt{\pi\mu\,n}\,\mathcal{G}_1(\sqrt{n}\,x), \qquad \mathrm{M}(u_{n})=\mu.
\]
Indeed, $\left\{u_n\right\}\subset V_\mu$ and
\[
\mathrm{E}(u_n)=-\sqrt{n}\mu+\bigg(\f{\beta (4\pi\mu\,n)^{\sigma}}{\sigma+1}+\f{\log(\sqrt{n}/2)+\gamma}{2\pi}\bigg)(\pi\mu\,n)^{1/ 2} \xrightarrow[n \to + \infty]{}-\infty,
\]
since $\beta<0$. Hence, the stability analysis requires the use of the techniques developed in \cite{GSS-87}, as shown in Theorem \ref{thm-sfoc}.
First, we recall the definition of \emph{orbitally} stable standing wave. To this aim, preliminarily, we endow the energy space $V$ with a norm. Due to the several possible decompositions of a function $\chi\in V$ for different values of the spectral parameter $\lambda>0$ (see \eqref{eq-ensp}), in order to obtain a suitable norm, one has to fix a value $\lambda=\ov{\lambda}>0$ and
then set
\[
\|\chi\|_{\ov{\lambda}}^2:=\|\chi_{\ov{\lambda}}\|_{H^1(\mathbb{R}^2)}^2+\f{|q|^2}{4\pi\ov{\lambda}}.
\]
Clearly, any other choice of $\lambda$ gives rise to an equivalent norm. In this section we will set $\ov{\lambda}=1$ for the sake of simplicity.
\begin{defn}
The standing wave $u_\omega$ is said to be \emph{orbitally stable} whenever for every $\varepsilon>0$ there exists $\delta>0$ such that: if $\|\psi_0-e^{\imath\,\eta}u_\omega\|_1<\delta$, for some $\eta\in\mathbb{R}$, and $\psi(t)$ is a solution of \eqref{eq-cpweak} on $[0,T^*)$ with initial condition $\psi_0$, then $\psi(t)$ can be continued to a solution on $[0,+\infty)$ and
\[
\sup_{t\in\mathbb{R}^+}\,\inf_{\eta\in\mathbb{R}}\left\|\psi(t)-\exp^{\imath\eta}u_\omega\right\|_1<\varepsilon.
\]
Otherwise the standing wave is called \emph{unstable}.
\end{defn}
\begin{thm}[Stability in the focusing case]
\label{thm-sfoc}
Let $\sigma\geq1/2$ and $\beta<0$. The standing waves defined in \eqref{eq-stan1}-\eqref{eq-stan2} are orbitally stable if $\omega\in(\wt{\omega},\ov{\omega})$ and unstable if $\omega>\ov{\omega}$ (where $\ov{\omega}$ is given in \eqref{eq-ommin}).
\end{thm}
Note that the previous theorem entails that, for every mass $\mu\in(0,\ov{\mu})$, there is a pair of standing waves of mass $\mu$, where the one with low frequency is stable, while the one with high frequency is unstable.
\begin{rem}
The assumption $\sigma\geq1/2$ is only related to the local well-posedness of \eqref{eq-cpweak} proved in \cite{CCT-ANIHPC19}. It is likely that it could be dropped by means of a more refined analysis of the local well-posedness and hence is not actually relevant in the stability analysis.
\end{rem}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm-sfoc}]
The proof is based on \cite[Theorem 3]{GSS-87}. Assumptions 1 of \cite[Theorem 3]{GSS-87} is clearly satisfied as \eqref{eq-cpweak} is locally well-posed with preserved mass and energy, while the fulfillment of Assumption {2} is a direct consequence of the form of the standing waves defined in \eqref{eq-stan1}-\eqref{eq-stan2}.
Concerning Assumption 3, we define the action functional associated with \eqref{eq-cpweak}, namely
\[
\S_\omega:V\to\mathbb{R},\qquad\S_\omega(u):=\mathrm{E}(u)+\omega\mathrm{M}(u).
\]
Recall that, as $u_\omega$ is a standing wave, $d\S_\omega(u_\omega)=0$, where $d\S_\omega$ denotes the Fr\'echet differential. Then, define the operator
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-Hom}
H_\omega:V\to V^*,\qquad H_\omega:=d^2\S_\omega(u_\omega).
\end{equation}
We have to prove that for every $\omega\in(\wt{\omega},+\infty)$:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $H_\omega$ has exactly one negative simple eigenvalue;
\item[(ii)] the kernel of $H_\omega$ coincides with the span of $u_\omega$;
\item[(iii)] the rest of $\sigma(H_\omega)$ is positive and bounded away from zero.
\end{itemize}
As $d^2\mathrm{M}(u_\omega)=2\times\mathbb{I}$, it is necessary to compute only $d^2\mathrm{E}(u_\omega)$. Since $\mathrm{E}$ is a functional of class $C^2$ we can compute the G$\hat{\mathrm{a}}$teaux second differential in place of the Fr\'echet second differential, i.e.,
\[
d^2\mathrm{E}(u_\omega)[h,k]=\left.\f{\partial^2 \mathrm{E}(u_\omega+\nu h+\tau k)}{\partial\nu\partial\tau}\right|_{\nu=\tau=0}.
\]
In addition, for the sake of simplicity, we can set $\lambda=\omega$ in the definition of $\mathrm{E}$. Therefore, standard computations yields \begin{multline*}
\f{\partial \mathrm{E}(u_\omega+\nu h+\tau k)}{\partial\tau}= 2\Re\bigg\{\scal{\nu\nabla h_\omega+\tau\nabla k_\omega}{\nabla k_\omega}+\omega\big(\scal{\nu h_\omega+\tau k_\omega}{k_\omega}-\scal{u_\omega+\nu h+\tau k}{k}\big)+\\[.2cm]
+q_k\big(q^*(\omega)+\nu q_h^*+\tau q_k^*\big)\f{\log(\sqrt{\omega}/2)+\gamma}{2\pi}+\beta q_k\big(q(\omega)+\nu q_h+\tau q_k\big)^{\sigma}\big(q^*(\omega)+\nu q_h^*+\tau q_k^*\big)^{\sigma+1}\bigg\},
\end{multline*}
so that
\begin{multline*}
\f{\partial^2 \mathrm{E}(u_\omega+\nu h+\tau k)}{\partial\nu\partial\tau}= 2\Re\bigg\{\scal{\nabla h_\omega}{\nabla k_\omega}+\omega\big(\scal{h_\omega}{k_\omega}-\scal{h}{k}\big)+\\[.2cm]
+q_kq_h^*\f{\log(\sqrt{\omega}/2)+\gamma}{2\pi}+\sigma\beta q_kq_h\big(q(\omega)+\nu q_h+\tau q_k\big)^{\sigma-1}\big(q^*(\omega)+\nu q_h^*+\tau q_k^*\big)^{\sigma+1}+\\[.2cm]
+(\sigma+1)\beta q_kq_h^*\big(q(\omega)+\nu q_h+\tau q_k\big)^{\sigma}\big(q^*(\omega)+\nu q_h^*+\tau q_k^*\big)^{\sigma}\bigg\}
\end{multline*}
and hence
\begin{multline}
\label{eq-dueE}
\left.\f{\partial^2 \mathrm{E}(u_\omega+\nu h+\tau k)}{\partial\nu\partial\tau}\right|_{\nu=\tau=0}= 2\Re\big\{\scal{\nabla h_\omega}{\nabla k_\omega}+\omega\big(\scal{h_\omega}{k_\omega}-\scal{h}{k}\big)\big\}+\\[.2cm]
+\f{\log(\sqrt{\omega}/2)+\gamma}{\pi}\Re\{q_kq_h^*\}+2\beta q^{2\sigma}(\omega)\Re\{\sigma q_k^*q_h^*+(\sigma+1)q_k^*q_h\}.
\end{multline}
Now, if we split each quantity as real and imaginary part, i.e.,
\begin{gather*}
h=h^r+\imath h^i, \quad k=k^r+\imath k^i,\\[.2cm]
h_\omega=h_\omega^r+\imath h_\omega^i, \quad k_\omega=k_\omega^r+\imath k_\omega^i,\\[.2cm]
q_h=q_h^r+\imath q_h^i, \quad q_k=q_k^r+\imath q_k^i,
\end{gather*}
then \eqref{eq-dueE} reads
\[
\left.\f{\partial^2 \mathrm{E}(u_\omega+\nu h+\tau k)}{\partial\nu\partial\tau}\right|_{\nu=\tau=0}=B_1[h^r,k^r]+B_1[h^i,k^i],
\]
where $B_1,\,B_2$ are two sesquilinear forms given by
\begin{multline*}
B_1[h^r,k^r]:=2\big(\scal{\nabla h_\omega^r}{\nabla k_\omega^r}+\omega\big(\scal{h_\omega^r}{k_\omega^r}-\scal{h^r}{k^r}\big)\big)\\[.2cm]
+\left(\f{\log(\sqrt{\omega}/2)+\gamma}{\pi}+2\beta (2\sigma+1)q^{2\sigma}(\omega)\right)q_k^rq_h^r
\end{multline*}
and
\[
B_2[h^i,k^i]:=2\big(\scal{\nabla h_\omega^i}{\nabla k_\omega^i}+\omega\big(\scal{h_\omega^i}{k_\omega^i}-\scal{h^i}{k^i}\big)\big)
+\left(\f{\log(\sqrt{\omega}/2)+\gamma}{\pi}+2\beta q^{2\sigma}(\omega)\right)q_k^iq_h^i.
\]
Furthermore, one notes that $B_1,\,B_2$ are the sesquilinear form (restricted to real-valued functions) associated with the operators $H_{\alpha_1},\,H_{\alpha_2}:L^2(\mathbb{R}^2)\to L^2(\mathbb{R}^2)$ with domains
\begin{multline}
\label{eq-opdelta1}
\mathrm{dom}(H_{\alpha_j}):=\bigg\{\psi\in L^2(\mathbb{R}^2):\psi=\phi_\lambda+q\mathcal{G}_\lambda,\,\phi_\lambda\in H^2(\mathbb{R}^2),\,q\in \mathbb{C},\\[.2cm]
\phi_\lambda(\mathbf{0})=\bigg(\alpha_i+\f{\log(\sqrt{\lambda}/2)+\gamma}{2\pi}\bigg)q\bigg\},\qquad i=1,\,2,
\end{multline}
with $\lambda>0$, and action
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-opdelta2}
(H_{\alpha_i}+\lambda)\psi:=(-\Delta+\lambda)\phi_\lambda,\qquad\forall\psi\in\mathrm{dom}(H_{\alpha_i}),\qquad i=1,\,2,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-al12}
\alpha_1=(2\sigma+1) \beta q^{2\sigma}(\omega),\qquad \alpha_2=\beta q^{2\sigma}(\omega).
\end{equation}
Summing up,
\[
\left.\f{\partial^2 \mathrm{E}(u_\omega+\nu h+\tau k)}{\partial\nu\partial\tau}\right|_{\nu=\tau=0}=2(h^r,h^i)\begin{pmatrix} H_{\alpha_1} & 0 \\ 0 & H_{\alpha_2} \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} k^r \\ k^i \end{pmatrix},
\]
whence
\[
d^2\mathrm{E}(u_\omega)=2\begin{pmatrix} H_{\alpha_1} & 0 \\ 0 & H_{\alpha_2} \end{pmatrix}
\]
and, consequently,
\[
H_\omega=2\begin{pmatrix} H_{\alpha_1}+\omega & 0 \\ 0 & H_{\alpha_2}+\omega \end{pmatrix}.
\]
In order to verify properties (i), (ii) and (iii), it suffices to observe that
\[
\sigma(H_{\alpha_1})=\left\{-\omega\,\exp^{-8\pi\,\beta\,\sigma q^{2\sigma}}\right\}\cup[0,+\infty),\qquad \sigma(H_{\alpha_2})=\{-\omega\}\cup[0,+\infty),
\]
with $-\omega\,\exp^{-8\pi\beta\,\sigma q^{2\sigma}}$ and $-\omega$ simple eigenvalues, and that $u_\omega$ is the eigenfunction associated with $-\omega$. Indeed, this entails
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-spectrum}
\sigma(H_\omega)=\left\{\omega(1-\exp^{-8\pi\beta\sigma q^{2\sigma}})\right\}\cup\{0\}\cup[\omega,+\infty),
\end{equation}
which proves that $H_\omega$ possesses one simple negative eigenvalue (since $1-\exp^{-8\pi\beta\sigma q^{2\sigma}}<0$, as $\beta<0$), that the kernel of $H_\omega$ is the span of $u_\omega$ and that the rest of the spectrum is positive and bounded away from zero.
Finally, in order to conclude, it is just sufficient to verify for which values of $\omega$ the scalar function
\[
D:(\wt{\omega},+\infty)\to\mathbb{R},\qquad D(\omega):=\S_\omega(u_\omega),
\]
is strictly convex, which implies that $u_\omega$ is stable, or strictly concave, which implies that $u_\omega$ is unstable. However, by the properties of the standing waves, $D''(\omega)=\mathrm{M}'(\omega)$ and therefore, recalling \eqref{eq-mass-mon}, one concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
\section{Defocusing case}\label{defocusing}
One can easily check that there exists a family of standing waves in the defocusing case $\beta>0$ as well:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-stan3}
\psi_\omega(t,\mathbf{x}):=\exp^{\i\omega t}\,\exp^{\i\eta}\,u_\omega(\mathbf{x}),\qquad u_\omega(\mathbf{x}):=q(\omega)\mathcal{G}_\omega(\mathbf{x}),\qquad q(\omega):=\bigg(-\f{\log\big(\sqrt{\omega}/2\big)+\gamma}{2\pi\beta}\bigg)^{1/2\sigma}
\end{equation}
with $\eta\in\mathbb{R}$, defined for
\[
\omega\in(0,\wt{\omega}),\qquad\text{where}\quad \wt{\omega}:=4\exp^{-2\gamma}.
\]
The behavior of $q(\omega)$ is shown in Figure \ref{fig-val4}(a).
In addition, simple computations show that the form of $\mathrm{E}(\omega)$ is still given by \eqref{eq-Eomega}, but in this case the function $\mathrm{E}(\omega)$ is unbounded from below, due to the fact that $\beta>0$. The behavior of $E(\omega)$ is depicted in Figure \ref{fig-val4}(b).
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\subfloat[][Behavior of $q(\omega)$.]
{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig5}}
\hspace{1cm}
\subfloat[][Behavior of $\mathrm{E}(\omega)$.]
{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig7}}
\caption{Plots of $q(\omega)$ and $\mathrm{E}(\omega)$ for $ \omega \in (0,\wt{\omega})$, when $\sigma=1$ and $\beta=1$.}
\label{fig-val4}
\end{figure}
From (\ref{eq-stan3}) one has that the function $q(\omega)$ is invertible. Again we get that $\omega(q)$ reads as \eqref{eq-omdiq}
and, plugging \eqref{eq-omdiq} into \eqref{eq-Eomega}, one obtains \eqref{eq-Eq} for $E(q)$.
The behavior of $\omega(q)$ and $\mathrm{E}(q)$ is depicted in Figure \ref{fig-val5}(a) and \ref{fig-val5}(b).
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
\subfloat[][Behavior of $\omega(q)$.]
{\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth]{fig6}}
\hspace{1cm}
\subfloat[][Behavior of $\mathrm{E}(q)$.]
{\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth]{fig8}}
\caption{Plots of $\omega(q)$ and $\mathrm{E}(q)$ for $q \in \mathbb{R}^+$, when $\sigma=1$ and $\beta=1$.}
\label{fig-val5}
\end{figure}
\begin{rem}\label{rem-imp}
Let us point out a relevant difference between the focusing and the defocusing case: $\mathrm{M}(\omega)$ and $\mathrm{M}(q)$, given by \eqref{eq-massom} and
\eqref{eq-massq}, respectively, are strictly monotone on their domain with range $\mathbb{R}^+$. In particular, this means that, in the defocusing case, for every $\mu\in\mathbb{R}^+$, there exists a unique (up to a phase factor) standing wave $u_{\omega_\mu}$ of mass $\mu$.
\end{rem}
Concerning the stability of these standing waves, one can prove the following
\begin{thm}[Stability in the defocusing case]
Let $\sigma\geq1/2$ and $\beta>0$. The standing waves defined by \eqref{eq-stan3} are orbitally stable for every $\omega\in(0,\wt{\omega})$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
The proof is analogous to the one of Theorem \ref{thm-sfoc}. The main difference is that the key tool now is \cite[Theorem 1]{GSS-87}, instead of \cite[Theorem 3]{GSS-87}. Assumptions 1 and 2 of \cite[Theorem 1]{GSS-87} are the same of \cite[Theorem 3]{GSS-87} and, hence, are easily satisfied, as outlined in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm-sfoc}.
On the other hand, in order to prove the stability of standing waves, it is sufficient to prove that the operator $H_\omega$ defined in \eqref{eq-Hom} satisfies the properties (ii) and (iii). However, arguing exactly as in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm-sfoc}, there results again that
\[
H_\omega=2\begin{pmatrix} H_{\alpha_1} +\omega & 0 \\ 0 & H_{\alpha_2} +\omega \end{pmatrix}
\]
with $H_{\alpha_1},\,H_{\alpha_2}$ defined in \eqref{eq-opdelta1} and \eqref{eq-opdelta2} and $\alpha_1,\,\alpha_2$ given by \eqref{eq-al12}. Hence, the spectrum of $H_\omega$ is given again by \eqref{eq-spectrum}, but now, as $\beta>0$ and $\omega\in(0,\wt{\omega})$, there is no negative eigenvalue so that (ii) and (iii) are satisfied and the proof is complete.
\end{proof}
Moreover, in the defocusing case it is possible to give a further characterization of the standing waves, given by the following
\begin{thm}[Ground states in the defocusing case]
Let $\beta>0$ and $\mu>0$. Then, the energy functional $\mathrm{E}$ restricted to the manifold $V_\mu$ has a unique (up to a phase factor) global minimizer, which is of the form \eqref{eq-stan3} with $\omega=\omega_\mu$, where $\omega_\mu$ is the unique solution of
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-ommu}
\log(2/\sqrt{\omega})-\gamma=2\pi\beta(4\pi\omega\mu)^{\sigma}.
\end{equation}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Preliminarily, one can see that \eqref{eq-ommu} is equivalent to $\mathrm{M}(\omega)=\mu$ with $\mathrm{M}(\omega)$ defined by \eqref{eq-massom}. Hence, by Remark \ref{rem-imp}, there is a unique solution $\omega_\mu$ for any value of $\mu>0$. It is thus clear that, if a minimizer does exist, then it has to be equal to $u_{\omega_\mu}$ up to phase factor.
First, let us fix $\lambda=\omega_\mu$ in \eqref{eq-energy} and in the definition of the norm of $V_\mu$, which is the same of $V$. Consider, therefore, a minimizing sequence $\{\psi_n\} =\{\phi_{\omega_\mu,n}+q_n\mathcal{G}_{\omega_\mu}\} \subset V_\mu$ for $\mathrm{E}$. As $\|\psi_n\|^2=\mu$ and $\beta>0$, $\mathrm{E}$ is coercive on $V_\mu$ and hence $\|\psi_n\|_{\omega_\mu}\leqslant C$ for every $n$. As a consequence there exists $\psi=\phi_{\omega_\mu}+q\,\mathcal{G}_{\omega_\mu}\in V$ such that, up to subsequences,
\[
\begin{array}{ll}
\psi_n\xrightharpoonup[n\to\infty]{w}\psi, & \text{in }L^2(\mathbb{R}^2),\\[.2cm]
\phi_{\omega_\mu,n}\xrightharpoonup[n\to\infty]{w}\phi_{\omega_\mu}, & \text{in }H^1(\mathbb{R}^2),\\[.2cm]
q_n \xrightarrow[n\to\infty]{} q, & \text{in }\mathbb{C}.
\end{array}
\]
Furthermore, by the weak lower semicontinuity of $\mathrm{E}$
\[
\mathrm{E}(\psi) \leq \liminf_{n \to +\infty}\mathrm{E}(\psi_n),
\]
and, by the weak lower semicontinuity of the norms, $\|\psi\|^2\leq\mu$. Hence, if one can prove that $\|\psi\|^2=\mu$, the proof is complete.
To this aim, first note that
\begin{align*}
\mathrm{E}(\psi) & \geq -\omega_\mu\|\psi\|^2+\bigg(\f{\beta|q|^{2\sigma}}{\sigma+1}+\f{\log(\sqrt{\omega_\mu}/2)+\gamma}{2\pi}\bigg)|q|^2\\[.2cm]
& \geq -\omega_\mu\mu+\bigg(\f{\beta|q|^{2\sigma}}{\sigma+1}+\f{\log(\sqrt{\omega_\mu}/2)+\gamma}{2\pi}\bigg)|q|^2=:f(|q|).
\end{align*}
Assuming that $q$ is real-valued (which is not restrictive), one can check that $f$ is minimized for $q=q(\omega_\mu)$ and that
\[
f\big(q(\omega_\mu)\big)=-\f{q^2(\omega_\mu)}{4\pi}-\f{\sigma\beta q^{2\sigma+2}(\omega_\mu)}{\sigma+1}=\mathrm{E}(u_{\omega_\mu}).
\]
Therefore,
\[
\mathrm{E}(\psi)\geq\mathrm{E}(u_{\omega_\mu})
\]
and, since $\mathrm{M}(u_{\omega_\mu})=\mu$, this implies that $u_{\omega_\mu}$ is the minimizer of $\mathrm{E}$ on $V_\mu$ up to a phase factor.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction}
The gas reservoirs of galaxies are their fundamental building blocks, providing the potential for future star formation and the fuel for nuclear accretion. Understanding their properties and dynamics is essential to completing our picture of galaxy formation and evolution. Atomic hydrogen (H{\sc i}) has proven to be a powerful tracer of these gas reservoirs though its 21cm emission line. It is typically detectable to 2-3 times the radius of the optically bright stellar component of galaxies \citep{giovanelli88,wang14} where baryons are less gravitationally bound and more sensitive to galaxy interactions and environmental processes \citep{gunn72,kenney04,stevens17}. While to date there exists $\sim500$ spatially resolved observations of the H{\sc i}\ in galaxies in the local Universe \citep{wang16} the majority of the data are unresolved, in the form of the spatially integrated global H{\sc i}\ spectrum produced by blind surveys such as the Arecibo Legacy Fast ALFA survey \citep[ALFALFA,][]{giovanelli05,haynes18}. As radio astronomy enters the era of the Square Kilometer Array (SKA), precursor surveys such as the Widefield ASKAP L-band Legacy All-sky Blind Survey \citep[WALLABY,][]{koribalski09} are predicted to detect over $5 \times 10^{5}$ objects, the majority of which will be spatially unresolved, global H{\sc i}\ spectra. If we wish to exploit these future surveys to their full potential we need to extract as much information as we can from global H{\sc i}\ spectra.
The global H{\sc i}\ emission line spectrum contains information such as: the integrated flux which gives the total H{\sc i}\ mass of a galaxy, its width the projected maximum rotational velocity and therefore the dynamical mass, and its centroid provides a precise measurement of the cosmological redshift. These properties have been used extensively to study a number of relations such as the gas fraction scaling relations \citep[e.g.][]{brown15,catinella18}, H{\sc i}\ mass function \citep[e.g.][]{zwaan05,jones18}, baryonic Tully-Fisher relation \citep[e.g.][]{mcgaugh00,papastergis16}, and the Kennicutt-Schmidt star formation law \citep[e.g.][]{kennicutt98}.
Observations have shown that the H{\sc i}\ in galaxies frequently shows signatures of disturbance in both their spatially resolved and global observations \citep{sancisi76, baldwin80}. Smaller scale structure in global H{\sc i}\ profiles, such as departures from symmetry, thus indicate deviation from a uniform gas distribution and/or kinematics in the galaxy \citep{swaters99,kornreich00}. Historically, high rates of asymmetry in the global H{\sc i}\ profiles of galaxies have been observed throughout the literature. Qualitative assessment of global H{\sc i}\ asymmetry by \citet{richter94} found that at least 50\% of isolated galaxies were asymmetric, leading them to state that ``asymmetries in disc galaxies may be the rule, rather than the exception". This statement was reinforced by later quantitative studies: \citet{haynes98} found an asymmetry rate of 50\% in their sample of isolated galaxies, and \citet{matthews98} found 77\% in their sample of isolated late-type spiral galaxies. \citet{espada11} investigated the rate of asymmetries intrinsic to disc galaxies using a sample drawn from the AMIGA \citep[Analysis of the interstellar Medium of Isolated GAlaxies,][]{verdes05} project, selected to be some of the most isolated galaxies in the Universe. They found their asymmetry distribution to be well described by a half-Gaussian with 9\% of galaxies showing asymmetry in excess of 2$\sigma$ and only 2\% in excess of 3$\sigma$.
The observed high rate of asymmetries, especially in isolated galaxies, implies that they must be either self sustaining or frequently induced otherwise they would be washed out within a few dynamical timescales. These high rates of asymmetry have also made it difficult to determine or single out the drivers of asymmetries observationally, as there are often conflicting results between studies, or significant scatter in correlations, supporting the presence of relationships between global H{\sc i}\ asymmetries and optical asymmetries \citep{haynes98,kornreich00,bok19}, presence of companions \citep{wilcots04}, morphology \citep{matthews98, espada11}, and environment \citep{haynes98,espada11,scott18}.
The lack of strong correlation between individual asymmetries and galaxy properties has led the community to focus their attention on the shape of the distribution of global H{\sc i}\ profile asymmetries. Using this approach, there is growing evidence that environment must be one of the dominant drivers of asymmetry in global H{\sc i}\ spectra. \citet{scott18} showed that 16\% and 26\% of the galaxies with H{\sc i}\ detections in the Abell 1367 and Virgo clusters have asymmetry greater than the \citet{espada11} 3$\sigma$ level. This is supported by recent work by \citet{bok19}, who showed that global H{\sc i}\ asymmetries are more frequent in close galaxy pairs compared to isolated systems using a sample of $\sim600$ ALFALFA galaxies.
The picture is less clear for isolated galaxies, and a number of drivers have been proposed \citep[see the review by][]{jog09} such as the accretion of gas \citep{bournaud05,sancisi08, espada11, ramirez18}, eccentric instabilities \citep{lovelace99}, wakes or distortions in dark matter haloes \citep{jog97,weinberg98, angiras06,angiras07, vaneymeren11a, vaneymeren11b}, and repeated or recent (but optically undetected) minor mergers \citep{zaritsky97, portas11,ramirez18}.
To date there hasn't been a robust and comprehensive quantification of global H{\sc i}\ asymmetry as a function of galaxy properties. This is, in part, due to the lack of a suitable dataset. The majority of H{\sc i}\ observations come from blind surveys such as ALFALFA, which predominantly detect the most H{\sc i}\ rich objects in their volume, creating a bias toward disc-dominated, star-forming galaxies.
In this work we investigate global H{\sc i}\ asymmetries using the xGASS sample \citep{catinella18}, a stellar mass-selected survey designed to be representative of the gas properties of galaxies over a range of galaxy properties, making it an ideal sample to constrain the relationships between galaxy properties and global H{\sc i}\ asymmetries. This paper is organised as follows: in \S\ref{sec:sample} we introduce our xGASS sample, in \S\ref{sec:methods} we describe our H{\sc i}\ spectrum fitting and asymmetry measurement, and in \S\ref{sec:xGasym} we present the xGASS asymmetry distribution. In \S\ref{sec:noisecorr} we quantify the effect of noise on asymmetry measurement, and we revisit the xGASS asymmetry rate and define an asymmetric population in \S\ref{sec:asympop}. We investigate the H{\sc i}\ properties of the asymmetric population and compare the asymmetry distributions of galaxies in different environments in \S\ref{sec:asymenv}, we place our results in context of the literature in \S\ref{sec:discuss}, and we conclude in \S\ref{sec:concl}.
\section{Sample} \label{sec:sample}
The xGASS sample \citep{catinella10,catinella18} is a stellar mass-selected H{\sc i}\ survey of $\sim1200$ galaxies with $10^{9} < M_{\star}[M_{\sun}]< 10^{11.5}$ and $0.01<z<0.05$. The sample covers the H{\sc i}\ gas fraction range $-2< \log_{10}(M_\text{H{\sc i}}/M_{\star})<1$ and is representative of the H{\sc i}\ fractions of galaxies over a comprehensive range in stellar mass, stellar surface density $(\mu_{\star})$, specific star formation rate (sSFR) and NUV-r colour. Additionally galaxies are classified as satellites, group central (the most massive galaxy in their group), or isolated centrals (a galaxy with no detectable satellites) using the SDSS DR7 Group B({\sc ii}) catalogue corrected for shredding \citep{yang07,janowiecki17}.
Starting with the 804 H{\sc i}\ detections (formal \& marginal) in xGASS, we excluded 108 galaxies flagged as confused as most of the observed H{\sc i}\ is physically associated to another galaxy within the beam. We remove an additional seven galaxies which have radio frequency interference (RFI) overlapping their spectrum, and a further 127 galaxies below our signal-to-noise ($S/N$) cut. Thus the final number of galaxies studied in this work is 562. Of these, 439 are classified as centrals and 113 as satellites. In Fig. \ref{fig:sample} we show the density normalised distributions of stellar mass and gas fractions of our sub-sample compared to the xGASS parent sample, split into H{\sc i}\ detections and non-detections. As expected our sub-sample shows a close correspondence to the xGASS detections both in stellar mass and gas fraction. Compared to the overall xGASS sample the sub-sample shows a bias toward lower stellar masses as the gas fractions of these galaxies are further above the survey detection threshold. We also divide our sub-sample into satellite and central (group \& isolated) galaxies in Fig. \ref{fig:sample}. The central galaxies show the smallest variations from the sub-sample distributions as they are the larger sample, and aside from the small excess above 10$^{10.75}\ M_{\sun}$ and deficit between 10$^{9.25}\ M_{\sun}$ and 10$^{10}\ M_{\sun}$ the satellite galaxies show a similar stellar mass distribution to the sub-sample. The gas fractions of the satellite galaxies are systematically lower than the centrals, consistent with the lower gas fractions observed in galaxies which reside in higher mass haloes \citep{catinella13}.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width = \textwidth]{Mstar_GF_compare.png}
\caption{Sample properties: density normalised distributions of stellar mass (left) and H{\sc i}\ gas fraction (right). xGASS detections (excluding confused galaxies) are shown as a green filled histogram while the non-detections are shown as an orange filled histogram. Our selected sub-sample is shown as a solid black line, and distributions of central and satellite galaxies in the sub-sample are shown as black dashed and dotted lines respectively.}
\label{fig:sample}
\end{figure*}
\section{Methods} \label{sec:methods}
\subsection{Spectra fitting} \label{subsec:fits}
Consistent and robust measurement limits are required to characterise asymmetry. We fit the busy function \citep{westmeier14} to our sample of 689 H{\sc i}\ detections not affected by beam confusion or RFI as it is fast, accurate, flexible, and automatically provides an estimate of the RMS noise $(\sigma_{\rm RMS})$. Each fit was visually inspected to ensure that it is an accurate parameterisation of the spectrum within the noise limits, and we force some fit parameters if necessary to prevent unphysical solutions. The fits were visually classified into three categories based on fit performance. Out of the 689 galaxies, 582 fits were successful, 124 lacked distinct double or single peak features and were best described by a top-hat spectrum, and 89 were too irregular to be successfully fit. In the case of unsuccessful fits we forced the busy function to fit the edges of the spectrum, so that we have sensible bounds on the profile, and call these `edge fits'.
The limits of each spectrum are defined as where the busy function fit equals 20\% of the fits peak flux, using the individual values for each peak in double-horn spectra and the flux of the flat section in top-hat spectra. In the case of edge fits we define the limits to be where the fit equals the measured $\sigma_{\rm RMS}$. Using these limits we calculate the integrated flux ($S_{\rm int}$), and velocity width at the 20\% level ($\omega_{20}$). It is worth noting that while the busy function provides a robust parameterisation of H{\sc i}\ spectra, it may average over or ignore flux enhancements (or depressions) in a spectrum which are indistinguishable from the measurement noise. Due to this we use our fits to define the limits of each profile and measure $\omega_{20}$ and $\sigma_{\rm RMS}$, but \emph{measure $S_{\rm int}$ from the observed spectrum} rather than the fit, so that we capture these variations in the observed profiles.
Although there are already published values for the integrated flux and velocity width of each spectrum in the xGASS catalogue \citep{catinella18} we have made our own measurements of these parameters using our fits as they provide a less subjective measure of the limits of each spectrum and allow us to measure velocity widths at the 20\% level, compared to the published xGASS values measured at the 50\% level ($\omega_{50}$), to be consistent with previous global H{\sc i}\ asymmetry studies \citep[e.g.][]{espada11,scott18,bok19}. We measure a median relative difference of -4.2\% and -4.3\% in integrated flux and velocity width compared to the existing xGASS measurements, but this can be attributed to differences in the measurement techniques and identification of spectrum peaks. xGASS integrates spectra between limits defined by lines fit to the edges of each profile \citep[e.g.][]{catinella07}, whereas we integrate our spectra between the $\omega_{20}$ velocity limits. The 1$\sigma$ relative scatter estimated from the median absolute deviation between the existing xGASS measurements and our measurements for the integrated fluxes and velocity widths are 3.4\% and 6.4\%, respectively.
Using $S_{\rm int}$ and $\omega_{20}$ we calculate the $S/N$ using the ALFALFA definition \citep{saintonge07} which characterises the average flux over the profile,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:SN}
S/N = \frac{S_{\rm int}/\omega_{20}}{\sigma_{\rm RMS}}\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}\frac{\omega_{20}}{V_{\rm sm}}},
\end{equation}
where $V_{\rm sm}$ is the smoothed velocity resolution. We adopt this definition of $S/N$ as it is representative of the ability to detect and measure a spectrum; a wider profile with the same $S_{\rm int}$ and $\sigma_{\rm RMS}$ will be harder to detect. Asymmetry studies typically set a lower limit of $S/N>10$ to ensure that spectra are of high enough quality to reliably recover asymmetry \citep[e.g.][]{espada11,bok19}. In this work we set a lower threshold of $S/N\geq7$ (see \S\ref{sec:asympop}). This leaves us with 562 galaxies in our final sample; 456 good fits, 81 top-hat fits and 25 edge fits.
\subsection{Asymmetry measurement} \label{subsec:Afr}
We quantify the asymmetry of a spectrum using the integrated flux ratio parameter $A_{\rm fr}$ \citep{haynes98} as it is a common parameterisation adopted in the literature \citep[e.g.][]{espada11,scott18, bok19} and analogous to flux ratio parameters presented in other studies \citep[e.g.][]{matthews98,bournaud05}.
It is defined as
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Afr}
A_{\rm fr} =
\begin{cases}
A & A \geq 1\\
1/A & A < 1
\end{cases},
\end{equation}
where A is the ratio of the integrated flux on the two halves of the spectrum split by the middle velocity $V_M = 0.5(V_{\rm min} + V_{\rm max})$:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:A}
A = \frac{
\int_{V_{M}}^{V_{\rm max}} S_{\nu} d\text{v}
}{
\int_{V_{\rm min}}^{V_{M}} S_{\nu} d\text{v}
}.
\end{equation}
We adopt $V_{\rm max}$ and $V_{\rm min}$ as the limits defined from our fits used for measuring $S_{\rm int}$ and $\omega_{20}$. Like $S_{\rm int}$, $A_{\rm fr}$ is calculated from each observed spectrum rather than its busy function fit.
Aside from the effects of measurement noise on integrated fluxes, which we quantify in \S\ref{subsec:SNafrcor}, there are four potential issues that could affect the measurement of $A_{\rm fr}$. The first one is the effect of noise on a spectrum's peaks. Should the value of a peak be reduced or increased the measurement limits would shift, resulting in a shift of the middle velocity and a change in the $A_{\rm fr}$ measurement. This is not an issue for Gaussian or top-hat spectra because the effect will be the same on both sides of the profile as they only have one peak. Double-horn spectra typically have well-defined straight edges, so we would expect little change in the location of their measurement limits. Second, if a target galaxy is not centered in the telescopes beam its response will not be spatially uniform over the H{\sc i}\, causing the emission to be detected favourably on one side of the profile. However, typical pointing offsets with the Arecibo radio telescope are 10-20 arcsec, and negligible with respect to its 3.5 arcmin beamsize. Third, there is the possibility of contaminant emission from neighboring galaxies. xGASS has been carefully assessed for confusion and we have discarded the spectra classified as confused. We do not expect any of these three effects to be significant in our sample. Last, the spectral baseline subtraction is a source of uncertainty for measured H{\sc i}\ parameters, and might affect $A_{\rm fr}$ estimates in either direction. However, this is common to any studies of global HI spectra and a significant issue only for low $S/N$ data.
\section{The rate of asymmetries in \lowercase{x}GASS} \label{sec:xGasym}
In Fig. \ref{fig:xGA_compare} we show the cumulative $A_{\rm fr}$ distribution of our xGASS sub-sample in bins of $\Delta A_{\rm fr} = 0.05$ as the solid black line. A spectrum with a perfectly symmetric profile has, by definition, $A_{\rm fr} = 1$. \citet{haynes98} classified asymmetric spectra as $A_{\rm fr}>1.05$, finding that 67\% of galaxies are asymmetric; and \citet{espada11} parameterised their $A_{\rm fr}$ distribution using a half Gaussian with $\sigma=0.13$ finding 2\% of galaxies with $A_{\rm fr} > 3\sigma\ (1.39)$. As these studies used samples of isolated galaxies, we calculate the rate of asymmetries in xGASS using only the isolated central galaxies (the red dotted line in Fig. \ref{fig:xGA_compare}) and find an asymmetry rate of 76\% and 14\%, respectively. xGASS therefore shows a higher rate of asymmetry than these samples.
Fig. \ref{fig:xGA_compare} also compares xGASS to the AMIGA refined sub-sample from \citet{espada11}, defined as spectra with an estimated $A_{\rm fr}$ uncertainty of $<0.05$. The xGASS distribution has a lower cumulative fraction in all $A_{\rm fr}$ bins compared to the \citet{espada11} distribution, confirming our result above that xGASS has a higher rate of asymmetries in global H{\sc i}\ spectra. Quantitatively, half of the xGASS galaxies have $A_{\rm fr}>1.14$, whereas 31\% of the AMIGA galaxies show asymmetries greater than this level. This is unsurprising as xGASS contains galaxies in all environments and H{\sc i}\ asymmetries have been shown to be more frequent in denser environments \citep{angiras06,angiras07,scott18,bok19}, whereas the AMIGA galaxies are selected to be extremely isolated and should show the lowest rate of asymmetries.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 0.5\textwidth]{SN_Afrdist_compare_amiga.png}
\caption{xGASS asymmetry distribution: comparison between the cumulative $A_{\rm fr}$ histogram for xGASS (black) and the AMIGA refined sub-sample (grey, dashed). xGASS galaxies classified as isolated centrals are shown by the red dotted histogram, and the blue dot-dash vertical line is the AMIGA 3$\sigma$ asymmetry threshold.}
\label{fig:xGA_compare}
\end{figure}
In Fig. \ref{fig:Afr_SNdeff} we compare the cumulative $A_{\rm fr}$ distributions for xGASS galaxies with $S/N>15$ and $S/N<15$. Clearly, spectra with lower $S/N$ have a higher rate of asymmetries compared to the higher $S/N$ spectra. This suggests that the fraction of galaxies classified as asymmetric may depend on the $S/N$ distribution of the sample. To properly assess the rate of asymmetries in a sample we must understand the effect of noise on the measurement of $A_{\rm fr}$. Uncertainties on individual $A_{\rm fr}$ values have been estimated previously. \citet{espada11} combine their observational and measurement uncertainties, and find typical $\sigma A_{\rm fr} = 0.04$ with a maximum around 0.17. \citet{bok19} estimated a maximum uncertainty of $<5\%$ at $S/N=10$, their lower $S/N$ threshold, by repeatedly perturbing each channel in their spectra by a variate drawn from a Gaussian of width set by the observed $\sigma_{\rm RMS}$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 0.5\textwidth]{SN_Afrdist_compareSN.png}
\caption{Cumulative $A_{\rm fr}$ histograms for xGASS galaxies with $S/N>15$ and $S/N<15$, compared to whole xGASS sample.}
\label{fig:Afr_SNdeff}
\end{figure}
\section{The effect of noise on measured asymmetry} \label{sec:noisecorr}
\subsection{Mock H{\sc i}\ spectra} \label{subsec:mockspectra}
To understand the effects of measurement noise on our asymmetry measurements we generate mock global H{\sc i}\ spectra observations using a toy model. A total H{\sc i}\ mass ($M_\text{H{\sc i}}$) is distributed in an infinitesimally thin disc according to an adopted radial surface density profile and projected with inclination $i$ onto a two dimensional sky-plane image. Each pixel is assigned an observed line-of-sight (LOS) velocity using a rotation curve (RC) template from \citet{catinella06} and corrected for projection effects using
\begin{equation}
V_{\rm obs} = V(r)\cos(\phi)\sin(i),
\end{equation}
where $\phi$ is the azimuthal angle measured counter clockwise from the receding major axis. We use the \citet{catinella06} template RCs as they provide a good parameterisation of disc galaxies over a range of luminosities out to a maximum radius of 2 optical radii ($R_{\rm opt}$, defined as the radius enclosing 83\% of the integrated stellar light), which we adopt as the maximum extent of our model to avoid extrapolation. The template RCs adopt the Polyex model \citep{giovanelli02}
\begin{equation}
V_{\rm PE}(r) = V_0\Big(1-e^{-r/R_{\rm PE}}\Big)\Big(1+\frac{\alpha r}{R_{\rm {PE}}}\Big),
\end{equation}
characterised by the amplitude $V_0$, exponential scale length $R_{\rm PE}$ and outer slope $\alpha$.
The radial H{\sc i}\ surface density profile is modelled as a constant surface density which transitions to an exponential decline with slope $\beta$ at transition radius $R_T$:
\begin{equation}
M_\text{H{\sc i}}(r) =
\begin{cases}
1 & r < R_T \\
e^{- \beta (r - R_T)} & r \geq R_T.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
This is motivated by observations which show a central saturation of 8 $M_{\sun} \ \text{pc}^{-2}$ interior to the optical radius, and decline exponentially at higher radii \citep{leroy08}. We adopt an exponential slope motivated by \citet{bigiel12} and \citet{wang14} who showed that the H{\sc i}-dominated outer parts of disc galaxies have an approximately universal slope of $\beta=1.65/R_{\rm opt}$\footnote{Formally \citet{bigiel12} and \citet{wang14} scale their profiles by $R_{25}$, the radius of the 25 mag arcsec$^{-2}$ isophote, but for an exponential Freeman disc with central surface brightness of 21.6 mag arcsec$^{-2}$ it can be shown that $R_{\rm opt} \approx R_{25}$.}. The spectrum is observed in bins of rest-frame LOS velocity at resolution $V_{\rm res}$ and the mass in each bin is converted to a spectral flux ($S_\nu$) for an adopted distance $d$ (and corresponding redshift $z_\text{H{\sc i}}$) by inverting
\begin{equation}
M_\text{H{\sc i}}[M_{\odot}] = \frac{2.356 \times 10^5}{(1+z_\text{H{\sc i}})} \; \Big(\frac{d}{\text{Mpc}}\Big)^2 \; \int S_\nu \, d\text{v}\ \text{Jy}\ \text{km} \ \text{s}^{-1}.
\end{equation}
We also model a Gaussian spectrum with standard deviation $\sigma_{\rm G}$ and a top-hat spectrum of width $\omega_{\rm T}$ which are normalised to the same $S_{\rm int}$ as the H{\sc i}\ toy model spectrum. Measurement noise is modelled by perturbing each channel by a random variate drawn from $\mathcal{N}(0,\sigma_{\rm input})$, and the spectrum is boxcar smoothed to velocity resolution $V_{\rm sm}$ using a boxcar of width $N_{\rm sm} = V_{\rm sm}/V_{\rm res}$.
We generate noiseless, symmetric model spectra using the above model to create a Gaussian spectrum with $\sigma_{\rm G} = 90\ \text{km} \ \text{s}^{-1}$, a narrow Gaussian with $\sigma_{\rm G} = 14\ \text{km} \ \text{s}^{-1}$, a top-hat spectrum with width $\omega_{\rm T} = 300\ \text{km} \ \text{s}^{-1}$, and a double-horn spectrum using the following input parameters:
\begin{itemize}
\item $M_\text{H{\sc i}} =10^{10}\ M_{\odot}$
\item $d = 150$ Mpc
\item $i= 50^\circ$
\item $R_T = R_{\rm opt}$
\item $\beta = 1.65/R_{\rm opt}$
\item $V_0 = 200\ \text{km} \ \text{s}^{-1}$
\item $R_\text{PE} = 0.164\ R_\text{opt}$
\item $\alpha = 0.002\ R_\text{opt}$.
\end{itemize}
The double-horn and top-hat spectra are representative of galaxies with H{\sc i}\ distributions which extend to the flat part of the RC resulting in well defined, straight profile edges. The Gaussian profile represents the case when the H{\sc i}\ predominantly traces the rising part of the RC resulting in slowly rising edges, and the narrow Gaussian reflects the H{\sc i}\ spectrum of a near face-on galaxy where there is little LOS velocity information.
The model spectra are observed at $V_{\rm res} = 2\ \text{km} \ \text{s}^{-1}$ and smoothed to $V_{\rm sm} = 10\ \text{km} \ \text{s}^{-1}$. The limits of each template are defined in the same way as the observations and used to measure $S_{\rm int}$ and $\omega_{20}$. The model spectra are used to create mock observations with desired $S/N$ by adding random noise with magnitude $\sigma_{\rm input}$ to each channel prior to smoothing. Knowing $S_{\rm int}$, $\omega_{20}$, and $V_{\rm sm}$ of the model spectrum we can rearrange eq. \ref{eq:SN} to calculate $\sigma_{\rm RMS}$; the observed noise after smoothing. The required input noise $\sigma_{\rm input}$ is given by the noise reduction due to smoothing, $\sigma_{\rm RMS} = \sigma_{\rm input} / \sqrt{N_{\rm sm}}$, where $N_{\rm sm}$ is the width of the boxcar kernel. Sets of $10^4$ mock observations are created for $S/N \in [5,100]$ at steps of $\DeltaS/N=1$ to properly sample a range covering our lower limit $S/N =7$ to very high quality spectra. We also generate the same sets of mock observations using the $S/N$ defined as the peak flux in the spectrum divided by $\sigma_{\rm RMS}$, $S/N_{\rm peak}$, as it is a common definition used in the literature \citep[e.g.][]{haynes98, espada11}. In Fig. \ref{fig:mockspectra} we show examples of mock double-horn, Gaussian, top-hat, and narrow Gaussian spectra with $S/N = 50,\ 20$ and $10$ with the model spectrum over-laid. We treat the model spectra as `fits' to the mock spectra and use the same measurement limits to calculate $S_{\rm int},\ S/N,\ S/N_{\rm peak}$ and $A_{\rm fr}$ for all the mock observations.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 0.5 \textwidth]{spectrumgrid.png}
\caption{Mock observations of global H{\sc i}\ spectra for the double-horn (column 1), Gaussian (column 2), top-hat (column 3), and narrow Gaussian (column 4) models with $S/N = 50$ (top row), 20 (middle row) and 10 (bottom row). The noiseless model spectra are overlaid in red.}
\label{fig:mockspectra}
\end{figure}
\subsection{The dependence of $A_{\rm fr}$ on $S/N$} \label{subsec:SNafrcor}
In the left panel of Fig. \ref{fig:noise_asym}, we show density-normalised histograms of \footnote{ As $A$ is a ratio quantity bounded over the range $[0,\infty)$, with a mean of $A=1$ for a symmetric spectrum, it obeys log-normal statistics. Thus, we show the distribution of $\log_{10}(A)$ such that any scatter is Gaussian.} $\log_{10}(A)$ for 10$^4$ mock observations of an intrinsically symmetric double-horn spectrum with input $S/N = 50,\ 20,$ and $10$. While the average recovered value for each distribution is $\log_{10}(A) = 0$ (i.e. a perfectly symmetric spectrum) there is visible scatter about the mean, which increases with lower $S/N$. This increase in scatter is also clear in the right panel of Fig. \ref{fig:noise_asym}, where we show the cumulative $A_{\rm fr}$ distributions of the same samples: i.e. the histograms reach a given cumulative fraction at higher $A_{\rm fr}$ as $S/N$ decreases. This demonstrates that, while the distribution of recovered asymmetries is consistent with Gaussian noise, and the most probable $A_{\rm fr}$ measurement is a symmetric spectrum, the uncertainty on an $A_{\rm fr}$ measurement increases as $S/N$ decreases. In other words, a perfectly symmetric spectrum will be measured to have $A_{\rm fr}>1$ more frequently than it will be measured to have $A_{\rm fr}=1$. We refer to this effect as ``noise-induced asymmetry". At $S/N=10$, $\sim$50\% of intrinsically symmetric spectra have noise-induced asymmetries greater than $A_{\rm fr} = 1.1$, which is larger than typical $A_{\rm fr}$ uncertainty estimates \citep[$\lesssim 10$\%;][]{espada11, bok19}. This demonstrates why individual $A_{\rm fr}$ values cannot be directly compared: it is difficult to assess the degree of noise contamination in an $A_{\rm fr}$ measurement. Instead we must compare cumulative $A_{\rm fr}$ distributions between samples and control for their different $S/N$. We present our method to compare $A_{\rm fr}$ distributions in \S\ref{subsec:envasym}.
To investigate how this noise-induced asymmetry behaves for different spectrum shapes and $S/N$ measures we place our mock spectra in bins of $\Delta (S/N) = \Delta (S/N_{\rm peak}) = 4$ and quantify the width of the $A_{\rm fr}$ distribution in each bin by calculating its 50$^{\rm th}$ and 90$^{\rm th}$ percentiles\footnote{As $A$ is a log-normal quantity $A_{\rm fr}$ is a half log-normal distribution, which is not meaningfully described by Gaussian statistics, so we use percentiles.}. In Fig. \ref{fig:shapecompare} we show these percentiles as a function of the mean $S/N$ in each bin. The same trend is shown as in Fig. \ref{fig:noise_asym}: the width of the $A_{\rm fr}$ distribution increases as $S/N$ decreases, and this trend is also visible with $S/N_{\rm peak}$.
The most striking feature of Fig. \ref{fig:shapecompare} is that the magnitude of noise-induced asymmetries depends on the choice of $S/N$ measurement and the shape of a spectrum. The double-horn, Gaussian and top-hat percentiles are almost identical as a function of $S/N$, and the narrow Gaussian percentile shows the same behaviour but sits slightly below the others; indicating that very narrow spectra are not as easily affected by noise. In the lowest $S/N$ bin of the 90$^{\rm th}$ percentile this difference is $\sim 9\%$. Our inclusion of the narrow Gaussian spectrum demonstrates that the similarity between the double-horn, Gaussian, and top-hat percentiles is not simply a result of them having similar $\sigma_{\rm RMS}$. The narrow Gaussian requires a higher $\sigma_{\rm RMS}$ to have the same $S/N$ at fixed $S_{\rm int}$, as is seen in Fig. \ref{fig:mockspectra}, but despite this its percentiles show minimal difference compared to the other models. All the percentiles have similar behaviour as a function of $S/N$ because it is a robust measure regardless of profile shape. The right panel of Fig. \ref{fig:shapecompare} shows that the percentiles are not similar at fixed $S/N_{\rm peak}$. A double-horn spectrum with similar $S_{\rm int}$ and $\omega_{20}$ as a Gaussian has a higher peak flux (see Fig. \ref{fig:mockspectra}) and requires a higher $\sigma_{\rm RMS}$ to have the same $S/N_{\rm peak}$. This higher $\sigma_{\rm RMS}$ can cause greater noise-induced asymmetries in the double-horn spectrum compared to the Gaussian, hence the double-horn percentile sits above the Gaussian one in the right panel of Fig. \ref{fig:shapecompare}.
In Fig. \ref{fig:smoothcompare} we show the 50$^{\rm th}$ and 90$^{\rm th}$ percentiles of the $A_{\rm fr}$ distribution for a Gaussian spectrum after boxcar smoothing to final velocity resolutions of 10, 20 and 50 $\text{km} \ \text{s}^{-1}$ as a function of $S/N$ and $S/N_{\rm peak}$. $S/N$ shows little variation between the different degrees of smoothing as it is, by definition, invariant to smoothing; whereas at fixed $S/N_{\rm peak}$ spectra with higher smoothing have a wider $A_{\rm fr}$ distribution. This is due to the behaviour of $S/N_{\rm peak}$ as boxcar smoothing conserves flux, and thus $A_{\rm fr}$. Smoothing decreases $\sigma_{\rm RMS}$ by a factor of $\sqrt{N_{\rm sm}}$ and increases profile width (which decreases the peak) by $\sim 0.5 V_{\rm sm}$ \citep{catinella13}, though the $\sigma_{\rm RMS}$ reduction is the dominant effect. A $V_{\rm sm}$ of 10 $\text{km} \ \text{s}^{-1}$ at $V_{\rm res} = 2\ \text{km} \ \text{s}^{-1}$ decreases the peak of the narrow Gaussian by 9\% and the $\sigma_{\rm RMS}$ by a factor of $\sqrt{5}$, increasing $S/N_{\rm peak}$ by a factor of $\sim 2$. At fixed $S/N_{\rm peak}$ spectra with higher smoothing can have noise-induced asymmetries drawn from the distribution corresponding to their pre-smoothed $\sigma_{\rm RMS}$ (i.e. $\sigma_{\rm input}$).
Fig. \ref{fig:shapecompare} and \ref{fig:smoothcompare} indicate that we must exercise caution when interpreting and comparing the $A_{\rm fr}$ distributions of samples with different distributions of $S/N$, and if $S/N_{\rm peak}$ is used profile shapes and smoothing add additional uncertainty. $S/N$ is clearly the preferred choice if we wish to control for noise-induced asymmetry, so we only consider it from here.
The shape of the $S/N$ percentiles are well described by the functional form
\begin{equation} \label{eq:percentile}
P(S/N) = 1\ +\ \frac{1}{a \, (S/N - b)},
\end{equation}
where $a$ and $b$ are functions of the desired percentile. We provide the values of $a$ and $b$ for fits to the 40$^{\rm th}$ to 95$^{\rm th}$ percentiles of a double-horn spectrum in Table. \ref{tab:Pfits}, though they are applicable to any profile shape.
\begin{table}
\caption{Coefficients $a$ and $b$ from fits to the 40$^{\rm th}$ to 95$^{\rm th}$ percentiles for a double-horn spectrum \label{tab:Pfits}}
\begin{tabular}{p{2.25cm}|p{2.25cm}|p{2.25cm}}
\hline
Percentile & a & b \\ \hline \hline
P40 & 1.363 & 0.375 \\
P45 & 1.196 & 0.411 \\
P50 & 1.063 & 0.513 \\
P55 & 0.951 & 0.602 \\
P60 & 0.851 & 0.656\\
P65 & 0.768 & 0.760 \\
P70 & 0.693 & 0.864 \\
P75 & 0.624 & 0.945 \\
P80 & 0.560 & 1.049 \\
P85 & 0.499 & 1.179 \\
P90 & 0.438 & 1.415\\
P95 & 0.372 & 1.850\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 0.5 \textwidth]{logA_Afr_dist.png}
\caption{The effect of noise on asymmetry. Density normalised histogram of $\log_{10}(A)$ (left) and cumulative $A_{\rm fr}$ distribution (right) for 10$^4$ mock observations of an intrinsically symmetric double horn spectrum with $S/N = 50$ (black, dotted), $S/N = 20$ (blue, dashed), and $S/N = 10$ (red, solid).}
\label{fig:noise_asym}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width = \textwidth]{shapecompare.png}
\caption{Asymmetry distribution as a function of $S/N$ for different H{\sc i}\ profile shapes. The 50$^{\rm th}$ (green) and 90$^{\rm th}$ (orange) percentiles of the asymmetry distribution are shown as a function of the average $S/N$ in each bin for $S/N$ (left) and $S/N_{\rm peak}$ (right). The solid line corresponds to the double-horn model, the dashed to the Gaussian, the dotted to the top-hat, and the dot-dashed to the narrow Gaussian. }
\label{fig:shapecompare}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width = \textwidth]{smoothcompare_small.png}
\caption{Asymmetry distribution as a function of noise for a Gaussian H{\sc i}\ profile with different degrees of smoothing. The 50$^{\rm th}$ (green) and 90$^{\rm th}$ (orange) percentiles of the asymmetry distribution for a Gaussian spectrum are shown as a function of the average $S/N$ in each bin for $S/N$ (left) and $S/N_{\rm peak}$ (right). The solid line corresponds to a final smoothed velocity resolution of $V_{\rm sm} = 10\ \text{km} \ \text{s}^{-1}$, the dashed to $V_{\rm sm} = 20\ \text{km} \ \text{s}^{-1}$ and dotted to $V_{\rm sm} = 50\ \text{km} \ \text{s}^{-1}$. }
\label{fig:smoothcompare}
\end{figure*}
\section{Robust quantification of symmetric and asymmetric H{\sc i}\ spectra} \label{sec:asympop}
With an understanding of the effect of noise on $A_{\rm fr}$, we can identify spectra which are confidently asymmetric and place more meaningful constraints on the rate of H{\sc i}\ profile asymmetry in xGASS. In Fig. \ref{fig:SNasym} we plot the $A_{\rm fr}$ of the xGASS galaxies as a function of their $S/N$ (grey points), with the 50$^{\rm th}$ and 90$^{\rm th}$ percentiles for a double-horn spectrum from \S\ref{subsec:SNafrcor} overlaid (thin solid green and orange lines). We also overlay the same percentiles calculated for the xGASS galaxies in bins with edges $S/N=$ 7, 8.84, 11.6, 16.5, 25.8, \& 177, defined to have the same number of galaxies in each bin (112), as dashed lines centered at the mean $S/N$ in each bin shown as diamonds. The xGASS percentiles are above the model percentiles across all $S/N$ values, so \emph{xGASS exhibits a higher rate of global H{\sc i}\ asymmetries than what can be attributed to measurement noise.} The typical H{\sc i}\ spectrum of a galaxy detected in our deep xGASS observations is therefore not symmetric.
One major consequence of the effect of noise on $A_{\rm fr}$ is that our $A_{\rm fr}$ distribution has become a $S/N - A_{\rm fr}$ parameter space: the definition of an asymmetric spectrum must take into account $S/N$. This makes the percentiles calculated in \S\ref{subsec:SNafrcor} an ideal tool for defining populations as there is 90\% confidence that a measured $A_{\rm fr}$ $\geq$ P90 (given its $S/N$) is due to an intrinsic asymmetry in the spectrum. To define a population consistent with being symmetric we select galaxies with $A_{\rm fr}\ \leq$ P50, as 50\% of initially perfectly symmetric galaxies will have $A_{\rm fr}$ below this threshold. At low $S/N$ there will be some contamination from galaxies with small asymmetries, but the deviation from symmetry shown by these galaxies is small compared to the scatter introduced by noise and we do not expect them to affect our results.
To define our asymmetric population we cannot use the percentiles from \S\ref{subsec:SNafrcor} as they have been computed using symmetric spectra and their use would include spectra with intrinsic asymmetry close to $A_{\rm fr}=1$. To avoid this contamination, and because we are not interested in the few galaxies with highly reliable (high $S/N$) but tiny levels of asymmetry, we define $A_{\rm fr}=1.1$ as our threshold for asymmetry. This choice is somewhat arbitrary, but is similar to the values used by \citet{haynes98} and the 1$\sigma$ (= 0.13) of the \citet{espada11} $A_{\rm fr}$ distribution. Using the same procedure outlined in \S\ref{sec:noisecorr} we generate a double-horn spectrum with intrinsic asymmetry of $A_{\rm fr}=1.1$ and model the $S/N-A_{\rm fr}$ parameter space. The 80$^{\rm th}$ percentile of the $A_{\rm fr}$ distribution as a function of $S/N$ is then used to define the asymmetric population, i.e. intrinsic $A_{\rm fr}\geq 1.1$ with 80\% confidence. This percentile is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:SNasym} as a red dotted line. The percentage of asymmetric galaxies in the same bins used to calculate the xGASS percentiles in Fig. \ref{fig:SNasym} is 33.6\%, 33.6\%, 37.5\%, 38.4\%, and 38\%, which corresponds to overall asymmetry rate of 37\%. The rate of asymmetry is relatively uniform as a function of $S/N$, which gives us confidence that we are properly correcting for the effects of noise. The asymmetric and symmetric populations contain 207 and 155 galaxies respectively, and their corresponding selection boxes are are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:popsel}.
In Figs. \ref{fig:spec_opt_asym.png} and \ref{fig:spec_opt_sym.png} we show the five most asymmetric spectra and five symmetric spectra selected in equal width $\log_{10}S/N$ bins alongside SDSS optical images of their host galaxies. The diversity in optical properties displayed by both samples provides no immediate distinction between H{\sc i}\ symmetric and asymmetric galaxies. Both samples contain blue star-forming and red passive galaxies, galaxies showing signs of optical disturbances, as well as ones that appear optically undisturbed. This is consistent with previous studies which observe little correlation between H{\sc i}\ profile asymmetry and optical asymmetries or morphology \citep[e.g.][]{haynes98,matthews98,kornreich00,wilcots04,espada11,bok19}. The most asymmetric galaxy in the sample, G13159, is the galaxy second from the left in Fig. \ref{fig:spec_opt_asym.png} and is also the strongest outlier at the top in Fig. \ref{fig:SNasym}. The xGASS source notes point out two small blue objects without optical redshifts that are visible to the East of the galaxy, but aside from these there are no likely companions within the beam and it is not classified as confused.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width= 0.5\textwidth]{SN_ASYM_parameterspace.png}
\caption{The $S/N-A_{\rm fr}$ parameter space for xGASS. Grey background points are individual xGASS galaxies and the thicker dashed lines are the 50$^{\rm th}$ (green) and 90$^{\rm th}$ (orange) percentiles of the $A_{\rm fr}$ distribution in bins of $S/N$, the bin centres are shown as diamonds. The thinner solid lines are 50$^{\rm th}$ (green) and 90$^{\rm th}$ (orange) percentiles for a double-horn spectrum from. \S\ref{subsec:SNafrcor},and the thin red line is the 80$^{\rm th}$ percentile of a spectrum with intrinsic $A_{\rm fr}=1.1$.}
\label{fig:SNasym}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width= 0.5\textwidth]{selection_symasym.png}
\caption{Definition of symmetric (green, dashed line) and asymmetric (red, dotted line) galaxies in the $S/N-A_{\rm fr}$ parameter space.}
\label{fig:popsel}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{spec_examples_asym.png}
\caption{SDSS postage stamps (1.5 arcmin square) and global H{\sc i}\ spectra for the five most asymmetric galaxies selected in equal width $\log_{10}S/N$ bins. The limits used for measuring each spectrum are shown as red dashed lines, and the measured $S/N$ and $A_{\rm fr}$ are shown in the top left corner of each spectrum. }
\label{fig:spec_opt_asym.png}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{spec_examples_sym.png}
\caption{The same as Fig. \ref{fig:spec_opt_sym.png} but for five symmetric galaxies in the same $\log_{10}S/N$ bins.}
\label{fig:spec_opt_sym.png}
\end{figure*}
\section{Relationship between asymmetry and galaxy properties} \label{sec:asymenv}
\subsection{H{\sc i}\ properties of the asymmetric population}
With lack of a strong qualitative correlation between global H{\sc i}\ asymmetry and optical morphology, we utilise the deep H{\sc i}\ observations of xGASS to investigate the H{\sc i}\ content of the asymmetric population. To compare the average H{\sc i}\ content of an asymmetric galaxy to the typical content for symmetric galaxies of similar stellar mass, we match each asymmetric galaxy to all symmetric galaxies within 0.15 dex in stellar mass and 0.05 dex in $S/N$. If less than five galaxies are matched we iteratively expand each of the bins by 0.01 dex up to limits of 0.25 dex in stellar mass and 0.15 dex in $S/N$, and we exclude galaxies which exceed these tolerances. The $S/N$ matching is included as low $S/N$ galaxies are biased toward asymmetry, and $S/N$ correlates positively with gas fraction at fixed stellar mass which could lead us to infer that asymmetric galaxies are gas-poor compared to symmetric ones. The definition of our populations restricts the number of symmetric galaxies at high $S/N$ such that the highest $S/N$ of a matched asymmetric galaxy is $S/N = 33.6$. Quantitatively, 166 (80\%) of the asymmetric galaxies were successfully matched to five or more symmetric ones.
We compute the gas fraction offset \citep[$\Delta f_\text{gas}$,][]{ellison18} as the difference between the logarithmic gas fraction of an asymmetric galaxy and the median logarithmic gas fraction of its matched symmetric galaxies. The $\Delta f_\text{gas}$ distribution for the asymmetric galaxies is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:deltafgas} along with the distribution for the matched symmetric galaxies which, by definition, is centered at $\Delta f_\text{gas} = 0$. Asymmetric galaxies show a systematic offset toward negative $\Delta f_\text{gas}$ values with a median $\Delta f_\text{gas} = -0.15 \pm 0.02$, where the uncertainty on the median is calculated from bootstrapping the asymmetric population $10^4$ times. This demonstrates that, on average, \emph{asymmetric galaxies contain 29\% less H{\sc i}\ than their stellar mass and $S/N$ matched, symmetric counterparts}. This result is robust to our choice of percentiles used to define the populations. If we choose P70 or P90 (for a spectrum with input $A_{\rm fr}=1.1$) to select the asymmetric population, the resulting median gas fraction offsets are $\Delta f_\text{gas} = -0.14 \pm 0.02$ and $\Delta f_\text{gas} = -0.17 \pm 0.03$ respectively. Similarly, if we select the symmetric population using P40 or P60 (for a symmetric input spectrum) the median gas fraction offsets are $\Delta f_\text{gas} = -0.12 \pm 0.03$ and $\Delta f_\text{gas} = -0.16 \pm 0.03$ respectively.
To investigate which galaxies are driving this trend we compare $\Delta f_\text{gas}$ and $A_{\rm fr}$ for the asymmetric, symmetric, and the intermediate (black points in Fig \ref{fig:popsel}) populations in Fig. \ref{fig:dfg_Afr}. The red contours denote the region that contain 68\% (solid) and 95\% (dashed) of the symmetric galaxies. We see that asymmetric galaxies, as in Fig. \ref{fig:deltafgas}, are offset toward negative $\Delta f_\text{gas}$ values; however there is also a trend where galaxies with higher $A_{\rm fr}$ are more likely, on average, to have more negative $\Delta f_\text{gas}$ values. This is also visible in the intermediate population of galaxies. If we divide the population in two based on their asymmetry we find the more asymmetric half contains, on average, 40\% less H{\sc i}\ than the symmetric half. This trend is not likely a consequence of noise-induced asymmetry, as we have $S/N$ matched our spectra in the $\Delta f_\text{gas}$ calculation. More asymmetric galaxies are more gas-poor.
Our asymmetric galaxies are therefore tracing a population where H{\sc i}\ is being disturbed and removed. One interpretation of this is that environmental processes, such as ram pressure or tidal stripping \citep{gunn72,kenney04,stevens17}, might be the dominant driver of H{\sc i}\ asymmetries in xGASS. Quantitatively 25\% and 15\% of the matched asymmetric and symmetric samples (respectively) are satellites, indicating a stronger contribution of galaxies potentially undergoing environmental effects to the asymmetric sample.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width= 0.5\textwidth]{delta_fgas_lgMstar.png}
\caption{Density normalised histograms of H{\sc i}\ gas fraction offsets controlled by stellar mass and $S/N$. The asymmetric galaxies are shown by the orange, filled histogram and the symmetric galaxies by a green, open histogram. The median $\Delta f_\text{gas}$ for the asymmetric galaxies is given in the top left corner and the vertical dashed line corresponds to the median offset of the symmetric galaxies, $\Delta f_\text{gas}=0$.}
\label{fig:deltafgas}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width= 0.5\textwidth]{delta_fgas_Afr.png}
\caption{Comparison between $\Delta f_\text{gas}$ and $A_{\rm fr}$. Asymmetric galaxies are shown in orange, symmetric galaxies (orange), and the intermediate population in black. The red solid and dashed contours define the region which encapsulate 68\% and 95\% of the symmetric galaxies, respectively.}
\label{fig:dfg_Afr}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Environment as a driver of asymmetry} \label{subsec:envasym}
Motivated by our observation of lower gas fractions and higher satellite fractions in the asymmetric sample, we compare the asymmetry distributions of galaxies in xGASS in different environments. As mentioned in \S\ref{subsec:SNafrcor} to fairly compare two $A_{\rm fr}$ distributions we must sample them from the same $S/N$ distribution. Given two samples (e.g. satellite galaxies, central galaxies), we compute their density normalised $S/N$ histograms in bins of 0.05 dex between $S/N=7$ and 50, and treat galaxies with $S/N>50$ as being in the same bin as noise effects are negligible at higher $S/N$. We define the `common' $S/N$ distribution between the two samples as the minimum density in each respective bin of the two corresponding $S/N$ histograms. The ratio of the common histogram to a sample's histogram gives the fraction of galaxies in each bin needed to match it. Galaxies are selected by generating a uniform random variate in the range [0,1] and only keeping those with variates lower than the fraction in their corresponding $S/N$ bin. We repeat this process 10$^4$ times, calculate the cumulative $A_{\rm fr}$ distribution in bins of $\Delta A_{\rm fr} = 0.05$ for the selected galaxies in each sample, and record the mean and standard deviation for each bin.
In Fig. \ref{fig:SNsamp} we compare the cumulative $A_{\rm fr}$ distribution of the satellite galaxies to their mean cumulative $A_{\rm fr}$ distribution with 1$\sigma$ error bars, after controlling the central and satellite galaxies to their common $S/N$ histogram. The mean cumulative distribution is equal or marginally higher in each $A_{\rm fr}$ bin compared to the uncontrolled distribution, so it is a slightly more symmetric sample of galaxies in comparison. This is because the satellite sample has relatively more low $S/N$ spectra in comparison to the centrals, so the sampling process acts to reduce their contribution and subsequently the contribution from spectra with high $A_{\rm fr}$ due to noise. The uncontrolled distribution is within the error bars of the mean cumulative, so the $S/N$ sampling does not significantly change the shape of the cumulative $A_{\rm fr}$ distribution (in this case).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width= 0.5 \textwidth]{SNcontrol_compare_Satellites_SNerrbar.png}
\caption{The cumulative $A_{\rm fr}$ distribution of satellite galaxies (solid) compared to the average distribution (dashed) from $10^4$ iterations of sampling from the $S/N$ control histogram defined between the satellites and centrals. Error bars on the average histogram are the 1$\sigma$ standard deviation of the $10^4$ distributions in each bin.}
\label{fig:SNsamp}
\end{figure}
In addition to the uncertainty introduced by our $S/N$ sampling, we assess the magnitude of the uncertainty originating from our sample using the delete-a-group jackknife (DAGJK) algorithm \citep{kott01}. The algorithm calculates the weighted difference between parameter estimates with a random unique subset removed, and the mean parameter estimate from removing $N$ unique subsets. The DAGJK standard deviation estimator is
\begin{equation}
\sigma(x) \ =\ \sqrt{\rm{var}(x)} \ =\ \sqrt{ \frac{N-1}{N} \sum_{i =1}^{N} \Big(x_i - \bar{x} \Big)^2},
\end{equation}
where $x_i$ is the parameter estimate with the $i^{\rm th}$ subset removed and $\bar{x}$ is the mean of the $N$ $x_i$ estimates. Removing galaxies randomly from a sample will not necessarily conserve the $S/N$ distribution, which we have carefully controlled to ensure a fair comparison of $A_{\rm fr}$ distributions. Instead of deleting a fraction of the sample, which is the common DAGJK method, we delete this fraction from each bin of the sample's $S/N$ histogram. This effectively conserves the $S/N$ distribution between each DAGJK iteration. We delete a random 20\% of galaxies from a sample in each iteration, so the number of iterations $N$ is five. The DAGJK uncertainty is calculated for each bin in the cumulative $A_{\rm fr}$ distribution for each of the $10^4$ $S/N$ sampling iterations described above. The median uncertainty in each $A_{\rm fr}$ bin is typically 2-3 times larger than the uncertainty estimated from the $S/N$ sampling, so the uncertainty is dominated by the variation within the sample.
In Fig. \ref{fig:Afrhistsatcent} we show the mean cumulative $A_{\rm fr}$ distributions for the satellite and central galaxies with median 1$\sigma$ DAGJK uncertainty from $10^4$ $S/N$ sampling iterations as error bars. The cumulative distribution of the satellite galaxies sits below the centrals until they converge around a cumulative fraction of 0.9 at $A_{\rm fr}=1.5$. The clear separation of the two distributions over the majority of this range confirms that satellite galaxies exhibit a higher rate of global H{\sc i}\ asymmetries than central galaxies, at least in our xGASS sample. This is consistent with \citet{angiras06, angiras07, scott18} and \citet{bok19}, who show that H{\sc i}\ asymmetries are more frequent in denser environments. Thus our work provides the first clear evidence that, as a population, satellite galaxies have more asymmetric global H{\sc i}\ spectra than centrals.
Although satellite galaxies have typically lower mass compared to centrals, this is not reflected by our xGASS sub-sample as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:sample}. To investigate whether stellar mass may influence the asymmetry of a galaxy, we performed the same analysis after splitting our sample into galaxies with masses above and below $M_{\star}=10^{10}\ M_{\sun}$, and found no difference between the cumulative $A_{\rm fr}$ histograms. Environment is therefore the main driver of global H{\sc i}\ asymmetries in xGASS.
We have made the distinction between satellite and central galaxies, but it is also interesting to compare the $A_{\rm fr}$ distributions of isolated and group central galaxies. Fig. \ref{fig:Afrhistisogrp} shows the mean cumulative $A_{\rm fr}$ distributions with median DAGJK 1$\sigma$ error bars for isolated and group central galaxies. The two distributions show no marked differences, except in the first two $A_{\rm fr}$ bins, where there is a clear difference in the fraction of galaxies with $A_{\rm fr}<1.1$. This suggests that group centrals show a higher rate of small disturbances in their H{\sc i}\ compared to isolated centrals, and is consistent with asymmetries being more frequent in denser environments.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width= 0.5 \textwidth]{Afrhist_SNcontrol_central_satellite.png}
\caption{Average cumulative $A_{\rm fr}$ distributions of central (blue) and satellite (red) galaxies controlled to the same $S/N$ distribution. Error bars correspond to the median DAGJK uncertainty in each bin, and the numbers in the legend correspond to the number of galaxies in each sample. }
\label{fig:Afrhistsatcent}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width= 0.5 \textwidth]{Afrhist_SNcontrol_isocent_grpcent.png}
\caption{The same as Fig. \ref{fig:Afrhistsatcent} but for isolated central (purple) and group central (orange) galaxies.}
\label{fig:Afrhistisogrp}
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion} \label{sec:discuss}
\subsection{Implications for global H{\sc i}\ asymmetry studies}
Using flat thresholds regardless of $S/N$, previous studies have estimated that at least 50\% of galaxies have asymmetric global H{\sc i}\ spectra \citep[e.g.][]{haynes98,matthews98}. In this work we found that the distribution of measured asymmetries is affected by the $S/N$ of the observations, such that a flat threshold would also select spectra with smaller intrinsic asymmetry. This suggests that the rates of global H{\sc i}\ asymmetry found by previous studies are likely upper limits and dependent on their sample's $S/N$ distribution. However, it does not detract the statement made by \citet{richter94} that ``asymmetries in disc galaxies may be the rule, rather than the exception"; we still observe the distribution of global H{\sc i}\ asymmetries to be wider than what can be attributed to noise (Fig. \ref{fig:SNasym}), at least in a stellar mass-selected sample such as xGASS.
It also demonstrates that the definition of a reference $A_{\rm fr}$ distribution is difficult as extremely high $S/N$ observations would be needed to reach the true intrinsic distribution. Making comparisons to this distribution would also require the same high $S/N$ observations, which would reduce sample sizes and the statistical power gained by using global H{\sc i}\ spectra would be reduced. We have shown in this work that this is not necessary. It is possible to compare the $A_{\rm fr}$ distributions of galaxy populations and make statements about their gas reservoirs; but it must be done in a relative sense, and taking into account profile $S/N$.
This means that the \citet{espada11} $A_{\rm fr}$ distribution remains a powerful quantification of the asymmetries due to secular evolution in isolated disc galaxies; all that is required to make comparisons to their dataset are $S/N$ measurements of their spectra.
\subsection{Implications for galaxy evolution}
In this work we have found that asymmetric galaxies preferentially have less H{\sc i}\ at fixed stellar mass, and that satellite galaxies have more asymmetric global H{\sc i}\ spectra than centrals. This suggests that asymmetric galaxies are preferentially gas-poor \emph{and} satellites, implying that the physical mechanism for making a satellite galaxy gas-poor is also making the profile asymmetric.
This is consistent with the observed asymmetries in H{\sc i}\ deficient \citep{haynes84} galaxies undergoing ram pressure stripping in clusters \citep[e.g.][]{kenney04,vollmer04,abramson11}. Environmental suppression of H{\sc i}\ has been observed in satellite galaxies residing in $\sim10^{13.5}\ M_{\odot}$ mass haloes by \citet{brown17}, and \citet{catinella13} showed in the GASS sample that galaxies in haloes of mass $10^{13}-10^{14}\ M_{\odot}$ have at least 0.4 dex less H{\sc i}\ than those in lower density environments at fixed stellar mass. These halo masses are typical of the group environment, and are dominated by satellites at all stellar masses in both GASS, and xGASS. Using resolved H{\sc i}\ asymmetries in the Eridanus group \citet{angiras06} found that late-type galaxies, which are typically more gas-rich, are less asymmetric than early-types. While they suggest that tidal interactions are the main driver of the asymmetries and H{\sc i}\ deficiency in their galaxies, \citet{catinella13} and \citet{brown17} suggest that hydro-dynamical processes are the likely cause of the H{\sc i}\ suppression in their samples. This highlights some of the remaining uncertainties regarding which environmental process is the dominant driver of asymmetries.
Our observed correlation between suppressed H{\sc i}\ content and asymmetry appears inconsistent with some previous studies. Compared to the group environment, isolated late-type galaxies show higher rates of global H{\sc i}\ asymmetry \citep{matthews98,haynes98} and stronger, more frequent asymmetry in their stellar components \citep{zaritsky97,bournaud05}. \citet{ellison18} showed that post-merger galaxies are preferentially gas-rich at fixed stellar mass, and \citet{bok19} showed that galaxies in close pairs have more asymmetric global H{\sc i}\ spectra than isolated galaxies. Although many of these studies do not make direct comparisons of gas content at fixed stellar mass, these systems (mergers, gas-rich/late-type isolated galaxies) are preferentially gas-rich compared to the average xGASS galaxy, and therefore not representative as a population. In our Fig. \ref{fig:deltafgas} we see a tail of gas-rich, asymmetric galaxies which may correspond to these systems; but they are not the typical asymmetric galaxy in this sample.
Consistent with previous studies, we see that the typical H{\sc i}\ spectrum for a central galaxy is not symmetric \citep[e.g.][]{espada11}. Interactions with satellite galaxies may partially explain why we observe group centrals to be more asymmetric than isolated centrals, but it cannot explain our observation of asymmetric isolated centrals. This returns us to the long standing issue that asymmetries must be frequently excited or long-lived otherwise they would be washed out within a few dynamical timescales. Cosmological gas accretion is often suggested as a driver as observations show it to be irregular, in the form of cloud complexes, filaments, or gas-rich minor mergers \citep[see the review by][]{sancisi08}. \citet{portas11} and \citet{ramirez18} suggested their spatially resolved H{\sc i}\ asymmetries were caused by minor mergers, and the simulations by \citet{bournaud05} showed that filamentry accretion can replicate observed global H{\sc i}\ asymmetries which could also explain the high rates observed in late-type isolated galaxies \citep{matthews98}.
Alternatively, H{\sc i}\ asymmetries may trace disturbances in the gravitational potential of galaxies. Spatial asymmetries in the old stellar population in galaxies are common \citep{zaritsky97,bournaud05, angiras06, zaritsky13} and their amplitude typically increase with radius until it flattens, as traced by the H{\sc i}\ \citep[e.g][]{angiras06,angiras07}, suggesting it is a long lived, global perturbation \citep{vaneymeren11a,vaneymeren11b}. These studies suggest that asymmetries trace disturbances in the dark matter haloes of galaxies, or offsets between the centre of the stellar disk and its dark matter halo, which are excited by tidal interactions. The drivers of asymmetry in the gas-rich regime remain an open question, which must be addressed with larger samples and hydrodynamical simulations \citep[e.g.][]{elbadry18}.
\section{Conclusions} \label{sec:concl}
In this work, we presented an analysis of the asymmetries, measured as the ratio of the flux between the two halves of global H{\sc i}\ spectra, for 562 galaxies in the xGASS sample. Using these data, and a comprehensive analysis of how noise affects the measurement of asymmetry, we investigated the H{\sc i}\ properties of asymmetric galaxies and inferred what the driving mechanisms are likely to be. Our main results are as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item The measurement of asymmetry depends strongly on the signal-to-noise ($S/N$) of a spectrum, and this correlation must be accounted for when comparing the asymmetry distributions of populations or when defining spectra as asymmetric.
\item The typical global H{\sc i}\ spectrum in a stellar mass-selected sample such as xGASS is more asymmetric than what can be attributed to noise. 37\% of xGASS galaxies detected with $S/N\geq7$ show asymmetry greater than 10\% at an 80\% confidence level. Consistent with previous studies, we see no obvious correlation between H{\sc i}\ asymmetry and optical galaxy morphology.
\item H{\sc i}\ asymmetric galaxies, defined as $A_{\rm fr}>1.1$ with 80\% confidence, contain 29\% less H{\sc i}\ gas compared to their stellar mass and $S/N$ matched, symmetric counterparts.
\item Satellite galaxies, as a population, show a higher rate of global H{\sc i}\ asymmetries compared to centrals, and group central galaxies show a higher rate of small asymmetries compared to isolated centrals. We conclude that environment is the main driver of asymmetry in xGASS.
\end{itemize}
A common observation made in previous studies is the lack of correlation between global H{\sc i}\ asymmetry and galaxy properties such as morphology, star formation rate, or optical asymmetries \citep{haynes98, matthews98,kornreich00,espada11,bok19}. In this work we have provided the means to confidently select asymmetric global H{\sc i}\ spectra, and a methodology to compare the asymmetry distributions of different galaxy populations. This opens the door to revisiting the correlations between H{\sc i}\ asymmetry and galaxy properties, and raises new questions such as the connection between the global H{\sc i}\ profile and asymmetries in the resolved gas kinematics from integral field unit studies \citep[e.g.][]{bloom18} and spatially-resolved H{\sc i}\ observations \citep[e.g.][]{giese16}. In particular the bulge-disc decomposition of xGASS by \citet{cook19} presents a unique opportunity to search for, or confirm the lack thereof, a connection between global H{\sc i}\ asymmetry and the optical morphology and asymmetry of galaxies. These are essential components to building a more complete understanding of the gas reservoirs of galaxies.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We thank the anonymous referee for their useful comments which improved this paper. ABW acknowledges the support of an Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship throughout the course of this work. LC is the recipient of an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (FT180100066) funded by the Australian Government. Parts of this research were supported by the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for All Sky Astrophysics in 3 Dimensions (ASTRO 3D), through project number CE170100013.
\bibliographystyle{mnras}
|
\section*{\refname}}
\usepackage{framed}
\usepackage{wrapfig}
\begin{document}
\title{Simulating artificial one-dimensional physics \\ with ultra-cold fermionic atoms: three exemplary themes}
\author{Jacek Dobrzyniecki}
\affiliation{
Institute of Physics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Aleja Lotnik\'ow 32/46, PL-02668 Warsaw, Poland}
\author{Tomasz Sowi\'nski}
\email{<EMAIL>}
\affiliation{
Institute of Physics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Aleja Lotnik\'ow 32/46, PL-02668 Warsaw, Poland}
\date{\today}
\begin{abstract}
For over twenty years, ultra-cold atomic systems have formed an almost perfect arena for simulating different quantum many-body phenomena and exposing their non-obvious and very often counterintuitive features. Thanks to extremely precise controllability of different parameters they are able to capture different quantum properties which were previously recognized only as theoretical curiosities. Here, we go over the current experimental progress in exploring the curious one-dimensional quantum world of fermions from the perspective of three subjectively selected trends being currently under vigorous experimental validation: ({\it i}) unconventional pairing in attractively interacting fermionic mixtures, ({\it ii}) fermionic systems subjected to the artificial spin-orbit coupling, ({\it iii}) fermionic gases of atoms with high $\mathrm{SU}({\cal N})$ symmetry of internal states.
\end{abstract}
\maketitle
\begin{framed}
\begingroup
\setlength{\columnsep}{14pt}%
\setlength{\intextsep}{5pt}%
\begin{wrapfigure}{l}{0.4\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Dobrzyniecki.jpg}
\end{wrapfigure}
\textbf{Jacek Dobrzyniecki} is a last-year Ph.D. student at the Institute of Physics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw. The main focus of his research is static and dynamic properties of few-atom ultra-cold systems in one dimension. His scientific interests include ultra-cold atomic physics, strongly correlated few-body systems, low-dimensional quantum systems, and open quantum systems.
\endgroup
\begingroup
\setlength{\columnsep}{14pt}%
\setlength{\intextsep}{5pt}%
\begin{wrapfigure}{l}{0.4\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Sowinski.jpg}
\end{wrapfigure}
\textbf{Tomasz Sowi\'{n}ski} received his Ph.D. in physics in 2008 from the University of Warsaw. Currently, he is an associate professor at the Division of Theoretical Physics of the Institute of Physics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, where he leads The Few-Body Problems Theory Group. His scientific interests focus mostly on ultra-cold atomic physics, quantum simulations, quantum systems with reduced dimensionality, and strongly correlated few-body systems.
\endgroup
\end{framed}
\tableofcontents
\section{Introduction}
Physical sciences were born mainly to deliver an appropriate and understandable description of the observable world. Typically, the laws of physics were formulated {\it after} discovery of related phenomena and eventually then their general consequences were disclosed. However, from time to time, some artificial theoretical models (frequently additionally reduced to one spatial dimension) were introduced without any experimental motivation -- just to expose some intriguing properties of the underlying theory \cite{1968CooperBook}. This kind of approach was intensified when quantum mechanics was born since then many realistic problems were considered as too complicated to be explained in a full quantum-mechanical treatment. This is how many interesting simplified theoretical models were introduced. Let us mention here only a few celebrated examples: the Dicke model \cite{1954DickePR,1973HeppAnnPhys}, the Schwinger model \cite{1962SchwingerPR}, the Hubbard model \cite{1963HubbardProcRSocLondon}, the Jaynes-Cummings model \cite{1963JaynesProcIEEE}, the Lieb-Liniger model \cite{1963LiebPhysRev1,1963LiebPhysRev2}, the Calogero-Sutherland model \cite{1971CalogeroJMP,1971SutherlandJMP}, the Harper-Hofstadter lattice model \cite{1976HofstadterPRB}, the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model \cite{1993SachdevPRL}, the Kitaev chain model \cite{2001KitaevPhysUsp}, the toric code model \cite{2003KitaevAnnPhys}, the Kitaev honeycomb model \cite{2006KitaevAnnPhys} {\it etc.} The situation changed drastically along with tremendous development of experimental methods of precisely controlling interactions between light and matter on a subatomic scale. It turns out that these simplified theoretical models and a variety of their extensions and modifications are possible to engineer with atomic systems, {\it i.e.}, appropriately prepared and controlled ultra-cold atomic systems may serve as almost perfect realizations of systems described by desired Hamiltonians \cite{LewensteinBook}. In this way, Richard Feynman's brilliant dream of creating {\it quantum simulators} \cite{1982FeynmanIJTP} can be realized and a new era of {\it quantum engineering} has started. Importantly, such quantum simulators not only can verify many theoretical predictions, but also shed light on long-standing questions that have not been satisfactorily answered by theoretical analysis.
One example of the exciting developments in the field is the ability to engineer effectively one-dimensional quantum many-body systems. This idea has long been of theoretical interest, including such important models as the Tonks model of a gas of impenetrable rods \cite{1936TonksPR} or the Gaudin-Yang general solution for the ground state of fermions \cite{1967GaudinPLA,1967YangPRL}. Now, by utilizing the quantum simulator concept, many of the exotic physical phenomena characterizing one-dimensional systems can be explored experimentally for the first time. With advanced trapping techniques, atoms can be confined in traps of effectively varying dimensionality by controlling the strength of perpendicular confinement. This includes optical lattices \cite{2005BlochNatPhys} and single- and few-site potentials \cite{2011CazalillaRevModPhys,2013GuanRevModPhys,2019SowinskiRepProgPhys}. In particular, different one-dimensional systems of ultra-cold fermionic mixtures have been experimentally created in this way \cite{2005MoritzPRL,2010LiaoNature}.
In this review, we describe recent achievements in the domain of one-dimensional fermionic ultra-cold atom systems. Our focus is on the developments that have occurred in the past few years, since the last comprehensive review from 2013 by Guan \emph{et al} \cite{2013GuanRevModPhys}. Since the progress in the entire field of 1D fermionic systems is exceedingly broad and rapid, a full catalogue of all the major advancements would be a tremendous undertaking. Therefore we concentrate on three subjectively selected main research directions which are currently being heavily explored and, in our opinion, will have significant importance for the future capability of quantum technologies.
The organization of this article is as follows. In Section \ref{sec-fflo} we describe the search for unconventional superconducting states in one-dimensional systems, which are of considerable theoretical interest but are still difficult to pin down experimentally. In Section \ref{sec-soc} we describe systems under the influence of artificial spin-orbit coupling. In one-dimensional settings, this kind of coupling presents an interesting picture, since there is in fact no ``orbit'' in the usual sense. Furthermore, it has important applications, such as the simulation of topologically nontrivial models requiring higher dimensionality. In Section \ref{sec-sun} we describe the research on atomic systems with higher-spin internal symmetries, which in the case of one spatial dimension offer a fascinating arena for exploring various exotic many-body phases. Section \ref{sec-concl} is the conclusion.
\section{Unconventional pairing phases}
\label{sec-fflo}
The simplest properties of superconducting materials are typically described by the pairing mechanism of spontaneous formation of correlated pairs of opposite-spin fermions. The mechanism is appropriately described by the theory of superconductivity of Bardeen, Cooper, and Schrieffer (BCS) \cite{1957BardeenPR}. However, when there is no direct symmetry between opposite-spin components, certain more exotic pairing phases are possible. One of them, the \emph{Fulde-Ferrell-Larkin-Ovchinnikov} (FFLO) pairing phase, has recently attracted significant interest.
The FFLO phase was first predicted in the 1960s by Fulde and Ferrell \cite{1964FuldePR} and independently by Larkin and Ovchinnikov \cite{1965LarkinSoviet}, who considered the ground state of a solid-state superconductor subjected to an external magnetic field. The magnetic field causes a relative shift of the Fermi surfaces of both electron spin components. If this shift is too high, the Cooper pairing is destroyed and the transition from the superconducting to the normal state occurs. However, Fulde, Ferrell, Larkin, and Ovchinnikov showed that close to the transition (still in superconducting phase) an FFLO state can be formed. In this unusual region the pairing of fermions with momenta $\vec{k}$ and $-\vec{k}+\vec{Q}$ is favored over the standard BCS pairing of fermions with momenta $\vec{k}$ and $-\vec{k}$ \cite{2004CasalbuoniRevModPhys}. The resulting Cooper pairs have a nonzero center-of-mass momentum $\vec{Q}$ which is (in general) proportional to the magnitude of the mismatch between the Fermi wave vectors \cite{2018KinnunenRepProgPhys}. A signature feature of the FFLO phase is that the pairing order parameter $\Delta(\vec{x})$ is no longer constant in space as in the standard BCS phase, but rather has an oscillatory character, $\Delta(\vec{x}) \propto \cos(\vec{Q} \cdot \vec{x})$ \cite{2007MatsudaJpn}.
In the decades since the original proposals, the FFLO phase has been extensively investigated. It has been the subject of several reviews \cite{2004CasalbuoniRevModPhys,2007MatsudaJpn,2013BeyerLowTemp}, including very recent ones \cite{2018KinnunenRepProgPhys,2018WosnitzaAnnPhys,2020AgterbergAnnRevCondMat}. The FFLO state is currently invoked to explain the behavior of several superconducting systems, including heavy-fermion and organic materials, as well as the cores of neutron stars \cite{2001AlfordJPhysG,2004CasalbuoniRevModPhys}. However, in spite of its significance, universally accepted experimental evidence for the FFLO pairing has still not been obtained, although a number of experiments conducted in solid-state systems have shown results highly suggestive of the FFLO state \cite{2007MatsudaJpn,2017CroitoruCondMat,2018WosnitzaAnnPhys,2003RadovanNature,2008YonezawaPRL,2008YonezawaJpn,2017ChoPRL,2018KitagawaPRL,2020KasaharaPRL}. Quasi-one-dimensional ultra-cold fermionic systems with attractive interactions offer another promising route to its experimental demonstration.
\subsection{Quantum simulators in one-dimensions}
Lower-dimensional systems, such as (quasi-)one-dimensional systems, are highly preferred in the experimental search for the FFLO phase. For three-dimensional fermionic systems, mean-field theoretical results indicate that the FFLO state is very unstable, and may exist only in a tiny sliver in the phase diagram \cite{2006SheehyPRL,2007SheehyAnnPhys,2007ParishNatPhys}. On the other hand, in one-dimensional systems the FFLO phase occupies a significant portion of the phase diagram \cite{1987BuzdinSoviet,2007HuPRL,2007ParishPRL,2012FeiguinChapter}. One major reason for this difference is that the stability of the FFLO state depends on the nesting between the Fermi surfaces. The simplest argument comes from the observation that, in lower dimensions, the number of states with total momentum $|\vec{Q}|$ is significantly reduced and therefore condensation of pairs to the FFLO state with a particular $\vec{Q}$ is facilitated. Of course, the rigorous picture is more complicated, but still the effect of dimensionality is crucial \cite{2017PtokJPhys,2018KinnunenRepProgPhys,2018ItahashiJPhysJapan}. Another important effect arises for systems of charged particles (such as solid-state superconductors). Applying an external magnetic field to the charged particles typically causes orbital effects, which is destructive to superfluidity. However, in lower-dimensional systems this detrimental effect is suppressed due to geometric constraints \cite{2007MatsudaJpn,2014MiyawakiJPhys,2018KinnunenRepProgPhys}. As a result, (quasi-)one-dimensional systems are a good environment to search for the elusive FFLO state.
For this reason, the unconventional FFLO pairing in ultra-cold one-dimensional systems has recently been deeply investigated theoretically from various perspectives, for both confined \cite{2007OrsoPRL,2008CasulaPRA,2019PecakPRR,2019LydzbaPRA} and lattice systems \cite{2007FeiguinPRB,2010HeidrichPRA,2012FrancaPRA,2017FrancaPhysA,2018DePicoliBrazJPhys}. Quasi-one-dimensional quantum simulators created with ultra-cold neutral atoms constitute a highly controllable environment, where the Fermi surface mismatch can be precisely tuned by changing the spin composition of the initial population, rather than with external magnetic fields \cite{2006ZwierleinScience,2006PartridgeScience,2006ZwierleinNature,2006ShinPRL,2007SchunckScience}. The relative spin populations can be tuned, for example, by driving radio-frequency sweeps between the states at different powers \cite{2010LiaoNature}.
One of the simplest models for such a one-dimensional system is that of a homogeneous Fermi gas with attractive contact interactions \cite{2007OrsoPRL}. It can be described by the Gaudin-Yang Hamiltonian of the form
\begin{equation}
H = - \frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{N_\downarrow+N_\uparrow} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_i^2} + g_{1D}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{N_\uparrow}\sum\limits_{j=1}^{N_\downarrow}\delta(x_i-x_j),
\end{equation}
where $N_\sigma$ is the number of fermions with spin $\sigma \in \{\uparrow,\downarrow\}$, $m$ is the fermion mass, $x_i$ is the position of the $i$-th fermion and $g_{1D}$ is the strength of the contact interaction (attractive for $g_{1D} < 0$). In the large particle number limit, one can define the chemical potentials of individual spin components, $\mu_\sigma = \partial E / \partial n_\sigma$, as the derivatives of system energy $E$ over the density $n_\sigma$ of the given component. Shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig1} is the theoretical phase diagram of this system at zero temperature, in the plane of the chemical potential, $\mu = (\mu_\uparrow + \mu_\downarrow)/2$, and the spin population imbalance, $h = (\mu_\uparrow - \mu_\downarrow)/2$ (which is equivalent to the strength of the effective magnetic field). At low spin imbalance, the ground state of this system is the standard BCS paired phase. When the imbalance is increased, the system transitions into the FFLO-paired phase. At a high enough imbalance, the superfluid phase is destroyed and the system is in the normal, unpaired phase.
Fig.~\ref{Fig2} shows an analogous phase diagram for a 1D lattice system in the tight-binding approximation \cite{2010HeidrichPRA}, described by the Hubbard-like model
\begin{equation}
H = \sum_j\left[\sum_\sigma -t\,\hat{c}^\dagger_{j,\sigma} ( \hat{c}_{j-1,\sigma} + \hat{c}_{j+1,\sigma}) + U \hat{n}_{j,\uparrow} \hat{n}_{j,\downarrow}\right],
\end{equation}
where $t$ is the hopping amplitude between neighboring sites, $U$ is the on-site interaction energy, $\hat{c}_{i,\sigma}$ is the annihilation operator for a fermion with spin $\sigma$ at site $i$, and $\hat{n}_{i,\sigma} = \hat{c}^\dagger_{i,\sigma} \hat{c}_{i,\sigma}$. Despite the differences between the two systems, the overall structure of this phase diagram is similar to the homogenous 1D gas case, with the standard BCS-paired phase transitioning to the FFLO phase at a finite spin imbalance, and a subsequent transition to the normal phase beyond a critical imbalance value.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Fig1.jpg}
\caption{The ground state phase diagram of an attractive homogeneous Fermi gas, in the plane of average chemical potential $\mu = (\mu_\uparrow + \mu_\downarrow)/2$ vs. effective magnetic field $h = (\mu_\uparrow - \mu_\downarrow)/2$, where $\mu_\uparrow,\mu_\downarrow$ are the chemical potentials of individual spin components. $\mu$ and $h$ are given in units of binding energy $\epsilon_B$. $\mu_c$ and $\mu_s$ designate the critical values of $\mu$ that separate the distinct phases. One can distinguish between the ``partially polarized'' phase (i.e. the FFLO-type phase), the ``fully paired'' phase (standard BCS Cooper pairing), and the ``fully polarized'' phase (unpaired state). The shaded region corresponds to the vacuum state. The arrow shows the trajectory of local chemical potential for a system in a harmonic trap, for which the local value of $\mu(x)$ decreases away from the trap center. Inset: zoom of the phase diagram near the point $O = (\epsilon_B/2,-\epsilon_B/2)$, with asymptotic behavior of phase diagram boundaries marked with dashed lines. Reproduced with permission from \cite{2007OrsoPRL}. Copyright 2007, American Physical Society.
\label{Fig1} }
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Fig2.jpg}
\caption{Grand canonical phase diagram of the one-dimensional attractive Hubbard model (for fixed interaction $U=-5t$) in the plane of average chemical potential $\mu$ vs. effective magnetic field $h$. $\mu$ and $h$ are given in units of tunneling amplitude $t$. The distinct phases visible are as follows: V -- vacuum, ED -- unpolarized phase (standard BCS pairing), PP -- partially polarized phase (FFLO-type pairing), FP$_1$ -- fully polarized (unpaired) phase with low filling $n < 1$, FP$_2$ -- fully polarized (unpaired) phase with filling $n = 1$. The remaining phases correspond to the states where at least one of the components forms a band insulator. When this system is subject to additional harmonic confinement, the local chemical potential $\mu(x)$ becomes smaller as one goes from the trap center to the edges, for example as shown by the two trajectories (red and blue lines). Reproduced with permission from \cite{2010HeidrichPRA}. Copyright 2010, American Physical Society.
}
\label{Fig2}
\end{figure}
One should remember that in the presence of external trapping, due to inhomogeneity, different configurations predicted by these phase diagrams may simultaneously co-exist at different locations in the trap. This phase separation can be understood in the framework of the local density approximation picture, which is useful when the particle density varies slowly in space. In this approach, the local value of the chemical potential $\mu(x)$ varies along the system as $\mu(x) = \mu^0 - V(x)$, where $\mu^0$ is the chemical potential at the center of the trap and $V(x)$ is the trap potential \cite{2010HeidrichPRA}. In particular, for a harmonic trap, $\mu(x)$ becomes smaller towards the trap edges. Meanwhile, the effective magnetic field $h(x)$ remains constant throughout the trap. The result is that different phases are realized at different locations, and their arrangement corresponds to a trajectory across the phase diagram, starting at $\mu^0$ and going downwards parallel to the $\mu$ axis. Examples can be seen in Fig.~\ref{Fig1} and Fig.~\ref{Fig2}, where the trajectories of the local chemical potential across the trap length are shown as vertical lines which pass through several different phases, indicating the presence of different phases at different locations in the trap. For a harmonically trapped 1D spin-imbalanced gas (whether with or without a lattice), a typical configuration is a two-shell structure, where the center of the system exhibits an FFLO phase and the edges of the system are in the unpaired phase or the standard BCS phase \cite{2007FeiguinPRB,2007OrsoPRL,2010HeidrichPRA}.
Depending on the structure of the phase diagram, more complex phase-separation configurations can be obtained. This possibility was explored in \cite{2019CichySciRep}, where it was shown how, by appropriately modifying the parameters of the confining trap, one can engineer different trajectories in the phase diagram. In this way, a desired configuration of separated phases can be created.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Fig3.jpg}
\caption{(a) Theoretical phase diagram of a homogeneous Fermi gas trapped in an array of 1D tubes at zero temperature, as a function of the spin polarization of the central 1D tube and the radius from the center of the tube. The red and blue lines indicate the radii at which boundaries between the different phases are predicted to occur. $P_c$ is the critical polarization value where the boundaries cross. The distinct phases shown are: the vacuum (white), fully paired (standard BCS-type) phase (green), partially polarized (FFLO-type) phase (orange), and the fully polarized (unpaired) phase (blue). (b) Comparison of theoretical predictions (red and blue solid lines) and the experimentally measured locations of the boundaries (red and blue symbols) at temperature 175 nK. Reproduced with permission from \cite{2010LiaoNature}. Copyright 2010, Nature.}
\label{Fig3}
\end{figure}
This theoretical phase separation picture was confirmed experimentally by the group of Randall G. Hulet and Erich J. Mueller \cite{2010LiaoNature}. The experiment studied the nature of phase separation which occurred in fermionic systems confined to 1D tubes as the total spin imbalance of the system was tuned. Fig.~\ref{Fig3}a depicts the theoretically predicted locations of the boundaries (red and blue lines) between different phases, shown in terms of the radius from the trap center. The locations of the boundaries between the phases, and the particular phases realized, can be seen to depend on the value of the spin polarization. Fig.~\ref{Fig3}b compares these theoretical predictions with the experimentally measured locations of the boundaries (red and blue symbols). At low spin polarization, below a critical value $P_c$, the center of the cloud was occupied by a partially polarized state. Towards the edges of the cloud, the system was fully paired. For values of polarization close to $P_c$, the partially polarized phase extended across the entire trap. Finally, at high polarization $P > P_c$ the state at the edge of the cloud changed from fully paired to fully polarized, in agreement with the theoretical prediction.
Undoubtedly, the experiment showed the validity of the predicted phase separation. Nevertheless, it did not provide direct evidence that the partially polarized state in the center of the trap was indeed the elusive FFLO state. In anticipation of future experimental work, several potential experimental signatures of the FFLO state have been proposed. A well-established possibility is measuring the pair momentum distribution of the partially polarized phase, with a peak at finite momentum $q$ providing an unambiguous signature of FFLO with pair momentum $q$ \cite{2008CasulaPRA,2010LiaoNature}. In recent years, there have been proposals based on surveying the expansion dynamics of the cloud after switching off the trapping potential \cite{2011KajalaPRA,2012LuPRL}. Recently, it was also suggested \cite{2016YinPRA} that the FFLO state subject to a sudden quench of the interaction strength should display characteristic, experimentally detectable post-quench features. It has also been shown that the visibility of the FFLO state should be greatly enhanced in one-dimensional boson-fermion mixtures with strong boson-fermion repulsion \cite{2019Singh}.
\subsection{Dimensionality crossover}
For future experimental work, promising perspectives are opened by the implementation of systems with an ``intermediate'' dimensionality. Although here we focus on 1D systems, the dimensional crossover technique offers interesting perspectives for the observation of FFLO and it is worth looking at recent developments in this area. Experimentally, a system of this kind can be implemented with an array of 1D tubes, where the amplitude of tunneling between neighboring tubes $t_\perp$ can be tuned, thus controlling the effective dimensionality. In particular, in lattice systems the relevant parameter is the ratio $t_\perp/t_\parallel$ (where $t_\parallel$ is the tunneling between sites of a single tube), which can range from 0 (fully 1D) to 1 (isotropic 3D) \cite{2012KimPRB,2013HeikkinenPRB}. A quasi-1D regime, where $t_\perp$ is small but nonzero, is expected to be even better suited to the observation of the FFLO state than a purely 1D system. It comes from the fact that, in such a regime, there can exist long-range order absent from purely 1D systems, stabilizing the FFLO phase \cite{2007ParishPRL,2013HeikkinenPRB}. Furthermore, correlations induced by the weak intertube tunnelings could synchronize the FFLO density modulations across different tubes and thus enhance the overall experimental signal from the array \cite{2007ParishPRL}.
The difference between different dimensionalities manifests itself in the phase separation of a trapped Fermi gas. As noted above, in a quasi-one-dimensional trap one typically obtains a two-shell structure where the center of the trap is occupied by a partially polarized FFLO state while the edges are taken up by a polarized normal state. On the other hand, in a spherical 3D trap, a shell structure is predicted with the standard BCS superfluid occupying the trap center \cite{2007LiuPRA-Mean}. Theoretical and experimental research has confirmed that the crossover between 1D and 3D dimensionalities is indeed reflected in the phase separation structure of the system.
For example, in \cite{2012KimPRB,2013HeikkinenPRB} the phase diagram of a 3D array of 1D lattices with harmonic trapping was studied. The zero-temperature phase diagram of the relevant system can be seen in Fig.~\ref{Fig4}. At $t_\perp/t_\parallel > 0$, in addition to the familiar two-shell structure with FFLO in the center (region ``III'' in Fig.~\ref{Fig4}), there appears the possibility of obtaining three-shell structures, in which the gas in the center of the trap separates into two shells displaying FFLO and standard BCS phases (regions ``I'' and ``II'' in Fig.~\ref{Fig4}). As the transverse coupling increases, the structure with standard BCS pairing occupying the trap center (region ``I'' in the trap center), characteristic of a quasi-three-dimensional regime, becomes preferred \cite{2012KimPRB}. It is argued that the approximate crossover point between quasi-one-dimensional and quasi-three-dimensional physics, $t_\perp/t_\parallel \approx 0.3$, is a ``sweet spot'' where the FFLO state displays a highly uniform oscillation amplitude across the entire 1D tube \cite{2013HeikkinenPRB}. Above a critical temperature, which is approximately 1/3 that of the critical temperature for BCS superconductivity, the FFLO phase becomes fragile to losing its FFLO character and melting into standard BCS pairing \cite{2013HeikkinenPRB}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Fig4.jpg}
\caption{Phase diagram of the model representing an array of coupled one-dimensional Hubbard chains, in the plane of interchain coupling vs. spin polarization. Interchain coupling is given as the ratio $t_\perp/t_\parallel$ between transverse and inter-site tunnelings. Phase III represents a two-shell structure, with an FFLO core and fully polarized, unpaired edges. Phase II represents a three-shell structure with an FFLO core, standard BCS superfluid in the shoulders, and fully polarized edges. Phase I represents a three-shell structure with a standard BCS superfluid core, FFLO shoulders, and fully polarized edges. Reproduced with permission from \cite{2012KimPRB}. Copyright 2012, American Physical Society.}
\label{Fig4}
\end{figure}
Recently the 1D-3D crossover scenario was successfully realized experimentally with $^6$Li atoms confined in an array of 1D tubes \cite{2016RevellePRL}. The array of 1D traps was formed with a 2D optical lattice and the transverse tunneling rate could be tuned by changing the 2D lattice depth (Fig.~\ref{Fig5}a). The quasi-1D and quasi-3D regimes could be distinguished by the local spin polarization at the midpoint of the central 1D tube (Fig.~\ref{Fig5}b): a partially polarized core corresponded to the quasi-1D regime, and an unpolarized core indicated a quasi-3D regime. It was found that the critical tunneling value, corresponding to the transition between the quasi-1D and quasi-3D regime, was approximately $t_c \approx 0.025\epsilon_b$ (where $\epsilon_b$ is the pair binding energy).
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Fig5.jpg}
\caption{(a) An array of 1D tubes formed by a 2D optical lattice. By decreasing the optical lattice depth, the intertube tunneling rate $t$ is increased. In this way the system can be gradually tuned from a quasi-1D to a quasi-3D regime. (b) Phase separation in a trapped Fermi gas in quasi-1D (top) and quasi-3D (bottom) regimes, at zero temperature and a small spin imbalance. The phases are: $\mathrm{SF_P}$ -- FFLO superfluid, $\mathrm{SF_0}$ -- standard BCS superfluid, $\mathrm{N_{PP}}$ -- an unpaired phase with spin imbalance, $\mathrm{N_{FP}}$ -- an unpaired normal phase. Arrows indicate phase boundaries at the different radii $R$. Reproduced with permission from \cite{2016RevellePRL}. Copyright 2016, American Physical Society. }
\label{Fig5}
\end{figure}
Finally, it is worth noting an alternative approach to the 1D-3D crossover was proposed in \cite{2016DuttaPRA}. Here, only a single 1D tube is considered, and the parameter controlling the dimensionality is the chemical potential $\mu$. When $\mu$ is small enough, transverse movement is confined to the lowest oscillator level, {\it i.e.}, the usual condition for quasi-1D dimensionality is fulfilled. For large enough $\mu$ transverse modes are accessible and the dynamics become locally 3D. The authors find that strong interactions, which mix single-particle levels, cause 3D-like behavior to occur at all densities.
\subsection{Mass-imbalanced mixtures}
A parallel direction of research on unconventional pairing concentrates on the relationship between mass-imbalanced 1D systems and FFLO. In the typically considered ultra-cold systems, the source of mismatch between the two spin Fermi momenta in the ultra-cold system is the imbalance between spin populations, which leads to a difference in the chemical potential $\mu$ and thus, in the magnitude of the Fermi momenta. However, an alternate way to induce the difference between Fermi momenta is by using components with different masses. The most straightforward approach is creating a mixture of different atomic species with varying masses \cite{2018KinnunenRepProgPhys}. Alternatively, one can create a system confined in spin-dependent optical lattices, where the two spin components exhibit different tunneling amplitudes and thus different "effective mass". Such an effect can be achieved, for example, by the use of a magnetic field gradient modulated in time \cite{2015JotzuPRL}. The occurrence of the FFLO phase in mass-imbalanced 1D fermionic systems was theoretically investigated in a number of past works \cite{2005CazalillaPRL,2009WangPRA,2009BatrouniEPL,2009BurovskiPRL,2010OrsoPRL,2011RouxPRA,2012RoscildeEPL}.
Among recent works, a three-dimensional phase diagram as a function of the mass imbalance, spin imbalance and temperature was studied in \cite{2014RoscherPRA} for a many-body system of attractive free fermions, finding that FFLO-type phases occupy a large region of the parameter space. Another recent work \cite{2017ChungPRA} theoretically studied the zero-temperature phase diagram for an attractive $^6$Li-$^{40}$K mixture confined in a 1D harmonic trap. When the two mass-imbalanced atomic species are treated as distinct pseudospin components, a greater richness of phases emerges: one can now distinguish between ``light FFLO'' or ``heavy FFLO'' phases, depending on whether the heavier or the lighter species is an excess species in the partially polarized phase.
\subsection{Dynamical response technique}
Finally, we note several recent works that focus on the dynamical properties of the system. Although most theoretical work focuses on the ground-state properties of the system, a significant area of research focuses on the time evolution of dynamical systems after the sudden change (quench) of some parameter, such as the external potential. For instance, an FFLO Fermi gas with initial harmonic confinement which is suddenly switched off can be considered \cite{2011KajalaPRA}. The resulting cloud expansion dynamics shows a clear two-fluid behavior, where the cloud expansion velocity of one of the two components (consisting of unpaired majority fermions) is related to the FFLO momentum. This provides an experimental signature of FFLO pairing with nonzero center-of-mass momentum of the pairs.
Another often considered area is the post-quench dynamics after a change of interaction strength. Such a scenario was considered in \cite{2015RieggerPRA} for a 1D lattice system. In particular, after a quench from zero to attractive interactions, the post-quench state shows characteristic FFLO oscillations of the pair correlation, although with exponential decay of spatial correlations. On the other hand, after a sufficiently fast quench from attractive to repulsive interactions, the initial state's FFLO correlations can be imprinted onto repulsively bound pairs if the final interaction strength is high enough.
A different case was considered in \cite{2016YinPRA}, which analyzed the dynamics of standard BCS and FFLO states quenched from attractive to zero interactions, and analyzed the dynamics of spin and charge correlations in the post-quench system. For a quench from an initial standard BCS state, the spin correlations eventually thermalize to those of a free Fermi gas at a temperature $kT \sim U_{ini}$, while the charge component does not. On the other hand, for a quench from the FFLO state, neither component thermalizes.
Although experimental implementation of such schemes is yet to be achieved, they are realizable with currently available techniques. For example, cloud expansion experiments with a clear resolving between clouds of single and paired atoms have been demonstrated recently \cite{2018SchergPRL}. Therefore, this approach may in the future provide the long-sought clear experimental evidence for the FFLO state.
\section{Spin-orbit coupling}
\label{sec-soc}
With current experimental techniques, it is possible to engineer scenarios mimicking the existence of external gauge fields \cite{2011DalibardRevModPhys,2014GoldmanRepProgPhys}. In particular, artificial generation of spin-orbit (SO) coupling, i.e., the coupling between the internal and the motional degrees of freedom of a particle, has been attracting increased interest in recent years. In condensed matter systems, SO coupling plays a crucial role in the formation of exotic, topologically nontrivial phases associated closely with the quantum Hall effect \cite{2010HasanRevModPhys,2011QiRevModPhys,2013GalitskiNature}. Recent progress in spintronics has also contributed to the interest in SO coupling \cite{2004ZuticRevModPhys,2013GalitskiNature}.
Typically SO coupling is understood as a purely relativistic effect \cite{1980ItzyksonBook,1998JacksonBook3rd} which can be explained directly from the movement of a spinful particle in the intrinsic electric field of the sample. The particle, in its comoving reference frame, experiences a magnetic field that couples to the spin. It means that the resulting spin-orbit coupling is determined by the intrinsic properties of the material and is not easily tunable. However, ultra-cold systems of neutral atoms subject to synthetic SO coupling open an alternate way to investigate this phenomenon, providing an experimentally controllable environment where the SO coupling can be precisely engineered and tuned \cite{2011LinNature,2014GoldmanRepProgPhys,2018ZhangChapter}. General reviews concerning the realization of synthetic SO coupling in ultra-cold atoms can be found in \cite{2013GalitskiNature,2015YiScienceChina,2014GoldmanRepProgPhys,2015ZhaiRepProgPhys,2019ZhangJPhysChem}.
Experimental implementation of artificial SO coupling in ultra-cold gases is already well established. The first realization of synthetic SO coupling in ultra-cold atoms came in 2011, with the realization of an SO coupling in a bosonic condensate at NIST \cite{2011LinNature}. Very soon it was also successfully engineered in 3D fermionic gases \cite{2012WangPRL,2012CheukPRL,2013WilliamsPRL,2014FuNature}. In this section, we will describe the recent experiments with synthetic SO coupling in 1D fermionic gases.
\subsection{Experimental methods}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{Fig6.jpg}
\caption{A typical three-level Raman scheme for the generation of artificial spin-orbit coupling in ultra-cold atoms. Two internal states of the atoms, differing in energy by $\hbar \Omega$, represent the two pseudospin states $|e\rangle$ and $|g\rangle$. A pair of laser beams couples the two pseudospin states through an intermediate excited state $|E\rangle$. The lasers are detuned by $\delta$ from the Raman resonance.}
\label{Fig6}
\end{figure}
First, let us describe the current experimental techniques for the generation of artificial SO coupling in 1D systems. A well-established technique is the Raman laser scheme, originally proposed in \cite{2009LiuPRL} and used in the earliest experimental realizations \cite{2011LinNature,2012WangPRL,2012CheukPRL,2013WilliamsPRL,2014FuNature}. In this approach, two internal states of the ultra-cold atoms are chosen to represent pseudospin states. Then a pair of counter-propagating lasers is shined on the ultra-cold atom system, inducing a two-photon Raman coupling between the two states (see Fig.~\ref{Fig6}). Due to the conservation of momentum during the absorption and reemission of photons, the transition of an atom between the internal states is accompanied by a change in the momentum. As a result, the motion of the particle becomes coupled to the spin \cite{2013GalitskiNature}. The magnitude of the transferred momentum depends on the wavelength of the Raman beams, but it can be tuned by changing the relative angle of their intersection \cite{2014GoldmanRepProgPhys}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Fig7a.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Fig7b.jpg}
\caption{Changes of the energy-momentum dispersion of a homogeneous ultra-cold Fermi gas in the presence of the SO coupling. Upper and bottom panels correspond to theoretical predictions and experimental results from \cite{2012CheukPRL}, respectively. With no SO coupling, the spectrum consists of two degenerate, parabolic energy bands corresponding to the two spin states. The off-diagonal coupling term (linear in momentum) causes a shift (leftmost plots), which together with the Zeeman splitting terms leads to coupling between the two energy bands and opening a gap in the spectrum (middle and rightmost plots). Colors indicate the spin composition of the states. Experimentally measured dispersions (for various Raman couplings $\Omega$) reproduced with permission from \cite{2012CheukPRL}. Copyright 2012, American Physical Society.
}
\label{Fig7}
\end{figure}
This laser coupling scheme results in the realization of a one-dimensional SO coupling, equivalent to an additional term in the single-particle Hamiltonian of the general form $\propto q \hat{\sigma}_y$. Here $q$ is the momentum of the atom along the SO coupling direction, and $\hat{\sigma}_y$ is the spin Pauli matrix. Additionally, effective Zeeman terms appear in the Hamiltonian, which can be written in the general form $(\Omega/2)\hat{\sigma}_z + (\delta/2)\hat{\sigma}_y$. They are parametrized by the Raman coupling $\Omega$ and the two-photon detuning $\delta$ from the bare transition frequency (for details see \cite{2011LinNature,2014GoldmanRepProgPhys}).
The SO coupling has a characteristic effect on the energy-momentum dispersion relation. First, due to the counter-effect of momentum transfer for opposite spins, the two bands are split and relatively shifted. Secondly, the Zeeman splitting term causes a characteristic split around zero momentum and opens a gap in the spectrum \cite{2015YiScienceChina,2018ZhangChapter}. Importantly, the resulting characteristic dispersion and spin texture of the spectrum can be probed experimentally, for example by means of a spectroscopic spin-injection technique \cite{2012CheukPRL} (see Fig.~\ref{Fig7}).
For atoms confined in a 1D lattice, an alternative technique of synthesizing SO coupling has been developed in recent years. In this approach, the atoms are subjected to an optical clock laser, which induces a single-photon coupling between the ground atomic state and a long-lived, metastable excited state. When the trapping lattice is set to an appropriately selected ``magic wavelength'', such that the trapping is identical for both these pseudospin states, a SO coupling emerges (Fig.~\ref{Fig8}). The SO coupling results from the fact that when the laser drives a transition between the ground and excited state, it imprints on the atom wave function an additional site-dependent phase, exactly as for an atom in an external magnetic field. Compared to the Raman technique, the advantage of this method is its simpler configuration (only one laser beam). It also avoids the detrimental effect of near-resonant intermediate states that would otherwise induce strong heating and hinder the observation of many-body effects. It should be mentioned, however, that this method is only applicable to atoms that have a necessary long-lived excited state, such as alkaline-earth atoms. Furthermore, the excited state population is vulnerable to losses due to inelastic collisions between the atoms, which may be detrimental at longer timescales \cite{2016WallPRL}.
Much like in the case of the Raman laser scheme, the quasimomentum-energy dispersion undergoes a characteristic modification in the spin-orbit coupled 1D lattice system. It can be regarded as two bands, shifted with respect to each other and coupled (Fig.~\ref{Fig9}a). This SO-coupled spectrum is characterized by divergences (Van Hove singularities \cite{1953VanHovePR}) in the density of states, which, as explained in \cite{2017KolkowitzNature}, occur at saddle points in the energy difference between the band dispersion curves. This results in the appearance of characteristic peaks in the excitation spectrum, at detunings comparable to the bandwidth (Fig.~\ref{Fig9}b). They can be used as a spectroscopic signature of the SO coupling \cite{2016WallPRL,2016LiviPRL,2017KolkowitzNature,2018BromleyNatPhys}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Fig8.jpg}
\caption{Clock transition SO coupling setup in a 1D optical lattice, as shown in \cite{2016LiviPRL}. The fermionic $^{173}\mathrm{Yb}$ atoms are confined in an optical lattice with wavelength $\lambda_L$. The clock laser with wavelength $\lambda_C$, applied at angle $\theta$ to the optical lattice axis, drives a single-photon transition between the two states $|g\rangle ={}^1\mathrm{S}_0$ and $|e\rangle ={}^3\mathrm{P}_0$ (treated as pseudospin states). The momentum transfer $\delta_k = 2 \pi \cos(\theta)/\lambda_C$ causes a coupling between the momentum and the two pseudo-spin states. Reproduced with permission from \cite{2016LiviPRL}. Copyright 2016, American Physical Society.}
\label{Fig8}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Fig9.jpg}
\caption{(a) The momentum-energy dispersion spectrum of an ultra-cold Fermi gas in a lattice under SO coupling. Similarly to the free gas (Fig.~\ref{Fig7}), the bands corresponding to the two spin states are shifted and coupled. The band splitting is given by the Rabi frequency $\Omega$ of the clock transition, and the bandwidth is equal to $4J$ where $J$ is the lattice tunneling rate. The Van Hove singularities in the density of states occur at quasimomenta $q \sim 0$ and $q \sim \pi$ (indicated by the yellow and blue arrows) where a saddle point occurs in the energy difference between the two bands. (b) The $|g\rangle \rightarrow |e\rangle$ excitation spectrum of the clock transition, as a function of the detuning $\delta$ from the bare atomic transition (in units of $J$). The Van Hove singularities are manifested as peaks at the values $\delta \sim \pm 4J$ (yellow and blue arrows). Reproduced with permission from \cite{2018BromleyNatPhys}. Copyright 2018, Nature.}
\label{Fig9}
\end{figure}
Apart from the two techniques described above, other methods have been proposed for SO generation. One proposal involves generating the effective SO coupling by periodic spin-dependent driving of atoms trapped in a lattice via a time-dependent magnetic field. In this way, the atom tunneling amplitudes become spin-dependent, and as a result, the characteristic SO splitting of the energy spectrum appears. The strength of the resulting SO coupling can be tuned by adjusting the driving amplitude \cite{2014StruckPRA}.
Another example is the so-called Raman lattice scheme proposed in \cite{2013LiuPRL} and later implemented experimentally in \cite{2018SongSciAdv}. In this approach, two laser beams are used. One laser beam generates an optical lattice. The other perpendicular beam overlays the lattice with a periodic Raman potential inducing spin-flipping hopping between the lattice sites. It thus leads to effective spin-orbit coupling. In this approach, both beams can be generated by a single laser source, which simplifies the experimental setup.
\subsection{Experimental realizations}
We now proceed to describe the recent experimental achievements of spin-orbit coupled 1D Fermi gases. We start by listing the recent successful implementations of the clock lattice technique for generating the SO coupling. In an experiment by the Fallani group in LENS \cite{2016LiviPRL}, a gas of ultra-cold $^{173}$Yb atoms was confined in a 1D magic wavelength lattice potential, with identical band structures for both internal states $|g\rangle = {}^1\mathrm{S}_0$ and $|e\rangle = {}^3\mathrm{P}_0$ chosen as the spin states. A clock laser along the lattice direction generated coherent coupling between the $|g\rangle$ and $|e\rangle$ states (Fig.~\ref{Fig8}). In this case, the clock laser transition was used both to implement the SO coupling and to probe the system spectroscopically. In particular, the authors confirmed that -- with increasing SO coupling strength -- the excitation spectrum of the clock transition displays a pair of characteristic peaks, corresponding to the Van Hove singularities.
A similar experiment with SO-coupled 1D Fermi gas has been performed with $^{87}$Sr atoms in JILA \cite{2017KolkowitzNature}. In particular, the authors demonstrated that it is possible to selectively prepare atoms with particular quasimomenta $q$, thanks to the $q$-dependence of the clock transition frequency. In another recent experiment in JILA \cite{2018BromleyNatPhys} the authors focused on the effects of strong many-body interactions in the SO-coupled system, analyzing the influence of the interactions on the collective spin dynamics.
\subsection{Artificial dimensions}
An interesting aspect of such one-dimensional lattice experiments is that the spin degree of freedom can be interpreted as a ``synthetic dimension'', and transitions between the spin states can be interpreted as hoppings along this dimension \cite{2012BoadaPRL,2014CeliPRL,2015PricePRL}. In this framework, a 1D lattice loaded with fermions of ${\cal N}$ spin components is interpreted as a 2D ``ladder'' with ${\cal N}$ ``legs'' (Fig.~\ref{Fig10}). If the atoms are subject to an artificial spin-orbit coupling, the hopping in this synthetic dimension becomes complex, with a phase that depends on the lattice site index. The phase imprinted by the spin coupling varies between neighboring sites, with a value dependent on details of the 1D lattice potential and the artificial SO coupling gauge field. Then, in the synthetic dimension picture, the SO coupling corresponds to an effective magnetic field flux piercing each plaquette of the ladder \cite{2016WallPRL}. The Hamiltonian of such a system (with ${\cal N} = 2$ legs) can be written as the Harper-Hofstadter ladder Hamiltonian of the form \cite{2016LiviPRL}
\begin{multline}
H = \sum_j \left[\sum_\alpha -t\,\hat{c}^\dagger_{j,\alpha} ( \hat{c}_{j-1,\alpha} + \hat{c}_{j+1,\alpha} ) \right. \\ \left. - T_j\hat{c}^\dagger_{j,e} \hat{c}_{j,g} -T_j^* \hat{c}^\dagger_{j,g} \hat{c}_{j,e}\right]
\end{multline}
where $t$ is the tunneling amplitude between neighboring sites on the same leg, $T_j = -\Omega e^{-ij\phi}$ is the site-dependent tunneling amplitude between two different legs, and the operator $\hat{c}_{j,\alpha}$ annihilates a fermion on site $j$ on leg $\alpha \in\{ e,g\}$. Frequency $\Omega$ is related to the Rabi frequency associated with the clock excitation, and $\phi$ is the effective magnetic flux per plaquette.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Fig10.jpg}
\caption{A synthetic two-leg ladder structure, realized by atoms in a 1D lattice which have two pseudospin states $|g\rangle$ and $|e\rangle$ coupled by a clock laser transition. Hopping between the sites of the lattice takes place with a real amplitude $t$. The coupling between states $|g\rangle$ and $|e\rangle$ is equivalent to hopping along a synthetic spin dimension. Due to the artificial spin-orbit coupling, this interleg hopping has a complex amplitude with magnitude $\Omega$ and phase $j\phi$, which differs depending on lattice site index $j$. The yellow arrows indicate the effective artificial magnetic flux $\phi$ that pierces each plaquette of the ladder. Adapted with permission from \cite{2016WallPRL}. Copyright 2016, American Physical Society.}
\label{Fig10}
\end{figure}
Such synthetic ladders with accompanying SO coupling have attracted interest due to their potential application to study topologically nontrivial states of matter in ultra-cold atoms that are not attainable in standard condensed-matter systems. For example, the two-leg ladder offers a means to realize the Creutz ladder model, one of the most important minimal models that can realize topological insulator phases \cite{1999CreutzPRL,2017JunemannPRX}. Detailed reviews on the realization of topological phases with ultra-cold atoms can be found in \cite{2016GoldmanNatPhys,2019CooperRevModPhys,2018ZhangAdvPhys}.
However, an even more interesting possibility offered by the synthetic dimension framework is using 1D lattices to emulate 2D systems \cite{2014CeliPRL}. The synthetic ladder can be interpreted as a fragment (a strip) of a larger 2D lattice. With the addition of the effective magnetic flux from SO coupling, the ladder system can emulate the physics of the topologically nontrivial Harper-Hofstadter lattice model \cite{1976HofstadterPRB}, which describes charged particles in a 2D lattice in a uniform magnetic field. In fact, it can be shown theoretically that a two-leg ladder with SO coupling can accurately reproduce the energies and wave functions of the edge states of a real Hofstadter lattice \cite{2014HugelPRA}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Fig11.jpg}
\caption{The realization of a Harper-Hofstadter strip by means of a 1D lattice with a synthetic spin dimension. See the main text for details. Reproduced with permission from \cite{2015ManciniScience}. Copyright 2015, Science.}
\label{Fig11}
\end{figure}
An excellent demonstration of these possibilities is given by the experiment by the Fallani group in LENS \cite{2015ManciniScience}. Using $^{173}$Yb atoms in a 1D lattice, with Raman laser coupling between two or three distinct spin states, the authors realized a two- or three-leg ladder geometry (see Fig.~\ref{Fig11} for a pictorial view). For the two-leg ladder case, spin-resolved measurement of momentum distributions revealed the presence of edge chiral currents, travelling in opposite directions along the two legs (Fig.~\ref{Fig12}). These currents, which can be detected by analyzing spin-resolved momentum distributions, are analogous to the topological chiral modes running along the edge of the 2D Hofstadter lattice. In fact, it can be easier to experimentally investigate such edge-localized phenomena in such a 1D simulator as opposed to a real 2D structure, since the momentum distribution for each spin component can be measured individually \cite{2019CooperRevModPhys}. By increasing the number of coupled spin states from two to three, one obtains a three-leg ladder geometry, which is an even closer approximation of a strip of a 2D system. Compared to a two-leg ladder, which is ``all edge and no bulk'', the three-leg ladder has a ``bulk'' in the form of the ``central'' leg. Momentum distribution measurements reveal that no net chiral current is present in this ``bulk'' leg (Fig.~\ref{Fig13}). The experiment serves as a remarkable demonstration of how the physics in a 1D spin-orbit coupled lattice system can be mapped onto those of a 2D system.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Fig12a.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Fig12b.jpg}
\caption{Uncovering chiral edge currents of fermionic atoms in a two-leg ladder with effective magnetic flux. (a) Top: Time-of-flight images representing the momentum distribution of atoms in the two pseudospin states $m=-5/2$ and $m=-1/2$. Middle: Integrated momentum distributions $n(k)$. Bottom: The imbalances $h(k) = n(k) - n(-k)$. The nonzero imbalance reveals the presence of a chiral current for the atoms in a given pseudospin state, with the opposite directions for both pseudospins. (b) The momentum distribution and imbalance $h(k)$ for atoms in the $m = -1/2$ state, for two opposite directions of the effective magnetic field. It can be seen that the direction of the chiral current is inverted as the effective field is turned in the opposite direction. (c) Visualization of the two chiral currents (orange arrows) along the two legs of the ladder that correspond to the two spin states. Reproduced with permission from \cite{2015ManciniScience}. Copyright 2015, Science.}
\label{Fig12}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Fig13a.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Fig13b.jpg}
\caption{Same as Fig.~\ref{Fig12}, but for a ladder with three legs corresponding to the pseudospin states $m=-5/2$, $m=-1/2$ and $m=+3/2$. Chiral currents are only present for atoms on the two ``edge'' legs ($m=-5/2,+3/2$), while the ``middle leg'' ($m=-1/2$) is characterized by a net zero current. Reproduced with permission from \cite{2015ManciniScience}. Copyright 2015, Science.}
\label{Fig13}
\end{figure}
With regard to artificial ladder geometries, it is worth mentioning that a more complex ladder structure was recently achieved experimentally in Seul \cite{2018KangPRL}. In a 1D lattice with $^{173}$Yb atoms, the authors realized a three-leg \emph{cross-linked ladder}: a ladder that allows hopping between lattice sites with a simultaneous change of orbital, corresponding to diagonal hopping across the ladder plaquettes (Fig.~\ref{Fig14}b). The system was implemented by overlaying the trapping optical lattice with a periodically oscillating lattice potential, generated by a pair of Raman lasers with different frequencies. This induced couplings between the first few excited orbitals of the optical lattice sites, which played the role of pseudospin, so that an ``orbital-momentum'' coupling played the role of spin-orbit coupling (Fig.~\ref{Fig14}a). The diagonal hopping was achieved by ensuring a significant overlap of the orbital wave functions corresponding to each site.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Fig14.jpg}
\caption{(a) Schematic of the experimental setup realizing orbital-momentum coupling in a 1D optical lattice. The stationary 1D lattice potential $V(x)$ with lattice constant $\pi/k_L$ is overlaid with an oscillating lattice potential $\delta V(x,t)$ with lattice constant $\pi/k_R$. The moving lattice induces two-photon Raman transitions between the different orbital states of the lattice. (b) The lattice as a ladder, with the orbital states $s,p,d$ playing the role of the synthetic dimension. The particles can hop along the real dimension $x$ (black solid lines) and along the orbital dimension $\alpha$ (green solid lines), but ``diagonal'' hopping is possible as well (dashed lines). Because of the spatial modulation of the complex tunneling amplitude, an effective magnetic flux $\Phi = 2\pi(k_R/k_L + 1)$ per plaquette is created. The diagonal hopping additionally divides each plaquette into four sub-plaquettes with the magnetic flux distributed between them. Reproduced with permission from \cite{2018KangPRL}. Copyright 2018, American Physical Society.}
\label{Fig14}
\end{figure}
The rapid experimental development in this area has been accompanied by theoretical developments as well. The ladder structures can also be used for more involved applications. For example, as proposed in \cite{2015MazzaNJP}, a two-leg ladder with the two legs interpreted as "particle" and "hole" states can exhibit properties similar to that of a topologically nontrivial superconducting wire. Another interesting concept has been presented in \cite{2016MugelPRA} where it was shown how a topologically nontrivial system can be implemented via a quantum walk of ultra-cold atoms on a 1D lattice. It was argued that in certain parameter regimes the system can be mapped onto the Creutz ladder \cite{1999CreutzPRL}.
\subsection{Topological superfluids}
We now move on to another possibility opened by the application of SO coupling to 1D fermions, namely, the creation of topological superfluid phases. A topological superfluid phase features Cooper pairing between the fermions (analogously to the BCS phase) but also displays nontrivial topological characteristics. In particular, it can host zero-energy edge states with properties analogous to properties of the famous Majorana fermions -- non-existing, but theoretically possible realizations of neutral particles obeying fermionic statistics being compatible with the relativistic quantum mechanics \cite{1937MajoranaNCimento,1996RyderBook2nd}. In contrast to standard Dirac particles, Majorana fermions are their own antiparticles. Although Majorana particles were never observed as quantum particles, it is commonly argued that in some specific scenarios they may give an effective and appropriate description of excitations of many-body systems. In such cases, they are particularly interesting from a quantum information perspective, as they are highly resistant to decoherence and have been suggested as a vital element in fault-tolerant quantum computation \cite{2001KitaevPhysUsp,2008NayakRevModPhys}. Topological superfluids represent a significant opportunity to generate Majorana fermions controllably.
Majorana fermions are known to occur effectively in certain 2D superconductors characterized by $p$-wave interparticle interactions \cite{2001IvanovPRL}. A conventional 2D $s$-wave superconductor under artificial spin-orbit coupling can also harbor Majorana fermions \cite{2008ZhangPRL,2009SatoPRL,2010SatoPRB}. One-dimensional topological superfluids have been successfully created in heterostructures, consisting of a 1D semiconductor wire subject to strong spin-orbit coupling and brought in the proximity of a bulk $s$-wave superconductor \cite{2010OregPRL,2011LutchynPRL,2011FidkowskiPRB}. Experiments with such structures have uncovered evidence for the appearance of Majorana fermions in the wire \cite{2012MourikScience,2012RokhinsonNatPhys,2012DengNanoLetters,2012DasNatPhys,2013FinckPRL}.
Schemes for creating Majorana fermions in ultra-cold atoms have been proposed as well, for example in systems of spin-orbit coupled 1D fermions inside a background 3D BEC \cite{2011JiangPRL}. In recent years, a number of theoretical studies have explored the possibility of using SO coupling to obtain a topological superfluid phase in a solitary 1D system of attracting ultra-cold fermions, without the need to couple to external systems. In \cite{2012LiuPRA-Topological,2012WeiPRA} the case of a 1D fermionic gas in a harmonic trap, subjected to spin-orbit coupling and a Zeeman field, was analyzed. It was found that when the Zeeman field and the spin-orbit coupling are strong enough, the system can pass from a topologically trivial BCS superfluid phase into a topological superfluid phase (Fig.~\ref{Fig15}). This phase supports several zero-energy edge states, which have the Majorana-like symmetry. Analogous results were obtained in \cite{2015YangCommunTheorPhys} for 1D gas in a lattice. Additionally, it has been shown that a topological FFLO superfluid state, with a non-uniform pairing order parameter, can be obtained in this setup as well \cite{2013LiuPRA-Topological,2013ChenPRL,2017WangPRA}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Fig15.jpg}
\caption{The smallest eigenenergy $\min\{|E_\eta|\}$ of the Bogoliubov quasiparticle spectrum of a one-dimensional Fermi gas as a function of the Zeeman field $h$ under presence of the SO coupling of a fixed strength. Along with increasing Zeeman field the system transitions from a topologically trivial BCS superfluid first to a topological superfluid, and finally to a normal state. Insets show the quasiparticle energy spectrum at $h/E_F = 0.3$ and $0.5$. It can be seen that near-zero-energy edge modes are present in the topological superfluid phase. Reproduced with permission from \cite{2012LiuPRA-Topological}. Copyright 2012, American Physical Society.}
\label{Fig15}
\end{figure}
Other works have investigated the possibility of manipulating the Majorana fermions generated in the topological superfluid. In particular, it has been proposed that Majorana fermions could be moved through the trap by manipulating the Zeeman field strength. Bound Majorana-like states can be generated at desired locations as well, by inserting impurities into the system \cite{2012LiuPRA-Manipulating,2013LiuPRA-Impurity}. Other theoretical proposals involve dark solitons in the superfluid, which can also support Majorana fermions bound to their locations. Thus, they provide an indirect way to manipulate Majorana fermions or to identify the topological nature of the state through the filling status of the solitons \cite{2014XuPRL,2015LiuPRA,2019FanPRA}.
It is also worth noting an interesting proposal for obtaining topological superfluids which was made in \cite{2015YanSciRep}. The work considers a 1D lattice with SO coupling that realizes a ladder geometry. It is proposed that two chiral edge states on the opposite legs of the ladder can undergo Cooper pairing, leading to a BCS-like superfluid phase with zero-energy Majorana modes localized at ends of the lattice.
Finally, we wish to draw attention to a recent experimental realization of a symmetry-protected topological (SPT) phase with fermionic $^{173}$Yb atoms in a 1D lattice in \cite{2018SongSciAdv}. SPT phases are a subset of topological phases, distinguished by the fact that, while ordinary topologically ordered phases are robust against any local perturbations, SPT phases remain intact only against perturbations that respect specific protecting symmetries. Theoretical schemes for obtaining SPT phases in 1D Fermi systems were considered for spin-orbit coupled fermions in a Raman lattice \cite{2013LiuPRL} as well as for 1D fermions with SO coupling induced by Raman laser couplings \cite{2017ZhouPRL}. From the experimental point of view, the Raman lattice scheme was implemented and an SPT phase was successfully created in the 1D Fermi system \cite{2018SongSciAdv}. Strikingly, when the confining lattice potential was spin-dependent, the obtained topological phase was one of a new, exotic type, outside of the traditional Altland-Zirnbauer classification \cite{1997AltlandPRB} which is typically used to classify 1D SPT phases.
\section{Higher-spin systems}
\label{sec-sun}
Due to the obvious historical reasons, most research on fermionic systems concerns spin-1/2 systems with only two distinct spin states, governed by a $\mathrm{SU}(2)$ symmetry. In this way, a very close analogy to the electronic systems is kept. However, current experimental achievements in the field of atomic physics allow the exploration of higher-spin systems, which can be used to realize a rich variety of interesting phases being completely beyond the range of solid-state physics \cite{2014CazalillaRepProgPhys,2016CapponiAnnPhys,2019SowinskiRepProgPhys}. An important subset of such higher-spin systems are $\cal{N}$-component systems with an $\mathrm{SU}({\cal N})$ symmetry. The physics of higher $\mathrm{SU}({\cal N})$ symmetries are of interest to many branches of physics and can lead to new connections with high-energy physics. For instance, an $\mathrm{SU}(3)$ symmetry underlies the description of quarks in quantum chromodynamics \cite{2007GreinerBook}, while an $\mathrm{SU}(6)$ symmetry has been used to describe the flavor symmetry of spinful quarks \cite{1964SakitaPR}. In fact, it has been proposed that systems of ultracold $\mathrm{SU}(3)$ fermions may be used to simulate some aspects of quantum chromodynamics \cite{2007RappPRL,2008RappPRB}. As another example, models with $\mathrm{SU}(4)$ symmetry can be used to study electron systems with orbital degeneracy \cite{1998LiPRL,1999FrischmuthPRL,1999AzariaPRL}.
From a theoretical point of view, the study of 1D $\mathrm{SU}({\cal N})$ fermions dates back to the work by Sutherland \cite{1968SutherlandPRL}, who extended Gaudin and Yang's 1D fermionic gas model \cite{1967GaudinPLA,1967YangPRL} to an arbitrary number of spin components, $\cal N$, giving the solution in terms of ${\cal N}$ nested Bethe ansatzes. The ground-state solution of the attractive case, which has the form of a ${\cal N}$-particle bound state, was given in \cite{1970TakahashiProgTheorPhys}. Since then, 1D $\mathrm{SU}({\cal N})$ multicomponent fermionic systems have been thoroughly explored theoretically. Examples include the three-component $\mathrm{SU}(3)$ Fermi gas \cite{2008GuanPRL,2010HePRA,2012KuhnNJP}, $\mathrm{SU}(4)$ spin-3/2 fermions \cite{2008CapponiPRA,2009GuanEPL,2012SchlottmannPRB-Spin32}, and systems with even higher symmetries \cite{2005SzirmaiPRB,2007BuchtaPRB,2008LiuPRA,2008SzirmaiPRB,2010GuanPRA,2011ManmanaPRA,2011YinPRA,2012SchlottmannPRB-Arbitrary}. General reviews concerning ultra-cold fermionic systems with higher spin symmetries can be found in \cite{2014CazalillaRepProgPhys,2016CapponiAnnPhys}.
Achieving enlarged $\mathrm{SU}({\cal N})$ symmetry in condensed matter systems is usually very difficult, as it requires fine-tuning of the interaction parameters. Ultra-cold fermionic systems, thanks to their tunability, offer a very good environment for studying the higher $\mathrm{SU}({\cal N})$ physics experimentally.
\subsection{Towards $\mathrm{SU}({\cal N})$ symmetry}
Let us look closely at the conditions necessary for obtaining $\mathrm{SU}({\cal N})$ symmetry with spin-$S$ ultra-cold atoms. A two-body interaction between two spin-$S$ fermions depends on their total spin $F$, which can assume possible values $F = 0,1,2,\ldots,2S$. Assuming contact interactions via $s$-wave collisions, the two-body interaction term between two spin-$S$ fermions can be written as \cite{1998HoPRL}
\begin{equation}
V(\vec{r},\vec{r'}) = \delta(\vec{r}-\vec{r'}) \sum\limits^{2S-1}_{F=0,2...} g_F P_F,
\end{equation}
where $P_F$ is a projection operator on states with total spin $F$, and the coupling constants $g_F$ depend on the $s$-wave scattering lengths $a_F$. Note that, due to fermionic quantum statistics, only even $F$ values allow for non-vanishing interactions via $s$-wave collisions. Therefore the system exhibits $S + 1/2$ distinct $s$-wave scattering lengths $a_F = a_0, a_2, ... a_{2S-1}$. The $\mathrm{SU}({\cal N})$ symmetry is obtained only when all these scattering lengths are simultaneously equal \cite{2014CazalillaRepProgPhys}.
Alkaline-earth atoms, and atoms with a similar electronic structure such as ytterbium, are particularly well suited to this purpose \cite{2009CazalillaNJP,2010GorshkovNatPhys,2014CazalillaRepProgPhys}. In the ground state ${}^1\mathrm{S}_0$ of alkaline-earth atoms, as well as in the metastable excited state ${}^3\mathrm{P}_0$, the total electronic angular momentum is zero. As a result, the hyperfine interaction vanishes and the electronic shell configuration becomes decoupled from the nuclear spin. Since the differences in $a_F$ depend mainly on the electronic wave functions of the colliding atoms, this decoupling causes $a_F$ to become almost independent of the nuclear spin. More precisely, the nuclear-spin-dependent correction of the scattering lengths is on the order of $\sim 10^{-9}$ in the $^1\mathrm{S}_0$ state and on the order of $\sim 10^{-3}$ in the $^3\mathrm{P}_0$ state \cite{2010GorshkovNatPhys}. Thanks to this independence of scattering lengths on the spin, the system effectively exhibits a $\mathrm{SU}(2S+1)$ symmetry \cite{2016CapponiAnnPhys}.
Alkaline-earth and alkaline-earth-like atoms have been successfully used to experimentally realize systems with higher $\mathrm{SU}({\cal N})$ symmetries. In particular, experiments in 3D and 2D setups have realized $\mathrm{SU}(6)$ symmetry with $^{173}$Yb atoms \cite{2010TaiePRL,2012TaieNatPhys,2014ScazzaNatPhys} as well as $\mathrm{SU}(10)$ symmetry with $^{87}$Sr atoms \cite{2013StellmerPRA,2014ZhangScience}.
Of course, it should be noted that high-spin systems without a full $\mathrm{SU}({\cal N})$ symmetry can also be of significant interest. For example, a three-component fermionic system with anisotropic scattering lengths was studied theoretically in \cite{2009AzariaPRA}, and fermionic systems with spin $S \ge 3/2$ and inequal scattering lengths were investigated in \cite{2005LecheminantPRL}. In this class, a particularly interesting case is the four-component spin-3/2 system, which notably exhibits a high $\mathrm{SO}(5)$ symmetry even for inequal scattering lengths $a_0 \ne a_2$ \cite{2003WuPRL,2005WuPRL,2006WuModPhysLet}. The phases of such a spin-3/2 fermionic system (with $a_0 > 0, a_2 < 0$) were studied recently in \cite{2012BarczaPRA,2015BarczaEPL}.
\subsection{One-dimensional realizations}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Fig16.jpg}
\caption{Experimental creation of one-dimensional $\mathrm{SU}({\cal N})$ fermionic systems with tunable number of spin components. (a) A 2D optical lattice is used to create an array of independent 1D tubes of ultra-cold $^{173}$Yb atoms with up to six different nuclear spin orientations. (b) The number of spin components is fully tunable and can be determined via optical Stern-Gerlach detection. Reproduced with permission from \cite{2014PaganoNatPhys}. Copyright 2014, Nature.}
\label{Fig16}
\end{figure}
For 1D systems, a breakthrough experimental achievement was performed by the Fallani group \cite{2014PaganoNatPhys}. In this experiment, a one-dimensional liquid of repulsively interacting $^{173}$Yb atoms with an arbitrarily tunable number of spin components was obtained (Fig.~\ref{Fig16}a). The number of spin components $\cal N$ was set during the preparation of the sample, by means of optical spin manipulation and detection techniques. The authors have explored the physics of this system for a varying number of components, from ${\cal N} = 1$ to ${\cal N} = 6$ (Fig.~\ref{Fig16}b), while keeping the number of atoms per spin component constant.
It was found that with an increasing number of spin components, the system properties deviate from those of a spin-1/2 Luttinger liquid that is typically used to describe 1D fermionic systems \cite{2003GiamarchiBook}. In particular, as $\cal N$ increases, the Pauli principle is increasingly less important and the system gradually takes on the properties of a system of spinless bosons (confirming earlier theoretical predictions \cite{2011YangCPL,2012GuanPRA}). This was experimentally confirmed by measuring the frequency of breathing oscillations of the cloud after a sudden change of the trap frequency. The authors have also analyzed the momentum distribution of the system and showed that it broadens monotonically as the number of components is increased. This can be explained qualitatively: as the number of spin components increases, the role of repulsions between the atoms is increased, which decreases the space available to the atoms (in a manner similar to the Pauli repulsion) and forces the occupation of higher-momentum states. The authors also probed the excitation spectra by means of the Bragg spectroscopy, finding that, for larger numbers of components, the results for the excitation frequency deviate from the predictions of the Luttinger liquid theory.
\subsection{Plethora of various phases}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Fig17a.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Fig17b.jpg}
\caption{The ground state phase diagram of a spin-3/2 $\mathrm{SU}(4)$ (upper plot) and spin-5/2 $\mathrm{SU}(6)$ (bottom plot) homogeneous one-dimensional Fermi gas with attractive interactions, in the plane of chemical potential $\mu$ vs. magnetic field $H$. The Roman numbers indicate different possible phases made up of bound states of the corresponding number of fermions. The unlabelled region is the vacuum state. Multiple roman numbers added together indicate mixed phases with coexistence of different states. The vertical dashed lines indicate the trajectories of local chemical potential for systems in a harmonic trap. For clarity, compare to the $\mathrm{SU}(2)$ phase diagram in Fig.~\ref{Fig1}. Both figures reproduced with permission from \cite{2012SchlottmannPRB-Spin32} and \cite{2012SchlottmannPRB-Arbitrary}, respectively. Copyright 2012, American Physical Society.}
\label{Fig17}
\end{figure}
In anticipation of future experiments, we will now point out the various interesting phases possible to create in high-spin $\mathrm{SU}({\cal N})$ systems. In the case of multicomponent systems with attractive interactions, their phase diagrams admit new types of binding beyond pair formation. Systems with ${\cal N}>2$ components allow the possibility of three-fermion (trions), four-fermion (quartets) and even larger clusters, as well as mixed phases with various combinations of such clusters \cite{2009GuanEPL}.
To see an example of the rich possibilities, we may consider the higher-spin equivalent of the FFLO system considered in Section \ref{sec-fflo}. Let us consider a homogeneous gas with attractive interactions and a spin imbalance, subjected to a magnetic field $H$. The phase diagram for such a system with spin-1/2 was considered in the previous sections (Fig.~\ref{Fig1}). The phase diagrams for equivalent systems with higher spin symmetry are shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig17}. The spin-1/2 system admits three phases -- a polarized phase of singlet atoms, a fully paired phase, and a partially polarized phase which contains both pairs and unpaired atoms. However, a system with ${\cal N}>2$ spin components admits more phases -- a polarized phase of singlet atoms, a phase consisting of $\cal N$-fermion clusters, and numerous mixed phases in which various combinations of clusters with different particle numbers coexist. The resulting phase diagram is highly complex \cite{2012SchlottmannPRB-Spin32,2012SchlottmannPRB-Arbitrary}.
Such a complex phase diagram also allows for highly intricate phase separation in inhomogeneous systems, since a cut across the phase diagram can cross many phase boundaries \cite{2012SchlottmannPRB-Arbitrary}. Fig.~\ref{Fig18} shows an example of a complicated phase separation structure in a trapped spin-3/2 attractive gas. The phase-separated system can be described as a four-shell structure, displaying four distinct phases. It is useful to compare this case with the case of a trapped spin-1/2 attractive gas, which, as noted in Section \ref{sec-fflo}, can be described by a two-shell structure with one phase in the center and another in the wings.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Fig18.jpg}
\caption{Radial structure of a spin-3/2 $\mathrm{SU}(4)$ one-dimensional Fermi gas with attractive interactions trapped in a harmonic trap. Roman numbers indicate the phases present in the different regions of the trap. Black lines labelled with $n_q$ indicate densities of $q+1$-particle states, line labelled with $N_p/L$ is the total particle density, line labelled with $M/L$ is the magnetization density. A complex phase separation pattern is clearly visible. Reproduced with permission from \cite{2012SchlottmannPRB-Spin32}. Copyright 2012, American Physical Society.}
\label{Fig18}
\end{figure}
A rich variety of possible phases exists in high-spin lattice systems as well. In the tight-binding limit they can be described by the multicomponent $\mathrm{SU}({\cal N})$ variant of the Hubbard model, described by a Hamiltonian of the form \cite{2005SzirmaiPRB}
\begin{equation}
H = \sum_j\left[\sum_\sigma -t\,\hat{c}^\dagger_{j,\sigma} ( \hat{c}_{j-1,\sigma} + \hat{c}_{j+1,\sigma}) + \frac{U}{2} \sum_{\sigma'\neq\sigma} \hat{n}_{j,\sigma} \hat{n}_{j,\sigma'}\right],
\end{equation}
where $\sigma,\sigma'$ are the spin components. For ${\cal N} > 2$ this model admits various interesting phases, depending on the lattice filling, the interaction strength, and the sign of the interaction (repulsive or attractive). For example, at ${\cal N} > 2$ and a filling of ${\cal N}/2$ atoms per site, the Hubbard model displays a charge-density wave phase when the interactions are attractive, and a dimerized spin-Peierls phase on the repulsive side. An extensive description of the various possible phases can be found in \cite{2016CapponiAnnPhys}.
In the context of one-dimensional fermionic systems two aspects are particularly worth noting. One is related to the Mott transition in higher spin models. It is known that, in contrast to higher spatial dimensions, exactly in one-dimensional case the ground state of the $\mathrm{SU}(2)$ Hubbard model at half-filling is a Mott insulator for any positive interaction $U$ and it undergoes the Mott transition to the metalic phase exactly at $U=0$ \cite{1968LiebPRL,2005EsslerBook}. However, the situation is substantially different for ${\cal N} > 2$, where the transition occurs for finite repulsion $U > 0$, similarly as in higher dimensions \cite{1999AssarafPRB}. The other aspect appears in the opposite limit of high interactions $U/t \gg 1$ and exact filling of one particle per lattice site. Exactly under these conditions, the effective low-energy Hamiltonian of the system (obtained in the second-order perturbation theory) is equivalent to the $\mathrm{SU}({\cal N})$ Heisenberg model written as \cite{1999AssarafPRB,2005SzirmaiPRB,2011ManmanaPRA}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:heisenberg}
H = -J\sum_{i}\sum_{\mu,\nu} \hat{\mathbf{S}}_\mu^\nu(i)\hat{\mathbf{S}}_\nu^\mu(i+1),
\end{equation}
where operators $\hat{\mathbf{S}}_\mu^\nu(i)=\hat{c}_{i,\mu}^\dagger\hat{c}_{i,\nu}$ represent the $\mathrm{SU}(\cal{N})$ generators. The effective coupling $J \sim -t^2/U$ is negative and therefore it favors antiferromagnetic spin ordering. This correspondence between both systems has practical importance, as direct experimental control of the $\mathrm{SU}(\cal{N})$ antiferromagnets requires cooling to very low temperatures, $kT \lesssim J$. However, such low temperatures may be more attainable in higher-spin cold atom systems. Numerical studies indicate that, when atoms are loaded adiabatically into an optical lattice, the final temperature decreases with increasing $\cal{N}$ \cite{2012BonnesPRL,2012MessioPRL}. It comes from the fact that, in the case of atomic systems, the additional spin degrees of freedom can help to ``absorb'' the entropy from motional degrees of freedom \cite{2012TaieNatPhys} leading effectively to a lower final temperature. Higher-spin $\mathrm{SU}(\cal{N})$ systems may therefore provide an easier way to investigate exotic quantum magnetism.
Higher-spin systems also allow the possibility of extending the idea of the FFLO phase to larger fermion clusters. In the $\mathrm{SU}(4)$ system made up of an array of tubes with weak tunneling between them, a theoretical calculation shows that the mixed phases (where clusters of different length coexist) can display characteristic FFLO-like oscillations in the order parameters \cite{2012SchlottmannPRB-Spin32}. A recent theoretical investigation \cite{2017SzirmaiPRA} of the phase diagram of the $\mathrm{SU}(4)$ attractive Hubbard model at quarter filling has found two distinct FFLO-like phases, a ``paired-FFLO'' and a ``quartet-FFLO'' phase. The latter is an equivalent of the normal FFLO state, for bound particle quartets as opposed to pairs. The ``quartet FFLO'' phase appears at lower interaction strengths, but at higher interactions, it transitions into a phase-separated state where quartets and pairs coexist (see \cite{2017SzirmaiPRA} for a detailed discussion).
\subsection{Orbital physics of higher-spin fermions}
Intriguing physics can be revealed in models which, in addition to the nuclear spin degree of freedom, explicitly take into account an additional orbital degree of freedom. For alkaline-earth atoms, the most natural candidates for this orbital degree of freedom are the electronic ground and excited states $|g\rangle ={}^1\mathrm{S}_0$ and $|e\rangle ={}^3\mathrm{P}_0$ \cite{2010GorshkovNatPhys}. Without breaking the $\mathrm{SU}({\cal N})$ symmetry, such a system allows for four distinct interaction strengths depending on the orbital states of the interacting fermions. Systems with this kind of two-orbital dynamics have been studied experimentally in 3D settings \cite{2014ScazzaNatPhys,2014ZhangScience}.
The physics of such a two-orbital higher-spin system in the one-dimensional case has been theoretically explored in \cite{2013SzirmaiPRB} where the authors analyzed the case of atoms with $\mathrm{SU}(10)$ symmetry. At incommensurate filling, the phase diagram in the plane of different interaction strengths is quite intricate. Interestingly, the system presents the possibility of realizing a novel form of an FFLO state, where the finite momentum of the pairs does not come from the spin imbalance but rather from the difference of Fermi momenta of the two orbital states.
Instead of using the two $|g\rangle = {}^1\mathrm{S}_0$ and $|e\rangle = {}^3\mathrm{P}_0$ states, an alternative way to realize a two-orbital system is to exploit the transverse single-particle modes of the trapping potential which is used to realize quasi-one-dimensional geometry. Specifically, if the atoms may occupy the first-excited degenerate states $p_x$, $p_y$ of the transverse potential, these states can play the role of the two orbitals \cite{2012KobayashiPRL,2014KobayashiPRA}. The phase diagram for a two-orbital fermionic system confined in a 1D lattice with incommensurate filling was explored theoretically in \cite{2016BoisPRB}, for both the ${}^1\mathrm{S}_0/{}^3\mathrm{P}_0$ and the $p_x/p_y$ two-orbital models.
Under certain circumstances, two-orbital higher-spin systems mentioned above may support topologically nontrivial phases, including symmetry-protected ones. For example, as shown in \cite{2013NonneEPL}, the interplay between the orbital and nuclear spin degree of freedom for a one-dimensional optical lattice system at half-filling may lead to an interesting analogue of the Haldane phase \cite{2011CarrBook}. Creating symmetry-protected topological phases in $\mathrm{SU}({\cal N})$ 1D lattice systems was also explored in \cite{2015BoisPRB-Phase,2018UedaPRB}. This path of exploration is still ongoing and awaits experimental confirmation.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec-concl}
It is a matter of fact that the one-dimensional many-body quantum systems are no longer only theoretical divagations. Due to the rapid experimental progress in controlling atoms and molecules in the ultra-cold regime, they become realistic systems having their own and very often exotic properties. It is highly possible that these unique features will find unconventional applications in the nearest future and will change many technological aspects.
With this short review, we have summarized current progress in three directions which, in our opinion, are important not only from the point of technological exploitation but also have fundamental importance for developing our understanding of quantum many-body systems. Nonetheless, research in the field of one-dimensional fermionic systems includes many other topics which we have not discussed here. One example is systems with long-range interactions, such as dipolar gases \cite{2012BaranovChemRev}. The interesting effects of long-range interactions in one-dimensional dipolar Fermi gases have received considerable interest in the recent years \cite{2013DeSilvaPLA,2013XuPRL,2015MosadeqPRB,2015GrassPRA}. Another example is systems described by spin chain models, such as the Heisenberg spin model. Such models are closely associated with lattice systems, but have recently been considered as an effective description of strongly interacting one-dimensional atoms without a lattice potential \cite{2014DeuretzbacherPRA,2015YangPRA,2015LevinsenSciAdv,2015MurmannPRL}. Another interesting topic is the physics of one-dimensional Bose-Fermi mixtures, which have been recently studied theoretically \cite{2016HuNJP,2017DecampNJP,2017DeuretzbacherPRA,2017DehkharghaniJPB}.
Quantum simulators start to play a major role in various branches of physics. One can expect they will continue to be an increasingly versatile and useful tool. As an example of their potential, quantum simulators based on lattice models might help to understand the Holy Grail of modern condensed physics -- the high-temperature superconductivity. Although this phenomenon has been observed for many years, its underlying mechanisms are still not completely understood. Quantum simulators of high-temperature superconductor models may get us closer to unveiling this mystery \cite{2006KleinPRA}. Another example is the use of quantum simulators to study topological phases of matter. The current advances in generating artificial gauge fields enable major possibilities in this area.
\begin{acknowledgments}
This work is supported by the (Polish) National Science Center through Grant No. 2016/22/E/ST2/00555.
\end{acknowledgments}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\noindent{\bf Conflict of interest}
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
\vspace{0.5cm}
\noindent{\bf Keywords}
quantum simulators, one-dimensional systems, unconventional pairing, spin-orbit coupling, higher-spin systems
|
\section{Main results}
\label{Main results}
The study of hyperbolic partial differential equations on manifolds, particularly with reference to the D'Alembert wave operator, has been and continues to be, in various forms, at the forefront of scientific research. This is certainly true for mathematics, where the study of wave propagation has led over the years to major breakthroughs in the pure and in the applied side of the subject alike.
In this context, of particular relevance is the so-called wave propagator which is defined as follows. Consider $(\Sigma,h)$ a connected closed smooth Riemannian manifold of dimension $\dim\Sigma\geq 2$ and let $\Delta$ be the Laplace--Beltrami operator associated with $h$. The latter is known to be a non-positive operator, thus the square root $\sqrt{-\Delta}$ is well-defined. We call {\em wave propagator} the Fourier Integral Operator (FIO) $U(t)$, $t\in\mathbb{R}$, the distributional solution of the operator (pseudodifferential) initial value problem
\begin{equation}\label{eq: starting_point}
\left(-i\frac{\partial}{\partial t}+\sqrt{-\Delta}\right)U(t)=0,\quad U(0)=\operatorname{Id}.
\end{equation}
It is well-known that the knowledge of $U(t)$ is sufficient to solve the Cauchy problem associated with the D'Alembert wave operator $\frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2}-\Delta$. For this reason the study of the wave propagator has attracted a lot of attention, especially by means of microlocal-analytic techniques, see, {\it e.g.}, \cite{Hor, shubin}.
In this paper we are interested instead in a different approach, which aims at a global construction of the wave propagator. This is based on the works of Laptev, Safarov Vassiliev \cite{LSV} and of Safarov and Vassiliev \cite{SaVa} in which it has been shown that the propagator for a wide class of hyperbolic equations can be written as a single FIO, global both in space and in time, with complex-valued -- as opposed to real-valued -- phase function. This approach has the advantage of circumventing obstructions due to caustics. Such viewpoint has recently been adopted in \cite{CLV}, where the authors proposed a global invariant definition of the full symbol of the wave propagator, together with an algorithm for the explicit calculation of its homogeneous components. It is worth observing that the compactness assumption on $\Sigma$ could be relaxed with quite some effort. In this paper we build upon \cite{CLV}, requiring that all underlying Riemannian manifolds are closed, in order to avoid unnecessary technical difficulties, focusing instead on the main ideas and constructions.
Our investigation originates from two key observations. On the one hand, the study of hyperbolic partial differential equations sees one of its main applications in the description of physical phenomena modelled over Lorentzian manifolds. These are the natural playground of several theories, such as general relativity and quantum field theory on curved backgrounds, whose mathematical properties have been for decades the subject of thorough investigations. On the other hand, the reinterpretation of the framework depicted in \cite{CLV} in the language of Lorentzian geometry is rather natural, particularly with reference to a specific class of backgrounds known as {\em ultrastatic spacetimes}.
In this paper we will move from the observations above, asking ourselves to which extent it is possible to adapt and generalise the results of \cite{CLV} to the Lorentzian setting. In doing so, we will focus on the construction of the wave propagator on a distinguished class of spacetimes, known as {\em globally hyperbolic}, see, {\it e.g.}, \cite{Bar:2007zz}. These are of notable importance since they represent the natural collection of Lorentzian manifolds on which the Cauchy problem for hyperbolic partial differential equations of the like of the D'Alembert wave equation is well-posed. It is important to stress that, by far, this is not the first paper in which FIOs are used in a Lorentzian framework to analyse distinguished parametrices, see, {\it e.g.}, \cite{Junker:2001gx,Strohmaier:2018bcw}. Yet, our method differs significantly from those used in earlier publications, especially with regards to the invariant approach relying on the use of a distinguished complex-valued phase function.
The main goal of this paper is to construct explicitly, in terms of Fourier integral operators, solutions to the wave equation on a Lorentzian spacetime $(M,g)$ with compact Cauchy surface. More precisely, we will construct, modulo an operator with infinitely smooth Schwartz kernel, the solution operator mapping initial data on a given Cauchy surface to full solutions in $M$, in a global and invariant fashion -- effectively, a Lorentzian analogue of the wave group. As already mentioned, our strategy consists in extending and adapting results from \cite{CLV}, which yield an explicit -- {\it i.e.}~up to solving ordinary differential equations -- and invariant formula for the integral kernel of the solution operator (precise definitions will be provided later on). As our technique relies heavily on microlocal analysis, all our constructions capture the singular structure of the mathematical objects involved, modulo infinitely smooth contributions.
In writing this paper we have in mind the mathematical results on the one side and their potential applications on the other. For this reason, we refrain, at times, from providing arguments and proofs in the most general possible case, in the attempt to make the paper accessible also to a mathematical physics readership not fully familiar with the technical theory of Fourier integral operators.
Our main results are as follows.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Working on an ultrastatic spacetime $\mathbb{R}\times \Sigma$ with compact Cauchy surface, we extend results from \cite{CLV} to construct the operator
\begin{equation*}
e^{-i \sqrt{-\Delta_h+V} t}
\end{equation*}
as a single oscillatory integral global in space and in time, see Subsection~\ref{Subsec: the algoritm}
and Theorem~\ref{main theorem static propagator}. Here $\Delta_h$ is the Laplace--Beltrami operator on $\Sigma$ and $V$ a time-independent smooth potential.
\item Using the extended version of the results from \cite{CLV}, we provide an explicit algorithm for the construction of the wave propagator on static spacetimes, by reduction to the ultrastatic case, see Section~\ref{Sec: The wave propagator in static spacetimes}. Observe that, for this class of spacetimes, the knowledge of the wave propagator is sufficient to construct also the advanced and retarded fundamental solutions for the D'Alembert wave operator. These are two distinguished inverses characterised by their support properties. They play an important role in applications, especially in quantum field theory, since they capture the finite speed of propagation encoded within the wave equation.
\item Working on a globally hyperbolic spacetime $M$ with compact Cauchy surface and fixing a Cauchy surface $\Sigma_s:=\{s\}\times\Sigma$, we construct the operator $U(t,s):C_0^\infty(\Sigma_s) \to M$ whose integral kernel $u$ (i) satisfies the wave equation (in a distributional sense) modulo $C^\infty$, (ii) has a wavefront set of Hadamard type, as a single oscillatory integral, global in space and in time, with distinguished complex-valued phase function. See Theorem~\ref{Thm: wave propagator for globally hyperbolic spacetimes}.
\item We illustrate how our procedure can be applied to the construction of Hadamard states and we demonstrate how to recover from our global integral kernel the (local) Hadamard expansion commonly used in algebraic quantum field theory.
\end{enumerate}
We remark that G\'erard and Wrochna have also addressed the problem of constructing Hadamard states on globally hyperbolic spacetimes in \cite{Gerard-Wrochna-14}.
Their construction shares some common features with our approach, though their work is based mainly on pseudo-differential techniques.
\vskip .5cm
\noindent The paper is structured as follows.
In Section~\ref{Geometric preliminaries} we define the geometric objects we will be using throughout the paper and fix notation and conventions.
In Section~\ref{Sec: The wave propagator in static spacetimes} we construct the wave propagator on static spacetimes. This is done in several steps. First, by a conformal transformation we reduce the problem at hand to an auxiliary problem on an ultrastatic background; secondly, working on an ultrastatic spacetime, we extend the results from \cite{CLV} to encompass the case of wave operators with arbitrary time-independent infinitely smooth potential and solve the auxiliary problem; finally, we go back to the static case by conjugating by suitable multiplication operators.
In Section~\ref{Sec: Extension to general globally hyperbolic spacetimes} we construct, using Fourier integral operator techniques, a Lorentzian analogue of the wave group. The key idea is to identify a distinguished complex-valued phase function encoding information about the propagation of singularities and the Lorentzian geometry and then exploit the construction developed in \cite{CLV} for the Riemannian case.
Lastly, in Section~\ref{Sec: An application: Hadamard states} we discuss one of the potential applications of the method, namely, the global construction of Hadamard states, relevant in algebraic quantum field theory on curved spacetime.
The paper is complemented by an appendix, Appendix~\ref{App: Fundamental Facts on Fundamental Solutions}, where we recall in an abridged manner basic facts about fundamental solutions of normally hyperbolic operators.
\section{Geometric preliminaries}
\label{Geometric preliminaries}
In this section we discuss the geometric data which will play a key role in this paper, and fix notation and conventions.
We call \emph{spacetime} a pair $(M,g)$ where $M$ is a connected, Hausdorff, second countable, orientable smooth manifold of dimension $d\ge2$ and $g$ is a smooth Lorentzian metric of signature $(+,-,...,-)$.
A spacetime is said to be \emph{globally hyperbolic} if it possesses a \emph{Cauchy surface}, that is a closed achronal subset $\Sigma\subset M$ whose domain of dependence $D(\Sigma)$ is the whole spacetime $M$, see \cite[\S 8.1]{Wald}. Globally hyperbolic spacetimes are particularly important because their geometry ensures the well-posedness of Cauchy problems for normally hyperbolic operators ({\it e.g.}, the wave operator).
A remarkable and very convenient equivalent characterisation of global hyperbolicity was provided by Bernal and Sanchez in \cite{Bernal:2004gm,Bernal:2005qf}. We report below their result as formulated in \cite[\S 1.3]{Bar:2007zz}.
\begin{theorem}\label{Th:glob_hyp}
Let $(M,g)$ be a time-oriented spacetime. Then the following statements are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $(M,g)$ is globally hyperbolic
\item $(M,g)$ is isometric to $\mathbb{R}\times\Sigma$ endowed with the line element
\begin{equation}
\label{metric general form BS}
ds^2=\beta \,dt^2-h_t,
\end{equation}
where $t:\mathbb{R}\times\Sigma\to\mathbb{R}$ is the projection onto the first factor, $\beta$ is a strictly positive smooth function on $\mathbb{R}\times\Sigma$, and $t\mapsto h_t$ is a one-parameter family of smooth Riemannian metrics. Furthermore, for all $t\in\mathbb{R}$, $\{t\}\times\Sigma$ is a smooth, $(d-1)$-dimensional spacelike Cauchy surface.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\noindent In this paper we will only consider globally hyperbolic spacetimes and we will always work with the metric in the standard form \eqref{metric general form BS}. Furthermore, we will make the additional assumption that $\Sigma$ is compact, hence in particular closed.
We shall adopt the convention that Greek (resp.\ Latin) indices are associated with quantities related to $\Sigma$ (resp.\ to $M$).
Moreover, points of $M$ are denoted with uppercase Latin letters, points of $\Sigma$ are denoted with lowercase Latin letters.
For later convenience, we observe that, denoting by $\pi_1:M\to\mathbb{R}$ and $\pi_2:M\to\Sigma$ the two natural projection maps,
global hyperbolicity yields the isomorphisms of vector bundles
\begin{equation}
\label{decomposition tangent and cotangent bundle}
TM\simeq \pi_1^*T\mathbb{R}\oplus\pi_2^*T\Sigma,\qquad T^*M\simeq \pi_1^*T^*\mathbb{R}\oplus\pi_2^*T^*\Sigma,
\end{equation}
where $\oplus$ indicates the Whitney sum between the pull-back bundles, see \cite{Husemoller-94}.
For every point $Y\in M$, we denote by $\mathcal{N}(Y)$ the normal convex neighbourhood of $Y$ consisting of all points $X\in M$ such that there exists a unique geodesic $\gamma$ connecting $Y$ to $X$.
Correspondingly we define the {\em Synge's world function} as the scalar map
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Synge_world_function}
\sigma(X,Y):=\frac{1}{2}(\lambda_1-\lambda_0)\int\limits_{\lambda_0}^{\lambda_1}d\lambda\;g(\dot{\gamma}(\lambda),\dot{\gamma}(\lambda)), \qquad \forall Y \in M, \forall X\in \mathcal{N}(Y),
\end{equation}
where $\dot{\gamma}(\lambda)$ is the tangent vector at $\gamma(\lambda)$ to the geodesic $\gamma$ connecting $X$ to $Y$ with the affine parameter chosen in such a way that $\gamma(\lambda_0)=Y$ and $\gamma(\lambda_1)=X$, see \cite[\S 3]{Poisson:2011nh}.
It is important to stress that \eqref{eq:Synge_world_function} corresponds also to half of the squared geodesic distance (in the Lorentzian sense) between $X$ and $Y$.
A globally hyperbolic spacetime is called {\em static} if it possesses an irrotational timelike Killing vector field. This is equivalent to requiring that neither $\beta$ nor $h_t$ in \eqref{metric general form BS} depend on $t$. A globally hyperbolic spacetime is called {\em ultrastatic} if it is static and, in addition, $\beta=1$.
\begin{remark}
Observe that any $(d-1)$-dimensional closed Riemannian manifold $(\Sigma,h)$ gives rise to a unique (up to isometries) ultrastatic globally hyperbolic $d$-dimensional spacetime
\[
(\mathbb{R}\times\Sigma,ds^2=dt^2-h),
\]
see \cite{Kay:1978yp}.
\end{remark}
Let $\nabla$ be the Levi-Civita connection associated with $g$ and
\begin{equation}
\label{density}
\rho_g(X):=\sqrt{\left| \det g_{ab}(X)\right|}\,
\end{equation}
be the Lorentzian density.
Given a smooth real scalar field $\Phi:M\to\mathbb{R}$, the Klein--Gordon equation is defined to be
\begin{equation}\label{Eq:KG}
P\Phi:=(\Box_g+\xi \mathcal{R}+m^2)\Phi=0,\quad \xi\in\mathbb{R},\;\textrm{and}\;m^2\geq 0,
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{R}$ is scalar curvature and $\Box_g$ is the D'Alembert wave operator acting on scalar functions, defined by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:d'Alembert}
\Box_g:= g^{ab}(X)\,\nabla_a\nabla_b=[\rho_g(X)]^{-1}\,\partial_a\left(\rho_g(X)\,g^{ab}(X)\,\partial_b\right).
\end{equation}
In our paper we will focus mainly on the wave equation, which is a special case of the Klein--Gordon equation obtained by setting $\xi=m=0$.
\section{The wave propagator on static spacetimes}
\label{Sec: The wave propagator in static spacetimes}
In this section we have a twofold goal. First, we consider the d'Alembert wave operator on a globally hyperbolic static spacetime with compact Cauchy surface and we show that the construction of the advanced and retarded fundamental solutions can be reduced to that of the half-wave propagator for an associated partial differential operator. Secondly, we explicitly construct the latter, modulo an infinitely smoothing operator, by relying on results and ideas from \cite{CLV}. We start from the static scenario as it encompasses, in essence, all features of the most general case, hence providing an intuitive picture of the Lorentzian extension, stripped of all technicalities here unnecessary.
\subsection{Reduction to the ultrastatic case}
\label{Sec: Reduction to the ultrastatic case}
Consider a globally hyperbolic static spacetime $(M,\widetilde{g})$. On account of Theorem \ref{Th:glob_hyp}, $M\simeq \mathbb{R}\times \Sigma$ and the metric tensor $\widetilde{g}$ can be written as
\[
\widetilde{g}=\beta\,dt^2 - \widetilde{h},
\]
where both $\beta$ and $\widetilde{h}$ do not depend on $t$. Via a conformal rescaling we can construct an ultrastatic metric
\[
g:=\beta^{-1}\, \widetilde{g} = \mathrm{d} t^2 - h,
\]
where $h=\beta^{-1}\,\widetilde{h}$. The wave operators $\square_{\widetilde{g}}$ and $\square_g$ associated with $\widetilde{g}$ and $g$, respectively, see \eqref{eq:d'Alembert}, are related by
\begin{equation}
\label{relation between box tilde and box}
\beta^{\frac{2+d}{4}}\,\square_{\widetilde{g}}\, \beta^{\frac{2-d}{4}}=\square_g+V,
\end{equation}
where $d=\dim M$ and
\begin{equation}
\label{pontential V static}
V=\beta^{-\frac{2-d}{4}}\left(\Delta_h \,\beta^{\frac{2-d}{4}}\right).
\end{equation}
Here and further on, $\Delta_h$ denotes the Laplace--Beltrami operator on $\Sigma$ associated with $h$.
Direct inspection of formula \eqref{relation between box tilde and box} reveals that constructing the advanced and retarded fundamental solutions $\widetilde{G}^\pm$ associated to $\square_{\widetilde{g}}$, {\it cf.} Theorem \ref{Thm:propagators}, is equivalent to constructing $G^\pm$, their counterparts for the operator
\begin{equation}
\label{new hyperbolic operator}
\Box_g+V=\partial_t^2-\Delta_h+V.
\end{equation}
The two pairs of operators are related by the identity
\begin{equation}
\label{relation between adcanved and retarded static}
\widetilde{G}^\pm=\beta^{\frac{2-d}{4}}\circ G^\pm \circ \beta^{\frac{2+d}{4}}.
\end{equation}
The above argument shows that one can reduce the problem of constructing the advanced and retarded fundamental solutions for the D'Alembert wave operator on a static spacetime to the same problem for the operator \eqref{new hyperbolic operator} on an ultrastatic background, instead.
\subsection{Construction of the global static parametrix}
\label{Subsec: the algoritm}
Recently the first-named author, M.~Levitin and D.~Vassiliev have developed a geometric approach to construct the wave propagator globally and invariantly on a closed Riemannian manifold \cite{CLV}, using Fourier integral operator techniques.
We refer the reader to \cite{CLV,CV} for a detailed review of the literature on global FIOs and their applications to hyperbolic propagators.
What presented in \cite{CLV} is, effectively, the construction of
advanced and retarded fundamental solutions for the D'Alembert operator on an ultrastatic spacetime, up to an operator with infinitely smooth Schwartz kernel. Dealing with an ultrastatic background is much simpler than dealing with a general globally hyperbolic spacetime, in that in the former case constructing the half-wave propagator
\begin{equation}
\label{half-wave propagator}
e^{-i t \sqrt{-\Delta}}
\end{equation}
is enough to the end of constructing the retarded-minus-advanced fundamental solution, see \cite[Section~1]{CLV}.
In the remainder of this Section, we will show how to adapt the results from \cite{CLV} to the case of static spacetimes, exploiting the reduction to an ultrastatic background presented in Subsection~\ref{Sec: Reduction to the ultrastatic case}. The extension to a wider class of globally hyperbolic spacetimes is postponed to Section~\ref{Sec: Extension to general globally hyperbolic spacetimes}.
Before doing so, let us recall in an abridged manner basic notions from symplectic geometry. We refer the reader to \cite[Vol.~IV]{Hor} for a comprehensive exposition.
Let $N$ be a smooth $(d-1)$-dimensional manifold and let $\omega \in \Omega^2(N)$ be the canonical symplectic form on the cotangent bundle $T^*N$.
A diffeomorphism $\mathcal{C}:T^*N \to T^*N$ is called a \emph{canonical transformation} if it preserves $\omega$ under pullback. In addition we say that $\mathcal{C}$ is \emph{positively homogeneous of degree $k$} if $\mathcal{C}(y,\lambda\,\eta)=\lambda^k\, \mathcal{C}(y,\eta)$ for every $\lambda>0$. The (twisted) graph $\Lambda$ of $\mathcal{C}$ is a Lagrangian submanifold of $T^*N\times T^*N$ with respect to the symplectic structure induced by $\omega$.
Similar definitions are given when the canonical transformation depends on additional parameters. This happens, remarkably, when $\mathcal{C}$ is the Hamiltonian flow generated by a
Hamiltonian $\mathfrak{h}\in C^\infty(T'N;\mathbb{R})$,
where $T'N:=T^*N\setminus \{0\}$ denotes the cotangent bundle with the zero section removed.
For $(y,\eta)\in T'N$, we denote by $(x^*(s;y,\eta),\xi^*(s;y,\eta))_{s\in\mathbb{R}}$ the solution to Hamilton's equations
\begin{equation*}\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\dot{x}^*(s;y,\eta)=\mathfrak{h}_\xi((x^*(s;y,\eta),\xi^*(s;y,\eta))\,,\\
\dot\xi^*(s;y,\eta)=-\mathfrak{h}_x((x^*(s;y,\eta),\xi^*(s;y,\eta))\,,\\
(x^*(0;y,\eta),\xi^*(0;y,\eta))=(y,\eta)\,.
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation*}
Here and further on the dot stands for differentiation with respect to the flow parameter whereas the subscript $_\xi$ (resp.\ $_x$) denotes differentiation with respect to the $\xi$- (resp.\ $x$-) variable.
It is easy to see that
\[
{(y,\eta)\mapsto(x^*(s;y,\eta),\xi^*(s;y,\eta))}
\]
is a one-parameter family of canonical transformations and, as such, it generates a one-parameter family of Lagrangian submanifolds $\Lambda_{\mathfrak{h},s}\subseteq T'N\times T'N$. If in addition the Hamiltonian $\mathfrak{h}$ is positively homogeneous of degree one in momentum, then the Lagrangian submanifold generated by the Hamiltonian flow is a conic submanifold of $T'N\times T'N$.
\begin{definition}\label{Def: phase function (of class Lh)}
We call \emph{phase function} a function $\varphi\in C^\infty(\mathbb{R}\times N\times T'N;\mathbb{C})$ which is
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{nondegenerate}, {\it i.e.}
\[
\det\varphi_{x^\alpha\eta_\beta} \ne 0
\]
on
\begin{equation}
\label{critical set}
\mathfrak{C}_\varphi:=\{(s,x;y,\eta)\,\,|\,\,\varphi_\eta(s,x;y,\eta)=0 \}\,;
\end{equation}
\item positively homogeneous of degree one in momentum, i.e.\
\[
\varphi(s,x;y,\lambda\eta)=\lambda\,\varphi(s,x;y,\eta) \qquad \forall\lambda>0, \,(s,x;y,\eta)\in \mathbb{R}\times N \times T'N.
\]
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
Given a Hamiltonian $\mathfrak{h}$ positively homogeneous of degree $1$, we say that a phase function $\varphi=\varphi(s,x,y,\eta)$ is \emph{of class $\mathcal{L}_\mathfrak{h}$}, and we write $\varphi\in \mathcal{L}_\mathfrak{h}$, if
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $\left.\varphi\right|_{x=x^*(s;y,\eta)}=0$,
\item $\left.\varphi_{x^\alpha}\right|_{x=x^*(s;y,\eta)}=\xi_\alpha^*(s;y,\eta)$,
\item $\left.\det\varphi_{x^\alpha\eta_\beta}\right|_{x=x^*(s;y,\eta)}\ne0$,
\item $\operatorname{Im}\varphi\ge0$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
Phase functions $\varphi\in \mathcal{L}_\mathfrak{h}$ allow one to globally parameterise the Lagrangian submanifold $\Lambda_{\mathfrak{h},s}$ \cite{LSV}, namely, in local coordinates $x$ and $y$ and in a neighbourhood of a given point of $\Lambda_{\mathfrak{h},s}$, we have
\begin{equation}
\Lambda_{\mathfrak{h},s}\simeq\{ \bigl((x,\varphi_x(s,x;y,\eta)),(y,\varphi_y(s,x;y,\eta))\bigr)\,\,|\,\,(s,x;y,\eta)\in \mathfrak{C}_\varphi \},
\end{equation}
where $\mathfrak{C}_\varphi$ is given by \eqref{critical set}.
Specialising the above notation to the case when $N=\Sigma$ is a closed Riemannian $(d-1)$-manifold endowed with a Riemannian metric $h$, consider the ultrastatic spacetime $(M:=\mathbb{R}\times \Sigma, dt^2-h)$ and put
\begin{equation}
\label{operator E}
E:=\Delta_h-V,
\end{equation}
where $V\in C^\infty(\Sigma;\mathbb{R})$ is a time-independent smooth real potential.
The operator $E$ is a formally self-adjoint elliptic second order linear partial differential operator on $C^\infty(\Sigma;\mathbb{C})$. As we are adding a zero order perturbation, the principal symbol of $E$
\begin{equation}
\label{E prin temp 1}
E_\mathrm{prin}(x,\xi):=-h^{\alpha\beta}(x)\,\xi_\alpha\,\xi_\beta, \quad (x,\xi)\in T'\Sigma,
\end{equation}
coincides with that of $\Delta_h$.
It is well known that the singularities of the solutions to $(\partial_t^2-E)f=0$ propagate along null geodesics. In this setting, these are nothing but the lift to $M$ of the Hamiltonian flow on $\Sigma$ associated with the Hamiltonian $\mathfrak{h}(x,\xi):=\sqrt{-E_{\mathrm{prin}}(x,\xi)}$, where $t$ is equal to the parameter $s$ along the flow.
Since $\Sigma$ is compact, the spectrum of $-E$ is discrete and accumulates to $+\infty$, but unlike for the case of the Laplace--Beltrami operator, it is no longer guaranteed to be non-negative, as the presence of the potential $V$ may bring about the appearance of negative eigenvalues. Let us denote by $\zeta_k$ the eigenvalues of $-E$ and by $v_k$ the corresponding orthonormalised eigenfunctions,
\begin{equation}
-E \,v_k=\zeta_k \,v_k,
\end{equation}
labelling positive eigenvalues with positive index $k$ and nonpositive eigenvalues with nonpositive index $k$, in increasing order and with account of their multiplicities.
Let
\[
\Pi^-: L^2(\Sigma)\to L^2(\Sigma)
\]
be the orthogonal projection onto the direct sum of the eigenspaces corresponding to non-positive eigenvalues of $-E$ and put
\[
\Pi^+:=\mathrm{Id}-\Pi^-.
\]
Clearly, $\Pi^-$ has finite rank, as $E$ has at most a finite number of non-negative eigenvalues, all with finite multiplicity.
Let us define
\begin{equation}
\label{operator U static with functional calculus}
U^+(t):=\sum_{\zeta_k>0} e^{-it\sqrt{\zeta_k}} \, v_k \,(v_k, \,\cdot\,)_{L^2(\Sigma)},
\end{equation}
where $\sqrt{\zeta_k}$ is the positive square root of $\zeta_k>0$.
One can see that, for any choice of the square root $\sqrt{-E}$ (with branch cut away from the spectrum) such that
\[
U^+(t)=e^{-it\sqrt{-E}}\,\Pi^+,
\]
the operator
\[
U^+(t)-e^{-it\sqrt{-E}}= e^{-it\sqrt{-E}}\,\Pi^-
\]
is infinitely smoothing.
\
This tells us that constructing $U^+(t)$ is equivalent to constructing $e^{-it\sqrt{-E}}$ up to an infinitely smoothing operator and, furthermore, that working modulo operators with infinitely smooth kernel allows one to disregard the ambiguity in the definition of $\sqrt{-E}$ on $\Pi^- L^2(\Sigma)$ and in the choice of the branch cut.
Define $L^2_\pm(\Sigma):=\Pi^\pm L^2(\Sigma)$.
The operator $U^+(t)$ satisfies, in a distributional sense,
\begin{subequations}
\label{approximation U properties}
\begin{equation}
(-i \partial_t +\sqrt{-E})U^+(t)=0,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{Identity U plus exact}
U^+(0)|_{L^2_+(\Sigma)}=\mathrm{Id}_{L^2_+(\Sigma)}.
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
Our strategy consists in approximating the operator
\begin{equation}
\label{operator U without plus static}
U(t):=U^+(t)|_{L^2_+(\Sigma)}\oplus \mathrm{Id}_{L^2_-(\Sigma)}:L^2_+(\Sigma)\oplus L^2_-(\Sigma)\to L^2(\Sigma).
\end{equation}
by a single oscillatory integral, global in space and in time. The operator $U(t)$ will
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item
satisfy equations \eqref{approximation U properties} on $L^2(\Sigma)$ up to an infinitely smoothing operator and
\item
coincide with $U^+(t)$, hence with $e^{-it\sqrt{-E}}$ up to an infinitely smoothing operator.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{theorem}
\label{main theorem static propagator}
The Schwartz kernel
\begin{equation}
\label{integral kernel static}
u(t,x,y)=\sum_{\zeta_k>0} e^{-it\sqrt{\zeta_k}} \, v_k(x) \overline{v_k(y)}+\sum_{\zeta_k\le 0} v_k(x) \overline{v_k(y)}
\end{equation}
of the operator \eqref{operator U without plus static} can be written, modulo an infinitely smooth function in all variables, as a single oscillatory integral
\begin{equation}
\label{oscillatory integral static theorem}
u(t,x,y)\overset{\mod C^\infty}{=}\dfrac{1}{(2\pi)^{d-1}}\int_{T^*_y\Sigma} e^{i \,\varphi(t,x;y,\eta)}\,\mathfrak{a}(t;y,\eta)\, \chi_\mathfrak{h}(t,x;y,\eta) \,w(t,x;y,\eta)\,d \eta,
\end{equation}
global in space and in time, where
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item $\varphi$ is a phase function of class $\mathcal{L}_\mathfrak{h}$, with $\mathfrak{h}(y,\eta)=\sqrt{h^{\alpha\beta}(y)\,\eta_\alpha\eta_\beta}$;
\item $\mathfrak{a}\in C^\infty(\mathbb{R},S^0_{\mathrm{ph}}(T'\Sigma))$, namely it is a polyhomogeneous symbol of order zero depending smoothly on $t$,
\[
\mathfrak{a} \sim \sum_{j=0}^\infty \mathfrak{a}_{-j}, \qquad
\mathfrak{a}_{-j}(t;y,\lambda\,\eta)=\lambda^{-j}\, \mathfrak{a}_{-j}(t;y,\eta)\quad \forall\lambda>0;
\]
\item $\chi_\mathfrak{h}$ is a smooth cut-off subordinated to $\mathfrak{h}$, namely, an infinitely smooth function on $\mathbb{R}\times \Sigma\times T'\Sigma$ satisfying
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $\chi_\mathfrak{h}(t,x;y,\eta)=0$ on $\{(t,x;y,\eta) \,|\, |\mathfrak{h}(y,\eta)|\leq 1/2\}$;
\item $\chi_\mathfrak{h}(t,x;y,\eta)=1$ on the intersection between $\{(t,x;y,\eta) \,|\, |\mathfrak{h}(y,\eta)| \geq 1\}$ and any conical neighbourhood of $\{(t,x^\ast(t;y,\eta);y,\eta) \}$;
\item $\chi_\mathfrak{h}(t,x;y,\alpha\, \eta)=\chi_\mathfrak{h}(t,x;y,\eta)$ for $\alpha\geq 1$ on $\{ (t,x;y,\eta) \, | \, |\mathfrak{h}(y,\eta)|\geq 1 \}$;
\end{enumerate}
\item the weight $w$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
\label{definition weight}
w(t,x;y,\eta):=
[\rho_h(x)]^{-1/2}\,[\rho_h(y)]^{-1/2}
\left[
{\det}^2\!
\left(
\varphi_{x^\alpha \eta_\beta}(t,x;y,\eta)
\right)
\right]^{1/4},
\end{equation}
where $\rho_h$ is the Riemannian density ({\it cf.}\ \eqref{density}) and the branch of the complex root is chosen so that
\[
\left.
\arg \left[
{\det}^2\!
\left(
\varphi_{x^\alpha \eta_\beta}(t,x;y,\eta)
\right)
\right]^{1/4} \right|_{t=0} =0.
\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
Let us point out that the weight \eqref{definition weight} is a smooth scalar function in the variables $t$, $x$ and $\eta$ and a smooth $(-1)$-density in the variable $y$. The choice of powers of the Riemannian density serves the purpose of making the integral kernel \eqref{oscillatory integral static theorem} a scalar function in all variables. The weight $w$ is a crucial element in our construction in that it ensures the right covariance properties of \eqref{oscillatory integral static theorem} and its nondegeneracy -- a consequence of using complex-valued phase functions of class $\mathcal{L}_\mathfrak{h}$ -- is key to performing a construction global in time, circumventing topological obstructions offered by caustics.
\end{remark}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{main theorem static propagator}]
Denote by
\[
\mathcal{F}_{\lambda\to t}[f](t)=\widehat{f}(t)=\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}e^{-it\lambda}f(\lambda)\,d\lambda
\]
the Fourier transform and by
\[
\mathcal{F}^{-1}_{t\to \lambda}[\widehat f](t):=f(\lambda)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}e^{it\lambda}\widehat{f}(t)\,dt
\]
the inverse Fourier transform.
Assume one has constructed $u\in C^\infty(\mathbb{R}; \mathcal{D}'(\Sigma_x\times \Sigma_y))$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $
(\partial_t^2-E^{(x)})u(t,x,y)=0 \mod C^\infty,
$
where the superscript $^{(x)}$ indicates that $E$ acts in the variable $x$;
\item $u$ satisfies
\[
\int_\Sigma u(0,x,y)\,\left(\,\cdot\,\right)\,\rho(y)\,dy=\mathrm{Id} \qquad \mod C^\infty;
\]
\item for every $\psi\in C^\infty_0(\mathbb{R})$,
\[
\mathcal{F}^{-1}_{t\to \lambda}[\psi(t)u(t,x,y)]=O(|\lambda|^{-\infty}) \qquad \text{as }\lambda\to-\infty.
\]
\end{enumerate}
How to do so will be explained in Subsection~\ref{the algorithm}. Then our theorem follows from an adaptation of results from \cite{CLV}.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
Let $M$ be a static spacetime. Then, the integral kernel of the operators $\mathcal{G}_{0,\overline{t}}$ and $\mathcal{G}_{1,\overline{t}}$ defined in accordance with Proposition~\ref{Prop: initial data to solutions} can be represented, modulo $C^\infty$, as the sum of two oscillatory integrals of the form \eqref{oscillatory integral static theorem}, global in space and time.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Let $E$ be given by \eqref{operator E} for the choice of $V$ \eqref{pontential V static}. The operators $\mathcal{G}_{0,\overline{t}}$ and $\mathcal{G}_{1,\overline{t}}$ associated with the normally hyperbolic operator $\partial_t^2-E$ on the ultrastatic spacetime $\mathbb{R}\times \Sigma$ are given by
\[
\mathcal{G}_{0,\overline{t}}=\cos(\sqrt{-E}(t-\overline{t})),\quad\mathcal{G}_{1,\overline{t}}=\sin(\sqrt{-E}(t-\overline{t}))(\sqrt{-E})^{-1}+t\,\Pi^0,
\]
where $\Pi^0$ is the projection onto the kernel of $E$, see \cite[Section~1]{CLV} and \cite[Chap. 3]{Fulling}. Hence, the statement follows from Theorem~\ref{main theorem static propagator} combined with \eqref{relation between adcanved and retarded static}.
\end{proof}
Observe that, unlike in the construction of the half-wave propagator, there is no ambiguity in defining $\mathcal{G}_{0,\overline{t}}$ and $\mathcal{G}_{1,\overline{t}}$ by means of spectral calculus even if the spectrum of $-E$ has non-empty intersection with the negative real line. The reason lies in the fact that the functions $\cos(x)$ and $\frac{\sin(x)}{x}$ are even.
\subsubsection{The algorithm}
\label{the algorithm}
In the remainder of this subsection, we will explain how to construct the oscillatory integral in the RHS of \eqref{oscillatory integral static theorem}, adapting \cite[Section~5]{CLV} to the case in hand.
The starting main idea consists in fixing a distinguished phase function and setting out an algorithm for the construction of $\mathfrak{a}$ in a global, invariant fashion.
\begin{definition}[Levi-Civita phase function {\cite[Definition~4.1]{CLV}}]
We define the \emph{Levi-Civita phase function} to be
\begin{equation}
\label{Eq: Levi-Civita phase function ultrastatic}
\varphi_\epsilon(t,x;y,\eta):=-\frac{1}{2} \langle{\xi^*(t;y,\eta)},{\left. \operatorname{grad}_z [\operatorname{dist}_\Sigma^2(x,z)]\right|_{z=x^*(t;y,\eta)}}\rangle
+\dfrac{i \, \epsilon }{2} \,\mathfrak{h}(y,\eta) \,
\operatorname{dist}_\Sigma^2(x,x^\ast(t;y,\eta))
\end{equation}
when $x$ lies in a $\Sigma$-geodesic neighbourhood of $x^*(t;y,\eta)$ and continued smoothly and arbitrarily elsewhere, in such a way that $\mathrm{Im}(\varphi)\ge 0$. Here $\operatorname{dist}_\Sigma$ is the (Riemannian) geodesic distance on $\Sigma$, $\langle \,\cdot\,,\,\cdot\,\rangle=h^{-1}(\,\cdot\,,\,\cdot\,)$ and $\epsilon>0$ is a positive parameter pre-multiplying the imaginary part of $\varphi$.
\end{definition}
\noindent The symbol $\mathfrak{a}$ is determined as follows.
\vskip .2cm
\textbf{Step 1}. Set $\chi\equiv 1$ --- contributions from regions where $\chi\ne1$ are smooth, as one can establish via a stationary phase argument --- and act on the oscillatory integral \eqref{oscillatory integral static theorem} with the operator $\partial_t^2-E^{(x)}$. This yields a new oscillatory integral
\begin{equation}
I_\varphi(a):=\dfrac{1}{(2\pi)^{d-1}}\int_{T^*_y\Sigma} e^{i \,\varphi(t,x;y,\eta)}\,a(t,x;y,\eta) \,w(t,x;y,\eta)\,d \eta
\end{equation}
which has the same form of \eqref{oscillatory integral static theorem} though with a new amplitude
\begin{equation}\label{Eq:a-amplitude}
a(t,x;y,\eta):=\dfrac{e^{-i\,\varphi}}{w} \,(\partial_t^2-E) \left[e^{i \,\varphi}\, \mathfrak{a}\, w\right].
\end{equation}
Observe that the amplitude $a\in C^\infty(\mathbb{R}\times \Sigma; S^2_{\mathrm{ph}}(T'\Sigma))$ depends on the variable $x$.
\vskip .2cm
\textbf{Step 2}. As a next step, we exclude the dependence on $x$ of the amplitude $a$, namely, we find $\mathfrak{b}\in C^\infty(\mathbb{R};S^2_{\mathrm{ph}}(T^\prime \Sigma))$ such that $I_\varphi(a)=I_\varphi(\mathfrak{b})$ mod $C^\infty$.
This is achieved by the so-called \emph{reduction of the amplitude}, which exploits suitably devised differential-evaluation operators. For every $\alpha=1,...,d-1$, put
\begin{gather}
L_\alpha:C^\infty(\mathbb{R}\times \Sigma;S^j_{\mathrm{ph}}(T^\prime\Sigma))\to C^\infty(\mathbb{R}\times \Sigma;(S^j_{\mathrm{ph}}T^\prime\Sigma)),\notag\\
L_\alpha:=\left[(\varphi_{x\eta})^{-1}\right]_\alpha{}^\beta\,\dfrac{\partial}{\partial x^\beta},\label{operator L}
\end{gather}
where $\varphi_{x\eta}^{-1}$ is defined in accordance with
\[
[\varphi^{-1}_{x\eta}]_\alpha{}^\beta\,\varphi_{x^\beta\eta_\gamma}=\delta_\alpha{}^\gamma.
\]
In addition, for all $k\in\mathbb{N}_0$, let $\mathfrak{S}_{-k}:C^\infty(\mathbb{R}\times \Sigma;S^j_{\mathrm{ph}}(T^\prime\Sigma))\to C^\infty(\mathbb{R};S^{j-k}_{\mathrm{ph}}(T^\prime\Sigma))$ be defined as
\begin{subequations}\label{operators mathfrak S}
\begin{gather}
\mathfrak{S}_0 f:=f|_{x=x^*(t;y,\eta)}\,, \label{mathfrak S0}\\
\mathfrak{S}_{-k}f:=\mathfrak{S}_0 \left[ i \, w^{-1} \frac{\partial}{\partial \eta_\beta}\, w \left( 1+ \sum_{1\leq |\boldsymbol{\alpha}|\leq 2k-1} \dfrac{(-\varphi_\eta)^{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}}{\boldsymbol{\alpha}!\,(|\boldsymbol{\alpha}|+1)}\,L_{\boldsymbol{\alpha}} \right) L_\beta \right]^k f\,, \quad k>0.\label{mathfrak Sk}
\end{gather}
\end{subequations}
Bold Greek letters in \eqref{mathfrak Sk} denote multi-indices in $\mathbb{N}^{n-1}_0$, $\boldsymbol{\alpha}=(\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_{n-1})$, $|\boldsymbol{\alpha}|=\sum_{j=1}^{n-1} \alpha_j$ and $(-\varphi_\eta)^{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}:=(-1)^{|\boldsymbol{\alpha}|}\, (\varphi_{\eta_1})^{\alpha_1}\dots ( \varphi_{\eta_{n-1}})^{\alpha_{n-1}}$. All derivatives act on whatever is to the right, unless otherwise specified. The operator
\eqref{mathfrak Sk} is well defined,
because the differential operators $L_\alpha$ commute, {\it cf.} \cite[Lemma A.2]{CLV}.
Denoting by
$
a \sim \sum_{j=0}^\infty a_{2-j}
$
the asymptotic polyhomogeneous expansion of $a$, we construct a polyhomogeneous symbol $\mathfrak{b}$ whose homogeneous components are defined as
\begin{equation}\label{construction homogeneous components of the reduced amplitude}
\mathfrak{b}_l:=\sum_{2-j-k=l} \mathfrak{S}_{-k}\,a_{2-j},\qquad
l=2,1,0,-1,\ldots.
\end{equation}
This gives \cite[Appendix A]{CLV}
\begin{equation}
\dfrac{1}{(2\pi)^{d-1}}\int_{T^*_y\Sigma} e^{i \,\varphi}\,a \,w\,d \eta=\dfrac{1}{(2\pi)^{d-1}}\int_{T^*_y\Sigma} e^{i \,\varphi}\,\mathfrak{b} \,w\,d \eta\,\,\mod C^\infty.
\end{equation}
We adopt the terminology from \cite{CLV} and call the operator $\mathfrak{S} \sim \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} \mathfrak{S}_{-k}\,$ \emph{amplitude-to-symbol operator}.
Clearly, the symbol $\mathfrak{b}$ is $x$-independent.
\vskip .2cm
\textbf{Step 3.} Impose
$$
(\partial_t-E^{(x)})u=I_\varphi(\mathfrak{b})=0 \mod C^\infty.
$$
In view of equations \eqref{Eq:a-amplitude} and \eqref{construction homogeneous components of the reduced amplitude}, this amounts to equating each asymptotic homogeneous component of $\mathfrak{b}$ to zero:
\begin{equation}\label{ultrastatic transport equations}
\mathfrak{b}_{l}(t;y,\eta)=0,\quad l=2,1,0,-1,....
\end{equation}
This yields a hierarchy of transport equations -- ordinary differential equations in the variable $t$ -- whose unknowns are the (scalar) homogeneous components $\mathfrak{a}_{-k}$ of $\mathfrak{a}$.
Initial conditions $\mathfrak{a}_{-k}(0;y,\eta)$ for \eqref{ultrastatic transport equations} are established by requiring that $u(0,x,y)$ is, modulo a smooth function, the integral kernel of the identity operator.
Note that the identity operator appears in our construction as an invariant pseudodifferential operator with integral kernel
\begin{equation}
\label{identity static}
\int_{T^*_y\Sigma} e^{i \,\phi(x;y,\eta)}\,\mathfrak{s}(y,\eta)\,\chi_\mathfrak{h}(0,x;y,\eta)\,\left[ {\det} ^2 \phi_{x\eta} \right]^{1/4}\,\left(\dfrac{\rho_h(y)}{\rho_h(x)}\right)^{1/2}\,d\eta \mod C^\infty,
\end{equation}
where $\phi(x;y,\eta):=\varphi(0,x;y,\eta)$ and $\mathfrak{s}\in S^0_{\mathrm{ph}}(T'\Sigma)$, so that the initial conditions read
\[
\mathfrak{a}_{-k}(0;y,\eta)=\mathfrak{s}_{-k}(y,\eta).
\]
We refer the reader to \cite[Section~6]{CLV} for a detailed analysis of the operator \eqref{identity static}.
\
\noindent The above algorithm identifies uniquely and invariantly an element $u\in C^\infty(\mathbb{R}; \mathcal{D}'(\Sigma_x\times \Sigma_y))$ satisfying conditions 1.--3. in the proof of Theorem~\ref{main theorem static propagator}.
\section{Extension to general globally hyperbolic spacetimes}
\label{Sec: Extension to general globally hyperbolic spacetimes}
In this section we generalise the construction of the global propagator with FIO methods to the case of a general globally hyperbolic spacetime $(M,g)$ with compact Cauchy surface.
For a general global hyperbolic spacetime, the strategy presented in Section~\ref{Sec: The wave propagator in static spacetimes} does not work any more, because space and time intertwine in an essential way, and one cannot identify a time-independent analogue of the operator $E$. In order to construct the wave propagator, one needs to abandon the operator \eqref{operator U without plus static} and adopt a more abstract approach.
The first crucial step towards our goal rests in the identification of a Lorentzian analogue of the Levi-Civita phase function, {\it cf.}~Section~\ref{Subsec: the algoritm}.
\subsection{The Lorentzian Levi-Civita phase function}
Let $(M,g)$ be a globally hyperbolic spacetime with compact Cauchy surface of dimension $d \ge 3$, realised as $\mathbb{R}\times\Sigma$, {\it cf.} Theorem \ref{Th:glob_hyp}, and let $\Sigma_s\simeq \{s\}\times \Sigma$ be an arbitrary but fixed Cauchy surface.
\begin{notation}
\label{notation on momenta}
Let $Y=(s,y)\in M$ and let $\iota_s:\Sigma_s \to M$ be the embedding of $\Sigma_s$ into $M$. Given $\eta\in T^*_y\Sigma$ we denote by $\eta_+$ the unique future pointing null covector in $T^*_YM$ such that $\iota^*_s \eta_+=\eta$. Furthermore, we put $\widehat{\eta}_+:=\frac{\eta_+}{\|\eta\|_{\Sigma_s}}$, where $\|\eta\|_{\Sigma_s}=\sqrt{h_s^{\alpha\beta}(y)\,\eta_\alpha\eta_\beta}$ and $h_s:=\iota_{\Sigma_s}^*g$.
\end{notation}
\begin{definition}
Let $Y=(s,y)\in M$. We call \emph{Levi-Civita flow} the map
\begin{align}\label{Eqn: Lorentzian flow}
\varsigma\mapsto(\widetilde{X}^*(\varsigma;s,y,\eta),\widetilde{\Xi}^*(\varsigma;s,y,\eta)),
\end{align}
where
\begin{itemize}
\item
$\widetilde{X}^*(\,\cdot\,;s,y,\eta): \varsigma \mapsto \widetilde{X}^*(\varsigma;s,y,\eta)$ is the unique null geodesic stemming from $Y$ with initial cotangent vector $\widehat{\eta}_+$, parameterised by proper time;
\item
$\widetilde{\Xi}^*(\varsigma;s,y,\eta)$ is the parallel transport along $\widetilde{X}^*(\,\cdot\,;s,y,\eta)$ of $\eta_+$, from $Y$ to $\widetilde{X}^*(\varsigma;s,y,\eta)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
The Levi-Civita flow satisfies, by construction,
\[
(\widetilde{X}^*(s;s,y,\eta), \widetilde{\Xi}^*(s;s,y,\eta))=(Y,\eta_+)
\]
and
\begin{equation}
\label{homogeneity Levi-Civita flow}
(\widetilde{X}^*(\varsigma;s,y,\lambda\,\eta),\widetilde{\Xi}^*(\varsigma;s,y,\lambda\,\eta))=(\widetilde{X}^*(\varsigma;s,y,\eta),\lambda\,\widetilde{\Xi}^*(\varsigma;s,y,\eta)),
\end{equation}
for every $\lambda>0$.
We have the following standard result.
\begin{lemma}\label{Lem: reparametrization of Lorentzian flow}
The Levi-Civita flow can be parameterised using the global time coordinate $t$ defined in accordance with Theorem~\ref{Th:glob_hyp} (ii).
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\widetilde{X}^*(\varsigma;s,y,\eta)=(\tau^*(\varsigma;s,y,\eta),x^*(\varsigma;s,y,\eta))$, where
\[
\tau^*(\varsigma;s,y,\eta):=t(\widetilde{X}^*(\varsigma;s,y,\eta))
\] and
\[
x^*(\varsigma;s,y,\eta):=\pi_{\Sigma_{\tau^*(\varsigma;s,y,\eta)}}(\widetilde{X}^*(\varsigma;s,y,\eta))
\]
is the projection of $\widetilde{X}^*(\varsigma;s,y,\eta)$ onto $\Sigma_{\tau^*(\varsigma;s,y,\eta)}$.
Denoting by $\frac{\mathrm{d}\widetilde{X}^*}{\mathrm{d}\varsigma}$ the tangent vector to $\widetilde{X}^*(\,\cdot\,;s,y,\eta)$, we have $g(\frac{\mathrm{d}\widetilde{X}^*}{\mathrm{d}\varsigma},\frac{\mathrm{d}\widetilde{X}^*}{\mathrm{d}\varsigma})=g^{-1}(\widehat{\eta}_+,\widehat{\eta}_+)=0$.
Since $\eta\in T'\Sigma$, this implies that $\frac{\mathrm{d}\tau^*}{\mathrm{d}\varsigma}$ cannot vanish.
\end{proof}
In view of Lemma~\ref{Lem: reparametrization of Lorentzian flow}, in what follows we shall denote with $({X}^*(t;s,y,\eta), {\Xi}^*(t;s,y,\eta))$ the Levi-Civita flow parameterised by $t$.
We are now in a position to define our Lorentzian phase function.
\begin{definition}\label{Def: phase function for Lorentzian manifolds}
Let $\epsilon>0$ be a positive parameter, let $X=(t,x), Y=(s,y)\in M$ and let $(X^*(t;s,y,\eta)\,,\,\Xi^*(t;s,y,\eta))$ be the Levi-Civita flow.
We define \emph{the Lorentzian Levi-Civita phase function} to be the infinitely smooth function $\varphi: M\times \mathbb{R}\times T'\Sigma \to \mathbb{C}$ defined by
\begin{multline}\label{Eq: phase function for Lorentzian manifolds}
\varphi(\tau,x;s,y,\eta): =
- \langle\Xi^*(\tau;s,y,\eta)\,,\,\operatorname{grad}_Z \sigma(X,Z)|_{Z=X^*(\tau;s,y,\eta)} \rangle\\ +
{i \,\epsilon}\|\eta\|_{\Sigma_s}\sigma(X,X^*(\tau;s,y,\eta))\,,
\end{multline}
if $X$ lies in a geodesic normal neighbourhood of $X^*(\tau;s,y,\eta)$, and smoothly continued elsewhere in such a way that the imaginary part is positive.
Here $\sigma$ is the Ruse--Synge world function, defined in accordance with \eqref{eq:Synge_world_function}.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
Observe that the Lorentzian Levi-Civita phase function $\varphi$ can be equivalently recast as
\begin{multline}\label{Eqn: Lorentzian phase function}
\varphi(\tau,x;s,y,\eta)
=- \frac12 \langle \iota_{\Sigma_\tau}^*\Xi^*(\tau;s,y,\eta)\,,\,\left. \operatorname{grad}_z(\operatorname{dist}_{\Sigma_\tau}(x,z)^2)\right|_{z=x^*(\tau;s,y,\eta)} \rangle\\+
\dfrac{i \,\epsilon}{2}\|\eta\|_{\Sigma_s}\operatorname{dist}^2_{\Sigma_\tau}(x,x^*(\tau;s,y,\eta)),
\end{multline}
where $\operatorname{dist}_{\Sigma_\tau}$ is the (Riemannian) geodesic distance on $\Sigma_\tau:=\{\tau\}\times \Sigma\simeq\Sigma$.
Whenever $(M,g)$ is ultrastatic the latter equation coincides with equation \eqref{Eq: Levi-Civita phase function ultrastatic} -- in which case $\|\eta\|_{\Sigma_\tau}=\mathfrak{h}(y,\eta)$ for every $\tau$.
\end{remark}
The following proposition tells us that Definition~\ref{Def: phase function for Lorentzian manifolds} identifies a function $\varphi$ with essentially the same properties of a phase function of class $\mathcal{L}_{\mathfrak{h}}$ -- \textit{cf.} Definition~\ref{Def: phase function (of class Lh)}.
\begin{proposition}
The Lorentzian Levi-Civita phase function \eqref{Eq: phase function for Lorentzian manifolds} satisfies the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item
The function $\varphi$ is positively homogeneous of degree one in momentum, {\it i.e.}
\[
\varphi(\tau,x;s,y,\lambda\eta)=\lambda\,\varphi(\tau,x;s,y,\eta),\qquad \forall\lambda>0.
\]
\item
$\operatorname{Im}\varphi\geq 0$ and, moreover,
\begin{subequations}\label{Eqn: properties of the phase function}
\begin{align}
\label{Eqn: phi vanishes on the flow}
\varphi(\tau,x^*(\tau;s,y,\eta);s,y,\eta)&=0\,,\\
\label{Eqn: d phi is the cotangent component on the flow}
\varphi_{x^\alpha}(\tau,x^*(\tau;s,y,\eta);s,y,\eta)&=\xi_\alpha^*(\tau;s,y,\eta)\,,\\
\label{Eqn: phi is non-degenerate}
\det\varphi_{x^\alpha\eta_\beta}(\tau,x^*(\tau;s,y,\eta);s,y,\eta)&\neq 0\,,
\end{align}
where $\xi^*:=\iota_{\Sigma_s}\Xi^*$.
\end{subequations}
\item
If we define
\begin{align*}
\Phi&:=\{(t,x^*(t;s,y,\eta);s,y,\eta)\;|\; t,s\in\mathbb{R},(y,\eta)\in T^*\Sigma\}\,,\\
\mathfrak{C}_\varphi&:=\{(\tau,x;s,y,\eta)\in M\times\mathbb{R}\times T'\Sigma\,\,|\,\,\varphi_\eta(s,x;y,\eta)=0 \}\,,
\end{align*}
then $\Phi\subseteq\mathfrak{C}_\varphi$.
Furthermore, there exists a neighbourhood $W$ of $\Phi$ such that $\mathfrak{C}_\varphi\cap(W\setminus\Phi)=\emptyset$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
(a) The function $\varphi$ is positively homogeneous in $\eta$ of degree $1$ because $X^*$ and $\Xi^*$ are positively homogeneous of degree $0$ and $1$, respectively -- \textit{cf.} equation \eqref{homogeneity Levi-Civita flow}.
\
(b) The inequality $\operatorname{Im}\varphi\geq 0$ follows at once from \eqref{Eqn: Lorentzian phase function}. So let us prove \eqref{Eqn: properties of the phase function}.
Recall the following well-known identities for the Ruse--Synge world function $\sigma$ \cite[Sec. 4.1]{Poisson:2011nh}:
\begin{subequations}\label{Eq: properties of world function}
\begin{align}
\label{Eq: properties of world function a}
\sigma(X,X)&=0\,,\\
\label{Eq: properties of world function b}
\mathrm{d}\sigma(X,X)&=0\,,\\
\label{Eq: properties of world function c}
[\nabla_a\nabla'_b\sigma(X,X')]|_{X=X'}&=
[\nabla_a\nabla_b\sigma(X,X')]|_{X=X'}=-g_{ab}(X)\,,\\
\label{Eq: properties of world function d}
[\nabla_a\nabla'_b\nabla'_c\sigma(X,X')]|_{X=X'}&=0\,.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Here $\nabla'$ indicates that the Levi-Civita connection $\nabla$ on $(M,g)$ acts on the second argument of $\sigma$.
Since $\mathrm{d}\sigma(X,X)=0$, \eqref{Eqn: phi vanishes on the flow} is satisfied.
Moreover, \eqref{Eq: properties of world function b} and \eqref{Eq: properties of world function c} ensure that \eqref{Eqn: d phi is the cotangent component on the flow} holds. Indeed,
\begin{align*}
\varphi_{x^\alpha}=
\nabla_\alpha\varphi=
-g^{\beta\nu}\nabla_{\alpha}\nabla'_{\beta}\sigma\;\Xi^*_\nu+
i\epsilon\|\eta\|_{\Sigma_s}\nabla_\alpha\sigma\stackrel{x=x^*(t;s,y,\eta)}{=}
\xi^*_\alpha\,.
\end{align*}
Finally let us prove that \eqref{Eqn: phi is non-degenerate}.
In view of \cite[Cor. 2.4.5]{SaVa}, it is enough to check that $ \operatorname{Im}(\varphi_{x^\alpha x^\beta}(\tau,x^*(\tau;s,y,\eta),s,y,\eta))>0$ as a bilinear form.
A direct calculation shows that
\begin{align*}
\frac1\epsilon\operatorname{Im}\varphi_{x^\alpha x^\beta}=
\|\eta\|_{\Sigma_s}\partial_{x^\beta}\nabla_{x^\alpha}\sigma=
\|\eta\|_{\Sigma_s}\nabla_{x^\beta}\nabla_{x^\alpha}\sigma
+\|\eta\|_{\Sigma_s}\Gamma_{\beta\alpha}^{\phantom{\beta\alpha}{a}}\nabla_{x^a}\sigma\,.
\end{align*}
The above equation, combined with \eqref{Eq: properties of world function a}-- \eqref{Eq: properties of world function d}, implies that
\[
\operatorname{Im}(\varphi_{x^\alpha x^\beta}(\tau,x^*(\tau;s,y,\eta),s,y,\eta))=\epsilon\,\|\eta\|_{\Sigma_s}h_{\alpha\beta},
\]
which is positive definite.
\
(c)
Differentiating \eqref{Eqn: phi vanishes on the flow} with respect to $\eta_\beta$ we get
\begin{align*}
0&=\partial_{\eta_\beta}[\varphi(t,x^*(t;s,y,\eta);s,y,\eta)]
\\&=\varphi_{\eta_\beta}(t,x^*(t;s,y,\eta);s,y,\eta)
+\varphi_{x^\alpha}(t,x^*(t;s,y,\eta);s,y,\eta)(x^*)^\alpha_{\eta_\beta}(t;s,y,\eta)
\\&=\varphi_{\eta_\beta}(t,x^*(t;s,y,\eta);s,y,\eta)
+\xi^*_\alpha(t,x^*(t;s,y,\eta);s,y,\eta)(x^*)^\alpha_{\eta_\beta}(t;s,y,\eta)\,,
\end{align*}
where we used equation \eqref{Eqn: d phi is the cotangent component on the flow}.
The task at hand is to show that
\begin{align*}
\xi^*_\alpha(t,x^*(t;s,y,\eta);s,y,\eta)(x^*)^\alpha_{\eta_\beta}(t;s,y,\eta)=0\,,
\end{align*}
from which $\Phi\subseteq\mathfrak{C}_\varphi$ descends.
For that, we observe that $\Xi^*(t;s,y,\eta)=\|\eta\|_{\Sigma_s}\,\widehat{\Xi}^*(t,s,y,\eta)$, where $\widehat{\Xi}^*(t;s,y,\eta)$ is the cotangent vector to the geodesic $\gamma\colon t\mapsto X^*(t;s,y,\eta)$,
\[
\widehat{\Xi}^*_a=g_{ab}\frac{\mathrm{d}(X^*)^b}{\mathrm{d}t}.
\]
Being the geodesic flow Hamiltonian, it follows that the canonical $1$-form $\Theta=\Xi_a\mathrm{d}X^a$ is conserved along the geodesic.
Observing that $\Xi^*$ differs from $\widehat{\Xi}^*$ by a constant factor, we conclude that
\begin{align*}
(\eta_+)_a\,\mathrm{d}Y^a
=\Xi^*_a\,\mathrm{d}(X^*)^a
=\Xi^*_a\,\big[(X^*)^a_{Y^b}\mathrm{d}Y^b+(X^*)^a_{\eta_b}\mathrm{d}\eta_b\big].
\end{align*}
The latter equation implies $\Xi^*_a(X^*)^a_{Y^b}=(\eta_+)_b$ as well as $0=\Xi^*_a(X^*)^a_{\eta_b}=\xi^*_\alpha(x^*)^\alpha_{\eta_b}$, where we have used the fact that $X^*(t;s,y,\eta)=(t,x^*(t,s,y,\eta))$ -- \textit{cf.} Lemma \ref{Lem: reparametrization of Lorentzian flow}.
Finally, let us assume by contradiction that for all neighbourhoods $W$ of $\Phi$ we have $\mathfrak{C}_\varphi\cap(W\setminus\Phi)\neq\emptyset$.
Then, there exists a sequence $(t_n,x_n;s_n,y_n,\eta_n)\in\mathfrak{C}_\varphi$ converging to $(t,x^*;s,y,\eta)\in\Phi$. A standard Taylor expansion argument shows that this implies
\[
\det\varphi_{x^\alpha\eta_\beta}(t,x^*;s,y,\eta)=0,
\]
which contradicts \eqref{Eqn: phi is non-degenerate}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{The Lorentzian parametrix}
The Lorentzian Levi-Civita phase function can be exploited to construct a suitable Lorentzian analogue of the operator \eqref{operator U without plus static}.
Let $\Sigma_s$ be a fixed Cauchy surface. Let
\begin{equation}
\label{operator U(t,s) lorentzian}
U(t,s)\colon C^\infty_0(\Sigma_s)\to C^\infty_0(\Sigma_t)
\end{equation}
be the linear operator uniquely defined (modulo an infinitely smoothing operator) by the following properties.
\begin{enumerate}[(1)]
\item[] \textbf{Property 1}.
The Schwartz kernel $u(t,x,y;s)$ of $U(t,s)$ satisfies
\begin{align}
\label{property 1 U(t,s)}
\Box^{(t,x)} u(t,x,y;s)=0\,,\qquad
u(s,x,y;s)=\delta_{\Sigma_s}(x,y)\,,
\end{align}
where $\delta_{\Sigma_s}(x,y)$ denotes the integral kernel of the identity operator on $C^\infty(\Sigma_s)$.
\item[] \textbf{Property 2}.
The Schwartz kernel $u(t,x,y;s)$, seen as a distribution in $\mathcal{D}^\prime(M\times M)$ satisfies
\begin{align}
\label{WF U}
\operatorname{WF}(u)=\{(X,Y,k_X,-k_Y)\in T^*(M\times M)\setminus\{0\}\;|\; (X,k_X)\sim(Y,k_Y)\;\textrm{and}\;k_X\triangleright 0\}
\end{align}
where $\operatorname{WF}$ denotes the wavefront set, $\sim$ means that the point $X$ and $Y$ are connected by a lightlike geodesic $\gamma$ whose tangent vector at $X$ is $k_X$, and $k_Y$ is the parallel transport of $k_X$ from $X$ to $Y$ along $\gamma$. The symbol $\triangleright$ means that $k_X$ is future directed.
\end{enumerate}
The operator $U(t,s)$, effectively, maps initial data $C^\infty_0(\Sigma_s)$ on the `initial' Cauchy surface to spacelike compact wave solutions in $C^\infty(M)$. The technology developed in earlier sections, allows us to construct $U(t,s)$ explicitly and invariantly as a global oscillatory integral, up to an infinitely smoothing operator.
\begin{theorem}\label{Thm: wave propagator for globally hyperbolic spacetimes}
Let $(M,g)\simeq(\mathbb{R}\times\Sigma,\beta dt^2-h_t)$ be a globally hyperbolic spacetime with compact Cauchy surface.
Then the Schwartz kernel $u(t,x,y;s)$ of the operator $U(t,s)$ can be written, modulo an infinitely smooth function in all variables, as a single oscillatory integral
\begin{equation}
u(t,x,y;s)\overset{\mod C^\infty}{=}
\dfrac{1}{(2\pi)^{d-1}}\int_{T^*_y\Sigma} e^{i \,\varphi(t,x;s,y,\eta)}\,\mathfrak{a}(t;s,y,\eta)\, \chi(t,x;s,y,\eta) \,w(t,x;s,y,\eta)\,d \eta,
\end{equation}
global in space $x$ and in time $t$, where
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item $\varphi$ is the Lorentzian Levi-Civita phase function \eqref{Eqn: Lorentzian phase function};
\item $\mathfrak{a}$ is a polyhomogeneous symbol of order zero depending smoothly on $t$,
\[
\mathfrak{a} \sim \sum_{j=0}^\infty \mathfrak{a}_{-j}, \qquad
\mathfrak{a}_{-j}(t;s,y,\lambda\,\eta)=\lambda^{-j}\, \mathfrak{a}_{-j}(t;s,y,\eta)\quad \forall\lambda>0;
\]
\item $\chi$ is an infinitely smooth function on $M\times\mathbb{R}\times T'\Sigma$ satisfying
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $\chi(t,x;s,y,\eta)=0$ on $\{(t,x;s,y,\eta) \,|\, \|\eta\|_{\Sigma_s}\leq 1/2\}$;
\item $\chi(t,x;s,y,\eta)=1$ on the intersection between $\{(t,x;s,y,\eta) \,|\, \|\eta\|_{\Sigma_s} \geq 1\}$ and any conical neighbourhood of $\{(t,x^\ast(t;s,y,\eta),s,y,\eta)\}$ where $(t,x^*(t;s,y,\eta))=X^*(t;s,y,\eta)$ is the flow defined in equation \eqref{Eqn: Lorentzian flow} -- \textit{cf.} Lemma \ref{Lem: reparametrization of Lorentzian flow}.
\item $\chi(t,x;s,y,\alpha\, \eta)=\chi(t,x;s,y,\eta)$ for $\alpha\geq 1$ on $\{ (t,x;s,y,\eta) \, | \, \|\eta\|_{\Sigma_s}\geq 1 \}$;
\end{enumerate}
\item the weight $w$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
w(t,x;s,y,\eta):=
[\rho_{h_t}(x)]^{-1/2}\,[\rho_{h_s}(y)]^{-1/2}
\left[
{\det}^2\!
\left(
\varphi_{x^\alpha \eta_\beta}(t,x;s,y,\eta)
\right)
\right]^{1/4},
\end{equation}
where $\rho_h$ is the Riemannian density on the Cauchy surface (see \eqref{density}) and the branch of the complex root is chosen so that
\[
\left.
\arg \left[
{\det}^2\!
\left(
\varphi_{x^\alpha \eta_\beta}(t,x;s,y,\eta)
\right)
\right]^{1/4} \right|_{t=s} =0\,.
\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The proof is a straightforward adaptation of results from \cite{CLV}, combined with the properties of the Lorentzian Levi-Civita phase function.
\end{proof}
Let us stress that, thanks to the adoption of the Levi-Civita phase function, (a straightforward adaptation of) the algorithm presented in Subsection~\ref{the algorithm} uniquely determines the scalar, global symbol $\mathfrak{a}$ of the operator $U(t,s)$. Furthermore, all homogeneous components $\mathfrak{a}_{-j}$, $j\ge 0$, of $\mathfrak{a}$ are also guaranteed to be scalar.
\section{An application: Hadamard states}
\label{Sec: An application: Hadamard states}
In Section~\ref{Sec: Extension to general globally hyperbolic spacetimes} we have seen how the results of \cite{CLV} can be suitably generalised to an arbitrary globally hyperbolic spacetime $(M,g)$ with compact Cauchy surfaces and of arbitrary dimension $d=\dim M\geq 3$. In this section we shall discuss an application of our results by showing that starting from the wave propagator constructed in Theorem~\ref{Thm: wave propagator for globally hyperbolic spacetimes} one can obtain a representation of the integral kernel of a Hadamard state up to smooth errors.
Hadamard states play a distinguished role in the algebraic formulation of quantum field theory, see {\it e.g.} \cite{Book_AQFT}, and \cite{Khavkine:2014mta} for a recent review. Given a globally hyperbolic spacetime $(M,g)$ and a normally hyperbolic second order linear partial differential operator $P:C^\infty(M)\to C^\infty(M)$, a Hadamard two-point function is fully specified by a bi-distribution $\omega_2\in D^\prime(M\times M)$ such that its integral kernel $\omega_2(X,X^\prime)$ satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{Eqn:2-pt-conditions}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
(P\otimes\mathbb{I})\,\omega_2(X,X^\prime)=(\mathbb{I}\otimes P)\,\omega_2(X,X^\prime)&\in C^\infty(M\times M),\\ \omega_2(X,X^\prime)-\omega_2(X^\prime,X)-i \,G(X,X^\prime)&\in C^\infty(M\times M),
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{Eqn:WF}
\operatorname{WF}(\omega_2)=\{(X,Y,k_X,-k_Y)\in T^*(M\times M)\setminus\{0\}\;|\; (X,k_X)\sim(Y,k_y)\;\textrm{and}\;k_X\triangleright 0\}
\end{equation}
where $G=G^+-G^-$ is the retarded-minus-advanced fundamental solution introduced in Lemma \ref{Lem: solution space isomorphism}. The notation in \eqref{Eqn:WF} was introduced after \eqref{WF U}. In a quantum field theory Hadamard bi-distributions, subject to a further positivity requirement, play a distinguished role in that they identify a natural class of physically meaningful Gaussian quantum states.
The characterisation of Hadamard bidistributions via \eqref{Eqn:2-pt-conditions} and \eqref{Eqn:WF} admits the following alternative and equivalent description proven by Radzikowski in \cite{Radzikowski:1996ei,Radzikowski:1996pa}. Consider $\omega_2\in\mathcal{D}^\prime(M\times M)$ satisfying equation \eqref{Eqn:2-pt-conditions} and let $\omega_2(X,X^\prime)$ indicate the associated integral kernel. The bi-distribution satisfies \eqref{Eqn:WF} if, for every geodesically convex open subset $\mathcal{O}\subseteq M$ and for every $X,X^\prime\in\mathcal{O}$,
\begin{equation}\label{Eqn: 2-pt-integral-kernel}
\omega_2(X,X^\prime)=\lim_{\epsilon\to 0^+}\left(H_\epsilon(X,X^\prime)+W(X,X^\prime)\right),
\end{equation}
where the limit is understood in the weak sense. In the above expression $W$ is an infinitely smooth function in $C^\infty(\mathcal{O}\times\mathcal{O})$ and
\begin{gather}\label{Eq: Hadamard parametrix}
H_\epsilon(X,X^\prime):=\beta_n\dfrac{U_d(X,X^\prime)}{\sigma^{\frac{d-2}{2}}_\epsilon(X,X^\prime)} +\gamma_d V_d(X,X^\prime)\log\left(\frac{\sigma_\epsilon(X,X^\prime)}{\ell^2}\right)\,,\qquad
\end{gather}
where
\begin{itemize}
\item $\ell\in\mathbb{R}$ is a reference length to make the logarithm dimensionless.
\item $\sigma_\epsilon(X,X^\prime)=\sigma(X,X^\prime)+ i\epsilon(t(X)-t(X^\prime))+\epsilon^2$. Here $\sigma$ is the geodesic distance between $X$ and $X^\prime$ while $t:\mathbb{R}\times\Sigma\to\mathbb{R}$ is the global temporal function introduced in Theorem \ref{Th:glob_hyp}.
\item $\beta_d$ and $\gamma_d$ are normalisation constants such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\beta_d= -\frac{\Gamma\left(\frac{d}{2}\right)}{2\pi^{\frac{d}{2}}},& \gamma_d=(-1)^{\frac{d}{2}}\frac{2^{1-d}}{\pi^{\frac{d}{2}}\Gamma(\frac{d}{2})},&\textrm{d even}\\
\beta_d= (-1)^{\frac{d+1}{2}}\frac{\pi^{\frac{2-d}{2}}}{2\Gamma\left(\frac{4-d}{2}\right)},& \gamma_d=0,&\textrm{d odd}.
\end{eqnarray}
\item $U_d(X,X^\prime), V_d(X,X^\prime)\in C^\infty(\mathcal{O}\times\mathcal{O})$ admit an asymptotic expansion as power series of the geodesic distance
\begin{equation}\label{Eq: Hadamard coefficients}
U_d=\sum\limits_{k=0}^\infty U_{d,k}\sigma^k,\quad V_d=\sum\limits_{k=0}^\infty V_{d,k}\sigma^k.
\end{equation}
All coefficients $U_{d,k}$ and $V_{d,k}$ are smooth and they are determined from the equation of motion \eqref{Eqn:2-pt-conditions} via a hierarchy of transport equations with prescribed initial conditions, see \cite{Radzikowski:1996ei,Radzikowski:1996pa}.
\end{itemize}
With a slight abuse of notation one refers to $H\equiv H_\epsilon$ as the Hadamard parametrix. From a rigorous standpoint, $H$ identifies a distribution $\widehat{H}\in\mathcal{D}^\prime(\mathcal{O}\times\mathcal{O})$ via
$$\widehat{H}(f,f^\prime):=\lim_{\epsilon\to 0^+} H_{\epsilon}(f,f^\prime),\quad\forall f,f^\prime\in C^\infty_0(\mathcal{O}).$$
The above discussion can be summarised in the following theorem (see \cite{Radzikowski:1996ei,Radzikowski:1996pa} for the proof).
\begin{theorem}\label{Thm: Radzikowski theorem}
Let $(M,g)$ be an $d$-dimensional globally hyperbolic spacetime and let $P$ be a normally hyperbolic second order linear partial differential operator. For any $\omega_2\in\mathcal{D}^\prime(M\times M)$ satisfying \eqref{Eqn:2-pt-conditions}, the following two conditions are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item the singular structure of $\omega_2$ is codified by \eqref{Eqn:WF},
\item in every geodesically convex open neighbourhood $\mathcal{O}\subseteq M$ the integral kernel of $\omega_2$ is of the form \eqref{Eqn: 2-pt-integral-kernel}.
\end{enumerate}
If one of these two conditions is met, $\omega_2$ is said to be of \emph{Hadamard form}.
\end{theorem}
It is worth observing that, given a bi-distribution $\omega_2\in\mathcal{D}^\prime(M\times M)$, a direct use of \eqref{Eqn: 2-pt-integral-kernel} to verify the Hadamard condition is often impractical, since it involves the explicit control of the integral kernel of $\omega_2$ in every geodesic neighbourhood. This is why \eqref{Eqn: 2-pt-integral-kernel} plays a key role in many applications of Hadamard states, {\it cf.} \cite{Khavkine:2014mta}, \cite{Drago-Gerard-17}.
In the following we shall prove that there exists an explicit connection between our representation of the wave propagator, Hadamard states and the associated Hadamard parametrix, \eqref{Eq: Hadamard parametrix}. In this analysis we shall work under a few additional assumptions, namely
\begin{itemize}
\item $(M,g)$ is a $d$-dimensional ultrastatic globally hyperbolic spacetime with compact Cauchy surface,
\item the normally hyperbolic second order linear partial differential operator $P$ ruling the dynamics is of the form $\partial^2_t-\Delta$ where $\Delta$ is the Laplace--Beltrami operator acting on scalars associated with the metric $h$, {\it cf.} equation \eqref{metric general form BS}.
\end{itemize}
This choice is made only for computational and presentation simplicity. \emph{Mutatis mutandis}, our next results hold true replacing $-\Delta$ with $E=-\Delta + V$, where $V$ is a time-independent smooth potential.
Under the above assumptions, we have the following.
\begin{theorem}\label{Thm: construction of Hadamard parametrix}
Consider the operator
\begin{align}\label{Eq: Hadamard FIO}
\Omega(\tau,s):=\frac12(\sqrt{-\Delta})^{-1/2}\,e^{-i\sqrt{-\Delta}(\tau-s)}\,,\quad s,\tau\in\mathbb{R},
\end{align}
where $(\sqrt{-\Delta})^{-1/2}$ is the square root of the pseudoinverse of $-\Delta$, cf.\ \cite[Chapter 2, Section 2]{Rellich}.
Then the integral kernel $\omega_2$ of \eqref{Eq: Hadamard FIO} is of Hadamard form as a distribution in $\mathcal{D}'(M\times M)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
To start with, observe that $\sqrt{-\Delta}$ is an elliptic pseudodifferential operator of order $-1$. Hence $\Omega(\tau,s)$ is a Fourier integral operator whose amplitude can be determined (non-invariantly) by \cite[Thm. 18.2]{shubin}.
It is easy to see that $\omega_2$ satisfies
$$(P\otimes\mathbb{I})\omega_2=(\mathbb{I}\otimes P)\omega_2\in C^\infty(M\times M).$$
Put
\[
\Lambda(f_1,f_2):=\omega_2(f_1,f_2)-\omega_2(f_1,f_2), \qquad \forall f_1,f_2\in \mathcal{D}(M).
\]
Of course, $\Lambda$ defines a distribution in $\mathcal{D}^\prime(M\times M)$. Denoting a generic point of $M\simeq\mathbb{R}\times\Sigma$ by $X=(t,x)$ as above, the integral kernel $\Lambda(X,X^\prime)$ satisfies
\begin{gather}\label{Eq: Cauchy problem for causal propagator}
(P\otimes\mathbb{I})\Lambda(X,X^\prime)=(\mathbb{I}\otimes P)\Lambda(X,X^\prime)\in C^\infty(M\times M)\\
\Lambda(X,X^\prime)|_{t=t^\prime}\in C^\infty(\Sigma\times\Sigma)\,,\qquad
\partial_t\Lambda(X,X^\prime)|_{t=t^\prime}-\delta_\Sigma(x,x^\prime)\in C^\infty(\Sigma\times\Sigma),
\end{gather}
where $\delta_\Sigma(x,x^\prime)$ is the integral kernel of the identity operator acting on scalar functions on the Cauchy surface $\{t\}\times\Sigma$. Hence $-i\Lambda$ must coincide up to smooth terms with the retarded-minus-advanced fundamental solution $G$, {\it cf.} Lemma \ref{Lem: solution space isomorphism}.
Finally we can determine the wavefront set of $\omega_2$ since, being $(\sqrt{-\Delta})^{-1/2}$ an elliptic operator, $\operatorname{WF}(\omega_2)=\operatorname{WF}(u)$ where $u$ is the integral kernel of $U(\tau-s)$.
Now, on account of \cite{CLV}, we know that $\operatorname{WF}(u)$ is of the form \eqref{Eqn:WF}. Thus, by Theorem \ref{Thm: Radzikowski theorem} we can draw the sought-after conclusion.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Theorem~\ref{Thm: construction of Hadamard parametrix} can in principle be recovered indirectly from results available in the literature --- see, for example, \cite[Sections~5.1 and~9.1]{Strohmaier:2018bcw} and \cite[Section~6.2]{baer}.
\end{remark}
Theorem \ref{Thm: construction of Hadamard parametrix} ensures that the Fourier Integral Operator $\Omega$ in equation \eqref{Eq: Hadamard FIO} identifies a distribution $\omega_2$ of Hadamard form. Hence, on account of Theorem \ref{Thm: Radzikowski theorem}, we can conclude that in every geodesically convex open neighbourhood $\mathcal{O}\subseteq M$ the integral kernel of $\omega_2$ differs from the Hadamard one, {\it cf.} \eqref{Eq: Hadamard parametrix}, by a smooth remainder.
In view of the results of Section \ref{Sec: The wave propagator in static spacetimes}, we can write
\begin{gather}
\Omega(t,0)
\overset{\mod \Psi^{-\infty}}{=}\int_\Sigma \int_{T^*_y\Sigma} \frac{e^{i \varphi(t,x;y,\eta)}}{(2\pi)^{n-1}}\,\mathfrak{f}(t;y,\eta)\,\chi(t,x;y,\eta) w(t,x;y,\eta) \,\left(\,\cdot\,\right)\,\rho_h(y)\,dy \,d\eta.\label{half wave divided by sqrt}
\end{gather}
An explicit formula for the scalar symbol $\mathfrak{f}$ can be obtained following the same procedure outlined in Section \ref{Sec: The wave propagator in static spacetimes}, albeit with a different initial condition.
In what follows we show that there exists a concrete relation between the coefficients in the homogeneous expansion of the amplitude $\mathfrak{f}$ from \eqref{half wave divided by sqrt} and those appearing in \eqref{Eq: Hadamard coefficients} for the expansion of the Hadamard parametrix \eqref{Eq: Hadamard parametrix}.
Consider the integral kernel
\begin{equation}
\label{integral kernel calculation hadamard}
\mathcal{I}_{\mathfrak{f}}(t,x;y):=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{n-1}} \int_{T^*_y\Sigma} e^{i \varphi(t,x;y,\eta)}\,\mathfrak{f}(t;y,\eta)\,\chi(t,x;y,\eta)\,w(t,x;y,\eta)\,d\eta,
\end{equation}
with $X= (t,x)\in M$ and $y\in \Sigma$. The task at hand is to perform a local expansion of this integral kernel in a geodesic neighbourhood of $(0,y)$ in $M$. In what follows, we identify all Cauchy surfaces $\{t\}\times\Sigma$, $t\in\mathbb{R}$, with $\Sigma$ and we choose geodesic normal coordinates centred at $y$. Furthermore, we adopt the same coordinates for $x$ and $y$.
Since we are only interested in obtaining a local expansion for $x$ close to $y$ and small $t$, when carrying out the algorithm to compute $\mathfrak{f}$ we can choose $\varphi$ to be
\begin{equation}
\label{real Levi-Civita normal coord}
\varphi(t,x;y,\eta)=\langle \exp_y^{-1}(x),\eta\rangle-\|\eta\| t
\end{equation}
in normal coordinates centred at $y$, where $\|\,\cdot\,\|$ is the Euclidean norm, $\langle\,\cdot\,,\,\cdot\rangle$ the Euclidean pairing, and $\exp_y$ the exponential map at $y$. Substituting \eqref{real Levi-Civita normal coord} into \eqref{definition weight} we obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{weight normal coordiantes}
w(t,x;y,\eta)=[\rho_h(x)]^{-1/2}.
\end{equation}
\noindent As a consequence, the integral kernel \eqref{integral kernel calculation hadamard} turns into
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{I}_{\mathfrak{f}}(t,x;y)=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{d-1} [\rho_h(x)]^\frac12} \int_{T^*_y\Sigma} e^{i \langle \exp_y^{-1}(x),\eta\rangle-i\|\eta\| t}\,\mathfrak{f}(t;y,\eta)\,\chi(t,x;y,\eta)\,d\eta
\end{equation}
where $x$ and $t$ are now such that $(x,t)$ lies in a convex geodesic neighbourhood of $(0,y)$. Furthermore, since $(M,g)$ is ultrastatic, we can assume without loss of generality that $t$ is positive. In addition we can drop the cut-off $\chi$ since it is equal to $1$ in a neighbourhood of the region where the phase is stationary. Dropping it does not affect the final result.
Let $\zeta:[0,+\infty)\to\mathbb{R}$ be a smooth cut-off such that $\zeta(r)=0$ for $r\le 1/2$ and $\zeta(r)=1$ for $r\ge 1$. Then, for every $N\in \mathbb{N}$ we have
\begin{equation}
\label{8 July 2019 formula 5}
\mathcal{I}_{\mathfrak{f}}\stackrel{\mod S^{-N-2}_{\mathrm{ph}}}{=}\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{d-1} [\rho_h(x)]^\frac12} \int_{T^*_y\Sigma} e^{i \langle \exp_y^{-1}(x),\eta\rangle-i\|\eta\| t}\,\sum_{k=0}^N\mathfrak{f}_{-1-k}(t;y,\eta)\,\zeta(\|\eta\|)\,d\eta\,.
\end{equation}
Switching to polar coordinates $(r, \omega)\in \mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{S}^{d-2}$ in $T^*_y\Sigma$ we obtain
\begin{gather}
\mathcal{I}_{\mathfrak{f}}=_N\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{d-1} [\rho_h(x)]^\frac12} \int_0^\infty \int_{\mathbb{S}^{d-2}} e^{i\,r(\langle \exp^{-1}_y(x),\omega\rangle -t)}\,\sum_{k=0}^N\frac{\chi(r)}{r^{1+k}}(t;y,\omega)\,r^{d-2}\,dr \,\operatorname{dVol}_{\mathbb{S}^{d-2}}\notag\\
=_N\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{d-1} [\rho_h(x)]^\frac12}\sum_{k=0}^N \int_0^\infty e^{-i r t}\, r^{d-k-3}\,\chi(r) \int_{\mathbb{S}^{d-2}} e^{i\,r\langle \exp_y(x),\omega\rangle}\,\mathfrak{f}_{-1-k}(t;y,\omega) \,dr\,\operatorname{dVol}_{\mathbb{S}^{d-2}},\label{8 July 2019 formula 6}
\end{gather}
where $=_N$ is a shortcut notation for $\stackrel{\mod S^{-N-2}_{\mathrm{ph}}}{=}$. We observe that the function $f(\omega):=\langle \exp_y(x),\omega\rangle$ is stationary at $\omega_0=\pm \hat{x}$, where
\[
\hat{x}:=[\operatorname{dist}_{\Sigma}(x,y)]^{-1} (\exp_y(x))^\flat.
\]
Furthermore, it holds $\operatorname{Hess} f(\pm \hat{x})=\mp \operatorname{dist}_{\Sigma}(x,y)\,\operatorname{Id}$. This allows us to evaluate the spherical integral via the stationary phase formula for $r\to+\infty$ (see, for example, \cite[Theorem~C.1]{SaVa}) as
\begin{multline}
\label{8 July 2019 formula 8}
\int_{\mathbb{S}^{d-2}} e^{i\,r(\langle \exp_y(x),\omega\rangle)}\,\mathfrak{f}_{-1-k}(t;y,\omega) \,\operatorname{dVol}_{\mathbb{S}^{d-2}}\\
=\sum_{\kappa=\pm} e^{i\,\kappa\, r \operatorname{dist}_\Sigma(x,y)} e^{\frac{i \kappa(2-d)\pi}{4}} \left( \frac{2\pi}{r\,\operatorname{dist}_\Sigma(x,y)} \right)^{\frac{d-2}{2}}\sum_{j=0}^K r^{-j} [L_j \mathfrak{f}_{-1-k}](t;y,\kappa \hat{x}) +O(r^{-K-1})
\end{multline}
for every $K\in \mathbb{N}$, where
\begin{equation}
\label{8 July 2019 formula 9}
[L_j \mathfrak{f}_{-1-k}](t;y,\kappa \hat{x})=\left.\sum_{\substack{\mu,\nu\,:\,\nu-\mu=j\\3\mu\le2\nu}} \dfrac{2^{-\nu}}{\mu!\nu!} \langle [\operatorname{Hess}f(\kappa \hat{x})]^{-1} D_\omega \,,\, D_\omega \rangle^\nu (f_{0,\kappa}^\mu \mathfrak{f}_{-1-k})(t;y,\omega)\right|_{\omega=\kappa \hat{x}},
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\label{8 July 2019 formula 10}
f_{0,\kappa}(\omega)=f(\omega)-f(\kappa \hat{x})-\frac12 \langle \operatorname{Hess}f(\kappa \hat{x})(\omega-\kappa\hat{x}), (\omega-\kappa\hat{x})\rangle.
\end{equation}
The local asymptotic expansion is now obtained by substituting \eqref{8 July 2019 formula 8}--\eqref{8 July 2019 formula 10} into \eqref{8 July 2019 formula 6} and subsequently carrying out the integral in $r$. We will compute the first few terms explicitly in the special case
\begin{equation}
\label{special case}
d=4, \quad M= \mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{S}^3.
\end{equation}
The argument in the general case would proceed along the same lines, only it would be a bit more lengthy and technically involute.
When $\Sigma=\mathbb{S}^3$, it is easy to see that the symbol $\mathfrak{f}$ in \eqref{half wave divided by sqrt} depends only on the magnitude of $\eta$, not on its direction. Hence, setting
\begin{equation}
\hat{\mathfrak{f}}(t;y):=\mathfrak{f}(t;y,\omega), \qquad \omega\in \mathbb{S}^2,
\end{equation}
it holds that, modulo $S_{\mathrm{ph}}^{-N-2}$,
\begin{equation}
\label{temp 1 1}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{I}_{\mathfrak{f}}
&
=_N
\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{3} [\rho_h(x)]^\frac12}\sum_{k=0}^N \int_0^{+\infty} e^{-i r t}\, r^{1-k}\,\chi(r) \int_{\mathbb{S}^{2}} e^{i\,r\langle \exp_y(x),\omega\rangle}\,\hat{\mathfrak{f}}_{-1-k}(t;y) \,\operatorname{dVol}_{\mathbb{S}^{2}}\,dr\\
&=_N\frac{[\operatorname{dist}_{\Sigma}(x,y)]^{-1}}{4\pi^2 [\rho_h(x)]^\frac12}\sum_{k=0}^N \hat{\mathfrak{f}}_{-k-1}(t;y)\times\\
&\times \int_0^{+\infty} \left( \sum_{j=0}^K \sum_{\kappa=\pm} \kappa\,\dfrac{e^{i r(\kappa\, \operatorname{dist}_\Sigma(x,y)- t)}}{i\,r^{k+j}}\,\chi(r) [L_j (1)](t;y,\kappa \hat{x}) +O(r^{-(k+K+1)}) \right) dr.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
By analysing formula \eqref{8 July 2019 formula 10} for $f_{0,\kappa}$ and setting $\mathfrak{f}_{-1-k}=1$ in \eqref{8 July 2019 formula 9}, one obtains
\begin{equation}
[L_{j}(1)](t;y,\kappa \hat{x})=\kappa^j \,[L_{j}(1)](t;y,\hat{x})
\end{equation}
so that \eqref{temp 1 1} becomes
\begin{equation}
\label{temp 1}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{I}_{\mathfrak{f}}
&
=
\frac{[\operatorname{dist}_\Sigma(x,y)]^{-1}}{4\pi^2 [\rho_h(x)]^\frac12}\sum_{k=0}^N \hat{\mathfrak{f}}_{-k-1}(t;y)\times\\
&\times \int_0^{+\infty} \left( \sum_{j=0}^K \sum_{\kappa=\pm} \kappa^{1+j}\,\dfrac{e^{i r(\kappa\, \operatorname{dist}_\Sigma(x,y)- t)}}{i\,r^{k+j}}\,\chi(r) [L_j (1)](t;y, \hat{x}) +O(r^{-(k+K+1)}) \right) dr.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The last step in the computation consists in evaluating, in a distributional sense, integrals of the form
\[
\int_{0}^{+\infty} \dfrac{e^{i r \widehat{\varphi}}}{r^n} \,dr, \qquad n\in \mathbb{N},
\]
where $\widehat{\varphi}=\kappa\, \operatorname{dist}_\Sigma(x,y)- t$.
For $n=0$ we have
\begin{equation}
\label{integral n=0}
\begin{split}
\int_0^{+\infty} e^{i r \widehat{\varphi}} \,dr&= \lim_{\varepsilon\to 0^+}\int_0^{+\infty} e^{i r (\widehat{\varphi}+i \varepsilon)} \,dr=\lim_{\varepsilon\to 0^+}\dfrac{i}{\widehat{\varphi}+i \varepsilon}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
For $n\in \mathbb{N}\setminus\{0\}$ we have
\begin{equation}
\label{integral n>0}
\begin{split}
\int_0^{+\infty} \dfrac{e^{i r \widehat{\varphi}}}{r^n} \,dr&= \lim_{\varepsilon\to 0^+}\int_0^{+\infty} e^{i r (\widehat{\varphi}+i \varepsilon)} \dfrac{(-1)^{n+1}}{(n-1)!}\dfrac{d^n}{dr^n}\log r \,dr\\
&
=
\lim_{\varepsilon\to 0^+}\dfrac{- i^n \,(\widehat{\varphi}+i \varepsilon)^n}{(n-1)!}\int_0^{+\infty} e^{i r (\widehat{\varphi}+i \varepsilon)} \log r \,dr
\\
&
=
\lim_{\varepsilon\to 0^+}\dfrac{- i^{n-1}\,(\widehat{\varphi}+i \varepsilon)^{n-1}}{(n-1)!} \left[\gamma+\log(\varepsilon-i \widehat{\varphi})\right].
\end{split}
\end{equation}
When computing \eqref{integral n>0} we used the fact that, for $\Re z<0$,
\begin{equation}
\int_0^{+\infty} e^{z r} \log r\,dr=\dfrac{\gamma+\log(-z)}{z}.
\end{equation}
\noindent In view of \eqref{integral n=0}, the term corresponding to $j=k=0$ in \eqref{temp 1} is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{first term}
\begin{split}
\dfrac{1}{4\pi^2 [\rho_h(x)]^\frac12}\dfrac{\mathfrak{f}_{-1}(t;y,\hat{x})}{\operatorname{dist}_\Sigma(x,y)}\sum_{\kappa=\pm} \dfrac{\kappa}{\kappa \operatorname{dist}_\Sigma(x,y)-t}
&
=
\dfrac{1}{4\pi^2}\dfrac{\mathfrak{f}_{-1}(t;y,\hat{x})}{[\rho_h(x)]^\frac12} \dfrac{2}{\operatorname{dist}^2_\Sigma(x,y)-t^2}
\\
&
=
\dfrac{1}{8\pi^2}\dfrac{2\,\mathfrak{f}_{-1}(t;y,\hat{x})}{[\rho_h(x)]^\frac12} \dfrac{1}{\sigma((t,x),(0,y))}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\noindent Since the principal symbol of the half-wave propagator is $1$ \cite{CLV} and since
\[
\left[(-\Delta)^{-\frac12}\right]_\mathrm{prin}(y,\eta)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{h^{\alpha\beta}(y),\eta_\alpha\eta_\beta}}
\]
\cite[Theorem~18.1]{shubin} implies that $\mathfrak{f}_{-1}(t;y,\hat{x})=\frac12$. It follows that \eqref{first term} corresponds to the first term in the expansion \eqref{Eq: Hadamard parametrix}
\begin{equation}
\label{first term bis}
\dfrac{1}{8\pi^2}\dfrac{[\rho_h(x)]^{-\frac12}}{\sigma((t,x),(0,y))}.
\end{equation}
Furthermore we recover the well-known fact that, given two generic points $X=(t,x),Y=(t^\prime,y)\in\mathbb{R}\times\Sigma$, the function $u$ appearing in \eqref{Eq: Hadamard parametrix} satisfies $u(t,y,t,y)=1$ ) and that $u(X,Y)$ coincides with the square root of the Van Vleck-Morette determinant, which, in normal coordinates centred at $y$, reads $[\rho_h(x)]^{-\frac12}$ \cite{Moretti99}.
\begin{remark}
We would like to stress that, the calculation of the first term \eqref{first term bis} is general and works for an arbitrary four-dimensional ultrastatatic spacetime. In fact, we did not use anywhere the assumption that the Cauchy surface is a sphere.
\end{remark}
\noindent The substitution of \eqref{first term bis} and \eqref{integral n>0} into \eqref{temp 1} yields
\begin{equation}
\label{temp 3}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{I}_\mathfrak{f}&\sim \dfrac{1}{8\pi^2}\dfrac{[\rho_h(x)]^{-\frac12}}{\sigma((t,x),(0,y))}\\
&
+
\frac{[\operatorname{dist}_\Sigma(x,y)]^{-1}}{4\pi^2 [\rho_h(x)]^\frac12}\sum_{k,j=0}^\infty \sum_{\kappa=\pm}\kappa^{1+j}\,\hat{\mathfrak{f}}_{-k-1}(t;y)[L_j (1)](t;y, \hat{x}) \times \\
&\times\lim_{\varepsilon\to 0^+}\dfrac{i^{j+k}\,(\widehat{\varphi}+i \varepsilon)^{j+k-1}}{(j+k-1)!}\left[\gamma+\log(\varepsilon-i \widehat{\varphi})\right].
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Let us write down explicitly the term with $j+k=1$. We have
\begin{multline}
\label{next term 1}
\frac{[\operatorname{dist}_\Sigma(x,y)]^{-1}}{4\pi^2 [\rho_h(x)]^\frac12} \sum_{\kappa=\pm} i \left(\kappa \,\hat{\mathfrak{f}}_{-2}+\hat{\mathfrak{f}}_{-1}[L_{-1}(1)] \right) \left[\gamma+\log(i(t-\kappa \operatorname{dist}_\Sigma(x,y)))\right]=\\
=i \frac{[\operatorname{dist}_\Sigma(x,y)]^{-1}}{4\pi^2 [\rho_h(x)]^\frac12} \left[
\hat{\mathfrak{f}}_{-2} \log\left(\dfrac{t-\operatorname{dist}_\Sigma(x,y)}{t+\operatorname{dist}_\Sigma(x,y) } \right)
+
\hat{\mathfrak{f}}_{-1}[L_{-1}(1)] \left(2\gamma+\log(\operatorname{dist}^2_\Sigma(x,y)-t^2)\right)
\right]\\
=\log(\operatorname{dist}_\Sigma^2(x,y)-t^2) \frac{i\,[\operatorname{dist}_\Sigma(x,y)]^{-1}}{4\pi^2 [\rho_h(x)]^\frac12}
\left(
\hat{\mathfrak{f}}_{-1}[L_{-1}(1)]
+\hat{\mathfrak{f}}_{-2}
\right)\\
+ \frac{i\,[\operatorname{dist}_\Sigma(x,y)]^{-1}}{4\pi^2 [\rho_h(x)]^\frac12}
\left[
\hat{\mathfrak{f}}_{-2}\left( i\pi+\log((t+\operatorname{dist}_\Sigma(x,y))^2) \right)+2\gamma\,\hat{\mathfrak{f}}_{-1}[L_{-1}(1)]
\right].
\end{multline}
We observe that \eqref{next term 1} contributes a log term and a smooth term to the expansion. It is easy to see that subsequent contributions in \eqref{temp 3} yield terms of the form $v_k\, \sigma^k \log \sigma$ and smooth terms, where the functions $v_k$ are completely determined by the homogeneous components of the symbol $\mathfrak{f}$ and by the geometry.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
M.C.~is grateful to Dima Vassiliev for enlightening conversations. The authors are grateful to Igor Khavkine and Alex Strohmaier for useful comments. The work of N.D.~is supported by a fellowship of the Alexander von Humboldt foundation and he is grateful to the University of Pavia and of Trento for the hospitality during the realisation of part of this work.
|
\section{Introduction}
It is well known that the Sobolev type inequalities such as Poincar\'e inequality, Sobolev inequality, the Moser--Trudinger inequality, etc are the important and useful tools in many branches of mathematics such as Analysis, Geometry, Calculus of Variations, Partial Differential Equations, etc. In this paper, we study the Sobolev type inequalities in the Lorentz--Sobolev spaces defined in the hyperbolic spaces. Especially, we are interested in studying the sharp form of these inequalities. Let us start by recalling several related results in the setting of Euclidean spaces. Let $\Om$ be an open subset of $\R^n$, $n\geq 2$ and let $W^{1,p}_0(\Om)$ with $1\leq p \leqs \infty$ be the the usual Sobolev space obtained by completion of $C_0^\infty(\Om)$ under the norm $\|\na u\|_{L^p(\Om)} =\Big(\int_\Om |\na u|^p dx\Big)^{\frac 1p}$. For bounded domain $\Om$, the Poincar\'e inequality asserts that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:PoincareE}
\int_\Om |\na u|^p dx \geq C_P(p,\Om)\int_\Om |u|^p dx,\quad u\in W^{1,p}_0(\Om)
\end{equation}
where $C_P(p,\Om)$ denotes the possibly smallest constant for which \eqref{eq:PoincareE} holds. It is an interesting problem is to determine the explicit value of $C_P(p,\Om)$. A few results for $C_P(2,\Om)$ is known when $\Om$ is the unit ball or a convex domain (see, e.g., \cite{Acosta,Kuznetsov,Payne}). For general domain $\Om$ and arbitrary $p$, determining the constant $C_P(p,\Om)$ is a hard task since the value of $C_P(p,\Om)$ depends on $p$ and the geometry of $\Om$.
In the hyperbolic spaces, the Poincar\'e inequality was proved by Tataru \cite{Tataru2001}. Let $\H^n$ denote the hyperbolic space of dimension $n\geq 2$ that is a Riemannian manifold with a Riemannian metric $g$ such that its sectional curvature is $-1$ (see Section \S2 below for more details). It was proved in \cite{Tataru2001} that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Tataru}
\int_{\H^n} |\na_g u|_g^p dV_g \geq C \int_{\H^n} |u|^p dV_g,\quad u\in C_0^\infty(\H^n)
\end{equation}
for some constant $C \geqs 0$, where $\na_g, |\cdot|_g$ and $dV_g$ denote the hyperbolic gradient, hyperbolic length of a vector field and the volume element in $\H^n$ with respect to the Riemannian metric $g$, respectively. Finding the sharp value of constant $C$ in \eqref{eq:Tataru} is an interesting question. Mancini and Sandeep \cite{ManciniSandeep2008} show that the sharp value of the constant $C$ in \eqref{eq:Tataru} is $(N-1)^2/4$ when $p =2$. For arbitrary $p$, it was proved by Ngo and the author \cite{NgoNguyenAMV} that the sharp constant $C$ in \eqref{eq:Tataru} is $(N-1)^p/p^p$ (see \cite{BerchioNA} for another proof). The first aim in this paper is to generalize the sharp Poincar\'e inequality in $\H^n$ to the more general context of the Lorentz--Sobolev spaces defined in $\H^n$. For $1\leq p, q \leqs \infty$, we denote by $W^1 L^{p,q}(\H^n)$ the Lorentz--Sobolev space of order one in $\H^n$ which is the completion of $C_0^\infty(\H^n)$ under the quasi-norm $\|\na_g u\|_{p,q} := \| |\na_g u|_g\|_{p,q}$ (see Section \S2 below for the definition of Lorentz spaces and the Lorentz semi-norm $\|\cdot\|_{p,q}$. The first main result in this paper is as follows
\begin{theorem}\label{Poincare}
Let $n \geq 2$ and $1 \leqs q \leq p \leqs \infty$. Then it holds
\begin{equation}\label{eq:PoincareLorentz}
\|\na_g u\|_{p,q}^q \geq \lt(\frac{n-1}p\rt)^q \|u\|_{p,q}^q,\quad\forall\, u\in W^1 L^{p,q}(\H^n).
\end{equation}
Furthermore, the constant $(n-1)^q/p^q$ in \eqref{eq:PoincareLorentz} is sharp and never attained in $W^1 L^{p,q}(\H^n)$.
\end{theorem}
Theorem \ref{Poincare} covers the result in \cite{NgoNguyenAMV} for $m =1$ and in \cite{BerchioNA} in the special case $p= q$. Notice that the sharp constant $(n-1)^p/p^p$ in \eqref{eq:Tataru} is never archived in $W^{1,p}(\H^n)$. This leaves a room for several improvements of the inequality \eqref{eq:Tataru} with sharp constant. Notice that the non achievement of sharp constant does not always imply improvement (e.g., Hardy operator in the Euclidean space $\R^n, n \geq 2$). However, in the hyperbolic space, the operator $-\Delta_{g,p}-(\frac{n-1}p)^p =-\text{\rm div}(|\na_g \cdot|_g^{p-2} \na_g \cdot)-(\frac{n-1}p)^p$ is sub-critical, hence improvement is possible. For examples, the reader can consult the papers \cite{BerchioNA,BerchioJFA} for the improvements of \eqref{eq:Tataru} by adding the remainder terms concerning to Hardy weights, i.e., the inequalities of the form
\[
\int_{\H^n} |\na_g u|_g^p dV_g -\lt(\frac{n-1}p\rt)^p \int_{\H^n} |u|^p dV_g \geq \int_{\H^n} W |u|^p dV_g
\]
where $W \geq 0$ is the weight $W$ satisfying some appropriate conditions. For the case $p =2$, Mancini and Sandeep \cite{ManciniSandeep2008} proved the following Poincar\'e--Sobolev inequality which provides another improvement of \eqref{eq:Tataru}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:MS}
\int_{\H^n} |\na_g u|_g^2 dV_g -\lt(\frac{n-1}2\rt)^2 \int_{\H^n} |u|^2 dV_g \geq C \lt(\int_{\H^n} |u|^{\frac{2n}{n-2}} dV_g\rt)^{\frac{n-2}n},
\end{equation}
for some $C \geqs 0$. The inequality \eqref{eq:MS} is equivalent to a Hardy--Sobolev--Maz'ja inequality in the half space (see \cite[Section $2.1.6$]{Maz'ja}). Let $C_n$ denote the possibly smallest constant $C$ in the right hand side of \eqref{eq:MS}. In \cite{Tertikas}, Tertikas and Tintarev proved for $n\geq 4$ that $C_n \leqs S_n$ and $C_n$ is attained, where $S_n$ denotes the best constant in the $L_2$ Sobolev inequality in $\R^n$ (see \cite{Aubin1976,Talenti1976}). More surprising in three dimensional cases, it was show that $C_3 = S_3$ and is not attained (see \cite{BenguriaFrankLoss}). For arbitrary $p\not=2$, the author established in \cite{NguyenPS2018} the following $L^p$ Poincar\'e--Sobolev inequality in $\H^n$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:NguyenPS}
\int_{\H^n} |\na_g u|_g^p dV_g -\lt(\frac{n-1}p\rt)^p \int_{\H^n} |u|^p dV_g \geq S_{n,p}^p \lt(\int_{\H^n} |u|^{\frac{np}{n-p}} dV_g\rt)^{\frac{n-p}n}
\end{equation}
for $n\geq 4$ and $\frac{2n}{n-1} \leq p \leqs n$ where $S_{n,p}, 1\leq p \leqs n$ is the sharp constant in the $L_p$ Sobolev inequality in $\R^n$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:SobolevRn}
\int_{\R^n} |\na u |^p dx \geq S_{n,p}^p \lt(\int_{\R^n} |u|^{\frac{np}{n-p}} dx\rt)^{\frac{n-p}{n}},\quad u\in W^{1,p}(\R^n).
\end{equation}
The sharp constant $S_{n,p}$ in \eqref{eq:SobolevRn} was found independently by Talenti \cite{Talenti1976} and Aubin \cite{Aubin1976} (another proof of the sharp Sobolev inequality \eqref{eq:SobolevRn} via the optimal transport of measure could be found in \cite{CNV}). The second aim in this paper is to establish an analogue of the Poincar\'e--Sobolev inequality \eqref{eq:NguyenPS} in the Lorentz--Sobolev space $W^1 L^{p,q}(\H^n)$ which provide an improvement of the sharp Poincar\'e inequality from Theorem \ref{Poincare}. Before stating our next results, let us recall that the sharp Sobolev inequality in the Lorentz--Sobolev space $W^1 L^{p,q}(\R^n)$ (the completion of $C_0^\infty(\R^n)$ under the Lorentz quasi-norm $\|\na \cdot \|_{p,q}$) was proved by Alvino \cite{Alvino1977}. More precisely, Alvino has show for $1 \leq q \leq p \leqs n$ that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Alvino}
\|\na u\|_{p,q}^q \geq \lt(\frac{n-p}p\rt)^q \sigma_n^{\frac qn} \|u\|_{p^*,q}^q,\quad u \in W^1 L^{p,q}(\R^n)
\end{equation}
where $\sigma_n$ is the volume of the unit ball in $\R^n$. The inequality \eqref{eq:Alvino} is sharp, and in the case $q =p$ it is equivalent to the famous Hardy inequality (see \cite{Davies,Kufner} for the history of the Hardy inequality). In recent paper, Cassani, Ruf and Tarsi \cite{CassaniRufTarsi2018} extend the inequality \eqref{eq:Alvino} to the case $p \leqs q \leq \infty$.
Our next main result reads as follows
\begin{theorem}\label{PoincareSobolev}
Let $n\geq 4$ and $\frac{2n}{n-1}\leq q \leq p \leqs n$. Then, for any $q\leq l \leq \frac{nq}{n-p}$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:PSLorentz1}
\|\na_g u\|_{p,q}^q - \lt(\frac{n-1}p\rt)^q \|u\|_{p,q}^q \geq S_{n,p,q,l}^q \|u\|_{p^*,l}^q,\quad\forall\, u\in W^1 L^{p,q}(\H^n),
\end{equation}
where $p^* = \frac{np}{n-p}$, and
\[
S_{n,p,q,l} =\begin{cases}
\lt[n^{1-\frac ql} \sigma_n^{\frac qn} \Big(\frac{(n-p)(l-q)}{qp}\Big)^{q+\frac ql -1} S\Big(\frac{lq}{l-p},q\Big)\rt]^{\frac 1q} &\mbox{if $q \leqs l \leq \frac{nq}{n-p}$,}\\
\frac{n-p}p \sigma_n^{\frac 1n}&\mbox{if $l =q$,}
\end{cases}
\]
with $S\big(\frac{lq}{l-p},q\Big)$ being the sharp constant in the Sobolev inequality with fractional dimension appearing in the Lemma \ref{Sobolevfract} below. Moreover, the constant $S_{n,p,q,l}$ on the right hand side of \eqref{eq:PSLorentz1} is sharp.
\end{theorem}
Notice that the inequality \eqref{eq:PSLorentz1} reduces to the Poincar\'e--Sobolev inequality \eqref{eq:NguyenPS} in the case $q =p$ and $l = \frac{np}{n-q}$. We can readily check that the constant $S_{n,p,q,l}$ in \eqref{eq:PSLorentz1} is sharp by the fact that the inequality
\[
\|\na u\|_{p,q}^q \geq S_{n,p,q,l}^q \|u\|_{p^*,l}^q
\]
in $\R^n$ is sharp and scaling invariant. So it is still sharp constant for the same inequality in the ball $B_r(0)\subset \R^n$ of radius $r$ and center at origin. For $r$ sufficient small, we have $V_g \sim 2^n \mathcal L$ in $B_r(0)$ here $\mathcal L$ denotes Lebesgue's measure in $\R^n$, and $|\na_g \cdot|_g \sim \frac12 |\na \cdot|$ in $B_r(0)$. From these facts, we have
\[
\|\na_g u\|_{p,q;\H^n}^q \sim 2^{\frac{n-p}p q} \|\na u\|_{p,q;\R^n}^q, \quad\text{\rm and}\quad \|u\|_{p^*,l;\H^n}^q \sim 2^{\frac{n-p}p q}\|u\|_{p^*,l;\R^n}^q
\]
for function $u$ with support in $B_r(0)$, here the indexes with $\H^n$ and $\R^n$ denote the Lorentz quasi-norm in $\H^n$ and $\R^n$ respectively. This implies the sharpness of $S_{n,p,q,l}$ in the Lorentz--Sobolev type inequality in $W^1 L^{p,q}(\H^n)$
\[
\|\na_g u\|_{p,q}^q \geq S_{n,p,q,l}^q \|u\|_{p^*,l}^q.
\]
So, $S_{n,p,q,l}$ is also sharp in \eqref{eq:PSLorentz1}. Thus, the inequality \eqref{eq:PSLorentz1} improves not only the sharp Poincar\'e inequality \eqref{eq:PoincareLorentz} but also the sharp Lorentz--Sobolev inequality above in the Lorentz--Sobolev space $W^1 L^{p,q}(\H^n)$.
We next move to the critical case $p =n$. Let us recall that for $1\leq p\leqs n$ and a bounded domain $\Om$ in the $\R^n$ we have the following Sobolev embedding $W^{1,p}_0(\Om) \hookrightarrow L^{p^*}(\Om)$. However, in the critical case $p=n$ (i.e., $p^* =\infty$), we don't have the embedding $W^{1,n}_0(\Om) \hookrightarrow L^{\infty}(\Om)$. Instead of the Sobolev inequality in this critical case, we have the Moser--Trudinger inequality. The Moser--Trudinger inequality was independently proved by Trudinger \cite{Trudinger67}, Yudovic \cite{Yudovic1961} and Pohozaev \cite{Pohozaev1965}. It was sharpened by Moser \cite{Moser70} in the following form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Moser}
\sup_{u \in W^{1,n}_0(\Om), \, \int_\Om |\na u|^n dx \leq 1} \int_\Om e^{\al |u|^{\frac n{n-1}}} dx \leqs \infty,
\end{equation}
for any $\al \leq \al_n: = n \om_{n-1}^{\frac1{n-1}}$ where $\om_{n-1}$ denotes the surface area of the unit sphere in $\R^n$. Furthermore, if $\al \geqs \al_n$ then the supremum in \eqref{eq:Moser} becomes infinite though all integrals are still finite. Since its appearance, there have been many generalizations of the Moser--Trudinger inequality \eqref{eq:Moser} in many directions (see, e.g., \cite{Adams,AdimurthiDruet2004,Tintarev2014,YangSuKong,WangYe2012,AdimurthiSandeep2007,ManciniSandeep2010,AdimurthiTintarev2010,ManciniSandeepTintarev2013,CohnLu,CohnLu1,Nguyenimproved,LamLuHei,deOliveira}). Concerning to the extremals of \eqref{eq:Moser}, we refer the readers to the papers \cite{Carleson86,Flucher92,Lin96}. The Moser--Trudinger inequality \eqref{eq:Moser} was extended to unbounded domain $\Om\subset\R^n$ by Adachi and Tanaka \cite{Adachi00} in the following scaling invariant form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:AT}
\sup_{u\in W^{1,n}(\R^n), \int_{\R^n} |\na u|^n dx \leq 1} \frac{1}{\|u\|_{L^n(\R^n)}^n}\int_{\R^n} \Phi(\al |u|^{\frac n{n-1}}) dx < \infty
\end{equation}
for any $\alpha < \alpha_n$ where $\Phi(t) = e^t - \sum_{j=0}^{n-2} t^j/j!$ (i.e., the truncation of the exponential function). Notice that the critical exponent $\al_n$ is not allowed in \eqref{eq:AT}. Later, Ruf \cite{Ruf2005} and Li and Ruf \cite{LiRuf2008} established the sharp Moser--Trudinger inequality in unbounded domains under the full norm in $W^{1,n}(\R^n)$ which allows the critical exponent $\al_n$ as follows
\begin{equation}\label{eq:LiRuf}
\sup_{u\in W^{1,n}(\R^n), \|u\|_{W^{1,n}(\R^n)}^n:=\int_{\R^n}( |\na u|^n+ |u|^n) dx \leq 1} \int_{\R^n} \Phi(\al |u|^{\frac n{n-1}}) dx < \infty
\end{equation}
for any $\alpha \leq \alpha_n$. Furthermore, the existence of maximizers for \eqref{eq:LiRuf} also is addressed in \cite{Ruf2005,LiRuf2008}. A singular version of \eqref{eq:LiRuf} was given by Adimurthi and Yang \cite{AdimurthiYang2010}. Another proof of \eqref{eq:LiRuf} without using rearrangement arguments was provided by Lam and Lu \cite{LamLunewapproach}. The Moser--Trudinger inequality in the Lorentz spaces $W^{1}L^{n,q}(\Omega), 1< q < \infty$ for a bounded domain $\Om$ was established by Alvino, Ferone and Trombetti \cite{Alvino1996} in the following form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:MoserLorentz}
\sup_{u\in W^1 L^{n,q}(\Om), \, \|\na u\|_{n,q} \leq 1} \int_{\Om} e^{\al |u|^{\frac q{q-1}}} dx < \infty
\end{equation}
for any $\al \leq \al_{n,q} :=(n^{\frac{n-1}n} \om_{n-1}^{\frac1n})^{\frac q{q-1}}$ if $1< q < \infty$. Notice that the constant $\al_{n,q}$ is sharp in \eqref{eq:MoserLorentz} in the sense that the supremum will become infinite if $\al >\al_{n,q}$. For unbounded domains in $\R^n$, the Moser--Trudinger inequality was proved by Cassani and Tarsi \cite{CassaniTarsi2009} (see Theorem $1$ and Theorem $2$ in \cite{CassaniTarsi2009}). In \cite{LuTang2016}, Lu and Tang proved several sharp singular Moser--Trudinger inequalities in the Lorentz--Sobolev spaces which generalize the results in \cite{Alvino1996,CassaniTarsi2009} to the singular weights.
In the hyperbolic space $\H^n$, the Moser--Trudinger inequality was firstly proved by Mancini and Sandeep \cite{ManciniSandeep2010} in the dimension $n =2$ (another proof of this result was given by Adimurthi and Tintarev \cite{AdimurthiTintarev2010}) and by Mancini, Sandeep and Tintarev \cite{ManciniSandeepTintarev2013} in higher dimension $n\geq 3$ (see \cite{FontanaMorpurgo2020} for an alternative proof)
\begin{equation}\label{eq:MThyperbolic}
\sup_{u\in W^{1,n}(\H^n),\, \int_{\H^n} |\na_g u|_g^n dV_g \leq 1} \int_{\H^n} \Phi(\al_n |u|^{\frac n{n-1}}) dV_g < \infty.
\end{equation}
Lu and Tang \cite{LuTang2013} also established the sharp singular Moser--Trudinger inequality under the conditions $\|\na u\|_{L^n(\H^n)}^n + \tau \|u\|_{L^n(\H^n)}^n \leq 1$ for any $\tau >0$ (see Theorem $1.4$ in \cite{LuTang2013}). In \cite{NguyenMT2018}, the author improves the inequality \eqref{eq:MThyperbolic} by proving the following inequality
\begin{equation}\label{eq:NguyenMT}
\sup_{u\in W^{1,n}(\H^n),\, \int_{\H^n} |\na_g u|_g^n dV_g - \lam \int_{\H^n} |u|^n dV_g \leq 1} \int_{\H^n} \Phi(\al_n |u|^{\frac n{n-1}}) dV_g < \infty,
\end{equation}
for any $\lambda < (\frac{n-1}n)^n$.
To our knowledge, much less is known about the sharp Trudinger--Moser inequalities under Lorentz norm on complete noncompact Riemannian manifolds except Euclidean spaces. Recently, Yang and Li \cite{YangLi2019} proves a sharp Moser--Trudinger inequality in the Lorentz--Sobolev spaces defined in the hyperbolic spaces. More precisely, their result (\cite[Theorem $1.6$]{YangLi2019}) states that for $1\leqs q \leqs \infty$ it holds
\begin{equation}\label{eq:YangLi}
\sup_{u\in W^1L^{n,q}(\H^n),\, \|\na_g u\|_{n,q} \leq 1} \int_{\H^n} \Phi_q(\al_{n,q} |u|^{\frac q{q-1}}) dV_g \leqs \infty,
\end{equation}
where
\[
\Phi_q(t) =e^t - \sum_{j=0}^{j_q -2} \frac{t^j}{j!},\quad \text{\rm where}\,\, j_q = \min\{j\in \N\, :\, j \geq 1+ n(q-1)/q\}.
\]
The third (and last) aim in this paper is to establish an analogue of \eqref{eq:NguyenMT} in the Lorentz--Sobolev space $W^1 L^{n,q}(\H^n)$ and hence give an improvement of the inequality of Yang and Li. Our next result provides such an analogue of \eqref{eq:NguyenMT} and is stated as follows.
\begin{theorem}\label{3rdMT}
Let $n\geq 4$ and $\frac{2n}{n-1} \leq q \leq n$. Then we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:improvedMTLorentz}
\sup_{u\in W^1L^{n,q}(\H^n),\, \|\na_g u\|_{n,q}^q -\lam \|u\|_{n,q}^q \leq 1} \int_{\H^n} \Phi_q\big(\al_{n,q} |u|^{\frac q{q-1}}\big) dV_g \leqs \infty,
\end{equation}
for any $\lam \leqs (\frac{n-1}n)^q$.
\end{theorem}
Notice that the inequality \eqref{eq:NguyenMT} is a special case of \eqref{eq:improvedMTLorentz} corresponding to the case $q =n$. Obviously, the inequality \eqref{eq:improvedMTLorentz} improves the result of Yang and Li \eqref{eq:YangLi}. However, comparing with the result of Yang and Li, we need impose an extra condition $q \leq n$. This condition is necessary to apply the rearrangement argument. We shall discuss, in details, about this point below.
We conclude this introduction by some comments on the proof of our main results (i.e., Theorems \ref{Poincare}, \ref{PoincareSobolev}, \ref{3rdMT}). To prove our main results, we adopt and develop the approach in \cite{NgoNguyenAMV,NguyenMT2018,NguyenPS2018}. Our approach heavily relies on the rearrangement argument applied to the hyperbolic spaces $\H^n$. In order to apply this argument, we need impose the condition $q \leq p$ (or $q \leq n$) in our main results. In fact, under this extra condition, we shall prove a P\'olya--Szeg\"o type principle in the Lorentz--Sobolev spaces $W^1L^{p,q}(\H^n)$ (see Theorem \ref{PS} below)
\[
\|\na_g u^\sharp\|_{p,q} \leq \|\na_g u\|_{p,q},\quad u\in W^1L^{p,q}(\H^n)
\]
for $1\leq q \leq p$, where $u^\sharp$ denotes the radially symmetric non-increasing rearrangement function of $u$ (see Section \S2 below for details). By this result, we can reduce the proof of Theorems \ref{Poincare}, \ref{PoincareSobolev} and \ref{3rdMT} to radially symmetric non-increasing functions in $\H^n$. For such functions, we prove a key estimate in Proposition \ref{keyprop} which is crucial in the proofs of Theorems \ref{PoincareSobolev} and \ref{3rdMT}. The detail proofs of these theorems are given in Sections \S3, \S4 and \S5 below. Finally, it is worth to mention here that the main results in this paper are recently extended to the higher order Lorentz--Sobolev spaces defined in the hyperbolic spaces by the author in \cite{Nguyen2020,Nguyen2020Adams}.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we give some basses on the hyperbolic spaces $\H^n$ and the Lorentz--Sobolev spaces $W^1 L^{p,q}(\H^n)$, and prove the P\'olya--Szeg\"o type principle in $W^1 L^{p,q}(\H^n)$. The proof of Theorem \ref{Poincare} is given in Section \S3. Theorem \ref{PoincareSobolev} is proved in Section \S4. Finally , we prove Theorem \ref{3rdMT} in Section \S5.
\section{Preliminaries}
We start this section by briefly recalling some basis facts on the hyperbolic spaces and the Lorentz--Sobolev space defined in the hyperbolic spaces. Let $n\geq 2$, a hyperbolic space of dimension $n$ (denoted by $\H^n$) is a complete , simply connected Riemannian manifold having constant sectional curvature $-1$. There are several models for the hyperbolic space $\H^n$ such as the half-space model, the hyperboloid (or Lorentz) model and the Poincar\'e ball model. Notice that all these models are Riemannian isometry. In this paper, we are interested in the Poincar\'e ball model of the hyperbolic space since this model is very useful for questions involving rotational symmetry. In the Poincar\'e ball model, the hyperbolic space $\H^n$ is the open unit ball $B_n\subset \R^n$ equipped with the Riemannian metric
\[
g(x) = \Big(\frac2{1- |x|^2}\Big)^2 dx \otimes dx.
\]
The volume element of $\H^n$ with respect to the metric $g$ is given by
\[
dV_g(x) = \Big(\frac 2{1 -|x|^2}\Big)^n dx,
\]
where $dx$ is the usual Lebesgue measure in $\R^n$. For $x \in B_n$, let $d(0,x)$ denote the geodesic distance between $x$ and the origin, then we have $d(0,x) = \ln (1+|x|)/(1 -|x|)$. For $\rho \geqs 0$, $B(0,\rho)$ denote the geodesic ball with center at origin and radius $\rho$. If we denote by $\na$ and $\Delta$ the Euclidean gradient and Euclidean Laplacian, respectively as well as $\la \cdot, \cdot\ra$ the standard scalar product in $\R^n$, then the hyperbolic gradient $\na_g$ and the Laplace--Beltrami operator $\Delta_g$ in $\H^n$ with respect to metric $g$ are given by
\[
\na_g = \Big(\frac{1 -|x|^2}2\Big)^2 \na,\quad \Delta_g = \Big(\frac{1 -|x|^2}2\Big)^2 \Delta + (n-2) \Big(\frac{1 -|x|^2}2\Big)\la x, \na \ra,
\]
respectively. For a function $u$, we shall denote $\sqrt{g(\na_g u, \na_g u)}$ by $|\na_g u|_g$ for simplifying the notation. Finally, for a radial function $u$ (i.e., the function depends only on $d(0,x)$) we have the following polar coordinate formula
\begin{equation}\label{eq:polar}
\int_{\H^n} u(x) dx = n \sigma_n \int_0^\infty u(\rho) \sinh^{n-1}(\rho)\, d\rho.
\end{equation}
It is now known that the symmetrization argument works well in the setting of the hyperbolic. It is the key tool in the proof of several important inequalities such as the Poincar\'e inequality, the Sobolev inequality, the Moser--Trudinger inequality in $\H^n$. We shall see that this argument is also the key tool to establish the main results in the present paper. Let us recall some facts about the rearrangement argument in the hyperbolic space $\H^n$. A measurable function $u:\H^n \to \R$ is called vanishing at the infinity if for any $t >0$ the set $\{|u| > t\}$ has finite $V_g-$measure, i.e.,
\[
V_g(\{|u|> t\}) = \int_{\{|u|> t\}} dV_g < \infty.
\]
For such a function $u$, its distribution function is defined by
\[
\mu_u(t) = V_g( \{|u|> t\}).
\]
Notice that $t \to \mu_u(t)$ is non-increasing and right-continuous. The non-increasing rearrangement function $u^*$ of $u$ is defined by
\[
u^*(t) = \sup\{s > 0\, :\, \mu_u(s) > t\}.
\]
The non-increasing, spherical symmetry, rearrangement function $u^\sharp$ of $u$ is defined by
\[
u^\sharp(x) = u^*(V_g(B(0,d(0,x)))),\quad x \in \H^n.
\]
It is well-known that $u$ and $u^\sharp$ have the same non-increasing rearrangement function (which is $u^*$). Finally, the maximal function $u^{**}$ of $u^*$ is defined by
\[
u^{**}(t) = \frac1t \int_0^t u^*(s) ds.
\]
Evidently, $u^*(t) \leq u^{**}(t)$.
For $1\leq p, q < \infty$, the Lorentz space $L^{p,q}(\H^n)$ is defined as the set of all measurable function $u: \H^n \to \R$ satisfying
\[
\|u\|_{L^{p,q}(\H^n)}: = \lt(\int_0^\infty \lt(t^{\frac1p} u^*(t)\rt)^q \frac{dt}t\rt)^{\frac1q} < \infty.
\]
It is clear that $L^{p,p}(\H^n) = L^p(\H^n)$. Moreover, the Lorentz spaces are monotone with respect to second exponent, namely
\[
L^{p,q_1}(\H^n) \subsetneq L^{p,q_2}(\H^n),\quad 1\leq q_1 < q_2 < \infty.
\]
The functional $ u\to \|u\|_{L^{p,q}(\H^n)}$ is not a norm in $L^{p,q}(\H^n)$ except the case $q \leq p$ (see \cite[Chapter $4$, Theorem $4.3$]{Bennett}). In general, it is a quasi-norm which turns out to be equivalent to the norm obtained replacing $u^*$ by its maximal function $u^{**}$ in the definition of $\|\cdot\|_{L^{p,q}(\H^n)}$. Moreover, as a consequence of Hardy inequality, we have
\begin{proposition}\label{hardy}
Given $p\in (1,\infty)$ and $q \in [1,\infty)$. Then for any function $u \in L^{p,q}(\H^n)$ it holds
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Hardy}
\lt(\int_0^\infty \lt(t^{\frac1p} u^{**}(t)\rt)^q \frac{dt}t\rt)^{\frac1q} \leq \frac p{p-1} \lt(\int_0^\infty \lt(t^{\frac1p} u^*(t)\rt)^q \frac{dt}t\rt)^{\frac1q} = \frac p{p-1} \|u\|_{L^{p,q}(\H^n)}.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
For $1\leq p, q \leqs \infty$, we define the first order Lorentz--Sobolev space $W^1L^{p,q}(\H^n)$ by taking the completion of $C_0^\infty(\H^n)$ under the quasi-norm
\[
\|\na_g u\|_{p,q} := \| |\na_g u|_g\|_{p,q}.
\]
It is obvious that $W^1L^{p,p}(\H^n) = W^{1,p}(\H^n)$ the first order Sobolev space in $\H^n$. The P\'olya--Szeg\"o principle in the hyperbolic spaces asserts that if $u\in W^{1,p}(\H^n)$ then $u^\sharp \in W^{1,p}(\H^n)$ and
$$\int_{\H^n} |\na_g u^\sharp|_g^p dV_g \leq \int_{\H^n} |\na_g u|_g^p dV_g.$$
This principle is very useful to find the sharp constant in several inequalities concerning to the $L^p$ norm of hyperbolic gradient. In the next result, we extend the P\'olya--Szeg\"o principle to the Lorenz--Sobolev spaces $W^1L^{p,q}(\H^n)$.
\begin{theorem}\label{PS}
Let $n\geq 2$, $1\leq q \leq p \leqs \infty$ and $u\in W^{1}L^{p,q}(\H^n)$. Then $u^\sharp \in W^{1}L^{p,q}(\H^n)$ and
$$\|\na_g u^\sharp\|_{p,q} \leq \|\na_g u\|_{p,q}.$$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Since $(|u|)^\sharp = u^\sharp$ and $|\na_g |u||_g \leq |\na_g u|_g$, hence it is enough to prove Theorem \ref{PS} for nonnegative function $u\in W^1L^{p,q}(\H^n)$. Moreover, by the density, it is sufficient to assume that $u \in C_0^\infty(\H^n)$.
Let $u$ be a nonnegative function in $C_0^\infty(\H^n)$ with support $\Om\subset \H^n$. Following \cite{Alvino1989} we consider a function $U$ built from $|\na_g u|_g$ on the level sets of $u$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:builtU}
\int_{\{u > t\}} |\na_g u|_g dV_g = \int_0^{V_g(\{u> t\})} U(s) ds,
\end{equation}
for any $t >0$. Notice that $U \prec |\na_g u|_g$ in the sense that
\[
\int_0^t U^*(s) ds \leq \int_0^t (|\na_g u|_g)^*(s) ds,\quad \forall\, t \in [0, V_g(\Om)),
\]
and
\[
\int_0^{V_g(\Om)} U^*(s) ds \leq \int_0^{V_g(\Om)} (|\na_g u|_g)^*(s) ds.
\]
From \eqref{eq:builtU}, we have by differentiating in $t$,
\[
-U(\mu_u(t)) \mu_u'(t) = \int_{\{u=t\}} \lt(\frac 2{1-|x|^2}\rt)^{n-1} d\mathcal H^{n-1}(x).
\]
Let us define the function
$$\Psi(r)= V_g(B(0,r)) = n \sigma_n \int_0^r \sinh^{n-1}(s) ds, r\geq 0.$$
Let $F$ denote the inverse function of $\Psi$, i.e., $\Psi(F(r)) =r$ for any $r \geq 0$. If we denote by $\rho(t)$ the radius of the geodesic ball in $\H^n$ with volume equal to $\mu_u(t)$, then $\rho(t) = F(\mu_u(t))$. By isoperimertric inequality \cite{Bogelein}, we have
\begin{align*}
-U(\mu_u(t)) \mu_u'(t) &= \int_{\{u=t\}} \lt(\frac 2{1-|x|^2}\rt)^{n-1} d\mathcal H^{n-1}(x)\\
&\geq \int_{\pa B(0,\rho(t))} \lt(\frac 2{1-|x|^2}\rt)^{n-1} d\mathcal H^{n-1}(x)\\
&= n \sigma_n \sinh^{n-1} (F(\mu_u(t))).
\end{align*}
Consequently, we get
\[
(-u^*)'(s) \leq \frac{U(s)}{n \sigma_n \sinh^{n-1}(F(s))}, \quad s\in (0, V_g(\Om)).
\]
Define the function
\[
v(x) = \int_{V_g(B(0,d(0,x))}^{V_g(\Om)} \frac{U(s)}{n \sigma_n \sinh^{n-1}(F(s))} ds,
\]
for $x \in \Om^\sharp$, where $\Om^\sharp$ denotes the geodesic ball in $\H^n$ with volume $V_g(\Om)$. Extending $v =0$ for $x\in \H^n \setminus \Om^\sharp$. We have $u^\sharp(x) \leq v(x)$ for any $x \in \H^n$. We have
\[
|\na_g u^\sharp(x)|_g \leq |\na_g v(x)|_g = U(V_g(B(0,d(x)))) \prec |\na_g u(x)|_g.
\]
Consequently, we get $(|\na_g u^\sharp|_g)^* \prec (|\na_g u|_g)^*$ in $(0,V_g(\Om))$. Since $q \leq p$, then Proposition $1$ in \cite{CassaniTarsi2009} (or Corollary $2.1$ in \cite{Alvino1989}), we have
\[
\int_0^{V_g(\Om)} ((|\na_g u^\sharp|_g)^*(t))^q t^{\frac qp -1} dt \leq \int_0^{V_g(\Om)} (|\na_g u|_g)^*(t) ((|\na_g u^\sharp|_g)^*(t))^{q-1} t^{\frac qp -1} dt.
\]
Applying H\"older inequality, we get $ \|\na_g u^\sharp\|_{L^{p,q}(\H^n)} \leq \|\na_g u\|_{L^{p,q}(\H^n)}$ as desired.
\end{proof}
The next proposition is the key in the proof of Theorem \ref{PoincareSobolev} and Theorem \ref{3rdMT}.
\begin{proposition}\label{keyprop}
Given $n\geq 3$, $1< p < \infty$ and $\frac{2n}{n-1} \leq q \leq p$. Let $u\in W^{1}L^{p,q}(\H^n)$ be a radially symmetric non-increasing function, and $u^*$ be its non-increasing rearrangement function. Define $v(r) =u^*(\sigma_n r^n)$, $r\geq 0$. Then it holds
\begin{equation}\label{eq:keyestimate}
\|\na_g u\|_{p,q}^q - \lt(\frac{n-1}p\rt)^q \|u\|_{p,q}^q \geq n \sigma_n^{\frac qp}\int_0^\infty |v'(r)|^q r^{\frac{nq}p -1} dr.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $U$ be the function built from $|\na_g u|_g$ on the level sets of $u$. Since $u$ is radially symmetric, then we have
\[
U(V_g(B(0,d(0,x)))) = |\na_g u(x)|_g.
\]
Since $q \leq p$, by Hardy--Littlewood inequality, it holds that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:gradientLorentz}
\int_0^\infty U(t)^q t^{\frac qp -1} dt \leq \int_0^\infty (U^*(t))^q t^{\frac qp -1} dt = \int_0^\infty ((|\na_g u|_g)^*(t))^q t^{\frac qp -1} dt = \|\na_g u\|_{p,q}^q.
\end{equation}
From the proof of Theorem \ref{PS}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:u*}
u^*(t) = \int_t^\infty \frac{U(s)}{n \sigma_n \sinh^{n-1}(F(s))} ds.
\end{equation}
From the equality $\Psi(F(r)) = r$ or equivalently
\[
r = n \sigma_n \int_0^{F(r)} \sinh^{n-1} (s) ds, \quad r\geq 0,
\]
it is easy to verify that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:estF}
n\sigma_n \sinh^{n-1}(F(r)) > (n-1)r,\quad \forall\, r > 0,
\end{equation}
$\sinh^{n-1}(F(r)) \sim r $ as $r \to \infty$ and $\sinh^{n-1} (F(r)) \sim r^{\frac {n-1}n} $ as $r \to 0$. Consequently, we have the following estimates
\begin{equation}\label{eq:dangdieuu*}
\lim_{r\to 0} u^*(r) r^{\frac {n-p}{np}} = \lim_{r\to \infty} u^*(r) r^{\frac 1p} = 0.
\end{equation}
It follows from \eqref{eq:gradientLorentz} and \eqref{eq:u*} that
\[
\|\na_g u\|_{p,q}^q \geq \int_0^\infty |(u^*)'(t)|^q (n \sigma_n \sinh^{n-1}(F(t)))^q t^{\frac qp -1} dt.
\]
Since $q \geq \frac{2n}{n-1}$, then we have from \cite[Lemma $2.1$]{NguyenPS2018} that
\[
\sinh^{q(n-1)}(F(t)) \geq \lt(\frac t{\sigma_n}\rt)^{q\frac{n-1}n} + \lt(\frac{n-1}n\rt)^q \lt(\frac t{\sigma_n}\rt)^q,
\]
since $F(t) = \Phi^{-1}(t/\sigma_n)$ with $\Phi$ being defined by \cite[Formula $(2.6)$]{NguyenPS2018}. Plugging this estimate into the preceding one, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq:key1}
\|\na_g u\|_{p,q}^q \geq n^q \sigma_n^{\frac qn} \int_0^\infty |(u^*)'(t)|^q t^{q\frac{n-1}n + \frac qp -1} dt + (n-1)^q \int_0^\infty |(u^*)'(t)|^q t^{q + \frac{q}p -1} dt.
\end{equation}
Notice that $v'(r) = (u^*)'(\sigma_n r^n) n \sigma_n r^{n-1}$, so by a simple change of variable $t = \sigma_n r^n$ we get
\begin{equation}\label{eq:doibien}
n^q \sigma_n^{\frac qn} \int_0^\infty |(u^*)'(t)|^q t^{q\frac{n-1}n + \frac qp -1} dt = n \sigma_n^{\frac qp} \int_0^\infty |v'(r)|^q r^{n\frac qp -1} dr.
\end{equation}
Making the change of function $u^*(t) = w(t) t^{-\frac1p}$, we have
\[
0\leq (u^*)'(t) = -w'(t) t^{-\frac1p} + \frac1p w(t) t^{-\frac 1p -1}.
\]
We can readily check that if $b -a \geq 0, b\geq 0$ and $q \geq 2$ then
\[
(b-a)^q \geq b^q + |a|^q -q a b^{q-1}.
\]
By this inequality, we have
\begin{align*}
\int_0^\infty |(u^*)'(t)|^q t^{q + \frac{q}p -1} dt &\geq \frac1{p^q} \int_0^\infty (u^*(t))^q t^{\frac qp -1} dt + \int_0^\infty |w'(t)|^q t^{q-1} dt\\
&\quad -\frac{q}{p^{q-1}} \int_0^\infty w'(t) w(t)^{q-1} dt
\end{align*}
Using integration by parts and \eqref{eq:dangdieuu*}, we get
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Hardy1dim}
\int_0^\infty |(u^*)'(t)|^q t^{q + \frac{q}p -1} dt \geq \frac1 {p^q} \int_0^\infty u^*(t)^q t^{\frac qp -1} dt + \int_0^\infty |w'(t)|^q t^{q-1} dt \geq \frac1{p^q} \|u\|_{p,q}^q.
\end{equation}
Inserting \eqref{eq:Hardy1dim} and \eqref{eq:doibien} into \eqref{eq:key1} we obtain \eqref{eq:keyestimate}. This finishes the proof of this proposition.
\end{proof}
In the proof of Theorem \ref{PoincareSobolev}, we shall need the following sharp Sobolev inequality with the fractional dimension (see \cite[Proposition $1.1$]{NguyenPLMS})
\begin{lemma}\label{Sobolevfract}
Let $\beta \geqs q \geqs 1$. Then there exists a constant $C \geqs 0$ such that
\[
\int_0^\infty |w'(r)|^q r^{\beta -1} dr \geq C \lt(\int_0^\infty |w(r)|^{\frac{\beta q}{\beta -q}} r^{\beta -1} dr\rt)^{\frac{\beta -q}{\beta}}.
\]
Furthermore, if we denote by $S(\beta,q)$ the sharp constant in the preceding inequality then equality holds if $w(r) =(1 + r^{q/(q-1)})^{-(\beta -q)/q}$.
\end{lemma}
Notice that when $\beta$ is an integer then the Lemma above is exactly the sharp Sobolev inequality of Talenti \cite{Talenti1976} and Aubin \cite{Aubin1976} applied to radially symmetric functions.
A direct computation shows that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Sbetaq}
S(\beta,q) = \beta\lt(\frac{\beta -q}{q-1}\rt)^{q-1}\lt[\frac{q-1}q \frac{\Gamma(\frac\be q) \Gamma(\frac{\beta(q-1)}q)}{\Gamma(\beta)}\rt]^{\frac q\beta}.
\end{equation}
\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{Poincare}}
In this section, we prove Theorems \ref{Poincare}. Obviously, Theorem \ref{Poincare} is a consequence of Proposition \ref{keyprop} when $\frac{2n}{n-1} \leq q \leq p$. Here, we give the proof for any $q \leq p$. In fact, we shall use some estimates in the proof of Proposition \ref{keyprop}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{Poincare}]
It follows from the P\'olya--Szeg\"o principle from Theorem \ref{PS} that it is sufficient to prove Theorem \ref{Poincare} for radially symmetric non-increasing function $u\in W^1 L^{p,q}(\H^n)$. Let $u\in W^1L^{p,q}(\H^n)$ be such a function, and let $U$ be the function built from $\na_g u$ on the level sets of $u$. Since $q \leq p$, then the estimate \eqref{eq:gradientLorentz} holds. Hence, using integration by parts, the estimates \eqref{eq:dangdieuu*} and H\"older inequality, we have
\begin{align*}
\int_0^\infty (u^*(s))^q t^{\frac qp -1} dt & = \frac pq \int_0^\infty (u^*(s))^q d t^{\frac qp}\\
&= p \int_0^\infty (u^*(t))^{q-1} t^{\frac {q-1}p} \frac{t^{\frac 1p +1} U(t)}{n \sigma_n \sinh^{n-1} (F(t))} \frac{dt}t\\
&\leq \lt(\int_0^\infty(t^{\frac1p} u^*(s))^q \frac{dt}t \rt)^{\frac{q-1}p } \lt(\int_0^\infty (t^{\frac1p} U(t))^q \lt(\frac t{n \sigma_n \sinh^{n-1} (F(t))}\rt)^q \frac{dt}t\rt)^{\frac1q}.
\end{align*}
Whence, it holds
\begin{align}\label{eq:PSL}
\|u\|_{p,q} &\leq p\lt(\int_0^\infty (t^{\frac1p} U(t))^q \lt(\frac t{n \sigma_n \sinh^{n-1} (F(t))}\rt)^q \frac{dt}t\rt)^{\frac1q}\notag\\
& \leq \frac{p}{n-1} \lt(\int_0^\infty (t^{\frac1p} U(t))^q \frac{dt}t\rt)^{\frac1q} \notag\\
&\leq \frac p{n-1} \|\na_g u\|_{p,q}
\end{align}
here we used \eqref{eq:estF}. This proves \eqref{eq:PoincareLorentz}.
We next check the sharpness of the constant $(n-1)^q/p^q$ in \eqref{eq:PoincareLorentz}. For $0< a < R$, let us define the function
\[
f_{a,R}(s) = \begin{cases}
a^{-\frac1p} &\mbox{if $s \in (0,a)$},\\
s^{-\frac1p} &\mbox{if $s\in [a,R)$,}\\
R^{-\frac1p} \max\{2 -s/R,0\} &\mbox{if $s \geq R$},
\end{cases}
\]
and
\[
u_{a,R}(x) = f_{a,R}(V_g(B(0,d(0,x)))).
\]
Notice that $f_{a,R}$ is non-increasing function. Hence, by direct computations we get
\[
\|u_{a,R}\|_{p,q}^q = \int_0^\infty f_{a,R}(s)^q s^{\frac qp -1} ds = \frac pq + \ln \frac Ra + \int_1^2 (2-s)^q s^{\frac qp -1} ds.
\]
Furthermore, we have
\[
f_{a,R}'(s) = \begin{cases}
0 &\mbox{if $s \in (0,a)$ or $s \geqs 2R$},\\
-\frac1p s^{-\frac1p -1} &\mbox{if $a \leqs s \leqs R$,}\\
-R^{-\frac1p-1} &\mbox{if $R \leqs s \leqs 2R$},
\end{cases}
\]
and
\[
|\na_g u_{a,R}(x)|_g = -f_{a,R}'(V_g(B(0,d(0,x)))) n\sigma_n \sinh^{n-1} (d(0,x)) = U_{a,R}(V_g(B(0,d(0,x))))
\]
with
\[
U_{a,R}(s) = -f_{a,R}'(s) n \sigma_n \sinh^{n-1} (F(s)).
\]
Since $F(r) \to \infty$ as $r \to \infty$, then we can check that
\[
\lim_{r\to \infty} \frac{n \sigma_n \sinh^{n-1}(F(r))}{r} = \frac1{n-1}.
\]
For any $\epsilon \geqs 0$, we can choose $a \geqs 0$ such that
\[
n \sigma_n \sinh^{n-1}(F(r)) \leq (1 + \epsilon) (n-1) r,\quad\forall\, r\geq a.
\]
For $(2p)^{-p}R \geqs a$, it is easy to see that $U_{a,R} \leq (n-1)(1+\ep) h(s)$ with
\[
h(s) = \begin{cases}
a^{-\frac 1p} &\mbox{if $s \in (0,a)$ or $s \geq 2R$},\\
\frac1p s^{-\frac1p} &\mbox{if $a \leq s \leqs (2p)^{-p}R$,}\\
2R^{-\frac1p} &\mbox{if $(2p)^{-p}R \leq s \leqs 2R$,}\\
0 &\mbox{if $s \geq 2R$}.
\end{cases}
\]
Note that $h$ is non-increasing function. Hence, it holds
\begin{align*}
\|\na_g u_{a,R}\|_{p,q}^q &= \int_0^\infty (U_{a,R}^*(t))^q t^{\frac qp -1} dt\\
&\leq (n-1)^q(1+\ep)^q \int_0^\infty h(s)^q t^{\frac qp -1} dt\\
&=(n-1)^q(1+\ep)^q \lt(\frac{p}q + \frac1{p^q} \Big(\ln R -p \ln(2p) -\ln a\Big) + \frac{2^q p}q \Big(2^{\frac qp} - (2p)^{-q}\Big)\rt).
\end{align*}
Consequently, we obtain
\[
\inf_{u\in W^1L^{p,q}(\H^n), u\not\equiv 0} \frac{\|\na_g u\|_{p,q}^q}{\|u\|_{p,q}^q} \leq \limsup_{R\to \infty} \frac{\|\na_g u_{a,R}\|_{p,q}^q}{\|u_{a,R}\|_{p,q}^q} \leq (1+ \epsilon)^q\frac{(n-1)^q}{p^q}.
\]
Since $\epsilon \geqs 0$ is arbitrary, then we get
\[
\inf_{u\in W^1L^{p,q}(\H^n), u\not\equiv 0} \frac{\|\na_g u\|_{p,q}^q}{\|u\|_{p,q}^q} \leq \frac{(n-1)^q}{p^q}.
\]
This shows that $(n-1)^q/p^q$ is the sharp constant in \eqref{eq:PoincareLorentz}.
From the estimate \eqref{eq:PSL}, we see that if $u\not\equiv 0$ then the second inequality is strict since $ n\sigma_n \sinh^{n-1}(F(t)) > (n-1) t$ for $t > 0$. Consequently, the constant $(n-1)^q/p^q$ in \eqref{eq:PoincareLorentz} is not attained by a non-zero function $u$.
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{PoincareSobolev}}
This section is addressed to prove Theorem \ref{PoincareSobolev}. The proof is based on Theorem \ref{PS}, Proposition \ref{keyprop} and the weighted Sobolev inequality.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{PoincareSobolev}]
By the P\'olya--Szeg\"o principle from Theorem \ref{PS}, it is enough to prove Theorem \ref{PoincareSobolev} for radially symmetric non-increasing functions $u \in W^1 L^{p,q}(\H^n)$. For $r \geq 0$, we define $v(r) = u^*(\sigma_n r^n)$. Since $\frac{2n}{n-1} \leq q \leq p$, from Proposition \ref{keyprop} we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:a1}
\|\na_g u\|_{p,q}^q - \lt(\frac{n-1}p\rt)^q \|u\|_{p,q}^q \geq n \sigma_n^{\frac qp}\int_0^\infty |v'(r)|^q r^{\frac{nq}p -1} dr.
\end{equation}
Making the change of function $v(r) =w(r) r^{-\frac{n-p}p}$, we have
\[
0\leq -v'(r) = -w'(r) r^{-\frac{n-p}p} + \frac{n-p}p w(r) r^{-\frac{n-p}p -1}.
\]
Moreover, it follows from \eqref{eq:dangdieuu*} that
\[
\lim_{r\to 0} w(r) = \lim_{r\to\infty} w(r) =0.
\]
By the convexity of function $t \to |t|^q$, the integration by parts and the asymptotic behavior of $w$ above, we have
\begin{align*}
\int_0^\infty |v'(r)|^q r^{\frac{nq}p -1} dr&\geq \lt(\frac{n-p}p\rt)^q \int_0^\infty v(r)^q r^{n\frac{q}p -q -1} dr + \lt(\frac{n-p}p\rt)^{q-1} \int_0^\infty (w(r)^q)' dr\\
&=\lt(\frac{n-p}p\rt)^q \frac1{n \sigma_n^{\frac q{p^*}}} \|u\|_{p^*,q}^q.
\end{align*}
Consequently, we obtain
\[
\|\na_g u\|_{p,q}^q - \lt(\frac{n-1}p\rt)^q \|u\|_{p,q}^q \geq \lt(\frac{n-p}p\rt)^q \sigma_n^{\frac qn} \|u\|_{p^*,q}^q.
\]
This proves \eqref{eq:PSLorentz1} for $l = q$.
For $q\leqs l \leq \frac{nq}{n-p}$, we let $\alpha = \frac{nq -l(n-p)}p \in [0,q)$. Making the change of function $v(r) = w(r^{\frac{q-\al}q})$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:a2}
\int_0^\infty |v'(r)|^q r^{\frac{nq}p -1} dr = \lt(\frac{q-\al}q\rt)^{q-1} \int_0^\infty |w'(r)|^q r^{\frac{(nq -p\al)q}{p(q-\al)} -1} dr.
\end{equation}
Notice that $\frac{(nq -p\al)q}{p(q-\al)} \geqs q$ since $p \leqs n$. Lemma \ref{Sobolevfract} implies
\begin{align*}
\int_0^\infty |w'(r)|^q r^{\frac{(nq -p\al)q}{p(q-\al)} -1} dr&\geq S\Big(\frac{(nq -p\al)q}{p(q-\al)},q\Big) \lt(\int_0^\infty w(r)^{\frac{nq -p\al}{n-p}} r^{\frac{(nq -p\al)q}{p(q-\al)} -1} dr\rt)^{\frac{q(n-p)}{nq -p\al}}\\
&=S\Big(\frac{lq}{l-p},q\Big) \lt(\int_0^\infty w(s)^l s^{\frac{nl}{p^*} \frac q{q-\al} -1} ds\rt)^{\frac ql}\\
&= S\Big(\frac{lq}{l-p},q\Big) \Big(\frac{(n-p)(l-q)}{qp}\Big)^{\frac ql} \lt(\int_0^\infty v(s)^l s^{\frac{nl}{p^*} -1} ds\rt)^{\frac ql}\\
&= S\Big(\frac{lq}{l-p},q\Big) \Big(\frac{(n-p)(l-q)}{qp}\Big)^{\frac ql} n^{-\frac ql} \sigma_n^{-\frac q{p^*}} \lt(\int_0^\infty (u^*(t))^l t^{\frac l{p^*} -1} dt\rt)^{\frac ql}\\
&= S\Big(\frac{lq}{l-p},q\Big) \Big(\frac{(n-p)(l-q)}{qp}\Big)^{\frac ql} n^{-\frac ql} \sigma_n^{-\frac q{p^*}} \|u\|_{p^*,l}^q,
\end{align*}
here we make the change of variable $r =s^{\frac{q-\al}q}$ in the first equality, and $t = \sigma_n s^n$ in the second equality. Combining the previous estimate together with \eqref{eq:a1} and \eqref{eq:a2} yields
\begin{align*}
\|\na_g u\|_{p,q}^q - \lt(\frac{n-1}p\rt)^q \|u\|_{p,q}^q \geq n^{1-\frac ql} \sigma_n^{\frac qn} \Big(\frac{(n-p)(l-q)}{qp}\Big)^{q+\frac ql -1} S\Big(\frac{lq}{l-p},q\Big) \|u\|_{p^*,l}^q
\end{align*}
as wanted. This proves the inequality \eqref{eq:PSLorentz1}.
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{3rdMT}}
In this section, we prove Theorem \ref{3rdMT}. The proof is based on Proposition \ref{keyprop} and the Moser--Trudinger inequality involving to the fractional dimension in Lemma \ref{MT} below. Let $\theta \geqs 1$, we denote by $\lam_\theta$ the measure on $[0,\infty)$ of density
\[
d\lam_{\theta} = \theta \sigma_{\theta} x^{\theta -1} dx, \quad \sigma_{\theta} = \frac{ \pi^{\frac\theta 2}}{\Gamma(\frac\theta 2+ 1)}.
\]
For $0\leqs R \leq \infty$ and $1\leq p \leqs \infty$, we denote by $L_\theta^p(0,R)$ the weighted Lebesgue space of all measurable functions $u: (0,R) \to \R$ for which
\[
\|u\|_{L^p_\theta(0,R)}= \lt(\int_0^R |u|^p d\lam_\theta\rt)^{\frac1p} \leqs \infty.
\]
Besides, we define
\[
W^{1,p}_{\al,\theta}(0,R) =\Big\{u\in L^p_\theta(0,R)\, :\, u' \in L_\alpha^p(0,R),\,\, \lim_{x\to R^{-}} u(x) =0\Big\}, \quad \al, \theta \geqs 1.
\]
In \cite{deOliveira}, de Oliveira and do \'O prove the following sharp Moser--Trudinger inequality involving the measure $\lam_\theta$: suppose $0 \leqs R \leqs \infty$ and $\alpha \geq 2, \theta \geq 1$, then
\begin{equation}\label{eq:MTOO}
D_{\al,\theta}(R) :=\sup_{u\in W^{1,\al}_{\al,\theta}(0,R),\, \|u'\|_{L^\alpha_\alpha(0,R)} \leq 1} \int_0^R e^{\mu_{\al,n} |u|^{\frac{\alpha}{\alpha -1}}} d\lam_\theta \leqs \infty
\end{equation}
where $\mu_{\al,\theta} = \theta \alpha^{\frac1{\al -1}} \sigma_{\al}^{\frac1{\alpha -1}}$. Denote $D_{\al,\theta} = D_{\al,\theta}(1)$. It is easy to see that $D_{\al,\theta}(R) = D_{\al,\theta} R^\theta$. We shall need the following result.
\begin{lemma}\label{MT}
Let $2\leq \alpha \leq n$. There exists a constant $C_{\alpha,n} \geqs 0$ such that for any $u \in W^{1,\alpha}_{\alpha,\alpha}(0,\infty)\cap L_n^n(0,\infty), $ $u' \leq 0$ and $\|u\|_{L^\alpha_\alpha(0,\infty)}^\alpha + \|u'\|_{L^\alpha_\alpha(0,\infty)}^\alpha\leq 1$, it holds
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Abreu}
\int_0^\infty \Phi_\alpha(\mu_{\al,n} |u|^{\frac \alpha{\alpha -1}}) d\lam_n \leq C_{\al,n}\big(1 + \|u\|_{L^n_n(0,\infty)}^n\big).
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We follow the argument in \cite{Ruf2005} by using the inequality \eqref{eq:MTOO}. Since $u'\leq 0$ then $u$ is non-increasing function. So, for any $r \geqs 0$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:pointwise}
u(r)^\alpha \leq \frac 1{\si_\al r^n}\int_0^r u(s)^\alpha d\lam_\alpha \leq \frac {\int_0^\infty u(s)^\alpha d\lam_\alpha}{\si_\al r^\alpha}.
\end{equation}
Fix a $R \geqs 0$, we define the function $w$ by $w(r) =u(r) -u(R)$ if $r \leqs R$ and $w(r) =0$ if $r \geqs R$. Then, $w \in W^{1,\alpha}_{\al,\al}(0,R)$ and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:tach}
\|w\|_{L^\al_\al(0,R)}^\al = \int_0^R |u'(s)|^\al d\lam_\alpha \leq 1 - \int_0^\infty |u|^\alpha d\lam_\alpha.
\end{equation}
For $r \leq R$, we have $u(r) = w(r) + u(R)$. Since $\alpha \geq 2$, then there exists a constant $C_\al \geqs 0$ depending only $\alpha$ such that
\[
u(r)^{\frac\alpha {\al -1}}\leq w(r)^{\frac\alpha {\al -1}} + C w(r)^{\frac1{\alpha -1}} u(R) + u(R)^{\frac\alpha {\al -1}}.
\]
By Young's inequality and \eqref{eq:pointwise}, we obtain
\begin{align}\label{eq:b1}
u(r)^{\frac\alpha {\al -1}} &\leq w(r)^{\frac\alpha {\al -1}} \lt(1 + \frac{C}{\al} u(R)^\alpha\rt) + \frac{\al-1}\al + u(R)^{\frac\alpha {\al -1}}\notag\\
&\leq w(r)^{\frac\alpha {\al -1}} \lt(1 + \frac{C\int_0^\infty u(s)^\alpha d\lam_\alpha}{\al \si_\al R^\al}\rt) + \frac{\al-1}{\alpha} + \lt(\frac1{\si_\al R^\al}\rt)^{\frac1{\al-1}}.
\end{align}
Choosing $R \geq 1$ large enough such that $\frac{C}{\al \si_\al R^\al} \leq 1$, and set
\[
v(r) = w(r) \lt(1 + \frac{C\int_0^\infty u(s)^\alpha d\lam_\alpha}{\al \si_\al R^\al}\rt)^{\frac{\al-1}\al}.
\]
We have $v \in W^{1,\alpha}_{\al,\al}(0,R)$. Furthermore, there exists a constant $C_\al \geqs 1$ depending only on $\alpha$ such that $(1+ t)^{\alpha -1} \leq 1+ C_\al t$ for any $t\in [0,1]$. Hence, by \eqref{eq:tach} we have
\begin{align*}
\|v\|_{L^\al_\al(0,R)}^\al& = \|w\|_{L^\al_\al(0,R)}^\al\lt(1 + \frac{C}{\al \si_\al R^\al}\rt)^{\alpha-1}\\
&\leq \lt(1 - \int_0^\infty u(s)^\alpha d\lam_\alpha\rt)\lt(1 + \frac{C\int_0^\infty u(s)^\alpha d\lam_\alpha}{\al \si_\al R^\al}\rt)^{\al -1}\\
&\leq \lt(1 - \int_0^\infty u(s)^\alpha d\lam_\alpha\rt)\lt(1 + \frac{C C_\al\int_0^\infty u(s)^\alpha d\lam_\alpha}{\al \si_\al R^\al}\rt)\\
&\leq 1 - \lt(1-\frac{C C_\al}{\al \si_\al R^\al}\rt)\int_0^\infty u(s)^\alpha d\lam_\alpha.
\end{align*}
We can choose a $R \geq 1$ large enough and depending only on $\al$ such that $1-\frac{C C_\al}{\al \si_\al R^\al} \geq 0$. For such a $R$, we have by \eqref{eq:MTOO} that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:lowR}
\int_0^R e^{\mu_{\al,n} v(s)^{\frac \al{\al-1}}} d\lam_n \leq D_{\al,n} R^n.
\end{equation}
For $r \geq R$, by \eqref{eq:pointwise} we have $u(r) \leq (\si_\al)^{-\frac1\al} R^{-1}$ so there is a constant $C(\al,n)$ depending only on $n$ and $\alpha$ such that
\[
\Phi_\al(\mu_{\al, n} u(r)^{\frac\al{\al-1}}) \leq C(\al,n) u(r)^n,
\]
here we use $(j_\al-1) \frac \al{\al-1} \geq n$ and the fact that $u$ is bounded from above by a constant depending only on $\alpha$. Consequently, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:upR}
\int_R^\infty \Phi_\al(\mu_{\al, n} u(r)^{\frac\al{\al-1}}) d\lam_n \leq C(\alpha,n) \|u\|_{L^n_n(0,\infty)}^n.
\end{equation}
Putting \eqref{eq:b1}, \eqref{eq:lowR}, \eqref{eq:upR} and the fact $R\geq 1$ together, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\int_0^\infty \Phi_\al(\mu_{\al, n} u(r)^{\frac\al{\al-1}}) d\lam_n&\leq \int_0^R e^{\mu_{\al, n} u(r)^{\frac\al{\al-1}}} d\lam_n + \int_R^\infty \Phi_\al(\mu_{\al, n} u(r)^{\frac\al{\al-1}}) d\lam_n\\
&\leq \int_0^R e^{\mu_{\al,n} v(r)^{\frac\al{\al-1}} + \mu_{\al,n}\lt(\frac{\al-1}\al + \si_\al^{-1/(\al-1)}\rt)} d\lam_n + C(\alpha,n) \|u\|_{L^n_n(0,\infty)}^n\\
&\leq e^{\mu_{\al,n}\lt(\frac{\al-1}\al + \si_\al^{-1/(\al-1)}\rt)} D_{\al,n} R^n + C(\alpha,n) \|u\|_{L^n_n(0,\infty)}^n\\
&\leq C_{\al,n}\big(1 + \|u\|_{L^n_n(0,\infty)}^n\big),
\end{align*}
for some constant $C_{\al,n} \geqs 0$ depending only on $n$ and $\alpha$.
\end{proof}
For any $\tau \geqs 0$ and $u \in W^{1,\alpha}_{\alpha,\alpha}(0,\infty)\cap L_n^n(0,\infty),$ such that $u' \leq 0$ and $\tau \|u\|_{L^\alpha_\alpha(0,\infty)}^\alpha + \|u'\|_{L^\alpha_\alpha(0,\infty)}^\alpha\leq 1$. Applying the inequality \eqref{eq:Abreu} to function $u_\tau(x) = u(\tau^{-\frac1\alpha} x)$ and making the change of variables, we get
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Abreu1}
\int_0^\infty \Phi_\alpha(\mu_{\al,n} |u|^{\frac \alpha{\alpha -1}}) d\lam_n \leq C_{\al,n}\lt(\frac{1}{\tau^{\frac n\alpha}} + \|u\|_{L^n_n(0,\infty)}^n\rt).
\end{equation}
We are now ready to prove Theorem \ref{3rdMT} by using Proposition \ref{keyprop} and the Moser--Trudinger inequality \eqref{eq:Abreu1}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{3rdMT}]
By the P\'olya--Szeg\"o principle from Theorem \ref{PS}, it is enough to prove Theorem \ref{3rdMT} for radially symmetric non-increasing function $u \in W^1 L^{n,q}(\H^n)$, i.e., we will prove the existence of a constant $C_{n,q,\lam} >0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:need}
\int_{\H^n} \Phi_q(\al_{n,q} u^{\frac q{q-1}}) dV_g \leq C_{n,q,\lam},
\end{equation}
for any radially symmetric, non-increasing function $u\in W^{1} L^{n,q}(\H^n)$ satisfying
$$\|\na_g u\|_{n,q}^q -\lam \|u\|_{n,q}^q\leq 1.$$
Let $u$ be such a function, we define $v(r) =u^*(\sigma_n r^n)$, we then have $\lim_{r\to \infty} v(r) =0$. Since $n\geq 4$ and $\frac{2n}{n-1} \leq q \leq n$, then by Proposition \ref{keyprop} we have
\[
\|\na_g u\|_{n,q}^q - \lt(\frac{n-1}n\rt)^q \|u\|_{n,q}^q \geq n \sigma_n^{\frac qn}\int_0^\infty |v'(r)|^q r^{q -1} dr
\]
For $\lam \leqs \big(\frac{n-1}n\big)^q$, denote $\tau = \big(\frac{n-1}n\big)^q -\lam \geqs 0$. So, we have
\[
1\geq \|\na_g u\|_{n,q}^q - \lam \|u\|_{n,q}^q \geq n \sigma_n^{\frac qn}\int_0^\infty |v'(r)|^q r^{q -1} dr + \tau \|u\|_{n,q}^q.
\]
We have
\[
\|u\|_{n,q}^q =\int_0^\infty (u^*(t))^q t^{\frac qn -1} dt = n \sigma_n^{\frac qn} \int_0^\infty v(r)^q r^{q -1} dr.
\]
Thus, it holds
\[
n \si_n^{\frac qn} \lt(\int_0^\infty |v'(r)|^q r^{q -1} dr + \tau \int_0^\infty v(r)^q r^{q -1} dr\rt)\leq 1.
\]
Set
\begin{equation}\label{eq:doiham}
w(r) = \lt(\frac{n \si_n^{\frac qn}}{q \si_q}\rt)^{\frac1q} v(r),
\end{equation}
we then have $w \in W^{1,q}_q(0,\infty)$ and $\|w'\|_{L^q_q(0,\infty)}^q + \tau \|w\|_{L^q_q(0,\infty)}^q \leq 1$. Applying \eqref{eq:Abreu1}, we get
\begin{equation}\label{eq:c1}
\int_0^\infty \Phi_q(\mu_{q,n} |w|^{\frac q{q -1}}) d\lam_n \leq C_{q,n}\lt(\frac{1}{ \tau^{\frac nq}} + \|w\|_{L^n_n(0,\infty)}^n\rt).
\end{equation}
Since $q \leq n$, then by \cite[Lemma $3.2$]{YangLi2019} there exists a constant $C >0$ depending on $n$ and $q$ such that
\[
\Big(\int_{\H^n} |u|^n dV_g\Big)^{\frac qn} \leq C \|\na_g u\|_{n,q}^q \leq C\frac{\big(\frac{n-1}n\big)^q}{\big(\frac{n-1}n\big)^q -\lam} (\|\na_g u\|_{n,q}^q -\lam \|u\|_{n,q}^q) \leq C\frac{\big(\frac{n-1}n\big)^q}{\big(\frac{n-1}n\big)^q -\lam},
\]
which implies
\[
\|v\|_{L^n_n(0,\infty)}^n = \int_0^\infty (u^*(t))^n dt =\int_{\H^n} |u|^n dV_g \leq \lt(C\frac{\big(\frac{n-1}n\big)^q}{\big(\frac{n-1}n\big)^q -\lam}\rt)^{\frac nq}.
\]
Consequently, there holds
\[
\|w\|_{L^n_n(0,\infty)}^n \leq \lt(C\frac{n \si_n^{\frac qn}}{q \si_q}\frac{\big(\frac{n-1}n\big)^q}{\big(\frac{n-1}n\big)^q -\lam}\rt)^{\frac nq}.
\]
Inserting this estimate and \eqref{eq:doiham} into \eqref{eq:c1}, we obtain
\[
\int_0^\infty \Phi_q(\al_{n,q} |v|^{\frac q{q -1}}) d\lam_n \leq \frac{\tilde C_{n,q}}{\tau^{\frac nq}},
\]
for some constant $\tilde C_{n,q} >0$ depending on $n$ and $q$, here we use $\mu_{q,n} = n q^{\frac 1{q-1}} \si_q^{\frac1{q-1}}$. In other hand, we have
\[
\int_{\H^n} \Phi_q(\al_{n,q} |u|^{\frac q{q-1}}) dV_g = \int_0^\infty \Phi_q(\al_{n,q} (u^*(t))^{\frac q{q-1}}) dt = \int_0^\infty \Phi_q\big(\al_{n,q} |v|^{\frac q{q -1}}\big) d\lam_n.
\]
Therefore, we have
\[
\int_{\H^n} \Phi_q(\al_{n,q} |u|^{\frac q{q-1}}) dV_g \leq \tilde C_{n,q}\lt(\Big(\frac{n-1}n\Big)^q - \lam\rt)^{-\frac nq}.
\]
This proves the inequality \eqref{eq:need}. The proof of Theorem \ref{3rdMT} is then completely finished.
\end{proof}
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
|
\section{Introduction}
In recent decades magnetic monopoles obtained within the framework of non-Abelian Yang-Mills theories find their applications to a wide variety of topics in theoretical physics,
including various problems in the standard model and its extensions, astrophysics, and cosmology~\cite{Shnir:2005}.
The simplest example of a regular localized monopole solution in SU(2) Yang-Mills theory is the well-known 't~Hooft-Polyakov monopole~\cite{tHooft:1974kcl,Polyakov:1974ek}.
The obligatory condition for its existence is the inclusion into the system of a triplet of Higgs scalar fields ensuring the presence of a topological charge.
A distinctive feature of such scalar fields is their nontrivial behaviour at spatial infinity. In this connection, one might suppose that, if it would be possible to find regular
monopole solutions without involving scalar fields, then they might already be topologically trivial. Consistent with this,
the main purpose of the present Letter is to demonstrate the possibility of the existence of monopole solutions without scalar fields, which are replaced by a nonlinear spinor field.
The study of nonlinear spinor fields was initiated by W.~Heisenberg in the 1950's. His main idea was the assumption that the nonlinear Dirac equation
can describe the internal structure of an electron. In other words, this equation is a fundamental equation which enables one to get all main characteristics
of an electron: its spin, charge, and mass. However, with the advent of quantum electrodynamics, further investigations in this direction were discontinued;
one of the reasons for that was that the theory based on the nonlinear Dirac equation is nonrenormalizable. Next time the nonlinear Dirac equation has
appeared as applied to an approximate description of hadrons within the Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model \cite{Nambu:1961tp} (for a review, see Ref.~\cite{Klevansky:1992qe}).
In that model, a nonlinear spinor field is not fundamental but is used as some approximation within QCD. Notice also that, unlike the Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model,
in the present work we study the nonlinear Dirac equation with a mass term.
In this Letter, we study topologically trivial monopole solutions in SU(2) Yang-Mills theory containing also a spinor field described by the nonlinear Dirac equation.
To do so, we seek monopole solutions with the source of magnetic field in the form of color charge created by the spinor field. We study here the energy spectrum of a spherically
symmetric system consisting of a SU(2) Yang-Mills field and a nonlinear spinor field. We show that in such a system there exist regular solutions possessing a finite energy
whose energy spectrum has a minimum. The reason for the appearance of such a minimum is the presence in the system of a nonlinear Dirac field.
In this connection, let us notice that the energy spectrum of regular solutions for a system supported only by a nonlinear spinor field was obtained
in the pioneering works~\cite{Finkelstein:1951zz,Finkelstein:1956} where it was shown that this spectrum has a minimum corresponding to ``the lightest stable particle.''
The Letter is organized as follows. In Sec.~\ref{YM_Dirac_scalar}, we write down the Lagrangian and general field equations for SU(2) Yang-Mills theory
containing a nonlinear spinor field. In Sec.~\ref{monopole_Dirac}, we present the {\it Ans\"{a}tze} for vector and spinor fields and also the corresponding equations.
Numerical solutions to these equations are sought in Sec.~\ref{monopole_Sols}, while in Sec.~\ref{MassGap}
we study their energy spectrum and show the presence of global minima.
\section{Theory of Yang-Mills fields coupled to a nonlinear Dirac field}
\label{YM_Dirac_scalar}
The Lagrangian describing a system consisting of a non-Abelian SU(2) field $A^a_\mu$ interacting with nonlinear spinor field $\psi$ can be taken in the form
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\mathcal L = & - \frac{1}{4} F^a_{\mu \nu} F^{a \mu \nu}
+ i \hbar c \bar \psi \gamma^\mu D_\mu \psi -
m_f c^2 \bar \psi \psi+
\frac{\Lambda}{2} g \hbar c \left( \bar \psi \psi \right)^2.
\label{1_10}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Here $m_f$ is the mass of the spinor field;
$
D_\mu = \partial_\mu - i \frac{g}{2} \sigma^a
A^a_\mu
$ is the gauge-covariant derivative, where $g$ is the coupling constant and $\sigma^a$ are the SU(2) generators (the Pauli matrices);
$
F^a_{\mu \nu} = \partial_\mu A^a_\nu - \partial_\nu A^a_\mu +
g \epsilon_{a b c} A^b_\mu A^c_\nu
$ is the field strength tensor for the SU(2) field, where $\epsilon_{a b c}$ (the completely antisymmetric Levi-Civita symbol)
are the SU(2) structure constants; $\Lambda$ is a constant; $\gamma^\mu$ are the Dirac matrices in the standard representation;
$a,b,c=1,2,3$ are color indices and $\mu, \nu = 0, 1, 2, 3$ are spacetime indices.
Using Eq.~\eqref{1_10}, the corresponding field equations can be written in the form
\begin{eqnarray}
D_\nu F^{a \mu \nu} &=& \frac{g \hbar c}{2}
\bar \psi \gamma^\mu \sigma^a \psi ,
\label{1_20}\\
i \hbar \gamma^\mu D_\mu \psi - m_f c \psi + \Lambda g \hbar \psi
\left(
\bar \psi \psi
\right)&=& 0.
\label{1_30}
\end{eqnarray}
Let us enumerate some distinctive features of the system under consideration:
(i)~The set of equations~\eqref{1_20} and \eqref{1_30} has
monopole-like solutions only for some special choices of the system parameters $f_2$ and $u_1$ [for their definition see Eq.~\eqref{T_series}];
(ii)~In the absence of the vector field $A^a_\mu$, there exist particlelike solutions of the nonlinear Dirac equation \eqref{1_30}
which describe a system possessing a minimum in the energy spectrum~\cite{Finkelstein:1951zz,Finkelstein:1956};
(iii)~In the absence of the spinor field, the Yang-Mills equation~\eqref{1_20} has no static globally regular solutions~\cite{Deser:1976wq};
(iv)~To the best of our knowledge,
in the case of linear spinor field (i.e., when $\Lambda=0$) the set of equations~\eqref{1_20} and \eqref{1_30} has no static regular solutions as well.
To obtain particlelike solutions, Eqs.~\eqref{1_20} and \eqref{1_30} will be solved numerically as an eigenvalue problem for the parameters
$f_2$ and $u_1$, since apparently it is impossible to find their analytical solution.
\section{ Ans\"{a}tze and equations }
\label{monopole_Dirac}
We seek monopole-like solutions to Eqs.~\eqref{1_20} and \eqref{1_30} describing objects consisting of a radial magnetic field and a nonlinear spinor field. For this purpose, we employ the standard SU(2) monopole {\it Ansatz}
\begin{eqnarray}
A^a_i &=& \frac{1}{g} \left[ 1 - f(r) \right]
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & \phantom{-}\sin \varphi & \sin \theta \cos \theta \cos \varphi \\
0 & -\cos \varphi & \sin \theta \cos \theta \sin \varphi \\
0 & 0 & - \sin^2 \theta
\end{pmatrix} , \quad
\nonumber \\
&&
i = r, \theta, \varphi \text{ (in polar coordinates)},
\label{2_10}\\
A^a_t &=& 0 ,
\label{2-13}
\end{eqnarray}
and the {\it Ansatz} for the spinor field from Refs.~\cite{Li:1982gf,Li:1985gf}
\begin{equation}
\psi^T = \frac{e^{-i \frac{E t}{\hbar}}}{g r \sqrt{2}}
\begin{Bmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
0 \\ - u \\
\end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix}
u \\ 0 \\
\end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix}
i v \sin \theta e^{- i \varphi} \\ - i v \cos \theta \\
\end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix}
- i v \cos \theta \\ - i v \sin \theta e^{i \varphi} \\
\end{pmatrix}
\end{Bmatrix},
\label{2_20}
\end{equation}
where $E/\hbar$ is the spinor frequency and the functions $u$ and $v$ depend on the radial coordinate $r$ only. In Eq.~\eqref{2_20}, each row describes a spin-$1/2$ fermion, and these two fermions have the same mass $m_f$ and opposite spins and are located at one point. Aside from this, for each of such fermions, the energy-momentum tensors will not be spherically symmetric (due to the existence of nondiagonal components), but their sum will give a tensor compatible with spherical symmetry of the system under consideration.
Equations for the unknown functions $f, u$, and $v$ can be obtained by substituting the expressions~\eqref{2_10}-\eqref{2_20} into the field equations~\eqref{1_20} and \eqref{1_30},
\begin{eqnarray}
- f^{\prime \prime} + \frac{f \left( f^2 - 1 \right) }{x^2} +
\tilde g^2\,\frac{\tilde u \tilde v}{x} &=& 0 ,
\label{2_30}\\
\tilde v' + \frac{f \tilde v}{x} &=& \tilde u \left(
- \tilde m_f + \tilde E +
\tilde \Lambda \frac{\tilde u^2 - \tilde v^2}{x^2}
\right) ,
\label{2_40}\\
\tilde u' - \frac{f \tilde u}{x} &=& \tilde v \left(
- \tilde m_f - \tilde E +
\tilde \Lambda \frac{\tilde u^2 - \tilde v^2}{x^2}
\right).
\label{2_50}
\end{eqnarray}
Here, for convenience of making numerical calculations, we have introduced the following dimensionless variables:
$x = r/r_0$, where $r_0$ is a constant corresponding to the characteristic size of the system under consideration;
$\tilde u=\sqrt{r_0}u/g,
\tilde v = \sqrt{r_0}v/g,
\tilde m_f = r_0 m_f c/\hbar,
\tilde E = r_0 E/(\hbar c),
\tilde \Lambda = \left(g /r_0^2\right)\Lambda
$, $\tilde g^2 = g^2 \hbar c$.
The prime denotes differentiation with respect to $x$.
The parameter $r_0$ must depend only on constants of a theory;
therefore one can take, say, $r_0 = \hbar/(m_f c)$.
The total energy density of the monopole-plus-spinor-fields system under consideration is
\begin{equation}
\tilde \epsilon =
\tilde{\epsilon}_m + \tilde \epsilon_s =\frac{1}{\tilde g^2}
\left[
\frac{{f'}^2}{ x^2} +
\frac{\left( f^2 - 1 \right)^2}{2 x^4}
\right] +
\left[
\tilde E \frac{\tilde u^2 + \tilde v^2}{x^2} +
\frac{\tilde\Lambda}{2}
\frac{\left(\tilde u^2 - \tilde v^2 \right)^2}{x^4}
\right],
\label{2_60}
\end{equation}
where the expressions in the square brackets correspond to
the dimensionless energy densities of the monopole, $\tilde{\epsilon}_m\equiv \left(r_0^4/\hbar c\right)\epsilon_m$,
and of the spinor field, $\tilde{\epsilon}_s\equiv \left(r_0^4/\hbar c\right)\epsilon_s$.
\section{Monopole-plus-spinor-fields solutions}
\label{monopole_Sols}
This section is devoted to the numerical study of monopole-plus-spinor-fields solutions of Eqs.~\eqref{2_30}-\eqref{2_50}. Because of the presence
of the terms containing $x$ in the denominators of these equations, to perform numerical computations, we assign boundary conditions near the origin
$x = 0$ where solutions are sought in the form of the Taylor series
\begin{equation}
f = 1 + \frac{f_2}{2} x^2 + \ldots ,\quad
\tilde u = \tilde u_1 x + \frac{\tilde u_3}{3!} x^3 + \ldots ,\quad
\tilde v = \frac{\tilde v_2}{2} x^2 + \frac{\tilde v_4}{4!} x^4 + \ldots ,
\label{T_series}
\end{equation}
where $\tilde v_2 = 2 \tilde u_1 \left(
\tilde E-\tilde m_f + \tilde\Lambda \tilde u_1^2
\right)/3$
and the expansion coefficients $f_2$ and $\tilde u_1$ are free parameters whose values cannot be found from Eqs.~\eqref{2_30}-\eqref{2_50}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{fields_x.eps}
\caption{The functions $\tilde u(x)/x$, $\tilde v(x)/x$, and $f(x)$ for different values of the parameter
$\tilde E$ with $\tilde \Lambda=8$, $\tilde m_f=1$, and $\tilde g=1$. The figures in the top row show the solutions for the ground state of the system, and those in the bottom row~-- for the first excited state.
}
\label{fields_x}
\end{figure}
Eqs.~\eqref{2_30}-\eqref{2_50} are solved numerically as a nonlinear problem for the eigenvalues $f_2$ and $\tilde u_1$ and the eigenfunctions $\tilde u, \tilde v,$ and $f$,
whose typical behavior is shown in Fig.~\ref{fields_x} both for the ground state of the system under consideration and for the first excited state when the functions $\tilde u$ and $\tilde v$ possess one node.
The corresponding computed values of the system parameters are given in Table~\ref{MG_monopole}.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{magn_x.eps}
\caption{The distributions of the color magnetic fields for different values of the parameter $\tilde E$: the radial component $\tilde H^a_r\equiv g r_0^2H^a_r$ is given by Eq.~\eqref{3_70}
and the tangential components $\tilde H^a_{\theta, \varphi}\equiv g r_0 H^a_{\theta, \varphi}$~-- by Eq.~\eqref{3_81}.
The figures in the top row correspond to the ground state of the system, and those in the bottom row~-- to the first excited state.
}
\label{magn_x}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[h!]
\scalebox{0.68}{
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{9}{|c|}{The ground state} \\
\hline
\rule[-1ex]{0pt}{2.5ex}
$\tilde E$&0.555&0.655&0.755&0.855&0.955&0.966&0.977&0.988\\
\hline
\rule[-1ex]{0pt}{2.5ex}
$f_2$&-0.21167&-0.1438&-0.092587&-0.0519&-0.016338&-0.012473&
-0.0085451&-0.0046615 \\
\hline
\rule[-1ex]{0pt}{2.5ex}
$\tilde u_1$&0.510757372&0.497238675&0.47145607&0.4184815&0.2834&0.25342&
0.2151&0.163 \\
\hline
\rule[-1ex]{0pt}{2.5ex}
$\tilde W_t$&15.6339&11.7187&8.6202&6.4621&5.8124&6.049896&6.5242&7.3827\\
\hline
\multicolumn{9}{|c|}{The first excited state, one-node solutions} \\
\hline
\rule[-1ex]{0pt}{2.5ex}
$\tilde E$&&&0.755&0.855&0.955&0.977&0.988&\\
\hline
\rule[-1ex]{0pt}{2.5ex}
$f_2$&&&-0.43377&-0.23663&-0.087295&-0.0526425&-0.03217&\\
\hline
\rule[-1ex]{0pt}{2.5ex}
$\tilde u_1$&&&0.6005&0.57331012&0.494131&0.43494&0.37143&\\
\hline
\rule[-1ex]{0pt}{2.5ex}
$\tilde W_t$&&&76.182&62.582&53.748&57.3803&65.957&\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{
Eigenvalues $\tilde u_1$ and $f_2$ and the total energy $\tilde W_t$ from Eq.~\eqref{4_10} for different values of the parameter $\tilde E$.
}
\label{MG_monopole}
\end{table}
Asymptotically (as $x \to \infty$), the behavior of the solutions is
$$f(x) \approx 1 - \frac{f_\infty}{x} , \quad
\tilde u(x) \approx \tilde u_\infty
e^{- x \sqrt{\tilde m_f^2 - \tilde E^2}} ,\quad
\tilde v(x) \approx
\tilde v_\infty e^{- x \sqrt{\tilde m_f^2 - \tilde E^2}} ,$$
where $f_\infty, \tilde u_\infty$, and $\tilde v_\infty$ are integration constants.
It is of interest to follow the behavior of the magnetic Yang-Mills field. Its physical components can be defined as
$
H^a_i=-(1/2)\sqrt{\gamma}\,\epsilon_{i j k} F^{a j k},
$
where $i, j, k$ are space indices. In our case this gives for the radial magnetic field
\begin{equation}
H^a_r \sim \frac{1 - f^2}{g r^2},
\label{3_70}
\end{equation}
where $a=1,2,3$ and we have dropped the dependence on the angular variables.
The corresponding graphs for this component are shown in Fig.~\ref{magn_x}. In turn, its asymptotic behavior as $x\to \infty$ is
\begin{equation}
H^a_r \sim \frac{2 f_\infty}{g r^3}.
\label{3_80}
\end{equation}
It is seen from this expression that, by its asymptotic behavior, the system monopole-plus-nonlinear-spinor-fields differs in principle
from the 't~Hooft-Polyakov monopole, whose magnetic field decreases as $r^{-2}$.
Nonzero tangential components of the magnetic field are
\begin{equation}
H^a_{\theta}\sim\frac{1}{g}f^{\prime}, \quad H^b_{\varphi}\sim\frac{1}{g}f^{\prime},
\label{3_81}
\end{equation}
where $a=1,2,3$ and $b=1,2$.
Their behavior is shown in Fig.~\ref{magn_x}.
Thus in this section we have obtained the spherically symmetric solutions describing the self-consistent system consisting of the non-Abelian magnetic field and non-linear spinor field. Let us emphasize the important feature of the monopole described by Eqs.~\eqref{2_30}-\eqref{2_50}: this monopole is topologically trivial, since for its existence the presence of a scalar field triplet, whose behavior at spatial infinity is topologically nontrivial, is not needed.
\section{Energy spectrum }
\label{MassGap}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{energy_density.eps}
\caption{The energy density $\tilde \epsilon$ from Eq.~\eqref{2_60} for different values of the parameter $\tilde E$.
The left panel corresponds to the ground state of the system, and the right one~-- to the first excited state.
}
\label{energy_density}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.5\linewidth]{energy_spectrum.eps}
\caption{The spectrum of the total energy for the ground (solid line) and excited (dashed line) states
from Eq.~\eqref{4_20} as functions of the parameter $\tilde E$ (the bold dots show the values of $\tilde W_t$ taken from Table~\ref{MG_monopole}).
}
\label{energy_spectrum}
\end{figure}
In this section we obtain the energy spectrum of the configuration under consideration as a function of the parameter $\tilde E$
and demonstrate the presence of a minimum in the spectrum. For this purpose, we employ an expression for a dimensionless total energy
of the system in question,
\begin{equation}
\tilde W_t \equiv \frac{W_t}{ \hbar c/r_0 } = 4 \pi
\int\limits_0^\infty x^2 \tilde \epsilon d x =
\left( \tilde{W}_t \right)_m + \left( \tilde{W}_t \right)_{s},
\label{4_10}
\end{equation}
where the energy density $\tilde \epsilon$ is taken from Eq.~\eqref{2_60}.
One can see from this formula that the total energy is split into a sum of energies of the monopole, $\left( \tilde{W}_t \right)_m$, and of the spinor fields, $\left( \tilde{W}_t \right)_{s}$, despite the presence of the direct interaction between the vector and spinor fields. The corresponding distributions of $\tilde \epsilon$ along the radius are shown in Fig.~\ref{energy_density}.
In turn, using Eq.~\eqref{4_10}, we have calculated the magnitudes of the total energy given in Table~\ref{MG_monopole}. Using them, we have plotted in
Fig.~\ref{energy_spectrum} the corresponding energy spectrum of the system.
The calculated data for $\tilde W_t$ given in Table~\ref{MG_monopole} can be interpolated by the fitting formula
\begin{equation}
[\tilde W_t]_{\text{fit}} = a\tilde E^\alpha +
b\left( 1 - \tilde E \right)^\beta .
\label{4_20}
\end{equation}
In particular, for the ground state, $a = 4.80$, $\alpha = -2.02$, $b = 0.03$, and $\beta = -1.01$. Using this formula, in Fig.~\ref{energy_spectrum},
we have plotted the curve that illustrates the existence of a minimum in the energy spectrum of the monopole solutions obtained.
Thus in this section we have obtained the energy spectrum of the self-consistent system modeled within SU(2) Yang-Mills theory containing the doublet of nonlinear spinor fields.
The important result of the calculations is that the energy spectrum possesses a global minimum (see Fig.~\ref{energy_spectrum}).
\section{Summary}
\label{concl}
Thus, we have found topologically trivial monopole solutions within SU(2) Yang-Mills theory containing a doublet of nonlinear spinor fields.
These solutions describe a magnetic monopole created by a spherical lump of nonlinear spinor fields. This monopole differs in principle from the 't~Hooft-Polyakov
monopole in that it is topologically trivial. The solutions obtained here do not exist without the spinor fields which are the source of the color magnetic field.
This enables us to arrive at an important conclusion that the reason for the appearance of a minimum in the energy spectrum is the presence of the nonlinear Dirac fields.
This conclusion is also confirmed by the results of Refs.~\cite{Finkelstein:1951zz,Finkelstein:1956} where a similar minimum was found for the energy spectrum of regular
solutions to the nonlinear Dirac equation (the authors called it ``the lightest stable particle'').
Summarizing the results obtained,
\begin{itemize}
\item We have found regular finite-energy monopole solutions with a colour magnetic field sourced by a nonlinear Dirac field.
\item It is demonstrated that the energy spectrum has a global minimum, both for the ground state and for the first excited state.
\item It is shown that the main reason for the appearance of the minimum in the energy spectrum
is the presence of the nonlinear spinor fields.
\end{itemize}
\section*{Acknowledgements}
This work was supported by Grant No.~BR05236730 in Fundamental Research in Natural Sciences by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan. V.D. and V.F. also are grateful to the Research Group Linkage Programme of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation for the support of this research.
|
\section{Introduction}
Periodically driven quantum systems is a subject of great interest in quantum physics. It is well known that the consistent framework to treat this subject is the Floquet theorem \cite{Floquet} which has been firstly considered in quantum dynamics in \cite{Shirley}. Since this pionner work, the subject has been extensively studied \cite{Sambe,Barone,Moore1,Haake,Moore2,Guerin1,Guerin2,Drese,Guerin3,Miyamoto,Viennot1,Else}. A usefull method to study periodically driven quantum systems, which is directly induced by the Floquet theory, consists to use a time-independent effectif Hamiltonian governing the stroboscopic dynamics (evolution on the whole period) \cite{Goldman}.\\
Some attempts to generalize this approach has been proposed for quasi-periodic driven systems (time-dependent systems characterized by several irrationally related frequencies) \cite{Guerin3,Neumann,Verdeny1,Verdeny2}. These studies has been confronted to the fact the Floquet theory cannot be applied for non-periodic systems. In this paper, we want generalize the effective Hamiltonian approach to almost-periodically driven systems, i.e. systems such that $\forall t, \forall \epsilon>0$, $\exists T_{\epsilon,t}>\eta_{\epsilon,t}$ such that $\|H(t+T_{\epsilon,t}) - H(t)\| < \epsilon$, with $\eta_{\epsilon,t}$ such that $\|H(t+\eta_{\epsilon,t})-H(t)\|>\epsilon$; $H(t)$ being the time-dependent Hamiltonian of the driven system. This situation includes periodically and quasi-periodically driven systems (but in contrast with the previous works, we do not need the decomposition of time-dependent Hamiltonian into Fourier modes associated with each frequencies), but also systems driven by classical flows with Poincar\'e recurrence \cite{Lasota} (including chaotic Hamiltonian flows) and systems driven by some stochastic flows as for example Brownian motions onto a compact manifold without boundary. These two situations can modelize a quantum system driven by a periodic control but affected by (chaotic or stochastic) noises \cite{Viennot2}. Our approach is based on the Koopman approach of the dynamical systems \cite{Lasota,Koopman1,Koopman2} and follows our previous work concerning the mathematical properties of the Schr\"odinger-Koopman quasienergy states \cite{Viennot3}. In some sense, our appoach generalizes to time-dependent systems the phenomenon of quantum recurrence/revival \cite{Bocchieri,Eberly} found for time-independent Hamiltonians.\\
This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 introduces the effective Hamiltonians governing almost-periodically driven quantum systems. Concrete formulae for these effective Hamiltonians are computed in section 3 and we present the expected dynamical behaviours induced by the almost-periodicity. Finally, some illustrations are presented section 4.
\section{SK and first recurrence effective Hamiltonians}
\subsection{The generic model}
We consider a quantum system described by a Hilbert space $\mathcal H$ and governed for its free evolution by a Hamiltonian $\hbar \omega_1 \hat H$ where $\hbar \omega_1$ is the characteristic transition energy of the system ($\hat H$ is the reduced free Hamiltonian). The quantum system is driven by a classical discrete flow $\varphi: \Gamma \to \Gamma$ onto a phase space $\Gamma$ supposed to be a compact manifold without boundary (in general $\Gamma$ is a $N$-torus). Let $\mu: \mathscr T \to \mathbb R^+$ be an invariant measure onto $\Gamma$ ($\mathscr T$ is a $\sigma$-algebra of $\Gamma$ (generally the Borelian $\sigma$-algebra), and $\forall O \in \mathscr T$ (open set of $\Gamma$), $\mu(\varphi(O)) = \mu(O)$), and such that $\mu(\Gamma)< \infty$. Let $T_0$ be the sampling period on which the dynamics of the quantum system is discretized. We suppose that the evolution operator of the driven quantum system can be written in the following form $\forall n \in \mathbb N$:
\begin{equation}
U_n \equiv U((n+1)T_0,nT_0)=e^{-\imath \frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0} \hat H} e^{-\imath V(\varphi^n(\theta_0))}
\end{equation}
where $\omega_0=\frac{2\pi}{T_0}$ is the sampling frequency and $V(\theta)$ is the interaction operator for the value $\theta \in \Gamma$ of the control parameters, $\theta_0 \in \Gamma$ are the initial values of the control parameters. This form is very general. It can correspond to a time-dependent Hamiltonian $H(t) = H_0+V(\varphi^{t}(\theta_0))$ where $\varphi^{t}(\theta_0) = \theta(t)$ are continuous time-dependent parameters. With $T_0 \ll \frac{2\pi}{\hbar \omega_1}$ we have $U_n = e^{-\imath \frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0} \hat H} e^{-\imath V(\varphi^{nT_0}(\theta_0))} + \mathcal O\left(\frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0}\right)$ (with $\hat H = \frac{H_0}{\hbar \omega_1}$). It can also correspond to the time-dependent Hamiltonian $H(t)=H_0+\sum_{n \in \mathbb N} W(\varphi^n(\theta_0)) \delta\left(t-nT_0+\frac{\Delta(\varphi^n(\theta_0))}{\omega_0}\right)$ of a kicked quantum system, where $W(\theta)$ is the kick operator for the values $\theta \in \Gamma$ of the control parameters and $0 \leq \Delta(\theta)<2\pi$ is the ``angular'' delay of the kick for the value $\theta$ (the quantum system is kicked once during a period $T_0$ but the kick can be delayed). In that case, $U_n = e^{-\imath \frac{H_0}{\hbar \omega_0} (2\pi - \Delta(\varphi^n(\theta_0)))} e^{-\imath W(\varphi^n(\theta_0))} e^{-\imath \frac{H_0}{\hbar \omega_0} \Delta(\varphi^n(\theta_0))}$ (see for example \cite{Viennot1}), which can be rewritten as $U_n=e^{-\imath \frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0} \hat H} e^{-\imath V(\varphi^n(\theta_0))}$ with $\hat H = \frac{2\pi}{\hbar \omega_1} H_0$ and $V(\varphi^n(\theta_0)) = e^{\imath \frac{H_0}{\hbar \omega_0} \Delta(\varphi^n(\theta_0))} W(\varphi^n(\theta_0)) e^{-\imath \frac{H_0}{\hbar \omega_0} \Delta(\varphi^n(\theta_0))}$.\\
By the Poincar\'e recurrence theorem \cite{Lasota}, we have for $\mu$-almost all $\theta \in \Gamma$
\begin{equation} \label{poincare}
\forall \epsilon>0, \exists p_{\epsilon,\theta}>0, \|\varphi^{p_{\epsilon,\theta}}(\theta)-\theta\|< \epsilon
\end{equation}
whereas $\exists n < p_{\epsilon,\theta}$ for which $\|\varphi^n(\theta)-\theta\|>\epsilon$ (the norm in $\Gamma$ is the Euclidean norm of the control parameters $\|\theta\|^2 = \sum_i (\theta^i)^2$). $p_{\epsilon,\theta}$ being not unique, we set $p_{\epsilon,\theta}$ as being the smallest value satisfying the relation (\ref{poincare}). If $\theta_0$ is $p$-cyclic ($\varphi^p(\theta_0)=\theta_0$), then $p_{\epsilon,\theta_0} = p_{\epsilon,\varphi^n(\theta_0)} = p$ ($p_{\epsilon,\theta}$ is independent of $\epsilon$ and is the same for all point of the orbit of $\theta_0$ : $\mathrm{Orb}(\theta_0) = \{\varphi^n(\theta_0)\}_{n\in \mathbb N}$). This case corresponds to a periodically driven quantum system. We recover the quasi-periodic case if $\overline{\mathrm{Orb}(\theta_0)}$ is a torus (the overline denotes the topological closure) and if $p_{\epsilon,\varphi^n(\theta_0)} = p_{\epsilon,\theta_0}$ (the almost-period is the same on the whole of $\mathrm{Orb}(\theta_0)$). For the case of a chaotic flow $\varphi$, $p_{\epsilon,\theta}$ is ``erratically'' dependent on $\epsilon$ and $\theta$. And finally, if $\varphi$ is a stochastic flow, $p_{\epsilon,\theta}$ is a random variable. Since a flow can have several behaviors, it can be interesting to decompose the phase space into ergodic components: $\Gamma = \bigcup_e \Gamma_e$, with $\mu(\Gamma_e \cap \Gamma_{e'}) = 0$ (for $e'\not=e$) and with $\Gamma_e = \overline{\mathrm{Orb}(\theta)}$ for $\mu$-almost all $\theta \in \Gamma_e$.\\
$\varphi$ modelizes a control applied on the quantum system (by electromagnetic fields, STM, ultra-fast kicks,...), or a classical noise affecting the quantum system (when $\varphi$ is chaotic or stochastic); or the both ones.
\subsection{Definition of the effective Hamiltonians}
Let $U(\theta) = e^{-\imath \frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0} \hat H} e^{- \imath V(\theta)}$. The Schr\"odinger-Koopman (SK) quasienergy states are defined as solutions of the equation (see \cite{Viennot3}):
\begin{equation} \label{SKquasistate}
U(\theta) |Z\mu_{ie},\theta \rangle = e^{-\imath \chi_{ie}} |Z\mu_{ie},\varphi(\theta) \rangle
\end{equation}
for $\theta \in \Gamma_e$ and where $\chi_{ie}$ is called quasienergy ($\chi_{ie}$ depends only on the ergodic component $\Gamma_e$ on which $\theta$ belongs). A quasienergy becomes another quasienergy under the gauge change: $\chi_{ie} \to \chi_{ie} - \imath \lambda$ and $|Z\mu_{ie},\theta \rangle \to f_\lambda(\theta) |Z\mu_{ie},\theta \rangle$, where $\lambda$ and $f_\lambda$ are a Koopman value and the associated Koopman mode (i.e. $f_\lambda(\varphi(\theta)) = e^\lambda f_\lambda(\theta)$, $\lambda \in \imath \mathbb R$). $\chi_{ie}$ does not depend on $\theta \in \Gamma_e$ (due to the quasienergy orbital stability theorem \cite{Viennot3}) and in general $|Z\mu_{ie},\theta \rangle=0$ for $\theta \not\in \Gamma_e$. We choose $\{\chi_{ie}\}_{i=1,...,\dim \mathcal H; e}$ such that $(|Z\mu_{ie},\theta \rangle)_{i=1,...,\dim \mathcal H}$ be a basis of $\mathcal H$ for all $\theta \in \Gamma_e$. $\{\chi_{ie}\}_{i=1,...,\dim \mathcal H; e}$ is called fundamental quasienergy spectrum of the driven quantum system. Moreover for $\mu$-almost all $\theta \in \Gamma_e$, $\langle Z\mu_{ie},\theta|Z\mu_{je},\theta \rangle = \delta_{ij}$.\\
From equation (\ref{SKquasistate}) we define the SK effective Hamiltonian as being:
\begin{equation} \label{SKHeff}
H^{eff}(\theta) = \sum_e \sum_i \chi_{ie} |Z\mu_{ie},\theta \rangle \langle Z\mu_{ie},\theta |
\end{equation}
(by assuming that $|Z\mu_{ie},\theta\rangle = 0$ for $\theta \not\in \Gamma_e$). To understand the role of $H^{eff}(\theta)$ it needs to consider its relation with the first recurrence Hamiltonian $H^{eff}_\epsilon(\theta)$ defined by
\begin{equation} \label{FRHeff}
e^{-\imath p_{\epsilon,\theta} H^{eff}_\epsilon(\theta)} = U(\varphi^{p_{\epsilon,\theta}-1}(\theta))...U(\varphi(\theta))U(\theta)
\end{equation}
Firstly, if $\theta$ is $p$-cyclic, then $H^{eff}_\epsilon(\theta)$ is independent of $\epsilon$, $e^{-\imath p H^{eff}_\epsilon(\theta)} = U(\varphi^{p-1}(\theta))...U(\theta)$ and is equal to the SK effective Hamiltonian $H^{eff}_\epsilon(\theta)=H^{eff}(\theta)$ which is here the usual Floquet effective Hamiltonian of the periodic driven quantum system ($|Z\mu_{ie},\theta\rangle$ is the Floquet quasienergy state defined by $U(\varphi^{p-1}(\theta))...U(\theta)|Z\mu_{ie},\theta \rangle = e^{-\imath p \chi_{ie}} |Z\mu_i,\theta \rangle$, see \cite{Viennot1}).\\
If $\theta$ is not $p$-cyclic, we have only $U(\varphi^{p_{\epsilon,\theta}-1}(\theta))...U(\theta)|Z\mu_{ie},\theta \rangle = e^{-\imath p_{\epsilon,\theta} \chi_{ie}} |Z\mu_{ie},\varphi^{p_{\epsilon,\theta}}(\theta) \rangle$, but because of eq. (\ref{poincare}) we have
\begin{equation}
|Z\mu_{ie},\varphi^{p_{\epsilon,\theta}}(\theta) \rangle = |Z\mu_{ie},\theta \rangle + \partial_\nu |Z\mu_{ie},\theta \rangle \tilde \epsilon^\nu(\theta) + \mathcal O(\epsilon^2)
\end{equation}
where $\tilde \epsilon(\theta) \equiv \varphi^{p_{\epsilon,\theta}}(\theta)-\theta$ ($\|\tilde \epsilon(\theta)\|=\mathcal O(\epsilon)$). Finally, we have
$e^{-\imath p_{\epsilon,\theta} H^{eff}_\epsilon(\theta)}|Z\mu_{ie},\theta \rangle = e^{-\imath p_{\epsilon,\theta} \chi_{ie}} |Z\mu_{ie},\theta\rangle + e^{-\imath p_{\epsilon,\theta} \chi_{ie}} \partial_\nu |Z\mu_{ie},\theta\rangle \tilde \epsilon^\nu(\theta) + \mathcal O(\epsilon^2)$ and then
\begin{equation}
e^{-\imath p_{\epsilon,\theta} H^{eff}_\epsilon(\theta)} = \left(1+A_{\nu}(\theta)\tilde \epsilon^\nu(\theta) + \mathcal O(\epsilon^2) \right)e^{-\imath p_{\epsilon,\theta}H^{eff}(\theta)}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
A_{\nu}(\theta) = \sum_e \sum_{ij} \langle Z\mu_{je},\theta|\partial_\nu|Z\mu_{ie},\theta\rangle |Z\mu_{je},\theta\rangle \langle Z\mu_{ie},\theta|
\end{equation}
More precisely, consider a sequence $(\epsilon_n)_{n\in \mathbb N}$ such that $\epsilon_{n+1}<\epsilon_n$, $\lim_{n \to +\infty} \epsilon_n=0$ and such that $\forall \epsilon \in ]\epsilon_{n+1},\epsilon_n]$, $p_{\epsilon,\theta}=p_{\epsilon_n,\theta}$. Since $\theta$ is not cyclic, $\lim_{n\to +\infty} p_{\epsilon_n,\theta} = +\infty$. We have clearly,
\begin{equation} \label{limit}
\lim_{n \to +\infty} \|e^{\imath p_{\epsilon_n,\theta} H^{eff}(\theta)} e^{-\imath p_{\epsilon_n,\theta} H^{eff}_{\epsilon_n}(\theta)} -1 \|=0
\end{equation}
The SK effective Hamiltonian $H^{eff}$ is the limit in sense of eq. (\ref{limit}) of the first recurrence Hamiltonian when the recurrence accuracy tends to zero. Moreover, since $e^{-\imath p_{\epsilon,\theta} H^{eff}_\epsilon(\theta)} = e^{A_{\nu}(\theta)\tilde \epsilon^\nu(\theta) + \mathcal O(\epsilon^2) } e^{-\imath p_{\epsilon,\theta}H^{eff}(\theta)}$, we have (see \ref{BCH}):
\begin{equation}\label{relatHeff}
H^{eff}_\epsilon(\theta) = H^{eff}(\theta)+\imath \mathscr A_{\nu}(\theta) \frac{\tilde \epsilon^\nu(\theta)}{p_{\epsilon,\theta}} + \mathcal O\left(\frac{\epsilon^2}{p_{\epsilon,\theta}} \right)
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\mathscr A_{\nu}(\theta)_{eji} = \left\{\begin{array}{ll} A_{\nu}(\theta)_{eii} & \text{if $i=j$} \\ \frac{\imath p_{\epsilon,\theta}(\chi_{ie}-\chi_{je})}{1-e^{-\imath p_{\epsilon,\theta}(\chi_{ie}-\chi_{je})}} A_{\nu}(\theta)_{eji} & \text{if $i\not=j$} \end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
(with $A_{eji} \equiv \langle Z\mu_{je},\theta|A|Z\mu_{ie},\theta\rangle$). Note that $H^{eff}$ is the limit of $H^{eff}_\epsilon$ in the sense of eq. (\ref{limit}), but $\lim_{n \to +\infty}\|H^{eff}_{\epsilon_n}(\theta)-H^{eff}(\theta)\|\not= 0$ since $(1-e^{-\imath p(\chi_{ie}-\chi_{je})})^{-1}$ has no limit at $p \to +\infty$. Note that $p_{\epsilon,\theta}$ can be very large, the mean Poincar\'e recurrence time being $\langle p_{\epsilon,\theta} \rangle \sim \frac{\mu(\Gamma_e)}{\epsilon^{\dim \Gamma}}$ (by supposing that $\mu(\mathcal B_{\epsilon}(\theta)) \propto \epsilon^{\dim \Gamma}$ where $\mathcal B_{\epsilon}(\theta)$ is the ball of radius $\epsilon$ and centered on $\theta$ in $\Gamma$).
\subsection{Perturbation of quasienergy states}
It could be interesting to relate the eigensystems of $H^{eff}$ and $H^{eff}_\epsilon$. We can compute the first recurrence eigenstates, $H^{eff}_\epsilon(\theta)|Z\mu_i,\theta,\epsilon \rangle = \chi_{ie,\epsilon}(\theta) |Z\mu_i,\theta,\epsilon \rangle$, by using a perturbative expansion from eq. (\ref{relatHeff}):
\begin{equation}
\chi_{ie,\epsilon}(\theta) = \chi_{ie} + \imath \langle Z\mu_i,\theta|\partial_\nu|Z\mu_i,\theta \rangle \frac{\tilde \epsilon^\nu(\theta)}{p_{\epsilon,\theta}} + \mathcal O\left(\frac{\epsilon^2}{p_{\epsilon,\theta}}\right)
\end{equation}
\begin{eqnarray}
|Z\mu_{ie},\theta,\epsilon \rangle & = & |Z\mu_{ie},\theta \rangle \nonumber \\
& & - \sum_{j\not= i} \frac{\langle Z\mu_{je},\theta|\partial_\nu|Z\mu_{ie},\theta\rangle \tilde \epsilon^\nu(\theta)}{1-e^{\imath p_{\epsilon,\theta}(\chi_{je}-\chi_{ie})}} |Z\mu_{je},\theta \rangle \nonumber \\
& & \quad + \mathcal O\left(\frac{\epsilon^2}{p_{\epsilon,\theta}}\right)
\end{eqnarray}
or conversely
\begin{equation}
\chi_{ie} = \chi_{ie,\epsilon}(\theta) - \imath \langle Z\mu_i,\theta,\epsilon|\partial_\nu|Z\mu_i,\theta,\epsilon \rangle \frac{\tilde \epsilon^\nu(\theta)}{p_{\epsilon,\theta}} + \mathcal O\left(\frac{\epsilon^2}{p_{\epsilon,\theta}}\right)
\end{equation}
\begin{eqnarray}
|Z\mu_{ie},\theta\rangle & = & |Z\mu_{ie},\theta,\epsilon\rangle \nonumber \\
& & + \sum_{j\not= i} \frac{\langle Z\mu_{je},\theta,\epsilon|\partial_\nu|Z\mu_{ie},\theta,\epsilon \rangle \tilde \epsilon^\nu(\theta)}{1-e^{\imath p_{\epsilon,\theta}(\chi_{je,\epsilon}(\theta)-\chi_{ie,\epsilon}(\theta))}} |Z\mu_{je},\theta,\epsilon \rangle \nonumber \\
& & \quad + \mathcal O(\epsilon^2)
\end{eqnarray}
\section{Physical meanings of the effective Hamiltonian}
\subsection{Approximate first recurrence Hamiltonian}\label{estimHeff}
In this section we want to exhibit concrete expressions for $H^{eff}_\epsilon(\theta)$.
\subsubsection{Low frequency case}\label{lowfreq}
Firstly we consider the low frequency regime where $\omega_0 \ll \omega_1$ (there are a lot of Rabi oscillations during a sampling period). This regime is consistent only with a kicked quantum system where the sampling period is the kick period. We have
\begin{eqnarray}
U(\theta_p)...U(\theta_0) & = & e^{-\imath \frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0} \hat H} e^{-\imath V_p} ... e^{-\imath \frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0} \hat H} e^{-\imath V_0} \\
& = & e^{-\imath (p+1)\frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0} \hat H} e^{-\imath \tilde V_p} ... e^{-\imath \tilde V_0}
\end{eqnarray}
with $V_n\equiv V(\theta_n)$ and $\tilde V_n \equiv e^{\imath n \frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0} \hat H} V_n e^{-\imath n \frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0} \hat H}$. $V(\theta)$ being supposed bounded, we have $\|V(\theta)\| \ll \frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0}$. It follows that
\begin{eqnarray}
& & U(\theta_p)...U(\theta_0) \nonumber \\
& & = e^{-\imath (p+1)\frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0} \hat H} e^{-\imath \sum_{n=0}^p \tilde V_n + \mathcal O\left(p\|V\|^2\right)} \\
& & = e^{-\imath (p+1)\frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0} \hat H -\imath \sum_{n=0}^p f_{-\imath(p+1)\frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0} \hat H}[\tilde V_n] + \mathcal O\left(p f(\imath p\frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0}\delta)\|V\|^2\right)}
\end{eqnarray}
where $f_X[Y] = f(\mathrm{ad}_X)[Y]$ with $f(x)=\frac{x}{1-e^{-x}}$ and $\mathrm{ad}_X[Y]=[X,Y]$, see \ref{BCH} concerning the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula. $\delta$ is the gap between eigenvalues of $\hat H$ which maximizes $f(\imath p\frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0}\delta)$. By applying this result to the definition of $H^{eff}_\epsilon$ eq. (\ref{FRHeff}) we find
\begin{eqnarray}
H^{eff}_\epsilon(\theta) & = & \frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0} \hat H \nonumber \\
& & + \frac{1}{p_{\epsilon,\theta}} \sum_{n=0}^{p_{\epsilon,\theta}-1} f_{-\imath p_{\epsilon,\theta} \frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0} \hat H} [\tilde V_n(\theta)] \nonumber \\
& & + \mathcal O\left(f(\imath p_{\epsilon,\theta}\frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0}\delta) \|V\|^2\right) \label{Hefflow}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\tilde V_n(\theta) = e^{\imath n \frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0} \hat H} V(\varphi^n(\theta)) e^{-\imath n \frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0} \hat H}$.
To interprete this formula, we can re-express it in the eigenbasis of $\hat H$ ($\hat H|i\rangle = \lambda_i |i\rangle$):
\begin{eqnarray}
H^{eff}_\epsilon(\theta) & = & \sum_i \left(\frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0} \lambda_i + \langle i|\bar V_\theta|i\rangle\right)|i\rangle\langle i| \nonumber \\
& & + \sum_{i,j\not=i} f\left(-\imath p_{\epsilon,\theta} \frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0} (\lambda_i-\lambda_j)\right) \langle i|\bar V_\theta|j\rangle |i\rangle\langle j| \nonumber \\
& & + \mathcal O\left(f(\imath p_{\epsilon,\theta} \frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0}\delta)\|V\|^2\right) \label{Hefflowrep}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\bar V_\theta = \frac{1}{p_{\epsilon,\theta}} \sum_{n=0}^{p_{\epsilon,\theta}-1} \tilde V_n(\theta)$ is the average of the interaction along $\mathrm{Orb}(\theta)$. We see that the effective Hamiltonian corresponds to the free Hamiltonian $\frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0} \hat H$ with its energies perturbed by the average interaction. This one induces also couplings between the free energy states which have magnitudes proportional to $|f\left(-\imath p_{\epsilon,\theta} \frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0} (\lambda_i-\lambda_j)\right)|$. The function $x \mapsto |f(-\imath x)|$ is plotted fig. \ref{fBCH}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{fBCH.eps}
\caption{\label{fBCH} Plot of the function $x \mapsto \left|\frac{-\imath x}{1-e^{\imath x}} \right|$ appearing in the developments by the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula (see \ref{BCH}).}
\end{figure}
Since $p_{\epsilon,\theta} \frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0}$ is large, excepted if $\max_{i,j\not=i} |\lambda_i-\lambda_j|$ is realy very small, these couplings are strong. Moreover we have resonances if $p_{\epsilon,\theta} \frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0} |\lambda_i-\lambda_j| \in 2\pi \mathbb N^*$. Due to these resonances, the behavior of $H^{eff}_\epsilon(\theta)$ will be strongly sensitive to the value of $\frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0}$.
\subsubsection{High frequency case} \label{highfreq}
Now we consider the high frequency regime where $\omega_0 \gg \omega_1$ (there are a lot of samplings by the discrete description during one Rabi oscillation). This is the only one regime for a time discretization of a dynamics governed by a continuous time-dependent Hamiltonian where the sampling period is the discretization step. This regime can also be consistent with a kicked quantum system. We consider several subcases depending on the behaviour of $V(\theta)$.
\paragraph{Case 1: $V(\theta) \sim \mathcal O(\omega_1/\omega_0)$:}
We can compute $U(\theta_p)...U(\theta_0) = e^{-\imath \frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0} \hat H} e^{-\imath V_p} ... e^{-\imath \frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0} \hat H} e^{-\imath V_0}$ by using the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula at the first order. We have then
\begin{equation}
H^{eff}_\epsilon(\theta) = \frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0}\hat H + \frac{1}{p_{\epsilon,\theta}} \sum_{n=0}^{p_{\epsilon,\theta}-1} V(\varphi^n(\theta)) + \mathcal O\left(\left(\frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0}\right)^2\right) \label{Heffhigh1}
\end{equation}
In that case the effective Hamiltonian is just the sum of free Hamiltonian and the average interaction.
\paragraph{Case 2: $[V(\theta),V(\theta')]=0$:}
We suppose that $[V(\theta_1),V(\theta_2)]=0$, $\forall \theta_1,\theta_2 \in \mathrm{Orb}(\theta)$. We have then by using the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula explained \ref{BCH}:
\begin{eqnarray}
& & U(\theta_p)...U(\theta_0) \nonumber \\
& & = e^{-\imath \frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0} \hat H} e^{-\imath V_p} ... e^{-\imath \frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0} \hat H} e^{-\imath V_0} \\
& & = e^{-\imath \sum_{n=0}^p V_n} e^{-\imath \frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0} \sum_{n=0}^p \tilde H_n + \mathcal O \left(p\frac{\omega_1^2}{\omega_0^2}\right)} \\
& & = e^{-\imath \sum_{n=0}^p V_n -\imath \frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0} \sum_{n=0}^p f_{-\imath \sum_{q=0}^p V_q}[ \tilde H_n] + \mathcal O \left(p f(\imath p\delta) \frac{\omega_1^2}{\omega_0^2}\right)}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\tilde H_n = e^{\imath \sum_{q=0}^n V_q} \hat H e^{-\imath \sum_{q=0}^n V_q}$. $\delta$ is the gap between eigenvalues of the average interaction operator which maximizes $f(\imath p\delta)$. By applying this result to the definition of $H^{eff}_\epsilon$ eq. (\ref{FRHeff}) we find
\begin{eqnarray}
H^{eff}_\epsilon(\theta) & = & \frac{1}{p_{\epsilon,\theta}} \sum_{n=0}^{p_{\epsilon,\theta}-1} V(\varphi^n(\theta)) \nonumber \\
& & + \frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0} \frac{1}{p_{\epsilon,\theta}} \sum_{n=0}^{p_{\epsilon,\theta}-1} f_{-\imath \sum_{q=0}^{p_{\epsilon,\theta}-1} V(\varphi^q(\theta))} [ \tilde H_n(\theta)] \nonumber \\
& & + \mathcal O\left(f(\imath p_{\epsilon,\theta}\delta)\left(\frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0}\right)^2\right) \label{Heffhigh2}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\tilde H_n(\theta) = e^{\imath \sum_{q=0}^n V(\varphi^q(\theta))} \hat H e^{-\imath \sum_{q=0}^n V(\varphi^q(\theta))}$.
\paragraph{Case 3: $V(\theta) = v(\theta)+W(\theta)$ with $[v(\theta),v(\theta')]=0$ and $W(\theta)\sim \mathcal O(\omega_1/\omega_0)$:}\label{case3}
This case is the combination of the two previous ones, with $V(\theta)=v(\theta)+W(\theta)$, where $W(\theta)\sim \mathcal O(\omega_1/\omega_0)$ and $[v(\theta_1),v(\theta_2)]=0$, $\forall \theta_1,\theta_2 \in \mathrm{Orb}(\theta)$. By using the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula explained \ref{BCH}, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
e^{-\imath \frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0} \hat H} e^{-\imath (v+W)} & = & e^{-\imath \frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0} \hat H} e^{-\imath f^{-1}_{-\imath v}[W]+ \mathcal O \left(\frac{\omega_1^2}{\omega_0^2}\right)} e^{-\imath v} \\
& = & e^{-\imath \frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0} \hat H -\imath f^{-1}_{-\imath v}[W]+ \mathcal O \left(\frac{\omega_1^2}{\omega_0^2}\right)} e^{-\imath v}
\end{eqnarray}
We set $K = \frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0} \hat H + f^{-1}_{-\imath v}[W]$.
\begin{eqnarray}
& & U(\theta_p)...U(\theta_0) \nonumber \\
& & = e^{-\imath K_p+ \mathcal O \left(\frac{\omega_1^2}{\omega_0^2}\right)} e^{-\imath v_p} ... e^{-\imath K_0+ \mathcal O \left(\frac{\omega_1^2}{\omega_0^2}\right)} e^{-\imath v_0} \\
& & = e^{-\imath \sum_{n=0}^p v_n} e^{-\imath \sum_{n=0}^p \tilde K_n + \mathcal O \left(p\frac{\omega_1^2}{\omega_0^2}\right)} \\
& & = e^{-\imath \sum_{n=0}^p v_n -\imath \sum_{n=0}^p f_{-\imath \sum_{q=0}^p v_q}[ \tilde K_n] + \mathcal O \left(pf(\imath p\delta)\frac{\omega_1^2}{\omega_0^2}\right)}
\end{eqnarray}
with $\tilde K_n = e^{\imath \sum_{q=0}^n v_q} K_n e^{-\imath \sum_{q=0}^n v_q}$. $\delta$ is the gap between eigenvalues of the average interaction operator which maximizes $f(\imath p\delta)$. By applying this result to the definition of $H^{eff}_\epsilon$ eq. (\ref{FRHeff}) we find
\begin{eqnarray}
& & H^{eff}_\epsilon(\theta) \nonumber \\
& = & \frac{1}{p_{\epsilon,\theta}}\sum_{n=0}^{p_{\epsilon,\theta}-1} v(\varphi^n(\theta)) \nonumber \\
& & + \frac{1}{p_{\epsilon,\theta}}\sum_{n=0}^{p_{\epsilon,\theta}-1} f_{-\imath \sum_{q=0}^{p_{\epsilon,\theta}-1} v(\varphi^q(\theta))} [ \tilde K_n(\theta)] \nonumber \\
& & + \mathcal O\left(f(\imath p_{\epsilon,\theta}\delta)\left(\frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0}\right)^2\right) \label{Heffhigh3}
\end{eqnarray}
with $\tilde K_n(\theta) = \frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0} e^{\imath \sum_{q=0}^n v(\varphi^q(\theta))} \hat H e^{-\imath \sum_{q=0}^n v(\varphi^q(\theta))}+f^{-1}_{-\imath v(\varphi^n(\theta))} \left[e^{\imath \sum_{q=0}^n v(\varphi^q(\theta))} W(\varphi^n(\theta)) e^{-\imath \sum_{q=0}^n v(\varphi^q(\theta))} \right]$.
\paragraph{Interpretation}
We consider here only the case 2, the case 1 being obvious and the case 3 being the superposition of the two first cases. Since we have a lot of sampling periods (a lot of short interactions) during a Rabi oscillation, the dynamics is dominated by the interaction operator. Let $\bar V_\theta = \frac{1}{p_{\epsilon,\theta}} \sum_{n=0}^{p_{\epsilon,\theta}-1} V(\varphi^n(\theta))$ be the average of the interaction along $\mathrm{Orb}(\theta)$. Let $(|\bar a\rangle)_a$ be the eigenbasis of $\bar V_\theta$ ($\bar V_\theta |\bar a \rangle = \nu_a |\bar a \rangle$). Onto this basis, the effective Hamiltonian can be expressed as:
\begin{eqnarray}
H^{eff}_\epsilon(\theta) & = & \sum_a (\nu_a+\frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0} \langle \bar a|\hat H|\bar a\rangle)|\bar a \rangle\langle \bar a| \nonumber \\
& & + \frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0} \sum_{a,b\not=a} f(-ip_{\epsilon,\theta}(\nu_a-\nu_b)) \langle \bar a|\hat H|\bar b \rangle |\bar a\rangle \langle \bar b| \nonumber \\
& & + \mathcal O\left(f(\imath p_{\epsilon,\theta}\delta)\left(\frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0}\right)^2\right) \label{Heffhighrep}
\end{eqnarray}
To understand this formula, it is instructive to consider the case where $V(\theta)$ is a kick operator of the form $V(\theta) = \lambda P(\theta)$ where $\lambda$ is the kick strengh and $P(\theta) = |w(\theta)\rangle\langle w(\theta)|$ is a rank-1 projection. This means that the interaction consists to kick the quantum system in the ``direction'' $|w(\theta) \rangle$. For example, with a two-level system, $|w(\theta)\rangle$ as a point onto the Bloch sphere defines a direction in the 3D-space. If the system is a spin kicked by ultra-short magnetic pulses, the direction defined onto the Bloch sphere is identified with the polarization direction of the magnetic field. If $\epsilon$ is sufficiently small, we have
\begin{equation}
\bar V_\theta \simeq \lambda \int_{\Gamma_e} P(\theta) \frac{d\mu(\theta)}{\mu(\Gamma_e)} = \lambda \rho_e
\end{equation}
(with $\theta \in \Gamma_e$), where $\rho_e$ is a mixed state (a density matrix) corresponding to the average of $P(\theta)$ onto the ergodic component $\Gamma_e = \overline{\mathrm{Orb}(\theta)}$ endowed with the probability measure $\frac{d\mu(\theta)}{\mu(\Gamma_e)}$. We have then $\nu_a = \lambda p_a$ where $\{p_a\} = \mathrm{Sp}(\rho_e)$ are the probabilities to find the direction $|\bar a\rangle$ in the statistical mixture $\rho_e$. $\bar V_\theta$ can be then viewed as a kick of strenght $\lambda$ in a direction randomly chosen in $\{|\bar a \rangle\}_a$ with the probability law $\{p_a\}$. $\hat H$ induces perturbative corrections onto this probability law but it induces also quantum coherences of magnitudes proportional to $|f(-ip_{\epsilon,\theta}(\nu_a-\nu_b))|$, which are strong since $p_{\epsilon,\theta}$ is large. Anew, resonances occur if $p_{\epsilon,\theta} |\nu_a-\nu_b| \in 2\pi \mathbb N^*$. Note that in the case of a kick operator with kick delays as viewed in the introduction, $V(\theta)$ depends on $\frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0}$ (by relative phases in its representation on the eigenbasis of $\hat H$). The behavior of $H^{eff}_\epsilon(\theta)$ will be also in this case strongly sensitive to the value of $\frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0}$ because of these resonances.
\subsubsection{About the accuracy of the approximations}
The formulae for $H_\epsilon^{eff}(\theta)$ found in this section are very rough approximations. We can only consider them for qualitative discussions or for physical interpertations. We cannot use them in qualitative discussions, especially for numerical computations. The reason of this bad accuracy are the error magnitude of the order of $f(\imath p_{\epsilon,\theta}\delta) \left(\frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0}\right)^2$. This one is reasonable only if the almost-period $p_{\epsilon,\theta}$ is small (and out of the resonances associated with the poles of $f$). But, with an almost-periodic or a chaotic dynamics, it is small only if $\epsilon$ is large. In that case, it is the almost-periodicity assumption which is very rough. We have a small $p_{\epsilon,\theta}$ only for strictly periodic dynamics or for dynamics extremely close to a periodic dynamics.\\
To make numerical computations of the effective Hamiltonians, it is more usefull to use directly the definition of the first recurrence Hamiltonian eq. \ref{FRHeff} or to solve eq. \ref{SKquasistate} for example by the method explained \ref{HKcomp}.
\subsection{Expected behaviours with almost-periodically driven systems} \label{expected}
An orbit $\mathrm{Orb}(\theta)$ is characterized by three quantities. The first one is its almost-period $p_{\epsilon,\theta}$. The second one is its mean diameter $\angle \mathrm{Orb}(\theta)$, the characteristic distance onto $\Gamma$ between two opposite points of $\mathrm{Orb}(\theta)$. It measures the mean dispersion of $\mathrm{Orb}(\theta)$ onto $\Gamma$. And finally $\underline \lambda_\theta$ the Lyapunov exponent (\cite{Haake}) which measures the ``chaoticity'' of the dynamics starting in the neighbourhood of $\theta$. In this section we want to present expected dynamical behaviors of almot-periodically driven quantum systems with respect to the values of these quantities, when the interaction $V(\theta)$ is perturbative.\\
By eq. \ref{FRHeff} the dynamics generated by $H^{eff}_\epsilon(\theta)$ during $p_{\epsilon,\theta}$ steps is the same than $U(\varphi^{p_{\epsilon,\theta}-1}(\theta))...U(\theta)$ and then $\forall \psi$ ($\|\psi\|=1$)
\begin{eqnarray}
F_1^{str}(\theta) & = & |\langle \psi|e^{\imath (p_{\epsilon,\theta}+1)H^{eff}_{\epsilon}(\theta)} \mathbf{U}_{p_{\epsilon,\theta}}(\theta)|\psi\rangle|^2 \\
& = & 1 + \mathcal O(\epsilon)
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathbf{U}_n(\theta)= U(\varphi^n(\theta))...U(\theta)$. For a $p$-cyclic orbit, $H^{eff}(\theta)$ governs the global regime (on the time scale of $p$ steps) where the transient regime (with time scale lower than $p$ steps) is erased. The stroboscopic dynamics governed by $H^{eff}(\theta)$ is the exact true dynamics of the quantum system with the stroboscopic period $p$. For almost-periodic orbit, we can then be interested by the stroboscopic fidelity of the dynamics governed by $H^{eff}_\epsilon(\theta)$:
\begin{equation} \label{strobFid}
F_n^{str}(\theta) = |\langle \psi|e^{\imath (np_{\epsilon,\theta}+1)H^{eff}_{\epsilon}(\theta)} \mathbf{U}_{np_{\epsilon,\theta}}(\theta)|\psi\rangle|^2
\end{equation}
As previously said, we have exactly $F_n^{str}(\theta) = 1$ ($\forall n \in \mathbb N$) for a $p$-cyclic orbit. Under what conditions do we have $F_n^{str}(\theta) \simeq 1$ with an almost-periodic orbit? Firstly, this needs that $\underline \lambda(\theta) = 0$, because if the flow is chaotic, due to the sensitivity to initial conditions (\cite{Haake}) $\mathrm{Orb}(\varphi^{p_{\epsilon,\theta}}(\theta))$ exponentially separates from $\mathrm{Orb}(\theta)$ as $e^{n \underline \lambda_\theta} \epsilon$ (even if $\|\varphi^{p_{\epsilon,\theta}}(\theta)- \theta\|< \epsilon$). In particular, we have $p_{\epsilon,\varphi^{p_{\epsilon,\theta}}(\theta)} \not= p_{\epsilon,\theta}$: the recurrence of the flow in the neighbourhood of $\theta$ is erratic, the almost-period drastically change at each recurrence. We can think that $F_n^{str}(\theta)$ decreases if $\frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0}$ increases (or equivalently the approximation $F_n^{str}(\theta) \simeq 1$ is valid until a smaller value of $n$ if $\frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0}$ is larger). Indeed, as we can see it in the low frequency regime ($\frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0} \gg 1$, eq. \ref{Hefflowrep}), the large factors $|f(-\imath p_{\epsilon,\theta} \frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0} (\lambda_i-\lambda_j))|$ reinforce the $\theta$-dependent couplings $\langle i|\bar V_\theta|j \rangle$ which become non-perturbative. So, the small difference between $\langle i|\bar V_\theta|j \rangle$ and $\langle i|\bar V_{\varphi^{p_{\epsilon,\theta}}(\theta)}|j \rangle$ will be amplified by these factors (especially close to the resonances). This problem does not occur in the high frequency regime. Finally we can think that the approximation $F_n^{str}(\theta) \simeq 1$ with small values of $\frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0}$ is better with not too large diameters $\angle \mathrm{Orb}(\theta)$. In the high frequency regime, $\bar V_\theta - \bar V_{\varphi^{n p_{\epsilon,\theta}}(\theta)} \sim \mathcal O(\mu(S_n))$ where $S_n \subset \Gamma$ is the region delimited by $\overline{\mathrm{Orb}(\theta)}$ and $\overline{\mathrm{Orb}(\varphi^{n p_{\epsilon,\theta}}(\theta))}$. It is more probable that $\mu(S_n)$ quickly becomes large with $n$ if $\angle \mathrm{Orb}(\theta)$ is large.\\
By eq. \ref{FRHeff} and \ref{SKquasistate} we have
\begin{equation}
|\langle Z\mu_{ie},\varphi^{n+1}(\theta)|\mathbf{U}_n(\theta)|Z\mu_{ie},\theta\rangle|^2=1
\end{equation}
(with $\theta \in \Gamma_e$). $\mathbf{U}_n(\theta)$ describes the complete dynamics whereas $e^{-\imath n H^{eff}_\epsilon(\theta)}$ describes the global dynamics without the transient fluctuations occuring at time scale lower than the almost-period. As eigenvector of $e^{-\imath H^{eff}(\theta)}$, the quasi-energy state $|Z\mu_{ie},\theta\rangle$ is then the steady state of the global dynamics. Its evolution could be almost steady with the fluctuations associated with the transient regime. Let the survival probability of the quasi-energy state be:
\begin{equation}
P^{surv}_n(\theta) = |\langle Z\mu_{ie},\theta|\mathbf{U}_n(\theta)|Z\mu_{ie},\theta \rangle|^2
\end{equation}
We have $P^{surv}_{p_{\epsilon,\theta}}(\theta) = 1+\mathcal O(\epsilon)$ and $P^{surv}_{np_{\epsilon,\theta}}(\theta) \simeq 1$ in the same conditions that the previous discussion (with the choice $|\psi\rangle = |Z\mu_{ie},\theta \rangle$). The quasi-energy states are then states of the quantum system which are almost recurrent. They are then very important as the cyclic quantum states associated with the Floquet theory (which they are a generalization) and are associated with some quantum phenomena as the quantum revivals \cite{Bocchieri,Eberly}. But moreover we can hope that $P^{surv}_n(\theta) \approx 1$ if the fluctuations generated by $V(\varphi^n(\theta)) - \bar V_\theta$ on $|Z\mu_{ie},\theta\rangle$ are small ($\bar V_\theta$ being the average interaction operator along $\mathrm{Orb}(\theta)$). This needs that $\angle \mathrm{Orb}(\theta) \ll 1$, because the variations of $V(\varphi^n(\theta))$ will be large if the orbit is large. We can think that the assumption $P^{surv}_n(\theta) \approx 1$ is easier satisfied if $p_{\epsilon,\theta}$ is not large, in order to the duration of the transient regime be short. Moreover, if $V(\theta)$ depends on $\frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0}$ as for a kick operator with kick delay (as explained in the introduction), we must have $\frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0} \not\gg 1$ otherwise the presence of fast oscillating phases in $V(\varphi^n(\theta))$ induces strong difference between $V(\varphi^n(\theta))$ and $\bar V_\theta$. And finally, to have $P^{surv}_n(\theta) \approx 1$ with $n>p_{\epsilon,\theta}$, we need $\underline \lambda_\theta = 0$ because of the sensitivity to initial conditions of the chaotic flows which implies that $\bar V_{\varphi^{p_{\epsilon,\theta}}(\theta)} \not\simeq \bar V_{\theta}$.
\section{Illustration}
In order to illustrate the concepts presented in this paper, we consider the following driven quantum system: a two-level quantum system defined by the canonical basis $(|0\rangle,|1\rangle)$ and the free Hamiltonian $H_0 = \hbar\omega_1|1\rangle\langle 1|$ (for example a $\frac{1}{2}$-spin system with Zeeman effect), kicked with a frequency $\omega_0$ following the kick operator $V(\theta)=\lambda|w(\theta^1,\theta^2)\rangle\langle w(\theta^1,\theta^2)|$ with $|w(\theta^1,\theta^2)\rangle = \cos\theta^1|0\rangle + e^{\imath \frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0} \theta^2}\sin\theta^1 |1 \rangle$. $\lambda=0.1$ is the dimensionless kick strenght, $\theta^2$ is the angular kick delay, and $(\theta^1,\frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0} \theta^2)$ defines the kick direction in a spherical coordinates with the $z$-axis corresponding to the direction of the Zeeman magnetic field. We have then $U(\theta) = e^{-\imath \frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0} \hat H} e^{-\imath V(\theta)}$ (with $\hat H = 2\pi|1\rangle\langle 1|$). Since $V$ is proportional to a rank 1 projection, it is easy to compute the matrix exponentials: we have in the basis $(|0\rangle,|1\rangle)$:
\begin{eqnarray}
& &e^{-\imath \frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0} \hat H} = \left(\begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & e^{-\imath 2 \pi \frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0}} \end{array} \right) \\
& & e^{-\imath V(\theta)} = 1_2 +(e^{-\imath \lambda}-1) \times \nonumber \\
& & \left(\begin{array}{cc} \cos^2 \theta^1 & \frac{e^{\imath \frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0} \theta^2}}{2} \sin(2\theta^1) \\ \frac{e^{-\imath \frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0} \theta^2}}{2} \sin(2\theta^1) & \sin^2 \theta^1 \end{array} \right)
\end{eqnarray}
Remark : $V(\theta) = \lambda e^{\imath \frac{H_0}{\hbar \omega_0} \theta^2} |w(\theta^1,0)\rangle\langle w(\theta^1,0)| e^{-\imath \frac{H_0}{\hbar \omega_0} \theta^2} = \lambda |w(\theta^1,0)\rangle\langle w(\theta^1,0)| + \imath \frac{\lambda \theta^2}{\hbar \omega_0} [H_0, |w(\theta^1,0)\rangle\langle w(\theta^1,0)|] + \mathcal O(\omega_1^2/\omega_0^2)$. In the high frequency regime with constant $\theta^1$ the system belongs to the case 3 viewed in section \ref{case3}.
The phase space is $\Gamma=\mathbb T^2$ (the 2-torus generated by $\theta=(\theta^1,\theta^2) \in [0,2\pi]^2$). We consider the uniform measure onto $\mathbb T^2$: $d\mu(\theta) = \frac{d\theta^1d\theta^2}{(2\pi)^2}$ (with $\mathscr T$ the Borelian $\sigma$-algebra). The flow $\varphi \in \mathrm{Aut} (\mathbb T^2)$ is then an invariant automorphism of the 2-torus. We choose the Chirikov standard map defined by:
\begin{equation}
\varphi(\theta) = \left(\begin{array}{lc} \theta^1+K \sin(\theta^2) & \, \mathrm {mod}\, 2\pi \\ \theta^1+\theta^2+K\sin(\theta^2) & \, \mathrm {mod}\, 2\pi \end{array} \right)
\end{equation}
with $K=2$. Historically the standard map models the behaviour of a kicked rotator, but it can be considered as an universal model for kicked nonlinear oscillators \cite{Chirikov}. The model used in this illustration can correspond to a spin system submitted to ultrafast magnetic pulses produced by a device modeled by a nonlinear oscillator. The device receives a periodic control signal assimilated to regular kicks of frequency $\omega_0$. But the device response is not instantaneous and there is a delay $\theta^2$ before the pulse emission. Due to the nonlinear character of the device oscillations, this delay changes at each cycle. Moreover, the pulses are emitted with a polarization angle $\theta^1$ which also changes at each cycle due to the nonlinearity. So in place of a regular pulse train of frequency $\omega_0$, the pulse train is only almost-periodic with an almost-period $p_{\epsilon,\theta_0}$ depending of the initial condition of the device. The possible goal of a study of this system with the SK effective Hamiltonian is to understand the effect of the nonlinearity at long-term onto the kicked spin.\\
The phase portrait of the standard map flow is plotted fig. \ref{StdMap}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{StdMap.eps}
\caption{\label{StdMap} Phase portrait of the Chirikov standard map onto the torus $\mathbb T^2$, with 9 orbits considered in the simulations.}
\end{figure}
We can distinguish three different areas. The first one is the chaotic sea (in blue fig. \ref{StdMap}) which is an ergodic component $\Gamma_0 = \overline{\mathrm{Orb}(\theta_0)}$ associated with a chaotic orbit. The fixed point $(0,0)$ is embedded in this chaotic sea. A big island of stability centered on the fixed point $(0,\pi)$ is constituted by quasi-periodic orbits. The irrationally related frequencies of these orbits are numerous. We consider five ergodic components $\{\Gamma_e = \overline{\mathrm{Orb}(\theta_e)}\}_{e=1,...,5}$ in this island for the numerical study. And finally, we have a double small island of stability with two connected components centered on $(\pi,0)$ and $(\pi,\pi)$ ($(\pi,0) \leftrightarrows (\pi,\pi)$ is a 2-cyclic orbit). We consider these two components as part of a same island because the inner orbit jump from a component to the other one. We consider three ergodic components $\{\Gamma_e = \overline{\mathrm{Orb}(\theta_e)}\}_{e=6,7,8}$ in this island. We have choosen an initial point $\theta_e$ in each ergodic component to start the dynamics. Except for $\Gamma_0$, this choice has no influence onto the results. The properties of the nine considered orbits are reported table \ref{orbits}.
\begin{table}
\caption{\label{orbits} Properties of the orbits used in the dynamics, with $\epsilon = 10^{-2}$. The almost-period $p_{\epsilon,\theta_e}$ does not depend on the choice of $\theta_e \in \Gamma_e$ except for $\Gamma_0$. In some simulations we consider also $\epsilon = 10^{-1}$ for $\Gamma_0$, in that case $p_{\epsilon,\theta_0} = 734$. The mean diameter $\angle \mathrm{Orb}(\theta_e)$ has been estimated as the average between the maximum and the minimum diameters of the almost closed orbits in the islands of stability. Since the chaotic sea covers a large part of $\mathbb T^2$ its mean diameter is $2\pi$.}
\begin{tabular}{|c|r|r|r|l|}
\hline
e & $p_{\epsilon,\theta_e}$ & $\angle \mathrm{Orb}(\theta_e)$ & $\underline \lambda_{\theta_e}$ & region \\
\hline
0 & 25801 & $2\pi$ & $0.415$ & chaotic sea \\
1 & 108 & $4.7$ & $0$ & big island border \\
2 & 926 & $3.8$ & $0$ & big island \\
3 & 845 & $2.6$ & $0$ & big island \\
4 & 69 & $1.2$ & $0$ & big island \\
5 & 385 & $0.96$ & $0$ & big island center \\
6 & 26 & $2$ & $0$ & double small island border \\
7 & 430 & $2$ & $0$ & double small island \\
8 & 42 & $0.5$ & $0$ & double small island center\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
In the numerical simulations, we can compute $U^{eff}_\epsilon(\theta) = e^{-\imath H^{eff}_\epsilon(\theta)}$ by two manners. The first one consists to use eq. \ref{FRHeff}:
\begin{equation}
U^{eff}_{\epsilon}(\theta_e) = \sqrt[p_{\epsilon,\theta_e}]{U(\varphi^{p_{\epsilon,\theta_e}-1}(\theta_e))...U(\theta_e)}
\end{equation}
The second one consists to use the method presented in \ref{HKcomp}. The two ones provide very similar numerical results.
\subsection{Stroboscopic fidelity of the dynamics}
As previously explained, the dynamics governed by $H^{eff}_\epsilon(\theta)$ is the global dynamics without the fluctuations of the transient regime with small time scale. Fig. \ref{compDyn} gives an illutration of this.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{compDyn.eps}
\caption{\label{compDyn} Comparision of the true dynamics $|\langle \psi|\mathbf{U}_n(\theta_6)|\psi \rangle|^2$ and the effective dynamics $|\langle \psi|e^{-\imath n H^{eff}_\epsilon(\theta_6)}|\psi \rangle|^2$ for the orbit $e=6$ during 12 almost-periods, with $\frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0} = 3.5$ and $|\psi\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt 2}(|0\rangle+|1\rangle)$.}
\end{figure}
In this example, the global dynamics is the envelope of the complete dynamics, but it is not always the case (it is necessary to tune $\frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0}$ to have this simple behaviour). As viewed section \ref{estimHeff}, the average interaction $\bar V_{\theta_6} = \frac{1}{p_{\theta_6,\epsilon}} \sum_{n=0}^{p_{\theta_6,\epsilon}} V(\varphi^n(\theta_6))$ plays an important role in the effective dynamics. Here $\bar V_{\theta_6} \simeq \lambda \oint_{\Gamma_6} |w\rangle \langle w|\frac{d\ell}{\ell(\Gamma_6)} = \lambda \rho_6$ ($\Gamma_6$ being assimilated to a closed path of length $\ell(\Gamma_6)$) where $\rho_6 = p_0|0\rangle \langle 0| + p_1|1\rangle \langle 1|$ is the density matrix representing the fact that the evolution along $\Gamma_6$ can in part be viewed as a kicking of the spin in up ($|0\rangle\langle 0|$) or down ($|1\rangle\langle 1$) directions (i.e. magnetic pulse polarizations) randomly choosen with the probability law $\{p_0,p_1\}$. The Rabbi oscillations of the spin system induced by the free Hamiltonian $\frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0} \hat H$, which are of frequency $2\pi \frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0}$, are the fast oscillations of the carrier wave in fig. \ref{compDyn}. As a transcient behaviour, it is erased in the effective dynamics. By erasing these oscillations, the effective dynamics focus on the behaviour related to $\bar V_{\theta_6}$ permitting the study of the long-term effects of the nonlinearity in the device. Roughly speacking, the effective dynamics corresponds then to randomly kicked spin following the law defined by $\rho_6$, and then $e^{-\imath n H^{eff}_\epsilon(\theta_6)}|\psi\rangle \approx \frac{1}{\sqrt 2}(e^{-\imath n p_0 \lambda}|0\rangle + e^{-\imath n p_1 \lambda}|1\rangle)$ (since $p_0$ is the ratio of kicks in the up direction). The survival probability is then $|\langle \psi|e^{-\imath n H^{eff}_\epsilon(\theta_6)}|\psi\rangle|^2 \approx \frac{1+\cos((p_0-p_1)n\lambda)}{2}$ and oscillates with a period $\frac{2\pi}{(p_0-p_1)\lambda}$. If all kicks had been in the up direction, the survival probability oscillation period would have been $\frac{2\pi}{\lambda} \simeq 63$. We see fig. \ref{compDyn}, than due the kicks in the opposite direction the period is slightly larger ($p_0$ is indeed close to 1, since $\Gamma_6$ is closed to the the 2-cyclic orbit $(\pi,0) \leftrightarrows (\pi,\pi)$ for which $V(\pi,0)=V(\pi,\pi)=\lambda|0\rangle \langle 0|$).
It is more interesting to study the stroboscopic fidelity eq. \ref{strobFid}. As illustration, we can see fig. \ref{compStrob}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{compStrob.eps}
\caption{\label{compStrob} Comparision of the true stroboscopic survival probability $|\langle \psi|\mathbf{U}_{np_{\epsilon,\theta_5}}(\theta_5)|\psi \rangle|^2$ and the effective stroboscopic survival probability $|\langle \psi|e^{-\imath (np_{\epsilon,\theta_5}+1) H^{eff}_\epsilon(\theta_5)}|\psi \rangle|^2$ for the orbit $e=5$, with $\frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0} = 4.5$ and $|\psi\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt 2}(|0\rangle+|1\rangle)$. We see a small dephasing occuring with a large number of almost-periods. The average stroboscopic fidelity during 12 almost-periods is $99.7\%$ whereas due to the dephasing, during 120 almost-periods, it is only $93.9\%$. This dephasing is due to the fact that numerically we work with the first recurrence Hamiltonian $H^{eff}_\epsilon$ which is only an approximation of the SK Hamiltonian up to an error $\epsilon/p_\epsilon$ (eq. \ref{relatHeff}). So after $n$ almost-periods, the error in the evolution operator is of magnitude $n\epsilon$. Because $\epsilon = 10^{-2}$, this error induced the dephasing for large values of $n$.}
\end{figure}
In order to enlighten the efficiency of the effective description for the stroboscopic dynamics we have compute the avergage stroboscopic fidelity:
\begin{equation}
\overline{F^{str}(\theta)} = \frac{1}{N+1} \sum_{n=0}^N F_n^{str}(\theta)
\end{equation}
at short term ($N=12$ almost-periods) and at long term ($N=120$ almost-periods), for the three regimes (low, medium and high frequency). Since we have shown that the behaviours are very sensitive to the value of $\frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0}$ we have considered for each regime three different values of the period ratio. The results are presented tables \ref{strobFid12} and \ref{strobFid120}.
\begin{table}
\caption{\label{strobFid12} Avergage stroboscopic fidelity of the effective dynamics during 12 almost-periods with $|\psi\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt 2}(|0\rangle+|1\rangle)$, for the different orbits and for different values of $\frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0}$. We writte in bold the good results ($\geq 97\%$), in sans serif style the correct results ($\geq 90\%$), in normal style the middling results ($\geq 75\%$) and in italic the bad results ($<75\%$).}
\scriptsize
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$e$ & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{High freq. $\frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0}\ll 1$} & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{Medium freq. $\frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0} \sim 1$} & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{Low freq. $\frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0}\gg 1$} \\
\cline{2-10}
& $\frac{\sqrt{2}}{100}$ & $0.03$ & $0.04$ & $\sqrt{2}$ & $3.4$ & $4.5$ & $100\sqrt{2}$ & $101.3$ & $104.5$ \\
\hline
0 & $\mathit{74.3\%}$ & $\mathit{74.4\%}$ & $79.1\%$ & $77.6\%$ & $\mathit{74.2\%}$ & $75.0\%$ & $\mathit{74.6\%}$ & $78.3\%$ & $\mathit{61.6\%}$ \\
\hline
1 & $\mathbf{100\%}$ & $\mathbf{100\%}$ & $\mathbf{98.0\%}$ & $\mathbf{100\%}$ & $\mathbf{99.6\%}$ & $\mathbf{99.9\%}$ & $\mathbf{98.1\%}$ & $83.7\%$ & $\mathbf{98.0\%}$ \\
\hline
2 & $\mathbf{100\%}$ & $\mathbf{100\%}$ & $\mathbf{100\%}$ & $\mathbf{98.8\%}$ & $\mathbf{98.6\%}$ & $\mathsf{91.8\%}$ & $\mathit{69.4\%}$ & $\mathit{74.8\%}$ & $\mathit{73.2\%}$ \\
\hline
3 & $\mathbf{100\%}$ & $\mathbf{100\%}$ & $\mathbf{100\%}$ & $\mathbf{99.1\%}$ & $\mathbf{98.7\%}$ & $\mathbf{98.6\%}$ & $\mathit{73.7\%}$ & $\mathbf{99.4\%}$ & $\mathsf{95.8\%}$ \\
\hline
4 & $\mathbf{100\%}$ & $\mathbf{100\%}$ & $\mathbf{100\%}$ & $\mathbf{100\%}$ & $\mathbf{100\%}$ & $\mathbf{99.7\%}$ & $\mathbf{99.4\%}$ & $\mathbf{99.9\%}$ & $\mathbf{99.9\%}$ \\
\hline
5 & $\mathbf{100\%}$ & $\mathbf{100\%}$ & $\mathbf{100\%}$ & $\mathbf{100\%}$ & $\mathbf{99.8\%}$ & $\mathbf{99.7\%}$ & $\mathbf{99.9\%}$ & $\mathbf{99.8\%}$ & $\mathit{70.8\%}$ \\
\hline
6 & $\mathbf{100\%}$ & $\mathbf{100\%}$ & $\mathbf{100\%}$ & $\mathbf{100\%}$ & $\mathbf{99.8\%}$ & $\mathbf{100\%}$ & $\mathbf{98.9\%}$ & $\mathbf{98.9\%}$ & $\mathbf{97.9\%}$ \\
\hline
7 & $\mathbf{100\%}$ & $\mathbf{100\%}$ & $\mathbf{100\%}$ & $\mathbf{100\%}$ & $\mathbf{100\%}$ & $\mathbf{100\%}$ & $\mathsf{92.9\%}$ & $\mathbf{99.8\%}$ & $\mathbf{99.7\%}$ \\
\hline
8 & $\mathbf{100\%}$ & $\mathbf{100\%}$ & $\mathbf{100\%}$ & $\mathbf{100\%}$ & $\mathbf{100\%}$ & $\mathbf{100\%}$ & $\mathsf{99.6\%}$ & $\mathbf{99.7\%}$ & $\mathbf{99.9\%}$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\caption{\label{strobFid120} Same as table \ref{strobFid12} but with averaging during 120 almost-periods. Moreover for the orbit $e=0$ the presented results correspond to $\epsilon=10^{-1}$ (whereas $\epsilon=10^{-2}$ for the other orbits).}
\scriptsize
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$e$ & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{High freq. $\frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0}\ll 1$} & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{Medium freq. $\frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0} \sim 1$} & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{Low freq. $\frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0}\gg 1$} \\
\cline{2-10}
& $\frac{\sqrt{2}}{100}$ & $0.03$ & $0.04$ & $\sqrt{2}$ & $3.4$ & $4.5$ & $100\sqrt{2}$ & $101.3$ & $104.5$ \\
\hline
0 & $\mathit{61.5\%}$ & $\mathit{64.1\%}$ & $\mathit{68.1\%}$ & $\mathit{68.1\%}$ & $\mathit{69.2\%}$ & $\mathit{66.4\%}$ & $\mathit{72.0\%}$ & $\mathit{66.5\%}$ & $\mathit{72.5\%}$ \\
\hline
1 & $\mathbf{100\%}$ & $\mathbf{100\%}$ & $\mathit{61.0\%}$ & $\mathbf{99.5\%}$ & $\mathbf{98.0\%}$ & $\mathbf{99.9\%}$ & $\mathsf{91.4\%}$ & $\mathit{65.9\%}$ & $\mathit{62.5\%}$ \\
\hline
2 & $\mathbf{99.9\%}$ & $\mathbf{99.9\%}$ & $\mathbf{99.9\%}$ & $79.7\%$ & $\mathit{71.6\%}$ & $\mathit{64.1\%}$ & $\mathit{72.6\%}$ & $\mathit{64.2\%}$ & $\mathit{69.8\%}$ \\
\hline
3 & $\mathbf{99.9\%}$ & $\mathbf{99.8\%}$ & $\mathbf{99.7\%}$ & $88.7\%$ & $\mathit{60.0\%}$ & $\mathsf{91.0\%}$ & $\mathit{70.2\%}$ & $\mathsf{93.3\%}$ & $80.1\%$ \\
\hline
4 & $\mathbf{100\%}$ & $\mathbf{100\%}$ & $\mathbf{100\%}$ & $\mathbf{99.2\%}$ & $\mathbf{98.9\%}$ & $76.6\%$ & $\mathsf{93.7\%}$ & $\mathsf{96.6\%}$ & $\mathbf{97.3\%}$ \\
\hline
5 & $\mathbf{97.9\%}$ & $\mathbf{98.4\%}$ & $\mathbf{98.4\%}$ & $\mathbf{98.9\%}$ & $\mathsf{96.2\%}$ & $\mathsf{93.9\%}$ & $\mathbf{92.6\%}$ & $\mathbf{99.1\%}$ & $\mathit{71.1\%}$ \\
\hline
6 & $\mathbf{99.8\%}$ & $\mathbf{99.8\%}$ & $\mathbf{99.8\%}$ & $\mathbf{99.6\%}$ & $\mathsf{95.2\%}$ & $\mathbf{99.8\%}$ & $\mathit{60.6\%}$ & $\mathsf{91.4\%}$ & $\mathit{66.6\%}$ \\
\hline
7 & $\mathbf{100\%}$ & $\mathbf{100\%}$ & $\mathbf{100\%}$ & $\mathbf{100\%}$ & $\mathbf{99.5\%}$ & $\mathbf{100\%}$ & $\mathit{61.6\%}$ & $76.3\%$ & $\mathsf{97.1\%}$ \\
\hline
8 & $\mathbf{99.3\%}$ & $\mathbf{99.3\%}$ & $\mathbf{99.3\%}$ & $\mathbf{99.3\%}$ & $\mathbf{99.3\%}$ & $\mathbf{99.2\%}$ & $\mathbf{98.4\%}$ & $\mathsf{94.7\%}$ & $\mathbf{99.0\%}$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
These results are in accordance with the discussion of the section \ref{expected}. Except for the case of the chaotic orbit $\mathrm{Orb}(\theta_0)$, the average stroboscopic fidelity is large for the high frequency regime whereas it is good in the low frequency regime only at short term. This situation where the effective Hamiltonian describes very correctly the dynamics at high frequency but not at low frequency exists also for periodic systems, as in the system described in ref. \cite{Poletti}. In this one, the bad behaviour at low frequency is interpreted as the result of resonances between the quantum system and the periodic control. We can propose a similar interpretation here, as viewed section \ref{lowfreq}, at low frequency, resonances between the quantum system and the almost periodic control occur if $\frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0} \in \frac{\mathbb N^*}{p_{\epsilon,\theta}}$ (fig. \ref{fBCH}). Due to the closeness of these resonances, the effective Hamiltonian (depending only on fundamental quasi-energy states) fails to describe completely the dynamics, and an approach taking into account all quasi-energy states (as in ref. \cite{Viennot3}) is needed. In contrast, at high frequency, the possible resonances evoked section \ref{highfreq}, $\lambda|p_0-p_1| \in \frac{2\pi \mathbb N^*}{p_{\epsilon,\theta}}$, depend only on the characteristics of the interaction $\bar V_\theta$ (and not on the quantum system itself) and are unlikely for a generic orbit.\\
Moreover the results seem better in the double small island and in the center of the big island, confirming that with a too large orbit diameter $\angle \mathrm{Orb}(\theta)$ the stroboscopic fidelity is lower.
\subsection{Almost steady states}
By construction, we know that $|\langle Z\mu_{ie},\varphi^{n+1}(\theta)|\mathbf{U}_n(\theta)|Z\mu_i,\theta\rangle|^2=1$. We are interested by the survival probability $P^{surv}_n(\theta) = |\langle Z\mu_{ie},\theta|\mathbf{U}_n(\theta)|Z\mu_{ie},\theta\rangle|^2$, as for example fig. \ref{survprobZmu}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{SurProbZmu.eps}
\caption{\label{survprobZmu} Survival probability of a quasi-energy state $|\langle Z\mu_{i6},\theta_6|\mathbf{U}_n(\theta_6)|Z\mu_{i6},\theta_6\rangle|^2$ for the orbit $e=6$ during 12 almost-periods with $\frac{\omega_0}{\omega_1} = 3.4$. The circles show the survival probabilities at each almost-period $\{mp_{\epsilon,\theta_6}\}_{m=0,...,12}$.}
\end{figure}
As expected, the quasi-energy states presents quasi-recurrences at each almost-period (in the same conditions than the previous discussion about the stroboscopic fidelity). But we can see also, that the fluctuations during the transient regime (between two almost-periods) seems not too large. With different parameters, the quasi-energy state is even an almost steady state as we can see it fig. \ref{survprobZmu2}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{SurProbZmu2.eps}
\caption{\label{survprobZmu2} Same as fig. \ref{survprobZmu} but with $\frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0} = 0.04$.}
\end{figure}
To enlight this behaviour, we have compute the average survival probability:
\begin{equation}
\overline{P^{surv}(\theta)} = \frac{1}{N+1} \sum_{n=0}^N P^{surv}_n(\theta)
\end{equation}
during $N=120$ almost-periods for the three regimes (low, medium and high frequency). The results are presented table \ref{SurvProb}.
\begin{table}
\caption{\label{SurvProb} Average survival probability of a quasi-energy state during 120 almost-periods for different orbits and different values of $\frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0}$. For the orbit $e=0$ the presented results correspond to $\epsilon=10^{-1}$ (whereas $\epsilon=10^{-2}$ for the other orbits). We writte in bold the good results ($\geq 97\%$), in sans serif style the correct results ($\geq 90\%$), in normal style the middling results ($\geq 75\%$) and in italic the bad results ($<75\%$).}
\scriptsize
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$e$ & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{High freq. $\frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0}\ll 1$} & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{Medium freq. $\frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0} \sim 1$} & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{Low freq. $\frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0}\gg 1$} \\
\cline{2-10}
& $\frac{\sqrt{2}}{100}$ & $0.03$ & $0.04$ & $\sqrt{2}$ & $3.4$ & $4.5$ & $100\sqrt{2}$ & $101.3$ & $104.5$ \\
\hline
0 & $\mathit{42.6\%}$ & $\mathit{54.7\%}$ & $\mathit{48.0\%}$ & $\mathit{46.3\%}$ & $\mathit{49.6\%}$ & $\mathit{49.4\%}$ & $\mathit{50.0\%}$ & $\mathit{52.0\%}$ & $\mathit{51.3\%}$ \\
\hline
1 & $\mathsf{93.7\%}$ & $\mathsf{94.4\%}$ & $80.0\%$ & $\mathsf{92.2\%}$ & $\mathbf{97.0\%}$ & $\mathbf{99.6\%}$ & $\mathsf{94.9\%}$ & $\mathit{72.1\%}$ & $89.\%$ \\
\hline
2 & $\mathbf{99.9\%}$ & $\mathbf{99.9\%}$ & $\mathbf{99.8\%}$ & $\mathsf{90.5\%}$ & $87.7\%$ & $82.5\%$ & $80.7\%$ & $\mathit{45.0\%}$ & $\mathit{55.1\%}$ \\
\hline
3 & $\mathbf{99.9\%}$ & $\mathbf{99.8\%}$ & $\mathbf{99.8\%}$ & $88.7\%$ & $\mathsf{91.7\%}$ & $\mathsf{95.9\%}$ & $\mathit{62.8\%}$ & $\mathsf{95.7\%}$ & $\mathit{58.3\%}$ \\
\hline
4 & $\mathbf{99.9\%}$ & $\mathbf{99.8\%}$ & $\mathbf{99.8\%}$ & $\mathbf{99.3\%}$ & $\mathbf{97.6\%}$ & $84.5\%$ & $\mathbf{97.3\%}$ & $\mathsf{95.4\%}$ & $\mathbf{98.2\%}$ \\
\hline
5 & $\mathbf{99.9\%}$ & $\mathbf{100\%}$ & $\mathbf{100\%}$ & $\mathbf{99.7\%}$ & $\mathbf{98.0\%}$ & $\mathbf{98.4\%}$ & $87.9\%$ & $\mathbf{99.0\%}$ & $75.0\%$ \\
\hline
6 & $\mathbf{99.9\%}$ & $\mathbf{99.9\%}$ & $\mathbf{99.9\%}$ & $\mathbf{99.3\%}$ & $88.8\%$ & $\mathbf{98.0\%}$ & $\mathit{68.9\%}$ & $\mathsf{96.8\%}$ & $\mathsf{94.8\%}$ \\
\hline
7 & $\mathbf{99.9\%}$ & $\mathbf{99.9\%}$ & $\mathbf{99.9\%}$ & $\mathbf{98.9\%}$ & $\mathit{67.5\%}$ & $\mathbf{97.0\%}$ & $\mathit{55.9\%}$ & $80.3\%$ & $\mathsf{92.6\%}$ \\
\hline
8 & $\mathbf{100\%}$ & $\mathbf{100\%}$ & $\mathbf{100\%}$ & $\mathbf{100\%}$ & $\mathbf{100\%}$ & $\mathbf{99.9\%}$ & $\mathbf{98.2\%}$ & $\mathsf{98.0\%}$ & $\mathbf{99.8\%}$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
The steadiness of the quasi-energy state seems better in the center of the islands, confirming that $\angle \mathrm{Orb}(\theta)$ must be small. Moreover it seems better for orbits with small almost-periods. Due to the dependency to $\frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0}$ of $V(\theta)$, the steadiness of the quasi-energy state is valid only for high and medium frequency regimes. Note that the results do not depend on the time scale, we find very close survival probabilities by averaging during 12 almost-periods and by averaging during 120 almost-periods.\\
For the chaotic orbit $e=0$, we can have an almost steadiness of the quasi-energy states only during the first almost-period (because of the sensitivity to initial conditions), and for $\epsilon$ not too small (because $p_{\epsilon,\theta_0}$ must not be too large). We can see this with fig. \ref{probsurvchaos} and table \ref{probsurvchaos2}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{probsurvchaos.eps}
\caption{\label{probsurvchaos} Survival probability of a quasi-energy state $|\langle Z\mu_{i0},\theta_0|\mathbf{U}_n(\theta_0)|Z\mu_{i0},\theta_0\rangle|^2$ for the chaotic orbit $e=0$ during 1 almost-period with $\frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0} = 0.03$.}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\caption{\label{probsurvchaos2} Same as table \ref{SurvProb} but with the averaging during 1 almost-period and with $\epsilon=10^{-1}$.}
\scriptsize
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$e$ & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{High freq. $\frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0}\ll 1$} & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{Medium freq. $\frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0} \sim 1$} & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{Low freq. $\frac{\omega_1}{\omega_0}\gg 1$} \\
\cline{2-10}
& $\frac{\sqrt{2}}{100}$ & $0.03$ & $0.04$ & $\sqrt{2}$ & $3.4$ & $4.5$ & $100\sqrt{2}$ & $101.3$ & $104.5$ \\
\hline
0 & $89.7\%$ & ${89.3.7\%}$ & $\mathsf{96.8\%}$ & $\mathit{57.4\%}$ & $\mathit{73.3\%}$ & $\mathit{47.3\%}$ & ${75.7\%}$ & $\mathit{70.3\%}$ & $\mathit{53.9\%}$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
But since the $\mathrm{Orb}(\theta_0)$ covers a large part of $\mathbb T^2$, the steadiness is middling for the chaotic orbit.\\
As shown in ref. \cite{Guerin1, Guerin2}, in semi-classical light-matter interaction, the Floquet quasienergy states associated with the periodic oscillations of the electromagnetic field are related to the quantum dressed states (of the atom dressed by the photons). So in the semi-classical theory, the Floquet quasienergy states can be viewed as the states of the atom dressed by the classical electromagnetic field. By extension, we can view the SK quasienergy states $|Z\mu_{ie},\theta\rangle$ as the states of the spin (in this example) dressed by the chaotic environment described by the standard map (i.e. the spin dressed by the the ``set'' of ultrashort magnetic pulses). The dressed picture consists to consider a larger system constituted by the quantum system and its ``environment'' described by a classical flow. So an eigenvector of the dressed system physically corresponds to an equilibrium between the system and its environment. For the periodic cases, this equilibrium is a true steady state. But for the almost-periodic cases, due to the irregularities of the almost-periodicity, a quasienergy state represents a dynamical equilibrium rather than a steady equilibrium. As viewed fig. \ref{survprobZmu} with small irregularities (island of stability), the quantum system can temporalily leaves the quasienergy state, but the dynamics send the system back to it, inducing the small fluctuations. The main regularity, i.e. the almost-periodicity, ensures only the quasi-recurrence at each almost-period. And as viewed fig. \ref{survprobZmu2}, at high frequency, the spin being kicked very quickly, it does not have time to change between two kicks. The steadiness is then better. In contrast, in the chaotic sea (fig. \ref{probsurvchaos}), the irregularities are large and the ``return to equilibrium'' of the dynamics starting from a quasienergy state, is difficult. This induces large erratic fluctuations.
\subsection{True steady states}
The steadiness viewed in the previous section is just an approximation in some conditions. But we can use eq. \ref{SKquasistate} to built true steady states by considering a set of copies of the driven quantum system and not only a single one. For example, consider $\mathrm{Orb}(\theta_6)$ and 26 copies of the driven quantum system. We suppose that the copy labeled by $(m)$ ($m \leq 25$), has $\varphi^m(\theta_6)$ as initial condition for its kick system. We choose as initial states for the different copies, the quasi-energy states:
\begin{equation}
|\psi^{(m)}_0 \rangle = |Z\mu_{i6},\varphi^m(\theta_6) \rangle
\end{equation}
After one quick, we have
\begin{equation}
U(\varphi^m(\theta_6))|\psi^{(m)}_0 \rangle = e^{-\imath \chi_{i6}}|Z\mu_{i6},\varphi^{m+1}(\theta_6) \rangle
\end{equation}
Everything happens as if the copy $(m)$ takes the place of the copy $(m+1)$ (for $m<25$) and as if the copy $(25)$ takes the place of the copy $(0)$ (since $\varphi^{26}(\theta_6) = \theta_6 + \mathcal O(\epsilon)$). The set of 26 copies is then unchanged by the dynamics (even if individually each copy changes). We have then a true steady state (up to an error of magnitude $\epsilon$) by considering the mixed state of the set of copies:
\begin{equation}
\rho_n = \frac{1}{26} \sum_{m=0}^{25} \mathbf{U}_n(\varphi^{m}(\theta_6)) |\psi^{(m)}_0 \rangle \langle \psi^{(m)}_0 | \mathbf{U}_n(\varphi^{m}(\theta_6))^\dagger
\end{equation}
If the initial mixed state is the quasi-energy state of the orbit, $\rho_n$ does not evolve up to an error of magnitude $\epsilon$. This reasoning can be applied to all orbit, and to many orbits together. For example, we consider the small island of stability into the chaotic sea. We consider $N=1391$ copies of the quantum system, with kick initial conditions corresponding to the points of $\mathrm{Orb}(\theta_6)$, $\mathrm{Orb}(\theta_7)$, $\mathrm{Orb}(\theta_8)$ and the 893 points of $\mathrm{Orb}(\theta_0)$ corresponding to the precision $\epsilon = 2\times 10^{-1}$ ($\epsilon=10^{-2}$ for the orbits in the small island). We consider the following density matrix
\begin{equation}
\rho_n = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{m=1}^N \mathbf{U}_n(\theta_{(m)}) |\psi^{(m)}_0 \rangle \langle \psi^{(m)}_0| \mathbf{U}_n(\theta_{(m)})^\dagger
\end{equation}
where $\theta_{(m)}$ is the kick initial condition of the copy $(m)$; with the two initial states: $|\psi^{(m)}_0 \rangle = |Z\mu_{ie_m},\theta_{(m)}\rangle$ (with $\theta_{(m)} \in \mathrm{Orb}(\theta_{e_m})$), and $|\psi^{(m)}_0 \rangle = |0\rangle$ (for comparison). A population and the coherence of $\rho_n$ are drawn fig. \ref{stat_island}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{pop_island.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{cohe_island.eps}
\caption{\label{stat_island} Population of the state $|0\rangle$ (up) and coherence (down) of the mixed states $\rho_{0,n}$ (with $\rho_{0,0} = |0\rangle \langle 0|$) and $\rho_{Z\mu,n}$ (with $\rho_{Z\mu,0} = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{m=1}^N |Z\mu_{ie_{(m)}},\theta_{(m)} \rangle \langle Z\mu_{ie_{(m)}},\theta_{(m)} |$) during 2 almost-periods in the chaotic sea (with $\epsilon = 2\times 10^{-1}$) with $\frac{\omega_0}{\omega_1}=3.4$}
\end{figure}
As expected, $\rho_{Z\mu,0}$ is a steady states whereas any state presents oscillations due to the almost-periodicities of the four orbits.\\
We can relate this result to another physical situation. Suppose that we sent a regular train of ultrashort magnetic pulses onto a spin lattice (constituted by the $N=1391$ spins in a solid medium without mutual interaction). The pulses must then go accross the matter which is the support of the spins before reaching these ones, the scattering of light in the medium being supposed chaotic. We model this chaotic scattering by the standard map: it induces delays and polarization changes on the scattered pulses. Each spin views then a different train described by a different initial condition $\theta_{(m)}$. The spins associated with $\theta_{(m)}$ in the double small island (almost regular orbits $\{\mathrm{Orb}(\theta_6),\mathrm{Orb}(\theta_7),\mathrm{Orb}(\theta_8)\}$) are close to the surface of the solid (the pulses go accross a small distance and the scattering is still regular), whereas the spins associated with $\theta_{(m)}$ in the chaotic sea are deep in the solid (the scattering of the pulses is now chaotic). Due to the chaotic scattering, the spin lattice is submitted to decoherence and relaxation processes. Its density matrix evolves then to a steady state which is actually $\rho_{Z\mu,0}$ (theorem 5 in ref. \cite{Viennot3} proves that the mixed state of such a system converges at long time to a combination of fundamental quasienergy density matrices).
\section{Conclusion}
The effective Hamiltonian defined by the Schr\"odinger-Koopman approach permits to extend the approach of the Floquet effective Hamiltonian to quasi-periodically driven systems without knowledge of the different frequencies of these systems. It can be also applied to chaotically driven systems, whereas in this case it is diffult to exploit the dynamical behaviour (but this a direct consequence of the definition of chaos).
\ack
The author acknowledge support from ISITE Bourgogne-Franche-Comt\'e (contract ANR-15-IDEX-0003) under grants from I-QUINS and GNETWORKS projects, and support from the R\'egion Bourgogne-Franche-Comt\'e under grants from APEX project. Numerical computations have been executed on computers of the Utinam Institute supported by the R\'egion Bourgogne-Franche-Comt\'e and the Institut des Sciences de l'Univers (INSU).\\
The author thanks Professor Atushi Tanaka for useful exchanges.
|
\section{Statement of the problem and main results}
We are interested in proving well-posedness for the martingale problem associated with the following SDE:
\begin{equation}
\label{SDE}
X_t=x+\int_0^t b(X_s)ds + Z_t,
\end{equation}
where $(Z_s)_{s\ge 0} $ stands for a symmetric
$d$-dimensional stable process of order $\alpha=1 $ defined on some filtered probability space $(\Omega,{\mathcal F},({\mathcal F}_t)_{t\ge 0},\P) $ (cf. \cite{bass2004} and the references therein) under the sole assumptions of continuity and boundedness on the vector valued coefficient $b$:
\begin{center}
\A{C}\ The drift $b: {\mathbb R}^d \to {\mathbb R}^d $ is \textit{continuous} and bounded.\footnote{The boundedness of $b$ is here assumed for technical simplicity. Our methodology could apply, up to suitable localization arguments, to a drift $b$ having linear growth.}
\end{center}
Above, the generator $L $ of $Z $ writes:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{GEN_DRIVING_Z}
L\varphi(x)&=&{\rm p. v.}\int_{{\mathbb R}^d\backslash\{0\}
} [\varphi(x+z)-\varphi(x)] \nu (dz), \;\;\; x \in {\mathbb R}^d, \;\;\; \varphi \in C_b^2({\mathbb R}^d), \notag\\
\nu(dz)&=&\frac{d\rho}{\rho^{2}}\tilde \mu(d\theta),\ z =\rho \theta, (\rho,\theta)\in {\mathbb R}_+^*\times {\mathbb S}^{d-1}.
\end{eqnarray}
(here $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle$ (or $\cdot$) and $|\cdot|$ denote respectively the inner product and the norm in ${\mathbb R}^d$).
In the above equation, $\nu$ is the L\'evy intensity measure of $Z,$ ${\mathbb S}^{d-1}$ is the unit sphere of ${\mathbb R}^d $ and $\tilde \mu $ is a spherical measure on $\mathbb S^{d-1} $. It is well know, see e.g. \cite{sato:99} that the L\'evy exponent $\Phi $ of $Z$ writes as:
\begin{equation}
\label{LEVY_EXP}
\Phi(\lambda)={\mathbb E}[\exp(i\langle \lambda, Z_1\rangle)]=\exp\Big(-\int_{\mathbb S^{d-1}}|\langle \lambda,\theta\rangle| \mu(d\theta)\Big),\;\; \lambda \in {\mathbb R}^d,
\end{equation}
where $\mu= c_1 \tilde \mu $, for a positive constant $c_1$, is the so-called spectral measure of $Z $.
We will assume some non-degeneracy conditions on $ \mu$. Namely we introduce assumption
\begin{trivlist}
\item[\A{ND}] There exists $\kappa\ge 1 $ s.t.
\begin{equation}
\label{ND_MES}
\forall \lambda\in {\mathbb R}^d,\ \kappa^{-1}|\lambda|\le \int_{\mathbb S^{d-1}}|\langle \lambda,\theta\rangle| \mu(d\theta)\le \kappa|\lambda|.
\end{equation}
\end{trivlist}
Notably, no regularity on the spectral measure itself is assumed.
In particular, we do not assume that $\mu$ has a density with respect to the Lebesgue measure on $\mathbb S^{d-1} $. When such density exists and it is constant, we get, up to multiplicative factor, the usual fractional Laplacian $L= \Delta^{\frac 12} $. On the other hand, we can also consider the singular measure $\mu = \sum_{i=1}^d \frac 12 (\delta_{e_i}+\delta_{-e_i}) $, where $(e_i)_{i\in {{[\![}} 1,d{{]\!]}}} $ denotes the canonical basis of ${\mathbb R}^d $, which corresponds to the cylindrical fractional Laplacian $\sum_{i=1}^d (\partial_{x_i x_i}^2)^{\frac 12} $
(cf. \cite{bass:chen:06}).
In dimension one, \eqref{SDE} is investigated in the seminal paper \cite{tana:tsuc:wata:74}; the authors prove that \eqref{SDE} is well-posed
if $b: {\mathbb R} \to {\mathbb R}$ is continuous and bounded and the exponent $\Phi : {\mathbb R}^d \to {\mathbb C}$ of the L\'evy process $Z= (Z_t)$ verifies $(\text{Re}\Phi (\lambda))^{-1} = O (|\lambda|^{-1})$ as $|\lambda| \to \infty$. Note that, still in dimension one, uniqueness in law implies pathwise uniqueness.
For $d \ge 1$ assuming that $\mu$ has a density, well-posedness of \eqref{SDE} follows by the results in \cite{komatsu}.\\
\def\ciao1{
Even though the approach presented below would also work in dimension one, we assume here that $d> 1 $, i.e. that we are in the strictly multi-dimensional case. This is mainly motivated by the fact that weak-well-posedness in the scalar critical case, as well as some related counter-examples in the super-critical case involving stability indexes lower than one, have been investigated in the famous work of Tanaka \textit{et al.}
\cite{tana:tsuc:wata:74}.
}
Now, the operator which is at the moment only formally associated with the dynamics in \eqref{SDE} writes for all $\varphi \in C_b^2({\mathbb R}^d) $, and $x\in {\mathbb R}^d$:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{GEN_SDE}
{\mathcal L} \varphi(x)&=&{\rm p. v.}\int_{{\mathbb R}^d\backslash\{0\}
} [\varphi(x+z)-\varphi(x)] \nu (dz)+\langle b(x),D\varphi(x)\rangle\notag\\
&=& L\varphi(x)+\langle b(x),D\varphi(x)\rangle,
\end{eqnarray}
The current setting is said to be critical because, roughly speaking, the two terms in \eqref{GEN_SDE} have the same order one. Therefore it is not clear that the smoothing properties of the semi-group generated by the
non-local
operator are sufficient to regularize a transport term.
If the drift $b$ is itself H\"older continuous and bounded, stronger assumption than \A{C}, then the well-posedness of the martingale problem for ${\mathcal L} $ can be established following \cite{miku:prag:14} (see also Section 3 in \cite{prio:12}).
For unbounded H\"older drifts this property follows from the Schauder estimates established in \cite{chau:meno:prio:19}. All these results are based on perturbative techniques which exploit that the singularities of the corresponding heat-kernel serving as a proxy appearing in the analysis can be absorbed thanks to the H\"older continuity.
However, under the sole continuity condition in \A{C} those singularities can only be \textit{averaged}. This is why in the current framework we will exploit $L^p$ estimates for singular kernels.
We can for instance mention those of \cite{huan:meno:prio:19} in the more general degenerate Kolmogorov setting. We also remark that the proof of Lemma \ref{KRYLOV_POUR_TOUS} (a Krylov's type estimate on the resolvent) seems to be of independent interest.
Results on weak well-posedness when $Z$ is non-degenerate symmetric stable with $\alpha >1$ and $b$ is in some $L^p$-spaces are available (see \cite{jin} and the references therein). We also mention \cite{zhao} who investigates weak well-posedness when $\alpha <1$ for a subclass of symmetric stable processes $Z$ assuming that the $(1- \alpha)$-H\"older norm of $b$ is small enough.
\def\ciao2{
Finally, we give a brief overview of existence results for Equation (1) with measurable coefficients a and b known for some particular cases.
In dimension one \cite{zanzotto} investigates \eqref{SDE} without drift (i.e., $b=0$) It gives a necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of the weak solution (see also the references therein).
We mention a related existence result in \cite{kurenok} which
states that the SDE
$$
dX_t = b(t, X_t) dt + dZ_t, \;\;\; X_0 = x
$$
has a weak solution if $b$ is a bounded measurable function and the exponent $\Phi : {\mathbb R}^d \to {\mathbb C}$ of $Z= (Z_t)$ verifies
$(\text{Re}\Phi (\lambda))^{-1} = o (|\lambda|^{-1})$ as $|\lambda| \to \infty$. Weak uniqueness under such assumptions is still not clear.
}
Finally we note that equivalence between
weak solutions to a class of SDEs driven by Poisson random measures and solutions to the martingale
problem for a class of non-local operators is investigated in \cite{kurtz2011}.
\medskip
Let ${\mathscr D}({\mathbb R}_+,{\mathbb R}^d) $ be the Skorokhod space of all c\`adl\`ag functions from ${\mathbb R}_+$ into ${\mathbb R}^d $ endowed with the Skorokhod topology and consider the canonical process $(X_t)$, $X_t(\omega)$ $ = \omega(t)$, for any $\omega \in
{\mathscr D}({\mathbb R}_+,{\mathbb R}^d)$.
Let ${\mathcal L}$ be defined as in \eqref{GEN_SDE}.
Let us fix a Borel probability measure $\mu$ over ${\mathbb R}^d$. A solution to the $( {\mathcal L}, \mu)$-martingale problem is a probability measure $\P = \P^{\mu}$ on the Skorokhod space such that $\P (X_0 \in B) = \mu (B)$, $B \in {\mathcal B}({\mathbb R}^d)$ and, moreover,
for any function $\varphi\in C_b^2({\mathbb R}^d) $,
$$
M_t=\varphi(X_t)-\varphi(X_0)-\int_0^t {\mathcal L} \varphi(X_s) ds, \ t\ge 0,
$$
is a $\P^{\mu} $-martingale (with respect to the canonical filtration).
For a comprehensive study of such martingale problems see Chapter 4 in \cite{ethi:kurz:97}.
The martingale problem for $\mathcal L$ is well-posed, if
for any initial distribution $\mu$ there exists a unique (in the sense of finite-dimensional distributions) solution to the $( {\mathcal L}, \mu)$-martingale problem.
Our main result is the following one.
\begin{THM}
\label{THM_WEU}
Under \A{ND} and \A{C} the martingale problem for ${\mathcal L}$ (cf. \eqref{GEN_SDE}) is well-posed.
\end{THM}
\section{Main Steps for the proof of Theorem \ref{THM_WEU}}
Our approach is the following. Let us first assume that $b$ does not vary much, i.e.
\begin{trivlist}
\item[\A{C${}_\varepsilon$}] Additionally to \A{C}, we assume that there exists $\varepsilon \in (0,1) $, $b_0\in {\mathbb R}^d$ s.t.
\begin{equation}\label{VARIE_PEU}
|b(x)-b_0 | \le \varepsilon,\;\;\; x \in {\mathbb R}^d.
\end{equation}
\end{trivlist}
The previous hypothesis means that we can choose $b_0 \in {\mathbb R}^d$ and $\varepsilon >0$ small enough such that \eqref{VARIE_PEU} holds.
In this case, let us introduce, for any given starting point $x\in {\mathbb R}^d $, the following \textit{frozen proxy} process:
\begin{equation}
\label{PROXY_PROC}
{{\tilde X}^x}_t=x+ b_0 t + Z_t,\ t\ge 0,
\end{equation}
where we recall that $(Z_s)_{s\ge 0} $ stands for a symmetric non-degenerate $d$-dimensional stable process of order $\alpha=1 $ defined on some filtered probability space $(\Omega,{\mathcal F},({\mathcal F}_t)_{t\ge 0},\P) $. The generator of $(\tilde X_t^x)$
writes for all $\varphi\in C_b^2({\mathbb R}^d) $ as:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{GEN_PROXY} {\mathcal L}^{b_0} \varphi(x)
= \tilde {\mathcal L}\varphi(x)&=&{\rm p. v.}\int_{{\mathbb R}^d\backslash\{0\}
} [\varphi(x+z)-\varphi(x)] \nu (dz)+\langle b_0 ,D\varphi(x)\rangle\notag\\
&=& L\varphi(x)+\langle b_0 ,D\varphi(x)\rangle, \;\; x\in {\mathbb R}^d,
\end{eqnarray}
using again the notation \eqref{GEN_DRIVING_Z}.
Using the regularity properties of the density of $Z_t$,
under \A{ND}, we find easily that ${\tilde X}^x_t $ admits for $t>0 $ a $C^{\infty}$-density $\tilde p(t,x,\cdot) $ which can be expressed as:
\begin{equation}
\label{CORRESP_DENS}
\tilde p(t,x,y)=p_{Z_t}\big(y-x- b_0 t\big),\;\; t>0.
\end{equation}
Following the proof of Lemma 4.3 in \cite{huan:meno:prio:19} (see also Section 4.2 in \cite{chau:meno:prio:19}) we can as well show the following result (the sketch of the proof is postponed to Appendix).
\begin{lemma}[Controls on the frozen density]\label{LEMME_DENS}
The density $p_{Z_t}$ and its derivatives satisfy the following integrability properties. There exists a constant $C_1:=C_1(\A{ND})\ge 1 $ s.t. for all multi-index \textbf {$ \beta$}, $|{\bf \beta}|\le 2 $,
\begin{equation}
\label{DER_DENS_BOUND}
|\partial_{z}^{\bf \beta} p_{Z_t}(z)|\le \frac{C_1}{t^{| {\bf \beta }|}} \bar q(t,z), \;\;\; z \in {\mathbb R}^d,
\end{equation}
where $\bar q(t,\cdot) $ is a probability density s.t. $t^{-d}\, \bar q(1, t^{-1} x) = \bar q(t,x)$, where $\bar q (1, \cdot) \in L^p({\mathbb R}^d)$, $p \in [1, \infty)$, and
for all $\gamma<1 $, there exists $C_\gamma$ s.t.
\begin{equation}
\label{INT_BOUND}
\int_{{\mathbb R}^d}|z|^\gamma \bar q(t,z)\le C_\gamma t^\gamma,\;\; t>0.
\end{equation}
Moreover, the density $\bar q $ enjoys the following property (cf. formula (4.26) in the proof of Lemma 4.3 in \cite{huan:meno:prio:19}): fix $K\ge 1$; there exists $C:=C(K)$ s.t. for all $t>0,x,y\in {\mathbb R}^d$ with $|y|/t\le K $ then:
\begin{equation}
\label{PERTURB_DIAG_DENS_BD}
\bar q(t,x+y)\le C\bar q(t,x).
\end{equation}
Also, for all $t>0,\ z\in {\mathbb R}^d $, $c_0 >0,$ $h\in {\mathbb R}^d$ with $|h|\le c_0 t $,
\begin{equation}\label{LAP_FRAZ}
|\partial_{z}^\beta p_{Z_t}(z+h)|\le \frac{\tilde C}{t^\beta}\bar q(t,z),\ \tilde C:=\tilde C(C_1,c_0),\ |\Delta^{\frac 12} p_{Z_t}(z)|\le \frac{C_1}t\bar q\big(t,z\big),
\end{equation}
and for all $\beta\in (0,1) $, there exists $C_\beta\ge 1 $ s.t. for all $(z,z')\in ({\mathbb R}^d)^2 $:
\begin{equation}
\label{DIFF_LAP_FRAZ}
|\Delta^{\frac 12} p_{Z_t}(z)-\Delta^{\frac 12} p_{Z_t}(z')|\le \frac{C_\beta}t\left( \frac{|z-z'|}{t}\right)^\beta\Big(\bar q\big(t,z\big)+\bar q\big(t,z'\big)\Big),
\end{equation}
as well as
\begin{equation}
\label{DIFF_LAP_GRAD}
|D p_{Z_t}(z)-D p_{Z_t}(z')|\le \frac{C_\beta}t\left( \frac{|z-z'|}{t}\right)^\beta\Big(\bar q\big(t,z\big)+\bar q\big(t,z'\big)\Big).
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
For a fixed parameter $\lambda>0$,
we now introduce the resolvent associated with the frozen proxy process in \eqref{PROXY_PROC}. Namely, for all $x \in {\mathbb R}^d $ and $f \in C_0^{\infty}({\mathbb R}^d) $:
\begin{equation}
\label{GREEN}
\tilde R^\lambda \varphi (x):=\int_{0}^{+\infty} \exp(-\lambda t){\mathbb E}[ ({\tilde X}^x_t)] dt=\int_{0}^{+\infty}\!\!\! dt \exp(-\lambda t)\int_{{\mathbb R}^d}\tilde p(t,x,y) \varphi(y) dy.
\end{equation}
It is clear that the above function is the unique classical solution of the PDE:
\begin{equation}
\label{FROZEN_PDE}
\tilde {\mathcal L}u(x)-\lambda u=-f(x),\ x\in {\mathbb R}^d.
\end{equation}
It also satisfies, for the smooth source considered, some Schauder estimates (see e.g. \cite{prio:12}). Eventually, we also derive from Lemma \ref{LEMME_DENS} the following important pointwise estimate. For all $ p>d$ there exists $C_p$ s.t. for all $x\in {\mathbb R}^d $,
\begin{equation}
\label{CTR_GREEN_LP_RIS}
|\tilde R^\lambda f (x)|\le C_p (1+\lambda^{-1})\|f\|_{L^p}, \;\; f \in C_0^{\infty}({\mathbb R}^d).
\end{equation}
Indeed, from \eqref{DER_DENS_BOUND}, one gets (using the H\"older inequality):
\begin{eqnarray*}
|\tilde R^\lambda f(x)|&\le& \int_{0}^{+\infty} dt \exp(-\lambda t)\int_{{\mathbb R}^d} |f(y)| \frac{C}{t^d} \bar q(1,\frac y t) dy\le C\int_0^{+\infty} \frac{dt}{t^{\frac d p}} \exp(-\lambda t)\|f\|_{L^p}\\
&\le & C_p(1+\lambda^{-1})\|f\|_{L^p}.
\end{eqnarray*}
We are actually interested in the corresponding PDE with variable coefficients involving $\mathcal L$ which writes:
\begin{equation}
\label{VARIABLE_PDE}
\mathcal Lu(x)-\lambda u(x)=- f (x),\ x\in {\mathbb R}^d.
\end{equation}
The idea is to express a solution of \eqref{VARIABLE_PDE} in terms of the solutions of \eqref{FROZEN_PDE} which are well understood.
To this end we first write:
\begin{equation}
\label{VARIABLE_PDE_WITH_GREEN}
{\mathcal L} \tilde R^\lambda f(x)-\lambda \tilde R^\lambda f (x) =-f(x)+{\mathcal R} f (x)=:-(I-{\mathcal R}) f (x),\ x\in {\mathbb R}^d,
\end{equation}
where in the above equation the remainder operator ${\mathcal R}$ writes for all $ f\in C_0^{\infty}({\mathbb R}^d)$:
\begin{equation}
\label{DEF_REMAINDER}
\mathcal Rf(x)=({\mathcal L}-\tilde {\mathcal L})\tilde R^\lambda f(x) =\langle b(x) - b_0 ,D\tilde R^\lambda f(x)\rangle.
\end{equation}
The point is that a \textit{formal} solution of \eqref{VARIABLE_PDE} is provided by the expression $\tilde R^\lambda \circ(I-\mathcal R)^{-1} f (x) $ if $I-\mathcal R $ can be inverted on a suitable function space (see Section 4.1 for more details). A sufficient condition is that the remainder operator $\mathcal R$ has sufficiently small associated norm.
Observe that for all $t>0 $,
$$|D\int_{{\mathbb R}^d} \tilde p(t,x,y)f(y)dy|\le Ct^{-1}\| f\|_{\infty}.
$$
Under our sole continuity conditions \A{C${}_\varepsilon $}, we cannot
absorb such a time singularity pointwise (this could be done in the H\"older framework).
We are thus naturally in the framework of singular integrals, i.e. explosive contribution in time, for which one can expect the time singularity to be absorbed through averaging. The associated natural function spaces to be considered are thus the Lebesgue spaces $L^p( {\mathbb R}^d)$.
By Lemma \ref{LEMME_DENS}
we will actually derive the following theorem
which is the main technical tool to establish the well-posedness for \eqref{SDE}.
\begin{THM}[$L^p $-estimates for the resolvent] \label{MLP}Under \A{ND} we have, $\lambda >0,$
\begin{equation}
\label{BOUND_LP_GRAD}\|D\tilde R^\lambda f\|_{L^p( {\mathbb R}^d)}\le (1 + \lambda^{-1}) C(p, \A{ND},d, |b_0|)\, \|f\|_{L^p( {\mathbb R}^d)}, \; f\in C_0^{\infty}({\mathbb R}^d).
\end{equation}
\end{THM}
We deduce
\begin{THM}[$L^p $-estimates for the remainder in the critical case]\label{THM_LP}
Assume \A{ND} and \A{C${}_\varepsilon $} hold. Let $\lambda \ge 1$.
For any $ p\in (1,+\infty)$, there exists $C_p := C(p, \A{ND} , d, \| b\|_{\infty})$ s.t.
\begin{equation}
\label{LP_EST}
\|\mathcal Rf\|_{L^p( {\mathbb R}^d)}\le C_p\, \varepsilon \, \|f\|_{L^p( {\mathbb R}^d)},\;\; \; f\in C_0^{\infty}({\mathbb R}^d).
\end{equation}
\end{THM}
Importantly, assuming \A{C${}_\varepsilon $}, we have: $|b_0| \le |b_0 - b(x)| + |b(x)|$ $\le 1 + \| b\|_{\infty}$; hence
the estimate in \eqref{LP_EST} is independent of $b_0 $.
Theorem \ref{THM_LP} gives that $(I - \mathcal R)$ is invertible on $L^p( {\mathbb R}^d) $ if $\varepsilon $ is sufficiently small.
\begin{proof}
Write for all $x\in {\mathbb R}^d$:
\begin{eqnarray*}
|{\mathcal R}f(x)|\le |b_0 -b(x)||D\tilde R^\lambda f(x)| \underset{\eqref{VARIE_PEU}}{\le} \varepsilon |D\tilde R^\lambda f(x)|.
\end{eqnarray*}
Hence,
\begin{equation}\label{PREAL_LP_BOUND}
\|\mathcal Rf\|_{L^p( {\mathbb R}^d)}{\le} \varepsilon \|D\tilde R^\lambda f\|_{L^p( {\mathbb R}^d)}.
\end{equation}
Plugging \eqref{BOUND_LP_GRAD} in \eqref{PREAL_LP_BOUND} yields the result.
\end{proof}
The previous estimates then allow to establish that the martingale problem associated with $ {\mathcal L}$ is well-posed under the assumption \A{C${}_\varepsilon $}. From this first result, we can get rid of the \textit{almost constant} coefficients through the continuity assumption and a localization argument. These points are detailed in Section \ref{SEC_WP} below.
\section{Proof of the main $L^p$ estimates of Theorem \ref{MLP}}
To get the $L^p$-estimates in \eqref{BOUND_LP_GRAD}, we will adopt the Coifmann and Weiss approach \cite{coif:weis:71} as in \cite{huan:meno:prio:19}. It therefore suffices to establish the two following lemmas.
\begin{lemma}[Global $L^2$-estimate]
\label{LEMME_L2}
There exists a positive constant $C_2:=C_2(\A{ND})$ such that, for all $\lambda>0 $ and for all $f \in L^2( {\mathbb R}^{d})$,
$$
\|D \tilde R^\lambda f\|_{L^2({\mathbb R}^d)}
\le C_2 \|f\|_{L^2({\mathbb R}^d)}.
$$
\end{lemma}
We mention that this estimate would hold under weaker assumptions than \A{ND}. In particular, no symmetry would a-priori be needed.
\begin{lemma}[Deviation Controls]
\label{LEMME_DEV} There exist constants $K$ and $C$ possibly depending on $\A{ND}$ and $|b_0|$, s.t. for all
$\xi, x \in {\mathbb R}^d$ the following control hold:
\begin{align*}
\int_0^{+\infty} dt \exp(-\lambda t) \int_{ |x-y|\ge K |x-\xi| }|D\tilde p (t,x,y)-D\tilde p (t,\xi,y) | dy \le C(1+\lambda^{-1}).
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
Indeed, up to a direct symmetrization of the singular kernel involved, since the above estimates still hold for the adjoint operator, we readily derive that \eqref{BOUND_LP_GRAD} follows from the controls of Lemmas \ref{LEMME_L2}, \ref{LEMME_DEV} and Theorem 2.4 in Chapter III of \cite{coif:weis:71}. To this purpose we also need an additional truncation procedure to separate the singular and non-singular part of the kernel (see e.g. Lemma 3.2 and eq. (3.11) in \cite{huan:meno:prio:19}).
\begin{remark}{
We point out that, in the critical case { the
$L^p$-estimates for the fractional Laplacian or the gradient applied to the resolvent are the same.} Indeed, in the Fourier space their symbol are respectively $|\xi| $ and $-i\xi $. The $L^2$-estimate will not make any difference and as far as the deviations are concerned, we recall from \eqref{DIFF_LAP_GRAD}, \eqref{DIFF_LAP_FRAZ} and \eqref{CORRESP_DENS} that both singular kernels share the same density estimate. }
\end{remark}
\def\ciao
{
As a direct consequence of the previous estimate, for a non degenerate and bounded scalar diffusion coefficient $\sigma(w)$, setting $L_wf(x)={\rm p.v.}\int_{{\mathbb R}^d}\big(f(x+\sigma(w)z)-f(x)\big) \frac{dz}{|z|^{d+1}} $, the same type of estimate holds i.e. $\|(L_x-L_{x_0})\tilde R^\lambda f \|_{L^p}\le C |\sigma(x)-\sigma(x_0)| \|f\|_{L^p}$. Indeed, in such a case, it is readily seen that $L_wf(x)=|\sigma(w)| \Delta^{\frac 12} f(x) $. Thus, assumption \A{C${}_\varepsilon $} and the previous $L^p$-estimates give the statement. In the multidimensional setting the proof is more involved we can e.g. refer to theorem 2.2 in \cite{komatsu} in the absolutely continuous case.
Hence, in the following we only prove the results in Lemmas \ref{LEMME_L2}, \ref{LEMME_DEV} for the fractional Laplacian.
}
\subsection{Proof of Lemma \ref{LEMME_L2}}
Introduce first for $\eta>0 $,
\begin{equation}\label{RES_WITH_EPS}
\tilde R_\eta^\lambda f(x)=\int_{\eta}^{+\infty} dt \exp(-\lambda t)\int_{{\mathbb R}^d}\tilde p(t,x,y)f(y) dy.
\end{equation}
We start from the representation of the density $\tilde p $ obtained under \A{ND} through Fourier inversion from \eqref{CORRESP_DENS}. Namely, for all $t>0, (x,y)\in ({\mathbb R}^d)^2$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\tilde p(t,x,y)&=&
\frac{1}{(2\pi)^d}\int_{{\mathbb R}^{d}} \exp\Big(-i\langle (y-(x+b_0 t)),p\rangle \Big)
\cdot \exp\Big(-t\int_{\S^{d-1}}|\langle p, \xi\rangle| \mu(d\xi)\Big)dp.
\end{eqnarray*}
Let $k=1, \ldots, d$ and $D_k = \partial_{x_k}$. We can compute, for $f\in{\mathscr S}({\mathbb R}^{d})$ (Schwartz class of ${\mathbb R}^{d}$), the Fourier transform:
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\mathbb R}^d \ni \zeta \mapsto \mathcal{F}( D_k \tilde R_\eta^\lambda f) (\zeta) = \int_{{\mathbb R}^{d}} e^{i \langle \zeta, x \rangle} D_k \tilde R_\eta^\lambda f(x) d x = (-i\zeta_k) \mathcal{F}(\tilde R_\eta^\lambda f)(\zeta)
\\
=(-i\zeta_k) \int_{{\mathbb R}^n}e^{-i\langle \zeta, x\rangle}\Big(\int_{\eta}^{+\infty}\exp(-\lambda t)\int_{{\mathbb R}^d}\tilde p(t,x,y)f(y)dy dt \Big)dx.
\end{eqnarray*}
Using the Fubini theorem and \eqref{CORRESP_DENS}, we derive:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal{F}(D_k \tilde R_\eta^\lambda f) (\zeta)
&=&(-i\zeta_k) \int_{\eta}^{+\infty}\exp(-\lambda t ) \int_{{\mathbb R}^d}\exp(-i\langle \zeta, y) f(y) \\
&&\times\Big( \int_{{\mathbb R}^d}\exp(-i\langle \zeta, x-y\rangle)
p_{Z_t} \big(y-(x+b_0 t) \big)dx \Big) dy dt\\
&=&(-i\zeta_k) \Big(\int_{\eta}^{+\infty}\exp(-\lambda t ) \int_{{\mathbb R}^d}\exp(-i\langle \zeta, y) f(y) \\
&&\exp(i t\langle \zeta,b_0 \rangle)\times\Big( \int_{{\mathbb R}^d}\exp(-i\langle \zeta, \tilde x\rangle)
p_{Z_t} (-\tilde x)d\tilde x \Big) dy dt,
\end{eqnarray*}
setting $\tilde x=x+b_0 t-y $ for the last identity. Recalling that by symmetry $p_{ Z_t }(-\tilde x)=p_{ Z_t}(\tilde x) $, we finally get
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\mathcal{F}(D_k \tilde R_\eta^\lambda f) (\zeta)\\
&=& (-i\zeta_k) \int_{\eta}^{+\infty} \exp\big(t(-\lambda+i\langle \zeta,b_0 \rangle)\big) \mathcal{F}(f)( \zeta)\mathcal{{\mathcal F}}(p_{Z_t})(t,\zeta)dt\\
&=& (-i\zeta_k) \int_{\eta}^{+\infty} \exp\big(t(-\lambda+i\langle \zeta,b_0 \rangle)\big) \mathcal{F}(f)(s, \zeta)\exp\left(- t\int_{\S^{d-1}} |\langle \zeta,\xi \rangle|\mu(d\xi) \right) dt,
\end{eqnarray*}
where ($\mathcal{F}(f)(\cdot), \mathcal{F}(p_{ Z_t })(\cdot)$ denote the Fourier transforms of $f(\cdot),p_{Z_t }(\cdot)$.
Let us now com\-pu\-te $\|\mathcal{F}(D_k \tilde R_\eta^\lambda f)\|_{L^2({\mathbb R}^d)}$. From the non degeneracy of $\mu$ we have:
\begin{equation}
\label{THE_REF_FOR_LATER}
|\mathcal{F}(D_k \tilde R_\eta^\lambda f) (\zeta) |
\le C |\zeta| \int_{0}^{+\infty} \exp(-\lambda t) |\mathcal{F}(f)( \zeta)|\exp\left(-C^{-1}t| \zeta| \right)dt.
\end{equation}
For the $L^2$-norm of $\mathcal{F} (D \tilde R_\eta^\lambda f)$, using the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we obtain:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|\mathcal{F}(D_k \tilde R_\eta^\lambda f)\|_{L^2({\mathbb R}^d)}^2
&\le& C \int_{{\mathbb R}^{d}} \Bigg( |\zeta|
\,\int_{0}^{+\infty} \exp(-\lambda t) |\mathcal{F}(f)( \zeta) |^2 \exp\left(- C^{-1}t| \zeta| \right)dt\Bigg)\\
&&\times \Bigg(|\zeta|\int_0^{+\infty}\exp(-\lambda t) \exp\left(- C^{-1}t| \zeta| \right)dt\Bigg)d\zeta\\
&\le &C \int_{{\mathbb R}^{d}} |\zeta|
\,\int_{0}^{+\infty} \exp(-\lambda t) |\mathcal{F}(f)( \zeta) |^2 \exp\left(- C^{-1}t| \zeta| \right)dt d\zeta\\
&\le & C \int_{{\mathbb R}^{d}} |\mathcal{F}(f)( \zeta) |^2 \Big(\int_{0}^{+\infty} |\zeta|\exp\left(- C^{-1}t| \zeta| \right)dt\Big) d\zeta\\
&\le& C \int_{{\mathbb R}^{d}} |\mathcal{F}(f)( \zeta) |^2d\zeta=C\|\mathcal{F}(f)\|_{L^2({\mathbb R}^d)}.
\end{eqnarray*}
The assertion now follows for $f\in {\mathscr S}({\mathbb R}^{d}) $ from the Plancherel isometry, and for $f\in L^2({\mathbb R}^{d}) $ by a density argument. From the uniformity of the previous controls, the final statement can eventually be derived letting $\eta $ go to zero through weak convergence arguments. \hfill $\qed $
\subsection{Proof of Lemma \ref{LEMME_DEV}}
Let us denote $\rho:=|x-y|, \gamma:=|x-\xi| $.
From \eqref{LAP_FRAZ}, \eqref{DIFF_LAP_FRAZ} and the correspondence \eqref{CORRESP_DENS}, we
easily get that, for a fixed $\beta\in (0,1) $:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{CTR_DEV}
&&|D\tilde p(t,x,y)-D\tilde p(t,\xi,y)|
= |Dp_{Z_t}\big(y-x-b_0 t \big)-Dp_{Z_t}\big(y-\xi-b_0 t \big)|\notag\\
&\le& \frac{C_\beta}{t}\left(\frac{|x-\xi|}{t}\right)^\beta\big(\bar q(t, y-x-b_0 t)+\bar q(t,y-\xi-b_0 t) \big)\notag\\
&\le & \frac{C_\beta}{t}\left(\frac{|x-\xi|}{t}\right)^\beta\big(\bar q(t, y-x)+\bar q(t,y-\xi) \big)
\end{eqnarray}
using as well the first bound in \eqref{LAP_FRAZ} for the last identity.
Namely, a {diagonal} perturbation does not affect the density estimate.
We therefore derive:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{sii} \nonumber
I&:=& \int_0^{+\infty} dt \exp(-\lambda t) \int_{ |x-y|\ge K |x-\xi| }| D\tilde p (t,x,y)- D \tilde p (t,\xi,y) | dy
\\
&\le &C \int_0^{+\infty} dt \exp(-\lambda t)\int_{ \rho >K\gamma} \frac{1}{t}\left(\frac{|x-\xi|}{t} \right)^\bet
\Big(\bar q\big(t, x-y \big) +\bar q\big(t, \xi-y \big) \Big) dy .
\nonumber\\
&=:&I_1+I_2.
\end{eqnarray}
We can rewrite,
\begin{eqnarray}
I_1&=&C\gamma^\beta \int_{\rho>K\gamma} \!\!\! dy \int_0^{+\infty} dt ({\mathbb I}_{t\ge \gamma}+{\mathbb I}_{t< \gamma}) \frac{dt}{t^{1+\beta}} \exp(-\lambda t) \bar q(t,x-y)=:I_{11}+I_{12}.\notag\\ \label{SPLIT_I1}
\end{eqnarray}
On the one hand, assuming w.l.o.g. that $\gamma\le 1 $, we get
\begin{eqnarray}
I_{11}&\le &C\gamma^\beta\int_{\gamma}^{+\infty}dt \frac{\exp(-\lambda t)}{t^{1+\beta}} \int_{{\mathbb R}^d} \bar q(t, y-x)d y\le C \gamma^\beta \Big(\int_{\gamma}^1 \frac{dt}{t^{1+\beta}}+\int_{1}^{\infty}\frac{dt}{\gamma^\beta}\exp(-\lambda t) \Big)\notag\\
&\le & C (1+\lambda^{-1}).\label{BD_I11}
\end{eqnarray}
Write now, from the self-similarity properties of $\bar q $ and taking $0<\beta< \eta <1 $:
\begin{eqnarray}
I_{12}&\le &C\gamma^\beta\int_0^{\gamma}dt \frac{\exp(-\lambda t)}{t^{1+\beta}} \int_{t|\tilde y|\ge K \gamma} \bar q(1, \tilde y)d \tilde y\notag\\
&\le& C \gamma^\beta \Big(\int_0^{\gamma} \frac{dt}{t^{1+\beta}}\int_{\frac{t |\tilde y|}{\gamma}\ge K} \Big(K^{-1}\frac{t |\tilde y|}{\gamma}\Big)^{\eta} q(1,\tilde y) d\tilde y\Big)\notag\\
&\le& CK^{-\eta}\gamma^{\beta-\eta}\int_0^{\gamma}\frac {dt}{t^{1+\beta-\eta}}\int_{{\mathbb R}^d}|\tilde y|^\eta \bar q(1,\tilde y) d\tilde y\le \tilde C.\label{BD_I12}
\end{eqnarray}
Let us now turn to $I_2$ in \eqref{sii}.
\begin{eqnarray*}
I_2&=& C \gamma^{ \beta} \int_{0}^{+\infty} \frac{dt}{t^{1+\beta}}\exp(-\lambda t) ({\mathbb I}_{t> \gamma}+{\mathbb I}_{t\le \gamma})
\Big(\int_{{\mathbb R}^d} {\mathbb I}_{
\rho >K\gamma} \, \bar q\big(t, \xi-y \big) dy \Big)=:I_{21}+I_{22}. \notag\\
\end{eqnarray*}
The contribution $I_{21} $, can be handled as $ I_{11}$ introduced in \eqref{SPLIT_I1} and therefore also satisfies \eqref{BD_I11}.
To analyze $I_{22} $, we first set $z=t^{- 1 }(\xi-y)$ and recall that:
\begin{equation}
K\gamma < \rho=|x-y|\le |\xi-y|+|x-\xi|\le |\xi-y|+\gamma \Rightarrow |\xi-y|\ge (K-1)\gamma,
\end{equation}
from which we deduce that $I_{22}$ can be handled as $I_{12} $ above up to a modifications of the considered constants. Hence, it also satisfies \eqref{BD_I12}. Namely, we eventually have from \eqref{BD_I11} and \eqref{BD_I12} that for all $i\in \{1,2\} $,
$I_i\le C(1+\lambda^{-1})$, which plugged into \eqref{sii} gives the statement.
\section{Well-posedness of the martingale problem}\label{SEC_WP}
We prove in this section our Theorem \ref{THM_WEU}. First under the local condition \A{C${}_\varepsilon $} and then extend it through the continuity assumption through a localization argument.
\smallskip
{\it Existence} of a solution to the martingale problem for $({\mathcal L} , \mu)$, for any initial distribution $\mu$, can be proved, under \A{ND} and \A{C${}$}, applying, for instance, Theorem 4.1 in \cite{kuhn}. Such theorem
is based on
Theorem 4.5.4 in \cite{ethi:kurz:97} about relations between the positive maximum principle and the existence of solutions to the martingale problem.
Theorem 4.5.4 has been used to prove existence results for martingale problems associated to pseudodifferential operators with symbols $\Phi(x, \lambda )$ which are continuous in $x$. We only mention here \cite{hoh} and \cite{kuhn} (see also the references therein).
{\sl Thus in the sequel we concentrate on the problem of uniqueness. }
\subsection{Uniqueness of the martingale problem under \A{C${}_\varepsilon $}}
Fix a Borel probability distribution $\mu$ on ${\mathbb R}^d$. Let $\P^\mu$ be any solution to the $( {\mathcal L}, \mu)$-martingale problem and denote by $(X_t)_{t\ge 0} $ the associated canonical process on the Skorokhod space. Moreover define ${\mathbb E}^{\P^\mu}= {\mathbb E}^\mu$.
To derive uniqueness we will crucially rely on the following Krylov type estimate whose proof is postponed to the end of the section.
\begin{lem}[Krylov type bound]\label{LEMMA_KRYL_PER_TUTTI} Let $\P^\mu$ be any solution to the $( {\mathcal L}, \mu)$-martingale problem.
Define the corresponding resolvent
\begin{gather} \label{re2}
G(\lambda) f = {{\mathbb E}^\mu}\Big[\int_{0}^{+\infty} \exp(-\lambda s) f(X_s) ds
\Big].
\end{gather}
Then for all $f\in C_0^{\infty}({\mathbb R}^d) $, $\lambda \ge 1,$ and for all $p>d $ there exists $C:=C(p, d, \varepsilon, \| b\|_{\infty}) >0 $ s.t.
\begin{equation}\label{KRYLOV_POUR_TOUS}
| G(\lambda) f | \le C \|f\|_{L^{p}}.
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
Observe that the above bound actually provides by duality that
$G(\lambda)$ possesses a density $p^{\lambda} = p^{\lambda, \mu}$ which belongs to $L^q({\mathbb R}^d)$,
$p^{-1}+q^{-1} =1$.
Lemma \ref{LEMMA_KRYL_PER_TUTTI} precisely provides a good tool to derive uniqueness.
\subsubsection{Derivation of uniqueness}
We will apply Theorem 4.4.2 in \cite{ethi:kurz:97} (see also Theorem 6.2.3 in \cite{SV}). This says that if two solutions $\P_1$ and $\P_2$ of the $( {\mathcal L}, \mu)$-martingale problem have the same one-dimensional marginal distributions then they coincide (i.e., they have the same finite-dimensional distributions).
\smallskip Let $\P^\mu$ be any solution to the $( {\mathcal L}, \mu)$-martingale problem. Let $\lambda \ge 1$.
For $f\in C_0^{\infty}({\mathbb R}^d) $ consider the resolvent $\tilde R^\lambda f(x)$ introduced in \eqref{GREEN}. This is a smooth function (see e.g. \cite{prio:12}). Set $\varphi(x)= \tilde R^\lambda f(x)$. The idea is now to expand,
$\varphi(X_t):= \tilde R^\lambda f(X_t) $. We know that
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\varphi(X_t)-\varphi(X_0)-\int_0^t {\mathcal L} \varphi(X_s) ds = \tilde R^\lambda f(X_t)-\tilde R^\lambda f(X_0)-\int_0^t {\mathcal L} \tilde R^\lambda f(X_s) ds
\end{eqnarray*}
is a $\P^\mu $-martingale. We write:
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&{{{\mathbb E}^{\mu}}}[ \tilde R^\lambda f(X_t)]-{{\mathbb E}^{\mu}}\tilde R^\lambda f(X_0)={{{\mathbb E}^{\mu}}}\left[\int_0^t ({\mathcal L} - \lambda ) \, \tilde R^\lambda f(X_s) ds\right]
+ \lambda {{{\mathbb E}^{\mu}}}\left[\int_0^t \tilde R^\lambda f(X_s) ds\right]
\\
&=&-{{{\mathbb E}^{\mu}}}\left[\int_0^t f(X_s) ds\right]
+{{{\mathbb E}^{\mu}}}\left[\int_0^t \Big( {\mathcal L}-\tilde {\mathcal L} \Big)\tilde R^\lambda f(X_s) ds\right] + \lambda {{{\mathbb E}^{\mu}}}\left[\int_0^t \tilde R^\lambda f(X_s) ds\right].
\end{eqnarray*}
Integrating over $[0, \infty)$ with respect to $e^{- \lambda t} dt$ and using the Fubini theorem we find
\begin{eqnarray}
{\mathbb E}^{\mu} \tilde R^\lambda f(X_0)&=& {{{\mathbb E}^{\mu}}}\left[\int_0^{+\infty} \exp(-\lambda s )f(X_s) ds\right]
-{{{\mathbb E}^{\mu}}}\left[\int_0^{+\infty} \exp(-\lambda s )\Big( {\mathcal L}-\tilde {\mathcal L} \Big)\tilde R^\lambda f(X_s) ds\right]\notag\\
&=&{{{\mathbb E}^{\mu}}}\left[\int_0^{+\infty} \exp(-\lambda s )(I-{\mathcal R})f(X_s) ds\right],\label{ESPRESSIONE_RISOLVENTE}
\end{eqnarray}
where we have used the remainder operator ${\mathcal R}$ which writes for all $ f\in C_0^{\infty}({\mathbb R}^d)$:
\begin{equation}
\label{rem}
\mathcal Rf(x)=({\mathcal L}-\tilde {\mathcal L})\tilde R^\lambda f(x) =\langle b(x) - b_0, D\tilde R^\lambda f(x)\rangle.
\end{equation}
Let now $\P_1$ and $\P_2$ be two solutions for the $( {\mathcal L}, \mu)$-martingale problem. Let $G_i(\lambda) f = {{{\mathbb E}^{\P_i}}}\left[\int_0^{+\infty} \exp(-\lambda s )f(X_s) ds\right]$, $i=1,2$.
We find by \eqref{ESPRESSIONE_RISOLVENTE}
\begin{gather*}
G_i(\lambda) f = {\mathbb E}^{\mu} \tilde R^\lambda f(X_0)
+
G_i(\lambda) {\mathcal R} f.
\end{gather*}
Define $T(\lambda) : C^{\infty}_0 ({\mathbb R}^d)\to {\mathbb R}$,
$
T(\lambda) f = G_1(\lambda) f - G_2(\lambda) f.
$
We have
\begin{align}\label{tl}
T(\lambda) \, (I - {\mathcal R}) f =0,\;\;\; f\in C_0^{\infty}({\mathbb R}^d).
\end{align}
By using Lemma \ref{LEMMA_KRYL_PER_TUTTI}
we know that $T(\lambda)$
can be extended to a bounded linear operator from $L^p({\mathbb R}^d)$ into ${\mathbb R}$ (we still denote by $T(\lambda)$ such extension).
By Theorem \ref{THM_LP} we know that $I-{\mathcal R} $ is invertible on $L^p({\mathbb R}^d)$ for $p>d$ (under assumption \A{C${}_\varepsilon $}). Hence choosing $\varepsilon$ small enough (independently of $\lambda \ge 1$) we find $
\| T(\lambda) \|_{L (L^p({\mathbb R}^d) ; {\mathbb R})} =0,$ $ \lambda \ge 1.
$
We obtain that $ {{\mathbb E}^{\P_1}}f(X_t) = {{\mathbb E}^{\P_2}} f(X_t)$, $t \ge 0,$ for any $f \in C_0^{\infty}({\mathbb R}^d)$, by using the uniqueness of the Laplace transform.
By a standard approximation procedure we also get,
for any Borel set $B \subset {\mathbb R}^d$,
\begin{gather*}
\P_1 (X_t \in B) = \P_2 (X_t \in B), \;\;\; t\ge 0.
\end{gather*}
\subsubsection{Proof of Lemma \ref{LEMMA_KRYL_PER_TUTTI}}
We will adapt an approximation technique of resolvents introduced by N.V. Krylov in the gaussian setting (cf. \cite{krylov85} and Chapter VI in \cite{bass98}).
Arguing as in Theorem 2.1 of \cite{komatsu73} (see also Theorem 3.1 in \cite{chenwang} and Section 3 in \cite{kurtz2011})
one proves that on some stochastic
basis $(\Omega, {\mathcal F}, ( {\mathcal F}_t), \P)$ there exists a $d$-dimensional
1-stable process $Z$ as in \eqref{SDE}, an ${\mathcal F}_0$-measurable r.v. $X_0$ with law $\mu$ and a solution $Y = (Y_t)$
to
\begin{gather*}
Y_t = X_0 + \int_0^t b(Y_s) ds + Z_t, \;\; t \ge 0,
\end{gather*}
such that the law of $Y$ coincides with $\P^{\mu}$ on the Skorokhod space.
Fix $\lambda \ge 1$.
For any Borel set $C \subset {\mathbb R}^d$ the measure
\begin{gather*}
\gamma (C) = {\mathbb E}^{} \int_0^{\infty} e^{- \lambda t } 1_C (Y_t) dt
\end{gather*}
is well-defined. Moreover for any ball $ B(z, r)$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{ee}
\gamma (B(z, r) ) >0,\; z \in {\mathbb R}^d, \, r>0.
\end{equation}
We argue by contradiction. If for some ball $B= B(z, r)$ we have $\gamma (B)=0$, then for any $T>0$ there exists $0<t <T$ such that
\begin{gather*}
{\mathbb E}^{} [1_B (Y_t)] = \P^{} (Y_t \in B) =0.
\end{gather*}
We choose $T>0$ such that $T \| b\|_{\infty} < r/2$. There exists $0<t< T$
such that $\P^{} ( |Y_t - z| < r ) =0$.
We find
\begin{gather*}
\P^{} ( |Y_t - z| < r ) \ge \P^{} ( |\int_0^t b(Y_s) ds | < r/2 , \, |Z_t +X_0 - z |<r/2)
\\
= \P^{} ( |Z_t +X_0 - z | < r/2) >0,
\end{gather*}
because $X_0$ is independent of $Z_t$ and the support of the distribution of $Z_t$ is ${\mathbb R}^d$ (see, for instance, Theorem 3.4 with $A=0$ in \cite{PSXZ}). We have found a contradiction and so \eqref{ee} holds.
Recall that ${\mathbb E}^{\mu}$ denotes expectation with respect to $\P^{\mu}$ and $(X_t)$ is the canonical process. As before
we consider the measure $\gamma = \gamma^{\mu,\, \lambda}$:
\begin{gather*}
\gamma (C) = {\mathbb E}^{\mu} \int_0^{\infty} e^{- \lambda t } 1_C (X_t) dt,\;\; C \in {\mathcal B}({\mathbb R}^d).
\end{gather*}
Now we introduce $\phi (x) = c_d (1 + |x|^{d+1})^{-1}$, $x \in {\mathbb R}^d$, with $c_d = (\int_{{\mathbb R}^d} \phi(x) dx)^{-1}.$ Note the following bound on the first and second derivatives of $\phi$:
\begin{equation}\label{d35}
|D \phi(x)| + \|D^2 \phi(x) \|_{{\mathbb R}^d \otimes {\mathbb R}^d} \, \le C_d \, \phi(x),\;\; x \in {\mathbb R}^d.
\end{equation}
For $\delta >0$, we consider $\phi_{\delta}(x) = \frac{1}{\delta^{d}} \phi (x/ \delta)$, $x \in {\mathbb R}^d$. Using $\phi_{\delta}(x-y)$ $\ge \frac{1}{2} \, 1_{B(x, \delta)}(y)$ and \eqref{ee} we can define
\begin{equation}\label{w22}
b_{\delta} (x) = \frac{\int_{{\mathbb R}^d} \phi_{\delta} (x-y) b(y) \gamma (dy)}
{ \int_{{\mathbb R}^d} \phi_{\delta} (x-y) \gamma (dy)},\;\; x \in {\mathbb R}^d, \;\; \delta>0.
\end{equation}
Using \eqref{d35} it is straightforward to check that
$b_{\delta} \in C^{2}_b({\mathbb R}^d, {\mathbb R}^d),$ i.e. $b_{\delta}$ has first and second bounded and continuous derivatives, $\delta >0.$ Moreover $\| Db_{\delta}\|_{\infty} \le \frac{c}{\delta}$,
$\| D^2 b_{\delta}\|_{\infty} \le \frac{c}{\delta^2}$.
Let now $\varphi \in C^2_b({\mathbb R}^d)$; by the martingale property:
$$
{\mathbb E}^{\mu} \varphi(X_t)= {\mathbb E}^{\mu} \varphi(X_0)+ {\mathbb E}^{\mu}\int_0^t [{\mathcal L} \varphi(X_s) -\lambda \varphi(X_s)] ds + {\mathbb E}^{\mu} \lambda \int_0^t\varphi(X_s)] ds.
$$
Integrating over $[0, \infty)$ with respect to $e^{- \lambda t} dt$ and using the Fubini theorem we find
$$
{\mathbb E}^{\mu}\varphi(X_0)= \int_{{\mathbb R}^d} [\lambda \varphi(y) - {\mathcal L} \varphi(y)] \gamma(dy).
$$
Now we replace $\varphi$ by the convolution $\varphi * \phi_{\delta}$ so that
(using also \eqref{d3})
\begin{gather*}
{\mathbb E}^{\mu} [\varphi * \phi_{\delta} (X_0)] = \int_{{\mathbb R}^d} [\lambda \varphi * \phi_{\delta}(y) - {\mathcal L} [\varphi * \phi_{\delta}] (y)] \gamma(dy)
\\
= \int_{{\mathbb R}^d} [ \lambda \varphi * \phi_{\delta}(y) - {L} \varphi * \phi_{\delta} (y) ] \gamma(dy) - \int_{{\mathbb R}^d} D \varphi(z) \cdot \int_{{\mathbb R}^d } \phi_{\delta}(z-y) b(y) \gamma(dy)\, dz
\\
= \int_{{\mathbb R}^d} [ \lambda \varphi * \phi_{\delta}(y) - {L} \varphi * \phi_{\delta} (y) ] \gamma(dy) - \int_{{\mathbb R}^d} D \varphi(z) \cdot b_{\delta}(z) \int_{{\mathbb R}^d}
\phi_{\delta}(z-y) \gamma(dy)\, dz
\\
= \int_{{\mathbb R}^d} \int_{{\mathbb R}^d} \big( \lambda \varphi(p) - [ b_{\delta} \cdot D + L]
\varphi (p) \big) \, \phi_{\delta}(p-y) \gamma(dy) dp.
\end{gather*}
Now we consider the operator
$$
{\mathcal L}_{\delta} = b_{\delta} \cdot D + L,
$$
and
take $\varphi = G_{\delta}(\lambda)f $, $f \in C_0^{\infty}({\mathbb R}^d)$, where $G_{\delta}(\lambda)$ is the resolvent of the martingale solution $\P^{\delta,x}$ starting at $\delta_x$ associated to the operator ${\mathcal L}_{\delta}$:
$$
G_{\delta}(\lambda)f(x) = {\mathbb E}^{\delta,x}\big[\int_0^{+\infty}
\exp(-\lambda s)f(X_s) ds \big],\;\; x \in {\mathbb R}^d.
$$
Since $b_{\delta} \in C_b^2({\mathbb R}^d, {\mathbb R}^d)$ it is not difficult to check that
that $\lambda G_{\delta}(\lambda)f(p) - [ b_{\delta} \cdot D + L]
\, G_{\delta}(\lambda)f (p) =f(p) $, $p \in {\mathbb R}^d $. It follows that
\begin{gather*}
{\mathbb E}^{\mu} [ G_{\delta}(\lambda)f * \phi_{\delta} (X_0)] =
\int_{{\mathbb R}^d} f * \phi_{\delta}(y) \gamma(dy).
\end{gather*}
Hence we get the crucial approximation result:
\begin{gather} \label{dee}
{\mathbb E}^{\mu} [ G_{\delta}(\lambda)f * \phi_{\delta} (X_0)] \to {\mathbb E}^{\mu} \int_0^{\infty} e^{- \lambda t } f (X_t) dt,\;\; \delta \to 0^+,
\end{gather}
since $(f * \phi_{\delta})$ is uniformly bounded and converges pointwise to $f$ on ${\mathbb R}^d$.
Now we consider
\eqref{ESPRESSIONE_RISOLVENTE}
which we write for the solution $\P^{\delta,x}$ to the martingale problem for ${\mathcal L}_{\delta}$ (starting at the delta Dirac in $x$). We write
${\mathcal R}^{\delta}f(x) = \langle b_{\delta}(x) - b_0, D\tilde R^\lambda f(x)\rangle$ and note that
\begin{equation}\label{w66}
|b_{\delta}(x) - b_0| < \varepsilon, \;\; x \in {\mathbb R}^d, \; \delta>0.
\end{equation}
Similarly to \eqref{ESPRESSIONE_RISOLVENTE} we find
$$
\tilde R^\lambda f(x)
=
{\mathbb E}^{\delta,x} \int_0^{+\infty } \exp(-\lambda s)\int_{{\mathbb R}^d} (I-{\mathcal R}^{\delta}) f(X_s) ds.
$$
Since $b_{\delta} $ $\in C^2_b({\mathbb R}^d, {\mathbb R}^d)$ it is known
that the resolvent $G_{\delta}(\lambda)f(x)= {\mathbb E}^{\delta,x}[\int_0^{+\infty} ds \exp(-\lambda s)f(X_s)]$ has a density $p^{\lambda, \delta}(x,y)$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{d22}
G_{\delta}(\lambda)f(x) = \int_{{\mathbb R}^d} f(y) p^{\lambda, \delta}(x,y) dy,\;\; x \in {\mathbb R}^d.
\end{equation}
Moreover, $p^{\lambda, \delta }(x,\cdot) \in L^q({\mathbb R}^d)$, $q > 1$.
This follows from the estimate
\begin{equation}\label{d3}
|G_{\delta}(\lambda)f(x)| \le C_{\delta} \| f\|_{L^p({\mathbb R}^d)}, \;\; f \in C_0^{\infty}({\mathbb R}^d),\; \delta>0;
\end{equation}
see Lemma \ref{d66}. It follows that
$$
\tilde R^\lambda f(x) =
\int_{{\mathbb R}^d} (I-{\mathcal R}^{\delta}) f (y) p^{\lambda, \delta}(x,y) dy.
$$
Recall from \eqref{CTR_GREEN_LP_RIS} that for all $p>d$ there exists $C_p$ s.t. for all ${\mathbf{x}}\in {\mathbb R}^{d} $
\begin{equation*}
\label{CTR_GREEN_PONCT}
|\tilde R^\lambda f(x)|\le C_p(1+\lambda^{-1}) \|f\|_{L^{p}({\mathbb R}^{d})}, \;\; f\in C_0^{\infty} ({\mathbb R}^{d}).
\end{equation*}
Moreover,
by Theorem \ref{THM_LP} we know that $I-{{\mathcal R}^{\delta}} $ is invertible on $L^p({\mathbb R}^d)$ for $p>d$. For any $g \in L^p({\mathbb R}^d)$ we find
\begin{gather*}
G_{\delta}(\lambda)g(x)= \int_{{\mathbb R}^d} g(y) p^{\lambda, \delta }(x,y) dy
\\
\le C_p(1+\lambda^{-1})\, \|(I-{{\mathcal R}^{\delta}})^{-1}\, g\|_{L^p}\le \tilde C_p(1+\lambda^{-1})\| g\|_{L^p}.
\end{gather*}
It follows that, for $\delta >0,$
\begin{gather*}
|{\mathbb E}^{\mu} [ G_{\delta}(\lambda)f * \phi_{\delta} (X_0)] | \le \tilde C_p(1+\lambda^{-1})\| f\|_{L^p},
\end{gather*}
$f \in C_0^{\infty}({\mathbb R}^d)$. Passing to the limit as $\delta \to 0^+$ we get the assertion by \eqref{dee}.
\qed
\subsection{Uniqueness of the martingale problem under \A{C${}$} by a localization argument}
We will use Theorem 4.6.2 in \cite{ethi:kurz:97}.
First recall that an operator like $\mathcal L$ under assumption \A{C${}_\varepsilon $} has the property that the associated martingale problem is well-posed for any initial distribution $\mu$.
By Theorem 4.6.1 in \cite{ethi:kurz:97}, such operator under \A{C${}_\varepsilon $} has the following additional property: for any initial distribution $\mu$ and for any open set $U \subset {\mathbb R}^d$ there exists a unique in law probability measure $\P$ on ${\mathscr D}({\mathbb R}_+,{\mathbb R}^d) $
such that
$\P (X_0 \in B) = \mu (B)$, $B \in {\mathcal B}({\mathbb R}^d)$,
$$
X(\cdot) = X(\cdot \wedge \tau), \;\;\; \text{$\P$-a.s., where}
\;\;
\tau = \tau^U= \inf \{ t \ge 0 \; : \; X_t \not \in U \}
$$
($\tau = + \infty$ if the set is empty) is a stopping time with respect to the canonical filtration, and finally $ \varphi (X_{t \wedge \tau}) - \int_0^{t \wedge \tau}
{\mathcal L} \varphi (X_s) ds,$ $ t \ge 0,$ $\varphi \in C_b^2({\mathbb R}^d)$,
is a martingale with respect to the canonical filtration (recall that $(X_t) = (X(t))$ indicates the canonical process).
One says that under assumption \A{C${}_\varepsilon $} for any open set $U \subset {\mathbb R}^d$, for any initial distribution $\mu$
the stopped martingale problem for $({\mathcal L}, U, \mu)$ is well-posed.
{\sl Now only assuming \A{C${}$},
we construct a suitable
covering $(U_{j})_{j \ge 1}$ of open sets in ${\mathbb R}^d$ such that for any initial distribution $\mu$ the stopped martingale problem for $({\mathcal L}, U_j, \mu)$ is well-posed, for any $j \ge 1$. According to Theorem 4.6.2 in \cite{ethi:kurz:97} we conclude that the (global) martingale problem for $\mathcal L$ is well-posed.
}
To construct such covering of ${\mathbb R}^d$ we note that
by the continuity of $b$
we can find a sequence $(x_j) \subset {\mathbb R}^d$,
$j \ge 1$, and numbers $\delta_j>0$
such that the open balls $U_j = B(x_j, \delta_j)$ of center $x_j$ and radius $\delta_j$
form a covering for ${\mathbb R}^d$ and moreover
we have $
|b(x) - b(x_j)| < \varepsilon$ (cf. \eqref{VARIE_PEU})
for any $x \in B(x_j, 2 \delta_j)$, $j \ge 1$.
The balls
$\{ B(x_j, \delta_j) \}_{j \ge 1}$ give the required covering $\{ U_j\}_{j \ge 1}$.
Let us define operators ${{\mathcal L}}_j$ such that
\begin{align} \label{bo1}
{\mathcal L}_j \varphi (x) = {\mathcal L} \varphi (x),\;\; x \in U_j,\;\; \varphi \in C^{2}_b({\mathbb R}^d),
\end{align}
and such that each ${\mathcal L}_j$ verifies \A{C${}_\varepsilon $}.
We fix $j \ge 1$ and consider
$\eta_j \in C^{\infty}_0({\mathbb R}^d)$ with $0 \le \eta_{j} \le 1$,
$\eta_{j} =1$ in $B(x_j, \delta_j)$ and $\eta_j =0$ outside $B(x_j, 2
\delta_j )$. Now define
$$
b^j(x) := \eta_{j}(x) b(x) + (1 - \eta_{j}(x)) b (x_j).
$$
It is easy to see that $b^j(x) = b(x)$, $x \in U_j$ and
$
| b^j(x) - b(x_j) | < \varepsilon,
$
for any $x \in {\mathbb R}^d$. Let us consider
$$
{\mathcal L}_j \varphi (x) = {\rm p. v.}\int_{{\mathbb R}^d\backslash\{0\}
} [\varphi(x+ z)-\varphi(x)] \nu (dz)+\langle b^j(x),D\varphi(x)\rangle.
$$
Such operators verifies \A{C${}_\varepsilon $} and so by the first part of the proof, for any initial distribution $\mu$ the stopped martingale problem for $({\mathcal L}_j, U_j, \mu)$ is well-posed, for any $j \ge 1$. Thanks to \eqref{bo1} the stopped martingale problem for $({\mathcal L}, U_j, \mu)$ is also well-posed, for any $j \ge 1$.
This finishes the proof.
|
\section{Introduction}
Ribonucleic acid (RNA)
is involved in numerous cellular processes
\citep{eddy:2001}.
The dual nature of RNA
as both a genetic material and functional molecule led to the RNA World
hypothesis, that RNA was the first molecule of life \citep{gilbert:1986}, and
this dual nature has also been utilized to develop \textit{in vitro} methods to evolve
functional sequences \citep{joyce:1994}. Furthermore, RNA is an important drug target
and agent
\citep{angelbello+:2018,sazani+:2002,crooke:2004,childs-disney+:2007,gareiss+:2008,castanotto+rossi:2009,palde+:2010}.
Predicting the secondary structure of an RNA sequence, defined as the set of all
canonical base pairs (A--U, G--C, G--U, see Fig.~\ref{fig:overall}A), is an important
and challenging problem
\cite{seetin+mathews:2012,hofacker+lorenz:2014}.
Knowing the structure reveals
crucial information about the RNA's function,
which is useful in many applications ranging from ncRNA detection
\cite{gruber+:2010,washietl+:2012,fu+:2015}
to the design of oligonucleotides for knockdown of message
\cite{lu+mathews:2008,tafer+:2008}.
Since experimentally determining the structure is expensive and
time comsuming,
and given the overwhelming increase in genomic data (about $10^{21}$ base-pairs per year)
\cite{stephens+:2015},
computational methods have been widely used as an alternative to automatically predict the structure.
Widely used systems such as RNAstructure \cite{mathews+turner:2006}, {Vienna RNAfold}\xspace \citep{lorenz+:2011},
CONTRAfold \citep{do+:2006} and CentroidFold~\cite{sato+:2009},
all use virtually the same dynamic programming (DP)
algorithm \citep{nussinov+:1978,zuker+stiegler:1981}
to find the best-scoring (lowest free energy, maximum expected accuracy, or best model score) structure
\citep{mathews+turner:2006,washietl+:2012}.
However, this set of algorithms,
borrowed from computational linguistics \citep{kasami:1965,younger:1967},
has a running time
of $O(n^3)$ that
scales {\em cubically} with the sequence length~$n$,
which is too slow for long RNA sequences \citep{Lange+:2012}.
\iffalse
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{minipage}[]{0.01\textwidth}
\panel{A}\vspace{3.5cm}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[]{0.5\textwidth}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[height=4cm]{figs/Huang.32.fig.1A1}
& \hspace{-.5cm}
\includegraphics[height=4cm]{figs/Huang.32.fig.1A2}
\\
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
\\%[-0.1cm]
\begin{minipage}[]{0.01\textwidth}
\panel{B}\vspace{1.2cm}
\end{minipage}
\hspace{-.3cm}
\begin{minipage}[]{0.495\textwidth}
\hspace{-.1cm}
\begin{SaveVerbatim}{myVerb}
5' 3'
GCGGGAAUAGCUCAGUUGGUAGAGCACGACCUUGCCAAGGUCGGGGUCGCGAGUUCGAGUCUCGUUUCCCGCUCCA
(((((((..((((........)))).(((((.......))))).....(((((.......))))))))))))....
\end{SaveVerbatim}
\resizebox{1\textwidth}{!}{\BUseVerbatim{myVerb}}%
\\
\hspace*{.3cm}
$\xrightarrow[{\text{\it\footnotesize \hspace{-0.15cm} $1$ \hspace{.6cm} our linear-time heuristic algorithm scans from 5' to 3' \hspace{.6cm} $n$\hspace{-0.1cm}}}]{\makebox[0.48\textwidth]{}}$
\end{minipage}
\\[0.1cm]
\begin{minipage}{0.01\textwidth}
\panel{C}\vspace{1.3cm}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.49\textwidth}
\hspace{-.1cm}
\resizebox{.98\textwidth}{!}{
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{.05cm}
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
{\em \!\!type\ \ } & {\em pair distance}& {\em time} & {\em space} & {\em systems/examples} \\
\hline
global \ & unbounded & $O(n^3)$ & $O(n^2)$ & RNAstructure, RNAfold, ... \\
local & $\leq L$ & $O(nL^2)$ & $O(nL)$ & Rfold, RNAplfold, LocalFold, ...\\
global \ & unbounded & $O(nb\log b)$ & $O(nb)$ & {LinearFold}\xspace ({\bf this work})
\end{tabular}
}
\end{minipage}
\caption
Summary of our work.
{\bf A}: secondary structure representations of {\it E.~coli} tRNA$^\textit{Gly}$;
{\bf B}: the corresponding dot-bracket format and an illustration of our algorithm,
which scans the sequence left-to-right,
and tags each nucleotide as ``\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}'' (unpaired), ``\mla'' (to be paired with a
future nucleotide) or ``\mra'' (paired with a previous nucleotide).
{\bf C}: comparison between our work and existing ones.
$L$ is the limit of pair distance in local folding methods
(often $\leq$150), and
$b$ is the beam size in our work (default 100).
Our algorithm, though approximate, is the first
to achieve linear runtime without imposing constraints on the output structure.
\label{fig:overall}
}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\end{figure}
\fi
\iftrue
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=.49\textwidth]{standalone_fig/Huang.32.fig.1}
\caption
Summary of our work.
{\bf A}: secondary structure representations of {\it E.~coli} tRNA$^\textit{Gly}$;
{\bf B}: the corresponding dot-bracket format and an illustration of our algorithm,
which scans the sequence left-to-right,
and tags each nucleotide as ``\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}'' (unpaired), ``\mla'' (to be paired with a
future nucleotide) or ``\mra'' (paired with a previous nucleotide).
{\bf C}: comparison between our work and existing ones.
$L$ is the limit of pair distance in local folding methods
(often $\leq$150), and
$b$ is the beam size in our work (default 100).
Our algorithm, though approximate, is the first
to achieve linear runtime without imposing constraints on the output structure.
\label{fig:overall}
}
\vspace{-0.4cm}
\end{figure}
\fi
\iffalse
RNA structure is hierarchical \citep{tinoco+bustamante:1999}. The primary
structure is the covalent structure encoded in the nucleotide sequence. The
secondary structure is the set of canonical base pairs (A-U, G-C, and G-U
Fig.~\ref{fig:pseudoknot}
). The tertiary structure is the 3D structure and the
full set of molecular contacts. Secondary structure generally forms faster
\cite{zarrinkar+williamson:1994,woodson:2000} and is more stable
\cite{crothers+:1974,banerjee+:1993,onoa+:2003} than tertiary structure.
Therefore, secondary structure can be accurately predicted independently of
tertiary structure.
\fi
As an alternative,
faster algorithms that predict
only a restricted subset of structures have been proposed.
On the one hand, local folding methods such as Rfold \citep{kiryu+:2008}, Vienna RNAplfold \cite{bernhart+:2006}, and
LocalFold~\cite{Lange+:2012} run in linear time
but only predict base pairs up to $L$ nucleotides apart
($L\leq 150$ in the literature; see Fig.~\ref{fig:overall}C).
On the other hand, due to the prohibitive cubic runtime of standard
methods,
it has been a common practice to divide long RNA sequences into short segments (e.g., $\leq$ 700\ensuremath{\text{\it nt}}\xspace)
and predict structures within each segment only
\cite{watts+:2009,andronescu+:2007, licon+:2010}.
All these local methods omit long-range base pairs,
which theoretical and experimental studies
have demonstrated to be common in natural RNAs,
especially between the 5' and 3' ends \cite{seetin+mathews:2012,lai+:2018,li+reidys:2018}.
We instead design
\textbf{LinearFold},
an
approximate algorithm
that is
the first in RNA folding
to achieve linear runtime (and linear space)
without imposing constraints on the output structure
such as base pair distance.
While the classical $O(n^3)$-time algorithm
is bottom-up, making it hard to linearize,
ours runs left-to-right (i.e., 5'-to-3'),
incrementally tagging each nucleotide
in the dot-bracket format (Fig.~\ref{fig:overall}B).
While this naive version runs in the exponential time of $O(3^n)$,
we borrow an efficient packing idea from computational linguistic \citep{tomita:1988} that reduces the runtime back to $O(n^3)$.
This novel left-to-right $O(n^3)$ dynamic program
is also a contribution of this paper.
Furthermore, on top of this exact algorithm,
we apply beam search,
a popular heuristic to prune the search space \citep{huang+sagae:2010},
which keeps only the top~$b$ highest-scoring (or lowest energy)
states for each prefix of the input sequence,
resulting in an $O(n b \log b)$ time approximate search algorithm,
where $b$ is the beam size chosen by the user.
Our approach can ``linearize'' any dynamic programming-based pseudoknot-free
RNA folding system.
In particular,
we demonstrate two versions of LinearFold,
{LinearFold-V}\xspace using the thermodynamic free energy model \citep{mathews+:2004} from Vienna RNAfold \citep{lorenz+:2011},
and {LinearFold-C}\xspace using the machine learned model from CONTRAfold \citep{do+:2006}.
We evaluate our systems on a diverse dataset
of RNA sequences with well-established structures,
and show that while being substantially more efficient,
{LinearFold}\xspace leads to even higher average accuracies
over all families,
and
more interestingly,
{LinearFold}\xspace is significantly more accurate than the exact search methods
on the longest families, 16S and 23S Ribosomal RNAs.
In addition,
{LinearFold}\xspace is also more accurate
on long-range base pairs,
which is well known to be a challenging problem for the current
models~\cite{amman+:2013}.
Finally, our work
establishes a new connection among
computational linguistics,
compiler theory,
and RNA folding (see Supplementary Fig.~\ref{fig:connect}).
\iffalse
We have released our C++ source code at
{\url{https://github.com/LinearFold/LinearFold}},
and a web server at
{\url{http://linearfold.eecs.oregonstate.edu}}.
\iffalse
Our LinearFold source code (in C++)
is available
at
\myurl{https://github.com/abentu0101/LinearFold}
and the web server is available at
\myurl{http://linearfold.eecs.oregonstate.edu}
\fi
\fi
\section{The LinearFold Algorithm}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\subsection{Problem Formulation}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\label{sec:formulation}
Given an RNA sequence
$\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}\xspace = x_1x_2\ldots x_{n}$, where each $x_i \in \{\tt{A},\tt{C},\tt{G},\tt{U}\}$,
the secondary structure prediction problem
aims to find the best-scoring pseudoknot-free structure \ensuremath{\hat{\vecy}}\xspace
by maximizing a scoring function \ensuremath{\mathit{sc}_{\vecw}}\xspace (e.g., model score or negative free energy) where $\ensuremath{\mathbf{w}}\xspace$ are the model parameters:
\vspace{-0.1cm}
\begin{equation}
\ensuremath{\hat{\vecy}}\xspace = \operatornamewithlimits{\mathbf{argmax}}_{\ensuremath{\mathbf{y}}\xspace \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}\xspace)} \ensuremath{\mathit{sc}_{\vecw}}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}\xspace, \ensuremath{\mathbf{y}}\xspace).
\label{eq:mfe}
\end{equation}
Here $\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}\xspace)$ is the set of all possible pseudoknot-free secondary structures for input \ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}\xspace of length $n$
\[
\big\{\ensuremath{\mathbf{y}}\xspace \in \{\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}, \mla, \mra\}^n \mid \ensuremath{\mathrm{balanced}}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathbf{y}}\xspace), \ensuremath{\mathrm{valid}}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}\xspace,\ensuremath{\mathrm{pairs}}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathbf{y}}\xspace))\big\}
\]
where
$\ensuremath{\mathrm{balanced}}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathbf{y}}\xspace)$ checks if \ensuremath{\mathbf{y}}\xspace has balanced brackets,
$\ensuremath{\mathrm{valid}}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}\xspace,\ensuremath{\mathrm{pairs}}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathbf{y}}\xspace))$ checks if all pairs in \ensuremath{\mathbf{y}}\xspace are valid (CG, AU, GU),
and $\ensuremath{\mathrm{pairs}}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathbf{y}}\xspace)$ returns the set of $(i,j)$ pairs where $x_i$ and $x_j$ form a base pair in \ensuremath{\mathbf{y}}\xspace,
e.g.,
$\ensuremath{\mathrm{pairs}}\xspace(\text{``\mla\ml\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\mra\mr''}) = \{(1,5), (2,4)\}$.
See Supplementary Section~\ref{sec:extradefs} for detailed definitions.
All dynamic programming-based prediction algorithms, including ours,
require the scoring function $\ensuremath{\mathit{sc}_{\vecw}}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}\xspace,\cdot)$ to {\em decompose} to
smaller structures.
For simplicity of presentation,
in the main text we will use a very simple decomposition to individual pairs and unpaired nucleotides:
\begin{equation}
\ensuremath{\mathit{sc}_{\vecw}}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}\xspace, \ensuremath{\mathbf{y}}\xspace) = \!\!\!\sum_{(i,j)\in \ensuremath{\mathrm{pairs}}\xspace (\ensuremath{\mathbf{y}}\xspace)} \!\!\! w_{x_i x_j} + \!\!\!\sum_{i\in \ensuremath{\mathrm{unpaired}}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathbf{y}}\xspace)} \!\!\! \ensuremath{w_\text{unpaired}}\xspace
\label{eq:simple}
\end{equation}
In this framework we can assign different scores for different pairs,
and incur a penalty for each unpaired nucleotide.
For the example in Fig.~\ref{fig:method}, we simply set
$\ensuremath{w_\text{CG}}\xspace\!=\!\ensuremath{w_\text{AU}}\xspace\!=\!\ensuremath{w_\text{GU}}\xspace\!=\!1$
and $\ensuremath{w_\text{unpaired}}\xspace\!=\!-0.1$;
therefore, $\ensuremath{\mathit{sc}_{\vecw}}\xspace(\text{``CCAGG''}, \text{``\mla\ml\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\mra\mr''}) \!=\! 2 \ensuremath{w_\text{CG}}\xspace \!+\!\ensuremath{w_\text{unpaired}}\xspace \!=\! 1.9$.
In reality, however, the actual scoring functions
used by {CONTRAfold}\xspace, {RNAfold}\xspace, and our {LinearFold}\xspace are much more complex,
and they decompose into individual loops.
See Supplementary Section~\ref{sec:realscore} for details.
\newcommand*\circled[1]{\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{
\node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=2pt] (char) {#1};}}
\newcommand{\statescore}[1]{\resizebox{0.3cm}{!}{#1}}
\iftrue
\begin{figure*
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{standalone_fig/Huang.32.fig.2}
\vspace{-0.8cm}
\caption{Illustration of the {LinearFold}\xspace approach,
using a short sequence {\tt CCAGG} and the simple scoring function (Eq.~\ref{eq:simple}).
{\bf A}: an example state and an example (actually optimal) path, showing states (predicted prefix structures), actions (\ensuremath{\mathsf{push}}\xspace ``\mla'', \ensuremath{\mathsf{skip}}\xspace ``\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}'', and \ensuremath{\mathsf{pop}}\xspace ``\mra''), and stacks (unpaired open brackets which are shown in bold in states).
{\bf B}: two example paths (the optimal one in blue and a suboptimal one in green) and two essential ideas of left-to-right dynamic programming:
merging equivalent states with identical stacks (Idea 1)
and packing temporarily equivalent states sharing the same stack top, and corresponding unpacking upon \ensuremath{\mathsf{pop}}\xspace (Idea 2).
{\bf C}: illustration of beam search, which keeps top $b$ states (those in the shaded region) per step (Idea 3).
{\bf D}: the whole search space of the naive
algorithm ($O(3^n)$ time).
{\bf E}: improving to $O(2^n)$ time with Idea 1.
{\bf F}: further improving to $O(n^3)$ time with Idea 2.
{\bf G}: further improving to $O(n)$ time (but with approximate search) with Idea 3.
In {\bf B, F}, and {\bf G}, each green/blue arrow pair \ensuremath{\text{\tt ?}}\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}} {\raisebox{0.05cm}{\color{green}{\tiny$-\cdot\!\!\rightarrow$}}}\hspace{-.5cm}{\raisebox{-0.03cm}{\color{blue}{\tiny$-\cdot\!\!\rightarrow$}}} \ensuremath{\text{\tt ?}}\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\/ is actually a single arrow, denoting two paths temporarily packed as one;
we draw paired arrows
to highlight that two states \ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}\/ and \ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}\bml\/ are performing \ensuremath{\mathsf{skip}}\xspace action together.
Note the version up to Idea 2 is exact and worst-case $O(n^3)$ time.
\label{fig:method} }
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\end{figure*}
\fi
\iffalse
\begin{figure*
\tikzset{>={stealth[scale=0.01]}}
\newcommand{\DrawNode}[2][]{%
\draw [#1]
([line width=0.02mm, shift={(-0.5\pgflinewidth,-0.5\pgflinewidth)}]#2.north east) --
([line width=0.02mm, shift={(0.5\pgflinewidth,-0.5\pgflinewidth)}]#2.north west) --
([line width=0.02mm, shift={(0.5\pgflinewidth,+0.5\pgflinewidth)}]#2.south west) --
([line width=0.02mm, shift={(-0.5\pgflinewidth,+0.5\pgflinewidth)}]#2.south east)
}%
\hspace{-.4cm}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\hspace{-2.1em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[
scale=1.1,
every node/.style={scale=1.1},
]
\begin{scope}[yshift = 1.7cm]
\matrix [matrix of nodes, row sep=0.07em, column sep=2.0em, align=left, nodes={inner sep=0.2em}] {
&[.5em] &[.1em] &[.8em] &[.7em] &[.6em] &[.5em] &[-2.5em] \\
&&&\node(t000) {\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}\mla\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\mra}; & \node(t001) {\em structure};\\
&&&\node(t010){\tiny +0.9}; & \node(t011) {\em score}; \\
&&&\node(At000)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em]{\small 1\color{white}{~0}}; & \node(At001) {\em stack};\\[1.0em]
\\[1.33em]
& {\tt \color{white}{step:}} & {\tt 1} & {\tt ~2} & {\tt ~~3} & {\tt ~~~4} & {\tt ~~~~5} & \\
& & {\tt C} & {\tt CC} & {\tt CCA} & {\tt CCAG} & {\tt CCAGG} & \\[1.33em]
& \node(t00)[color=white] {$\epsilon$}; & \node(t01) {\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}}; & \node(t02) {\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}\bml}; & \node(t03) {\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}\bml\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}}; & \node(t04) {\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}\mla\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\mra}; & \node(t05) {\mla\ml\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\mra\mr}; & \\
& & \statescore{ 0.0} & \statescore{ 0.0} & \statescore{-0.1} & \statescore{+0.9} & \statescore{+1.9}\\
& \node(At00)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small \color{white}{0~0}}; & \node(At01)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small 1\color{white}{~0}}; & \node(At02)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small 1~2\color{white}{}}; & \node(At03)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small 1~2\color{white}{}}; & \node(At04)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small 1\color{white}{~0}}; & \node(At05)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small \color{white}{0~0}}; & \\ [1.33em
& \node (lb0) {}; & & & & & \node(rb0) {$~$}; & \\ [1.33em]
& & & & & & \node(m05) {\mla\ml\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\mra\mr}; & \\
& & & & & & \statescore{+1.9}\\
& & & & & & \node(Am05)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small \color{white}{0~0}}; & \\ [.33em
& \node (lb1) {}; & & & & & \node(rb1) {$~$}; & \\ [1.33em]
& \node(u00)[color=white] {$\epsilon$}; & \node(u11) {\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}}; & \node(u22) {\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}\bml}; & \node(u23) {\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}\bml\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}}; & \node(u24) {\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}\mla\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\mra}; & \node(u25) {\mla\ml\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\mra\mr}; & \\
& & \statescore{ 0.0} & \statescore{ 0.0} & \statescore{-0.1} & \statescore{+0.9} & \statescore{+1.9}\\
& \node(Au00)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small \color{white}{0~0}}; & \node(Au11)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small 1\color{white}{~0}}; & \node(Au22)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small 1~2\color{white}{}}; & \node(Au23)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small 1~2\color{white}{}}; & \node(Au24)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small 1\color{white}{~0}}; & \node(Au25)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small \color{white}{0~0}}; & \\ [.99em
& & \node(u01) {\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}}; & \node(u02) {\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}}; & \node(u03) {\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}}; & \node(u04) {\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\mla\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\mra}; & \node(u05) {\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\mla\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\mra\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}}; & \\
& & \statescore{-0.1} & \statescore{-0.1} & \statescore{-0.2} & \statescore{+0.8} & \statescore{+0.7}\\
& & \node(Au01)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small \color{white}{0~0}}; & \node(Au02)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small 2\color{white}{~0}}; & \node(Au03)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small 2\color{white}{~0}}; & \node(Au04)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small \color{white}{0~0}}; & \node(Au05)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small \color{white}{0~0}}; & \\ [1.33em
& \node (lb2) {}; & & & & & \node(rb2) {$~$}; & \\ [1.33em]
& & & \node(s02) {\ensuremath{\text{\tt ?}}\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}}; & & & & \\
& & & \statescore{ 0.0}\\
& & & \node(As02)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small ... 2\color{white}{}}; & & & & \\ [2.66em
& \node(b00)[color=white] {$\epsilon$}; & \node(b11) {\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}}; & \node(b02) {\ensuremath{\text{\tt ?}}\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}}; & \node(b03) {\ensuremath{\text{\tt ?}}\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}}; & \node(b14) {\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}\mla\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\mra}; & \node(b05) {\mla\ml\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\mra\mr}; \\
& & \statescore{ 0.0} & \statescore{ 0.0} & \statescore{-0.1} & \statescore{+0.9} & \statescore{+1.9}\\
& \node(Ab00)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small \color{white}{0~0}};& \node(Ab11)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small ... 1\color{white}{}}; & \node(Ab02)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small ... 2\color{white}{}}; & \node(Ab03)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small ... 2\color{white}{}}; & \node(Ab14)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small ... 1\color{white}{}}; & \node(Ab05)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small \color{white}{0~0}}; \\ [.33em
& & \node(b01) {\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}}; & & & \node(b04) {\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\mla\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\mra}; & \\
& & \statescore{-0.1} & & & \statescore{+0.8} \\
& & \node(Ab01)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small \color{white}{0~0}}; & & & \node(Ab04)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small \color{white}{0~0}}; & \\ [1.33em
\\
& \node (lb4) {}; & & & & & \node(rb4) {$~$}; & \\ [.33em]
};
\DrawNode{At000};\DrawNode{At00};\DrawNode{At01};\DrawNode{At02};\DrawNode{At03};\DrawNode{At04};\DrawNode{At05};
\DrawNode{Au00};\DrawNode{Au01};\DrawNode{Au02};\DrawNode{Au03};\DrawNode{Au04};\DrawNode{Au05};
\DrawNode{Au11}
\DrawNode{Au22};\DrawNode{Au23};\DrawNode{Au24};\DrawNode{Au25};
\DrawNode{Am05};
\DrawNode{As02};
\DrawNode{Ab00};\DrawNode{Ab01};\DrawNode{Ab02};\DrawNode{Ab03};\DrawNode{Ab04};\DrawNode{Ab05};
\DrawNode{Ab11};\DrawNode{Ab14};
\draw[->] (t001) -- (t000);
\draw[->] (t011.183) -- ($(t010)+(0.38,-0.02)$);
\draw[->] (At001.187) -- ($(At000)+(0.38,-0.02)$);
\draw[->, thick, blue] (t00.0) -- node(ta1) [inner sep =1pt, midway, fill=white] {\scriptsize \mla} (t01.180);
\draw[->, thick, blue] (t01.0) -- node(ta2) [inner sep =1pt, midway, fill=white] {\scriptsize \mla} (t02.180);
\draw[->, thick, blue] (t02) -- node(ta3) [inner sep =1pt, midway, fill=white] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} (t03);
\draw[->, thick, blue] (t03) -- node(ta4) [inner sep =1pt, midway, fill=white] {\scriptsize \mra} (t04);
\draw[->, thick, blue] (t04) -- node(ta5) [inner sep =1pt, midway, fill=white] {\scriptsize \mra} (t05);
\node [above=-.5em of ta1] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\mathsf{push}}\xspace};
\node [above=-.5em of ta2] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\mathsf{push}}\xspace};
\node [above=-.1em of ta3] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\mathsf{skip}}\xspace};
\node [above=-.5em of ta4] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\mathsf{pop}}\xspace};
\node [above=-.5em of ta5] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\mathsf{pop}}\xspace};
\draw[->, thick, green] (u00.360) -- node [fill=white, inner sep =1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} (u01.170);
\draw[->, thick, green] (u01.20) -- node [fill=white, inner sep =1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \mla} (u02.180);
\draw[->, thick, green] (u02) -- node [fill=white, inner sep =1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} (u03);
\draw[->, thick, green] (u03) -- node [fill=white, inner sep =1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \mra} (u04);
\draw[->, thick, green] (u04) -- node [fill=white, inner sep =1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} (u05);
\draw[->, thick, blue] (u00.360) -- node [fill=white, inner sep =1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \mla} (u11.180);
\draw[->, thick, blue] (u11.0) -- node [fill=white, inner sep =1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \mla} (u22.180);
\draw[->, thick, blue] (u22) -- node [fill=white, inner sep =1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} (u23);
\draw[->, thick, blue] (u23) -- node [fill=white, inner sep =1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \mra} (u24);
\draw[->, thick, blue] (u24) -- node [fill=white, inner sep =1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \mra} (u25);
\draw[->, thick, green] (b00.0) -- node [fill=white, inner sep =1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} (b01.180);
\draw[->, thick, green] (b01.0) -- node [fill=white, inner sep =1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \mla} (b02.180);
\draw[->, thick, green] (b02.350) -- node [fill=white, inner sep =1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} (b03.187);
\draw[->, thick, blue] (b02.10) -- node [fill=white, inner sep =1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} (b03.173);
\draw[->, thick, green] (b03.0) -- node [fill=white, inner sep =1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \mra} (b04.180);
\draw[->, thick, green] (b04.0) -- node [fill=white, inner sep =1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} (b05.180);
\draw[->, thick, blue] (b00.0) -- node [fill=white, inner sep =1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \mla} (b11.180);
\draw[->, thick, blue] (b11.0) -- node [fill=white, inner sep =1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \mla} (b02.180);
\draw[->, thick, blue] (b03.0) -- node [fill=white, inner sep =1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \mra} (b14);
\draw[->, thick, blue] (b14.0) -- node [fill=white, inner sep =1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \mra} (b05);
\draw[->, red!80, thick] (u05.180) to [bend left=45] (m05.180);
\draw[->, red!80, thick] (u25.180) to [bend left=45] (m05.180);
\draw[->, red!80, thick] (u02.0) to [bend left=22.5] (s02.0);
\draw[->, red!80, thick] (u22.0) to [bend left=22.5] (s02.0);
\draw[thick] (lb0.180) -- (rb0.0);
\draw[thick] (lb1.180) -- (rb1.0);
\draw[thick] (lb2.180) -- (rb2.0);
\draw[thick] (lb4.180) -- (rb4.0);
\node(labA) [above=22.5em of u00] {};
\node [left=0em of labA] {\panel{A}};
\node(labelstate) [above=22.5em of u00] {};
\node [left=-9.2em of labelstate] {\em Example state:};
\node(labelpath) [above=17.8em of u00] {};
\node [left=-9.2em of labelpath] {\em Example path:};
\node(labB) [above=4.5em of u00] {};
\node [left=0em of labB] {\panel{B}};
\node(labC) [below=28.0em of u00] {};
\node [left=0em of labC] {\panel{C}};
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[xshift = -0.6cm, yshift = -4.9cm]
\matrix(beam) [matrix of nodes, row sep=0.3em, column sep=3em, align=left, nodes={circle}] {
& \node(r00)[scale=1.3, fill=red!70!yellow!30] {}; & \node(r01)[scale=1.3, fill=red!60!yellow!40] {}; & \node(r02)[scale=1.3, fill=red!95] {}; & \node(r03)[scale=1.3, fill=red!86!] {}; & \node(r04)[scale=1.3, fill=red!70] {}; & \node(r05)[scale=1.3, fill=red!100] {}; \\
& & \node(r11)[scale=1.3, fill=red!0!yellow!100] {}; & \node(r12)[scale=1.3, fill=red!60!yellow!50] {}; & \node(r13)[scale=1.3, fill=red!100!yellow!34] {}; & \node(r14)[scale=1.3, fill=red!60!yellow!60] {}; & \\ [0.15em]
& & & \node(r22)[scale=1.3, fill=red!30!yellow!70] {}; & \node(r23)[scale=1.3, fill=red!20!yellow!80] {}; & \node(r24)[scale=1.3, fill=red!40!yellow!60] {}; & \\
& & & & \node(r33)[scale=1.3, fill=red!10!yellow!90] {}; & \node(r34)[scale=1.3, fill=red!0!yellow!100] {}; & \\
& & & & & \node(r44)[scale=1.3, fill=red!0!yellow!100] {}; & \\
};
\draw[->](r00.0) -- (r01.180);
\draw[->](r00.0) -- (r11.180);
\draw[->](r01.0) -- (r02.180);
\draw[->](r01.0) -- (r12.180);
\draw[->](r11.0) -- (r22.180);
\draw[->](r11.0) -- (r12.180);
\draw[->](r02.0) -- (r03.180);
\draw[->](r02.0) -- (r13.180);
\draw[->](r02.0) -- (r33.180);
\draw[->](r12.0) -- (r13.180);
\draw[->](r12.0) -- (r23.180);
\draw[->](r03.0) -- (r04.180);
\draw[->](r03.0) -- (r14.180);
\draw[->](r13.0) -- (r14.180);
\draw[->](r13.0) -- (r24.180);
\draw[->](r13.0) -- (r34.180);
\draw[->](r13.0) -- (r44.180);
\draw[->](r04.0) -- (r05.180);
\draw[->](r14.0) -- (r05.180);
\node(hs) [right=.52cm of r05] {\scriptsize (low energy)};
\node [above=-.6em of hs] {\scriptsize high score};
\node(ls) [right=1.60cm of r44] {\scriptsize (high energy)};
\node [above=-.6em of ls] {\scriptsize low score};
\node(step1) [above=8.2em of u03, color=red] {\hspace{-0.5cm}{\bf Idea 1}: merge states with identical stacks};
\node(step2) [right=.3em of s02, text width=18em, color=red] {{\bf Idea 2}: temporarily pack states with the same stack-top};
\node[above=.0em of b02] {packing \quad\quad\quad\quad\quad};
\node[above=.0em of b03] {\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad unpacking};
\node(step3) [right=0em of labC, color=red] {{\bf Idea 3}: prune states in each step};
\node(tmp) [below=2.27cm of r00, color=white] {~~~};
\draw [decorate,decoration={brace,mirror},xshift=-4pt,yshift=0pt] ($(r00.north west)+(-.1,.1)$) -- ($(r00.north west)+(-.1,-.67)$) node [black,midway,xshift=-.2cm] {\footnotesize $b$};
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[xshift = 1.85cm, yshift = -4.00cm]
\begin{axis}[
hide axis,
scale only axis,
height=0pt,
width=0pt,
colorbar sampled,
colormap={mymap}{[1pt] rgb255(0pt)=(255,255,0);
rgb255(50pt)=(255,0,0)},
colorbar style={
title={},
samples=75,
width=7.5,
height=55,
point meta min=0,
point meta max=1,
scaled y ticks = false,
ytick={\empty},
}
]
\end{axis}
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[on background layer]
\draw [gray!30, fill=gray!30] ($(r00.north west)+(-.1,.1)$) -- ($(r05.north east)+(.1,.1)$) -- ($(r05.south east)+(.1,-.45)$) -- ($(r00.south west)+(-.1,-.45)$);
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}
&
\hspace{-0.5em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[
scale=0.96,
every node/.style={scale=0.96},
tcancel/.append style={draw=#1, cross out, inner sep=1pt},
]
\matrix (m) [matrix of nodes, row sep=0.15em, column sep=2.7em, align=left, nodes={inner sep=0.2em}] {
&[-.7em] &[-.7em] &[-.7em] &[.3em] &[-.7em] &[-2em] \\
{\tt \color{white}{step:}} & {\tt 1} & {\tt ~2} & {\tt ~~3} & {\tt ~~~4} & {\tt ~~~~5} & \\
& {\tt C} & {\tt CC} & {\tt CCA} & {\tt CCAG} & {\tt CCAGG} & \node(wcom1)[]{no DP};\\
\node (u00)[color=white] {$\epsilon$} ; & \node (u31)[] {\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}} ; & \node (u52)[] {\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}\bml} ; & \node (u53)[] {\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}\bml\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} ; & \node (u54)[] {\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}\mla\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\mra} ; & \node (u55)[] {\mla\ml\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\mra\mr} ; & \\
& \statescore{ 0.0} & \statescore{ 0.0} & \statescore{-0.1} & \statescore{+0.9} & \statescore{+1.9} \\
\node(Au00)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small \color{white}{0~0}}; & \node(Au31)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small 1\color{white}{~0}}; & \node(Au52)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small 1~2\color{white}{}}; & \node(Au53)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small 1~2\color{white}{}}; & \node(Au54)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small 1\color{white}{~0}}; & \node(Au55)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small \color{white}{0~0}}; &\\ [0.53em
& & \node (u32) {\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} ; & \node (u33) {\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\md} ; & \node (u44)[] {\mla\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\md\mra} ; & \node (u45)[] {\mla\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\md\mra\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} ; & \\
& & \statescore{-0.1} & \statescore{-0.2} & \statescore{+0.8} & \statescore{+0.7} \\
& & \node(Au32)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small 1\color{white}{~0}}; & \node(Au33)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small 1\color{white}{~0}}; & \node(Au44)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small \color{white}{0~0}}; & \node(Au45)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small \color{white}{0~0}}; &\\ [0.53em
& & & & \node (u34)[] {\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\md\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} ; & \node (u35)[] {\mla\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\md\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\mra} ; & \\
& & & & \statescore{-0.3} & \statescore{+0.7}\\
& & & &\node(Au34)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small 1\color{white}{~0}}; &\node(Au35)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small \color{white}{0~0}}; &\\ [0.53em
& \node (u01) {\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} ; & \node (u12)[=] {\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}} ; & \node (u13)[] {\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} ; & \node (u24)[] {\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\mla\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\mra} ; & \node (u25)[] {\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\mla\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\mra\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} ; & \\
& \statescore{-0.1} & \statescore{-0.1} & \statescore{-0.2} & \statescore{+0.8} & \statescore{+0.7} \\
& \node(Au01)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small \color{white}{0~0}}; & \node(Au12)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small 2\color{white}{~0}}; & \node(Au13)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small 2\color{white}{~0}}; &\node(Au24)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small \color{white}{0~0}}; &\node(Au25)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small \color{white}{0~0}}; &\\ [0.53em
& & & & \node (u14) {\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\md} ; & \node (u15)[] {\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\mla\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\md\mra} ; & \\
& & & & \statescore{-0.3} & \statescore{+0.7} \\
& & & &\node(Au14)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small 2\color{white}{~0}}; &\node(Au15)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small \color{white}{0~0}}; &\\ [0.53em
& & \node (u02) {\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\md} ; & \node (u03) {\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\md\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} ; & \node (u04)[] {\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\md\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\md} ; & \node (u05)[] {\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\md\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\md\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} ; & \\
& & \statescore{-0.2} & \statescore{-0.3} & \statescore{-0.4} & \statescore{-0.5}\\
& &\node(Au02)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small \color{white}{0~0}}; &\node(Au03)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small \color{white}{0~0}}; &\node(Au04)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small \color{white}{0~0}}; &\node(Au05)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small \color{white}{0~0}}; & \\ [0.53em
\node (lb1) {}; & & & & & & \node(rb1) {$~$}; \\ [0.83em
\node (s00)[color=white] {$\epsilon$}; & \node (s21)[] {\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}} ; & \node (s32)[] {\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}\bml} ; & \node (s33)[] {\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}\bml\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} ; & \node (s24)[] {\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}\mla\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\mra} ; & \node (s15)[] {\mla\ml\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\mra\mr} ; & \node[](wcoms){naive DP};\\
& \statescore{ 0.0} & \statescore{ 0.0} & \statescore{-0.1} & \statescore{+0.9} & \statescore{+1.9}\\
\node(As00)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small \color{white}{0~0}}; & \node(As21)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small 1\color{white}{~0}}; & \node(As32)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small 1~2\color{white}{}}; & \node(As33)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small 1~2\color{white}{}}; & \node(As24)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small 1\color{white}{~0}}; & \node(As15)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small \color{white}{0~0}}; & \\ [0.53em
& & \node (s22) {\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} ; & \node (s23) {\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\md} ; & & & \\
& & \statescore{-0.1} & \statescore{-0.2} & \\
& & \node(As22)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small 1\color{white}{~0}}; & \node(As23)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small 1\color{white}{~0}}; & & & \\ [0.53em
& \node (s01) {\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} ; & \node (s12)[] {\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}} ; & \node (s13)[] {\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} ; & \node (s14)[] {\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\mla\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\mra} ; & & \\
& \statescore{-0.1} & \statescore{-0.1} & \statescore{-0.2} & \statescore{+0.8} \\
& \node(As01)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small \color{white}{0~0}}; & \node(As12)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small 2\color{white}{~0}}; & \node(As13)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small 2\color{white}{~0}}; & \node(As14)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small \color{white}{0~0}}; & &\\ [0.53em
& & \node (s02) {\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\md} ; & \node (s03) {\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\md\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} ; & \node (s04) {\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\md} ; & & \\
& & \statescore{-0.2} & \statescore{-0.3} & \statescore{-0.3} \\
& & \node(As02)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small \color{white}{0~0}}; & \node(As03)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small \color{white}{0~0}}; & \node(As04)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small 2\color{white}{~0}}; & & \\ [0.53em
\node (lb2) {}; & & & & & & \node(rb2) {$~$}; \\ [0.83em
\node (m00)[color=white] {$\epsilon$} ; & \node (m11)[] {\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}} ; & \node (m12)[] {\ensuremath{\text{\tt ?}}\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}} ; & \node (m13)[] {\ensuremath{\text{\tt ?}}\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} ; & \node (m24)[] {\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}\mla\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\mra} ; & \node (m15)[] {\mla\ml\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\mra\mr} ; & \node(wcom2)[]{stacktop DP};\\
& \statescore{ 0.0} & \statescore{ 0.0} & \statescore{-0.1} & \statescore{+0.9} & \statescore{+1.9} \\
\node(Am00)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small \color{white}{0~0}}; & \node(Am11)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small ... 1\color{white}{}}; & \node(Am12)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small ... 2\color{white}{}}; & \node(Am13)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small ... 2\color{white}{}}; & \node(Am24)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small ... 1\color{white}{}}; & \node(Am15)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small \color{white}{0~0}}; & \\ [0.53em
& & \node (m22) {\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} ; & \node (m23) {\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\md} ; & \node (m14) {\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\mla\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\mra}; & & \\
& & \statescore{-0.1} & \statescore{-0.2} & \statescore{+0.8} \\
& & \node(Am22)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small ... 1\color{white}{}}; & \node(Am23)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small ... 1\color{white}{}}; & \node(Am14)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small \color{white}{0~0}}; & & \\ [0.53em
& \node (m01) {\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} ; & \node (m02) {\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\md} ; & \node (m03) {\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\md\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} ; & \node (m04) {\ensuremath{\text{\tt ?}}\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\md}; & & \\
& \statescore{-0.1} & \statescore{-0.2} & \statescore{-0.3} & \statescore{-0.2} \\
& \node(Am01)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small \color{white}{0~0}}; & \node(Am02)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small \color{white}{0~0}}; & \node(Am03)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small \color{white}{0~0}}; & \node(Am04)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small ... 2\color{white}{}}; & & \\ [0.53em
\node (lb3) {}; & & & & & & \node(rb3) {$~$}; \\ [0.83em
\node (b00)[color=white] {$\epsilon$} ; & \node (b11) [] {\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}} ; & \node (b02)[] {\ensuremath{\text{\tt ?}}\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}} ; & \node (b03)[] {\ensuremath{\text{\tt ?}}\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} ; & \node (b14)[] {\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}\mla\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\mra} ; & \node (b05)[] {\mla\ml\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\mra\mr} ; & \node(wcom3)[]{LinearFold};\\
& \statescore{ 0.0} & \statescore{ 0.0} & \statescore{-0.1} & \statescore{+0.9} & \statescore{+1.9} \\
\node(Ab00)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small \color{white}{0~0}}; & \node(Ab11)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small ... 1\color{white}{}}; & \node(Ab02)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small ... 2\color{white}{}}; & \node(Ab03)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small ... 2\color{white}{}}; &\node(Ab14)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small ... 1\color{white}{}}; & \node(Ab05)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small \color{white}{0~0}}; & \\ [0.53em
& \node (b01) {\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}}; & \node (b12) {\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} ; & \node (b13) {\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\md} ; & \node (b04) {\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\mla\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\mra} ; & & \\
& \statescore{-0.1} & \statescore{-0.1} & \statescore{-0.2} & \statescore{+0.8} \\
& \node(Ab01)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small \color{white}{0~0}}; & \node(Ab12)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small ... 1\color{white}{}}; & \node(Ab13)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small ... 1\color{white}{}}; & \node(Ab04)[scale=0.88, inner sep=0.1em] {\small \color{white}{0~0}}; & & ({\em approx.}) \\ [0.53em
\node (lb4) {}; & & & & & & \node(rb4) {$~$}; \\
};
\DrawNode{Au00};\DrawNode{Au01};\DrawNode{Au02};\DrawNode{Au03};\DrawNode{Au04};\DrawNode{Au05};
\DrawNode{Au12};\DrawNode{Au13};\DrawNode{Au14};\DrawNode{Au15};
\DrawNode{Au24};\DrawNode{Au25};
\DrawNode{Au31};\DrawNode{Au32};\DrawNode{Au33};\DrawNode{Au34};\DrawNode{Au35};
\DrawNode{Au44};\DrawNode{Au45};
\DrawNode{Au52};\DrawNode{Au53};\DrawNode{Au54};\DrawNode{Au55};
\DrawNode{As00};\DrawNode{As01};\DrawNode{As02};\DrawNode{As03};\DrawNode{As04};
\DrawNode{As12};\DrawNode{As13};\DrawNode{As14};\DrawNode{As15};
\DrawNode{As21};\DrawNode{As22};\DrawNode{As23};\DrawNode{As24};
\DrawNode{As32};\DrawNode{As33};
\DrawNode{Am00};\DrawNode{Am01};\DrawNode{Am02};\DrawNode{Am03};\DrawNode{Am04};
\DrawNode{Am11};\DrawNode{Am12};\DrawNode{Am13};\DrawNode{Am14};\DrawNode{Am15};
\DrawNode{Am22};\DrawNode{Am23};\DrawNode{Am24};
\DrawNode{Ab00};\DrawNode{Ab01};\DrawNode{Ab02};\DrawNode{Ab03};\DrawNode{Ab04};\DrawNode{Ab05};
\DrawNode{Ab11};\DrawNode{Ab12};\DrawNode{Ab13};\DrawNode{Ab14};
\draw[->, thick, green] (u00.360) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} (u01.180);
\draw[->, thick, green] (u01.20) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt (}}} (u12.180);
\draw[->, thick, blue] (u00.360) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt (}}} (u31.180);
\draw[->] (u01.20) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} (u02.180);
\draw[->] (u31.0) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} (u32.180);
\draw[->, thick, blue] (u31.0) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt (}}} (u52.180);
\draw[->] (u02.0) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} (u03.180);
\draw[->, thick, green] (u12) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} (u13);
\draw[->] (u32.0) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} (u33.180);
\draw[->, thick, blue] (u52) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} (u53);
\draw[->] (u03.0) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} (u04.180);
\draw[->] (u13.0) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} (u14.180);
\draw[->, thick, green] (u13.0) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt )}}} (u24.180);
\draw[->] (u33.0) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} (u34.180);
\draw[->] (u33.0) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt )}}} (u44.180);
\draw[->, thick, blue] (u53) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt )}}} (u54);
\draw[->] (u04) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} (u05);
\draw[->] (u14) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt )}}} (u15);
\draw[->, thick, green] (u24) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} (u25);
\draw[->] (u34) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt )}}} (u35);
\draw[->] (u44) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} (u45);
\draw[->, thick, blue] (u54) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt )}}} (u55);
\draw[->, thick, blue] (s00.0) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt (}}} (s21.180);
\draw[->, thick, green] (s00.0) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} (s01.180);
\draw[->] (s01.20) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} (s02.180);
\draw[->, thick, green] (s01.20) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt (}}} (s12.180);
\draw[->] (s21.0) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} (s22.180);
\draw[->, thick, blue] (s21.0) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt (}}} (s32.180);
\draw[->] (s02) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} (s03);
\draw[->, thick, green] (s12.0) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} (s13.180);
\draw[->] (s22) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} (s23);
\draw[->, thick, blue] (s32) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} (s33);
\draw[->] (s03.0) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, pos = 0.3] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} (s14.180);
\draw[->] (s13.0) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, pos = 0.15] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} (s04.180);
\draw[->, thick, green] (s13.0) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt=-.17em, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt )}}} (s14.180);
\draw[->] (s23.0) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} (s24.180);
\draw[->] (s23.0) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt )}}} (s14.180);
\draw[->, thick, blue] (s33.0) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt )}}} (s24.180);
\draw[->] (s04.0) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt )}}} (s15.180);
\draw[->, thick, green] (s14.30) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} (s15.180);
\draw[->, thick, blue] (s24.0) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt )}}} (s15.180);
\draw[->, thick, green] (m00.0) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} (m01.180);
\draw[->, thick, blue] (m00.0) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt=-0.15em, pos = 0.5] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt (}}} (m11.182);
\draw[->] (m01) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} (m02);
\draw[->, thick, green] (m01.0) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt=-0.15em, pos = 0.5] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt (}}} (m12.180);
\draw[->, thick, blue] (m11) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, pos = 0.5] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt (}}} (m12);
\draw[->] (m11.0) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt=-0.15em, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} (m22.180);
\draw[->] (m02) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} (m03);
\draw[->, thick, blue!100] (m12.10) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} (m13.173);
\draw[->, thick, green!100] (m12.350) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} (m13.187);
\draw[->] (m22) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} (m23);
\draw[->] (m03.0) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, pos = 0.3] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} (m14.180);
\draw[->] (m13.0) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, pos = 0.15] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} (m04.180);
\draw[->, thick, green] (m13.0) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, pos=0.7] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt )}}} (m14.180);
\draw[->, thick, blue] (m13.0) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt )}}} (m24.180);
\draw[->] (m23.0) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, pos=0.7] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} (m24.180);
\draw[->] (m23.0) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt=-0.15em, pos = 0.3] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt )}}} (m14.180);
\draw[->] (m04.0) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt )}}} (m15.180);
\draw[->, thick, green] (m14.0) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} (m15.180);
\draw[->, thick, blue] (m24.0) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt )}}} (m15.180);
\draw[->, thick, green] (b00.0) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} (b01.170);
\draw[->, thick, blue] (b00.0) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, pos = 0.7] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt (}}} (b11.180);
\draw[->, thick, green] (b01.20) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, pos=0.3] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt (}}} (b02.180);
\draw[->, thick, blue] (b11.0) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, pos = 0.5] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt (}}} (b02.180);
\draw[->] (b11.0) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, pos=0.3] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} (b12.180);
\draw[->, thick, blue!100] (b02.10) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} (b03.173);
\draw[->, thick, green!100] (b02.350) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} (b03.187);
\draw[->] (b12) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, midway] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} (b13);
\draw[->, thick, green] (b03.0) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, pos=0.5] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt )}}} (b04.180);
\draw[->, thick, blue] (b03.0) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, pos = 0.5] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt )}}} (b14.180);
\draw[->] (b13.0) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, pos = 0.5] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt )}}} (b04.180);
\draw[->, thick, green] (b04.0) -- node [fill=white, inner sep = 1pt, pos = 0.5] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}} (b05.180);
\draw[->, thick, blue] (b14.0) -- node [fill=white, inner sep=1pt, pos = 0.5] {\scriptsize \ensuremath{\text{\tt )}}} (b05.180);
\node(labD1) [above=1.5em of u00] {};
\node [left=.0em of labD1] {\panel{D}};
\node(labD2) [above=-.2em of s00] {};
\node [left=.0em of labD2] {\panel{E}};
\node(labD3) [above=-.2em of m00] {};
\node [left=.0em of labD3] {\panel{F}};
\node(labD4) [above=-.2em of b00] {};
\node [left=.0em of labD4] {\panel{G}};
\draw[thick] (lb1.180) -- (rb1.0);
\draw[thick] (lb2.180) -- (rb2.0);
\draw[thick] (lb3.180) -- (rb3.0);
\node[below=-0.4em of wcom1](com1){$O(3^n)$};
\node[below=-0.4em of wcoms](coms){$O(2^{n})$};
\node[below=-0.4em of wcom2](com2){$O(n^3)$};
\node[below=-0.4em of wcom3](com3){$O(n)$};
\draw[-{stealth}] (com1.270) -- (wcoms.90) node [sloped, rotate=0, pos=0.42, below] {+identical stack merging};
\draw[-{stealth}] (com1.270) -- (wcoms.90) node [sloped, rotate=0, pos=0.42, above] {{\color{red} +{\bf Idea 1}}};
\draw[-{stealth}] (coms.270) -- (wcom2.90) node [sloped, rotate=0, pos=0.42, below] {+stack-top packing};
\draw[-{stealth}] (coms.270) -- (wcom2.90) node [sloped, rotate=0, pos=0.42, above] {{\color{red} +{\bf Idea 2}}};
\draw[-{stealth}] (com2.270) -- (wcom3.90) node [sloped, rotate=0, pos=0.42, below] {+beam prune};
\draw[-{stealth}] (com2.270) -- (wcom3.90) node [sloped, rotate=0, pos=0.42, above] {{\color{red} +{\bf Idea 3}}};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{tabular}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{Illustration of the {LinearFold}\xspace approach,
using a short sequence {\tt CCAGG} and the simple scoring function (Eq.~\ref{eq:simple}).
{\bf A}: an example state and an example (actually optimal) path, showing states (predicted prefix structures), actions (\ensuremath{\mathsf{push}}\xspace ``\mla'', \ensuremath{\mathsf{skip}}\xspace ``\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}'', and \ensuremath{\mathsf{pop}}\xspace ``\mra''), and stacks (unpaired open brackets which are shown in bold in states).
{\bf B}: two example paths (the optimal one in blue and a suboptimal one in green) and two essential ideas of left-to-right dynamic programming:
merging equivalent states with identical stacks (Idea 1)
and packing temporarily equivalent states sharing the same stack top, and corresponding unpacking upon \ensuremath{\mathsf{pop}}\xspace (Idea 2).
{\bf C}: illustration of beam search, which keeps top $b$ states (those in the shaded region) per step (Idea 3).
{\bf D}: the whole search space of the naive
algorithm ($O(3^n)$ time).
{\bf E}: improving to $O(2^n)$ time with Idea 1.
{\bf F}: further improving to $O(n^3)$ time with Idea 2.
{\bf G}: further improving to $O(n)$ time (but with approximate search) with Idea 3.
In {\bf B, F}, and {\bf G}, each green/blue arrow pair \ensuremath{\text{\tt ?}}\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}} {\raisebox{0.05cm}{\color{green}{\tiny$-\cdot\!\!\rightarrow$}}}\hspace{-.5cm}{\raisebox{-0.03cm}{\color{blue}{\tiny$-\cdot\!\!\rightarrow$}}} \ensuremath{\text{\tt ?}}\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\/ is actually a single arrow, denoting two paths temporarily packed as one;
we draw paired arrows
to highlight that two states \ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}\/ and \ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}\bml\/ are performing \ensuremath{\mathsf{skip}}\xspace action together.
Note the version up to Idea 2 is exact and worst-case $O(n^3)$ time.
\label{fig:method} }
\end{figure*}
\fi
\vspace{0.2cm}
\subsection{Idea 0: Brute-Force Search: $O(3^n)$}
\vspace{0.1cm}
The initial idea, introduced in
Fig.~\ref{fig:overall}B,
is to scan the RNA sequence left-to-right,
maintaining a {\em stack} along the way, and
performing one of the three actions
(push, skip, or pop)
at each step.
More formally, we denote each {\em state} at step $j$ ($j=0...n$)
as a tuple along with a score $s$:
\[
\nnitem{\ensuremath{\mathbf{y}}\xspace}{\sigma}{j}{s},
\]
where \ensuremath{\mathbf{y}}\xspace is the (sub)structure for the prefix $x_1 \ldots x_j$,
and
$\sigma$ is the stack consisting of unmatched opening bracket positions in \ensuremath{\mathbf{y}}\xspace.
For example, in step 4, if \ensuremath{\mathbf{y}}\xspace=``\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}\mla\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\mra'', then $\sigma=[1]$ and $s=0.9$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig:method}A);
note that
we denote open brackets in bold.
Each state at step $j$ can transition into a subsequent state of step $j\!+\!1$, taking one of the three
actions:
\begin{enumerate
\item \ensuremath{\mathsf{push}}\xspace:
label $x_{j+1}$ as ``\mla'' for it to be paired with a downstream nucleotide, and pushing $j+1$ on to the stack,
notated:
\[
\frac{\nnitem{\ensuremath{\mathbf{y}}\xspace}{\sigma}{j}{s}}{\nnitem{\ensuremath{\mathbf{y}}\xspace\!\circ\!{\text `}\mla{\text '}}{\sigma | (j+1)}{j+1}{s}}
\]
\item \ensuremath{\mathsf{skip}}\xspace:
label $x_{j+1}$ as ``\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}'' (unpaired and skipped):
\[
\frac{\nnitem{\ensuremath{\mathbf{y}}\xspace}{\sigma}{j}{s}}{\nnitem{\ensuremath{\mathbf{y}}\xspace\!\circ\!{\text `}\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}{\text '}}{\sigma}{j+1}{s + w_\ensuremath{\mathrm{unpaired}}\xspace}}
\]
\item \ensuremath{\mathsf{pop}}\xspace:
label $x_{j+1}$ as ``\mra'', paired with the upstream nucleotide $x_i$
where $i$ is the top of the stack, and pop $i$
(if $x_i x_{j+1}$ pair is allowed):
\[
\frac{\nnitem{\ensuremath{\mathbf{y}}\xspace}{\sigma | i}{j}{s}}{\nnitem{\ensuremath{\mathbf{y}}\xspace\!\circ\!{\text `}\mra{\text '}}{\sigma}{j+1}{s+ w_{x_i x_{j+1}}}}
\]
\end{enumerate}
We start with the init state $\nnitem{\text{`'}}{[\,]}{0}{0}$ and finish with any state $\nnitem{\ensuremath{\mathbf{y}}\xspace}{[\,]}{n}{s}$ with an empty stack
(ensuring the output is a well-balanced dot-bracket sequence).
See Fig.~\ref{fig:method}A for an example path for input sequence CCAGG, and Fig.~\ref{fig:method}D for all valid paths.
\iffalse
Our {LinearFold}\xspace approach is presented in four steps,
starting from the most naive but easy-to-understand exhaustive search version,
and gradually build it up to the linear-time version,
showing in Fig.~\ref{fig:method}, with the
full deduction system described in Fig.~\ref{fig:deduction} and
Figure~\ref{fig:realdeduct}.
The basic idea of linear-time prediction is to predict incrementally from left
to right,
labeling each nucleotide as dot or bracket (unpaired ``{\textbf .}'', opening ``{\textbf (}'', or closing ``{\textbf )}''.),
and requiring brackets to be well-balanced.
\fi
The above procedure describes a naive exhaustive search without dynamic programming
which has exponential runtime
$O(3^n)$, as there are up to three actions per step (see Fig.~\ref{fig:method}D).
Next, Fig.~\ref{fig:method}B
sketches
the two key dynamic programming ideas that speed up
this algorithm to $O(n^3)$ by merging and packing states.
\subsection{Idea 1 (DP): Merge States with Identical Stacks: $O(2^n)$}
We first observe that different states can have the same stack; for example,
in step 5, both ``\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\mla\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\mra\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}'' and ``\mla\ml\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\mra\mr'' have the same empty stack (see Fig.~\ref{fig:method}B, Idea 1);
and in step 4, both ``\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\md\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}'' and ``\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}\mla\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\mra'' have the same stack [1] (see Fig.~\ref{fig:method}D).
These states can be merged, because even though they have different histories, going forward they are exactly equivalent.
After merging we save the state with the highest score and discard all others which have no potential to lead to the optimal structure.
More formally, we merge two states with the same stack:
\[
\begin{rcases}
\nnitem{\ensuremath{\mathbf{y}}\xspace}{\sigma}{j}{s}\\
\nnitem{\ensuremath{\mathbf{y}}\xspace'}{\sigma}{j}{s'}
\end{rcases}
\!\!\!\ensuremath{\rightarrow}\xspace \nitemt{\sigma}{j}{\ensuremath{\mathbf{y}}\xspace'', s''}
\]
where
\[
\tuple{\ensuremath{\mathbf{y}}\xspace'', s''} =
\begin{cases}
\tuple{\ensuremath{\mathbf{y}}\xspace, s} & \text{if $s > s'$}\\
\tuple{\ensuremath{\mathbf{y}}\xspace', s'} & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\]
This algorithm is faster but still has exponential $O(2^n)$ time as there are exponentially many different stacks (see Fig.~\ref{fig:method}E).
\subsection{Idea 2 (DP): Pack Temporarily Equivalent States: $O(n^3)$}
\label{sec:idea2}
We further observe that even though some states have different stacks,
they might share the same stack top.
For example,
in step 2, ``\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}'' and ``\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}\bml'' have [2] and [1,2] as their stacks, resp.,
but with the same stack top 2.
Our key insight is that two states with the same stack-top
are ``temporarily equivalent'' and can be ``packed'' as they would behave equivalently until the
stack-top open bracket is closed (i.e., matched), after which they ``unpack'' and diverge.
As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:method}B (Idea 2),
both ``\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}'' and ``\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}\bml'' are looking for a ``G'' to match with the stack top $x_2$=``C'',
and can be packed as ``\ensuremath{\text{\tt ?}}\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}'' with stack [...2] where \ensuremath{\text{\tt ?}}\/ and ``...'' represent
histories that are not important for now. After skipping the next nucleotide $x_3$=``A'', they become ``\ensuremath{\text{\tt ?}}\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}''
and upon matching the next nucleotide $x_4$=``G'' with the stack-top $x_2$=``C'', they unpack, resulting in ``\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\mla\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\mra'' and ``\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}\mla\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}\mra''.
More formally, two states $\nitemt{\sigma | i}{i}{\ensuremath{\mathbf{y}}\xspace, s}$ and $\nitemt{\sigma' | i}{i}{\ensuremath{\mathbf{y}}\xspace', s'}$ sharing the same stack top can be packed:
\[
\begin{rcases}
\nitemt{\sigma | i}{i}{\ensuremath{\mathbf{y}}\xspace,s}\\
\nitemt{\sigma' | i}{i}{\ensuremath{\mathbf{y}}\xspace',s'}
\end{rcases}
\!\!\!\ensuremath{\rightarrow}\xspace \nitemt{i}{i}{\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}, 0}
\]
Note that (a) we only need two indices to index the packed state;
(b) we omit the \ensuremath{\text{\tt ?}}'s since they contain no information; and (c) somewhat counterintuitively, the resulting packed state's (sub)structure and score, $\tuple{\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}, 0}$
do not depend on the original states before packing.
More formally, for any packed state $\nitemt{i}{j}{\ensuremath{\mathbf{y}}\xspace, s}$,
its \ensuremath{\mathbf{y}}\xspace is a substructure only for the substring $x_i ... x_j$,
and its score $s$ is also for that portion only, i.e., $s=\ensuremath{\mathit{sc}_{\vecw}}\xspace(x_i ... x_j, \ensuremath{\mathbf{y}}\xspace)$.
We can grow it by skip
\[
\frac{\nitemt{i}{j}{\ensuremath{\mathbf{y}}\xspace, s}}{\nitemt{i}{j+1}{\ensuremath{\mathbf{y}}\xspace\circ\text{`\ensuremath{\text{\tt .}}'}, s+\ensuremath{w_\text{unpaired}}\xspace}}
\]
or push actions
\[
\frac{\nitemt{i}{j}{\ensuremath{\mathbf{y}}\xspace, s}}{\nitemt{j+1}{j+1}{\ensuremath{\text{\tt{\textbf (}}}, 0}}.
\]
The pop action is more involved. If $x_i$ and $x_{j+1}$ match,
we pop $i$, but where can we find the ``previous stack top''? It is {\em not} specified in the packed state.
Therefore, we need to find a state $\nitemt{k}{i-1}{\ensuremath{\mathbf{y}}\xspace', s'}$ that combines with the current state:
\[
\frac{\nitemt{k}{i-1}{\ensuremath{\mathbf{y}}\xspace',s'} \quad \nitemt{i}{j}{\ensuremath{\mathbf{y}}\xspace, s}}{\nitemt{k}{j+1}{\ensuremath{\mathbf{y}}\xspace'\circ\ensuremath{\mathbf{y}}\xspace\circ\text{`\mra'}, s'+s+w_{x_i x_{j+1}}}}
\]
This version (see Fig.~\ref{fig:method}F)
runs in worst-case $O(n^3)$ time, because the pop step involve three free indices.
It guarantees to return the optimal-scoring structure.
It is inspired by a well-established algorithm in natural language parsing \citep{tomita:1988,huang+sagae:2010}; see Supplementary Fig.~\ref{fig:connect}.
Although this $O(n^3)$ runtime is the same as those classical bottom-up ones,
its unique left-to-right nature makes it amenable to $O(n)$ beam search.
\subsection{Idea 3 (Approximate Search): Beam Pruning: $O(n)$}
\label{sec:idea3}
\iffalse
\begin{figure
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\hspace{-1em}
\raisebox{5.2cm}{\panel{A}}
\hspace{-3em}
\includegraphics[width=.29\textwidth]{figs/Huang.32.fig.3A}
&
\hspace{-2.3em}
\raisebox{5.2cm}{\panel{B}}
\hspace{-2.4em}
\raisebox{0.15cm}{\includegraphics[width=.26\textwidth]{figs/Huang.32.fig.3B}}
\\[-1.4cm]
\multicolumn{2}{c}{
\hspace{-1cm}
\raisebox{3.2cm}{\panel{C}}
\includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{figs/Huang.32.fig.3C}}\\[-1.5cm]
\end{tabular}
\caption{Efficiency and scalability of {LinearFold}\xspace.
{\bf A}: runtime comparisons on the ArchiveII dataset
with the two baselines, {CONTRAfold MFE}\xspace and {Vienna RNAfold}\xspace.
{\bf B}: runtime comparisons on the RNAcentral dataset (log-log).
{\bf C}: memory usage comparisons (RNAcentral set, log-log).
{LinearFold}\xspace uses $O(n)$ time and memory, being substantially faster and slimmer than the $O(n^3)$-time, $O(n^2)$-space, baselines on long sequences.
\label{fig:time}\vspace{-0.3cm}
}
\end{figure}
\fi
We further employ beam pruning~\cite{huang+:2012},
a popular heuristic widely used in computational linguistics,
to reduce the complexity from $O(n^3)$ to $O(n)$,
but with the cost of exact search.
Basically, at each step $j$, we only keep the $b$ top-scoring (lowest-energy) states
and prune the other, less promising, ones (because they are less likely to be part of the optimal final structure).
This results in an approximate search algorithm in $O(nb^2)$ time,
depicted in
Figure~\ref{fig:method}C and G.
On top of beam search, we borrow $k$-best parsing
\cite{huang+chiang:2005}
to reduce the runtime to $O(n b\log b)$.
Here the beam size $b$ is a small constant (by default 100) so the overall runtime is linear in $n$.
We will show that
our approximate search achieves even higher overall accuracy than the classical exact search methods.
The space complexity is $O(nb)$.
See Supplementary Fig.~\ref{fig:realdeduct} for the real system.
There are two minor restrictions in our real system:
the length of an interior loop is bounded by 30\ensuremath{\text{\it nt}}\xspace
(a standard limit found in most existing RNA folding software such as {CONTRAfold}\xspace),
so is the leftmost (5'-end) unpaired segment of a multiloop
(new constraint).
These conditions are valid for 37\textdegree C, and no violations were found
in the ArchiveII dataset.
\iffalse
\begin{table}[t]
\begin{tabular}{r|rr|r}
memory & {CONTRAfold MFE}\xspace & {Vienna RNAfold}\xspace & {LinearFold}\xspace $b$=100\\
\hline
16G & 27,500 & 27,500 & \\
32G & 32,500 & 32,500 & \\
\end{tabular}
\smallskip
\caption{Maximum sequence length allowed by different predictors on
machines with 16G and 32G memory.\label{tab:max}}
\end{table}
\fi
\iffalse
\subsection{Practical Systems}
and they
decompose to individual loops:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\ensuremath{\mathit{sc}}\xspace_\text{real}(\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}\xspace, \ensuremath{\mathbf{y}}\xspace; \ensuremath{\mathbf{w}}\xspace) = &
\!\!\!\!\sum_{h \in \text{hairpin\_loops}(\ensuremath{\mathbf{y}}\xspace)}\!\!\!\! \ensuremath{\mathit{sc}}\xspace^{\mathrm H}(\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}\xspace, h; \ensuremath{\mathbf{w}}\xspace) + \!\!\!\!\sum_{s \in \text{single\_loops}(\ensuremath{\mathbf{y}}\xspace)}\!\!\!\! \ensuremath{\mathit{sc}}\xspace^{\mathrm S}(\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}\xspace, s; \ensuremath{\mathbf{w}}\xspace) \\
+ & \!\!\!\!\sum_{m \in \text{multi\_loops}(\ensuremath{\mathbf{y}}\xspace)}\!\!\!\! \ensuremath{\mathit{sc}}\xspace^{\mathrm M}(\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}\xspace, m; \ensuremath{\mathbf{w}}\xspace) + \!\!\!\!\sum_{e \in \text{external\_loops}(\ensuremath{\mathbf{y}}\xspace)}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \ensuremath{\mathit{sc}}\xspace^{\mathrm E}(\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}\xspace, e; \ensuremath{\mathbf{w}}\xspace).
\end{split}
\label{eq:decomp}
\end{equation}
The thermodynamic
model in {ViennaRNA}\xspace scores
each type of loop
using several feature templates such as
hairpin/bulge/internal loop lengths,
terminal mismatches, helix stacking, helix closing, etc.
The machine-learned model in {CONTRAfold}\xspace
replaces energies in the above framework with model weights learned from data.
\fi
\iftrue
\begin{figure
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.49\textwidth]{standalone_fig/Huang.32.fig.3}
\vspace{-.7cm}
\caption{Efficiency and scalability of {LinearFold}\xspace.
{\bf A}: runtime comparisons on the ArchiveII dataset
with the two baselines, {CONTRAfold MFE}\xspace and {Vienna RNAfold}\xspace.
{\bf B}: runtime comparisons on the RNAcentral dataset (log-log).
{\bf C}: memory usage comparisons (RNAcentral set, log-log).
{LinearFold}\xspace uses $O(n)$ time and memory, being substantially faster and slimmer than the $O(n^3)$-time, $O(n^2)$-space, baselines on long sequences.
\label{fig:time}\vspace{-0.3cm}
}
\end{figure}
\fi
\iftrue
\begin{figure*}[!ht
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{standalone_fig/Huang.32.fig.4}
\\[-0.6cm]
\caption{Accuracy of {LinearFold}\xspace.
{\bf A}: Each bar represents PPV/sensitivity
averaged over all sequences in one family.
Statistical significance is marked as
$^*$($0.01 \!\leq\! p \! < \! 0.05$) or $^{**}$($p\! <\! 0.01$).
See Table~\ref{tab:accuracy} for details.
{\bf B}: The overall accuracies,
averaging over all families.
{\bf C}:
Each bar represents the overall PPV/sensitivity of all base pairs in a certain length range
across all sequences.
Supplementary Fig.~\ref{fig:vienna_distance} shows a similar result for {LinearFold-V}\xspace.
Overall, {LinearFold}\xspace outperforms exact search baselines, esp.~on longer families and long-range
pairs.
\vspace{-0.4cm}
\label{fig:accuracy}}
\end{figure*}
\fi
\iffalse
\begin{figure*}[!ht
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\begin{minipage}[]{0.01\textwidth}
\panel{A}\vspace{7cm}
\end{minipage}
\hspace{-.5cm}
\begin{minipage}[]{0.5\textwidth}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=.9\textwidth]{figs/Huang.32.fig.4A1}
\\[-1.5cm]
\includegraphics[width=.9\textwidth]{figs/Huang.32.fig.4A2}
\\[-0.1cm]
shortest (77.3) $\xrightarrow{\makebox[4.5cm]{\text{Average Sequence Length by Family}}}$ longest (2927.4)
\\
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
&
\hspace{-.2cm}
\begin{minipage}[]{0.5\textwidth}
\raisebox{-.2cm}{\panel{B}}
\hspace{0.5cm}
\setlength\tabcolsep{5pt}
\begin{tabular}{l|ll|ll}
Overall & PPV & & \multicolumn{2}{l}{Sensitivity} \\
\hline
{CONTRAfold MFE}\xspace & 54.51 & & 55.36 & \\
{LinearFold-C}\xspace & 55.84 & (+1.3) & 56.24 & (+0.9) \\
\hline
{Vienna RNAfold}\xspace & 50.22 & & 58.74 & \\
{LinearFold-V}\xspace & 50.51 & (+0.3) & 58.97 & (+0.2) \\
\end{tabular}
\\[0.4cm]
\raisebox{2.2cm}{\panel{C}}
\hspace{-0.5cm}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{figs/Huang.32.fig.4C1}
&
\hspace{-.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{figs/Huang.32.fig.4C2}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
\end{tabular}
\\[-0.5cm]
\caption{Accuracy of {LinearFold}\xspace.
{\bf A}: Each bar represents PPV/sensitivity
averaged over all sequences in one family.
Statistical significance is marked as
$^*$($0.01 \!\leq\! p \! < \! 0.05$) or $^{**}$($p\! <\! 0.01$).
See Table~\ref{tab:accuracy} for details.
{\bf B}: The overall accuracies,
averaging over all families.
{\bf C}:
Each bar represents the overall PPV/sensitivity of all base pairs in a certain length range
across all sequences.
Fig.~\ref{fig:vienna_distance} shows a similar result for {LinearFold-V}\xspace.
Overall, {LinearFold}\xspace outperforms exact search baselines, esp.~on longer families and long-range
pairs.
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\label{fig:accuracy}}
\end{figure*}
\fi
\iffalse
\begin{figure*}[!hb]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lll}
\hspace{-0.2cm} \panel{A} & \hspace{-0.6cm}\panel{B} & \hspace{-0.3cm}\panel{C}
\\[-0.3cm]
\ \
\hspace{-0.3cm}
\includegraphics[width=.35\textwidth]{figs/Huang.32.fig.5A}
&\hspace{-0.9cm}
\includegraphics[width=.35\textwidth]{figs/Huang.32.fig.5B}
&\hspace{-0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=.35\textwidth]{figs/Huang.32.fig.5C}
\\[-0.3cm]
\end{tabular}
\caption{Search error (model score gap or free energy gap $\Delta\Delta G$).
{\bf A}: average free energy gap (Vienna {RNAfold}\xspace vs.~{LinearFold-V}\xspace) and model cost gap ({CONTRAfold}\xspace vs.~{LinearFold-C}\xspace)
with varying beam size;
the search error
shrinks with beam size, quickly converging to 0.
{\bf B} and {\bf C}: the search error (or gap) grows linearly with sequence length.
Here tmRNA is the outlier with disproportionally severe search errors, which can explain
the slightly worse accuracies of {LinearFold}\xspace on tmRNA in Fig.~\ref{fig:accuracy}A.
See Fig.~\ref{fig:searcherror-closeup} for a close-up on short sequences.
\label{fig:searcherror
}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\end{figure*}
\fi
\vspace{0.2cm}
\section{Results}
\vspace{0.1cm}
\subsection{Efficiency and Scalability}
\vspace{0.1cm}
We compare {LinearFold}\xspace's efficiency with classical cubic-time algorithms
represented by
{CONTRAfold}\xspace (Version 2.02) and {Vienna RNAfold}\xspace (Version 2.4.10) (\url{http://contra.stanford.edu/} and \url{https://www.tbi.univie.ac.at/RNA/download/sourcecode/2_4_x/ViennaRNA-2.4.10.tar.gz}).
We use two datasets:
(a) the ArchiveII dataset \citep{sloma+mathews:2016}, a diverse
set of RNA sequences with known structures (\url{http://rna.urmc.rochester.edu/pub/archiveII.tar.gz};
we removed those sequences found in the S-Processed set. See Supplementary Table~\ref{tab:accuracy} for details),
and (b) a sampled subset of RNAcentral \citep{rnacentral:2017} (\url{https://rnacentral.org/}),
a comprehensive set of
ncRNA
sequences from many databases.
While ArchiveII contains sequences of 3,000\ensuremath{\text{\it nt}}\xspace or less,
RNAcentral has many much longer ones, with the longest being 244,296\ensuremath{\text{\it nt}}\xspace
(Homo Sapiens Transcript NONHSAT168677.1, from the NONCODE database \citep{noncode:2016}).
We run all programs (compiled by GCC 4.9.0) on Linux,
with 3.40GHz Intel Xeon E3-1231 CPU and 32G memory.
Figure~\ref{fig:time}A shows that on the relatively short ArchiveII set, {LinearFold}\xspace's runtime
scales almost linearly with the sequence length,
while the two baselines
have superquadratic runtimes.
On the much longer RNAcentral set,
Figure~\ref{fig:time}B
shows strictly linear runtime for {LinearFold}\xspace and near-cubic runtimes for the baselines,
which
agrees with the asymptotic analyses
and suggests that the minor deviations from the theoretical runtimes
are due to the short sequence lengths in the ArchiveII set.
For a sequence of $\sim$10,000\ensuremath{\text{\it nt}}\xspace
(e.g., the HIV genome),
{LinearFold}\xspace
takes only 8 seconds
while the baselines take 4 minutes.
For a sequence of 32,753\ensuremath{\text{\it nt}}\xspace,
{LinearFold}\xspace takes 26 seconds
while {CONTRAfold}\xspace and {RNAfold}\xspace take 2 and 1.7 hours, resp.
\iftrue
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\vspace{0.1cm}
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{standalone_fig/Huang.32.fig.5}
\\[-0.3cm]
\caption{Search error (model score gap or free energy gap $\Delta\Delta G$).
{\bf A}: average free energy gap (Vienna {RNAfold}\xspace vs.~{LinearFold-V}\xspace) and model cost gap ({CONTRAfold}\xspace vs.~{LinearFold-C}\xspace)
with varying beam size;
the search error
shrinks with beam size, quickly converging to 0.
{\bf B} and {\bf C}: the search error (or gap) grows linearly with sequence length.
Here tmRNA is the outlier with disproportionally severe search errors, which can explain
the slightly worse accuracies of {LinearFold}\xspace on tmRNA in Fig.~\ref{fig:accuracy}A.
See Supplementary Fig.~\ref{fig:searcherror-closeup} for a close-up on short sequences.
\label{fig:searcherror
}
\end{figure*}
\fi
In addition, {LinearFold}\xspace uses only $O(n)$ memory (Fig.~\ref{fig:time}C).
The classical $O(n^3)$-time algorithm uses $O(n^2)$ space,
because
it needs to solve the best-scoring
substructure
for each substring $[i, j]$ bottom-up.
{LinearFold}\xspace, by contrast, uses $O(n)$ space thanks to left-to-right beam search,
and is the first $O(n)$-space algorithm to be able to predict base pairs of unbounded distance.
It is able to fold the longest sequence in RNAcentral (244,296\ensuremath{\text{\it nt}}\xspace)
within 3 minutes
while
neither {CONTRAfold}\xspace or {RNAfold}\xspace
runs on anything longer than 32,767\ensuremath{\text{\it nt}}\xspace
due to datastructure limitations.
As a result, the sequence limit on our web server ($10^5$\ensuremath{\text{\it nt}}\xspace, see abstract) is
10x that of RNAfold web server (the previous largest),
being by far the largest limit
among all available servers (as of March 2019).
The curve-fittings in Fig.~\ref{fig:time}
were done log-log in {\small\tt gnuplot}
with $n\!>\! 10^3$ in A, $n \! >\! 3\!\times\! 10^3$ in B, and $n \! >\! 10^4$ in C,
to focus on the asymptotics.
\iftrue
\begin{figure*
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{standalone_fig/Huang.32.fig.6}
\\[-0.3cm]
\caption{Impacts of beam size on prediction accuracy.
{\bf A} and {\bf C}: PPV and Senstivity with varying beam size for {LinearFold-C}\xspace ({\bf A}) and
{LinearFold-V}\xspace ({\bf C});
{\bf B} and {\bf D}: PPV-sensitivity tradeoff for {LinearFold-C}\xspace ({\bf B}) and {LinearFold-V}\xspace ({\bf D}).
Note that {LinearFold}\xspace with $b=\infty$ is exact search in $O(n^3)$ time (Idea 2) and
produces identical results to the baselines.
\label{fig:beamsize}\vspace{-0.3cm}}
\end{figure*}
\fi
\iffalse
\begin{figure*
\centering
\begin{tabular}{llll}
\\[0.1cm]
\hspace{-0.3cm} {\large\sf A} & \hspace{-0.7cm}{\large\sf B} & \hspace{-0.8cm} {\large\sf C} & \hspace{-0.7cm}{\large\sf D} \\[-0.5cm]
\ \
\hspace{-0.4cm}
\includegraphics[width=.3\textwidth]{figs/Huang.32.fig.6A}
&\hspace{-1.3cm}
\includegraphics[width=.3\textwidth]{figs/Huang.32.fig.6B}
&
\hspace{-0.75cm}
\includegraphics[width=.3\textwidth]{figs/Huang.32.fig.6C}
&\hspace{-1.3cm}
\includegraphics[width=.3\textwidth]{figs/Huang.32.fig.6D}
\\[-0.3cm]
\end{tabular}
\caption{Impacts of beam size on prediction accuracy.
{\bf A} and {\bf C}: PPV and Senstivity with varying beam size for {LinearFold-C}\xspace ({\bf A}) and
{LinearFold-V}\xspace ({\bf C});
{\bf B} and {\bf D}: PPV-sensitivity tradeoff for {LinearFold-C}\xspace ({\bf B}) and {LinearFold-V}\xspace ({\bf D}).
Note that {LinearFold}\xspace with $b=\infty$ is exact search in $O(n^3)$ time (Idea 2) and
produces identical results to the baselines.
\label{fig:beamsize}\vspace{-0.3cm}
}
\end{figure*}
\fi
\iffalse
\fi
\subsection{Accuracy}
We next compare
{LinearFold}\xspace
with the two baselines in accuracy,
reporting both Positive Predictive Value (PPV,
the fraction of predicted pairs in the known structure) and sensitivity
(the fraction of known pairs predicted)
on each RNA family in the ArchiveII dataset,
allowing correctly predicted pairs to be offset by one position for one nucleotide as compared to the known structure~\cite{sloma+mathews:2016};
we also report exact match accuracies in Supplementary Table~\ref{tab:accuracy_nos}.
We test statistical significance using a paired, one-sided
permutation test, following
\citep{Aghaeepour+:2013}.
Figure~\ref{fig:accuracy} shows that
{LinearFold}\xspace is more accurate than the baselines,
and interestingly, this advantage is more pronunced on longer sequences.
Individually, {LinearFold-C}\xspace (the {LinearFold}\xspace implementation of the {CONTRAfold}\xspace
model) is significantly more accurate in sensitivity than {CONTRAfold}\xspace on one family (Group I Intron), and both PPV/sensitivity
on two families (16S and 23S ribosomal RNAs),
with the last two being the longest families in this dataset,
where they have average lengths 1548\ensuremath{\text{\it nt}}\xspace and 2927\ensuremath{\text{\it nt}}\xspace,
and enjoyed +3.56\%/+3.09\% and +8.65\%/+5.66\% (absolute) improvements in PPV/sensitivity, respectively.
{LinearFold-V}\xspace (the {LinearFold}\xspace implementation of the {Vienna RNAfold}\xspace
model) also outperforms {RNAfold}\xspace
with significant improvements in PPV on two families (SRP and 16S rRNA), and both PPV/sensitivity on one family (Group I Intron).
Overall (across all families),
{LinearFold-C}\xspace outperforms {CONTRAfold}\xspace by
+1.3\%/+0.9\% PPV/sensitivity,
while {LinearFold-V}\xspace outperforms {RNAfold}\xspace
by +0.3\%/+0.2\%.
See Supplementary Table~\ref{tab:accuracy} for details.
Long-range base pairs are notoriously
difficult to predict under current models~\cite{amman+:2013}.
Interestingly,
{LinearFold}\xspace is more accurate in both PPV and sensitivity than the exact search algorithm
for long-range base pairs of nucleotides greater than 500 nucleotides apart, as shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:accuracy}C.
Combined with Supplementary Fig.~\ref{fig:vienna_distance},
we conclude that {LinearFold}\xspace
is more selective in predicting long-range base pairs (higher PPV),
but nevertheless predicts {\em more} such pairs that are correct
(higher Sensitivity).
Supplementary Fig.~\ref{fig:bylencnt}B--C further shows that both {LinearFold-C}\xspace and {LinearFold-V}\xspace
correct the severe overprediction of those long-range base pairs in exact search baselines.
\iffalse
While {LinearFold}\xspace outperforms slightly among all the sequences, the general trend
by family shows that the difference in both PPV/sensitivity are much bigger with
longer RNA families. On shorter RNA families (like tRNA($77.2nt$) and 5S
rRNA ($118.8nt$)), both PPV and sensitivity are almost the same, while a
large improvement can be observed on 16S rRNA ($1547.9nt$) and 23S rRNA
($2927.4nt$).
These results also show that our accuracy improvements are much higher when
using the machine-learned model ({LinearFold-C}\xspace over {CONTRAfold MFE}\xspace) than the
thermodynamic model ({LinearFold-V}\xspace over {Vienna RNAfold}\xspace). Generally, the {ViennaRNA}\xspace
thermodynamic model is much more stable, while the {CONTRAfold}\xspace
machine-learned model is quite sensitive to hyperparameters. For example, the beamsize in
{LinearFold}\xspace helps us balance local and global competing objectives.
We also observe that in most of the RNA sequences, the thermodynamic model tends
to predict a lot more base pairs than the machine-learned one in
general. This leads to the sensitivity of methods using a thermodynamic model being
generally higher than those that use a machine-learned model. By adapting {LinearFold}\xspace,
the low sensitivity of machine-learned models have been improved to be
comparable to thermodynamic ones.
\fi
\iftrue
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\begin{minipage}{\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{standalone_fig/Huang.32.fig.7}
\vspace{-.5cm}
\captionof{figure}{Circular plots of the prediction results on three RNA sequences (from three different RNA families) comparing the baselines ({\bf A}--{\bf C}: {CONTRAfold MFE}\xspace; {\bf G}--{\bf I}: {Vienna RNAfold}\xspace) and our {LinearFold}\xspace ({\bf D}--{\bf F}: {LinearFold-C}\xspace; {\bf J}--{\bf L}: {LinearFold-V}\xspace).
Correctly predicted base pairs are in blue (true positives),
incorrectly predicted pairs in red (false positives),
and missing true base pairs in light gray (false negatives).
Each plot is clockwise from 5' to 3'.
We can observe that
(1) our {LinearFold}\xspace greatly reduces the false positives, esp.~on {CONTRAfold}\xspace;
(2) our {LinearFold}\xspace correctly predicts many long-range pairs, e.g.,
{LinearFold-C}\xspace on all three sequences ({\bf D}--{\bf F}) and {LinearFold-V}\xspace on {\em E.~coli}\xspace 23S rRNA ({\bf L});
(3) our {LinearFold}\xspace is able to predict the longest 5'-3' pairs, even with
the beam size of 100, which is an order of magnitude smaller than the
sequence lengths of 16S and 23S rRNAs.
(4) in almost all cases (except for {LinearFold-V}\xspace on {\em B.~subtilis}\xspace 16S rRNA ({\bf K})), {LinearFold}\xspace substantially outperforms the corresponding baseline.
\label{fig:circular}}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\fi
Interestingly, even though our algorithm scans 5'-to-3', the
accuracy does not degrade toward the 3'-end, shown in Supplementary Fig.~\ref{fig:toward3'}.
\vspace{0.2cm}
\subsection{Search Quality}
\vspace{0.2cm}
Above we used beam size 100. Now we
investigate the impacts of varying beam size. We first study its impact on
search quality. Since our search is approximate,
we quantify the notion of {\em search error} \cite{huang+sagae:2010} as the difference in score or free energy between \ensuremath{\hat{\vecy}}\xspace, the optimal structure returned by exact search,
and \ensuremath{\bar{\vecy}}\xspace, the
one found by our linear-time beam search,
i.e.,
\[
\ensuremath{\mathit{sc}_{\vecw}}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}\xspace,\ensuremath{\hat{\vecy}}\xspace) - \ensuremath{\mathit{sc}_{\vecw}}\xspace(\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}\xspace,\ensuremath{\bar{\vecy}}\xspace).
\]
The smaller this gap,
the better the search quality.
Figure~\ref{fig:searcherror}A shows that
search error shrinks with beam size,
quickly converging to 0 (exact search);
Figure~\ref{fig:searcherror}B--C show that
the search error (at $b=100$) grows linearly with sequence length,
indicating that our search quality does not degrade with longer sequences
(the average search error per nucleotide stays the same).
\vspace{0.2cm}
\subsection{Impacts of Beam Size on Prediction Accuracy}
\vspace{0.2cm}
Figure~\ref{fig:beamsize}A plots PPV and sensitivity as a function of beam size.
{LinearFold-C}\xspace outperforms {CONTRAfold MFE}\xspace in both PPV and sensitivity
with $b\geq$ 75
and is stable
with $b\in [100,150]$.
Figure~\ref{fig:beamsize}B shows the tradeoff between PPV and sensitivity.
Both PPV and sensitivity increase initially with beam size, culminating at $b$=120, and then decrease, converging to exact search.
We do not tune the beam size on any dataset and use the round number of 100 as default.
Figures~\ref{fig:beamsize}C--D show a similar trend for {LinearFold-V}\xspace.
\vspace{0.2cm}
\subsection{Example Predictions: Group I Intron, 16S \& 23S rRNAs}
\vspace{0.2cm}
Fig.~\ref{fig:circular} visualizes
the predicted secondary structures from three RNA
families: {\em Cryptothallus~mirabilis}\xspace Group I Intron, {\em Bacillus~subtilis}\xspace 16S rRNA, and {\em Escherichia~coli}\xspace 23S rRNA.
We observe that {LinearFold}\xspace substantially reduces false positives
(shown in red),
especially on the {CONTRAfold}\xspace model.
It also correctly predicts many (clusters of) long-range base pairs
(true positives, shown in blue),
e.g., in
{\em C.~mirabilis}\xspace Group I Intron with {LinearFold-C}\xspace (Fig.~\ref{fig:circular}D, pair distance 237\ensuremath{\text{\it nt}}\xspace),
{\em B.~subtilis}\xspace 16S rRNA with {LinearFold-C}\xspace (Fig.~\ref{fig:circular}E, pair distance 460\ensuremath{\text{\it nt}}\xspace),
{\em E.~coli}\xspace 23S rRNA with both {LinearFold-C}\xspace and {LinearFold-V}\xspace (Figs.~\ref{fig:circular}F and ~\ref{fig:circular}L, pair distance 582\ensuremath{\text{\it nt}}\xspace).
This reconfirms {LinearFold}\xspace's advantage in predicting
long-range base pairs shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:accuracy}C.
Moreover,
{LinearFold}\xspace is able to predict the longest 5'-3' pairs, as shown in
{\em E.~coli}\xspace 23S rRNA with {LinearFold-V}\xspace (Fig.~\ref{fig:circular}L, pair distance 2,901\ensuremath{\text{\it nt}}\xspace).
In most cases (except {LinearFold-V}\xspace on {\em B.~subtilis}\xspace 16S rRNA, Fig.~\ref{fig:circular}K),
{LinearFold}\xspace
improves substantially over the corresponding baselines.
By contrast, local folding methods do not predict any long-range pairs,
shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:si-circle}.
We use \verb|rnafold --maxBPspan 150| for local folding,
and this limit of 150 is the largest default limit
in the local folding literature and softwares.
\iftrue
\begin{figure}[H
\vspace{0.2cm}
\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{standalone_fig/Huang.32.fig.8}
\vspace{-.2cm}
\captionof{figure}{Circular plots of prediction results using the local folding mode of {Vienna RNAfold}\xspace
(which only predicts local pairs no more than 150 \ensuremath{\text{\it nt}}\xspace apart)
on the {\em E.~coli}\xspace 23S rRNA (corresponding to
Figure~\ref{fig:circular}I).
Moreover, the $O(nL^2)$-time local folding (with default $L=150$)
is twice as slow as
the $O(nb\log b)$-time {LinearFold-V}\xspace (with default $b=100$).
\label{fig:si-circle}
\end{figure}
\fi
\section{Discussion}
\iffalse
\subsection{Summary}
RNA structure prediction is important for inferring RNA function and
has many applications including drug design.
The existing algorithms for RNA secondary structure prediction
run in time that scales cubically with the sequence length,
which is too slow for long non-coding RNAs.
For example, the baseline systems in this work, {CONTRAfold}\xspace and {Vienna RNAfold}\xspace,
which are two of the fastest prediction software,
take 2 and 1.7 hours, respectively, for a sequence of 32,753\ensuremath{\text{\it nt}}\xspace.
Furthermore, the existing algorithms also need
memory space that scales quadratically with the sequence length,
and as a result, both baseline systems fail to run on sequences beyond 32,767\ensuremath{\text{\it nt}}\xspace on 32G memory.
In reality, the longest RNA sequence in the RNAcentral dataset is 244,296 \ensuremath{\text{\it nt}}\xspace,
which is 7$\times$ of that limit.
\fi
There are several reasons why our beam search algorithm,
though approximate,
outperforms the exact search baselines in terms of accuracy (esp.~in 16S and 23S rRNAs and long-range base pairs).
\begin{enumerate
\item
First,
the scoring functions are imperfect,
so it is totally possible for a suboptimal structure (in terms of model score or free energy)
to be more accurate than the optimal-score structure.
For example,
it was well studied that while the lowest free energy structure
contains only 72.9\% of the actual base pairs (given a dataset),
a structure containing 86.1\% of them can be found with a free energy within 4.8\% of
the optimal structure \cite{zuker+:1991,mathews+:1999}.
\item
Secondly, the beam search algorithm prunes lower-scoring (sub)structures at each step,
requiring the surviving (sub)structures and the final result to be highly scored for each prefix.
Our results suggest that this extra constraint,
like ``regularization'',
could compensate for
the inaccuracy of the (physical or machine-learning) model,
as {LinearFold}\xspace\/ {\em systematically} picks a more accurate
suboptimal structure without knowing the ground truth;
indeed, this seemingly surprising phenomenon has been observed before in computational linguistics \citep{huang+sagae:2010}
which inspired this work.
\item
Finally,
our {LinearFold}\xspace algorithm resembles cotranscriptional folding
where RNA molecules start to fold immediately before being fully transcribed
\citep{gultyaev+:1995, meyer+miklos:2004}.
This is analogous to psycholinguistic evidence
that humans incrementally parse a sentence
before it is fully read or heard \cite{frazier+rayner:1982}.
We hypothesize that some RNA sequences have evolved to fold
co-transcriptionally \cite{meyer+miklos:2004},
thus making our 5'-to-3' incremental
approach
more accurate than bottom-up baselines.
Supplementary Fig.~\ref{fig:3'-to-5'}B shows a slight preference for 5'-to-3' order over 3'-to-5'.
\end{enumerate}
\iffalse
First, current thermodynamic and machine learned models
are far from perfect, so it is totally possible that a suboptimal structure (in terms of free energy or model score)
is more accurate (in terms of PPV \& sensitivity) than the optimal structure.
For example, for sequences of about 400 nucleotides,
a structure about 80\% correct can be found with a free energy within 5\% of the optimal structure \citep{zuker+:1991}.
But how does our algorithm {\em systematically} pick a more accurate suboptimal structure without seeing the ground truth?
We suspect that it is because beam search prunes lower-scoring (sub)structures at each step,
requiring the surviving (sub)structures to be highly scored at each prefix.
This extra constraint might compensate for the inaccuracy of the model.
\fi
There are other algorithmic efforts to speed up RNA folding,
including an $O(n^3/\log n)$ algorithm using the Four-Russians method \cite{venkatachalam+:2014},
and two other sub-cubic algorithms inspired by fast matrix multiplication and context-free parsing
\cite{zakov+:2011,bringmann+:2016}.
We note that all of them are based on the classical cubic-time bottom-up
algorithm,
and thus orthogonal to our left-to-right approach.
There also exists a linear-time algorithm~\cite{rastegari+condon:2005}
to analyze a {\em given} structure, but not to predict one {\em de novo}.
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\section{Conclusion and Future Work}
We designed an $O(n)$-time, $O(n)$-space, approximate search algorithm,
using incremental dynamic programming plus beam search,
and apply this algorithm to both machine-learned and thermodynamic models.
Besides the linearity in both time and memory (Fig.~\ref{fig:time}),
we also found:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Though {LinearFold}\xspace uses only a fraction of time and memory compared to existing algorithms,
our predicted structures are even more accurate overall in both PPV and sensitivity
and on both machine-learned and thermodynamic models
(see Fig.~\ref{fig:accuracy}).
\item The accuracy improvement of {LinearFold}\xspace is more pronunced on longer families such as 16S and 23S rRNAs (see Figs.~\ref{fig:accuracy} and~\ref{fig:circular}).
\item
{LinearFold}\xspace is also more accurate than the baselines
at predicting long-range base pairs over 500\ensuremath{\text{\it nt}}\xspace apart
(Figs.~\ref{fig:accuracy}C),
which is well known to be challenging for the current models \cite{amman+:2013}.
\item Although the performance of {LinearFold}\xspace depends on the beam size $b$, the number of base pairs and
the accuracy of prediction are stable when $b$ is in the range of 100--200.
\end{enumerate}
There is a crucial difference between our {LinearFold}\xspace
and local folding algorithms \citep{kiryu+:2008,bernhart+:2006, Lange+:2012}
that can only predict pairs up to a certain distance.
Theoretical and empirical studies found
several evidences that {\em unboundedly} long-distance pairs
are actually quite common in natural RNA structures:
(a) the length of the longest
base pair
grows nearly linearly with sequence length $n$ \cite{li+reidys:2018};
(b) the physical distance between the 5'--3' ends in folded structures
is short and nearly constant \cite{lai+:2018,yoffe+:2011,leija+:2014}.
Our work has several potential extensions.
\begin{enumerate
\item It is possible that {LinearFold}\xspace can be extended to calculate the partition
function and base pair probabilities for natural RNA sequences with well-defined structures,
since the classical method for that task, the McCaskill (\citeyear{mccaskill:1990}) algorithm,
is isomorphic in structure to the cubic-time
algorithms that are used as baselines in this paper.
\item This linear-time approach to calculate base pair probabilities should facilitate the linear-time identification of pseudoknots,
by either replacing the cubic-time McCaskill algorithm with a linear-time one in those
heuristic pseudoknot-prediction programs \cite{bellaousov+mathews:2010,sato+:2011},
or linearizing a supercubic-time dynamic program for direct
prediction with pseudoknots \citep{dirks+pierce:2003, reeder+giegerich:2004}.
\item We will test the hypothesis that our beams potentially
capture cotranscriptional folding with empirical data on cotranscriptional folding \cite{watters+:2016}.
\item Being linear-time, {LinearFold}\xspace also facilitates faster parameter training than the cubic-time {CONTRAfold}\xspace
using structured prediction methods \cite{huang+:2012}, and
we envision a more accurate {LinearFold}\xspace using a model tailored to its own search.
\end{enumerate}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We would like to thank the reviewers for suggestions, Rhiju Das for encouragement and early adoption of LinearFold into the EteRNA game, James Cross for help in algorithm design,
and Juneki Hong and Liang Zhang for proofreading.
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\section*{Author Contributions}
L.H.~conceived the idea and directed the project.
L.H., D.D., and K.Z.~designed algorithms.
L.H.~and D.D.~wrote a Python prototype,
and K.Z., D.D., and H.Z.~wrote the fast C++ version.
D.H.M.~and D.H.~guided the evaluation
that H.Z.~and D.D.~carried out.
L.H., D.D., and H.Z.~wrote the manuscript; D.H.M.~and D.H.~revised it.
K.L.~made the webserver.
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\section*{Funding}
This project was supported in part by
National Science Foundation [IIS-1656051 and IIS-1817231 to L.H.],
National Institutes of Health [R56 AG053460 and R21 AG052950 to D.H., and R01 GM076485 to D.H.M.].
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\balance
\bibliographystyle{natbib}
|
\section{Supplemental Material }
To obtain the avalanche distribution in our generalized FBM problem with controlled \emph{length}, we follow the general methodology largely developed by Hansen and collaborators in their studies of the classical FBM problem which implies control of the \emph{force} \citep{hansen2015fiberSM, Hansen:262741SM, hansen_1992SM, KlosterSM, Pradhan:2010aaSM}.
\paragraph{Metastable states.}
First, we use the condition $\partial_{X}\mathcal{H}=0$ to obtain
$
X(\boldsymbol{x},\varepsilon)={\frac{1}{\lambda+\Lambda}{ \left(\Lambda\varepsilon+\lambda\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}x_{i}\right)}},
$
and the condition $\partial_{x_i}\mathcal{H}=0$ to obtain $u'(x_i)=\lambda(X-x_{i})$. In view of permutational invariance, we can characterize the microscopic state by the number of broken bonds, $k$,
which gives
\begin{equation}\label{eq:equiy}
\hat{X}(k,\varepsilon)={\displaystyle \frac{(1+\lambda)\Lambda\varepsilon}{\lambda (1-k/N)+\lambda \Lambda +\Lambda}}.
\end{equation}
For the attached links we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:x0}
\hat{x}_{0}(k,\varepsilon)={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda\Lambda\varepsilon}{\lambda (1-k/N)+\lambda \Lambda +\Lambda}},
\end{equation}
and for the broken links
\begin{equation}\label{eq:x1}
\hat{x}_{1}(k,\varepsilon)={\displaystyle \frac{(1+\lambda)\Lambda\varepsilon}{\lambda (1-k/N)+\lambda \Lambda +\Lambda}}.
\end{equation}
The energy of the equilibrium configurations can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:enehd}
\mathcal{H}(k,\varepsilon)=a_k \varepsilon^2+S_k,
\end{equation}
where $a_k=\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}\frac{\lambda \Lambda(N-k)}{\lambda(N-k) + N (\lambda \Lambda + \Lambda)}$, and $S_k$ is the energy of the broken bonds. If $\bar{x}_i, i=1,...,N$ is the ordered sequence of failure thresholds, $\bar{x}_1\leq \bar{x}_2\leq \dots\leq \bar{x}_N $, we can write $S_k=\displaystyle\frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^{k}\frac{\bar{x}_i^2}{2}$, and $S_0=0$. We observe that $a_k$ is a (strictly) monotonically decreasing sequence while $S_k$ is a (strictly) monotonically increasing sequence.
The stress-strain relation for a microscopic state characterized by the parameter $k$ is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:tensionhd}
\sigma(k,\varepsilon)=\frac{\partial\mathcal{H}(k,\varepsilon)}{\partial \varepsilon}=\displaystyle \frac{\lambda \Lambda(N-k)\varepsilon}{\lambda(N-k) + N (\lambda \Lambda + \Lambda)}.
\end{equation}
Each value of $k$ defines an equilibrium branch extending between the two limits induced by the inequalities $\hat{x}_{0}(k,\varepsilon)<\bar{x}_k$ and $\hat{x}_{1}(k,\varepsilon)> \bar{x}_k$. For the failure thresholds we can then write
\begin{equation}\label{eq:zsup}
{\displaystyle \varepsilon^{f}_k=\frac{\lambda+1}{\lambda }\left[\left(1-\frac{k}{N}\right)\nu + 1 \right]\bar{x}_k},
\end{equation}
where $ 0\leq k<N$. Similar expressions can be obtained for the rebuilding thresholds
\begin{equation}\label{eq:zk_breakingnf}
{\displaystyle \varepsilon^{r}_k= \left[\left(1-\frac{k}{N}\right)\nu+1 \right]\bar{x}_k},
\end{equation}
where $ 0< k\leq N$. The ensuing equilibrium branches are represented by the gray lines in Fig.~1 (b, c) in the main text.
To analyze their (local) stability, we need to study the positive definiteness of the Hessian matrix for the energy
$\mathcal{H}(\boldsymbol{x},X)$
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{ \mathcal{M}}=
\begin{pmatrix}
M_1 & 0 & \dots & 0 & -\lambda \\
0 & \ddots & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots \\
\vdots & \ddots & \ddots & 0 & \vdots \\
0 & \dots & 0 & M_N & -\lambda \\
-\lambda & \dots & \dots & -\lambda & N(\lambda+\Lambda)
\end{pmatrix} ,
\end{equation}
where $M_i$ is either $\lambda+1$, for $1\leq i < N-k$, or $\lambda$, for $N-k \leq i \leq N$. The sufficient condition for stability is that all the principal minors of $\mathcal{M}$ are positive. The first $N$ minors are just the product of diagonal therms are therefore always positive. The last principal minor, the determinant
\begin{equation}
\det(\mathcal{ \boldsymbol{ \mathcal{M}}})=\prod_{i=1}^N M_i \sum_{i=1}^{N} \left(\lambda+\Lambda- \frac{\lambda^2}{M_i}\right).
\end{equation}
is also positive implying stability of the obtained equilibrium configurations; the unstable configurations must contain at least one element in the spinodal state represented in our model by a single point.
\paragraph{Equilibrium (global minimum) path.} For large $N$ we can write
\begin{equation}
S_k=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=0}^{k} \frac{\bar{x}_i^2}{2}\approx \int_{\bar{x}_{1}}^{\bar{x}_k} \frac{x^2}{2}f(x)dx,
\end{equation}
where we used the fact that for ordered distributions we can use the approximation $k/N \sim F(\bar{x}_k)$ \cite{arnold1992firstSM}. We can then write the continuous approximation of the discrete energy in the form
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{H}(x,\varepsilon)=\frac{\lambda\Lambda (1-F(x))}{\lambda(1-F(x))+\Lambda(\lambda+1)}\frac{\varepsilon^2}{2}+\int_{0}^{x} f(x')\frac{x'^2}{2}dx'.
\end{equation}
Using the equilibrium condition $\partial \mathcal{H}(x,\varepsilon)/\partial x =0$, and applying it for the discrete values $\bar{x}_k$, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq:zk_g}
\varepsilon^g_k=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\Lambda \nu}}\left[\left(1-\frac{k}{N}\right)\nu+1\right]\bar{x}_k.
\end{equation}
Note that the three formulas (\ref{eq:zsup}), (\ref{eq:zk_breakingnf}) and (\ref{eq:zk_g}) are different only by constant multipliers.
\paragraph{Out-of-equilibrium (zero viscosity limit) path.} Each microscopic configuration characterized by parameter $k$ exists in an extended domain of the loading parameter $\varepsilon$ between the failure strain
$\varepsilon_k^f$ and the rebinding strain
$
\varepsilon_k^r$. At large $N$, we can use the approximation
\begin{equation}\label{eq:zave}
\bar{\varepsilon}_f(x)=\frac{\lambda+1}{\lambda }\left[\left(1-F(x)\right)\nu + 1 \right] x.
\end{equation}
and
$
\bar{\sigma}_f(x)=[1-F(x)]x.
$
Similarly, along the reverse path,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:zavereverse}
\bar{\varepsilon}_{r}(x)=\left[\left(1-F(x)\right)\nu+1 \right]x.
\end{equation}
and
$
\bar{\sigma}_{r}(x)=\frac{\lambda}{\lambda+1}[1-F(x)]x.
$
Both, equilibrium and out of equilibrium (averaged) stress-strain relations are illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:Average_properties}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{Average_force.pdf}
\caption{First row: avergaed stress-strain relations , second row: averaged strain dependence on the internal variable $x$; blue (red) curves correspond to the loading (unloading) out-of-equilibrium paths; black curves correspond to the equilibrium (global minimum) path.} \label{fig:Average_properties}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Brittle to ductile transition.} It is easier to see if the system is brittle if we consider the out-of-equilibrium (marginal stability) path, even though the actual ductility threshold would be the same if we consider the global minimum path. All we need to check is the condition that the curve $\bar{\varepsilon}(x)$ has a local maximum, which reads
$
[1-F(x_{c})]-f(x_{c})x_{c}+\nu^{-1} =0.
$
To locate the brittle to ductile transition we need to find the inflection point on the curve $\bar{\varepsilon}(x)$ characterized by the condition $-2 f(x_c) -f'(x_c) x_c=0$.
In the case of Weibull distribution, we obtain from the first of these two conditions
\begin{equation}
x_c= \left[\frac{1}{\rho}- W\left(-\frac{\exp{(1/\rho)}}{\rho \nu}\right)\right]^{1/\rho },
\end{equation}
where $W(x)$ is the Lambert function, defined through the equation $x=W(x)e^{W(x)}$. Then the second condition gives
$
\nu = e^{\frac{1}{\rho }+1}/ \rho,
$
which delineates the boundary between brittle and ductile regimes.
\paragraph{Statistics of avalanches.} We first compute the avalanche distribution for the case of the \emph{out-of-equilibrium} loading path; it will be clear that the same procedure can be adapted for the \emph{out-of-equilibrium} unloading path and for the reversible \emph{equilibrium} paths.
For an avalanche of size $s$ to take place along the \emph{out-of-equilibrium} loading path and be associated with the failure of $k$th (in strength) spring, we must have $\varepsilon_{k+j}\leq \varepsilon_{k},\,{\textstyle \mbox{{for}}\:}\, j=1,2,\dots, s-1$, and $\varepsilon_{k+ s}>\varepsilon_{k}$, which, following \cite{hansen_1992SM}, we called the \emph{forward condition}; to secure that $\varepsilon_{k}$ is larger than previous thresholds, we must also require that $\varepsilon_{j}\leq \varepsilon_{k},\,{\textstyle \mbox{{for\, all}}\:}\, j<k$, which we call the \emph{backwards condition}. Given that the rebinding sequence for the unloading out-of-equilibrium path is $\varepsilon_k^r=\frac{\lambda}{\lambda+1} \varepsilon_k$ and for the \emph{equilibrium} path is $\varepsilon_k^g=\sqrt{\frac{\lambda}{\lambda+1}}\varepsilon_k$, the avalanche condition in those two cases and the ensuing avalanche statistics will be the same as in the case of out-of-equilibrium loading path, so it is sufficient to deal with this case only.
Since we are interested in the asymptotics for the avalanche distribution at large $N$, we assume that $ s\ll N$. Using the ordered thresholds $\bar{x}_{i}$, and Eq.~\eqref{eq:zsup} for the sequence $\varepsilon_k$, we can then rewrite $\varepsilon_{k+j}\gtrless \varepsilon_{k} $ in the form
\begin{equation}
\bar{x}_{k+j}\gtrless \bar{x}_{k}\left(1+\frac{j}{N-k-j+N \nu^{-1}}\right).
\end{equation}
Defining $ \displaystyle \delta_{k}= \frac{\bar{x}_{k}}{N-k+N \nu^{-1}} $, and using the assumption that $j\ll N-k$, we can simplify these relation further
\begin{equation}\label{eq:zpm_a}
\bar{x}_{k+j}\gtrless \bar{x}_{k}+j\delta_{k}.
\end{equation}
Note next that breaking of one spring at the elongation $\varepsilon_k$, corresponding to a threshold $\bar{x}_k=x$, raises the load on the remaining fiber by $\delta_k$. The average number of fibers that breaks as a result of this load increase is equal to the number of thresholds in the interval $(x,x+\delta_k)$, which is $N f(x) \delta_k$. Thus, the average number of fibers breaking as a result of the failure of the $k$th fiber is,
\begin{equation}
g(x)=\frac{f(x) x}{1-F(x)+\nu^{-1}},
\end{equation}
where we again used the approximation $k/N\sim F(x)$ \cite{arnold1992firstSM}.
For an avalanche of size $s$, the increase in load will be approximately $ s \delta_k$, which leads to $g(x) s$ broken springs. The (forward) probability that the additional $ s-1$ springs break is then given by a Poisson distribution with the rate $g(x) s $,
\begin{equation}
\tilde{p}_f(s,x) =\frac{(g(x) s)^{ s-1}}{( s-1)!}e^{-g(x) s}.
\end{equation}
To complete this expression, we still need to secure the condition stating that all the $ s-1$ inequalities $\bar{x}_{k+1}<x+\delta_{k}$, $\bar{x}_{k+2}<x+2\delta_{k},\, \cdots$, $\bar{x}_{k+ s-1}<x+( s-1)\delta_{k}$ are satisfied. To this end, we divide the interval $(x,x+ s \delta_k)$ into $ s$ sub-intervals of size $\delta_k$. For our condition to be satisfied, we must have at least one threshold value in the first interval $(x,x+\delta_{k})$, at least two in the first two intervals, and at least $ s-1$ in the first $ s-1$ intervals. To ensure that $\varepsilon_{k+ s}>\varepsilon_k$, there should be no threshold values in the last interval $(x+( s-1)\delta_k,x+ s\delta_{k})$. It can be shown that such combinatorial problem can be solved giving $p[ s-1, s] \sim \frac{1}{ s}$, \cite{hansen_1992SM}. We can then write the probability that the forward condition is satisfied in the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:prob_fc_a}
p_f(s,x) =\tilde{p}_f(s,x) p[s-1,s] = \frac{(g(x) s)^{ s-1}}{ s!}e^{-g(x) s}.
\end{equation}
We still need to satisfy the backward condition that the threshold $\varepsilon_{k}$ is necessarily bigger than its predecessors. To find the corresponding (backward) probability, we consider a finite number $n$ of such elements, $k-1, k-2,\dots,k-n$ and search for the condition that $\bar{x}_{k-1}<x-\delta_{k}$, $\bar{x}_{k-2}<x-2\delta_{k},\, \cdots$, $\bar{x}_{k-n}<x-n\delta_{k}$.
If there are no thresholds in $(x-\delta_k,x)$, at most one in $(x-2\delta_k,x)$, at most two in $(x-3\delta_k,x),\dots$, and at most $n-1$ in $(x-n\delta_k,x)$, then all our inequalities are fulfilled. This implies that the number $m$, not exceeding $n-1$, must be in the interval $\left(x- n\delta_{k}, x - \delta_{k} \right)$, while all the remaining $k-1-m$ thresholds must be smaller than $x-n\delta_{k}$. The corresponding probability is given again by a Poisson distribution,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:prob1_a}
\tilde{p}_b(s)= \frac{(g(x)n)^m}{m!}e^{-g(x)n}.
\end{equation}
We can now compute the probability that $m$ thresholds are randomly distributed among these $n$ intervals such that no threshold value lies in the interval $(x-\delta_k,x)$, at most one in the interval $(x-2\delta_k,x-\delta_k)$, at most two in the interval $(x-3\delta_k,x-2\delta_k)$, and so on. This is again a combinatorial problem whose solution is $p[m,n]\sim 1- \frac{m}{n}$ \citep{hansen_1992SM}. The probability for the backwards condition to be fulfilled is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:bc1_a}
\begin{split}
p_b(s,x) &= \tilde{p}_b(s,x)p[m,n] \\ &= e^{-g(x) n}\sum_{m=0}^{n-1}\frac{\left(g(x) n\right)^{m}}{m!n}\left(n-m\right).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Rearranging the summation in Eq.~\eqref{eq:bc1_a}, we can re-write it as,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:bc2_a}
\begin{split}
p_b(s,x)=\left(1-g\right) e^{-g(x) n}\sum_{m=0}^{n-1}\frac{\left(g(x) n\right)^{m}}{m!}\\ +e^{-g(x) n}\frac{\left(g(x) n\right)^{n}}{n!}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
In the limit $n\rightarrow\infty$, we have $\sum_{m=0}^{n-1}\frac{\left(g(x) n\right)^{m}}{m!}\rightarrow e^{g(x) n}$; and with the use of the Stirling approximation, $n!\approx n^n e^{-n} \sqrt{2\pi n}$, we can show that the last term in Eq.~\eqref{eq:bc2_a} vanishes for $g\leq 1$. The (backwards) probability is then,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:prob_bc_a}
p_b(s,x)= 1-g(x).
\end{equation}
The probability of the avalanche of size $ s$ starting at the element $k$ with the threshold value $x_{k}=x$ can be now written as the product of the forward \eqref{eq:prob_fc_a} and the backward \eqref{eq:prob_bc_a} probabilities,
\begin{equation}
p(s,x) = \frac{ s^{ s-1}}{ s!}g(x)^{ s-1} e^{- s g(x)} (1-g(x)).
\end{equation}
The final expression for the integrated avalanche distribution takes the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:asymint}
p(s)= \frac{ s^{ s-1}}{ s!}{\displaystyle \int_{0}^{x_{c}}} \phi(x) e^{[-g(x)+\ln g(x)] s} dx,
\end{equation}
where $\displaystyle {\phi(x)=\left[1-g(x)\right]\frac{f(x)}{g(x)}}$, and $x_{c}$ is the maximum of the averaged curve $\varepsilon(x)$.
\paragraph{Asymptotic analysis.} We now focus on the tail of the distribution $p(s)$ assuming that $N \to \infty$.
We use the saddle-point approximation, which implies that the main contribution to the integral will come from the vicinity of $x=x_0$, where the function $ h(x)=g(x)-\ln g(x)$ reaches its global minimum. To find $x_0$, we need to solve the equation
$
h'(x)=\frac{g'(x)}{g(x)}(g(x)-1)=0.
$
There are three possibilities,
\begin{enumerate}
\item $g(x_0)\neq 1$ and $g'(x_0)= 0$ (ductile regime),
\item $g(x_0)=1$ and $g'(x_0)= 0$ (critical regime)
\item $g(x_0)=1$ and $g'(x_0)\neq 0$ (brittle regime).
\end{enumerate}
If $g(x_0)\neq 1$, and $g'(x_0)=0$, we can write,
$
h(x)\approx g(x_0)-\ln g(x_0)+\frac{g''(x_0)}{2g(x_0)}(g(x_0)-1)(x-x_0)^2.
$
Then using the saddle-point approximation in \eqref{eq:asymint}, and applying the Stirling approximations $ s! \approx s^{ s}e^{- s}\sqrt{2\pi s}$, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq:assympducspin}
\begin{split}
p(s)&=\frac{ s^{ s-1}}{ s !}e^{- s h(x_0)}\phi(x_0)\sqrt{\frac{2 \pi}{ s \vert h''(x_0)\vert }}\\&\sim s^{-2} e^{- s(h(x_0)-1)}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
When simultaneously $g(x_0)=1$ and $g'(x_0)=0$ we have $h''(x_0)=0$, and $h'''(x_0)=0$; therefore the Taylor expansion is $ h(x)\approx 1+ \frac{3 g''(x_0)^2}{4!}(x-x_0)^4$.
We can also write $\phi(x)\approx-\frac{f(x_0) g''(x_0)}{2}(x-x_0)^2,$ which allows us to re-write the integral \eqref{eq:asymint} in the form,
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
p(s)&= \frac{ s^{ s-1}e^{- s}}{ s!}
\int_{0}^{x_{0}} -f(x_0)g''(x_0)(x-x_0)^2 \\
&\times e^{- s\frac{3g''(x_0)^2}{4!}(x-x_0)^4} dx.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Computing the integral explicitly and using Stirling's approximation we obtain
$
p(s)\sim s^{-9/4}.
$
In the brittle regime we need to consider separately equilibrium and out of equilibrium paths.
Consider first the out-of-equilibrium path. We need to expand the function $h(x)=g(x)-\ln g(x)$ up to second order to obtain
$
h(x)\approx 1+\frac{g'^{2}(x_0)}{2}(x-x_0)^{2}$. We can also expand $\phi(x)$ to obtain $\phi(x)\approx -g'(x_0)f(x_0)(x-x_0)$. These expansions allow us to approximate the integral \eqref{eq:asymint} by
\begin{equation}
p(s)= \frac{ s^{ s-1}}{ s!}{\displaystyle e^{- s} \int_{0}^{x_{0}}} g'(x_0)f(x_0)(x_0-x) e^{- s\frac{g'(x)^2}{2}(x-x_0)^2} dx.
\end{equation}
Along the out-of -equilibrium path, the avalanches are counted up to $x=x_0$; and if we compute the integral explicitly, and use the Stirling approximations, we obtain
$
p(s)\sim s^{-5/2}.
$
Consider now the equilibrium path. The actual equilibrium SNAP event takes place at some $x_*<x_0$, given by the Maxwell construction. The counting of avalanches should be then performed only up to the point $x_*$, and in the integral \eqref{eq:asymint}, we must put $x_{c}=x_*$. The function $h(x)$ will attain its minimum in the boundary point $x_*$, which is the upper limit of integration. In such case, the following asymptotic representation holds at $N\rightarrow\infty$ \citep{BruijnSM}
\begin{equation}
\int_{x_{inf}}^{x_{sup}}e^{-N h(x)}dx \rightarrow \frac{e^{N h(x_{*})}}{Nh'(x_{*})}
\end{equation}
This allows to write,
$
p(s)\sim s^{-5/2}e^{- s(1-h(x_*))}.
$
\paragraph{Mapping on RFIM.} Using the condition $\partial_{X}\mathcal{H}=0$, we obtain $ X(\boldsymbol{x},\varepsilon)={ \frac{1}{\lambda+\Lambda}{ \left(\Lambda\varepsilon+\lambda\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}x_{i}\right)}}$. If we substitute this expression back into $\mathcal{H}$ we obtain
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{H}=-\frac{1}{N^2}\sum_{i,j}Jx_i x_j-\frac{1}{N}\sum_i[Hx_i-v_i(x_i)],
\end{equation}
where $J=\frac{\lambda^2}{2(\lambda+\Lambda)}$, $H=\frac{\lambda\Lambda \varepsilon}{\lambda+\Lambda}$, and $$v_i(x_i)=u_i(x_i)+x_i^2+\frac{\lambda\Lambda \varepsilon}{2(\lambda+\Lambda)}.$$
\paragraph{Initial condition for the Burgers equation.}
In the case of finite $N$, the equilibrium condition $\partial_{x_i}\mathcal{H}=0$ allows us to write
$$
\mathcal{H}(X,\varepsilon)=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N e_i(X)+\frac{\Lambda}{2}(\varepsilon-X)^2.
$$
Here, two metastable branches $e_i=\frac{\lambda }{\lambda+1}\frac{X^2}{2}\Theta(l_i-\frac{\lambda}{\lambda+1}X)+\frac{l_i^2}{2}\Theta(X-l_i)$ are defined in each interval $X\in [l_i,\frac{\lambda+1}{\lambda}l_i]$. If we choose the branch with the minimal energy, the remaining problem reduces to finding
$$
\tilde{\mathcal{H}}(\varepsilon,\nu)= \min_{X\in \mathbb{R}}\left\lbrace \frac{1}{2\nu}(\varepsilon-X)^2 +q(X)\right\rbrace,
$$
where
$q(X)=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N\frac{X^2}{2}\Theta(l_i-\sqrt{\frac{\lambda}{\lambda+1}}X)+\frac{\lambda+1}{\lambda}\frac{l_i^2}{2}\Theta(X-\sqrt{\frac{\lambda}{\lambda+1}}l_i)$. The initial data for the associated Burgers equation are
$$\sigma_0=\partial_\varepsilon q=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N\varepsilon \Theta\left(l_i-\sqrt{\frac{\lambda}{\lambda+1}}\varepsilon\right).$$
In the limit $N\to \infty$ we have $\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N \Theta(l_i-\sqrt{\frac{\lambda}{\lambda+1}}X)\sim\int_{\sqrt{\frac{\lambda}{\lambda+1}}X}^{\infty}f(l)dl$ and $\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N \frac{l_i^2}{2}\Theta(X-\sqrt{\frac{\lambda}{\lambda+1}}l_i)\sim \int^{\sqrt{\frac{\lambda}{\lambda+1}}X}_{0}f(l)\frac{l^2}{2}dl.$ Then, in this limit,
$$
\tilde{\mathcal{H}}(\varepsilon,\nu)=\min_{X\in \mathbb{R}}\left\lbrace \frac{1}{2\nu}(\varepsilon-X)^2 +q^\infty(X)\right\rbrace,
$$
where $q^\infty(X)=\sqrt{\frac{\lambda}{\lambda+1}}\int_{0}^X f (\sqrt{\frac{\lambda}{\lambda+1}}X' )(X'^2/2)dX'+
[1-F (\sqrt{\frac{\lambda}{\lambda+1}}X ) ](X^2/2).$
The initial condition for the associated Burgers equation is $ \sigma_0(\varepsilon)= \varepsilon [1-F (\sqrt{\frac{\lambda}{\lambda+1}}\varepsilon)].$
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
An important aspect of the study of
lattice-based algebras in recent
decades has been the theory of canonical extensions.
This has its origins in the
1951--52 papers of J\'{o}nsson and Tarski~\cite{JT51}.
We refer to Gehrke and Vosmaer~\cite{GV11} for a survey of the theory of canonical
extensions for lattice-based algebras
and, for further background,
to recent papers by
Gehrke~\cite{Ge18} and
Goldblatt~\cite{Go18} and the references there,
in particular to
the first section of~\cite{Go18}
called ``A~biography of canonical extension".
The canonical extensions of general (bounded) lattices were first
introduced by Gehrke and Harding~\cite{GH01} as the complete
lattices of Galois-closed sets associated with a polarity between
the filter lattice and the ideal lattice of the given lattice.
(The same polarity was also used in the lattice representation of Hartonas and Dunn~\cite{HD97}.)
A~new
construction of the canonical extension of a general lattice was
provided in~\cite{CHP11} where it was based on a topological
representation of lattices by Plo\v{s}\v{c}ica~\cite{Pl95}. The
Plo\v{s}\v{c}ica representation presented a well-known
representation of general lattices due to Urquhart~\cite{U78} in the
spirit of the theory of natural dualities of Clark and Davey
\cite{CD98}. It used maximal partial maps into the two-element set
to represent elements of the first and second duals of a given
lattice.
An another construction of the canonical extensions of general
lattices was presented in \cite{CGH15} where Plo\v{s}\v{c}ica's
topological representation was used in tandem with Gehrke's
representation of perfect lattices via RS frames. (For the latter
we refer to papers \cite{DGP05} by
Dunn,
Gehrke and Palmigiano and
\cite{Ge06} by Gehrke.) In \cite{CGH15} we
also demonstrated a one-to-one correspondence between TiRS frames forming
a
subclass of the RS frames
and TiRS graphs which we introduced as an abstraction of the duals
of general lattices in the Plo\v{s}\v{c}ica representation. This has
led to a new dual representation of the class of all finite lattices
via finite TiRS frames, or equivalently finite TiRS graphs, which
generalises the well-known Birkhoff dual representation between
finite distributive lattices and finite posets from the 1930s. (Here
we remark that every poset is a TiRS graph.) We use a~common concept
of \emph{TiRS structures} when we refer to both TiRS graphs and TiRS
frames without distinguishing between the two classes.
This paper has two goals:
\begin{enumerate}
\item To describe the additional properties that perfect lattices dual
to TiRS structures possess. This was listed as ``Problem 2''
in~\cite{CGH15}.
\item To describe the appropriate morphisms of TiRS structures and hence
to extend the one-to-one correspondence between the TiRS structures
from~\cite{CGH15} into a full categorical framework.
\end{enumerate}
We also show that the canonical extensions of lattices are PTi
lattices, which follows from their construction in~\cite{CGH15}
using Plo\v{s}\v{c}ica's and Gehrke's representations in tandem. We
present an example of a perfect but not PTi lattice together with
its dual TiRS graph and an example of a PTi lattice that is not the
canonical extension of any lattice together with its dual TiRS
frame.
\section{Preliminaries}
For a bounded lattice $\Lalg$, a \emph{completion} of $\Lalg$ is
defined to be a pair $(e,\C)$ where $\C$ is a complete lattice and
$e \colon \Lalg \hookrightarrow \C$ is an embedding. By a
\emph{filter element} (\emph{ideal element}) of a completion
$(e,\C)$ of a bounded lattice~$\Lalg$ we mean an element of $\C$
which is a meet (join) of elements from $e(\Lalg)$. By $\mathbb{F}
(\C)$ and $\mathbb{I} (\C)$ are denoted the sets of all filter and
ideal elements of $\C$, respectively. (We remark that in the older
literature the filter (ideal) elements had been called closed (open)
elements.) A completion $(e,\C)$ of a bounded lattice $\Lalg$ is
called \emph{dense} if every element of~$\C$ can be expressed as
both a join of meets and a meet of joins of elements from
$e(\Lalg)$. A completion $(e,\C)$ of $\Lalg$ is called
\emph{compact} if, for any sets $A \subseteq \mathbb{F} (\C)$ and
$B\subseteq \mathbb{I} (\C)$ with $\bigwedge A \le \bigvee B$, there
exist finite subsets $A' \subseteq A$ and $B' \subseteq B$ such that
$\bigwedge A' \le \bigvee B'$. (We remark that the sets $A, B$ in
the definition of compactness above can alternatively be taken as
arbitrary subsets of $L$.)
Gehrke and Harding \cite{GH01} defined abstractly \emph{the
canonical extension} $\Lalg^\delta $ of a general bounded lattice
$\Lalg$ as a dense and compact completion of $\Lalg$. They proved
that every bounded lattice $\Lalg$ has a canonical extension and
that it is unique up to an isomorphism that fixes the elements
of~$\Lalg$. Concretely, they constructed $\Lalg^\delta $ as the
complete lattice of Galois-stable sets of the polarity $R$ between
the filter lattice $\Filt (\Lalg)$ and the ideal lattice
$\Idl (\Lalg)$ of $\Lalg$ where the polarity is given by
$(F,I)\in R$ if $\ F \cap I \ne \emptyset$.
A filter-ideal pair $(F,I)$ will be called \emph{maximal} if $F$ and $I$ are maximal with respect to being disjoint from one another.
In our final section we shall use the following result from~\cite{GH01}:
\begin{lem}[{\cite[Lemma 3.4]{GH01}}]\label{GH-Lem3.4}
Let $(e,\C)$ be a canonical extension of $\Lalg$.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] $x\in J^{\infty}(\C)$ if and only if $x=\bigwedge e[F]$ for some maximal pair $(F,I)$ of\, $\Lalg$;
\item[(2)] $x\in M^{\infty}(\C)$ if and only if $x=\bigvee e[I]$ for some maximal pair $(F,I)$ of $\Lalg$.
\end{itemize}
Further, each element of $\C$ is a join of completely join irreducibles and a meet
of completely meet irreducibles.
\end{lem}
Plo\v{s}\v{c}ica's dual~\cite[Section 1]{Pl95}
of a
bounded lattice $\Lalg$ is a graph with topology, $\D{\Lalg} =
(\mph{\Lalg}{\twoB},E,\T)$, where $\mph{\Lalg}{\twoB}$ is the set of
maximal partial homomorphisms from $\Lalg$ into $\twoB$. The graph
relation $E$ is defined by
$$(f,g) \in E\quad \text{if} \quad (\forall\, a \in dom\, f \cap dom\,
g) \ f(a)\leqslant g(a),
$$
or equivalently,
$$(f,g) \in E \quad \text{if} \quad f^{-1}(1) \cap g^{-1}(0) = \emptyset.
$$
The topology $\T$ has as a subbasis of closed sets the set $\{\,
V_a, W_a \mid a \in L\,\}$, with $V_a=\{\,f \in \mph{\Lalg}{\twoB}
\mid f(a)=0 \,\}$ and $W_a=\{\,f \in \mph{\Lalg}{\twoB} \mid f(a)=1
\,\}$.
TiRS graphs were defined by the present authors in~\cite{CGH15} as
an abstraction of the graphs ${\rm D}^\flat(\Lalg)=
(\mph{\Lalg}{\twoB},E)$ obtained from Plo\v{s}\v{c}ica's duals of
bounded lattices $\Lalg$ by forgetting the topology.
\begin{comment}
The motivation
came from the following lemma.
\begin{lem}[{\cite[Lemma 2.1]{CGH15}}]\label{graph}
Let $\Lalg$ be a bounded lattice and let $\X= {\rm D}^\flat(\Lalg)$.
Then $E$ is reflexive and $\X$ satisfies the three conditions
below:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(S)] for every $f, g \in X$, if $f \neq g$ then $f^{-1}(1)\neq g^{-1}(1)$ or $f^{-1}(0)\neq g^{-1}(0)$;
\item[(R)]
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] for all $f, h \in X$, if $f^{-1}(1)\subsetneq h^{-1}(1)$ then $h^{-1}(1) \cap f^{-1}(0) \neq \emptyset$;
\item[(ii)] for all $g, h \in X$, if $g^{-1}(0)\subsetneq h^{-1}(0)$ then $g^{-1}(1) \cap h^{-1}(0) \neq \emptyset$;
\end{itemize}
\item[(Ti)] for all $f,g \in X$, if $f^{-1}(1) \cap g^{-1}(0) = \emptyset$, then there exists $h \in X$ such that $f^{-1}(1)\subseteq h^{-1}(1)$
and $g^{-1}(0)\subseteq h^{-1}(0)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lem}
\end{comment}
For a graph $\X=(X,E)$ and $x \in X$, the sets $\{\, y \in X \mid
(x,y) \in E \,\}$ and $\{\, y \in X \mid (y,x) \in E \,\}$ were
denoted in~\cite{CGH15} by $xE$ and $Ex$ respectively.
We defined
the conditions (S), (R) and (Ti) for any graph
$\X=(X,E)$ as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(S)] for every $x, y \in X$, if $x \neq y$ then $xE\neq yE$ or $Ex \neq Ey$;
\item[(R)]
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] for all $x, z \in X$, if $zE\subsetneq xE$ then $(z,x) \notin E$;
\item[(ii)] for all $y, z \in X$, if $Ez \subsetneq Ey$ then $(y,z) \notin E$;
\end{itemize}
\item[(Ti)] for all $x,y \in X$, if $(x,y) \in E$, then there exists $z \in X$ such that
$zE\subseteq xE$ and $Ez\subseteq Ey$.
\end{enumerate}
A \emph{TiRS graph} was in~\cite{CGH15} defined as a graph
$\X=(X,E)$ with a reflexive relation $E$ and satisfying the
conditions (R), (S) and (Ti).
For any bounded lattice $\Lalg$, its dual graph $\X={\rm D}^\flat(\Lalg)$ is a TiRS graph~\cite[Proposition 2.3]{CGH15}.
We further recall that a \emph{frame} is a structure $(X_1, X_2,R)$,
where $X_1$ and $X_2$ are non-empty sets and $R\subseteq X_1 \times
X_2$. For an arbitrary frame $\mathbf{F}=(X_1, X_2, R)$ the
conditions (S) and (R) are defined as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(S)] for all $x_1, x_2 \in X_1$ and $y_1, y_2 \in X_2$,
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $x_1 \neq x_2$ implies $x_1 R \neq x_2 R$;
\item[(ii)] $y_1 \neq y_2$ implies $R y_1 \neq R y_2$.
\end{itemize}
\item[(R)]
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] for every $x \in X_1$ there exists $y\in X_2$ such that $\neg(xRy)$ and
$\forall w \in X_1$\ $((w \neq x \, \And x R \subseteq w R) \Rightarrow w R y)$;
\item[(ii)] for every $y\in X_2$ there exists $x \in X_1$ such that $\neg(xRy)$ and $\forall z \in X_2$\ $((z \neq y \, \And R y \subseteq Rz) \Rightarrow x R z)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{enumerate}
The frames that satisfy the conditions (R) and (S) are called
reduced separated frames, or RS frames for short, and were
introduced by Gehrke \cite{Ge06} as a two-sorted generalisation of
Kripke frames to be used for relational semantics of substructural
logics.
The (Ti) condition introduced in~\cite{CGH15} for frames $(X_1,
X_2,R)$ was motivated by the (Ti) condition on graphs:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(Ti)] for every $x \in X_1$ and for every $y\in X_2$, if $\neg(x R y)$ then there exist $w \in X_1$ and $z\in X_2$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\neg(w R z)$;
\item[(ii)] $xR\subseteq wR$ and $Ry\subseteq Rz$;
\item[(iii)] for every $u \in X_1$, if $u\neq w$ and $wR\subseteq uR$ then $uRz$;
\item[(iv)] for every $v\in X_2$, if $v\neq z$ and $Rz\subseteq Rv$ then $wRv$.
\end{itemize}
\end{enumerate}
A \emph{TiRS frame} was in \cite{CGH15} defined as a frame $(X_1,
X_2,R)$ that satisfies conditions (R), (S) and (Ti), i.e. it is an
RS frame that satisfies condition (Ti). A one-to-one correspondence
between TiRS graphs and TiRS frames was then shown in \cite{CGH15}.
We recall here some facts of this correspondence that will be needed
in the next section.
\begin{df}[{\cite[Definition 2.5]{CGH15}}]\label{def:equivrel}
Let $\X = (X,E)$ be a graph. The \emph{associated frame} \emph{$\rho(\X)$} is the frame
$(X_1,X_2,R_{\rho(\X)})$ where
\begin{newlist}
\item[\upshape{(i)}] $X_1 = X/{\sim_1}$ for the equivalence relation $\sim_1$ on $X$ given by
\[x \sim_1 y \textrm{ if } xE = yE;\]
\item[\upshape{(ii)}] $X_2 = X/{\sim_2}$ for the equivalence relation $\sim_2$ on $X$ given by
\[x \sim_2 y \textrm{ if } Ex = Ey;\]
\item[\upshape{(iii)}] $R_{\rho(\X)}$ is the relation given by
\[ [x]_1 R_{\rho(\X)} [y]_2 \: \Longleftrightarrow\: (x,y) \notin E, \] where $[x]_1$ and $[y]_2$ are, respectively, the $\sim_1$-equivalence
class of $x$ and the $\sim_2$-equivalence class of $y$.
\end{newlist}
We omit the subscript ${\rho(\X)}$ in $R_{\rho(\X)}$ whenever it is clear to which relation $R$ refers.
\end{df}
If \, $\X=(X,E)$ is a TiRS graph, then the associated frame\, $\rho(\X)=(X_1, X_2, R_{\rho(\X)})$ is a TiRS
frame~\cite[Proposition 2.6]{CGH15}.
Then it follows that if $\Lalg$ is a bounded lattice, $\X={\rm D}^\flat(\Lalg)$ is its dual TiRS graph and $\rho({\rm D}^\flat(\Lalg))$ is the associated frame,
then $\rho({\rm D}^\flat(\Lalg))$ is a TiRS frame (cf. \cite[Corollary 2.7]{CGH15}).
\begin{df}[{\cite[Definition 2.8]{CGH15}}]\label{def:frame_to_graph1}
Let $\F=(X_1,X_2,R)$ be a TiRS frame. The \emph{associated graph}
$\gr(\F)$ is $(H_\F,K_\F)$ where the vertex set $H_\F$ is the subset of $X_1 \times X_2$
of all pairs $(x,y)$
that satisfy the following conditions:
\begin{newlist}
\item[\upshape{(i)}] $\neg(x R y)$,
\item[\upshape{(ii)}] for every $u \in X_1$, if $u\neq x$ and $xR\subseteq uR$ then $uRy$,
\item[\upshape{(iii)}] for every $v \in X_2$, if $v\neq y$ and $Ry\subseteq Rv$ then $xRv$.
\end{newlist}
and the edge set $K_\F$ is formed by the pairs $((x,y),(w,z))$ such that $\neg(xRz)$.
We omit the subscript $\F$ in $H_\F$ and in $K_\F$ whenever it is clear which vertex set and edge set we refer to.
\end{df}
In \cite[Proposition 2.10]{CGH15} we showed that if\, $\F=(X_1,X_2,R)$ is a TiRS frame, then its associated graph $\gr(\F)$ is a TiRS graph.
\begin{df}[{\cite[Definition 2.11]{CGH15}}]\label{def:iso}
Two graphs $\X=(X,E_X)$ and $\Y=(Y,E_Y)$ are \emph{isomorphic}
(denoted
$\X \simeq \Y$)
if there
exists a bijective map $\alpha \colon X \to Y$
such that
$$
\forall x_1, x_2 \in X
\quad (x_1,x_2) \in E_X
\iff (\alpha(x_1), \alpha(x_2)) \in E_Y
$$
and we refer to such a map as the graph-isomorphism $\alpha \colon \X \to \Y$.
Two
frames $\F=(X_1,X_2,R_F)$ and $\mathbf{G}=(Y_1,Y_2,R_G)$ are \emph{isomorphic}
(denoted $\F \simeq \mathbf{G}$)
if there exists
a pair $(\beta_1, \beta_2)$ of bijective maps
$\beta_i \colon X_i \to Y_i$ ($i=1,2$) with
$$
\forall x_1\in X_1\ \forall x_2 \in X_2
\quad
\big(x_1 R_F x_2
\iff \beta_1(x_1) R_G \beta_2(x_2)
\big)
$$
and we refer to such a pair as the
frame-isomorphism
$(\beta_1, \beta_2) \colon \F \to \G$.
\end{df}
Now for a TiRS graph $\X=(X,E)$, a map $\alpha_X \colon X \to gr(\rho(\X))$ is defined by $\alpha_X(x) = ([x]_1,[x]_2)$.
The next result shows that $\alpha_X$ is a graph isomorphism and that the correspondence
between TiRS graphs and TiRS frames is one-to-one.
\begin{thm}[{\cite[Theorem 2.13]{CGH15}}] \label{goodcorrespondence}
Let $\X=(X,E)$ be a TiRS graph and\, $\F=(X_1,X_2,R)$ be a TiRS frame. Then
\begin{newlist}
\item[\rm(a)] the graphs\, $\X$ and\, $\gr(\rho(\X))$ are isomorphic;
\item[\rm(b)] the frames\, $\F$ and\, $\rho(\gr(\F))$ are isomorphic.
\end{newlist}
\end{thm}
\section{TiRS graph and TiRS frame morphisms}\label{morph}
In this section we extend the one-to-one correspondence between TiRS graphs and TiRS frames from \cite{CGH15} into the full categorical framework. We start by defining
the concepts of TiRS graph and TiRS frame morphisms.
\begin{df}\label{def:graph-mor}
Let $\X = (X,E_X)$ and $\Y = (Y,E_Y)$ be TiRS graphs. A \emph{TiRS
graph morphism} is a map $\varphi \colon X\to Y$ that satisfies the
following conditions:
\begin{newlist}
\item[(i)] for $x_1, x_2 \in X$, if $(x_1,x_2)\in E_X$ then $(\varphi(x_1),\varphi(x_2))\in E_Y$;
\item[(ii)] for $x_1, x_2 \in X$, if $x_1E_X\subseteq x_2E_X$ then $\varphi(x_1)E_Y \subseteq \varphi(x_2)E_Y$;
\item[(iii)] for $x_1, x_2 \in X$, if $E_Xx_1\subseteq E_Xx_2$ then $E_Y\varphi(x_1) \subseteq E_Y\varphi(x_2)$.
\end{newlist}
\end{df}
We note that every graph isomorphism and its inverse are TiRS graph
morphisms.
\begin{df}\label{def:frame-mor}
Let $\F = (X_1, X_2,R_F)$ and $\G = (Y_1, Y_2,R_G)$ be TiRS frames.
A~\emph{TiRS frame morphism} $\psi \colon \F \to \G$ is a a pair
$\psi=(\psi_1, \psi_2)$ of maps $\psi_1 \colon X_1 \to Y_1$ and
$\psi_2 \colon X_2 \to Y_2$ that satisfies the following conditions:
\begin{newlist}
\item[(i)] for $x\in X_1$ and $y\in X_2$, if $\psi_1(x)R_G\psi_2(y)$ then $xR_Fy$;
\item[(ii)] for $x,w \in X_1$, if $xR_F\subseteq wR_F$ then $\psi_1(x)R_G \subseteq \psi_1(w)R_G$;
\item[(iii)] for $y,z \in X_2$, if $R_Fy\subseteq R_Fz$ then $R_G\psi_2(y) \subseteq R_G\psi_2(z)$;
\item[(iv)] for $x\in X_1$ and $y\in X_2$, if $(x,y)\in H_\F$ then $(\psi_1(x), \psi_2(y))\in H_\G$.
\end{newlist}
\end{df}
We note that a frame isomorphism is a TiRS morphism.
Henceforth we shall refer to TiRS graph morphisms and to TiRS frame
morphisms simply as graph morphisms and frame morphisms
respectively.
Our main result in this section puts our one-to-one correspondence
between TiRS graphs and TiRS frames into a full categorical
framework. The last two statements are illustrated by the diagrams
in Fig.~\ref{fig:mor}.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:TiRSduality}
Let $\X = (X,E_X)$ and $\Y = (Y,E_Y)$ be TiRS graphs and let $\F =
(X_1, X_2,R_F)$ and $\G = (Y_1, Y_2,R_G)$ be TiRS frames.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] If $\varphi \colon \X \to \Y$ is a TiRS graph morphism, then, for $\rho(\varphi)_1 \colon X/\!\!\!
\sim_1 \to Y/\!\!\!\sim_1$ and $\rho(\varphi)_2 \colon
X/\!\!\!\sim_2 \to Y/\!\!\!\sim_2$ the maps defined by
$\rho(\varphi)_1([x]_1)=[\varphi(x)]_1$ and
$\rho(\varphi)_2([x]_2)=[\varphi(x)]_2$, for all $x\in X$, the pair
$\rho(\varphi)=(\rho(\varphi)_1,\rho(\varphi)_2)$ is a TiRS frame
morphism from $\rho(\X)$ to $\rho(\Y)$.
\item[(2)]
If the pair $\psi=(\psi_1,\psi_2) \colon \F \to \G$ is a TiRS frame
morphism, then the map $\gr(\psi) \colon \gr(\F) \to \gr(\G)$
defined by $\gr(\psi)(x,y)=(\psi_1(x),\psi_2(y))$, for $(x,y) \in
H_F$, is a TiRS graph morphism.
\item[(3)] If $\varphi \colon \X \to \Y$ is a TiRS graph morphism, then $\gr(\rho(\varphi))\circ \alpha_X=\alpha_Y \circ \varphi$.
\item[(4)] If $\psi \colon \F \to \G$ is a TiRS frame morphism, then $\rho(\gr(\psi))\circ \beta_F=\beta_G \circ \psi$.
\end{itemize}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
(1) First we show that $\rho(\varphi)_1$ is well defined. Let $x, y
\in X$. If $[x]_1=[y]_1$ then $xE_X=yE_X$ which implies
$\varphi(x)E_Y=\varphi(y)E_Y$ and so
$[\varphi(x)]_1=[\varphi(y)]_1$, by the definition of a TiRS graph
morphism. Similarly we prove that $[\varphi(x)]_2=[\varphi(y)]_2$
whenever $[x]_2=[y]_2$. Next we prove that conditions (i) to (iv) of
the definition of a TiRS frame morphism are satisfied by
$\rho(\varphi)$. For (i), let $x,y \in X$ and assume
$\rho(\varphi)_1([x]_1)R_{\rho(\Y)}\rho(\varphi)_2([y]_2)$.
Then $(\varphi(x),\varphi(y))\notin E_Y$ yielding
that $(x,y)\notin E_X$ and so $[x]_1R_{\rho(\X)}[y]_2$.
For (ii), let $x, w \in X$. Then the following holds:
\begin{align*}
[x]_1R_{\rho(\X)}\subseteq [w]_1R_{\rho(\X)}&\iff w E_X \subseteq
xE_X
\Rightarrow \varphi(w)E_Y \subseteq \varphi(x)E_Y\\
& \iff [\varphi(x)]_1R_{\rho(\Y)}\subseteq
[\varphi(w)]_1R_{\rho(\Y)}.
\end{align*}
Hence (ii) is satisfied. Similarly we conclude that (iii) holds.
Finally (iv) follows from
\cite[Lemma 2.12]{CGH15} where we showed that for a TiRS graph $\X=(X,E)$, the elements of $H_{\rho(\X)}$ are exactly the pairs $([x]_1,[x]_2)$, with $x \in X$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\matrix (m) [matrix of math nodes, row sep=2.5em, column sep=2.3em,
text height=1.5ex, text depth=0.25ex]
{{\X} & & {\Y} & & {\F} & & {\G} \\
& & & & & & \\
{\gr(\rho(\X))} & & {\gr(\rho(\Y))} & & {\rho(\gr(\F))} & &
{\rho(\gr(\G))} \\};
\path[->] (m-1-1) edge node[auto] {$\varphi$} (m-1-3); \path[->]
(m-1-1) edge node[auto] {$\alpha_X$} (m-3-1); \path[->] (m-1-3) edge
node[auto] {$\alpha_Y$} (m-3-3); \path[->] (m-3-1) edge node[auto]
{$\gr(\rho(\varphi))$} (m-3-3);
\path[->] (m-1-5) edge node[auto] {$\psi$} (m-1-7); \path[->]
(m-3-5) edge node[auto] {$\rho(\gr(\psi))$} (m-3-7); \path[->]
(m-1-7) edge node[auto] {$\beta_G$} (m-3-7); \path[->] (m-1-5) edge
node[auto] {$\beta_F$} (m-3-5);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{TiRS graph morphisms and TiRS frame morphisms
\label{fig:mor}}
\end{figure}
(2) First we note that condition (iv) of the definition of a TiRS
frame morphism satisfied by $\psi$ guarantees that the map
$\gr(\psi) $ is well defined. Next we prove that conditions (i) to
(iii) of the definition of a TiRS graph morphism are satisfied by
$\gr(\psi) $. Let $(x,y), (w,z)\in H_\F$. If $((x,y), (w,z))\in
K_\F$ then $\neg(xR_Fz)$ which implies
$\neg(\psi_1(x)R_\G\psi_2(z))$ and consequently $$(\gr(\psi)(x,y),
\gr(\psi)(w,z))=((\psi_1(x),\psi_2(y)), (\psi_1(w),\psi_2(z)))\in
K_\G.$$ Hence $(x,y), (w,z)$ satisfies (i). For (ii), we observe
that,
$$
(x,y)K_\F\subseteq (w,z)K_\F \iff wR_F\subseteq xR_F
$$
and
$$
\gr(\psi)(x,y)K_\G\subseteq \gr(\psi)(w,z)K_\G \iff
\psi_1(w)R_G\subseteq \psi_1(x)R_G,
$$
which follows from (iii) of \cite[Lemma 3.9]{CGH15}. As
$\psi$ is a TiRS morphism,
we also have
$$
wR_F\subseteq xR_F \Rightarrow \psi_1(w)R_G\subseteq \psi_1(x)R_G.
$$ Hence $(x,y), (w,z)$ satisfies (ii). Similarly we conclude that (iii) also holds.
(3) Let $x \in X$. We have that
\begin{align}
(\gr(\rho(\varphi))\circ \alpha_X)(x)&=\gr(\rho(\varphi))([x]_1,[x]_2)\notag\\
&=(\rho(\varphi)_1([x]_1), \rho(\varphi)_2([x]_2))\notag\\
&=([\varphi(x)]_1, [\varphi(x)]_2)\notag\\
&=(\alpha_Y\circ \varphi)(x).\notag
\end{align}
(4) Let $x \in X_1$. There exist $y\in X_2$ such that $(x,y)\in
H_\F$. We have that
\begin{align}
(\rho(\gr(\psi))\circ \beta_F)(x)&=\rho(\gr(\psi)([(x,y)]_1)\notag\\
&=[\gr(\psi)(x,y)]_1\notag\\
&=[(\psi_1(x),\psi_2(y))]_1,\notag
\end{align}
where $\psi_1 \colon X_1 \to Y_1$ and $\psi_2 \colon X_2 \to Y_2$
satisfy $\psi=(\psi_1,\psi_2)$. Since ${(x,y)\in H_\F}$ and $\psi$
is a TiRS morphism, we also have $(\psi_1(x),\psi_2(y))\in H_\G$ and
so
$$[(\psi_1(x),\psi_2(y))]_1=\beta_G(\psi(x))=
(\beta_G \circ \psi) (x). $$
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}\label{cor:equivalence}
The category of TiRS graphs with TiRS graph morphisms is equivalent
to the category of TiRS frames with TiRS frame morphisms via the
functors given by $\rho$ and $\gr$ as described above.
\end{cor}
\bigskip
There are other definitions of morphisms between two frames (or contexts) $\mathbf{F}=(X_1,X_2,R_F)$ and
$\mathbf{G}=(Y_1,Y_2,R_G)$ that are used in the literature.
Deiters and Ern\'{e}~\cite{DE09} use a pair of maps $(\alpha,\beta)$ where $\alpha \colon X_1 \to Y_1$ and $\beta \colon X_2 \to Y_2$
as we do above.
Gehrke~\cite[Section 3]{Ge06} uses a pair of relations $(R,S)$ where $R\subseteq X_2 \times Y_1$ and $S \subseteq X_1 \times Y_2$.
More recently, Moshier~\cite{Mosh12} (see also Jipsen~\cite{Jip12}) defined a context morphism to
be a single relation $S\subseteq X_1 \times Y_2$.
\section{Perfect lattices dual to TiRS structures}
Consider a complete lattice $\mathbf{C}$ and let
$\mathbf{F}(\mathbf{C})=(\jty(\C),\mty(\C),\leqslant)$ where
$\jty(\C)$ and $\mty(\C)$ denote the sets of
completely join-irreducible and completely
meet-irreducible elements of
$\C$, respectively. We will refer to $\mathbf{F}(\C)$ as the frame
coming from $\C$.
For the opposite direction, consider an
RS frame
$\mathbb{F}=(X,Y,R)$. For $A\subseteq X$ and $B \subseteq Y$, let
$$\RTR(A)=\{\, y \in Y \mid (\forall a \in A)(aRy)\,\} \ \text{and}\ \RTL(B)=\{\, x \in X \mid (\forall b \in B)(xRb)\,\}.$$
Now consider the complete lattice of Galois-closed sets
(ordered by inclusion):
$$\mathcal{G}(\mathbb{F})=\{\, A \subseteq X \mid A=(\RTL \circ \RTR)(A)\,\}.$$
By results from Gehrke~\cite[Section 2]{Ge06} we know that the completely join-irreducible elements and completely meet-irreducible elements of
$\mathcal{G}(\mathbb{F})$ are identified as follows:
$$\jty(\mathcal{G}(\mathbb{F}))=\{\, (\RTL \circ\RTR)(\{x\}) \mid x \in X\,\} \ \text{and} \
\mty(\mathcal{G}(\mathbb{F}))=\{\, Ry \mid y \in Y\,\}.$$
Below we introduce a condition that refines the class of perfect lattices. At the end of this section we will conclude that
every perfect lattice that is
the canonical extension of some bounded lattice will have this property.
\begin{df} A perfect lattice satisfies the condition (PTi) if for all $x\in \jty(\C)$ and for all $y \in \mty(\C)$, if
$ x\nleq y$ then there exist $w \in \jty(\C)$, $z \in \mty(\C)$ such that
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $w \leq x$ and $y \leq z$
\item $w \nleq z$
\item $(\forall u \in \jty(\C))(u < w \Rightarrow u \leq z)$
\item $(\forall v \in \mty(\C))(y < v \Rightarrow w \leq v)$
\end{enumerate}
\end{df}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:PTi} we give a pictorial depiction of the (PTi)
condition. We have indicated the sets ${\uparrow}x$, ${\uparrow}w$,
${\downarrow}y$ and ${\downarrow}z$.
We see that the (PTi) condition for $\C$ essentially starts with an
arbitrary disjoint filter-ideal pair $({\uparrow}x,{\downarrow}y)$
generated by elements $x\in \jty(\C)$ and $y \in \mty(\C)$. It says
that every such disjoint filter-ideal pair is contained in a maximal
disjoint filter-ideal pair $({\uparrow}w,{\downarrow}z)$ where again
$w\in \jty(\C)$ and
$z \in \mty(\C)$
(here maximality is understood such that
neither of
${\uparrow}w$ and ${\downarrow}z$ can be
enlarged
without breaking their disjointness).
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (0,0) ellipse (1cm and 2cm);
\smallpo{0,2}
\node at (0.25,2.15) {$1$};
\smallpo{0,-2}
\node at (0.25,-2.15) {$0$};
\smallpo{0.5,0}
\node at (0.7,0) {$x$};
\li{(0.866,1)--(0.5,0)--(-0.661,1.5)}
\smallpo{-0.3,-1}
\node at (-0.1,-1) {$y$};
\li{(-0.661,-1.5)--(-0.3,-1)--(0.484,-1.75)}
\smallpo{0.5,-0.7}
\node at (0.5,-0.4) {$w$};
\li{(-0.866,1)--(0.5,-0.7)--(1,0)}
\smallpo{-0.7,0.3}
\node at (-0.9,0.3) {$z$};
\li{(-1,0)--(-0.7,0.3)--(0.745,-1.33)}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The (PTi) condition illustrated. \label{fig:PTi}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{lem}\label{lem:PTi-to-Ti} Let $\C$ be a perfect lattice. If\, $\C$ satisfies {\upshape(PTi)} then the RS frame
$\mathbf{F}(\C)=(\jty(\C),\mty(\C),\leq)$ satisfies {\upshape(Ti)}.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} First observe that when translating the condition (Ti) from a general RS frame to $\mathbb{F}(\C)$ we have that
$xR={\uparrow}x$ and $Ry={\downarrow}y$. The fact that $\mathbb{F}(\C)$ satisfies (Ti)
follows then
from the fact that $u < w$ implies $u\neq w$ and ${\uparrow}w \subsetneq {\uparrow}u$.
\end{proof}
We want to characterise the condition (PTi) on the Galois closed sets arising from an RS frame $\mathbb{F}=(X,Y,R)$.
The following lemma will assist us in this task.
\begin{lem} \label{lem:R-upsets} Consider the RS frame $\mathbb{F}=(X,Y,R)$. Then
\begin{newlist}
\item[{\upshape (i)}] $w \in (\RTL\circ\RTR)(\{x\})$ if and only if $xR \subseteq wR$;
\item[{\upshape (ii)}] $(\RTL\circ\RTR)(\{w\})\subseteq (\RTL\circ\RTR)(\{x\})$ if and only if $xR\subseteq wR$;
\item[{\upshape (iii)}] $(\RTL\circ\RTR)(\{x\})\subseteq Ry$ if and only if $xRy$.
\end{newlist}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} For (i) we have
\begin{align*}
w \in (\RTL\circ\RTR)(\{x\}) \quad &\Leftrightarrow \quad (\forall z \in \RTR(\{x\}))(wRz) \\
&\Leftrightarrow \quad (\forall z \in Y)(xRz \Rightarrow wRz) \\
&\Leftrightarrow \quad xR \subseteq wR.
\end{align*}
To assist with the proof of (ii), note that $\RTR(\{x\})=Rx$ and $\RTR(\{w\})=Rw$. If we assume that $xR \subseteq wR$ then the fact that
$\RTL: \powerset(Y) \to \powerset(X)$ is order-reversing gives us that $(\RTL\circ\RTR)(\{w\})\subseteq (\RTL\circ\RTR)(\{x\})$.
For the converse, if $(\RTL\circ\RTR)(\{w\})\subseteq (\RTL\circ\RTR)(\{x\})$ then since
$\RTR:\powerset(X)\to\powerset(Y)$ is order-reversing and since
$(\RTR\circ\RTL\circ\RTR)(\{w\})=\RTR(\{w\})$, we get $xR \subseteq wR$.
The statement (iii) is exactly~\cite[Proposition 2.6]{Ge06}.
\end{proof}
We want to prove that when an RS frame $\mathbb{F}=(X,Y,R)$ satisfies the (Ti) condition, the perfect lattice of Galois-closed sets
$\mathcal{G}(\mathbb{F})$ satisfies (PTi). In order to make the proof easier to follow, it will be useful to translate the condition (PTi) from
the setting of a general perfect lattice to the setting of $\mathcal{G}(\mathbb{F})$.
\begin{lem} Let $\mathbb{F}=(X,Y,R)$ be an RS frame.
Assume that the following set of conditions is satisfied by $\mathcal{G}(\mathbb{F})$:
For all $x \in X$ and all $y\in Y$, if $\neg(xRy)$ then there exist $p\in X$, $q \in Y$ such that
\begin{newlist}
\item[{\upshape(i)}] $xR \subseteq pR$ and $Ry \subseteq Rq$
\item[{\upshape(ii)}] $\neg(pRq)$
\item[{\upshape(iii)}] $(\forall u \in X)(pR \subsetneq uR \Rightarrow uRq)$
\item[{\upshape(iv)}] $(\forall v \in Y)(Rq \subsetneq Rv \Rightarrow pRv)$
\end{newlist}
\end{lem}
Then the lattice $\mathcal{G}(\mathbb{F})$ satisfies (PTi).
\begin{proof}
This follows using Lemma~\ref{lem:R-upsets} to translate (PTi) conditions to the complete lattice $\mathcal{G}(\mathbb{F})$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem} \label{lem:Ti-to-PTi} Let $\mathbb{F}=(X,Y,R)$ be an RS frame. If\, $\mathbb{F}$ satisfies {\upshape(Ti)} then $\mathcal{G}(\mathbb{F})$ satisfies
{\upshape(PTi)}.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $\mathbb{F}=(X,Y,R)$ be an RS frame satisfying {\upshape(Ti)} (i.e. a TiRS frame). Take arbitrary $x \in X$ and $y\in Y$ and assume that $\neg(xRy)$.
In the perfect lattice $\mathcal{G}(\mathbb{F})$ coming from $\mathbb{F}$ consider the sets $A=(\RTL\circ \RTR)(\{x\})$ and $B=Ry$.
Then $A \in\jty(\mathcal{G}(\mathbb{F}))$, $B \in \mty(\mathcal{G}(\mathbb{F})$ and $A \nsubseteq B$ using Lemma~\ref{lem:R-upsets}(iii).
We have that
\begin{align*}
(\RTL\circ\RTR)(\{x\}) \nsubseteq Ry \quad &\Rightarrow \quad (\exists w \in X)(xR \subseteq wR \:\&\: \neg(wRy))\\
&\Rightarrow
\quad (\exists w \in X)\Big[ xR \subseteq wR \:\&\: \\
&\qquad \:\: (\exists p \in X)(\exists q \in Y)\Big(\neg(pRq) \:\&\: wR\subseteq pR \:\&\:Ry \subseteq Rq \\
&\qquad \quad \:\&\: (\forall u \in X)(pR\subsetneq uR \Rightarrow uRq ) \\
&\qquad \qquad \:\&\:(\forall v \in Y)(Rq \subsetneq Rv \Rightarrow pRv) \Big)\Big] \\
\end{align*}
The only part of the (PTi) condition for $\mathcal{G}(\mathbb{F})$ that is not now immediate is the fact that we need
$xR \subseteq pR$. This follows from the $xR \subseteq wR\subseteq pR$ and the transitivity of set containment.
\end{proof}
Now we are ready to show that the canonical extensions of lattices
are PTi lattices and so they indeed are `more' than just perfect
lattices. For this we cite our final result from~\cite{CGH15}:
\begin{prop}[{\cite[Corollary 3.11]{CGH15}}]\label{P3-3.11}
Let\, $\Lalg$ be a bounded lattice and\, $\X ={\rm D}^\flat(\Lalg)$
be its dual TiRS graph. Let $\rho(\X)$ be the frame associated to\,
$\X$ and\, $\mathrm{G}(\rho(\X))$ be its corresponding perfect
lattice of Galois-closed sets.
The lattice\, $\mathrm{G}(\rho(\X))$ is the canonical extension of\,
$\Lalg$.
\end{prop}
The result can be illustrated by the diagram in
Fig.~\ref{fig:tandem}. The given bounded lattice $\Lalg$ is firstly
assigned its Plo\v{s}\v{c}ica dual space $\D{\Lalg} =
(\mph{\Lalg}{\twoB},E,\T)$, and then the Plo\v{s}\v{c}ica dual graph
$\X ={\rm D}^\flat(\Lalg)= (\mph{\Lalg}{\twoB},E)$ is obtained by
forgetting the topology. This is a TiRS graph and so the frame
$\rho(\X)$ associated to\, $\X$ in our one-to-one correspondence
developed in \cite{CGH15} between TiRS graphs and TiRS frames is a
TiRS frame. Hence by Lemma~\ref{lem:Ti-to-PTi} above, the perfect
lattice $\mathrm{G}(\rho(\X))$ of Galois-closed sets corresponding
in Gehrke's representation to the frame $\rho(\X)$ is a PTi
lattice. By Proposition~\ref{P3-3.11}, the lattice
$\mathrm{G}(\rho(\X))$ is the canonical extension of the given
lattice $\Lalg$.
\begin{figure} [ht]
\begin{diagram}[labelstyle=\textstyle]
\mathbf{Lat}& \rTo^{{\mathrm D} (\text{Plo\v{s}\v{c}ica})}
& \mathbf{PlSp}\\
\dTo^{^\delta} & & \dTo_{\flat}\\
\mathbf{PerLat}& \lTo_{{\mathrm G} (\text{Gehrke})} & \mathbf{TiGr}
(\mathbf{Fr})
\end{diagram}
\caption{Plo\v{s}\v{c}ica and Gehrke in tandem. \label{fig:tandem}}
\end{figure}
Hence we have our final result of this section:
\begin{thm}\label{thm:CE-is-PTi}
The canonical extension of
a
bounded lattice is a PTi
lattice.
\end{thm}
Gehrke
and Vosmaer~\cite{GV11} showed that the canonical extension of a lattice need not be meet-continuous, and hence need not always be
algebraic.
Theorem~\ref{thm:CE-is-PTi} gives us further information about the structure of canonical extensions of bounded lattices.
\section{Examples}
Our goal in this section is to
illustrate
that the PTi condition adds to the current description of the
canonical extension of a bounded lattice.
We focus on non-distributive examples. Canonical extensions of distributive lattices are known to be completely distributive complete lattices.
To show that our new condition does indeed add to the current
description, we give an
example of a perfect lattice that is not PTi. Giving an example of a
PTi lattice that is not the canonical extension of a lattice would
be the same as giving an example of a TiRS graph that is not of the
form $(\mph{\Lalg}{\twoB},E)$ for some bounded lattice $\Lalg$.
Hence this is the same as the representable TiRS graph
(representable poset) problem.
Our goals are:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Give an example of a complete
non-distributive
lattice which is a PTi lattice but is not the canonical extension of any bounded lattice.
\item Give an example of a perfect
non-distributive
lattice that is not a PTi lattice.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1]
\node (p0) at (1,0) {$p_0$};
\node (p1) at (1,0.8) {$p_1$};
\node (p2) at (1,1.6) {$p_2$};
\node (p3) at (1,2.4) {};
\draw [->>] (p0) edge (p1);
\draw [->>] (p1) edge (p2);
\draw [->>] (p2) edge (p3);
\dotli{(1,2.4)--(1,2.8)}
\dotli{(1,3.2)--(1,3.6)}
\node (q0) at (1,6) {$q_0$};
\node (q1) at (1,5.2) {$q_1$};
\node (q2) at (1,4.4) {$q_2$};
\node (q3) at (1,3.6) {};
\draw [->>] (q1) edge (q0);
\draw [->>] (q2) edge (q1);
\draw [->>] (q3) edge (q2);
\node (k) at (-2,3) {$k$};
\draw [->] (k) edge (q1);
\draw [->] (k) edge (q2);
\draw [->] (k) edge (p0);
\draw [->] (k) edge (p1);
\draw [->] (k) edge (p2);
\draw [->] (k) edge (p3);
\draw [->] (k) edge (q3);
\po{5.75,2.5} \po{7,0.45} \po{7,0.95} \po{7,1.45} \po{7,2.5}
\po{7,3.55} \po{7,4.05} \po{7,4.55}
\dotli{(7,0.95)--(7,2.5)} \dotli{(7,4.05)--(7,2.5)}
\li{(7,0.45)--(5.75,2.5)--(7,4.55)--(7,4.05)}
\li{(7,0.45)--(7,0.95)--(7,1.45)} \li{(7,3.55)--(7,4.05)--(7,4.55)}
\node at (5.15,2.5) {$z=y$};
\node at (7.4,4.05) {$x$};
\node at (7.4,2.5) {$m$};
\node at (7.4,0.95) {$w$};
\node at (7,0.05) {$A_L$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{A TiRS graph that is not the graph of MPH's of any bounded lattice (left) and its dual PTi lattice $A_L$ that is not a
canonical extension (right). The double-headed arrows on the graph emphasize that transitivity holds amongst the vertical edges. \label{fig:A_L}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{ex}\label{A_L}
Consider the complete lattice $A_L$
depicted on the right in~Fig.~\ref{fig:A_L}.
We will denote by $m$, the middle element of the infinite chain $\omega \oplus \mathbf{1} \oplus \omega^{\partial}$
and $y$ is above the bottom and below the top but incomparable with all other elements.
The TiRS graph dual to $A_L$ is $X= \{p_i \mid i \in \omega\} \cup \{q_j \mid j \in \omega\} \cup \{k\}$
with the relation $E$ given by
$$p_0 < p_1 < p_2 < \ldots < p_n < p_{n+1} < \ldots < q_{n+1} < q_n < q_{n-1} \ldots <q_1 < q_0$$
$$ \cup \{ (k,p_i)\mid i \in \omega\} \cup \{ (k,q_j) \mid j \geqslant 1 \}$$
(it is depicted on the left in~Fig.~\ref{fig:A_L}).
To be clear, the $p_i$'s and $q_j$'s form a poset (it is transitive) that is order-isomorphic to $\omega \oplus \omega^{\partial}$ while the
element $k$ is related to everything except the top of the chain.
Recall that MPE's are ordered by: $\varphi \leqslant \psi$ if and only if $\varphi^{-1}(1)\subseteq \psi^{-1}(1)$.
The MPE's $\varphi_1$ and $\varphi_0$ are defined by
$\varphi_1(x)=1$ and $\varphi_0(x)=0$ for all $x \in X$.
All but one of the other MPE's have $k \mapsto 0$ and then they split the chain at some point.
When $\varphi$ splits the chain by sending the $p_i$'s to $0$ and the $q_j$'s to $1$ then you get the limit point in the middle of $A_L$. The interesting MPE is the map does the following for $a \in X$:
$$\varphi(a) = \begin{cases} 1 & \text{ if } a = k \\ 0 & \text{ if } a = q_0 \\ - &\text{ otherwise} \end{cases}$$
This interesting MPE is the incomparable point that makes $A_L$ non-distributive.
It is quite easy to show that the lattice $A_L$ is a PTi lattice; we indicated on the right in~Fig.~\ref{fig:A_L} what the elements $w \in \jty(A_L)$ and $z \in \mty(A_L)$
are for the chosen elements $x\in \jty(A_L)$ and $y \in \mty(A_L)$. The fact that the lattice $A_L$ is not the canonical extension of any bounded lattice is harder to show and it
follows from Proposition~\ref{prop:notCEbutPTi} below.
\end{ex}
\begin{prop}\label{prop:notCEbutPTi}
There is no bounded lattice $\Lalg$ and lattice embedding $e \colon \Lalg \to A_L$ such that
$(e,A_L)$ is the canonical extension of $\Lalg$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Suppose there are no bounded lattice $\Lalg$ and an embedding $e
\colon \Lalg \to A_L$ such that $(e,A_L)$ is the canonical extension
of $\Lalg$. Clearly the top and bottom element of $A_L$ are,
respectively $e(1)$ and $e(0)$ where $1$ and $0$ are the top and
bottom element of $\Lalg$. Now consider the set of elements
$(A_L)\setminus \{e(0),e(1),m\}$. It is easy to see that each of
these elements is completely join-irreducible in $A_L$ and hence we
have, by~Lemma~\ref{GH-Lem3.4}, that each of these elements is the
meet of the embedding of a
filter of $L$. Hence each of
the elements of $(A_L)\setminus \{e(0),e(1),m\}$ is a filter
element. Dually, it is easy to see that each element of
$(A_L)\setminus \{e(0),e(1),m\}$ is completely meet-irreducible and
again by~Lemma~\ref{GH-Lem3.4} they are all the join of the
embedding of an
ideal of $L$ and hence are all ideal
elements. Thus every element of $(A_L)\setminus \{e(0),e(1),m\}$ is
both ideal and filter and hence must be of the form $e(a)$ for some
$a \in L$. Now consider the element $m$. Since $m = \bigwedge
\omega^{\partial}$, and since every element of $\omega^{\partial}$
is the image of an element of $L$ under $e$, we have that $m$ is a
filter element of $A_L$. Also, $m = \bigvee \omega$ and every
element of $\omega$ is the image of an element of $L$ under $e$.
Therefore $m$ is also an ideal element of $A_L$. Hence $m$ must be
of the form $e(b)$ for some $b \in L$. Thus we have that $\Lalg
\cong A_L$ and that the embedding $e$ is a bijection.
Now we show that $(e,A_L)$ cannot be the canonical extension of $\Lalg$. Observe that since $m= \bigwedge \omega^{\partial}=\bigvee \omega$ we
have that $\bigwedge \omega^{\partial} \leqslant \bigvee \omega$. However, for any finite subset $A'\subseteq \omega^{\partial}$ and
any finite subset $B'\subseteq \omega$ we will have $\bigvee B' < \bigwedge A'$. Hence $(e,A_L)$ is not a compact completion
of $\Lalg$.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1]
\node (a1) at (-7,2.5) {$a_1$};
\node (a0) at (-6,2.5) {$a_0$};
\node (a2) at (-5,2.5) {$a_2$};
\node (a3) at (-4,2.5) {$a_3$};
\dotli{(-3.5,2.5)--(-2,2.5)}
\node (b0) at (-7,1.5) {$b_0$};
\node (b1) at (-6,1.5) {$b_1$};
\node (b2) at (-5,1.5) {$b_2$};
\node (b3) at (-4,1.5) {$b_3$};
\dotli{(-3.5,1.5)--(-2,1.5)}
\draw [->] (a1) edge (b0);
\draw [->] (a0) edge (b1);
\draw [->] (a2) edge (b1);
\draw [->] (a3) edge (b1);
\draw [->] (a2) edge (b2);
\draw [->] (a3) edge (b2);
\draw [->] (a3) edge (b3);
\po{2,0.45} \po{0.75,3} \po{2,2.75} \po{2,3.25} \po{2,3.75}
\dotli{(2,0.5)--(2,2.45)}
\li{(2,0.45)--(0.75,3)--(2,3.75)--(2,3.25)--(2,2.75)--(2,2.5)}
\node at (0.35,3) {$y$};
\node at (2.4,3.75) {$x_0$};
\node at (2.4,3.25) {$x_1$};
\node at (2.4,2.75) {$x_2$};
\node at (3,1.75) {$\omega^{\partial}$};
\node at (2,0) {$M_L$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{An RS frame that is not Ti (left) and its dual perfect lattice that is not PTi (right). \label{fig:M_L}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{ex}
We consider the complete lattice $M_L$
depicted on the right in~Fig.~\ref{fig:M_L}. The order is given by the poset $\mathbf{1}\oplus \omega$ with an additional element $y$ incomparable to all elements except the top and the bottom.
It can easily be seen that $M_L$ is a perfect lattice
($J^{\infty}(M_L)=M^{\infty}(M_L)=
\{y\} \cup \{\, x_i \mid i \geqslant 1 \,\}$). It
is not PTi since there are no $w$ and $z$ for the pair
$x_j \nleqslant y$ ($j \geqslant 1$).
The RS frame corresponding to it was already mentioned in~\cite[page~128]{CGH15} as an example of
an RS frame which is not TiRS (it is indicated on the left in~Fig.~\ref{fig:M_L}): Let $X_1=\{a_i\}_{i \in \omega}$,
$X_2=\{b_i\}_{i \in \omega}$ and let
$$R=\{(a_1,b_0),(a_0,b_1)\}\cup \{\,(a_i,b_j) \mid 2\le i, 1 \le j \le i\,\}.$$
By considering
$\neg(a_0 R b_0)$ it is rather straightforward to show that $(X_1,X_2,R)$ does not satisfy (Ti).
\end{ex}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.8]
\draw (0,0) ellipse (1.6cm and 0.6cm);
\draw (0,0) ellipse (2.3cm and 1.2cm);
\draw (0,0) ellipse (3cm and 1.8cm);
\node at (0,0) {CEs of BDL's};
\node at (0,0.9) {CEs of BL's};
\node at (0,1.4) {PTi lattices};
\dotli{(0,0.6)--(7,0.6)}
\dotli{(0,-0.6)--(7,-0.6)}
\dotli{(0,1.2)--(7,1.2)}
\dotli{(0,1.8)--(7,1.8)}
\dotli{(0,-1.2)--(7,-1.2)}
\dotli{(0,-1.8)--(7,-1.8)}
\draw (7,0) ellipse (1.6cm and 0.6cm);
\draw (7,0) ellipse (2.3cm and 1.2cm);
\draw (7,0) ellipse (3cm and 1.8cm);
\node at (7,0.2) {Representable};
\node at (7,-0.3) {posets};
\node at (7,0.9) {Representable graphs};
\node at (7,1.4) {TiRS graphs};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The correspondences between classes of PTi lattices and classes of TiRS graphs. \label{fig:ellipses}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Our final picture Fig.~\ref{fig:ellipses} describes the correspondence between PTi lattices and TiRS graphs and between their important subclasses: (i) the canonical
extensions of bounded lattices inside the PTi lattices and representable graphs (as dual graphs of bounded lattices) inside the TiRS graphs; (ii) the canonical
extensions of bounded distributive lattices inside the canonical extensions of bounded lattices and representable posets (as dual graphs of bounded distributive
lattices) inside the representable graphs.
A natural question that we asked already in~\cite[pages~126--127]{CGH15} was which TiRS graphs arise as duals of bounded lattices.
In the case of bounded distributive lattices (denoted as BDL's in Fig.~\ref{fig:ellipses}) this question reduces to the
question of which posets are \emph{representable posets} which seems to be extremely hard. Examples of non-representable posets are also examples of non-representable
graphs as any poset is automatically a TiRS graph. We mention an example of a non-representable poset due to
Tan~\cite{Tan74}
from the 1970s: $T := \omega \oplus \omega^{\delta}$.
The perfect lattice corresponding to this TiRS graph is the PTi lattice ${T_L} := \omega \oplus \mathbf{1} \oplus
\omega^{\delta}$.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The first author gratefully acknowledges the hospitality
of Matej Bel University during his research visit in September 2017.
The third author acknowledges support from Slovak grant VEGA 1/0337/16 and the hospitality of the University of Lisbon during his visit in September 2019.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.